Redefining Deviance: The Gay Assault on Franciscan University

The success that the gay community has achieved in shedding the “deviant” label has relied upon convincing the heterosexual world that homosexual behavior is perfectly normal. The recent uproar over a social work course titled “Deviant Behavior” at Franciscan University of Steubenville—which lists homosexuality as a form of deviant behavior—demonstrates just how vigilant the gay community remains in confronting anyone who might suggest that homosexual behavior could be anything but normal. It also shows how difficult it is for faithful Catholic institutions to teach students what the Church says about the nature of homosexual acts.

The dispute at the Steubenville, Ohio university emerged when two graduates —both members of the Franciscan Gay Alumni and Allies Facebook group—issued a press release complaining about the course description, which lists homosexuality as a form of deviant behavior. The group has demanded that the university revise its course descriptions “to stop contributing to the culture of hate and ignorance.” According to press reports, the alumni also encouraged other Facebook group members to contact the social work accrediting agency to investigate the matter and to contact the university. In an interview with National Public Radio, Stephen Holloway, the director of the office of accreditation at the Council on Social Work Education, said the course description was a matter of concern. “The fact that homosexuality was identified in the course description as deviant behavior raises a flag,” said Holloway. “Understanding diversity and difference and their dynamics in society [are] critical for social workers to be effective in working with diverse populations.” The Council’s Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice houses a council on sexual orientation and gender identity which works for the “full participation of individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or two-spirit in social work education.” Further, the Council requires that social work education “advance human rights and social and economic justice.”

For any social work program—especially a social work program at a faithful Catholic college like Franciscan—there is a challenge in defining “social justice” for individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or two-spirit. For those outside the Church, social justice may demand access to marriage for same-sex couples. But, for faithful Catholics, social justice demands that the teachings of the Church be followed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church requires that homosexual persons be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (2358). Yet Catholic teachings also maintain that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” (2357).  Whether that teaching will be viewed as a violation of the rights of homosexual persons by the accrediting council remains to be seen.

Still, the accreditors must know that a course in deviance is primarily concerned with any behavior that is “outside the norm.” Sociologists who study and teach about deviance are not really concerned with what they would call “absolutist teachings” that are contained in how the Catechism defines homosexuality. Rather, most sociologists are concerned with how individuals come to define a behavior as “deviant” or “normal.” Acknowledging that such definitions are not static, the content of a course in deviance often focuses upon the ways in which behaviors become defined and redefined over time. Students analyze topics ranging from promiscuity and cheating on exams to addiction, pedophilia, deviant subcultures, organized crime, and serial murder in an effort to understand how deviant behavior is defined and shaped by society. For example, there is an ongoing movement within some sub-cultures to redefine pedophilia as the more innocuous “intergenerational intimacy.” But the general public has rejected that movement—and so the “deviant” label remains for pedophilia. Homosexual behavior is indeed a behavior that has been redefined—and this makes it a most appropriate topic for a course in deviance on any college campus. In fact, most courses on deviance on secular as well as religious campuses study homosexuality, and in most textbooks on deviance (including the textbook used in the Franciscan social work course), “homosexuality” is the title of one of the chapters.

Of course, we must acknowledge that some may view Franciscan University itself as “deviant” for even offering a course on deviant behavior. While in the 1960s and 70s such classes would be among the most popular offered, many colleges and universities today no longer offer courses on deviance. More than 30 years ago, many sociologists began to abandon teaching about what was once viewed as foundational to the discipline of sociology as courses were gradually deleted from the catalogues on many campuses. For today’s postmodern sociologists, conceptions of deviance cannot exist in a society that has been so dramatically changed by shifts in values, politics, and social relations. The commitment to egalitarianism, along with a growing reluctance to judge the behavior of others, has made discussions of deviance obsolete. No wonder most sociologists, in the face of this juggernaut, have been disinclined even to speak of the concept of deviance anymore. To do so would require a willingness to discuss behavior like homosexuality in relation to standards of acceptable conduct. And defining by consensus what is acceptable is exactly what has disappeared over the last 30 years. In the aftermath of the radical egalitarianism of the 1960s, merely to label a behavior as deviant came to be viewed as rejecting the equality—perhaps the very humanity—of those engaging in it.

Yet, in the past, courses on deviant behavior had been among the most popular on college campuses because of the fascinating—and occasionally racy—subject matter: the violation of cultural norms. Courses on deviance offered an opportunity to explore how the concepts of “normal” and “deviant” evolved over time in different societies and cultures, and how notions of conformity and deviance can affect the ways we live.

Students were fascinated to learn about the ways in which the label “deviant” is “defined down” when society no longer believes a behavior to be “outside the norm,” and conversely, how other behaviors are “defined up,” as in the case of smoking or drunk driving. Society increasingly deems these behaviors to be deviant. Students study the advocacy groups—groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—who have marketed a new definition of the deviance of driving while impaired and have saved lives. Homosexuality is one of those behaviors that have been “defined down” from a form of deviance to behavior that is now celebrated by many beyond the gay community.

How homosexuality was defined down
An influential book written at the close of the disastrous AIDS-afflicted decade of the 1980s provides an understanding of how the gay community succeeded in its effort to escape the label of deviance that threatened to attach itself even more firmly at the onset of the epidemic.  After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, demanded that gays realize how they were presenting themselves was the most important structural impediment to acceptance. Applying a marketplace metaphor to defining deviance, savvy salesmen Kirk and Madsen showed how the “deviants” of the past could be repackaged as the “victims” of the present.  They provided gay activists with a blueprint for what they called a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack.” To change public opinion, Kirk and Madsen suggested three important tactics of persuasion: desensitization, jamming, and conversion.

Desensitization required that the gay community inundate the heterosexual world with a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” themed television programs, movies and stories that would convince the consumer that homosexuals are perfectly normal. Learning from the success of Black History Month, Kirk and Madsen suggested that if the heterosexual community knew more about the valuable contributions that have been made by gays and lesbians, they would appreciate the gay community more. Now on many college campuses—including Catholic college campuses—there are “gay appreciation” months to celebrate the valuable contributions of gays and lesbians.

The technique of jamming is to use operant conditioning procedures to move people to a different opinion about homosexuality. The “trick” of jamming, according to Kirk and Madsen, is “to make the homophobe feel a sense of shame whenever his homo-hatred surfaces.” In this redefinition of deviance, anyone—including the Catholic Church—who dares to question the morality of gay sexual behavior is labeled a homophobe. Conversion occurs when techniques of associative conditioning “subvert the mechanism of prejudice.” For Kirk and Madsen, tolerance is not enough—rather, conversion techniques move heterosexuals into viewing homosexual behavior as normal.

These techniques have been so successful in converting the hearts and minds of heterosexuals that it is now the teachings of the Catholic Church that seem deviant to many—including many of those in the Franciscan Gay Alumni and Allies Facebook group.  Elizabeth Vermilyea, one of the leaders of the group, graduated from Franciscan University in 1991 with a psychology degree and told an interviewer for National Public Radio, “As a lesbian and as a psychological professional, I found a couple of things offensive.… The state of the art in science on homosexuality is not that it’s deviant.  The DSM—Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—has removed it…as an illness.”

Vermilyea is correct about the American Psychiatric Association’s revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Responding to political pressure in the early 1970s, homosexuality was indeed removed as a mental illness from the DSM. But that did little to remove the label of deviance in the minds of most within the heterosexual world. It took the major marketing campaign proposed by Kirk and Madsen to do that.

The definition of “deviance” in the minds of individuals cannot be removed by the stroke of the American Psychiatric Association’s pen.  For example, in 1994, with little or no public outcry, the APA revised the DSM so that neither pedophilia nor child molestation would necessarily be indicative of psychological disorder. To qualify as disordered, molesters must feel “anxious” about the acts or be “impaired in their work or social relationships.”  Despite the “progressive” actions of the APA in attempting to remove the “deviance” label by no longer classifying the behavior as a mental illness, few non-pedophiles believe that pedophilia is “normal.”

Vermilyea was joined by Gregory Gronbacher in the press release complaining about the teaching of what they called “pseudo-science.” Demanding that “the University aligns itself with the truth of this matter,” the press release added that “despite more than 25 years of solid mainstream scholarship in the fields of psychology, social work, and mental health demonstrating the psychological health of gay and lesbian individuals, Franciscan University continues to teach otherwise.” Yet, despite the harsh rhetoric contained in the complaint, Gronbacher has many kind things to say about his alma mater. In an interview for Catholic World Report, Gronbacher, a 1990 graduate, recalls Franciscan as a “powerful, creative, intense place of immense blessings…I continue to believe I received a solid, quality education. I have since changed my thinking on certain theological and philosophical issues, but this has not resulted in my viewing the university any differently.” Although Gronbacher has left the Catholic Church, he remains grateful for the mentoring he received from “many sincere and kind and talented professors…Stephen Krason, James Harold and Michael Brees, and others were all excellent educators.”

When asked if he had been open about his sexual orientation during his years at Franciscan, Gronbacher said: “Yes, with many students and friends and a few clergy members. The issue of my orientation did not play a role in my classroom experiences and was not mentioned.” Still, Gronbacher is “concerned for gay and lesbian students who may currently be on campus and may encounter this course and description and have it added to the possible and unnecessary shame or alienation they may experience.”

When asked why he chose to “go public” with his concerns, Gronbacher responded that “contrary to the university’s assertions, we tried to contact them prior to sending the press release. Several of our members phoned [and] emailed, and two even visited campus. No one would speak with us. Our emails bounced. We then created the press release, to which I was willing to attach my name as a contact person, and sent that to the university. This prompted no reply to the issue but did result in the university attorney threatening us with legal action if we used the university name or logo.” LifeSiteNews reported that Franciscan University officials said that the university was never contacted by the alumni in advance regarding this matter.

Meeting the challenge to remain faithful to Catholic teaching
Some, like Dr. Michael Brown—host of the nationally syndicated radio program “The Line of Fire”—have framed the controversy at Franciscan University as yet another attack on religious freedom. In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Brown predicted that the “day may come when religious institutions will have to seek out their own accrediting associations because of the continuing encroachment of political correctness.”

