A Manly Voice on Matters Gay and Christian

A gay guy gets up in the morning, does something, and nobody writes about it. Now that would be news.

Will we ever see that day when we as a culture do not stare slack-jawed and unblinking—so as not to miss a single thing—at all things gay?

There’s an old joke about how many lesbians it takes to screw in a light bulb. Five. One to screw it in and four to write about it. That’s pretty much where we are now and there’s no relief in sight. A society of 300,000,000 force-fed the nanosecond by nanosecond trials, tribulations, triumphs and television kisses of a comparatively scant few.

We are running out of “first woman this” and “first woman that” but we’ve only just started with the “first gay this, that and the other.”So, there will be decades of reading about the “first trans this and that.”And since there are 58 genders and counting presumably we will have the first gender-questioning county supervisor” and the “first cisgender-female mayor in a city with a population of 1 million at or near a major body of water.” I know I can’t wait.

A writer at something called “Letters to Christopher” explores a variant of this enforced obsession and that is the insistent obsession of “gay Christians”on, well, themselves, how we see them and deal with them and speak to them and minister to them and everything about them.

In “My Cross Isn’t Greater Than Yours, or, Enough with the Whining” this anonymous blogger says, “Show me a man who doesn’t suffer, and I’ll show you a dead man. One of the more irksome aspects in the current conversation of LGBT issues and Christianity is the remarkable amount of dreary and droopy writing I hear from folks like me who grew up in the Church and realized they had an attraction to men.” He calls it the “we’re gay and Christian and you should listen to us about how to minister to us blogosphere.”

He quotes one such blogger:

“It would be beneficial for Christians and Christian traditions as a whole to consider [the] question: are we imposing sexual abstinence as an unfunded mandate with dire consequences for LGBT people who do not succeed? Especially as more people are coming to awareness of their sexual orientations and gender identities at a younger age (emphasis mine), it is irresponsible and cruel for churches to repeat ‘You can’t have sex!’and refuse to offer any additional support.”He says there are only two options, forced abstinence and a life of suffering, or sex and excommunication from Church, and family. He says “numerous young LGBT Christians find themselves crushed by the pressure from priests, pastors, parents and faith communities.”

“Letters from Christopher” hates “that sort of portrayal of what my life must have been like back when I was a teenager in the eighties, or how that must be what the life is today for a 15 year old. How fatalistic. How could that ever inspire a teenager to fight the good fight of chastity if they were to ever read that?”

He says, “Sure, it’s hard. But we are made of the stuff of God. We are made in the image of a God who willingly went to the Cross. That’s the building block of our humanity. Boys and girls with same sex attraction aren’t witless victims of the vagaries of fate if they find themselves attracted to the same sex—they have a choice, and God has promised that He will always provide his children the grace to live out the most difficult of demands.”

One word describes this column from this anonymous blogger—manly—something quite distinct from the “oh woe is me” school of “gay Christians.” He calls them back to the “buck up” school. Get on with it. Stop whining, he says.

There are plenty of folks who have complaints about feeling isolated in the Church. The typical Catholic Church is not exactly a warm and welcoming place. If a greeter ever appeared at a Catholic parish, he might get slugged. Many can barely manage the sign of peace. Father George Rutler talks about how the Church allows for anonymity, that you can walk in, walk around, check things out, look at the statues, and no one bothers you.

And don’t we all know lots of single people struggling with the fact they have not found a mate, are basically alone and probably will be for life? Twenty turns to thirty turns to forty and beyond and they have to come to the same conclusions those with same-sex attraction have to come to: no sexual expression, perhaps no affection.

The same-sex attracted say the Church doesn’t do enough for them, does not recognize them, does not help them. And, let’s face it the teaching is rather paltry. But it is hard to believe the Church will conclude anything other than what it has already concluded; that the attraction is disordered and the act is intrinsically disordered and, well, evil.

So, what are they to do?

I think of a woman I will not name. She spent years as a chastity educator. She is beautiful and funny and never married. She is full of life, and humor, family and friends. She is not moping her life away, disgruntled, and as far as I can tell not boring folks with her unmarried plight.

I am quite sure this is not the life she envisioned. She no doubt envisioned marriage and children, probably lots of them. But that’s not what she’s been dealt. She has gotten on with a life rich in service to others. She bears their burdens and does not force her burden on others. And she knows this. Chastity is not a consolation prize.

Letters to Christopher says, “I don’t really care very much to hear about what the celibate ‘gay’ Christians have to say to me, or to the Church about how the Church should minister to people like us. Sometimes the sheep can help point out their needs to the shepherds in their care, but rarely. Most writing on the subject of same sex attraction and Christianity today seems to be the sheep shouting to the shepherds: ‘you’re idiots when it comes to this flock. Oh, and we’re the ones who can point your shepherds crooks in the right direction.’ ”

He’d rather assume your cross is heavier than his and offer to help you shoulder it.

Only one word for this guy. Manly. May his tribe increase.

Editor’s note: The image above titled “Christ Carrying the Cross” was painted by Titian in 1565.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Mark

    You’ll continue to hear from lgbt Christians until there is no more discrimination, until your lgbt neighbours are considered your brothers and sisters and not those people over there of whom “the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”. The Church is not just for married, childbearing heterosexual couples. Despite the feeling of unwelcome I feel from some parishioners, I still feel drawn to attending Mass because I feel that God is present there. People matter more than outdated rules, love matters more than rules. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. When the Church lives its message of God’s love and opens up to celebrating lgbt relationships as well as heterosexual ones, as well as allowing divorced and remarried people to take Holy Communion, and allowing its clergy to marry too, then the churches will be full again. Jesus preached love, it’s His Church which has put up walls and restrictions against that love. No-one who has lgbt friends or family could agree with the Church’s second-class treatment of them. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance within the faithful, which is why a large proportion of them attend Mass but do not agree with a lot of Catholic social teaching, and why an even larger proportion stop going to church, because the disconnect between how they feel and what they believe is right is so different to what the church teaches.

    • lifeknight

      One thing you never hear about is mortal sin. If chastity is violated by homosexuals or heterosexuals, they have committed MORTAL sin which blackens the soul. Living in a state of grace is the goal for everyone: married, divorced, single or any number of self identified sexual identities. If we stick to this SIMPLE and true Church teaching, then no one is excluded.

      • Mark

        Hmmm, from talking with friends and family and from extensive reading and study, and from my own 40 years of life experience, human sexuality is fluid, occupying a wide and varied spectrum. I don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on sexuality and certainly don’t see chastity as something that can be violated to commit mortal sin. You either are chaste or not. If you don’t want to be chaste, you don’t have to be. You know what, from all of the negative, life-denying comments on this site, I’ve realised how much I’ve been kidding myself about religion and Catholicism in particular. Do people really believe an old book and a church over their own experience and understanding? A clergy submitting to enforced celibacy and embroiled in several hundred cases of paedophilia telling the rest of us how to conduct ourselves in relationships with others? Give me a break! And the rest of you dyed in the wool sheep bleating away and following blindly. You deserve the sorry lives you have made for yourselves. I implore you to read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Argument by A.C. Grayling, and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. These will help you to free your mind and see religion for what it is. You don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water though. You can still keep the best bits of religion, the loving kindness, the ritual, the community feeling, but you can discard the judging, feeling the need to punish, negative, self-hating bits. However, once you start down that road, you might find that freedom is quite exhilarating and realise that secular humanism is even better – it combines the best of both worlds, the free-from-dogma scientific investigation into reality, together with the accumulated wisdom of humankind.

        • Art Deco

          Do people really believe an old book and a church over their own experience and understanding?

          No, they can be sophisticated and believe yesterday’s newspapers.

          • Mark

            Well, you know, they’d contain a lot more truth than the writings of Bronze Age inhabitants from thousands of years ago. These days we expect reports to be properly sourced and intelligible. Sources can be checked by independent journalists and false information can either be prosecuted or has to be retracted and a correction given. With all of the contradictions throughout the Bible, we’d have a field day!

            • Art Deco

              DHart never got back to me about his inventory. Yours bridges or collateralized debt obligations?

        • joan

          Hi Mark, (Peace) We do not decide what is right or what is wrong. Right and Wrong are our Creator’s decision, and He asks our cooperation so we may find and live true freedom that is found only in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the ‘Life’, and the only way to the Father.

          Could i kindly propose for you to think about why it was/is God’s decision about what is right and what is wrong? I mean really think about it.

    • thomas871047

      Just at what point in history did these rules become outdated? What year in what decade and in what century? Was it the same point in history for each country? If you can tell me when I’ll side with you! I’ll still feel a bit sorry for those souls judged and condemned under the outdated rules, but I’ll put that to the back of my mind.

    • Objectivetruth

      Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven, read Genesis 17. How do you square that with your lifestyle, and what the Church teaches? When the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are grave, and can never be justified, do you believe the Church is wrong and you are right and thus you are the authoritative interpreter of Christ’s words and will, and the Catholic Church is not?

      Understand Mark, we all need to change our lives to follow the true teachings of Christ found in the Catholic Church. We do not bend, twist, contort, spin Christ’s teachings to fit our sinful lifestyles.

      Change your life to follow the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, you will find Christ’s peace. Grab your cross like all of us and surrender to Christ, and follow Him.

      • Mark

        If you’re going to quote the Bible at me, which I do not believe is inerrant, but a library of writings over thousands of years about a nation’s encounter with a perceived God, then you ought to follow it to the letter if you expect me to. Do you eat shellfish, wear clothes of mixed fabrics, cut your hair, etc, etc…? I do not believe in following the science of the Bronze Age and neither should you, and by science I mean knowledge in its entirety. Knowledge evolves as different ideas are tested for their veracity and efficacy. And yes, I do believe that I can interpret Christ’s words for myself, just as the Church does. I can educate myself as well as anyone with the wealth of information available today in libraries both physical and online. I have access to comparative histories, theology, textual analysis, archaeological findings, writings of different churches through the centuries, psychology, and so on. Does the Church still think that slavery is a good thing? It used to! The same thing is happening today that happened several decades ago with race relations. People of colour used to be treated as second class citizens but no longer, because they stood up for themselves and forced change. The same thing is happening today with lgbt people…they’re sick and tired of hearing from the Church how they must stay celibate and single for their entire lives if they wish to be welcomed in Church. I have news for you, only some people are gifted with celibacy, the rest of us are given healthy desires for physical love and companionship, for passion and the same fulfilled relationships as have always been open to heterosexual couples. I don’t trust or believe in everything I read in the Bible. I believe in people, normal human beings with normal human emotions and thoughts. I don’t trust in the morality of the Old Testament with its injunctions to stoning and killing people for minor infractions, nor in the belief in Hell which Jesus seems to have promulgated in the New Testament. I hope one day to see a Church which embodies the best in the human spirit, which is loving and forgiving and which builds people up, rather than pulling them down for not following every dot and tittle of an ancient text. Thanks for your unloving diatribe though, you’ve helped me to realise that a Church with people like you in it is not for me.

    • lifeknight

      There is one other thing you have missed, Mark. The Church is not a democracy and the “outdated” rules will not change no matter how many people disagree. Your “all you need is love” mantra is only a way to mislead others…..away from God’s truth. Sin is still sin even if drowning in “love.”

      • TheAbaum

        And love isn’t everything that makes our naughty parts tingle.

    • Objectivetruth

      The road to heaven is narrow, isn’t it Mark? I’ll guess that the wide road to hell is full of people who “do not agree with a lot of Catholic social teaching.”

    • anonymous

      We do need to live our Faith and ONLY GOD determines what is right and wrong and all are called to obedience. His Law cannot be changed because of ‘how they feel and what they believe is right.’ Only God knows His purpose or allowance for same-sex attraction.

      Man made rules exist because the Divine Institution is managed by humans. Many of those rules divide rather than unite us. However, those rules can, do, and have changed. That is something to think about. It seems to make the Body of Christ more human than Divine. Jesus Christ and His Church are one thing. There are limits to tolerance.

      It is one’s relationship with Jesus Christ that determines one’s worship, attendance, and participation in the Mass. He allows us free will choice in that relationship.

      Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

    • Watosh

      The Episcopal church has followed your recommendations, to the point of having an openly gay Bishop in a same sex marriage, until he got a divorce recently I understand,and I don’t see any overflowing of the pews there.

      • fredx2

        Exactly- , they have lost half of their members since 1966 – from 3.6 million in 1966, to 1.8 million in 2012

        • Art Deco

          And that’s with the union officials counting the votes.

    • Interested

      IOW, people want what they want. Not exactly deep reasoning.

    • “No-one who has lgbt friends or family could agree with the Church’s second-class treatment of them.”
      Yet we are taught by the bishops that public self-disclosure is “not helpful.”
      If one’s “lgbt” status is *not* disclosed in the parish community, how can one experience treatment that is “second-class”?

    • John Byde

      Mark, you are right. The church isn’t just for childbearing heterosexual couples: it’s for sinners, which means ALL of us. However, what so many homosexuals don’t seem to realise is that there can be no special favours. You are welcome in any catholic church – but on exactly the same basis as every other churchgoer: as a sinner in need of redemption. I am not saying that you are like this, but to “ordinary churchgoers” Homosexuals demanding change in the church come across as incredibly narcissistic. The fact is, the church’s basic teachings on homosexual practices and other sins will never change. We go to church on ITS terms – not ours. Best regards

    • TheAbaum

      “You’ll continue to hear from lgbt Christians until there is no more discrimination”

      “No-one who has lgbt friends or family could agree with the Church’s second-class treatment of them.”

      What “discrimination”?

      In any given week I attend Mass, I never know what the sins of my fellow attendees are, nor do I want to know. I’m guessing there’s liars, thieves, gossips because such things are common. Statistics tell me there’s likely a few porn surfers. I know there’s people who arrive late, leave early, because I see them.

      If you walk in and don’t advertise your sin, who is to know?

      • Art Deco

        What “discrimination”? What “second-class treatment”?

        It’s subjectively experienced that way by people who hunger for applause. Most people seek after other things.

    • Pierre

      Yes Mark.

      What a bunch of utter hypocrites this lot are. Fit them better if they used their time more productively.

      A helluva lot ‘whining’ going on here – certainly.

      Maybe if they spent more time in prayer – they’d have more inner peace and be less inclined to obsessing on the sex lives, or lack of same, in others.

      It would be funny if not so pathetic. And to the wannabe psychs. Projection is just that.

      Abaum – it all comes out of the heart. Yours is far from spiritually healthy. You advertise your sin very well here. Very well indeed. As do others like you. Who do you people think you are kidding. All things are brought into the light – sooner or later.

      Physician – heal thyself.

      Or find a proper spiritual director.

      Ideally not from the US. Seems you’re all contaminated with the same sickness over there.

      More true spiritual depth in amoebas. Shame on you people. You are an utter disgrace to yourselves and all things truly Catholic.

      Gays aren’t wrecking Church life.

      US ‘Catholics’ are.

      Please, please, for the love of God – keep it over there.

      • anonymous

        This does not sound like Love. The obsessing here is God’s Law and one’s obedience to His Law.

      • Mark

        Thanks Pierre, it was an eye-opener to hear American Catholics sounding so like the US Evangelical Taliban. Didn’t realise they were so far behind the times and lacking so much empathy. Maybe there are a few Traditional Catholics amongst them.

        • Joyfully

          What precisely, Mark, is it that you want the Catholic Church and Catholic people to do or not do for the homosexual community? What would make you happy? Because members have a different opinion than yours they are “taliban”-like, “behind the times” and “lacking in empathy”? Perhaps they have a greater grasp of what is at stake in the life game than you and people who think like you. Have you ever, in your 40 years, considered that you may have developed the wrong idea of what is best for our society? that perhaps this push to normalize man-on-man sex is detrimental of the greater whole society and the consequences, which we can only image – and here i can see a couple of outcomes, some good some bad? We have been sold a bill of goods time and time again over the centuries and not more than once has our compliance lead to devastation in one form or another. Are you Catholic? If not, im sorry, i wish you were. If you are, please do not try to make us be like the rest of the world, we need a steady rock to stand on while the crazy white waters rush past. And also it is not cool to separate us Catholics into categories for your understanding pleasure, especially using upper case – we are one.

          • Mark

            What would make me happy is to be able to celebrate my relationship in Church just as heterosexual couples can. Just because my relationship is not open to the procreation of children does not make it second-rate. I’ve been together happily with my partner for years and want myself and other lgbt people to be able to walk with our heads held high amongst my fellow Catholics/Christians, rather than being told that my orientation is intrinsically disordered, etc. It’s not my experience that I’m disordered in any way, I’m happy to be gay, I’d just like to be able to go to Church to worship my God without having the Church judge me for something I find joyful and enriching. I’m not talking about the sex, I’m talking about the complementarity I have with my partner. Anything which builds society in a positive way should be encouraged. Like I said, for centuries the Church was wrong about slavery and people of colour, even other faiths…they will be proved wrong about this too. And when they are proved wrong it won’t be a negative thing, it’ll just mean that many, many lgbt people will feel properly welcomed in Church and will come back in droves because they’ll no longer feel judged for something that isn’t even wrong. I don’t hate anyone, I have simply found my voice and will gently work for equal rights and full inclusion during my life.

            • anonymous

              Your relationship with your God is between you and your God – whyever would you be concerned about being judged by anybody? Is God first in your life? Do you make decisions based first on your relationship with your God?

    • cestusdei

      We will hear from them until they finally have some much control that they won’t bother to talk. Instead we will be persecuted and driven underground. They need to hear the truth founded in love, that homosexual acts are always sinful.

    • E. Murray

      Evolution is a lie. Human nature does not change, that is why the law of God is eternal and immutable. When the Church was more faithful to God in the 1940s and 50s it was overflowing with people. It is only since it departed from God since the 1960s that people departed in droves. The message of Jesus was the same message as the rest of Sacred Scripture: “Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good.” (Romans 12: 9).

    • Joyfully

      “No-one who has lgbt friends or family could agree with the Church’s second-class treatment of them.”

      Not true at all. I have both, friends and family, additionally I have worked for (over decades of changing social acceptance) and alongside persons who actively engaged in ssa. I agree with the church and I believe the church’s teaching is the only hope my lbg (haven’t any “t’s”) friends, family and co-workers have at leading a life of self-fulfillment.

      You presume too much when you speak for “the faithful”. Please speak only for yourself.

      • Daniel P

        Picky note: It’s impossible to “actively engage” in same sex attraction. Attractions are experienced, not engaged in. (“Lust” may be engaged in, but it is not the same as attraction).

        • Joyfully

          Well, I had a male boss who was in a 7 year relationship with another man, to me that is “actively engaged.” My sister was roommates with her female lover – “actively engaged.” I prefer that reference to “gay” which is a stupid descriptor to me.

          I think you understand that it was “out” there and current for them rather than “suppressed” and outside a relationship.

          ps: sister has gone on to a chain of lesbian relationships (a couple physically abusive, and she was probably never even spanked as a child), all of them she had “affairs” with during her previous relationship (and that seemed to be common in her social circles). Boss became a presbyterian (or perhaps some unitarian minister … wonder if he still owns the printshop.

          • Daniel P

            “Same-sex attracted” is not a synonym for “gay”. It’s just not. I experience same sex attraction, but I do not, and have not, had sex with men.

            The people you’re writing about can just be called “gay” or “lesbian” — or, if you’re uncomfortable with that, you don’t have to give them any label. At any rate, I still don’t know what it means to be actively engaged in an attraction.

            • joan

              In regards to your conversation, i guess the only other way to put it would be they are engaging in sodomy. For Heavensakes, it is what it is. Why is there expectation or effort to put a nice label, name, description on sodomy? It’s not okay, it’s against God’s Law and I for one will not be persuaded to conform to this world’s “you’re okay, i’m okay.”

              • Daniel P

                What do you call straight people who are engaged in non-marital sexual relationships? I’m sure you don’t call them “fornicators” to their faces.

                • joan

                  i don’t call them anything and most especially behind a back. i try to be aware of duplicity in my own behavior and ask for God’s Grace to keep me within His Grace. i also try to see beyond the defiance of God’s Law. No, not easy, but i try.

                  We are not to conform to this world.

            • Joyfully

              that’s because you are being willfully stubborn. let me put it this way both were engaged during that period in their lives in sinful sexual relationships with persons of the same sex with whom they were doing unnatural physical things with — for their own sheer pleasure — that would ultimately cause them both to have rather serious physical problems that would have been avoided had they not actively engaged in said activity.

              • Daniel P

                My point was about the usage of language. I understood what you meant the first time you said it, but I objected to the way you said it.

  • ExoPHL

    Having been made in the image and likeness of God, He made
    man and woman. The father of the Old Testament had a favored people, the people of Israel. Then He sent His Son to open the gates for us
    all. Jesus and the Father are one. Just as the Father created man and woman so that in marriage they too can become one. As joined together to bring each other closer to God and given the gift to form life. Life created as intended from the union of one man and one woman. That is what the sacrament of marriage is about. That is what orthodoxy calls for and is to be celebrated and cherished. That is what our Father intended. That is what my Savior Jesus calls me towards.

  • Gail Finke

    This piece touches on something that has mystified me for years: The idea that gay people must have sex. I’m not talking about the idea that they may, or should, have sexual relations — that’s arguable — but that they must. Who thinks that about anyone else? But I have read, over and over again, that if gay people simply must have sex or something terrible will happen to them. This is usually followed by similar claims that all people must have sex, and frequently that all people must get married. All of these claims are contradicted by reality. There has never, ever been a time when all people had sex and married. In fact, our day is ahistorical in that most people are expected to have sex and marry at some point (even though many never do) while historically, in the West and otherwise, people expected that a great many people would never do either. Most people had lots of relatives who were priests, nuns, and monks, for one thing. Maiden aunts and bachelor uncles abounded. And that’s not even taking into account men in the military who could go years without any kind of regular relations with women, men sentenced to decades of hard labor, and the many widows and widowers who never remarried. Were they all insane? Did they all suffer unbearably? This bizarre preoccupation we have with sex leads to some very strange conclusions, even when observably reality (the many celibate people alive RIGHT NOW) shows that they are wrong.

    • Daniel P

      I think the problem is that we falsely link sex and intimacy, these days. It is true that people need intimacy and friendship — this is a non-negotiable. But people don’t need sex in the same way, and intimacy can be had without sex (and has been for thousands of years!).

      • TheAbaum

        And sex and love. However, the homosexual act isn’t intimate, love or sex.

        • Daniel P

          Agreed.

          (I’m guessing by “the homosexual act”, you mean sodomy.)

          • TheAbaum

            I mean anything that is used to promote sexual excitement between two individuals of the same sex, whether as a prelude or a terminal act.

            • Daniel P

              Fair enough. There are plenty of ways gay people can show genuine love to each other, but pursuing sexual pleasure is not one of these ways.

              • TheAbaum

                The first thing would be to admit its an affliction, not an attraction.

                We all have to stop and think about what we are doing. I could chat up the young women at my gym, but I don’t. I’m married and I don’t need to expand my temptation space.

                • Daniel P

                  Can it not be an affliction *and* an attraction? Aren’t you attracted to the young women at your gym?

                  All temptations are attractive. Otherwise they wouldn’t tempt us.

                  • TheAbaum

                    Would you say pyromaniacs are afflicted with a unhealthy fascination to fire or they are attracted to it?

                    • Daniel P

                      I recall reading a previous article by Mr. Ruse in which he criticizes some people who parse words about sexual matters so finely as to twist their meaning. He was talking about the “homophiles”, but he may as well have been talking about what you just said. I don’t see the difference between “physical appeal” and “physical attractiveness”, and I doubt you do either. One need not be indulging in lust or courting temptation to find another person attractive.

                    • TheAbaum

                      “gay” in the common lexicon means out and proud.

                    • oh, I cannot be gay because the guy who turns me on isn’t really attractive. my feeling for him must be spiritual charity, not, dammit, anything sexual.

                    • TheAbaum

                      Have you practiced to be this confused?

                    • self-hating gays use all sorts of sleights to say their attraction to their male buddies has nothing to do with homosexuality

                    • Pyromania is a psychological condition caused by events – usually in one’s childhood. Sexual orientation is organic. It is innate and immutable. The comparison is preposterous.

                    • Daniel P

                      Mr. Hart,

                      If sexual orientation is *always* innate and immutable, then can you explain why there is a significant correlation between being abused as a child and being gay?

                      I’m guessing sexual orientation has multiple possible causes. This is not to say it *cannot* be innate, but it isn’t always innate.

                    • That correlation is non-existent. It is mythology. You will not find a peer reviewed study published in a respectable scholarly journal that finds any connection whatsoever.

                    • Daniel P

                      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-0021-9

                      So much for your “mythology” claim.

                    • They found an increase in “same-sex identity by 0.7 percentage point.”That study concludes that there may be some correlation that suggests further study. That is hardly “significant.”

                      Even if there is a correlation an insignificant number of gay people are so because of sexual abuse.

                    • Daniel P

                      The study says that “lesbians and gay men report 1.6-4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse” than heterosexuals — and the effect is more pronounced for men than women. Doing the math, a boy abused would figure to be at least *twice* as likely to be gay than a boy who is not abused. The entire issue takes this statistic for granted, but this is the only article in the issue that dares to say that there might be a causal role from abuse to homosexual attraction.

                    • There are four explanations for what is correlation (not causation). Read the study in full.

                    • Daniel P

                      If you think that none of their explanations involve causation, you didn’t read the study very carefully.

                    • Utter nonsense. Only one of the four possibilities suggests that sexual abuse might alter one’s sexual orientation a very small amount of the time You are desperate to conform science to theology.

                    • Andy

                      What comes first – the abuse or an individual saying s/he is gay/lesbian and being abused? The next question – who is abusing these individuals and how is the sexual abuse and physical abuse defined?

                    • The study asks the same questions and does not draw a conclusion. It offers four possible reasons for their observation.

                    • I would think gay orientation is conscious at three, and could not be affected by any abuse after that age. Why would gay boys have more experience of abuse than straight ones? Simply because they offer more attractive targets to predators or bullies.

                    • KevClark64

                      I have always wondered how it could be that among all the traits a human being can have, only sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. You can change your gender, and since we are told that race is a social construct and not a thing, you can certainly change your race any time you want. You can change your weight, you can change your religion, and every other thing about yourself, including one day soon your genetic make-up. But the one thing that is unchangeable in a world that is constantly changing is your sexual orientation. How can that be?

                    • Art Deco

                      A. It’s convenient at this time for an obnoxious pressure group to insist on that.

                      B. Attitudes on this question have decayed into social markers (which accounts for the weird resolutions which emanate from corrupted occupational associations) and social researchers who break ranks are subject to harassment.

                    • Utter nonsense on both counts. As for “B,” presumably you are referring to Mark Regnerus. The criticism is based upon methodology and has nothing to do with research politics.

                    • Art Deco

                      As for “B,” presumably you are referring to Mark Regnerus. The criticism
                      is based upon methodology and has nothing to do with research politics.

                      Are you selling bridges or collateralized debt obligations?

                    • fredx2

                      Yet there were no criticism leveled at the other scientists who came up with the “correct” results, despite the methodological failures of their studies. They were touted as great scientists, despite their sample size being small and self selected. As for convenience sampling, here is what its legitimacy is:

                      “Relying on available subjects, however, is extremely risky and comes with many cautions. For example, this method does not allow the researcher to have any control over the representativeness of the sample. That is, the researcher cannot control how well the characteristics of the sample (gender, age, race, education, etc.) match the characteristics of the larger population it is intended to represent.

                      Convenience sampling is typically only justified if the researcher wants to study the characteristics of people passing by the street corner at a certain point in time, for example. It can also be used if other sampling methods are not possible. The researcher must also take caution to not use results from a convenience sample to generalize to a wider population.

