The New Homophiles: A Closer Look

Ron Belgau

Ron Belgau delivers lectures, publishes essays and letters and generally enters into very public debates supporting the Biblical injunction against homosexual acts. In fact, he studied ancient Greek for two years in college to better understand his faith but also so he could better understand a single Greek word, arsenokoitai.

There are two lists in the New Testament that prohibit homosexual acts. 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy both provide a list of prohibited behaviors including what the original Greek calls arsenokoitai.

Most Bible translations make it clear this refers to homosexual acts. Belgau points to his New Testament Greek lexicon: “one who lies with a male as a female, sodomite, homosexual.” However, some make the claim that contemporary Greek scholars don’t know what the word really means and therefore could very well mean something other than homosexual acts. Those making such claims are generally advocates for a Bible-centered approval of same-sex sexual relations.

Belgau writes, “The fact that some Greek scholars reject this interpretation should come as no surprise; there are scholars who argue that God is not the Creator, or that Christ was not born of a virgin, or that He wasn’t the Son of God, or that He did not rise from the dead.”

Belgau points to a text in Leviticus, “You shall not koiten [lie with] and arsenos [a man] as with a woman; it is an abomination” and says it is not at all confusing what both Corinthians and Timothy are getting at.

Among many interesting things about Ron Belgau is that he does this as a celibate gay Christian. He is one of the leading lights of the New Homophiles. Belgau knew two things from a tender age, that he was attracted to other males and that the realization of that attraction was not in God’s plan for him or for anyone like him. And he is a virgin in every way.

It should be pointed out once more that the language used to describe Belgau and his colleagues—gay, homosexual, same-sex attracted, etc—is fraught with difficulty. There are nuances, definitions, and understandings that can make the head spin. Belgau and Chris Damian have both gone on at length about the difficulty of such terms. They have spent many years so finely grinding their arguments that a German lens-maker would be jealous. So it should be understood that whatever terms you and I would use, to them, are likely insufficient and even wrong.

The New Homophiles also want you to know that they do not all agree on everything. There are nuances within this group of friends and none of them claim to speak for the others, only for themselves. Still, they can be recognized as a group, a school of thought.

Here is the question they grapple with. What is a young man to do who senses in himself an attraction, however that is defined, for other men. His life is further complicated by the fact that he believes in God and in His Church.

There are many roads he can take. He can reject his religious beliefs and dive headlong into the gay life style. He can try reparative therapy and become heterosexual. He can stay Christian but reinterpret scripture so he can have sexual relations with men. He can reject his gay identity and work privately with others in living chastity according to the Church. Or he can dedicate his life to apostolic celibacy, understanding his sexual orientation as a gift, and try to change church teaching that would not approve of gay sex but allow greater acceptance of men and women attracted to the same sex.

Much of this kind of debate takes place at the Gay Christian Network (GCN) where many of the New Homophiles first met and started deepening their understanding and honing their arguments.

Part website, part meeting place and support group, part rolling and rollicking debate society, GCN was founded in 2001 and “dedicated to building bridges and offering support for those caught in the crossfire of one of today’s most divisive culture wars.”

Belgau was one of the first twelve members of the GCN web forums, and Joshua Gonnerman, whom I wrote about two weeks ago, is currently the “Side B Support Leader” at GCN.

You likely do not know what “Side B” refers to. It is part of the main divide at GCN, between those who hold that God allows for married sexual relations between those of the same sex (Side A) and those who believe God only allows sexual activity between men and women married for life (Side B). There is a third group, one that does not seem to be officially recognized at GCN, known as Side X, ex-gays who have rejected any gay identifier and sought forms of therapy to change their orientation. Both Side A and Side B are largely skeptical of conversion therapy.

The New Homophiles are all on Side B. In the GCN debate, these would be our guys.  But are they our guys?

Belgau is prominently featured on the GCN site in something called The Great Debate, which pits Side A against Side B. His interlocutor is his long-time friend, the founder of the Gay Christian Network, Justin Lee.

Belgau is very impressive in his defense of traditional Catholic teachings on sex and marriage. He writes, “It is true that too much attention to the niggling details of sexual rules can distract us from what Bible passages about sexuality have to say about God. But it is also true that failure to take seriously the truths the Bible reveals about human sexuality will progressively blind us to the truths the Bible reveals about God, leading us to embrace another Gospel, alien to the one revealed in Scripture.”

Belgau says he tried for years to put a “spin” on what gays call the “clobber passages” from Levitcus, Corinthians, Timothy and Romans that reject homosexual acts so that he would be allowed to “embrace a gay relationship.” But in the end he found “that my conscience clobbers my pro-gay arguments.”

Contra the mindless mantra of the marriage equality movement, Belgau does not believe all love is equal, that “love is love.” He writes, “But because love is the heart of the Gospel, Satan always tries to fool us with counterfeits of true love. Against these counterfeits, the Apostles and Prophets warn us again and again. God is love, and so nothing that is against His will can be love. He only approves of certain kinds of love, but punishes His people for loving idols, foreign women in the case of Israel, foreign deities, multiple wives, money, sexual love between close relations (incest), etc.”

Coming from James Dobson this would be called hate-speech.

In 2007, Belgau gave an at times very funny and often very moving keynote speech at the annual GCN national conference (the next one convenes in Chicago later this month). He relates the gut-wrenching story of coming out to his Baptist minister who proceeded to launch into a long tirade about the abomination of “AIDS, the gay lifestyle and anal sex.” Belgau told his Pastor about his intention to be celibate and the Pastor began a new barrage about the evils of celibacy.

Yet another pastor said to a Bible-study group Belgau attended that he was not opposed to gay leadership in student Christian groups “as long as the first thing they do is lead themselves and their faggoty-assed friends right out of my church.”

Given these experiences, which the New Homophiles want us to understand are not uncommon, it makes sense they would want something new and welcoming from the Church.

There is much to admire in the work of Ron Belgau and his friends. They are brave and learned and eloquent. They challenge those of us who may have been less than kind on this topic and certainly challenge all those Catholics who have sullied Church teaching on marriage.

But they are also confusing, too. They seem to want to obfuscate the meaning of words. Step into the stream of what gay means or homosexual means or same-sex attraction means and you find you step with them into a fun house mirror. It seems to me that the truth of things, including the meaning of words, ought to be clear, precise, even simple. Confusion is the sign of something else gong on, perhaps something troubling.

And then there is the ongoing tsunamic assault.

Many of us, particularly those with young children, grow weary of the near constant barrage of gayness we are subject to. We see Kinky Boots at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, and men getting married at the Rose Parade in Pasadena. We cannot even watch cooking shows without taping them in advance and having the pause button ready in order to avoid yet another gay back-story. We wonder how someone’s sexual or affectional desires are in any way our business. Yet they are made to be our business.

And here comes a group of committed Catholics calling themselves gay yet celibate and demanding not just our attention but a change in Church doctrine that would allow for who-knows-what as they tend to be quite unclear about how that change would look. It would probably include some kind of affirmation or even celebration of gayness.

They want to be out and proud. The Boy Scouts always had gay members, but the change in policy now allows them to be out and proud. This seems to be what the New Homophiles want, to be out and proud. Is it good for them to want to hang on to the gay identity, even if it is third, or fourth, or twelfth in their interior taxonomy?

Is it good for them to hold onto an identity that is disordered? Is it good for the Body of Christ?

I must admit to going back and forth on the topic of the New Homophiles. Apostolic celibacy is a great good. The struggle to be faithful Catholics is a great good. Trying to identify with Christ is exactly what we are all called to do. Spiritual friendship could be a good thing though I worry they envision something like Charles Ryder reading scripture with Sebastian Flyte.

Can we accept them on their terms? I do not know.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    I would like to be “out and proud” about my presbyopia but there is more to life than this. I can see no point in having my organ of vision define my life and I question why others need to define their lives by their organ or reproduction. My eyes are not who I am.

    • Objectivetruth

      I think a possible solution Deacon is to guard our thoughts. Whether it’s homo or hetero obsessive sexual thoughts the evil one will jam his pitchfork in there and throw gasoline on sexually obsessive desires. Soon our thoughts become actions, and we identify ourselves by our sexual desires. We must preoccupy our thoughts with Christ through prayer. This I believe is why Jesus told us to “Pray all the time.” Pure thoughts and prayers of Christ keep sexual thoughts at bay. Personally, I’m trying to prayer the Psalter each day (“Seven times a day will I praise you, oh Lord.” Psalm 119) and a decade of the rosary between Lauds, Terce, etc. This keeps my mind on Christ, pure thoughts, and praying for others. This can easily be worked in to a persons workday. If an impure thought enters my mind, I’ll grab my rosary and say 5 “Hail Marys” till the impure thought goes away.

    • John

      And what about us left-handers? Why doesn’t the church accomodates us after centuries (millenia, even) of persecution). Surely, we can have masses given by left-handed priests. This is handophobia/detrophobia and it must stop now before I get even more outraged!

      • Matthew Parker

        Hi John, I understand you mean this as a joke, but I wanted to let you know that making light of something that is, for some of us, a very serious issue and one that has caused serious emotional (and sometimes physical) pain, this type of comment can be hurtful. Just wanted to express an alternate point of view.

        • bonaventure

          Other disordered sexual conducts also causes emotional (and, as you write, physical pain), yet no one in the Church but the homosexuals parade their perversion.

          Strange isn’t it?

          I mean, you don’t really hear about the “Adulterer Christian Network” or the “Porn Addict Christian Network,” do you? Even though these sexual perversion are no less stronger, as feelings, than homosexuality (and none of the above is [yet] described as an “orientation”).

          For that reason, I answer with a resounding and uncompromising NO to Austin Ruse’s final question:

          Q.: “Can we accept them on their terms?”
          A.: “No!”

          • Matthew Parker

            I, personally am not “proud” or even “out”; most of my friends and family don’t even know about my struggles. In fact, I only recently even started looking into blogs and other discussions on these topics because I want to expand my knowledge about homosexuality and understand the struggles of others and maybe feel some solidarity with others who are also on this journey. I just hope that, as followers of Christ, we can all avoid name calling and other hurtful comments. It grieves me to know that so many Christians think that the best way to bring someone around to their point of view is to treat others as less than human.

            • bonaventure

              There was absolutely NOTHING dehumanizing in my post. Such labels of supposed “hate” are pure liberal propaganda and trash. Call your interlocutor of, say, Nazi, and cross your finger that it will intimidate him/her. Pure & simple psychological bullying. Won’t work here.

              But if you feel “hurt,” it may be an indication that I was just telling the truth.

              Anyway, to call homosexuality a perversion, etc. (as I did), is no different from what the Catechism says: that homosexuality is intrinsically and objectively disordered, a grave depravity, contrary to natural law, closed to life, not a genuine sexual feeling, and contrary to sexual complementarity. It is to be approved UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. At best, homosexual feelings are a trial that call the sinner tempted by such sin to complete chastity and a LOT of prayer (ref.: CCC 2357-2359).

              BTW, the Catechism’s description of homosexuality also partially applies to other sexual sins.

              One thing remains, however: of all the sexual sinners, it seems that the homosexuals in the Church are the only ones who want to “celebrate” (and force others to “celebrate”) their perversion. That’s why I wrote that there are no “Fornicators’ Christian Network.”

              If you have a bone to pick, pick it with the Church authorities, and the authors of the Catechism.

              • Matthew Parker

                I guess at this point, all I have left to say is that I’ll be praying for you see people as God sees them and find a better outlet for the anger you feel towards people who are trying to live the best they can in a tough situation.

                • bonaventure

                  Don’t confuse passion for the Truth with hate. But when confronted with socially engineered lies, one could (should!) experience at least a slight feeling of righteous anger.

                  Oh, and don’t be anaI about your “tough situation” of willful sexual perversion. Someone else out there actually has to live through a REAL difficult situation.

                  Cheers, pal.

                  • Hypatia

                    Your phrase “willful sexual perversion” followed by the implication that gay Christians’ ( and i use this phrase advisedly) struggles are not REAL, says it all. It pithily combines anger/disgust and ignorance. May I suggest you inform yourself about the research actually done on homosexuality summarized in the book “Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why” by Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at Stanford.

                    • bonaventure

                      I suggest you make yourself familiar with the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, which far surpasses in depth of insight into the human condition whatever book you may try to peddle.

                      CCC 2357 about homosexual acts:
                      - Acts of grave depravity
                      - Intrinsically 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

                      CCC 2358 about homosexual acts:
                      - Objectively disordered
                      - A trial

                      CCC 2358 about the challenge to homosexuals:
                      - To unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

                      CCC 2359 clarifies the challenge:
                      - Homosexual persons are called to chastity…
                      - …self-mastery

                      Chastity and self mastery do not include “coming out.” A person who “comes out” with sin and revels in it is not repentant, and therefore far from Christ.

                      No one is denying the challenges that any sin presents — whatever the genesis of a particular sinful behavior, but few other sinners in the Church clamor to have their particular sexual sin (such as adultery, fornication, pornography addiction, etc) elevated to the altar and forced on all other believers to worship them. Only the homosexuals do.

                    • Hypatia

                      Let’s look at the phrase “affective and sexual complementarity”. Best inference from the evidence we have is that the brains of male homosexuals are, in some respects, wired differently than those of male heterosexuals not just in who they are sexually attracted to but seemingly unrelated things like finger length ratios and spatial ability. On rare occasions stroke victims have had a change in orientation–again pointing to wiring. What this means is that affectively and sexually these men love other men. However their genitals don’t “fit” together as “naturally” as do those of male and female. This they are faced with a choice: violate physical nature or violate their emotional nature. Animal can have sex; humans love, so it is not surprising that most gays choose that higher level of their nature..the affective. (I would hate to be the woman who marries a gay man and gets the physical part of him while the fantasies, energy, romantic love go to men. Often gay men married to women have to fantasize about men in order to complete sex with their wives. This is hardly natural.) Some claim gays should avoid choosing which way to be unnatural by remaining celibate. But for those not called to it, that is also unnatural.

                    • bonaventure

                      They don’t “love” other men. They lust for them. Which is just one more sin added to the disorder — to say it mildly.

                    • Hypatia

                      Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can lust. And both groups can love. I have acquaintance personally with four homosexual couples (two of them married). I have seen in them the same willingness to care for a sick spouse, support each other in adversity and share in prosperity that I see in heterosexual couples. In that way they are not distinguishable. Your blanket statement that they do not love is why your views have less and less purchase in the public square. Too many people have witnessed the real, occasionally even sacrificial, devotion of some gay couples to pay attention to your generalization.

                    • bonaventure

                      Another logical fallacy. Just because I said that homosexuals lust (rather than love), it does not mean that I implied only homosexuals lust.

                      However, and since their sexual behavior is perverted and debauched, homosexuals are incapable of sexual love. Sexual love must involve opposite sexes, while lust involves only the ego + an object of gratification (which could be whomever or whatever).

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      “Sexual love must involve opposite sexes”

                      Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

                      Furthermore, the facts of experience disprove your statement.

                    • bonaventure

                      The facts of experience indicate that homosexuality is a perversion.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      That was a malapropism, I take it, and what you really meant to write was that the facts of experience indicate that HOMOPHOBIA is a perversion – which, of course, it is, and a particularly unpleasant and pernicious one at that.

                    • bonaventure

                      Any reasonable person who does not share the opinions of liberal homosexual activists should indeed be concerned with the rise of homofascism, just as they should have been during the rise of Bolshevism and/or Nazism, had they lived in early 20th century Russia or Germany.

                      As for “homophobia,” that is a scare-and-bully tactic — a socially engineered term justifying the homosexual’s denial of their destructive behavior and quasi-criminal ideology.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      I agree that the word homophobia can be and has been misused, and the word itself is philologically unsound. It does, however, describe a real phenomenon, and a particularly detestable one. Perhaps a more appropriate term might be “homo-hatred”.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      That’s stupid because phobia means fear not hatred. Whoever coined the word was not thinking right. No one who opposes homosexuality is in anyway afraid of the homosexual. There definitely is disgust of the homosexual practice but not fear.
                      So no there is no such phenomenon except in your head and the coiner’s head.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Yes, that’s why I agree that the word is philologically unsound. (It is also unsound because homo + phobia ought to mean “fear of the same”.) What is often referred to as homophobia is usually just plain, ugly hatred of homosexuals – despite any attempts to make it seem less ugly by gilding it with religious sentiments. I have no intention of trying to bully you or anyone else into silence. What I do insist on doing is denouncing irrational anti-gay hatred.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Yes, we must denounce hatred of homosexuals. But we must not denounce hatred of homosexual activity for such should be hated. The problem these days is that active homosexuals want us to approve of this perversion and one should disagree with them, then heaven help that person for he/she will be labelled self-righteous, a bigot and a homophobe.
                      Most gay people who post in these forums portray a lifestyle that if not for the fact that the couple are of the same gender, you would be mistaken for thinking that their lifestyle is domestic bliss. Such is not the case, the homosexual liestyle is depraved and it is precisely this depravity that the gay mob does not want us to see, takes great pains that we should not see.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      “The” homosexual lifestyle? You might as well talk about “the” heterosexual lifestyle. There are as many possible homosexual lifestyles as there are heterosexual ones. Yes, and some of the former are certainly depraved, just as some of the latter are. (Anyone trying to conceal information about either is wasting his or her time, particularly in these days of the Internet.) But homosexual activity per se is no more depraved than is heterosexual activity per se. Committed gay relationships are a positive good and for those with a homosexual orientation should certainly be encouraged.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Homosexual activity per is totally depraved. Even if you take religion out of the equation, it goes against nature.

                      Committed gay relationships only endorses and entrenches the perverse act. If an act is depraved, cementing it will not make it better. That would be like saying that one can molest a child so long as he keeps to that one child.

                      Furthermore, committed gay relationships is an oxymoron. Except perhaps for the tiniest percentage of the gay population – commitment and gay don’t go together. Homosexuals are against monogamy. Even the homosexuals who managed to remain together for a while do so only because they agree that they will both have sex outside of their partnership.

                      Many homosexuals have over 1000 partners. Homosexuals don’t want commitment because all they are about is sex.

                      http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Lee-The-Truth-About-The-Homosexual-Rights-Movement.php

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      If homosexual activity went against nature, it wouldn’t be possible.

                      “That would be like saying that one can molest a child so long as he keeps to that one child.”

                      One glaring flaw in that argument: a gay relationship is nothing like molesting a child.

                      “Homosexuals are against monogamy.”

                      Some are. So are some heterosexuals. Indeed, there’s one religion, very popular in America, which used to have heterosexual polygamy as one of its main tenets. Anyone who wants to know about the history of heterosexual non-monogamy could make a modest start by reading the Old Testament. And he will find several notorious OT polygamists commended in the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews as heroes of faith. And horny King David is repeatedly described in the Bible as a man after God’s own heart who never went wrong except in one instance (Uriah and Bathsheba).

                      “Even the homosexuals who managed to remain together for a while do so only because they agree that they will both have sex outside of their partnership.”

                      Some gay couples do have “open relationships”. So do some heterosexuals.

                      “Many homosexuals have over 1000 partners. Homosexuals don’t want commitment because all they are about is sex.”

                      There are unfortunately homosexuals who are like that. I know some. There are unfortunately heterosexuals who are like that too. I know some.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      If homosexual activity went against nature, it wouldn’t be possible.

                      Sorry but that is a very stupid statement. Possible and natural are two different things. Is it natural for a human being to be born blind? Is it natural for a human being to be born without arms and legs? Without ears? And yet it happens. They are called deformities of nature. The nature of man is to be fully functioning, not deformed.

                      Some gay couples do have “open relationships”. So do some heterosexuals.

                      That is rare among heterosexuals and it is prevalent in homosexuals. One can even say that is the norm for homosexuals rather than the exception.

                      One glaring flaw in that argument: a gay relationship is nothing like molesting a child.

                      It is very much like molesting a child. Or bestiality. The rational that is used to support the validation of homosexual activity is the very same rational that is used to support paedophilia and bestiality.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      “They are called deformities of nature.”

                      Precisely. OF NATURE. In other words, they are natural deformities. That does not mean that they are good. If we want to decide whether or not something is a good thing, asking whether or not it is “natural” cannot tell us the answer. Indeed, if it is asked about something that happens of its own accord, it is meaningless, since the very fact of its occurrence shows that it cannot be contrary to nature. Whether or not it is good is quite a separate question.

                      “One can even say that is the norm for homosexuals rather than the exception.”

                      That is a rather rash statement. Most surveys of gay behaviour draw their subjects from places which specifically attract promiscuous people.

                      If you wish to say that a gay relationship is very much like molesting a child or like bestiality, fine. I could equally say that a heterosexual relationship is very much like molesting a child or like bestiality, and the statement would be equally stupid. But that is what free speech entails: the right to say what you like, no matter how fatuous it is.

                      I suspect that you have lived a rather sheltered life. Although I have always avoided such places, even I know not only about “red light districts” (who doesn’t?) but about what the UK police call “PSEs” (public sex environments) which attract heterosexuals (including married couples) who go there to engage in recklessly promiscuous sexual behaviour.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      They are called deformities of nature.”

                      Precisely. OF NATURE. In other words, they are
                      natural deformities.

                      It depends on how you understand nature. If you equate
                      nature with matter alone, of course you will say that it is natural. But nature means more than that. It basically
                      goes to the essense of the matter. It
                      is not natural for a man to mate with a man anymore than it is natural for a
                      human being to eat sand, or be born with deformities. The natural state of man
                      is to be fully functioning.

                      the very fact of its occurrence shows that it
                      cannot be contrary to nature.

                      Only because you equate nature with what is materially
                      possible.

                      That is a
                      rather rash statement. Most surveys of gay behaviour draw their subjects from
                      places which specifically attract promiscuous people.

                      Because most gays gravitate towards this places and thus it
                      becomes the norm. I don’t doubt that there are ssa people who don’t engage in
                      these perversions but they are a very small minority. And it is becoming an even smaller minority
                      because of this agenda by the gay mob to out whoever they think have such
                      inclination and thereby lure them to this lifestyle. They pressure those who are ssa to be “out”, “proud”
                      and doing it.

                      If you wish
                      to say that a gay relationship is very much like molesting a child or like
                      bestiality, fine. I could equally say that a heterosexual relationship is very
                      much like molesting a child or like bestiality, and the statement would be
                      equally stupid.

                      Not quite since the argument for the permissibility and
                      rightness of heterosexual sex is different from that of homosexual sex. The argument
                      for homosexual sex can be applied and is applied by advocates of paedophilia
                      and bestiality. And when you look at
                      their arguments it makes sense. If the
                      argument for same sex relations is valid, then the same can be applied to
                      paedophilia and bestiality.

                      But that is
                      what free speech entails: the right to say what you like, no matter how fatuous
                      it is.

                      But we are not talking about free speech here but rather
                      whether an argument makes sense or not.

                      I suspect that you have lived a rather sheltered
                      life. Although I have always avoided such places, even I know not only about
                      “red light districts” (who doesn’t?) but about what the UK police call “PSEs”
                      (public sex environments) which attract heterosexuals (including married
                      couples) who go there to engage in recklessly promiscuous sexual behaviour.

                      And no doubt they exist. But as I have explained above, they
                      are more the exception than the rule. It is quite the opposite with homosexuals.
                      It is the rule rather than the exception.

                      Of course,
                      once one accepts the absurdity that a gay relationship is very much like
                      molesting a child, the obvious corollary is that molesting a child is very much
                      like being in a gay relationship, and therefore the moral difference, if any,
                      between the two must be marginal. Which might account for the behaviour of some
                      Catholic priests.

                      And if you follow the data of sexual abuse in the Church,
                      overwhelmingly, the abuse is homosexual in nature. Around 80% were perpetuated
                      by homosexual priests. And this is the
                      reason that guidelines for admission at seminary are to exclude homosexuals.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      You are perfectly at liberty to dream up your own fantasy world in which things are as you would like them to be, to call it “nature”, and to call anything that doesn’t fit in with it “against nature”. But the real world will go on being real just the same.

                      I’m not pretending either that there isn’t plenty of promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour among homosexual men or that there isn’t more of it than there is in heterosexual circles. It would be surprising if it were not so, since men are men. But the implication that the only possible choice for a gay man is either perpetual sexual abstinence or promiscuity is not true. Nor does being “out” and “proud” have to mean acting irresponsibly.

                      I suggest that you leave homosexuality completely out of consideration for a moment and ask yourself what exactly your objections are to (heterosexual) paedophilia and (heterosexual) bestiality. Then come back and ask yourself “How precisely do those objections apply to homosexuality?” I think you’ll find that they don’t.

                      Your assumption that any abuse of minors that is technically homosexual must have been committed by people whose orientation is homosexual is naïve. The matter is rather more complicated than that. A huge amount of sexual abuse of pubescent and pre-pubescent boys is committed by men whose primary orientation is heterosexual, as I discovered when I was a teacher. It may surprise you to know that I am, on the whole, rather in favour of excluding homosexuals from seminaries. There have in the past been far too many gay men trying to cop out of being gay by entering the priesthood. It doesn’t work and more often than not simply complicates the problem – which shouldn’t be a problem anyway.

                    • bonaventure

                      It is actually virtuous — if not necessary (at the point in history where we are at) — to HATE the destructive homosexual agenda. It belongs to the culture of death, no less than abortion.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Any number of individual homosexuals may, for all I know, have any number of individual agendas, some of which may be destructive, as also may any number of individual heterosexuals. THE homosexual agenda is as imaginary as THE heterosexual agenda.

                    • Paul Sho

                      The Gay (homosexual) Agenda is real:
                      The Global Gay Agenda is presently pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all the states of the USA; also it is pushing for decriminalization and legitimization of same-sex acts by all nations on this globe.
                      Consider that in July 2013 the UN human rights office voted millions of US dollars for their global campaign to support homosexual acts and marriages. Indeed they had the famous Archbishop Desmond Tutu as one of the chief launchers of this campaign. A few days later Jorge Bergoglio gave the Global Gay Agenda a shot in the arm with his infamous ’ who am I to judge?’ remark.
                      It is clear that this is a systematic and well-planned Agenda. We won’t tolerate it within the Catholic Church no matter how many high-level prelates buy into the agenda.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      The decriminalization and legitimization of same-sex acts by all nations on this globe is a perfectly good and praiseworthy goal. Indeed, it is a positive scandal that there should be any nation on this globe in which people are still criminalized for having gay sex. I personally think that same-sex marriage is a mistake, and that same-sex civil partnerships, such as several countries have had for some years now, are a much better arrangement. Gay relationships are perfectly good, fine and beautiful precisely for what they are and neither can be nor need to be “validated” by making them into a parody of straight ones.

                      Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a very good and holy man, and his courageous stand against the anti-gay agenda is most commendable. God bless him.

                    • Paul Sho

                      Yes, God bless Desmond Tutu and other pro-gay prelates so that they can all repent as soon as possible and get rid of the evil numbers (666) on their foreheads put there by their condoning and abetting of Homosexual acts.
                      cf Revelations 13; and http://www.prophetamos3m.com

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      Sorry, I have no time for superstition.

                    • bonaventure

                      Homosexual activists are very open about their efforts to redefine marriage. That is their agenda. And they won’t even deny it.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      THE homosexual agenda is as imaginary as THE heterosexual agenda.>

                      Oh really?

                      While one could hardly speak of a heterosexual agenda, there is a homosexual agenda alright.

                      This:
                      http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

                      And this:

                      http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/29/lesbian-activist-says-gay-marriage-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage-65379

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Calling someone who disagrees with you a homophobe is just one of the tactics of the gay mob when they’ve run out of arguments. It’s one way of bullying us into silence. Another word of course is bigot and still another self-righteous.
                      Except that we are on to you and we know that ihat is nothing more than a bullying tactic.

                    • Patrick

                      So no alcoholic should ever admit to others that they have a problem?

                      Isn’t that step ONE of any program for recovery for alcoholism?

                      And not to just their priest, either. To everyone that is a major part of their life, and to all the people trying to support them.
                      And eventually to anyone they may have wronged as a result of it, in many versions of the process.

                      How can others know they have hope of recovery if every success story is kept a locked-and-bolted secret?

                      Should all addiction support groups just disband and swear never to admit they have a problem ever again? How will that help others looking for support?

                      You may not want to hear about it, but the people who need to hear about that hope are only known to themselves, so they can’t just be taken aside and addressed in secret.

                    • bonaventure

                      When homosexuals “come out” they don’t admit to a problem. They rejoice and revel in a sin, which they claim is no longer sinful. And they want to force you to believe the same.

                    • Patrick

                      Funny, the article up above and the two related ones on this site were all specifically about homosexuals who were trying to keep to Catholic teachings, including those regarding marriage and homosexual acts.

                      But it’s harder to despise those people and easier to ignore them, I guess.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      That is true, but I don’t see how you managed to glean that from Matthew’s post.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Perhaps a majority do, but some just admit that they are so afflicted and that is all they are admitting. There are homosexuals (even though that maybe be a tiny minority) who do live a chaste life.

                    • bonaventure

                      To say that homosexuals are capable of living a “chaste” life is like saying that porn addicts and self-abusers can live a chaste life. It’s a contradiction.

                      If a person is tempted to have sexual and/or non-sexual “romantic” relations with the same sex but do not allow the temptation to materialize, they are not even homosexuals, and in fact they do not even sin in that matter.

                      But if they allow the temptation to overcome their weakness, they — by definition — no longer live a chaste life. Even if they have no genital relations with others of the same sex. The very idea/imagining of having “romantic” relationships with the same sex is a perversion and a sin.

                  • Patrick

                    Don’t confuse telling the Truth with being disrespectful, either.

                    The Truth cannot be told with disrespect, insensitivity, or a lack of compassion, because then the words would be hollow. There would be no Truth in them to hear.

                    Trivializing the cross someone else has to bear is trivializing the sacrifice they can offer up by carrying it. Remember that even the most unrepentant of them still must still have his fundamental human dignity respected.

                    If you can’t tell them the truth without resorting to animus or being patronizing, entrust that task to someone who is more able than yourself. There is a whole community in the Church for a reason.

                    • bonaventure

                      You do realize that Christ, whom were’re supposed to imitate, used some of the vilest insults at his opponents, do you?

                      Or are you of those touching-feeling ignoramuses who have no clue who the real Christ was?

                    • slainte

                      40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40.

                    • bonaventure

                      Proud sinners like openly homosexual perverts do not qualify as “the least of these my brethren.”

                      Actually, Jesus Christ repeatedly compares the Sodomites to the worst of the worst of the worst of perverts and sinners in his time.

                    • Patrick

                      So, you’re saying you refuse to follow (and do not respect the authority of) Catholic Church teaching on how you are to treat them (respect, compassion, and sensitivity).

                      Just so we’re clear.

                    • bonaventure

                      The Catholic Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person does not take away from her teaching about the immense depravity, gravity, and sinfulness of homosexual acts.

                    • Patrick

                      The sinfulness of homosexual acts does not exempt you from needing to follow Church teaching in regards to how you must (I’ll repeat that, “must”) treat people who experience a homosexual inclination.

                      You are rationalizing.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      Here I would venture to say that there aggressive and overt homosexuals who are forcing their agenda down our throats are to be exposed and opposed for what they are. By their very actions, they have lost the respect that they are supposed to deserve. But there are homosexuals who are aware that it is a sin and struggles to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church. These we can say we treat with respect.
                      The active sodomite and proud to be so can hardly be treated in the same way as the repentant one. It is not us who deny them their dignity. It is them who have eroded their own dignity by behaving as they do.

