• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Real Lives of Gay Men

    by Austin Ruse

    Greenwich_Village_street_signs_New_York_City

    Not caring about what happens to gay men is like not caring about prison rape. Prisoners are our brothers, too, and so are gay men. We must care deeply about the abuse of our brothers in prison and we must care deeply about the lives led by our gay brothers.

    Prison rape seems a world away from us, a subject we try not to think about, yet it is rampant, dehumanizing and deadly dangerous. In the same way, we avert our gaze from the lives led by gay men. Certainly ignoring the lives of gay men is what the paladins of the gay movement want us to do. If others peek behind the curtain of the white-picket-fence-homosexuality they have built up for public consumption, support for the movement would wither and probably die.

    I do not equate sex between gay men and prison rape. I draw the parallel simply to compare how we look away from certain things and act as if the subjects of those acts are not part of us, part of society, part of the human family. The active gay man and the prisoner are our brothers and we have to be concerned with both. But we quite deliberately look away from the reality of both.

    But look we must, particularly since we are being asked to consider that homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality, that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage can be the same, that gay sex can in fact be spousal.

    The arguments made by our best defenders of man-woman marriage focus almost exclusively on the definition of marriage and the rights of children to have both a mother and a father, and they explicitly say their arguments have nothing to do with the underlying question of homosexuality. Their arguments are very effective and I do believe they are making converts to the pressing cause of marriage. But in those arguments, one of the things lost is the real lives of gay men. It is as if we really do not care about them.

    This is a difficult topic that no one wants to talk about. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage tells me that these arguments are not effective during active political campaigns. These arguments can backfire in those situations. Even so, we should show greater regard for our gay brothers by paying more attention to their lives.

    Recently I was reading an excellent manuscript of an upcoming book by long-time Crisis Magazine contributor Robert Reilly on how the gay movement has moved through our institutions and our culture. He references a 2006 essay by a man named Ronald G. Lee who described himself as “a refugee from the homosexual insane asylum.”

    Lee lived as an out and active gay man for going on three decades and what he describes is not only insane but also deeply heartbreaking. Lee was lied to before he came out of the closet. He was lied to the whole time he lived the gay way of life. He was lied to each and every day. What was the lie? That gay men are interested in sexually monogamous relationships.

    Lee writes about a gay bookstore in Austin, Texas called Lobo’s where if you look in the front window you see bookshelves full of books, gay books certainly but books. In the back, behind a curtain was a section on pornography. No one could be seen among the stacks of books, everyone was in the back room. He said such an arrangement was perfect for the big lie that active homosexuality was normal and non-threatening to any straight person looking in the front window. The reality, though, was that everyone was in the back room with the porn. This was the reality of his life and the lives of gay men.

    Lee wanted love, gay love to be sure, but love that fell in line with Christian sexual ethics, that is to say a lifelong emotional and sexual bond. His whole life he looked for that. He read the influential 1976 book The Church and the Homosexual written by a Catholic priest that explained how the Church wrongly interpreted all those references in the Bible condemning homosexuality. The book explained that monogamous same-sex couplings were consistent with the teachings of the Church. Lee says the book by Father John McNeill made him “justified in deciding to come out of the closet.” Father McNeill later wrote an autobiography in which he explained he lived a widely promiscuous gay life far removed from any notion of Christian sexual ethics, gay or otherwise.

    And that was the reality Lee discovered as he began his search for gay monogamy. “For twenty years I thought there was something wrong with me,” Lee writes. “Dozens of well-meaning people assured me that there was a whole, different world of homosexual men out there, a world that for some reason I could never find, a world of God-fearing, straight-acting, monogamy-believing, and fidelity-practicing homosexuals.”

    Lee got a computer and continued his futile attempt to find gay monogamy. He joined a Yahoo group loosely affiliated with Dignity, the “Catholic” organization that affirms gays in their active homosexual way of life. A young man posted a note asking if “any of the subscribers attached any value to monogamy?” He received “dozens of responses, some of them quite hostile and demeaning, and all but one—mine—telling him to go out and get laid because that was what being gay was all about.”

    Lee got an AOL subscription and wrote a profile describing himself “as a conservative Catholic … who loved classical music and theater and good books and scintillating conversation about all of the above.” He said he wanted to meet other homosexuals like him for “friendship and romance.” Within minutes the first response he received was “How many inches?” And it went downhill from there.

    The ugly reality Lee discovered his whole gay life was that this way of life is almost wholly about sex and plenty of it. Even supposedly stable relationships, the ones we read about in the New York Times, are largely facades. A gay man once told me he was in a long-time relationship but they never had sex anymore, just masturbated in front of porn with lots of action outside the relationship. He said this was typical. Lee says so, too, and so does the research.

    In his excellent manuscript, The Gaying of America:  How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything to be published next March by Ignatius Press, Robert Reilly lays out the horrific numbers. Keep in mind that even repeating these numbers opens you up to a torrent of vitriol. You will see in the inevitable comments below that even mentioning them is hate speech, no more than lies, myths on par with the oversexed black man. Other than invective and charges that the studies and their authors have been “discredited,” the numbers are unassailable. And they are supremely important for a young man considering taking a peak outside the closet door.

    This is the door he is about to walk through.

    Reilly writes: “one might ask how typical anal intercourse is in homosexual behavior. Is it fundamentally characteristic, or anomalous? Some claim that homosexual behavior does not necessarily mean that male couples engage in anal intercourse. The answer, however, is that it predominates.”

    Reilly quotes psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Santinover in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that “The typical homosexual (needless to say there are exceptions) is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse, with 12 times as many different partners as heterosexuals.”

    Reilly goes further. “The most rigorous single study—the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study [1987]—recruited nearly 5,000 homosexual men and found that: ‘a significant majority of these men … (69 to 82%) reported having 50 or more lifetime sexual partners, and over 80% had engaged in receptive anal intercourse with at least some of their partners in the previous two years.’”

    Such relationships are not spousal in any way, shape or form and this is what Ronald Lee found in his decades long search for real love, for a relationship that would fit into any notion of Christian sexual ethics.

    Studies show gay men are remarkably promiscuous. Dr. Santinover cites a study by two homosexual researchers that found that out of “156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.” They said, “[t]he expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexual couples.”

    Reilly cites a 1997 Australian study that showed “only 15% of the men reported having fewer than 11 sex partners to date, while on the other end of the spectrum 15% had over 1,000 sex partners. A whopping 82% had over 50 partners and nearly 50% had over 100.” The research goes on and drearily on.

    Some have said gays act out promiscuously because they have internalized homophobia, that they were “forced to look for love in dimly lit bars, bathhouses, and public parks for fear of harassment at the hands of the homophobic mainstream.” Lee answers, “But 35 years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York…. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.”

    I will give the final word to Ronald Lee from his magnificent essay.

    When the young man from the Yahoo group got all the hostile response from his query about monogamy, “He did not know what to make of it because none of the propaganda to which he was exposed before coming out prepared him for what was really on the other side of the closet door. I had no idea what to tell him, because at the time I was still caught up in the lie myself. Now the solution seems obvious. What I should have written back to him was, ‘You have been lied to. Ask God for forgiveness and get back to Kansas as fast as you can. Auntie Em is waiting.’”

    Editor’s note: Riots broke out at the Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village, New York City, in June 1969. The event is considered the birth of the gay rights movement.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Steven Jonathan

      Excellent essay Mr. Ruse!
      The simple fact is that those who chose to act on “same-sex” attraction have taken the first step towards addiction. The nature of same sex relationships is appetitive and just like any repeated disordered action, easily devolves into vicious habit. They have been peddling the lie that monogamy is common, but alas, it cannot be. A real tell is the way the homosexualists react if you don’t support their lifestyle- do they respond like civilized, reasonable morally developed citizens? No they don’t, we are almost no longer able to render a morally ordered opinion.

      • Sam Scot

        Great point on the connection between addiction and defensive, incoherent rage. That rage is characteristic in a new way with the entire public Left. When I was young, the real screaming vitriol was the old stuff from the pre-World War II labor agitators. From the 50s, 60s, and 70s, you can find Leftist essays that are fairly literate and urbane, contain no slang or curse words, and make sequential arguments, however misguided.

        No more. Is there an addiction to some sin endemic to the Left that inspires this circling of the wagons? Perhaps Red rage is connected to personal dependence on abortion, contraception, drugs, and adultery. And perhaps by the despair that one is not God, and the fear that God is. What do you think?

        • Steven Jonathan

          Scott, I think you are right on. I think the sin endemic to the left is simply demonically inspired pride, or narcissism- Joseph Pieper in The Christian Idea of Man equates, and I think quite rightfully, the word secular and demonic. A look back at City of God and the etymology of “demon” casts it in a more comprehensive light as certain types of knowledge. I especially like your suggestion that there is despair that “one is not God” though I suspect it is a notion buried in the subconscious of most liberal leftist ideologues, masked by layers and layers of pathology.

        • Rob B.

          I agree with you, Sam. However, I would point out that this is not just a problem of the Left. Sadly, there are plenty of conservatives who mistake rage for righteousness as well. They do our cause no credit.

    • Art Deco

      Oh no, here comes the truckload of comments. Adam Baum, what’s the over-under?

      • Adam__Baum

        It seems the betting winow was closed early.

    • Pingback: The Real Lives of Gay Men | Catholic Canada

    • somnipod

      Great article.. although I am having trouble keeping down my breakfast after reading it. Like the other gods of progressives (ie abortion) shining the light on the truth is what will change public opinions

      • remmy

        You will never hear the truth from the media or progressives..evil makes them rich…the only way to shine the light on the truth is through prayer and I mean much prayer us needed here…the only weapon christians have is prayer to fight this evil

        • somnipod

          Totally agree. When it comes to the truth about it (the pain and suffering of same sex attraction) the media continues the tradition of silence, or even worse, the media totally misleads the poor souls even deeper into the abyss.
          We must pray for those that continue, and also the similar heterosexual s that are entrenched in pornography and over sexual idealism… sins of the flesh is Satan’s favorite way to enslave us men.

    • Guest

      Monogamy is never the Christian standard. That is the secular standard. The famous “committed” and “monogamous” relationship is a contrived relativistic standard.

      • Austin Ruse

        I am not sure i understand. The Church does not want us to be monogamous?

        • Guest

          By definition marriage is to be monogamous and committed. To apply those words to other relationships as if they were licit or to be desired seems to me to be a recent immoral standard. It is a way to dress up illicitness.

          I am not criticizing your work. Which I always read and find wonderful and edifying. I was trying to point out that those terms are thrown around as if they were a standard to be achieved outside of marriage.

          • Austin Ruse

            Got it…just did not understand…thanks for your kind words…

    • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

      Absolutely agree. The primary and best reason to oppose gay marriage is out of love for homosexuals themselves – because we do not want yet another enticement into that lifestyle and an anchor in it. Sadly we proponents of traditional marriage succumb (out of cowardice and lack of love for homosexuals and political pressures) to using only subservient or secondary arguments against gay marriage.

      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

        I wrote a short post on my own blog about that as well a few years ago http://dsdoconnor.com/2011/06/14/why-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

      • JQ

        I don’t believe that civil marriage is what entices them to engage in sexual acts, or that civil marriage “anchors” them in a “gay lifestyle”. Whether a person engages in a sex act or not is not dictated by civil marriage laws. Persons in a civil marriage are free to be celibate. Meanwhile, persons who do not have a civil marriage can engage in sex acts with abandon.

        • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

          So should the government therefore endorse evil because you don’t think such an act would increase evil?

          • JQ

            What “evil” are you talking about? A civil same-sex marriage is not a sex act.

            • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

              Homosexuality itself, the inclination, is intrinsically disordered.

              • JQ

                A civil same-sex marriage is not homosexuality and does not require any homosexuality.

                • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                  To endorse, bless, approve, or in any other way participate in evil is itself evil.

                  • JQ

                    What “evil” are you talking about? My celibate neighbors can get a civil same-sex marriage. No sex or sexual orientation is required or participated in.

                    • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                      A same-sex “marriage” is an endorsement of homosexuality; a diabolical lie that equates it to heterosexual marriage

                      • JQ

                        My celibate same-sex neighbors do not endorse homosexuality and the government isn’t endorsing homosexuality when they get a civil marriage. So too, when my non-celibate same-sex neighbors get a civil marriage or a car loan together or pay their taxes jointly, the government, the bank and the IRS are not endorsing homosexuality. Your equating a civil marriage with sin is a sin and a diabolical lie.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Same-sex “marriage” endorses homosexuality in the exact same way that opposite-sex marriage endorses heterosexuality. The civil institution of marriage exists to endorse & aid the GOOD of heterosexuality.

                        There is no good in homosexuality; it is intrinsically disordered. This is why there must be no civil institution of same-sex “marriage.”

                        It’s really extremely simple.

                      • JQ

                        Repeating your falsehood about civil same-sex marriage doesn’t make it true. A civil marriage is not a sex act, and if you think it endorses a sex act, that’s your thinking, not the the civil marriage. It’s really extremely simple, but you refuse the simple truth and prefer your fabrication.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Homosexual sex acts are not the only evil here. Homosexuality *itself* is intrinsically disordered. Same-sex civil “marriage” endorses homosexuality, and is therefore an evil.

                        The Church is very clear that same-sex civil “marriage” is an intrinsic and grave evil. Feel free to read for yourself. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

                      • JQ

                        The article at your link use the term “homosexual unions” in reference to sex acts. A civil same-sex marriage is not the same thing, and if you equate them as the same, you are sinning. Likewise, a marriage of peanut butter and jelly is not a sex act. If you say it endorses a sex act, you are ridiculous.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Of course it’s the same thing.

                        Peanut butter and jelly “marriage,” just like civil same-sex marriage, would also be a grave evil. Thankfully they’re not campaigning for that yet.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        I mean, of course “homosexual unions” refers to civil same-sex “marriages.” That’s the entire point of that CDF document.

                      • JQ

                        No, “homosexual unions” in that document clearly refers to homosexual acts, not civil same-sex marriage. They are not the same thing. When my celibate same-sex neighbors get a civil marriage, they are not engaging in homosexual acts and the government is not recognizing homosexual acts. It’s legally recognized that no sexual act is a requirement of civil marriage.

                      • JQ

                        You are ridiculous and sinning at the same time. A peanut butter and jelly marriage is not a grave evil. It’s a sandwich.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        A peanut butter and jelly marriage doesn’t exist. To pretend that it did exist (as opposed to simply using the term “marriage” in an analogical way in that context as a joke) would be gravely evil.

                      • JQ

                        My peanut butter and jelly marriages exist until I eat them. My use of the word “marriage” is under my authority to use as I please. I can refer to anything under the sun with the label “marriage”. It’s a human invention to be used however humans choose to use it. It’s use is not limited to referring to some union of a man and a woman. You might not accept that, but the Church does.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Obviously the term “marriage” can be used in analogical ways, but your pointing that out proves nothing.

                        The point is that to pretend that homosexuality deserves the same legal recognition as heterosexuality (by way of “same sex marriage”) is a grave evil, and the Church teaches that with absolute clarity and to deny it is heresy.

                      • JQ

                        No, the term “marriage” can be used in any way, analogical or not. And your argument about whether “homosexuality deserves the same legal recognition” is off-base. A civil marriage does not recognize a sex act. When two people get a civil marriage, neither you nor I nor the government knows if the couple has any interest in a sex act, or even their sexual orientation, or even if they have a sexual orientation or any ability to engage in a sex act. None of that is a requirement of a civil marriage. A civil marriage recognizes that, even if you choose to stuff your head in a hole and say it’s not so.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        The Church is clear (and it is also obvious) that the same-sex “marriage” is a grave evil. It is evil because it condones evil.

                        If there is no connection between the civil “marriage” and the union it is blessing, then why not also have marriages between men and dogs, between more than 2 people, between siblings, etc.?

                        Quite the contrary, you are clearly only arguing your point because you dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality. I highly doubt you are out there campaigning for man-dog marriage because of your own conclusion that “marriage can be anything.”

                      • JQ

                        If the Church were to teach that same-sex marriage is a grave evil, that would mean that the Church teaches that some marriages are same-sex. But when the Church uses the term “marriage” as referring to the union of a man and woman etc etc, the Church is not referring to the same thing as civil marriage. They are different things.

                        As to an alleged “connection” between civil marriage and some alleged sexual union that you allege civil marriage is blessing, you have again stepped off the curb and been hit by a bus. Your “connection” is your thinking, your doing. It is not the civil marriage. No sexual union is blessed by a civil marriage except in your imagination. Consent to a sexual union is separate from a civil marriage, and no civil marriage license is required for that consent, and no civil marriage license grants that consent. Except in your imagination.

                        As to your question why the public does not license man-dog marriage, you can also ask why the public does not license dogs to drive cars or permit dogs to be parties to a legal contract. Not only are dogs not human, but they don’t consent. Again, you are ridiculous.

                        As to marriages between more than two people, there have been many marriages across history of more than two people. They also exist today in different countries.

                        As to marriages between siblings, I’m already married to my siblings. However, the government does not currently recognize it. Perhaps some day they will.

                        As to your false claim that I “dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality”, you are guilty of grave sin.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        JQ.

                        Two questions.

                        The Church authoritatively teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Submit or Dissent?

                        The Church authoritatively teaches that civil same-sex “marriage” is a grave evil. Submit or Dissent?

                        PS: In case you haven’t yet noticed, I don’t particularly care how many times you accuse me of sin, call me “ridiculous,” etc. I guess you are doing it because it makes you feel better, which is very sad.

                      • JQ

                        You are a liar. The Bible says so. Submit or Dissent?

                        Are you claiming authority in regard to Church teaching? That’s a little too grandiose for my tastes. But whatever it is that you’re claiming or asking, your written words are subject to interpretation. How am I to know what you’re really claiming or asking? It’s apparent that you hold the English language hostage to your personal interpretation. You don’t need to tell me that you “don’t particularly care”. It’s already quite obvious.

                • guesto3

                  What definition then are you using for “marriage”? There must be two different definitions for marriage then in your mind. Of course that is an impossibility in reality….natural law/anthropology. If people today would only admit the obvious it would solve an awful lot of distress in this new tower of babble….or “brave” new world….which in reality is a coward’s dream!

                  • JQ

                    The word “marriage” is a human invention and can be given any meaning under the sun. If one opens an everyday dictionary one can easily see that it’s not an “impossibility” for the word “marriage” to have multiple meanings. Rather it’s fact.

                    • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                      All words are human inventions. That doesn’t mean that the things they serve as symbols of are open for man to manipulate to his pleasing.

                      • JQ

                        The word “marriage” serves a symbol for different things in different contexts. Some of the those things, such as the man-made civil institution called civil marriage, can be “open for man to manipulate to his pleasing”. The man-made civil institution of marriage is not the same thing as that other thing that the Church speaks when using the word “marriage” in Church teaching. There is no Commandment that says the word “marriage” can only refer to one thing.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Marriage is marriage, no matter who uses the term and no matter the context. The Church also speaks of “matrimony,” which is the sacramental aspect of marriage. Neither is open for man to manipulate; they are both of God’s making and whoever dares try to change them will have to answer to Him on the Judgment Day.

                      • JQ

                        Marriage is marriage, no matter who uses the term and no matter the context, but the meaning of the term, including in this sentence and in every other discourse in the English language, is subject to who is using the term and the context.

                      • JF

                        You are grasping at straws, marriage is defined as a commitment between two persons (man and wife, but I’m omitting that for sake of argument) with the intent to be a family. Sexual relations are implied, for that is how the family is grown by new children, for marriage is essentially how a family comes to be.
                        Not too long ago there would be no argument about this, the fact that you argue ceaselessly that this is not the case shows just how far civilization has sunk.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        The fact that same-sex “marriage” is law in some states and countries is proof of how far civilization has sunk.

                        You keep going back to sex acts, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m saying that homosexuality ITSELF, which same-sex “marriage” condones, is intrinsically disordered; aside from the acts of it (which indeed are evil)

                      • JQ

                        First of all, “homosexuality” as stated in Church teaching refers to the sexual relations, not the “inclination”. Nevertheless, your talk about “[the inclination] itself is intrinsically disordered aside
                        from the act of it” is nonsense. The inclination is considered disordered in reference to, not apart from, the act.

                        Secondly, civil marriage doesn’t recognize or “condone” anyone’s sexual orientation or “inclination” as you call it. The two persons in a civil marriage can be any gender, any sexual orientation or no sexual orientation, any sexual inclination or no sexual inclination, any ability to engage in sex or no ability to engage in sex. The government doesn’t know, the government doesn’t ask, and the government doesn’t recognize or condone something it doesn’t know and doesn’t consider to be material to civil marriage.

                        What the government recognizes and condones is that a person’s gender and sexual orientation are not material to civil marriage. You might disagree with the government recognizing or condoning that, but that’s fine, because it’s your personal opinion, and civil marriage is a man-made invention. It is not the institution that the Church speaks of when the Church teaches that “marriage” is a union of a man and a woman, etc.

                        In addition, the government “condones” that no one needs a civil marriage to have sex and that consenting persons of any gender may have sex. The government has condoned these things well-before and apart from any state licensed civil same-sex marriage. Indeed, these things are condoned in all 50 states, including every state that does not authorize civil same-sex marriages.

                        Thirdly, the notion of “condoning” someone’s sexual orientation or “inclination” is ridiculous. Their sexual orientation is not chosen. To talk of “condoning” someone’s sexual orientation is like talking about condoning the color of the sky or the color your eyes. It’s ridiculous.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        You just undermined your entire argument.

                      • JQ

                        I do not grasp at straws. I state facts. Your definition of “marriage” is but one of many different definitions of the word “marriage”. Your alleged implications of marriage are subjective and vary from person to person. There is no requirement that a “family” must “grow” in size. But some couples may choose to “grow” their families by adoption, sexual relations, in-vitro fertilization, etc. But even if they don’t, the couple can themselves also be considered a “family”. A family of 2.

                • somnipod

                  Civil marriage, in general is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The “sacrament” of matrimony is what Satan himself wants to attack, and sodomy is a “sin that cries to heaven for justice”. If I remember correctly Christian tradition only has five of these

    • Vinnie

      Promiscuous because they keep searching for their father and no partner can be their father.

    • Lagosunshine

      Bullshit. This does not speak of my life at all. Lee should have become what he wished the world to be as some of the rest of us try to do. I could say exactly the same things said above about the heterosexual world. How many happy faithful marriages do you know ? Probably count ‘em on your three fingers.

      • Austin Ruse

        But what do you say to the men who do live that kind of life?

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        There are always exceptions to the normative behavior in any group, but the point of this article is certainly valid. Homosexual marriage is fraudulent, because homosexuality is wildly promiscuous. Anyone who denies this has no experience with homosexuals, or is simply a propagandist.

      • Bob

        Probably 98% of the marriages I know are happy and faithful. I’ve run out of fingers to count them all. I’d ask the hundreds of faithful, happy married couples I know if I can use their fingers to help me count, but their fingers are currently holding their children’s and spouses fingers and hands in warm, beautiful, natural marriage and family embrace.

      • Thomas J. Lipton

        The author presents and cites evidence that speaks to, and of, the experience of many men, and of a systemic campaign of deception by those who would provide cover for what is really going on. One, or a handful, of exceptions to that evidence do not render the evidence “bullshit,” or justify an ad hominem attack on the presenters of the evidence.

      • somnipod

        Here come the angry homosexualists….

        • Jack Smythe

          Does debate bother you? I love how this man who hates homosexuals seems to know their intimate lives. I have friends who are homosexual and have been together 30yrs in a monogamus relationship. How would you feel to have others say that your marriage is a sham? Hmm….

          • cephas2

            I don’t see that anything the author says indicates he hates homosexuals – quite the reverse. If being honest is hating then the world is in a sad state.

          • somnipod

            Natural Law isnt debatable. Two men cannot “marry” as the homosexual act is against all things natural. Nobody hates homosexual people, we hate the sin not the sinner. Mental illness needs treatment, and thats what this disorder is…

            • Teri Jourdan

              In 1973, homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. In 1975, it was declassified by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, and in 1990, it was declassified by the World Health Organization. So no, it’s not a mental illness, nor a disorder.

              • somnipod

                The. APAC were pushed by the same activism of the homosexual activists machine. This, by the way is the same APA that will soon reclassify pedophilia and necrophilia as a “sexual orientation”. I know the DSM well

                • Teri Jourdan

                  Apparently not well enough. Pedophilia will be classified as a disorder, a correctable condition, not as a sexual orientation. And I highly doubt necrophilia will be defined as such either. The difference being that acceptable forms of sexual intercourse are between two consenting adults. I’m really surprised you didn’t throw bestiality into the mix, either.

                  • Guest

                    Consent does not make bad into good. It does not make pathology into health.

                    • Teri Jourdan

                      It does discount the supposed correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia that so many like to jump to.

              • slainte

                “A former president (Dr. Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D, Sc. D) of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality”.

                Cummings said that the organization’s problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

                The APA “started changing pretty drastically by the late 1980s,” said Cummings. “By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.”

                http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement/. June 6. 2012

                See also, “The APA and Psychology Need Reform” http://nappp.org/pdf/nickcumno.pdf.

                • Teri Jourdan

                  This is irrelevant. This article is from 2012, this guy was the one who introduced the motion to declassify, and there’s nothing saying there was any sort of ‘takeover’ when homosexuality was declassified. According the piece you’ve posted, the APA didn’t start changing until the late ’80s…after the declassification.

                  • slainte

                    A compromised American Psychological Association (“APA”), led by ideologues with allegiances to politically correct ideologies, not science, cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about the adverse health effects caused by gay sex.

                    JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D., author of “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” (2002) provides a physician’s perspective based on scientific research. Dr. Diggs concludes:

                    “…Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span…”

                    “…Excessive sexual promiscuity results in serious medical consequences — indeed, it is a recipe for transmitting disease and generating an epidemic. 11 The HIV/AIDS epidemic has remained a predominantly gay issue in the U.S. primarily because of the greater degree of promiscuity among gays. 12 A study based upon statistics from 1986 through 1990 estimated that 20-year-old gay men had a 50 percent chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55.13. As of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. 14
                    Syphilis is also more common among gay men. The San Francisco Public Health Department recently reported that syphilis among the city’s gay and bisexual men was at
                    epidemic levels. According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

                    “Experts believe syphilis is on the rise among gay and bisexual men because they are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners, many of whom they met in anonymous situations such as sex clubs, adult bookstores, meetings through the Internet
                    and in bathhouses. The new data will show that in the 93 cases involving gay and bisexual men this year, the group reported having 1,225 sexual partners.”15

                    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0075.html

                    Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.” Corporate
                    Resource Council (2002).

              • Adam__Baum

                All hail the pyscho-pharisees!

              • Steve Frank

                You seriously think we should all bow to the pronouncements of the APA, the same organization that released a report in 1998 which stated that claims of negative affects of adult/child sex were “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences”?? Yes, the APA then backpedaled after a public furor erupted that included an unprecedented rebuke from Congress. I hate to break it to you but psychology is not a hard science. If it were, you should be able to point to some medical discovery that occurred in 1973 that would have caused the APA to reverse it’s prior position that homosexuality was indeed a psychological disorder. But you can’t because there was no discovery. What changed in the early 1970s was the political environment (the birth of gay rights as a political movement can be traced back to the Stonewall riots of 1969). Just a coincidence that the APA changed it’s mind at the same time the political pressure to do so got under way? I think not.

            • Teri Jourdan

              And, if you wish to bring up Natural Law, I have to ask you, what about those who are infertile? That goes against all things natural by definition of said law, yes?

              • Rob B.

                No, because sex between infertile heterosexual couples may still produce a child. The chances may be small, but they exist. No such chance exists in homosexual couples.

              • Steve Frank

                Infertility is considered a state of dysfunction. It’s considered a medical disorder. If you really want to draw a parallel between homosexuals and infertile heterosexuals, that would make homosexuality itself a state of dysfunction (which it is of course). That doesn’t make homosexuals less valuable as human beings, any more than we’d say that of an infertile heterosexual. But both conditions are dysfunctional as your very comparison implies.

              • Nerinab

                Just because a couple is infertile doesn’t negate the purpose of the reproductive organs or the reproductive act. Just because we have blind or deaf people, doesn’t mean we suddenly declare that eyes are ears are no longer intended for seeing and hearing.

          • dplunkt

            Jack, he does not hate homosexuals. He is simply quoting studies. On the other note, If I had married while drunk, under the influence of drugs, via a “shotgun” marriage, etc. the church would consider that not valid. I see no problem with that. Also, I doubt you know the intimate details of your friends relationships any more than you know the trials of your hetero friends relationships.

          • Austin Ruse

            Ronald Lee would say you probably do not really know the intimate lives of your friends.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      When I was a graduate student and active in the campus pro-life movement, I witnessed with some astonishment the extreme hostility of homosexuals towards the pro-life cause. The most violent reactions to our public displays always came from homosexuals, who would actually spit on us and curse us in the most vile terms. Why did this issue enrage them, I wondered, since pregnancy is hardly a concern of theirs?

      During my undergraduate years in music school, when I was virtually the only heterosexual male voice student in my university’s opera theater group, I had grown very tolerant of homosexuals, finding them rather witty, charming, and harmless. Thus, in my naivete, I could not understand why they reacted with such great hostility to people handing out pro-life literature.

      The answer, of course, is contained in the truth of this article. Homosexuality is all about unrestrained self-gratification. In order to justify homosexual acts, all sexuality must be decoupled from procreation. In order to argue the morality of homosexual conduct between “consenting adults,” sexuality must be without consequences for everybody.

      That is why the “Lesbians for Life” who try to march every year in Washington D.C. are certainly frauds. Their real interest is not protection of the unborn, but rather making everybody comfortable with homosexuality. I have never met an active homosexual who is genuinely pro-life, and I doubt such a thing is possible.

      • Clay

        Listen, you may be right about the real motives of Lesbians for Life, but let’s not spurn anyone the pro-lifers can get, even if just for once a year. The reason that the pro-life issue is so important doesn’t have anything to do with essentialist views of the human person, or contraception, or the nature of sex, or cultural effects – those are secondary, if not tertiary. The pro-life movement is important because children are being brutally killed; it is that simple. Even atheists like Hitchens understood there was something wrong with it.
        So just don’t spurn anyone from the Cause. Carry on.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          That sounds great in theory, but in reality, the pro-life movement is easily manipulated, by both left and right. Hitchens was certainly right on abortion, but because he was wrong on almost everything else, no one listened. It’s very simple: without God, any evil is not only possible, all evils are essentially inseparable.

          • dplunkt

            “It’s very simple: without God, any evil is not only possible, all evils are essentially inseparable.”

            Doctor, in one sentence you have brilliantly summed it up. Well said.

          • Greg B

            What do you mean the pro-life movement is “easily manipulated”?

            “Then John said in reply, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.’” (Luke 9:49-50)

            “Of course, some preach Christ from envy and rivalry, others from good will. The latter act out of love, aware that I am here for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not from pure motives, thinking that they will cause me trouble in my imprisonment. What difference does it make, as long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed? And in that I rejoice.” (Phil. 1:15-18)

            Pardon the unintended pun here, but be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water…

            • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

              Greg B, I simply mean that neo-conservatives often try to use the pro-life movement to win elections, whereas they actually care nothing about the issue and seldom fight for life in any meaningful way.

              • Art Deco

                Here we go again. ‘Neo-conservative’ was a passable short hand for a collection of academics and journalists who gathered around Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and Joseph Epstein. One thing they never had jack to do with was electoral politics. In any case, you would be hard put to find an issue of consequence where the heirs to these people are at visible loggerheads with modal opinion in the Republican Party.

                I am sure there are insincere elected officials in the Republican Party, but your real problem is with the legal profession, which is rancid on this issue and a number of others.

              • Greg B

                Ok…Well…Echoing Philipians, some defend life out of concern for selfish ambition, others from good will. What difference does it make as long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, innocent human children are kept from execution and (more importantly) the souls of their mothers and the executing doctors and nurses kept from mortal sin?

            • Guest

              Greg B asks: “What do you mean the pro-life movement is ‘easily manipulated’?

              Well, the late Samuel Francis referred sardonically to family values activists “who haven’t seen their husbands since the Carter Administration.” And some pro-life groups are prone to the attitude that homosexual men are entirely welcome within their ranks, so long as they make the correct anti-abortion noises. No good can come from such an equivalent of vegetarians welcoming cannibals.

              • Greg B

                So, only Saints are allowed to do good deeds, not sinners?

                • Guest

                  Greg B, you do know, don’t you, that sodomy is among the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance? When we’re talking about sodomites we’re not just talking about sinners per se, such as all of us are, but a very specific and abominable sinner. I, for one, am getting pretty tired of official pro-life movements who dare not censure either sodomy or contraception for fear that “we won’t seem nice” or “it’ll upset Protestants” or some such clutching at excuses.

                  • Greg B

                    Guest, you do know that the oppression of low income workers by employers is another of those four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, right? Are you as eager to condemn corporations that endorse the pro-life movement but oppress their workers as you are to condemn those with same sex attraction?

                    You also know that Pope Benedict offered a (slightly awkward but poignant) example a short time ago of a male prostitute infected with AIDS who uses a condom in order to prevent infecting his “clients” as someone who is essentially “headed in the right direction”? Far from “up for canonization.” But headed in the right direction. As I recall, he said that such a person is one step closer in this regard to salvation. Who are we to prevent someone else’s salvation?

                    • Bono95

                      Can you name one single corporation that simultaneously supports the pro-life movement while oppressing its employees?

        • Marcus

          I agree with Timothy and disagree with you.
          How can Lesbians be for life when their very ethos is against it? Lesbians for life is a contradiction in terms. That would be like saying the devil is for God.

      • bluesuede

        Could some of those who have a hostile reaction to the pro-life cause also be influenced by the false impression that all those who promote pro-life and are God fearing, are somehow filled with hate and judgement for homosexuals?

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Well, I have never seen any pro-life display or presentation that has even broached the topic of homosexuality. Of course, it is always possible that some fundamentalist church preaches hatred for homosexuals as well as abortionists, but it has never been part of the Catholic message.

          • bluesuede

            It certainly is not part of the Catholic message. I was referring to the common idea, many have, that the pro-life movement and Christians are homophobic and hate homosexuals, promulgated by the left and encouraged by the media and acadamia. It has certainly become a part of what a lot of people falsely believe. I think it’s a deliberate effort from the left, to subvert the truth and to make the pro-life, Christian belief in the sanctify of life into the enemy, so that any opposition of ideas will be instantly rejected.

            • Nana Mary

              Like two of my adult children, who have bought in to this common idea, (your second sentence) and think it’s my belief! And they know me well! But they just can’t see I don’t feel that way.

              • bluesuede

                I too, have younger relatives who take it for granted that Catholics are against homosexuals.
                The best thing to do is to pray for them. Staying firm in the faith while at the same time having love for the sinner will set an example they will not be able to forget.

          • msmischief

            I suspect they just don’t like the possibility of sexual congress having consequences. Admitting that would open a can of worms.

        • Mercydivine

          I think the ‘hate and judgement’ you’re referring to is not hate towards a person but towards a behaviour. Love the sinner hate the sin. Homosexuals cannot distinguish between that….
          Example, if my son were a drug addict I would not want him to continue to take drugs which could lead to his death so therefore I hate the druguse but I don’t hate him. The homosexual is engaging in a behaviour which is deadly, to the body as well as the soul. So therefore, who has the best interest of the homosexual, the one who tells him to continue in his sin or the one who challanges him to reject this sin?….

      • Nancy

        Dr. Williams-BEAUTIFULLY PUT!!! To quote Ann Barnhardt-”Sodomites hate themselves, and are continously looking for self-gratification! Anything to help them forget, and to cause as much pain on others as they have.” There is NO SUCH THING as a Christian Homosexual. If that were the case, it would make God a LIAR!