                      Yet that is precisely what is being done.

                    • emiliani

                      No one researching this issue before tenure would have any chance at staying in the profession; even Catholic/Christian universities would stay away from him. Look what happened to Lawrence Summers at Harvard — that bastion of science and debate — when he suggested there might be inherent differences between men and women!! How dare he actually say something we all know to be true!! Any professor with any brain couldn’t fail to learn the lesson: that’s a topic that’s not on the table to research or debate.

                    • Oh please. Most human traits including race and gender (transgender only comports appearance to psychology) are immutable. Sexual orientation is no different from hair or eye color. You can dye your hair and wear contacts but the natural color remains the same.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      If this were true then all identical twins would be gay but there are not, not even close. Game, set , match.

                    • That’s false Austin. The rough data is that if your identical twin is gay there is a 50% likelihood that you will be gay. OTOH if your fraternal twin is gay that drops to 25%. Those numbers are 10 times and 5 times the occurrence in the general population.

                      The reason that identical twins are not 100% the same is the sub-genome. On a more practical level, my partner and I raised identical twins (his nephews). And I mean IDENTICAL. Yet they had, and continue to have, very different personalities.

                    • LarryCicero

                      What about depression or other mental illnesses? They could be genetic and could be partly caused by life experience. Either way it is an abnormal condition, treatable with medicine. However, the gay condition has become attached to pride and rejects the abnormality, and argues for normality. Why the argument for normality is needed is because it is not, and obvious that it is not to those who are normal and attracted to the opposite sex. It could be just chemical imbalance and treatable if there were a desire to find a cure.

                    • Homosexuality is not a mental illness. It is a natural variant like eye color or hair color. The medical establishment has realized that for nearly four decades. There is nothing abnormal about homosexuality simply because it is only present in a small number of people. There are fewer Jews than gay people in this country. The Church used to think that they are abnormal. Many Christians still do.

                      Copernicus and Galileo were heretics. In the 12th century, the Church excommunicated people who collected interest. Things do progress but the Church moves at a very slow and deliberate pace.

                    • TheAbaum

                      “It is a natural variant like eye color or hair color. ”

                      People can see with blue eyes, green eyes or brown eyes. Hair of any color shields one from the sun and retains heat. While certain conditions may favor one phenotype over another, there is still function.

                      How many children resulted from your sexual acts?

                    • Proxies for the Church have made that idiotic procreation argument in every case since (and including) what was then Hollingsworth v. Perry. It has been dismissed routinely.

                      Similarly, you rhetorical question makes about as much sense as asking the how many children have resulted from your sexual activity with condoms or the pill? Most people, including most Catholics, use birth control. If your belief is that sex has a singular procreative purpose, God bless you. However that does not alter the fact that sexual orientation is a natural variant of human sexuality that is involuntary.

                    • LarryCicero

                      That is like saying psychosis and dementia are natural variations of human sanity that are involuntary and should be accepted norms.

                    • No it is not. Psychosis is a mental illness. Dementia is both a mental and physical illness. Homosexuality is neither. That is the opinion of every medical and counseling professional association based on a mountain of research.

                      Sexual orientation is a continuum with heterosexual and homosexual at the extreme ends.

                      The Church’s teachings have no bearing on the science. Pork and lobster are perfectly safe to eat. Yet I have friends who keep kosher in accordance with Jewish orthodoxy.

                      The teachings of the Church have no bearing on sexual orientation. The Church proscribes gay sex. That leaves gay people with the option to be celibate if they want to be true believers. My partner was an observant Catholic. He chose not to be celibate just as a majority of Catholics choose to use birth control.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The mental health professions were taken over by ideologues. The history of the takeover shows abundantly that the decision to remove homosexuality from the manual was not scientific at all. No studies were done, for instance. It was decided by an inside group, many of whom were active SSA, working in tandem with an outside group of activists. There remains a group of dedicated psychiatrists who treat unwanted same-sex attraction. Even the guy who headed the association at that time has said he has treated thousands for it.

                    • Art Deco

                      The mental health professions were taken over by ideologues.

                      I suspect you’d have to go back to the pre-war period, when most psychiatrists were employed in asylums and psychiatry was predominantly concerned with the care and feeding of lunatics as an extension of public order maintenance and common provision for the indigent, to find a time when the mental health trade did not have (vis a vis the larger society) a ‘mission’.

                      One might remark on the escalating character count of the DSM from its first edition (1952) to its fourth (1994) as the consensus of thought among psychiatrists led them to claim more territory over which they exercised judgment, evaluating people’s behavior with metaphorical language which people continually mistake for being literally true.

                      You had some dissenters like Thomas Szasz who said it was largely tommyrot, reflecting the resultant of the various vectors among working psychiatrists as to what constituted proper conduct. You had other dissenters like Fuller Torrey whose view it was that the psychiatric profession had abandoned the genuinely lunatic for a more agreeable life listening to the ‘worried well’ in office practice. You had other critics within the skunkworks like Paul McHugh whose view it has been that psychiatry was largely in a state of arrested development from 1935 to 1975 due to the addlement of psychoanalysis and that psychiatry remains troubled because of its structurally distinct character.

                      You get the same problem with clinical psychology and clinical social work and ‘counseling’. They are dependent upon either judgments of the encompassing society with regard to what people should live or strive for or are dependent on largely unacknowledged and underdeveloped notions local to their own trade, which are more interesting than the notions local to military officers or hardware dealers only because they observe people in their daily lives.

                      So, you get these sorostrolls telling us they got the seal of approval from x, y, and z professional association without realizing how debased an endorsement that really is.

                    • LarryCicero

                      “The teachings of the Church have no bearing on sexual orientation.” Consider Romans 1:21 “their senseless minds were darkened.” A darkened mind leads to disorientation- mental illness.

                    • Lesbian orientation as a punishment for idolatry. Yup, and those pesky Cretans — God told us what to think of them!

                    • TheAbaum

                      That you don’t understand that the essential biological function of sex is reproduction does not make the argument “idiotic”.

                      What I find interesting is your devotion to futility. You have no possible hope of changing the opinion of the readers and posters here, yet you post furiously.

                      I do not and have not used artificial contraception, so perhaps you should not presume otherwise.

                    • John200

                      DavidHart,

                      This might not do you any good, but I’ll say it in charity anyway. You need it, as does anyone else who buys your line of tendentious misinterpretations.

                      Eye color is not behavior.

                      The rest of your misbegotten line of argument will collapse when you understand that snappy little one liner.

                    • Sexual orientation is not behavior either. It is defined as the romantic attraction to men, women, both or neither.

                      That gay people have a form of sex that the Church doesn’t like is irrelevant.

                    • John200

                      Homo”sex”ual activity is not sex.

                      I’ll meet you where you are. I know it infuriates the homo”sex”ual to read that his fun is masturbation, sometimes forced, sometimes mutual, often scandalous (that is a second major sin, don’t slide by it), always and everywhere disordered, and never fruitful.

                      Sexual orientation is equally contentious, but we can postpone that discussion until you take in the simple truth that homo”sex”ual activity is not sex.

                      This is the point that will get you going if only you can fit it inside your head.

                    • David Hart, thank you for dispensing truth and good sense here. While homophobia and biblical fundamentalism evidently induce softening of the brain, the time-wasting activity of slapping down fatuous, and poisonous, obscurantism risks softening one’s own brain as well. But you are doing good work here,

                    • LarryCicero

                      You might say the alcoholic has an orientation. But the alcoholic would say it is an illness. What you call orientation is deviation; it is abnormal.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      However, identical twins will have the exact same eye color. if SSA was in the genes, each identical twin would have the same SSA. But since they don’t, or the correlation is far less than 100% means it is not in the genes. And by the way, the gay gene has never been found. This is not science, David, it is wishful thinking. It is in fact religious faith that SSA is in the genes.

                      BTW, personality traits are not the same as eye color.

                    • You are desperate to conform science to theology. Identical twins do NOT share the same subgenome. Moreover, birth order alters the exposure to the mother’s hormones. The male sibling effect seems to apply regardless of the time interval.

                      The fact that no gay gene has been mapped is irrelevant. The point is that half the time identical twins raised identically they do (and don’t) conform to each other’s sexuality. That pretty much eliminates nature.

                      Regardless of cause, people do not have control over their sexual orientation. Every gay man of our generation was desperate to be straight.

                      I saw a prominent shrink in Manhattan. I tried hypnosis. At one point I almost got married when I was living in Bangkok. Accepting that I was homosexual was one of the hardest things that I ever did. I was a senior executive at a rather large company where people routinely told f*g jokes.

                      The only choice that the Church, non-liturgical Protestants and Orthodox Jews offer is celibacy. There are better choices but they are not within reach.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Oh David…it is you who is trying to conform science to faith. There is no gay gene. One phony study never repeated. David, identical twins have the same eye color. If SSA was innate, then identical twins would both be SSA. Funny, though, you are the only one bringing up theology. Every single time I get into this debate with one of you, you almost immediately invoke religion. I feel no need to, ever, when talking about this issue. I am quite content to stay with science. Science does not show SSA as innate. Sorry, David. There may be some genetic inclination, maybe. But mostly, it is a question of psychology.

                      You seek your missing masculinity in the arms of other men.

                    • Slainte

                      That last sentence is cruel and mocking. While we may agree that same sex attraction is not supported by hard scientific evidence, we should respond to those who suffer from it with compassion . I say this as someone who has missed the mark by failing to exercise mercy in this area as well.

                    • Daniel P

                      Thank you, Mr. Deco.

                    • Art Deco

                      Come again?

                    • Daniel P

                      The comment now listed under the name “Slainte” was previously listed under the name “Art Deco”. I’ve seen such things happen before on this site, and I don’t understand it in the least. A technical issue of some sort, I assume.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is neither cruel or mocking. It is scientific.

                    • Slainte

                      The sentence was gratuitous. It wasn’t relevant to your thesis that same sex attraction was not proven by hard science.
                      .
                      While Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist, and contemporary of Fr. John Harvey of the Courage apostolate, has concluded there is credible evidence linking same sex attraction to an emotional disconnect between a young man and his father; and/or sexual abuse in childhood; and/or a boy’s inability to connect with childhood peers in sports, these propositions have not been proven to a scientific certainty. Nor has your claim that the masculinity of one who suffers from same sex attraction is discovered or affirmed in the engagement of same sex sexual activity. It may be more likely than not; but it has not met the rigors of hard science or even the soft sciences.
                      .
                      You turned the knife in your interlocutor’s gut needlessly. You had already prevailed.

                    • Patrick

                      That’s Austin’s M.O.

                      He’s got to make sure he “destroys the ideas” after all, no matter the human cost.

                      If he gets angry enough he’ll start throwing accusations of pedophilia to try to undermine his opponent’s credibility. He’s done it before.

                    • Art Deco

                      He’ll get over it.

                    • emiliani

                      I don’t think it was cruel or mocking. His point was simple (I’ll change it a bit for your tastes): homosexual men are not acting out some genetically encoded imperative; they are acting out a deep-seated emotional/cognitive one.
                      Plus, everyone know men — even gay ones — don’t like spooning.

                    • Slainte

                      If same sex attraction is a handicap or an emotional or mental illness, then we should help the sufferer by encouraging him to engage celibacy in accord with biblical principals. This is the truly Catholic response to one who struggles; it is the message of the Courage apostolate.
                      .
                      What is accomplished by mocking a man’s effort if he really is trying to find or reclaim his own masculinity? Should we kick this man while he is down?

                    • emiliani

                      That would certainly be true for the person with a disabling condition who simply wanted to be left alone; however, we don’t have this here. We have folks with disordered passions trying to convince the rest of us that folks like me are not only wrong buy evil, that folks like me should be fired and prevented from pursuing their career ambitions. Sorry, under those conditions, it’s not only right buy imperative to speak in a way they can hear. You kind and gentle approach hasn’t worked, so this guy and I are tossing in a bit of hyperbole to shake some sanity into some posting here. Hyperbole has always been an acceptable rhetorical device … and I don’t believe it was uncharitable at all.

                    • slainte

                      I stand resolutely in support of the Catholic Church and in opposition to any lobby or political movement which would directly or indirectly attack, subvert, or undermine the Church or Christ’s teachings.
                      .
                      That said, I support any man or woman carrying a heavy cross (in this instance same sex attraction) who wants my help to assist them in finding a Christ centered path for their wellbeing.
                      .
                      I believe Christ calls us to live our faith by witnessing Him to others. I don’t believe Christ would affirm the sin of same sex sexual activity actively practiced; neither do I. But Christ would also not kick one who suffers from this affliction, and neither shall I.
                      .
                      Emiliani, we should model the Good Samaritan.

                    • emiliani

                      I’m very sympathetic to your post, Slainte. But I’m not referring to, or kicking, “people who are down”. People who are “down” don’t jam down their lifestyles on children (via curricular requirements, as CA does); people who are “down and out” don’t get people fired for saying rather innocuous comments about sexuality or supporting groups of Traditional Marriage (like the Mozilla CEO and Dr. Laura); folks who are “down” don’t chant abominable names, support public indecency, mouth blasphemies, or declare unheard of rights to do unimaginable things.
                      People like this are to be countered. And if some of us use occasional hyperbole to bring our point home, then that’s our prerogative. You may refrain from doing so, but hyperbole has always been viewed as an acceptable form of rhetoric: Jesus used it, John the Baptist used it, as did the prophets in the Old Testament and Church History. (Now, I don’t put myself in their camp by any stretch of the imagination — I’m a complete wretch in their company; but I don’t disarm myself from necessary techniques just because some folks’ sensitivities are so lofty. I speak as a common man. I can speak in the academy, but this isn’t the academy. I won’t pass my elitist sensibilities off as somehow more dignified or compassionate.
                      Allowing people to convince people that homosexual acts are normal is an abomination. It endangers their souls and health. The scandal of their words and actions causes people to mute their conscience and refrain from seeking forgiveness and reconciliation. This is damnable.
                      Slainte, this is a fight to the death and for life, not a debate where certain oratory guidelines are to be upheld. Nothing I said was uncharitable.

                    • John200

                      emiliani,
                      Brilliantly stated.

                      I have concluded that these unfortunates are called to comprehensive public defeat in service of the truth. Their weakness shows up when they claim that homo”sex”ual activity makes sense (it’s good for the soul, normal, natural, hygienically sound, etc.), only to experience a series of embarrassments.

                      First defeat them when they try to win souls for evil, and bodies for destruction; run them through the wringer and make everything clear.

                      Then reconciliation and peace.

                    • these unfortunates — just like the Jews in the middle ages — public defeat is needed, for their own salvation

                    • slainte

                      Emiliani, If you’re fighting a war as a Catholic soldier, you’re required to fight it in a just and proportionate manner according to biblical principles.
                      .
                      You continue to defend Austin Ruse’s closing sentence in a prior post which served no just purpose other than to humiliate another person by annihilating his character and degrading his masculinity; a gratuitous low blow. The argument had already been won by vigorous debate employing reason.
                      .
                      Yes, attack the sin, but be merciful to the sinner as Christ always was.
                      .
                      In hoc signo vinces.

                    • emiliani

                      As I said to you earlier, I have a lot of sympathy for your style, attitude, and approach. Unlike you, however, I have no problem with what he said. It was raw, to the point, and struck home in a way everything you say doesn’t. And it seems pretty accurate. Since many of these men can’t hear the academic, philosophical arguments grounded in reason and natural law, then sometimes a dose of unfiltered reality is called for to get through the haze. That’s the point of hyperbole. And I think the comment hit it right on the mark. I just don’t agree with you. I don’t see the comments as hateful or uncharitable. What I thought was that was it was a rather raw comment that is undeniably true … the same way it’s true for a man with a terrible relationship with his mom has endless sexual conquests to compensate for his maternal issues. But I doubt you’d be offended at that comment.

                    • TheAbaum

                      Nobody is “kicking” the people that SUFFER from the affliction.

                      There are posters here that don’t even consider it an affliction. We all suffer from temptations, it can be on a screen, or in a bottle, it can be a loose tongue or a tight purse. We don’t consider them normal and demand allowances for them.

                    • Interested

                      He was not mocking. He pointed out the behavior comes from some deficiency.

                    • Biblical principals are the one who caned you at school?

                    • Art Deco

                      Plus, everyone knows that men — even gay ones — don’t like spooning.

                      It’s a bad idea to assume your tastes are universal.

                    • Daniel P

                      “Plus, everyone knows that men — even gay ones — don’t like spooning.”

                      Easily the most puzzling thing I’ve read today.

                    • I really love spooning — or do I mean mooning?

                    • Art Deco

                      You’re failing to distinguish between a trait that is strictly heritable and one where inheritance enhances the probability of its appearance. Also, Re identical twins, they share not only their genome, but in vitro environment and home environments (and commonly social environments outside the home). The 50% figure you cite is at the upper end of figures returned by studies over the last generation.

                      Re a number of personality traits, IIRC occult factors (presumably heritable) have been found to absorb about 50% of the variation in the appearance of these traits. Keep in mind that measures of ‘personality’ are psychologists’ constructs.

                    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                      “You’re failing to distinguish between a trait that is strictly heritable and one where inheritance enhances the probability of its appearance.”

                      There is an interesting analogy in the condition that used to be called cretinism and is now called phenylketonuria. He condition was thought to be genetic, but we now know it results from brain-damage caused by phenylalanine in the diet (an environmental factor). But it only affects those who are unable to metabolize it (a genetic condition) In other words, nature and nurture can be functions of each other.

                    • LarryCicero

                      Yes, one might have in the genes a trait that enhances the probability of colon cancer, or schizophrenia, or SSA and something external triggers the condition- poor diet, stress, bad father, etc. Where is the search for a medical cure for gayness? Gays don’t want one. They argue for acceptance instead; they argue it is normal.

                    • GaudeteMan

                      To embrace the term ‘gay’, is it not a concession to that unspeakable lifestyle? Why not sodomite? It is accurate while gay in their high-jacked sense of the term is, well, not gay.

                    • doubly inaccurate — false to what Scripture says about Sodom and false to gay psychology — some gays never practice anal intercourse, and for those who do it is but one item on the total agenda of their sexuality. Do you define heterosexuality exclusively in terms of acts of intercourse?

                    • radiofreerome

                      Those cheap Catholic schools never work like the real ones.

                    • radiofreerome

                      A high school knowledge of genetics is fine if you’re in High School.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And lying about scientific “studies” is fine for the pelvic left ( no gay gene, sorry guys).

                    • radiofreerome

                      And giving political cover for vigilante groups that rape gay boys with foreign objects is ethical for a wannabe Ustasha like you?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have never so easily and almost effortlessly won an argument with a troll.

                    • radiofreerome

                      you haven’t won an argument. you haven’t even made one. you’ve claimed there’s no gay gene. so what? some characteristics are influenced by multiple genes, some are partially environmental and partially genetic, some are due to influences in utero, and some genetic characteristics are regulated by epigenetic switching.

                      None of these etiologies can be ascribes to choice.

                      you’ve merely argued with a straw man if your own choosing and you’ve won, if that surprises you, then it doesn’t make you seem terribly bright.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      When you call such stupid names in such a vicious way, you’ve lost, my friend. Sayonara.

                    • Guest

                    • Ex Nihilo

                      By Bryan Fischer

                      Researchers Peter Bearman of Columbia and Hannah Bruckner of Yale furnished proof that, as a matter of fact, gays aren’t “born that way.”

                      If gays are “born that way,” then the concordance rate in identical twins should be 100%. If one twin is gay, the other one ought to be 100% of the time since they share identical DNA. After all, if one identical twin is tall so is the other. If one is blond, so is the other. If one has green eyes and red hair, so does the other.

                      But what Bearman and Bruckner found, after studying data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, is that the concordance rate is only 6.7% for males and 5.3% for female identical twins. This is overwhelming scientific proof that homsoexuality is not genetically determined.

                    • Rubbish. Identical twins are 50% or ten times the occurrence in the population. With less shared genetic material, fraternal twins are at 25% which is five times the occurrence in the population.

                      There is the subgenome to explain the differences AND factors that are not genetic such as the birth mother’s hormones.

                      You are desperate to conform science to theology.

                    • slainte

                      You have offered deductions, inferences, and self serving conclusions to justify your claims, but no hard science.
                      .
                      You are desperate to conform conjecture to hard science and you fall short.

                    • The percentages to which you reply are hard science. I cannot offer “inferences” since that is something that only the reader can do (a speaker implies – a listener infers). EVERY professional association in the medical, counseling and social sciences concurs with my observations. Perhaps you should read the amicus briefs of the American Society of Sociologists and the American Psychological Association that were submitted in US v. Windsor.

                    • Gail Finke

                      Some people do “switch.” Therefore, it’s not immutable. Logic 101. It might be immutable for some people (most people or a minority of people, I don’t know which) but the fact that some people switch is proof that it is not, per se, immutable.

                    • According to what used to be the largest Christian ministry in “reparative therapy,” nobody really changes. That observation is supported by research and every professional association in medicine, counseling and sociology.

                      Attempts to change sexual orientation are futile and dangerous. Sorry but the simple fact is that God made people gay. The Church has a problem; not the 5% of the population that identify as gay.

                    • Art Deco

                      Again, Exodus International was a clearinghouse for member ministries, not a ministry itself. It did not run programs, it ran an annual conference and traded in some literature. Alan Chambers was not and is not a researcher or clinical practitioner of any kind. He gave public speeches and was the titular supervisor of the Exodus offices in Orlando.

                    • emiliani

                      Very nice reminder. But we all know the reason: it serves the agenda of the sexual libertines among us.

                      The gender issue you offer has always been the most bizarre example for what you’re saying, since it’s actually encoded deep within one’s DNA and is, at this time, unalterable. The mentally ill often believe they’re someone else (Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc.) … or something else (a chicken, alien, etc.) … while the neurotic can’t get certain ideas of themselves out of their heads (that they’re “dirty”, unloved, always taken advantage of, etc.). Why gender issues can’t rightfully be construed as some mental imbalance is beyond me. It just means the actual science of psychology — if there ever was much in it — has been subverted for someone’s social agenda.

                    • radiofreerome

                      Religion can be changed. The communists developed very effective therapies for it.

                    • You cannot change your height, according to Jesus.

                    • fredx2

                      And the reason you will not find any peer reviewed journal saying that is because the field of social science is quite biased. Out of a professional (Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference), meeting of a thousand, only three self identified as conservatives.

                      “He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

                      “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. Inhis speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.”

                      The gay marriage studies are instructive. Virtually none of them has valid sample sizes, yet all sorts of social scientists are falling all over themselves accepting their results .Yet, if a study comes out the other way, immediately the results are savaged and the author of the study ostracized.

                      ““Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

                      Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
                      By JOHN TIERNEY
                      Published: February 7, 2011

                    • There is no such correlation.

                    • Jack Archer

                      David Hart, why are you pyro-phobic? I am a member of the Pyro community and I resent you hurling slurs at us by telling us that we are somehow sick because we don’t adhere to your stereotypes of what can can’t be set on fire.

                      We are born this way, and we demand the right to exercise our love of fire. We can’t control what it is we love to see burn. Stop bullying us.

                    • Guest

                      Preposterous is being a hit and run….

                    • Guest

                      What’s really preposterous is hit and run

                    • bonaventure

                      Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual perversion. The only sexual orientation there is — which is simply human sexuality — is attraction to the opposite sex, within a biologically defined time clock (ex., an adult sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child of the opposite sex is as much a sexual perversion as is homosexuality, regardless of age and consent).

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Same sex attraction is generally caused by a weak connection to the father and an over connection to the mother. The boy seeks his missing manhood with other men. This was there view prior to the political takedown of the American Psychiatric Association.

                    • Gertie

                      “Innate and immutable?”
                      Not at all! I marched in the parades, sang at the rallies, spoke to reporters, publicly declared that I was born that way, etc., etc., etc… for 10 years. Now — over 10 years after having left lesbian relationships — I have absolutely no same-sex attraction (SSA).
                      Some have told me I was just mistaken about my SSA during those years, or that I was just experimenting. Well, perhaps all those who now scream “I was born this way, and I want my equal rights” are also mistaken or experimenting and just haven’t figured it out yet.
                      Anyway, just needed to be a witness to the fact that SSA is not “innate and immutable.” There are many of us who have left the lifestyle and whose hearts and desires HAVE changed. But in order to protect ourselves and our families, and because we don’t feel the need to announce our sexual orientation to the world, we remain mostly hidden and unheard.

                    • TheAbaum

                      Gertie, appreciate your courage. Godspeed.

                    • Sexual tastes change but within a basic palette, in your case a bisexual palette — I am such you could recover your attraction to women or act it out without much difficulty if you wished, and I am also sure that your attraction to men was not completely non-existent before you decided to act on it as an adult.

                    • emiliani

                      Actually, the comparison to pyromania and homosexuality has been an historical comparison. Like homosexuality, pyromaniacs are often sexually aroused by the results of their actions, destructive fire.
                      What you say may be true, it may not be true. If you look at the case histories of many gays and lesbians, you see disproportionate family chaos and abuse — WAY more than you’d expect. This can’t be discussed or even researched much, however, due to political correctness in gov’t and the academy. We know “The Lifestyle”, as they call it, is full of death and personal destruction on a personal and collective level. Your rather blasé assertion that gay sexuality is organic — whatever that means — is wholly without evidence. Your point about innate and immutable is actually counter-factual. But who care, right? I mean, when we’re trying to change the whole world, why should we care about telling the truth?

                    • your attraction to young men is not just physical however

                    • TheAbaum

                      Read again. Wife should be a clue.

                  • and I would postulate that he is attracted to the young men even more

                • Affliction? Sexual orientation is innate and immutable. I was with my late partner for over 30 years, ran several companies (some large) and my partner was a successful executive in his own right. I hardly feel “afflicted.”

                  • TheAbaum

                    “Sexual orientation is innate and immutable. ”

                    Bovine excrement.

                    • The following organizations (among others) concur that sexual orientation is innate and the efforts to change sexual orientation are ineffective and harmful.

                      American Academy of Pediatrics
                      American Association of School Administrators
                      American Counseling Association
                      American Federation of Teachers
                      American Medical Association
                      American Psychological Association
                      American Psychiatric Association
                      American School Health Association
                      American Sociological Association
                      Interfaith Alliance Foundation
                      National Association of School Psychologists
                      National Association of Social Workers
                      National Education Association

                      Now you can claim the usual – that all these groups are liberal (untrue) or that they are being politically correct. The simple fact is that this is based on a veritable mountain of evidence.

                    • Daniel P

                      Please don’t conflate the claim that orientation is innate with the claim that it can’t be changed. It’s possible that sexual orientation is acquired and yet can’t be changed, or that sexual orientation is innate and yet can be changed. There’s lot of logical space here.

                    • Sexual orientation CANNOT be changed. That is the conclusion of all of those organizations as well as some Christian ministries that are no longer attempting to do so.

                    • Art Deco

                      Your suggesting I consult a frigging school adminstrator on that question, or a labor meathead?

                    • What on earth ….?

                      EVERY medical and counseling professional organization reaches the same conclusion.

                    • Art Deco

                      You’ve listed the teachers’ unions and a trade association of school administrators on your list. Do try to keep up.

                      Most of us who’ve been kicking around a while are aware that the mental health trade are suffused with people who have a particular take on questions that are not subject to empirical investigation. Most of us also understand that there is such a thing as class conflict, social exclusion as a means of intramural competition. Most of us of a certain age also recall that the mental health trade is fad-driven on both positive and normative questions.

                      Sorry you fancy this mess is compelling.

                    • You are indulging in selective observation. If the AMA, APA and the Dock workers union agree on something, the fact that longshoremen concur does not, in any way, detract from the professional opinions of the AMA and APA.

                    • Art Deco

                      It’s your list, stupid, not mine.

                      Consulting physicians as an authority on normative questions is an odd one, even physicians in less problematic subdisciplines than psychiatry. You could just say this smart high income guy says x. Means about the same thing.

                    • fredx2

                      But why is the opinion of a professional organization who does not poll its members on the issue relevant? Look at all the supposedly august science organizations that insisted that Global Warming was real and a man made danger to our lives. Now, no warning in the last 17 years. Coldest winters in ages. All not possible under the global warming hypotheses.
                      Opinions of professional organizations are just that – opinions. They are not science. They are groups that are very susceptible to politcal pressure, which the gay groups are very good at applying.

                    • radiofreerome

                      But those nasty liberal doctors and professors only do that to frustrate Catholics. That’s why Austin Ruse endorsed the whole sale murder of liberal professors.

                    • Jack Archer

                      “EVERY medical and counseling professional organization reaches the same conclusion.”
                      As a political decision, without one shred of scientific proof. I bet they support man-made global warming, too.

                    • bonaventure

                      “EVERY”? “EVERY” is a VERY large term. I doubt that many Russian scientists (among the finest and better educated on earth) would agree with you.

                      And thousands of well educated and rigorous Christian and Muslim scientists will also disagree with your claim.

                      You’re fuII of it.

                    • radiofreerome

                      “Russian scientists (among the finest and better educated on earth) would agree with you.”

                      Everyone knows just how good Russian biology is. Especially after the adoption of Lysenkoism, an ideologically motivated theory of inheritance, caused one of the the worst famines in Russian history.

                    • bonaventure

                      So American scientists are immaculate, right? Especially the ones who designed the A-bomb and, knowing its genocidal power, just put it in the hands of politicians — because of course politicians are so uprights, trustworthy, noble, and moral.

                      Or maybe you’re thinking about those scientists who, for the last 40+ years, have been stubbornly arguing (against mounting scientific evidence) that life does not begin at conception.

                      Of course, the American scientific landscape is a pristine example of the purest progress, beneficial — in ALL its accomplishment — to the life, happiness, and prosperity of the entire human race for a perfect future devoid of physical defects and psychological anguish.

                      Yes, American scientists have engineered the perfect paradise on earth, and we must be so thankful. Glory be to American Scientists for having NEVER, EVER committed ANY SINGLE MISTAKE, let alone motivated by political ideology!!! NO NO NO!!! HOW DARE I EVEN HINT AT SUCH AN IMPOSSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!.

                      Problem is, you picked on my example of contemporary Russian scientists and health professionals, who — among MANY OTHERS from other nations — would certainly disagree with DavidHart’s claim that “every” scientist believes in the benefits of homosexuality (DavidHart has since edited his claim of “every” to “the following” — I guess my response humble him a little bit, didn’t it).

                      Oh, and you tried to denigrate Russian scientists with an aberration from the 1950s. That would be like denigrating German scientists today for the crimes of Nazi scientists in the 1940s.

                      So, have you had your lobotomy already? I heard that American scientists were very much into lobotomies in the first half of the 20th century…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Maybe…but not science.

                    • fredx2

                      There is science, and then there are the often politically motivated opinions of Professional Organizations.
                      They never ask their members – they just pronounce. So it is of little worth.
                      See the story of how the APA changed its opinion on homosexuality. No science was involved.

                    • Interested

                      The same ones that call direct abortion healthcare?

                    • KevClark64

                      If all these scientific organizations have decided that sexual orientation cannot change, then what would be the criteria that would disprove that conclusion? In other words, how could we know if a person of one sexual orientation changed to another? We know that some people have lived according to one orientation and then lived according to another (Anne Heche, for example). I assume that Anne Heche would be considered bisexual, but if we know that someone is bisexual only because they decide to live according to a different orientation, then the idea that people cannot change is merely definitional: sexual orientation cannot change because if it changes it never really existed.

                    • Neil Bragg

                      CAN be changed, HAS been. Learn to fit your worldview to facts, not vice versa. Obviously you never meet Christians, certainly no an ex-gay one. You won’t find an ex-gay in your bath-house.

                    • Daniel P

                      Very few ex-gays claim that their same sex attractions are gone. They have learned to manage them.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Nonsense…changes all the time. Remarkably fluid, esp in lesbians.

                    • fredx2

                      It may not matter. See Youtube, Rosaria Butterfield

                    • Art Deco

                      concur that sexual orientation is innate a

                      You’ve either mis-interpreted their statements or they are putting one over on you. One thing that has been established about this phenomenon is that it is not innate.

                      As for the rest, these are normative statements. They do not take on added luster when they are uttered by cliques in charge of occupational associaitons, most particularly the associations which gave you the public schools we have.

                    • Dave Snyder

                      David, I usually don’t get involved in these discussisons but I must add something here. The American Medical and Psycological Associations were FORCED into their positions on homosexuality by the GAY ACTIVIST organizations in the 70’s. Before these actions, all medical organizations considered homosexuality a mental illness. This is the only time in medical history that the American Medical Association has illiminated an illness for political reasons.

                    • thebigdog

                      And global warming is “settled science”

                    • Neil Bragg

                      Frog LOVES to post “The List,” and does so pretty much every day.

                      He overlooks the fact that the APA listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973 – which means that, no matter how you try to spin it, the APA is (or was) wrong on the issue of homosexuality, so “Well, the APA says ….” is completely worthless.

                      The fact that so many psychologists are gay – and that almost all are atheists – might be a factor, of course.

                    • Absurd. I see a shrink weekly (I have PTSD). He is a straight married Catholic Cuban with three kids. I seriously doubt that psychologists are any more gay than the general population. I know that my shrink is not an atheist but nobody has done a study 😉

                    • Art Deco

                      Your argument is that you’re some of the meat-and-potatoes of a mental health tradesman who is neither a homosexual nor a convinced atheist, therefore mental health tradesman are not disproportionately to be found in either category.

                      Maybe you’d like to revisit that question…

                    • fredx2

                      1( As soon as those organizations actually start asking their members before taking a position, let me know. Until then, it is just the view of a tiny minority that plays politics first and foremost
                      2) And as usual, the “mountain of evidence” is composed of junk science

                      Science Magazine said:

                      “Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science magazine has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals. “My hope is that now that we have a map of at least some of the good versus bad journals, scientists can submit their paper to one of the good guys and for the same amount of money get the real deal,” John Bohannon, theScience correspondent who did the investigation, told NPR.”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      No sir, there is no evidence. only politics. There is no gay gene. The fact that some of these groups have no competence in the matter shows that this is scientism and not science.

                    • slainte

                      In the mountain of opinions you offer from social scientists and mental health professionals regarding the origens of same sex attraction, has any scientist actually presented hard scientific evidence (ie., a gene) that can be examined and replicated in a laboratory?

                    • Mark

                      Well said David. All I can think from reading the terribly condescending comments of some of these supposed Christians is that I am glad that there is still a separation of Church and State. The only reason that Christianity works as a religion/philosophy is that it has been de-fanged. If it still had direct political power as it used to have, it would be one of the greatest sources of evil in society and would be meting out violent punishments just as Islamic Sharia law does in those countries where there is still no separation of religion and a secular state. The sad thing is that Islam is making covert inroads into western secular societies and demanding special privileges and exemptions from secular laws and wanting to install their own barbaric Sharia law. If the Christians on this site realise how bad that sounds, they should also be less keen on trying to get everyone to kowtow to their own version of Bronze Age Old Testament morality. Believe what you like as long as it does not hurt you or others, and do not try to enforce it on anyone else. Secular society accommodates lots of different lifestyles and humankind is still evolving and improving…most importantly mentally and ethically.

                    • Is that what turns you on?

                    • TheAbaum

                      Do you have something intelligent to say?

                  • Jack Archer

                    That’s because your sinfulness has blinded you.

                  • Neil Bragg

                    The Jews have been spiritually blind since the days of Amos. Nothing new here. Most “successful” people have no emotional depth or perception of spiritual matters at all. The successful man worships himself.

                    • slainte

                      Jesus Christ was a Jew…do you include Him in your list of disparaging non-sequitors?

          • Jack

            First off, if you mean anal sex, say so. “Sodomy” is a word that has so many meanings it’s meaningless. It’s been used in civil law to refer to any possible sex act, except heterosexual intercourse, and that in one position only.

            Next, imagining what other people might do in bed is a sin against chastity, too, even if accompanied by the disclaimer, “Ain’t it awful!”

            Pornography can exist in the mind as well as on the printed page or a screen. God is not fooled by externals.

            • Art Deco

              “Sodomy” is a word that has so many meanings it’s meaningless.

              Your the Facebook employee who came up with the 58 gender choices, right?

            • Daniel P

              I don’t mean anal sex. I mean any sexual act between two people (male or female) that culminates in non-conjugal orgasm, if you must know. Such actions are no more common among gay people than straight people.

            • bonaventure

              What does the meaning of words matter anyway? If I want sodomy to means anaI sex, then anaI sex it is, right? After all, liberals stake the same claim to redefine marriage — even though marriage HAS been (and IS) defined as between one man and one woman only.

          • emiliani

            There are a lot of reasons for it, but most gays themselves admit that they do not engage in sodomy. I’ll spare all readers from the reasons for this.

            • Daniel P

              You might be interested to know that Aquinas classified masturbation as a form of sodomy. At the very least, mutual masturbation is wrong for the very same reasons sodomy is wrong.

              • emiliani

                I’ll take your word for it, but obviously I wasn’t resorting rather arcane (for most people) theological treatise from St. Aquinas on sodomy for my definition her on this website.
                Anatomy clearly demonstrates what the ends and uses are for all human organs, sexual ones included. It’s in this denial of obvious truth that leads so many to become unhinged, angry, and bitterly resentful. You can’t deny the truth right in front of your face without it affecting your mental makeup.

              • Interested

                Aquinas puts homosexual acts as some of the most evil. Many do not like to mention that.

        • James Ryan

          How do you know?

      • CoJoGo

        But homosexual people think that they will find this coveted intimacy in the sexual act no matter what the truth is. When truth is hidden from someone, whether intentionally or unintentionally through such shame and criticism as is known in this area, it’s not surprising such individuals can’t come to this knowledge easily. Sexual sin is so personal, deceitful and painful that many reject the truth just because they find some solace, even if temporary, in the embrace.

        I so agree with this article but it’ll still be hard to hear for those in sin. When you live with the ‘kisses of an enemy’, it takes a lot of true love to break free.

        • Daniel P

          I think you’re totally missing the context of Ruse’s post. The author he mentions (Daniel Mattson) is talking about *celibate* gay Christians whining. These are not people who are “in sin”, in the sense you seem to suggest, nor people who think that intimacy can only be found in the sexual act.

          I agree that the individuals you’re talking about can’t come to conversion easily. But these individuals are not the same ones Mattson is talking about.

      • fredx2

        See the movie that is out now “The Third Way” Gays in this film make the exact same point.

    • john

      Excellent point! Absolutely right! In fact (going one further), the church demands total celibacy out of MOST people for a significant portion of their lives. Only those who marry very young and either die before their spouses or die along with their spouse are safe from that requirement. And I’ll bet–just a hunch–that those long, happy married lives included significant periods of time without sex.

      • Joan

        Yes, the church does make its demands and rules. However, chastity is God’s Law.

    • Interested

      It is taboo to mention the truth but a large part of the problem is that this disorder is not simply philosophical/spiritual but psychological as well. The constant self absorption, persecution complexes, blaming society for personal problems, and narcissism all fall under this category. Even mentioning it will bring howls of complaints.

      This is a special category created by ideological people. It has successfully bullied the culture into viewing reality through the prism of homosexual “rights” which is false and destructive. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”. It is brilliant. It is widely rejected today.

      • Mark

        Ratzinger’s writings may seem brilliant to you, but not if you are the lgbt person being condescended to by them. A lot of airy, fairy nonsense with no true understanding of having to live by them. Like I said, some people are gifted with celibacy and chastity, it’s not a situation which should be forced on anyone. Furthermore, your spiel sounds like special pleading….as Robert Ingersoll said “Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself”. What you see as lgbt howls of complaints is actually just lgbt people standing up for themselves and claiming the same rights which heterosexual people already enjoy. It’s about equal rights, not special rights. The sky won’t fall on your head, the economy won’t collapse, Biblical plagues won’t happen, it will just be that your lgbt neighbours, friends and family will be able to do exactly what you can do, no more, no less. If you believe in a God of love, why would you be against that?

        • Paul

          If you want to view it as a matter of equal rights then the battle is settled. LGBT people already have the rights to marry under the same restrictions that allow me to marry. The law absolutely applies equally in every way. The problem here is twofold. #1 The law does not happen to accommodate gay appetites. And #2 stemming from that, homosexuality is very much an appetite but the rights are being fought for under the guise that it is some sort of ethnicity.

          This is not a group of people who come from a different nation, speak a different language, or have a different color of skin. This is a community whole defined by behavior and appetite and the entire world is called on the curb such things. We all do well to not let out hungers define who we are.

          That all being said, I share pity all poor sinners (myself a worse sinner than any of you) and I do not envy the cross that homosexual people have to bear. But I would never do them the disservice of pretending that their cross is something they should simply let themselves crumble under or carry alone.

          • Mark

            Actually, no. LGBT people do not have the same rights to marry everywhere as heterosexual people do. Homosexuality is still a crime in very many countries around the world, punishable by death in many – see recently the reports from Uganda and Brunei for just two examples. Please elucidate as to what you mean by gay appetites? Lgbt people come in every colour and nationality and we do not think we are a different race. Sexuality is fluid, wide and varied. Lgbt people are asking for equal rights, not special rights. You’ve heard of the meme haven’t you,”I had lunch today, not gay lunch.” “I just parked my car, I didn’t gay park it.” Same as it’s not gay marriage, it’s just equal marriage. For those who want to enter into such a relationship, the situation has improved in the UK by the fact that full marriage is now possible, although cannot be celebrated at the moment in the Church of England. In the US there are still several states that are coming slowly up-to-date in allowing full state marriage. I think you’re being prejudiced in how you view lgbt people. We are not ruled by our sex drives, if that’s what you mean by appetites. Sex is sex, it’s not bad in itself, only in how you might misuse it, to either hurt yourself or others. Between mutually consenting adults what do you see as the problem? Furthermore, painting yourself as the most lowly of sinners does not disguise your thinly veiled disgust at the lgbt community. It’s not a cross unless you make it a cross. Be an adult and stop carrying an unnecessary burden and trying to tell people that they also have a problem. You really will find life a lot more enjoyable if you do.

            • emiliani

              You should know what “appetites” means in this case; if you don’t, please consult a dictionary to help you out.
              You gotta love Mark’s audacity, who can’t give any credit to the academic/philosophical bona fides of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (probably one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th-21st centuries), while he himself is ready to decide for everyone what sexuality and marriage is — a guy who ignores the argument put to him, as if it were never mentioned.
              How ’bout this, Mark: why don’t you go ahead and tell us what right(s) we have to marry that you don’t. We all have gender, age, consanguinity, consent, and number restrictions to marry. I have those, you have those. Now, America may capitulate to your viewpoints on gender, as might many Catholics, but the Church will never change. Ask Henry VIII. Many sympathizing Englishmen left the Church with ole deluded, unhinged Henry, but the Church went merrily along upholding its teachings of the whole truth.
              I suspect just as Horny Henry launched a persecution on those who wouldn’t give their imprimatur on his faux marriage, the LGBT Community will attempt to do likewise … because at heart, this is all about rebellion against natural law and truth — and there’s simply no other option than persecution for those who can’t win the argument against the Church and Truth.

              • Mark

                Wow, what a lot of flannel to basically say that you feel that Catholics and other faiths are being persecuted by the lgbt community because we just want to have the same rights as you yourselves enjoy. Like I said, give to everyone the same rights that you claim for yourself. Please don’t make the same mistake as so many bigots “of your ilk” and lump together lgbt people with paedophiles. I don’t think that you’re really that stupid but I can believe that you’d be that insulting. I’m not a card-carrying member of some weird lgbt mafia, I’m a gay Catholic bloke who wants to have my relationship celebrated and validated by society because I’m happy and proud of the life I’ve built with my partner and want it recognised in the same way as heterosexual couples. I’m not asking for special rights, just equal rights. Marriage wasn’t invented by Christianity…there were pagan and aboriginal hand-fastings for thousands of years before Christianity, including same sex ones. Exactly how are lgbt people persecuting you for wanting the same rights as you have? Why are you casting yourself as a victim of something which would help to build happy and secure relationships and thereby a happier and more stable society? The Church was wrong about slavery and treating people of colour as second-class citizens, just as it will eventually admit it’s wrong about this issue. Unfortunately the Church can take centuries to get to that point but I and other lgbt people like me are not willing to live and die waiting for equal rights to happen, we’re simply trying to make a positive difference for ourselves and others whilst we’re living the only life we have.

                • emiliani

                  Oldest ruse known to man: take something I didn’t say and refute it, or take offense at it. It’s so tiring. At some point, I’m sure even you get as tired of using it as we do of hearing it. I think you owe an apology to polygamists for not sticking up for them!! I don’t lump you and pederast priests in the same category … I put your arguments for accepting your desires and proclivities with their arguments. If you’d do any reading, you’d understand that this is precisely what they’re doing, by the way: using your arguments for THEIR disordered sexstyles. I really didn’t expect you’d see the difference, but oh well. It doesn’t surprise me.
                  It’s simple: you want to nix gender as a requirement for marriage, but you have no philosophical reason to prevent nixing age, number, or consanguinity proscriptions on the exact same grounds as you use. All social/legal requirements are simple constructs liable to alteration. That’s your argument … and that’s child raping NAMBLAs argument. If the same words are coming out of both your mouths, then maybe you need to either own up to it or disavow them.
                  Uh, genius, no one said Christianity created marriage, any more than Christianity created wine or the priesthood. So, what’s your point? Christ made these a sacrament … a sacrament that gay marriage will never qualify for or receive. But what do you care anyway? You’re not Catholic.
                  The Church was never “wrong on slavery”. You’re telling me an institution that got slavery wrong was mostly built on the sweat, love, and lives of Roman slaves!! You really need to do a little bit of reading.
                  For the record, you still haven’t answered my one simple question: what right do I have concerning marriage that you don’t? You can’t answer, you haven’t answered, because we all know you do. If you can’t answer this, our internet friendship will have to come to an end.
                  I do wish you one thing: I wish you peace and happiness in your personal life and a fulfilling faith. I’m sorry things have been hard for you, and that you feel crapped on by heteros like me. Maybe we haven’t always been the most charitable for struggling homosexuals like yourself … but I’m afraid you’re going to spend a lot of time in the vapid emotional wilderness of The Lifestyle before the thought dawns once again: Maybe HE was right about everything.

                  • John200

                    Just an extra point after the touchdown-like, “…Maybe HE was right about everything.”

                    Of course, He was right about everything, having created it.

                    • radiofreerome

                      Please, kill yourself.

                    • John200

                      You first. Let me know the date/time of the funeral mass. I will pray for you. I will try to get you saved.

                      I really will. No kidding. I really will try.

                    • radiofreerome

                      After you’ve libeled all gays as pedophiles inciting murder against them, your prayers don’t mean shit.

                    • John200

                      You had best believe they mean something, since you place yourself in need of the prayers of others.

                    • radiofreerome

                      Eternity with the likes of you is Hell.

                    • John200

                      At the rate you are going, you will not endure eternity with the likes of me.

                      You should consider a damnably hot place, among lively flames, where you are willing to spend a year’s wages for a drink of water, with a landlord who has a red skin and black horns, who does not like you one bit,, who has his fun making trouble for you,…

                      In six words, you are making a big mistake.

                      Wake up, pronto. I am not your problem.

                  • Mark

                    Please don’t wish me well when what you’ve written goes completely against that. You have an ugly heart and I’m not going to debate with someone who equates lgbt people wanting equal marriage with paedophiles wanting to abuse children. It’s not the same argument at all and I find it baffling that you can’t understand that. You lack empathy but I’m done. I’m not going to waste any more time with you. There are none so blind as those who won’t see. Take your blinkers off and have a look around. The world is full of different colours, there’s not just black and white.

                    • emiliani

                      I love when people say they’re not going to waste any more time saying anything more … only to waste more time saying nothing. You and the other genius can’t point to ONE (not even one!!) right I have to marry that you don’t have. We’ll just accept your silence as admission to that fact. And it is a fact.
                      And like most gays I’ve known and have the misfortune to read about and see on TV, you simply are incapable of discussing things objectively without inject yourself as the center of attention!! I perhaps had one criticism of you — that you’re poorly read to say some of the things you do — but other than that, I’m speaking about the issues revolving around gay marriage. Yet you somehow construe that as being an attack on you and throw a hissy fit!! Ha!! You take the cake, Mark. Walmart sells man pants for less than $12, you might want to pick some up.
                      I wish you all the best.

                    • Interested

                      Part of the syndrome.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      I do wish the gay literati would churn out more sophisticated arguments than we’ve been accustomed to hearing. All the silly comparisons to race-mixing prohibitions of yore is a category mistake of the most fundamental kind.

                      I don’t suppose genuine public discourse can happen in such a climate of poor logic and seething anger, but there are always a few ears willing to hear. If God reserved 7000 who would not bow the knee to Baal, and if He can turn my wretched heart, I won’t lose hope.

                    • TheAbaum

                      You notice they never emerge except when the topic is homosexuality or some associated issue? Why is that?

                    • Gnort

                      Because people only take action on issues that spur them to motivation. It’s the same reason people will spend a great deal of time and money to help poor people overseas but not even know where their local homeless shelter is located. Or help the homeless shelter but participate in right to life events. Or participate in right to life events but not stay informed politically, etc.

                    • TheAbaum

                      That was my point.

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Because even death must find its validity in life. Sodomite culture has no life in it and finds its source of vitality in tearing down life-giving structures and institutions. Make no mistake about this: there is no via media on the issues of life. Note there is no “gay” lobby against abortion – they share the same destructive worldview as pro-murder advocates.

                    • John200

                      “You have an ugly heart and I’m not going to debate with someone who
                      equates lgbt people wanting equal marriage with paedophiles wanting to
                      abuse children.”

                      Dear Mark, Afflicted as you are, you are not an great judge of anyone else’s heart. Leave that aside.

                      You see clearly that homo”sex”uals prefer a young boy’s bum to an old man’s bum. And that the old man often goes without a boy (young stud/idiot?) willing to plug the anterior end of his alimentary canal. The young boy is called a “chicken” and you need not pretend otherwise.

                      Where, then, is marriage between a homo”sex”ual and his unfortunate boy’s bumhole?

                      First, one can guess at the product of such a “union.”

                      Then, I reckon, it’s time to wipe and flush.

                      You see it, and we need not debate chasing a boy’s bumhole to the point where you vomit on your own shirt and tie (I presume you wear a dress shirt, man’s jacket or suit, and tie on Sundays).

                      No sex here, it is not possible. Just perverted, pretend sex. That is all.

                    • radiofreerome

                      John I’m sure you rape your own children. Don’t worry centuries of inbreeding in your family have ensured that no one but you will want them. You’ll have them all to yourself.

                    • John200

                      You first. Not that I wish rape on you, but you are obliged to think a little bit before you throw krappe all over the place.

                    • radiofreerome

                      Die of cancer you piece of shit.

                    • John200

                      Nice to hear from the other side. Perhaps you can think, I am not sure, but why don’t you try.

                      Do you know what it is to die of cancer?

                      I give you credit for knowing what a piece of shirt is, perhaps from intimate acquaintance.

                    • radiofreerome

                      I’ve had cancer twice. I’ve seen people die in a cancer ward because they had no partner to over see their care. I opposed gay marriage until I saw that. Now I know the Church is my mortal enemy.

                    • John200

                      Now you know a thing that is not true. This may cost you heavily, and I am not sure how to get you back on the right road.

                      Let’s try it: If you think homo”sex”ual marriage is about health care, one observes that you are attacking a brick wall with your head.

                      Perhaps the first step is to drop the attacks on someone who brings you the truth?

                    • radiofreerome

                      John, this is why I attacked you. You reduce everything to sex and shame. So, I turned the same tactic on you.

                    • John200

                      No need to deceive us as to why you attacked me. The attack was more valuable to the reader than any response I might make, including this one.

                      You have missed, comprehensively, my tactics. And, of course, my overall strategy.

                      I do not reduce everything to 1)sex and 2)shame. In fact, homo”sex”ual activity is not sex, so there goes your first point.

                      You may grind down your second point at your convenience.

                    • emiliani

                      So … you agreed with the Church for much of your life; then you (and Barack Obama) changed, while the Catholic Church didn’t … and so now THEY”RE the mortal enemy? Well, I will admit that you certainly talk to us as if we were your mortal enemy … a mortal enemy who wishes you only happiness and peace. That sounds totally reasonable and sane, Radio, totally reasonable.
                      But don’t worry, you’re not OUR enemy. Though I’d hate to come across you and your “friends” in an alley after you all have had a night of drinking (like earlier in the evening, apparently), if this screed is any indication of your true personality and intentions. You needn’t fear crossing my path with my friends — we’d even help you with a flat tire to get you home safe and sound. It just goes to show that while we believe we’re worse sinners than you all, that we’ll try to do the right thing for the love of God and neighbor. We’re told to do good and pray for those who consider themselves our enemies … while we have no enemies.
                      It’s hard to understand who’d prefer your lifestyle to ours, but I guess some things are more important than others.

                    • radiofreerome

                      This screed is an indication of my true intentions. I wasn’t intoxicated. I loathe the Catholic church as an institution. The teachings of the church reduce to a few simple words for me “Live and die alone.”

                      BTW, I don’t really have a “lifestyle.” It’s been 30 years, but your slut shaming is duly noted.

                    • emiliani

                      “I loathe the Catholic church as an institution.” Great, then how ’bout this arrangement, Radio: don’t join. In fact, if you can avoid accidentally scanning past EWTN looking for the HSN, you probably haven’t heard any real official Catholic teaching or preaching in decades. And I can virtually guarantee that you know practically nothing about the Church, even if you were Catholic at one time. (In fact, anyone with your vitriol, probably had to come from the Church — it’s called Catholic Derangement Syndrome.) If anyone else spouted such vitriol against something they know so little of, you’d think the person was unhinged … which, when you think about, is precisely how you sound and seem.
                      And thanks for the shout out to James Bond (and the subsequent stroll down memory lane) … or was it a tip of the cap to Paul McCartney? Oh, who cares. But it does sound edgy, and you sure seem to have a fascination and need to sound edgy there, Radio. From the mid-70s movie/song reference, I’d guess a mid-life crisis.

                    • radiofreerome

                      I was a cradle Catholic educated in Catholic and other private schools. The mid-70’s song reference is your misread.

                      Let me make it clear. The Catholic message to gays, celibate or not, is “Live alone and die alone.”

                    • R. K. Ich

                      Truth! Sexual excitement is not the same thing as having authentic sex anymore than masturbation counts for real sex. These afflicted souls are using “marriage” to leverage social acceptance of their impossible unions. There are worse things in this world than not having intercourse, though the recent tragic event amplifies our rotten culture’s lie that sex is the sine qua non of a fulfilled life. How desperately shallow, how ironically sad that gaiety has become a term of ultimate isolation. Loud, angry, and self-referential, but finally vacuous and forgettable.

                    • Emiliani seems mean-spirited and closed-minded to me —

                    • Holy smokes

                      “Such is the force of love that, as you can see, it alone separates, it alone distinguishes the actions of men. We said this is the case where actions are similar. Where they are different we can find a man made savage by love and another made gentle by iniquity. A father beats a boy, a seducer of boys caresses. If you but name the two actions, who would not choose the caresses and decline the blows? But if you take note of persons whose actions are, it is love that beats the boy and iniquity the caresses him. See then what we are insisting upon: that the deeds of men are discerned only by reason of love…..A short precept is given to you: Love, and
                      do what you will. If you are silent, be silent for love, or if you cry out, cry out for love. If you chastise, chastise for love, if you spare, spare for love.” St. Augustine. “Homilies on the Epistle of John [7,7].” The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 3. Trans. W.A. Jurgens. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979. pg. 126.

                    • Holy smokes

                      Colors are morally neutral. Sexual morality is not.
                      Mark, you are only here in this blog for one reason. You want to convince us of the lies that you superficially believe. You will stop at nothing to force your unnatural lifestyle on everyone else. This only happens in a pagan society. It is not only you, it everyone who has twisted right from wrong and now that feelings are hurt, resentment sets in. This is oppression and I will pray that you see the light. We all suffer fromit but only those with the light of Faith know right from wrong and seek the Lord to heal us. Your brother, Will

                • Interested

                  You are asking for artificial rights. Pathology is not to be celebrated simply because you desire it. There is no right to vice or pathology. None. That is your fantasy.

                • robert chacon

                  Dear Mark, The Church did NOT take centuries to get the slavery issue right! The Church issued a Bull against slavery centuries before America abolished slavery. It spoke out against slavery throughout Western slave trade, and forbid Catholic countries to engage in the slave trade.The fact that Catholic crowns ignored these teachings is another issue.

                  As for marriage preceding Christianity, you are absolutely correct. But that only speaks to the truth of marriage written on mens hearts by God! Throughout human history, no society regularly celebrated gay “marriage”. Man has celebrated marriage not because it cares about the sex lives of any two people, but because it celebrates the CHILDREN of the union between a man and a woman and the way that binds families. The state has NO need to recognize homosexual relationships.

                  Anyone can gain the rights that traditional married couples have through either contract agreements or legislative changes without redefining marriage. The main reason the lgbt lobby fights so hard for marriage redefinition is simply to have the imprimatur of the state on the acceptance of homosexuality! Im sorry you feel that the world owes you recognition and celebration of your disordered inclinations. But the Church does a disservice if it succumbs to the illogic of the broader culture and even other heretic churches and simply allows the normalization of homosexuality within Her own teachings or even in regards to civil laws.

                  Homosexuality, while not a sin deserving all this attention, is not an ideal for society nor the individual. Due to your homosexuality you will NEVER know the joy of creating life with your spouse. In giving in to your disordered “appetites” you succumb to the lie that the orgasm is love. Each one of your disordered sexual experiences is nothing more than a thwarted facsimile to real sex that allows man to participate in the divine act of human life! The same goes to those of us heterosexuals who practice birth control or masturbation.

                  That is the beauty of the Church’s teaching. It is completely consistent, and beautiful in Her teaching on the meaning of human sexuality. The Church teaches us the ideal! The most holy, the most God like! ANYTHING that misses this mark is sin. The ideal of human sexuality is NOT just the great gift of pleasure in the sex act, but also the actual participation in the divine act of creating life! When we reject either part of this gift we miss the ideal; we reject the incredible gift we are given in our sexuality. We do this whether we are heterosexual and masturbate or contracept or are homosexual.

                  You demands for equality and recognition and acceptance are so trite and disrespectful of Gods gift of sexuality. Unfortunately, so many Catholics are just as guilty as you when we contracept, and perform other acts against Gods love for us. But instead of raising our arms in thanksgiving to God for our great gift of sexuality, we curse Him for not “celebrating” in our disordered behaviors – gay and straight! We ALL need to start giving thanks to God for the gift of sexuality and life that he gives to us instead of raising our fits to Him in our impetuous demands to fill every one of our sexual appetites. Instead of living our lives to meet our sexual urges, we alll need to consider the natural and good and Godly value of using our sexual appetites to create and celebrate life!

                  While you may never realize it, nor admit it your attitudes and anger towards those of us who support the Churchs teaching is not really just animosity toward us, but your own frustration with the sterility of your sexual experience. Deep down , the anger toward society by the homosexual activist community is not really about injustice of civil law. Its about your own frustration with the reality of natural law in your inability to be able to participate in the creation of family with your spouse. So, instead of simply accepting that reality, you try to fill it with the acceptance and celebration of your facsimile of marriage. No demands on society will EVER satisfy the longings for real marriage that you have! Although you will never admit this, I pray.

              • radiofreerome

                You mean that old Nazi Faggot with the live-in boyfriend?

                • John200

                  Perhaps you mean Hitler’s boys.

                  They left the world stage 69 years ago.

                  • radiofreerome

                    Some of the worst of them went into retirement arranged by the Catholic Church. Fr. Ante Pavelic was a Franciscan who carried out genocide against Serbs and Jews in the Balkans. Fr. Pavelic got a Vatican retirement plan, first in Spain and then in Argentina.

                    • bonaventure

                      Oh, so one priest turned out a criminal? Interesting.

                      Try that, too:

                      Ernest Roehm was a homosexual.
                      His S.A. were in great majority homosexuals.
                      HitIer’s jaii mate Rudolf Hess was a homosexual.
                      Herman Goering was a transvestite.
                      HitIer himself was a bisexual.
                      Most Kapos who guarded concentration camp inmates were homosexuals, and chosen as such on purpose, because of the notoriety of overall homosexual immorality and debauchery, which can always be easily channeled into brutality.

                      When once asked if he was in favor of establishing a homosexual political party, Allen Ginsberg (a notorious homosexual activist) answered the following: “Well, I think, saying that, this has already happened in a sense — or of sex perverts — and we can point to HitIer, Germany under HitIer”

                    • God, you have gone to seed really badly since I last met you in cyberspace. Now you are into Scott Lively and The Pink Swastika, which is the homophobe’s equivalent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

                • emiliani

                  Yup, you’re a real advocate for the rights of the LGBT Community using such terms. But at least you don’t type with a slur (you know, like your speaking). Never drink and post, Radio.

                  • radiofreerome

                    Words like “faggot” and “sodomite” are standard Catholic vocabulary. I’ve had them hurled at me thousands of times in Catholic school with no objection from the priests. I consider it appropriate to apply the term to Benedict for calling gays disordered and using that term to encourage discrimination against them in housing, employment, education, military service, etc.

                    • emiliani

                      While “sodomy” is one of the proscribed sexual acts presumably mentioned in the Catechism, I can’t recall ever hearing it (and most definitely not the F word) from any priest, nun, deacon, bishop or Pope. The only people I hear these words from are from Liberals like Alec Baldwin (who pays no price) and, honestly speaking, people like you–people who use the word freely in an attempt to besmirch good people who never use the word. The only “Christians” I’m aware who use the words are from the “religious” leader in Kansas … who attends funerals and the like for PR opportunities (I’m sure you know who I’m talking about).
                      And one last thing: Pope Bendict XVI, being one of the greatest thinkers, philosophers, and theologians of the past 200-300 years would never call gays “disordered”. What he would say is that homosexual desire and homosexual acts are disordered. That’s a very key difference I’m sure you’d acknowledge.

                      Also, “disordered” has a very precise philosophical meaning. The eye is ORDERED (“meant”) for providing the person vision; the sexual/conjugal act is ORDERED (“meant”) for the pleasurable well being and union of the married couple AND the procreation of children. If a sexual act is “disordered”, it merely means it is not being used for that which it is ordered/meant.

                      Maybe with that misconception solved, we can start a genuine conversation absent the sarcasm, condescension, and vitriol. What do you say?

                    • radiofreerome

                      I’ve heard that word “Faggot” thousands of times from Catholics. I find the word “Sodomite” far more threatening and far more evil. Blaming gays for events (myth) of Sodom is no more ethical blaming Jews for deicide.

                      As for the technical use of the term “disorder,” the defense of this use fell apart as soon as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made an analogy between this “philosophical” disorder and a medical disorder which justified the curtailment of rights of those affected.

                      As for the distinction between orientation and person, that implies that the sole focus of an orientation is sex. It’s dirty minded and disgusting.

                    • bonaventure

                      (1) The term “orientation” does not even belong to sexuality. Orientation = direction towards the East. Sexuality has no “orientation.” Sexuality IS SIMPLY sexuality (attraction of opposite sexes, within their appropriate biological time frame), or perversion (attraction to the opposite sex, pedophilia, bestiality, adultery, addiction to pornography, etc).

                      (2) Everything about homosexual attraction — even non-explicitly sexual acts such a two homosexuals giving each other a kiss as part of the their homosexual relationship (rather than as part of a cultural custom where people kiss each other for greeting regardless of one’s sex) — is perverted.

                      (3) Sex is not dirty and disgusting. But homosexuality is, even if acted out non-sexually.

                    • Read Persona Humana and Homosexualitatis Persona for a deeper vision of the homosexual orientation, and for a correction of the manifest disrespect for your gay brothers and sisters that you show.

                    • bonaventure

                      Telling the truth is not showing disrespect. I’ve read the documents you suggested more than once, hence my position, which is, btw, very very charitable and respectful — for I am no follower of Mohammed.

                    • Patrick

                      You can tell you the truth in a respectful way.
                      You can also do it in a disrespectful way.

                      Seriously, every person over the age of 5 has been taught that lesson by their parents.

                      The method of conveying a message can easily completely undermine the intent of the message itself.

                    • emiliani

                      “…which justified the curtailment of rights of those affected.”
                      As I said on another thread, I’ll believe you care about the curtailment of rights when you denounce the Gay Mafia’s success in getting Dr. Laura axed, the CEO of Mozilla ousted (for the hateful crime of contributing the herculean sum of $1000 in support of Prop Hate, as you called it), and a host of other public pressure efforts to get people censured and fired. The hypocrisy is just too much!! Until then, I think you prove my hypothesis: gay rights activists were never really concerned with the “curtailment” of anyone’s rights (by firings, suspensions, not hiring, etc.), only that they weren’t the ones in charge of it all…because now they seem hunky dory with what’s going on. Interesting, no?
                      But, hey, payback is a B, right? If this is what the “fight” was for .. I guess congratulations are in order. You got what you wanted. Now you can vent that inveterate hatred you copped to on many of us.
                      I don’t know, you seem like a decent enough guy once you let your guard down a bit. I hope this wasn’t all that it was about: payback.

                    • Interested

                      Just for clarification homosexuality is a philosophical disorder in that it is not ordered towards the good. It is, also, a medical disorder in any sane sense of vocabulary and science. Humans were ordained male and female from the start. Attraction to the same sex is not part of health.

                    • Just read “The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology” by Mark Jordan for light on how thoroughly Catholic this nasty vocabulary is. Even “faggot” comes from our Catholic practice of burning innocents at the stake.

                    • Interested

                      Just discrimination is crucial and mandatory for any reasonable person and society. The sociopaths make no distinctions.

              • Holy smokes

                Great points. The LGBT folks and supporters don’t even realize that they are creating a persecution. They expect tolerance but give none in return. Individuals like brother Mark are demonstrating this attacking every article defending sacramental marriage (instituted by God, not man). On the other hand, there will always be persecutions of those who believe that they are marginalized. The question is if the persecution is born out of chastisement due to reason of love or iniquity? The second question is how will that persecution be executed, through positive human law or by means of negative human law based on natural and Divine precepts? I decided to take this subject to another normative level as it (the persecution) is already underway.

                • emiliani

                  Persecution, according to all great Christians/saints is often a final “wake-up call” to the Church and Christians. When too many of us have bought the lie, have deluded ourselves, then we have to feel the consequences for our actions — to snap us out of our stupor.
                  Sin is often its own consequence/judgment for sin; in other words, sin begets more sin. And sin and righteousness, law and chaos, love and hate, light and darkness, can never really abide each other; fortunately, the good usually vanquish the bad … when it’s actively engaged in being the salt and light. When it doesn’t, it usually gets swallowed up and the faith is extinguished for a time.

        • emiliani

          Mark, that’s what Interested (to whom you responded) was saying: maybe there’s something in the psychological makeup of gays and lesbians that is bent out of shape; your arguments point out this fact almost to the tee. GLBT advocates have never been about the “same” rights, they’re about special rights. Case in point: you already have “everyone’s” right in marriage. You are free to marry under the following conditions: age, number, gender, and willing consent. You don’t want to adhere to that, you want to change that. Well, America may buckle to folks like you who want that to change. The Church, however, never will. Ask Henry VIII. But you’ll never allow anyone to think differently than you do … so you demonstrate that insanity by the reprisals you take on people who simply disagree with you. And why don’t you ask the canned CEO of Mozilla whether advocates for gay/lesbian marriage are really committed to the “same rights as everyone” when it comes to political contributions.

          It’s never been about equality … it’s been about agitation and power — to force people of faith into not only recognizing but endorsing “The Lifestyle”. And America may buckle to those demands, as might many Catholics; however, the Holy Roman Catholic Church never will. And it infuriates you because you really think you know better … and those who don’t agree MUST pay.
          Turns out “The Communities” were never really against closets, black lists, firings, and witch hunts … only that they weren’t running them.

          All the equality of rights arguments were always garbage, and we’re seeing the mask finally being pulled off from the gruesome realities of the not-so-gay lobby of haters and miserable agitators.

          • Invincible Hope

            very well spoken,

            emiliani

        • Holy smokes

          Gays and Lesbians are a special brand of lust and love addicts. They will never be happy unless they find sobriety, which in this case, is another name for chastity. It is really not impossible for 12 step support and The Lord for faith and courage. If you fail, there is the amazing sacrament of confession, then get up and start again . “I define love as a movement of the mind directed to the enjoyment of God for his own sake, and self, and neighbor for the sake of God. Lust , however, is a movement of the mind directed to the enjoyment of self and neighbor and whosoever body, not for the sake of God.” St. Augustine. “De Doctrina Christiana [3,10,16].” in The Faith of The Early Fathers Vol.3. trans. W. A. Jurgens. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979, pg. 54 (sec.1586.

        • Holy smokes

          Dear Mark, humans do not enjoy rights, we perform inclinations of natural law (the “enjoyment” is a secondary good). This is the huge philosophical misunderstanding: it is about law, not rights. We don’t have rights, we have law which we are created to adhere to for the sake of peace, love, and stability now and in eternity. Please read Summa Theological Q 94 for a better understanding. If you can understand it, it will give you some peace.

        • AJ Jackson

          So how about pedophiles and zoophiles? Do they deserve equal rights? After all, they’re just like everybody else and they can’t control their sexuality. Are they in the same boat as gays, some of them are called to chastity, but others aren’t? The virtue of purity does not allow for sex that is not ordered towards procreation, and the virtue of purity and humility does not allow for gay Christians complaining that they want to have sex. I could say take it from a celibate, but gays who want to have sex are apparently unwilling to hear it.

      • You do know that exactly the same language was used about the Jews, don’t you?

    • richado

      I’d rather call what homosexuals do as their expressions of ‘carnality’. Sex is between male and female. What homosexuals do- and there are so many things- is not sex. False equivocation. By calling it that, we fall into their trap. Just as ‘gay’ now means ‘ homosexual’, and not what it is intended by the English language as ‘happy’ and ‘cheerful.’ By calling them ‘gay’, then they are our betters.

      • bonaventure

        Right on.

    • Ba’al

      I’m in total agreement with you Gail. When did it become some sort of social expectation that one’s genitals should be in constant search of a task? The bizarre preoccupation with sex seems to have grown with our obsession with acquiring more and more money, and the distorted consumerism that goes along with all of it. Maybe they are all branches of the tree called self-centeredness.

    • margaret Allain

      I so relate and thank you for this, I was widowed at 36, my husband 41 died of a massive heart attack and I was left without him and five children.nI have had no relations with a man since, I hope this does not make me ‘weird’ or unusual,…God keep us all

    • Mark

      Gail, nobody is saying that gay people must have sex. What we are saying is that we have the right to have relationships without having to consider them sinful or aberrant. The Church does not tell heterosexual people that the only way for them to go through life is as a single, celibate person, it does say that to lgbt people. I do not believe that the Church is completely right about sexual morality. I think that it is wrong about homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, enforced celibacy of the clergy, and it’s ban on women clergy. I think for myself. I do not follow the Magisterium of the Church as if it is infallible, because it has often changed its mind too and shown that it is wrong – about slavery, about humankind’s position in the cosmos, about the selling of indulgences, etc. Several people on here seem to think that following whatever the Church says is right makes you a perfect Christian….it doesn’t, Christ’s message is one of liberation and love…he criticised the Pharisees for the way that they looked down on everyone who didn’t follow the every letter of the law and the irony is that the Church is full of modern day Pharisees….white on the outside and rotten inside.

      • Daniel P

        Can you give me a cogent explanation why we shouldn’t liberate ourselves from the rule that sex is for married people only? Or do you think that rule is optional too?

        • Mark

          Not sure I follow David…I do not believe that sex is for married people only.

          • Daniel P

            So let me get this right. You say that the Church is wrong about homosexuality, divorce, remarriage, celibacy, women clergy, and fornication — and presumably masturbation too — and then you say that “I don’t believe the Church is *completely* right about sexual morality”?!?

            What, pray tell, do you think the Church’s teaching on sexuality IS right about? Perhaps you will say that the Church rightly opposes bestiality? But then again, below you write:

            “Your body is like a musical instrument…play every type of music you like on it and any which way you like, so long as you and your ‘listeners’ enjoy the music and you keep yourself tuned and in good shape.”

            The music I like requires squirrels. They like it too. What say you?

            • Mark

              Probably not squirrels, they’d go for your nuts, and probably not too gently either. Yes, the church is right about bestiality. As long as sex is between mutually consenting adults (humans), I do not see a problem. Of course, contraception is of paramount importance in order prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases and open and honest communication is necessary in order to ensure that those involved are fully aware of what they’re doing. Treat people as adults and they’ll behave like adults.

              • Daniel P

                But you don’t provide a *reason* that bestiality is wrong here. Many people like bestiality, and I think it is unfair to them that you deny them their chosen sexual activity without any good justification. So what is your justification?

                After all, on your view, God made the sexual organs to respond with pleasure to the touch of horses, not just the touch of men and women.

                • Mark

                  I hate to go all legal on your ass (pun intended), but it’s about mutual consent. Sex is legal if it is between mutually consenting adults, definitely discounting animals, children and mentally disabled adults. Furthermore, this is a secular definition….the Bible allowed all sorts of shitty things to go sex-wise…which is why I don’t derive my morals from the Old Testament.

                  • Daniel P

                    This is a total non-answer. 80 years ago homosexual activity was illegal — did that make it wrong, on your view?

                    You mention “consenting adults”, but I want you to explain to me why that qualification matters. I can kill a chicken and eat it; why can’t I use it for sexual pleasure?

                    • Mark

                      No, it meant that the law was an ass and has been changed to reflect modern secular ethics. You’ll find, if you do your research, that it was primarily religious institutions which caused the criminalisation of homosexuality in the first place. You don’t need religion to have morals, if you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion. It’s about intent…sex with a mutually consenting adult is where you both agree…sex with an animal would be without its consent, therefore wrong. We have laws too about animal welfare, which is why there was the recent outrage about halal and kosher killing of animals if they are not stunned first. If you eat meat, you agree in killing animals but we have laws to ensure that this is done as quickly and humanely as possible. Having sex with an animal would perforce be without its consent and would involve unnecessary suffering and an abuse of power. If you don’t understand the qualification of “consenting adults” then I think you may need to have a good look at yourself.

                    • Daniel P

                      I do not think moral arguments are beholden to religion, either. Why would you assume that I do?

                      As for your answer, I asked you WHY consent matters in sexual morality. You have not answered. As for me, my objection to having sex with animals has nothing whatsoever to do with consent. Sex can be wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with consent. Supposing I had AIDS, it would be wrong for me to have sex with a person who didn’t have AIDS, even if that other person agreed to it.

                    • Mark

                      It worries me that you don’t understand about consent and that you don’t understand why it is morally reprehensible to not understand why sex with a child, an animal or a mentally disabled adult (include the immature morons you mentioned in this group if that helps) is wrong. Like I said, if you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy. The golden rule. As far as your closing comments go, I’ve already said that contraception is of paramount importance and if you read up about safer sex we have come a long way since those early days, mostly because we’ve studied it, invested in healthcare and prevention and educated ourselves. AIDS isn’t a plague against people having sex outside of marriage, it’s simply a sexually transmitted disease.

                    • Daniel P

                      It disturbs you that I don’t understand why bestiality is wrong? Well, there’s an easy solution to that! Explain it to me.

                      Personally, I think that bestiality, pedophilia, and rape are wrong because they harm people. Lack of consent is sometimes a condition of that harm, sometimes not. Surely some 13-year-olds have as much rational ability to consent as some 18-year-olds, but that does not make sex with a 13-year-old morally acceptable. Harm is what matters, not consent.

                      And harm is also involved in bestiality. Bestiality harms the human participant by debasing him, causing him to lose self-respect, and causing him to value pleasure too highly. Such actions impede a person’s ability to authentically connect at an emotional and intimate level with other human beings.

                      That’s my explanation of the wrong of bestiality. I still haven’t heard yours. And “consent” is not a magical word that will cause me to stop asking.

                    • Mark

                      You’re being deliberately obtuse…I said mutual consent between adult humans…read back, it’s all there. This discounts children, animals and adults unable to make a conscious adult decision because of the abuse of power and harm that would result from it. I agree that bestiality also harms the human instigator and for the reasons you have given, yet it is a norm in some backward third world countries and is legal in several US states more than equal marriage until recently…even still more states if memory serves. Psychologically I’d think that a person was mentally lacking if they chose an animal of a different species with which to have sex, there would be an a obvious lack of mutuality and reciprocity as well as not knowing if the animal was being hurt by said act.

                    • Daniel P

                      I am not being deliberately obtuse. I was asking you to answer a question.

                      You said elsewhere in this conversation that pleasure was a reason for action. Now it is absurd, if you know any animals, to think that bestiality could not include mutuality and reciprocity — it could include at least as much as that involved in non-loving sexual activity among human beings. For what sort of mutuality is there when two people seek out pure pleasure with one another, and nothing else? I take it your position is that there is something wrong with a person doing this with an animal, but not with a person. But I don’t understand why.

                      I said, “Bestiality harms the human participant by debasing him, causing him to lose self-respect, and causing him to value pleasure too highly.” You agreed. OK, well then explain to me why mutual masturbation between two people (I don’t care about gender) who don’t love each other doesn’t lead to all three bad consequences I listed above.

                    • Mark

                      Am getting bored by this conversation Daniel…you must be a teacher to keep setting up hoops for me to jump through for your own satisfaction. I haven’t got a lot of time to continue bandying words with you, I have an exciting life to live. Thanks for the education though, you’ve taught me not to get into an argument with a pedant, as they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I didn’t say anything about two people seeking out pure pleasure with one another and nothing else. I wasn’t talking about one-night stands or anonymous hook-ups, you assumed that that was what I was talking about. I was talking about an adult approach to sexuality, not necessarily including marriage. Thanks for the enjoyable waste of time, for a while…

              • John200

                “Treat people as adults and they’ll behave like adults.”

                You are equivocating on the word “adults”. We do not treat fully grown but immature, childish, selfish people like mature, morally sound, responsible adults. Nor should we.

                This equivocation is common practice among homo”sex”uals. It makes homo”sex’ual activity sound like sex. It makes various body parts sound like sex organs. It makes krappe sound good…

                You are against bestiality. Continue the line of thought that underlies your conclusion. It will be fruitful.

                • Mark

                  Actually John, if you treat people like adults they will actually behave like adults. See Transactional analysis and adult to adult interaction. But like I said earlier I also included open and honest communication so that those involved understand what they are doing…sounds pretty adult to me. Not sure where you are going with your ‘homo”sex”ual’ apart from maybe being obliquely offensive, but you’ll find ‘sex” in the middle of ‘heterosexual’ too….jeepers!

                  • John200

                    More equivocation in “adult to adult interaction.” This is made to sound as if it meant “equal to equal.” Thank you, Mark, for another illustration of the equivocation that must be tried as a strategy to defend homo”sex”ual activity. You boys really are an oily bunch; that’s language, not the other stuff.

                    I see Transactional Analysis frequently. It has not much potential here, not even if you are thinking Adult/Child or Parent/Child.

                    I explained quotes on “sex” in the middle of homo”sex”ual in another comment in this thread.

                    • Mark

                      Really don’t get what you’re on about John. Not sure what type of sex you have, if any, but mine has been with other adults, of similar age to me, always above the age of consent. Not sure where my equivocation is in anything I’ve said, perhaps you could try and write clearly rather than being obtuse. Rather than trying to follow your inane ramblings, I’ll take your ‘homo”sex”ual’ with the contempt it was probably written, or do you believe I’m attending to your every word?

    • “Who thinks that about anyone else?”

      All of America seems to assume that of heterosexual teenagers.

  • Daniel P

    At the very least, whining will not help gay Christians distinguish their voices from the broader cultural voices that advance all things gay.

    We might ask the question where the whining originates from, though. The ideal Christian model is that we ourselves seek out the good of our brothers and sisters, not ourselves. When our brothers and sisters ask, we make our own personal desires known to them, so that they might know how to serve us better. When this model works well, the temptation to be self-seeking is minimized, since we have all we need.

    The model works badly, though, if no one asks what the other needs or desires. Such inaction tempts a person to be self-seeking, which can be manifested in actions like whining.

    Members of the Church can offset this effect — in the case of any complaining Christians, including complaining gay Christians — by humbling asking (before the complaints start, hopefully), “What can I do to serve you, and make your life easier?” When we ask each other that question, wonderful things happen. One wonderful thing is that the complaining often stops.

    • Interested

      They have been listened to and answered. Most simply do not like the answer.

      • Daniel P

        The number of celibate gay Catholics is not inconsiderable. In what way have we listened to them? What “answer” do they not like?

        • Intersted

          The article above speaks directly to your questions.

          • Daniel P

            I don’t know how it does. The key is having direct face-to-face conversations with people, where we ask how we can help them. I appreciate Mr. Ruse’s article, but that is not its topic.

            • Interesting

              Actually, it is the topic. This pathology is not simply about one to one conversations. This is a wide and deep societal issue. It is not always and only about particular individuals who are whining. It is about educating and protecting children from this ideology that is oppressing our society.

              • Daniel P

                And when we failed to protect the children from the pathology, and the children grow up, we will call them whiners and wash our hands of them?

                When other people sin, I think it’s always best to consider carefully why they are sinning. It’s always their personal responsibility, but it often also involves ways that they have been hurt in the past. When my wife offends me, I often find some fault in myself that was the occasion of the offense. When I address that, everything goes better.

                This doesn’t mean that we need to stop fighting the culture war, in any way, shape, or form. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

                (Caveat: some complaints, of course, are just completely invalid. I haven’t said anything implying otherwise).

              • joan

                That is why it is of utmost importance that we live our Faith. It cannot be controlled, one must LIVE IT.

        • Art Deco

          The number of celibate gay Catholics is not inconsiderable. In what way
          have we listened to them? What “answer” do they not like?

          It’s a rasher of the active Catholic population. If you’ve been remarking the evolution of the editorial policy of First Things, you’ll note readers of Catholic publications have been expected by their editors to consume a good deal of verbiage of this rasher.

          As to the ‘answers they do not like’, you can review the comment boxes of Mr. Ruse’s posts on “The New Homophiles” to see what answers they do not like.