                    • writerJerome

                      Bonaventure – Christ used the vile insults for only one group during his life – religious conservatives who point the finger at others and who don’t know that all of scripture can be summed up: Love God and your neighbor. Christ never spoke a single negative word against gays during his life. Go and do likewise.

                    • bonaventure

                      How is it disrespectful to tell someone (or a group of people) that homosexuality is sinful?

                    • Art Deco

                      He’s insisting you be cloying.

                  • MarcAlcan

                    Bonaventure, much as I am very much anti gay mob propaganda, I think the way you belittled the real struggle that gays who want to follow Christ go through is quite shameful.
                    It is a real struggle. I wonder how you would faire if you were so inclined.
                    It is hard because sex is one of the greatest forces in our human body. You are lucky that you do not have this disordered inclination.
                    And no, based on Matthew’s post you cannot discern that in his case, it is a wilfull sexual perversion.

                    • bonaventure

                      If I were inclined to [whatever] sexual sin, I would not parade it in public, as the homosexuals do — including those who supposedly “struggle” with it… yet want to make it public at all cost… and DEMAND that I have compassion for it (i.e., that I tolerate it).

                      The only persons who sin with homosexual acts and are actually honest in admitting that it is sinful, are those who remain in the closet and keep their struggles between themselves and their confessor, their spiritual director, their psychotherapist, and ultimately God.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      And if you read Matthew’s post, I think he clearly said that he has not come out.
                      I am very much against active homosexuals but we really must look at what people post and not make assumptions about them.
                      There are many in these boards who are exactly what you describe but just based on the two posts made by Matthew, I don’t get that from them.

                    • bonaventure

                      If Matthew is writing publicly about his “struggles” and then accuses anyone who “dares” to engage him about it in a way that his is not prepared to deal with (i.e., informing him that homosexuality is sinful), then he has surely come out. Otherwise he wouldn’t be writing about it in the first place, let alone be offended when someone mentions the sinfulness of homosexuality.

                  • Mary Morstan

                    Bonaventure,
                    Please, please, please pray before posting again. One would never dream you were a Catholic with the tone of your posts

                    • Art Deco

                      His posts (a month ago) were perfectly proper.

                    • bonaventure

                      What is not Catholic about writing that homosexuality is sinful?

                • Hypatia

                  Matthew, you sound like a kind person. I wish you well on your journey.

                • slainte

                  Matthew stay close to the Church as you make your way. Please consider a ministry called “Courage” which will help you navigate through life with Christ by your side.

                  http://www.couragerc.net/

              • slainte

                Bonaventure,

                I am a heterosexual female. You inadvertently forgot to provide the entire position of the Church on the issue of same sex attracted persons.

                Here’s the part of the Catechism you missed:

                CCC 2358 “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

                Since we are quoting Church Authority, it’s important to get it right. We must accept same sex attracted people and treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives.

                Matthew stay close to the Church as you make your way. Please consider a ministry called “Courage” which will help you navigate through life with Christ by your side.

                http://www.couragerc.net/

                • bonaventure

                  Like I previously wrote in response to another user’s comment, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person does
                  not take away from her teaching about the immense depravity, gravity,
                  and sinfulness of homosexual acts.

                  • Patrick

                    And like I previously wrote in response to that statement, the sinfulness of homosexual acts does not exempt you from needing to follow Church teaching in regards to how you must (I’ll repeat that, “must”) treat people who experience a homosexual inclination.

                    You are rationalizing.

                  • Paul Sho

                    You are right in your assertion.

                    We must treat every human being with dignity and respect because they are made in the image and likeness of God.
                    But we don’t treat their homosexuality with dignity and respect. We despise their homosexuality. We abhor their homosexuality. We pray for their deliverance from homosexuality.
                    We love our fellow men. We hate the practice homosexuality anywhere we see it.

    • http://secondthoughtsfirst.blogspot.com/ Tim Simmons

      Deacon,

      For what it’s worth, I would respectfully like to point out that you are “out and proud” about your presbyopia every time you put on your reading glasses or hold things far enough away from your eyes to see, and you identify yourself as a person who has this “disorder” (but it’s really a natural part of getting older, isn’t it?) every time you voluntarily mention that you have it. It’s true that your eyes are not who you are, but you are an embodied person, so your eyes are very much a part of who you are.

      Here’s what the opposite of being “out and proud” about your eyesight would imply: You wouldn’t have reading glasses, you would hold books and papers at what you judged to be a “normal” distance because you would be terrified lest anyone ever found out that you didn’t have normal sight. You might join an anonymous support group for people in your situation who would talk week after week about how they had slipped up last Thursday and tried to read something in focus. You might even be spending hours on the Internet looking (as best you could) for a back-alley surgeon who could fix your problem either with a transplant or maybe an injection of snake oil.

      Maybe that seems far-fetched to you, but given our cultural heritage with respect to homosexuality, most gay, lesbian and bisexual young adults start out the opposite of “out and proud” about their sexual orientation: hiding it out of shame, terrified that their secret might be discovered, and sometimes desperately seeking a cure from people who (not to put too fine a point on it) are simply not qualified to offer one.

      It seems to me that all that the New Homophiles are trying to do is to find a way to help other young adults come out of this fear and self-loathing by showing them how a person can, without compromising or giving up the faith, be out and proud about his or her sexual orientation in the same matter-of-fact and unconscious way you are out and proud about your vision.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        You’re simply out of your mind. Not much more can be said about this.

        • maryjane

          Besides that you should feel bad about being dismissive and unkind – it’s scandalous when a Deacon can’t be charitable – the real problem is that presbyopia isn’t equivalent to being gay or straight. It almost never decides your vocation or the course of your life, especially since it is a normal part of aging. It practically never would be a huge part of someone’s identity. It’s not the same thing at all.

          • Adam__Baum

            “You might even be spending hours on the Internet looking (as best you could) for a back-alley surgeon who could fix your problem either with a transplant or maybe an injection of snake oil.”

            This sentence alone merited the comment The Deacon was the one being treated uncharitably here and I think he was restrained in his response.

          • Deacon Ed Peitler

            No, the scandal is when people purposely contort the natural law, re-define it and pass it off as truth – especially among the young and unschooled.

            What I am dismissive is operating my life based on cheap sentimentality. It is one thing that is certainly destroying our culture. I am more interested in the truth.

          • Guest

            Please, the propaganda that defends what ought not be defended will not cease. People with eye problems accept they have problems and seek help. They do not claim it is a gift and lead with it as a self identifier.

            • Patrick

              It is specifically because it is a difficult trait to detect that there need to be public examples of individuals who have admitted they have the problem and have sought and received help.

              Young people need to know they can do that too, if it is necessary. They need examples to counter the children being shipped off to the Dominican Republic to dig holes until they aren’t gay anymore (which never works).

              • Guest

                I have no idea what you mean by public examples? Such things may take many forms. We need moral education for sure. What we do not need is more propaganda dressed up as help.

                • Patrick

                  Role models.
                  I don’t know what the best way to approach it is, but we should make sure that especially young people who might have same-sex inclinations know about these success stories before they get caught up in turmoil and start questioning their faith because they don’t know how to deal with their situations.

        • Hypatia

          Yeah. You have run out of things to say.

      • Adam__Baum

        “out and proud” about your presbyopia every time you put on your reading
        glasses or hold things far enough away from your eyes to see,”

        There’s an active and vigorous market for contact lenses just to avoid public disclosure of the impediment, or have you missed that?

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        I apologize for my intemperate response to your comment. It should not have been said. God bless you.

        • Guest

          You area good man. I applaud your posts. Do not be deterred.

        • slainte

          Stand strong. Apologetics in defense of the faith can be challenging. Speak truth with mercy and you will continue to be an excellent soldier for Christ. Great work so far.

      • Guest

        First, people do not know who is “gay” unless the person reveals it. The eye pathology is known because it is self evident. The person with eye pathology is not demanding all accept his pathology as a gift and recognize it as central to his being. The person deals with it and tries to fix it, not claim it is wonderful.

        Secondly, people “hide” some pathology not only for some misunderstood shame but for reasons of privacy and propriety. It used to be people had common sense. They sought help for serious problems. We no longer reason rationally. Instead of accepting there is some pathology we immediately cry discrimination and hate. We see ourselves as victims and form distorted support groups to enable our pathology and celebrate it and claim all our problems are due to other people’s “phobias” about our pathology.

  • AcceptingReality

    As a casual observer, it seems to me that the “New Homophiles” are forming their identities first and foremost based on “sexuality”. At the same time they are trying to inject that sexuality into the forefront of Christianity in a way the makes Christ take a back seat.

    • MarcAlcan

      Very well said.

      • Kangaroo52

        If you look at the most liberal denominations, the Episcopalians and the United Church Christ, the only time they even make the news is when they make some pronouncement on sex. They certainly don’t make news by boasting about their rising membership, because the Churches of Priapism have been losing members since 1960.

  • lifeknight

    The devil is truly the “author” of confusion. I concur with Mr. Ruse in that this whole idea of accepting the disordered is not easy. I tried to evaluate and use the proper lingo about SSA, “gay,” sodomite, etc, etc. You just cannot make something inherently disordered ordered, no matter what you call it.

    • fredx2

      And yet, the teaching of the church calls you to respect each person made by God, no matter what:
      The Catechism:
      2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual
      tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered,
      constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect,
      compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard
      should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives
      and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the
      difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

  • Guest

    Perhaps part of the syndrome is the desire to be “proud” as some type of coping mechanism. This is not about theology but ideology.

  • jpct50

    Why refer to him as ‘gay’? He is a heterosexual (as all humans are) who struggles with Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD). He can seek therapy to correct that or not, but that is a separate issue. Being ‘gay’ refers to someone who embraces homosexuality and promotes that lifestyle choice.

    • Hypatia

      To say all humans are heterosexual but some have same sex attractions is like saying all humans are homosexual but some have opposite sex attractions.

      • GB

        No, not at all. Heterosexuality is normal.

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

    My view: No, it is not good to hold on to an identity-trait that is disordered, nor is it good to be unclear as to what truths are at stake. If you want to simplify the debate, jettison all the obfuscating terminology of gay, homosexual, same-sex attracted, etc., and focus squarely on the *nature* of the distinction being made: “eros” versus “homo-eros.”

    “Homo-eros” is a kind of “attraction” that stands in *place* of the kind of *love*–eros–that is God’s plan for us. Belgau is quoted above as saying that “God is love, and so nothing that is against His will can be love.”
    As long as we are talking about the experience of an attraction that stands in contrast to “the gift of love between a man and a woman,” we are talking about a disorder that is not in accord with God’s will. There are other forms of God’s love that two people of the same sex can share in accord with God’s plan, but “eros” isn’t one of them.
    “Homo-eros” in itself will not and cannot lead to purity of heart.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    “They want to be out and proud.” And in that lies the problem. Pride is a deadly sin for a reason.

    • happiness1535

      Talking about one’s struggle with SSA is not inherently proud. You surely would not suggest such for alcoholism or other addictions. They want others to see that a happy celibate life is possible, despite strong cultural pressure to the contrary.

      Plus, someone has to argue against gay theology. Like it or not, it is being promoted. Ron Belgau is perfect, given that he has strong incentive to believe in it.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        I agree- talking about one’s struggle with SSA is not inherently proud.

        Talking about SSA being “exceptional” with overtones of “superior to heterosexuality” is.

        Worse yet is talking about the Side A of “Homosexual Christianity”- so I am glad that the likes of Ron Belgau are out there. But at some point, we’ve heard entirely too much about homosexuality.

        • John200

          That point would be about 1993 (my estimate from memory) with Mr. Clinton’s surprise issue: gays in the military!!

          I was stunned — I never saw it coming until he was safely installed in office.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Me too. Though oddly enough, I was pro-civil union at that time, and part of the left wing Catholic movement working for AIDS hospice.

            I still give to AIDS Hospice, and I’m still for a complete separation of government and marriage in the form of civil unions for all- leave marriage to religions. But now I’m the Evil Catholic Bigot that won’t allow THOSE PEOPLE to get MARRIED. All without changing a single opinion on my part.

        • naturgesetz

          I don’t think the “New Homophiles” consider SSA “superior to heterosexuality.” To try to find ways of understanding how they have something, as a class, to offer to the Church and the world is by no means the same as saying that they are “superior.”

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            What they have to offer the Church and the world has nothing to do with their sexuality.

            • naturgesetz

              Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t fault them for trying to make sense of their cross in that way. If they come up with something that makes sense, all well and good. If they don’t, well that’s that.

              I also think that as long as they remain clear that they must refrain from homosexual acts, we don’t all have to agree about the value of their opinion; there is room for disagreement on things of that sort.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Mr. Ruse, if I had to guess, I would say that you do know, and you know quite well!
    There is no place on planet earth other than the Catholic Church where those with “same sex attraction” are more welcome and properly so. It seems to me the crux of the issue with the new homophiles is rooted in pride, which makes it an act of charity to speak the truth against it. In the Body of Christ, we understand pride to be the number one deadly sin, it is a shame to entertain the possibility that in the case of well intentioned people who choose to self-identity as “gay” that there is some hope or possibility that Church Doctrine will change so they all feel better about themselves. It cannot happen and it will not happen.
    Note to homophiles: you are welcome to come as you are, but you are told by Christ himself, as he told the woman caught in adultery- “go and sin no more.” You were born in the image and likeness of God, just like every other human soul, Holy Mother Church cannot change God’s truth- it takes outrageous arrogance to think that you can.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I’d even go so far as to say the ONLY sin of the New Homophiles is pride.

      It’s a hard thing to have defeated an evil as great as homophilia in ones own life and still be humble about it, but that’s exactly what I’d like to see them do.

    • naturgesetz

      It makes no sense for you to quote “Go and sin no more,” to people who are celibate, as the “New Homophiles” are.

      As for “changes in doctrine,” it’s a loaded term, but you’ll note that Austin Ruse never says what the changes in doctrine are that he thinks the “New Homophiles” are talking about. Considering that the “New Homophiles” explicitly uphold the doctrine of the Church that all sexual activity outside of a marriage (meaning one man-one woman) is sinful, it seems that any “change” could only be in the nature of a clarification or further development of what is already settled.

      What is needed above all, IMO is a change not in doctrine, but in the attitude of Catholics who do not accept homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, as the Catechism calls them to. The “Old Homophobes” need to repent.

      • Steven Jonathan

        Naturgestez.
        It makes perfect sense to say “go and sin no more” for that is more important than any discussion. What a strange claim you make that the “new homophiles” do not sin. If you will allow me the observation, and I suspect you won’t, but trying to rationalize sinful inclinations and re-label them as “not sinful inclinations” is morally troubling.
        What on earth do you mean “accept homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity”??? and the suggestion that the “Old Homophobes need to repent” By your silly standards, if the “Old Homophobes” are celibate there is no need for them to repent.
        I personally accept all human souls unconditionally, but reject sinful behavior. I don’t believe someone is born “homosexual” and even if they are, that is not license to act on disordered inclination or to pretend that such things are ordered. I suspect this qualifies as “homophobic” to you, but I believe we ought not to celebrate such inclinations/

        • naturgesetz

          It is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says, at No. 2358, that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” It doesn’t say “may be accepted” in this way. It says they MUST be accepted in this way. People who fail to do so (whom I decided to call the Old Homophobes as a play on Austin Ruse’s phrase New Homophiles) need to repent of their failure to accept homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

          As for telling the New Homophiles “go and sin no more,” let me try once more. Austin Ruse’s articles are about the people he calls the New Homophiles. They are not about homosexuals in general. He and the New Homophiles themselves make it perfectly clear that they believe in the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are wrong. He and they make it perfectly clear that they are celibate. So what sin are you referring to when you quote Jesus at them?

          Who is trying to rationalize sinful inclinations and label them as not sinful? I don’t do that, nor do the New Homophiles. They do try to understand, how they, specifically as celibate people with homosexual inclinations are called, as everybody is, to serve the Church, the people of God. Maybe they can; maybe they can’t; but they aren’t trying to pretend that the incclination isn’t toward sinful behavior.

          The New Homophiles, from all I’ve read, agree with you that regardless of its origins, the homosexual inclination is disordered and that there is no license to act on it or to pretend it is not disordered, and I agree as well.

          If there is anything “homophobic” about you, it is your apparent inability to read Austin Ruse’s articles and understand that he’s talking about people who accept the Church’s teachings and are celibate; it is your apparent automatic assumption that any time the word homosexual is mentioned, we’re talking homosexual activity; it’s your prejudice that caused you to apparently misunderstand what you read, or, if you did understand it, to go off topic.

  • poetcomic1

    Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (Book VII: 5) speaks of ‘morbid states’ [νοσηματώδεις],
    such as “the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even eating coals or earth, and in addition to these, sex with males [τῶν ἀφροδισίων τοῖς ἄρρεσιν]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” …anything that inflates such an unnatural and certainly pitiable APPETITE into something ‘glorious’ is bound to be ridiculous. An appetite, a hunger is at the very root of SSM.

  • Stars Dancing

    Sigh. They’re beginning to sound like that whiny, bratty girl who posted an online essay pouting about the fact “the media” ignored her lesbian sexuality when they reported on (ridiculed) her previous online essay about how unfaiiirr, wahwahwah, it was that people expected her to downplay her “wealthy” status (I think she’s just another middle class slacker boomerang brat, but everything’s relative, I guess).

    I’m so sick of these precious, special darlings who think everything is all about themselves 24/7/365.

    I don’t care what anyone does or doesn’t do with their privates until they insist on making it my business. Now that the “gay community” has managed to insinuate themselves into every waking minute of my life to the point where Church is no longer a refuge from their incessant, whiny, foot-stamping demands for attention, they’ve got what they wanted: my attention. And ya know what? The upshot of my attention is that I am beginning to loathe gay people.

    Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

    For the record, I always thought gay guys were singularly nasty people who have a mean streak a mile wide. I used to think that was me and my problem to deal with. Now I realize it was them all along.

    • slainte

      You write “…The upshot of my attention is that I am beginning to loathe gay people….”

      Loathing your neighbor is contrary to the will of God and His commandments. Please recall Matthew 22:36-40…..

      36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
      37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
      38 This is the first and great commandment.
      39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
      40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

      Catholics should rightly hate the sin, but love the sinner as Our Lord has commanded us to do..

      • Stars Dancing

        Yeah, well that’s what happens when people insist that others treat them as if they’re something more than everyone else.

        • slainte

          The Divine Law is clear in its condemnation of that sexual sin. We must be careful as Catholics, however, not to conflate the sin with the sinner as a condemnation of the person is reserved to God alone.
          Pray for all sinners and smite the enemy who feeds upon dividing God’s people from each other and from Our Lord.

          • Stars Dancing

            I’m not “condemning” anyone. Couldn’t even if I wanted to. I’ve just learned to be wary of people who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy insisting that I bow and scrape before their “specialness”.

            You know who I think are the unsung heroes of the Church? The regular joes who get up, go to work, take care of their families and don’t expect ( much less demand) trophies for not behaving like jerks.

            Frankly, just being a decent, regular person these days is the REAL exception.

            Meh, just sick of self-aggrandizing attention-seekers.

            • slainte

              You write, “….You know who I think are the unsung heroes of the Church? The regular joes who get up, go to work, take care of their families and don’t expect ( much less demand) trophies for not behaving like jerks….”
              Couldn’t agree more. : )

          • TheodoreSeeber

            The sexual sin hardly matters. The pride is unbearable.

            • slainte

              The sin of Pride always seems to be present when we insist on superimposing our own will in place of God’s.
              We know that Pride divided and separated Adam and Eve from God through their Original Sin; yet we refuse to embrace the virtue of Humility.
              It is indeed ironic how we humans keep making the same old mistakes over and over again.

    • fredx2

      In the end, I tnink the whole gay marriage thing is going to come back and bite gay people. The activists made a tactical decision to start calling everyone who disagreed with gay marriage a “bigot”. They have shouted it from the rooftops, in the hope that they can scare people away and get what they want. But decent people, people who often supported gays, do not like being called a bigot.
      Furthermore, acceptance of gay marriage of necessity implies acceptance of some very prevalent gay sexual practices – like extra-marital sex as an accepted norm. The Atlantic magazine has already published an article telling us that we must learn from gay couples and no longer have monogamous marriages – because it will improve the quality of our marriages!

      • John200

        The Atlantic is to be pitied for its astonishing decline over the past few years.

        Homo”sex”uals are similarly to be pitied for their steep decline over the next few years.

  • Steve Frank

    I’d be interested to hear what some of these homophiles would say about other more repulsive sexual disorders like pedophelia and necrophelia. Are they also “gifts” from God that should frame a person’s identity? If not, they need to explain what the criteria is that makes one sexual disorder a “gift” and another not.

    • Stars Dancing

      All this “gift” BS is just that — a pile of manure. It all smacks of the Chris Rock riff on people who brag about and expect to be rewarded for things they’re supposed to be doing anyway, like not being in jail or actually sticking around to be a parent.

      • Steve Frank

        I also think it’s rooted in the cult of self esteem that unfortunately much of contemporary Christianity has bought into. When “feeling good about oneself” is treated as the highest good, what you get is this “everyone gets a trophy” mentality where even disorders have to be reclassified as positives lest anyone be made to feel bad about themselves.

        If we are Christians, our identity is in Christ, not in our impulses and desires.

        • MarcAlcan

          Amen!

    • Guest

      Well that is the point. This “gift” and “exceptionalism” is more ideology. Of course, a cross can allow one to grow in virtue and holiness but that is different than viewing the disorder as good in and of itself. The attraction to the same sex is disordered. It is not as God ordained.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

      It seems impossible to discuss anything related to the LGBT community without injecting pedophilia into the discussion. The two things are unrelated. They have nothing in common. Mr. Frank is indulging in an argument from ignorance.

      • Time

        They are related in that both a serious disorders.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          Come on. Employ some critical thinking. Which is between consenting adults? Of all the things in this world to be upset about – starvation, income inequality, disease, homelessness, violent crime (I happen to be a victim of gun violence), illiteracy – two men or two women loving each other should be WAY down on the list of societal concerns.

          • Adam__Baum

            People who employ critical thinking form better sentences than “Come on”.

          • MarcAlcan

            And since when has consent been the determiner of right and wrong?

      • Steve Frank

        Of course they have something in common. They are both disordered sexual orientations. That doesn’t mean they are both equally disordered. But they are both disordered, regardless of what the post 1973 APA says. Remember, that’s the same organization that published findings in 1998 that said the “negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences”. Any organization that would even hint at the idea of pedophelia being normal inhabits a different moral universe as far as I’m concerned. Sorry, but psychology is not a hard science. It’s theory, and those theories constantly change.

        The only reason our culture can afford to pretend homosexuality is healthy and normal is because so few people are afflicted by it. If the majority of humans ever became exclusively homosexual, that would be the end of the human race. If that’s not a disorder, then the word “disorder” has no meaning anymore.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          That is just ignorance. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. You can twist and turn all you like but the AMA, the APA and American Psychiatric Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of School Counselors, the American Sociological Association and others have all concluded that homosexuality is
          Natural;
          Organic and;
          Immutable.

          The Bible says many things that are simply not scientifically correct. We all know that. It’s a matter of applied critical thinking.

          • Steve Frank

            Pedophelia is not an orientation? Explain to us exactly what group of people pedophiles are sexually oriented towards if it’s not children?

            The fact is the APA did classify pedophelia as a “sexual orientation” last May in the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). After a public outcry, they immediately backtracked and removed the term “sexual orientation” from the manual. The very fact that they would adjust their manual based on public backlash (similar to what happened in 1998), proves these organizations are not driven by science but by politics.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              There wasn’t a public outcry except from Christian conservatives (the usual suspect) jumping up and down – “see we told you all along.” I believe that it was a typo in a footnote or cite and it was corrected.

              Sexual orientation continues to be UNIFORMLY defined as the attraction to men, women, both or non.

              • Steve Frank

                A typo? You have to be kidding me. A typo is a misspelling. This was a diagnostic manual which clearly must have been proofread and peer reviewed before it was published.

                I just looked up the definition of “orientation” in the English dictionary. One of them is “basic beliefs or preferences”. If you add the word sexual, that means a sexual orientation has to do with a “sexual preference”. Since pedophiles have a preference for sex with children, that makes pedophelia a sexual orientation. The “expert” who made the “typo” certainly understood that, as does anyone else who still believe English words mean what they say in a dictionary. The problem is that lots of people want to redefine words to fit their political agenda, Christian conservatives included. Christians objected to the term sexual orientation when it comes to pedophelia not because they think the term is inaccurate from the standpoint of the English language, but because they fear it’s the first step toward normalizing pedophelia. You have an opposite agenda. You don’t like the term sexual orientation used for pedophelia because you don’t want anyone draw any equivalencies between pedophelia and homosexuality. So just like the conservatives you decry, you are defining terms based on your political agenda. It’s just like the ridiculous term “homophobia” that has now been redefined for political purposes. It’s supposed to mean “fear” of homosexuals. But now it’s used for any moral disapproval of homosexuality regardless of what the motivation is. The English language is being bastardized by lots of people with political agendas.

                We can argue about terms all day long. The bottom line is that we are talking about sexual attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender. Pedophiles are attracted children. The only difference between the two is the group of people who are the object of attraction. From the standpoint of biology and Scripture, neither is they way God meant sexuality to be. He meant it to be between 2 adults of opposite genders. It’s Anatomy 101. Do you honestly believe that God created the anus to be a receptacle for a man’s reproductive organ?

          • slainte

            DavidHart, upon what empirical data do the aforementioned groups rely to prove and conclude, to a scientific certainty, that homosexuality is (i) a sexual orientation, (ii) natural, (iii) organic, and/or (iv) immutable?
            Produce the evidence.
            If the empirical evidence does not exist, you are in effect demanding that we acquiesce, in Faith, to mere conjecture.
            The Truth contained in the Bible and Science is the same,
            Truth does not alter when it alteration finds, or bend with the remover to remove. (Shakespeare Sonnet 116)

            • slainte

              Please strike reference to Shakespeare.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              There is a veritable mountain of peer reviewed research published in respected mainline scientific journals. The abstracts are readily available at scholar.google.com.

              • slainte

                When asked to produce empirical data substantiating your “science based” conclusions regarding the root cause of homosexual behavior, you aver to a long list of medical groups or a non-specific stack of “respected mainline scientific journals”; but you do not and will not enunciate what specific empirical evidence has come to light which causes the medical and scientific community to conclude that homosexuality is an immutable sexual orientation and why the medical and scientific community has reversed its previous conclusions about the homosexual condition.
                This is not difficult. If a specific gene exists, or a particular medical or psychological condition has been identified by the scientific and/or the medical communities, please direct us to this new information or the person or group who discovered the data….when was the gene discovered? where is it located within the human DNA? what is the condition?
                If the root cause is a psychiatric or psychological condition, how was it determined to exist? Is the condition capable of repeating itself through familial heredity?

                You affirmatively made a claim of scientific probity supporting the causes of homosexuality. We simply request that you produce that evidence.
                If the empirical evidence does not exist, please acknowledge that you have erred. We all make mistakes.

                • Hypatia

                  You can check out what data we have in the book “Gay, Straight,and the Reason Why” by Stanford neuroscientist Simon LeVay. For those interested in genetic, epigenetic, intrauterine, hormonal, and environmental influences, it is the best review I know and published by Oxford Univ Press in 2010

                  • Art Deco

                    LeVay is best known to a wider public as an explicit homosexual and promoter of biological notions of the origins of homosexual conduct in the popular press (some of which were taken apart in short order when he began flogging them in 1991).

                    • Hypatia

                      You put forth an ad hominum argument. The book contains summaries of, and references to, numerous biological-psychological studies on peer reviewed journals. If you think LeVay distorts the findings, look up the studies and refute specifically his interpretation. He makes no bones about being gay. He is one of six brothers–three of whom are gay and three straight. Both straight and gay people can be biased, though gays tend to be better informed about homosexuality than straights.) That is why we have to look at data; the hope is we can find some areas of agreement–I think the term is consensual validation.

          • redfish

            The current line of thinking in academic circles is that sexuality is fluid. This is argued by a lot of pro-LGBT authors, such as Judith Butler, and is hardly a conservative-only opinion. Many of the same pro-LGBT authors argue gender is fluid too, which is a different issue, entirely. Now, whether sexual orientation can change organically through a person’s life, and whether it can be changed through directed therapy are two entirely different issues; you can believe in one and not the other. . Going back 100+ years, Sigmund Freud was of the view that it could change, but it was useless to try to change it through therapy — and wrong for parents to push their children into therapy for that reason. A lot of people in the field have the same exact view today.

            Sexual orientation is just a political term. From what I’ve read about the DM-5, there’s a lot of misunderstanding all around. They didn’t intend to put it into the category of “sexual orientation”, but they did want to distinguish pedophilia from “pedophilic disorder,” and in so doing intended to establish that pedophilic desires are just the same as fetishes and kinks, and don’t constitute a psychological problem in and of themselves. A lot of psychologists have expressed doubts as to whether people with any paraphilia can have their desires removed through therapy, and this was one of the purposes of the change. If desires can’t be fully removed, the goal of therapy, then, becomes a way for the patient to not have his desires, whatever they may be, turn into an emotional disorder, where no no longer feels he can control them and can’t help himself from acting out a behavior.

            The reason they don’t classify paraphilias as sexual orientations is that people with them typically also have regular sexual desires and can have normal sexual relations. That’s why they’re “para-”, which means belongside, or aside. The distinguishing feature isn’t that they’re mutable and sexual orientation isn’t.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              Simply put. There are people whose sexual orientation changes. It is rare but it does happen.That does not mean that sexual orientation is mutable.

              It is easier to understand if you consider sexual orientation as a continuum with gay and straight at extreme ends. As individuals we might experience that the needle has moved but it is not something that we can consciously do.

              • redfish

                Depends entirely on what you mean by the terms you’re using. Its the same thing as changing your political beliefs or your taste in art. If in your heart, you like classical music and dislike rock music, you can’t force yourself to like rock and dislike classical through directed therapy. But if you do change your view, its hardly something that’s purely uncontrolled, unconscious, and spontaneous. Your unconscious doesn’t change your tastes, you do.. and generally after your way of thinking changes. And you change your way of thinking, not your unconscious.

                People talk around this, but there’s really no reason to think sexuality is really different from any other aspect of personality.

              • Adrian Croft

                “Not something that we can conscious do.”
                Well, at least I’m glad you don’t claim to be Christian, but I have heard “Christians” make that claim. if we cannot consciously do something, then we are animals. An atheist like you can make a claim like that, but no Christian can agree with it. If we have no free will, then we are not human beings. People CAN change.

                • writerJerome

                  Can you change your eye color? No? Then, you sir are no Christian according to your own logic. Every medical association and every major ex-gay ministry with decades of experience has explained sexual orientation is a trait, not a choice. God so loves homosexuality that God put it into every species studied.

          • Michele

            David, In May, the APA released
            the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
            Disorders (DSM-5). In this document, the first new edition in 10 years,
            the APA described pedophilia as a sexual “orientation. After some backlash they “changed” it to “sexual interest”. But trust me…it will be deemed, once again. a sexual orientation.

          • GB

            Well I guess if left wing political groups with a patina of science say so then it must be true.