      • msmischief

        An alternative possibility is that they heard of the “gay gene” studied, worked out what might happen with a test for it, and were shocked to the core.

      • Mike MacKinnon

        This is the exact sort of vile falsehoods about gay people rampant within the church, even though they are as un-Christian as can be. “Homosexuality is all about unrestrained self-gratification” is as hateful and ignorant as it is possible to be. It’s totally, completely untrue.
        And the idea of “consequences,” of punishing women for doing something you (incorrectly) see as “bad” by destroying their lives with an unwanted pregnancy is every bit as vile. I’d turn around to your cheap slurs and say you make it clear that the anti-choice extremist movement has no interest in having millions more unwanted children, but in promoting a backwards and ridiculous puritanism that isn’t any more Christian than your disgusting homophobia. There are plenty of gay people who are anti-choice, but most aren’t, you’re right. Most gay people aren’t racist or sexist, don’t hate based upon nationality or religion. When you’ve been the victim of discrimination and bigotry, you tend not to practice it. That is the one and ONLY reason most gay people are pro-choice.

        • Bono95

          No one here or anywhere else who is pro-life endorses the destroying of women’s lives. We endorse the saving and improving of the lives of both mothers and children, which is why we support crisis pregnancy centers, orphanages, and other adoption and mother/child care facilities and foster care systems. Really, it’s the pro-choice movement that destroys women’s lives. Firstly, it destroys the lives of millions of unborn people, over half of whom are female, and many of whom are killed just because they are female, and it destroys the lives of the mothers by neglecting to fully inform them of all the consequences and details of abortion or of the other available options (actually, the pro-choice movement does not support choice, it supports death and only death), by often operating in filthy, substandard clinics, and by encouraging and covering up for rape, incest, racism, sexism, and other forms of abuse. As a woman myself and after looking at these options, I choose life and the pro-life movement, and hope that you will come to do likewise, sir.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          An “unwanted pregnancy” does not destroy a life. An abortion does. You invoke “Christian” values to justify serious sin. That is nothing new. It is the hallmark of our age of unbelief and hedonism.

      • sotiredofthebs

        Because they know their life style is a dead end street, on earth and in heaven.

      • medwards

        You are quite wrong, Dr. I am a gay person and I am genuinely pro-life. In the last few years I’ve participated in several pro-life marches.

        Are you sure you grew tolerant of homosexuals while in college? Characterizing them as “rather witty, charming, and harmless” is to damn them with faint praise. You didn’t say you don’t take them seriously as people, but that is what your reference implies.

        • Art Deco

          Characterizing them as “rather witty, charming, and harmless” is to
          damn them with faint praise. You didn’t say you don’t take them
          seriously as people, but that is what your reference implies.

          Some people would not be irritated at being called ‘witty, charming, and harmless’, but then some people do not hunger for applause, either. (And if you wish to be taken seriously, do not behave like a teenage girl).

    • Steve Frank

      Thanks for a great article. The assertion that promiscuity is far more prevalent among male homosexuals than among any other group is one of those things that most people suspect to be true but dare not admit out loud less they be cast out of polite society as a heretic. To propose such an idea even as a theory invites the same reaction Larry Summers got when he dared to speculate that males might have a genetic propensity to excel in mathematics, or the reaction Charles Murray’s “Bell Curve” study got when it theorized that IQ might be genetic (which would lend itself to the idea that IQs might average higher among different races). “Thou shalt not make any identity group feel unequal” is the first commandment of the modern liberal secular Decalogue. Any proposition that violates this commandment must be dismissed a priori by the guardians of political correctness, facts or studies be damned. That’s why the elephant in the room which is gay male promiscuity must be ignored less anyone be tempted to entertain the heretical thought that homosexuality might be inferior to heterosexuality in any way.

      As far as the issue of gay male promiscuity itself, one thing I’d find interesting to see explored further is this question…are the higher rates of promiscuity among gay males more related to their homosexuality or to their maleness? Although there are exceptions, it’s commonly accepted that males as a group tend to have stronger, more aggressive sex drives than females. The female sex drive tends to be more cyclical and more dependent on feelings of emotional closeness to their partner and to relationship security. That’s why when it comes to heterosexual prostitution, it’s almost always males seeking female partners, not vice versa. So with heterosexuality, females bring a “taming” influence to the male sex drive. Gay male relationships lack that taming influence which would seem to explain the high rate of gay male promiscuity. The fact that promiscuity is far less prevalent among lesbians would also seem to support this idea.

      • Austin Ruse

        I would think you are right, young men are disordered to rutting. Heterosexual young men are hampered by young women who, at least use to, hold them at bay. The problem for gay young men is they are directed to other young men who do not hold them back.

        • Steve Frank

          Exactly. And as Christians we should see the hand of the Creator in the way males and females are wired differently and the proper balance it achieves between ensuring the propagation of the species while at the same time restraining unbridled sexual hedonism. God gave males strong sex drives in order to ensure that humans “be fruitful and multiply”. But God also expects men to keep those sexual drives under control, and so to help achieve that He wired females in such a way to counterbalance the male propensity toward lust and promiscuity. Which shows the absurdity of the idea that the same God who desires humans to be monogamous also decided to “make some people gay”. The sexual drives of two males (or even two females) do not bring the same type of ordered balance to human sexual relationships.

        • guest

          I have a really BIG problem with this argument. It is not up to women to keep men in line, sexually. I know that this has been almost every culture’s answer to the sexual propensities of men, but it misplaces the responsibility of discipline. Men are responsible for controlling themselves. If young men have a hard time keeping their pants zipped, then it should be their fathers and the older men in the community who keep them corralled.

      • Tony

        The promiscuity in part can be explained by noting what it is that male homosexuality perverts or frustrates. If we consider that it is a perversion or a frustration not of marriage but of the strong male need for masculine affirmation in friendship, then the thrill-seeking becomes more understandable, and maybe even quite predictable. I’d say that it has to do with maleness, but not only because men are more aggressive in their sexual drive.

    • Reasonable_Opinion

      As we move this conversation forward, continue to think how the man or woman with same-sex attractions receives it. All that Mr. Ruse writes is true. At the same time, and perhaps in the same breath if possible, we might also speak of the wider and more insidious picture of cultural sexual dysfunction, fueled by the fires of contraception (the Pill), that allows the tsunami of sterile sex between heterosexuals to continue with nary any commentary. Chastity–for all people no matter what their state in life–is the answer.

      • JM

        Wow, how true.JM

    • Rob B.

      Thank you for this intriguing post, Mr. Ruse. May I ask a related question? Do lesbians suffer from the same level of promiscuity as gay men?

      • Austin Ruse

        I dont think that they do…women being women…they are different…

        • Rob B.

          Thank you for responding. That does make sense. So this particular argument regarding gay male “marriage” would not work for lesbian “marriage?”

          • Austin Ruse

            Whether it is monogamous our not,whether they are promiscuous or not, I would ask in what way is the “sex” act between lesbians spousal?

            • Rob B.

              Fair enough. Thank you again for a stimulating article! :)

              • Austin Ruse

                Most welcome…

    • BrJeff Wolfe

      I cannot remain silent after reading this article. Much of what is written are based still on stereotypes the “straight” world has as it looks to LGBT persons. As a sociologist (undergraduate work in Sociology from Indiana University), I look at the references and the whole of what the author is communicating. It is nothing more than a “moral pronouncement” on what the author describes as “the gay lifestyle”.

      Let’s separate fact from fiction. Being gay is not a “lifestyle”. It is not something that someone “chooses” to be. Why in hell would some choose to be part of a group that is mocked, ridiculed, laughed, told they were ‘going to hell’, fornicators, and even derogatory slurs such as “faggot”. Why in the world would anyone choose to live a life with that level of persecution? Being gay is NOT a “lifestyle”. It is WHO God created each to be. They cannot change or “choose” their sexual orientation any more than a straight man could “choose to be gay”. I will assume the majority of readers are straight. Let me ask you a question. What if you were told that “you have to change your sexual orientation to gay” in order to be accepted in your church, in your place of work and in society? Would you do it? Could you do it? If you are like most straight men, the very thought of having sex with another man is repulsive and makes you physically ill just thinking of the idea. Being gay is the very same as being straight be only in reverse. To gay men and women, having sex with the opposite sex produces that same repulsive feelings that straight people do when told they would have to become gay.

      Moving on to another aspect of the author’s article. Did it ever occur to any straight person that the reason gay men seek out “anonymous” and in this day an age “dangerous” sexual encounters is because of the very abuse they would experience by the straight world, who judges them (or pre-judges; in other words are prejudice against LGBT). Most LGBT people and couples I know do not show public displays of affection like straights for fear of being shamed. Yet we see a young straight couple making out with heavy petting, and almost applaud and encourage this behavior. The reason LGBT for years have stayed “in the closet” is because of the very prejudice they experience at the mouths of so called “Christians”. Really? Did Jesus ever “mock” anyone he encountered? Remember the woman at the well?

      If you really want to understand the context about the Bible and the gay controversy, you should visit The Reformation Project (http://reformationproject.org). Started by a Harvard undergraduate, who took two years off his studies to research all references in the Hebrew Scriptures about homosexuality. Through a thorough exegesis which has been applauded by many seminary professors, he debunks every reference to “homosexuality being a sin” within the Hebrew Scriptures. And by the way, even from a common sense standpoint, if are going to follow “The Law” as laid out in the Pentateuch, you must follow ALL the laws. You don’t get to pick and choose. This is why Christ came…. To free us from this type of “legalism” and bring the Holy Spirit into our lives so that we would know how to treat one another. There are really only two commandments which Jesus gave to us Christians when he walked the earth according to the Scriptures; 1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and body; and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Must of us know these commandments as “The Great Commandment” and “The Golden Rule”. So if your neighbor is a gay couple, you are to treat them with the same love and kindness that you do your own family.

      The young people of today will not allow society to continue to abuse verbally, degrade, call names and treat with disdain LGBT people today. Why? Because many of their friends are LGBT. They grew up realizing that being gay is just one facet of MANY that people have. How often have you heard a group say “look at those straights! I can’t believe their doing that in public!”. Never right? Then why do we feel the need to single out a person if we find out they are “gay or lesbian”, even though in every other respect they are just like our straight friends. It was not too long ago the case “Love Vs. State of Virginia (1967) banned all laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Why were laws in existence banning “whites” and “blacks” from marrying (today we know the proper references are Caucasian and African Americans). Because people of the time “pre-judged” or were prejudice against African Americans because it was thought that they were less intelligent, less moral, more like animals. Thank goodness the courts in 1967 concluded that “ALL” men are created equal – not just Caucasians. And therefore concluded that all men and women have a “right to marry” regardless of color.

      Today the LGBT movement calling for same-sex marriage is following the same path. We think that we as “Christians” have a right to determine who can marry and who cannot marry. We have the audacity to conclude that marriage is a “Christian” institution, when in fact the concept of marriage existed thousands of years before Christianity hit the world. Being Gay or Lesbian or Transgendered is NOT a choice. it is who we are. It is what God create us to be. It was once told to me “God don’t make junk”. Why would a loving God create a desire within LGBT people only to ban those same people from acting on their true feelings. Have we allowed our Christian ego to become so large that we know the mind of God?

      So with all the passion I can call upon, I vehemently disagree with the author and his conclusions. Gay people are just people. The are like you and me. The love, they laugh, they cry, the work, they have bills, they have children, they have parents and grandparents, they have hopes and they have dreams. They are our neighbors, our mailmen and women, our grocers, our physicians, our counselors and yes even our pastors and friend in church. So if we are to “love our neighbor as ourselves”, let me ask – does the author encourage us to love LGBT people as equals? Or does he wrongly ask us to love LGBT persons as victims like those who are raped in prison? Really? Why is it so impossible to believe that two people, regardless of their sex, can fall in love? do you think “cupid” discriminates? Then why should we?

      Rev Brother Jeffery Wolfe
      St John XXIII Pastoral & Outreach Center

      • Steve Frank

        ” Why in the world would anyone choose to live a life with that level of persecution? Being gay is NOT a “lifestyle”. It is WHO God created each to be. ”

        Fine. Let’s follow your logic further. Pedophiles are even more ridiculed than homosexuals. They obviously didn’t choose their inclinations either based on your reasoning. Does that mean God made them that way too?

        • BrJeff Wolfe

          Steve.

          Statistically Significant study after study at Universities across the U.S. show that 98% of all pedophiles are “heterosexual” – not homosexual. This again is another myth and stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles. Statistically it just isn’t true. Its not what the numbers bear out.

          Comparing gay men to pedophiles would be like saying all straight men are sexist and bigoted who hit their wives. It simply is a myth and not true. In fact I am not sure which is worse – comparing gay men to men being raped in prison (hence gay men are victims), or calling all gay men pedophiles (which make gay men abusers). Again neither are true by the numbers.

          • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

            This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read. As a university professor for the past 30 years, I know how little value a study has when it has been produced by “Universities across the U.S.” So 98% of all pedophiles are heterosexual, and yet the overwhelming majority of their victims are little boys? What are they, too stupid or too myopic to tell the difference between a boy and a girl? 100% of men who molest boys have an unhealthy, homosexual attraction to young boys. It really isn’t rocket science. And talk to an elderly homosexual man sometime about how the gay community looks at youth versus aging. Old homosexuals are the loneliest people in the world, because homosexuals are attracted to young men and boys. Period.

          • Adam__Baum

            He didn’t distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual with regard to pedophiles, he asked about them as a group. I had a friend who was involved in law enforcement matters, he reported that pedophiles routinely described their attractions as invincible and immutable, some actually requested incarceration to relieve them of the opportunity to commit their crimes.

          • Steve Frank

            When did I say anything about homosexuals being more inclined toward pedophelia than heterosexuals? The question I’m raising is about YOUR assertion that God is the author of our “sexual orientations”. I’m asking you if that includes pedophelia. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that all pedophiles are heterosexual. Did God make them that way? Can you answer my question directly rather than put a different question into my mouth and answer that?

          • somnipod

            Both are disordered mental illness and need to be treated as such

            • BrJeff Wolfe

              Actually homosexuality has not been defined as a mental illness since DSM III.

              • AnneG

                Which was changed at the behest of several noteworthy homosexualist psychotherapists. What part of abomination do you not understand? These people are children made in the image and likeness of God, but sinful behavior is sinful.

              • Craig

                But again, we cannot change God, nor His laws. The APA or any other group of men have no authority to do so. Remember Lucifer and the Fall?

          • Rock St. Elvis

            I think you understand the analogy perfectly and are pretending not to understand because it cuts your argument to the quick. Either that or you lack the grey matter to be taken seriously.

          • The_Monk

            Hmmm… You said, “Statistically Significant study after study at Universities across the U.S. show that 98% of all pedophiles are “heterosexual” – not homosexual.

            Let’s say I’m sceptical. Can you provide a list of such (diacritical) studies?

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Following the logic of “some pedophiles target children of their own sex exclusively is a good argument against gays who do not have such attractions” we must fairly conclude that “some pedophiles target children of a sex different from their own exclusively is a good argument against straights who do not have such attractions.”

        • Guest

          Exactly right. The logic is so absurd and facile that it allows for anything and everything.

        • somnipod

          Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, no, it’s a disordered inclination. BUT… acting upon your homosexual feelings, thats a lifestyle choice.. we are all called to chastity, as are people suffering with same sex attractions

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I would definitely NOT say pedophiles are ridiculed. Nothing they do involving that classification can be laughed at or talked about easily (unlike all the gay jokes and the weird obsession some Christians have with the word “buggery”). More accurately, I would say people “guard against” pedophiles. At any rate, why are pedophiles seen in such a negative light? (hint: both people in a gay relationship are gay and want to be wear they are even before they meet or know of each other. But did the child in a “pedophile relationship” seek out the adult, and is thus also a pedophile? What happens when the child no longer qualifies for targeti- I mean- being attractive?)

          • Art Deco

            (unlike all the gay jokes and the weird obsession some Christians have with the word “buggery”

            An ‘obsession’ which exists only between your two ears.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              The context of using ‘obsession’ would be more apparent if I had the comments sections of the sites where the use of the word by certain persons identifying as Christian was extremely notable, as in finding some way to use ‘buggery’ in nearly every post and reply they made (honestly it could just be same posters overlap between the sites). It was jarring (like explaining how one dislikes the use of a curse word over and over again and using it themselves every time as part of the explanation).
              My main point is ‘ridicule’ doesn’t quite fit what talk about pedophiles sounds like in the same way it fits what talk about gay people sounds like.

          • Steve Frank

            I’m not sure what your point is Giauz. Perhaps “ridiculed” is not the appropriate word in the context of pedophelia, but Jeff’s point was that it should be obvious that homosexuality is not a choice since why would anyone choose an orientation that invites persecution or ridicule from certain segments of society (although that segment is rapidly shrinking). I agree with Jeff’s logic on that point, and I simply extended the same logic to pedophelia. Perhaps ridicule doesn’t describe how most people think of pedophiles, but persecution certainly does. My general point stands. Why would anyone choose to be a pedophile knowing they are thought of by society as the lowest of the low (I’m defining a pedophile as a person that is sexually attracted to underage children). Clearly, pedophiles have sexual impulses that they did not consciously choose (although if they act upon those impulses that is certainly a choice). In any case, what I was trying to get Jeff to see is that he is making general assertions that I don’t think he really believes, namely that our unchosen sexual orientations are part of “who we are” and that means it’s how God designed us to be. But if he really believes that, it means God also created pedophiles too. But I doubt Jeff or most gay activists who claim to be Christians are ready to admit that. So instead, they change the subject whenever pedophelia is mentioned since they realize that their argument of “God made me this way because I didn’t choose to be gay” becomes quite vulnerable once you bring up the issue of pedophelia.

            As far as your point about whether children in an adult/child are also pedophiles, again I don’t know how that relates to the question at hand. Legally, children can’t give consent. Although it’s quite ironic that the same liberal culture that dismisses all conservative concerns about the eventual de-stigmatizing of pedophelia as “scaremongering” because “children can’t give consent”, have no problem allowing children to give consent to having an abortion. So evidently a 13 year old girl can’t give consent to having sex with a forty year old man. But if the same 13 year old girl gets pregnant by her boyfriend, she can give consent to an abortion without parental involvement.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Becoming government or anyone else’s property under penalty of law once impregnated is a bit different than being someone’s target. Today’s marriages don’t have just one person who wants to marry and the other person(s) (in the case of polygamy) don’t have any say in the matter. Today it’s more like all people leave their parent(s) to be joined to the one they love (in the case of Biblical polygamy, the man says, “I am of one flesh with my wife. She is my wife, and she is my wife, and she is my wife, and…”). There is no good way to compare pedophilia to homo/heterosexuality, nor is there any easy way to destigmatize pedophilia. I do imagine that the stigmatization does do harm to seeing them as people and thus being of help to them. I am trying to drive forth that children not be made easy targets but that we help pedophiles from harming and coercing the children. Right now society is still dealing with the continual effects of not having open forum about this so that pedophilia doesn’t burst into full criminal act from the isolation of being with those thoughts (not to mention not having adaptive measures put in place like what is done at my work to help lessen the violent behaviors of the developmentally disabled I care for).
              Gay and straight people who are not pedophiles (plenty of argument that pedophiles, at least fixated ones, are neither) don’t inherently have any of these problems with causing harm just by not being celibate.
              I don’t think anyone has the answer for why marriage for pedophiles and a lot of people (the kids I care for and parasitic twins for example) are inherently incapable of the relationship and legal rights married people have, or how something can be justly worked out for everyone. I do believe that Jesus created everyone as he intended them to be. In both Isaiah and Amos, Jesus claims to be creator of both good and evil. In the new testament he foretells there will be false prophets. So, some people will not have a choice and will be made by him to be false prophets (eliminating any chance Jesus’ prophecy can be wrong). Also, Jesus will stand by and watch you get lied to and not do anything about it (also, there is no chance that no one will believe the false prophets because then Jesus would have not made a real prophecy, a direct control over events).
              There is no chance of Satan rebelling against Jesus and not acting in anyway close to the book of Revelation (let’s say by deciding to materialize as a seven-headed red dragon the size of a shopping cart in front of a Wal-Mart display model television, deciding to sit there for the rest of history doing nothing but watching TV and angrily shouting at people to stay out of Church and watch the latest Pixar movie with him) because then Jesus could be wrong about Satan setting up false prophets, an anti-Christ, the mark of the beast, etc.
              So, Jesus does intend to put us through some evil and make some participate in evil without free-will (at least one Reformed Calvinist in another blog’s comments was perfectly fine with this). I guess I can accept this about Jesus, but I don’t feel any of this sounds good (no matter how many get into Heaven, Jesus assures us most people will get tortured forever by him in hell).

      • Rob B.

        Being gay may not be a choice. If it is not, then it is a cross to bear, not an excuse for mortal sin. Showing love in the context you describe would mean turning a blind eye to sin, which is not what Christ would have us do.

        Is anyone else concerned that a priest has ended this diatribe with a reference to a pagan god?

        • Rob B.

          Forgive me, my friends. i just looked up Mr. Wolfe up. He is a member of the “American Catholic Church in the United States.” Therefore, my reference to him as a priest is totally invalid.

          • cephas2

            Thanks be to God for that.

      • BrJeff Wolfe

        So because I am a former Roman Catholic, you just discard my comments? Wow, now I know how Martin Luther felt when he posted the 98 Theses on the church door. I guess I am in good company.

        And I am sorry Rob, but I do not believe would create a person to be gay and then tell them they have to be celibate the rest of their life. That may be your God. But is certainly is not the God of Catholic Christianity I have come to know and love.

        • Rob B.

          Yes, that is my God. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. It is also, by the way, the God that came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ and the God of the One True Church. I don’t know the god you worship (though from your comments I can guess a lot about him), but I do know it is not the God of Catholic Christianity. So please, be honest with yourself and with others and stop pretending to be a Catholic.

          Oh, and by the way, Luther posted *95* Theses on the church door at Wittenberg. I’ve read them; none of them praised homosexuality in the slightest.

          • BrJeff Wolfe

            btw.. thank you for the correction on my typo. 95 theses – incorrectly typed 98. thanks for the catch Rob. I have corrected the error

            • Rob B.

              I wish that your other, far more serious errors could be corrected just as easily. I will pray for that.

        • cephas2

          We are all called to chastity, married or single. How is it that you can be a seminarian when your views are so opposed to Catholic teaching?

          • Rob B.

            See my comment below, Cephas. I looked Mr. Wolfe up.

        • Guest

          Gay is a political ideology. Same sex attraction is a disordered desire that exists because we live in fallen world. Theology 101.

          • Giauz Ragnarock

            Incorrect. The political ideology is “ex-gay.” I am straight, yet I support equal and applicable rights for LGBT people. An “ex-gay” would be in a pretty contradicting situation, so one could not say, “I am now straight, but I don’t support legal persecution of LGBT people and coercion to do what I did.” (and they can’t claim to now be asexual either as I know plenty who have no problem with LGBT people being made equal in every way to straight people).

        • kaves1

          God did not create homosexuality. It is a consequence of original sin as is all disorders. If God created homosexuality why does He forbid it in both the Old and New Testaments (Leviticus,1 Cor, 1 Tim)?

        • Adam__Baum

          What was good about Luther?

          • Rob B.

            Well, he did eventually shock the Renaissance Church out of its complacency. Of course, the damage he caused was far worse than what he criticized in the Church.

        • Dr. J

          Then I beg you do not get near the altar boys. You are twisted. Read the New Testament before proclaiming to be an expert on homosexual theology:

          “Or do you not know that evil men do not inherit The Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; no fornicators, neither worshipers of idols, neither adulterers, neither sexual molesters, neither males lying down with males..” – 1 Corinthians 6:9

          • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

            Boys are safer with men who say are gay than with men who say they are straight. I call this the “Sandusky Principle,” and it’s borne out by research, so please do not defame people just because you think they are gay.

            • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

              Total nonsense.

            • Guest

              Any man interested in a boy is “gay” by definition. It is unnatural. Use any nomenclature you want but authentically it is same sex attraction that is acted on. Psychobabble aside.

        • Bob

          So was the only reason you abandoned the fullness of the Truth of Christ in the Catholic Church because it taught against your sexual wants and desires? In other words, you gave up the Eucharist, apostolic teaching and succession, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the fullness and truth of Christ’s teachings………because of your attraction to men? That the Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit on all teachings…..except on homosexual acts and attraction?

          • Rob B.

            In fairness, Mr. Wolfe never claims to be a homosexual himself (at least, so far as I can see).

            • BrJeff Wolfe

              Thank you Rob…

              • Bob

                You threw it out there…..why did you leave the Church?

        • cestusdei

          How about those who are created as pedophiles? Do they need to remain celibate?

          You won’t be a priest as your group does not have valid orders.

        • Craig

          If your seminary is outside the Catholic or Orthodox church, no, you will not be a priest. Please read the writings of the Church Fathers on obeying the teachings of the real Church and true clergy, ie, Ind. Archbishop Tobin.

          FYI: it’s “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. You nor any true EMHC’s are a priest.

      • Daniel Kane

        Homosexuality, like any temptation or inclination is likely not chosen. At the same time actions are always chosen. It is the homosexual (or non-martial) act that is disordered and sinful, not the inclination.

        For all of history, homosexuality was something someone did, not something that they are. Now, it is not simply an act but a lifestyle or culture. Oscar Wilde, and others (Whitman) were homosexual or preferred sex with males but even they considered it something that they preferred to do, not something that they were.

        The very premise that God created homosexuality as a good when his revealed word clearly condemns it is farcical. Did God create other deep seated sexual attractions (children, animals, etc.) as a good as well? Or how about spina bifida and other birth defect? What about a propensity to addiction? Was this the active will of God or the permissive?

        Certainly homosexuality has been present as long as civilization, that does not make it good, true or beautiful. Nor does it mean that it is God’s intentional will for persons to act this way simply because they are inclined to.

        • Thomas J. Lipton

          “Homosexuality, like any temptation or inclination is likely not chosen.” It is unfortunate to have to respond that such an assertion, while quite possibly meant in charity, is reflective more of surrender to garbage “research,” wishful thinking, and victimist propaganda than it is of respect for genuine science.
          Many inclinations and temptations arise both from our nature and from our environment. It is reasonable to assume that both nature and nurture might influence homosexual inclinations, and honest research would proceed from such an assumption to determine which factors are innate and which are learned. But those who militantly campaign for “tolerance” of homosexuality and homosexual predation and indoctrination are, not surprisingly, utterly intolerant of any assertion that such inclinations might have any environmental influences at all that can be mitigated. And that intolerance is not merely unpleasant — it is Evil at its core.

          • mary jo anderson

            Important to note in this discussion that the Australian study of identical twins found only a 30% correlation of homosexual inclination among the twin sets. ( Kirk et al, 2000). If homosexuality were a given feature of a persons being, then identical twins could not be one heterosexual and one homosexual in 70% of the twins sets.

            If we are to help the person struggling with homosexual inclinations, an honest unemotional examination of the condition is the most charitable approach. Many reputable psychiatrists and child development specialist have shown that homosexuality is not wired, rather, it is a developmental misstep. Unless it is useful politically, homosexuality can be basically erased in 70 years. Once parents, pediatricians, teachers and counselors are properly educated about the signs of early missteps and how to retrace the missed steps, the youngster almost always avoids pubertal homosexual experiences and thus, is rarely vulnerable to a lifetime of homosexuality.

            • JQ

              People might also say if a HETEROsexual inclination “were a given feature of a person’s being, then identical twins could not be one heterosexual and one homosexual”.

              And why limit it to identical twins or sexual orientation? People might also broadly insist that if there is any person on the planet at any time in history who is not “X” (doesn’t matter what “X” is) that it proves that “X” is not “a given feature” of ANY “person’s being”.

              Maybe you’re just claiming that “a persons’ being” is limited to genetics, and/or that a person’s genetics are all “given” at conception? If so, research has found that the DNA of “identical” twins can change across their lives. And even before birth, “identical” twins are not identical. If some person says he was “born that way”, maybe he was.

              In regard to “erasing homosexuality” and purported therapies for “youngsters”, the research is weak and does not inform us of the full or long-term effects, and does not prove that any such therapy is better than placebo, tiddly winks, prayer or voodoo. Even without any such therapy, “the youngster almost always avoids pubertal homosexual experiences”.

          • Daniel Kane

            You make my point exactly. No one understands the origin of homosexual inclination. I certainly do not. I do take the homosexual person’s testimony at face value – they are tempted from the first instance of memory to be inclined towards sexual expression with the same sex. This is true with many things.

            They are not in the least forced or required to act on this temptation or inclination. To do so is for the major religions of the world, a sin, because the choice to act is their own, the temptation is not. The temptation is seemingly not their own making although they can enter into places of greater or lesser temptation.

            Being homosexual – attracted sexually to the same gender – is not a sin nor is it evil. Sexual expression in a homosexual manner is a conscious choice and is evil. It is the act and not the inclination that is evil.

            Undoubtedly many people are tempted to do many things for many reasons. We (and God) does not judge temptation, he judges act.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Unfortunately, Jesus does not endorse dissemination of facts and open conversation. Otherwise, everything would have been cleared up a few centuries ago and your opinion that the inclination is not in itself a sin would not be so abhorrently different from those who do think it is a sin (others who also claim to have prayed to be led by Jesus to such a conclusion. Jesus needs to stop letting Satan use his phone).

              • Daniel Kane

                Thanks for the breakthrough commentary Giauz, But sin remains a consciously chosen act. Temptation is not chosen but experienced. While the homosexual inclination is clearly disordered (as is all lust, drunkenness, etc.), to be tempted is to be human. The Church founded by Jesus claims that homosexual acts are sins. Chaste persons with homosexual attraction do not sin by the experience of homosexual temptations. The origin of this temptation is clearly deep seated and not clearly understood. See what the Church Jesus founded says about it in the Catechism #2356 – 2359.

                Jesus does not have a phone, but he does have a book and that book refers to “those who practice homosexuality” (1 Cor 6:9-10) as among those who will not enter heaven – there are many other acts in that category as well.

                • Giauz Ragnarock

                  I used ‘phone’ in place of ‘the presence’ of God… depending on the fellow Christian you are talking to Jesus is looking after you or Satan is deceiving you. Thus, Jesus needs to stop being so liberal with lending his ‘phone’.
                  Concerning this article and the source: Just one more perspective on the internet I weigh with the many other perspectives. My problem with this perspective is not the experience described but how it goes on to get propagandized to be THE perspective. Anyone who says, “Hey, wait a minute…”, is then disregarded by the people who were looking for such confirmation of their beliefs. In the spirit of this, if all Christians were stigmatized in such an article, take after these gay people and straight allies like me and call foul (in an earlier post I said that as soon as someone tells you something about yourself that you know isn’t true, they have lost you. However, people who could echo their opinion are being netted in all the while).
                  The guy who wrote this article and its source have “Jack Johnson just became boxing heavyweight champion!” stuff on their hands.

      • BrJeff Wolfe

        I want to thank all those who first took the time to read my reply and secondly, who actually replied.

        Though I do not agree with the conclusions of the article nor the replies to my comments, You all have vehemently and almost caustically let me know how you feel about my thoughts on Mr. Ruse’ article.

        I hope that even though you may absolutely abhor a comment made by an individual to an article written in Crises Magazine, that you will treat those with the courage to reply with more respect and dignity than you have show me.

        If I have offended anyone with my thoughts an comments, that certainly is your right. Please know I sincerely apologize if any of you were offended.

        However I stand by my comments.

        Peace,
        Bro Jeff

        • Bob

          I don’t see any caustic replies to your postings. I don’t see any lack of respect or dignity.

        • cestusdei

          If you are a professed brother in the Catholic Church then you need to take stock and either be faithful or be gone.

          • Rob B.

            Rest easy, he isn’t. He is a member of the “American Catholic Church in the United States,” which seems to be a breakaway sect.

      • Guest

        Total and complete relativism. Your reasoning here is superficial and emotionalistic only.

        Why would a man cheat on his wife knowing he could end his marriage and hurt his children? Why would a man rob a bank knowing he could go to jail? Why would a man text impure things knowing his political career could be ruined? Are you kidding me? The questions answer themselves.

        The idea of comparing unequal things and drawing erroneous conclusions gives us no good knowledge. Asking a heterosexual to change and become homosexual is the equivalent of asking a sighted person to blind himself. It is insane. One is health and one is pathology.

      • Ronald G. Lee

        Since I am the Ronald G. Lee whose essay is quoted extensively here I cannot let this pass, although I probably should. How can you claim that this article trades in stereotypes when, at least as far as those parts of it citing my essay are concerned, the evidence is taken from my LIFE? I am not a stereotype, sir. I came out of the closet in large part because I read and wanted to believe statements like yours. But I continued to identify myself as a gay man long after the truth had become obvious to me because I had internalized the idea, thank to people like you, that I had no choice. What I discovered on the other sided of the closet door was not a rainbow, but addiction, self destruction and phenomenal loneliness But since according to you that wasn’t what I SHOULD have found (and you wouldn’t lie to me, would you?), I kept looking. And you know what I found? More addiction, self destruction and phenomenal loneliness. Do you take no responsibility at all for the impact that words like yours have on confused young men who read them and believe them? You clearly believe that you occupy some sort of moral high ground. In MY opinion, you have blood on your hands, and you will answer for it some day.

        Finally, you really do need to wake up and realize that the 1970s are over. Liberace just won the Emmy. Film and television are awash with sympathetically depicted gay men. On the other hand, I recently asked a friend when was the last time he remembered a Catholic priest in a movie or on TV who wasn’t either a sadist or a pedophile. He thought for a second and responded, “Max von Sydow in the Exorcist.” (That was 1974.) Could you possibly stop whining long enough to realize that you’ve won. And the rest of us are the losers.

        • Rob B.

          Mr. Lee,

          I applaud your courage in coming forward in this way. I will keep you in my prayers as you continue your struggles.

          • Ronald G. Lee

            Thanks. I need all the prayers I can get.

            • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

              So do I… and every Christian I know. God bless you, sir.

            • Adam__Baum

              We all do. Hang tough, brother.

        • lifeknight

          Speaking for many who post here, thank you. We will pray for your intentions. God, help us all!

        • BrJeff Wolfe

          I’m sorry Mr. Lee that you had such a tragic experience. Not everyone’s experience is the same. To imply that your experience is the same for everyone is like saying my experience is the same for everyone. Its not. We are different people, We have been reared with cultural values, mores and morals which shape our lives from the time we are an infant.

          I truly meant no disrespect to you Mr. Lee. I simply thought it wrong to assume that because you had a bad experience, that all LGBT have the same experience waiting for them.

          Again, forgive me if I have offended you. It was not my intent.

          • Ronald G. Lee

            Thank you. And forgive me for the acerbic tone of some of my comments. However, you still want to imply that my “tragic experience” was the result of my “cultural values, mores and morals,” rather than of anything inherently defective in homosexuality itself. So let me be clear. Are there any homosexuals out there having a good time? Certainly there are. If you are young and attractive and morally flexible, you can have a wonderful time for a few years. And if you have the money to pay for it, you can extend that for a few years more. But what happens after that?

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Your entire article could have been talking about heterosexuality and not changed a word (you know, except “homosexuality”). Also, I kept wondering if you were dead because you stated no gay people were, well, seeking exactly what a gay person like you said you were seeking (either that or you lied to us about what you said you were seeking, which does not bode well for the truth of the article as a whole).

        • cestusdei

          Thank you Mr. Lee for your article. I am happy that you are engaging is this kind of ministry on behalf of the Church. And it is a ministry.