However, it might be more helpful to try to enlist the accrediting institutions themselves as allies in affirming the mission of each Catholic college and universities. When national accrediting teams make campus visits, they are charged with determining whether or not students are getting what the institution has promised them. One of the standards that colleges and universities are being judged by is whether they are faithful to their missions. Perhaps it is time that national accrediting teams actually determine whether Catholic schools are true to their Catholic identity. If Franciscan was being judged by its accreditors on whether it is fulfilling its mission, it is likely that such an assessment would reveal that the school is indeed one of the few dozen faithful Catholic colleges in the country, one of a small number of Catholic colleges that have fully implemented Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Accrediting commissions should be noting that fact.  Instead, accreditation teams are much more focused on trendy issues like sustainability, globalization, environmentalism, and of course, diversity.

Perhaps it is time that accreditors investigated whether Catholic colleges are actually Catholic.

This essay first appeared September 27, 2012 at Catholic World Report and is reprinted with permission.

Anne Hendershott


Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education; The Politics of Abortion; and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). She is also the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Catholic Church (2013).

  • Alecto

    I believe this article highlights the biggest danger to our civil society: the current weak moral character of our people, and that certainly does include Catholics. We are amoral and therefore incapable of maintaining a free society. We cannot self-govern as weak, immoral people wallowing in and even rejoicing in filth. That message is certainly recurrent throughout history. I fear for our country, but I refuse to become despondent.

    • You only thnk gay people are evil because you have not gotten to know us. Your grandkids will see your views on gays the way most of us see our grandparents’ views on race.

      • Doughlas

        It’s already happening, Jerome. Catholics are becoming “tone-deaf” to the Church’s anti-gay rants. The hierarchy is shooting itself in the foot, and more and more Catholics will leave the church to become “cultural Catholics” or “nones.” This anti-gay hysteria has got to stop, and only the laity can stop it. They will. Mark my words.

        • Chip

          So let’s get this straight. The Church should redefine her doctrine, clearly and undeniably supported in Scripture, so that “Catholics” will choose to abandon the truth. Now … there’s a new concept! Seems like that’s happened quite a bit in the last 2,000 years. Don’t hold your breath … and find the nearest Protestant faith tradition and sign on up.

          • Doughlas

            No Chip, don’t redefine your doctrine. Stick with the truth. Watch the Catholic Church crash and burn.

            • Gerard

              Who’s Chip and when did he redefine his doctrine?!

              • John200

                That’s just Doughlas in his usual fog.Think nothing of it, he does it on purpose.

                • John, it’s still a sin to lie, so don’t do that. Doughlas makes well-reasoned points in his posts. If you are having trouble understanding them, perhaps it is because you refuse to understand a minority you despise. But that does not change anyone from homosexual to heterosexual. It just increases the cruelty against the minority group.

                  • John200

                    Jerome, I understand better than you do, because I test my observations against the truth, you know what I mean, the truth you reject and despise and vilify.

                    You will perhaps remember some of the truth; you were exposed to it at Franciscan University if you really went there.

                    Yes, that truth, that’s the one, I know you see it. The one with the light that can lead you out of your darkness.

                    Just so you know — Doughlas DOES this on purpose and has done it before, just like you are doing in this discussion thread.

                    • John, I will pray for you. I graduated class of 1980. I played Jesus in Godspell there. I received a glowing recommendation letter from Fr. Michael Scanlon which helped me become a United States Air Force Reserve Officer. My life has been an exemplary one in every way other than the fact I was born gay. I did not even know what a gay person was when puberty arrived because I was raised in such a strict but loving Catholic home, one of seven children. I did not choose to be same-sex attracted. I did not want it any more than you would want it. While a virgin 16 year old I began therapy to “cure” me. As I saw they could not change my sexual orientation, I decided to sacrifice my sexuality by becoming a priest. I went to seminary where I met many gays and I had my first sexual experience. Horrified, I left the sam and entered a house of prayer. I shared my faith full-time traveling up and down the east coast as a Catholic in the charismatic movement. I have a relative who believes as you do. She said to me, “You are the most loving person I know. You give your time to the homeless, the elderly, the sick and the prisoners. You are kind and patient with everyone. It’s too bad you’re gonna’ burn in hell.” That is the message you and this article give to gay people. But, praise God, I know you are wrong because the fruits of the Holy Spirit are alive and well in so many loving Christians who are gay. And there is no choice in being gay or straight, only in being honest and loving or buying into the lies and the closet. Condemnation and condescension are all you have to offer. I prefer love.

                    • During the years from when I was 16 to 49 I prayed and read the bible daily (still do), went to therapy and to ex-gay ministries. I met thousands of gays. In public we all claimed we were no longer gay. In private we all admitted to “struggling” and still being same-sex attracted. In other words, being ex-gay means changing what you call yourself from “gay” to “same-sex attracted struggler”. I met a few bisexuals who were happy, but I never met a single person who changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Catholic Courage groups use the term “change” in the same way as someone who does not use the word “gay” but who will always be same-sex attracted. They advise celibacy. That is a good goal for all Christians before they marry the person they love. But with 98% of heterosexuals having pre-marital sex, 73% of heterosexuals experiencing adultery at some point in their marriage at least once, with nearly half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce and remarriage, it’s time for heterosexuals to get the great big plank out of their own eye before going after the tiny speck of marriages involving same-sex spouses.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      An interesting story, and thanks for your perspective. So with all the illicit sex going around, you want to join the party (and probably already have). But I don’t get the marriage thing. That’s all about procreation. Or is it that you want the Catholic Church to quit telling people, including married people BTW, that sex outside of procreative openness is OK?

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, marriage is “all about procreation?” Puh-leeze. Not according to U.S. law. Twelve European countries do not think so either.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Society does well to protect children, because children are society’s future and survival. If a man and woman are united in marriage, which includes the intention to procreate, their children have the best footing in a challenging world. Christian society recognized that fact in law, and for centuries upon centuries, this was understood as sacrosanct. Divorce is an invention of the “enlightened”. Children deserve intact, married, mother and father. Homemade apple pie is good for them too. Marriage is all about the children. So the U.S. and twelve European countries can crash and burn as they create their own private hell that can’t even replace their own populations. Marriage has been hijacked by the self-seeking to society’s peril. True marriage is for the self-sacrificing in the interest of procreating and educating children for the benefit of society.

                    • Doughlas

                      I do not accept your premise is that marriage includes the intention to procreate. Nor do 12 European countries and the U.S. government. Marriage is not all about the children. European countries are not creating their own private hell, and the ones that I am most familiar with–France and Germany–have family planning policies that strike a sane balance between natalist initiatives and individual liberties.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Kids do live in a worse and worse hell created by the people who yank the carpet out from under the institution that was actually designed for them to be loved and nourished — marriage. Now they get dumped off at the dumbdown center, like stupid Sparta did, from like age 0. Their siblings are missing in action — some abortionist made a few bucks killing them off after the marriage that should have been in place never happened and the pregnant sex toy felt compelled to make a horrible decision. Family planning policies? Those collectivist bastards. Europe is not replacing its own population. Neither is the U.S. But yeah, the Dom Perignon is still being uncorked on the upper decks as the last of the Christian vintage is squandered on the pretenders to culture. You’d think a few bottles could be saved for the next generation.

                    • Heterosexuals are making a mess of marriage, and record numbers of heterosexuals are delaying or rejecting it altogether. Only 10% of children today are raised by their biological parents all the way to adulthood. That is the fault of heterosexuals. Homosexuals revere marriage more and more, and want to take part in it. And praise God, more and more people see that, and reject your kind of insipid scapegoating.

                    • If your marriage is “all about the children” then watch this. I dare you…

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      (regarding the video) So you want society to enshrine child rearing by homosexual couples by rewriting centuries old law, because there are some really nice homosexual couples out there. I would say the only time sex should enter the conversation, is in regards to procreation, that being the purpose of sex. So regarding adoption, I would put all this sex nonsense out of the conversation. It might be that my aunt, who lives with my other aunt, may want to adopt a child. I don’t see why they would need to be regarded by society as married. No one is going to be fooled that the child is their biological offspring. So with gay marriage, it’s not about enshrining the couple for the purpose of providing a platform for adopted children. It’s about enshrining the non-procreative sex.

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, sex is not just for procreation. I’ve been having non-procreative sex all my life, so that disproves your assertion.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Cute — you are entitled to a little humor! Sometimes these conversations get so tedious.

                    • Doughlas

                      Are we wearing you down, Ford? You can cash in your chips at any time.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      (regarding the video — second try — I really hate how Disqus mangles the threads) So you want society to enshrine child rearing by homosexual couples by rewriting centuries old law, because there are some really nice homosexual couples out there. I would say the only time sex should enter the conversation, is in regards to procreation, that being the purpose of sex. So regarding adoption, I would put all this sex nonsense out of the conversation. It might be that my aunt, who lives with my other aunt, may want to adopt a child. I don’t see why they would need to be regarded by society as married. No one is going to be fooled that the child is their biological offspring. So with gay marriage, it’s not about enshrining the couple for the purpose of providing a platform for adopted children. It’s about enshrining the non-procreative sex.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      OK, so it’s not Disqus, it’s Disqus on the Internet Explorer platform. Switching to Firefox.

                    • The idea that sex should only be for procreation is incredibly destructive of the couples who abstain for years until they are ready to have another child. I personally know several relatives who followed the course you suggest and it hollowed out their marriages. In some cases it led to divorce. Sex is a wonderful way to express love. And the Catholic insistence on it being only a tool for baby making is anti-love and anti-life of the couple. Ford, you masturbate and that is not procreative. Why not make love to your spouse instead?

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, you do masturbate, don’t you? Come on, tell the truth! Silence or denial will just get you in deeper.