        • Hypatia

          I am a psychiatrist. Neither the research study you mention nor the APA “hinted that
          pedophilia was normal”. It is one outcome study. It is a tenet of science that studies need to be replicated to see if the findings of the first hold up. The misstatements and resulting hysteria vis a vis the first study will make it harder for us to learn more about this topic. (One thing I would have liked to see followed up was how to predict which young persons were hurt–and which not–I order to best allocate our (always limited) treatment resources.). BTW sex between a minor and an adult is not always pedophilia. Pedophilia refers to attraction to prepubertal children. So sex with a 7 year old is pedophilic; sex with a 17 year old is not. The latter may, however, be a crime–depending on the age of consent in the state. A crime is not the same thing as a psychiatric diagnosis. BTW I have seen enough suffering from childhood trauma to last a lifetime. If a study shows that some persons escaped that suffering, I, for one, think that is something to be happy about.

          • Hypatia

            This is a reply to mr. Frank’s entry two or three above this one. It references the study about longer term outcomes of adult minor sex.

          • Steve Frank

            “It is a tenet of science that studies need to be replicated to see if the findings of the first hold up.”

            The problem here is that pronouncements by psychiatrists declaring that this or that sexual orientation is “normal” or “abnormal” are NOT scientific statements. They are opinions. You can call them educated opinions if you wish, but they are nevertheless opinions. The statement “homosexuality is normal” is not a scientific fact like “E=mc2″ is. Opinions about whether certain sexual orientations are “normal” are subjective. The “experts” who hold them can be just as influenced by groupthink, peer pressure, and political biases as anyone else. Science can not tell us whether homosexuality or pedophelia are “normal”. All it can attempt to do is tell us why and how these inclinations have come to be in some humans. Determining whether they are good or normal are outside the realm of true “science”.

            If “expert” opinion on sexual orientation is genuine “science”, please point to all the rigorous and “replicated” studies and experiments that took place in 1973 that caused the APA to change it’s longstanding position that homosexuality was a disorder. What scientific discovery took place? What gene was discovered? The answer of course is there were no scientific findings. Do you really consider it mere coincidence that the APA removed homosexuality from it’s manual of disorders in 1973, a mere four years after the birth of gay rights as a political movement (which is generally traced back to the Stonewall riots of 1969)?

            • writerJerome

              It was also four years after the moon landing, so stick it in Uranus. It’s not just every medical association in the free world that explains sexual orientation is not a choice. It’s the evangelical ex-gay movement itself. The ex-gay ministries with decades of experience are all history now, shut down after not being able to find leaders who had changed from homosexual to heterosexual.

            • Hypatia

              Dr Evelyn Hooker beginning in the 1950′s published studies on homosexuals that were not psychiatric patients. When their psychological test protocols were compared blindly with heterosexual men who were also not psychiatrically ill no differences could be found. (Previously theorizing was often done about patients in
              psychoanalysis–interesting but unsystematic and a biased sample. These studies were important in realizing homosexuality, in and of itself does not correlate with psychopathology. Psychiatrists tend to define illness by impairment of the ability to function. Broadly speaking we look at the ability to love and to work; there is no evidence homosexuals differ from their heterosexual counterparts in this. That is what was substantive behind the 1973 change. Was there politics? Of course. There always is when groups of people with differing opinions are trying to hammer out a law/ statement.

              • Steve Frank

                “Psychiatrists tend to define illness by impairment of the ability to function.”

                Ok, using that definition we would have to define pedophelia as normal since it involves no functional impairment, and pedophiles are able to “love and work” just like everyone else. Maybe that explains why the APA published a study in 1998 that claimed the negative affects of adult/child sex were “overstated”. The APA backpedaled after a loud public outcry that included a rebuke from Congress. But at least the 1998 APA was being intellectually consistent. Now they are engaged in pure double speak. Can they give us one consistent statement about what defines “normal” sexual behavior? Is the ability to “love and work” really where they want to draw the line?

              • Steve Frank

                “Psychiatrists tend to define illness by impairment of the ability to function”

                Ok, using that definition we would have to define pedophelia as normal since it involves no functional impairment, and pedophiles are able to “love and work” just like everyone else. Maybe that explains why the APA published a study in 1998 that claimed the negative affects of adult/child sex were “overstated”. The APA backpedaled after a loud public outcry that included a rebuke from Congress. But at least the 1998 APA was being intellectually consistent. Now they are engaged in pure double speak. Can they give us one consistent statement about what defines “normal” sexual behavior? Is the ability to “love and work” really where they want to draw the line?

      • Adrian Croft

        “The two things are unrelated.”
        Oh, no, they are joined at the hip. The gay activists want very much for the public to think they are “unrelated.” Deny it all you want to.

        • writerJerome

          Adrian Croft, the only topic you ever write about is homosexuality. Studies show the loudest homophobes are usually fighting their own same-sex attractions. Methinks she doth protest too much.

          • calduncan

            Jeroma is a cheap, vulgar, hideous old t_rd with a tiny weewee.

            • writerJerome

              said the troll (who can’t stop thinking about male sex organs

    • Hypatia

      The difference is that homosexual acts–and certainly their marriages involve consenting adults. There is no direct or obvious harm to anyone outside the couple.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Once more we are caught in people wanting acceptance for how they feel or what they desire and identifying themselves as these desires. God is very clear we are made in His image and likeness, male and female he made us. No one is gay, homosexual or heterosexual. We are not these desires or behaviours. Clearly, Scripture says in both testaments that it is a sin. Roman’s says it best when it identifies these desires as a result of sin. Whose sin we might ask next? Well, anyone who has same sex attraction in their family may want to take a deep look at the conduct of their ancestors. God would not want us to hold as an aspect of our being something He deems as an abomination. Prayer for deliverance, misidentifying oneself from this false apostasy that people are their sexual desires therefore God made them “Gay”, so let’s celebrate it. No! God does not want us to celebrate our crosses, or become them. He calls us to carry our cross and follow Him. My favourite question is: What would Jesus say or do in this circumstance? What did he say to the woman caught in adultery? Go and sin no more. Mary Magdalene became a follower of Christ. She became a child of God, a Christian woman. We are children of God, followers of Christ. Thomas Aquinas talked about repeated behaviour or affirmation of a thought or deed leads to habit. St. Thomas how do we move away from a habit not acceptable to God? “Do not entertain thoughts or actions that lead us into temptation. Hence, I encourage you to stop identifying yourselves as being your desires. We have evolved to a time where sexuality has become a state of being, instead of a Grace God instituted for man and woman to join in marriage and become one flesh; leading to the blessing of offspring. Please God intercede and guide those with these desires to the Truth.

    • Lee Anne Bruce

      Amen! It isn’t the inappropriate yearnings, sexual or otherwise, that are the problem. I look on them as crosses to bear. The important thing is how we manage those yearnings. And celebrating them is not the answer. Prayer is, Mass is, confession is, Mary is and most importantly Christ is.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        I guess I can repeat myself ad nauseum. Those “yearnings” are sexual orientation which is at the core of their very being. Sexual orientation cannot be “managed.” It doesn’t matter a whit what anyone does. Sexual orientation is what it is and there is nothing you can do to either prevent or change it.

        By your logic, parents of gay children screwed up somewhere along the line. So now we add parental guilt to the familial dysfunction. The overwhelming majority of gay people, if forced to choose between a partner and a parent or a partner and their religion will always choose their life partner.

        • Adam__Baum

          I guess I can repeat myself ad nauseum.

          You already have. Apparently, you need to convince yourself a little more there.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

      I am a retired CEO living on/in South Beach. I don’t give a hoot about your acceptance of anything. I had a great career and a partner of over 30 years. Moreover, we neither seek nor require your approval.

      I have two concerns:

      1. I have absolutely no issue with Church teachings. They are what they are. However, the Church (using National Organization for Marriage as a proxy) is trying to impose those teachings on everyone else, by force of law, including Jews and liturgical Protestants who generally accept marriage equality. Cardinal Ratzinger (as Prefect of CDF) had the arrogance to suggest that Catholic politicians should be guided by the Church in their legislative votes. Fortunately most Catholic legislators have demonstrated the independence that they owe their constituents. In my opinion, the Church has no place in politics. Otherwise, ti should reincorporate as a 501C)4.

      2. Most importantly, conservative Catholics and the Church need to find a way to stop traumatizing gay children. Nothing is going to make them straight. To suggest (as NOM does through Frank Schubert) that they are a future threat to children is just shameful. Every time one of these kids takes their own life I cry – and I am no “softy.” Then I get angry – volcanic angry. Some conservatives will then suggest that the kid killed him/herself because he or she chose to be homosexual.

      In other words, it would be nice if we could tone down the rhetoric and turn off some of the mythology.

      • Adam__Baum

        I am a retired CEO living on/in South Beach. I don’t give a hoot about
        your acceptance of anything. I had a great career and a partner of over
        30 years.

        Don’t care.

      • Austin Ruse

        Actually, David, it is you and yours trying to impose your view on the rest of society. You are the aggressors in the culture wars. Not us. Not the church. It is you who want to redefine marriage not us. It is you who wants to force the adoption of children by gay couples. It is you who wants to force the text of us to celebrate your sexual proclivities and if we demure it is you seeking to run people out of business, get them fired, or prosecuted by the state You, David. Not us.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          “Redefining marriage” is NOMspeak for banning gay marriage. Personally, I am done but we very much want the right to marry and I am not going to apologize for it. At the core of Judge Shelby’s ruling in Utah (http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2013/12/is-there-much-of-future-for-marriage.html) is the fact that the state failed to prove that same-sex marriage has any affect on opposite-sex marriage. That has been the case since Prop 8. The Church disapproves. People have attempted to advance a multitude of secular arguments (required by law) that are theoretical abstractions. There is no coherent argument that marriage equality affects anyone other than those thus wed.

          Gay couples have been permitted to adopt for decades. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that we do violence to those children. Nonsense. He was wrong. Every study has confirmed that children raised by gay couples are perfectly normal and, btw, straight. And before you go there, Regnerus did not study children raised by gay couples. In an interview he told Bill Keller at the Times that he compared apples to oranges because he could not find enough apples.

          We should ALL expect businesses to obey local ordinances. Justice Scalia has said, quite conclusively in Employment Division v Smith that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. That would include state and local non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Don’t like them? Elect different legislators. If a business is owned by a member of the Christian Identity Church he is still expected to serve Blacks and Jews. As a matter of public policy we have a clear understanding of what constitutes a public accommodation. And, by the way, since when is smearing butter cream on sponge cake doing God’s work?

          We neither seek nor require your approval. We don’t care. We simply want equal protection under law. Nothing more and nothing less. We live in a secular country with laws that are supposed to require a secular purpose. The teachings of the Catholic Church are not supposed to influence laws in any way whatsoever. It is the Establishment Clause that really protects religious freedom when you think it through.

          On the whole, Catholics are more gay friendly than the general public and they support marriage equality more than the general public. Catholics do not believe that gay people are disordered because we are not.

          The bishops keep picking the wrong fights. Our tax code is actually creating poverty. We have under-performing schools across the country. Children cannot read. Children are underfed, under-educated and functionally illiterate. People are homeless while some bishop in NJ just bought an 8-bedroom mansion with an in-ground pool. He said it would allow him to do more entertaining. Meanwhile the bishops are obsessed with boys kissing boys – including boys who aren’t even Catholic. They aren’t even embarrassed by their own extravagances.

          • Austin Ruse

            1. You are redefining marriage and separating it from procreation. Fact.
            2. There are no scientifically rigorous studies that show anything other than the fact that children are better off when raised by a mother and father. None.
            3. The regnerus study was only able to fine 3 lesbian couples who were together long enough to qualify for the survey. No gay couples.
            4. The law is now forcing gay adoption. In fact, catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close.

            You are the aggressor. Not us. Not the church. Fact.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              OK Austin. Let’s both try to be less strident. Moreover, we should both get past the semantics of “redefining marriage” and “marriage equality.” It is “same-sex marriage” that is at issue. The gay community and and increasing number of courts, including the Supreme Court, see this as an issue of equal protection and due process. Nobody has offered a coherent argument in opposition. Marriage is often separated from procreation by straight couples so that doesn’t fly. It’s an argument without a compelling constituency. Nobody has been able to say “this is what has happened to marriage in Massachusetts as a result of same-sex marriage that should prohibit gays from marrying.” Mass still has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country as well as the best test scores in science, math and English in the country. Iowa still grows corn. The citizenry couldn’t care less.

              As Ted Olson said, opponents keep threatening a list of “horribles” that never seem to materialize.

              Just over the summer the University of Melbourne published results from the Child Health in Same-Sex Families study. Children raised by gay couples were equal in all respects except that in terms of family cohesion and general health, children of same-sex parents scored significantly higher. In this country, gays have been adopting older and mixed race children who have been harder to place. To be fair, 80% of the participants in the Melbourne study were women which is understandable but could sway the results.

              I am sorry that I even mentioned Regnerus. Suffice it to say, his study of thousands of children did not include anything close to a representative sample of kids raised by gay couples.

              I looked into the Catholic Charities issue in Massachusetts. My understanding is that they had been quietly placing kids with gay couples for years (adoption predated marriage). When same-sex marriage became law the bishops meddled. They took a stand against same-sex marriage by sacrificing Catholic Charities. CC chose to close rather than to continue to place kids with gays. This accomplished nothing other than to reconstitute adoption without CC. Well, it allows people to claim that CC is a “victim” of gay marriage. Cardinal O’Connor did my late partner a great service (long story) when we were living in Manhattan. I will always be appreciative. However, the bishops do not always make the best political decisions.

              Just because people cannot discriminate against gays as they would like to doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage should be illegal. Just because people try to discriminate and then suffer the consequences doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage is bad. If you don’t like it you can try to change the anti-discrimination ordinance through the legislature or the electorate. But right now, there are no religious exemptions to any of them and THAT has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

              I am done – at least for the day. If you respond I will read it but I will not reply.

              • Austin Ruse

                No one has offered a coherent argument? No one? Please. You’re not even trying. . Start with Man Woman Marriage: a defense by Robbie George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Gergis.

                Actually no one has made a coherent argument in favor of nan man marriage. Upon what principle, for instance, do you limit marriage to two?

                • Asemodeous

                  “Actually no one has made a coherent argument in favor of nan man marriage.”

                  14th Amendment protections of equal treatment under the law, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

                  “Man Woman Marriage: a defense by Robbie George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Gergis.”

                  Here is the refutation:

                  http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blog/philosophy/arguing-against-gay-marriage-what-is-marriage-man-woman-defense-review/

                  Basically Robbie and Ryan and Sherif invoke the Appeal to Nature Fallacy. That what is natural is what is moral, which brings up a long list of nonsense that cannot be taken seriously.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Uh. Right.

                    • Asemodeous

                      Appeals to nature are fallacious since we don’t base our morality on nature. There isn’t anything in nature that espouses the concept of elections, equal rights, or even something as basic as traffic laws. Just because something happens in nature doesn’t intrinsically make it good or bad, it just makes it happen.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Read the book moron. Of course you won’t. Because you don’t believe in engaging arguments only flaming others.

                    • Asemodeous

                      Why bother when I have a perfectly good refutation here. The authors make the critical mistake of assuming that a man made invention, marriage, has a intrinsic natural property to it. That’s fallacious as I’ve described.

                      You could addressing my argument instead of flailing about like a idiot. Or not. Either way it is funny to watch.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You don’t even know the arguments let alone refute them.

                    • Asemodeous

                      Still no substance here. Are you going to try at least once?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      So, you would say that nothing in our laws is based in nature. Why do I have human rights?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The Washington DC authorities have determined there are too many deer in Rock Creek Park and they have sent in the sharpshooters. If they determine there are too many joggers, may they begin shooting joggers. If not, why not? Is there there something that makes deer different than joggers. What is it?

                    • Adam__Baum

                      It’s not perfect, and it’s not good.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    14th Amendment protections of equal treatment under the law, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

                    Geez and here I thought it was in the “unenumerated penumbrae”.

                  • fredx2

                    Point me to the case where the supreme court said the fourteenth amendment requires gay marriage. Gee, if the constituion said that don’t you think someone would have noticed before now?

                    • Paul Boillot

                      “Point me to…where the…fourteenth amendment requires [blacks be able to vote]. Gee, if the constitution said that don’t you think someone would have noticed before now?”

                      -Said every *racist before 1954.

                      Come to think of it, Fred, when were you born?

                      *Edit for clarity*

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Point me to the case where the supreme court said the fourteenth amendment requires gay marriage.”

                      Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is a civil right under the 14th amendment, and since gay marriage is legal in 17 states it makes gay marriage a civil right under this precedent.

                      Care to try again?

                • Paul Boillot

                  “nan man marriage”

                  Is there a clever acronym I’m missing, or is this just a typo?

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Man man.

              • fredx2

                “The gay community and and increasing number of courts, including the Supreme Court, see this as an issue of equal protection and due process”
                No they don’t. The only thing the court said in Windsor was that “We don’t have the power, under the constitution, to even hear this case”

                • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                  Nonsense. The Prop 8 case was dismissed for lack of standing. In Windsor, the court held that Section 3 of DOMA violated due process and, thus, equal protection. That is precisely why it went bye-bye.

            • Asemodeous

              “1. You are redefining marriage and separating it from procreation. Fact.”

              Where does it state in the law that marriage must have procreation within it? If anyone is doing the redefining, it is you.

              “2. There are no scientifically rigorous studies that show anything other
              than the fact that children are better off when raised by a mother and
              father. None.”

              Which isn’t an argument against gay marriage, just gay parents. And considering the millions of children already being raised by gays and all of them are not traumatized, your claim is rather dubious. Especially so since straight parents are perfectly allowed to have highly dysfunctional relationships with children present.

              “3. The regnerus study was only able to fine 3 lesbian couples who were
              together long enough to qualify for the survey. No gay couples.”

              Which makes regnerus a fraud.

              “4. The law is now forcing gay adoption. In fact, catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close.”

              Another popular lie. Charities like adoption centers must comply with all secular laws or lose their funding, otherwise the government is endorsing a religion, which is a direct violation of the first amendment. Catholic adoption centers can get money from the state, but they must comply with the law like everyone else. They are perfectly free to give up that money in order to discriminate against gays, but if they do they become financially un-viable (Welfare anyone?). So they close down their doors and scream persecution over something that they were never entitled to in the first place.

              • Austin Ruse

                1. Marriage is primarily about providing the best environment for children. The state could care less about your relationship with your boyfriend.

                2. There are not millions of children being raised that way. Simply not true. The reason Regnerus didn’t find many is because not many exist. Hardly any children have been raised their whole lives by lesbians and certainly not by gays.

                3. What Regnerus found is that the gold standard for raiding children is man woman marriage for life, something that gays cannot provide. Anything less puts the child in harm.

                4. Yes, Catholic charities are being forced to close because of their religious beliefs. Exactly.

                • Asemodeous

                  “1. Marriage is primarily about providing the best environment for children.”

                  Where in the marriage laws does it say that you must have children? Come on now, speak up. You should have this information at the ready.

                  “2. There are not millions of children being raised that way.”

                  http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf

                  Reality is more complex than your narrow bigotries can handle.

                  “The reason Regnerus didn’t find many is because not many exist.”

                  The reason Regnerus didn’t find any was that he is a hack and had better things to do.

                  “Hardly any children have been raised their whole lives by lesbians and certainly not by gays.”

                  We would be seeing problems right now if gays were incapable of raising children, so claiming that long term research is the only viable research is nonsense. Reality shows us that gays can and are raising children just fine.

                  “3. What Regnerus found is that the gold standard for raiding children is man woman marriage for life”

                  All regnerus did was make a bunch of false equivalences and used shoddy methodology. Any sociological student could tear his paper apart with how faulty it was.

                  “4. Yes, Catholic charities are being forced to close because of their religious beliefs. Exactly.”

                  There isn’t such a thing as a religious belief in free state money with no strings attached. So, unless you are advocating for anarchy, you really have no basis to complain. Those adoption centers were perfectly capable of running without government aid, but just choose not to. That isn’t being forced to do anything that they already agreed to beforehand.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    1. Course not. Children are not mandatory but they are the reason the state takes an interest in marriage. It’s not about your “love”.

                    2. The study you link to proves my point not yours.

                    3. Stupid response. Regnerus has not been refuted by anyone because of methodology.

                    4. State coercion. The new gay fascism.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “1. Course not. Children are not mandatory but they are the reason the
                      state takes an interest in marriage. It’s not about your “love”.”

                      Which is why gay marriage is a civil right and covered under the 14th amendment. Come on now, you are almost there…

                      “2. The study you link to proves my point not yours.”

                      It proves that gays are raising children. Can you even read?

                      “3. Stupid response. Regnerus has not been refuted by anyone because of methodology.”

                      http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201206220001

                      Come on now, you are not even trying.

                      “4. State coercion. The new gay fascism.”

                      You cannot force a adoption center to take state money. You are aware that if you take state money you must also follow state laws. That’s basic civics.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      1. False.

                      2. You said millions idiot. The study you link to says there’s only 650,000 cohabiting samesex couples. Hardly any are raising children. Next to none for very long. And basically nil for remarkably unstable gay men.

                      3. By no one with credentials. Advocates sure. But not scientists.

                      4. States coerce. Gay fascism.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “1. False.”

                      Several federal and appeal court judges would disagree.

                      “2. You said millions idiot. The study you link to says there’s only 650,000 cohabiting samesex couples.”

                      And 6 million have a LBGT parent. I said gays could raise children, which encompasses single and married couples. Which is, oddly enough, exactly how straight parents do it as well. Strange, isn’t it?

                      “3. By no one with credentials. Advocates sure. But not scientists.”

                      Sigh. Nathaniel Frank has the credentials, as does the APA. You are not even trying.

                      “4. States coerce. Gay fascism.”

                      How do you force people to take money? I’m starting to question your literacy rate.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      2. That they’re not living with. Get it? So they cannot be studied for the success or failure of gay parenting.

                      3. Oh brother. The APA cites studies that are neither longitudinal or random selected. There is not a single methodologically sound study showing gay parenting is successfull.

                      4. The state orders them to send children to gays. They can’t. They have to close. It’s about licensing. Fascism. Even though dozens of other agencies would comply, even one isot allowed to object. Fascism.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “2. That they’re not living with. Get it? So they cannot be studied for the success or failure of gay parenting.”

                      The study doesn’t claim that every gay parent isn’t raising that child. Also this:

                      http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

                      That number in that article is going to be low since there is still a large percent of gay parents that keep their identities a secret from the public for obvious you related reasons.

                      “3. Oh brother. The APA cites studies that are neither longitudinal or random selected.”

                      Already refuted. Try to pay attention.

                      “There is not a single methodologically sound study showing gay parenting is successfull.”

                      Ignoring the current reality of that happening in America right now.

                      “4. The state orders them to send children to gays. They can’t.”

                      They can if the adoption center takes in government money. Which it was. So they had a choice between the money or following the law, and they choose to do neither. Which was their right, just as it is the states right to enforce it laws on organizations that willfully take its money.

                      To you, the states interest in enforcing secular laws is tyranny. That’s basically the definition of anarchy.

                      “Fascism.”

                      How is allowing organizations to take state sponsored money, willfully, fascism? You are really confused as to civics.

                      Another example was the gazebo nonsense. The church owned the park with the gazebo, but had to pay property taxes on like just like everyone else. They decided, on their own, to agree with the state to claim the park as public domain so they wouldn’t have to pay those property taxes.

                      When something is public domain that means public access for everyone, which includes gays. That church willfully put itself in a position where the gazebo could be used by anyone, and then protested when it was being used by anyone.

                      Nope, you cannot have it both ways.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Judges: They’re always right, you know like in Dredd Scott, Buck V. Bell, Korematsu,Kelo..

                      Black robes and pompous rituals might impress you, but not me.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Judges: They’re always right, you know like in Dredd Scott, Buck V. Bell, Korematsu,Kelo..”

                      This isn’t an argument, just a excuse.

                      “Black robes and pompous rituals might impress you, but not me.”

                      I know its weird to look at judges for expert opinion on the law. It isn’t like they have spent their entire professional careers on it or anything.

                    • fredx2

                      point me to the clause where the 14th amendment requires gay marriage. Otherwise, you are talking about some people who have decided to use the 14th amendment to mean any thing they want it to mean.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “point me to the clause where the 14th amendment requires gay marriage.”

                      Loving v. Virginia and the 10th and 14th Amendments.

              • fredx2

                The law does not state that it must have procreation in it. However, it very definitely has said that it must have one man and one woman in it. Every single marriage statute said that up until gay marriage. They don’t say anything about a necessity of procreation because even couples that are assumed to be barren at the time of marriage often still conceived.
                The notion that you are not attempting to redefine marriage is patently ridiculous. Arguing that you are not doing so is laughable, since no one ever thought in terms of same sex marriage until recent years. No one in thousands of years thought that way.

                • Asemodeous

                  “The law does not state that it must have procreation in it.”

                  Therefore the procreation argument is bunk.

                  “However, it very definitely has said that it must have one man and one woman in it.”

                  Not in 17 states and counting, which taken as a whole make up a majority of the populace. It doesn’t really matter how many low population red states you can keep when the big blue states have marriage equality.

                  It also shifts intellectual capital away from red states and into blue. The smarter people are the more accepting they are of gays, and don’t want to live in states that discriminate. It’s a resource drain that red states will have to eventually deal with.

                  :”They don’t say anything about a necessity of procreation because even
                  couples that are assumed to be barren at the time of marriage often
                  still conceived. ”

                  That’s an argument against infertile people, not gay people. Being gay doesn’t mean you cannot procreate.

                  “The notion that you are not attempting to redefine marriage is patently ridiculous.”

                  So? We redefine marriage with Loving v. Virginia. I don’t see you complaining about that. You think semantics trumps rights, which is just hilarious.

                  “since no one ever thought in terms of same sex marriage until recent years. ”

                  Neither did they women’s suffrage until a century ago. That because a right was suppressed in the past doesn’t stop making it a right.

                  “No one in thousands of years thought that way.”

                  Argument from Tradition Fallacy. A thousand years ago nobody was thinking about a secular democracy. So we might as well abolish the Constitution under your logic.

            • Paul Boillot

              1. False. Procreation is not a necessary premise of marriage.
              2. Every study I’ve seen relates to home stability and good parental relations, and does not isolate parental gender. Pray tell, how would I supply you with studies about same-sex-marriage viability wrt child well-being before SSM was legalized?
              3. Don’t care.
              4. I don’t believe you.

              • Austin Ruse

                There is not a singly academically rigorous study that shows gay parents are as effective as straights. However, there is abundant research (large, random, longitudinal) that shoe children do best when raised by their married biological parents. Anything else exposes the child to hardship.

                • Patrick

                  Those studies are typically testing the difference between two-parent households and one-parent households, or possibly two-parent, but divorced-and-remarried households.

                  That result is obviously to be expected.

                  The problem is that a lot of the studies are presented as being about the genders of the parents, when the studies actually only were comparing whether there was one parent in the home or two.

                  It makes us look scientifically illiterate when we misapply results of a study to something other than the exact things the study was meant to test. And that harms our ability to spread our message, especially to generations that are receiving higher education in unprecedented numbers.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Patrick, the studies showing that children do best with their married mom and dad are voluminous. They have even been conducted and presented by liberal academics who support gay marriage. I am not aware of anyone of note on our side who misrepresent these studies in any way let alone the way you describe.

                    The reason Regnerus was not able to get more subjects on gay parenting is the number of children raised through most of their lives by lesbians is tiny, by gay men smaller still.

                    According to the 2010 Census there’s only 650,000 co-habitant gay couple. Of those there’s only something like 19% with children in the house.

                    It may happen that in 50 years we will know that gay parenting is no different than the gold standard. But I doubt it. Children need their biological moms and dads.

                    • Patrick

                      It’s been a while since I kept track of every new study, but at the time, most of the ones people were presenting as saying a mother and a father is best were studies that weren’t even testing for that.

                      Scientifically speaking, there is a huge difference between testing two parent households vs. single parent households and testing two-parental-gender households vs. single-parental households with the same number of parents.

                      Factors like number of incomes and man-hours available for direct parenting would not be controlled for, both of which would naturally have a dramatic effect on the results.

                      A few years ago, groups like the National Organization for Marriage were taking two-parent vs. single-parent studies that only involved heterosexual parents and presenting them as if the presence of two parental genders was the only variable in the study, even though the study did nothing to look for that specifically.

                      It was really frustrating having to deal with people just grabbing any study they thought supported the position when even the people who did the study said their methodology couldn’t have tested for the conclusion people were claiming it came to.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You simply aren’t familiar with the literature or their methodology. Go to the website of the Marriage and Religion Institute at the Family Research Institute. I know! I know! FRC! Boo! Still the man who runs it has pretty much the entire library of academic studies on this question. All show children do best with their bio moms and dads. We extrapolate from that that this will hold true for gays, too. Why? Because any deviation from the norm is shown to cause harm.
                      Sent from my iPad

                    • Patrick

                      I am familiar with the ones I was seeing a few years ago. Maybe it’s changed since then, but in the ones I’m referring to even the very people who performed the study said that the data could not be accurately used to make conclusions for same-sex two-guardian households, as they were only comparing households with two parents to households with one parent to foster parent (non-adoptive) households.

                      There were people all over the internet claiming you could just take the one-parent data and “extrapolate” that to same-sex households on the grounds that there was only one sex of parent as if that were the only variable, but it wasn’t the only variable.

                      The only thing more frustrating in a debate setting than obstinate people who disagree are people who agree but make extremely poor arguments.

                      I’m not talking about the relative quality or lack thereof of same-sex two-guardian households vs. opposite-sex two parent (especially biological parent) households.

                      I am talking about the fact that you cannot just casually take statistics and casually paste the results onto another question that isn’t the precise one that was asked in the study.

                      That’s where the cliche about “liars, damned liars, and statisticians” comes from. Data does not simply translate to related questions without losing its precision and accuracy.

                      I’m protesting here purely as someone who cares about the proper, precise use of statistics. I would (and have) taken the exact same issue with people who make the opposite claim based on the same sloppy use of statistics.

                      We can’t make persuasive arguments if we misapply data in them, it just gives people more ammo to criticize us with.

                      Note: I haven’t sufficiently researched the studies released in the last 3 years or so. Maybe there’s been some that directly address the subject in that time.

          • fredx2

            As to Employment division v Smith. Scalia did say that, and was immediately denounced by numerous legal authorities. In fact, the Employment Division v Smith decision was specifically negated by an Act of Congress that returned things back to the way it was before that decision. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed. Joe Biden was a sponsor of the bill.
            As to no good arguments against gay marriage?
            There are many. Primary among them are 1) Gay men tend to have multiple, anonymous or near anonymous sex with others outside the marriage. This has been confirmed in numerous studies. Previous studies showed this going as high as 83%, some recent studies say it might be as low as 60%. Lesbian relationships seem to be particularly unstable. They form quickly and fall apart quickly. This is the subject of jokes in the lesbian community. The gay couple in the Massachusetts supreme court case granting gay marriage were divorced inside of a year. So much for commitment.
            2) There is the total and complete impossibility of procreation.
            Once you take out procreation and monogamy, do you have anything remotely like a marriage?
            These are serious questions.
            3) All of the studies that show children of gay marriage do OK had ridicuolously low sample sizes or self selected samples. Not persuasive. There is another study (large sample size) that showed that chlidren of gay marriage (not Regnerus) did poorly in school. The point is, why endanger childrens lives before you know what is going on?

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              If you have links to the abstracts of peer reviewed studies showing gay relationship instability, let me know. Mass divorce rate (lowest or second lowest in the nation) has declined since gay marriage.

              Procreation is irrelevant. No court has bought that argument. It is an argument from religion.

              The Australian study I cited has a very large population. The study you are referring to about students doing poorly in school was published in a home economics journal. The author (Douglas Allen) is not a sociologist and he made the claims for years before he did that study AND he is on one of the advisory boards of Ruth Institute which, until very recently, was a division of NOM.

              Presumably you know that RFRA does NOT apply to the states. Scalia’s rationale applies to those nondiscrimination laws.

              Gays are going to adopt the SAME children whether they are married or not. Marriage is best for those kids. Endangered? A child molester can get a marriage license. A murderer, rapist, drug dealer, even an incarcerated criminal can get marriage licenses. Give it a rest.

        • Paul Boillot

          Ugh.

          “Culture wars” “aggressors”

          Can you hear yourself speaking? Do you have any idea how laughable it sounds when you reach for such intense descriptions?

          I promise you, Austin, you’re not as important as you think, and very few people take you seriously.

          • Patrick

            I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, but there is a good point on the word “aggressors.”

            Most of the people on the gay side of the debate are young people who weren’t even born when this subject started becoming heated and angry.

            Calling them “aggressors” will only make them think you are dishonest or clueless, because from their perspective, the fight was already there and they got hit by a wild punch and pulled into it. That’s pretty much the opposite of being an aggressor.

            And most of the people on the other side of the issue are in the exact same boat!

            The language of “aggressors” and “wars” really doesn’t do anything but to escalate hostilities on both sides. It’s been going long enough that nobody here started the fight. There are no aggressors in this battle, just lots of people on both sides who feel they have to defend themselves.

          • Austin Ruse

            Paul, I was reacting to David’s assertion that the Catholic Church picked this fight. We didn’t

            Am I important? Not on the least. I’m just a reporter.

      • Adrian Croft

        You have said on numerous Christian websites that you don’t want Christians approval. By your very presence you prove you are lying. Your insecurity means you can’t be comfortable knowing any group of people disapprove of your degenerate lifestyle. So, yeah, you DO care what Christians think or you would not be here – plus you obviously just enjoy insulting people, which proves that the liberal “tolerance” is a big lie.

  • JC

    For heterosexuals and homosexuals, sex requires, for many of us, to practice self dicipline. If we have disordered desires which, each hetero and homo sexuals have, as Catholics, we must try to lessen their influence on our relationship with God, not make a bigger, more public deal about it. Making it a wonderfull disordered desire, seems to make all temptation wonderfull. It ain’t If I’m fighting a disordered temptation with grace as my sword, I can’t imagine making a public statement celebrating my disorder. I need God’s help, not a public celebration of my weakness.
    What does help me is trying to put sex in a lesser place in my life. Its main purpose, procreation, needs to be focused on.

  • cestusdei

    I can be proud of myself, but I am not proud of my sinful predilections. I think they should do the same.

  • G

    I’m wondering if the German lens-maker might be able to consider consolation for his jealousy in this German proverb, “Die Gelehrten, Die Verkehrten,”; the learned are easily corrupted.

  • Andrew Seeley

    I don’t mean to be taking a position on your main point, but this statement about language, which I have heard others charge Damian with, can’t be right: ” It seems to me that the truth of things, including the meaning of
    words, ought to be clear, precise, even simple. Confusion is the sign of
    something else gong on, perhaps something troubling.”

    Language, as Tolkien has said, is rich, stimulating, powerful, even magical: “But how powerful, how stimulating to the very faculty that produced it,
    was the invention of the adjective: no spell or incantation in Faerie is
    more potent. And that is not surprising: such incantations might indeed
    be said to be only another view of adjectives, a part of speech in a
    mythical grammar.”

    Simple it is not. The move to clarity and precision is a move to unveil the complexity even, rather especially, of the simplest, most common words.

    Lawyers and mathematicians rightly demand simplicity and clarity. But thinkers about human and divine realities have to turn in another direction.

    • Guest

      The fundamental issue of understanding plain terms is not complex. If it were that complex then there would be no way to communicate without each person being confused at each point.

      No sir, the problem is confusion and ambiguity.

      • Andrew Seeley

        Give me an example of a plain term that admits of a simple meaning. Does “attraction” admit of a simple meaning? Hardly. Can we achieve clarity about the term so that we can communicate? Sure. But not without a lot of work and attention to the complexities of reality.

        • GV

          Sorry, but that is nonsense. What is hard about the word attraction?

          • Andrew Seeley

            I suppose if I were a man like Chesterton, I could write many pages on your question. As it is, let me first set aside things like gravitational attraction or electro-magnetic attraction, or the “love that makes the world go round”, and point out at least that the wildly different objects of attraction give rise to different experiences and consequently different, though not unrelated, meanings of the same word. I can find women attractive, or men, or happy families, or authors, or politicians, or ideas, or systems, or stories, or ice cream, or….Do we mean the same thing by the word in all those cases? And if love is a kind of attraction, then CS Lewis’s “The Four Loves” should make us very hesitant to demand a “simple” meaning for a simple word.

            • Guest

              Yes, you could deflect and obfuscate but that just proves the point that it is not complex unless one insists on concocting things to cloud the simple facts.

              • Andrew Seeley

                I had a feeling you would say that. Would you also say that to Chesterton? Plato?

                We conservatives want everything we care about to be simple and clear so that we can defend them. But to insist they be as a war demands is kill the very thing we care about.

                • Guest

                  I am not following your point. This is not about some academic and pedantic parsing. Words should convey reality. It is a simple issue and simplicity in this topic is central. In a culture where obfuscation and vagueness are used as weapons it is important to define terms and use the words properly. Why make it something more than it really is?

                  • Jacob Torbeck

                    …Indeed, words should convey reality. Thus, the practice of Mr. Belgau and Mr. Damian, who are used to being precise in their definitions, is actually a far cry better than that of poor, confused Mr. Ruse, whose true problem is not that the “New Homophiles” have obfuscated meanings — no, they’ve been very clear on what they mean when they use these terms — but rather, that he seems to be more wedded to his preconceived notions, which lack the same precision and clarity.

                  • Andrew Seeley

                    I agree that words should convey reality. I disagree that reality, especially human reality, is simple. I agree that today obfuscation and vagueness are used as weapons. I disagree that we should use a false simplicity as a counter-weapon. Conservatives must learn to think deeply and carefully in order to model proper thought, not do our own twisting of language and reality so that we can strengthen our position.

                    • John200

                      Mr. Seeley,

                      I liked your comment, but don’t give up on simplicity too quickly. Mr. Ruse wrote about some homo”sex”uals who give us good reason for simplicity. Our interlocutors are pretend theorists, indeed atheoretical. They are not going for an intellectual triumph. They are trying to win via confusion. Parse their “system,” you’ll see. Therefore, this is a case where simplicity (of course, not a “false simplicity”) helps us to get excellent results. Remember, the boys’ primary aim is to sow confusion.

                      In the comments, the assembled homo”sex”ual trolls — loud, persistent, and wrongheaded as they are — have given a parade of good reasons for simplicity.

                      Let those who sow confusion reap thistles.

  • publiusnj

    I know that the easiest way to get beyond self-love is to sire or dam a child who is you (and your spouse) and yet not you. That is the surest way to get a concupiscent human to actually love someone other than him/herself for selfless reasons that go beyond “attraction.” And from there real love of God and other men becomes increasingly possible. Such are the magnificent and gentle ways of our Creator.

    That gradually increasing ability to love in an altruistic way through creation of new life from one’s sexual activity with one’s spouse is an impossibility in what is now called “gay marriage.” All the “koitoi” with one’s “spouse” in the world is not going to create a new life if the “spouse’ is a “same-sex spouse.” (i.e., an “arsenos” perhaps).

    That is the glorious thing about heterosexual marriage, it restricts both spouses to a single “sexual partner’ who can be trusted due to their pledged “troth” to restrict sexual activity outside the marriage. Thus, the “issue” of that sexual activity can be presumed the child of both. That encourages the growth of truly altruistic love within the marriage. Not so with “gay marriage” which NEVER ever produces fruit from the koitoi of the two supposed spouses. Even if the “partners” outsource the requisite “opposite sex genetic material” from a third party, the “fruit” of one of the spouse’s coupling or artificial insemination is a genetic stranger to the other “partner.” So much trouble (doctors, maybe lawyers + a genetic material contributor) for such a poor counterfeit.

    • Stars Dancing

      “Sire” or “dam”…? For God’s sake, we are not animals.

      Could we stop with the precious euphemisms, please? Grow up.

      • publiusnj

        What a pettifogging point. Sire and dam are very precise terms. That is why they were used. Deal with the bigger issue, which is altruistic love which can best and most easily achieved by siring or damming one’s own issue. God has enabled us to join Him in the most glorious act He does: creation.

        • Stars Dancing

          They’re precise terms if you’re a horse breeder. So sorry you’re stuck with a woman who turned into a farm animal. Save your agricultural lingo for her (it?).

          • publiusnj

            More pettifogging and now Stars is using cheap insult as well. What term would have been better? Fathering? Then, according to the discourse of the day I would need to be more specific, as in “biological fathering” versus “”real fathering”? (According to some adoptive parents are the “real” parents, etc.) So to avoid a lack of precision and trips off into side show issues: sire and dam. What I have learned though is that the pettifoggers will always be with us.

            • Stars Dancing

              So will the closeted gay guys. Clearly.

    • Hypatia

      Well they can’t with present technology. But science gave us IVF. I hear they are working on ways to assist same sex couples to reproduce together.

      • publiusnj

        This is sheer wishful thinking.

  • crakpot

    “Many of us, particularly those with young children, grow weary of the near constant barrage of gayness we are subject to.”

    Precisely the point.

    Children, mothers, and fathers are the ones with God-given rights on this subject. Those rights stem directly from the Fourth Commandment, and from the simple fact of life that without nourishment, protection, and guidance, no human baby can survive.

    Homosexual behavior is wrong – there can be no such thing as a God-given right to do a wrong. It is also by it’s nature predatory of children. It cannot reproduce itself – it exists solely by recruitment. Children have a right to the protection of their fathers and mothers against it.

    I am truly sorry for children who have been corrupted to homosexuality, but our first duty is the protection of our own children; our second duty to help other parents bring their lost children to redemption. That starts with being completely clear on the truth – it is not something you are, it is something you have been tempted to do.

    • Patrick

      Tempted to do.
      Interesting point there.
      Not everyone is tempted to do it. Not even remotely.
      The temptation is the disordered orientation. Experiencing temptation is not a choice, and you cannot “recruit” someone into feeling a temptation that is not a part of them.
      Preventing contact with those who have experienced the temptation and successfully resisted it is not doing a service to them, it is hiding the hope and truth that that temptation is just a cross like any other, and can be endured without destroying your life.
      Knowing that plenty of other people have resisted the temptation they feel will help them to resist it.
      Hiding the fact that anyone else has ever felt it will make them feel like no one could possibly help them on the occasions when they need support to not give in.

      Or are you one of those heretics that believes that experiencing a temptation is sinful in itself?

    • Hypatia

      There is considerable evidence that many homosexuals were influenced by intrauterine timing of testosterone surges and/ or maternal antibodies to testosterone. So controlling what’s on TV and what your boys are allowed to hear is a bit late. Homosexuals don’t have to recruit. Heterosexual parents create children 1to 4% of whom turn out gay (depending on how one counts–hopefully more accurate demographic studies will become possible when the social stigma decreases.

  • Tony

    Let us suppose that Mr. A has an unseemly attraction to children. He has never acted upon it. He wishes he didn’t have that attraction. He has shied away from children because of it. All of that is commendable in him. He is making the best of a bad situation. He is thinking not of himself first but of everybody else. That is exactly what the man who is attracted to other males must do. He can learn to love a woman after the ordinary way of nature — yes, that is indeed possible, and I doubt that it always requires a therapist. Or he can keep his attractions to himself and live as a bachelor. We do not need to hear about the disordered attraction, not because we aren’t interested in his spiritual welfare, but because we all have to drink the same cultural water and breathe the same cultural air. Frankly, I do not want boys to have to think that these things are even possibilities, and it would be healthier for the common good if people did not immediately think that two men taking an apartment together must be “gay.” In other words, drat it all, it’s not about you!

    • Patrick

      You don’t want them to think it’s even a possibility? That way they think they are a lone freak and will be too ashamed to even seek help and maybe even contemplate suicide. They certainly should not have any role models to show them how they can live and follow Catholic teaching.

      • Guest

        They should seek help like every other person does with a problem. We do not need special classes of persons based upon their particular disordered desire.

        The straw man of suicide and all the rest is part of pop culture propaganda now. That is unless you give into the popular ideology then in some way you are hurting these people.

        Be honest and do not make this a division between two false choices.

        • Patrick

          I said “You don’t want them to think it’s even a possibility? That way they think they are a lone freak and will be too ashamed to even seek help and maybe even contemplate suicide. They certainly should not have any role models to show them how they can live and follow Catholic teaching.”

          Where does that say they shouldn’t seek help?
          Please do tell me. Because it sure looks like I was saying the problem with the suggested situation is that it would have a chilling effect on people who would otherwise seek and receive help.

          Making them feel like they are the only person who’s ever had the problem also makes them feel like because of that, there is no one who has the expertise to help them.
          It makes them afraid to admit the problem even exists to others who are in a position to help them.

          How about instead of arguing against some superficially similar argument, you actually address what I actually was saying?

      • poetcomic1

        Clever BS! Look at the case of poor Tyler Clementi who killed himself after he was ‘outed’ by a fellow student who not only had gay friends but was a heterosexual and who didn’t take Tyler’s sexual proclivities all that seriously (i.e. it was NOT a hate crime). At Rutgers where Tyler was a student he had ‘in your face’ gay pride everywhere, reinforcement, support, organizations etc. The only problem? Tyler DID NOT WANT TO BE “GAY”. And the whole Gay Mafia says…but you ARE and you HAVE to be.

        • Art Deco

          A correction.

          Clementi’s homosexuality was not a confidential matter. He made a point of it to his parents and a scatter of school friends and actually joined some student caucus of sexual specialists at Rutgers. He had not discussed it much with the others in his dorm; he’d only lived their three weeks and he was by all accounts not a gregarious fellow. His roommate knew because Clementi had used his actual e-mail address in internet fora devoted to discussions among male homosexuals; he did a Google search of the address and “Just us Boys” popped up.

          It is difficult to discern just why Clementi jumped off the George Washington bridge. His electronic communications from the previous several days do not reveal much distress over Ravi’s pranking and he went so far as to buy a hamburger before heading off to the bridge. Supposedly, there is a handwritten testament in a composition book that law enforcement refused to allow the family or defense counsel to see. There is not much indication he aspired to the normal life of a man.

          • poetcomic1

            Which brings up another interesting point even if I do stand corrected. The high suicide and emotional disorder rate among ‘out and proud’ homosexuals.

            • Asemodeous

              “The high suicide and emotional disorder rate among ‘out and proud’ homosexuals.”

              Which is due to social and cultural pressures. You don’t see those rates in other first world countries with homosexual populations.

              • Austin Ruse

                You even see it in Sweden. The suicide rate for trans is something like 30 times the rates for others.

                • Asemodeous

                  Thanks for proving my point.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Actually it refutes your point. There’s hardly a more gay friendly place than Sweden. Yet suicide is sky high. I suspect gay suicide is high in NYC and San Francisco too.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Actually it refutes your point.”

                      You cited transsexuals, not gays. If you had actual hard data of other industrial nations with our levels of gay suicide, you would have had linked to them by now.

                      But you didn’t, so you don’t have it. Basically you are either intellectually lazy or a idiot. Take your pick.

                    • MarcAlcan

                      You are right, the suicide rate among gays is not much higher than the general population even in the most gay friendly nation.
                      Which means that gays are not suiciding because of the pressure from the heterosexual society. But they like being labelled a victim because it is convenient for their activism.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “You are right, the suicide rate among gays is not much higher than the general population even in the most gay friendly nation.”

                      The moral of the story is that America is a outlier in a lot of sociological factors. It’s hardly a shining city on a hill.

                      “Which means that gays are not suiciding because of the pressure from the
                      heterosexual society. But they like being labelled a victim because it
                      is convenient for their activism.”

                      Ignoring pretty much everything in America that has discriminated against homosexuals. Including the laws in several states that allows employers to discriminate against homosexuals for no rational purpose.

                      I keep telling Christians that they are in denial of reality, and just to spite me they keep proving me right.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      Exactly who made you the arbiter of reality, troll?

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Exactly who made you the arbiter of reality, troll?”

                      Science. You do realize that a lot of states make it legal to discriminate against gays for being gay. To claim that there wasn’t any discrimination is flat out denial of reality.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      And who made you the arbiter of science, especially when this is a sociological matter of statistical inference. Every jackass that wants to make an Quia Sic Dixi argument says “science”.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “And who made you the arbiter of science, especially when this is a sociological matter of statistical inference.”

                      All the while you ignore the legal ramifications of gay discrimination in states and pretend that they don’t negatively influence gay behavior.

                      I keep telling Christians that they are in denial of reality, and just to spite me they keep proving me right.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      What the hell are you talking about with “gay discrimination”? Not getting your way in every jurisdiction isn’t “discrimination”. Gays are all over the media, there isn’t even a social penalty for being gay.

                      But I notice you changed the subject to (imaginary) legislation frm science.

                      Beat it, troll.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “What the hell are you talking about with “gay discrimination”?”

                      Employment discrimination on no rational basis in several states is just one of many examples.

                      How you ignore this to paint a false narrative isn’t impressive.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Science (actually, biology) tells me that a man’s erected penis was never meant to be rammed up another man’s germ and feces encrusted rectum during gay “sex.”

                    • Asemodeous

                      The naturalism fallacy isn’t impressive. Under your delusion the use of vocal cords for opera is a abomination because they were never meant to do opera.

                      Also you are conflating anal sex with gay orientation. You are aware that straight people can have anal sex too, or have you been living under a rock?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Yawn! I sometimes forget how tedious gay atheists can be.

                      “Natualism fallacy”…..double yawn…..next thing you’ll tell me you can catch a baseball with your eyeball.

                      Anal sex is immoral whether hetero or homo. But of course, trying to argue morality with a relativistic, gay atheist like yourself is like discussing systematic theology with my golden retriever, useless.

                      Why are spending so much time attacking Catholics on a Catholic website, asemodeous? Why don’t you go attack Muslims on an Islamic website. They really hate gay atheists, they want you off the planet. Catholics love you, pray for you, but hate your sinful lifestyle.

                    • Adrian Croft

                      They are way too cowardly to even dream of attacking Muslims. One day, with immigration being what it is, they will walk very stealthily out of their favorite gay bar and pray they don’t get beaten up on the way home, which is what is now happening in wonderful tolerant Amsterdam. One day they will realize they had it really good under the “oppression” of the Christians.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Gays have a higher suicide rate in every jurisdiction not becuase they are rejected by society. The US, for instance, celebrates gays, yet the suicide rate is sky-high. Sweden celebrates gays. Again the rate is sky high. Why? Because of self-disgust over the life that active gays lead. It tends to be full of meaningless sex and lots of of it, medicated by booze and drugs. This is a cocktail for suicide.

                    • Patrick

                      I would debate the claim that the US uniformly celebrates gays.

                      Unless your definition of “celebration” includes men walking up to the doors of a gay club and beating the next guy to come out so badly he has to be taken to the hospital, and doing all this with such a feeling of certainty that it happens within line of sight of a police station. Or school administrators looking the other way when a group of students decide to “beat the gay out of” one of their peers even after the victims parents have repeatedly asked them to stop the violence against their child.

                      By the way, those aren’t hypothetical situations. Those are examples of things that have either happened within walking distance of my home or to families I know personally, and not in some rural backwater, either.

                      I’m pretty sure when people feel safe committing felony assault in view of a police station, that’s a good sign that their victim is at the very least perceived as not being a welcome part of society.

                      Yes, there’s parts of American society where they are celebrated, but when gay high school students report being bullied at three times the rate of high school students in general, they are not going to see themselves as “accepted” in society, even if they are.

                    • poetcomic1

                      Poets have an abnormally high suicide rate too. On the other hand (I tend to take both sides of an argument!) there are lots of happy clappy smiley-faced pompous asses full of themselves who would score very high on ‘sanity tests’.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But there is no shame in being a poet. There is a great deal of shame in doing what active gays do, allowing yourself to be treated like a woman by another man. I watched a film last night about gays coming out of the life and shame was one of the things that they talked about. Now for some this shame can pass in time and perhaps for some it never happens. but for many, there is deep shame in what they do. This kind of shame is not relegated just to active gays. Anyone who lives a dissolute sexual life can and often do experience that kind of shame in the dawn;s early light.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      A gay man is no more allowing himself to be treated like a woman by another man than a heterosexual man is allowing himself to be treated like a lesbian by a woman.

              • poetcomic1

                Yes you do. UK, Holland, Sweden for example.

              • Adrian Croft

                Whatever happens, blame the Christians. A convenient, all-purpose excuse.

                • Asemodeous

                  One that is routinely true when you look at the demographics. If you are in denial of reality, seek professional help.

            • Art Deco

              No question he was a mess in a number of ways conjoined to and perhaps cross-fertilizing his sexual perversions. I think people generally plug along even with those defects. Predicting suicides is like predicting perfect storms in meteorology.

            • Alex Soderberg

              Suicide is less common among lesbians (just as it is less common among all women than among men), but they have equally high rates of emotional problems, often resulting in domestic violence, which is probably higher among lesbian couples than among male-female couples. I know cops who have had to intervene in domestic situations with both gays and lesbians, those can be very scary situations, particularly in light of the prevalence of drugs and alcohol. As you pointed out, this is just as true in cities where gayness is accepted as out in Podunk, so the accusation that things would be just fine if everyone is “out” is not true at all. What they don’t seem to get is that when you constantly claim to be “proud” of a mental and emotional disorder, you still have the disorder. The APA did a horrible thing when it removed homosexuality from its list of disorders, and the real victims are the gays themselves. Saying “you need help” is a thousand times more compassionate than “You are fine just as you are.”

              • Patrick

                And even more compassionate than that is respectfully showing that you are there to support them rather than to be judgmental.
                I’m pretty sure that’s one of the primary reasons why we are required to show them sensitivity.

                Saying “You need help.” is a good way to make them simply ignore you and rules you out of the people they will seek support from when they realize they could use help. Holding out a helping hand is infinitely more productive than pointing an accusatory finger. And the later is almost certainly how they would interpret merely declaring “You need help.”

          • Austin Ruse

            Moreover, he was bringing older off famous males into their dorm room for sex.

            • Art Deco

              I think you mean ‘off campus males’. Actually, there was one chap who was supposedly 31 years of age. The irregularity of that piqued the interest of Ravi in keeping tabs on Clementi.

              • Austin Ruse

                Hilarious what autocorrect does.

                Sent from my iPad

      • Tony

        Boys deserve an uncomplicated expectation of heterosexuality. They need it because it will help them grow into the manhood that is inscribed in their bodily nature. That expectation clears a lot of room for healthy and patient development. It’s the nagging, needling, screaming, wheedling voices saying, “You must be GAY because you have this feeling,” they are the ones that do the kids incalculable harm, besides being downright liars, because it is not true. I’d wager to say that if you could record every stupid passing thought that goes into and out of the mind of a teenage boy, you’d want to lock them up for good — and everybody knows this; you’d be looking at killers, thieves, suicides, arsonists, lawyers, vandals, and other unpleasant sorts.

        It is best to say to people who are marrying, “Divorce is not an option. Sure, the thought may enter your mind. Big deal. Thoughts are only thoughts. You won’t act on it, because it is not an option.” When you say that, you’ll find those thoughts begin to plague you less and less. Women didn’t agonize about abortion back when abortion was not an option (and yes, there was a time when it was not, practically speaking, an option). Tell a soldier that he MIGHT desert his platoon, and he’ll be thinking about it all the time. The way to give an obsession a foot in the door is to say that, well, maybe that sin isn’t a sin, and so maybe we’ll do it this once, or whatever.

        • Paul McGuire

          And then when the young gay man marries a woman because of the “uncomplicated expectation of heterosexuality” what do you say to the woman who otherwise could have had a healthy and happy marriage but happened to marry a gay man? If it was up to her she wouldn’t get divorced because she wants to be a dutiful wife but oh wait she married a gay man who concealed that fact from her because he was told there was no such thing.

          Reality check, once people go out into the world they tend to challenge the various religious doctrines that guided them earlier in life. The young gay boy who is told that there is no such thing will eventually realize that he is gay, hopefully before he marries a woman.

          • Adam__Baum

            “what do you say to the woman who otherwise could have had a healthy and happy marriage but happened to marry a gay man?”

            You have a cause for a declaration of nullity.

            • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

              That’s hardly the issue. Much damage has been done to both participants.

              • Adam__Baum

                It’s the remedy.

                • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                  Adam, I understand what you are saying. The thing is that in bad marriages the two people are killing each other. Both people are damaged making it hard to move on. Nullity satisfies the Church over the divorce but that does nothing to repair the psyches of the participants.

                  • Adrian Croft

                    You know nothing at all about marriage, clearly, and how would you, cohabiting with a male roommate? You say people in a bad marriage are “killing” each other. You got that right! It involves a lot of dying – to self! You give in, you compromise, you make allowances, you put someone else’s needs ahead of your own – that’s how it works. It’s not always fun, but it’s better than all the alternatives. People in your situation know nothing about this – you get tired of one man, kick him out and get another, just like trading in an old car. In a marriage, a lot of you dies – usually the bad stuff, which is how God designed it. In your situation of two men, your differences are minimal, essentially you are two very narcissistic hedonists, no way to create a family together nor any desire to, it’s all about fun, and when you find yourself having to bend and adopt to the other guy, you figure the fun isn’t worth it, so you move on to someone else.
                    Trust me on this, shacking up with another man is not even remotely comparable to a marriage. There is no way that, emotionally or spiritually, you can ever be equal.

            • Paul McGuire

              Right. Because a nullity would completely un-do the harms caused to the woman’s ability to form intimate relationships upon being deceived by a gay man who pretended to be straight. /sarcasm.

              Simply being given the OK by the church doesn’t make it easy for someone who has been damaged through a broken relationship to move on and find happiness in a proper and healthy relationship.

              If the gay man had been encouraged to come out and marry a man in the first place both would be better off. The woman would find a straight man to marry and the gay man would marry another man.

              • Adam__Baum

                An individual who marries someone else under false pretenses, when they are unable to make the commitment due to the concealment of some impediment or limitation is the sole cause of this damage.

                I don’t care whether it’s a prior marriage, some undisclosed sterility or genetic problems, financial distress,it’s a lie of omission.

                What you have is one individual who is willing to use the most intimate relationship for personal aggrandizement. A person of habituated homosexual tendencies is no more exhonerated or exculpated than the 35 year old woman who decides to conceal extraordinary credit card debt from a prospective husband because “her clock is ticking”, in fact she’s less culpable because credit card debt can be extinguished and dedicated homosexuals insist their desires are innate and immutable.

              • MarcAlcan

                First there has to be honesty. If one is not in the least bit attracted to the woman, then firstly he is lying to the woman. So there’s the sin – the lie. Tony is not proposing that gays lie to the women.
                As to the man being able to marry a man. That is a stupidity. No man can marry a man anymore than a man can marry a dog. You can have a union of man and man but that would not be marriage. Sure you can redefine marriage but that would be like saying ugly is the new beautiful. Makes no sense whatsoever.

              • john

                Sorry, Paul, men can’t marry men whatever rogue lawmakers try to make us believe. Marriage is one man-one woman and always will be. You mentioned the word reality before. This is the reality. Good luck.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            Gay men marry women to satisfy their parents or because they believe it is necessary for their career. Some insecure gay men actually believe that a marriage will make the straight. Some gay men think that a marriage will make them straight because of the nonsense comparing sexual orientation to alcoholism – et al.

            • Paul McGuire

              I understand all of those reasons. I was trying to put the situation in a form that would more easily be understood in the form of harm suffered by the straight spouse. Somehow even upon recognizing the harm suffered by the straight spouse that is still not a good enough reason to abandon the harmful teachings.

              • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                Agreed.

                • Adam__Baum

                  And this mutual gratification is what is known as a “circle jerk”.

            • Adam__Baum

              Some insecure gay men actually believe that a marriage will make the straight.

              You call them “insecure”, because the hope to have their sexual attractions ordered to woman’s body, where it can find its natural complement and produce children?

              What a judgmental posterior you are.

              • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                So now you want to call me names because you are frustrated?

                When a gay man marries a woman THAT is disordered. Both participants suffer and the marriage will end in divorce or an agreement where husband and wife are both free to cheat.

                The notion that a gay man can become straight through marriage is preposterous. The science on sexual orientation is clear. It is unambiguous and published in respected peer reviewed scholarly journals for all to see. It is based on the scientific method and experimentation. Contrary to popular mythology it is produced by impartial investigators.

                Critical thinkers start with a hypothesis and draw their conclusions from the observation of experiments. They are content to accept outcomes that are at odds with their original hypothesis. They often learn more from being corrected.

                When people believe that their religion is inerrant they tend to start with a conclusion. Then, through selective observation, they find evidence that, with some refinement, supports their conclusion even if the overwhelming preponderance of evidence is contradictory. This is defense of the faith in contrast to the pursuit of knowledge.

                • Adam__Baum

                  Pointing out that you called others “insecure” without warrant makes you a judgmental posterior isn’t name calling, it’s accurate.

                  There’s no religion with a greater confirmation bias than the church of Sodom.

                • Adrian Croft

                  sorry, but your self-serving contrast of “faith” with “knowledge” doesn’t wash. Every human being has “faith” in some unprovable beliefs. You certainly cannot say that “knowledge” proves that gay “marriage” works, because it hasn’t even been legal anywhere in the world till the past 20 years. In your Jw conceit you may think “knowledge” makes gay marriage OK, but there is no data to back you up, just your groundless faith that you can be equal to normal marriages just because you say you are.

            • Adam__Baum

              No (healthy, mature) man marries to please his parents. To do so, with actual love for the woman you take as a wife, is still a deceitful, despicable act.

          • Deacon Ed Peitler

            Let’s get one thing straight: there’s no such creation as a “gay man.” God created them male and female. A male might have disordered passions, but then again, that’s accountable by original sin. No married person (and that can only be between a male and female) enter into marriage as perfect specimens of humanity. Such is where God’s grace enters the picture.

            • Patrick

              Again with the vending-machine-of-miracles!

              If simple faithfulness eradicated temptation reliably, there would be no alcoholics in the church.

              How hard is it to accept that maybe the miracle is the strength to carry a cross rather than a crane to lift the cross off of people?

              Is not a person given the strength to bear a cross both able to bear it AND and an opportunity to witness to others? To inspire others with crosses to carry on rather than give up when the cross doesn’t disappear into a puff of smoke?

              We are called to unite our personal crosses with Jesus’ in sacrifice, and maybe to hope for a time when we don’t have to carry it due to his mercy, not to say “Alright, I prayed, now make it go away!”

              Miracles exist to serve GOD’S purposes. They are not magic spells fueled by faith to make our lives more convenient.

              • Adam__Baum

                Every alcoholic starts with the first drink. For some period of time, drinking (to excess) is a temptation, but after a while it’s a self destructive compulsion. Ditto with smoking. Have you ever seen a person on O2 to compensate for COPD, sneaking a smoke? I have.

                Of course we spend oodles of money to get people to recognize they have a problem and to treat it. If you know any ex-smokers, you know that they will tell you quitting is easy, many have quit tens or hundreds of times.

                • Patrick

                  I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but it doesn’t appear to be a response to any of the points I made.

                  Maybe God’s miracle is people who will keep them honest. Maybe it’s the willpower of the 10-years-sober recovering alcoholic.

