The Pink Rose Policy
Homosexuality, Policy, and Science in Obamagenda
Everyone, I think,
will agree that “confusion” of any sort is bad.
Confusion is a negative state that impairs the will. In the face of
confusion we are not clear what to do, or indeed, what to think. Reasoning,
which orders things to a coherent end, is debilitated in the face of
The synonyms for confusion are particularly revealing: disorder, bewilderment,
disorientation, perplexity, the absence of certainty, indistinctness,
and uncertainty. In medicine and psychiatry, confusion, whether in the
individual being treated or in the diagnosis of a particular illness
is always detrimental to the good of the patient. If it is confusion
within the patient himself, it is the job of the physician to remedy
the confusion so that the patient is no longer in a confused state.
If it is confusion concerning the diagnosis, then the physician will
be uncertain of the treatment necessary to alleviate the illness, and
will be unable to proceed.
When one is confused about his location, he is considered lost. When
one is confused about an array of instrumentation before him, whether
it is the flight controls in the cockpit of a passenger jet, the menu
of options in any given computer program, or the shifting mechanism
in the manual transmission of an automobile, one is unable to do anything
meaningful with them. Whatever the case may be, confusion is always
detrimental to the individual and an impediment to a rational and coherent
end. When I say that confusion impairs the will, I am simply stating
the obvious fact that in the face of confusion we are left effectively
paralyzed since we do not clearly apprehend anything with the clarity
necessary to motivate the will. We struggle with the evident disorder
before us, futilely attempting to cognitively order the confusion into
some coherent state upon which the will can act with the authority of
reason, which is to say, rationally. Absent the authority of reason
we can only act — if, indeed, we can act at all — capriciously and toward
no coherent and meaningful end.
Indeed, any attempt to formulate an argument that confusion is good
must be stated clearly and without confusion — which, in its stating,
would refute the argument itself. It would be self-contradictory. Are
we agreed upon this? That is to say, that confusion in any of its manifestations
is bad — in other words, detrimental to the good. I believe that any
person who is not confused will agree.
A Rose by Any Other Name ...
We must say, then, that
a situation in which a man is confused for a woman, or a woman confused
for a man, is not an inherently good situation. Unable to predicate
with certainty the gender of an individual is an inability to predicate
what is most fundamental to the human species.
With the exception of rare anomalies specifically understood
as aberrations or abnormalities, the sexual identity
of an individual is radicated in biology most clearly articulated in
physical anatomy. Even changing the apparent physical characteristics
of gender does not make a male a female or a female a male, for at the
most fundamental biological level, what are called allosomes (the “sex
chromosome”) — the most elementary binary chromosomal differences, remain:
females have two sets of X chromosomes, whereas males have one X and
one Y chromosome.
However much the apparent gender is altered, tailored, surgically removed
or implanted, enhanced or diminished by plastic surgery, the actual
sexual identity is indelibly imprinted in the DNA of chromosomes. To
the biologist and geneticist, the distinction will always remain scientifically
distinguishable and upon a blind sampling will always reveal either
male or female … but not both. In a word, humans cannot be hermaphrodites,
that is to say, they cannot possess a “complete, and functional set
of both the male and female sexual organs ... [therefore] a true hermaphrodite
cannot happen in humans.”1
Why Gender is not an Option
A person may mimic a gender
that is not their own: they may affect the gestures, purposely speak
an octave higher or lower, and wear the clothing associated with the
opposite gender, but this no more makes them the other gender
than the reticulated costume assumed on Halloween makes one Spiderman.
Any attempt to leap between two buildings 500 feet tall and 1000 feet
apart will quickly — and finally — dispel this fantasy, no matter how
clever or convincing the costume. One does not have Spiderman’s DNA.
A government may underwrite this fantasy because of the clamor of a
very influential, vocal and well-financed group of people who wish to
be enrolled as Spidermen in the next Census survey. It may declare that
it is their “right” to be legally defined as Spidermen simply on the
basis that they wish to be so identified. What is more, it can legislate
such a group of individuals as a “protected class” and so make any infringement
upon their “rights” actionable in a court of law such that, say, a prospective
employer may be heavily fined for refusing an applicant for a job on
the basis that the individual deems himself a Spiderman and dresses
as Spiderman during the interview. That a conflict exists between a
scientifically verifiable reality and a preferred persona is of no consequence
if the government’s claim is based on “policy” independent of factual
An analogy may be helpful. In Nazi Germany it was policy (independent
of contradictory and scientifically verifiable facts) that Aryans were
a “protected class” and enjoyed prerogatives not accorded non-Aryans.