                    • He can’t answer you right now. He’s been in the restroom 20 minutes.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      ” Sex is a wonderful way to express love.” But within the confines of morality. Sex can also be a viscious tool of the oppressor outside those confines. We disagree about those confines. But thank you for not being intolerant of confines drawn by the Catholic Church, which I ascribe too, and which I recommend to you as well as anyone.

                    • Mariana T

                      Douglas, the truth makes people uncomfortable because they would have to reform themselves if they were to acknowlege it, which is why many states and European countries have thrown in the towel. The truth is never popular which is precisely why Jesus was crucified.

                    • Nobody on earth actually believes the only reason to have sex is to procreate. And your prejudice is showing when you assume that since I am gay I am a party guy having loads of illicit sex. I am living the same “lifestyle” I did as a married man, but now I am not torn in two. Being in a same-sex relationship gave me my integrity back. I am right where God wants me. I am so blessed by God to be living and loving the way I was meant to be in the divine plan.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Please see comment above regarding hoisting a libation — this disqus platform makes it hard to follow a thread.

                    • Guest

                      My own grandfather drank to deal with the pain caused by my grandmother’s blind obedience to the Catholic teaching that sex is only for procreation. It destroyed him and their marriage. Making love is so powerful in its own right that the church is crazy to limit it to merely a necessary evil for baby making.

                    • Doughlas

                      I agree. The Church’s position is totally insane, and I can’t believe anyone gets sucked into it. It just creates misery. And they talk about the “culture of death.”

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Oh, you mean your grandfather forced her to have sex every night under the Catholic “marriage debt”? That would be an abuse, as would too much abstinence. The golden mean works well here. The Church does not take a vote, it passes down Christian teaching. The high road is to abstain and lead the single life for the greater glory of God, or the religious life.

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, you have deliberately misconstrued what Jerome said about his grandfather and grandmother. There was no force involved, nor (obviously) any attempt at force. The man had to live like a monk because his wife was zonked out on religion. Why in blazes didn’t she tell him that before they were married? Maybe we should just conclude that marrying a Catholic can be very dangerous and unhealthy! I have never been a Catholic. I cannot express to you how utterly bizarre and unhealthy “abstention for the glory of God” sounds to my ears. It sounds like downright medieval. This extreme sexual repression is absolutely frightening, like something out of a horror movie. Psychologists have known for so long that it is dysfunctional and that it produces all kinds of neuroses. Why are Catholics still touting it? Weird and disturbing! I suppose you don’t masturbate, either? None of the Catholics on this thread do. Right. So add lies and hypocrisy to the sins you will have to confess, and get some more bandwidth for your load of guilt.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      No, she was zonked out on her own private misunderstanding of religion. As for chastity, what a fabulous virtue. It leads to control of your passions. If you lose control of your passions, you might do something you regret later. In a marriage, chastity means chilling out once in a while, and making sacrifices of your own selfish desires once in a while. It is excellent for the relationship. This over-emphasis on sex is adolescent. Psychologists. Many psychologists are quacks! The blind leading the blind. Witch doctors. You pay them to be your friend, you fall in love with them, have an affair, get a broken heart, and pay a lot of money. Nice! I knew a patient in Sibley in D.C. — contracted hep B during the stay. It took a WWII nurse to figure that out — those quack M.D.s running around scratching their beards were worse than useless.

                    • Doughlas

                      Good grief, Ford, why would I want to “control” my passions? At my age, I am too busy trying to resuscitate them! I would love to do something I would regret!

                      Over-emphasis on sex? But you guys are the ones who are always bringing up sex. Sex and body parts. I think it comes from looking at too much porn.

                      Psychologists are witch-doctors? I just chalked up one more Catholic science skeptic, which supports my claim that the Church should NOT be in the business of running universities and hospitals. When I go to a hospital, I want to be treated by someone who believes in science, not someone who believes doctors are quacks!

                      Of course there are doctors who are quacks, but you are dismissive of an entire profession, and your evidence is anecdotal, pure “folk wisdom.”

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Ha ha — that’s pretty funny. Get off the ball and chain and swill down a few old man drinks: Manhattans with Peychaud’s or something and get in a bar fight. Me too on the hospitals — I want someone who knows science, and who has a God given vocation — a knack. Got me on the folk wisdom — I knew that was coming — ciao~!

                    • You just assumed things about me that are totally false. I did not join the party life. I am a writer and an ordained minister. I am living now the same way I did when I was married to a woman, except I am happy and totally at peace with my sexuality. Marriage is all about the love. Procreation is a blessing when it comes, but not all marriages have children. Some heterosexual couples are childless while some same-sex couples are having children via adoption, surrogacy or artificial insemination.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      Well, I would hope I could persuade you to join me in hoisting a libation to our differences and put friendship first between us. My comments about joining the party were in response to what seemed like an excuse on your part to engage in bad behavior because heterosexuals do so. But the ends of sex really are children. That’s why it exists, and that’s why the institution of marriage came to be. Yes, granted, heterosexuals have destroyed marriage. But they have done so precisely by ignoring the ends of sex, through divorce, contraception and abortion, an unspeakable scourge. Homosexuals will not be able to right that wrong, by definition. But not to worry — we will all be too old for sex one day.

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, your premise that sex is uniquely about children is not just flawed but deluded. Think about it. I know you are not supposed to think about it. But just try. Reflect on it a while. Read some articles. Do some research. And try being honest with yourself. Has sex (including masturbation) always been about procreation for you?

                    • John200

                      God help you, Doughlas, you think masturbation is sex. All practicing homo”sex”uals (i.e., practitioners of mutual masturbation) are acting on that premise. That is a clue to your problem and to the darkness that surrounds you. It should give you an idea of where you might find some light.

                      From false premises, one can make any conclusion at all.

                      You think masturbation is sex. And you wonder why you are spending your life in the darkness.

                    • Doughlas

                      Oh, I see! That’s a good one, John. You don’t HAVE to feel bad about masturbation because you have redefined it as non-sexual. Clever!!! I underestimated you. So you have nothing to confess about. You can be just like Bill Clinton who said, “I never had sex with that woman.” He, too, had his own little private definition of sex. Good game!

                    • John200


                      Your main point is false; I did not redefine your practice as non-sexual. It is perverted sex. Then you persist in criticizing what you do not understand; the Church; its teachings about sex; the truth. You give up on trying to win converts (and ruin their lives with your “love”). You claim you are only trying to expose your interlocutors; you are exposing yourself, having overestimated yourself.

                      Time to consider conversion, Doughlas. You are a good candidate. Go see the local priest. Find one who teaches orthodox Catholicism, not lefty goofball faith and NOT Jerome. Ask about RCIA. My advice is much better than continuing this pitiful homo”sex”ual trolling game.

                      Ask the priest to tell you what you do not understand. Ask your interlocutors to tell you what I just wrote. I could name a dozen good candidates from this thread (NOT Jerome).

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      It’s silly to deny sex exists so that the species may reproduce. Can appetites be abused? Happens all the time. Does abuse of appetite lead to happiness? Only in the short term, which is not happiness. As it turns out, happiness for humans involves eternal matters and spirituality, which is a higher plane than bodily matters. As you get older, you will begin to appreciate this more.

                    • Doughlas

                      Ford, Ford, Ford. I am 68. How much older do I have to get before I understand the truth of what you are saying? I am quite happy on this earth and in this body, thank you. I do not believe in “spirit” as something separate from the body, and I assure you I am happy as can be. I’m about to get married! I have a loving partner, a lovely home, and a wonderful family. What else could I possibly want other than peace on earth and an end to human suffering? You think I would want an eternity in paradise telling God how magnificent He is? I’ll pass on that, thank you.

                    • Ford Oxaal

                      You may have a while yet. And I am glad you are happy. And playing the harp doesn’t sound like fun to me either. (But I’m pretty sure that’s not the deal.)

                    • Tarses

                      You were “born gay”? Please point to any scientific evidence for that. Anything! I understand for sure that you didn’t choose to have same sex attraction but there is literally no scentific evidence to point to anyone being “born gay”. There is no gay gene, no gay chromosone, no difference in chemical composition, no difference in brain structure. Nothing. You bear a cross that I would wish on no one but making unsubstantiated claims to its origins (which the cathechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges is rooted in mystery) serves to muddy the conversation and mislead all involved. Peace.

                    • Doughlas

                      Tarses, you are wrong about the scientific evidence, and you’re bluffing. The consensus among geneticists is that approximately 30% of the variation in sexual orientation is genetic. The rest is due to “gene expression” and hormones. The brains of gay men are observably different from those of straight men. There’s lots of scientific literature on this. Just Google it, and make sure you get your info from scientists, not ideologues.

                      Even if it were a choice, would it matter? You don’t have a Catholic gene, do you?

                    • Tarses

                      Sorry, I’m not wrong. Not one shred of scentific evidence has been found that people are born gay. And thank goodness for that! If science were to somehow find out that people were born gay, what is the first thing they would do? They’d figure out how to make a test for it to see if someone was gay nor not. But that test wouldn’t be used on someone who was 15 or 25 or 40 years of age. It would be for pregnant mothers so they could determine whether the babies they were carrying were gay or not so they could make a decision on whether to abort them. Today, in America, over 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted. Can you what percentage of gay babies would be aborted?

                      And by the way – I never said having same sex attraction was a choice. I said there is no scientific evidence that people are born that way and I stand by that comment.

                    • Doughlas

                      Tarses, you can stand by your position all you want, but you are still wrong. Your information may be out of date. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a growing body of irrefutable evidence that gay men are disproportionately left-handed, that their hair whorls in a counter-clockwise direction, and that they are the younger siblings of older brothers. A 1997 study showed that each older brother increased the odds of a man being gay by 33%. Gay men have also been found to have more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. A 2010 study showed that the removal of a single gene in mice resulted in same-sex attraction.

                      There’s lots more information about this, but the upshot is that genetic effects are believed to account for 34-39% of the variance in sexual orientation (of men). The rest is gene expression, gene environment, hormones, and perhaps some post-natal environmental factors that have not been conclusively identified.

                      The most reliable indicator is the one concerning the increased odds that a younger son will be gay. (Both my partner and I are second sons, BTW).