                  Telling people God will just take temptation away as long as you’re faithful and that’s all there is to it seems reckless in the extreme, and possibly even borderline scandal.

                  But I’m just kind of guessing at what your point is because I don’t really know what your post was trying to say.

                  • Adam__Baum

                    You seem to think somebody is proposing a temptation free life.

                    I can’t offer any other thoughts on your inability to comprehend clear thoughts, but I had the thought that your post was irrelevant when you wrote “Again with the vending-machine-of-miracles!”

                    • Patrick

                      “You seem to think somebody is proposing a temptation free life.”

                      That’d be because I’ve had at least 4 different people in various articles on this site say that simply being faithful will result in God miraculously removing the same-sex inclinations and that it’s entirely that simple.

                      I’ve even gotten into extended debates where the other person refused to consider that God’s miracle might come in the form of strength and support rather than removing the need for strength and support.

                      If I misinterpreted in this case, I apologize. But there are a lot of people who let their desire for there to be an simple, easy, unambiguous cure for homosexuality distort their understanding of miracles and it is a pet peeve of mine when people present miracles as something we can control or even fully understand.

            • Guglielmo Marinaro

              No married persons enter into marriage as perfect specimens of humanity, so I would encourage any gay man to go ahead and deceitfully contract a counterfeit marriage with an unsuspecting woman in the name of “complementarity”. Some people will no doubt object that that isn’t fair to the woman, but life isn’t fair, is it? All right, I admit that I sure as hell don’t want people to play games of that kind with the life of MY sister, niece or daughter (if I had one), but as long as it’s only with the life of someone ELSE’S, then heigh-ho, that’s absolutely fine; no skin off my nose. Such is where God’s grace enters the picture.

          • Art Deco

            “what do you say to the woman who otherwise could have had a healthy and happy marriage but happened to marry a gay man?”

            1. What’s a ‘healthy and happy marriage’?

            2. What’s a ‘gay man’?

            3. If his sexual dysfunctions are such a problem, how did she come to marry him in this day and age? You’re hypotheticals are turning on small subsets of small subcultures.

        • MarcAlcan

          Very well put

        • Patrick

          “It’s the nagging, needling, screaming, wheedling voices saying, “You must be GAY because you have this feeling,” they are the ones that do the kids incalculable harm, besides being downright liars, because it is not true.”

          You are aware that that generally comes from people who believe deleterious stereotypes about gays, right? Taunting other children for being less skilled at sports by implying they are less manly and therefore gay, for example. It’s not gay people who made “sissy,” “fairy,” “pansy,” etc. into insults. That’s not the gay people, or if it is it’s the ones who are trying to hide that fact by showing how “not gay” they are by bullying people. I really don’t get this idea that gay people are the ones responsible for all of the hurtful slurs or implications regarding homosexuality that children are subjected to. Who in their right mind would start a recruitment campaign who’s main message was “Being like us is undesireable in the extreme! Join now!”

          “Tell a soldier that he MIGHT desert his platoon, and he’ll be thinking about it all the time. The way to give an obsession a foot in the door is to say that, well, maybe that sin isn’t a sin, and so maybe we’ll do it this once, or whatever.”

          Having the disordered inclination is not an action.
          Young women and men who have that inclination need to know that it does not make them a monster. They need to know there are faithful Catholics who live happy, fruitful lives in spite of that disordered inclination. They need role models.
          And don’t say that straight people are role models for them in this regard, because that’s like trying to convince a paraplegic that Michael Jordan is a good role model for living with paraplegia.
          Most of them already feel lonely and isolated, and the reason so many of them don’t even try to live the Church’s teaching for them is because they believe it is condemning them to an entire life of being alone and isolated, that there is no possible option for coping with the pain they are already experiencing.
          They MUST have role models that show them that living the Church’s calling for them is NOT a sentence to a live of misery and pain. And the ONLY way to do that is for them to know about people in their same situation who made the right decisions and thrived for it!

          You don’t inspire an alcoholic to avoid drinking by limiting their experience to only people who have never had alcohol. That will just drive them into a spiral of guilt and more drinking. You have to show them other alcoholics who are successfully staying sober!

          You don’t inspire a depressed person to seek treatment by showing them only people who have never struggled with it. That just makes them more depressed by implying that they are responsible for the disorder they are the victim of. That only makes it worse. You show them people who are successfully treating depression.

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            How does homosexuality instill itself in a young person’s psyche and behavioral fibers? This discussion has yet to answer that question. Answering that will sort out the conversational goats and sheep.

            Assigning a 30 year-old Catholic Homophle mentor to a 12 year-old because (due the the bombardment of gay messages in the schools and media) someone thinks the kid is gay, would be a disaster. A faithful Catholic homosexual would not (should not) evangelize his condition in any way.

            Putting the letter “Q” after that infamous string of letters was a declaration of war.

            • Patrick

              “Assigning a 30 year-old Catholic Homophle mentor to a 12 year-old because (due the the bombardment of gay messages in the schools and media) someone thinks the kid is gay, would be a disaster. A faithful Catholic homosexual would not (should not) evangelize his condition in any way.”

              Who suggested that? I didn’t see anybody suggest that.
              I’ve said there should be role models of people with same-sex attraction who live the vocation they are called to successfully.
              But that’s a far cry from assigning children to some sort of a coach. If there’s coaching to be done, it should be lead by a priest or nun who has been trained specifically to help people in that situation.
              The point is so those young people who have that cross to bear know it can be done, particularly with spiritual support from the Church.

            • Guglielmo Marinaro

              How does homosexuality instill itself in a young person’s psyche and behavioral fibers? We don’t know, but presumably in the same way that heterosexuality does.

              • CadaveraVeroInnumero

                by trauma, prenatal or disruptions (dissociation) in early childhoods. Mostly. Can’t say “same as heterosexuality” for something must be established (seen) as the norm. Homosexuality is a deviation from that norm – one revealed (established) by Natural Law. (Heterosexuality is the Natural Law of sex.)

                Bringing the notion of “the sexual continuum” into the conversation is a non-starter.

                The question of “how then do we live” – to steal from Lenin – is a separate one, but the Law cannot be dismissed and denied.

                The homosexual agenda folks are asking for too much. Will there be a backlash against their demands? We assume, regarding the history of sexuality, that we are on a “progressive” forward movement. That is not a fact of the human species. It is a statement – in spite of the current “gay” victories – of misplaced faith. For an example, note Islam present sweep across Briton and Europe. Within 3 or 5 years homosexuality will be re-criminalized to conform to Sharia Law. In Islam, Sharia is not established unless it effects and controls the lives of non-Muslims (kaffirs, infidels). Count on it. When was the last time you’ve been in Rotterdam.

                • Guglielmo Marinaro

                  “by trauma, prenatal or disruptions (dissociation) in early childhoods. Mostly.”

                  Mere unsupported assertion, which there is no reason to take it seriously.

                  “something must be established (seen) as the norm. Homosexuality is a deviation from that norm.”

                  From observation it seems clear that the norm is for the vast majority of people to be heterosexual and for a minority to be homosexual. Homosexuality would only be a deviation from the norm if we assumed that everyone (not just most people) ought to be heterosexual, an assumption which there is absolutely no reason to make. It is certainly not “revealed” or “established” by any “Natural Law”.

                  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

                    Natural Law speaks to us (reveals, if you wish) of the teleos (the ends) of sex – in short, its nature. That is the norm? How does homosexuality (acts or condition) participate in those ends (in that nature) with disorder, disruption. The homosexual act or condition cannot without expressing itself in dissociation and fragmentation of he human person.

                    Get around this by dismissing Natural Law, which is the present mode of culture. We allow only “positive” law to control our categories. Which is always unsuccessful, because it lugs in sentimentality and the irrational.

                    (“Positive” law is the accumulation of communal opinions and habits established by the exercise of will – that is, by soft tyranny. The truth of “what is” is silenced.)

                    On a practical note, that homosexuality is the result of trauma (a disassociation from the norm) is well-established. Our politics simply does not permit a discussion of it.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      We have no means whatever of discovering a “natural law” dictating that everyone ought to be heterosexual. Such a law is nothing but an invention, made out of whole cloth. What is it that homosexuality disorders or disrupts? Merely the purely gratuitous assumption that everyone ought to be heterosexual. We have no reason to suspect that a society in which everyone is heterosexual is either desirable or possible.

                      That homosexuality is the result of trauma (a disassociation from the norm) is, or rather was, a well-established dogma. It was once politically correct (probably even long before the expression “politically correct” was in general use), but it is now rapidly going out of fashion, as popular but proof-free dogmas eventually do. There is absolutely nothing forbidding a discussion of it, any more than there is anything forbidding a discussion of phlogiston.

                    • DD

                      Are you joking? Heterosexuality is normal and healthy. Deviations are not normal or healthy. This is a matter of right reason and logic. Just ask any uncorrupted 6 year old.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      DD, heterosexuality is certainly the normal majority orientation. Homosexuality is a normal minority orientation, and, like heterosexuality, is quite compatible with full mental and physical health. If a 6 year old is the source of your information, that would no doubt explain why you are not better informed.

                    • GB

                      Nothing normal or healthy about pathologic deviations. A six year old can have more insight than a corrupted homosexual lobbiest.

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      GB, I absolutely agree with you that there is nothing normal or healthy about pathological deviations. However, even a reasonably intelligent six year old, unless corrupted by an anti-gay lobbyist, can grasp that homosexuality is simply a minority form of sexuality, and that gays are just people, who have the exactly the same right as anyone else to be treated decently and to form intimate relationships with others of the same orientation.

                    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

                      RE: Homosexuality and The Natural Law

                      Read this guy (can forward a dozen others):

                      http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/06/17/defending-marriage-in-an-age-of-unreason-theology-professor-gives-natural-law-argument-against-homosexual-marriage/

                      What you appear to advocate is some version of “the sexual continuum of the human experience” in which the “value” of normality distributes itself along the whole length and range of the continuum. The notion of “the sexual continuum” is neither a scientific or historical fact. Listing a variety of sexual behaviors is not proof of a sexual continuum.

                      You are right, in one sense, homosexuality has now become quite fashionable!

                    • Guglielmo Marinaro

                      The concept of a sexual continuum might make an interesting topic for discussion and argument, no doubt, but it is not a matter with which I am concerned here. What I am advocating here is merely acceptance of the plain fact that a minority of people have a homosexual orientation and of their right to form sexual relationships congruent with that orientation. Some people may wish to maintain that there is something wrong with this and that everyone, but EVERYONE, ought to be heterosexual, and they have every right to believe that if they wish, but I do not for one moment believe it. Why not? Because I have absolutely no reason to believe it.

                      I am not sure what you mean by saying that homosexuality has now become quite fashionable, but if you mean that ever fewer people are getting screwed up about it and ever more are calmly accepting it without any ridiculous fuss or bother, just as they accept other facts of life, then I would completely agree, and I would add that this is a very positive and thoroughly gratifying development.

                    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

                      Have never hinted anywhere that an adult “gay” should shoehorn himself into becoming straight. Nor would I be less of a friend of a gay who felt no need to do so.

                      Regarding my thoughts on this homophile thing, should tell it in story form. A novel, let’s say. Center it around San Francisco’s vintage Black Cat Bar on Montgomery St (no longer there). Set in the early 60′s. Whenever I walk past its old site have always wondered of the tales it would tell.

    • Paul Sho

      The fact is, this new homophiles are probably the worst thing that could come upon Catholic youth. They insist on flamboyantly labeling themselves homosexual while claiming to be chaste. Meanwhile they completely disregard the fact that their actions are occasions of sin for other people struggling with same-sex attraction. At the same time they key-in strategically into the Global Gay Agenda of liberalizing homosexual acts. I wish and pray that these new homophiles will stop labeling themselves with a grave sin and stop spreading poison under guise of a new intellectualism. If a Catholic or Christian suffers from same-sex attraction let him pray it away. No apologies.

      • Patrick

        Firstly, I’d say that it’s clear that many of them are humbly labeling themselves in much the same way someone who realizes they have a problem with alcohol will label themselves an alcoholic. It is admission of a struggle they need to contend with and a reminder to be vigilant against it.

        Secondly, having role models that show that homosexual temptations are not irresistible, and that those who struggle with them do not have to live in misery to follow their God given vocation is not only an occasion of sin, but a positive step in helping others AVOID occasions of sin.

        Thirdly, talking about the “Global Gay Agenda” as if they all have one mind and one will (and incidentally incurring parallels to yourself of those who talk about the Protocols of Zion or other such global conspiracy nonsense) only makes it look like a propagandist trying to demonize other human beings with fundamental dignity who are, in their own misled way, simply trying to live their lives in peace. It makes the Church look like an aggressor that is threatening them rather than a source of real peace offering them welcome.
        Short version, you don’t bring frightened, lost lambs into the fold by shouting at them.

        “If a Catholic or Christian suffers from same-sex attraction let him pray it away. No apologies.”

        Maybe you can help them along and tell them which prayer it is that wrests control of miracles from God and His will and grants it to us fallible humans? If that prayer can give them the ability to free themselves from temptation (When even Jesus wasn’t free of temptation, remember), surely it could also cure blindness and end war and poverty and all other forms of suffering, as well!

        • Paul Sho

          Firstly, God did not make anyone homosexual. To say God created someone homosexual and then turn round to ban him from acting on it, is preposterous to say the least. Therefore anyone struggling with same-sex attraction should know there is abundant help from on high.
          The Global Gay agenda is presently pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all the states of the USA; also it is pushing for decriminalization and legitimization of same-sex acts by all nations on this globe. Are you denying this?
          Consider that in July 2013 the UN human rights office voted millions of US dollars for their global campaign to support homosexual acts and marriages. Indeed they had the famous Archbishop Desmond Tutu as one of the chief launchers of this campaign. A few days later Jorge Bergloglio gave the Global Gay Agenda ‘a shot in the arm’ with his infamous ‘ who am I to judge?’ remark.
          For the information of the new Homophiles and the Global Gay Agenda, faithful Catholics and all those who love the Lord Jesus and who desire to fulfill his word are standing firm. We will not accept the attempt to legitimize – under any guise – homosexual acts in the context of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile we stand shoulder to shoulder with those genuinely struggling with same-sex attraction but who refuse to label themselves gay or homosexual.

          • naturgesetz

            You are conflating two very different things when you talk about “the attempt to legitimize – under any guise – homosexual acts in the context of the Catholic Church.” The “New Homophiles,” about whom Austin Ruse has written, are most definitely NOT making any attempt to legitimize homosexual acts in the context of the Catholic Church. So it makes no sense to talk about it in this context.

            Faithful Catholics follow the teaching of the Catechism that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Those who refuse to do so need to repent of their sinful lack of Christian charity.

            Faithful Catholics know that Pope Francis was speaking sound doctrine — in informal language, rather than Vaticanese — when he said he was not the one to judge someone who seeks God and tries to do what is right. And faithful Catholics do not disrespect the Holy Father by calling him “Jorge Bergoglio,” as if he weren’t now truly our Pope.

            • Paul Sho

              Point of correction: every human being must be accepted with dignity, respect and sensitivity because we are all made in the image and likeness of God. However we don’t treat their homosexuality with dignity and respect. We treat their person with dignity and respect but we despise their homosexuality. We abhor their homosexuality. We pray for their deliverance from homosexuality. Help them to overcome the temptations of ssa. We don’t label them “gay”. This is the will of the Lord Jesus.

              • naturgesetz

                Brad S. Gregory has written a book titled “The Unintended Reformation.” He devotes one chapter of it to showing how thoroughly Western Culture is permeated by the vice of avarice — greed — to the extent that most of us don’t even notice it, and take it for granted that people will always want more and see no moral problem with it.

                How many times have you published a comment somewhere proclaiming that you despise the avarice of the greedy; you abhor their avarice; you pray for their deliverance from avarice; you help them overcome the temptations of greed?

                Cohabitation outside of marriage is rampant in our society. How many times have you published a comment somewhere proclaiming that you despise the lust of the fornicators; you abhor their fornication; you pray for their deliverance from fornication; you help them overcome the temptations of lust?

                Surveys indicate that a very large percentage of married Catholics practice contraception at some time in their marriage. How many times have you published a comment somewhere proclaiming that you despise their contraception; you abhor their contraception; you pray for their deliverance from contraception; you help them overcome the temptations of the contraceptive mentality?

                Prove me wrong if you can, but I suspect that you don’t use the words “despise” and “abhor” when you talk — if you ever do— about the sins, much less the temptations, of other people than homosexuals. And if I’m correct, your choice of vocabulary shows that you do not truly inwardly accord homosexuals the same dignity and respect you have for others — despite your pious protestations to the contrary. Your words give you away.

                It would be more respectful of you to accept the self-desugnation of people with SSA as “gay” than to refuse to use the term because of some useless quibbles about the nuances of meaning or the propriety of using adjectives which are only partial descriptions of the reality of a person.

                • Paul Sho

                  Naturegestez, Patrick et al thanks for your comments. This issue of homosexuality occupies the central position of the final battles between the Forces of Good led by Mother Mary and St. Michael and the Forces of Evil led by the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called devil and satan. This is what was prophesied in Revelations 12, 13, 17 & 18.

                  I am not sure why this issue is the focus for this final battle but the fact of the matter is that it is the main issue in this LAST DAYS.

                  Therefore this means that the question of the approach to homosexuality can not be treated with levity neither can it be treated as just another issue in morality and sexual ethics.
                  When I see someone struggling with ssa, I see someone in grave danger in the way a person struggling with other moral issues is not.
                  It is this concern that moves us to warn stridently of the dangers ahead for our brethren with ssa.
                  I recommend that we all meditate on the last 13 chapters of the Book of Revelations and see the insight brought to them on http://www.prophetamos3m.com.
                  My fellow Catholics (Christians) the time has come. We are a generation living out biblical prophecies as never before.

                  My prayer is that the Holy Spirit inspires us all to know His Will. Amen

              • Patrick

                Their disordered inclination is a trial for them. It should be a source of pity and a call for merciful aid, not a source of abhorrence and a call for condemnation.

                We are supposed to help them, not drive them out of the flock.
                It is possible to tell the truth AND be compassionate, respectful, and sensitive at the same time.
                It is possible to help them overcome their trials without giving them hope of a miracle we are not in a position to grant them.

                It is negligent to do any less.

          • Patrick

            “Firstly,
            God did not make anyone homosexual.”

            He
            didn’t make anyone blind, either. That’s a result of original sin
            too. Doesn’t mean you can just pray it away. Some people have
            bigger crosses to bear, and sometimes God teaches those around them
            via that cross.

            “The Global Gay agenda is presently pushing
            for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all the states of the USA; also it is pushing for decriminalization and legitimization of
            same-sex acts by all nations on this globe. Are you denying
            this?”

            I’m denying there’s a “Global Gay Agenda” behind
            it. There’s a lot of people who feel they’re being subjected to
            unjust discrimination and are trying to prevent it. I disagree with them on certain points, but there is still the need to maintain rule
            of law AND address any actual unjust discrimination against them,
            which the Church requires of us.

            Furthermore, the Pope’s point
            was more along the lines of what the Catechism already teaches us:
            that while it is a disordered inclination and acting upon it is a
            grave sin, we must still treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and avoid unjust discrimination against them because
            they have the same fundamental human dignity as everyone else.

            “We
            will not accept the attempt to legitimize – under any guise -
            homosexual acts in the context of the Catholic Church.”

            Absolutely.
            Just keep in mind that identifying as someone with a problem is not
            the same as surrendering to the problem. In fact, it’s the first, and
            most necessary step to fighting it.

            “Meanwhile we stand
            shoulder to shoulder with those genuinely struggling with same-sex
            attraction but who refuse to label themselves gay or homosexual.”

            Do
            you only stand with recovering alcoholics who deny they have a
            problem with alcohol?
            Do you only stand with people who are trying
            to learn patience if they refuse to acknowledge they have a problem with their temper?
            Do you only stand with Catholics who deny they
            need to go to confession or are in need of God’s Grace?

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    The statement (fact) that Belgau has remained a “virgin all sense” of
    the virgin is to be praised. Admirable. An accolade I could never
    accept. Such states of one’s life should be acknowledged but this lies
    not at the heart of this debate; that work is one of settling on the
    proper theological, philosophical, ethical, even psychological tools to
    frame the discussion.

    The problem with telling personal stories is their tendency to stop the conversation at an arrested. Maye from concern of causing offense, or simply being rude in not
    accepting the often painful details embedded on those stories.

    Personally, I’m not squeamish about such things. Stories are a stable of how
    Mankind has related since Adam & Eve told their sons about their
    expulsion from Eden. Yet the grief or glories of personal stories
    cannot prevent us from asking difficult questions:

    1.)
    When a “gay” person tells us that he/she *knew* they were such since
    they were five (or whatever – marking that point as age five has almost
    become an urban myth in gay literature) should that statement be taken
    at face value. Unlike young children making reports of events or
    experiences, the acclamation of being “gay ever since I can remember” is
    just that, a statement made later in life to frame remembered
    experiences or emotional states. It is not improper or dismissing to
    inquire about any contagion effect being transposed to an earlier time.
    Leave it at that, much more can be said. (NOTE: this is a very
    separate than the controversy over “recovered memory”. For those in the
    know, I yield no ground to the folks over at The Recovered Memory
    Syndrome Foundation.)

    2.)

    The question regarding the etiology of homosexuality MUST enter into this debate: simply, what causes it (since, as Catholics, we call it a “disordered state”. It
    seems, of late, we have totally exorcised that concern from the
    conversation. The most that is said about the genesis of homosexuality
    (in an individual’s life, or a culture) is that the research is
    inconclusive, and therefore irrelevant in the Church going forward to
    *developing* an acceptance of homosexuals, etc. But is that truly the
    case. Could it be that the etiology of homosexuality is more settled
    than we are willing (for both Church and secular politics) to admit? If
    the New Homophiles can assume that the conversation can go headlong
    into the murky waters of *doctrinal development* without the pesky
    concerns over causes and origins.

    3.)

    Why are the New Homophiles, especially the “B” sector of the CGN, so dismissive of
    those who have achieved significant degrees of removal of their
    homosexual (same-sex attraction) orientation and behaviors. This is a
    population (both within and without the Church) which lives and
    breathes about there – in their thousands upon thousands. The New
    Homophiles do not extend the hand of fellowship to them, do not
    acknowledge their spiritual and psychological victories. Why not? Is
    it a lack of charity – or fear? Are they more willing to give a wink
    and a nod to the Stonewall Wailers than researchers and therapists are
    NARTH? Would they feel more comfortable taking their annual vacation on
    Fire Island than at a NARTH conference? When the GCN establishes a
    “Sector C” for those who have rid their lives of homosexuality (SSA) I
    will give them more of my ear. What’s your game, GCN? What’s your game?

    4)
    In this debate (we all do it) we constantly forward analogies,
    comparing homosexuality (SSA) with this and that: alcoholism,
    left-handedness (use that in both senses), developmental disabilities –
    name your favorite. It’s understandable; helps us to get a grip on the
    issue. Yet, how should analogy be used in this discussion regarding
    homosexuality (SSA), chaste or not? Exploring this question would do
    the debate much good – may even open an greater understanding. As an
    aside, comparing homosexuality (SSA) to other sexual deviances is both
    an exercise in analogical thinking and more; more, because homosexuality
    (SSA) has membership in a genus (family) of orientations and behaviors
    that share commonalities, if not “parentage”. But, in saying that we
    are returning to our first point about the etiology (the cause) of
    homosexuality (SSA)!!!!

    I have someone in my life in which cannibalism is his/her primary sexual identification. How does that fit in, now that we have downgraded the above questions as
    peripheral to the discussion? When it comes to sex, there is no such
    thing a “whole cloth” ethics: the slaughtered lamb in Eden only covered the sex Adam and his Wife had on the Garden floor. The New Homophiles need to disrobe
    themselves of their Bernardin Cloak..

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

    For most of this, I can respectfully disagree with Mr. Ruse and note that he is on his best behavior. He is entitled to his opinions as they relate to his Catholic faith. Fine.

    But then he goes off with concern for children as if the Rose Parade wedding has some effect on them. Is he wed to the notion that sexual orientation is somehow contagious? Does he really record TV shows so that he can censor any gay parts? Does Mr. Ruse think that sexual orientation is some kind of learned behavior?

    If Mr. Ruse is concerned for children then he might consider the plight of gay kids subjected to the vitriol of people like, well, Mr. Ruse. A minuscule percentage of the gay community is willing to be celibate for their faith. I respect their decisions. However, most gay kids are better off knowing that they can have a fulfilled life and that they can be anything that they want to be without having to hide or lie about their sexuality. A wedding at the Rose Parade serves a number of purposes. Among them is this kind of assurance.

    I don’t give a rodent’s derriere about “out and proud.” I am fine with “out and not ashamed.”

    • Time

      When vice sits next to virtue, virtue suffers. It is not about “catching” anything. It is about truth and desensitization to truth. Good people do not want their kids exposed to gratuitous violence, sex, or disordered ideologies.

      Your propaganda is deleterious to children. It is hurtful. It is immoral. It is contrary to truth. That is enough to be concerned.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        That is intellectually dishonest. You cannot lump sexual orientation with gratuitous sex and violence. Moreover, sexual orientation is not an ideology. Your conflations are confounding. You are rather vague about the damaging effect of, say, watching two men marry.

        • Time

          It is not dishonest at all. There is no need to spread devotion to distorted sexual desires and make them seen as normal.

    • Austin Ruse

      “But then he goes off with concern for children as if the Rose Parade wedding has some effect on them. Is he wed to the notion that sexual orientation is somehow contagious?”

      No.

      “Does he really record TV shows so that he can censor any gay parts?”

      No.
      ” Does Mr. Ruse think that sexual orientation is some kind of learned behavior?”

      Sometimes.

    • Austin Ruse

      More on learned behavior. I think much that goes with lived gayness is learned. The gay accent? Learned. Flamboyant mannerisms? Learned. Granted not all gays exhibit these behaviors but the ones that do, learned them. And gay sex? Very much learned. Is the orientation itself learned? Sometimes.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        The Liberace affect. It is a question that is frequently asked. I have seen a thousand different answers. It doesn’t interest me.

        Sexual orientation is not a learned trait. When a heterosexual prisoner has gay sex his orientation remains heterosexual. Once released he will leave homosexual sex behind. I cannot remember the cite but this has been studied several times.

        My partner and I raised his identical twin nephews. They are both straight and reasonably observant Catholics. The studies of children raised by gay couples indicate that their rate of homosexuality is about the same as the general population.

        • Austin Ruse

          Your question was about behavior. As in any new and foreign land, there are learned behaviors. There are many such behaviors in the gay world. About orientation. It is simply a fact that early sexual abuse by an adult make can cause an orientation to form.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            This has been the subject of numerous studies. There is absolutely no correlation of sexual abuse to sexual orientation.. Neither abuse nor toy preferences nor parenting have the slightest thing to do with sexual orientation. Want the list of fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who have gay children?

            • Austin Ruse

              David, according to psychiatrists who have not succumbed to the zeitgeist it is quite common. Of course the psych estaishment was bent to the will of gay activists years ago to make a political not a medical decision about homosexuality

              • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                So they all fell in line, the AAP, AMA, APA – - – the fifteen or so organizations that make up the medical establishment?

                That is just an attempt to explain away science that you do not like.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Well, actually it’s not. If you read his the APA fell, you can see the decision was not made scientifically at all but rather on tbd basis of lobbying and politics. The guys who did it even say so. It was also largely an inside job accomplished by closeted psychiatrists.

                  • Asemodeous

                    “If you read how the APA fell, you can see the decision was not made
                    scientifically at all but rather on tbd basis of lobbying and politics.”

                    Let’s put this in context. For decades, thousands of medical professionals have deliberately violated their oath in order to do what exactly? If you are going to have such a vast conspiracy spanning all of those years and all of those individuals, there are far better goals to strive for.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It was profoundly important that homosexuality be taken out of the manual. Everything else flowed from that. Nothing could proceed without it.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “It was profoundly important that homosexuality be taken out of the manual.”

                      To what end? You are advocating for a grand conspiracy with no grand reward. Did anyone get rich off of this move? Did anyone become famous because of it? What was the point if you think there was some nefarious goal at the heart of changing the APA guidelines to such a extent that it encompasses thousands of medical professionals.

                      Come on now, speak up.

                      Any decent conspiracy needs a compelling end narrative. The moon landing was faked in order to make the united states look good. JFK was assassinated because he either pissed off the mob or the FBI. 9/11 was a inside job so Bush could go to war with Iraq.

                      There has to be a there there to make your conspiracy nuttery have teeth.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Sadly you are not aware of your own history. The guys who did now speak quite openly. To what end? As long as homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder, there was a fairly permanent hindrance to gay liberation. The psychiatric establishment was the first and most important institution to go. Again, this is well known and those who made it happen are on record. Read a little.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “As long as homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder, there was a fairly permanent hindrance to gay liberation.”

                      And why would thousands of medical professionals agree to this? What was in it for them? They couldn’t all be gay, that’s statistically very very improbable. Your lacking in motivation as to why medical professionals would act unethically for a group of people that they neither had no financial or moral obligation to.

                      You keep thinking there was a nefarious plot but no nefarious reward. Humans don’t act the way they do in your demented mindscape.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I’m only going on what they have said.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “I’m only going on what they have said.”

                      That they acted as professionals and saw that being gay wasn’t a disorder. The same way scientists act as professionals when conducting experiments. You are just harboring under the delusion that everyone else on the planet is as dishonest as you are.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There were no studies cited when they did it. It was not based on science, only politics.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “There were no studies cited when they did it.”

                      Because research shows that sexuality is a wide continuum. To claim that one side of the continuum is a disorder but not the other side is nonsensical, which is why they dropped the disorder label for gays.

                      http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

                      “Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation
                      ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to
                      exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is
                      usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having
                      emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members of the other sex),
                      gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic or sexual attractions to members
                      of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic or sexual
                      attractions to both men and women).”

                      Try to keep up.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      None of this or anything they have said since changes the fact that the original change was not based on science but was based on political pressure and lobbying. Sorry, bud.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      You’re already one mile behind……..

                    • Asemodeous

                      “What is your response to Austin’s citing the upcoming book with
                      references from gay leaders that the declassification by the APA was
                      political, not medical or clinical?”

                      By citing research by the APA, which wasn’t political.

                      You do know how to read, right?

                    • Objectivetruth

                      You do know how to answer a question, right?

                    • Asemodeous

                      APA used research to come to its conclusions, not politics. A more interesting question is why you think thousands of medical professionals would be swayed by the gay agenda in the 1970s, which never had that sort of power back then to sway a major professional organization.

                      Your conspiracy nuttery has plenty of incredulity to it.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      From an upcoming book that deals in part with the change in the diagnostic manual:

                      Homosexual activist Franklin Kameny, the man whom President Obama singled out for special praise at a 2009 White House meeting, vigorously campaigned against the DSM classification. He said, “I feel that the entire homophile movement . . . is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it.” Lesbian activist Barbara Gittings remarked that “it’s difficult to explain to anyone who didn’t live through that time how much homosexuality was under the thumb of psychiatry. The sickness label was an albatross around the neck of our early gay rights groups—it infected all our work on other issues.” As she said elsewhere, “The sickness issue was paramount.”