Not only were they presented by the state as a unique and desirable
class that had hitherto been deprived of their “rights”, but promoted
by the state and accorded “reparations” in the way of undue influence
and special status. It is also true that by this same policy, Jews and
Slavs were even less than non-Aryans: they were non-persons. This particular
fantasy had disastrous consequences.
Implementing Policy through Pseudo-Science
However much it flew in
the face of biology and science, it became policy — and both biology
and science were trumped by the force of the state to implement
an ideology that was as ludicrous as it was frightfully tragic.
It is interesting to note that in both cases (Spidermen and non-Aryans)
a pseudo-science was invoked to legitimize policy. In Hitler’s Germany,
it was eugenics —imported (few people realize) from America and whose
most vocal and active proponent was Marguerite Sanger, the founder of
Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world).
In America it is called Epigenetics 2 (the pseudo-science
of the putative but unproven existence of “gay genes”). The genetic
assertions in both cases are disturbing. That both appeal to genetics
is equally disturbing.
The Nazis sought the “ubermensch”, the nationally iconic blond haired,
blue eyed thoroughbred in the genetically pure masculinized male and
the genetically pure feminized female. Today’s epigeneticist, spurred
on under the twin banners of social correctness and liberal
political policy, attempts to legitimize homosexuality as a normal,
if infrequent occurrence of genetic “epi-marks”. The Nazis had their
scientists and doctors. The present liberal administration of Barack
Obama has its — and both strangely arrive at extremely dubious, factitious,
or completely fictitious findings that conveniently concur with “policy”
Under these two regimes there is little or no room for dissent from
policy, and every form of dissent, either in the scientific or social
community is quashed, discredited, penalized, punished, or extirpated.
To keep ones license, tenure, or employment in any science is not simply
to toe the line of prevailing policy, but if one wishes to advance,
to both propagate and propagandize it. Truth is not the touchstone of
sound science; policy is. If you doubt it, stray from the line.
You will forfeit your name, your credentials, and your livelihood (stringent
sanctions to be sure). If you are troublesome enough, you may even forfeit
Exaggeration? Not here?
Not in America? Think deeply about it. The most advanced, industrialized,
civilized and academic nation of the last half of the 19th century and
the first half of the 20th was Germany. It was the land of the greatest
minds, the great philosophers, scientists, inventors, academics, physicians
and composers who influence us still in the 21st century. Within a mere
30 years the average German citizen scrupulously watched what he said,
did, and even thought, lest it be at variance with “policy” — a policy
that ultimately resolved itself in the Final Solution. It became
a land of stitched mouths and Big Brother. One either followed “policy”
... or was the victim of it. There were no intermediate states. Germany
had its dreaded RSHA, or Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security
Main Office). We have the NSA.
Still you think we exaggerate? Will you pause at all when you write
your next e-mail or send your next Twitter? Will you think of the (key)words
you chose? Do you wonder if you are on a list because you are Catholic
and Pro-Life (and, ergo, a possible enemy of the state and this administration
according to recently released news)? Will you wonder if men in dark
coats will come to your door in the middle of the night in an unmarked
van — and if they do, when you will last be heard from given the draconian
provisions of the “Patriot Act”? Do I wonder as I write this column?
Why? Because I question “policy”, especially as it is articulated through
a rainbow spectrum that refracts a once clear light and scatters
it into discrete columns of friends and foes. Because I follow, or try
to follow, the teachings of my religion concerning the intrinsic evil
of homosexuality … rather than the “policy” of the “progressive” state
that condemns my religion as antagonistic to its pro-homosexual policies.
St. Peter and the Apostles, without hesitation, clearly and concisely
responded to the imminent threat posed by the rulers of Jerusalem against
them, and as Catholics, we must now take their example to heart with
an existential concern never greater since the Diocletian persecutions
of nearly 2000 years ago at our beginnings:
"But Peter and the Apostles answering, said: We
ought to obey God, rather than men." (Acts 5.29)
Whom then, will you obey? The “policy” of the
state, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ? You cannot obey both, and in obeying
the one you forfeit the other. Think it through and let God know.
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Totally Faithful to the Sacred
Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
Copyright © 2004 - 2023 Boston Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission
is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying
and distribution of the articles and audio files under the
following conditions: No additions, deletions, or
changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any
way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the
reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text,
or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic