Two things:
a) I don’t believe that a characteristic need be immutable to be useful in defining a “class” of people. It makes sense to lump people into a group that share certain characteristics when it can be shown that those characteristics have been used to unjustly deny basic human rights. So sure, being a Mormon isn’t an immutable characteristic, but if it can be shown that Mormons are being routinely discriminated in housing and employment in an area predominantly populated by evangelicals, then yes, for the purposes of potential legal actions, Mormons constitute a “class”. If anything, their identity has been magnified and underlined by those seeking to discriminate.

b) I have mixed feelings regarding class identity when it comes to things like hate crime laws: in a way, it seems to set up a false hierarchy of value on human life. It seems to say that this life is more valid than the next merely by virtue of one characteristic or another. At the same time, crimes motivated by hatred for any specific class inflicts harm not only on the victim but on those who share the characteristics of that victim. Does anyone doubt that hearing of a black man being dragged to his death behind a truck by a couple of racist thugs is demoralizing to the hundreds or even thousands of blacks living in that area? Even without knowing the victim, the negative power of the statement that action makes is incalculable. So in a sense, certain violent crimes are acts of domestic terrorism if you will and might be worthy of consideration for sentences that serve a symbolic purpose (such as five life terms which can obviously never be lived out).

I should have responded to this earlier. No, fantasy can’t be more real than reality. What you mean to say I think (or at least the only thing that makes sense) is sometimes fantasy is closer to reality than non-fiction.

Leo Peter, let me flesh out my comment a bit. It is not sufficient to make class assertions about homosexuality without examining whether 1) homosexuals do indeed constitute a class, and 2) the larger framework in which gives the term its particular meaning, and 3) how that meaning applies to the larger culture and religion — especially the Orthodox faith given your scolding at the end of your paragraph.

Secondly, your admonition that “If the Church becomes identified with political party or heresy or transient economic theories — especially harmful ones — then when that party or heresy or ideology go down, THE “CHURCH” WILL GO DOWN WITH THEM!” is true — but only to a point. Left with no larger context in which to apply the admonition, it hangs out in the air, full of sound and fury but what does it signify?

In other words, the concrete teachings of the Church don’t exist apart from the culture in which they were first expressed (the Nicene Creed was formulated out of political and cultural necessity, remember?), nor are we absolved from trying to understand how they apply in ours. That means we have to understand the culture, to comprehend the ideas, beliefs, motivations, history, sentiments and so forth that inform and drive it.

That’s the interesting and compelling part, at least for me and most of the other contributors to this blog. Reasonable people can disagree, but they have to give their reasons. With no reasoning behind the admonitions it really is no more than finger wagging and moralizing and, as you correctly pointed out, I see the scoldings signifying nothing more than uninformed and undifferentiated disapproval. There’s not much meat on those bones.

It’s clear you feel passionate about 1) gay rights; 2) what I call “Orthodoxy as the third way” — an idea prevalent in some circles but one I see as intellectually empty; 3) acceptance of some precepts of cultural and economic conservatism; 4) and that I am not fulfilling my responsibilities as a priest.

That’s a mouthful, but I think it is a fair assessment of what you wrote. The thing is, you have to give reasons, to argue with some measure of clarity and depth, why you think the way that you do. You are welcome to do that here but your contribution must rise above, well, finger wagging and moralizing.

So my advice is to do what I mentioned in my first response. Take one or two points and develop them. Sharpen your focus. That is the only way any progress can be made.

Well, you’ve got one thing right Leo Peter O’Filon III. I have no patience with finger wagging and moralizing.

Put you points into some kind of systematic order, or better yet choose one or two and develop them. Then a reasonable discussion is possible.

Other than that, it just isn’t possible to address your objections in any responsible way. Your comment is unfocused.