          • Ronald G. Lee

            Thank you. Whenever I talk about my experience with heterosexuals, I’m invariably told that no one has ever spoken to them about homosexuality in the way that I do. And that is amazing to me. The truth is hidden in plain view. Everyone who has gay friends must see it at some level. They just refuse to connect the dots. I heartily recommend the recent Liberace biopic “Behind the Candelabra.” it is an excellent depiction of the narcissism and the cruelty of homosexual life. And yet in an interview on the DVD, Matt Damon claims that the movie is an argument for same sex marriage! It is insane.

            • Bob

              Your graceful and humble handling of such a difficult cross is the building material of sainthood.

              • Ronald G. Lee

                Thank you, although graceful and humble are not two words I would normally apply to myself. And I’m not just being humble.

            • Austin Ruse

              I am the author of the piece above. I ahve been trying to find you. would you please contact me at austinruse@c-fam.org
              Many thanks.
              Austin Ruse

        • Austin Ruse

          Mr. Lee, I have been looking for you. Can you contact me? ausitnruse@c-fam.org

          many thanks…

          Your essay was very powerful.

        • Austin Ruse

          I really wish you would get in touch with me. Robert Reilly, who wrote the book I referenced in the above essay, is eager to talk to you, too…
          austinruse@c-fam.org

          • Ronald G. Lee

            I sent an e-mail to that address. I’ll send it again.

            • Austin Ruse

              Nothing came through. Weird. Keep trying. I’m off to bed. Will check in the morning.

      • Bob

        “Reformation Project.” Great…..another long list of people who think they can reinterpret scripture to fit their sinful lifestyle!

      • BrJeff Wolfe

        One last observation. I find it interesting that those who have the strongest opinion against my comments are those who have no profile, no information on who they really are and even have signed in as guest.

        If you are going to be harsh with your criticism, at least have the decency to show us or tell us a little about yourself. Its easy to be critical when you hide behind anonymity.

        • Guest

          It is the argument that counts, not the personality. Why not prove your points with factual statements?

          As usual I find the homosexual propagandists will try everything to redirect the discussion. They cannot win on the merits so they must try other techniques.

        • Rob B.

          This is a fair comment, I suppose. I am a teacher of history and Western civilization in Colorado. I am a Roman Catholic father of five. I tend to prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. In my spare time, I like to garden, read, and play with my kids.

          Now that we have these preliminaries out of the way, would you care to refute any of the counter-arguments made against your position?

          One last point: I see no harshness at all here, unless of course you considered well-reasoned and supported criticism as harsh.

        • Bob

          Tell us a little about yourself: are you gay and why did you leave the Catholic Church?

      • cestusdei

        The facts are in the article. It is NOT the same as being straight. Deal with it.

      • Austin Ruse

        Dear Jeff,

        Many thanks for your comments. Sorry I have not joined in sooner. I just came off a very strenuous 50 mile bike ride.

        The first thing that strikes me about your comments is that they are right out of the gay activist handbook, to the letter. Ronald Lee goes through this list pretty thoroughly in his essay.

        First, I did not say gay was a lifestyle. I quite deliberately called it a “way of life”. that phrase, coined by the former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins to describe, should not connote that it is either a choice or inborn. It just describes the way they live their lives. There is no evidence that gayness is inborn. Most of the research goes the other way, particularly when you look at twin studies.

        Second, your are quite wrong about societal rejection of homosexuals. In fact, society now celebrates them. If an athlete comes out as gay, he gets feted for his bravery. If an athlete says something critical of gays, he is shunned. Things have changed quite a bit from 50 years ago.

        Third, all the rewriting of biblical meaning is one of hte chief ways the gay movement undermines the last vestige of criticism of the gay way of life, the Churches. You do much mischief by repeating these clearly heretical readings of the bible. Ronald Lee was led astray by just such a man as you who wrote a whole book along those lines. It is very clear what the Church teaches about homosexual acts.

        Fourth, the comparison between blacks and gays is deeply offensive to blacks, many of whom say sometehing like “do not compare my skin to your sin.” Blackness is immutable. Homosexuality is not. In fact, according to a great deal of research, homosexuality is quite elastic adn can change dramatically throughout someone’s life.

        Lastly, the research cited shows that gays simply do not look upon marriage the way it is intended, a lifelong bond based on fidelity adn the intention to have children. Dan Savage, a huge proponent of gay marriage, makes it clear that gays view any relationship, marital or otherwise, as “open”.

        You are doing great harm the bodies and souls of men coming to you for a religious rationalization for their activities.

        • Bob

          I’ve always found the twisting and manipulating of proper Catholic interpretation of scripture on the teaching of homosexuality and other topics to justify sin, incredibly sad. Why not just trust the Church that loves you to guide you in all things?

      • msmischief

        God created me with two hands, two eyes, two feet. And then He said,

        “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to
        enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’”

        Hmmm. It appears that God has His own opinions on whether something about us must be sacrificed to be acceptable to him.

        And since having sexual intercourse is not required to be saved, you will have to explain why your revulsion to the concept is material.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I remember reading an article of how a pastor became pro-gay after a gay man showed him that he took the above quoted scripture quite literally and was contemplating suicide because it had not helped him.

          • Guest

            Huh? If someone is mentally ill they need medical help. To become “pro gay” based on such insanity is itself diabolical.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              The man this pastor had met had castrated himself based on reading of the above scriptures at a time in US history when many in the psychological field and Christianity believed castration could “cure” homosexuality. This person along with the many closeted individuals he would meet over the course of his early ministry humanized the gay people and showed him that anti-gay doctrine was harming these people.
              Remember that some believe Christians are mentally ill (rather all religious people, Christians are just more visible in their lives). I don’t believe calling fully functioning people mentally ill is done in love.

              • msmischief

                People who mutilate themselves are not going to be helped by such measures. They will merely shift to new ways to express their psychic disturbance.

                • Giauz Ragnarock

                  Pretty sure that is why Christians and the psychological community no longer endorse castration (shock therapy, chemical castration, etc.) as “gay cures” because all they did was cause harm. Prayer is so unpredictable the results range from: suicide because of no help, gay atheist, celibate gay- still gay, “ex-gay” ideology that never seems to result in opposite sex adultery and has a high deconversion rate, and believing Jesus calls them to serve him married to each other in love (still gay).
                  I find (finally at age 25) anti-gay doctrine “psychically disturbing”, which I express in ultimately ignored comments posts and face-palms!

      • Craig

        First, I pray we all choose to follow Christ. That being said, could you please remember (never taught?) the meaning of Charity? Not your meaning of “love”, but true Charity, doing unto others what Christ wants. The author speaks not of hate, but the Truth. Christ’s Truth.

        No where do we find support for sodomy in the Bible (Sacred Scripture), Sacred Tradition, or by the Magesterium, ie, The Catholic Church.

        If you truly “love” another, you do not lie to them. Sometimes you hit them over the head with the Truth: You are helping the father Of Lies. Your words lead people to sin. You do not have Charity for others, least of all those afflicted with same sex attraction and Catholics.

        If you wish to know true Charity, read or watch Venerable Sheen’s works on true Charity and the three Greek words for “love”. May Our Lady of the Clergy protect and guide you to her Son.

        • JQ

          In charity, we should respect the fact that “the real lives of gay men” are quite diverse. For example, many homosexual persons do not engage in “sodomy”, even if they have a civil same-sex marriage.

      • Craig

        ***”Reverend Wolfe is not Catholic, per his outreach center’s website. Unfortunately, Archbishop Tobin cannot be more of an “influence” on his writings.

      • Rock St. Elvis

        “Why in hell would some choose to be part of a group that is mocked,
        ridiculed, laughed, told they were ‘going to hell’, fornicators, and
        even derogatory slurs such as “faggot”. Why in the world would anyone
        choose to live a life with that level of persecution?”

        Okay, I’ll bite. Maybe it’s because the sin is too fun to give up? I’ve been “locked in” to “fun” sins despite my (sometimes barely there) conscience telling me they are wrong. With much prayer I’ve managed to overcome some and still struggle with others. Just saying I was made this way would leave me where I started: Damned for certain.

        As for homosexuals being called mean names, that hardly tells the whole story of their situation. Homosexuals on the whole tend to be more affluent and have more disposable income than heterosexuals. Gay is not the new black in terms of societal persecution.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Coloring everyone with the same brush aren’t we? No working class, poor Jews are there, Samuel Clemens?

          • Rock St. Elvis

            Nice way to change the subject. Note that I said “on the whole,” which is another way of saying “largely,” not “in every single case.”

            I’d say that claiming homosexuals “can’t help it” because they are “born that way” is coloring them all with the same brush.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              I was not changing the subject (I don’t know that I engaged your subject or the subject of this article in the post). I did want to point out that this is stereotyping, compliment or criticism, much like Mark Twain, who earlier in life had a lot of anti-Semitic things to say about Jews as was common in much of western Christian culture at the time. Later in life he praised the ingenuous and rich Jews he noticed, treating this like an inherent trait of Jewish people, never mind he was still stereotyping (there were still far more lower class Jews than rich Jews, who even in his day were a minority among the wealthy).
              I could have accepted “many gays are very affluent and have a lot of disposable income” (you could then go on to right a list of names as ‘many’ is subjective). However, when I see “on the whole” or “largely”, that language does sound like it’s trying to apply to all people sharing the trait of SSA and lacking the trait of DSA (implying that the gays who don’t fit this description are “to a lesser extent,” in which case this stereotype owes a lot of people money to make it true. As for, measuring affluence, how does one do that for a group of people? For example, my straight mother is poor, but I would say she has been quite a victim of affluence. The fact that heterosexuality is a more probable trait than homosexuality kind of makes the “on the whole” and “more… than heterosexuals” parts of your stereotype impossible to accept).
              As for “can’t help it” and “born that way”, perhaps everyone should be a bit more clear than the short hand. As my own testimony, I am a man who knew before the age of five that I was attracted to girls. The feelings were not sexual, but I was interested in how their private parts were different (they wore different clothes and swimsuits, and girls carried babies but men didn’t) from mine. Puberty has irreversibly made me a sexual being desiring of companionship from the female sex (though I’ve never really dated anyone or had sex). I would say I was born this way as short-hand for my the succession of years following my conception lead me to sexual desire for women and that no changes in the events of those years could alter this occurrence at puberty. I can’t help feelings of loneliness and desire for mutual desire from a woman. If my life circumstance were different, I could be married or on my way to being so (right now I’m just getting through life and not worried about dying alone). I would take the same social position as a LGBT activist if people thought Jesus clearly taught that my love and core needs were just sinful chaff (in this case assume that Jesus wanted us to not only worry about material things but also not to worry about how Christianity would continue its influence on earth without producing more children, not even addressing whether gay sex is sinful or not just that heterosexual sex would be commonly interpreted in this alternate reality to be sinful… and the progressives keep delaying the parousia by following their differing interpretation).
              So I guess, that is what I get from the use of those phrases. There are definitely gay people who do act and think more like you about their own orientation (celibate or married to an different sexed person), but that is a choice not a mandate for all (both sides of the celibate/hetero-married or homo-married groups are living in ways that work for them and make sense for them, and groups on either side can claim former members from the other side).

              Edit: I don’t know of any straight people who claim they see being married to someone of their own sex as right for themselves.

              • Rock St. Elvis

                Collective nouns and general descriptions are useful for getting points across about groups of people, whether they accurately describe a particular individual or not. Adult gays have political clout beyond their numbers because they tend to have more disposable income than adult straights, especially married straights with children. That’s no more “stereotyping” than saying that Jews tend to get Tay-Sachs Disease and that blacks tend to suffer from sickle cell anemia more than those outside their respective groups. It’s just an observable fact. Many characteristics do not appear just randomly among the population at large, but cluster in groups. Is it a surprise that there are more men than women in prison, or on death row? Is it a surprise that there are more black players than white players in the NBA? Is it a surprise that most sporting events, particularly among adult athletes, are broken down into men’s and women’s events, to account for the differences in abilities between the two groups? Yes, it is fair to make observations about groups when those observations are true.

                • Giauz Ragnarock

                  Some of the few very rich are likely to be gay just as a much larger minority of the lower classes is likely to be gay. You assert that being gay somehow gets you rich or politics gets you a major and rapid shift in public opinion. Much more powerful are the events of abolition of slavery, de-segregation, worldwide access to the internet, and the strides gay protesters have made that now make life more livable for those not wanting to evade questions of their orientation and/or gender (thus more people are seeing their friends and family for all of who they are rather than just a ‘straight’ and/or ‘cisgendered’ persona). The events mentioned above all drastically have increased the detail at which society looks at and thinks of people (slaves are no longer fitting of such a word because we see they are people not possessions that we can beat to death if they offend us, at least as long as it takes the person two days minimum to die. LGBT people are starting to be seen as complete people like they were before anyone knew they hid their differences from us to avoid our scorn).
                  I do not know enough about the whys of the other questions to comment save for the gender division in sporting events being our own social invention. I have read other countries use alphabetical skill divisions that are quite gender-mixed.
                  Stereotypes are best to avoid because of their simplification of complex individuals.

                  • Rock St. Elvis

                    I didn’t say that being gay “gets you rich.” I said adult gays tend to be have more disposable income than adult straights. I noted a correlation. I did not comment on a cause, although the fact that most gays don’t have families to provide for probably has the most to do with it. (But that only explains disposable income, not economic productivity to begin with.) There simply is no systematic discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace.

                    You make a huge error in equating behavior with identity. The normalization of homosexual sex would be unthinkable had not there first been the sexual revolution, which rejected the view that procreation is the purpose of sexual intercourse. The progenitor of the sexual revolution was the eugenics movement, with its emphasis on the control of the population growth of “undesireables” such as (to eugenicists) blacks. Eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger promoted contraception as a means of controlling population. She emphasized the pleasures of recreational sex as a means of promoting contraception. (Although she was against abortion herself, the organization she founded is one of the biggest abortion providers there is. Perhaps now you can see why the Church continues to oppose contraception.) Once sex came to be just the grinding of nerve endings of two willing participants, principled objections to previously taboo ways of gratifying oneself fell away. In came the normalization of homosexual behavior, and it won’t stop there. Next it will be incest, or polygamy, or pederasty. Each of those will make inroads, most likely.

                    So hear me now and believe me later. Marketing slogans notwithstanding, the promotion of same sex marriage is not about a desire to cement a relationship* so much as a desire to feel normal. Decades from now when homosexual marriage is widely permitted, and the novelty of it has warn off, very few homosexuals will marry. But same sex relationships will have de jure recognition, and it will be taboo, and as a practical matter, illegal in some circumstances, to criticize them.

                    I can tell you are pretty young. You’ll likely live long enough to see this happen. Then you can recall what I said here, and realize I was right.

                    *I have yet to meet a gay proponent of gay marriage who thinks we should eliminate no-fault divorce.

                    • Giauz Ragnarock

                      And you are relating two entirely different subjects. Whatever the effects of the sexual revolution, an adult who desires marriage will be with the person they love and who loves them (love equals romantic and sexual, not to be applied to other situations).
                      Both sides of this debate do have a hang-up (though I do think amendments to laws will help solidify marriage as a desirable institution for future generations of gay people)- the argument is not over gay marriage. It has been legal for gay people to get married in the US as early as the overturning of Illinois anti-sodomy laws in 1969 (note Jesus has not publicly announced punishment). What has not been legal are for these long-standing monogamous gay couples to hold marriage licenses, a legal recognition of their marriage just like every other legal tax-paying citizen of the USA gets for their marriages. Therefore, I advocate that gay people have the same legal representation that I have, legal representation that is currently only applicable to my needs.

                      • Rock St. Elvis

                        No, I am not relating two entirely different subjects. It’s all one. The sexual revolution has allowed the “gay rights” movement to package and sell its propaganda within a standard civil rights template. The current emphasis on the right to “marry” is a recent innovation (no more than 20 to 25 years old, at most) and as recently as 10 years ago was not of interest to most gays. Several decades from now it will be of interest to even fewer gays than it was 10 years ago. I won’t be surprised if the whole notion of monogamy is scoffed at as a bourgeois, “straight” institution.

                        Note this as you go through life: Liberalism never moves toward something, such as a notion of truth or justice, but always away from restrictions on autonomy, It may sell itself with the vocabulary of truth and justice, but in substance that is not its goal. That’s why liberal ideas constantly change. Gay “marriage” is not an end in itself but a means to an end, the desire to feel normal. But gays who indulge in the gay lifestyle will never overcome the nagging feeling that their behavior is like trying to roll a square wheel, and they’ll move from gay “marriage” to some other project. Meanwhile, the pederasts, polygamists, etc. will take a page from the gay marriage playbook to promote their own causes.

    • markkrite

      This piece certainly didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know already, and I believe that everyone should be aware by now of just what a lying, deeply duplicitous bunch these gay activists are. It’s all about narcissism, selfishness and constantly achieving sexual climax for these pathetically sad deviants. Many of them, btw, are bi-sexuals. They live in constant danger in their promiscuous sexual behavior of getting disease due to the lifestyle they’ve adopted, but a lot of what they do has become sheer montonous habit. a habit of incessant mortal sin. And you think that maybe in the demonology of their troubled lives that lucifer himself doesn’t send special demons to tempt these men in their habitual sin? Think again. They need prayer, sacrifice and encouragement to LEAVE the very lifestyle that makes them so desperate and unhappy. Think NARTH and COURAGE, two organizations that can deliver the goods of LEAVING this lifestyle whose consequences bring such despair. But the homosexuals have to WANT to leave it. And they have to make the first step of exiting such demonic behavior by themselves, with others warmly cheering them on as they do. GOD BLESS, Markrite

      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

        If what you are saying is true, then support for gay marriage should be at an all-time low. That’s because more straight people than ever know people who are openly gay — friends, family, colleagues — and see what their lives are really like.

        If it really were “all about narcissism, selfishness and constantly achieving sexual climax for these pathetically sad deviants,” then this increased visibility would harm the cause for civil equality.

        But the opposite has happened. Instead, people see such a huge gap between their own experience of gay people and what you’ve written in your screed. They can only conclude you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        And that’s why we’re winning this battle.

        • Guest

          The problem most people do not lead an examined life. They form their consciences not with truth but with pop culture, emotions, and relativism. You can easily see why people would adopt a bad position when they have poorly formed consciences.

        • cestusdei

          No, they see the books in front of the room. If they saw the truth, and someday they will, they would be repelled.

        • Bob

          Luckily though, my God has won the war by dieing on the cross.

          And you are posting on a Catholic website. So guess what? You’re going to get Catholicism. And living out homosexual acts of sodomy are against God’s will and are a sin.

          • Joseph X.

            Sodomy — that’s what it is.

        • Adam__Baum

          Interesting you describe it in martial terms. It is not personal experience, but media that advances this cause. Every TV show seems to have the obligatory “gay” character. Like “Oscar” from “The office”, that character is often represented as the most sane one in a brood of petty loons.

          • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

            Actually, Adam, only 35 of the 97 scripted shows on the 5 broadcast networks had recurring gay characters in the 2012-13 TV season, and less than 5% of all series regulars were gay characters.

            Meanwhile, Oscar was never presented as the most sane one on “The Office.” Straight characters Jim and Pam would take that honor before Oscar.

            • Adam__Baum

              Interesting that you keep a count.

              Pam was a codependent dingbat who was involved in an emotionally distant, perhaps abusive relationship, and Jim put staplers in Jello, and was a perpetual adolescent.

              Oscar was always the competent reasonable guy, who took in Angela, who was represented as a judgmental prude, until she cheated on her fiance, then began having contract sex until her gay husband kicked her out.

              Care to examine Dwight, the “volunteer” Sheriff’s deputy and the rest of the gang? Ryan the cokehead, Kelly the airhead, Stanley the cheater? Michael’s innumerable lunacies?

              It was a funny show, but with a shipload of cleverly sublimated propaganda.

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                I didn’t keep a count. I did a few minutes of research on the google machine and was able to give you actual data.

            • Bob

              Incorrect. See link below. GLAAD has ranked the networks with FOX and ABC having 42 and 33% respectively having gay content:

              http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/fox-abc-family-rank-high-in-lgbt-report-history-stumbles-1200714638/

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                Thanks for the link. I pulled my numbers from the exact same report. Go ahead and check them.

            • Austin Ruse

              Not bad for 2% of the population…

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                That’s a very hard stat to back up.

                • Austin Ruse

                  The very best data on this topic is from a 1994 study called The Social Organization of Sexuality which completely overturned the nonsense of the Kinsey Study. This study shows that those with same sex attraction is no more than 2% of the population

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    You’re welcome to choose any study you like, but you should also know that other studies (conducted in later years, as gay people feel safer revealing their sexual orientation to strangers) show a very different number.

                    For instance, while I know the Regnerus study is not only flawed, but also funded and designed by groups with an anti-gay agenda, I also know that it carries much weight here. So let me point out the according to Regnerus:

                    Of the folks who specified their orientation in the study (42 declined to answer), 6.6% said they were bi, mostly gay, or 100% gay.

                    And of the people who gave an answer, only 80.1% called themselves completely straight. 80.1%!

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The Regnerus Study was not intended to show the total number of gays in America. the study i refer to is the gold standard…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        No study conducted in 1994 is going to count as the gold standard. Especially when it’s been contradicted again and again in the years that followed.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        You really do not know waht you’re talking about. It was done by researchers connected to NORC at the University of Chicago and was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Kaiser Family Foundation, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the Ford Foundation and was based on hour and a half interviews with 3,432 randomly selected adults. It is considered in the field to be definitive.

                      • Rob B.

                        “But…but…that study doesn’t say what I want it to say!” :)

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        That certainly is Ruse’s reaction to the parts of the Regnerus study he doesn’t like.

                      • Rob B.

                        An excellent point. So both of you, please tell me why we laymen should listen to your studies of choice? What makes the methodologies of either study the “gold standard.”

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Actually, Regnerus is certainly not my study of choice; I cited him because he seems to carry weight here. I make no claims about the actual percentage of gays. If you look back over the comments, all I’ve done is told Ruse that his number is hard to back up — something his own source agrees with me on.

                      • Rob B.

                        Very well. What studies are out there that point to a higher percentage of homosexuals that the one that Mr. Ruse cites? Or are all such studies fundamentally flawed because people won’t be honest about their orientation?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        All studies are likely to have the same “lower bound” issues as long as we live in a culture where people are calling gays the names they are called here. So that’s one factor.

                        I’ve already cited Regnerus. And in a previous comment I pointed out that Ruse’s source does not say “no more than 2%” as Ruse claims, but should be interpreted as no less than 2%.

                        According to the CDC, only 85.7 of women and 92.s% of men say they are only attracted to the opposite sex.

                      • Rob B.

                        OK, so what makes the CDC more reliable than other studies on the topic?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I don’t know that it is. My point, you’ll remember, was that Ruse would hard time backing up his statistic, and that’s been borne out: so far, he has yet to present study suggesting “no more than 2 percent.”

                      • Austin Ruse

                        OK…the gold standard report on sexuality in America reports that the percentage of those self-identifying as homosexual is…drum roll please….less than 3%. Those who have had gay sex at least once in teh past 12 month months is….less than 3%…those who had gay sex at least once in teh past FIVE YEARS is a tick above 4%.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        No: your gold standard (that’s still just your claim, btw) says it’s NO LESS THAN those numbers, and “likely” to be more.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Miniscule…or in teh words of hte authors..quite small…

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Well, no, it is my understanding of what Regnerus was actually resaerching…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        This is Regnerus’ description of his study:

                        ““[I]t is a random, nationally-representative sample of the American population. At last count, over 350 working papers, conference presentations, published articles, and books have used Knowledge Networks’ panels, including the 2009 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, whose extensive results were featured in an entire volume of the Journal of Sexual Medicine—and prominently in the media—in 2010.”

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, but Regnerus was not interested in his study in projecting the total number of homosexuals in America…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        A random, nationally-representative sample is a random, nationally representative sample.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Austin, I didn’t just make up the part about 1994 having low estimates compared to later years, as gay people feel safer revealing their sexual orientation to strangers.

                        No, even the authors of your own study acknowledge that their numbers represent a minimum estimate. In other words, they say the correct interpretation is to say reality is that number or more.

                        From page 284:

                        “While we have attempted to be nonjudgmental in our inquires, many respondents are likely to have been reluctant to report behaviors and feelings that they think might reflect badly on them in the eyes of the interviews or the researchers. The estimates derived from survey data on socially stigmatized sexual behaviors and feelings, whether they be masturbation, homosexual relations, anal sex, or extramarital affairs, are no doubt lower-bound estimates.”

                        Again: “no doubt lower-bound estimates.” Even your preferred researchers suspect the number is higher than the one you want to promote.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        what are you quoting from?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I’m quoting from your source, The Social Organization of Sexuality. http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&q=gay#v=snippet&q=gay&f=false

                      • Austin Ruse

                        So, “lower-bound” means exactly waht to you? The authors do not define it. How do you?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        “Lower bound” means the lowest possible number — the actual number could be higher than that but not lower. It’s a common term, and you can google it to learn more.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        How do you define the number?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I think I don’t understand your question, because it looks to me like I just answered it. Can you rephrase, please?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        what’s the number?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I don’t know if you’ve been following my comments, but I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t know. My point has been that you’re going to find it hard to back up your claim of “no more than 2%” and so far all you’ve done is shown that you’ve misinterpreted research which actually said no less than 2%.

                        I’m hoping you won’t repeat this error in the future.

                      • me

                        And you’re going to find it hard to prove that 20% of humankind is gay…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I don’t believe it is.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        OK…so its no more than a little over 3%…yiou got me!

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        So did you just make that number up, or do you have a source for it?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        The number of people who had had gay sex at least once in the past 12 months is about 2%. Slightly more than 4% have had gay sex at least once in the past five years. Slightly less than 3% self identity as gay. From the study we have been discussing.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        And those numbers are the lower bound. Your own authors suspect the numbers are higher and they explain why. Every one of those numbers should have the phrase “or more” appended to them.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, and you have no idea what that means…and they stand by their numbers….

                      • Art Deco

                        I would refer you to Edward Laumann et al’s work The Sexual Organization of the City. IIRC, the share of the adult population incorporated into homosexual subcultures to a greater or lesser degree amounts to 2.8% of the total.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Thanks. I don’t have access to that (unless the text is available online). Do they address the stigma issues raised by Ruse’s preferred source?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Rob..the authors of the report you call “my preferred” are on your side.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        It’s the report you cited.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, and they are your guys…

                      • Austin Ruse

                        So, back to my point about TV…gays, being roughly 3% of the populatoin are clearly overrepresented on TV…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You have yet to substantiate that.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Based on waht you said above and the miniscule number of gays in America…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        “No less than 2%” does not translate into “roughly 3%”

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Rob, you are a gay activist and blogger, we know that. You are trying to play gotcha. the numbers and the authors show that the number of gays in America is tiny, fewer than Jews…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        What, if it’s less than the Jews then it doesn’t matter?

                        Your whole gotcha thing is hilarious. You’ve made false claims that your source says no more than 2%. You were called out on it. That’s it. The fact that I’m a gay blogger and activist doesn’t change what your source said (and that whole tactic is an ad hominem fallacy anyway).

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Rob,you are childishly hanging onto something…obsessively I would say. I ahve admitted the number is sliiiiiiiiiigtly higher. it is still small Rob. Your tribe is tiny…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Really? You’re the one who keeps hanging on to statements he can’t substantiate.

                        Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making about my tribe being tiny. I’ve never said otherwise. Our tribe is small and so is our representation on TV.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I substantiate it Rob with the definitive study of its kind. Less than 3% consider themselves gay. Sorry, bud…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You’ve never substantiated “less than 3%.” Rather, you’ve given evidence of “no less than 2%.”

                        Surely you must realize your evidence does not establish your claim.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Sex in America, page 177.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Go ahead and change your source midstream like this, but I’ll just point you back to your original source — the longer, more scholarly, more complete version — to show you how the authors of your source regard those numbers.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Idiot…there are two reports from the same data set. the longer version is called what i referred to…is for a scholarly audience. The version published for a popular audience is called Sex in America. Same authors, same data set.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        It’s hilarious that you’re calling me an idiot because you just repeated exactly what I said. That these are two versions of the same data, with one being more scholarly and complete in its analysis.

                        Really. Exactly what I said.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Then why did you accuse me of changing sources? Again, Idiot…or dishonest…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You did change sources. You changed from the complete, scholarly version which contained information inconvenient to you, to the shorter, popularized version that didn’t contain that inconvenient caveat.

                        That’s actually the dishonest behavior.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Moron…it is the same data set….the whole study is called The Social Organization of Sexuality. Sex in America is highlights of that study..but the same data.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You don’t seem to understand that I have understood that it’s the same data set. I’ve said that all along. The only reason you changed sources from one of these books (containing the same data set!) to another is that the original book contained information inconvenient to you (the part I quoted long, long ago), and the shorter, less scholarly book left out that caveat.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Rob, the data is the same…3% in one study is the same as 3% in the other. Your quote on lower-bound was interesting but does not change the fact that your number is quite small.

                        But, I must say these rather tedious exchange is now over. I am now going to read to my children.

                        i do hope that someone has read this exchange if for no ohter reason to demonstrate how desperate your side it to show your numbers are higher than they really are. You really are not “everywhere”…yet anohter lie of your movement…

                        Best,

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Don’t worry, Austin, I’ll be sending people here to read this. They’ll see I wasn’t trying to show that our numbers large, merely that they’re commensurate with our representation on TV.

                        Meanwhile, they’ll also see that you offer false statistics, switch sources when one version contains information inconvenient to you, refuse to acknowledge it for quite a while when it’s pointed out to you, make odd and irrelevant comparisons to the number of Jews, and then offer finally offer a “correction” that’s still unsubstantiated by your evidence.

                        They’ll also chuckle (or perhaps be appalled) at how you (ironically) call someone an idiot and a moron, not realizing that they’ve just said the exact same thing you have.

                        One last thing: Our numbers are small, but we are everywhere — your friends, your colleagues, your neighbors, and your family. Everywhere.

                      • Rock St. Elvis

                        “Our tribe is small and so is our representation on TV.”

                        Except among the writers and actors, it seems . . .

                      • Giauz Ragnarock

                        Except I’m pretty sure you are forgetting about all the straight ones, not that it matters. If you have the talent and your boss doesn’t fire you for being gay, it’s not as if there is an upper limit for how many gay people can be in those positions. What does this have to do with anything discussed in the article, please?

                      • Bob

                        Dude…..if you’re justifying and committing sodomy, you’re committing really, really bad sin. Maybe time to do some repentance……

                      • Art Deco

                        You’re just wrong.

                        What’s amusing about this is that the gay lobby for four decades was fond of quoting a statistic generated by a research institute at Indiana University in 1948 which made use of completely invalid convenience samples (which drew heavily from prison inmates).

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        It’s funny you say that I’m just wrong.

                        I tracked down Ruse’s source.
                        I quoted the source.
                        I provided a link to the text of that source.
                        I gave a page number so that people could check out what Ruse’s own source actually says.

                        You’ll have to do more than say, “You’re just wrong.”

                      • Austin Ruse

                        The Study shows that around 2.5 % of responsdents self identify as gay. You did not refute a thing.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Or more. Or more. Or more.

                        Why do you keep ignoring the statements of your own perferred source?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I dont…i quote them…you just dont like the numbers…from the authors…”No matter how we defined homosexuality, we come up with small numbers of people who are currently gay or lesbian.” —Sex in American, page 177

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        No, you quote the bits you like, and then ignore the part where they say the number you quote is a lower bound.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        lower bound includes the lower number…the authors make it quite clear that homosexualty is hard to measure becuase it is is remarkably fluid. This is why so many gays end up leaving the life. But, teh authors conclude the number of gays in America is quite small. Re-reading the chapter I also discovered that Kinsey found the smae thing..something 4% of Americans are exclusively gay. Your numbers are small Rob…sorry…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        EXACTLY! That’s why I said the number is 2% or more, and you are wrong to see it’s no more than 2%.

                        I’m fine saying the numbers are small. Not worried about that at all. Our numbers are small, as is our representation on TV.

                        (Of course, your statement that about so many gays leaving the life is hilarious and also unsubstantiated).

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I do fear Rob that you cannot read..i have now said repeatedly taht the NORC study shows teh number is higher than less than 2%. What do you need to understand that? the number is slightly higher. Good Lord, man. Read.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You’ve gone from “no more than 2%” to “slightly” higher than less than 2%. And you’ve substantiated nothing within either of those quote marks, neither your original claim or your revised claim.

                      • Bob

                        I don’t care if its 2% or 200%, if the person with homosexual tendancies acts on those tendancies it’s a SIN.

                      • JQ

                        “Respondents” have not been established to be representative of the public at large, and even among the set of respondents, it is not reasonable to believe that their responses are all honest. The quote from the research that Rob already posted helps to explain: “many respondents are likely to have been reluctant to report behaviors
                        and feelings that they think might reflect badly on them in the eyes of
                        the interviews or the researchers. The estimates derived from survey
                        data on socially stigmatized sexual behaviors and feelings, whether they
                        be masturbation, homosexual relations, anal sex, or extramarital
                        affairs, are no doubt lower-bound estimates.” Therefore, while there are lower bound estimates such as 2.5%, 3.0%, etc. from various studies, it remains that the real numbers (i.e. if the population at large rather than just “respondents” were polled and if they all answered truthfully and fully) may actually be substantially higher.

                        And then there is the entire additional discussion that hasn’t even been addressed regarding the fact that there are many different definitions of the term “gay”.

                      • Bob

                        You’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, son! If you’re committing sodomy and living the life of a gay, you’re soul is in jeopardy.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Thanks, Bob. I do appreciate your concern. I sense that it’s heartfelt. But I disagree, and you simply repeating it over and over again isn’t going to make it sound more true. But thanks (seriously) for your concern.

                      • Bob

                        You’re welcome! How are you so sure that sodomy is not a sin?

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I have yet to see a convincing explanation of why it is wrong.

                      • Bob

                        In no particular order of importance:

                        It renders what is by nature fertile (the genital faculty) infertile, and so offends against the natural law.
                        It is inimical to true sexual love, perverting what should be a kenotic (self-emptying, because directed towards the procreation of new life) act of love into an exercise in selfish gratification.
                        It confuses the means (sexual pleasure) with the end.
                        It is both unsanitary and unsafe, carrying a high risk of infection and physical trauma.
                        Being an objective mortal sin, it jeopardizes the eternal felicity of the soul.
                        It treats the receiving partner (eromenos) – who should be loved as an end in himself – as a means to an end, viz. the pleasure of the active partner (erastes), because by disregarding the perils of the act to body and soul it subordinates the greater good of the eromenos (the estate of his soul and bodily health) to the lesser good of the erastes (his base gratification).

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        1. Natural law arguments are generally created to serve a predetermined conclusion; in other words, reason is put in the service of preconceived notions. I’ve seen Robert George’s natural law arguments on homosexuality and same-sex marriage and found them embarrassingly sloppy. It’s too involved to detail in a comment box, but I’ve written extensively on that on that: http://wakingupnow.com/blog/category/robert-george

                        2. This is a circular argument, because it assumes what sex should be in order to argue what sex should be.

                        3. Again: circular, just as in 2.

                        4. You don’t specify what sex acts you’re referring to, but do not assume that any given act is done by all same-sex couples or is inherent to homosexuality. Further, all sex is to some degree unsanitary, and the degree to which this is true varies depending on the circumstances.

                        5. Offered without evidence. As I said before, simply saying something over doesn’t make it sound more convincing.

                        6. No it doesn’t. Certainly not necessarily. This convinces me only that you don’t know much about gay sex between partners in love. It makes you wonder if you’re missing quite a bit about sex in general between people in love.

                      • Bob

                        You’re wrong in all counts. Really…..your response to anal sex as being unsanitary is a “circular argument?”

                        Rob……why are you spending so much time on a Catholic website? If you were so self assured of your position, why hang out here and be so defensive? If I was 100% assured in my “gayness”, I’d ignore all things Catholic.

                        But here you are…….still…..

                        Shake, it spin it, turn it around all you want Rob…..but sodomy is a mortal sin against God’s will for the sexual act.

                        And his will and plan for you.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        No, I did not argue that your anal sex argument (4) was circular.

                        Why am I on a Catholic website? You might as well ask the apostles why they went amongst sinners. You can’t correct error without confronting the error. But if this website is solely for the purpose of reinforcing what you already believe, let me know.

                      • Bob

                        No error here.

                        I’m guessing you’re an atheist? If you are, we’re not even on the same playing field. Because no matter what argument I present that is either from natural law or centered in Christ and His teachings you’re going to turn a deaf ear to. So it’s pointless in even discussing the issue with you.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Actually I won’t turn a deaf ear. I’ll listen and respond. You seem to be the one determined to ignore most of what I’m saying. But that just gives us a different path to your conclusion: it’s pointless in even discussing the issue with you.

                      • Bob

                        So are you an atheist? You’re on a Catholic site, all conversion starts here. Do you believe in the Truth of Christ?

                      • Craig

                        Error? If, say, the number of sodomites were over 50% of the population, what would actually change? Nothing. Save more persons in error. Most people commit some type of venial sin daily and others capital sin. The numbers do not dictate what is good and what Evil. We cannot change the God, Who is what He does.

                      • Bob

                        Like my grandma used to say:”If everyone was jumping off a bridge, does that make it right?”

                      • Giauz Ragnarock

                        Rephrase the question: “If Jesus asked everyone to jump off a bridge, does that make it right?”
                        I would hope both questions yield the same conclusion.

                      • Bob

                        That’s the beauty of Jesus. He’s not asking us to jump off a bridge, he’s the bridge we cross.

                      • John200

                        Dear Rob,

                        1. Natural law arguments are brilliant. Professor George is so far ahead of you, there is no comparison.

                        2. As a homo”sex”ual, you do not know what sex is.

                        That’s enough for you, now, where you are. I want you to begin to think, not to be overwhelmed by the refutation of your points 3-6.

                        For example, you pretend to know not even the most obvious points concerning sanitation, infectious diseases, and their …

                        But leave that aside for the nonce, you will lose that argument later in our discussion.

                        ‘Tain’t necessary.

                        You can start with natural law and sex, two areas where you are lost and, as a consequence, meandering through life in a pitiful state.

                      • Giauz Ragnarock

                        I find that when a person is telling you things about yourself that you know definitely aren’t true, they have lost you. However, this doesn’t matter to them, as they were just talking past you to other people who would join them in the false witness.

                      • Art Deco

                        Again, the estimate is a commonplace. One of the authorities who generated that estimate was Dr. Edward Laumann.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        And by teh way, they do not use that langaugae in Sex in America…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        You referenced “The Social Organization of Sexuality” and I provided you with a link to that book and a page number to check.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, and they do not use that language in the volume Sex in America…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Well, if you wanted to reference “Sex in America” then you shouldn’t have referenced “The Social Organization of Sexuality.”

                      • Austin Ruse

                        it is the same research…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Then we’re back to me original point. Thank you.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        yes…it is a miniscule number…

                      • Art Deco

                        The enumerations compiled by Laumann et al. are commonplaces. The same findings have been replicated again and again.

                      • Art Deco

                        It has not been contradicted again and again and that is not the sort of social statistic that is subject to rapid change.

        • Thomas J. Lipton

          Don’t kid yourself, or us, Mr. Tisinai. What “people see” is too often the self-indulgent victimhood that militant homosexuals arrogate to themselves. The pain — often accompanied by addiction, disease, suffering and death — that such arrogance causes to them and to others gets shoved “into the back room,” as our author might put it, or is blamed on “those awful other people” who refuse to believe the lie that disordered sexuality produces happiness.

          • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

            And if that were true, we’d only have support if we could hide th truth, and we’d lose support as more and more of us came out and people got to see the “real” us.

            Funny thing is, as people get first hand experience getting know gay people as family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues, they stop believing your version of the story and join in our support.

            In other words, first hand experience with gays is good for our side, bad for yours. That shows which our which side passes the truth test.

            • slainte

              How do you explain the phenomenon of the bath-houses which were closed down by so many municipal health authorities during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s? What went on in these places that merited that sort of intervention?

              • novres

                How many of your gay acquaintances and family members do you imagine have ever been to one of those bath houses?

                • slainte

                  Jamming

              • Bob

                One of the main reasons was the epidemic of “gay bowel syndrome” by many of the gay community in New York City at that time. I’ll let you look up “gay bowel syndrome” yourself, pretty gruesome.

                • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                  Don’t worry, Bob, I know all about the various bogey-men made up by anti-gays and the eager credulity of their followers.

                  • Bob

                    No bogey man, friend. A mans penis and rectum were never intended to be used in such a violent, unnatural way.

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. When you outlaw sex, you create sexual outlaws. When you tell gay kids that gay people are disgusting perverts incapable of love, you shouldn’t be surprised by how that plays out — rather, you should accept your share of the responsibility. Gay people have only recently begun to free ourselves of the evil stigma you’ve imposed, and we’re beginning to see the results in our fight for marriage.

                • slainte

                  You have not answered my question….
                  What went on in public bath houses that required municipal health authorities to shut them?

        • Catharine

          You managed to completely miss an important point–virtually the entire culture has drunk the grape Kool-Aid of thinking that any sexual activity can be safely detached from its unitive, procreative, etc. functions. Going strictly by the numbers, the hetero’s with their culture of contraception, birth control, abortion, divorce, remarriage, etc., have wreaked far more havoc on society than the gays. However, this faithless and degenerate western so-called “civilization” is rapidly going the same way as all of its predecessors. By 2050 A.D., unless something intervenes, the USA and the rest of the so-called developed world will be a post-nuclear wasteland.

        • Joseph X.

          An appeal to popularity. Wow, that’s deep. Most people think x, therefore x is true. I’ve generally found what the popular culture things is probably wrong or at least suspect.

          I was a gay supporter in my college days and twenties. And then I saw the truth of the gay lifestyle, much like the article details. My sister in law is gay, then she became a man, and now she’s suicidal b/c she’s still not happy. An ex-girlfriend of mine also became gay — and got beat up by her black girlfriend. The underside of the gay lifestyle is not on display for America. If it were, and it will be, people will start to change their minds.

      • Giauz Ragnarock

        Now if all of the spirit of that were said to Jesus, the people who said those things truly love Jesus.

    • hombre111

      This article merits thoughtful consideration. Thanks. But please be honest, as well, about the effect of pornography on heterosexuals, and its impact on ordinary life. How many married men are on the internet watching porn, doing what the gay men are doing in front of their own porn? It is certainly one of the great preoccupations of heterosexual youth. I read somewhere that porn is the number one money raiser on the internet. This is probably the great sexual issue of our day.

      • Adam__Baum

        Pornography is sexual crack. You should not underestimate it’s addictiveness or pervasiveness. It is ubiquitous among the young, and increasing among women.
        There’s almost no search term that won’t return pornographic results, unless the
        It has largely fueled the the demand for broadband and built the infrastructure.

        • hombre111

          Exellent. Thanks, Adam.

      • lifeknight

        Agreed, Father. Porn ruins lives of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason may lie in the factual conditions related to the commission of mortal sin—the person must know it is wrong and give consent. The behavior follows from the depths of the mind and the weakness we all have from Original Sin.

        • hombre111

          Thanks. I think it sets up huge moral turmoil in anybody’s life. Deafening spiritual noise. It is worth anybody’s time to go to the Sex Addicts Anonymous website and see what the plunge into different forms of sexual addiction looks like.

      • cestusdei

        Let’s focus on what the article says about homosexuality and not get distracted.

        • hombre111

          I accept your point, but since most of us are not gay, this kind of article peels no skin off our noses. We need to remember that porn is a big problem for most men in America today (80%, according to an expert who spoke in our Diocese) and many women. And maybe a few people who read and follow Crisis.

          • Art Deco

            (80%, according to an expert who spoke in our Diocese)

            A good deal of skepticism might be in order. By way of example, the circulation of the old paper version of Playboy peaked at around 9 million ca. 1971. There were 100 million men in the United States at that time. IIRC, the number of pornographic cinema in this country was at its peak ca. 1975 at around 350 – i.e. you would expect to find one in an ordinary size metropolis.

            • hombre111

              Playboy is not the internet. No asking a clerk at a grocery store; no package coming to your home for your wife and kids to open. Click, click, and you are there.

      • Austin Ruse

        I have written quite a bit about that…on this site and elsewhere…it is a scourge…

        • hombre111

          A national expert on the effect of porn, especially on priests, gave a retreat in our diocese. He told us that 80% of men and a very high percentage of women watch porn during the week.

          • Art Deco

            I would wager he pulled that number out of his rear end.

    • Tony

      When people do something they know is wicked, and derive powerful pleasure from it, the attraction is all the more irresistible the next time. That applies to men who surf the land of porn, and it applies in trumps to men who cruise rest stops and parks and bathhouses; the wrongness of it, and the unnatural wrongness of it to boot, makes them crave to return to it again and again. It’s a rash that won’t heal, an itch that won’t subside.

    • ChrisEL

      Very well written and insightful article. I can agree with everything you have said based on my own personal experience. I have been in two homosexual relationships in my life, relationships with men who claimed to be devout Christians. Both of these men were sexually unfaithful.
      The frustrating thing for me is that I am still in one of those relationships. I sturggle with codependency issues and I have not been able to make the break that I need to. I would much rather be serving God and his Church, but lack the strength and courage to end my ties with my current boyfriend.
      Pray for me.

      • Rob B.

        Hail Mary, full of grace.
        The Lord is with thee.
        Blessed art thou among women
        And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
        Holy Mary, Mother of God,
        Pray for us sinners
        Now and at the hour of our death.

      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

        Be assured of my prayers

      • Bob

        I’ll pray for you tonight, pray for me…….

      • Adam__Baum

        Done.

      • pp

        I will pray for you with my family every night.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        Try joining a Courage group. You will meet men like you who have recovered from this compulsion.

        • Mike MacKinnon

          A sad, destructive falsehood. Being gay is not a “compulsion” nor is normal, natural human sexuality. The idea that all gay people must be celibate for life is cruel and not remotely Christian.

          • Bono95

            Deacon Peitler nowhere said or intended his statement to mean that all people with SSA must be necessarily celibate for life. He meant that homosexuals, as well as heterosexuals, must be chaste, and while chastity includes celibacy, it is not limited to just that. All people are called to remain celibate before marriage (to a single person of the opposite sex), and to have no extramarital affairs during that marriage, and that marriage remains fully valid until either the husband or the wife dies; that is, if they are called to marriage. Anyone not called to marriage, homo or heterosexual, must remain celibate. All forms of adultery, same or opposite sex, before or after marriage, are grave sins.

          • ruck0752

            Isn’t there another option? I can tell that you don’t like the idea of lifelong celibacy for men with same-sex attraction. I don’t like it very much either. But aren’t there more than two ways to live your life? You can be many things more than just two extremes – the two extremes being either total Christian celibacy on one side and accepting the gay identity and philosophy on the other.

            My choice as a Christian has been to reject the gay identity and philosophy and to limit the damage done by my homosexual inclination. I can’t be straight. I can’t even be chaste all the time. But I can limit the damage. Actually this isn’t anything new. I suspect that deep down most people manage sin in this way.

            People are tempted by the flesh but no one is tempted to promote an ideology. No one can say that they find it impossible to avoid promoting the gay ideology. We’re all sinners and certainly as the Church has always taught, homosexual acts are a grave matter as they go against the spiritual dimensions of the human body. That’s the law and the law is the word of God. But Jesus is the word made flesh and in him we find salvation. The blood of Jesus is powerful enough to cleanse the world of all sin throughout all time, so certainly he cleans me of one life’s sin. I can’t eliminate sin from my life as a human but God also wants us to be perfect. It’s in that zone of conflict between a perfect God and fallen man that we have to live out our lives. My body is tempted but it is certainly a worse sin to also claim that my sin is something holy but that is what the current gay ideology teaches. So I have to accept my fallen human nature and deal with it the best I can, and that means to limit the damage done by my homosexual inclination. But this is nothing more than any other Christian has to do to manage his or her own favorite sin.

            But no one is tempted by the body to promote the gay ideology. You don’t hear any other group of sinners who wants a special exemption card from God. God is both perfect and forgiving and we all Christians have to live our lives under that challenge.

            • sotiredofthebs

              “I can’t be straight. I can’t even be chaste all the time. But I can limit the damage. Actually this isn’t anything new. I suspect that deep down most people manage sin in this way.” So very well put and true for all believers who daily fall short and receive a clean slate if we confess our sins and sincerely repent and try not to do it again. But continued, willful sin leads to destruction.

          • sotiredofthebs

            What do you know about Christianity? How evil you are to want to drag people who sincerely want to do the will of God, down with you into the abyss. I now shake the dust of you off my feet and let God speak: “For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error.”
            2 Peter 2:18

            • Akira88

              A little arrogant there; none of us in this life are above falling into temptations.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            “Natural” does not equal “moral.” Gay celibacy is “not remotely Christian” by whose authority? Yours? Saint Paul was celibate his whole life, because he felt God had called him to be – was this “cruel” of God to ask of him? [Note: I'm not implying anything about St. Paul's sexuality - celibacy isn't *just* for gay people]

        • John Bare

          Try understanding what love means. You will meet others who have recovered from this disrespect of gay people.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            It is not disrespect to admonish a person to steer clear of sin. If I have a friend who is struggling with the temptation to steal, or lie, or be uncharitable, or commit acts of heterosexual sexual immorality, I will try to persuade that friend not to do so. Why should temptation to homosexual immorality be any different?

      • cestusdei

        I will pray for you.

      • SarahS

        At the library, just prayed for you. Go in peace!!!

      • John

        Chris, our prayers our with you in your brave struggle!

      • me

        The deacon said before me, but I’ll say it again: join Courage. They are remarkable, they encourage gay people to remain chaste. I’ll pray for you like everyone else, but you also have to help yourself. Try to talk to those people from Courage.

        • Mike MacKinnon

          A horrific and sad suggestion. The idea that gay people must live their entire lives never expressing their love for a partner physically is cruel and pointless and bigoted. In reality there are THOUSANDS of gay couples, men and women, who are faithful to one another. This column is a pack of lies from hate groups. The “National Organization for Marriage” is a viciously bigoted hate group, and no Christian Catholic or otherwise should have anything to do with them. They intentionally spread misinformation and lies for the purpose of promoting discrimination and hate of gay people. It’s a fine Christian thing to promote monogamy within homosexual relationships Telling gay people they must NEVER have sex is doing nothing but destroying lives and driving people from the church, and it is absolutely NOT what God wants for anyone’s life.

          • sotiredofthebs

            Satan wants you to be an abomation. My God says repent and be saved. It always amuses me how unbelievers quote The Word when it suits them. The Bible is written for saved Believers or people who have a sincere interest in becoming Christians. Christianity is an exclusive faith. You have to embrace it fully or reject it fully. Having gay sex is totally incompatible with the word of God. But carry on and listen to false advice if it pleases you. A measly 2% of the population wants attention and rights and I am bored to tears with gays. Faith without works is dead. I do not convict you. I can’t because my God already did convict you in His Word. Free advice: Repent and get forgiveness from Christ and go forth and sin no more. It is not always easy. We all have struggles to sin against God’s will for our lives, so please stop thinking you are so special.

            • Akira88

              Don’t be too hard on him. He’s struggling. Pray for him. Pray that God grants him sight.

            • CallingYouOut

              ABOMATION

          • Guest

            What diabolic nonsense.

          • Akira88

            Sorry, but you’re the one who has been fed the lies. It’s sinful for anyone to have sex outside of marriage period. It’s unfortunate that many hetero and homosexual individuals have been told by radical priests/religious that expressing physical love outside of the marriage bond is okay. It’s a lie that causes pain. There’s pain in your post. It’s not caused by the Church. The Church gives us direction to lead the life that Christ intends for us. When we live (or try to) live the life that Christ intends, it really is more content. It’s important to remember – we’re preparing here for our life with Christ later. After this life.

            There’s a difference between lust and love. Love can be expressed without physical intimacy. Physical intimacy is God’s gift to a man and a woman bound in Holy Matrimony. What is hateful about that? Sometimes we can become blinded by our own desires. Maybe it’s time to take a step back.

            • Anthony Zarrella

              Amen!

            • CallingYouOut

              Hell yeah! It’s about time someone says it! I’m tired of people fucking all over the place when they aren’t married!

          • Anthony Zarrella

            You confuse what is easy with what is holy. It is an elementary truth of Christianity (first explicitly expressed by St. Paul, but going back to the Apostles themselves) that not all people are called to marry. Some are called to a single life. It is by no means necessary (or even likely) that every person *called* to be single is a person who *wants* to be single.

            Therefore, if God calls some people to single life (and thus to celibacy) – including people who may desperately wish it to be otherwise – then it is perfectly reasonable that He could ask all gay people to live the single life. It is, after all, no more than He asks of His priests.

            If every person’s calling in life could be discerned by what they feel drawn to, then the Book of Jonah would not exist (nor would Exodus, for that matter – Moses *really* did not want to be a leader).

      • GPedroza

        I will offer my Sunday Mass for you and everybody in your situation. God bless you. God loves you!

      • Austin Ruse

        Astounding message. All our prayers are with you for your deliverance.

      • Bono95

        Ask St. Charles Lwanga and his companions for prayers and aid. St. Charles and his friends were African Catholics who were martyred for resisting their king’s homosexual advances.

        • leel004

          A new saint to investigate…thank you!
          And prayers for all those in this deceptive compulsion. God bless

          • Bono95

            Thank you, and God Bless you and yours. :-)

      • Matthew Ogden

        You already realize what the right thing is to do, which is itself a major step in the right direction. True, it doesn’t end there, of course, but it’s a start, which is more than many people have.

        Rest assured that God can do amazing things if you put your trust in Him. It’s not easy at first, but He can take you very far. I do hope for the best for you, and will say a prayer for your intention.

      • Elat

        It will be my honor to pray for you!

      • Dan

        Prayers coming your way.

      • prayerwarrior4Jesus

        The Lord bless you and keep you! The Lord let His Face shine upon you, and be gracious to you! The Lord look upon you kindly and give you peace! Amen. (Numbers 6: 24-26)

      • Bedrich

        Leanne Payne is one of the first to write on homosexuality with clear understanding of all its whys and wherefores and how Our Great Lord has released so many good men and women from its clutches. It’s partly a decision and mostly healing through prayer. She says that the healing of the homosexual is the healing of ALL men and women. It I recommend you read them all and be assured that you are not only loved by God but He wants you to be free and is ready to take you on an exciting journey to wholeness. Courage, my friend, Great in the midst of you is the Holy One of Israel.

        • RockyMissouri

          Balderdash.

      • JM

        ChrisEL, My heart is crying for you. I did not realize the gay lifestyle was so ugly. I have never, ever condoned it, but mistakenly believed the lie. Reading all of the responses to you are so heartwarming. So many are praying for you. You have taken a step in the right direction as another has said as well. Please, please look into joining Courage. Pray to St. Charles Lwanga & his companions for intercession & most especially, pray to Our Lady. She most assuredly desires you to be free of this lifestyle of slavery. Pray a rosary every day to her, especially to Our Lady, Undoer of Knots. You can be free. Jesus wants you free. God wants you free. God loves you so tenderly. Trust in Jesus. Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily for strength. God weeps for you. Come home to Him.

        • Mike MacKinnon

          You didn’t realize because IT ISN’T TRUE!! It’s disgusting, hateful lies. There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle,” EVERY gay person has a different lifestyle, just as every straight person does. There’s nothing “ugly” about being gay, and many gay couples are faithful to one another, contrary to the hateful lies of this column and hate groups like National Organization for Marriage. Courage is a TERRIBLE answer, please explore Dignity…which the author slurs in a way that is not only based in falsehoods, but is outright blasphemous in calling it a “Catholic” group, as if you cannot be REALLY Catholic unless you hate gay people.

          • RockyMissouri

            TRUTH.

            • NotStDavid

              Truth.

          • NotStDavid

            Thank you, Mike MacKinnon, for your courage. You are a voice of love and sense in this wilderness.

            • Bono95

              A voice of love and sense in this wilderness? What about all the commenters who offered prayers for ChrisEL?

          • Akira88

            If you were really happily living truth, you wouldn’t be sounding so vitriolic. Courage really is a wonderful group — but you have to decide if you want a one on one with Christ.

            It’s not about hating the sinner but the sin. All of us posting here have our own sins we deal with. Sometimes we fight with ourselves trying to convince ourselves that the sin we’re committing is just misunderstood by people who live perfect lives. That isn’t the case at all. We all struggle with something.

          • Anthony Zarrella

            It’s not that you can’t be Catholic unless you hate gay people – in fact, the Church *actively condemns* hatred towards gay people. It’s that you can’t be a Catholic group that teaches attitudes directly opposed to Church teaching.

            There is no such thing as a “Catholic pro-homosexual-activity group” any more than there is a “Catholic pro-choice” group – there are, however, groups of that sort that falsely claim to be Catholic.

      • ChrisEl

        I just want you all to know, I have made the decision to live chastely. The coming days and months will be difficult, but I have every intention of keeping to this resolution. Thank you all for your prayers.

        • CLare

          ChrisEl- I just read this article and your plea for prayers. You’ve got it! I know several Catholics with same-sex attraction. I can’t speak for them, but what I’ve observed: It can be quite lonely, not just for romantic love but because you may experience feelings of alienation. They had friends, family, and interests outside of church, but it was a…sharing of bread or Bread…I guess…to discover others like them who were homosexual but were living chaste lives. Thus, it is critically important that you find community, people who won’t judge you, who really care about YOU and not just care that you’re celibate, people who will walk with you in disinterested (no hidden agenda) friendship, people who you can relate to who have walked the path you’re walking. Courage is that group…if you’re on the east coast, some Courage groups are better than others as some are more structured than others. It depends on the dynamic of the personalities involved, I guess. I don’t know what groups there are on the west coast. If you’re on the west coast, I pray with all my heart you find a group that will support you and give you community, challenge you to holiness.
          I’m a Catholic single, heterosexual, who has to say “no” to most men I meet because of my Faith. I’m pretty strong most of the time, sometimes not so much. There was an article in our Catholic newspaper about the single life. It was written by a priest. Truthfully, it wasn’t helpful at all. Basically, it told us to suck it up, accept our lot in life and find the joy in it. Really, It was horrible. You’re going to get some of that. Yet, the same ol’ same ol’ advice is actually really good advice, I’ve found out: Stay close to Mary. This simple, humble maiden is the Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels, this includes demons who are merely fallen angels. She will help you!!!! Go to Confession often even if you’re not in mortal sin. Confession keeps us humble, realistic. Receive Communion whenever you can. Someone mentioned our sexually dysfunctional culture. This doesn’t mean just the homosexual community but the whole culture. It’s gotten ridiculous! No one can make it safely through without the grace from the Sacraments. If we were able to do it, then why is Jesus on the Cross?
          Ok, I’ll end it here. Sorry for getting carried away. Again, I’ll pray for you. :)

          • ZuzanaM

            CLare,
            God bless you for your comments. I agree whole heartedly when you say that the ‘whole culture’ is sexually dysfunctional! I am the mother of 6 adult children, all of whom, though raised in a Christian home (their father is a Lutheran pastor) are definitely sexually dysfunctional. They think anything goes in sexual exploits. While they may not behave so now, they ‘can’t judge’ other’s behaviours. (I take that back… only pediphilia is evil). Our entire society in the US is sexually ‘charged’ and while the media is greatly to blame… their are many conspirators who have joined in the fight to rip the Judeo-Christian soul out of America.

            • Clare

              ZuzanaM- Prayers for you and your family. Take heart, mama. You’re not alone. Mary was given all of us to care for and how she cares for us even as we crucify her Son again and again through our sins. You are united with the Mother of mothers! :)

              • ZuzanaM

                +JMJ

                Thank you,Clare. As a convert to Catholicism, I have been overwhelmed by the beauty and power that the Church has at its heart…where the Holy Mother of God resides. In my journey, our Lord Jesus has told me to thank her for the protection His Mother has garnered for me. She is my role model and I trust my children to Jesus through her. Sadly, the Non-Catholic Christian world does not know what they are missing.

                • Ian Shanahan

                  We know exactly what we are “missing” – mariolatric claptrap.

          • Ian Shanahan

            Pray to Jesus, not Mary.

            • Hegesippus

              Learn the difference and pray to both.

              • Ian Shanahan

                The difference is that Jesus is alive, whereas Mary is dead.

                • Hegesippus

                  Presuming you are not Catholic, and therefore presume all Catholic teaching is wrong, do you also therefore claim that the saints are not alive in Heaven? And that thus, Christ indeed did not conquer death for us?

                  • Ian Shanahan

                    I am not Roman Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I think *all* Catholic teaching is wrong. The Bible clearly tells us to pray to God – the Father and the Son – and *not* to saints who, from an earthly perspective, are indeed dead.

                    • Hegesippus

                      If you follow the Bible then clearly you do not consider all Catholic teaching is wrong. Here is a link to a page that shows many examples of “connecting” with the Saints. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

                      Simply by admitting that you might ask a friend to pray for you, and that the Saints are alive in Christ in Heaven, then it is clearly good to ask those friends to pray for you. The Church does not consist merely of those on Earth, but also those in Heaven and in Purgatory.

                      Also, perhaps it is best not to ignore Mary. Some even have been known to disparage her. As mother of God, she is very special, indeed the queen, just as Bathsheba was the Queen when Solomon was King. It is worth learning about how queenship was bestowed in Biblical times.

                    • Akira88

                      Well – The Bible says a lot of things, but there is also Sacred Tradition and the Church Councils beginning at Ephesus at the wee stages of Catholicism/Christianity. The Bible also states that not everything Christ said or did is written in Scripture. And it’s not just the New Testament but the Old Testament as well.

                      “Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our
                      prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which
                      are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering
                      our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are
                      aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us. ”

                      (Catholic Ans: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints)

                      Try it for one week. Everything to gain. Just as we have physical friends on Earth, we have spiritual friends in Heaven.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        You do know that Jesus condemned the “traditions of men”?

                        Revelation is an apocalyptic text that is highly symbolic, and rarely to be read literally.

                      • Akira88

                        No. Christ did not condemn “traditions of men”. He condemned pharisaism. It’s quite different. Jesus celebrated Passover and Jewish traditions when he was a child and as a man. The night before he was put to death, he celebrated Passover with the Apostles. Christ was a good Jewish man. He fulfilled the Law.

                        Re: Revelations — there are interpretations. Those of the Navarre Bible are excellent. The one liners you throw out there, Ian, makes me think you’re going more from things you’ve heard rather than things you’ve actually investigated.

                        In one of your posts you mention you don’t believe all Catholicism is terrible or something like that …. well …. what do you agree with or believe that is also Catholic? Maybe that’s a better place to start.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        If you think the Roman Catholic church is not pharisaic, then you’re deluded. One liners? Distilled conclusions: I’ve investigate these matters far more than you suspect, over decades.

                        The common factor for all Christians is summarized in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. (No mention of any of the concocteed Marian mythoi in either…)

                      • publiusnj

                        I am reading Shanahan’s posts and the first thing that comes to mind is: what Church does he think Jesus founded in the First Century AD? It certainly wasn’t any Protestant Church. That leaves only the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Chalcedonian breakaways and the Eastern non-Chalcedonian Independents.

                        Without getting into the very complex issues of the whys and wherefores of those breaks (and at times reunions) or whether the non-Chalcedonians really do view Mary as just the mother of Christ and not of God, the fact remains that all of those churches retain a high degree of veneration (sometimes spoken of as “hyperdoulia”) toward Mary. The Ethiopian Tewahedo (Coptic) Church, despite its non-Chalcedonian provenance, for example, gives very high praise to Mary (the “Parent of God”) in its Anaphora to St. Mary. So, Marian veneration is part of the real Christian Faith no matter how one views the partial history of the Church that the Scriptures represent.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        The earliest church – the original apostolic church – was founded in Jerusalem, not Rome. Other churches in the East also predate that of Rome. The true Apostolic church NEVER engaged in Mariolatry. And the roots of Protestantism go back to the Apostolic church, bypassing the centuries of (ongoing) theological corruption by the Roman Catholic church, such as that *theotokos* rubbish, transubstantiation, the Assumption of the BVM and other such invented claptrap.

                      • publiusnj

                        This is just silly. I showed that all the churches with apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern Independent, such as the Ethiopian Church) have a high regard for Mary, and that Protestantism is just a 16th Century invention of men that is never mentioned in Scripture (the Protestants’ supposed measure of orthodoxy). Shanahan responds with an ipse dixit “the roots of Protestantism go back to the Apostolic church, bypassing the centuries of (ongoing) theological corruption by the Roman Catholic church, such as that *theotokos* rubbish, transubstantiation, the Assumption of the BVM and other such invented claptrap.” Yet I have shown that even the non-Chalcedonians refer to Mary as the “Parent of God.” (theotokos). Likewise, one of the four major Marian feasts of the Ethiopian Church is the Assumption. So, Shanahan and Protestants who do not believe in Mary as Theotokos or in the Assumption are hardly “rooted” in any apostolic faith.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of both Protestantism and of early church history. Churches with apostolic succession may well have venerated Mary – but 1st-century Christians did not. There were even prominent Gnostics who claimed apostolic succession: it is no guarantee against heresy or non-Scriptural myth-making. And the Assumption of the BVM – a complete lie – is of much later provenance. The immediate post-Apostolic church though she was buried in Ephesus. A Vatican investigation into the matter during the 1950s covered up a lot of inconvenient facts, and the chief investigator was silenced under pain of excommunication: the dogmatic lie must be preserved at all costs…

                      • publiusnj

                        Very short on C&Vs for a protestant. So churches without apostolic succession (and a foundation a millennium and more after Jesus founded His Church) have the accurate view of the Apostolic Faith? Naah, read 2 Tim. 1:6, 12-14; 2:1-2. It shows that teaching authority is passed on through the laying on of hands and that the teaching authority in the church is to pass on what he has been taught (the deposit of faith is the term often used) to trusted members who will in turn teach the same thing (nothing about Sola Scriptura in that, btw). Somehow, though, Marty Luther got some special authority that is extra Scriptura?

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Protestant churches do have apostolic succession and the laying on of hands. Yes, yes, I know all about 2 Tim. The problem is that the Roman Catholic church failed in this and added a lot of extra-Biblical rubbish that would have been completely unknown to the Apostles. Sola Scriptura? Well, the totality of the deposit of faith is contained in Scripture. You won’t find idiotic Roman Catholic doctrines like Papal Infallibility therein.

                      • publiusnj

                        Two posts ago, you acknowledged that there were churches with apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox and Easterrn independent) and those that didn’t have it (Protestant churches). Now not so much. Well you’re wrong now and were right when you acknowledged they didn’t. And as for the claim that “the totality of the deposit of faith is contained in the Scripture, you point to no C&V. The truth is that the deposit of faith includes what was related orally as well. As Brother Paul notes: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. ” 2 Tim. 2:2.

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        If the total of the deposit of faith is contained in Scripture, then how do we know that Christ is “consubstantial (one in being) with the Father”? The Scriptures themselves leave open the possibility (espoused by Arius, with ample citation to Scripture passages) that Jesus is merely the greatest of the Father’s creations, but not of one substance with the Father.

                        This was the very heresy that the Council of Nicea condemned. But if Scripture alone provides truth, how could the Council rightly judge between the two competing deductions from Scripture, both of which were fair readings of the text? Clearly, the Council relied on some extra-Scriptural source.

                        Also, you say Protestants have Apostolic succession, but none of the founders of any of the major branches of Protestantism were bishops, and most were not even priests. Martin Luther had no authority to ordain anyone, nor did John Calvin, to name two examples.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Jesus: “I and the Father are one”. That is unambiguous.

                        As for Apostolic succession, the Apostles weren’t bishops either…

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        The Apostles weren’t bishops only in the same way that the King isn’t a royal heir – the bishops are the successors of the Apostles (and are mentioned in Acts, so you can’t say bishops are un-Scriptural).

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        I never said that bishops (overseers – episcopoi) weren’t Scriptural.

                        The problem of succession is based on a misreading of Scripture: what has been translated as (in regard to Peter) “what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven [future tense]” in the original Koine Greek uses future *perfect* tense – i.e. “what you bind on earth will HAVE BEEN bound [already] in Heaven”. So Peter has no authority in the sense that the Roman Catholic church believes he has to innovate on doctrine etc.

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        We don’t disagree. No properly catechized Catholic would *ever* assert that the Pope has authority to “innovate” doctrine. One of the foundational principles of Catholicism is that practices may change, but doctrine is immutable.

                        Rather, we hold that the Pope has the authority Peter had, which is perfectly expressed by your translation of the Koine: “What you bind on Earth will have been bound in Heaven.” In other words, whatever the heir of Peter says (when he is acting as Pope, not in casual conversation or interviews, or even sermons) is *guaranteed* by Christ to be divine truth. When Peter told the early Christians that they did not have to abide by Jewish dietary law, he wasn’t *making* it true, changing the Law on his own authority – he was declaring “loosed” on Earth what had already been “loosed in Heaven.”

                        Likewise, when the Pope declares (for example) that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, it isn’t true because he says it – he says it because it’s true. He declares it bound on Earth, and as per Jesus’ promise, it will have already been bound in Heaven.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        The problem is that Peter did not have thie authority to pass on to others this ‘power’ that Jesus gave to him. As I’m sure you know, the concept of Pope (Pontifex Maximus – a pagan term) originated centuries later; there are also instances of Papal ex cathedra pronouncements contradicting earlier ones…

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        I’m honestly not sure where you’re getting *any* of those assertions…

                        As to the idea that Peter had no authority to pass on his power, do you mean to suggest that it was Jesus’ intention to “build [His] Church” on Peter, the rock, but then have no replacement when Peter died? That He meant to appoint Peter to lead the flock for a mere 30 years, and then leave it leaderless?

                        As far as the origin of the Pope, the second Pope (the first of Peter’s heirs) was St. Linus, who took office upon Peter’s death. The title of “Pontifex Maximus” didn’t come until later, it’s true (and it was nothing more than a co-opting of the title the Romans used for the highest priest), and it was some time before the Pope began taking an active day-to-day role in the Church (mostly due to travel times back then), but certainly the office of “Bishop of Rome” and the concomitant authority over the whole of the Church can be traced straight back to Peter. (Also, be aware that “Pope” is actually an informal title, so don’t go by that.)

                        Lastly, give an example, please, of where you think an ex cathedra pronouncement has been later contradicted. I’m not aware of any.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        1. Of course Jesus – who is really the Rock on which the church is built – intended the church to continue beyond Peter’s life, with ‘overseers’.

                        2. Peter was NOT Pope: he was married (Matt 8:14-15; 1 Cor 9:5); he wore no crown; he had no wealth (Acts 3:6); he rejected man-made tradition (1 Pet 1:18); he would not allow men to bow before him (Acts 10:25-26); he never took the title Pontifex Maximus or Pontiff. Linus was no pope either.

                        3a. Papal infallibility. Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with the concept.

                        3b. Eugene IV burned Joan of Arc alive as a witch; Benedict (1919) declared her to be a saint.

                        3c. Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage o be valid; Pius VII declared it invalid.

                        So much for papal ‘infallibility’…

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        1. Two errors: first, linguistically it doesn’t make any sense for Jesus to have been referring to Himself when He said “on this rock I will build My Church.” Why would he have started the sentence with “You are Peter [the rock]“? Second, “overseers”? Where do you get that from? Why would He even bother to single out Peter time and time again, before ultimately setting him up as the leader of the Church, only to intend the whole structure to change in a single generation?

                        2. Plenty of Popes have been married; the papal tiara is a mere symbol of office, not an intrinsic part of it (and modern Popes don’t use it anymore anyway); wealth has nothing to do with the papacy (the Vatican *happens* to be wealthy, but that’s got nothing to do with the office of Pope); we don’t follow “man-made” tradition either, we follow the example set down by the Apostles and their generation; bowing before the Pope has never been any part of Catholic doctrine (though, sure, some Popes have been full of themselves – they’re still human); and lastly, Pontifex and Pontiff are the same word, and both were simply used to denote a “high priest” (which is entirely appropriate if the Pope is the earthly leader of the Church).

                        3a. All of them disagreed with the concept, but none of them definitively declared (in the way that would invoke the teaching authority of the papacy) that it was false.

                        3b. We’ve never held that Popes are infallible in all circumstances at all times – they can make mistakes, just not when they solemnly declare doctrine.

                        3c. Again, not every theological statement from a Pope is ex cathedra and/or infallible. Just hit even the Wiki article on papal infallibility, because clearly you think it means something different than what Catholics say it means.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        1. By your own reasoning then, the transubstantiation dogma is false. There are plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus is referref to as the Rock. *Episkopos* (bishop) means overseer.

                        2. “we don’t follow “man-made” tradition either, we follow the example set down by the Apostles and their generation”

                        Rubbish! Transubtantiation, papal infallibility, Assumption of the BVM etc. etc. were NOT believed by the Apostles or their generation. Thy are all later (false) innovations.

                        3. I’m perfectly aware of what papal infallibility means and refers to. My understanding is that the examples I gave were ALL *ex cathedra*.

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        1. How does this have anything to do with transubstantiation? The basis for that doctrine comes from two passages (well, more than two, but two events, with parallel passages in multiple Gospels) – 1) when Jesus says, “Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, you shall not have life within you” and 2) the Last Supper – “Take, eat, this is My Body” etc. And I know what episkopos means – I just don’t know where you get the idea that, upon Peter’s death, the Church was supposed to transition from having a unitary leader to having decentralized authority.

                        2. Se above, re: transubstantiation. As for the rest, it’s your scholarship of early Christianity vs. that of the Church. You can say “man-made innovations,” but we believe that they *were* believed by the early Church. I freely admit I don’t have the evidence ready-to-hand – I’m not a historian by trade – but given time, I could certainly at least point you in the direction of people with the requisite expertise.

                        3. No, they absolutely were not. Ex cathedra embraces a number of preconditions:

                        1) He must speak “in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.”

                        2) He must “define”

                        3) “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”

                        4) “must be held by the whole Church”

                        As to your examples, the many popes who “disagreed with the concept” of infallibility certainly never made formal statements that it “must be held by the whole Church” that infallibility is false. (That is, they never declared infallibility as heresy)

                        A declaration of individual excommunication or anathema (as would have been issued against St. Joan of Arc) is not an ex cathedra statement, because it neither seeks to bind the whole Church, nor make a doctrinal statement about faith or morals, nor define anything. Interestingly enough, declarations of canonization *are* considered infallible (under *most* circumstances).

                        Lastly, I’m not aware of any general declaration by [H]Adrian II (the “h” seems to appear and disappear in different accounts, as is common in older Latin) that civil marriage per se was invalid. The closest I could find was a condemnation of a King who abandoned his lawful wife for a concubine. Certainly *if* he condemned civil marriage per se, we have insufficient knowledge of the circumstances to know whether it was intended as an ex cathedra doctrinal pronouncement, or merely his own considered opinion (or an exercise of papal authority intended to bind the Church *by* papal authority, but not as a matter of doctrine – like the rule that priests must be celibate: it is binding on the Church, but it is not doctrinal)

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        1. Regarding transubstantiation, clearly in both of those passages, Jrsus was speaking metaphorically. At the Last Supper, his body was handing out his body and blood??? Obviously not: a literal reading is preposterous.

                        2. I am very well-read on early church history, and can assure you that the doctrines I listed were definitely not held by the Apostles or 1st-century Christians.

                        3. OK. Maybe my sources are wrong on that.

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        1. OK, three points against a “metaphorical” reading:

                        (A) The Greek verb used: the common (and often metaphorical) word for “eat” is “phago” Here, John writes, “trogo” – which is not used metaphorically anywhere else in the Bible, and which literally means to “chew or gnaw.” Jesus does not merely say to “consume” or “take in” His flesh, but to “gnaw” on it – to chew and swallow, as it were.

                        (B) When the Jews and many of His disciples are horrified by this teaching, and leave Him, Jesus does not call them back and say, “It’s just a metaphor,” He doesn’t explain it as a metaphor to the Apostles afterwards, either. In fact, when Jesus asks them, “Will you also leave?” Peter replies, and he *does not* say, “No, of course not, we get that you weren’t being literal.” He says, “Master, to whom would we go?” In other words, “Master, we also find it hard to accept, but we’re in this for the long haul now.”

                        (C) If it’s metaphorical, what is it supposed to mean? “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” How *are* we supposed to “chew” His flesh and drink His blood, if it’s not literal?

                        2. There are *at least* strong indications in the Didache (late-First or early-Second Century – well within the Apostolic generation) and in 1 Corinthians that the early Christians believed the Eucharist to be something more than a symbol (whether it was transubstantiation in all its technicalities is impossible to say, but definitely not a mere “memorial meal”). Paul writes, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 11:27 Why would he say that, if it’s merely symbolic? Also, in the Didache, there is evidence that those who were not full members of the Church could attend most of the Mass (or whatever you want to call the early Christian liturgy), but could not even *witness* the Eucharist – that’s the way you treat something indescribably holy, not something that’s a mere symbol.

                        3. Thank you.

                        I may not be online much for the next while – I’m visiting my family for Christmas. Have a merry and blessed Christmas!

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        1.(A) “Gnawing” or “chewing” does not speak against a metaphorical reading at all! Again, taking into purview the whole situation, a literal interpretation is nonsensical.

                        (B) That Jesus does not clarify the metaphor does not mean it’s not a metaphor! Does he explain every metaphor, pun or double entendre in the New Testament? No.

                        (C) That’s easy! Jesus says we are in Him and He is in us. This statement emphasises the latter. We are to make Jesus a major part of our very being. The chewing or gnawing suggests that it requires effort and careful consideration to ‘consume’ Him.

                        2. I know the Didache quite well, and agree that the Eucharist is more than a metaphor – yet it’s not transubtantiation, but a re-running (not a mere re-enactment) of the Last Supper. (Read Mircea Eliade’s book “The Myth of the Eternal Return” and you’ll see what I mean.) It’s as if time is somehow folded back to the 1st century! Each Eucharist is the Last Supper all over again. What Paul is saying is that to participate unworthily is a grave sin, equivalent to re-crucifying Christ. The ineffable holiness of the Eucharist – at the time of the Didache, actually a Eucharistic meal (agape feast); only later was the ritual of bread and wine (Eucharist) separated fronm the agape feast – does not militate against the Eucharist being symbolic as well. It doesn’t have to be transubstantiative to be so holy.

                        I hope your Christmas is excellent too.

                      • Bill

                        There is no doubt that SOME in the early Church denied the Assumption, however the vast majority of Christians did believe in her assumption. The sensus fedelium at work. Put that in your pipe and smoke it

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        You are perfectly free to believe in fairy tales. I suppose ou also believe that the Earth is flat because the “vast majority” believed it to be so at one time. BTW, I don’t smoke…

                        If the Vatican was so confident in this doctrine, then why did it order a cover-up. Answer: because evidence was found of Mary’s burial place.

                      • Bill

                        Please do not forget that the Protestant “fathers” Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the Catholic position of Mary. It is only lately in historical terms that Mary has been “downgraded” by the neo-protestants.

                      • publiusnj

                        One of the many pernicious consequences of private interpretation.

                      • Bill

                        Ian, you wrote: “The true Apostolic church NEVER engaged in Mariolatry. ” For someone who is self-reportedly intelligent [reading Scripture in Koine Greek, which is quite a feat] you should know that the CC does NOT engage in Mariolatry. You must know the difference between “dulia” [λατρεία], “hyperdulia” and “latria” [λατρεία]. This Greek may not be Koine but I assume you will understand.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        What about the ongoing push to make Mary “Coredemptrix”? *That* is certainly latria. Hyperdulia of Mary is by no means Scriptural either… (If it were, then we’d also be showing hyperdulia to John the Baptist, given what Jesus says of him.)

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        So… exactly where were these early Protestants? The roots of the Catholic Church can be clearly traced all the way back, through an unbroken line of Apostolic successors, and particularly successors to Peter, and the roots of post-Scriptural Catholic tradition in written form trace back to the Didache (or, “Teachings of the Apostles”) in the mid-Second Century (in other words, less than 50 years after the last of the Apostles died, so very likely written by people who literally received these teachings at the instruction of the Apostles). Transubstantiation derives both from the Didache and from the words of Christ in the Gospels.

                        Also, you acknowledge the Nicene Creed – it has the explicit language, “incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became Man.” The Council of Nicea was very precise in its choice of words – if it had wanted to say that Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, incarnated *into* a child born of Mary (making her merely “Christotokos” – mother of Christ), they could have said that. They did not. They said that the “Only Begotten Son of God” was “incarnate of the Virgin Mary.” This makes her “theotokos” – Mother of God.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Transubstantiation: Jesus is obviously speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper. It’s ridiculous to claim that the bread is “his body” when his body was handing out the bread to his apostles.

                        The Nicene Creed, as you obliquely acknowledge, is incredibly political. “Theotokos” was chosen over “Christotokos” to keep certain factions happy. Given that God *ipso facto* is unbegotten, theotokos is ridiculous and Christotokos makes total sense.

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        So you acknowledge the Nicene Creed? But why? It’s not in Scripture (neither is the Apostle’s Creed), and it contains doctrines that are by no means settled by Scripture alone. It derives its authority from the authority of the Council of Nicea.

                        If the Council of Nicea had authority to proclaim doctrine, why not the Council of Trent, or the First and Second Vatican Councils?

                        [For the record, in case it's unclear, I believe in the authority of all the above.]

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Those creeds summarize what Cristians believe, based on Scripture. Which “doctrines … are by no means settled by Scripture alone”?

                      • Bill

                        Akira88: Nice try. But you are wasting your time arguing with Ian by using Scripture and Catholic Tradition. I know this quite well. My dear wife is an ordained Pentecostal minister with whom I have had some [and only some] discussions. Reason is not one tactic that works with those who believe in Sola Scriptura. An example: I began a discussion about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist outside of Scripture, pointing only to what the Church Fathers wrote particularly Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna both of whom knew John the Apostle who wrote the fourth gospel story of the Eucharist in chapter 6. The point being that John instructed both Ignatius and Polycarp on the Real Presence. My wife’s answer? “John must have been mistaken.” Hence, no more discussions.

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Two key points:

                      1) You are right to condemn “Mariolatry” or “worship” of Mary. “Latria” is the Latin for a specific kind of veneration, equivalent to worship, from which we get words like “idolatry.” Only God is worthy of our “latria.”

                      However, there is another kind of veneration, “dulia” (from which we get words like “adulation”) – it is the sort of veneration rightfully bestowed upon worthy exemplars, perhaps best translated as “honor”. We bestow upon Mary “hyperdulia” – the highest honor – because while she is a mere creation, not the Creator, she is the greatest of all created beings. As Elizabeth says in the Gospel of Luke, “Blessed are you among women,” and Mary herself says “All generations will call me blessed.”

                      2) It is universally acknowledged by all Christians, Protestants included, that if you are in need of prayer, you can ask someone to pray for you. It only makes sense that the more pious and holy you perceive a person to be, the more likely you’ll be to ask them to pray for you (this is just a practical observation).

                      Therefore, if the saints are still alive (for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living), and have *direct* access to the Throne of God, then why *shouldn’t* we ask them to pray for us?

                      I freely acknowledge that some Catholics take it too far, and ask the Saints for miraculous intervention without acknowledging that their miraculous power is merely a grant from God, not inherent in them. However, that practice is not (and never has been) approved in Catholic teaching. We pray to the Saints to ask them to pray for us, or to ask them to request of the Lord that He might permit them to intervene on our behalf. Also, the Church has never taught that praying to the Saints is *necessary* or that it is a proper substitute for praying to God.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        1. Exactly where in Scripture are we exhorted to engage in the hyperdulia of Mary?

                        2. There’s nothing wrong with asking a fellow believer – all of whom are “saints” – alive here on Earth to pray for us … to GOD. We ourselves can “approach the throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews) directly, not via other heavenly intermediaries. Indeed, the Lord’s Prayer shows us to pray directly to God – no intermediaries mentioned.

                        ” Also, the Church has never taught that praying to the Saints is *necessary* or that it is a proper substitute for praying to God.”

                        Then why bother with praying to saints?

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        1. Nowhere, specifically. There are, however, portions of Scripture (like the Annunciation, the Magnificat, and one plausible interpretation of the woman in the sky in Revelations) that make it seem quite reasonable to do so. It also follows from her theological status as the Mother of God (or even as Mother of Christ, if that’s as far as you’ll go). More importantly, though, Catholics don’t buy into Sola Scriptura, so asking a Catholic “Where in Scripture does it say that?” is a bit like a Jew asking a Protestant, “Where in the Torah does it say that?” The answer is likely to be, “Nowhere, but that’s not my only source.”

                        2. If we can ask people living on Earth to pray for us (*despite* the fact that we need no intermediary to speak to God), then why is it worse to ask fellow believers in Heaven to do the same?

                        “Why bother praying to saints?”

                        For the same reason that you’d ask a friend to pray for you – not because you can’t talk to God yourself, but because when you believe in eternal life, the “two or three” that “are gathered” don’t all need to be in mortal flesh.

                        Also, I’d like to more specifically address the question of Sola Scriptura… Where in Scripture does it say which books count as Scripture? (Does Maccabees count? How about Esdras? What about the Shepherd of Hermas? Luther wanted to excise James from canon, but couldn’t find support for it…) Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the sole source of truth? In fact, aren’t there several places (the end of John’s Gospel comes to mind) where the author specifically says, “There’s more stuff that I didn’t write down”?

                        Also, check this out if you have a chance: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm It’s quite dense, but only because it goes into rigorous detail as to why Catholics believe in the Magisterium (the divinely-guided teaching authority of the Church).

                • Akira88

                  Sweetheart, if you believe we have a soul, and that Christ’s resurrection redeemed mankind, where do you think their souls go? Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul. As you were magnificently made (someplace in Isaiah), doesn’t it follow that Mary was formed specifically to be Jesus’ Mom?

                  • Ian Shanahan

                    ” Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul.”

                    Bollocks! There’s no evidence to support it and it’s completely absent from the Bible. It’s just mariolatric Catholic myth-making.

                • Bill

                  If you read Scripture in the original Koine Greek it is inconceivable that you believe Mary is dead. Try reading Scripture in your native tongue and you will have a different outcome.

                  • Ian Shanahan

                    Scripture contains no mention of her physical death; but the Assumption fairy-tale is completely absent too…

            • Akira88

              Jesus through Mary. It’s a special perk to know the King’s Mom. Not a good idea to either insult or demean Christ’s Mother. The miracle at Cana was the result of Mary’s intercession.

              • Ian Shanahan

                I’m not “demeaning” Mary; I’m just not putting her on a ridiculously high pedistal.

                ” The miracle at Cana was the result of Mary’s intercession.”

                Claptrap!

                • Akira88

                  How well do you know your Scripture? How’s your relationship with your own Mom?

                  And the “claptrap” — just pretentious and redundant.

                  • Ian Shanahan

                    I read the Scriptures in the original Koine Greek. And yes, the claptrap of Mary’s intercession is pretentious and redundant.

                • Bill

                  Mary was the world’s most perfect women. The Ark that carried the God-man Jesus and nursed him in infancy and cared for him as any mother would her child. Yes, the “ridiculously high pedistal [Sic] can not be high enough for such a woman, chosen among all women to bring the word to salvation.

                  • Ian Shanahan

                    Forgive my typographical error.

                    “Mary was the world’s most perfect women. The Ark that carried the God-man Jesus and nursed him in infancy and cared for him as any mother would her child”.

                    I don’t disagree. But Jesus Himself did not put her on any pedestal, even chastizing her at one point. From the Cross he asked John to look after her – that’s it.

                    Why not similarly venerate John the Baptist, the greatest of all the prophets?

                    • Anthony Zarrella

                      Do you believe (as was taught by the Council of Nicea) that Jesus was (while on Earth) both fully God and fully Man?

                      Do you believe that Jesus was truly, as the Apostle’s Creed says, “born *of* Mary” (not just “through” Mary)?

                      If so, then that means Jesus, God in human flesh, owed half his earthly being to His mother, just as every other true man does.

                      Besides, even if *all* you agree to is (as you state agreement with) that “Mary was the world’s most perfect woman,” then it follows that she is deserving of hyperdulia (since, as has been explained, “dulia” is the sort of honor that it is proper to give to created beings, and “hyperdulia” is simply the highest possible “dulia”).

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        First two questions – yes.

                        Why is Mary singled out for hyperdulia, when John the Baptist is not?

                      • Anthony Zarrella

                        Well, for one thing, John merely prepared the way for Jesus, but Mary *was* the way by which He entered the world (and that’s a lowercase “w”, so please don’t impute to me any insinuation that Mary, rather than Jesus, is “the Way”). For another, John may have been the greatest of the prophets, but it does not follow that he was “the world’s most perfect man” in the way that Mary was “the world’s most perfect woman.” Any one of the Apostles could at least arguably be said to be greater than John the Baptist (and, given the Book of Revelation, John the Evangelist could at least be argued to be a greater prophet than John the Baptist).

                        There are other reasons as well, but they depend on Marian doctrines that I’m reasonably certain you don’t believe, so I’m focusing on the aspects that we’re more likely to have common ground on.

                        A large part of it also comes down to taking Christ’s position as King seriously. As another poster has mentioned, in virtually all monarchies throughout history, the mother of the King has been treated with special honor, often even greater honor than the woman the King marries. In many monarchies, the wife of the King is still merely the Crown Princess, but his mother is Queen.

                    • Bill

                      Ian: Catholics do in fact venerate John the Baptist. And from the cross Jesus asked John to care for his mother–how is that relevant. I am going to suggest [although it will be futile] that you educate yourself more on what the Catholic Church teaches before you go off half-cocked, which is something you do most frequently.

                      • Ian Shanahan

                        Catholics do not venerate John the Baptist to the same extent as Mary. I mentioned Jesus asking the apostle John to look after his mum because that’s the most he asked of anybody concerning her. Nowhere are we told to venerate her to the point of idolatry. I am as conversant with Roman Catholic teaching and dogma as nost Catholics, thank you.

        • WSquared

          ChrisEL, I admire your courage.

          I prayed the last decade of my Rosary for you last night– the 5th Joyful Mystery, the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple, where one asks for the virtue of piety and mediates on how Mary’s faith is also a “journeying faith” (HT: Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: the Infancy Narratives). I will think of you when I pray the 2nd Sorrowful Mystery today.

          Though the coming days and months will be difficult, know that you are not alone, and will not have to make your journey alone (and should not try to. Clare has already pointed that out below): God loves you more than you could ever know. And His Son, Jesus Christ, is Truly Present in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in every tabernacle in the world, and He is waiting for you.

          He wants you to discover that His grace is sufficient for you to embark on this new life of chastity; that grace is sufficient for us all. And without Him, we can do nothing. That realization is allowed to be difficult, and it doesn’t come all at once. God– Father, Son, and Holy Spirit– is Love. And any and all Sacraments are about God, anyway, so in the Sacraments, you get to have that ultimate in love, and have it right now.

          And I second what Clare and Deacon Peitler said: do join Courage, and stay close to Mary. She will help you love her Son by interceding for you, so that you will have the graces necessary to remain in Christ and live in His Love. The Church– the Mystical Body of Christ– is built up through, with, and in Communion with Him. This is what the Sacraments are about, and why they are important: they are God’s free, loving gift to us, and when they are received worthily they strengthen us and our relationship with God. Know that the Church is here for you, and if you let her, she will go to bat for you.

        • Rob B.

          Blessed St. Augustine, you who knew the allurements of the flesh so well, help ChrisEL in his struggles to be chaste.

      • 102547

        St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle, be my defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humble pray, and do thou Oh Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power of God, thrust into hell satan and all the evil spirits who prowl around the world seeking the ruins of souls. Amen! Say this prayer everyday…..and every time you feel tempted! You will be in my thoughts and prayers and I ask you to pray also for someone I love very much who can’t or won’t see the devastation of living in this lifestyle! God bless you!

      • RockyMissouri

        Be in love ….and be happy….with whomever your heart pleases.

        • sotiredofthebs

          Ugggh really? Satan get thee behind me.

        • Anthony Zarrella

          I think you’re confusing Christ with Bob Marley. The message of the Gospel is not, “Don’t worry; be happy.” The words of Christ are, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”

          God is not an indulgent uncle who just wants us to be happy. He is a loving, but stern Father who wants to teach us right from wrong. A Father always loves, but in love, He chastises.

          • RockyMissouri

            There is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

            • Anthony Zarrella

              Thus sayeth the Gospel According to Rocky.

      • ruck0752

        Read my response to another post below. It’s addressed to everyone really.

    • Tony

      The questions that you need to ask as you enter the gay male Potemkin Village:

      * You who say you are “just like” everybody else: Do you use porn? How often? What kind?

      * You who say you are “just like” everybody else: Have you in fact kept yourselves ENTIRELY faithful to one another, without any sexual escapades? Or are you redefining fidelity for your purposes — for instance, “It’s all right if my partner knows about it,” or “It’s all right if it’s anonymous,” or “It’s all right if my partner is right there too”?

      * Have you ever had relations with someone whose name you did not know or whose face you did not see?

      * Have you ever had relations with a teenager, even if he was willing?

      * Do you know anyone who has had relations with a teenager?

      * Do you do the physically dangerous things: anal sex, fisting, insertion of objects into the anal canal, insertion of crystal meth into the same, etc?

    • Pingback: ‘Not Caring About What Happens To Gay Men Is Like Not Caring About Prison Rape’ Says Ruse | The New Civil Rights Movement

    • Dr. Eowyn

      I mean no disrespect to Robert Reilly and his upcoming book, but there’s no need to read a book to find out about homosexuals’ rampant promiscuity and the medical consequences of their “life style.” John R. Diggs Jr., M.D., had written a concise article “The Health Risks of Gay Sex”: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#10

      I’ve summarized Dr. Diggs’ main points in my blog:
      http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/07/03/medical-consequences-of-homosexual-sexual-behaviors/

      • Austin Ruse

        Reilly uses Diggs’ work.

    • Adam__Baum
      • Bob

        Oh….my…….

        I remember hearing a similar story of a woman that wanted to marry an F-15 Eagle strike fighter. Seriously.

        • msmischief

          When people insist that their whims be honored because they are their whims, they lead rapidly to the point where we abandon the insane to misery and death because they really do have their insane whims.

    • Guest, hic

      God created me this way. Forgive my profile-less-ness, Br. Wolfe, but as a member of Alcoholics Anonymous I am enjoined not to put that out there. [Eleventh Tradition—"Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films."]

      Like a minority of comment-ers, I’m a bit upset by the whole this article and most of the comments. I’m a mid-50s recovering alcoholic. Staying sober takes real work, and frankly, I might just prefer to go back to drinking. A big problem is that society (my wife and family included) have stigmatized my alcoholism. I was, indeed, born this way. It runs in my family. I had no choice.

      Yet, I’m routinely ridiculed — “drunk,” “sot,” wino,” and much worse. People routinely judge my character finding me to be weak. They question my morals. I’m “a bad influence.”

      If I drive drunk I risk fines and even incarceration. Why? During many pre-AA decades of drinking I drove drunk literally hundreds of times. Number of accidents? Zero. Number of people hurt? Zero. Sure, a stickler for statistics might find a slight increase in the risk of death due to drunk driving, but still, very, very few people die that way. Heck, President Obama has dismissed 5 percent of people losing healthcare as “insignificant.” Well, my failure rate with drunk driving is ZERO percent.

      I could make a strong argument that perhaps only alcoholics should be allowed to drive drunk. We have more practice at it!

      When was the last time you saw a positive portrayal of an alcoholic on screen? When? We’re usually portrayed as pathetic losers, unable to cope with life.

      It’s just not fair. I didn’t choose to be this way. God made me. You people need to accept, nay, you need to affirm me. You should probably buy me a drink. Or two…

      • Adam__Baum

        Brilliant, absolutely brilliiant.

      • somnipod

        Congratulations on your continued sobriety guest, hic! As a fellow problem drinker, your in my prayers. I too have struggled with this vice and other substances. Only God can help us with this, and I believe my getting legal problems (dwi arrests, opioid addiction) was God’s way to move me to my current sobriety, for today and hopefully tomorrow.
        Sexual sins are also a case of over indulgence, and an easy way for the father of lies to entrap us. Homosexual idealism is yet another disordered inclination many become “dependant” on. By the media pushing it as normal, these souls cannot continue healing. Yes, God made us all and we all have our crosses to bear. Our brothers suffering from same-sex attractions need prayer and healing just like us alcoholics and addicts. Both need to work towards abstinence and chastity. We are not animals and can and should fight our urges.
        Dominus vobiscum!

      • Little Al

        Dear Guest, hic -

        Shalom & Awakening.

        God made you – HE is your Father in Heaven – you are NOT an orphan in this world.

        You said, “I was, indeed, born this way. It runs in my family. I had no choice.” – sorry but to present an explanation to you – generation curse, that is. There is NO way we can completely eradicate this stronghold/bondage by mere human effort (you can still feel the urge, right?). That’s why God sent HIS Own & Only Begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, to die on that rugged cross for the whole human race (i.e. me, you and all of us). By Jesus’ Blood we were cleansed – all guilt, shames & failures from our conscience/very core. By HIS Stripes, we WERE healed (all hurts & wounds in our body, soul & spirit). Please accept His Gift of Deliverance by asking, “JESUS! If You’re truly the Resurrected Lord of All, please help me to break FREE completely from this addiction to live the Abundant Life You offered to all who believe! In Your Precious Name, Amen”.

        Please check out this links
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FArymMCiri0
        - breaking generational curse by Derek prince (derekprince.org)
        http://sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/dr-francis-myles

        Songs that I hope will cheer you in your walk with God –
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcqria2wmg
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWbmtbzDno

        Happy Thanksgiving!

        Little Al
        P.S. – Ephesians 5:18-20 (NIV) – 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the [Holy] Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

        • Guest, hic

          Little Al, thanks for the encouragement. Through the grace of God manifested in the Church and the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous I have maintained my sobriety for a good number of years. Regular Mass attendance and Eucharist (no wine for this sot!), and frequent AA meetings, along with the God-inspired 12 Steps can do wonders. Sad that it took me until my 50s to learn this, but that gives me the ability to help others who share my plight.

          Step Three — “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over the the care of God as we understood him.”

          I have the add benefit of Revelation — the Truth of the triune Godhead.

    • John

      Thanks Austin for your bravery and humanity. This is my experience totally from the homosexuals I have known. It’s the usual “Love the sinner, hate the sin” thing, saying the truth that homosexual acts are awful but also that homosexuals deserve our love and compassion. The truth will out one day!

    • Joseph Sciambra

      I wrote much the same story in my own book published last March: http://www.swallowedbysatan.com

    • CharlesOConnell

      Sexual Exposure Chart http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_X2PKA9oPl2k/SldmzCo5XmI/AAAAAAAABJ8/E6j1uKF2Oho/s400/SEChart.JPG

      (2^N) – 1 where N = number of epidemiological contacts.

      The number (2^50) – 1 is not easily expressed in ordinary notation. In scientific notation it is 1.1259E+15

      I’m not sure how to express it verbally, and I don’t know if I have it correct, but I think it’s

      1,125,899,906,842,620

      Is that 1 and one eighth quadrillion? Obviously, it’s greater than the total number of humans in all history. It must be folded over according to the “rule of sixths”. (Is that the correct ordinal number?)

    • Art Deco

      Soros seems to have rotated in a relief squad. No sign of any of the characters who appeared on the last thread. “Brother” Wolffe is a principal of this outfit:

      http://www.stjohnxxiiipoc.org/

      • Bob

        I just read their website. The misleading fraud and lies they are spouting are truly mind blowing and evil.

        • Rob B.

          Their FAQs are filled with New-Agey speak (“Inclusivity” seems to be their favorite word), yet I see very little of the Bible and nothing of the Magisterium. They seem to follow the “spirit of Vatican II” without actually reading the documents of Vatican II.

      • novres

        The reason there’s no sign of them is this website, like most conservative sites, regularly bans anyone who displays a liberal perspective. I imagine it helps stave off cognitive dissonance to pretend like everyone agrees with you all the time.

        • Art Deco

          The reason there’s no sign of them is this website, like most
          conservative sites, regularly bans anyone who displays a liberal
          perspective.

          Novres, you seem to forget that people here might just frequent some of those ‘conservative’ sites and know from experience that that statement is false. National Review Online in particular sees its discussions distorted and disfigured by characters whose commentary begins and ends with snide remarks.

          It would also be passing strange behavior for the moderators here to ban someone having allowed them to post scores of comments on articles of this type.

          I should note that the commentary of at least one character who appeared on a recent thread was abnormally repellant and included quite personal and defamatory charges against the author of the post such that the moderators would certainly have been within their rights to have banned her.

          (Actually, there is an AC-DC lawyer who does make repeat appearances. This must be his night off).

      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

        Just curious: were you making a joke, or do your really think people are paid to comment here?

    • MMC

      People who practice and promote homosexual behavior i.e. who are in a state of mortal sin are not our “brothers”…they are fellow creatures but they are dead and whether they know it or not, being influenced by the demonic. You will hear all of the wrangling of “well what about infertile couples” but infertile couples still have the shot at having children and even if they are 80 years old are still fulfilling the complementarity and unitive aspects of sexuality…having the action be in right order per Natural Law. And even if there are those unicorns out there who practice and promote homosexuality who seek monogamy and fidelity, it still doesn’t make it right…I can be faithful to my blood brother and it’s still incest.

      Love is not about an emotional and sexual tie…love is not an emotion…love is a willing of the good for the beloved. And there is NOTHING good about same sex behavior. Marriage is mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual joining/covenant of two people…it is free, total, fruitful and faithful…thus those who practice homosexual behavior cannot ever get “married” since the coupling would neither be unitive, complementary, or procreative. Each time you have mutually mastabatory sterile sex you are lying to the other person…not being able to truly give yourself totally to them…for you will never be able to give your authentic physical sexual self which includes your fertility or at least utilizing the proper sex organs. It’s sexual bulimia every time.

      It all comes down to reality. If you are a man, you have sexual organs that reality tells you are for procreation…everything fits perfectly for the opposite sex…each organ and aspect has it’s function and place…you mess with that, you mess with your brain and thus reality. Any type of sex outside of marital sex creates new addictive pathways in the brain thus making people addicted and causing brain damage. This is reality, this is how God made us, we need to trust that His ways are the best.

      People who practice and promote homosexual behavior are basically walking into a world of psych issues (depression, anxiety, personality disorders), suicidal ideation, substance abuse, relationship instability, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Hep C, StD’s and countless others esp Proctology…men’s rectums falling out due to anal intercourse. They are building their lives are lies and self hatred. To love anyone is never to lie to them or help them destroy themselves physically, mentally or spiritually. Love is other centered…it protects…and it delights in the truth and does not cooperate in the wrong doing of others.

      The lies about the normality of the destructive “gay” life/death style need to come out of the closet before countless souls and lives are destroyed, especially the innocent children who are brought into these situations. The truth WILL come out. Love is NOT an emotion or who you happen to be attracted to…Love is about willing the GOOD for the other…and goodness is based on truth…truth about who you are physically and spiritually. Just because someone “thinks” they are “gay” doesn’t mean it’s true. Nobody is “born gay”. Our thoughts need to align with reality, not the other way around. For we can ignore reality all we want, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

      If we truly love as Christ loves we will start standing up and speaking the truth about the lie that is the “gay” agenda. We will help people with same sex attraction get the Christ centered counseling they need to restore their gender identity development and become who they were born to be before the lies got swallowed. And we need to stop caving to the “hate” speech being spewed at us. If fighting evil makes me a hater and a bigot, I am PROUD to be one. No more emo manipulation, no more cowering to their verbal attacks, I am taking back my sense of sanity, critical thinking, natural law, truth and Almighty God and speaking the truth in kindness to every person who has swallowed and who is promoting the evil of homosexual behavior. God bless~

      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

        “…they are fellow creatures but they are dead and whether they know it or not, being influenced by the demonic.”

        Thanks! This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that as more folks get to know gay people as friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues, they turn away from your obviously false statements and come to support our relationships — where they can clearly see we do will the good of our partner.

        • me

          That doesn’t apply to everyone. I have a deviant sister. Our family does not approve of her lifestyle. She’s welcomed at my mom’s, but her “girlfriend” and the “girlfriend’s daughter” are not (little dirty detail: both were married to men before and discovered they liked women after their thirties – they are just libertines in my opinion, and a bit lazy to find a decent guy). I have gay co-workers, that’s fine, I respect them. But I don’t have gay friends. I have children, I wouldn’t like my children to see that kind of behavior and get influenced.

          • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

            It’s definitely true that not everyone is open to seeing the truth. Some people will insist on closing their eyes, refusing to see their daughter’s girlfriend, refusing to risk learning anything new.

            It’s sad.

            • me

              That’s your opinion. My family and I pray everyday that she’ll find a good man and remarry and still have children.

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                Is it my opinion? Are your parents not refusing to see your daughter’s girlfriend? I thought you made that pretty clear.

                • me

                  We see what you call “the truth”, we see the sin, but we don’t think it’s wise to reinforce her wrong behavior by faking that we approve that. We don’t. She knows that. There’s nothing new to learn, the sin is as old as the Old Testament.

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    Exactly: Your determination to see the sin prevents you from seeing the actual relationship and finding out if your idea of sin matches up with reality. And as long as you refuse to see your sister’s girlfriend, there is no denying your deliberate blindness.

          • novres

            You just called your sister “lazy”, trashing her on the internet to people you don’t even know. Are you sure you respect her? Because I would never do that to my sister.

            • Bob

              Jamming…..

              • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                Wait! I know what jamming is! I heard about that from conservatives who pulled it from a book that’s long been out of print. It’s another of those bogey-men. Yet conservatives never ask themselves why the book would be out of print if it’s so important and influental.

                More deliberate blindness.

                • Bob

                  And more jamming….

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    Ah, now factual information is some sort of manipulative tactic. I see.

            • me

              Did I say her name? Did I give her phone number and address? Get real. Do you know who she is?

              • novres

                I know you’re calling her a “lazy” “deviant”, and to a group of total strangers online? The fact that you’re not also telling us her name changes nothing. Do you do this to her in real life?

                • me

                  Of course I did tell her that once, in all letters that 1) I didn’t believe she was gay and 2) I believed she was a libertine. It was my duty as her sister to try to bring her back to reality.

                  • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                    So apparently you wanted to bring her back to reality without going there yourself.

                    • John200

                      Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream,

                      Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream,

                      Troll, troll, troll your boat,…

                      I told you Rob, your interlocutors are way ahead of your homo”sex”ual silliness. We have seen it all before.