                      More:

                      Melvin Sabshin, M.D., a member of the APA Board of Trustees in the early 1970s and chair of the Scientific Program Committee at that time, described how the alienation gay psychiatrists felt from their APA colleagues led in 1970 to the start of a concerted push for APA to include them in decision making and address their concerns and those of gay patients. If there was an official kickoff for APA’s newly energized gay psychiatrists, it was the 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco, Sabshin suggested, where Gay Liberation Front activists along with political protesters in support of other social and political causes disrupted the meeting. “It was guerilla theater” at that meeting and the one held in Washington, D.C., the next year, he said.158

                      More:

                      At the 1971Washington meeting to which Sabshin referred, Kameny led a group of thirty protesters into the conference, shouting, “We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered. For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!”161 Then Kameny sent a letter to the Psychiatric News in which he warned, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive 167 campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”162

                      More:

                      This is the account from the transcript of the radio program: dialogueALIX SPIEGEL. According to Ronald Gold, [what] finally convinced Robert Spitzer to sit down and redraft the 81 words in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual . . . took place in a bar later that night in one of those campy Hawaiian lounges with bamboo furniture, grass skirted waitresses and a three page menu of exotically coloured drinks. This is where the GayPA had decided to hold its annual party, naturally after his speech at the conference Ron Gold got an invitation. RONALD GOLD. I got invited to it but I was told, you know, keep it all very quiet and don’t say anything and just come to this bar and we’ll all be there. So I decided to
                      171
                      invite Spitzer to come to this because he had told me essentially that he didn’t know any gay psychiatrists and wasn’t quite sure there were any. And I said, you just come along. ALIX SPIEGEL. Ron warned Spitzer not to say anything, he was instructed not to speak, or stare, or indicate in any way that he was anything other than a closeted gay man. RONALD GOLD. But once he got there and saw that the head of the Transaction Analysis Association and the guy who handed out all the training money in the United States, and the heads of various prestigious psychiatry departments at various universities were all there, he couldn’t believe it. And he started asking all these dimwitted questions. ALIX SPIEGEL. At the time members of the GayPA were still completely hidden. They hadn’t been active in the struggle to change the DSM; they were too fearful of losing their jobs to identify themselves publicly. So when Robert Spitzer, an obviously straight man in a position of power at the APA, appeared at the bar the men of the GayPA were completely unnerved. RONALD GOLD. So the grand dragon of the GayPA, whoever he was I can’t remember now, came up to me and said, “Get rid of him, get him out of here! You’ve got to get rid of him.” And I said, “I’m doing nothing of a kind, he’s here to help us and you are not doing anything.” ALIX SPIEGEL. And that’s when it happened. There in front of Robert Spitzer and the grand dragon of the GayPA. There in the midst of neon coloured drinks and grass skirted waitresses a young man in full army uniform walked into the bar. He looked at
                      172
                      Robert Spitzer, he looked at Ronald Gold, he looked at the grand dragon of the GayPA. And then the young man in uniform burst into tears. He threw himself into Ron’s arms and remained there, sobbing. RONALD GOLD. Well I had no idea who he was. It turned out he was a psychiatrist, an army psychiatrist based in Hawaii who was so moved by my speech, he told me, that he decided he had to go to a gay bar for the first time in his life. And somehow or other he got directed to this particular bar and saw me and all the gay psychiatrists and it was too much for him, he just cracked up. And it was a very moving event, I mean this man was awash in tears. And I believe that that was what decided Spitzer, right then and there, let’s go. Because it was right after that that he said, “Let’s go write the resolution.” And so we went back to Spitzer’s hotel room and wrote the resolution. ALIX SPIEGEL. That night? RONALD GOLD. That night.168
                      textThe resolution was presented and passed, although not finally until it was submitted to the entire membership in a referendum. A minority of the membership, although a majority of those responding to the referendum, gave final approval to the resolution. So much for science as the basis for delisting homosexuality as a mental illness. Obviously, this was not the result of scientific advances, nor was the change in the DSM made by those psychologically expert in the subject of homosexuality. It was the result of sheer advocacy. Homosexuals themselves admit as much. Gay activist and
                      173
                      author Jeffrey Weeks wrote that “the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision. It was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion as a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition of homosexuality as a problem.”169 Homosexual activist and neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay stated that “gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.”170
                      In the book Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights:1945–1990: An Oral History, lesbian partners Kay Lahusen and Barbara Gittings are equally candid about what occurred: dialogueLAHUSEN. This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision. GITTINGS. It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.171 textThat it was a political move discomfited some members—even very liberal ones—who thought that the standards of science had been traduced. Two lifelong liberal psychologists, Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, objected:
                      174
                      The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence.17

                      ———-

                      It goes on an on. The decision to remove homosexuality from the manual was political and not medical and was perhaps the most important advance for the gay movement.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      All one can say is……WOW. Thanks for sharing this, Austin. This emphasizes the bullying tactics of the gay lobby and agenda. And CLEARLY shows how the declassification as totally political, and not medical.

                      Thank you for shedding the light of truth on this issue.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And there is much more than this…

                    • Hypatia

                      As I pointed out above, Dr Evelyn Hooker gave homosexual and heterosexual men who were not in treatment psychological tests. Three evaluators, blind to the subjects orientations, were unable to distinguish the straights from the gays. Google her name for details and citations. There is no evidence homosexuals as a group are impaired in the ability to love and to work–the two broad categories psychiatrists look at when we talk of illness. At this point, we tend to define illness very pragmatically–on the basis of difficulty functioning in those categories. Yes, there was politics in the 1973 decision. There was lots of politics in the recent DSM 5 construction too. Whenever groups of people with strong opinions on something have to come up with a statement/law, we will see politics.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Then it can hardly be considered “science” or normative.

                    • Tom

                      How would the decision ever be “medical”?? It was always, either way, going to be a philosophical judgment.

                      The question of whether homosexuality is a mental disorder depends on begging the question either way. To believe heterosexual subjectivity is by definition a necessary part of psychological functioning requires a definition of “functional” that for some reason excludes homosexuality or demands heterosexual life.

                      Note that “psychologically functional” is a rather looser standard than virtue or holiness. All psychological function requires is that a a condition not instrinsically cause distress or prevent the fulfillment of normative social expectations. Homosexuality no longer does eithe.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Jamming.

                      “The same way scientists act as professionals when conducting experiments.”

                      A really poor analogy on why the APA chose to declassify. Once again, it’s evident you are speaking totally off the cuff and have no idea how medical societies (such as the APA) make their recommendations.

                      Austin has clearly presented the declassification was political, which often happens in these societies.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “A really poor analogy on why the APA chose to declassify. Once again,
                      it’s evident you are speaking totally off the cuff and have no idea how
                      medical societies (such as the APA) make their recommendations.”

                      Like professionals, since that is what they are. You are harboring under the same delusion as Austin.

                      “Austin has clearly presented the declassification was political, which often happens in these societies.”

                      With no evidence what so ever. All the while the APA clearly shows why it made that declassification based on sound research.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I’m assuming you are gay, asemodeous?

                    • Asemodeous

                      Nope. Considering how wrong you have been recently, that should have had tipped you off.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Asemodeous…..quick! Get over to the Islamist websites! They’re declaring jihad on gay atheists such as yourself! Boy, im shock at the hatred they have for you guys! Get in there and defend your tribe! Don’t worry, when they come to look for you, I promise I won’t tell them you’re hiding in your Mommy’s basement!

                    • Objectivetruth
                    • Asemodeous

                      Hearsay and anecdotes is not impressive.

                      http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

                      “No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research
                      has found no inherent association between any of these sexual
                      orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and
                      homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have
                      been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite
                      the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual
                      people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience
                      have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this
                      country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of
                      human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal
                      forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long
                      ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.”

                    • DD

                      Rubbish. It is ideology with a thin coat of science.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      See Austin’s post below. And you don’t understand how medical societies work, it’s not put up for vote. “Thousands of medical professionals” probably don’t agree to this. The declassification by the APA was done by the small guidelines committee members that drafted it. And as Austin clearly states, the decision to declassify was political, not medical.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “See Austin’s post below. And you don’t understand how medical societies
                      work, it’s not put up for vote. “Thousands of medical professionals”
                      probably don’t agree to this.”

                      You think a panel would unilaterally make a decision without the input from the rest of the association. That’s just stupid on a lot of levels.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Like I said, you don’t understand how these gudeline committees work, do you?

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Like I said, you don’t understand how these gudeline committees work, do you?”

                      How dare I think that medical professionals would act like professionals. The gall!

                    • kmk

                      The AMA (American Medical Association) is the largest political lobby in the United States. Things aren’t always as they seem. The twelve member SCOTUS differs on opinion as well.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “The AMA (American Medical Association) is the largest political lobby in the United States.”

                      APA, not the AMA:

                      http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx

                      Can’t you tell the difference? The APA runs research, which makes them, oddly enough, medical professionals.

                    • kmk

                      I wonder what the difference, between SCOTUS, APA, AMA, AAA for that matter, really is. They all have agendas.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “I wonder what the difference, between SCOTUS, APA, AMA, AAA for that matter, really is. They all have agendas.”

                      And we are back to the grand conspiracy nuttery. You could have had saved us both a lot of time and just came to this twisted conclusion to begin with.

                    • kmk

                      I’m sorry, you’re right. The APA takes precedent over God and His teaching.

                    • Asemodeous

                      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
                      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
                      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
                      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      or
                      prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

                      You mean like having the military censor Christmas cards or forcing people to buy contraceptives?

                      Freedom of religion isn’t freedom from religion.

                      Maybe I should say STOP beating it, troll. So how much does Soros pay you per post?

                    • Asemodeous

                      “You mean like having the military censor Christmas cards or forcing people to buy contraceptives?”

                      The military is the government and has to follow the law, and the commerce clause. Come on now, try to keep up.

                      “Freedom of religion isn’t freedom from religion.”

                      Which makes gay marriage legal in this country.

                      “Maybe I should say STOP beating it, troll. So how much does Soros pay you per post?”

                      1,000 dollars.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Keep trollin’ along!

                      $1000? Soros got you cheap. Other trolls that post on this website get far more. But after reading your uniformed, incoherent, unimaginative posts…..look like he’s getting what he paid for.

                    • Linda

                      Ignore this a-hole, his whole “life” is nothing but Christian-bashing 24/7, he’s nuts.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      See link below, here are the nine members that make up the APA Guidelines Committee. These nine people draft the guidelines (or “recommendations”) for the thousands of psychiatrists to refer to. Once again, they are “recommendations”, not gospel psychiatric truths to be followed. And yes, these medical guideline committees are subject to/influenced by political agendas based sometimes on their own associations and financial/academic relationships:

                      http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2010/10/treatment-members.aspx

                    • Asemodeous

                      “See link below, here are the nine members that make up the APA
                      Guidelines Committee. These nine people draft the guidelines (or
                      “recommendations”) for the thousands of psychologists to refer to.”

                      And when the new guidelines were passed down, there wasn’t any mass upheaval within the APA. They were all mostly just fine with them since they were professionals and saw no need to be bigoted against gays. They knew better.

                      It’s also pretty stupid on your part to think that those nine wouldn’t take the opinions from their peers on this matter before deciding.

                      “And yes, these medical guideline committees are subject to/influenced by
                      political agendas based sometimes on their own associations and
                      financial/academic relationships:”

                      You just made my point for me.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      I’m assuming you are not only gay, asemodeous, but also an atheist? Correct?

                    • Asemodeous

                      One for two. You are making progress.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      “A wedding at the Rose Parade serves a number of purposes.” In your dreams this was a wedding.

      And, yes, many of us parents and grandparents DO censure our children from viewing perversity where ever it rears its ugly head. And no amount of hysterical outrage on your part will avert conscientious parents from doing so.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        Whether you approve or not, the couple is lawfully wed. They don’t require your consent. They don’t require the consent of the Church. They require the consent of the State of California to issue a marriage license.

        I think you mean censor. From whom are you getting “hysterical outrage?” All I can tell you is that parenting makes no difference with respect a child’s sexual orientation. Some of you folks are in for a big shock one of these days.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          No, I said “censure” and I meant to say “censure”: a judgment involving condemnation. If my children were to watch the Rose Bowl parade and view two men simulating marriage, I would make a judgment to them about it that would be condemnatory in nature. It would be wrong for me to show any tolerance for evil to them.

          Moreover, the “State” has issued hundreds of thousands of laws – some of them highly immoral. As this happens more and more in our society, people begin to increasingly disregard them and thus eventuates the unraveling of our society. The homosexual agenda is party to this unraveling: you know it and we all know it. People are dumb just to a point and we’re fast approaching the point.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            It is impolite rhetoric to tell people what they know. I do not believe that gay rights and same-sex marriage unravel anything. If you are ever compelled to marry someone of the same sex, let me know and I will be on your side. If your church is ever required to solemnize a same-sex marriage, do let me know. I will even donate money to your cause

            As for parenting you can censure and censor. It won’t make a whit of difference. I’ll remind you that the late Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of NARTH and the king of reparative therapy has a gay son who is quite successful as an advocate. Fundamentalist Christian (and dominionist) Beverly LeHaye has a gay son. So does Phyllis Schlafly – it’s a very long list. Suggesting that parents are responsible for the sexual orientation of their children is to misinform people. It is also damaging.

            There comes a time when a parent should ask “what if my church is wrong?” If one is wed to the notion that their religion is inerrant then their gay children (and they will have the same proportion of gay children) are going to suffer.

            Fortunately for our society, most people are selective observers. Most Jews do not keep kosher homes. Most Protestants don’t inflict capital punishment on rude children. Chris Matthews informs me that most Catholics use contraceptives while polls tell me that most Catholics (and Jews) are proponents of gay rights and marriage equality.

            If we are in decline it is due to greed and the tax code that creates poverty.

            • Deacon Ed Peitler

              You reek with hate. I will pray for you.

            • Hypatia

              I’ve enjoyed your responses. But I have to correct you in one thing. The late Dr Charles Socarides was the founder of NARTH who had a gay son. This son worked for then President as an advisor on gay issues. Dr Nicolosi, also a founder of NARTH is still alive. (You may enjoy watching Stephen Fry’s hilarious interview of him on, I believe, u tube

              • Hypatia

                Then President Clinton, I meant to say

        • Objectivetruth

          And gay marriages are not blessed by God from heaven. I’d have much more respect for active homosexuals if they would just acknowledge that fact. If they would just call their “union” what it is: an atheistic, earthly version of marriage, and in no way is blessed by God. Why don’t gays admit to this fact and Truth? Some gays do admit this, but not many.

        • Clinton Lowell Ufford

          Lawfully how?? According to who? Secular society and all it’s evil? Marriage in your eyes is apparently a juxtaposition. And who is the state of California besides a modern-day Canaanite cesspool? The only way I can come close to an agreement with you is “parenting makes no difference…” – I’ll first say that yes, parenting DOES make a difference; Second, what does our Lord say? “”As he went along, He saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should have been born blind?” “Neither he nor his parents sinned,” Jesus answered, “he was born blind so that the works of God might be revealed in him.” ~ “John 9:1-3 – The lesson here is that God can make good out of anything bad. Homosexuality is infact a “bad thing,” a sin. Just like adultery and idolatry are sins. We cant teach our children to succumb to sin and “feelings.”

  • hombre111

    The best discussion about biblical scholars and the meaning of the Greek words is over on the America website.

  • thebigdog

    If homosexuals want to be taken seriously as mature adults, they really should stop behaving like attention starved, teenage drama queens.

    If homosexuals were sincere about their desires for marriage, commitment and monogamy, they would insist on closing gay bars which produce the exact opposite effect.

    If homosexuals were sincere about their desires for marriage, commitment and monogamy, they would demand the elimination of NAMBLA. — every normal person agrees that they are degenerates.

    If homosexuals were really pro family as they claim to be, they would be pro life and not pro abortion.

  • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

    “That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks.” (Deus Caritas Est, no. 3)

    “The word eros, on the other hand, denotes the love of one who desires to possess what he or she lacks and yearns for union with the beloved.” (Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for Lent 2007)

    Let’s just keep it simple and real—“homo-eros” intrinsically lacks the complementarity that the Christian worldview requires of authentic eros (eros-as-love). On multiple occasions Pope Benedict makes this clear enough.

    One simply cannot claim that same-sex sexual behavior is immoral because it lacks the necessary “complementarity” of persons (man and awoman who are married) and then go on to claim that same-sex “intimate friendship” originating from a homoerotic attraction *is* somehow moral *despite* its lack of the complementarity necessary for “romantic” love.

    • Tom

      Two men lack the physical complementarity, therefore that sort of erotic physical union is impossible.

      It is not clear that mental or spiritual complementarity is impossible just because physical is. Indeed, that’s exactly what friendship is.

      • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

        No, actually that’s not “exactly what friendship is.” Friendship in this context has little or nothing to do with the kind of complementarity that is, according to God’s plan, at the very heart of an authentically ordered eros, which necessarily involves the complementarity of man and woman.
        You would seem to reduce the complementarity of man and woman to the merely physical, but this is not accurate.
        Same-sex sexual behaviors aren’t wrong merely because they lack the essential *physical* complementarity necessary for sexual union. They are wrong also because they are a disordered expression of an intrinsically disordered eros.

  • For The Sake of Him

    Mr. Ruse, a few points.

    1.) Ron Belgau, et. al. are not seeking to change Catholic teaching on same-sex attraction, they are simply trying to re-present it. To paraphrase Blessed John XXIII, the Church’s doctrine cannot change, but the way it is presented can change.

    2.) The Boy Scouts of America’s new membership policy is fully compatible with the teaching of the Church. Both the Catholic Committee on Scouting, the USCCB’s official liaison to the BSA, and canonist Ed Peters have confirmed that, so there is no need for concern with the BSA’s policy as written.

    3.) It is necessary for young men and women to see that there are people out there with SSA who have and are living their lives in conformity with the teachings of the Church on homosexuality. That’s one of the main reasons why Ron Belgau, Chris Damian, et. al. do what they do and why their witness in the public square is so important. This witness is especially important because it shows young people with SSA that there is a viable alternative to engaging in same-sex sexual activity and that there is a community out there who will love and support those people as they seek to lead chaste lives.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      1. “The Boy Scouts of America’s new membership policy is fully compatible with the teaching of the Church. ” So why is it that some parishes have decided to de-commission their BSA troops and to replace it with Trail Life. And besides, it is highly irrelevant what the USCCB says or does not say about the BSA since it is Catholic parents who are primarily responsible for the moral education of their children and not the bishops.

      2. “…it shows young people with SSA that there is a viable alternative to engaging in same-sex sexual activity…” This statement seems to assume that human persons are unable to control their sexual impulses. It seems also to presume that people are constantly thinking about their sexual impulses. Is this what we’ve reduced the human person to? God help us.

      • For The Sake of Him

        Deacon Peitler,

        1.) What the USCCB says is relevant because it shows that our shepherds have determined that the BSA Membership Policy is not heretical from the standpoint of Catholic teaching. Now, of course, parents have the responsibility to determine whether or not it is prudent for their children to participate in the BSA and I never said that they didn’t have that responsibility.

        2.) Let’s look at an analogy. Helen Keller was able to be highly successful in spite of being blind and deaf, and because of that she is an important role model for those who are blind and deaf to show them that it is possible to be successful in spite of her blindness and/or deafness. Speakers like Jason Evert and his wife are likewise important role models for young people who experience opposite sex attraction who may be struggling to live chaste lives in a culture in which “hooking up” is the norm for young people. It is just as counter-cultural for young people who experience SSA to lead lives of chastity. I have several friends who are orthodox Catholics who experience SSA but accept and lead their lives in accordance with Catholic teaching. They are shunned by both the so-called “gay community” and, sadly, by many orthodox Catholics, and oftentimes feel isolated and alone. They need friends who will be there to support them and are able to look past their SSA and love them as human beings, and young people with SSA need positive role models who are living proof that a life of chastity in accordance with the teachings of the Church is possible, and that they don’t have to act on their SSA. That’s what voices like Ron Belgau’s and Chris Damian’s provide.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          #1 Is simply NOT Church teaching. It might be the OPINION of a bishop or two but it is NOT Church teaching. The Church does not weigh in on whether organizations like the BSA are involved in heresy. Please study up on ecclesiology before making such blanket and erroneous statements. But don’t take my word for it, on Monday why not call the USCCB offices in DC and ask them whether the Bishops’ committee endorses the BSA.
          #2 The support you allege all these kids to need because of their sexual struggles with SSA is because they are immersed in a culture where everything centers on their genitalia and the impulses which emit therefrom. Maybe taking a cold shower and picking up a basketball game would be better suggestions for these kids. These kids need to get the heck out of obsessing with themselves.

          • happiness1535

            The problem is not mainly about genital expression. The problem is loneliness, the severe rejection they experience from both sides, the lack of hope for a family of their own, etc.
            Whether you like it or not, those who claim celibacy is impossible have made serious ground in the media and culture. Somebody must counter them.

          • Hypatia

            BSA opposes sexual activity of unmarried scouts whether straight or gay. This would seem to conform with Catholic teaching. If a child is a scout from grade school and realizes at puberty he is same sex attracted, are you suggesting he be thrown out even if he is celibate like his straight peers?

        • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

          The problem is that thus far the “Spiritual Friendship” model has not demonstrated that it is fully in accord with the teachings of the Church on human sexuality. It is in my view only *partially* in accord. It’s laudable to stand with the Church regarding the immorality of same-sex sexual activity. But the claim that some forms of “homo-eros” are not intrinsically disordered or that some forms of “homo-eros” should be viewed as “gifts” should be considered departures from existing Church teaching regarding what is a properly ordered and authentic “eros.”

        • Austin Ruse

          You have no idea what you are talking about. Either that of you are diversely lying. The committee you speak of is not a committee of bishops. On fact, I do t think any bishops are involved in it at all. It is an office run by a guy named Bob McCarty, a layman, with no supervision of any ” shepherds” as you say. I have written at least two columns here about him.

          • For The Sake of Him

            Wrong, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting is led by Ed Martin, a Catholic layman, and by Bishop Robert Guglielmone, who is the USCCB liaison. http://www.nccs-bsa.org/contacts/NCCScontacts.php

            • Austin Ruse

              My mistake. I was thinking of the catholic committee on the Girl Scouts. Even so, this is NOT a committee of the body of bishops. They are NOT “our shepherds” giving their imprimatur.

              And anyway, my point in the piece was to point out the scouts always accepted gays. Now they an be out and proud, which seems to be exactly what the New Homophiles want.

              • For The Sake of Him

                I never said it was a committee of bishops, and it’s up to each diocesan bishop to discern whether to permit Catholic parishes to charter boy scout troops, but according to this National Catholic Register article, “The bishops’ conference defers to the National Catholic Committee on Scouting for decisions and policies related to the Church and the BSA.” http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/boy-scouts-lift-ban-on-homosexual-youth/#ixzz2pOSFASHQ

                • Austin Ruse

                  Actually you did. You said it was the USCCB speaking. It’s not. And even if bit was, Catholics are under no obligation to heed anything that comes out of the USCCB , which is not a part of the church’s governing structure.

                  • For The Sake of Him

                    I was under the impression that since the USCCB defers to the NCCS on questions of BSA policies and their relation to the teaching of the Church, Bishop Guglielmone, as the USCCB liaison to the NCCS, spoke for the USCCB on matters pertaining to whether particular BSA policies were in conformity with the teachings of the Church. The National Catholic Register seemed to believe that as well in the article I attached in a previous comment. If that is not the case, then I was mistaken and I apologize.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You just overstate the case.

              • For The Sake of Him

                So, Bishop Guglielmone speaks for the USCCB on issues related to the BSA as the USCCB liaison.

              • For The Sake of Him

                And because of that, and since he has a reputation for orthodoxy, I take his assessment of the new policy very seriously.

    • Austin Ruse

      Actually they’re asking for a development of doctrine.

      It’s quite irrelevant that the Catholic committee for scouting or ed peters says its fine to have out gays in scouting.

      The third point is strictly your opinion. And are you aware they the bishops have said public announcement of gayness is not helpful or advisable? There’s a group that more closely conforms to church teaching called Courage.

      • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

        *Are* they asking for a development of “doctrine,” ultimately, or are they asking for a development of “natural law”?

  • Beth

    Christopher, Ron and friends–get over yourselves! You are so busy gazing at your navels…well in that vicinity anyway…that you miss life going on around you. I am so sorry that you struggle with this addiction. Maybe you feel the same about my relations who are alcoholics or shopaholics or game-aholics and you probably feel I am a judge-aholic. Focus on the Lord and how you can give Him the glory He so deserves….not on how special He made you…..

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

      Remind me what I said below about ignorant mythology . . .

  • Art Deco

    The Sorosphere has sent another pair of trolls. Get ready for the 800 comment marathon.

    • Adam__Baum

      I’d much rather an open forum rather that the pretentious, peurile caprice that passes for “moderation” in places I won’t mention, but that generate the infamous “601 Database redigestation error”, something needs to be done with trolls. Answering them fuels their narcissim, Silence might connote consent.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    WOULD YOU EVER SING OR SAY THIS IN A MALE-TO-MALE FRIENDSHIP, OR AN SSA ONE, NOW THAT WE HAVE AUTHORIZED HOMOSEXUALITY TO CLAIM SQUATTERS RIGHTS ON ALL THINGS MALE. I don’t think so! For only a woman (as the Theotokos shows us with infinite perfection) can only open up mystery to a man –
    even to one who has gone astray, as the song below sings.

    In the ways of a man with a woman, what sets the petals of mystery opening, righteous jealousy is its lubricant. There is exclusion, even possession. Jealousy has it part to play in heterosexual love: this seeking of union setting itself apart, reserved and preserved. The mutual love of man and woman is one love that cannot be shared or evangelized.

    In friendship – male to male, or whatever – jealousy (the surety and comfort of reserving and preserving) would be its unraveling, its surrender to the sweet sticky poison of the nightshades. If friendship cannot (is not willing) to be share, dispersed, it is not
    friendship – it is something other, a disordered thing, a parody of true sexual
    love, and a mockery of the affection of friends. Friendship that insists on setting itself apart, reserving and preserving what cannot be, is not even attraction to the beloved friend.

    Not to diminish friendship – for its true nature cannot be, but there is no mystery to or in friendship. Mystery does not define its nature. Now, a woman’s love, received and penetrated, is weaved with mystery. It is a sign of eternal life, for it is unending – a woman’s mystery can never to received or entered into enough.

    Enjoy the song. What a voice!

    “I Put a Spell on You”, Nina Siomone

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua2k52n_Bvw

  • Mark

    I don’t see where any of us New Homophiles are looking for a change in Church teaching.

    The only real development in “teaching” that could possibly be gleaned from some of the writings is that the language of “objective disorder” (as ancient and venerable as…1986) would be qualified (not renounced, even, just specified) to clarify that this is referring only to the lust for gay sex acts specifically, but it would have to be recognized that the social construct of “sexual orientation” is (now, at least) an experience much broader than this one very narrow focus which cannot be called anything like its essence.

    Otherwise, as far as I can tell, the New Homophile approach is entirely directed at simply remedying hypocrisies on the pastoral level (and the level of individual charity), not having anything to do with changing moral theory about acts, but rather about how that theory is extrapolated into “emanations from penumbras” of culture-war politics in actions and rhetoric directed at individuals and a demographic group as a class. And even just at the disproportionate emphasis.

    It is one thing to propose to people “gay sex acts are immoral.” It is quite another to jump from there to the nonsense one sees regarding kicking kids out of Catholic schools for the presumed sins of their guardians, avoiding family gatherings due to the presence of certain people, holding minor exorcisms in state capitals, and generally seeming to enforce an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding orientation and membership in the Catholic community. None of this flows in any sort of airtight way from the moral teaching.

    As far as I know, there is no dogma “Homosexual orientation, even in the chaste, must be stigmatized” if orientation is understood in the way everyone in the culture (including Pope Francis, it seems) understands it: as an identity and experience not reducible merely to certain lusts. Frankly, I don’t think stigmatization comes into Catholic teaching anywhere. Moral teachings are a rational assent. As far as I know, there is no such dogma as the “you must feel vaguely negative and uncomfortable” dogma, about anything. There is no “don’t ask, don’t tell” dogma. There is no “be discreet and don’t disturb the rest of our mental Pleasantville if your subjective experience doesn’t fit into bourgeois heteronormativity” dogma.

    • Deacon Ed Peitler

      There is nothing normal about same sex attraction. It is disordered. And, besides, the sane among us are not interested in a steady diet of hearing about others’ disordered impulses. We’re simply bored by it.

      • happiness1535

        It is your choice to visit their websites or read this and other articles.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          They can go elsewhere; I am staying where I am, thank you.

  • MarcAlcan

    To say that one should be out and proud about being gay as long as you are celibate is just plain wrong. Should those who desire to have sex with children so long as they do not do so be out and proud about the fact that they want to have sex with children? Or how about those who want to engage in bestiality but do not. Should we have a group of people going about declaring that we should accept them for their inclination so long as they don’t give in to it? If an inclination is disordered, then it is disordered. I don’t see why we should celebrate this dis-orderedness. Our inclinations do not define us.

  • antigon

    Was it Sobran who said the sin that once dare not speak its name has now become the one that can’t shut up?

  • John

    Sorry but I read this article and feel confused and irritated. I admire homosexuals who want to stay faithful to traditional catholic teaching (.ie.the ONLY form of catholic teaching and which will never change, etc.) and respect their courage. I don’t either pretend to be superior because I don’t have to face this challenge. However, there is just no way of getting around it: the church forbids all homosexual physical acts (sodomy) as it does adultery and fornication for us. End of story. This will NEVER CHANGE no matter how much time you spend nuancing, intellectualising and triangulating and no matter how often we are labelled “homophobes” or whatever the insult of choice is these days!

    • naturgesetz

      Your first two sentences are quite good, but the rest of your comment has nothing to do with the “New Homophiles.”

      BTW, the Church doesn’t “forbid” homosexual acts (as if it were up to the Church to decide whether or not to forbid them). The Church _teaches_ that such acts are intrinsically immoral. (The Church _forbids_ things like eating meat on Friday — unless one selects an alternative penance — and having a wedding somewhere other than a church unless one has a dispensation.)

  • Monty

    It is not a “gift” something to be shouted out from the roof top. It is a Cross that one must carry as I have carried it these many years. I belong to Courage an approved RC Apostolate that supports those with SSA to live celibate lives.

    • Adam__Baum

      Hang in there Monty.

  • kmk

    A quick glance here does not show the word ‘sin’, but there is plenty of spin.
    I recently discovered this magazine and appreciate all things Catholic, however it is time consuming attempting to understand the hyperbole and rhetoric.
    I believe this is one of the things Pope Francis was referring to when he said to stick to the basics.
    God loves us and wants us to make more of us. There is only one way to do that.

  • Carol Leeda Crawford

    Saint Augustine is one of my favourites. I particularly enjoy reading his confessions. Book X Chapter 23 is one I often quote. I have read much of the dialogue here regarding sexual orientation and acceptance, normal or abnormal. Fact will not win in this argument. Deception, especially when we want something to be true will be held on to with all one’s might. Here is an excerpt:

    “Why, then, does truth generate hatred, and why does thy servant who preaches the truth come to be an enemy to them who also love the happy life, which is nothing else than joy in the truth–unless it be that truth is loved in such a way that those who love something else besides her wish that to be the truth which they do love. Since they are unwilling to be deceived, they are unwilling to be convinced that they have been deceived. Therefore, they hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that they love in place of the truth. They love truth when she shines on them; and hate her when she rebukes them. And since they are not willing to be deceived, but do wish to deceive,
    they love truth when she reveals herself and hate her when she reveals them.
    On this account, she will so repay them that those who are unwilling to be exposed by her she will indeed expose against their will, and yet will not disclose herself to them.