                      I should also mention that two studies in the early nineties found differences in brain structure between straight and gay males (the suprachiasmatic nucleus and the anterior commissure, for what it’s worth). Simon LeVay did a famous study of the anterior hypothalamus and found a highly significant difference in its size for gay men. A 2010 study found that the level of the mother’s testosterone during the intrauterine period was also a factor.

                      Approximately 8% of domestic rams are sexually attracted to other rams. Do you think that these rams “chose” their orientation?

                      The same is true of the hundreds of other species that I listed.

                      Homosexuality would seem to be maladaptive in an evolutionary sense because homosexuals are not as likely to reproduce. But if one looks a little closer, the adaptivity becomes a little more apparent. In some species of social insects, most of the members are non-reproductive, and this is an adaptive feature. This is a complex subject and I don’t have any more time right now for it. If you are interested, Wikipedia has a good portal on the subject, called “Biology and sexual orientation,” and it will direct you to over 100 scientific studies.

                    • Every scientific medical association disagrees with you. The only thing you have to offer is your uninformed opinion.

                    • Tarses

                      Oh really? I guess you’d better scold Discover magazine, too, then. They took a in-depth look at the issue and all the research that’s been done and pretty much concluded what I stated — we just don’t know. There is no solid scientific proof that a person is born gay. There are factors (which both you and Doughlas stated) that hint at potential risks for being gay. But risks are not causes and they’re not proof that you were born gay. The complexities for it elude us. And that’s not my opinion. It’s a fact.


                    • Doughlas

                      Tarses, you’re recommending an article from Discover Magazine on this topic? When Discover first appeared, they had serious scientific articles, but their ownership changed hands several times and they veered toward junk science and pseudo-science. It’s not a reliable source. I would recommend the scientific studies (over 100 of them) that are listed in the portal article that I cited earlier.

                    • Doughlas

                      By the way, your citation of an article from Discovery magazine just confirms what I said before: You are bluffing.

                    • Tarses

                      Doughlas, sorry that you don’t like Discover magazine and the conclusions the writer draws but it is a mainstream magazine and the article is very fairly written. I notice that whenever people don’t like the conclusions that some study or publication draws, they immediately work to discredit it in an effort to push their agenda. There are plenty of studies that contradict all the studies you point to, as the Discover article fairly points out. The science is not settled. We *would* agree, though, that some people may be born with some predispositions that make it more likely they’ll have same sex attraction. But predispositions don’t make a person gay anymore than they make a person an alcoholic. And it’s a HUGE leap to see possible predispositions and then conclude that person is “born gay”. Any scientist who jumped to such a conclusion with the data available to us now has not followed the scientific method.

                      Despite all that, I’m quite sure nothing I’ve said will change your mind anymore than you will change mine. I respect your rights to believe what you want to believe. I just don’t see that you’ve made your case despite an heroic effort. And I’m not inclined to participate in a Chevy vs. Ford conversation which this on the cusp of becoming so I will wish you peace and move on to another part of the conversation.

                      Peace be with you.

                    • Actually, science has totally proven that sexual orientation is caused by a complex mix of genetics and hormones in utero. Brain scans have long shown the physical observable differences in the brain structures of heterosexual versus homosexual brains, but now they can see those areas of the brain forming in the womb with advanced brain scans of fetuses. You really are not up on your science. The only people still talking about a single gay gene are evolution deniers, flat earthers and creation science lovers. And drop the pity. I am happy being gay. The only cross is prejudiced jerks who are cruel. Capiche?

                    • I recommend that you go to to see the science explained by a conservative evangelical professor who speaks your lingo. And the site is very interesting.

                    • Google “gay brains are different” and you will learn that while there is not a simple single gay gene, the visible observable measurable differences in the brain structures of heterosexual versus homosexual brains have been visible for years, and recently brain scans of fetuses show those differences form in utero. Thus, some people truly are born this way.

                    • John200

                      Well, Jerome, you have received plenty of response on your trolling adventure, so you need little from me. Some truth for you:

                      You choose to sin.

                      You plan to continue sinning.

                      You think the Cathiolic Church should go along with your choices and plans.

                      We won’t. There you have it.

                      See, Jerome, It is just a matter of truth.

                    • John, what you offer is not truth, it is prejudice calling itself truth.

                    • John200

                      Jerome, I gave you the truth for the manyth time. You say you went to all these good schools and then ended up in a “denomination” (oh, goody, do tell!).

                      Then you wonder why I am sure of the truth, and that it is dogma, not prejudice, and that you do not have it, and that you need it.

                      You are the so mixed up in your darkness, I would give you a flashlight for Christmas.

                      See, Jerome, it is just a matter of truth.

                    • NOBODY HAS EVER CHANGED FROM HOMOSEXUAL TO HETEROSEXUAL no matter how much they prayed, tried and repented. So says the only worldwide ex-gay ministry (Google “Exodus admits gays can’t change”). All the major ex-gay groups now accept that the scientific medical associations are correct. Nobody changes his sexual orientation. Nobody can change it.

                    • John200

                      Oh dear, Jerome. Repetition does not improve your experience. Since you say you received a Catholic education (I see no sign of it), I am going to leave you a Christmas present, if you can use it. You will resonate to:
                      “… And lead us not into temptation,
                      But deliver us from evil. Amen.”

                      You know who leads you into temptation. You know who can deliver you from evil. You know He will deliver you if you make an effort to go to the truth, but not otherwise. I gave you the truth enough times, here comes some more (relax, it’s just a few more lines).

                      You were not destined to end up this badly; you chose it. Many pretend that:

                      1) they cannot change their sinful nature, and therefore,

                      2) they must continue to practice their sin(s).

                      You see the self-deceptive logic, don’t you? When people get that bit of self-deception out of the way, they start to do better.

                      Merry Christmas to you and yours. That goes for the man you are destroying as well as yourself.

            • Chip

              Doughlas, if you knew our faith, you would know that “crashing and burning” is not possible. “Even the gates of hell itself shall not prevail against her.” Has it (and will it) become a much smaller entity of faithful Catholics? Considering the election and the “Catholic” politicians, I fear that process has already begun. Objective Truth will always prevail in the end.

              • There was a time when the Catholic church’s version of “objective truth” was elevated above every politician and the emperor himself. It led to the Dark Ages.

                • Sean

                  You are a horrible scholar, Jerome. The Dark Ages (so-called first by Voltaire, the sworn enemy of the Catholic Church), occurred due to the barbarian invasions, the tribes allowed into the Empire who cared not a whit about Rmanitas, the culture and language of Rome, only their money. Not unlike a certain classes of people who have made enclaves within the US and many countries in Europe, who care nothing of their host countries but act as parasites to the betterment of other nations or cultures.
                  The Catholic Church, notably through the monasteries of St Benedict, kept the flickerling light of Romanitas alive when repeated invasions disrupted Roman culture, commerce, education and travel.]
                  Jerome, you shdn’t parade your abysmal ignorance in front of us. It’s Bad Form.

                  • Once again you offer insults and get facts wrong. And your earlier insistence that states in the US today must obey the Roman Catholic church’s orders and teachings reveals how far off you really are.

                    • Sean

                      What insult?
                      Over and again you have assaulted reason and history and when I call you on it, I am a nasty guy. When I give you good advice about not parading your ignorance in front of people who know the history you wish to pervert (good word, that) you get huffy instead of learning your limitations.
                      Time to pout, Jerome.

                    • Wow, go back and take a look at the many times you have hurled insult after insult. Let’s compare our qualifications to discuss these matters. Would you presume to tell a Vietnamese person that you know more about his country than he does and that he is in fact the ignorant one? That is what you do to homosexuals. And I have studied the bible daily for 41 years, went to seminary, Catholic college, bible school and graduate school in theology. What is your training that you can be so condescending and dismissive of my posts? You miss the main point and nitpick irrelevant points. As Jesus would say, “You strain at a gnat.”

                    • Sean

                      By the way, Jerome – in your zeal to promote antiCatholic hatred, you accuse me of “insistence that states in the US today must obey the Roman Catholic church’s orders and teachings”.
                      You will have to show me where I have done that. I can find no instance of it.
                      I continue to call for reason and logic. And just recently common sense. Although, I must admit, that all those virtues are found in the social teachings of the Catholic Church.
                      I have a feeling you never got that far in the catechism. Or a class in logic.

                    • I don’t hate Catholics. Most of my own relatives are Catholics. I love them dearly. I strongly disagree with the Catholic promotion of prejudice and cruelty against loving gay couples who only wish to wed the person they love. Also, you offered a screed against 29 states and “catholic politicians” who don’t obey the church.

                    • Sean

                      You are an ideologue and nothing you can say – especially something as hackneyed as “members of my family are Catholics” which is exactly the same as Bull Connor or a Klansman defending his prejudice by saying “some of my best friends are blacks.”
                      Sexual congress between a man and woman is an action open to life and is a great sign of God’s fecund Creation. Sexuality, indeed, comes from exactly the same Source as the Divine Impulse to Create.
                      Homosexuality, Reverend Sir, is a mockery of God and Creation because, as I have stated earlier, it is not open to life. It is a dead end. It is, indeed, a sign of death and the true sign of the Culture of Death which earlier was met with great merriment by Doug.
                      DeFend your disgusting actions among yourselves. Leave the rest of us to contemplate the beauty of the union between men and women as partakers in the beauty of God’s magnificent Creation.

                    • Sean, what you just did is called “projection.” I learned about people through being open and listening. You are the dogmatist who thinks he understands homosexuals better than homosexuals understand themselves. How arrogant. “Homosexuality” is a given trait. It is not chosen. It is not changeable no matter how much you rant against it. You have people in your own life who are homosexual. You have nothing to offer them but your toxic anger, based upon your prejudice. And there is nothing beautiful about forcing gays to marry opposite gender partners. The damage uninformed people like you do to the straight spouses of gay people is horrific. You are a kind of domestic terrorist.