Gay people didn’t invent “identity politics,” their persecutors did. *They’re* just trying to END IT by defending themselves, finally. Do you really go on to say anti-gay persecution will begin? It’s been going on for as long as civilization! That’s like your illk’s cries of class warfare against the workers who are doing nothing but trying to defend themselves FROM the class warfare that’s been waged AGAINST us since the invention of monoculture. Keep saying it enough and people will believe it: Who said that? You’ll delete this, so I’m going to speak the whole truth to you. Your stock defense is to accuse your challengers of fingerwagging and moralizing, but that’s ALL that you and your dittoheads do on this website. I daresay the Episcopal Assembly should insist your “institute” make clear that it doesn’t speak for them. At least, I hope it doesn’t speak for them. If the Church becomes identified with political party or heresy or transient economic theories — especially harmful ones — then when that party or heresy or ideology go down, THE “CHURCH” WILL GO DOWN WITH THEM! I say neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans; neither the Episcopalians NOR the Latins; neither the Rationalized Capitalists NOR the Rationalized State-Capitalists. When are you as a presbyter of the Holy Orthodox Church going to teach ORTHODOXY? The world is really missing real Orthodoxy, suffering from its crying need! There’s no shortage of apologists for the sects and factions I just mentioned; you, Father, have other responsibilities AFAIK. Instead, you ban the Fathers and Scripture from this blog. That may be in Error, Father, and I don’t want to see our priests in Error, not even you who have abused me so. I’m probably wasting my breath, but I’m still prone to defend people wrongly attacked, popular or not. God have mercy on us all.

The phrase “gay ideology” gives it away.

[Fifth attempt to reply to this comment:]

As often as fantasy is more real than reality.

“That rules out hospitals that perform routine abortions.”

Which, in AOI’s state of Florida, rules out how many? None of them?

This could on and on. That’s the point Rob, but identity politics is your point. How many of those black men are homosexual? The study you site doesn’t say but it does affirm that homosexuals comprise about 2% of the population but account for over 50% of all new HIV cases. How do you think Obamacare technocrats are going to look at that statistic once rationing starts? At that point identity shifts from victim group sentiment to a costly resource sentiment. Don’t think it can’t happen.

What hospitals to go to? I would trust hospitals that have a high regard for human life. That rules out hospitals that perform routine abortions.

Well then, using your “identity politics” reasoning, since the HIV incidence rate is 7 times higher among blacks than among whites ( http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm ), are you saying only blacks should pay the costs for AIDS treatments?

I’d sooner go to a normal hospital than trust a Catholic one to put my health first. For example, if you had ovarian cancer, would you go to a hospital that has ideological objections to hysterectomies?

No. I am saying that if identity politics determines where tax dollars should go (homosexuals pay taxes so they should be allowed to adopt children), then they should also pay the social costs for AIDS treatments since homosexuals are the largest subgroup that carries, spreads, and suffers from the disease.

Be very careful here Rob. This may come back to bite you. Obamacare will cause rationing. That’s inevitable. It’s going to be hard to justify all the dollars spent treating AIDS patients. All it takes for public sentiment to turn against a group is when the pain threshold of the majority is reached, and given the financial burden that Obamacare will impose alongside other stresses that time is coming. Your insistence in defining homosexuals as a victim class in order to put forward the discrimination argument, might foster real discrimination down the road.

You should be more careful about your attacks on the Catholic Church too. Who do you think takes care of AIDS patients? What if you get AIDS and need care? You odds of being treated at a Catholic hospital are high. You want them to be there if you need them.

Are you saying heterosexuals with AIDS shouldn’t pay for their own treatment? I’m not following your reasoning.

Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Homosexual couples are allowed to adopt because all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Identity politics works both ways. If homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt because homosexuals pay taxes, then why should heterosexuals pay the costs associated with AIDS given that homosexuals form the primary subgroup responsible for its spread?

Discrimination against minorities is inherently un-irenic, it puts you at odds with those you oppress.

As an American, I think it’s acceptable for Christians to speak in favor of intolerance and bigotry; government should neither hinder nor support that. You’re free to run a discriminatory adoption agency that won’t give children to gay couples, but if you do, you fund it yourself without gay people’s tax dollars. That’s as it should be.