    Thus, thus, truly thus: the human mind so blind and sick, so base and ill-mannered,
    desires to lie hidden, but does not wish that anything should be hidden from
    it. And yet the opposite is what happens—the mind itself is not hidden from the
    truth, but the truth is hidden from it. Yet even so, for all its wretchedness,
    it still prefers to rejoice in truth rather than in known falsehoods. It will,
    then, be happy only when without other distractions it comes to rejoice in that
    single Truth through which all things else are true.”

    When we seek the truth and humbly ask God to guide our thinking and knowing, He will if we honestly surrender to it. I pray the Divine Mercy every day for the conversion of sinners. I love the last paragraph in the chapter I just quoted from above. Seek God above all else and you will find true happiness. I studied psychology in undergrad and in grad school, anatomy three different ways, function and structure being the most amazing. What have I learned you might ask me? Complexity is best simplified when you observe all the TRUE premises and admit the conclusion they reveal. Anatomically, two men are not designed by God to have sexual relations. Fact, most of the behaviours they practice cause disease or disorder. The bowl lining is designed to absorb the last of the nutrition from our food, yes from our dung. Our mouths as well are constructed by God for specific use. I am saddened by all the young men with AIDS, throat cancer and other diseases caused by sexual practices which go against the function and structure on their anatomy. As well, I am concerned for their souls. I know I love them more than they love themselves. I don’t want you to die or to go to hell.

  • Mr_Amagi

    We moderns take ourselves too seriously and we bring a feel of studied correctness and artificiality to all we do, and this is doubly true of sexuality. Although there is much to admire about the New Homophiles, contrast what they say to one of the early church fathers, who thanked God that in his adolescence he had been kept from fornication with Jack or with Jill. (citation needed, if anybody recognizes it, and I am probably quoting it badly, please post a reply)

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

    I cannot find the post to respond directly but Austin mentioned the book by George, Anderson and Gigris. Robby is an interesting guy. Ryan T. Anderson has generally been the spokesman for the group. The fact that three smart people pose arguments does not mean that those arguments are coherent. Jerome Corsi has a PhD from Harvard. Kevin B. MacDonald is a smart guy with a PhD.

    Ryan is a very smart young man. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. The fact that he is smart does not mean that he is right:

    “… marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and
    wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is
    based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and
    complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a
    man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother
    and a father.”

    That definition is sometimes true. Yet nothing in that statement makes a case for opposing gay marriage. Same here:

    ” While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly
    recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for
    childbearing and childrearing.”

    If government does promote marriage (I’m not sure that it does) then it is probably through the tax code. Children are not a requirement for filing a joint return. Again, where is the case for banning gay marriage?

    “… if marriage is redefined, then a belief that
    marriage is the union of a man and a woman ordered to procreation and
    family life — a notion once shared by virtually every human society —
    would increasingly be characterized as an irrational prejudice that
    ought to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for
    religious believers are becoming apparent.”

    Well. I don’t think that is the universal definition of marriage. For centuries, the purpose for marriage has been to create a marital estate. What Anderson is saying is that discrimination should be maintained so that supporters of discrimination will not be called discriminators. In point of fact, nobody cares if someone doesn’t like gay marriage. Fine. Don’t gay marry. It is not the belief that bothers me. It is the money – vast sums at the behest of the Church – and the organization trying to prevent gay people from marrying when those doing so have no benefit other than supporting their religion. Our laws are required to have a secular purpose and none is stated. The above is certainly not a coherent argument that supports banning gay marriage.

    One more – Ryan’s message to David Blankenhorn:

    “Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male-female sexual
    complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that
    optional would also make other essential characteristics—such as
    monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence—optional”
    So gay marriage leads to polygamy and causes opposite-sex couples to cheat on each other? Exactly how that works is a mystery. It is absurd per se. Wouldn’t the divorce rate have sky-rocketed in Massachusetts (it has gone even lower). Where is the proof?

    These same arguments have never worked. They failed in the Prop 8 trial, the Prop 8 appeal, in Utah, in New Jersey, in United States v Windsor. They failed to convince voters in Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. They fail because they are unconvincing. They are unconvincing because they lack evidence – they are theoretical. I have a vast Ryan T. Anderson collection. One can do a search at the Slowly Boiled Frog. Smart kid with terrible arguments.

    Ryan has the resources to study equal marriage in Spain and Canada. Can he separate correlation from causation and make a more compelling case?

    • Austin Ruse

      David, I assume you do not believe that multiple marriages should be allowed? If not, why not? What is the underlying principle that explains your opposition to multiple marriage?

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        I don’t know enough about polygamy to weigh in. I have read some research that concludes that the children of plural marriage are under stress because they are forced to compete for attention. If it ever becomes a contentious issue that is being revisited I will read research on both sides and make up my mind.

        • Austin Ruse

          Perhaps you would share your definition of marriage?

          • Austin Ruse

            And I think you have already dispensed with the necessity of children to make a marriage so it would seem that is not relevant when considering plural marriage.

          • Adam__Baum

            Austin, like everything else it’s what you want it to be. No boundaries, no essential elements, no limits.

            Newspapers report the “marriage” of a woman to a roller coaster as an acceptable curiosity, rather than evidence of a lack of mental hygiene.

            • Austin Ruse

              The problem is that they insist there is no new definition of marriage and then they cannot define marriage at all excpet in the roundabout way David has above. What’s more, they hvae no underlying principle which means marriage can mean anything and ultimately nothing.

              • Adam__Baum

                I agree.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            The purpose for marriage is to create a marital estate. That has been true for hundreds of years. I am sure you know that “giving away the bride” had a literal meaning. Women were property of their father’s until ownership was transferred to their husband.

            Adam and Eve married to procreate. King David had many wives and concubines. Nevertheless since the 15th century it has been primarily about property.

            In my very red state of Florida, the state claims that the purpose of marriage is to create a means for the support of children, if any, in the event that the union dissolves.

            • Austin Ruse

              That’s kind of circular. It does not get to what marriage is. Please define marriage.

              • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                In 18 states it is the union of two people. In 32 states it is the union of one man and one woman. The purpose for that union is to create a marital estate.

                • Asemodeous

                  It won’t be 18 until next summer.

                • Austin Ruse

                  What is your definition, David?

                  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                    The union of two adults for the purpose of creating a marital estate.

                    Note that I think that I think that marriage licenses should not be issued to people under 18 which differs from most state laws.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      What’s the underlying principle limiting it to two?

                    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                      Relatively recent convention limits marriage to two people. It seems to work. Absent marriage I was with my one late partner for over 30 years. One was enough. For members of FLS polygamy seems to work. That is based on their religious beliefs. Yet it remains illegal.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And presumably this would include an adult man and his adult son? And two old maid aunts?

                    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                      Of course not. By law we do not permit close relatives to marry.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Do you have an underlying principle for limiting it to two? Or for saying that two old maid aunts, who have no chance of conceiving together, cannot also form a marital union?

                    • Hypatia

                      BTW the reason for limiting it to two is the free rider problem. With two, it is clear each is responsible for the other. Also polygamy tends to leave too many men out of the civilizing effects of marriage as richer men monopolize the women

                    • Austin Ruse

                      So, your underlying principle is what exactly?

            • For The Sake of Him

              Mr. Hart, what compelling interest does the state have in recognizing an affectionate relationship that has zero chance of producing children? Wouldn’t a will be sufficient to accomplish the interests you’re talking about?

              • Asemodeous

                “Mr. Hart, what compelling interest does the state have in recognizing an
                affectionate relationship that has zero chance of producing children?”

                The state conveys thousands of benefits to married people that don’t exist for single people. Hospital visitation rights, shared property rights, taxation waivers, etc etc. None of which have anything to do with child rearing.

                You only want to focus on procreation since it is the only half decent argument left for homophobes. All the while ignoring the other benefits marriage brings to people.

                • For The Sake of Him

                  I don’t agree with it, but I think the argument for abolishing civil recognition of marriage is a lot stronger than the argument for redefining marriage. Why should society subsidize someone’s love life?

                  • Asemodeous

                    “I don’t agree with it, but I think the argument for abolishing civil
                    recognition of marriage is a lot stronger than the argument for
                    redefining marriage.”

                    That would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

                    “Why should society subsidize someone’s love life?”

                    Married people promote social stability, which is in the governments interest. Which is another argument for gays to marry.

                    • For The Sake of Him

                      1. No, it would leave marriage as the province of churches and other intermediary social institutions. Civil marriage would cease to exist in the laws of the land.

                      2.Friendships support social stability too, yet government doesn’t subsidize friendships. What’s so special about marriage that merits governmental recognition and subsidization?

                    • Asemodeous

                      “1. No, it would leave marriage as the province of churches and other intermediary social institutions.”

                      You are aware that there are religions in the united states that are perfectly fine with gays? And since the first amendment exists, the USA cannot deny them their right to religious marriage as they define it.

                      Eliminating all civil marriages would make gay marriage possible nationwide. It is the government that is preventing churches friendly with gays from doing legally bound marriages.

                      “What’s so special about marriage that merits governmental recognition and subsidization?”

                      Cultural and social pressures. Come on now, try to keep up.

              • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

                Actually no. For example, a defined benefit pension plan can only be transferred to a spouse. Windsor was all about taxes. The compelling legal issues are equal protection and due process. Spousal privilege exists in many different forms.

                • For The Sake of Him

                  Is there a resource of some sort that I can look at that lists the discrepancies you’re talking about? I wish there had been more of a concerted effort between the two sides to find some solution that didn’t involve redefining marriage. Unlike abortion, with this issue the two sides could have found common ground and avoided a costly culture war battle. Now, sadly, it’s too late for that.

                  • Asemodeous

                    ” I wish there had been more of a concerted effort between the two sides
                    to find some solution that didn’t involve redefining marriage.”

                    Semantics doesn’t trump civil rights in this country.

                    “Unlike abortion, with this issue the two sides could have found common ground and avoided a costly culture war battle.”

                    That’s horribly naive. Christians in this country are easily swayed with identity politics. Republicans learned 30 years ago that they can take advantage of this and link their ideology with religion and get millions of people to vote against their own best interests time and time again.

                    They do this by using petty social issues that have no religious connotation to them, like abortion, and pretend that they are religious. That tricks people into voting with them so they can go about doing what they actually want to do, which is to enrich themselves.

                    • For The Sake of Him

                      Abortion is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue, but you’re right about the GOP. I wish there was a party for people who are conservative on abortion, religious freedom, and the centrality of the nuclear family and liberal on everything else. I’d sign up with them in a heartbeat!

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Abortion is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue, but you’re right about the GOP.”

                      Yet you’ll see plenty of anti-choicers try to trick you into thinking that it is a religious argument.

                      “I wish there was a party for people who are conservative on abortion”

                      The conservative argument on abortion is the legalization of them.

                      “and the centrality of the nuclear family and liberal on everything else.”

                      The concept of the nuclear family never existed, and in itself is highly misogynistic.

                      “religious freedom”

                      Current republicans have no concept of what actual religious freedom entails.

          • DD

            The same thing Humpty Dumpty said about words. It means whatever he claims it means.

      • DD

        The sad thing is that polygamy is a step up morally from “gay” marriage.

        • CadaveraVeroInnumero

          Oops Your statement has an embedded assumption – unless I missed something. Polygamy is really the wrong term. It should be polymorphous, “marriages” cobbling all sorts of combinations: two females, one male; two males, one female; three males; three females – let imagination run rot an wild.

          The State (the Courts) will not, in our current political climate, tolerate any discriminatory limitations on genders or numbers.!

          A few months back (as reported on Huffington Post, shortly have the gay marriage victory last summer, the bi-sexual “community” was awarded a closed-door meeting with President Obama at the White House – and exited with hushed excitement.

          Humm!!!!

          Watch for the devious pulling in of ordinary Americans into accepting multiple spouse marriages. They will lull us with the same siren songs as they did with gay marriage.

          ASSIGNMENT: What were those songs. Why did we end up singing their tune.

          They will certainly push the mulch-cultural angle – you know, respecting the martial traditions of Muslims, and such. But Islam will not tolerate with the Left wants and will request that Muslim (ofter officially registering as Muslims) that they will be preented from accepting any multiple-spouse marriage except for a Muslim male taking on four wives.

          The State will agree, of course. It will accept, by law, an imposed discrimination against Muslim women. Let alone the obligation of Americans registering their religion (with the stipulation that a member cannot be released from that religious community without the community’s approval.

          So goes the slippery slide.

          The above far fetched? Don’t think so. Not now,, watching the Homophiles (New or not) transform sex from a specific act of Creation into a flexible, malleable “sexual continuum of the human experience”.

          Are weak we are., how given over the lure of the camp followers of the enemy’s horde, when it has occurred to none of us to pull down that brazen conceptual idol called The Continuum”. In that one word lies the serpentine heart of this debate about the New Homophiles – and our defeat.

          • DD

            You are correct. I was thinking too narrowly.

    • For The Sake of Him

      Here’s a good basic argument against redefinition of marriage I found in an online commentary. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/10/04/blissenbach

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        It is a rehash of the procreation argument which lost in Minnesota (where this young man was making it). It has lost in court multiple times. It is a losing argument.

        • Asemodeous

          When it was brought up to the supreme court it was laughed at for being that ridiculous. They joked about how that would entail heterosexual couples to sign marriage waivers detailing their fertility capacity and their desire for children to the state. Which is as much of a violation of privacy as you can get.

          • DD

            The logic described here is so facile and childish one wonders if a lack of intellectual wattage is the real issue. No one with a tad of reason would ever compare homosexual faux unions with heterosexual marriage. The items are so unequal it is beyond reason to think of them in the same thought.

            • Asemodeous

              None of which is a actual argument against SSM. You really should try harder.

              • DD

                What? I was responding to the absurd notion that infertile couples are analogous to homosexuals. They are not.

                An argument against homosexual contrived relationships is common sense and common decency.

    • For The Sake of Him

      Government has no compelling interest in recognizing affectionate relationships unless those relationships produce children. That’s what the legal and financial incentives are there for: to protect the civil rights of children to know and be known by the man and woman who brought them into the world. Those protections and incentives don’t make sense at all if children aren’t part of the picture. Why should government expend costly benefits and legal protections to subsidize someone’s love life if that love life doesn’t produce children who are future taxpayers and innovators for society? Government doesn’t license friendships, after all, and you don’t have to go through divorce proceedings to end a friendship. A better solution to your concerns, Mr. Hart, would be laws mandating that people a patient lives with be able to access him/her in the hospital, and that in the case of single people, their family and whomever they live with automatically inherit their property if they die intestate. Something that should also be looked at is revoking tax breaks pertaining to marriage for all childless married couples.

    • For The Sake of Him

      I think Anderson, Girgis, and George’s argument works but necessarily entails a rejection of contraception and divorce, which are equally as threatening to the integrity of marriage as enacting genderless marriage laws. If we don’t attack contraception and divorce with equal vigor, then we’re not being consistent and gay rights advocates can easily paint us as homophobic, which is exactly what they’re doing.

      • Adam__Baum

        “If we don’t attack contraception and divorce with equal vigor”.

        In an ideal world, yes. But before you turn the ship around, you have to slow it’s progress and stop it.

        • Asemodeous

          In an ideal world the rights of american adults to their own reproduction and religion are more paramount than petty fallacious arguments against SSM.

          • Adam__Baum

            In an ideal world, you are provided therapy.

            • Asemodeous

              Thanks for proving my point.

              Why don’t you just come out of the closet already and proclaim your desire for a theocracy. That will save everyone here a lot of time.

              • Adam__Baum

                What point? That you self-gratify with inane posts?

                You are the one that wants a theocracy. Ateism is a statement of faith about the existence of a deity. Just because it’s an assertion of nullity doesn’t make it any less a religion.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Just ignore this guy. He’s obsessed with hassling g Christians. Follow his comments on disqus. His most common retort is “thanks for proving my point”. He’s here to jam

                • Asemodeous

                  “What point?”

                  You keep harping about trolls but you are the only one here that refuses to make an sane argument. You’d think someone as dim as you would see the irony.

                  “You are the one that wants a theocracy.”

                  This stems from the warped definition of religious freedom that actual theocrats such as yourself prescribe to.

              • DD

                Right reason and normality now equal theocracy? Only in bizarre world.

              • Alex Soderberg

                “Thanks for proving my point.”

                Wow, such originality – the same stupid cliche. No one ever proves your point, you don’t have a point, you’re just a silly HIV-infected troll who’s mad at the whole world.

                • Asemodeous

                  You don’t even have a argument to present. Which either makes you intellectually lazy or just a idiot. I’m leaning more towards the first option considering the lack of intelligent discourse from christians on this website.

                  • John200

                    Your inability to parse does not equate to “lack of intelligent discourse from Christians.”

                    Ponder a simple answer to your problem, John 8:43 —
                    Why do you not understand what I say?
                    It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

                    I won’t conclude with the natural, “Troll on, brother.” Instead, it’ll be:

                    You have a long way to go. Best wishes as you start your journey.

                    • Asemodeous

                      “Your inability to parse does not equate to “lack of intelligent discourse from Christians.””

                      Your implication that I’m gay, also without any evidence, is another indicator of a lack of intelligence on your part.

                      ” Best wishes as you start your journey.”

                      You could do with some basic empirical reasoning skills.

                    • John200

                      I used basic empirical reasoning skills on you. You did not like the results.

                      Pitiful homo”sex”ual troll.

          • Alex Soderberg

            You don’t have reproductive rights, two guys can’t reproduce, remember?

            • Asemodeous

              “You don’t have reproductive rights, two guys can’t reproduce, remember?”

              But one gay can. Did you fail biology 101?

              • Sandra K Jenner

                If you think one gay man or one lesbian can reproduce, it is you who have the issues with science. No, no gay man can reproduce, nor can a straight man – takes male plus female, and no court will be able to impose “equality” in that area, sorry.

                • Asemodeous

                  “If you think one gay man or one lesbian can reproduce, it is you who have the issues with science.”

                  You could win one serious Nobel in Medicine if you could prove that being gay somehow makes you infertile. That would be quite the discovery!

                  “takes male plus female,”

                  This is a false categorical fallacy. The sum of the total doesn’t invalidate the individual pieces. You still need fertile people to reproduce, and gay men can easily provide that.

                  • calduncan

                    You have some mental issues.

                  • DD

                    A man cannot reproduce with another man. I guess we need to point out the obvious now.

                    • Asemodeous

                      Does that make the gay men infertile then? If that is the case, then wow, you have some impressive discovery into biology there!

                    • Guest

                      It makes his acts with another man non fertile. Is this news to you?

                    • John200

                      Well, yes, you must point out the obvious to an energetic, fully wound up homo”sex”ual troll.

                      Ase is just jamming.

        • DD

          I am not sure why we get so obsessed about being “equal” in everything as if this so called equality is a type of god. Unequal items need to be treated unequally as a matter of justice. Not all vice is equal.

      • Austin Ruse

        As you likely know the church does not allow communion for those using contraception or those who’ve divorced and remarried.

        • Asemodeous

          Which church is that?

          • Austin Ruse

            As Lenny Bruce said , “there’s only one ‘ the church.’”

            • Asemodeous

              You didn’t answer, which brings up a whole host of possible comedic follow up.

              • Adam__Baum

                Your posts have given us our RDA,

              • Austin Ruse

                Take a guess

                • Asemodeous

                  Rastafarian?

        • For The Sake of Him

          I am well aware of that, and the Catholic Church is the only logically consistent voice in this debate. What I’m wondering about is why hasn’t there been an equally concerted effort on the part of social conservatives towards outlawing no-fault divorce as there has been against so-called same-sex marriage. I think the lack of a concerted effort against no-fault divorce has harmed the credibility of social conservatism in the eyes of many young people who might otherwise take our arguments more seriously.

          • Austin Ruse

            It was tried in Louisiana. Covenant marriage. Not sure what happened. There are third rails in politics. Those are two of them. Another is IVF.

            • For The Sake of Him

              Thanks for the information, I appreciate it and I’ll share it with my Milennial friends who have been asking about that.

          • Asemodeous

            “I am well aware of that, and the Catholic Church is the only logically consistent voice in this debate.”

            That’s hysterical.

            “What I’m wondering about is why hasn’t there been an equally concerted
            effort on the part of social conservatives towards outlawing no-fault
            divorce as there has been against so-called same-sex marriage. ”

            There’s no money in it.

            “I think the lack of a concerted effort against no-fault divorce has
            harmed the credibility of social conservatism in the eyes of many young
            people who might otherwise take our arguments more seriously.”

            It has more to do with how organized religion overall is seen as just a bunch of old people too focused on petty social issues to actually pay attention to the bigger problems. Most of which they themselves are either the cause of or benefit from.

          • Hypatia

            There is no concerted fight against remarriage after divorce and contraception because if the Church seriously tried they would lose half their parishioners.
            In 1967 there were 700 annulments in the American Church; in 1978 there were 25,000. That doesn’t count those who didn’t bother and simply went to a different parish after divorce. And no one can tell which or all those two children families use contraception. But homosexuals are visible–and small enough in number to scapegoat with our fears.

            The interesting thing though is that studies suggest that after two contacts/relationships

            • Hypatia

              I was interrupted. After an average of two contacts/relationships of some depth with a gay person individuals are statistically more likely to favor gay marriage. Since young people have more of those contacts–given the openness of LGBT on campuses–many straights will also be offended by stigmatization of gays. This straight person is. So, though they are a minority of 1to 4%–depending on the study–the deterioration of the reputation of the Church may be widespread when you count the straight family members, colleagues, friends of gays. Note the objection of straight teachers to the morals clause the Cincinnati Catholic schools proposed.

  • Cathy

    Forgive me while I rant for a moment in regards to the lexicon that describes the disorder. It is not merely same-sex attraction, or same-sex relationships, both should be quantified as same-sex sexual activity attraction and same-sex sexually active relationships. Without such quantifiers made, there is a temptation to make judgments regarding normal healthy friendship as well as necessary same sex relationships which would be rightly seen as barbaric with the introduction of sexual activity. A disorder is a disorder, not a “higher” order. If my own heart desired to murder, I would not consider this a gift to cling to by telling others how I desire to murder them, but was showing my “higher” order or greater love by abstaining from murdering them. I should want to be delivered from the desire, recognizing it as an obstacle in the order of truly loving the other and the natural order to love human life.

  • Pearl

    These guys are insufferable. I started out sympathetic to their thinking but the more I hear, the less compelling it sounds. For one thing, they are incredibly thin-skinned. They demand recognition and accolades for just doing what they are supposed to do, as though being a chaste gay was some kind of incredible achievement compared to being a chaste single straight, a faithful married, a vowed religious. And when you fail to fall all over yourself recognizing them as the people who have given THE biggest sacrifice, made THE biggest commitment for Christ, suffered THE most loneliness, the claws come out. Look at the Spiritual Friendship page right now, they’re clutching their pearls and going on the offensive because some obscure Tumblr blog dared to find their whiny romanticizing of family life unrealistic. When I thought they just wanted more acceptance I was sympathetic, but it’s clear that nothing short of gushing admiration will satisfy their ego needs.

    • Patrick

      “For one thing, they are incredibly thin-skinned.”

      Shouldn’t someone being thin-skinned call us to take even more care in being compassionate toward them? They’re fragile.

      Considering the unjust discrimination many of them face from those who do not treat them as the Catholic Church demands, it is an understandable fault. They have been made fragile through callous behavior of others. That’s an injury just as surely as a bruise is, and it calls us to help them, not scoff at their weakened state.

      “They demand recognition and accolades for just doing what they are supposed to do, as though being a chaste gay was some kind of incredible achievement compared to being a chaste single straight, a faithful married, a vowed religious.”

      No, they’re trying to make sure there are visible role models of that particular vocation being practiced properly, to inspire those called to it. The general impression most people have currently is either that such individuals don’t even exist, or that they are consigned to some pitiful life of misery and hopeless loneliness. That needs to change, and the only way to do that is to make sure people know about people joyfully, fruitfully living that vocation.

      “And when you fail to fall all over yourself recognizing them as the people who have given THE biggest sacrifice, made THE biggest commitment for Christ, suffered THE most loneliness, the claws come out.”

      I’m pretty sure they never used any such superlatives. And at the same time, nobody likes being told their very real suffering is trivial. Especially not when it is a very real part of the vocation they are called to. Trivializing the experiences they are called to offer up as sacrifice is to trivialize their very vocation.

      “I thought they just wanted more acceptance I was sympathetic, but it’s clear that nothing short of gushing admiration will satisfy their ego needs.”

      Often their reaction is excessive, but it is an overreaction to the very denial of acceptance or sympathy in question. If they consistently received those things, especially as children, the situation would not be as bad on all sides. Doesn’t justify overreacting, but it does acknowledge that an overreaction doesn’t happen without an initial wrong to react to, and from a purely utilitarian perspective, we could eliminate that problematic overreaction by treating the problem it is a symptom of.

      • Art Deco

        Shouldn’t someone being thin-skinned call us to take even more care in being compassionate toward them? They’re fragile.

        No, of course not. You do not throw rubbing alcohol on open flames.

        • Patrick

          We should not be compassionate to people who are easily harmed?

          You realize that the Church teaching is that we MUST be compassionate to these people. Not optional. Not just when you feel like it.

          If you want to say the Magisterium is wrong, that’s your folly. I’ll try to convince you it’s a bad idea, but I can’t prevent you from going through the wide gate if you have your mind set on it.

          • Art Deco

            Doesn’t matter what I feel, Patrick. It is inadvisable to feed other people’s vices. The thin-skinned need to address their character defects, not have me mollycoddle them.

            • fredx2

              Well, you are going to have to take it up with the Catholic church, because the Catechism says this:

              “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

              So, as far as I can see, not treating them with respect and sensitivity is a sin. You don’t have to feed their vices. You don’t have to approve of homosexuality. But you have to respect them as if you were talking to Christ.

              And so the answer is yes, you need to be compassionate to people who are easily harmed.

              • OT

                Yes, and compassion does not mean that you see “hurt” in every circumstance as legitimate.

                • Patrick

                  How can hurt be illegitimate? What kinds of wounds don’t count and by what means can we identify them?

                  If we just respect human dignity and show compassion by default we don’t need to change our behavior for those who especially need compassion. Funny how that works.

                  • Guest

                    There is all manner of illegitimate suffering. Just because one claims offense is not proof offense occurred.

                    Respect is fine. Mis-defining respect is not fine.

                    • Patrick

                      So you’re just going to assume they’re lying so you don’t always have to conduct yourself with respect for human dignity?

                    • Art Deco

                      Someone’s subjective emotional states are not their own justification. Not rocket science, Patrick.

                    • DD

                      Exactly. The standard must have an objective component or it is all subjective.

                    • DD

                      Nonsense. Every instance is judged on its own merits. You may want to read On the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals Persons. It mentions that the technique of accusing others of unjust discrimination is common even when have truth is given.

            • Patrick

              Catechism says we must treat them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. No conditions or exceptions.

              And you do realize that by treating them callously when they are trying to deal with those defects makes it harder for them to succeed right?

              Or are you the kind of person that just jostles past elderly women who walk with canes and rationalize it by claiming their frailties are their own fault?

              If someone has a cast on their arm, you would take care not to disrupt the healing process, yeah?

              How is this any different? Maybe that guy has a thin skin from being repeatedly assaulted for being gay, even if he is staying chaste. You think being insensitive and disrespectful is going to do anything but make his thin-skinned-ness WORSE?

              Your actions have consequences too.

              • John200

                “Your actions have consequences too.”

                Your actions might have consequences if you were not such a monumental, monotonous, monomaniacal, desperately, achingly self-righteous troll.

                I’d like to know who winds you up; they have developed a very effective technique.

              • Art Deco

                Yes, in the course of my daily labors, I am disrespectful, cruel, and insensitive.

                Sorry, Patrick. I am not in the habit of telling grown men they are ‘special’ or will be given special consideration because of an acquired inability to face criticism (“thin skinned”). I would not in the long term be doing them any favors.

                • Patrick

                  Nice strawman. Nobody said you had to call them special. I said people with emotional wounds should be treated with the comparable care to what we would show someone with a physical wound.

                  Hurting them more (even if merely negligently rather than deliberately) doesn’t help them in the long term, no matter how much you rationalize it.

                  • OT

                    This is a case by case issue as well as a matter of context. Illegitimate suffering does not mean all bow to it under the guise of “compassion”.

                  • Art Deco

                    Patrick, try to focus. You said we should all give special consideration to people who are ‘thin-skinned’. That does not do such people any favors.

                    • Patrick

                      We should give them the SAME consideration we give anyone who could be easily harmed if we act negligently.

                      You really don’t like the corporal works of mercy, do you? Having to show all that extra care to people just because they are already suffering?

              • OT

                Let’s stop the drama. Compassion and sensitivity do not equal popular effeteness.

                • Patrick

                  What drama? People are hurting and we shouldn’t contribute to that hurt if we can help it. Where’s the “effeteness” in that?

                  Do you feel like you’ve gotta be callous and rude to people be a “real man” or something?

                  • Guest

                    Why the false choices? It is effete to view every call of lack of charity as legitimate. It is wrong to see insensitivity in every word.

                    It is not callous or rude to speak the plain truth.

    • fredx2

      Thnk about it. Even if only one in five people that you met each day said something rude, or presumptuous, or completely wrong based on something they heard, you would be thin skinned too. The Catechism says “This inclination, …constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
      Their nerves are going to be rubbed raw. So people need to go the extra mile.

      • Art Deco

        Sorry. I am not going to recompose manners in response to your imagination.

        • Guest

          The problem is the standard our friends use here is entirely subjective. Such a standard is contrary to reaosn, mercy, and justice.

    • Hypatia

      A chaste single straight has a chance at marriage; they can at least try. The faithful married has the spouse. The vowed religious made that choice. Celibate gays do not have the hope to have

      • Hypatia

        A marriage and they did not have the choice to be gay that a religious had to take vows. Their sacrifice IS generally bigger.

        I also think it will all be for naught. Just as the Church allows persons in second marriages to take communion because they may be living as brother and sister so will they allow gay couples to do so because they might be living as brother and brother or sister and sister. Indeed Sarah and Lindsay blog on a site called a Queer Calling that they have a live-together partnership and are pledged to each other and that this does NOT include sex, for religious reasons.

  • Pingback: the Revision Division

  • teapartydoc

    The best thing a chaste gay can do is be quiet about it in church. Chaste heteros that aren’t priests or nuns don’t going around talking about how special they are. Even Newton waited until after he was dead to crow about it.

    • Patrick

      Shouldn’t there be role models of faithful Catholics who are burdened with homosexual desire but successfully resist it and still live a joyful, God-centered life in the vocation they are called to?

      That way others with that inclination do not simply walk away from the Church because the hope it holds for them has been hidden under a basket?

      • Bumpy Rhodes

        I’d agree with your idea, but I’d like to suggest that one with SSA go further, and testify to others who may be of the same orientation and let them know that God welcomes all who truly seek Him.

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Homosexual Virgins | Christian Pundit

  • Bumpy Rhodes

    For what it’s worth, NCR shut down its comment pages.

  • Pingback: A First Response to Austin Ruse | Spiritual Friendship

  • Pingback: A First Response to Austin Ruse » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

  • NDaniels

    God would never identify any person as an object of sexual desire/orientation as that would be a direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.

  • thebigdog

    This inclination, (pyromania) …constitutes for most of them a trial. They (pyromaniacs) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their (pyromaniacs) regard should be avoided.