            • Val1

              “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus

          • Sean

            Chip, relativists have no absolutes. Honest!
            Were a band of homosexuals let loose on the Massachusetts statehouse in full torch and scythe abandon over some piece of legislation they opposed, Liberals wd turn on “gays” in a heartbeat.
            Radical Liberalism is built on sand. When the feminists start feeling the competition they will shed their support for “gay marriage” in one quick hurry too.

        • Mariana T

          Douglas and Jerome: No one hates you and no one is “anti-gay” or hysterical. This is what the homosexual community needs to understand: The church is not against you or anyone personally. The church is sorry you have been (possibly) bullied or persecuted, but I can guarantee that no truly faithful person has ever done the bullying. And all different people, ethnicities, and religious faith groups have been persecuted since the beginning of time. Christians have been the most persecuted throughout history. This is a fact of life. The Catholic church simply wishes to uphold church doctrine, that is, what is written in scripture and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You, however, can live however you please. Just stop imposing your beliefs on all of society – you are the ones who wish to change marital laws that have stood for centuries.

          • Doughlas

            Mariana, how can you possibly say that “no one is anti-gay.” You are living in a dream world. Haven’t you read the comments on this site? These are mostly from your fellow Catholics. Look at what John200 has written, for starters. If I had to craft a more hateful message, I can’t imagine how I could surpass some of what is on this thread.

            And just who is imposing whose beliefs on whom? I am planning to marry my partner next summer, and your church has spent millions of dollars trying to stop me from doing it. I have spent $0 trying to stop you or any other Catholic from marrying according to the dictates of your faith. So tell me again, who is trying to impose their beliefs on all of society?

      • Gerard

        I’ve re-read Alecto’s post and cannot find where he states or even implies that gay people are evil. That his grandkids will see it any differently is pure speculation, but more importantly, irrelevant. The peoples that gave us Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union and Mao’s China were someone’s grandkids. This is a fundamental thinking error that we should adjust our current moral thinking because of some speculative judgement of a future zeitgeist that has no objective moral authority.

        • The Nazi comparison is the refuge of those who ran out of anything worthwhile to say. It does not matter. Nothing you say in your rant will change the fact sexual orientation is part of life. It is not a choice. You can’t make yourself gay. And a gay person can’t make himself straight. I tried for 22 years in “reparative therapy” and ex-gay ministry. I found out nobody changed. And now the ex-gay leaders admit it, too. Even the Catholic Courage ministry admits homosexuals can’t choose to be heterosexual. They demand celibacy from gays, which is absurd and cruel for most people. Marriage equality is the way forward.

          • Gerard

            I’m sorry, but I think you completely missed my point. Maybe I wasn’t clear. Let me try again. You are appealing to future public opinion as some kind of moral authority. Ultimately, there is only one moral authority and that authority is not changed whether 1% or 99% believe it. Moral law is objective, as I’m sure you learned at Franciscan U.

            Also, you seem to want to argue with me about same sex attraction being a choice. I never said it was–in fact I believe the contrary. You must have confused me with someone else. What I did say was that homosexual behavior was a choice.

            BTW, using the unqualified term “forward” is really not a convincing argument for anything. When a washed out bridge is in front of you on the highway, reverse is a better option.

            • Now that you admit you are aware that homosexuals are that way without any choice over that matter, be objective. Recognize that a married couple that is totally committed to their marriage and their faith is morally good, regardless of whether the couple is opposite gender or same gender. Love is love.

              • “I used to be against gay marriage; then I found out it wasn’t mandatory.” – Jon Stewart

      • Alecto

        Homosexuality is a sin. I believe you are a child of God, not filth, but if you engage in homosexual acts, you sin. There it is. Interpret it any way you want.

        • “Homosexuality” is a modern medical term and concept, not an ancient and eternal one. “Homosexuality” as we understand it today was coined circa 1888. “Homosexuality” is the lifelong, unchosen sexual orientation a person discovers within themselves in childhood or puberty. It is never a choice. When two homosexuals get married, it is love they express in every way. If you believe that one part of their love and life together is sinful, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But our government has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of all people, not just those you approve of. There are so many Christians who now realize how cruel the old position is that they have moved on.

          • Every civil rights issue has been opposed by religious conservatives in America. Abolition of slavery was fought by religious conservatives. Women’s rights to vote and own property in their own names was fought by religious conservatives. Integration and interracial marriages were fought by religious conservatives. And in every case, once the civil laws changed, the religious conservatives forgot about their old rants. So shall it be with marriage equality.

            • Tarses

              “Marriage equality”? Tell me, Jerome — is there anything unique about the union of a man and woman that no union between a man/man or woman/woman can ever achieve? Is there anything so unique that it deserves a special status in society because of what it delivers back to society?

              • There is no difference between a loving couple having a child via adoption, surrogacy or artificial insemination whether the couple be heterosexual or homosexual. The Catholic church approves of rape victims being forced to bring their children into the world, but rejects some of the other ways in which children are created today. That’s okay. The church will catch up eventually. And there are 72 nations with marriage equality for gays, as well as a growing number of states. Marriage is a good thing for society, regardless of sexual orientation.

                • Tarses

                  I notice you didn’t actually answer the question, Jerome. The actual answer is, yes, there is something very unique about the union between a man and a woman that no same sex union can have or ever will have. When a man and woman come together in union they have the potential and the real likelihood to bring forth life. And that’s what marriage is all about. How coincidental. Same sex unions, by comparison, are lifeless. They will never have that potential. To do anything remotely similar, same sex couples either have to go outside their unions (which begs the question, why bother with a union at all?) or they have to create fetuses for IVF, some of which will be destroyed in the process thus leading to aborted human life. With this latter option, literally, the same sex couple must destroy life in order to create life.

                  Adoption, of course, is a tremendous grace. But adoption is for *children*, not for adults. And every child deserves to have a mother and a father in a loving committed relationship. Try as they might, two fathers cannot replace the role of a mother. And two mothers can never, ever replace the role of a father.

                  BTW, in terms of the Catholic Church’s position on rape and abortion, it might interest you to know that the majority of rape victims who become pregnant choose to carry their babies to full term. A great number of them indicate that doing so helped their healing process even when they gave the baby up for adoption. And for those who choose abortion, the vast majority regret that decision and say that not only did it not help with their recovery from the rape but that it actually made things worse. Before you bring them into the conversation about same sex marriage, you might actually want to understand their points of view. Their actions and self-reporting illustrate that the overwhelming majority agree with the approach the Catholic Church teaches on the issue in spite of the hand-wringing of the forces of the culture of death who often try to pressure these women into aborting their babies.

                  • Wrong again, bigot. There is no difference between a loving couple due to their sexual orientation. You must admit there are plenty of heterosexuals who cannot biologically conceive a child, but you don’t stop them from marrying. And there are many same-sex couples who have a child in the same way the heterosexual couples who can’t conceive together have children – adoption, in vitro and surrogacy. A family is a family.

                    • Tarses

                      “Bigot”? Because I hold a different opinion than you that makes me a “bigot”? Although I disagree with you I think I’ve been nothing but respectful toward you in this conversation. It seems to me that you are intolerant of any points of view but your own, Jerome. *That* is the definition of bigotry. I’d suggest you look in the mirror before you start bandying that word around in an effort to shut down competing points of view.

                      As for other methods of conceiving children, let’s look at those. With IVF, embryos are created and some of them (maybe even all of them) will die in the process. So literally, if a same sex couple (or any couple for that matter) uses that method, they are destroying life in order to create life. It is never moral to kill an innocent human being. Ever.

                      Surrogates fall into the same category unless of course you are saying you would literally have sex with the woman surrogate which means you would be breaking the bonds of a union. Which begs the question, what do you need marriage for if you are going to break the union in order to conceive?

                      As for adoption — thank God for adoption, eh? This is a great option for sharing love in the world. Of course, adoption is for children, NOT for adults. As such, we should be ensuring that children are placed in situations where it has been proven that they do best — in a stable home with a married mother and father. Study after study has shown this to be where children do best and this is where we should be placing them. Remember, it’s not about what the adults want. It’s what is best for the children.

                      As for sterile couples, of course they should be able to get married. Most of them do not know beforehand that they are infertile and it would be cost-prohibitive to test everyone to find out. And more importantly, they are not in relationships that are *sterile by design*. Their bodies are compatible with one another in terms of being engineered for procreation. No same sex couple in the world can make that claim.

                      A same sex couple is by its very nature a sterile relationship — quite literally a lifeless relationship; it cannot bring forth life. THAT is what is unique about marriage and why it is different than any same sex union. That unique nature of a marriage is what makes civilization possible and why it’s in the best interest of society to promote marriage — it leads to healthy offspring who can perpetuate the society in which we live. That is why marriage is a unique social institution and merits its status as it has always been defined. No same sex couple in the world can give back to society what a married couple can give – ever.

                      Jerome — I sincerely hope you had a Merry Christmas. I’ve been praying for you.

                    • Tarses

                      Happy new year, Jerome. I’ve been praying for you.

                      Now where were we? Oh yes. Here. “Bigot”? I’m not sure that word means what you think it means. To be a bigot is to be someone who cannot tolerate another point of view. Jerome, I certainly disagree with you but I’ve been very respectful of you and your position throughout. However, I get the sense that you are not able to tolerate the point of view that *I* am expressing. I would charitably suggest you check the mirror carefully before throwing that word out again in an effort to shut down conversation.

                      Now, let’s take a look at the issues your raised. Indeed, there are many heterosexual couples who may not be able to conceive. But to find that out would require testing all couples which would be too cost-prohibitive. More importantly, these couples have complementary reproductive organs and there is a chance that they may conceive (God willing). Same sex couples, though, are sterile *by design*. No same sex couple in the world can conceive with one another — ever! They literally have lifeless unions — they cannot create life.

                      This alone is a major reason why the union of a man and woman is unique and why it should be enshrined as unique by society. Society ceases to exist without marriages between men and women. They have the ability to create life (and most take advantage of that potential) and children do best (which is best for society) when children are raised in a stable home with their married mother and father. This allows society to perpetuate and to do so under the best circumstances. What does a same sex union deliver back to society that is even remotely close to that? The answer is obvious — nothing.