          • Daniel P

            It is very rare to experience love and compassion through comboxes. This is not a criticism of comboxes, but just the truth.

            What people need is someone directly in front of them, showing them Christ’s love by asking them what they need. (Some expressed needs will be invalid, but they should still be listened to). Some “homophiles” have been genuinely marginalized or hurt by pastors and church leaders. Some haven’t. Some see real problems in their local churches, since their local churches have not pastored them well. Some are just too shy to ask for help, so they go online and complain.

            There are lots of different situations here. It serves no one if we paint them all with the same brush.

            As for First Things, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to take a “wait and see” approach to their current editorial policies. I myself am very upset to see that David Mills was fired — not a good sign.

            • TheAbaum

              I have noticed the debasement of First Things, enough to have let my subscription lapse. Of course, they keep send appeals to restart. I wish they’d stop. Do they really think that I’m going to respond to another appeal with giant block red letters on the envelope?

            • Art Deco

              The publication was founded in 1990 by the former staff of the Rockford Institute’s Center on Religion & Society who had produced prior to that a quarterly called This World (founded in 1982 or 1983). First Things has been troubled for about 10 years now, or about a third of its existence, but it really went off the rails when Fr. Neuhaus died. The current editor is a lapsed theology professor who seems to want the publication to manifest the idiom and interests of theological faculties. Hence it’s stupefyingly boring; all their interesting discussion fora were subject to erratic moderation and then shut down, with registration requirements entered for the remainder; and they devote an inordinate number of pixels to tiny demographic segments typified by Joshua Gonnerman.

              • Daniel P

                Do you know of a better journal of its kind?

                All I can think of is Touchstone and Crisis. And, for my tastes, Crisis isn’t academic enough, at the moment. First Things may be running on fumes, but it still has a good number of excellent articles, on a reasonably consistent basis.

                (Though if David Mills starts his own magazine, I will drop everything and follow him.)

                • Art Deco

                  I doubt the subscription and grant money is there for Mr. Mills to do that. A dozen years ago, you had a number of orthodox publications surviving if not thriving. It’s gotten tougher since then. The guy is 57. Pretty late in life to be concocting new initiatives. He was doing contract work ‘ere the Institute on Religion and Public Life hired him. I imagine he will attempt to return to that, or perhaps land a job at an outfit like Ignatius Press. A prayer to St. Joseph for him.

                • Art Deco

                  I think Books & Culture went under, but you might look into subscribing if they are still about. The Latin Mass is a fine publication.

  • AcceptingReality

    Wait, what? Your church doesn’t have a greeter and the people barely offer a sign of peace? That’s got to be either in the northeast or an anomaly altogether. My church is small, but has no shortage of greeters, both lay people and priests. And our congregation doesn’t want to stop offering the sign of peace. It carries on well into the next prayer and even into the Eucharistic procession sometimes….there’s so much “niceness” that I am totally desensitized to it now.

    • slainte

      No greeters in the churches I attend in Connecticut. When the sign of peace occurs, many parishioners just wave or hold up their hand in recognition of another.
      Works for me.

  • johnalbertson

    The homosexual condition, with the rare exception of genetic ambiguity, is a form of arrested emotional development. Thus the homosexual personality is basically adolescent, characterized by narcissism, insecurity, and resentment of authority (especially in the instance of males, father figures.) We should not be surprised then that the leitmotif is perpetual whining.

    • TheAbaum

      So, you’ve been following the accounts of Johnny Weir?

    • Daniel P

      I think that the traits you picked out to apply to gay people actually apply to ALL people. They are aspects of the human condition.

      As is the temptation to whine. Or to whine about other people whining.

      • Art Deco

        I think that the traits you picked out to apply to gay people actually
        apply to ALL people. They are aspects of the human condition.

        Um. No. They are found among human beings. They are not the mode in and among the adult population.

  • “awareness” appears to be a myth or a disease….

    • anonymous

      i believe Our Lord referred to it as blindness.

  • Wow. just..wow. I think we need to be careful not to give the impression that its only gay whining that bugs us. Personally, I’m annoyed with whining about gay whining. Get it together, playa’

    • Interested

      Because there is so much whining about gay whining, right? Not.

      • Most people don’t whine about it aloud- I’ll give you that.

        • Interested

          Yes, it is not as if the entire culture is being inverted or anything.

          • and moaning about it helps… how?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Amen. Praise the Lord. And all that.

  • Pat

    Since physical attraction to the same sex is unnatural and disordered, wouldn’t prayer for healing, from this mental and emotional cross, be the answer to someone struggling with same-sex attraction? As with any attraction to something sinful, prayer, especially the Holy Rosary and the Sacraments, will bring strength against temptations, virtue and healing.

    • Daniel P

      Prayer does not work on its own, since love is incarnational. The human community is needed to show the sinner love, especially when one’s sin involves this level of shame. A gay Christian does need to talk about it — not to everyone, but at least to a group of confidants. Otherwise, he will feel unlovable, and this feeling will pull him toward sin (either the sin of lust or the sin of self-righteousness).

      • TheAbaum

        I submit to you that there are no “gay” Christians. There are Christians who experience same sex attraction, and some that act on it, but remain aware that it is a sin and refuse to be mastered by it.

        • Daniel P

          I’m not particularly concerned with labels. Call them whatever you like. The moral teaching remains the same.

          For the record, I experience same-sex attraction myself. I don’t call myself gay. Some people who experience SSA do call themselves gay. I don’t see any problem with their use of the word, but some other people do.

          • slainte

            Please help me to understand this phenomenon. Does a person with same sex attraction experience an emotional attraction to a person of the same sex (ie., a crush) which then leads to a desire for sexual intimacy with that person?
            .
            Or is the attraction merely a desire to have sex with a member of the same sex (ie., the anonymity of bath houses or the hook up culture)?
            .
            Thanks.

            • Daniel P

              Hi Slaine!

              Thanks for the question. There’s no simple answer to your question, because same-sex attraction is not a single phenomenon. Some people experience it primarily emotionally or romantically, others experience it primarily sexually. In my own case, it began with an intense curiosity, which very quickly became sexual. I have since experienced some level of romantic/emotional attraction, but not a whole lot. I do find in myself a very heartfelt desire for the loving touch of another man, which isn’t really a sexual desire — nor am I convinced that it has anything to do with my “same sex attraction”, as such.

              It’s not fundamentally an attraction to sex, but an attraction to individual people. In that way, it’s not very different from my attractions to women.

              • slainte

                Apologies for being intrusive and thanks for helping me to understand.
                .
                I have read that same sex desire emanates from a young boy’s emotional disconnect with his father or an experience of sexual abuse by an older male.
                .
                Do you believe either to be at the root of same sex attraction?

                • Daniel P

                  Maybe sometimes. There do seem to be connections with SSA and abuse, but there are plenty of people with SSA who weren’t abused. I think there are probably a lot of different causes, including genetic/epigenetic causes.

                  You might be interested to know that boys with multiple older brothers are significantly more likely to be gay, regardless of whether they live in the same house with those brothers. Scientists think that points to a hormone change/deficiency in a mother’s womb.

          • TheAbaum

            Well then good for you. (not sarcasm).

            All words have connotations and I think “gay” implies subscribed to the idea that one not only experiences SSA, but is unencumbered by it and celebrates it.

            I’m not even sure that SSA isn’t a misapprehension of common emotions in some respect. I heard a rather brave individual on the radio speak about an incident when he was a young grade schooler where he wanted to touch another boy’s chest. Was that sexual attraction at that age or just garden variety curiosity?

            Given the tactility of (is there anything they won’t touch?), I think it was just an expression of curiosity in the same way I touched a lawnmower muffler when I was a kid. Take my word for it, they get hot.

  • Romer

    Austin, have you ever cared for the sick. The terminally ill. The dying. Destitute. The addicted ?

    Have you ever truly really cared for anyone other than yourself ? Or some others here.

    Spending your time ‘writing’ – masturbating your ego. No matter how much you try it won’t get any bigger.

    Innuendo ? You bet. You deserve it cause you have a filthy mind.

    When you have actually done something worthwhile in this world, something actually worth writing about – that might be worth reading – maybe can reconsider.

    And the same goes to your groupies here. Get over yourselves. Go into the world and do something worthwhile – like following Jesus in a real way instead or writing and/or ‘think’ing about it.

    Yes I have done – do those things.

    Who I may or may not sleep with, be intimate with, is none of your damned business. Or anyone else’s here. I thought Catholics were called to humility. You lot set yourselves up on high horses.

    Pride comes before the fall.

    Remember that.

    • HenryBowers

      It becomes our business when the government forces us to call it “marriage.”

      • TommyD6of11

        Correct.

        This is where most Libertarians get it wrong. They support gay marriage in the name of individual liberties, but that is not what is happening here. The goal of the Gay Marriage movement is to force society to affirm the gay lifestyle. This is not freedom. It is the opposite.

        I have the freedom to approve or disapprove of any lifestyle. Just as I support the right of radical feminists to object to traditional marriage, I would expect the same respect for my right to object to homosexual marriage. Yet, we are increasingly living in a society where certain ‘protected groups’ have rights and privileges superior to all others.

        This is unhealthy for a free and equal society.

        • TheAbaum

          “Yet, we are increasingly living in a society where certain ‘protected groups’ have rights and privileges superior to all others.”

          All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others (the pigs in the farmhouse wearing the farmer’s clothes and drinking his whiskey).

      • Mike Smith

        And when we pay for AIDS drugs with higher taxes and health care premiums.

    • Art Deco

      Can the moderators please scrape this comment off the shoe here?

      • Arriero

        Oh no please, that’s America, the cradle of freedom of expression and religious liberty. Will not you be a Soviet statist wanting to control our freely chosen attitudes and opinions? (!)

        As you see, that’s exactly the underlying problem: that freedom is misunderstood by the direct heirs of the Reformation, as the one above. That’s why all these debates are already (almost) lost in America. How can you say to an homosexual (or whoever) that what he does is not right if the ultimate value is personal freedom, especially in a country where the Church has a very minoritarian paper and Catholic are a very ill-considered minority?

        And now, let’s all blame government for all the evils of the world…

    • Daniel P

      Hi nameless one,

      Is your objection to the moral position of the posters, or to the way they express that opinion?

      • Art Deco

        His objection is that commoners are critiquing the behavior of an aristocrat such as himself.

    • Objectivetruth

      So I’m guessing you’re a gay?

    • TheAbaum

      “pending your time ‘writing’ – masturbating your ego. ”

      If you thought that was florid and clever, it’s not. It’s tawdry.

    • johnalbertson

      Any psychologist would see this adolescent response as a classic – and incoherent – example of arrested development.

    • Interested

      More bargaining with God and utilitarianism. As in one may do some sort of good, but reject the commandments. Perfect shallowness from the post modern relativists. Go help poor people and stop talking about my sexual deviant behavior because God only cares about poor people not my grave sins. Because our private mortal sins do not effect the body of Christ, right? Is that the idea you worship?

    • Arriero

      – «[…] like following Jesus in a real way instead or writing and/or ‘think’ing about it.»

      Oh God, another american pseudo-calvinist! We, real Catholics from millenarian Catholic nations built upon the pillars of the True Faith, are sick of you, bunch of irrational anti-Catholics.

      You follow nothing, because nothing is followed outside the Church.

      Don’t doubt it, we will return to the times when pseudo-calvinists were treated as they deserved. You will follow fire and destruction:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Witch-scene4.JPG

    • Austin Ruse

      No. Only myself. Only ever myself. Never anyone else. Only ME ME ME. Mwahahahahahah…ME!

      • Interested

        Yes, and that is part of the syndrome.

    • WSquared

      Yes I have done – do those things.

      So do many people who comment here, for all you and I know. It’s not incoherent to agree with what Mr. Ruse has written while having knelt with a poor person to pray, kissed their hands, and bought them a meal and a bottle of water. To give but one example. It may be a small example, but every little bit counts, and one can only learn to give all that one has to God, no matter how little, and to keep learning to do so with the help of Sacramental grace. Oftentimes, this is a struggle, since we often do not see as God sees. One can only ask God to teach and enable one to do these things with pure motives, and also to do the smallest things with the greatest love– for if we do x, y, or z so that we may boast, we gain nothing.

      We aren’t to help the poor only through our surpluses and “being nice” (though it’s a good start, but only a start)– this isn’t to pinpoint anyone in particular, but it’s a highly relevant and applicable lesson of the Gospel. How many of us help the poor materially and spiritually with everything we’ve been given, and pray that God will enable us to do so? How many of us, not having much ourselves, would elect to spend only a pittance on our own meal so that a poor person may eat? How many of us know how hard it was for us to do it, selfish as we are, but are chastised by and rejoice in how God nonetheless made it possible because we persistently asked Him to help us? …not as any confirmation that we’re so holy, but because we are learning to see that He is making us holier than we used to be.

      The spiritual and corporal works of mercy both count, and cannot be separated from each other, given that human beings are matter and spirit, and not matter or spirit (and therefore to be ministered to on both planes simultaneously). False piety is limited, limiting, indeed hypocritical, and a lie. I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement from anyone here. But also hypocritical is living falsehoods about love, sex, and marriage in private as well as in public. External pieties or whatever else can’t cover up, let alone excuse, that sort of incoherence. For starters, reducing love to emotion and feelings is one such way to live a falsehood about love. Any girl or woman who has ever fallen afoul of a clique or a narcissist already knows that “nice” people are not necessarily good, let alone holy, people.

      To paraphrase Pope Francis, lies (and Satan, the Father of Lies) rip everyone off. Sin is always an absence or deprivation of the truly good. It is always less than. Being a “nice,” “respectable” fornicator or adulterer is a lie: feeding the poor at a soup kitchen does not excuse using someone else or being used emotionally or sexually, and their or our “consent” does not make it right, either, since the question is what anyone actually consents to, and we consent to things that are bad for us all the time (or else, we’d have no business saying “it seemed like such a good idea at the time”). Likewise, having a wedding ring on one’s finger doesn’t make lust, pornography, or every and any way of objectifying one’s spouse good for supposedly being “contained” within the “bounds” of marriage, and giving a lot of money to the poor doesn’t make one a good person for disrespecting the human person in “private.” These things spoil the good that one otherwise does. Presuming that performing only either the spiritual or the corporal works of mercy justifies any willful deficiency in the other is lying. It is a lie to beat our breasts about the poor while promoting a culture that makes people poor in a myriad ways (if R. Jared Staudt’s recent article on Christopher Dawson and the “bourgeois mind” is any indication, there are so many ways in which we can be poor).

      You also have no way of knowing that anyone commenting here doesn’t “follow Jesus in a real way” and only merely indulges in mental masturbation. To follow Jesus in a real way is to be coherently integrated in thought, word, and deed by being holistically conformed to Christ, True God and True Man, all of which also happens on levels so intimate that they are not always so obviously visible until they add up. But such is the way of conversion, and the way of the mustard seed.

      Perhaps I should’ve said: “who are you to judge?”

      Pride comes before the fall.

      Amen!

      Remember that.

      …so should you. While any admonition of pride and self-righteousness is well taken and a good reminder for us all (for which I thank you), you’d be far more effective if your own post didn’t drip with them. Take care, and God bless you.

  • Arriero

    The «homosexual problem» is just the tip of the iceberg. What is really important remains below the surface.

    Why don’t we go deeper and attack with such impetus the real root of all evil?

    An homosexual HAS now WON the debate in America – and in protestant Europe – for ONE SIMPLE reason: FREEDOM. The Reformation, and especially its direct heirs, praised, extolled and even canonized this very misunderstood and prostituted concept that is freedom – mostly through the very anti-Catholic «democratic fundamentalism» of the last two centuries -. They placed – and still they place – freedom (firstly, through «Sola Scriptura» and then through the political enforcement of it) above everything and now we see that a very harmful deformity is living among us.

    The war since the French Revolutions is the same: ALTAR VS. FREEDOM. Altar does not deny Freedom, but freedom above all, DOES DENY Altar. We Catholics have always placed the altar above freedom, but not against freedom (and that difference is crucial). We certainly place VALUES above TENDENCIES. And REASON above IRRATIONALITY. The Dogma, besides, cannot be, by definition, democratic.

    We would not be discussing this very obvious topic – who in their right mind denies the fact that THE true and actually existing relation is between a man and a woman? – if there would have not been an «Umwertung der Werte» since the very anti-Catholic Robespierran Revolution, the heir of the most direct attack to the Church: the Reformation. Is there a solution? A POWERFUL CHURCH, again. Period.

    We currently live in dangerous times. We must fight the new slavery of TOTAL freedom.

    «L’homme s’agite, mais Dieu le mène.»

    PS- It’s a clear sign of decadence of the societies we live in that we, Catholics, who are the most RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC (in the best Aristotelian sense of the word) of all the peoples, have to be discussing such a basic and obvious topic. This also shows how low is the intellectual level nowadays. A maze of misunderstood concepts. It’s true the phrase that we should never discuss with a fool, of he would eventually drag us to his ground and win by experience.

  • Tpr1976

    Someone has anger issues.

  • ” the attraction is disordered and the act is intrinsically disordered and, well, evil.”

    I am not Catholic but I believe that the “disordered” label is the result of then Cardinal Ratzinger’s treatise on same-sex unions when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    It is marriage equality that has driven the Church off the sanity cliff. It is heavily invested in preventing gay people from marrying and that investment represents lost money and lost credibility. The Church should have been content to make its teachings clear rather than attempting to impose those teachings on everyone else.

    Now even the contracts of teachers in Catholic schools prohibit them from doing anything that supports what they call the homosexual lifestyle. They even include social media proscriptions.

    It is simply unrealistic to continue to call gay people “same-sex attracted” and “disordered” and then expect them to either be rehabilitated or celibate. The science is overwhelming and unanimous that sexual orientation is innate and immutable.

    • Objectivetruth

      Your misinterpreting the meaning of the word “disordered.”

      First, no one is attacking the dignity of the person born with same sex attraction. They are fellow children of God.

      But……

      Male/female sexual complimentarity and sexual organs by their very nature, are “ordered” towards natures proper end: sexual coitus and intercourse leading towards its natural end, procreation. As you can see, “ordered ” by its very nature.

      Homosexual sodomy, for example, is “disordered” (not ordered, out of sinc) against the natural ends of a man’s sexually aroused erected penis. It is “disordered” to then penetrate another man’s rectum. Neither a man’s penis or rectum were meant by the order of nature to be used that way.

      • That’s according to Ratzinger who lacks the erudition to make that claim. Gay sex is perfectly natural and is found in numerous species.

        • Daniel P

          No one is saying it is unnatural, in that sense. Cannabalism is found in many species, too!

        • Art Deco

          Enteric diseases are ‘perfectly natural’ as well, and found in numerous species.

        • Objectivetruth

          Negative.

          Gay sex is a perversion of nature, a man’s penis was never meant to be shoved up a man’s rectum and ejaculated. And vice versa, a man’s rectum was never intended to have another man’s penis shoved up it and ejaculated in to.

          Numerous species also eat their own feces, newborns, and vomit, but I believe man’s above those gastronomical choices.

          Nice try, though.

          • lifeknight

            I was going to go the gross route to make the point about how disgusting sodomy is. It is just unthinkable to most people. You have effectively made me lose my appetite, but you are correct. As an ER nurse I saw all sorts of perverse objects inserted into rectums. The list is endless and grotesque. This is the homosexual reality. Tell me it isn’t disordered?

            • Objectivetruth

              When you shed the light of Truth on an issue Lifeknight the answers are quite clear.

              And the clear truth is the gay agenda/lifestyle/sodomy is a lie. It is a perversion of the Holy Trinity, God’s will. And that lie comes from the father of all lies, Satan. As Catholics, a concrete dogma of our faith is that right now, at this very moment, there is an incredibly ugly, horrific spiritual battle going on for our souls. Saints and mystics have told us if you were to see one millisecond of that battle the horror would be overwhelming.

              The father of all lies is very successful in our society in tricking many souls to his side through the gay agenda. Souls are being lost at this very moment. This is a truth and fact of our faith. We are to put on Christ’s armor and fight back, no matter how much we are maligned, ridiculed, mocked and attack by those

              • Objectivetruth

                (Cont) …..willing to do Satan’s work.

          • Mark

            I believe man is above having to follow purely animal instincts, i.e. Can enjoy sex without the need for procreation, especially important in these days of overpopulation. We have brains and some of us use them. Who is to say that gay sex is a perversion of nature? It is an aspect of sexual nature on a wide and varied spectrum of sexuality. Same sex happens in several hundred different species found in nature, how is it then a perversion of it? Don’t bleat on about the fall of Adam either, that never happened – evolution did. If no pleasure were to be derived from putting things up one’s bottom, why do so many accident and emergency wards report regular incidences of heterosexual men turning up at hospital who have accidentally “fallen on objects whilst hanging their curtains in the nude”?…..objects which then have to be carefully extracted from their rears? Own up to it, we have no idea why we’re here, humans have evolved through several million different species to be the funny, quirky, intelligent, experimental, risk-taking, pleasure-seeking species that they are today. Your body is like a musical instrument…play every type of music you like on it and any which way you like, so long as you and your ‘listeners’ enjoy the music and you keep yourself tuned and in good shape. Some people like jazz, I don’t, but I wouldn’t force them to play my music or listen to it, just as I wouldn’t force myself to listen to or play theirs. Different strokes for different folks.

            • Daniel P

              Socrates: Now tell me, is [the ideal life] something like feeling hunger and eating when hungry?

              Callicles: Yes, it is … and having all the other desires, and being able to satisfy them, and so with these enjoyments leading a happy life.

              Socrates: Bravo, my fine fellow! Do go on as you have begun, and mind you show no bashfulness about it. I too, it seems, must try not to be too bashful. First of all, tell me whether a man who has an itch and wants to scratch, and may scratch in all freedom, can pass his life happily in continual scratching.

              Callicles: Then I say that the man also who scratches himself will thus spend a pleasant [and a happy] life.

              Socrates: Is it so if he only wants to scratch his head? Or what more am I to ask you? See, Callicles, what your answer will be, if you are asked everything in succession that links on to that statement; and the culmination of the case, as stated—the life of catamites—is not that awful, shameful, and wretched? Or will you dare to assert that these are happy if they can freely indulge their wants?

              (Plato, Gorgias)

              I can understand the view that happiness is found in lasting and intimate relationships between people of the same sex. But I can’t even understand the view that happiness is found in filling leaky vessels.

              • Mark

                I believe that if you cannot explain something simply and clearly, then you do not understand it. Your obscure quote proves nothing apart from your recourse to antiquity to try and shore up your other outdated philosophy

                • Daniel P

                  (1) A philosophy being “outdated” is not a strike against it. Claims are true or false. Fashion has nothing to do with it.

                  (2) The point about itching is simply this: surely you agree that scratching an itch can be intensely pleasurable. But ordinarily, people do not think of pleasure as a good reason to scratch an itch.

                  Do you?

                  • Mark

                    Fine, please carry on being obtuse. I understand that you might not often get a chance to flaunt your classics knowledge so I will indulge you. If you’re saying that pleasure through the sexual act is a happy coincidence and that this pleasure should not be pursued for its own ends, I disagree. We are no longer unconscious animals. We have evolved to the stage where we can pick and choose our lifestyles. Some have a parental urge and thus procreate, others don’t. If you’re saying that sex should only be performed for the purposes of procreation, I disagree – not only because our planet is already overpopulated and that if everyone lived at the economic level of the western world, we would need two more planets for the resources, but also because I see nothing wrong in pursuing pleasure if it does not harm me or others. I don’t only pursue pleasure, but I see it as part of a healthy life, together with all of the other activities and duties of everyday life.

                    • Daniel P

                      I asked a question about itching. I was not talking about sex. If scratching your back would give you intense pleasure, is that a good reason to scratch?

                    • Mark

                      I suppose so, as long as you didn’t overscratch it and draw blood or cause any other health problems. Same as massage isn’t it? Same as eating ice-cream if it is one of your favourite foods…fine in moderation but be prepared for belly ache if you eat too much. Could you get to the point please? I’m sure you’re feeling amazingly smug but I’m finding you annoying with your roundabout way of getting to your point.

                    • Daniel P

                      No really, there’s no additional point. I spent years myself with a chronic itch, and it was extremely pleasurable to scratch. But eventually I went to the doctor, and the doctor healed me. And now I don’t want to scratch anymore. I know that it would make me feel intense pleasure, but I don’t want to scratch.

                      That’s how I feel about my own same sex attraction. The itch is very pleasurable to scratch, but scratching is not *good in itself*. Scratching doesn’t promote anything but my own hedonism. And if the itch went away, I would be pleased as punch never to scratch again.

                      I’m happy enough to have you tell me I’m wrong, but I do want you to think about what I’m saying. When I pursue pleasure, I treat my soul like a leaky sieve — empty with desire, full with pleasure. Isn’t there more to life than this?

                    • Mark

                      I think I understand but it sounds like your pleasure was divorced from a meaningful relationship which would be a channel to contain it. I’m not advocating endless one-night stands or anonymous hook-ups. I don’t think sex is the be-all and end-all, only those who are hungry think about food all of the time. I don’t think sexual fulfilment takes away that feeling of Sehnsucht we’re all capable of. You know that, oh my God, my soul will not find rest until it rests in Thee, St Augustine stuff. Once a primal desire is satiated, you don’t think about it again for a while. But saying that you’re healed of it worries me. I’m happy for you if it’s true, but it’s like trying to heal yourself of hunger, you’re going to get hungry again at some point unless you’re dead. I suppose the libido decreases with age, but not for everyone. Maybe you’ve managed to sublimate it into other activities, which is all well and good if that’s what you want but I quite like sex, it’s exhilarating :o))

                    • Daniel P

                      Well gee, it’s nice for you to come out and talk, for real, Mark. All I had seen was Mark-the-hedonist, before this post. I like Mark-the-thoughtful much better. Thanks for the change.

                      But let me try and show you something: when you argued for the permissibility of gay sex, you talked about pleasure as an end in itself. If pleasure is an end in itself, then there is nothing wrong with one-night stands and anonymous hookups, or what have you. Certainly there’s nothing wrong with porn, if pleasure is an end in itself. There’s no room for Augustinian restlessness if there’s nothing wrong with distracting ourselves with pleasure.

                      Your notion of sex within a loving relationship — even a same-sex relationship — is much more admirable. But you can’t argue for the permissibility of such a relationship by arguing that gay sex is pleasurable. For what makes hooking up wrong is precisely that pleasure is NOT an end in itself — and if pleasure isn’t an end in itself in a hook up, it’s also not an end in itself in a loving relationship.

                      Any couple that makes love merely for the sake of pleasure is merely masturbating. So your arguments for same-sex relationships really shouldn’t focus on hedonism.

                      Your concern for me is charming. Let me say this: I certainly know the beauty of an intimate sexual relationship, since I have one with my wife. You seem to think I said I was healed of SSA, but I never said that. I’d be happy to be healed of it, but I’m not too worried about it.

