Always Our Neighbors (Part II)

November 2004

Golly, does everyone and his brother have a vanity website these days? David Morrison didn’t like what we wrote about him in our New Oxford Note (“Always Our Neighbors,” Sept.). So he responds on his personal website — i.e., his weblog or blog, complete with a picture of him — where his small band of followers will largely affirm what he says (and indeed they do). We weren’t aware of Morrison’s blog, but fortunately a cat gave us a heads-up on what was going on.

Our original New Oxford Note concluded this way: “Who is David Morrison? He’s identified as a ‘former homosexual activist.’ Lord have mercy! Morrison is still promoting the normalization of homosexuality.”

Morrison doesn’t like it that the NOR thinks it unwise for families with children to interact with active homosexual neighbors the same way we would with regular neighbors. On his website (Sept. 13), Morrison says: “Dan and I have lived together for 18 years and haven’t had sex in 11, but we are still living together, still friendly and affectionate with one another. Would we pass muster if we moved next door to [the Editor of] the New Oxford Review?” Yes, you would, but only if you told us about your situation. But how many homosexual couples are chaste? Probably 0.01 percent. Morrison’s relationship strikes us as bizarre — some would say it gives the appearance of sin and scandal — but if Morrison and Dan can remain chaste in such a living arrangement, more power to them.

Morrison and Dan have no idea what it’s like to raise children. In his Our Sunday Visitor piece that we critiqued, Morrison urges families with children to socialize with active homosexuals. Morrison doesn’t realize that to do so is to give (at least) tacit consent to our children that homosexuality is an acceptable option. On his website, Morrison says that he’s befriended pot-heads and prostitutes in his neighborhood. Again, Morrison has no idea what the responsibilities of a father and mother are.

Curiously, on his website Morrison is willing to draw the line — at some distant point. Of active homosexuals, Morrison says, “I don’t attend same sex committment [sic] ceremonies or weddings…. To a greater or lessor [sic] extent, weddings or committment [sic] ceremonies are participatory events….” But so is socializing with active homosexuals (and druggies and whores) participatory events. Morrison will socialize with active homosexuals, but will not attend the commitment ceremony or “wedding.” How rude! So now the active homosexual couple with whom you socialize is “committed” or “married.” What do you do now? Do you stop socializing with them? If you’re consistent, you would. But a homosexual “wedding” is no wedding at all. There’s no difference between the before and the after. So why are you socializing with them in the first place? Makes no sense.


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



New Oxford Notes: November 2004

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Be the first to comment on this note!