      • msmischief

        Nothing annoys people who gush about love more than pointing out that refraining from actions that could infect your (purported) beloved with a nasty, incurable, and fatal disease is a pretty basic requirement to qualify as love.

        • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

          Understand this: two monogamous gay men have exactly the same risk of infecting their “(purported) beloved with a nasty, incurable, and fatal disease” as a monogamous opposite-sex couple.

          And frankly two monogamous lesbians have even less risk. Are you now going to insist that all women become monogamous lesbians? Because that’s where your reasoning takes you.

          • John200

            I understand it perfectly.

            It is false.

            Therefore, I understand it better than you do.

            Here you go, Rob. After approximately 66 comments (my rough count, I wasn’t trying for precision), I have found an argument that is on your level. It comes to us in the form of a song for you…

            Big wheel keep on turnin,’
            Proud Mary keep on burnin,’
            Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,
            Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,
            Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,

            Here it comes again on the guitar, Rob, now get ready to join in and sing it.
            Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,…

            Oh, you hopeless homo”sex”ual troll, you missed it. Here we go, try it again, it’s coming around on the guitar….

            Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,…

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              That’s great. When all else fails, stop addressing what your opponent said and resort to ad hominem. Terrific strategy you’ve got there.

              • John200

                No failure here, but I will note in your “defense” that you have turned this thread into a trollerama. Your interlocutors are being kind to you in your homo”sex”ual darkness.

                You are very late to the party, Rob. We have seen it all before.

          • Rock St. Elvis

            The prevalence of diseases among both groups shows lifelong monogamy among homosexuals is rare.

            How many homosexuals do you know who have saved” themselves or who are saving themselves for gay marriage? The very idea sounds like satire.

            • JQ

              What would be the state of lifelong monogamy among heterosexual persons if society had treated them the same as they’ve treated homosexual persons? As to “saving themselves for marriage”, from what I’ve seen, homosexual persons are as careful about who, when and if they marry as heterosexual persons.

              • Austin Ruse

                Given that gays are now universally celebrated, their monogamy should be just around the corner!

                • JQ

                  They’re not universally celebrated, and in most states they can’t marry. There isn’t a day that goes by that they’re not crapped on. And the abuse that’s been inflicted upon them in the past will continue to cause them to suffer.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    The only discrimination you can cite is that they cannot marry? The fact is that according to gay marketing companies, the typical gay is by almost any measure better off than his straight couterparts…includiing 1) better educated, 2) more highly compensated. this is the most advantaged “disadvantaged” group in the history of teh world. What’s more, they are so powerful they can bend the President and the US military to their will. Your comment is false and even ridiculous on its face.

                    • JQ

                      They not only cannot marry in most states but they can be fired in most states just for being gay. They are routinely subjected to abuse, insults and lies, including by you. They are portrayed as clowns on TV. I don’t believe gay marketing companies. Why do you? There are more poor gay people than you can shake a stick at. Marketing companies aren’t much interested in them.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        nonsense…you live in a parallel universe…

                      • JQ

                        I’m very well informed about “the real lives of gay people”, and I don’t have to get it out of a book or from Google.

                      • msmischief

                        You can fired for any reason or no reason at all in an at-will contract — including heterosexuality. Why on earth would you WANT to work for someone who would fire you if only he could?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        You cannot fire someone because they are black, or a woman etc…there are protected categories.

                      • JQ

                        As Austin has kindly pointed out, it’s actually not legal to fire someone for “any reason at all” in the U.S. As to why someone might want to work for someone who’d fire them if thought the employee was gay, I can think of many reasons, including perhaps the company pays better than others, or perhaps the market is such that the options for other employment are rather thin, etc. Anyway, your question is putting the cart before the horse because someone looking for employment doesn’t always know in advance who discriminates against gay people. Too often it’s found out the hard way, whether by being fired, not getting the promotion, etc.

                      • Joseph X.

                        You don’t know about marketing then.

                  • April Fools Day

                    Freaky,
                    Look at the studies in Norway and Sweden and you will see that there are many open marriages (which is a SHAM) and a higher divorce rate in the Homo community than the Hetero community.
                    Monogamy isn’t around the corner for the homo community if you care enough to look at the truth JQ and look into reality, JQ.

          • Guest

            Monogamous incest has a low rate too. So what? The point is not only that deviant behavior has medical risks it is that the morality of the behavior is deadly.

          • msmischief

            Heterosexuals did not fight tooth and nail against the testing and contact tracing that contained syphilis when it was an incurable and invariably fatal disease.

            Homosexuals fought tooth and nail against the same process for AIDS. That is unloving.

          • msmischief

            So you do admit that promiscuous gay men do not love other men?

          • April Fools Day

            You are wrong and stupid, the risk is worst for gay boys, get an education clown: (The seed of life goes down the crap hole – yeah that’s real normal, NOT!)

            “An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse…” – WebMD.com

            “The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts andanal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.” – WebMD.com

            • JQ

              NEWS FLASH — Millions of opposite-sex couples, far more in number than same-sex couples, engage in anal sex. Meanwhile, many gay male couples do not engage in anal sex.

              • Austin Ruse

                Lame argument #5. the total population of gays in America is 12 million, roughly, this includes lesbians. So, there are more heterosexuals doing everything than gays. But gays have an astronomically higher percentage doing things like anal sex than straights…

                • JQ

                  Lame refutation #7. Glad you agree that more straights engage in anal sex than gays. The “April Fools Day” poster was ignoring that important fact. And you ignored that.

                  As to “astronomically higher”, there are various estimates and a number suggest that 50% or of straights have engaged in anal sex. One estimate reported 73% of women had anal sex with their male partner. Meanwhile, other estimates say that 10 to 90 percent of gays do not engage in anal sex. There is no authoritative figure on the population of gays or their practices, and anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or a liar.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Let me explain a little more clearly. There are 300,000,000 straight Americans and 12,000,000 gays. Of the gays, one can assume, I guess, that they are pretty evenly divided between gay men and lesbians. So, even if all 6,000,000 gay men enjoyed anal sex, it would not be a hard thing for the straights to have more sexual deviants of that stripe. It would require only 1.9% of the straights. Of course, it owuld be higher if you take account of age. In short, there are more straights doing everything and anything than gays because GAYS ARE SO FEW!

                    Now, as the prevalence of anal sex. It is rahter amusing you cite some study that swings from 10%-90% on gays practicing anal sex or not. That is some reliable study!

                    According to the most authoritative study of its kind, The Social Organization of Sexuality, puts the figure at 26% of men have participated in anal sex in their lifetime (this does not say whehter gay or straight, that is, with women). The figure for women lifetime is 20%). the authors did not look specifically at the use of this deviant practice among gays. However, others have studied this. the most rigorous of these is the Multicenter AIDs Cohort Study from 1987 that reruited 5,000 gay men and found over 80% had allowed anohter man to penetrate their rectum with at least some of their partners in teh previous two years.

                    So, it is pretty clear that gays use anal sex quite a bit. Straights not so much. We can also go into the number of sex partenrs if you like and also fidelity to the person you consider your spouse.

                    If you want to…

                    • JQ

                      We don’t well know how many “gays” there are, and we don’t well know how “evenly divided” they are between gay men and lesbians. Many estimates suggest it’s not evenly divided, but then, there is no universally accepted definitions of “gay” and “lesbian” among researchers. You propose estimates and assumptions. They are all quite questionable and non-authoritative. But it does seem reasonable to assume perhaps that straights engage in far more sexual “perversion” than gays given their apparently larger numbers, and that straights and gays “use anal sex quite a bit”, that straights and gays tend to have multiple partners. All of that is “pretty clear”. However, I’m not so sure it makes much sense to measure sexual “fidelity” in regard to relationships outside of marriage, or even with marriage in light of the fact that civil marriage has no sexual fidelity requirement. And yet you obsess over the gays.

                      And no, I didn’t say 10-90% was a single study, but I do agree with you that a broad range is generally reliable, especially across time, culture and geography.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Actually we do know how many gays there are. According to the best research it is perhaps 3% of the total population.

                        As to sexual practices, we know that roughly 26% of men have had anal sex in their lifetime while according to the Multicenter study 80% of teh gay men in the study RECEIVED anal sex in the past two years.

                        As to fidelity to a lifetime partner, there simply is no comparison. Gays tend not even to value monogamy. Major gay writers say so. Social science says so.

                        So, please…socail science is so not with whatever you are trying so desperately to say.

                      • JQ

                        You and Rob have already been over this subject, and it’s been well demonstrated that we do NOT “know” how many “gay” people there are. Your statement that it is “perhaps” 3% of the total population itself says that we do not know. There isn’t even a universally accepted definition of “gay” among researchers.

                        Likewise, we do not “know” that “roughly 26% of men have had anal sex in their lifetime” or what percent “received”. God ma know, but we do not. Instead, studies tabulate what is voluntarily reported by the participant volunteers of the particular study. The volunteers are not a randomly selected, representative sample of “men”, gay or otherwise, and their responses may or may not be honest or accurate.

                        Your perhaps best statement is that “As to fidelity to a lifetime partner, there simply is no comparison.” But then you fell off the cliff when you offered your comparison anyway.

                        As to what “gays” tend to do, who are they? Few wear the label. The others, whoever they might be, don’t say.

                        Whoever they are, and especially since we don’t know who they are, what kind of talk is to say “gays tend to not value…”? Is it like saying “blacks tend to not value…” or “Italians tend to not value…”? I’m not convinced that promiscuity is indigenous to sexual orientation or that it’s apart from how you speak about “gays”. Indeed, some social scientists say that if you label or done on about “gays” as promiscuous, that you are supporting that behavior.

                        Meanwhile, research indicates that men in general tend to not be monogamous, with “lifetime” partner not the norm for men. In addition, levels of monogamy appear to depend upon circumstances. If gay men and straight men are subjected to different circumstances in society, and I think that’s clearly the case, then I’d expect what they tend to do would be different, perhaps as different as apples and oranges.

                        So please… social science is so with what I say. Your problem is that you cherry pick to suit your agenda.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Well, the best research is the one Rob and I discussed and they are quite content with a very low number.

                        We do know waht teh results of the Sex in America survey. You can dispute them, as you are. Fine. Still, they are considered by those in teh field as the best out there.

                        you are correct, it is hard to define gay. the sex in america people said so. Everyone says so. The problem is exacerbated by how plastic it is even within a single person. You may change your orientation throughout your lifetime. Thsi is especially true for women.

                        Men who are married actually tend to be monogamous, as do women, though at a higher level. According to Sex in Amerca, 94% of married people have had only one sex partner in teh past year. Only 4% have had 2-4 in the past 12 months and only 1 percent have had more than 5 in the past 12 months.

                        Married people are remarkably faithful.

                      • JQ

                        What number did you and Rob agree on? “Very low” is not a number.

                        You say “You may change your orientation throughout your lifetime”, but again, “orientation” is a term that has no agreed upon objective measure. As such, I’m not convinced that anyone has ever had a change of sexual orientation rather than a change of words out of their mouth. And “that is especially true for women.”

                        Your claim that “men who are married actually tend to be monogamous” is vague and cannot be reliably substantiated. In Catholic teaching, even a wandering mind can be adultery. In regard to physical sex acts outside of marriage, Bill Clinton claimed that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Was he being honest? I don’t have any special reason to believe the volunteers in somebody’s survey are more honest than the President of the United States.

                        You cite Sex In America, which again is based on voluntary self-reports like Bill Clinton saying whatever answer he chooses to give. And as Sex In America is based on the responses of volunteers, your statement about “94% of married people” may be better described as “94% of persons who cooperated with the study and who self-identified as married”. Don’t know how truthful it is. Further, you cite figures for partners in the last year. But your previous posting spoke of “lifetime” partner. A year is not a lifetime, and not even the duration of one’s marriage is a lifetime. A lifetime is birth until death. And so again, I repeat what I said: I do NOT believe a single partner for an entire “lifetime” is the norm for men, i.e. that “monogamy” is the norm for men. And Sex In America does not prove otherwise, nor can it, and neither can you or any researcher.

                        As to “married people are remarkably faithful”, perhaps you might want to add “until they divorce or otherwise don’t uphold their marriage vows”, which happens remarkably often. Heck, even same-sex married couples can be remarkably faithful. It all depends upon the standard. The standard for apples, the standard for oranges.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I am sorry, if you also trash The Social Organization of Sexuality, then i have nothing more to say to you because you dont knwo what you are talking about. Example….All surveys are voluntary, moron. Good lord. Go away. i am not wasting my time with you any more.

                      • April Fools Day

                        Mr. Ruse, this JQ has an argument for everything. He is jamming, forget it, leave him in his madness.
                        If JQ can’t understand that 2 guys misusing their sexual organs to get off is evil and no way in hell is it equal to a Christian marriage (for a moral Christian couple using their sexual organs to be co-creator with God to create the body and soul composite – a body with an eternal soul) then let JQ go to the DARKSIDE!!!
                        I applaud you Mr. Ruse there is nothing else that you can do, some people (like JQ) are just morally DEAD!

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Thanks a million.

                      • Joseph X.

                        Amen. Your patience is legendary. JQ is a moron of the highest caliber.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Appreciated.

                      • mary jo anderson

                        And keep in mind that the pro- gay lobby count any and all homosexual encounters in their reported numbers –For example, incarcerated men who are subjected to homosexual rape. The much publicized higher number is a political threshold. The most comprehensive studies indicate 3% of the population is homosexual.

                        But even if 10% of the population were proven to be practicing homosexuals, that is no warrant to legalize the behavior or the philosophy ( in the supposed case of celibate homosexual civil unions). We would not consider legalizing pedophilia if it were shown that 10% of the population engaged n the behavior. It is not the number of people involved that makes a practice acceptable. It is the objective relationship to truth and a well ordered society.

                      • JQ

                        You speak of a call to legalize homosexual behavior. What are you referring to? Homosexual behavior is already legal in all 50 U.S. states, and it wasn’t legalized because of a poll. I think it has something to do with being between consenting adults, which does not apply to adult-child sexual relations.

                        Also, “pedophilia” (referring to the paraphilic attraction) is generally legal, while adult-child sexual relations are not legal.

                      • mary jo anderson

                        Yes, JQ, codify is a better word. We should not be persuaded to codify homosexual or pedophilic behavior with legal civil union status based on supposed numbers.

                      • Joseph X.

                        Troll.

                    • EnglebertFlaptyback

                      According to CDC’s 2011 National Health Statistics Report, 44% of heterosexual men and 36% of heterosexual women report having had anal sex with a member of the opposite sex.

                      I guess I don’t understand the focus on anal intercourse – isn’t sodomy sodomy, from a religious standpoint?

                  • Joseph X.

                    JQ, where did you get those stats? They’re absurd. You’re so committed to defending gays that you’re brain has melted. Your last statement is evidence of that. You’ve essentially shut out all statistics and studies that you don’t like.

              • Joseph X.

                You must be referring to lesbians. I’d like to see the stats of how many homos don’t sodomize each other.

    • novres

      So, “A gay man once told me,” and a study from 1987. Great research, Austin. I really can’t fathom why people wouldn’t take you and your “research institute” seriously.

      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

        Hey, if a gay man said it then it must be true. Which you means you get to find any quote by any straight man and insist it’s true for everyone here.

        • novres

          True – especially if he said it a quarter of a century ago.

          Some cutting-edge research, right there.

          • Bob

            Yawn!

            What is it the gay community wants? If you’re looking for some type of moral acceptance of your immoral homosexual acts, it is never, ever going to happen.

            Understand EVERY heterosexual has a negative visceral reaction to unnatural, homosexual acts.

            • novres

              If that were even remotely true, you anti-gay types wouldn’t find yourselves so increasingly marginalized by society.

              Face it, you can’t believe that (1) everyone finds LGBT people disgusting and (2) society in general increasingly sides with us at the same time.

              You might maintain such contradictory beliefs as long as you stay on websites like this where everyone shares your opinion and peer validation staves off your doubts. But in your lifetime, you’re going to see the Vatican embrace same-sex relationships, the same way they embraced women voting just 80 years ago after having opposed it for so long. Every behavioral research organization in the developed world is in agreement on this subject. Even the most powerful church can’t hold out against science forever.

              • me

                You’re seriously deluded. The Vatican embrace same-sex relationships? Ha-ha-ha.

                • JQ

                  Considering that “same-sex relationship” can be quite broad and not require any sex act, we can say the Church already embraces same-sex relationships.

                  • John200

                    Since you have no respect for words or their meaning, I can say you are a homo”sex”ual God-knows-what.

                    Your inability to converse in simple English provokes me to laugh you to scorn. Communication with such a retarded creature is never certain.

                    Perhaps laughing you to scorn will serve your need.

                    Your obtuseness is a barrier to good people who wish to make sense of you. As a homo”sex”ual troll, you probably don’t believe anyone here wants to communicate with you, but that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Homo”sex”ual trolls are big on self-fulfilling prophecy.

                    Oh, well.

                    • JQ

                      You’re “laughing” at your interpretation of what you read, your own doing.

                      • John200

                        No, I am laughing at you, and you know it.

                        It will be a long time before you get to the normal level of discourse at CrisisMag.*

                        * I assess your poor state of trollery on the basis of your comments here. Of course, I do not know whether you are a homo”sex”ual troll, a sincere but ignorant Catholic who does not know his own faith, a precocious 14-year old girl trying to learn some useful arguments, a six-year old who is learning to work the keyboard, or whatever.

                      • JQ

                        I assess that you are a troll.

                      • John200

                        Pathetic comeback.

                        I guess you have to try something desperately silly. OK.

                        I am a faithful Catholic, you can become one in time. At least you are here. That’s something. You have time.

                        Best to you and yours.

              • Craig

                Yes, science. 1) The Church has never changed its dogma nor can it. 2). We have always been at the forefront of science-knowledge-be it physical sciences, genetics, or metaphysics.

                The “science” shows humanity can only continue with procreation-between a man and a woman. Same sex is unnatural, whether you are a Catholic or an atheist.

                Instead of trying to change God and His only Church, why not actually read a good catechism and see what She teaches? ****Please. ****

                https://www.pcpbooks.net/docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf

                • novres

                  The church has never changed its dogma? Really? I’m sorry, but you would have to be fairly ignorant of Catholic history to believe that. Just 100 years ago, the entirety of Catholic philosophy underwent a major change with the revival of Thomism and neo-scholasticism. And on political issues, it was barely 80 years ago that Pius X defiantly stood against women voting. Before that, the church was against anesthesia in childbirth, it endorsed slavery, and on and on. Of course it will change, just as it has always changed, albeit often very reluctantly.

                  But it’s not that I’m trying to change the church. I’m just pointing out that it’s going to change, whether you want it to or not. Francis is already sending out feelers. Anglicans and other denominations are already ordaining gay priests. Can anyone seriously doubt that it’s only a matter of time before Roman Catholicism follows suit? Wake up and smell the roses. The church fought LGBT rights for a long time, but the fight is over and it’s time to move on.

              • Bob

                Do your own personal study: ask the most liberal, “progressive” heterosexual friend of yours if they believe the homosexual act of anal penetration from one man on the other (sodomy) is a normal, natural, moral act. Then see how they react.

                What I see is the “diabolical ventriloquy” of language used by the homo-mafia and your pro gay supporters. I saw a study where a group of people where asked if they were for marriage equality for same sex couples should be legal. 65% said “Yes.” But when the same group of people are asked if man on man anal sex is moral and the natural end of the sexual act, 95% said “no.” It’s similar to the abortion question. Ask a group of people if a woman should have the right to “choose”, 60% will probably say yes. Ask the same group if it should be legal for a mother to murder her developing baby in the womb, I’d guess 98% of the respondents would say no.

                Homosexual sex is objectively immoral, it is against nature. It is an unchangeable law of nature. It is a distortive and perverse use of the intended natural end of our sexual organs. The homo-mafia can keep trying to convince us differently, but no one needs a bible, Qu’ran, or Talmud to tell them that homosexual sex is against nature, and a wrong end.

    • Craig

      Sancte Michaeli, Ora pro nobis

    • me

      I suggest everyone read the original article by Ronald G. Lee. It’s amazing! It’s courageous, it’s crystal clear, it’s the truth about the homosexual movement. I’m forwarding it immediately to all my friends. I wish it could spread like fire in rotten wood.

      • Austin Ruse

        Yes, it is amazing. I am thankful to Bob Reilly for mentioning it in his upcoming book otherwise I would have missed it altogether.

    • Greg B

      Great article, Mr. Ruse, but could I make one strong suggestion? That you edit the article and start it somewhere around the paragraph beginning, “The arguments made by our best defenders…” rather than where you do now, and that you cut those initial paragraphs out entirely (or dramatically reword them)?

      Obviously the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is offensive to some people regardless of how beautifully it’s packaged. At the same time, there is “more than one way to skin a cat.” And beginning an article against homosexuality by equating homosexual activity with prison rape is not even going to allow a lot of people to get out of the starting gate with your message. Removing those first few paragraphs would…

      • novres

        Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand the author. Austin Ruse is the president of an organization who recently traveled to Belize to inform the people there why same-sex relationships should continue to be illegal in their country (currently punishable by up to 10 years in prison). He has said that they should be illegal in this country as well, and has written extensively and favorably on Russia’s new anti-gay laws. To expect him to write something that’s not offensive and crude is to misunderstand him entirely.

        • Austin Ruse

          Our work in Belize was to make a simple point. Any change in sodomy laws cannot rely on international law because international law is silent on the issue. Part of the work of my institution to call for a proper understanding and use of international law. As to Russia, there’s is a sensible law that says gays to not have a right to grade school curricula.

          • JQ

            Your interpretation demonstrates one of the reported problems of the law, in that the law’s wording regarding “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors” is vague and ripe for abuse.

            • Austin Ruse

              Certainly not so far…we shall see…

        • Guest

          I am happy to learn there are good people like Ruse out there defending just laws and speaking the truth to power. Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

      • Austin Ruse

        Hi Greg, Please know that I am not equating homosexual sex and prison rape. I am suggesting that our reaction to each is similar in that we look away, yet in doing so we abandon the men involved in each. We should not abandon gay men by looking away from their sexual practices and mores. Thanks for your kind words.

        • JQ

          But why the “obsession” with the “sexual practices and mores” of “gay men”, a tiny group of people, when they’re not worse and are far fewer than those of straight men? And if “God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to what is improper”, why shouldn’t we? “Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

          • Austin Ruse

            Not worse than straight men? In fact, Sex in America shows straight men in married relationship are remarkably faithful to their wives. Even single straight men do not have hundreds and thousands of sexual partners, many of them anonymous, many of them pubic…there really is no comparison.

            • JQ

              Your comparison is improper and deceptive. You’re comparing apples and oranges: “straight men in a married relationship” supported by culture to unmarried gay men despised by culture. As to “do not have hundreds and thousands of sexual partners”, some straight men do and some straight men do not have many partners. Likewise with gay men: some have many partners, and some do not.

              • Austin Ruse

                Your premise is so 1956. Gay men despised by culture. Where do you live?

                • JQ

                  No, it’s 2013 and many, many gay people remain closeted. There is no state in the U.S. and no country in the world where there are not plenty of people who openly express contempt toward gay people. It’s even apparent right here in this forum, in your posts, accessible to anyone everywhere in the world.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    We live in an age where corporations celebrate gays, Hollywood celebrates gays, sports celebrates gay, city governments celebrate gays, schools celebrate gays, especially but not exclusively universities. On the other hand, if anyone on htis thread who has spoken sharply about gays is known publicly he woud no doubt lose his job. Yes, gays are desciminated against. Right. Where do you live?

                    • JQ

                      Even at corporations that have policies against discrimination toward gays, many gay persons remain closeted. The same is true in athletics and government and elsewhere. Many people continue to speak sharply against gays not only publicly but on the job and yet do not lose their jobs. As to where I live, I have homes in red and blue states, and I’m well traveled.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        So your proof of discrimination is that gays cannot marry in some states and some gays prefer not to tell the world they are gay? Would you prefer that critics of gays lose their jobs?

                      • JQ

                        They not only cannot marry in most states, but in most states they can be and are fired or denied housing or beaten with a baseball bat, etc. because of their sexual orientation. I don’t prefer that anyone lose his/her job, but if I do support laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        It is illegal to beat someone with a baseball bat. If you are saying that gays are beaten with baseball bats with impunity, then you will ahve to back that up. I will repeat, gays are among the most privileged people in our country. It is highly doubtful that gays anywhere are fired for being gay or denied housing for being gay. This may have been true, but today they are little more than part of the gay mythology.

                      • JQ

                        I don’t say that it’s legal to beat someone with a baseball bat, or that gays can always be beaten with baseball bats with impunity. But I can say that people like you and the hogwash you spread feeds the sharks. As to your claims of “privilege”, gays are a diverse group of people including many who are not privileged. As to discrimination against gays, I’ve seen it with my own eyes, AND I can also read about it today in the news such as “Texas National Guard refuses to process military housing allowance for gay couples”, “Gay Couples Face Rental Discrimination, Study Finds”, reports of people fired for being gay, etc.

                      • Art Deco

                        I think Mr. Ruse is too categorical with his remarks, but I would wager his sociological point is largely true, most particularly with large and bureaucratic employers.

                        Of course, the Texas National Guard is under no obligation to provide familial benefits to people in your circle of friends. That you distort those friendships by including sodomy in the mix is immaterial.

                        As for discrimination generally, in a society where free association is the order of the day, employers and landlords properly have plenary discretion over such matters. There is no reason to second guess their decisions in these matters or to have attorneys vetting them. To extend a cause of action in such matters is, yes, a grant of privilege.

                      • JQ

                        Actually, it’s YOU, not me, who distorts the “friendships”, as you call them, by calling them “sodomy”. As to “free association”, like any freedom, it is not unlimited. Your personal opinion that “there is no reason to second guess” the decisions of employers and landlords is not the law and not reality. People who have been wronged by employers and landlords have a right to justice.

                      • Art Deco

                        I hate to break it to you, but reviews of resumes, job interviews, and deliberations attending them often turn on unimportant matters. Lots of different sorts of characters are denied employment because they rub someone the wrong way. It is your position that you should have a cause of action because your injuries trump everyone else’s. The hell they do.

                      • JQ

                        It’s not my position that “you should have a cause of action because your injuries trump everyone else’s.” Rather, that’s your asinine interpretation. It wasn’t even “my position” that I was talking about. I was referring to the law of land and justice.

                      • Art Deco

                        That is your position, unless you would like to make an argument here against employment discrimination laws. If that is not your position, babbling on about ‘discrimination’ and ‘bigotry’ makes very little sense.

                      • JQ

                        No, it’s not my position, and that is so whether or not I make any argument here against employment discrimination laws. Again, you demonstrate an asinine level of understanding.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        The old you cause a climate of hate argument. Right.

                        Why in the world would Texas be required to pay for housing for non-married couples? that’s just weird. Is Texas supposed to pay for housing for spinster sisters?

                      • Art Deco

                        Spinster sisters aren’t Special.

                      • JQ

                        You can deny your sinful role until you die. It adds to your moral culpability. As to Texas, the housing benefit is a federal benefit and Texas refuses to give the federal benefit to same-sex spouses of National Guard members as it gives to opposite-sex spouses. Texas openly and deliberately discriminates against gays and, to use a metaphor, does not permit them to drink from the same water fountain as the straights, even when the federal government is paying for it.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, deny it and throw it right back in your face. More than one thousand churches were vandalized last year. Your homophilia caused it. So there.

                        Texas is telling the Feds, this is your deal, you handle it. Good for Texas.

                      • JQ

                        Your sin remains yours. I don’t have your “homophilia” and I haven’t caused any church vandalism.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Sure you do. Your hatred has caused a climate that gives permission to church burners. Also the shooting at family research council is your fault. Climate of hate against Christians.

                      • JQ

                        What hatred? You’re projecting. It’s all your fault.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Well, the hatred you have shown here. The same kind of hatred creates a climate of hate such that Christian haters feel emboldened to burn churches. They wouldn’t otherwise except for the permission you give them.

                      • JQ

                        I hate lies. God hates lies. Do you believe that it means God is “creating a climate of hate” and “giving permission to church burners”? Well, the Church does teach that “God permits evil.” Otherwise, you wouldn’t have done many of the things you’ve done.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I think you are creating this climate and it is killing Christians.

                      • JQ

                        Save it for your psychiatrist.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        You see. Even that causes hate. It says my Christianity is sick. This kind of hate kills.

                      • JQ

                        You’re still talking about your interpretation, your doing. Hope you can get over yourself.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        See how that whole climate-of-hate rigamarol works? Don’t have to prove nuttin’, just assert!

                      • JQ

                        You’ve well demonstrated how ineffective your strategy is.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Just having fun with you, bud.

                      • Guest

                        Truth is hate to those who hate truth. The propagandists will not brook and opposition to their ideology.

                      • Art Deco

                        Well, you know, JQ, we often do not see ourselves as others do.

                      • Guest

                        On some level the homosexual person knows the acts are wrong. They are hostile to any information that challenges there deviant desires. They blame others. They have a persecution complex. They want total and absolute affirmation thinking that if they can silence all opposition it will quiet their conscience.

                        There will always be people speaking against evil. The homosexual agitators will never gain the peace they so much want as long as they refuse to accept the truth.

                      • JQ

                        I don’t believe most gay people are closeted because “on some level the homosexual person knows the acts are wrong.” Even celibate homosexual persons can remain closeted. Perhaps they remain closeted because they’d rather not deal with “hostile” people like you? I don’t believe they’re looking for your “affirmation”.

                      • Guest

                        Then you live in a fantasy world. They lash out at any opposition because they want and crave that affirmation.

                      • Art Deco

                        many gay persons remain closeted.

                        That’s just good manners. Exhibitionism should not be encouraged.

                      • JQ

                        No, it’s not “good manners”. It’s not wanting to be abused by anti-gay bigots. However, “exhibitionism” as you call it has had a measure of success against such bigotry. People coming out the closet puts a real face to the issue to replace the bogeyman that you deceptively prop up.

                      • Art Deco

                        Somehow I suspect that in your mundane life ‘good manners’ is a set of notions you have trouble getting your mind around. Just a guess.

                      • JQ

                        I suspect you’re not a good Catholic.

              • Art Deco

                You’re comparing apples and oranges: “straight men in a married
                relationship” supported by culture to unmarried gay men despised by
                culture.

                There is quite a bit of vernacular resistance to the normalization of homosexuality, but in general the public articulation of this is pretty mealy-mouthed. It has been nearly 30 years since you might have seen a forthright statement of disdain from a politician or editorialist or clergyman. Jerry Falwell’s crack, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” would be almost unutterable today, even though it is a fairly mild and playful rebuke.

                As for mass entertainment products, these have not incorporated any critical dimension in decades. Prior to 1982, homosexuality was the subject of comedy, and treated disrespectfully; you would be hard put to find too many examples of it being treated as something corrupt or sinister during the interval running from 1969 to 1982. The was a a film called Cruising which came out around about 1979 (and was vitriolically denounced by Gene Shalit), but that was very unusual.

                Where else you have in mind? Academe nearly sacralizes sodomy and there are almost no voices therein condemning it. The commanding heights of the legal profession have proved quite willing to ruin constitutional law in order to distribute bon bons to sexual deviants. Not even a public health catastrophe could persuade the medical profession to make a more general critique of the subcultures within which that disaster arose.

                • JQ

                  Perhaps you’re blind and deaf, because there are “forthright statements of disdain from a politician or editorialist or clergyman” every day of the year and it is 2013. And I’ve seen many “mass entertainment products” since 1982 that have “treated it as something corrupt or sinister” or “disrespectfully”.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    This fellow is jamming. We all know waht is really going on and not in the fantasist world of gay activist. They have a vested interest in 1) keeping a veil over their sexual lives, 2) making everyone think they are everywhere and 3) they are discriminated against widely.

                    • JQ

                      It is YOU who are jamming. Gay people ARE everywhere. Their sexual lives are quite diverse, same as the sexual lives of heterosexual persons are quite diverse. And there is widespread discrimination against gay people. Your activities are a testament to that. You have a vested interest.

                  • Art Deco

                    Let go of my leg. It has not escaped the notice of anyone present that the gay lobby and the combox clowns from which they draw succor have neuralgic reactions to ordinary criticism and statements of resistance. Other people advancing causes would never begin with these assumptions and so are capable of measured responses.

                    In truth, the public verbiage with regard to the homosexual population is quite delicate compared what it was thirty years ago. Even then supra-local authorities were not much given to caustic commentary (it being a rather boutique cause prior to 1982).

                    • JQ

                      You speak many words but little substance.

                  • bookman

                    “… something corrupt or sinister or disrespectful…”

                    and depraved.

                    All of the above.

    • Ferrari5858

      Well I have a feeling that you could tell evil from disordered by asking them if it’s found to be reversible as a biological problem as it most likely is biological in nature (for some reason the word sex makes people think biology doesn’t exist but animals don’t make lifestyle choices and ask any biologist if gay amphibians aren’t increasing dramatically, they are) but anyway ask them if they could be straight tomorrow through medical science would they choose to be?

      • John200

        Are you attempting to communicate?

        From your comment we learn that “the word sex makes people think biology doesn’t exist” and other absurdities. It is obviously false. I am at a loss to think that a normal human being can parse this.

        Perhaps you might proofread before you comment.

        • Ferrari5858

          My point is that when something deals with sex people attach morality to the point that they ignore biology. The same with crime. Nobody likes to acknowledge we are creating this possibly through environment, hormones, toxins, etc. and when any scientist tries to examine human behavior from a purely biological standpoint they get shut down by both sides. We now know that certain areas of the brain when stimulated can turn anyone into a murderer and they could not stop themselves. We also know that exposure to things like mercury and pesticides creates homosexuality in birds for one. You can’t look at this through one prism and be intellectually honest. The only way to ascertain morality is to restore the biology to perfection and only then can one assume it is a lifestyle choice. And most likely, if it causes the emotional pain they claim it does no one who is moral would make.

          • John200

            On sexual morality, I will go to the point. Sex is a biological function, but in humans it is governed by morals.

            “The only way to ascertain morality” is to learn and practice what we were given 2000+ years ago. We have a comprehensive moral theology that works every time it is tried. In some situations, it is complex. But moral reasoning is within the capabilities of a normal human being. When we practice the morality we received, and we are intellectually honest, we do well.

            Otherwise, not well at all.

            Honestly.

            • Ferrari5858

              And the morally upright person who gets turned into a murderer by electrodes in the brain who doesn’t have the capacity to practice reason let alone theology? Is he a sinner if they actually let him murder? I am guessing you are one who thinks that the child who can’t sit still in school just needs the belt or better parenting. If it was in our capacity to recognize this for what it is and someday science will find that it can be changed biologically we must face the possibility because there is no such thing as truth until all questions are reasonably answered and when they are that changes the whole paradigm. You would not preach morality to a child who could not control his behavior, you would heal him.

              • Guest

                Whether you realize it or not the confused points you are trying to make are all based in philosophy/morality. Even your attempt to separate biology from morality is a moral/philosophical point.

                • Ferrari5858

                  Pedophilia is listed as a mental illness or at least it used to be, our legislators still consider it as one. Was Adam Lanza guilty of murder because his mind was obviously destroyed probably not only from autism but Lyme as well. Since you obviously know so much about what makes a person gay why don’t you assure us they are right in the mind as well. Then we can all be sure they have no problem controlling their behavior like a sexually normal person and declare them just morally bankrupt. I think I’ll stick with Pope Francis.

                  • Guest

                    You may want to read what the Church actually teaches before you mix up your thinking with scientism and other false ideologies.

                    ” What is at all costs to be avoided is the
                    unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual
                    persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is
                    essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person
                    and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as
                    well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity
                    will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating
                    grace.”