                      Now for this: “I don’t think sexual fulfilment takes away that feeling of Sehnsucht we’re all capable of.” Longing, sure. But longing is nothing without satisfaction. And sexual satisfaction, even relational satisfaction, doesn’t last. “If you find in yourself desires that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that you were made for another world.” – C.S. Lewis

                    • Mark

                      Thanks for your reply Daniel and I agree with you a lot more than you’d think from my comments thus far. I’ve been in a non-sexual gay relationship for the last 9 years. I love my partner very much and we complement each other very well. I’d love a sexual relationship with my partner but he has no interest in that whatsoever, not cruelly so, just no drive. I manage as well as I can and have realised that extra-relationship sex does not work for me. I stay with him because I love him and because being with him is more important to me and more enriching to me than any kind of sexual enjoyment I could get elsewhere. I’d still defend others enjoying sex within caring relationships/friendships, if that works for them and they can handle the dynamics of that. I’m glad you’re in a happy relationship and thanks for your graciousness and patience. I’ve learnt a lot from today and from you and the others with whom I’ve debated. Hope to chat again sometime, maybe next time just asking how you still believe and so on. Thanks, Mark

                    • Daniel P

                      The only thing more astonishing than the human race’s penchant for stubbornness is the human race’s capacity to be humble. Your humility in this thread has impressed me, Mark. As for your relationship with your partner, I’m sure I wouldn’t agree with everything about the relationship, but I do firmly believe that men need deep and meaningful committed friendships with other men, and I hope that you and your partner can help build each other up in goodness and virtue.

                      The nitpickiness I displayed in the discussion of bestiality, below, was admittedly professorial, but my goal was good. I am constantly trying to help people think about the bases for their moral positions. If we don’t know these bases, then when the winds of fashion change, we change with them. I mean, sure, I’d love it if you adopted Christian moral reasoning on these matters, but I’d also be happy if I helped you develop a more consistent and rational non-Christian moral viewpoint.

                      Finally, there is a very funny way in which you and I are in the same situation: we’re both in committed relationships that don’t fully satisfy our sexual desires. You because your partner isn’t interested, me because I’m “bisexual”. (I hate the term, but it’s at least concise). This situation can be frustrating, but it’s also a blessing. Because it forces a person to come face to face with the challenge: how can I love this person in front of me, instead of just focusing on my own needs? And that question is a really beautiful question.

                    • Mark

                      :o)) I agree with you Daniel about how we’re in the same situation. I have the greatest respect for your journey, I went a long way down your road myself at first but then realised I had to make my own way – not better than yours, just a different road for myself. I appreciate your nitpickiness, I learnt a lot from what you said, about the need for consistency. At the end of the day, I’m trying my best with how I see things and when I stand before God I’m sure He’ll see that what I did was for love and therefore good. The weird thing was that I was all ready to give up trying to find a partner because everyone with whom I tried to have a relationship turned out to be wrong for me, they didn’t share my faith and they were too shallow for me. I met my partner when I wasn’t actively looking. He doesn’t share my faith either, in fact he thinks it’s all nonsense, but he’s actually the most down-to-earth, intelligent, caring and lovely bloke I’ve ever met. He acts like a gadfly with my faith, keeps me on my toes and encourages me to be a better person. I agree with you that it is a very beautiful question to discover how to love your partner without focusing on your own needs….a proper school of virtue and character-building. Am really glad we’ve corresponded on here, I wish I knew you in real life, I’d love to have you as a friend. Are you in the UK or America? Hope you’re having a lovely weekend, we’re having a lovely sunny bank holiday weekend in Wiltshire!

                    • Daniel P

                      Well, I imagine you’d find me to be a gadfly too, since I get really impatient really quickly with statements like “when I stand before God I’m sure He’ll see that what I did was for love and therefore good”. But never mind that, for now.

                      I live in Michigan, the world’s most famous mitten. If you care to, my name is Prodigal_Son at http://forums.catholic.com/. If you want, you could make a persona there and send me a private message. I’m always happy to make friends, though I’m sure you could also expect me to be trying to nudge you toward what I believe to be the Truth. Otherwise, it’s been nice getting to know you, and may your future be blessed!

                    • John200

                      Dear Mark,

                      I hope all is well; it sounds like it is; and better yet, I dare to hope that things are improving.

                      A few thoughts in the last day or so. Since you mentioned it, the Catholic Church is “a proper school of virtue and character-building.” You are on the right road in following this point. There is nothing comparable to the Church in this regard. They will make a man out of you, or me, or anyone who will listen and follow the precepts.

                      “I’m trying my best” is honorable, but “with how I see things” leaves open the possibility that you don’t see things aright. In charity, I suggest you do avoid that risk. It is a considerable risk, and you cannot afford to lose this game.

                      “…and when I stand before God I’m
                      sure He’ll see that what I did was for love and therefore good.” This opens you to the possibility of presumption (yes, even presumptuousness is a sin; sorry! We’ve got a ton of ’em). I cannot advise you to presume that He will see homo”sex”uality as love. I would advise the diametric opposite.

                      God told you what He wants. He put it in terms easy to understand, even for sorry, semi-blind little fellows such as ourselves (I often screw up, but I know, from clear instruction, what I was supposed to do).

                      You probably figured this out, but I will say it just to make sure: your interlocutors would rather see you correspond with grace and end up close to God. No one wants you to screw yourself up. Christians take no satisfaction from the loss of a soul. You have no enemies here; not me, not anyone else. Your enemy is Satan, and he is the only enemy you need to defeat. Be careful, he is as tricky as they come and will best you in a battle of wits. So don’t engage; just tell him to go to… where he will spend eternity.

                      You have nothing but friends here (my opinion).

                      Best to you and yours.

            • Objectivetruth

              But you didn’t answer my question from above….

              How do you know that you (and your beliefs) are correct,,and the Catholic Church is wrong? And how do you know? Where do you get your authority from??

              • Mark

                I did answer, I get my authority from the fact that this is my life and I am responsible for how I act in it. I was brought up Catholic but have rejected a great deal because it does not seem right to me. I’ve studied the accumulated wisdom of all faiths and they all pretty much say the same things about how to treat yourself and each other. I’ve read many secular humanist writings too and they resonate much more with my experience and they also put forward a loving and just way of life without the need for recourse to supernatural entities. I don’t mind the idea of God, it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand. Plus, If God exists, he would know what I need to trust in and believe in him. He hasn’t supplied that in an incontrovertible way, therefore I live a secular humanist lifestyle. Like I said to someone else earlier, you don’t need religion to have morals – if you can’t determine right from wrong, it’s empathy you lack, not religion.

                • Objectivetruth

                  “I was brought up Catholic but have rejected a great deal because it does not seem right to me.”

                  Please…..be specific: what does not seem right to you?

                  And are you actively gay? Is that why you left the Church?

                • Objectivetruth

                  How does one determine right from wrong? Where does this moral judgement come from?

                • Objectivetruth

                  “I’ve studied the accumulated wisdom of all faiths.’

                  For example?

                  • Mark

                    I’m actually quite find of Sikhism and have Sikh friends – their religion is one of the least dogmatic and enlightened that I’ve come across. They still however enjoin certain behaviours of their followers and that’s why it’s a religion I respect but wouldn’t follow myself.

                • thomas beckitt

                  then what are you doing on a catholic website?

              • Art Deco

                I think he’s telling you he’s the measure of all things.

            • Art Deco

              Can enjoy sex without the need for procreation, especially important in these days of overpopulation.

              ‘Overpopulation’ is an incoherent concept in today’s world. See also the evolution of total fertility rates here there and the next place and per capita food production. This world is not suffering from too much fertility. Quite the contrary.

              You don’t usually get unadulterated Ehrlich in these discussions anymore. That would be 1979 newspapers.

              • Mark

                Well done for missing my point, but please do go on, you’re enthralling….oh no, that’s your religion.

                • Art Deco

                  And you have a taste for non sequiturs.

                  • Mark

                    I’m sorry, I don’t follow…ha! Sorry I was rude to you earlier…I’m still an amateur at debating without taking things personally. Woeful at my age! Hope to speak again sometime. Cheers

            • John200

              “Who is to say that gay sex is a perversion of nature?”

              Any- and everyone can say that gay sex is a perversion of nature. Because it is true.

              You could have simply asked, “Pray for me” and we would have done it. No need to sodomize yourself in public; to make such a pitiful mess of yourself. I’ll pray for you. I really will.

              • Mark

                John, you can go fuck yourself. And you’ll pray for me? Sorry did I just hear you say that you have magical thinking powers? Do something more useful like making me a sandwich or something, you cretin.

                • John200

                  Thank you, Mark. I had you figured out as exactly what you are.

                  Thank you, and may all learn the appropriate lesson from your eloquent testimony.

                  • Mark

                    And yours moron

                    • John200

                      Thank you, Mark. These eruptions are valuable. When you run out of excuses, take a good look at yourself. Then you will begin to make progress. Why not now, eh?

                      I have no doubt that my testimony will do some good. As for yours, well, once you take a clear look at yourself you can start revising certain errors. Nobody will hold them against you. And God can wait a while before He tallies up your results.

                      By now you know I am not a moron. Nor are your interlocutors at CrisisMag.

                      Now? Should you start now? Is it time?

                    • Mark

                      How very magnanimous of you, and speaking for your god too….this is the judging one is it, the one who keeps a record of my wrongs (tallies up my results)? Speaks volumes John. Always glad to be a gadfly…otherwise you’d just be here slapping each other’s backs wouldn’t you.

                    • John200

                      Mark, it will be a while before you understand God. First, He erases the tally when you come to Him in full contrition. Then you start to run another tab (unfortunately, we all do this as long as we live). Then you come to Him in penance, and He erases all the debt. Then you run up another tab. Then, …, then, …, then …

                      There is much more, but you say you know the faith.

                      You have no idea whether I am magnanimous. You are starting to consider whether I am really a moron.

                      Good thing it doesn’t matter what you think of me, eh?

                    • Mark

                      I apologise John, I shouldn’t have been so rude to you. I was angered about your comment about me sodomizing myself in public. I found this to be rude and calculated to offend and I took the bait, when I shouldn’t have risen to it. Rather than mock and argue, I think perhaps I should take yours and ObjectiveTruth’s advice and ask why you yourselves are still Catholics. Enough for today though, some other time maybe. For now, thanks for being a staunch defender of the faith and if prayer really works, please pray for me to understand and see what you understand and see. By the way, this itself is not proof that your prayer works…I’m actually a very nice bloke and just felt guilty about not living up to my own standards. I’m not a sweary person normally, I just got myself riled staying on this and arguing all afternoon. Cheers for now.

                    • John200

                      Apology accepted, thank you. That is very gracious of you. I’ll pray on.

                      The one-line reason I am faithful is that the faith is true. It answers every question, and I have asked a great number of them. (What am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where will I end up? Uh oh, I don’t want to end up there — can I influence my own destiny? etc., etc.). That’s why I still follow it.

                      See you in the comboxes.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Mark,

                  You are spending a lot of time on an orthodox Catholic website. Why? What is it about Catholicism you detest so much, yet you’re willing to spend so much time here.

                  So ask, us….what questions do you have? Many of us once felt the way you did. But we still felt wanting, a hunger we weren’t sure how to satisfy. Then we started looking deeper in to this compelling mystery called Jesus Christ and His bride, the Catholic Church. Soon, questions started to be answered, the hunger we felt before satiated.

                  You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Give it a try……explore why Christ is our life and joy.

                  • Mark

                    You’re at least more courteous than John, for which I thank you. I don’t detest Catholicism, I just dislike certain elements of it. I love lots about it. I just don’t swallow it whole unthinkingly. Might be back soon, I’ve enjoyed being a gadfly today. Thanks for your comments.

                    • Art Deco

                      You’re at least more courteous than John,

                      That would be the discourteous fellow you just told to perform an act of extreme anatomical improbability.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      “I don’t detest Catholicism, I just dislike certain elements of it. I love lots about it. I just don’t swallow it whole unthinkingly.”

                      Not swallowing it whole unthinkingly is actually the correct way of looking at it. Catholicism has always been considered the intellectual, or “thinking man’s religion.” You’ve mentioned before in one of your posts, Dawkins. But have you ever read and explored traditional and current Catholic theologians and writers? For example: Aquainas,Augustine, Kempis, St. John Paul II? Or current apologists such as Scott Hahn and Peter Kreft? And of course, any papal writing or encyclical (Pope Benedict Emeritus’ books on Christ are fantastic!) how about the Catholic Catechism?

                      Read some of these and other great Catholic works ans see

                    • Objectivetruth

                      (Cont) where it leads you. Let me know if you need any other suggestions or possibly direction where to start first.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Also, Mark, you’re comments come across that you feel that Judeo/Christian salvation history is some type of fairy tale. The short answer is, it is not. Some points for you to ponder:

                      Historically and factually, there was a man named Jesus that walked the earth about 2000 years ago in the regions of Nazareth and Jerusalem.

                      His teachings and actions caused a great stir in that area. We have writings and history from then proving that.

                      His followers (apostles, disciples) witnessed first hand his miracles and teachings, even seeing him rise from the dead. They were willing themselves to go to ugly deaths than deny the witness they saw of the Christ. This part is crucial Mark, and something to ponder. Would you or I go to our deaths for someone or something that wasn’t true? That was fraudulent? I wouldn’t. Neither did the apostles.

                • Art Deco

                  This needs to be scraped off the shoe as well.

        • Interested

          It is not natural by any standard.

        • Austin Ruse

          The penis does not go in the anus. It is not natural.

          • Interested

            Common sense.

        • fredx2

          1) However if perfectly natural, why is there so much disease associated with it, along with lower life spans, etc. ‘
          2) If perfectly natural, why is there an almost complete lack of monogamy among gay partners? Presumably, a very high percentage feels the need for casual, repeated, anonymous sex outside of the relationship.

      • … and ordered doesn’t mean lawful … evident by a man going to a woman not his wife, and a woman receiving in her embrace one not her husband.

      • Mark

        Hmmm, from talking with friends and family and from extensive reading and study, and from my own 40 years of life experience, human sexuality is fluid, occupying a wide and varied spectrum. I don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Humans evolved through the evolutionary process described by Darwin. For some unknown evolutionary reason, men have a G spot inside their anal passages which can be stimulated through penetration and massage of the prostate which can result in sexual pleasure. Yes, male and female genitalia have evolved to fit for the best transmission of semen to ovum, but they’ve also evolved to be pleasure producing without necessarily involving an act of reproduction. You know what, from all of the negative, life-denying comments on this site, I’ve realised how much I’ve been kidding myself about religion and Catholicism in particular. Do people really believe an old book and a church over their own experience and understanding? A clergy submitting to enforced celibacy and embroiled in several hundred cases of paedophilia telling the rest of us how to conduct ourselves in relationships with others? Give me a break! And the rest of you dyed in the wool sheep bleating away and following blindly. You deserve the sorry lives you have made for yourselves. I implore you to read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Argument by A.C. Grayling, and Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. These will help you to free your mind and see religion for what it is. You don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water though. You can still keep the best bits of religion, the loving kindness, the ritual, the community feeling, but you can discard the judging, feeling the need to punish, negative, self-hating bits. However, once you start down that road, you might find that freedom is quite exhilarating and realise that secular humanism is even better – it combines the best of both worlds, the free-from-dogma scientific investigation into reality, together with the accumulated wisdom of humankind.

        • Objectivetruth

          I was waiting to hear from a member of Team Atheism….

          • Mark

            That’s right, because labelling me as an atheist means that you don’t have to debate anymore doesn’t it?! I’m not an atheist actually, I just don’t believe in the god that you believe in. I don’t think that a book or church has it already worked out and that all I have to do is follow the rules and everything will be okay. That sounds way too naive to me.

            • Objectivetruth

              How do you know that you’re right, and the Catholic Church is wrong? Where does your infallibility come from?

              • Mark

                How? Through personal experience of course – I act and behave in a certain way and if it does not make me happy and contribute to mine and others’ happiness, I change my behaviour until it does. If I make mistakes I learn from them, but at least in this way I actually live my life, instead of letting my life be dictated by an old collection of writings and an institution which tries to follow them. I can understand the security which would come from following a predetermined set of rules and behavioural expectations – you would know precisely if you were getting top marks or not. However, life is not like that and rather than trying to squeeze my life to fit into old wine skins, I would prefer as an inalienable human right, to live my life as I see fit and to allow others the same right. Variety is the spice of life you know, and I’m not just talking about sex. Most people sleep through life without experiencing everything if has to offer, mostly because of the blinkers they’ve learned from childhood. Furthermore, if religion were not taught until adulthood, when most humans have acquired a full set of reasoning powers, religion would be wiped out within a generation. Religion only exists in its full dogmatic form because it is inculcated in children at an early age before they’ve developed sufficient critical thinking skills. Learned at an early age it forms their worldview from infancy and therefore is difficult to escape at a later age unless helped by others. Fortunately with the massive amount of information and secular education available today, people often experience cognitive dissonance between their learned religion and reality and this can help them to start questioning everything. Not a comfortable experience, but an ultimately far more rewarding one than the empty consolations of a made up religion.

                • Objectivetruth

                  “I would prefer as an inalienable human right, to live my life as I see fit and to allow others the same right. ”

                  So what if based on my “personal experience” (your words) that the way ” I see fit” to live my life is that every time I met a person named Mark, I would punch them in the mouth. As you say, it is my right. Look…! There’s a guy named Mark! POW! Right in the kisser! So if I ever saw you, I’d let you have five knuckles to the puss. This is my right “to live my life as I see fit.” No problems, heh? It fulfills your philosophy perfectly.

                  Or do you really have no idea what you’re talking about and I’m just wasting my time here?

                  • John200

                    Objectivetruth,

                    Mark is insane and you are wasting your time on him, but you are not wasting it on others who might have been deceived by Mark’s “philosophy” (I choke on the word as I try to be charitable to Mark the Pitiful).

                    Earlier he pretended that empathy determines right from wrong. He has no idea what he is talking about and he is a long way from learning about himself; what he is, why he is what he is, what his perfection might be, etc., etc.

                    But keep at it, you are helping people you don’t know. And, after a suitable period of reflection and careful thought, maybe Mark himself will avail himself of the help.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Agreed….

                      .postings like his are sometimes I believe a cry for Truth. People like Mark who come to an orthodox site like Crisis and spend so much time attacking the teachings of Christ are actually in some backwards way, seekers of Christ and His Truths. They are, like all of us, on a journey. There is something about Christ that has whispered to them, like nothing else has before. Even though they attack and offend, they wish to remain at the party.

                      Keep people like Mark and others engaged. Keep, as Blessed Teresa said “giving them Christ.” Let us keep sharing with Mark and others “The cause of our joy.” We have nothing to lose….Mark has absolutely everything to gain. The hope is in the quiet of the night, Christ whispers in their hearts (and He does) “come….follow Me!”

                • Objectivetruth

                  “Through personal experience, of course.”

                  It sounds like you’re a moral relativist, correct? What is morally “true” to you is OK, but what is morally “true” to me is also OK and acceptable, even though they might contradict?

                  • Mark

                    Through personal experience, speaking and arguing with others, sharing a culture with my fellow human beings, cooperating with others, etc. We evolved remember, we’ve had millions of years of building societies to get processes right so that we don’t kill each other all of the time, so that we protect our families/tribe/neighbours, etc. Then as globalisation has taken place, we’ve had to learn how to get along with strangers and cultures different from our own, although I think multiculturalism is an abject failure. We have several million years of evolution in our genes, genetic knowledge passed down to us, plus the accumulated wealth of wisdom, first orally and then written down. It’s this evolved knowledge which helps people to determine what’s right from wrong, this socialisation from our forebears. If you don’t agree with this, that’s your prerogative, but how else do you determine which parts of the Bible to believe and which to chalk up to metaphor/figurative/just crazy nonsense? Do you follow all of the laws of the Old Testament to the letter? Do you believe in a god who told his people to commit genocide against their neighbours, sparing no-one, or forcibly taking their women as wives, whilst killing their men and dashing their babies’ heads against the rocks? You know right and wrong without having to rely on the shitty morals of an invented but terrible deity from the Old Testament, because we as a species have evolved and improved our morality and ethics as time has gone by. You can’t run your life by faith, you can’t leave your brain and intelligence out of something as important as your life and how you get along with your fellow man. Religion is the greatest cause of violence in the world because it means that different culture all say that their god is the best and nobody can prove them wrong because they don’t have to give any evidence apart from a circular argument that the Bible says it’s true

                    • Objectivetruth

                      It sounds like you are incorrectly interpreting scripture. In fact, you are.

                      Mark……it seems you actually don’t have a real knowledge of Catholicism and its teachings. You are on a Catholic website trying to debate learned, educated Catholics who know what they’re talking about. This makes any discussion with you difficult.

                      It sounds like you believe the 6500 years of known civilization had no guiding moral rules, principles. So you believe the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments had no impact on man’s moral progression?.

                  • Mark

                    Through personal experience, speaking and arguing with others, sharing a culture with my fellow human beings, cooperating with others, etc. We evolved remember, we’ve had millions of years of building societies to get processes right so that we don’t kill each other all of the time, so that we protect our families/tribe/neighbours, etc. Then as globalisation has taken place, we’ve had to learn how to get along with strangers and cultures different from our own, although I think multiculturalism is an abject failure. We have several million years of evolution in our genes, genetic knowledge passed down to us, plus the accumulated wealth of wisdom, first orally and then written down. It’s this evolved knowledge which helps people to determine what’s right from wrong, this socialisation from our forebears. If you don’t agree with this, that’s your prerogative, but how else do you determine which parts of the Bible to believe and which to chalk up to metaphor/figurative/just crazy nonsense? Do you follow all of the laws of the Old Testament to the letter? Do you believe in a god who told his people to commit genocide against their neighbours, sparing no-one, or forcibly taking their women as wives, whilst killing their men and dashing their babies’ heads against the rocks? You know right and wrong without having to rely on the shitty morals of an invented but terrible deity from the Old Testament, because we as a species have evolved and improved our morality and ethics as time has gone by. You can’t run your life by faith, you can’t leave your brain and intelligence out of something as important as your life and how you get along with your fellow man. Religion is the greatest cause of violence in the world because it means that different culture all say that their god is the best and nobody can prove them wrong because they don’t have to give any evidence apart from a circular argument that the Bible/Koran is the word of God/Allah, because it says so in the Bible/Koran.

        • slainte

          “…Do people really believe an old book and a church over their own experience and understanding?…”
          .
          Pride and hubris makes it appearance. Go away.

          • Mark

            I’ll go away when I’ve had enough of debating thanks. How dare I trust to my own critical reasoning skills and life experience when I should just trust an old book and it’s supposed interpreters! “Choose religion – because thinking is hard!”

    • Daniel P

      Sexual orientation does not seem to change by attempts to change it. But it does clearly change in other ways. Many a current lesbian wasn’t attracted to women until adulthood. Sexual desires change all the time, even if we can’t choose to change them.

      • You are essentially correct. There is some fluidity is sexual orientation. However, that does not mean that sexual orientation can be influenced by one’s desire.

        Outdoor temperature changes but I cannot change it.

        • Daniel P

          Do you understand, though, that Catholicism does not teach that sexual orientation can be changed at will? Catholicism teaches that we all have many orientations to things that aren’t good for us. Many Catholics are bigots against gay people, but that’s not Church teaching. Church teaching just says that anal sex, oral sex, and masturbation are sins, whether done by gay couples or straight couples. If you are offended by the Church’s teaching about gay people, you should be offended by its teaching about straight people too.

          • anonymous

            Daniel, your understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches is not complete. As a Catholic, I am not against people with same-sex attraction, I’m against the effort to justify sodomy in total defiance of God’s Law.

            • Daniel P

              Huh?

              I’m against efforts to justify sodomy, too. Where do we disagree?

        • redfish

          Either its innate and immutable, or its fluid, but can’t be influenced by one’s desire. It can’t be both. Or, you’re using innate and immutable to mean something it doesn’t mean.

          I’d say its very much like any other aspect of personality — like taste in art or music. It wouldn’t be helpful to go to a therapist with the idea of mind of ‘fixing’ your taste in art. Its not going to work. It really doesn’t mean its not an aspect of how we think of the world.

          And it really isn’t necessary, to change your tastes or sexual inclinations — its really missing the point. People should be introspective and learn to understand where their feelings come from, though, and feel they have some control over them. One of my biggest problems with LGBT politics is its teaching people to shut off their brains about their emotions and just say “my genes made me do it.”

          • Those are not mutually exclusive. Some people experience some fluidity in their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not an absolute. It is a continuum with gay and straight at the extreme ends. Many (some say most) straight people have homosexual fantasies from time to time. The fact that they don’t act on those fantasies has nothing to do with either discipline or morality. Yet, they are usually unable to act on those fantasies.

            • redfish

              Fluidity and immutable/innate are mutually exclusive.

              Sure, and many straight people have all sorts of fantasies, including bondage and such, that they can’t bring themselves to act upon in real life. The human mind works like that. It really doesn’t say much about the nature of the topic. Many people also die with the kinks, fetishes, fantasies they developed as a teenager; it doesn’t mean they were biological rather than an emotional development.

              • Daniel P

                I think DavidHart’s idea — correct me if I’m wrong, David — is that sexual orientation is like hair color. It sometimes changes, but a person cannot successfully permanently change it by trying. This seems like an accurate comparison, to me.

                • Art Deco

                  Hair color is a property, not a behavior. The point of analogies is to illuminate, and this is a bad one.

                  • Daniel P

                    How is same-sex attraction a behavior?

                • redfish

                  I don’t see it an accurate comparison. I would again find a better comparison in any aspect of personality. Hair color changes are generally dependent on physiology and the changes it can undergo naturally are very limited and predictable, whereas sexuality, like any aspect of personality, is somewhat dependent on experience and how a person emotionally processes the experience. That’s why things like bisexuality exist, which are difficult to explain by physiological factors only. And introspection and self-examination are part of that emotional process.

      • Gilbert Jacobi

        And then, there is at least one lesbian I know of who didn’t discover that women were better till after her run-in with me….

    • thebigdog

      Science? The whole gay gene thing was a lie.

    • Austin Ruse

      There is no science that says same sex attraction is immutable and innate. Your belief is more along the lines of faith.

  • Art Deco

    Arrgh. Another per diem employee from the sorosphere.

  • joan

    The origin of sexual orientation is not the issue. I mean really, who cares where it came from. It exists in this world, but God’s Law still remains. Please don’t allow yourself to be distracted from God’s Law. God has HIS purpose or allowance for same sex attraction. As Catholic Christians, we are called to be obedient to God’s Law. Keep your eyes on HIM.

    • … And His Grace is sufficient …

      • WSquared

        Yep. How do we think any of us lives in a way obedient to God and pleasing in His sight?

        God’s law remains, but without Him, we can do nothing.

  • thebigdog

    If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has
    it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.

    People are not born gay.

    • “People are not born gay.”
      And your irrefutable proof (scientific or otherwise)?

      • Art Deco

        Again, studies of identical twins have been done over the years with somewhat varying methods. Discordant behavior among identical twin sets is more common that concordant homosexuality. The degree two which it is more common varies from study to study. That’s not consistent with what you would see were homosexuality innate. The idea that it could be innate would be rather counter-intuitive due to the effect it has on fertility. With fraternal twins, the disjunction in behavior is even larger.

        • Daniel P

          I don’t think homosexual inclinations have had much of an effect, if any, on fertility until recently. Throughout most of Western history, at least, people with same-sex attraction were just as likely to have children with an opposite sex partner as their “straight” counterparts.

          • Art Deco

            Throughout most of Western history, at least, people with same-sex
            attraction were just as likely to have children with an opposite sex
            partner as their “straight” counterparts

            Rubbish.

            • Daniel P

              What reason do you have to believe that a person who considered his SSA a trial and a temptation, in past centuries, would be less likely to get married and have kids?

              • Art Deco

                You made a highly implausible assertion, and now I’m supposed to demonstrate what you pull out of your ass is untrue?

                As recently as a century ago, an astonishing share (e.g. a quarter) of localized populations in the occidental world remained unmarried for life.

                • Daniel P

                  Why is my assertion highly implausible? I don’t know of many men who had same-sex attraction prior to 1900, but all of them were married and had kids: Wilde, Shakespeare, Symonds, even Socrates.

