Renouncing society’s right to say who we are and what we mean, frees us for full communion with Our Creator, with that gay men’s chorus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (emphasis added)
Uhh… hmm. [speechless]
Looking at the rest of this speech, a few other things stuck out.
I do not use ‘misogyny’ and ‘homophobia’ as expletive slurs but terms with a fairly definite descriptive sense. What I mean by ‘misogyny’ is the (often unconscious) belief that women have to appear smaller than they are so that men can feel as big as they are. What I mean by ‘homophobia’ is the (often unconscious) belief/insistence that LGBT be (or at least pretend to be) other than they are so that others can feel comfortable and secure in their sense of who they are. (emphasis added)
This kind of sloppiness is surprising in a philosopher. Her definitions match neither the expected literal senses of the words (hatred of women, fear of homosexuals) nor anything resembling a fair characterization of her opponents’ views. But I guess it’s essentially a political speech – a form of combat by words, in the quest for (ecclesial) power. Just flailing away, hoping to land a rhetorical blow.
And then, there’s this bit:
Moreover, God our Creator is too big to be an authority figure. God is of consistent purpose: God does not boss us around on the outside without regard for our inward potential and propensities. God works as an enabler on the inside, a live-in Tutor, designing individualized syllabi… (emphasis added)
Her idea of an authority figure is one who rudely “bosses us around” without regard to our good and our potentials? Isn’t there an ethically pure concept of an authority figure? And why think her conservative opponents believe in a deity such as she describes? Oh well, I guess it’s a waste of time to think critically about this sort of performance.