                      As for adoption — yes! Adoption is tremendous. Thank God for it. But as we already know, children do best in a stable home with a married mother and father. In other situations, they fare more poorly. Every child that is adopted deserves to have the best opportunity to succeed, not a compromised situation where their odds are already lower from the start. .After all, adoption is for children, not for the parents.

                      On IVF, this procedure necessitates the creation of embryos, many of which will die. It is NEVER morally acceptable to destroy life in order to create life. A couple that chooses this option, whether it’s a man and woman or a same sex couple, are literally killing human beings in order to create one. Just because science can do it, doesn’t mean we should.

                      The same can be said for surrogates. Either the couple uses IVF to impregnate the surrogate (in which case human beings are being killed to create that life) or one person in the union is going outside the union to literally impregnate the surrogate. If the latter option is chosen, I have to ask — if you need to go outside your union, why on earth do you need marriage because that’s not what a marriage is.

                      So it seems, not all unions are equal. Why should we pretend they are and then enshrine that idea into law?

                    • Bill Guentner

                      here you go again Jerry–why call Tarses a bigot when nothing that he wrote is bigoted. He or she forthrightly stated his/her and the Catholic Church’s position, which is certainly not bigotry.

            • Doughlas

              I hope you are right, Jerome, and history suggests that you are. My expectation is that the catechismal teaching about homosexuality will very rapidly become an embarrassment to Catholics and they will spend decades trying to deny that it means what it means, and there will be a lot of spinning and historical revisionism, and then, finally, about one hundred years from now, the hierarchy will finally remove the words “intrinsically disordered” from the catechism and apologize. However, it could take 400 years, as we saw in the case of Galileo.

              • J G

                Dream on.

                • Catholic people support marriage equality. It’s the old men in dresses who don’t.

                  • Sean

                    The old men in dresses?
                    And you run riot through these posts claiming that we are all insulting you and all homosexuals.
                    Your bigotry is showing, Jerome.

                  • Bill Guentner

                    My last post here because if you cannot be civil in your responses to others, you are not worth the effort.

              • Bill Guentner


            • Sean

              I have no idea where you got such blatantly WRONG information abourt “religious conservatives” being against slavery, Jerome.

              The popes were the first European rulers on record as opposing slavery and doing wha they cd to end it – when the royals and nobles bothered to listen to them.

              In the US the abolition societies were almost all sponsored by Christian churches. My own ancestors living in upstate NY were conductors on the underground railroad for two reasons: They felt slavery was 1.) anti-Christian and 2.) anti-American, in that order.

              I’m perfectly aware of the homosexual lobby’s blatant anti-religious, more specifically anti-Christian, most specifically anti-Catholic bias. No, that’s not strong enough a word. Better, enmity: a hatred that engenders a deep, abiding animosity and hostility. Yes, that describes the emotion quite well. Hatred for anything Catholic, excepting, of course, Cardinal Bernardine or Archbishop Weakland.

              • Doughlas

                Sean, the Cathedral of Salamanca was built by slaves. The Church hasn’t always been against slavery. Certainly St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were not. Not even Jesus spoke out against it, and Paul told slaves to obey their masters. During the Renaissance, the Pope’s galleys were manned by slaves.

                • schmenz

                  This is beyond funny.

                  • John200

                    Doughlas is a parody of himself. It is his pastime, and sometimes it is hard to tell when he is a serious fool or just fooling.

                  • Doughlas

                    Yes, historical revisionism is always hilarious.

                    • Sean

                      Which explains why readers concious of real history and not the hodgepodge currently foisted on students, find your posts to be “laff riots”.

                • Sean

                  The Church hasn’t always been against slavery.

                  The Church took her time to officially oppose slavery. One has only to read St Paul to know this, as you point out, Doughlas. But that is not what I wrote. Like Jerome, you use my statement only to confuse the issue by attempting to ring in a concept not included in my post.

                  I wrote, “The popes were the first European rulers on record as opposing slavery.” I did not say that all popes tried to end slavery. I did not even imply it. I invite you to contradict what I did write. The popes WERE the first European rulers to oppose slavery.

                  And, whatever happened in Salamanca only backs up what I DID say about kings and nobles listening to the pope only when they felt like it. You forget that the Spanish Inquisition continued despite papal opposition.

              • I am an ordained Christian minister in the United Church of Christ and I served the poorest of the poor as a chaplain in a city mission. Your assumption I am “anti-religious and specifically anti-Christian” shows how far off base you are. I love Jesus. And most of my family is still Catholic, so just apologize for your arrogance and ignorant false assumptions and we can move on.

                • Sean

                  Then go, reform your own sect and leave the Church to focus on Jesus and life everlasting instead of sin and carnal wallowing.

                • J G

                  I don’t visit UCC sites and bash them. So why are you here? To bash us for actually believing our faith.

                  • I graduated from the college this article is about. I am an alumni and the article is about FU alumni. You are the one who should go someplace else, but you won’t visit UCC sites because you are afraid you will learn something.

                    • Sean

                      You are an alumnus, Jerome. Two of you wd be alumni. A slip of the keyboard, I’m sure.

                • Bill Guentner

                  Your are to be commended for your work with the poor, however, as an ordained minister, you use strong words for those who oppose your position on certain matters, which, in itself is not a position a Christian should take. Calm yourself.

              • Religious conservatives who defended slavery had many more bible quotes in their favor than you do for your attacks on gays. The biblical curse of Ham was seen as “proof” God intended people of African descent to be subservient to others. And there are no bible verses calling for the abolition of slavery, but plenty telling slaves to obey their masters.

                • Sean

                  Let me remind you, Jerome, tat the title of the article is “Redefining Deviance”. now you redefine history and Christianity by minorities. Ihe popes fought slabery 300 years befoe Wilberforce in England. Entire orders of priests were formed in which members, priests, demanded that they be taken as slaves in place of Christians enslaved by Moslem plying the Mediterranean Sea.
                  Homosexuals, sodomists, pederasts and the like, are not anywhere close to the victims of slavery and I resent, personally, your wretched attempt to co-opt black slavery to this sinful condition. Blacks never had the fortune that your well-heeled friends devote to cramming sodomy and lesbianism down the throats of normally sexual persons – an image I’m sure you’ll relish. Blacks and whites had to fight and die in actual warfare and a century of battling for equality.
                  Your friends in California, Connecticut, New York, the Caribbean, the Riviera and elsewhere, in their beautiful homes and gorgeously tailored clothing are NOTHING like the blacks living in hovels in the South, or the Catholics reduced to penury in Ireland.
                  It disgusts me that you contemplate your fudgesicle fantasies at the same time with whipped and heavy laden slaves living on crusts of bread.

              • Abolition societies were built by liberal Christians. The entire denomination of Southern Baptists was formed to defend slavery. Your lack of knowledge of history is appalling.

                • Sean

                  Jerome – the statement you’re replying to says, “The popes were the first European rulers on record as opposing slavery.” They did this before the American Republic was formed, indeed they did this before there were British colonies on the North American continent.

                  To ring in the Southern Baptists is an aggressive non sequitor. The Southern Baptists of the era wd find association with Catholics reprehensible. And my forebears in New England were hardly “liberal Christians” as if that description was common among any kind of Christian of that time. You seem to think that all Christians who were opposed to and acted against slavery were in bed, so to speak, with Ralph Waldo Emerson. And, I dare say, even Emerson wd find the activities of two male human plugs desperately searching for a socket more than a little distasteful.
                  From the messages listed by you and Doughlas Non-sequitorism is your religion. You practice the belief with great abandon.

          • Veronica

            JR, I’m sure you absolutely and sincerely have good intentions and have been unjustly treated in the past, by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I have a couple very close friends who knew from early childhood that they were gay. The church’s teachings on chastity are still the same as ever, however, and will not change, and cannot change. You are asked to be celibate, which is not the end of the world. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were celibate. Most seminarians, priests, and religious are celibate in imitation of Christ, as all unmarried people are called to be. Chastity isn’t just for gays – fornication & adultery are just as seriously wrong. Abstaining within marriage also has it’s place, when a spouse is sick, after a baby is born, when the couple thinks they should not get pregnant and are using NFP. It’s a very long list of “inappropriate” uses of sexuality, not just against gays. Celibacy won’t kill anyone. You can “love” – as you keep on writing – in so many, many other ways. You have so much to offer the world, each and every single day. The gay community pins everything upon an unlimited right to sex with whoever, whenever, however. If only they would put half that energy into making the world a better place. If only the parents of the world would stop cheating and being unsatisfied and focus on taking care of their children well. If only.

            • Doughlas

              Veronica, I am absolutely floored by your presumption in telling Jerome he should be celibate. That was jaw-droppingly cruel of you. It was also cruel to assume that Jerome is only interested in “an unlimited right to sex with whoever, whenever, however.” These are the kinds of slanders that must stop. My partner and I are celebrating our thirteenth year together this month, and we are to be married in July. Your characterization of gays (us) is insulting and demeaning.

              How can you tell a young man that he has no right to love unless you yourself have never experienced love? My love for my partner is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and without it I would feel bereft and lonely, because I am the kind of person who needs closeness and intimacy. There is nothing evil about this need; it is an expression of my humanity. I am frankly outraged that anyone would presume to decide on my behalf–or counsel me–to choose loneliness over sexual intimacy and companionship in a committed relationship. If you’re so keen on sacrificing your sexuality, then do so, but please don’t ever suggest to anyone that the path of celibacy is pleasing to God.

              The Church’s teachings about sexuality are a scandal, and of course you are right that they will not change anytime soon, and more and more Catholics will just get fed up and leave the church.

              • Ford Oxaal

                Christian love, and the love you speak of are two different things. Christian love does not equate to, or require, sexual activity. If sexual activity is removed from the possibility of achieving its ends, the Catholic Church considers it disordered. Same thing with eating activity. If it is removed from the possibility of achieving its ends, it is considered disordered. If people choose to believe that, you are OK with that, right?