                  • Art Deco

                    Daniel, it is your insistence that something which is an impediment to conducting family life had no effect on fertility. Even a ten percent diminution of fertility would induce a five-fold reduction in the prevalence of such a gene (were it determined by a single allele, as is brown v. blue eyes) over a period of 15 generations (i.e. from the end of the medieval period to this day).

                    • Daniel P

                      In our current environment, with homosexuality encouraged, I agree that same sex attraction is an impediment to family life. In previous centuries, however, I don’t see why it would be an impediment to family life.

                      I speak as a man who experiences same-sex attraction, and has a wife and five children. The common knee-jerk assumption that people with SSA have historically been single puzzles me.

                    • Art Deco

                      Stop extrapolating from your home situation, apply some common sense, and do the math.

            • Gail Finke

              That’s not rubbish. For most of history people married for practical reasons as well as (or instead of) romantic ones — and do so now. If you wanted to have children, you got married and had them.

              • Art Deco

                Gail, stop and give it some thought. Is it your insistence that being addled by homosexual feelings has no effect on fertility, either within or without contracted marriages? Is that at all plausible.

                Posit for a moment that homosexuality was a genetic trait like brown or blue eyes, determined by one set of alleles, and recessive. A man and women in a married couple would have to both inherit the gene in order to have a homosexual youngster. They have four children and have the modal result, one without the gene, two carriers, and one homosexual. The last is married off in a peasant society to a local family, but has fewer sexual episodes because he just is not interested (recall the impotent Martin Guerre). The number of children they produce who live to an age where they can marry is 40% lower than that of their neighbors on average. Overall, the fertility of the homosexual and his sibs is reduced 10% as his fertility deficit is amortized over all four siblings. Solve the following equation.

                (0.9)^15 = ?

                The answer is 0.21, which translates into a 79% decline in the frequency of the gene over 15 generations.

                • Gail Finke

                  I think you’re reading 21st-century, Western thinking into the past. People had completely different expectations of how to behave, whatever their feelings or inclinations where. If they married, they expected to have children, and they expected to have sex. They did not have a lot of alternative options. If they didn’t want to marry or have sex, and it was possible for them to avoid it, then they didn’t — as someone else pointed out, the percentage of people who never married used to be much higher. Your numbers do not take powerful social and societal forces into account (most societies have customs, and even laws, requiring a spouse to have sexual relations whether or not he or she wants to). But I also don’t think there’s much evidence from any quarter that it’s genetic.

                  • Art Deco

                    Gail, your complaint makes no sense unless you begin with the assumption that the tastes of the homosexual spouse have no effect on the probability of conceptions. That’s bizarre.

                    • Gail Finke

                      Sure they do. Your position makes no sense unless the tastes of the homosexual spouse are the defining effect on the probability of conceptions. Even today not all homosexuals are averse to sex with a person of the opposite sex and they do frequently have children — why should you think that when people were expected to have a lot of children, they wouldn’t do so? I understand your point and it’s an interesting one but human behavior is far more complex than that and people act as they do for a variety of reasons. By your reasoning a gene that (if it existed) would make it more difficult but hardly impossible for people to have sex and children should be wiped out by now, while genetic diseases that actually kill people have not disappeared.

                      You have also forgotten the high but erratic infant mortality rate in the past. The number of people who were born doesn’t matter — the number of people who reproduced does.

                    • Art Deco

                      I can explain this to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

        • Hi @Art Deco, we encounter each other among many articles. may God bless his work at your hands.
          Please see my reply to @thebigdog:disqus above.

      • thebigdog

        “Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.”

        http://blog.godreports.com/2013/05/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

        • @thebigdog:disqus may I refer to you to my comments/arguments in the article “What Really Happened at Charlotte Catholic HS”

          • Art Deco

            No, it can be excluded. The aetiology of homosexual behavior and interests is a puzzle, but one thing that is known is that it’s not heritable (though correlates or antecedents of it may be).

            • Food for thought:
              Pregnancy and alcohol > FAS and FASD > Alcohol and drug dependence shows up later.

          • Austin Ruse

            Actually, born that way does not mean it is not disordered. We are all born broken by original sin. Many of us use the sacraments to heal. Active gays, sadly, work toward justifying and rationalizing their sin and in the process bury their own consciences.

            • We agree. The gist of my argument that may not have been clear: Just because someone is born that way does not mean that they are justified to act/follow through from what they were born with. Tendencies may be there (with original sin, our inclination is more toward evil), ordered or disordered, yet sinful if freely acted upon. With His Grace and our cooperation, we conquer all.
              (PS Please see my reply to @Art Deco below)

  • bonaventure

    The manliest voice on the issue of the homosexual perversion was Ratzinger’s/Benedict’s.

    But if his voice is drowned and distorted (ex.: at the October Synod, where dissent on homosexuality will probably take center stage even before the issue of remarriage and communion), then Catholics might as well acknowledge that (for the time being at least) Moscow is indeed the Third Rome.

    Because beside Benedict’s voice in the Christian world, the only other manly voice is Patriarch Kirill’s of Moscow.

  • Pingback: A manly voice on matters gay and Christian... - Christian Forums()

  • D.A. Howard

    I have nothing to do with unrepentent homosexuals. The tribulation of the United States and homosexuals is coming soon. God have mercy.

  • David

    Amen.

  • Well I have now seen about 100 different ways that people try to conform science to theology. There are twin studies, there is the male sibling effect, there is a veritable mountain of evidence that sexual orientation is innate (I prefer organic). On the other hand, nobody has demonstrated (published to a respectable peer reviewed scholarly journal) evidence that sexual orientation is mutable. The idea that the medical establishment is being politically correct is preposterous. It’s up to the folks claiming that there is a cure to publish and prove it.

    Forget the medical establishment. Alan Chambers (Exodus International) finally conceded that nobody really changes. Even Robert Spitzer recanted. Warren Throckmorton (an Evangelical psychologist and professor) did a 180. There is no therapy to make gay people straight. There are a handful of people who claim to be ex-gay. Every one of them seems to have an economic interest in claiming to be ex-gay.

    According to the American Psychiatric Association “… no specific
    psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been
    identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse
    does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify
    as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as
    heterosexual.”

    Then there is the genetic conundrum. Twin studies suggest a genetic link. However, sexual orientation can be innate without being genetic. For example, the effect of the birth mother’s hormones – possibly in combination with genetic factors.

    The only solution offered by the Church is celibacy. Gay people are free to make that decision, either way.

    • Daniel P

      I agree with most of what you write above, but none of the claims you mention are “ways to conform science to theology”. The Church says that homosexual activity is not virtuous; i.e. that it is wrong. The Church does not claim that homosexuality sometimes arises from abuse, even if that claim has some scientific basis. The Church does not claim that homosexuality is not innate. The Church does not claim that people can be changed from gay to straight.

    • Art Deco

      Just emphatically repeating yourself does not improve the argument.

    • Art Deco

      Forget the medical establishment. Alan Chambers (Exodus International)
      finally conceded that nobody really changes. Even Robert Spitzer
      recanted. Warren Throckmorton (an Evangelical psychologist and
      professor) did a 180. There is no therapy to make gay people straight.
      There are a handful of people who claim to be ex-gay. Every one of them
      seems to have an economic interest in claiming to be ex-gay.

      1. Spitzer attempted to retract a scientific article on the basis of his retrospective belief that his respondents must have lied to him. The journal editors refused to accommodate him.

      2. Alan Chambers is essentially joe blow off the sidewalks of Orlando; he’s a not an authority on much of anything; prior to running Exodus, he was on the lay staff of two different congregations in and around Orlando, and prior to that a bank teller. He took community college course for some years but admits to no degree. Exodus was an umbrella organization for member ministries; it organized an annual conference, traded in some literature mail-order, and put its imprimateur on applicant local ministries (it was not clear who actually evaluated the questionnaires these ministries filled out). As of 2010, Chambers had a staff of nine people. The board shut the organization down because it was imploding financially; the reason it was imploding financially was that member ministries were leaving because Chambers had grown to be such an irritant and an embarrassment and the by-law changes over the years had left the member ministries without the seats on the board to remove him. Critics of Chambers have maintained he’s essentially a conduit for a quondam charismatic minister named Clark Whitten, who chaired the Exodus board and was one Chambers’ employer, and that Whitten’s moral-theological writings are stupefying from the perspective of just about any strand of Christian thought.

      3. Warren Throckmorton was for some time a clinical “mental health counselor”. He was hired by Grove City College in that capacity after selling his private practice but was later removed as director of counseling and put to work teaching psychology full time. Over the period running from 1996 to 2005. He managed to place some research projects he’d done with psychology journals, but he’s quit publishing since and psychological and behavioral research is not his book. His doctorate is an Ed.D. degree (earned with a thesis on business aspects of running a counseling practice) and the master’s program he attended comprehends clinical training only (though may have been different when he entered it). He’s rather miscast as a psychology professor and now has gone into writing history books. He’s gone in some weird directions over the years, and is now a sort of self-appointed hall monitor within the evangelical world, doing things like cold-calling conference organizers to attempt to persuade them to rescind invitations to people on his personal blacklist (the work of the evangelical publicist David Barton is one his hobby horses, a Maryland lawyer named Michael Peroutka is another). I think his basic position is that his clients were lying to him also, but who knows.

    • Interested

      If you do not grasp ideology and politics affect every area of society, especially and including, science your are either niave or a propagandist. Only the credulous accept inauthentic science as a god. Catholics are too critical and deep to accept nonsense and agitprop.

    • Austin Ruse

      David, the attraction between men and women is immutable unless it is interrupted by outside factors such as early childhood abuse, distant father etc etc etc. Nature makes it plain what natures intends, the male organ fits perfectly within the female and the result can be a new human being. There is nothing more natural than that. On the other hand, the male organ inside the male rectum creates what exactly? Often and usually disease and often death. There is no comparison and you do not need to be a scientist to see and understand.

      By the way, Spitzer might have said he was sorry (he was an old man), but the journal that published his piece never recanted and never withdrew the article.

      • Tony

        “David, the attraction between men and women is immutable unless it is interrupted by outside factors such as early childhood abuse, distant father etc etc etc. ”

        See my above comment about no reliable studies. Also, this is even more true in the cause of homosexuality than it is with treatments, because you have so many confounding variables that it is impossible to know the cause. NO ONE KNOWS what causes it. It may be genetic. It may caused by environmental factors. It doesn’t really matter– as Cardinal Ratzinger notes, for the vast majority of people, it isn’t a choice.

        “Nature makes it plain what natures intends, the male organ fits perfectly within the female and the result can be a new human being. There is nothing more natural than that. On the other hand, the male organ inside the male rectum creates what exactly? Often and usually disease and often death. There is no comparison and you do not need to be a scientist to see and understand.”

        Penises can also fit perfectly into a mouth of any creature. They can fit perfectly into a whole in the wall. They can fit perfectly into a fleshlight. They can fit perfectly into the female rectum. They can fit perfectly into playdough. I can list a bunch of things that penises can fit perfectly into: it isn’t that hard, they are roughly cylindrical and can fit into any roundish opening. I have gay friends who can tell you that male-on-male anatomy works just find and feels exceptionally natural to them. The prostate is even placed in a way that it seems like it was designed purposefully to be pleasurable.

        What was the point of the last paragraph? To point out how idiotic it is to base morality on the shape of body parts and what seems natural to even the majority of humans. Remember “morality is not determined by majority vote.” If we go off of such a subjective version of morality as what a straight male thinks is anatomically natural, then we are really just being relativists, because we are determining morality by a subjective standard.

        Luckily, the Church gives us a long history of moral philosophy and theology that does not follow your line of reasoning. It is not patronizing to other human beings. I much prefer personalism, as did St. John Paul II, who was Thomistic in his anthropology but not in his ethics, but even if I want to be a Thomist in ethics, I don’t have to go down the utterly ridiculous and crude route you just did. I just have to go to procreation and unity– which doesn’t have to do with where penises fit and HIV.

        • Austin Ruse

          It is to show where penises naturally go, not into flashlights, where they most certainly don’t oft perfectly, but into the vagina where voila babies are made. To suggest a flashlight or a rectum equals a vagina abundantly demonstrates the paucity and even the profound sickness of your arguments.

          • Tony

            I didn’t suggest they were moral, simply that your argument was silly.

            • Austin Ruse

              Actually, the fact that a penis does not go into an anus or a flashlight is not a moral judgement, though one could so judge, but rather a scientific one, a scientific judgement that even a child could make.

              • Tony

                Except they can easily do so, so your argument from empirical evidence is flawed. Bad arguments don’t help the Church’s case.

                • Austin Ruse

                  I have read Robert Oscar Lopez on the awful machinations that guys have to go through to be a “bottom.” Tain’t natural, Tony. And, no, it does not fit.

                  And you think putting your penis is feces is the same as putting it where i can help create a baby? Really? I would say such arguments don’t help the Church’s cause, if that is what you are trying to do…

                  And by the way, nobody really thinks it’s normal. Not even gays.

                  • Tony

                    I’m not arguing that it is okay to do… none of my posts have ever said anything other than what the moral tradition of the Catholic Church proclaims to be true…

                    Your argument is “Eww. I a straight male find anal sex between men icky. It isn’t natural because of this. Therefore it is wrong.” That is a horrible argument that would get you laughed out of an introductory philosophy class.

                    It is an empirical fact that some people do find gay anal sex to be appealing. It is an empirical fact that it is possible to have gay anal sex. It is also an empirical fact that some people find vaginal sex unappealing and icky. Someone could easily say to you “Vaginas are nasty as they have a mucus membrane and sometimes they bleed. I find sex with my boyfriend more appealing. I know he is cleaner, and to me it feels very natural. How could anyone think otherwise?”

                    Both your argument and the hypothetical argument I just made were awful arguments, but it is the line of thought that your reasoning allows. I would fail anyone who tried to make such an argument in a paper. They don’t work and are prone to relativism. They make the Catholic Church look bad intellectually , and look homophobic.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Actually, Tony, if you have read any of my work you know I am capable of making my own arguments. Today, I am not arguing from icky. I can certainly do that but not today. Today I am arguing from nature. The penis does not go into the anus. That is not how nature and nature;s God made it. It is unnatural to put it there.

                      You do not need encyclicals to figure that out.

                    • Tony

                      I have read your work. You very rarely make logically sound arguments. There is no such thing as a sound moral argument from icky. Nor is “Penises don’t fit” a sound argument. You would be laughed out of an introductory level philosophy class at any reputable school if you write like this in a formal paper.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      nonsense

                    • Interested

                      Who would laugh aside from a one immersed in perversion or the shallow minded? No authentically educated or virtuous person would consider your position as reasonable. It is more post modern junk.

  • don Pavao

    Homosexual lobby has won when Church started talking about their sin as if it is somehow different than all others sins.

    They tell mafia thugs repent before is too late but homosexuals don`t get to hear that strong message, those who kill unborn children don`t hear that message, all of us don`t hear that message. every sin is talked about like it is a philosofy debate. I wish all of us have the privilege the mafia has and hear that clear mesage.

    • Tony

      I think the difference is that being a chaste homosexual isn’t a sin, and being a mafia don definitionally is if you are active (just like active homosexuality is a sin…)

      I don’t think anyone is under the impression the Catholic Church condones homosexual conduct, so it seems to me you are calling for the Church to tell people to repent from a sin they aren’t committing, which is odd, or you are denying the clear teaching of the Church on this matter.

  • lifeknight

    Congratulations Mr. Ruse! Oftentimes I believe the “measure” of a well written article is the generation of throngs of comments. I didn’t have the time to read all of them, but it is commendable that you have touched on the subject that keeps a number of us typing away.

  • Daniel P

    Rather embarrassed to see that, in the long line of comments here, both evolution and global warming are denied. Please to note: these things have nothing whatsoever to do with Christian teachings on homosexual conduct.

    I guess the holocaust is the next thing we should deny at this point. Sigh. Any takers?

    • Art Deco

      It’s nobody’s job to not embarrass you.

      That aside, people cursorily familiar with the antics of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, of Prof. Michael Mann, of James Hansen of NASA, and of various criticisms of the mode in contemporary climatology offered by Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, and others tend to regard the global-warming pushers with a good deal of reserve. I’ve myself have lived through several waves of popular and elite eschatology, and I’m not fifty yet. There’s usually someone telling you to take your medicine, buy their book, or give their occupational group more prominence and funds and authority in society. It’s a reasonable wager it’s medicine you should not take. (Particularly when the medicine pushers take to forging documents, manipulating the peer review process, and suing people right and left over off hand insults in opinion columns).

      • Daniel P

        But many climate-change denier agree that there is, perhaps, a 30-40% chance that changes in climate are caused by human beings. If they admit that, then it is sheer irrationalism to say that we shouldn’t dramatically change our actions, on the off chance that human beings did cause it. Sadly, though, most people just don’t understand what it means to be genuinely risk-averse.

        • Art Deco

          When nobody has an idea of the dimensions of a problem or the distribution of causes, a resistance to certain policy measures is not ‘sheer irrationalism’.

          • Daniel P

            If my wife and I agree that it is 30-40% probable that our family will starve unless we take serious measures to, say, get a new job, and we don’t seek out a new job, then that is sheer irrationalism. Now if people want to dispute the likelihoods that global warming is partially human-caused, I’m all for it. But I’m just talking about people who AGREE that there’s a 30% likelihood, and yet somehow advocate staying the course on carbon emissions and the like.

            • Art Deco

              Again, your answer presupposes some sort of pending environmental apocalypse, proffered by people who do not have a stellar record as forecasters, in a cultural context where people are peddling this sort of mess all the time. You’re just not describing their reasoning process correctly.

  • Tony

    Just to point out the mistake that conservatives always make in this type of patronizing post: if you are straight and single, you always have the hope and possibility of getting married. If you are gay, single, and faithful to the Church’s teachings, you don’t. There is a fundamental difference. Let’s just acknowledge it and move on: it doesn’t really change anything theologically. It just makes you sound less like an asshole.

    • Daniel P

      It’s not clear, however, which is worse: having the possibility of marrying, but no one willing to marry you; or having no possibility of marrying.

      • Tony

        I think having hope is always better than not having it. Having the ability to date and be in a romantic relationship, whether or not it works out, compared to not being able to do so. That is just my opinion, and while I think it is right, it is certainly an question open for debate.

        At the same time, let’s stop with the “A single straight male or female is in the same situation re: chastity as a gay man or lesbian woman.” line. It clearly isn’t true, and claiming that it is true not only makes Catholics look stupid, it comes off as being a jerk.

        • Daniel P

          I think that we should all, in our speech, overestimate the difficulties others face, and underestimate the difficulties we ourselves face. Why? Because, in our hearts, we are all very prone to throw pity-parties for ourselves, and we shouldn’t allow our speech to encourage that tendency.

          I do think that celibate gays are in a hard position, because they — like the rest of us — often encounter sinners that downplay the difficulty of their situation. (My wife and I run into this when people act like having a bunch of kids is a luxury we are allowing ourselves, as opposed to — oftentimes — quite a burden.)

          • Tony

            I think the first part is called being polite, and generally speaking agree with that. I just think the rhetoric from the conservative Catholic crowd, however, misses a major distinctions and glumps everything together. It is reminiscent of the Protestant “all sins are equal in the eyes of God” position. One of the great gifts of the Catholic intellectual tradition is that it allows us to make distinctions. Like you mentioned earlier, you can debate which cross is heavier to bear, but my issue is that rhetoric like this article pretends that they are the same cross, which they are clearly not.

            (These are generalizations referring to those who publish and have microphones; I know some very conservative Catholics who are not this way)

        • Interested

          No, what looks stupid is silly emotional reasoning.

          • Tony

            Emotions exist and many times prevent people from coming to Christ because they have negative feelings towards individuals who they associate with him. Note what St. Paul says about not being a stumbling block.

            I am not arguing that because someone feels that they have a right to have sex with a person of the same-sex that they have a right to it. I am saying it is essentially slapping them in the face when we argue something that is logically absurd: that someone who has the capacity to enter into a sacramental marriage with individuals who they are naturally attracted to is the same as someone who is not. As I pointed out above, you are arguing that P^~P are true at the same time. Let’s acknowledge that a distinction between the situations exist, move on, and call it a day. It doesn’t change any moral theology– it just makes us seem like we can think.

            • Daniel P

              Sensible comments, for sure.

              • Interested

                It would be sensible if applied correctly. The imposter seeks to make a point that is only seen as reasonable by those with same sex attraction. Why do those folks like that? Because it caters to the syndrome. Your posts and Tony’s posts show it well.

                • John200

                  This deserves 100 Up votes as a refutation of the clownish opposition to Catholic faith.

                  “…if applied correctly…” is the key. Homo”sex”uals never seem to apply Catholic tenets correctly.

                  There seem to be two commentors named “Tony” in the last day or two. Tony the First (Esolen) is a first rate Catholic with an excellent mind and a well-formed soul. Tony II (the other) is a comedian with no basis for anything he posts. Tony II is witty, and that is nice. He is also a nitwit, and that is a pity.

                  But I do not take Tony II as a serious Catholic.

                  One hopes the admins will sort this out in the next day or so.

                  Please????

                  • Interested

                    Tony2 may be an amateurish philosophy professor who fancies himself educated yet is concerned exclusively with how the professional gays mis-view reality and demand Catholics cater to their delusions under some misguided pastoral ideology.

                    • John200

                      Why yes, that sounds right. A series of misfortunes all lined up in a row.

                      Below average formation, not close to proper understanding of human life, sub-professional level of thinking, and unable to discern what is coming or where it came from.

                      Mayhaps one can do him some good. Let us try.

                • Daniel P

                  Thank you for the ad hominem. It is eminently charitable.

                  • Interested

                    No ad hominem here. I point out a central reason for the obsession with false charity and sensitivity. We now place perceived tone above truth.

            • Interested

              No, what you are doing is starting from a false premise. The foundation is not about a false equivalence that you assume. The modern notion that ” equality” in every single aspect of something is the highest good has become a god. You are simply catering to this silly notion.

              That all are called to chastity based on our state in life is Church teaching. This adolescent weighing of perceived hardship is post modern rubbish.

              • Tony

                I never argued anything about equality or set it up as the highest good. It would be odd if I did so, since I don’t believe that. I am simply saying that we need to recognize when things are different.

    • Art Deco

      It just makes you sound less like an asshole.

      Thanks for sharing.

      • Tony

        I do my best to share tips for the prevention of assholery. 🙂

        • Interested

          Look in the mirror.

        • Interested

          This is the example you reveal to us as proof your logic is reasonable? You may as well be a gay propagandist.

          • John200

            May as well? There are two Tonys, and this one is the homo”sex”ual propagandist.

            Note that he could not complete a sentence without mentioning what he likes in place of sex — that is, his un-sexual preference.

    • Interested

      Read On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons from Rome. It does not take your post modern logic as useful or correct.

      • Tony

        I have read it. I nothing I said contradicts it. Also, there isn’t really thing post-modern about recognizing distinctions between someone who is able to get married and someone who isn’t. That is just common sense. You are essentially arguing that P^~P is true when you argue that there is no difference between the two situations.

        • Interest

          You are arguing from emotion as if that is the correct metric. It is exactly what the Gay lobby does.

          • Tony

            I don’t think I am arguing from emotion. I’m not even using it as a metric. I am saying “This person has the possibility of getting married. This other person doesn’t. They are different situations.” I think that is fairly obvious.

            • Austin Ruse

              Actually they do if they seek treatment for SSA and able to get past it. Many do and have had wonderful marriages and families.

              • Art Deco

                As Flannery O’Connor said, literature deals in the possible, not the probable.

                Joseph Nicolosi has been pretty circumspect in the past about what his regimen can do and how often. That’s the gross. The net would be the difference between his clients and controls (recalling here the life of John Maynard Keynes and Tony Perkins).

                I suspect some of the public embarrassments regarding these matters derive from people not imbibing Joseph Adelson’s observation that personal transformation is the stuff of literature because it’s actually unusual in everyday life. (Or my father’s that you’re commonly stuck with the vices you have at 21, though that may have been an excuse on his part). I’m not sure that meshes very well with the evangelical approach to life and religion in life.

                Psychotherapy for various and sundry human problems works rather more reliably toward the goal of the therapist making rent than toward the goal of helping the patient. And, of course, you get this problem: the therapist is often of the sort uninterested in the client’s problems, but very interested in applying the therapist’s solutions.

              • Tony

                1) Homosexuality is not a pathology that can be treated. There are no reliable studies that show what you claim. All the studies that are out suffer from major flaws– particularly that there is no control group and that the people who are studied were selected by ex-gay groups to be a part of the study. I have read the studies that support treatment of homosexuality and if they were talking about any condition other than homosexuality, no one would consider them reliable. This is not saying that some people’s sexualities don’t change– there are examples of it, just that there is no evidence that this change is affected by anything that individual’s do.

                2) Even if I accept the false premise that it is a treatable condition, this is above and beyond what the Church calls individuals in this situation to do. The Church has never seen homosexuality as a pathology or the orientation itself as a sin, and has never called for individual’s to attempt to change their sexuality. There is increasing evidence that even if the “treatment” options available work in certain instances, they are overwhelmingly harmful to the vast majority of people who undergo them. The Church has never called for her children to undergo extraordinary medical treatment– even to save their very life– if such treatment is out of the ordinary and has negative consequences.

                3) Again, assuming that the treatments work (and they overwhelmingly don’t) this does not change the fact that for some (in actuality the vast majority if not all) people they don’t. This is one of the assumptions of Ratzinger’s 1986 letter. In these circumstances, it is clear that there is a fundamental difference between the single heterosexual and the single homosexual.

                4) Cross-orientation marriages do exist. They are not the norm and form most people would not work, For some people they do, and this is a grace– but the Church does not impose on anyone the requirement to try.

                The Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, as written is as liberal as possible while staying within the confines of traditional moral theology. This is because in the 20th century, our Pope’s have been personalists who understand the intrinsic worth of the human person, and emphasize this in their dealing with all human beings. Unfortunately some don’t understand the philosophical school that modern Catholic sexual ethics has evolved form (JP2 was not a natural law theorist… he was a personalist, and yet we still have people making arguments that haven’t been used in an official capacity in 30+ years).

                • Austin Ruse

                  Of course there are thousands of examples where treatment for unwanted SSA works. You just dismiss them. There are people on this thread who are proof.

                  The church teaches that the underlying cause of SSA is psychological. The church does not require the SSA to seek treatment, that’s true. The church teaches chastity.

                  • Tony

                    Your second paragraph is false. It is utterly out of the competence of the Church to make scientific claims. Even IF you could find a magisterial document that says the nexus of homosexuality is psychological (I promise you there is no such document, see CCC 2357) it would be non-binding on any Catholic. The Church has the authority to teach on Faith and Morals, not on science. This goes back to St. Augustine. That homosexual activity is immoral is indisputable. This is within the competence of the Church. The cause is unknown, and the Church does not have the ability to declare a cause. You should beef up on your ecclesiology before you make such outrageous claims.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Dear boy…the Catholic Church invented the scientific method.

                    • Tony

                      Individual’s who were Catholic did so. The Magisterium is without competence in the matter. This is basic ecclesiology.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Interesting that when a pederast priest rapes a teenage boy, its the pope who dun it. But when a priest in a religious order creates the scientific method, it sure has nothing to do with the Church!

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Is that why 50 mountain ranges on the moon are named after Jesuits? So, the Vatican observatory in Tucson. Just a meeting place to discuss ecclesiology?