                    On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

                    Now, no one denies that pathology can influence and obviate moral culpability. But, Pope Francis does not hold to your confused views.

    • neilshog

      As Christians, we do our homosexual brothers no favor by approving sin. We are called to help one another attain Heaven.Let us not forget that straight people are commanded to only engage in sexual relations inside marriage, and there sure is a lot of us not obeying THAT. If it is true that homosexuals are born that way, we must remember that we all have a cross to bear and if this is theirs, but they rely on God to live morally, He will reward them abundantly in the next life.

    • markkrite

      Very insightful article. Definitely much to chew on here. Yes, homosexuals who act upon their afflictive S.S.A. are very definitely in a prison of their own making by their bad lifestyle choices. Bad habits of pleasure obviously lead to addiction that is extremely hard to kick. It’s true in drugs, in smoking, in hard alcohol, and is especially true in the gay/homo lifestyle which the gay agit-prop cabal continually plays up as a “right.” (it used to be called ‘affectional preference’ when the fight in the beginning was to mainstream and normalize such sordid patterns of living) Then the cabal suddenly discovered a possible “gay gene,” which has proven to be a farcicial concept. So now the whole deviant mess has devolved and metastasized into a “Constitutional right” to same-sex “marriage” to foist upon either (1. the whole country through some kind of sweeping gay “emancipation proclamation” OR (2. through subverting the individual states and their constitutions to the point of various governors in some kind of high dudgeon and states of high moral outrage signing into law the “rights” of gay/homos to “marry.” Either way the heterosexual couples who got married thinking THIS is the way marriage is done, i.e., in a heterosexual manner involving one man and one woman with children being naturally attendant to it, are being endangered by a very awful travesty of the act of real marriage. And the heterosexuals are in the MAJORITY, for God’s sake. Gays constitute approximately 2% of the population in the U.S.; talk about the tail wagging the dog! This is societal madness, and people must come to their senses.

    • Elat

      very important and good article. I think the only thing missing is to add to this the physical dangers and consequences of what they do too.

    • Thomas

      I am open to others’ opinions. Here’s why:
      A liberal catechist really got under my skin at a diocesan training class when she remarked that so many of “the pro-life advocates were all about saving the life of fetuses and content with stopping right there.” She went on to ask what we were doing beyond our life advocacy; what steps were we taking to make life possible for these unwanted children? That comment disturbed me, and I thought perhaps I should adopt children? Perhaps I should funnel some of my contributions to orphanages instead of pro life advocacy groups.
      I didn’t like her deflection away from the main issue and I just assumed she was some lib-lab who probably tolerated some degree of legalized abortion. I don’t know, but I had to come to grips with her challenge.
      A few years later, I was asked to tutor a teen age student in her mathematics learning. When I arrived at the house I soon observed that mom and dad were actually two lesbians: one stayed home taking care of the household and raising the six Hispanic children they adopted; the other woman was an army veteran who taught middle science to middle school children. These ladies provided a family and a life for kids who were not wanted, and who may have been targets for abortion at one time. Some people will read this and say that this is a form of “good,” while others will say that no good can ever come from such an abomination. The kids seemed to be well taken care of. As I arrived each day, they were being picked up from school and required to begin their studies, and after that they were chauffeured off to their athletic activities.
      In a comment box over at NCR, I read comments made by a frustrated homosexual person asking for understanding: this person said he or she gave money to stop abortions and encouraged gay associates to do the same–even encouraged them to watch EWTN. But, what he or she did not like was the attitude that both the article and the combox commenters were making about homosexuality.
      In the first example I talked about, I later learned accidentally that the kids in the family were not allowed to read the Bible. I knew why. I’ve read enough to have learned, sadly, that these, shall we say, “weak-willed”, homosexuals are angry with how we Christians have treated them. Yes, they are angry. The point, for me, is that not all homosexuals are pure sex-enthralled deviants. Are many of them doing “good” by taking and loving children? Or, are they anathema simply because of their sexual orientation?
      I don’t bring this up to be provocative, but to ask for your comments.
      Thanks.

      • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

        Well, it is similar to the whole “Atheists can be good people too” saw. I’ve not met many Christians that dispute that. The problem with the examples of the good atheist, the anti-abortionist who isn’t sufficiently “pro-life” enough (whatever that means) or the lesbians with the heart of gold is that they are a). anecdotal and b). hominem arguments that don’t deal with the central issue: Truth. Are ant-abortionists sinners who don’t always live up to their own standards? Of course. Do 10, 1000, or ten-million lousy anti-abortionists mean that abortion isn’t objectively a grave evil? Of course not; it’s always evil no matter how good the intentions of the one procuring the abortion are or how lame the anti-abortionist is.
        Same with people with same-sex attraction. Are they all sexually promiscuous? Of course not. Do ten-million people with same-sex attraction not acting like the testimony of Mr. Ruse’s article somehow make sexual contact between people of the same sex morally acceptable? Of course not. Homosexual “sex” is evil. It offends against chastity, is a menace to public morals and desecrates the proper bonds of friendship between people of the same sex and results in alienation. In short, I can’t control how other Christians treat homosexuals. I can however tell the Truth and let the chips fall where they may.

      • Guest

        Scott W reply is right on. There is a tendency to use the wrong metric when talking about moral issues. We tend to reason with poorly formed consciences that make erroneous decisions based on emotion, pop culture, indoctrination, and shallow thinking.

        I can use your point and just change sins. You think it would be morally good and pleasing to our Lord if we said I know a rapist who raised her kids to be polite? I know a tax cheater who always gives me a ride to work when I need it. I know an abortionist who watches my kids when I have to work?

        See, the standard is not cultural niceness or secular goodness.We are meant for something much higher and much better than that.

        • Thomas

          You said, “I can use your point and just change sins. You think it would be morally good and pleasing to our Lord if we said I know a rapist who raised her kids to be polite? I know a tax cheater who always gives me a ride to work when I need it. I know an abortionist who watches my kids when I have to work?”
          I did not view the two women (who were giving a home to those six children) as rapists, tax cheaters and abortionists. I viewed them as I would view myself and others: as morally imperfect beings who were doing something highly commendable. I didn’t investigate the possibility that they might not be acting out sexually, nor did I have knowledge of their marital status. They might be chaste and not married for all I know. But, they certainly did not appear–and we are talking about women homosexuality here, not the male version–like the repulsive, sexually deviant and reckless type in the essay. Ruse’s essay is important because it highlights the misuse and corruption of the sex act. But let us not forget that heterosexual sexual promiscuity can be just as repugnant and is not exactly what we would call “love making.”
          I hope you are not implying that I do not have a fully developed conscience. I would allow that observation if I did not fully support the Church’s teaching and if I were trying to change it for mere secular reasons. As a Catholic, I get it: we are called to be saints. What that experience taught me might be a key for better understanding what Pope Francis is saying about judging others when we don’t always walk in their shoes. So, I must discern the difference between a formed conscience and an open or closed mind.

          • Guest

            The point is you do not see the few sins I listed as evil as homosexual acts or as imposing false parents on children. Pope Francis called such things as coming from the devil.

            It is not only the particular acts themselves, but that children have rights. To raise them with false parents as if two women could ever be a mother and father is a serious evil.

            We are not utilitarians where we weigh good versus evil. The ends never justify the means. Children have rights!

            The Pope mentioned a person, seeking Christ. One who confesses their sins and tries to amend their life. He never endorsed two women acting like a mother and father which is frankly diabolical.

            To minimize things by claiming “morally imperfect” humans as if it were some small item is exactly the point I was making. Too many refuse to see the seriousness of the problem because they focus on secondary concerns and utilitarian propaganda.

            At no time in history would any rational person conclude two women should raise children as if they were married and mother and father. It is later than we think.

            • Thomas

              While I appreciate your answer, I would argue that none of us are morally perfect. This is not a minimalist statement meant for mere utilitarian convenience; nor would I ever seek to undermine Church teaching, which, by the way, can be succinctly stated as “hate the sin, love the sinner….repent and forgive.” It is up to the state to sort out the mess that it has, in part, created.
              As a citizen of both the Church and the state, I will investigate the topic of adoption in order to look at the numbers. I want to know if the supply of unwanted children is greater or less than the supply of available parents. Abortion is never right. But the liberal catechist still posed an important question. I want to make sure we aren’t just valiantly rallying to stop abortion without going beyond that to “practically” ensure that these poor little ones will have a home and loving parents or caretakers.
              Thanks for your response.

              • Guest

                There is no “right” to homosexual unions and no right to expose children to such moral violence. None.

    • http://renewthechurch.wordpress.com/ Thomas Richard

      Some thought on this issue –

      Same-sex activity is radically different from other human issues that may appear to be parallel. Homosexual-heterosexual equivalence (moral and civil) is a radically different stance to take and to promote than, for example, emancipation of slaves, equal access to voting for both men and women, equal civil rights for all races, freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, and so on. Homosexual equivalence is not a civil right.

      The reason this is true is grounded in the fact of the differences of the sexes: men are not women; women are not men. Mothers are not and cannot be fathers. Fathers are not and cannot be mothers. Husbands are not and cannot be wives; wives are not and cannot be husbands. Although sexual activity is clearly pleasurable, the most important reasons for sexual union are the procreation of children and the good of union of the two different expressions of the human person – man and woman, as husband and wife.

      The good of the union of husband and wife presupposes difference – and the existence of conjugal love in a marriage proves that this union, which presupposes not merely difference but complementary difference, is indeed “very good.” This good of complementary union of the two requires difference, and not sameness. There is difference, difference, indeed that is reciprocal and complementary. Mere pleasure is indifferent to sameness or difference: it does not matter when the object is pleasure for the self. But when the object is the completion of the self by virtue of a bond of love and mutual self-gift with the other, who makes the self whole, the pleasure becomes not merely gratifying but sacred. Same-sex unions desecrate this act, which is ordered and intended to be holy.

      Civil rights are based on equivalence. (Men and women are equivalently citizens. All races are equivalently citizens.) The conjugal union is based on reciprocal complementarity and the completion of the two. Men and women are complementary, and thus their mutual attraction and sexual union (when right and appropriate) are ordered toward something of higher dimension than mere sexual gratification. Indeed, their union is ordered to holiness. Marriage is a sacrament.

      Modern culture has so flattened, that the dimension of being toward “holiness” seems nonsense. This flatness is radically insulting of the human person, and is intrinsically incapable of satisfying the human person. Thus, he is never satisfied in the flat space of modernism, but is always hungry, always thirsting for more, always empty, always lusting. The human person needs God. Without Him, he is nothing.

      • Ferrari5858

        I agree, homosexuals starting out on the wrong moral premise by equating civil rights to homosexuality is a foundationally weak argument, one that Catholics should be aware of how to counteract. In fact most of their arguments are very weak because all of them are foundationally flawed.

    • schmenz

      Mr Ruse: a timely article. Thank you.

      But may I ask one favor? Please do not use the language of the enemy, by using the word “gay” to describe this hideous perversion. I understand what you were trying to do but the casual use of that word to describe sodomy is something we must all stop doing. It is giving the Enemy ground in his war against civilization.

      If I may: http://www.theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-war-of-words.html

    • Hugh_Oxford

      How very sad, but very true. We need to reach out to these men, broken and deceived, damaged and lost, with a message of hope and love and healing. In the mean time, we must recognise that their internal turmoil and search for justification will often manifest itself in political activism.

    • Mo86

      Thank you for exposing the lies being perpetuated by those who promote homosexuality. This is something you will not hear anywhere. (Along with the stats on illness that go with this behavior.)

      However, I am confused about the opening:

      “Not caring about what happens to gay men is like not caring about prison rape. Prisoners are our brothers, too, and so are gay men.”

      Criminals and those living the homosexual lifestyles are brothers of… whom? Followers of Christ?

      Where in the Bible does it teach that unregenerate men in prison are our “brothers” in Christ? And especially, where in the Bible does it teach that people who are willingly engaging in the homosexual lifestyle – something that the Bible calls an abomination – are Christian brothers?

      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

        Luke 19. (When Christ called Zacchaeus before his repentance.)

        • Mo86

          That’s a whole chapter. Where, exactly, does it teach that unrepentant sinners are the brothers of followers of Christ?

          • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

            Pray for the grace of wisdom, and then read it.

            • Mo86

              In other words… you have no actual answer.

              And that would be because the Bible nowhere teaches any such thing, In fact, it teaches quite exactly the opposite. Only those who receive Christ are given the right to BECOME children of God – which means they were NOT children of God prior to receiving Christ. (John 1, especially v. 12.)

              It also teaches that light and darkness have nothing in common. (1 Corinthians 6, especially 14-18)

              Therefore, an unrepentant prisoner and an unrepentant homosexual are NOT brothers to those who name the name of Christ.

              I have supported my statements with Scriptural evidence. Can you do so with your position?

              • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                Genesis 4:9

                • Mo86

                  What on earth? What does this verse have to do with 1) the original question or 2) the Scriptural evidence I provided for my statements?

                  Now I know you are just playing games. I’m sorry, I do not have time for that.

                  I’m used to that on the internet. I was hoping a supposed Christian site would be different. So frustrating.

                  • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                    John 8:10

                    • Mo86

                      Another verse shot out, with zero explanation and zero addressing of anything I’ve said.

                      Stop bothering me. I will no longer waste time reading or playing your silly games.

                      Again, it’s sickening to see this sort of behavior on a supposed Christian site.

                      • http://www.DSDOConnor.com/ Daniel O’Connor

                        Matthew 25:44. (Where Our Lord commands – on pain of hell – that we visit the *imprisoned* not the *falsely accused imprisoned*)

                  • Bob

                    Jamming…..

      • April Fools Day

        The sick gay lifestyles is destroying people. People really need to get an education:

        “An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse…” – WebMD.com

        “The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts andanal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.” – WebMD.com

        • JQ

          Meanwhile, most gay sex is not anal sex, and greater numbers of heterosexual persons than homosexual persons have engaged in anal sex.

          • Austin Ruse

            This is the lamest of all arguments. The total population of homosexuals, depending on how you define it, which is very difficult, is maybe 3-4% of the total population which would make the entire population of gays roughly 12 million. So, there are more heteros in every category than gays because of sheer numbers. But, when you look at the concentration of things like anal sex, then you see the gay population has an especial and overwhelming taste for things like that.

            • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

              Austin, I’m glad to see you’re no longer holding to original estimate of no more than 2%, or even your revised estimate of slightly higher than less than 2%.

              Which means, of course, that gays are not over-represented on TV (ranging between 1.1% and 4.4% in recent years). Which gives evidence that increasing public acceptance of gays is not due to some media push as people here have suggested, but is instead due to their first-hand experience with gays as neighbors, friends, family, and colleagues — experience which contradicts the portrait you try to paint here.

              • Austin Ruse

                I am actually grateful that you held my feet to the fire on that. Arguing like this sharpens your arguments. to me it is not terribly relevant whether it is 2 or 3.5% or 4. It is small. You hvae simply helped iwth my arguments…to make them more accurate…

                • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                  Austin, you’re welcome. Making arguments more accurate is helpful to everyone interested in these issues, no matter which side they fall on. (Of course, whether it’s 2% or 4% did matter in the context of the discussion in which you raised the number).

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Thanks, bud..you just made me burn the butter…

                  • Austin Ruse

                    First rule of fight club…don’t cook with butter during fight club…

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      You made me laugh. I know exactly how you feel. I’ve fallen prey to this sort of thing more than once. Have you seen this?
                      http://xkcd.com/386/

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, I know that one WELL!

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Austin, if you’re ever in Los Angeles, let me know. We apparently both like to cook; we can make ourselves some dinner. We could both benefit (everyone could benefit) from getting to know “Fight Club” opponents as human beings outside the ring (or…outside the dank basements and deserted parking lots in which fight clubs apparently happen). You can get my email from my blog at wakingupnow.com

                      • Austin Ruse

                        aboslutely…and I am in DC and in NYC once a month…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        That’d be great.

            • JQ

              It’s not an “argument”. It’s more information, helpful for perspective. Of course, if you have a large plank in your eye, perhaps you don’t appreciate perspective all that well, especially if it doesn’t fit with your agenda.

              Meanwhile, your story about “an especial and overwhelming taste” is well, your story. Others tell different stories, e.g. that anal sex is not the preferred taste of the gay population.

              • Austin Ruse

                According to the Multicenter AIDs Cohort Study which interview ed5,000 gay men, up to 80% of them received anal sex in the previous two years. Granted the study was done in 1987 and it is at least conceivable gay men don’t go for that any more. But I doubt it.

                • JQ

                  You ought also point out that the Multicenter AIDs Cohort Study is not a random, representative sample of gay men. But perhaps that does not fit with your agenda.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    It is a 30 year longitudinal study of 6,000 gay men. That means the same group is tracked over time. I am not sure if they were randomly selected. Theproblem with randomly selected from such a miniscule group is that it is hard almost impossible to do. This is one reason all the gay parenting studies are so bad, becuase the sample sizes are so small. Regnerus had this problem. It shows, among other things, that gays, for instance in the Regerus study, simplyare not interested in being parents.

                    • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                      Actually, if you look at the Regnerus planning documents, he was never even asked to look for children raised by same sex parents. The studies parameters were very specific about whom he was supposed to find. Children who:

                      “1. Lived with a parent who had a romantic relationship with a member of the same gender (whether the romantic relation lived with the respondent [i.e., the child] or not)

                      2. Lived with an adoptive parent who was neither related by biology nor marriage

                      3. Lived with a single biological parent who lived with a member of the other gender but did not marry.”

                      Do you see what’s missing from that list? Children who were raised by same-sex parents. This study on same-parenting never required Regnerus to find — or even look for — children raised by same-sex parents.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Take a wild guess and tell us why that is…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        A wild guess? That the study was never designed to study same sex parenting. But that’s just a guess. You have one?

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Sure. You really cant find any. Adults raised from child hood by same sex parents simply do not exist to any degree to measure. The best you can do is what he did. the survey was about same sex parenting but also was to look at what is the best family structure. His analysis shows that any deviation from biological mother and father in a lifelong marriage is detrimental to the child.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Austin, these parameters were in place before the study began. So if they’d already decided they wouldn’t be able to find any, that means they’d already decided what their conclusions would be before the study even began. So your reasoning, if correct, would just be further invalidation of the study.

                        And, of course, his analysis does not show that “any deviation from biological mother and father in a lifelong marriage” is bad, because his analysis did not specify results for kids raised by same sex parents. The jury is still out on that, and Regnerus offers us no data on it.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Rob…Regnerus did not do original interviewing. He analyzed data from the National Survey. This was a million dollar proposition in itself. He examined already completed data. They suspect they knew in advance that the sample size was so tiny as to be meaningless. This may change overtime, but for the current data which he examined, it was too small. the best definition they could come up with for any kind of meaningful analysis was the one you cite above..

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Here is their note about teh purpose of the study:

                        http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/index.html

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        That’s the problem, Austin. The stated purpose of the study (“understand how young adults (~ages 18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and relational outcomes”) doesn’t match up with what the study reported (no specific results for children raised by same sex parents) and also doesn’t match up with the parameters set for the study before it even began (no requirement that they look for children raised by same sex parents, even though they did have such requirements for opposite sex parenting).

                        That’s what makes the study so egregiously misleading.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Questions S8 and S9 precisely get at that question.

                        http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-codebook.pdf

                        The problem they knew about was getting a sample size of adults who were “raised” from childhood to adulthood by same sex parents. These people simply do not exist at this time. So S8 and S9 get at that as best they can.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        But this is a conclusion they should have come to after collecting the data; it should not already be shaping the parameter of the study before it was conducted.

                        Meanwhile, Regnerus is still guilty of framing his completed study as giving us data about children raised by same sex parents, when it did nothing of the sort.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        I think it is a valid assumption. we know the sample size is small. So, how do you get at any kind of measurement? You broaden the question so that it can capture both those who may have had total child rearing by the same same sex parents and others who had only a part of that. Perhaps in teh future, the sampel size will be larger, but for now, it is small…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        But Regnerus didn’t limit himself to people who had “who may have had total child rearing by the same same sex parents [only 2 of his respondents!] and others who had only a part of that.”

                        Rather, in his group of his kids raised by what he called lesbian mothers and gay fathers [terminology he later recanted and regretted by the same], he actually included children who experienced no same sex parenting at all.

                        Regnerus’ study simply shows that kids suffer when their opposite sex parents break up — whether those parents go on to have opposite sex or same sex relationships. And we already knew that.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Yes, the purpose was to compare children raised in the presence of samesex parents along with children raised in other kinds of households…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        And that’s exactly the group he did not specify results for. So instead of merely saying, “We couldn’t find a big enough sample,” Regnerus went around publicly saying his study offered new information on same sex parenting when it did nothing of the sort.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        Here is the raw data that shows he did get responses and did report it.

                        Note answers S7_1 and S7_2:

                        1.2% of women answered yes and .5% of men answered yes.

                        http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/documents/NFSS-codebook.pdf

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        Neither of those questions establish whether the child lived in a home headed by a same sex couple.

                        They don’t establish whether the same-sex partner ever lived with that parent.

                        They don’t establish whether the child ever lived in the same household as the parent’s same sex partner.

                        S8 and S9 don’t establish that either. Compare this to S13, which does ask these questions of children raised in some opposite-sex homes.

                        Now, I’ve been through this data, and somewhere in it he does establish that some number of children did experience same-sex parenting, but here’s the thing: His study doesn’t report specific outcomes for that group, even though that’s the group he’s allegedly studying.

                        You can see why so many of us don’t merely consider his work inconclusive, but view his initial presentation of it in the media as dishonest.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        And the reason is that you needed a sample size big enough to capture those children who had any experience in a samesex household. You are facing the dilemma that children raised their whole lives by the same same-sex couple simply do not exist to any degree.

                        Inevitably, because of the procreating issue, samesex couples will never both be the biological parents of the child.

                        So, how do you measure those who have been raised at least partially that way? You broaden the question out to include the few raised that way and others who had at least a portion of their lives raised that way.

                        Look at the answers in s1 and s2, certainly they would include a child raised his whole life in a samesex household. But since that example alone would be so small, you needed to build in the reality of most these kids lives, that their biological mother or father at some point left their biological other parent and went with someone of the same sex for a period of time, generally quite short.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        “You broaden the question out to include the few raised that way and others who had at least a portion of their lives raised that way.”

                        And yet he did not report specific result for that group. Instead, he lumped them in with a bunch of other kids who experienced no same-sex parenting at all.

                        And s1 and s2 would also include a child raised his whole life in an Asian or Hispanic household, but the Regnerus study is not on Asian or Hispanic parenting.Why? Because he did not report specific results for children raised in Asian or Hispanic homes.

                        And the exactly the same is true of his study when it comes to children raised in same-sex homes. Regnerus should simply have been honest and said, “My study does not present specific results for children raised in same sex homes. I was not able to conduct such a study.”

                        But he didn’t.

                        EDIT: But he didn’t — that is, not until the outcry forced him to admit it.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        By the way, my wife is always amazed at how guys can go at it hammer and tongs and almost immediatly become friends…

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        It’s funny how that can happen.

                      • Austin Ruse

                        But here is the study design. It clearly in its design sought to measure children of same-sex parents…

                        STUDY DESIGN & DOCUMENTATION

                        Introduction

                        Knowledge Networks conducted the New Family Structure Survey on behalf of University of Texas Austin. Specifically, the study examined the respondents’ experiences growing up in unconventional families where:

                        a.Parents are of the same sex

                        b.Biologically unrelated parents adopted the respondent

                        c.Parents were unmarried but co-habiting

                        d.Biological mother had a romantic relationship with another man

                        e.Biological mother did not have a romantic relationship with another man

                        In addition, the survey also collected data among respondents who did not grow up in those unconventional families as a control/comparison group.

                        The survey was conducted using sample from KnowledgePanel®, including those who had left

                        the panel at the time of the study.

                      • http://wakingupnow.com/ Rob Tisinai

                        I understand that. Yet according to the actual parameters laid out in the study’s design:

                        When it came to adoptive families, the study mandated that the child live with both those adults.

                        When it came to a parent with an unmarried opposite sex partner, the study mandated that the child live with both those adults.

                        But when it came to a parent with a same-sex partner, the study mandated…nothing at all about the child living with both those adults.

                        That’s completely at odds with the study’s purpose, and casts doubt on Regnerus’ post-hoc rationalization of “We couldn’t find any,” given that the study was mandated to look for every parenting combination except for the one it was supposed to examine.

                      • Austin Ruse
                    • JQ

                      The MACS is a longitudinal study of a non-random, non-representative sample of gay and bisexual men, not just gay men, who volunteered in a few large cities. It’s not a random, representative sample of gay men. The problem is not that “gay” men is a “miniscule” group, for indeed, it is not a miniscule group. The problem is that we don’t know who they are or what people do in private unless they volunteer to tell us.

                      The Regnerus study has a related problem, that though he started with a supposedly random sample of a general population, the sample of volunteers that made up his actual study are not a random, representative sample. Instead, they’re just the people who were willing, for whatever motives they had, to participate. In addition, the Regnerus study did not sample “gays”. The participants were adult children, some of whom reported stories about their parents who might or might not have been “gay”. We don’t know whether the parents really were/are “gay”. They were not parties to his study,

          • The_Monk

            That is a broad statement. Please post links to the studies that prove your assertion, because I am more than hugely sceptical….

            • JQ

              I appreciate your desire for verification. I encourage it. Have you, for example, typed “anal sex” into Google and done a simple search for yourself? Or visited your local library? I welcome all posters to avail themselves of the information that is already readily available at your fingertips. That’s what it’s for, so we don’t have to post it again. In addition, I welcome you to reach out and talk to gay people in person or online, and ask them, not just one or two, but as many as you like until you are satisfied.

              • thebigdog

                “Have you, for example, typed “anal sex” into Google”

                Yes, if you Diddle your Google, you will scream Yahoo!!!!

              • The_Monk

                I thought as much. No thanks….

          • April Fools

            WHO IS JQ???? I am quoting from WebMD.com they are a medical organization and they have the statistics you just have YOUR BIG FAT MOUTH that is all!

        • Bob

          Gay bowel syndrome.

      • http://renewthechurch.wordpress.com/ Thomas Richard

        Hello Mo86,

        There are two senses of brotherhood taught in the Bible that Christians must understand. There is the sense which you have acknowledged: those in Christ are brothers in Christ by virtue of rebirth and life in the Holy Spirit. In that special and holy relationship, Jesus teaches of a unique love that is a transforming light for the world caught in darkness – to those in Him, He teaches a “one-another” love that the world otherwise will never see, a love that is truly of God. This is His “new commandment” to those in Him: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

        There is another sense of brotherhood in Scripture, as well, that is different but equally important for those in Him: we are to love those in darkness as He did and does. God so loved the world that He sent His only Son. Jesus, God the Son, continues to love those in darkness as His Father does, in sending His Church with the saving Gospel. We love, because He first loved us! He first loved us when we were yet dead in sin! With this holy and self-sacrificial love we are sent to the world still in darkness, to take His love to them.

        Those in darkness are our brothers by virtue of our common father Adam. The peoples of the whole world are brothers because of this one common beginning, and we are to love those brothers still in darkness as He did – by self-sacrificial love on the cross that He gave us, to take up and follow Him.

        God so loved the world in sin that He sent His Son. Jesus His Son so loves the world lost in sin that He sent and sends His Church. God’s love for and call to any in sin will continue until the end, until the close of the age. Until then yes, all are our brothers, and of these God will ask of us, “Were you your brother’s keeper?” “Did your lost brothers hear and see God’s love in you, and through you?”

      • thisoldspouse

        My first thought as well, Mo86. Christ made clear delineations among people according to their lineage by faith – some were children of God by the new birth, but some were children of the Devil, by Christ’s own words.

        • Mo86

          Yes, indeed.

    • Hugh_Oxford

      The obvious question is this: why would homosexual men be monogamous? Monogamy – like marriage – has the primary purpose of providing a secure environment for mothers and children.

    • Mike

      I “came out” when I was 18, and became a regular in the “gay community” until my spiritual conversion at the age of 25. Everything that is written in this article is 100% accurate. The image painted by the media is not what it’s really like. In real life, it’s all about sex, party drugs, flaunting the perfect body, grinding with your shirt off to techno music at nightclubs, bathhouses, threesomes, open relationships, and everything else that is self-destructive. Then, after you get old (30 years old), nobody in the gay community wants you anymore and you find yourself even lonelier than before. You end up hating yourself and everyone else in “the community”. I thank God that I found peace with myself and with life in general through the Church and the sacraments. Is there a part of me that misses that carefree lifestyle? Yes, at times. But then I remember how many of my “friends” have died from it and I remember to give thanks that I was fortunate to escape it.

      • WSquared

        Mike, welcome home.

    • Funbud

      Really? Citing a single essay from 2006 from some random guy who apparently failed to find love in the gay world? That’s your proof? Might I dare suggest that he is perhaps not particularly lovable? I will admit that “gay culture” as constitued in the USA is not the easiest world to navigate. But the rather judgemental ranting of some who failed at finding his way doesn’t represent much of an argument.

      • jq

        You made a daring suggestion. Did he come across as a kind of sourpuss in his rant?

    • Guest

      Chris, try SA.org

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      The irreducible fact you cannot escape, Ruse, is that Christian conservatives like you are lobbying for mandates on their lives (verbally wishing that they would stop wanting legal action to put them on equal footing with the average straight person) and religious freedom (not one USA citizen has to care what you believe, by the first amendment the government shouldn’t have any religiously motivated laws nor laws against one’s ability to practice what they believe). If some people don’t believe Jesus is actually stating that their marriages are sin, they should not be penalized with not being issued marriage licenses and not getting anti-bullying protections in schools among many other things that serve as adapters for the society LGBT people live in. Religion is the private property of the individual. No one who does not believe as you do can see the current legal climate as just (though I know you have much to complain about the current concessions conservative have had to make). All USA citizens will have religious freedom not just those of the “right” religion (more specifically, your views not any particular religion).

      • Guest

        I guess two sisters can “marry” by your logic here. Relativism and hedonism lead to tyranny.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          If you would like to argue for sibling incest, do so on your own time. Relativism is active in all morality, and pleasure being the ultimate ideal can take its crap elsewhere.

          • Guest

            Relativism is not active in all morality. It is active in your morality. That is why your logic argues for incest.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              You don’t understand moral relativity. Get a complete understanding of what that means and then make an argument concerning what I mean.
              Relative to this discussion, what are your arguments for incest?

              • Guest

                You are confused. Moral truth is objective. You want it to be relative so that all will approve of your actions.

                Your logic allows for incest, and much more. There is no denying it.

                You take an unnatural desire and unnatural acts and claim they are decent, healthy, and acceptable based on your private desires. That is pure relativism.

              • April Fools

                Yeah, letting two fruit cakes sticking it in the ass and let’s change the definition of marriage to justify this filth is really living in reality, NOT!

    • publiusnj

      A commentor noted that “civil marriage” is increasingly irrelevant. Very true. Under our civil laws, there is very little governmental “favor” shown marriage. To the contrary, if both spouses earn approximately the same amount, the Tax law punishes their marriage with higher rates (i.e., two people earning $75,000 each per year, pay more if married thanthey would if living together. Concubinage is also favored on other governmental largesse such as Earned Income Credits and the child tax credits. Obamacare is likewise proving to be inimical to marriage.

      Christ on the other hand is greatly in favor of what is increasingly called “heterosexual marriage.” He said: “” But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.’ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
      wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one
      flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate….Whoever
      divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she
      divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” “

    • Pingback: Obamamess Now Heading to the Middle East! « L.A. Marzulli's Blog

    • Pingback: Mere Links 11.25.13 - Mere Comments

    • im4truth4all

      Just another fairy tale.

    • A realist.

      Mr. Ruse, how about you run the numbers on heterosexual couples too then. You don’t find any difference! Over the same five years, the same number of infidelity exists. Heterosexuals with over 50 partners? Come on, that’s common place. I know many, as in hundreds of gay couples who are monogamous, happy, and in love. Your article it’s indeed hate speech, in the cloak of a helpful message. Incidentally, don’t you think the numbers of gays who do feel this self-hated might decrease if your immoral religion stopped beating up on them? You sir are the problem, not the solution.

      • Guest

        You start from a false premise. Heterosexuality is normal. Those that act immorally are a subset. Homosexuality is abnormal. The entire population of that group that acts out is acting immorally.

        So, if you want to compare subsets compare true subsets.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          A realist. was not asking for your perceptions of “normal” or of morality. He asked Mr. Ruse to run the number for the actions specified in the above articles for heterosexuals as well. You are being morally relative in your use of different standards for a group you are biased to favor.

          • Guest

            No, I am being objective in understanding what right and wrong are and what health and pathology are. You want to compare unequals and draw conclusions which is absurd.

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              Is killing children and the unborn objectively wrong in all instances and under any circumstance (ie. Jesus couldn’t perpetrate this or order people to do it without being damned)? Is lying objectively wrong in all instances (ie. Jesus can’t lie or make others lie without being damned)?
              All cultures have some basic rules that have formed in common among them (the golden rule, laws against murder, stealing, rape, etc.), but those rules aren’t always applied the same and can have very different interpretations depending on where, when, who, etc. (ex: It is perfectly alright for a Christian to torture people and enslave. There have been whens and wheres and whos that believed whole-heatedly that Jesus commanded these things for evangelism and his glory. Jesus did not stop these things at the first thought of them. People gradually added their voices to, “Your interpretation is wrong, the pope is the anti-Christ, and you are immoral.” And, in England’s case, many were hypocrites and persecuted Catholics just like the Catholics had and continued to persecute them)

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              I realize I went off on a tangent about how morality is inherently relative. I fail to see how heterosexuality is wrong in all instances or unhealthy or pathological, therefore I fail to see how homosexuality is likewise. I cannot love my neighbor and say that a part of them is unequal (you don’t mean greater than, I can safely assume) to a part of me (especially when that part of me means I am but a part of someone I love. I am not married but still).

          • thisoldspouse

            If “normal” has no set meaning, then you have no claim to it either, do you?

            • Giauz Ragnarock

              “normal” is what you get when you mentally delete everyone who doesn’t fit certain qualities you have in mind when you think of “normal.” It’s more like a comfort term to qualify ourselves with those whom we respect versus those whom we do not.

              • Guest

                No, normal is a standard based in reason and logic.

              • Hegesippus

                ‘normal’ is to use a screwdriver to screw ascrew, not knock in a nail.
                When something works well in a manner designed to work well, and maybe even achieve something productive, it can be said to be employing its ‘normal’ use.
                Doing something different may seem gratifying to some but fails to be used in the ‘normal’ sense.

                • Giauz Ragnarock

                  In other words, straight and gay people are both “doing it” right? Everything you said describes long-time married men and women at my church. They aren’t having a million kids, but I’m pretty sure they still “do it” for gratification. Even the ones still young with kids or without mostly have sex to get off. The only difference between a straight married couple and a gay married couple (besides the millions of little nuances differentiating all married couples) is the Bible passages about marriage and the few Bible passages that seem to concern homosexual activity that you try to make sense of (ie, our straight marriages deserve the priveleges and responsibilities they always have had and their marriages, which have been possible in the USA without divine punishment since Illinois completely dropped anti-sodomy laws in 1969!, don’t get a marriage license).

                  • Hegesippus

                    Marriage, a covenant from time immemorial, involves cutting of the covenant and the gift of fruits such as children.
                    It takes a man and a woman to do that.

          • Guest

            If we cannot understand health and pathology then we err from the start.

      • Austin Ruse

        Studies show that your assumption is wrong. Married men and women are remarkably faithful to each other. However, multiple partners is part and parcel of the gay way of life, even among those who say they are in a lifelong relationship or whatever.