                • Doughlas

                  Ford, I am not a Catholic, and frankly, I don’t give a hoot what the Catholic church prescribes for my sexuality.

                  • Ford Oxaal

                    You stated you were “absolutely floored by your presumption in telling Jerome he should be celibate. That was jaw-droppingly cruel of you.” I am trying to understand your position. So I want to know if you are intolerant of people holding the view that sexual activity beyond the possibility of procreation is morally wrong, Catholic or otherwise.

                  • sajetreh

                    Good for you Doug. You shouldn’t give a hoot what the church or anyone else prescribes. I’m the same way. I don’t give a damn what other people think or do just as long as they leave me alone. Especially when others try to force me to believe something that isn’t true. You and Jerome are deviants. You deviate from the normal purpose of the human reproductive system. You don’t reproduce by having sex with other men. This is a fact that you and your other deviants can never escape. Science it is a wonderful thing and there are absolutes when dealing with it. It is absolutely a fact that the only physical purpose of the human reproductive system is to reproduce. It was that way 10,000 years ago and it will be the same 10,000 years from now.

                    Don’t worry the Islamist are coming and they have a completely different take on your acts. Good luck with them Doug.

                    • A deviant is anyone who is not the same as most others. Left-handed people are deviants, as are people with dark skin, with green eyes and millions of other perfectly natural reasons.

                    • sajetreh

                      Not even a good try. It is quite normal to have green eyes, dark skin or be left-handed. Your desires are the only deviation from the normal purpose of the human reproductive system. The eye’s purpose whether green or blue is to see. The skin whether dark or light is meant to cover. You get the point.

                    • Nonsense. God made some of every single kind of animal species studied to date homosexual. And scientists have some pretty good evolutionary explanations of this, too. Researchers discovered that clans with some homosexuals among them did better at child-rearing (the gay auntie can be a big help). And as populations get too large homosexuality can thin the herd naturally. There is nothing inherently moral about being heterosexual. There is nothing inherently immoral about being homosexual. It is just part of God’s great diversity in all of Creation.

                    • Katy Dailey

                      The often recited line that “every single kind of animal species” is homosexual, is a myth. Just because GLBT supportive sources keep repeating this myth doesn’t make it true. Animals do eat their young, is human cannibalism ok? Your statement that homosexuality is good for “thinning the herd naturally” speaks volumes.

                    • You fool. Try reading science publications. They are the ones which explain the evolutionary benefits to each clan and herd in having some homosexuals among them to help with child-rearing in difficult times.

                    • Sean

                      Well, this really does demonstrate that Jerome understand the human species to be nothing special and should be cannibalizing themselves in order to “thin the herd.” But, Jerome, the women of our country are doing that without your help.

                      And the Moslems are overbreeding to take over. At which time, with the introduction of Sheria law and the collapse of Judaeo-Christian concepts of law and morality, homosexuals, feminists and other progressives will bring about their own destruction.

                      Within two generations, the US will be a Moslem country unless citizens reintroduce masculinity to the culture. Right now, were just about at the same stage as the Roman Empire was at just before being destroyed by the Vandals, Goths and other barbaric tribes camped on their doorstep.

                    • Some of every single kind of animal species kills and eats their own young. Does that mean we should adopt that type of behavior as “normal”?

                    • The usual double-bind thinking of the anti-gay bigot: First, denounce gays as “unnatural” and then when the science is brought forth that proves homosexuality is perfectly natural in all species, flip around and attack nature without seeing the contradiction in your own logic. Likewise, those who fight tooth and nail to stop gays from marrying turn around and condemn us for having sex outside of marriage.

                • There is zero difference between the Christian love of a husband and wife, and the Christian love between a husband and a husband. I speak from a lifetime of experience. You speak from an assumption based on prejudice. And the word “disordered” is a medical term, so you don’t know how to use it since every scientific medical authority agrees there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. It is part of the diversity of life seen in all creation.

                  • Ford Oxaal

                    (Hmm, I wonder where this comment will appear on disqus) Procreative sex is part of Christian married love. Non-procreative sex isn’t, whether homo or heterosexual.

              • That’s right. I am in a monogamous relationship for five years now and I would be married but Catholic and Mormon conservatives came in and ran a scare campaign with their millions of dollars and took away our right to marry here in California, even though it was a state constitutional right. Those who assume I am living some wild life are revealing their human prejudice against gays.

                • Sean

                  Ah, yes! California.- In which citizens vote to overtax themselves, drive corporations into other states, and so, ipso facto, will be forced to carry a larger burden of the next tax hikes that must necessarily follow from the corrupt legislators who want to give the state to illegal aliens whom they can keep in peonage, just like in Mexico!

              • Bob

                The bottom line is the homosexual act of sodomy is against nature and its laws. The complementary use of a man’s sexual organ penetrating a woman’s vagina and ejaculating for the purpose of procreation is the right “order” of the sexual act and its sexual parts. A man using his sexual organ to ejaculate in to another man’s rectum is not the natural intent and therefore “disordered.” it is analogous to someone using their eyeball to catch a baseball…….the right “order” of the eyeball is to refract light and produce sight, it would be “disordered” (and therefore against nature’s laws) for a man to try to use his eye to catch a curve ball.

                • Doughlas

                  But Bob, an eyeball can’t catch a baseball. A tongue can be used for eating, for speaking, for singing, for detecting bitterness, saltiness, and sweetness, for expressing contempt, for licking one’s lips, for getting stuck against frozen water pipes, for touching one’s nose, for testing temperature, and for pleasuring one’s lover. All that with one organ! Amazing!

                  The argument that all things were made for a single purpose–or for any purpose at all–is known as the “teleological fallacy.”

                  Your talk about “nature and its laws” is completely unscientific. Again, this is why the Catholic church should never have become involved in running universities and hospitals, where science is held in high esteem.

                  • Bob

                    So the natural law is “unscientific” Doug? Explain? And where did I say all things have a primary purpose? In your logic then, a hand can be used to greet someone with a hand shake, or make a fist and hit someone in anger. A tongue can spit at someone, or verbally abuse someone. Good use….bad use. Catholic Church is unscientific???? You need to look that up.

                  • Again, this is silly. Nobody who believes in the natural law insists that a part of the body may only be used naturally for one purpose. What we call unnatural is the use of the sexual organs in a way that thwarts their obvious biological functions. That includes heterosexual sodomy too.

                    • Doughlas

                      So what would you like me to do, Tony? Leave my partner (who is also my fiancé)? Marry a woman and make love to her every night? Got any other wacky ideas?

                • You have been throwing curveballs. The word “sodomy” is not in the bible. And the bible defines the “sin of Sodom” differently than you do: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;they did not help the poor and needy.”

              • Dishonest. You will not ‘fess up to the heterosexual fellow-travelers, letting them know what you do. You don’t keep yourselves to one “partner” — and you have no intention whatsoever to uphold purity before marriage. Everything you say about your sexualized friendship, somebody else might say about his fornication or adultery, or other forms of sexual gratification. You cannot see beyond your own feelings; you cannot see that marriage is in free fall, and you are adding weight to the collapse.

                • Doughlas

                  What you’ve written is a sterling example of how prejudice works. You assume that all the members of a class have exactly the same negative attributes, and then you are utterly incapable of seeing the individuals in that class as they are. All you see is a stereotype, and no amount of reality-checking will deter you from it.

                  You know nothing about me but what I have told you, and yet you accuse me of dishonesty, promiscuity, and sexual obsession. I must figuratively look over my shoulder to spot the person you are talking to. It’s not me.

                • Another example of pure prejudice, Tony. You speak as if you know what goes on in the lives of a certain couple you never met simply because they belong to the minority group you hate. Gays want to take part in marriage. That is the opposite of destroying it.

              • rich

                Kirk and Madsen at work here readers! shame on u! Oh i’m sorry! did we hurt your feelings?

              • I must confess that the general choice of words used throughout by many in support of so called “gay marriage” range from: “hate”, “discriminate”, “bigotry” and so on…to the kind I am seeing here belonging to the “hurt feelings/I’m indignant range”: “insulting” “demeaning” “outraged” and so on.

                It is also clear that there are many who believe that “cogent arguments” in support of traditional sexual norms, as exclusively correct, do not exist or that if they do they must be “extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal or whatever else? I would, at some point and at your leisure, very much like to see you or anyone else who thinks otherwise to present the kind of argumentation/epistemological ground work that “must necessarily underpin” your take on sexual morality, its social (private/public) ramifications, it’s moral import, the effect, if any, on the state, the judiciary et al…that is, if you want all your hurt feelings and indignation to be taken seriously. Now, a lesser point but an important one nonetheless: just because you may believe that any sexual practice is fair game for any consenting adult (and that everyone has to accept it regardless of whatever thoughts one might have on the matter simply because, God forbid we wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or discriminate against their “preference satisfiers”) does not make it so by de facto.

                Another tangential point is one that regards “Catholic teaching on sexual morality as “archaic” (a favorite word and often used, though, for the life of me, I fail to see how it diminishes the value of staid truth); we also see words like “mean” or “hurtful” or “not in touch” et al… All that can be said at present about this is: those of you who hold to such a view are woefully misinformed. You should take a look at Aristotle’s metaphysics, Scholastic metaphysics, Natural law theory and if none of that is to your taste, at least lend yourself to a cursory examination of the basic rudiments of logic if you find yourself interested at all in “an understanding of just how reasonable an argument can be put forward for what many so glibly regard as retrograde (provided you actually show good faith and take the time to look at the arguments). In truth, (and here I will conclude)

                If many of those among the LGBT crowd were to, right now, look up the word “bigotry” I’m certain they would clearly understand me when I say that, by virtue of much of what is said and insisted upon rhetorically, they might, to their great surprise, find themselves falling quite nicely under that pleasant appellation (it always pays to be careful about the words one bandies about).

                For further reading: (and this is just for starters) “What is Marriage” by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P.George. There is also a very well thought out chapter called “The Church Opposes Same-sex marriage because of Bigotry: The Myth that there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to one man and one woman from “The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church” by Christopher Kaczor.