                    • John200

                      Moderator/Admins,

                      Confusion here — Are there two commenters called “Tony”? This “Tony” is not Tony Esolen the author and Professor, is he? Or, is he?

                      They certainly seem to have different views of the faith.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      John,

                      This “Tony” is NOT Tony Esolen. He is an impostor.

                    • John200

                      Thank you, he had me going there. I would let Tony Esolen marry my sister. Not so for this other guy.

                      Is it possible to identify the one vs. the other? I understand it is a pain in the neck to track these people down, and that’s why they pull this krappe, but it is helpful to the reader.

                      Other than the confusion — not sure which one I am answering — CrisisMag is doing the right thing.

                    • Crisiseditor

                      Thanks, John. I usually let readers (and authors) have a go at these dissenters and trolls before I cut off the debate. I think they’ve had a good run but it’s time for them to move on. Crisis is not a forum for critics of the Church.

                    • John200

                      Good job. Your job seems harder than mine. All I have to do is understand (oops, they got me! I had better not claim full understanding of Catholic truth) and promote straightforward orthodox Roman Catholic faith.

                      You have to make judgments on the fly: is this guy OK? Is he a kook? What kind of replies can I expect? Can anybody here play this game (Casey Stengel’s complaint on the NY Mets, worst MLB team ever)? etc., etc.

                      Yup, your job is much harder than mine. You are doing it well. I am very happy with the articles and discussions on CrisisMag.

                    • Daniel P

                      Dear Editor,

                      I’m not sure how “Tony” is a critic of the Church. He has objected to methods, not to doctrines.

                      Respectfully,
                      Daniel

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Amen. You guys do good work.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Thanks, John. I too admire Tony Esolen, and eagerly look forward to his work on Crisis.

                    • Ashleen

                      Why are you revealing identities of people commenting on the board and then ganging up on them with other readers? This is unprofessional and impartial. If you are worried about trolling, you should just block people with no fanfare and no public indignation, instead of using your position as a moderator to target and verbally attack particular commentators you don’t agree with. I’ve never seen a moderator do this anywhere else. I am an orthodox Catholic. I like to read articles on Crisis. I think the commenting boards typically do you no favors. I thought the boards had such cruel and heterodox things in them because they were not properly moderated. Now I just see that the moderators don’t have the ability to separate themselves from the type of belittling behavior sometimes demonstrated on this board.

                    • Interested

                      They cannot be. One is brilliant and orthodox. The other one spews post modern mush.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Dear boy…the scientific method was invented under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

                  • Daniel P

                    I can count one person on this thread as proof. Not me, though, if you meant to count me. I’m married, but I’ve always experienced an attraction to both men and women.

            • Interested

              This distinction you mention does not change the truth of the matter. It is only of interest to you and to those who manufacture complaints.

    • Marylou

      Chastity is a gift. It’s freeing.

      What about the idea of homosexuality being disordered?

      • Tony

        Moral disorder means that the natural end of something is immoral. My propensity to be distrustful in office politics is a moral disorder because it leads me to judge more harshly and criticize my fellow man. It is not a sin in itself, or a mental condition. Same as homosexuality.

        Chastity is freeing, but it sure isn’t easy. Anyone who is single and tells you otherwise is probably asexual. Most priests, if they are honest, will let you know celibacy is a gift, but it is also one that requires a lot of effort. I never argued that homosexuals are not capable of it, just that their situation– a de facto imposed celibacy with no support structures and no hope of becoming married– is fundamentally different than that of a single heterosexual.

        • Austin Ruse

          By all means, tony, let’s make the narrow path easy! Let’s reject whatever cross laid on our shoulders. That’s the spirit!

          • Tony

            The job of the Church and of all Christians is to aid other human persons in their salvation. We WANT people to go to heaven. We WANT people to act morally. We WANT people to be chaste!

            How do you propose we do that if we scandalize people by coming off as bigots because we refuse to recognize that their situation in life is different (not necessarily harder) than someone else’s?

            We will one day have to render an account of our lives to Jesus Christ, the Just Judge. He who desires that all souls should belong to him and in whom there is plentiful redemption. If we by our bigotry and arrogance have caused just one soul to reject our gracious Redeemer’s love, what shall we tell him– He who was willing to dine with tax-collectors and prostitutes? Let us adore our gracious Redeemer and beg him to grant us the grace to love him more and more– and in doing so, to follow his example and love all people for his sake, praying that they may too glory in the redemption that he has won for us.

            • Austin Ruse

              Perhaps the most effective thing anyone ever said to me about smoking was a guy who rode past me on his bike as I was puffing away. He leaned in and said, “Toxin addict.” It really pissed me off. Always stayed with me. Still does. Sometimes a slap in the face is what works. Sometimes not.

              • Daniel P

                But that guy had the support of an entire culture which was highly critical of smoking, and was marginalizing smokers. Smoking has become more and more taboo.

                In contrast, homosexuality is becoming less and less taboo, which — in my mind — calls for a more subtle witness. Sadly, there’s no cultural backbone that we have when we criticize homosexual actions.

                • Interested

                  The truth is true regardless of how many support it.

                  • Daniel P

                    But using the truth as a cudgel does not work in cultures where the truth is a minority viewpoint. You would never convince an Aztek to stop human sacrifices by muttering under your breath that they’re a murderer.

                    • Interested

                      But the truth is not a cudgel. Your argument is like the new homophiles propaganda. Those who reject the truth seem to be the sole authority in these matters, They demand all now to their propaganda including claiming only certain words and techniques will be acceptable.

                      I contend this is part of the homosexual personality. Their narcissism requires all accept their “rules” as some requirement above all else.

                    • Daniel P

                      I haven’t made an argument. I simply care to affirm the point that sensitivity is necessary in cases of evangelism, so that we do not alienate people. This is the Church’s position, so I’m confident in holding it.

                      How the position gets applied is a matter for individual discernment. There is certainly a danger of watering down the truth, and I myself worry that the “new homophiles” are watering down the truth.

            • Interested

              Please stop with the propaganda words. The only bigots are those who deflect and use pedantic complaints to silence the truth.

          • Interested

            The special pleading is the result of our cultural obsession with all things “gay”. We have been indoctrinated to immediately think this group is special and different. Deserving of more care than most. This is not a Catholic notion but a secular one that has been covered with a patina of theology. “Tony” and friends invert the argument. They give lip service to Catholic teaching then launch into an attack of “conservatives” those big old meanies that refuse to offer support groups and God will judge them harshly. That is the new thinking. The idea is to refocus thinking. Note Ratzinger did not teach this theology. It is taking pastoral things and making them a cudgel.

            • Daniel P

              I’m glad you brought up this point. It’s my position that ALL Catholic men receive too little support, especially in the context of our sexualized culture. Confession doesn’t cut it anymore. So when I say that gay folks need more support, I am not suggesting special treatment, since I think straight folks need more support too.

              Actually, I think the BEST support for gay men trying to live a celibate life would be a men’s group that mostly consisted of straight men (but where the gay man is open about his own challenges).

              • Interested

                Confession does not cut it? It is central and a great gift. Support groups are fine but well below confession. Ratzinger stressed confession and too few stress it.

                • Scott S.

                  The sacraments are sufficient, but there is such a thing as pastoral care. We’re not just a bunch of individuals who stand alone before the law.

                  We are members of the Body of Christ, but also members of human communities, too. Those communities have a duties and obligations even in the absence of the sacraments. As Catholics, we are given the sacraments to aid us in all things, but the sacraments do not abrogate the duties that arise from our merely human communities/attachments. Rather, they should make the natural bonds between neighbors stronger, not weaker.

                  Telling someone who struggles with terrible temptations that they don’t deserve any kind of special consideration based on the specific nature of their cross seems pretty uncharitable. If our neighbor comes to us asking for help, do we just tell him to “man up” and go to confession? Doesn’t sound like a community I’d want to belong to.

                  • Thomas

                    Re: the sacrament of Confession. The priest will tell you that it may not be enough. One might be required to seek additional help. So, you are pretty accurate in your assessment.

                    • Interested

                      Yes, but in order for the priest to say that in confession one has to go in the first place.

                  • Interested

                    But, no one is calling for no support. The other poster said confession does not cut it. Rubbish. Confession is under stressed and social work is too often over stressed.

              • Scott S.

                I think one of the biggest problems facing the Church is a lack of participation by men and programs/activities that focus on men specifically (the altar used to be one).

                Gay Catholics should be given some kind of assistance specifically for them, for the same reason the Church allocates resources for marriage counseling, addiction counseling, soup kitchens, etc. It’s simply a matter of charity and pastoral care.

                What I was trying to say in my other comment was that the Church often fails to provide the kind of community and care it should for ALL of its lay people. Gays, along with everyone else, will be helped immensely by any attempt to restore some pockets of Catholic culture/community. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t receive some kind of special assistance, too, however limited it might be.

        • Scott S.

          Tony,

          It should be noted, though, that support for gay Christians is becoming increasingly difficult to provide because society is entirely hostile to the idea that SSA is in any sense a disorder. In some places it is actually illegal for some state institutions to provide treatment to homosexuals who want to become straight.

          Nevertheless, You’re right to point out how different it is for people with SSA and I agree that conservatives and orthodox Catholics often ignore how difficult it can be to bear one’s crosses without a strong faith community. This is especially true in the highly individualistic and atomized West.

          We are, after all, social creatures and find our perfection in society/community.

          Oh, and the Catholic Church has basically been totally silent about huge swathes of its doctrine, watered down the little catechesis that remains, allowed large numbers of gay men to fill the ranks of its clergy, let its religious orders lapse into heresy and irrelevance, engaged in high-level cover ups of heinous scandals, replaced beautiful liturgies and churches with “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product” (Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI), lets its parishes fall into irreverence and financial ruin, endorsed all sorts of disastrous political projects from both leftists and rightists, etc, etc, etc.

          It seems that all I hear from these types is “Shut up and be a saint!” People not in the echo chamber are only going to listen to so much of that before they file you away under “preaching to the choir” and “broken record.”

          I always see “celibacy” being thrown around/at people, but I rarely hear any detailed explanations of it or exactly why it’s a good and beautiful thing or where one goes to get help pursuing it. The Church and lay organizations offer few if any services to people struggling with SSA, but still think they can just throw a rule book at them while yelling “man up!”

          Mr. Ruse,

          It’s a far, far easier road for those who, like yourself, are sustained by their intellectual grasp of the Truth. Catholics who know their faith well are much better equipped to face the brokenness of this world. For them, knowing it’s true is enough, but they are few in number and always have been.

          The vast majority of people need to encounter the Truth through goodness and beauty before they can grasp it and welcome it into themselves. This has always been the lot of the common folk down through the ages and different sins can merit different responses.

          Still, thank you for all your work and it’s a sign of hope, I suppose, that we even have this space to talk amongst ourselves.

          Pax Christi

          • Daniel P

            “It should be noted, though, that support for gay Christians is becoming increasingly difficult to provide because society is entirely hostile to the idea that SSA is in any sense a disorder. In some places it is actually illegal for some state institutions to provide treatment to homosexuals who want to become straight.”

            This comment seems to assume that support for homosexuals must involve reparative therapy. But that’s not true at all, and reparative therapy doesn’t have a great track record. The Bible tells us to pray that God remove our temptations and to avoid the near occasion of sin; it does not tell us to go through psychological therapies to (maybe, just maybe) make our temptations go away.

            Gay people have the power to resist sin. To say otherwise is just another way of making homosexuality some sort of “special category of sin”, and I’m sick and tired of people doing that.

          • Art Deco

            society is entirely hostile to the idea that SSA is in any sense a disorder.

            The chatterati and local professional-managerial bourgeoisie, yes. Ordinary people, not so much.

        • John200

          Dear Tony,

          Let us learn about, “Same as homosexuality.” Knowledge of moral disorder is commonly available, yet you mistake it and produce a statement that will cause others to sin. This is scandal. The best you can hope for is that others see right through you and do not follow your path.

          Pitiful. Either you know you are mistaken, and have begun to deceive your fellow man (be honest, is this a temptation for you?), or you are ignorant of your own words.

          Since you profess the faith, you are obligated to learn it and, at some point, to master the words you use. That is what we mean by “formation in the faith.” Formation takes work — it does not happen all that easily.

          The reward for chastity, like the reward for celibacy, is far greater than the pains required to gain it. Incredibly greater. Incomparably greater. Infinitely greater. The chastity-v-sin balance is lopsided. Any normal person, esposed to Catholic faith, sees it.

          Must I go on? Surely this is not news to a faithful Catholic who aims to teach the faith to others.

          I won’t spank you for “no support structures” (many homo”sex”uals enjoy being spanked, but we will not indulge you now) while noting that Catholic faith is the ultimate support structure on this earth.

          That’s another post, perhaps unnecessary (one hopes).

          • Daniel P

            John,

            You have noted no aspect of theology which you disagree with Tony about, and yet seem to suggest he is heretical. This is puzzling.

            Tony said that all dispositions to sin are the same, insofar as they are *dispositions* to sin, not sins. If you care to argue that homosexuality is not a disposition to sin, but an actual sin, feel free. But the Church has *dogmatically* proclaimed otherwise.

            Tony did not ever say that homosexual activity was ever justifiable.

            As for support structures, the Church has a huge number of support structures in place for celibate priests, to help them live their vocation. (And, even with these support structures, some priests fail to be celibate.) In contrast, homosexuals are offered the support of confession, and maybe a support group that meets once or twice a month. Not very inspiring. 🙁

            Sure, the rewards of celibacy are awesome. But you never GET to the rewards if you don’t have help remaining celibate.

    • ForChristAlone

      If you are gay there is no possibility of being married? Really?

  • tj.nelson

    Excellent article. Very well said.

    • Austin Ruse

      From another manly man.

  • Pingback: "Honor Thy Children" - BigPulpit.com()

  • Marylou

    It’s not just the homosexuals whining — it’s everyone who can’t make others accept them. There is no freedom of association — no freedom to disagree — we have to go against core principles … beliefs …. just so long as the LGTB folks get a warm fuzzy.

  • tamsin

    John William Waterhouse, "Echo and Narcissus" (1903) http://t.co/DKVNs70UpE pic.twitter.com/nbTyMBnE0v— Will Antonin (@Will_Antonin) May 25, 2014

  • Andrew

    You don’t seem to know what “cisgender” means – we’ve had hundreds of those. My own Lord Mayor in Sydney currently fits that description.

  • schmenz

    I’ve read the article over several times and must confess I am mystified that Mr Ruse with a calm, straight face writes about Catholics who practice sodomy and don’t whine about it as some sort of person to look up to. Did I miss something?

    I have forgotten which famous Saint said that when men start to accept the vice of sodomy they lose their powers of reason, and unless I have completely misunderstood Mr Ruse he might be well-advised to ponder this.

    He should first be advised to stop using the perfectly innocent word “gay” to describe such horrors. Secondly – and my apologies to him if I have misunderstood – he must relieve himself of the preposterous notion that sodomites are “born that way”. His article fairly reeks of that idea, or at least the quotations he uses do. We really have become a society that has taken leave of its senses if we accept as true that those who commit these grievous mortal sins (that cry to Heaven for vengeance) are born as sexual perverts.

    If we truly want to help these people out of a manner of living that will bring them possible physical death and certain spiritual death then we have to start being honest with them and to tell them “go, and sin no more”.

    • Daniel P

      You’ve completely misread the article. Perhaps it’s because you assume “gay” or “attracted to men” means sexually active with men?

      • schmenz

        Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, I don’t get into red herrings like the one you posed, nor do I get into semantic games. A man attracted to other men has a problem, and if he’s a Catholic he needs the grace of the Confessional. And Catholics know that one can sin by “thought, word and/or deed”. Let us keep our eye on the ball.

        • Daniel P

          Lust is one kind of thought-sin. But one may be tempted to lust, and that temptation (though it is a thought) is not sin.

    • Austin Ruse

      You have oddly and completely misread the piece. Missed it by a mile.

      • schmenz

        Thank you, Mr Ruse. I will re-read it once again.Perhaps, though, it may serve as a lesson for us both: reading with greater comprehension and writing articles with greater clarity?

  • Pingback: Clearing the Air on “When Celibacy Fails” | A Queer Calling()

  • Side B Catholic

    While the Catholic Church may refer to homosexuality as “disordered”, meaning “outside the natural order”, nowhere in the Catechism or the Bible is it referred to as “evil”. Your agenda, which is forcing us to sit down and shut up, is obvious, while your insistence that “being a man” is equated with such is just sad. Celibate Catholics do not wish to change the church’s teachings on sexuality and sexual orientation. We just want the respect which the Catechism tells us we are entitled to. Yes, I said entitled to, since the Catechism affirms our dignity and worth as people. I’m sorry (not really) that asking for help and support is, in your opinion, too, but perhaps you should look at the issue from a place of pastoral care instead of a place of politics. And then you ought to reread both the Catechism and the Word of God. This is a political and polarizing piece which is not representative of the Catholic Church I know.

    • Objectivetruth

      Persons with homosexual orientation are not evil. When they engage in homosexual acts they sin, gravely. Like all of us, separate the person from the sin they are committing. From the Catechism:

      Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

      • Daniel P

        Everything you write here, Side-B Catholic surely agrees with. Just sayin.

        • Interested

          If he agrees with it there was no reason for his post.

          • Daniel P

            His post was a comment on pastoral care for gay people, and a comment on Mr. Ruse’s article. These are not theological issues, and your post was about theology. “Side B” gay Catholics agree with Church theology, 100%.

            The reason for his post, presumably, was that he thought that Mr. Ruse’s post only served to foster division and misunderstanding in the body of Christ.

            • Interested

              Huh?

          • Side B Catholic

            The reason for the post is that he went above and beyond what the catechism says. If you want to know why chaste catholic people with same-sex attractions want a voice, it’s because people with political agendas refer to us as “evil”. I’m sorry that you don’t see how hateful it is to call another child of God “evil”. Daniel P is correct; I have no issue with the theology of the Catholic Church, nor anything you wrote. But I will not be told to suffer in silence by some gentleman who calls me “evil”. If any of you believe that a Catholic publicly referring to us as “evil” is not insulting, demeaning, or disrespectful, we have a problem.

            • Objectivetruth

              I say this with all sincerity, but I’m still confused…..

              Who’s calling you evil? And if you’re following the will of Christ and the Church, why would you care? Also, if you’re not living the gay lifestyle, then why would anyone attack you in any way? Quite frankly, I find members of Courage for example, heroic, and living the lives of saints, people much to be admired.

              I’m not being confrontational, but if you’re not living the gay lifestyle, how would anyone even know you’re homosexual? On what basis would anyone then call you “evil?”

            • Interested

              Who called you evil?

            • ForChristAlone

              stop feeling sorry for yourself and quit the whining; it us most unmanly.

    • Objectivetruth

      “We just want the respect which the Catechism tells us we are entitled to. Yes, I said entitled to, since the Catechism affirms our dignity and worth as people”

      I don’t understand. You already have the respect from Catholics and the Church. You are like all of us, fellow children of God. But you’re not going to get respect if you choose to live out your homosexual tendencies in the gay lifestyle. Then you’re spitting on Christ and Catholic Church teaching.

      The problem is while the rest of the Catholic world wakes up every morning, brushes their teeth, put on our shoes and socks we quietly pick up our heavy cross and try our darnedest to spend the day following Christ. It seems from your post you want some type of special carve out, exemption and pity from the rest of the Catholic world. No sir. no! As I’m typing this I have my own heavy, painful cross strapped to my back that I’m trying my best to carry it quietly with joy, keeping my eyes forward looking at Christ.

      • Side B Catholic

        Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Side B or perhaps you simply didn’t read my post, so allow me to clarify. I don’t live out any of the tendencies you speak of. I am chaste/celibate and have no interest in changing church teaching on homosexuality. If it tells me “no dating and no sex”, then no dating and no sex. My objection is to the use if the word “evil”. The Catholic Church has never, in anything it’s written about homosexuality, suggested that the orientation itself is evil. Disordered, yes. Outside of natural law, yes. Evil? No.

        • bonaventure

          Homosexual acts are:

          Grave depravity;
          Intrinsically disordered / objectively disordered;
          Contrary to the natural law;
          Close the sexual act to the gift of life;
          Do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity;
          Under no circumstances can they be approved.

          The first one — taken from the CCC’s interpretation of Sacred Scriptures — is suggestive of homosexual acts as indeed being evil or, in biblical language, an abomination (which is synonymous with evil).

          • Daniel P

            This is simply humorous. One person says “An apple is not yellow.” The other says “A pineapple is yellow,” and takes himself to have refuted the first person.

            I don’t understand it in the slightest.

    • Interested

      There is no right to demand all hear about your desires or temptations. You have an obligation to prudence. The respect you speak of refers to your humanity not your disordered desires.

    • JP

      Homosexuality is evil. Sodomy is a blasphemous act. For it mocks the gift that God gave Man; it mocks the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Sodomy isn’t an act of love; it is an act of violence, degradation, and domination.

    • ForChristAlone

      quit whining; men don’t whine

  • Reader John

    It wasn’t very manly of him to anonymously misquote (i.e., quote out of context) another gay Christian blog as an example of a genre he despises.

  • Thomas

    I posted the following, here on Crisis, to an article by James M.
    Wilson. Since the subject of this essay deals with Manliness, I think I should
    have posted it here, with a few alterations. So, please read on:

    “We agree. Let’s add something that the very Catholic Vince
    Lombardi once said to the Packers. He said, (I will paraphrase),

    ‘Gentlemen, we are going to strive to be perfect. We will
    not attain perfection, but in always aiming for it we will become excellent.’

    This same great son of the Church also had a brother who was
    a homosexual. Being a good son of the Church, and being a great man who suffered from
    anti-Italian discrimination while seeking head coaching jobs, he did not
    tolerate any form of racism or discrimination, both on his team and within the
    NFL. With the Packers, he fought segregation in cities that refused to allow
    his black players hotel accommodations. Later, as the head coach of the Washington Redskins, he made it clear to his assistants that if they questioned the manhood of a certain gay player(s), they would be out of a job. In one former Packer player’s words, Vince Lombardi was ‘all the man there ever was.’

    Did this mean that today he would support gay marriage? My guess is that as a daily Communicant, he would never cross the line against the Church, but he rightfully and fully embraced the Church’s teaching on respecting the dignity of all men.

    While we must always be careful of being Pharisaical, we must also try to remember that Jesus said he came, ‘not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.’

    To some, this means that love and mercy supplant dogma. While that sounds good, it fails to see theological truth may be a BOTH/AND proposition, not an EITHER/OR. If Jesus is
    both true God and true man, then I believe it is our duty to be both obedient to the law and merciful to others, and always humble because I, too, am not immune to sin. I don’t know about you, but I wonder if some here don’t recognize this about Pope Francis. If I thought he wanted to abandon the Church’s moral teaching, I would be wary of him. But I don’t see that being his agenda.”

  • Raymond

    This subject has many layers, but I think when things get so charged, Jesus often gets left behind.

    • JP

      True. And Jesus, being a rabbi before he began his 3 Year Journey to the Cross, was intimately aware of Mosaic Law. If there was some new teaching he had in mind concerning sexual sin, adultery, and marriage he would have taught it.

      In other words, the subject doesn’t have as many layers as you might think.

  • radiofreerome

    Of course, gays are just whiners in Austin Ruse’s eyes.

    Here is the culture that he promotes. One which libels gays as pedophiles and justifies their torture.

    The young gay man in this video is offered a choice between being blinded and raped with a serving fork.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NDOBTf5m1k&sns=em

  • radiofreerome

    This is the kind of society Austin Ruse the U.S. to have. This is what C-FAM promotes. The end of all civil rights for people with a homosexual orientation by destroying the right to political speech.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NDOBTf5m1k&sns=em

    This is a video of Russian vigilantes kidnapping and torturing gay teenagers. You’ll see a young man offered a choice between being blinded with a carving fork and being sodomized with it.

  • radiofreerome

    Here’s the kind of society that C-FAM and Austin Ruse idealize:
    It’s a video of Russian vigilantes abducting and torturing a gay teenager. They offer him a choice between being blinded or being raped by a serving fork. Austin Ruse and C-FAM want to destroy all civil rights for gays, which will cause this kind of pogrom in the U.S. just as it’s doing in Russia.

    It’s time to call C-FAM what it is, the New Ustasha.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NDOBTf5m1k&sns=em

  • Art Deco

    Can we scrape the ‘radiofreerome’ and associated ‘guest’ posts off the shoe as well?

  • Just more vile homophobia?

    • ForChristAlone

      Yep! Ain’t it the truth, though?

  • ForChristAlone

    “I think of a woman I will not name. She spent years as a chastity educator. She is beautiful and funny and never married. She is full of life, and humor, family and friends. She is not moping her life away, disgruntled, and as far as I can tell not boring folks with her unmarried plight. I am quite sure this is not the life she envisioned. She no doubt envisioned marriage and children, probably lots of them. But that’s not what she’s been dealt. She has gotten on with a life rich in service to others. She bears their burdens and does not force her burden on others. And she knows this. Chastity is not a consolation prize.”

    For some, being unmarried is not a burden; It is a gift. I spent the last five days with a priest in Guatemala planning for medical missions to his parish. He has 7 churches in his “parish” two rather large congregations in a smallish sized town and 5 other mission communities he serves in remote (and I mean remote) areas. One of these we visited took us 2 1/2 hours to get to as it was situated up a mountain accessible by a one-lane dirt road washed out in many places. Now here is my version of what a real man is. I asked him at breakfast, “So how many children do you have?” His answer: “None, I hope.” But I reminded him that he had children by the score. He is more father to his people than most fathers could ever imagine.

    No, you don’t have to be married to be fruitful and bear children. Just look at Christ.

  • Art Deco

    The elderly adolescent who has offered about 20 nonsense posts is described here.

    http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/08/perplexing-sayings-of-fr-oleary.html

    More stuff to be scraped off the shoe.

    • Interested

      Same old propagandist. Nothing new under the sun.

  • AJ Jackson

    A legitimate question I have never gotten an answer for (from gay Christians complaining they want sex and they’ll be miserable without it) is what to make of pedophiles and zoophiles who actually take up their crosses and live out the faith. These gay sex complainers claim that “celibacy isn’t for everyone” and that “without sex I’ll be miserable”. First of all, celibacy may not be for everyone, but purity is. Purity knows that sex without procreation is incomplete, devoid of it’s primary function, and reduced to pleasure. This is not love, and it is not necessary for every human being. Second of all, it just sounds pathetic, honestly. It is a weakness, a submission to an easier alternative, and a rejection of purity. If gays need sex, how come they don’t advocate for pedophiles and zoophiles to have sex too? Those groups of people are just like gays, right? They can’t choose their sexuality? What if they want sex?

  • JayOR

    I was severely punished and hurt for being bisexual my entire childhood and I’m still basically shunned from my family and everyone I grew up with. And I’m a celibate, I realize it’s wrong to act out sexually with other men. I don’t whine about not getting to have sex, I don’t care about that. I just want to not be afraid of being harmed if I go to church, and I wish people would stop hating me. I really don’t bother anyone.

    • Captain America

      JayOR: stop typing me! I don’t hate you, dude. I applaud what you’re doing entirely; I’d do the same if I was in your shoes. Sin’s good to avoid, even if it looks good from a distance.

  • kmk

    Austin, did you write this? It was good, thank you!

  • Pingback: Fostering Civil Conversations about LGBT People and the Church | A Queer Calling()

  • This is probably the snarkiest column I’ve ever read on this website.

  • Alphonsus_Jr

    I invite all readers to read the following:

    Tactics of the Homosexual Movement, by John Vennari

    http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page92/hom-tactics.html

MENU