    • Kyle

      Ah, yes please continue to reduse the lives of gay men and lesbians to the kind of se x that they have, lord knows that play has worked wonders for the anti-gay movement in the past /sarcasm.

      • Guest

        They define themselves by their desires and their acts. Is this news new?

        • Kyle

          Ah, so when find out that someone is heterosexual do you immediately imagine that there life is wholly or even mostly defined by who they have sex with? Or is it just for homosexuals that you do this?

          • Guest

            Why would I do that? Heterosexuality is normal and healthy. Homosexuality is pathologic. If a person introduced themselves as a wife swapper I would think they needed help.

            • Kyle

              Pathological according to which standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders?

              • Guest

                Pathological according to common sense and right reason. I do not look to para experts or politicized science as any standard.

                So-called science calls killing babies “therapeutic”. So we look to authentic science and those with true learning and keen minds not credentialed misfits.

                • Kyle

                  So in order words, according to no standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders… LOL!

                  • Guest

                    Ah , no. There is a standard but it must be a real standard not one influenced by propagandists. If you want to think acting perversely is “healthy” go ahead but it is still pathology.

                    • Kyle

                      And by propagandists you of course mean the people who have dedicated their entire professional lives to the scientific study and understanding of maladaptive pathologies and mental disorders?

                      • Guest

                        No. I mean those misfits who change around diagnoses based on politics not science. If you were a real adult you would know that “experts” have all sorts of reasons for being biased.

                        Educated people do not accept propaganda simply because all other little girls think it is so kweel and the best ehvah.

                      • Kyle

                        So in other words yes… LOL!

                      • Guest

                        No, in other words I am not a fool who needs propaganda to make me feel normal. If you ever grow up and get some help you too will view reality as it is not as you so much want it to be.

                      • Kyle

                        No, you’re a person who lives in a world full of conspiracy theories and fantasy… Where professional organizations and experts in their fields, who spend the entirety their lives involved in scientific study, are out to get you and your sense of “truthiness”. If you ever grow up and decide to join the rest of us in reality, the real world will be waiting… Until then, all the best to you and yours! LOL!

                      • Art Deco

                        It hardly matters that they are ‘experts’ or engaged in ‘scientific study’. These are normative questions.

                        That aside, ‘professionals’ exist within particular social milieux and are vulnerable as anyone to the conventions within those milieux.

                        And, again, professional organizations themselves are subject to the influence of try-every-door activists. The absurdity of the American Library Association and the American Bar Association are the most extreme examples, but you see it elsewhere.

                      • Kyle

                        Aha, again, whatever you need to keep telling yourself, you’re right and the whole world is just in denial of how right you are… lol!

                      • Art Deco

                        You’re not making much sense.

                      • Kyle

                        Sure thing lol!

                      • peaceandtruth

                        pathology indicates a disease…. I work in this field – even my most right wing’ed Catholic colleague would not call homosexuality “pathological” as there is no basis for that. There is nothing indicating that a disease is present or that treatment is available or effective. Stop using that term it is damaging and incorrect. Sexuality in and of itself is not pathological. You believing it to be disordered does not make it a disease. You sound ridiculous.

                      • Bob

                        The reality is that you are committing grave, mortal sin. You have pushed yourself far from God’s love. If you died tonight Kyle, your soul’s eternity is in real jeopardy.

                      • Kyle

                        Aha, and the “reality” is that you are committing a grave and mortal sin by worshiping any God other than Allah and his one true prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Bob, your soul’s eternity is in real jeopardy lol!

                        Do you see how effective that kind of nonsense is? Rofl!

            • franklinb23

              ” If a person introduced themselves as a wife swapper I would think they needed help.”

              Haven’t read the Bible, have ya? Deuteronomy required men marry their deceased brothers’ widows (whether they were married already or not). Abraham had three wives. King David had dozens. King Solomon had hundreds.

              I guess technically this isn’t “swapping wives” … you couldn’t actually TAKE another man’s wife if he was alive … but you sure could have as many as you liked.

              • Guest

                You may want to read the bible again with greater comprehension and with the help of an educated person.

                The deformation of marriage was never the Lord’s plan.

            • peaceandtruth

              neither homosexuality or heterosexuality meet the criteria to be termed pathologic in and of themselves. Please watch your language as language is extremely important and powerful. I am going to go out on a limb here and say you probably have no authority degree or expertise naming diseases! Something being morally disordered according to the catholic church does not qualify it as a behavior or disorder indicative of a disease.

      • April Fools

        Yeah Kyle, let’s destroy society with even more of gay sex. LET’S NOT LIVE IN REALITY AND SPREAD MORE DEADLY DIESEASES! Guess what Kyle, in the 80′s the gay community was wiped out because of GAY SEX. Get an education Kyle:

        “An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse…” – WebMD.com

        “The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 TIMES MORE RISK for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts andanal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.” – WebMD.com

        • Kyle

          Because trying to frame gay men and lesbians as nothing more than vectors of diseases that most gay men and lesbians will never contract worked out so well for you guys in the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s, right? It’s not like we now have legal same-sex marriage in 16 states and civil unions in a handful of others? Oh wait LOL!

          By all means continue, you’re doing to the job of gay activists for them.

          • Guest

            Blunted consciences only pave the way for tyranny. The false freedom you so desire will not bring happiness.

            • Kyle

              It would seem that for a great many it already has…

              • Guest

                It has indeed as the homofascists force their nonsense on all of society.

                • Kyle

                  You just said that it will not bring happiness, and yet you almost immediately concede that it has… Not at all consistent are you? LOL!

                  • Guest

                    Yes, a false happiness. It never lasts. It always leads to tyranny.

                    • Kyle

                      Aha, sure thing…

                      • Guest

                        I know it is hard to grasp truth when the truth is you are acting badly and do not want to stop.

                      • Kyle

                        Hey, whatever you need to keep telling yourself… LOL!

                      • Guest

                        Keep deflecting. It is the only way for you to rationalize your nonsense.

                      • Kyle

                        Please see above comment lol…

                      • Guest

                        Uh huh.

                      • Kyle

                        And there’s that pathological need to get the last word again, lol! Go on, take it back, you know you really want to…

                      • Guest

                        Yes, you strike me as a deep intellectual.

          • Bob

            Whether you believe or not, you are committing mortal sin. Your souls eternity is in jeopardy. Repent, and sin no more.

    • Pingback: » Obamamess Now Heading to the Middle East! Mike Price

    • franklinb23

      How dare you? I’ve been partnered monogamously for almost three years … because we WANT to.

      Just because your circle of contacts includes a bunch of whores doesn’t mean the rest of us are.

      You don’t speak for me, sir.

      • Bob

        Do you love and trust in Jesus Christ, Franklin? You have led your friend in to a state of mortal sin. Have the humility to recognize you are sinning, gravely.

        • Kyle

          Bob, have the humility to recognize that you are sinning gravely! Repent and give your life over to Allah for to have other gods before him is to doom your soul to Jahannam for all eternity lol!

          • Bob

            You easily ridicule God. You are an atheist, Kyle?

            • Kyle

              And what business would that be of yours Bob?

              • Bob

                Every gay person I have ever met is an atheist, I find that interesting. I recall a study claiming the same thing. Why do gays (or the vast majority of them) have no belief in God?

                • Kyle

                  Well bully for you for finding that interesting… Isn’t that just interesting in and of itself!

                  What exactly makes you so certain that I am gay? I have certainly made no statements here declaring that I am nor have I made any statements declaring that I am atheist with respect to the idea of God in an abstract sense.

                  Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to ask those gay atheists you are acquainted with why they do not believe in a God or Gods.

                  Perhaps it would also be a good idea for you to become acquainted with more LGBT people in general. As with ever demographic there are a great number of deeply spiritual and religious LGBT people out there, who I am sure would be more than willing to talk with you, though probably not all that cordially if the first words out of your mouth are “repent sinner or burn!” lol!

                  • Bob

                    Are you gay, Kyle? Are you an atheist?

                    Once again you’re on an orthodox Catholic website, so by that fact the conversations should be around Catholicism and the Catholic teachings within the articles. So to ask you if you’re a gay atheist is to only establish your belief system, whether it is Catholic or not.

                    Oh, you’re assuming I don’t know my LGBT’s, aren’t you? I have been a volunteer at an AIDS/HIV hospice for 18 years, so I have come to know many.I find much of their atheism is possibly rooted in some kind of internalized hurting, or pain. Interestingly, I find many become former LGBT atheists over time, finding greater peace in the Church.

                    • Kyle

                      I still cannot see how the answer to either question is any of your business Bob…

                      If you want an echo chamber stay in your church, this is the internet and this site has an open comment section, a free forum of ideas, and as such dissenting opinions are all but assured.

                      Ah, you have come to know many have you? That is to say you have come to know many out of a tiny minority of gay men who are infected with HIV/AIDS, who are at the end of their lives and who happened to have darkened the hallways of your particular hospice. Hardly a representative sample now is it? lol!

                      Do you find it at all surpising that these men, who are after all dying of a disease that is directly related to their promiscuity, would find peace in the idea that they can be forgiven in the next life for the bad and dangerous choices they made in this one even if it is not at all true? Because I certainly don’t…

                      • Bob

                        Hmmmmm…….it sounds like you are condemning the homosexuals that have contracted AIDS? Many however, due to modern immune pharmaceutical cocktails, do not necessarily die these days. But during their sickness, many do have a “come to Jesus” crossroads, and do contemplate their mortality, and find themselves not wanting to return to their previous lifestyle.

                        And my apologies if asking your sexual orientation and beliefs makes you uncomfortable. The response to the article in your postings leads one to believe you are a gay atheist, which once again establishes your basis for your arguments. I am a heterosexual Catholic, which of course frames my thoughts and arguments.

                        But once again, my apologies if asking you your sexual orientation makes you uncomfortable.

                      • Kyle

                        Not condemning, simply stating the facts.

                        Yes, a greatly diminished lifespan and a daily reminder of the poor choices one has made in the past in the from of often quite dangerous pharmaceuticals would certainly have that effect on many. Again, why are you surpised by this?

                        Whether the comfort they find is based in reality or not is another question entirely, and one which is far more interesting…

                        I’m not umcomfortable Bob, you may be prone to over sharing, I am not however and I simply fail to seen how my personal life and beliefs are any of your business despite your appeals. My apologies if this makes you uncomfortable lol!

                        But by all means assume whatever you wish!

                      • Bob

                        Have a great Thanksgiving, Kyle!

                        But IF you are a gay atheist, to whom do you give thanks tomorrow for your blessings in life?

                      • Kyle

                        Why does one need to give thanks to a God(s) in order to be thankful?

                      • kellen2005

                        Your life’s a gift. That’s why.

                      • Kyle

                        Then one ought to thank their biological parents for insuring the creation of a viable zygote…

                      • Guest

                        Spoken like an immature child.

                      • Kyle

                        Ironic name calling, now that is truly priceless lol…

                      • Art Deco

                        You know someone named “immature child”?

                      • Guest

                        It is not name calling. It is an apt characterization. Should I add your obligatory “lol”?

                      • Kyle

                        Whatever you need to keep telling yourself lol…

                      • Guest

                        Is it normal to laugh after every statement one makes?

                      • Kyle

                        What can I say, I’m a jovial person…

      • Austin Ruse

        Franklin, if you are gay and your partner is a man, there is a pretty good chance that you are not monogamous.

      • thisoldspouse

        You only think you’re monogamous. The odds are stacked a mile high against you.

        Read Ronald Lee’s essay.

    • franklinb23

      What’s your solution, Austin? Tell gay men to marry their heterosexual female friends? Do you know many women that would consent to marrying a man they know will never desire them?

      In any rate, heterosexuality guarantees nothing … how many heterosexuals have been remarried and divorced in America? How many heterosexuals carry herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis? It’s in the millions.

      By the way, if you want to talk about generalizations … do you how many women will be sexually assaulted throughout the course of their lives? Some statistics are as high as 1 in 4 … although even if it’s 1 in 10, that’s still astounding. Who’s committing these acts? Gay men?

      Just another nonsense article meant to demonize the entirety of the gay population.

      • Bob

        You’re on a Catholic website. Here’s some Catholic teaching: Sodomy is mortal sin. Repent, before it’s too late.

        • franklinb23

          According to Catholic teaching, it’s also a sin to use contraception, even if you’re married. How many parishioners at your church use it?

          I’m not a Catholic … at least I’m not any longer. I don’t believe that counting beads while pestering the Virgin with endless repetitions of the same prayer placate the Creator of the Universe. I don’t believe that people go to Hell for using contraception. I don’t believe that masturbation really upsets Jesus. I don’t believe that a bottle of Merlot can be turned into blood after a few incantations.

          I also don’t believe that God ever got ticked off and could be appeased by breaking the necks of birds or slitting the throats of goats. I don’t believe that human slavery is a moral good (despite the claims of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention and most Christians in the South when this nation was founded). I don’t believe that people should have their brains beat out of their heads because they picked up sticks on the Sabbath.

          Sure, the Bible has given us a few great moral ideals and values, but they could fit on a cocktail napkin. The rest of the Bible (as well as the values of your own religion) is generally misogynistic, sadistic, violent, irrational and brutish. I’m not interested in what you’re selling, pal.

          • Bob

            You have a lot of “I don’t believes” on your list. How do you know that you are right, and the Catholic Church is wrong?

            And maybe all of your “I don’t believes” are a product of your conscious decision to go against the Holy Spirit guided Catholic teaching, to live a sinful lifestyle?

            But the big question is: how are you sure your own moral code is right, and the teachings of the Church, is wrong?

            • franklinb23

              “How do you know that you are right, and the Catholic Church is wrong?”

              I don’t know. I reject certain things using reason and observation while embracing others. At the same time, you don’t see me threatening other people with eternal torture for not believing what I do.

              • Guest

                Funny how truth is now a threat.

          • Bob

            Also Franklin…..you really, really need to take a class on the proper interpretation of scripture! Looks like you have a lot of mistaken beliefs about scripture and its interpretation and Catholicism in general! Sorry, but….it looks like you have no idea what you’re talking about!

            • franklinb23

              Bob writes: “you really, really need to take a class on the proper interpretation of scripture”

              Where would I take this class at?

              Maybe Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? Its current president is Al Mohler who is widely respected.and said that Christians “must reject claims of papal authority”.

              I’m betting you didn’t have him in mind. So okay, then … who?
              And why should I take YOUR opinion over the opinion of someone who thinks Al Mohler is correct?

          • Guess

            Thanks for the straw men, false interpretation, relativism, hedonism, and selfishness. Your complete ignorance is a perfect example of the “gay” agenda.

            • franklinb23

              What did I state that was untrue?

              • teapartydoc

                Nothing you said qualifies as truth. It is your opinion.

      • Austin Ruse

        Only meant to tell the truth that some want hidden. Why?

      • Austin Ruse

        Solution? Take an aspirin and go to bed early, of course.

    • Pingback: Tour Roman Catacombs, Courtesy of Google Maps - BigPulpit.com

    • Ferrari5858

      First of all equating gay with AIDS is a lie. Those who seek totalitarianism effectively used this prejudice to spread disease among us all, it helps to disseminate the root of evil by studying exactly who created AIDS and why. Secondly have the gays considered how they are being used to achieve the agenda of evils true aim, the destruction of the Catholic Church and freedom in general. Like everyone gays should examine the essence of their lifestyle and effect on their soul to see the hurt it causes, first to them and then to society as a whole. Society should truly examine the cross, the physical, spiritual and bodily cross that homosexuals bear by carrying it. Why I side with the church and truly examine this by starting with the churches premise that it is disordered and I am not to judge the person but with intellect, reason, openness of mind I can explore every aspect as to why it is declared a disorder, be it physical, mental, spiritual or all three. That is the only honest place to begin, it is disordered and I am not to judge the heart of anyone.

      • teapartydoc

        You need help.

    • MonBeach

      It pains me to ask this, but is it fair to say that the finding that “gay men are remarkably promiscuous” also applies to gay priests since they are gay men first and priests second? If gay priests are truly chaste then wouldn’t they be best suited to helping other gay men to become chaste or at least monogamous? If they are promiscuous, or anything less than chaste as they are supposed to be, then how can they be allowed to continue to serve the Church?

      • Ferrari5858

        We are all spiritual beings first and foremost, why do gays think they are the only ones not called to flesh but to spirit? The great equalizer, be not of flesh but of spirit. There isn’t a gay spirit and a straight spirit. Gay priests who haven’t learned that are there for another agenda.

    • Pingback: Updates – December 1, 2013 » Saint Leo's Church Mimico

    • thisoldspouse

      It should simply be instructive that “sex” of the sort that homosexual (and heterosexual) deviants want to engage in even has to be rendered “safe” by all manner of artificial damns, concoctions, vaccines, etc. Doesn’t anyone have the intellectual honesty to note that there is something fundamentally wrong with activity which requires such “protections” at the risk of extreme peril?! (Even ‘gay’ health sources strongly recommend using artificial ‘protection’ at all times even for men in ‘monogamous’ relationships.). Have we Lobotomized ourselves and true science into ignoring the obvious?

      I hear homosexual apologists try to exonerate their health by saying that they see a doctor for checkups much more often then the average person. Doesn’t it occur to them to ask WHY that would be necessary at all?

      • cajaquarius

        You will find that “homosexual sex” comes in many different varieties and that anal penetration is not the only way two men can show love to each other. If we are talking pathology, intracrural sex, mutual masturbation, frottage, and oral sex all have a much *lower* incidence of passing HIV than heterosexual, procreative sex.

        “I hear homosexual apologists try to exonerate their health by saying that they see a doctor for checkups much more often then the average person. Doesn’t it occur to them to ask WHY that would be necessary at all?”

        Actually, having been in the LGBT community myself and seeking out Mr Right amongst a plethora of men looking for Mr Right Now, I have asked that question. From what I have gathered, many are seeing a doctor more often because of a cheating partner; it is tied to the lack of fidelity on the part of the partner and not because homosexual romance has the capacity to spontaneously generate micorbiota that were never there to begin with. Many of my brethren have come to use sex as self medication for mental illnesses they haven’t gotten proper help for, ranging from Sex and Love Addiction, to self hate, to depression, to fear of intimacy, and so on and so on.

        I have dated men who, very quickly, attempted to move relationships with me into the sexual arena – sometimes on the first date – the moment they realized I was taking a genuine interest in actually talking to them; I have come to guess that this is a means of destroying the possibility of real intimacy because closeness makes them vulnerable and frightens them.

        There is also the use of anal sex, drugs, self mortification, and/or dangerous dieting and work out regimens as a means of self injury. Many of my brethren have come to view these mental illnesses as being tied to their sexual orientation, falsely, and I find myself suggesting they go to twelve step meetings and seeking treatment (in some cases, to my horror, I have discovered that I am the one guy many of my current friends have met who didn’t take advantage of them, sexually). I am old fashioned and like the idea of saving myself for my special someone, though, so this makes me “safe” and I have had many gay friends open up to me as a sort of “big brother” or “dad” figure as a result.

        Thanks to the pseudoscience and thirty year old junk science pushed by the Family Research Council and their ilk, many of my peers embrace these evils (the mental illness, the hypersexuality, the fear of commitment, and so on) as if they were inexorable parts of their romantic orientation because people like the aforementioned have told them that is what being gay is all about (hence why I hold a special ire for groups such as them).

        There is your answer, from someone on the inside.

    • Pingback: The real lives of gay men

    • Bubba

      There is something vile and creepy about an old allegedly-religious man getting off on bashing gay people. Get a life bud.

      • thisoldspouse

        Homo-sex is vile and creepy. Get your ick meter checked, stat!

        • Bubba

          Thank you! Your post is great thisoldspouse.

          It wipes away all of the Ruse’s pseudo-intellectual BS and gets to the heart of opposition to homosexuality. “Homo-sex is vile and creepy” is really all homophobes believe in, the rest is just babble to justify their bigotry and sell it to people who are not hatemongers. You post is honest, succinct, and gets to the heart of what you believe and what you are (an evil person with no soul and not a shred of human decency).

          Why can’t all gay marriage opponents be like you? “Homo-sex is vile and creepy” should be what all your spokesmen say on TV and what is preached in your bigot churches and indoctrination centers you call religious universities. Thank you again for bringing integrity to this debate.

          • thisoldspouse

            There is often great wisdom in the obvious. The obvious answer, backed by eons of wisdom and common sense, is almost always the truth. That the obvious escapes you is a sign of a tragic pathology or an evil blindness.

            Read my nearby comment regarding why homo-sex MUST of necessity involve all sorts of artificial “protections” and close medical monitoring in order to render it “safe.” Then ask yourself why this fact escapes you.

      • Mo86

        Show me what “bashing” is being done here? Or anything else that you’ve accused.

        Show me the evidence.

    • Pingback: the Revision Division

    • Pingback: The Real Lives of Gay Men (Depressing Truth Behind Gay Facade) | We Win They Lose

    • JoeMyGodNYC

      “We must care deeply about the lives led by our gay brothers.” Those are curious words for a man whose group has endorsed Uganda’s proposed death penalty for homosexuality.

    • thebigdog

      More evidence that homosexuality is a form of mental illness… now they want the ban on blood donation lifted:

      http://tinyurl.com/mhwr3wf

    • Ohso

      This is just part of the story – in places like my ole hometown of Frisco (aka Sodom by the Sea) the use of tax subsidized Aids Meds (where tax subsidized Aids Education has also been the strongest for the longest) – fuels the creation of ever newer Treatment Resistant strains – allowing those ‘Happy few’ who are able to get well enough to rejoin what author Will Self called “The Conga LIne of Buggery” – to spread the ‘love’

      Along with the growing list of Anti-Biotics also rendered treatment Ineffective for many of these ‘joys of homo-anal happiness’ (MRSA and Treatment Resistant Syphilis… many are now actively vectoring from the Castro as with earlier strains of Aids, and Assemblyman Tinny TP Ammiano scolds the press for reporting it) – are the few remaining public health transmissions routes the disease is not spread by – such as Airborne… Which like SARS…. may be closer in the future than anybody will suggest.

      Until then – the Down Low Soetoro Pogrom goes on (Barry & pals settled & sealed the Homosex Harassment suit against him from Harvard, but was well known in Chicago’s notorious “Man Country” as a real stall stallion) – and the party of the Abomination goes on full tilt – where truly Tolerance Macht FRei:

      SEE
      (CNSNews.com) – Sixty-two percent of American men who know they are HIV positive continue to have unprotected anal sex, according to data released last week by the federal Centers for Disease Control.

      This data, which was published Friday, came from the federal government’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System.

      The percentage of self-aware HIV-positive men who engage in unprotected anal sex has been increasing, according to the CDC. In 2005, 55 percent did so. In 2008, 57 percent did so. And, in 2011, 62 percent did so.

      “Unprotected anal sex is a high-risk practice for HIV infection, with receptive anal sex having the highest risk,” said the CDC report. “Unprotected anal sex also places MSM at risk for other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea. Although condoms can reduce the risk for HIV transmission, they do not eliminate risk and often are not used consistently. Some MSM attempt to decrease their HIV risk by engaging in unprotected sex only with partners perceived to have the same HIV status as their own. However, this practice is risky, especially for HIV-negative MSM, because MSM with HIV might not know or disclose that they are infected and men’s assumptions about the HIV status of their partners can be wrong.”

      - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cdc-62-men-who-know-theyre-hiv-positive-have-unprotected-sex-men#sthash.xaWx4u4K.dpuf
      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/cdc-62-men-who-know-theyre-hiv-positive-have-unprotected-sex-men

    • SmallSoul

      I find it frustrating that this issue is so terribly devisive.
      I have identified as a “gay man” my entire life, grew up in San Francisco and now live in Los Angeles.
      I am not going to try to argue if one side or another is correct. I completely understand the arguments from both sides. I struggle with this myself.
      I’ve led a life of promiscuity. I do understand my psychological reasons for doing so and I have been trying to work on it for the last several years. Old habits are tough to break. I come in and out of the Church, because I sometimes get filled with despair if I could ever be loved by Jesus because of who I am.
      I don’t know if I was born this way or if it was something that my dysfunctional and toxic upbrings and environment.
      I am in a relationship with another man. We’ve been together for 10 years. Are we faithful and comitted? Yes. Does our relationship start from the exact same paradigm that a opposite sex marriage starts from? No. I don’t believe in calling my relationship marriage, and don’t believe in “gay marriage.”
      However, do I want some sort of legal protections if something catestrophic were to happen to either myself or my partner? Yes. Most definitely.
      Do I understand the Church’s rational for calling any sexual expression expressed outside of a true marriage covenant “disordered?” Yes. I completely understand it. I do believe that sexual expression is ordered for marriage and family. I totally get that.
      Do I feel that my partner is an amazing gift from God. Yes. Most definitely. He has been the best thing to happen to me, and I have had an amazing number of undeserved blessings throughout my life. We are physically affectionate, but don’t have gential contact together. We haven’t planned it this way, but this is how it turned out.
      I know I’ve searched for ways to be intimate my whole life. I’ve made mistakes. I am now HIV postitive. I have regrets, but I’m trying to move on.
      In the past I tried to join a religious order, but at the time, I was told that I wasn’t able to be honest with what I was going through, so that door was closed. All options for religious life are closed to me, because I am HIV positive.
      I’m not sure what I’m trying to say, except that peoples lives are very complex. My life isn’t perfect. I KNOW I am a sinner in need of Jesus. I KNOW I need to go to the Sacrament of Reconcilliation frequently. I know my life and situation is not the ideal, but all I can do is keep reciting my prayer: Lord, I fear Your judgement, but trust Your mercy. I need His help to change my life. If He wants me to leave my partner, I am willing to, but I will need him to give me a clear answer about it. Maybe I’m deluding myself. But I do trust in Jesus. I KNOW He is with me and is and will continue to make the most out of my broken and wretched life. He has done amazingly so far!!!
      I guess I want to ask: How can we remember that we are talking about persons made in the image of God? How can we open a dialog of compassion and truly share Jesus and the Gospel? I

      • slainte

        Samllsoul, I sense your pain through your words. I will offer a rosary for you tonight that Our Blessed Mother may petition Our Lord for your cause; that you may find peace and love and a realization that He is always with you, guiding you, and helping you to discern how to best align your life with His will.
        You are made in Imago Dei; you are loved by others and are a valuable person who matters. You are on this earth for a legitimate purpose as God loved you so much that he gave you the breath of life and incarnated your soul into the person that you are.
        Try to find a path that allows you to direct your energies away from your own thoughts and toward helping others; this will honor God by advancing His kingdom on earth while allowing Him to work through you to catechize others.
        I am neither gay or a man, but I care about you and will continue to remember you in prayers. May Christ’s peace be with you now and forever. Pax.

    • Mike

      This is stupid, ignorant, and false. It doesn’t bother you that every study cited is 20+ years old.

    • Ohioma Imoukhuede

      So what is the point of this article…I mean, is it that gay people have anal sex…because that’s just the way that gay people have sex. Or that gay men are promiscuous…which is unsurprising because a) men are inherently more promiscuous than women and most men masturbate b) the idea of gayness and Christian values come into conflict, and by that I mean a gay man finds it harder to find his value system in the church when the advice he will most likely get is a highly impractical ‘stay celibate for an indeterminate period of time’. In a straight relationship if people are waiting until marriage before they have sex they have the benefit of having the dominant social structure be in their favour. They can go to church, or just be out and about and most girls out there will be predisposed to the same thing so staying chaste is relatively easy. Compare it to a gay man who will come out in church and then be told either that there is something wrong with him or that he should never have sex. When he is looking for a long term relationship the dominant structure will no doubt be Christian heterosexual women looking for Christian heterosexual men… to find someone that they connect with spiritually and emotionally they are already by this point looking outside of the church.

      If they go to ‘gay spaces’ those are predominantly for guys to find sexual partners in most probably, but again that is because when there is a designated ‘gay space’ it is a place for people to go and do ‘gay things’ which they are not welcome to do in normal society. If it didn’t have to be such a secret but was accepted mainstream, and you could look for a partner anywhere, then gay people would probably be less promiscuous in general. To make this point, let’s imagine it the other way around. Imagine for a moment that everyone at church was gay, and the only place that straight people could go in order to find a wife was the red light district. Straight men would be conditioned to have more sex. The problem isn’t then that there aren’t gay men that want to be monogamous, rather there aren’t viable spaces where two gay men that both are looking for a monogamous relationship to meet and interact freely.

      Many will at this point say things like ‘there are gay Christian groups’ or something about the internet. Well these are too small a sample for many men to keep hope alive of finding something lasting, hence they default to the dominant schema of sleeping with anyone that makes them feel wanted. Everyone else has an ocean, while they get a pond.

      The way of overcoming this dominant schema is not by preaching to straight people about how gays are promiscuous, it is by doing what you can to remove the barriers between you and them, so that gays can find their way back into the influence of the church without feeling about themselves that they can either be Christian, or they can be gay. The fact that many see the two as mutually exclusive due to tensions that Christians perpetuate every day is the real problem that should be addressed. If you want happier people with better values in general, it is probably going to take another 35 years to happen, when the generations of bigoted people have died, and being gay isn’t seen as so contrary to traditional values that traditional values cannot rationally be sought in it.

    • Claude

      It does not matter the amount of laws legalizing, approving, levelling everything, the gay person KNOWS the truth. To the ones that know the truth and are honest with themselves, I suggest the reading of the works of Dr. Renate Jost. She has offices, clinics, in Portugal, Germany and Italy as well. She has books and experiments, and success and victories on this matter available TO THE ONES THAT ARE HONEST WITH THEMSELVES. That changed my life – forever.

      • cajaquarius

        I am glad you were in distress and received help. Many of my LGBT brethren suffer from all manner of compulsion, compounded by the fact that these negative attributes are fused to their romantic orientation, falsely, by the outdated and sometimes criminally poor science still haunting us twenty and thirty years down the line. I have no doubt you suffered and I have no doubt you found help. But are you certain the homosexuality was the problem?

        I ask because I take a keen interest in ex gays (and not as punching bags, either – I am honestly interested in those who get treatment and are helped). There are a plethora of YouTube videos, blog posts, and testemonials to be found. Not to doubt those who give them but in virtually all cases, their homosexuality was tied to a very negative compulsion or process. In one I read, a man had sex with a dozen people a week and sought out love by sleeping on the first date with any man who would care for him for a short while. He was used, abused, and locked in a cycle of guilt and self hatred.

        That isn’t homosexuality, though, that is Sex and Love Addiction. Many suffer from it and it runs rampant in the LGBT community. It isn’t who we are and it isn’t a part of our being gay. I have been honest with myself; for years I had no interest in romance, almost at all. Not to men or women. Then I fell in love with another man in my late twenties – it happened, suddenly. I ached when he ached, cried when he cried, and wanted to carry his burdens with him and be by his side. I know, in my heart, that my love for him was good, not evil.

        I cared about him so much that it scared him. I still worry about him but I understand his fear better, now. I email him, here and there. He never responds but I do still love him and I still worry. I am not obsessed, nor codependent; I live my life, I go to school. But my love for him is no different than the love my sister feels for her husband. Would it be so different had I or he been a female and the other a male? Would I pray for him any less, love him any less, worry about him any less, or hurt for the burden he carries on his shoulders any less?

        I have been honest with myself and I am just fine.

        Please don’t paint us all with such a broad brush.

    • Pingback: Would the ancient Germans consider intentional infection with a deadly disease to be a “deed of shame”? What about the Assyrians? | vulture of critique

    • Link Age

      You are not my brother. I am not in your cult that calls strangers brothers. I am not in the cult of spiritually retarded Jews, Christian or crack pot Muslims. I have no fear of anyone especially not fag or ferries. I am not STRAIGHT I am NORMAL. You can’t label me because you are a retard and I am not what you think. There is no such thing as one kind of faggot. There are nine distinct types and they are hidden from the media by the media so you are all retarded about the world of faggotry and buggery. My world in my circle is a billion times better than yours. Mine is full of truth and yours is full of fictions and retarded unholy despicable books from the mental illness of the past, like psycho killer Abraham of the fiction the bible.

      That you haven’t thought about, because if you did actual thinking rather than mimicking other peoples thoughts, you’d know its not the truth. Truth doesn’t matter to you if you believe the fictions of Gods or the lies of the faggots that use the world Gay to trick you into thinking they are happy. Much and your life is crap because of your ignorance. Smarter richer and better looking, gave more to the world, took nothing. I am worth of speaking not everyone is. Faggots are prey and predators with sexual retarded cowering as slaves in the centers of their dens of abuse to worship their articulate smart tricksters out to hide their abhorrence confinement anti-freedom abusive ways. One fag says to the other, if I rape your mouth after I rape your ass and you rape my ass and mouth then its mutual consent right? and they can’t charge us with a crime right? Ok lets commit mutual crimes against each other and call it love making to confuse and breeder that might take notice. Oh and remember that time when we found out you are sexually retarded so I got you drunk and you blacked out and had my dick in your ass when you woke up, remember? Well don’t tell anyone K? That is your sicko world hidden in shame and pure crimes against persons unable to defend themselves because they are retarded.

      Just as all religious people are going to hell so are all the sexually retards and media that prevents their rescue from the predators that abuse them. I died already and I have been to hell, you are all wrong, I am right about everything, good night and hope you get to die soon too so you can come back and know the truth about this filthy world you let the Sons of Psycho Nazi Jews create for all us normal humans. Filthy Hollywood, Filthy lying news, Filthy disgusting cosmologies of entrapment, false defined humanity, false freedoms and disgusting religion based legal system so corrupt with its pay for justice that there is no justice. The women in Vancouver personality sucks because they are so many wine drinking lesbian rapists sluts raping normal girls and gang banging annal leakage poofters that make you what to throw up when you see them.

      I just want everyone to know, THE MAJORITY, want nothing to do with faggots and if they come near their children they will be attacked and harmed, without hate of course because that would be illegal. Your child molesters, and their victim victimizes all of you. Faggotry is a cult of delusions as much as dead Jew savior loving is a cult.

      • cajaquarius

        “I have no fear of anyone especially not fag or ferries.”

        I am not afraid of myself or river boats either. If ever the river boats should gain a measure of sentience and rise up to strike down humanity, we shall stand against them with no fear in our hearts, brother.

        “Truth doesn’t matter to you if you believe the fictions of Gods or the lies of the faggots that use the world Gay to trick you into thinking they are happy.”

        The World Gay? Is that like the World Tree? Is it like some gay version of the Power Cosmic? And how do you know what they think? Do you have the ability to tap into the power of the World Gay yourself?

        “There is no such thing as one kind of faggot. There are nine distinct types…”

        Woah, seriously? I have been gay for years and I never heard of these nine types; what are they? Geez, I feel like I have been missing out on some amazing things!

        “… they are hidden from the media by the media…”

        The media hid it from themselves? How does that work?

    • CallingYouOut

      I received oral sex from Austin Ruse in my college years… Glad you are now holy!

    • Keith

      You brainwashed moronic fucks! Kill yourselves!

      • Art Deco

        Thanks for sharing, Keith.

    • Bob

      I’m a gay man in a loving homosexual relationship going on ten years now. I’m happy, close with my family and pretty well off financially and living life to the fullest! God bless!

      While everyone has their own experiences should experiences cancel out each other or could it maybe be that some people have conflicting experiences (just like how some people convert to being Catholic while others leave the church and convert to protestantism or other faiths?)

      • cajaquarius

        Good for you. I am in love now but it is rocky and uncertain. The man I love carries a lot of burdens and has lived a very crazy life of being used in his younger adult years. I think the fact that he fell in love with me scares him. I am glad to see someone who it has worked out for. Gives me hope, if nothing else.

        And I agree; one cannot paint us all with the same brush.