    • Guest

      When the CCC is quoted I often wonder which persons should not be treated with compassion and sensitivity? Does such a group exist?

      • bonaventure

        If you want an answer, don’t log in as a “guest.”

        • Guest

          Why doe that matter?

  • Pingback: A First Response to Austin Ruse - Hardcore Catholic

  • Pingback: John Allen Joins the Boston Globe - BigPulpit.com

  • lucho gatica

    Sad! Still dealing with history,
    semantics, scriptures etc. but cero animal and human biology and scientific
    research. Again and again the earth is flat! the earth is the center of the universe…do
    Indians have a soul?? Articles like this render traditional Catholics
    IRRELEVANT. Some will love to be attacked so they feel like martyrs
    others use verbal and physical violence to feel superior…at the end most
    people will listen of what they have to say…smile and just ignore them, just like you do with other fundamentalists. Long live freedom of expression! BTW
    Leviticus and st Paul didn’t know anything about the distinction between gender
    and sexual orientation… God created male and female not adam and steve…sorry!! my mistake God created male and female and intersexuals….just open a book…pleese,

    • bonaventure

      The absolute only ones who use “verbal and physical violence” (as you write) are the liberal/homosexual activists. You’re a good example of verbal violence. I don’t know about physical… you can answer that yourself.

      • Patrick

        Odd you should say that when I saw in the newspaper just today that a man was convicted of felony assault because he just decided to pick a fight with a couple of gay men in a restaurant and felt that apparently punching one of the gay men was an acceptable outlet for his frustration on the subject. The same thing happened here a couple years ago in plain sight of a police station. The gay man was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized.

        Sweeping problems like that under the rug rather than addressing them simply makes the problems worse.

        Homosexual acts is a sin, so is promoting them.
        Picking a fight and sending someone to the hospital is no less a sin and will only make the whole debate over the issue more irrational.

        • bonaventure

          I believe you are lying.
          If a heterosexual man had REALLY assaulted a homosexual sinner as you claim, Obama himself would be bullying Congress into passing “Defense of Gayness” acts, and ALL the liberal news outlets would be drilling this on end.

  • Mirtia

    You do not need to be gay – it is either an intra uterus option or a problem in your raising – Dr. Renate Jost de Moraes has a therapy called ADI – TIP that has had lots of success with the ones that adhere to it and want it – there has been lots of healing and conversions – by the ones that really want it – the site address is http://www.fundasinum.org.br and her books are in Portuguese, German and Italian. She was very much encouraged by Ratzinger who was made familiar with her 40 year work and its victories. I am talking about something I have been into and saw the results.

  • schmenz

    Mr Ruse:

    I wonder if we could stop using such contradictory, self-defeating phrases as “celibate homosexual Christian”. If you wish to call this poor man a Christian who is trying to fight off committing – by thought, word or deed – the deadly mortal sin of sodomy, that is fine. But in the phrase you and others use you are implying, whether you wish to or not, that people can be born sodomites which is as ludicrous as saying that someone can be born a felon, a wife beater or an adulterer.

    Additionally I find it rather telling that people such as this gentleman go out of their way to inform us that they are homosexuals (forgive me, I will not slander a perfectly innocent word like “gay” to describe such hideousness). I find it equally telling, and perhaps a little amusing, that we are further informed that he is “celibate”. I am unclear how we would go about testing that affirmation. In any case, are men such as he so desperate for attention that they would reveal to the world this dark side of their lives? What drives them to proudly announce to all and sundry their interest in sexual perversion?

    I feel genuinely sorry for this individual even while admiring his Biblical scholarship. Let’s hope that that scholarship leads him away from his destructive lifestyle.

  • Paul Sho

    Mr Belgau where does it say that God punishes his people for multiple wives?

  • john hickey

    Apart from everything else you’ve all mentioned, should we begin a debate about paedophobia soon.

  • bonaventure

    I answer with a resounding and uncompromising NO to Austin Ruse’s final question.

    Q.: “Can we accept them on their terms?”
    A.: “No!”

    After all, other disordered sexual conducts also cause emotional (and, as Matthew Parker writes below, physical pain), yet no one in the Church but the homosexuals parade their perversion. In fact, they take pride in it, which is in itself a sin (pride = mother of all sins).

    I mean, one doesn’t hear about celebration conferences organized the “Adulterer Christian Network,” the “Fornicator Christian Network,” or the “Porn Addict Christian Network,” right? And that in spite of the fact that these sexual perversions are no less stronger, as feelings, than homosexuality.

    Sin is sin, whatever “celebration” one would like to spin it with.

    • Patrick

      Recovering alcoholics don’t call themselves non-alcoholics or ex-alcoholics. They generally make a deliberate point of acknowledging their flaw, because it helps themselves and others stay vigilant against the temptation AND it shows others with the problem that they are not alone, that there is hope of recovery.

      From what I can tell, that is the motivation most Catholics who identify themselves as gay are trying to do, as well. Especially ones who are members of Catholic support groups for the inclination and who are keeping to the chaste vocation they are called to.

      We’ve been taught to treat any sort of acknowledgement of the problem as “parading” or “flaunting.”
      And at the same time they are ostracized and shamed even if they are doing everything they can to remain faithful and try to avoid sin.

      Especially with young people, ostracism causes more distress than even physical violence. It even activates the same parts of the brain that physical pain does.
      We must be careful not to make young people with this problem think that the only thing they’ll receive from the Church is ostracism, or they WILL wander. They found groups based on that shared trait because they have a shared experience of being treated in ways that hurt their basic human dignity because of it.
      We need to make them know they have a place here so they don’t break away and view us as an enemy. And that doesn’t require changing Church teaching or lying or accommodating sin, because we AREN’T their enemy and simply treating them with the compassion and respect that their human dignity requires will show that perfectly well.

      They will know we are Christians by our love.

      • bonaventure

        There is no love in lies. To love is to tell the truth: “You hypocrites…” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Yet he died for the Pharisees too.

  • Pingback: Confusion at Crisis | Spiritual Friendship

  • Pingback: Confusion at Crisis » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

  • Pingback: Confusion at Crisis - Hardcore Catholic

  • Juan

    People need to stop labeling themselves by their
    temptations. People who are tempted to have intercourse with women to whom they are
    not married are not “adulterals”. People who are tempted to say bad
    things about others behind their backs are not “detractuals.” It’s ontological nonsense and psychologically damaging.

    • Patrick

      Admitting one has a problem is generally considered to be the first step toward fixing it.

  • Pingback: The Slow Death Of Perversion | William M. Briggs

  • Hypatia

    I suspect, Mr Ruse, you will wear your pause button out with constant use. Not just cooking shows, but news shows, wedding announcements (eg. New York Times Sunday Style pages) even lists of contributors to charities (eg. Mr. and Mr. Smith contributed x)–all “reveal someone’s sexual and affectional desires”. What you ignore is that this is at least as true for heterosexuals as for homosexuals. Each time I, a woman, refer to “my husband”, I am revealing those “desires”. When my friend Darren speaks of his husband, he is doing the same. Should all people refrain from identifying their spouses? Should I refrain from holding hands with my husband as we walk down the street? And if not, (ie it is ok to hold my husband’s hand in public) why should Darren refrain from doing the same publicly with his husband? [Ironically I had merely a civil marriage with my husband, while Darren had both a civil and religious one with his]. You say that adulterers do not identify themselves publicly. Usually that is because they feel guilty or at least embarrassed about their sin/acts. More and more gays (not to speak of their families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues) simply don’t believe their “sexual and affectional desires” are sinful. Especially in marriage, they can cause for joy and for coming closer to God. Gays are not censoring themselves in public any more than straights do, so it looks like you’ll have to keep that pause button working.

    • Hypatia

      Correction: they can be, and often are, cause for joy

    • GB

      Thank you for a perfect example of moral relativism. Your reasoning is exactly why we are in the bad state we are in today.

      • Hypatia

        Well , thank you, II guess. I take “relativism”to mean that I try to “relate” new information we have learned to our inherited moral codes, including the Bible. The Bible did not address sexual orientation as we understand it today–just sexual acts, often within a very different framework. Many believe that key lines about same sex acts were related to prostitution and pederasty. In the ancient world same sex acts were often seen in dominance-submission terms. Books have been written about my assertions in the last 3 sentences–both pro and con. And of course homosexuality is not the only thing we must decide on. When I (a woman ) speak in church, eat shellfish, have lunch with divorcees, I am making judgements about what commandments are “related” to those acts/situations. A facile dismissal of this by labeling it “relativism”, (as if that is automatically a bad thing), rather than reasoning together only appeals to the already convinced. There are fewer and fewer of them by the day.

        • GB

          No, relativism means you have no objective unchanging norm. You do what you want.

          So-called sexual orientation does not need to be addressed in Scripture. We know what health and pathology are. We know normal and abnormal.

          Your reasoning is facile and hedonistic. The OT spoke of the ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law. The old “shellfish” thing is a stupid gay argument. It does not meet the test of logic, history, Scripture, or common sense.

          • Hypatia

            Thanks for your prompt response. I am actually aware of the different types of law in the Old Testament ( and that the prohibition of male-male intercourse can be seen as a purity law similar to the mixed fabric prohibition) and would like to discuss it with you. However I have to go to work now but will resume the discussion this evening.

            • GB

              The big problem is running all this through the prism of the modern day Gay lobby that demands we all view reality as if identity politics, technocracy, and scientism were a type of dogma.

    • Paul Sho

      Why should Darren not hold hands with his homosexual partner in public?
      Because as a Christian he should not have a homosexual partner in the first place.
      This is what the Christian God told his servant Moses – face to face.
      cf Numbers 12; Leviticus 18.

      • Hypatia

        He also told him not to eat shellfish, sow two different plants in the same field, and stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night. BTW not all gay men are “into” anal intercourse(which is how the Jews–who do know their Hebrew–read Leviticus and Numbers. There are other forms of gay sex which those two books do not explicitly forbid. How do you know what any particular couple –holding hands in the street–do in bed. Is it so necessary to worry about it. After all some heterosexuals married couples do odd or kinky sexual things. A portion do not have sex at all. Yet we consider them civilly married without probing into their sex life. How about we relax and have the same attitude to homosexual couples.

        • GB

          Please do not confuse the ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law of the OT. The moral law did not change.

          • Hypatia

            I’m not sure my reply to this got thru. I have to go to work and will resume the discussion. My work is hat of a physician/psychiatrist. I treat patients. Thus I have some thoughts on normal/ abnormal, sick/healthy and, especially, natural/ unnatural.

            • GB

              Much of so called medical ethics, and medical training, is based in utilitarianism, relativism, and technocracy. Pathology is often redefined according to ideology and politics.

              Just recently I was informed that the diagnostic codes for autism were repackaged not only based on some new understanding but based on reimbursement requirements. This is nothing new, but the general public gives too much credence to “experts” and “studies” that are heavily influenced by much more than what they mistakenly think is science.

              • Hypatia

                I do not take the diagnostic codes as my Bible. They are the best approximation we can come up with at this stage of our scientific knowledge. Are politics and money involved? Of course. Whenever you have a large group of people politics emerges. Consider the politicking at the Ecumenical Councils. The difference is psychiatrists do not believe God is guaranteeing that they are correct. That is why I fell free to disagree with some of the new “DSM”, eg. the criteria for the “antisocial”diagnosis. The same goes for the pronouncements of professional bodies. I disagree with the APA on gun control and abortion. I agree with it on homosexuality–not because they say so (after all they said the opposite in 1972) but because of research that has accumulated starting in 1957 and because of experiences with gay people–some of them my patients and others my friends.

          • Patrick

            I’ve never seen any Christian provide a reliable logical basis for that argument, much less any Catholic. I thought that argument got put away years ago.

            Use good arguments, please, or you make us all look irrational.

            Not ones that can be countered just by saying “What are the conditions for classification in each category?” which I’ve never seen anyone be able to provide a coherent answer to. When you talk about classes of law, EXPECT someone to ask for a list of which are which.
            If you do not have, and cannot create such a list, DON’T use the argument. You’ll look like a fool.

            Please do not make yourself look like a fool when you are attempting to represent the Church.

            • DD

              As I said the shellfish argument is a stupid gay argument. To even raise such utter nonsense reveals a facial and primitive knowledge of the topic. The only foolishness is to reject the truth of the statement I made.

              No intelligent person would rip a few lines out if Scripture, self interpret them in a way to defend evil, draw erroneous conclusions and then reject the truth and claim it is foolish.

              My advice to you is to go to the new advent website and read the old Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the divisions of law in the OT. This is common knowledge among those who actually read Scripture.

              • Patrick

                Just because they used a poor argument doesn’t mean you should use another poor argument in response.

                And I’m curious…

                If which laws are moral, which are ceremonial, and which are civil is such common knowledge, why is it that I’ve asked 50+ people who have brought them into an argument to tell me which are which an d NOT ONE has ever answered that question?

                Not one has ever been able to tell me the means by which we can distinguish one category from another.

                When someone uses that argument, it is my automatic response to ask them to give one or the other of those answers.

                Never once has a single person provided me an answer to either of them.

                Now, I’m fine with the idea of the laws being in categories, but if you can’t even tell me how we know which law belongs in which category, then don’t use that argument.
                It’s like starting a knock knock joke without knowing what to do after they say “who’s there?”

                It’s not a good argument if you can’t finish it yourself. If you can’t explain it, it’s never going to persuade anybody.

                Therefore, either give me one of the two answers I’ve been waiting most of a decade for someone who uses your argument to be able to explain successfully, or avoid making that argument again and avoid making us look ignorant.

                • John200

                  The Treatise on the Law in the Summa takes up the very subject. There is no reason to complain that DD is making “us” look ignorant.

                  • Patrick

                    I am perfectly familiar with where the concept of moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws come from.

                    Nobody who uses that in the context of discussion of homosexuality seems to have any method other than guesswork for saying which category they all fall under, though.

                    If you can’t give a full list of which laws are in which category, or a set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for classification of them that can be applied to all of the laws, you are using HALF of an argument, and you look like a fool when someone comes along and says “So which ones are which?” and you can’t answer.

                    And when you’re trying to speak on behalf of the Church, you’re making me and everyone else in the Church look like a fool along with you.

                    The fact that I’ve seen literally scores of people use this argument, and not ONE of them could answer the obvious immediate follow-up question shows it’s just being used as a talking-point rather than a properly understood argument.

                    • John200

                      DD is not making us look ignorant. Nor am I. That narrows the possibilities, eh?

                      Think about it. I am done with you for the nonce, sorry to have to contradict your belief that you are far ahead of the rest of us.

                      Charity begins at CrisisMag, eh?

                    • Patrick

                      That’s why I call it a bad argument. It has yet to stand up to one question from a Catholic who agrees with the premise it’s based on and is on the same side of the discussion.

                      If an argument can’t convince people who already agree with the initial premises and the conclusion (for separate reasons), there is something seriously wrong with it.

                      If it can’t handle friendly criticism, how could it possibly stand up to an opponent who already is generally disagreeing with you?

    • bonaventure

      Just because more and more homosexuals and other people no longer believe that homosexuality is sinful, it does not mean that it isn’t. This a logical fallacy of enormous proportions, of which only the emotionally unstable (for whatever reason), unrepentant sinners, or juveniles are guilty of. And certainly all the sexually debauched, as is the case of open homosexuals.

      • Hypatia

        It is also a logical fallacy to say that everything the Church teaches is absolutely correct for all time. The churches have been wrong about evolution, the solar system (ask Copernicus who wisely didn’t publish till he was dying), slavery, to name a few. You are correct numbers do not decide what is moral; neither do the assertions of authorities. Ultimately we must use reason. BTW even tho majority does not rule it might be worth asking yourself why so many people (straight and gay), who generally behave ethically and responsibly, find the Church’s assertions on homosexuality unconvincing. In fact more straight people than gay ones opine homosexuality to be benign simply because there are so many more straights than gays in this world (probably 95% compared to 5%. Calling the names–sinner, emotionally unstable and debauched–doesn’t really explain it.

        • bonaventure

          There are not “gays” who act ethically, considering that the homosexuality they engage in is a debauched sexual perversion.

          • Hypatia

            The gay friends I am thinking of work, pay taxes, tell the truth, volunteer for charities or at their churches. The couples I am friends with are monogamous, help care for each others’ sick relatives, try to speak kindly to others. In every visible way they are as ethical as comparable heterosexuals. Because you label what they do in bed as “debauched” doesn’t make them unethical. It does give the impression that you and your Catechism are focused on the physical mechanics of sex to the exclusion of higher emotional –and, yes, ethical– realities. Focused–or maybe obsessed. Perhaps that is what happens when a putatively celibate group of men (a significant minority of whom report SSA–see Sipes) pronounce on what they either have not experienced or are desperately repressing.

            • bonaventure

              Many criminals (sexual or otherwise) work, pay taxes, tell the truth, volunteer for charities and their churches, etc.

              I guess the sex abusers in the clergy whom you identified fall in this category first… or maybe second after the homosexuals… on maybe on a par with the homosexuals, since most sex abusing clergy ARE homosexual.

          • Hypatia

            Apparently my response to above got lost so I will try to reproduce it. I am speaking of gays of my acquaintance who go to work, pay taxes, give to charity, volunteer–often at their churches. They generally tell the truth, care for sick family members and in-laws, and try to speak kindly to others. In these visible ways they are comparable to ethical heterosexuals. To focus on what they do in bed and call them “unethical” clashes with the view of a growing number of the citizenry –especially those who know (or, rather, know they know) gay people, because the latter have had the courage to “come out”. I realize a majority of people believing something does not necessarily make it true, but when otherwise decent and thoughtful people disagree with you re: the morality of homosexuality, it might be worth wondering why–if only to frame better arguments to brim then to your view. Another reason your viewpoint maynot convince is that large numbers of straight people themselves have done the same “debauched” things gays have. Straights have both oral and anal sex (known in some circles as sodomy.) For example a majority of sexually active straight women have done oral sex. Finally, a moralizing focus on sexual body parts and how they fit together ( to the exclusion of what the persons attached to them feel and intend) seems characteristic of lots of Catholic pronouncements. Perhaps this is not surprising as most of it comes from putatively celibate men, a significant number of whom acknowledge SSA–see research by Sipes–which they usually must deny and repress, while living in a predominantly male environment.

            • bonaventure

              Now for someone who claims not to focus on the mechanics of sex, you seem to be very focused indeed. And to think that you posted this twice. Wow.

              However, homosexuality is not only debauched, depraved, perverted, etc., in its actions. But also in its affections. Homosexuality — physical or emotional — is intrinsically disordered. A homosexual does not need to actually engage in homosexual sex to be perverted. Attraction to the same sex is already a perversion.

              Of course, very few homosexual sinners stop short of homosexual acts. Such nobility is non-existant among sexual perverts of whatever preference.

          • Patrick

            You know full well that when they call themselves gay they are talking about the inclination, not the acts upon it.

            I’m sure you’ve had that explained angrily to you dozens of times.

            While a message is received in the mode of the receiver, it is also sent in the mode of the sender. You can’t just decide that they really mean your definition of a word when you know full well they are using a different one.

            Sheesh, don’t Catholic Universities teach logic anymore? It was still mandatory back in my day (which was only a decade ago).

            • bonaventure

              Homosexuality is not only debauched, depraved, perverted, etc., in its actions. But also in its affections. Homosexuality — physical or emotional — is intrinsically disordered. A homosexual does not need to actually engage in homosexual sex to be perverted. Attraction to the same sex is already a perversion.

              Of course, very few homosexual sinners stop short of homosexual acts. Such nobility is normally non-existant among sexual perverts of whatever preference.

              • Patrick

                So, given the choice between “disordered” and “perverted,” you choose to go with the option that does NOT show respect, compassion, and sensitivity?

                You know the Church tells us we MUST show them respect, compassion, and sensitivity, right?

                “Must.” That’s the exact word the Catechism uses.

                Not optional.
                Not discretionary.
                Not just in certain circumstances.

                Must. No ambiguity, no loopholes.

                • John200

                  Part of respecting someone, especially someone who is acting (or carrying their affections) in a disordered and perverted way (a twofer!), is to tell them the truth. We must tell them the truth.

                  “Not optional.
                  Not discretionary.
                  Not just in certain circumstances.

                  Must. No ambiguity, no loopholes.”

                  Just as you would have it.

                  • Patrick

                    I never once said we shouldn’t tell them the truth.

                    I am saying you MUST BE COMPASSIONATE when you do it.
                    I am saying you MUST be sensitive to their emotions, and the emotional harms they have likely already experienced.

                    And respect is more than just telling the truth. You also have to listen to them and treat them as you would want to be treated.

                    If you tell them the truth in a way they aren’t going to listen to, you may as well be saying nothing, it’s effectively the same thing.

                    Go ahead and call me “touchy-feely” and “cares about emotions” and “compassionate” and other things people like bonaventura think are insults.
                    I don’t mind. I’m at least following all three of the things the Church commands us to do when interacting with them instead of just using one as a rationalization to ignore the other two.

                    • John200

                      I did not call you anything. I noticed that you were hectoring bonaventura using sharp words that applied to you.

                      My aim is to help you to see yourself as others see you.

                      Nothing more than that.

                    • Patrick

                      I was admonishing him in a vastly more polite manner than his normal level of discourse. No insults or character assassination at all. Just pointing out sternly that the Catechism is VERY clear on a point he has repeatedly tried to rationalize not following.

    • OneleggedTarzan

      It’s not your friend Darren holding hands in the street, it’s the Christian baker who will go to jail for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, and Phil Robertson and Carrie Prejean being witch hunted for saying that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s the ceaseless gay community “outing” of celebrities who either aren’t gay or don’t want to be outed. It’s the constant pro-gay propaganda which is sometimes so extreme that it appears to be a type of recruitment. It’s not just the gay pride parade, it’s the North American Man-Boy Love Association having a float in the gay pride parade. The obamacare gay enrollment ad was so campy that GAYS were offended by it. A brand that is being constantly advertised is a brand that is being sold to people, and I really wonder how to reconcile that with “we just want to be left in cozy marital peace like our straight counterparts.”

  • OneleggedTarzan

    I can understand why gays would want to be Catholic, because I can understand why anyone would want to be Catholic (now that I’m Catholic). But wanting to celebrate gayness as a Catholic seems to miss the point, as much as for example celebrating masturbation would. Some people might be less tortured by guilt than others, but nobody wants their main identity to be, well, wanker.

    I do feel a sort of awed compassion for Catholic gays. It’s seems an extremely difficult fate, not one I would want. To believe that fulfilling your most basic desires will result in separation from God….

  • Pingback: The New Homophiles: An Incomplete Apologia | Crisis Magazine

  • Pingback: Youth and Same-Sex Attraction (Part 1) | Spiritual Friendship

  • Mary Morstan

    Mr Ruse’s essay, while enlightening, poses a question about accepting “changes in Church doctrine” and desires for “affirmation and celebration of gayness.”
    I haven’t read all the New Homophiles, but I have not encountered any call for changes in Church doctrine or for celebrating gayness or for support for being “out and proud.” All I’ve read is call to understand and help such souls, who are children of God struggling with Same Sex Attraction, see how they can attain holiness in the Church’s embrace.
    I think Mr Ruse made a big assumption without providing his readers with evidence of the changes in doctrine and the demands for affirmation that he is concerned about.

    Also, it is always disheartening to read Catholic readers’ replies when they want to stress orthodoxy but seem to forget charity. Truth and charity must always be combined; indeed, in the end, they are one: Christ.

    • Art Deco

      You haven’t been paying attention (to Joshua Gonnerman et al). Public display and valorising correlates of sexual disorder are the whole point.

    • bonaventure

      First, why do you capitalize “same-sex attraction”? Capitalization in English is used for beginning a sentence, a title, names, proper nouns, or as a sign of respect for what one describes in words.

      Secondly, Austin Ruse’s answer to his own question at the end of this article is key to understanding his shifting position (not the Church’s). To answer “I do not know” to a moral question is the first move towards moral relativism. The different issues relating to homosexual sin may be difficult to sift through to a point, but a final conclusion must be as clear as Christ was with the adulteress woman: “go and sin no more.”

      There was no room for adultery in Christ’s preaching. Not much room to “struggle” with it either. There was only room for repentance from adultery. Same with homosexuality and every other sin.

  • bonaventure

    The difference is that Mary’s pursuit of the truth was not triggered by any sin she might have committed or been tempted with. Her pursuit of the truth was in response to God’s revelation. But a person who sins with homosexual acts cannot pursue the truth unless they first admit the sinfulness of their actions. If members of Courage are encouraged to first admit their sinfulness, good for them. If not, this organization is pointless. And judging by the way that things are going, I would say that Courage has zero influence, even in the Church, which leads me to believe that they are doing something wrong. Could it be that they refuse to admit to their sinfulness first?

    • Susan Fox

      BONAVENTURE, Please no offense, but you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s true that Mary’s response to God was sinless, and ours is not, but she is the model for sinners. Oh Mary conceived without sin! Pray for us who have recourse to you. It is her very sinlessness, her “YES!” to God, that opens the door to sinners to convert, repent and be like her. http://www.pursuitoftruth.ca is about getting people who self identify by their homosexuality to undertake the same path chosen by the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, and that means conversion, repentance and joy! But you are dealing with people living in deep fantasy and getting them to reality takes a lot of gentleness. I freely admit they often seem irrational to me. But we have got to try. If you see a sinner falling into hell and you don’t try to stop them, then God will ask you about that at the judgement. Courage is about having the courage to strive to live a chaste life. It is fully approved by Pope John Paul II who said, “Courage is doing the work of God.”And that means repentance is part of the equation. But never ever think they don’t have influence. Read this http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-new-evangelists-bringing-christ.html It’s about the members of Courage: the New Evangelists. And they are preaching chastity to an unchaste world. They who once experienced the same thing. They suffered from it. They realize those caught in the bondage of sin are suffering, and they are calling them out of it. People get tired of evil, and we need Catholic outreach available when they are ready to come out of the bowels of Satan. I am reading about a Protestant woman who made porn movies. It was pure hell. But when you abused like that, coming out of that life takes time and love by those who surround you — Christians who are not similarly broken. Unfortunately, in the area of porn workers, there is a Protestant outreach, but not a Catholic one. So a lot of Catholics get caught in that porn industry, and when they want out they have to convert to Protestantism in order to get help. That’s not right. But people who self-identify by their homosexuality, they can come out of it through Courage.

      When I spoke of Mary saying “I am the Handmaid of the Lord.” The Catholic Church actually teaches that each of us has his own unique plan of life. And if we knew God’s plan in its entirety today, we’d become instant saints, but He feeds it to us in bits and pieces by frequent confession, daily prayer and daily Mass if you can. So Mary Madeleine identified Jesus as “Teacher.” Part of her plan of life was student/disciple. But given that she wept at the Resurrection so copiously I think her plan of life was also “Beloved.” St. Teresa of Avila identified her plan of life as “Friend of the Lord” in her autobiography. But by the end of her life she also understood her relationship as “Child of the Church.” (You can read about that here: http://christsfaithfulwitness.blogspot.com/2012/10/lead-us-not-into-temptation-satans.html) St. Paul understood his relationship as servant and then at the end of his life, Prisoner for the Lord. St. Theresa of Lisieux understood it as the “love hidden in the heart of the Church.” Every human being is called to understand their plan of life, which will result in all of us growing in holiness. If you don’t understand it now, you will get to reflect on it in Purgatory because until you understand who you are you cannot enter heaven. There is a formation in the Catholic Church to help you understand your plan of life based on your own experiences. It’s available at solt.org The Old Testament is the story of the Jewish people growing in their own understanding of their plan of life to be a monotheistic people prepared to receive the Messiah and bring him to the world (Acts is a further understanding of that plan). God bless you. Feel free to contact me at my blog in the comment section http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com I can slip you my Facebook address or email there if that helps. I’m just about to publish a piece on Holy Marriage. It’s good. God bless you. Susan Fox

  • writerJerome

    It is clear from the comments here that there are no rational reasons to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples, so the commenters have to try to create “guilt by association” by conflating unrelated issues, or by engaging in baseless ad hominem attacks on strangers.

  • writerJerome

    In my church we have 2 warm, wonderful women who have loved the Lord and one another for 60 years, raising their children and spoiling their grandchildren. When they could finally have their love and their family recognized in a legal marriage in our church, it was very touching. We could all feel the love.

  • writerJerome

    Many people seem to have skipped the actual article above, and just launched into their own usual, unrelated rants. But the article is dealing with gay Christians who live celibate lives. It seems clear that the writer is very uncomfortable with gay people even when they are following the strictest teachings of their church. This shows the prejudice against gay people no matter how they live.

  • writerJerome

    The article missed the best option for gay Christians: loving marriage to a same-sex spouse. It assumed that the only alternatives are promiscuity (what bigots mean by the demeaning made-up term “the gay lifestyle” as if all gay people are promiscuous), celibacy or going to a reparative therapist to become heterosexual (a false promise that never works). Every medical association has explained that reparative therapy is neither. It does not repair anything because homosexuals are not broken and it does not cure an illness (the meaning of “therapy”) because homosexuality is not an illness nor a disorder. Sad when churches use medical terms falsely, such as the Catholic church’s claim that gays are “intrinsically and gravely disordered.” Those who like that term for gays don’t realize the church uses the same term for masturbation, completely ignored by homophobes. And notice that the issue is always male homosexuality. Nobody talks about women who are gay. This is about male domination, not about holiness.

  • jane smith

    I AM Mrs Juli. I want to testify of what a man god did for me and my hubby.we have been married since 2007 without a sign of pregnancy or conceiving.I went off birth control then and did not have a period.my gyro gave me progesterone to jump-start a period and it did., but i did not have another one.we did another round of progesterone followed by 100mg cycloid for 5 months, we followed all doctors instructions but all to no avail.I have been buying ovulation kits pregnancy test AND i finally got 3 test when i was ovulating! So ever since that we been trying for years now! Well i was very confused because i keep taking em ting test AND they all keep turning out to b negative! I really want a baby girl while my hubby want a baby boy LOLL! I think maybe we are just trying to hard, What i can tell you is that its been so many years now and i still yet do not have my period??nobody to help because every body around us was already at the verge of losing their faith on us.no were to run to until one faithful day i was reading a magazine and i stumble on a page were i found topic or a head line {A PROPHET} who can heal someone from HIV AND AIDS, bring back your EX, enlarge your BREAST, help you win a VISA LOTTERY, losing your WEIGHT and even get six PACKS AND flatten your BELLY, I gave him a try and before i could no it PROPHET MOSES rescue me from my problem by casting a spell for me and told me to go and make love with my hubby, then nine months after the spell and making love with my husband i delivered a twins A BOY AND A GIRL.This spell caster name is PROPHET MOSES so many people have witness his wonderful work..He is nice, contact him on PROPHETMOSESDSAVIOUR@gmail.com if you are in any predicament•Thanks so very much!

  • Hypatia

    Correction: not triage, but out-marriage, extends kinship

  • Hypatia

    Correction: not triage, but out-marriage, extends kinship.

  • Hypatia

    This is a correction. Out marriage extends kinship

  • Hypatia

    Also there is this difference between incest and gay marriage. There are many non-family members in the world one can marry. For the homosexual to ban same sex marriage means there is no one he can marry. Format an opposite sex marriage is just not possible. Marriage is a stabilizing institution that is financially, sexually (eg limiting sexual contacts limits stds) and physically ( spouse is first caregiver in illness) advantageous to the individuals in it and to society.

MENU