                Ultimately, I’m not asking for anyone person to concede any one point. I’m simply insisting that one ought to be better informed and be ready to substantiate one’s claims sans the rhetoric rather than casually asserting some point or other as settled fact, popular consensus notwithstanding…

                Moreover, in answer to the general view that a moral objection to those acts which same sex attraction entails is simply another form of “negative discrimination” or “hatred” and so on, I will briefly spell out one (and there are many more) of the chief deficiencies grounding much of the LGBT narrative.

                Where LGBT people are concerned, the “minor principle” of pleasure (which they always call love when sex is on the cards) -talk about your ubiquitous term – is equal to or can be made to trump the “major principle” of procreation (and all of this is commonly folded into a narrative of: “natural affection and “friendship” – the common ground as it were. Yet, this is dishonest. Speaking in this way is merely another way to sneak sodomy into the house under universally acceptable credentials. It is in this way, the LGBT community “talks past the issue”). Moreover, this assertion of course, like many “LGBT arguments” proves too much. It must, in principle, include any kind of sexuality that one can “think of” and “indulge in” regardless of whom they “indulge in it with” or with “what” for that matter. (just think about that for a second). It is a reductio ad absurdum. Other than that, it presents a logical quandary. It’s interesting really. Permit me, by way of explanation, to flesh out what I have just said by means of the following analogy: I shall take “the eating of food” for my theme. Where food is concerned, would anyone seriously contend that “a healthy appetite” takes precedence over or is equal to “the need to nourish oneself” whilst maintaining the highly contentious back up argument: “well there is more to eating than just keeping you alive?”- Now, just because “a distinction” can be made (between “enjoying food” and “nourishing oneself”) it doesn’t necessarily follow that a “separation” is entailed (another logical fallacy). Yet, despite this, there are many who would like to believe or simply maintain (despite knowing better) that it does (against all logic) and by means of this assumed fallacy insist that both – “the appetite” and the “ends to which the appetite tend” – are equal and can be appealed to depending on one’s preference. Consequently, false choices are set up and promoted as something substantially valid (where “eating” is concerned) and yes, marriage.

                Now given this, if you are following my thought on the matter, how has it come to pass, even when “reason” and “logic” are at odds with such a proposition, that we have taken the narrative peddled by the LGBT community as a given? Was it their force of rhetoric? Their appropriation of “rights language”? Media and hurt feelings? Moreover, why is it that wherever/whenever sex is concerned – and not any other part of the body – they are willing to entertain any mad idea that pops into their head as far as satisfying their “preference satisfiers” are concerned and to shout “bigotry”, “a violation of rights” and “discrimination” at anyone who reasonably/conscientiously objects, points out a false premise, demonstrates the use of ambiguous language or points out a logical contradiction? Heck, the very ground upon which their argument for equality stands is, by its very nature a logical contradiction. Madness.

                The argument from equality:

                “the equality argument”… another logical fallacy trumpeted triumphantly through the halls of public opinion.

                Here is a reasoned riposte: Perhaps the most common argument used by same-sex marriage advocates is the marriage equalityargument. They believe it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone, including equal rights to marry whomever we love. Banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. Therefore, it is wrong to ban same-sex marriage.

                The major premise, in the italicized portion, is false: it is wrong to oppose equal rights for everyone including “equal rights to marry whomever we love”. Some people love those who are already married to someone else, or those who do not want to marry them, or their close blood relatives, or prepubescent children, or animals, or nonliving things. Denial of same-sex marriage does not undermine the equality before the law of people who desire it, any more than denial of bigamy, polygamy, HAM (human and animal marriage) undermines the basic equality of the people who desire these kinds of unions to be declared marriages. To say that banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone again proves too much, since we could just as well say banning polygamist marriage, self marriage, human animal marriage, or human inanimate object marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. The principles invoked to justify same-sex marriage also justify kinds of marriages that virtually no one accepts, so these principles ought to be rejected.

                The minor premise of the equality argument is also problematic; banning same-sex marriage opposes equal rights for everyone. What does equal rights really mean? Equality does not treat every person or every group in exactly the same way. Equality treats persons or groups that are the same in the same way but not persons or groups that are significantly different. For example, an air marshal can carry a gun on the plane, a regular citizens cannot. A 16-year-old can drive a car but a 10-year-old cannot. Such limitations are justly made despite rare exceptions (example: the unusual 10-year-old who is more mature than the average 16-year-old; the regular citizen who is better suited to defend the innocent passengers on a plane than the air marshal.) The question is, are there any significant differences between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples that justify treating them differently? (I’ll let you all think on this for a while).

                One has got to love “reason” and “logic”. Down with emotionalism and rhetorical language. Down with “I’ve got a friend, a brother a sister and all those other emotional ties that crowd out sound reasoning and critical judgement. Down with all this knee-jerk- reaction slandering and ignorance that smacks too much of insecurity for it to be anything else.

              • Aldo Elmnight

                “That was jaw-droppingly cruel of you.”
                It was actually jaw-droppingly charitable and loving.

            • You can spin anything, but you can’t make a gay person straight. Let’s look at the holy family the way you are looking at things: First, you had an unwed teenage mother, then you had the child who was born to a father who was not his biological father. Jesus had two Dad’s – Yahweh and Joseph. That means the holy family does not live up to the standards of the self-righteous rants given here.

              • Actually, if heterosexuals actually found out about what gay men do (and how they never confine their sexual activity to their partners), we would not now be having this discussion. By all means, let us investigate this paraphilia. Let’s find out where gay men travel, and why. Let’s make sure that heterosexuals know about the practices that are so destructive to the body, there are some physicians who specialize only in ‘gay’ infections. And let’s start thinking about sexual virtue generally — about purity before marriage, and exclusivity within it.

                • Doughlas

                  Excuse me? Gay men “never” confine their sexual activity to their partners? You HAVE got the stereotyping fever, haven’t you?

                • More pure prejudice from Tony. I am living in a monogamous relationship and I personally know many gay and lesbian couples doing the same. You are just condemning all LGBT people due to your bigotry. Repent of your prejudice and hatred as you keep trying to dehumanize people who are gay.

              • Sean

                You mean, Jerome, in exactly the same way you’re spinning the Nativity story into something dirty and crude?
                This is just a fudgesicle attempt to smear the Gospel, of which Jerome claims to be a minister.

                • John200

                  Precisely. I take it you know Jerome and his “gay”mes.

              • Bill Guentner

                Wrong again. Jesus had one father, the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father.

            • Biaggio

              Excellent post. Thank you

            • The church has changed in many ways, and the church will come around on LGBT people at some point. Hopefully, it will come faster than the church’s belated apology to Galileo, which took nearly 400 years. Science wins again. it’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” Chastity is not realistic. Humans were made for love, regardless of whether God made the person gay or straight. There will always be a tiny number of exceptions, but again that is regardless of sexual orientation. And stop with the lie that gay people want unlimited sex with as many partners as they can get when the truth is that gays are working hard to get the right to wed the one person they truly love.

              • Bill Guentner

                There is much here in error. First and most important, the Catholic Church will never change her position on LGBT people, because since the Church was founded by Christ, she belongs to Him. Since He is God and God is immutable, the morals established by God cannot be changed. A for the canard concerning Galileo, I suggest you take a good read on this subject. Pope Urban and the greatest theologian of the time, Ballarmine, both accepted the Galileo’s premise, but since it contradicted the bible, they were seeking a way to explain it without contradicting scripture. Galileo, however, being arrogant, continued to teach not theory, but fact. Science and the Church are great friends contrary to anti-Catholic believers. Roger Bacon, a Franciscan priest, noted for his work in mathematics is accepted as Father of the modern scientific method. Albertus Magnus, a Dominican priest, was a noted scientist; his work spanned physics, biology psychology and earth sciences. Fr. Nicolas Steno established the principles of geology and is called the father of stratigraphy. Georges Lamaitre, not Einstein, is the father of the Big Bang. There are many more catholic clergy who have made many, many scientific advances. So stop with the nonsense that the Church is opposed to science. Further, chastity is really realistic. The fact that many, many live in chastity proves that. You further seem to equate love and sex, which certainly exists, but certainly a person can still love and be chaste. I will grant you that not all gays are desirous of unlimited sex partners, nevertheless, you certainly know from the recent history of the AIDS epidemic that many gays do have multiple partners. So, lets not obfuscate, but argue on the basis of facts.

          • Alecto

            Jerome, let me see if I understand you correctly. If I only “knew” gays, I would change my entire value system and beliefs? Is that your argument? First, you have no knowledge that I don’t know gays. You assume I don’t. Second, I would have to have one heck of a malleable character which would make me unreliable and susceptible to every come lately fashion or trend. Third, our government has no legal or moral ability to infringe on my religious beliefs – a right which far outweighs any perceived ability to change the definition of marriage: an institution which exists as one man and one woman in every belief system, culture, country, age. You believe you have the right to do that? Democracy has limits. One of them is the inability to change fundamental, objective truths. One of those objective truths is marriage.

            I don’t think you’re grasping the heart of the matter. Christians don’t hate gays. We love people, despite their failings. You don’t know me, or what I’ve done in my life (which I assure you is far worse than anything you’ve done.) I am not suggesting that gays are irredeemable. Unlike you, I do not see them as sinless. We are, all of us, every single one of us, sinners. It is only through the grace of God that any of us is capable of overcoming sin. In case you’re wondering, I include myself in that. Even then, I fundamentally disagree that homosexuality is not a sin. And I do disagree with you that this is a civil rights issue, no matter how many are bamboozled into thinking it is. It is a social issue.

            Every behavior is a choice. By your own logic, pedophilia must be protected because pedophiles engage in a behavior that some argue is inherent in them. They are “born” that way. You offer no proof, no evidence to support your position. In addition, were anyone to find that elusive gay gene, the argument still doesn’t hold because you argue that being born with this predilection makes it normal. People are also born with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, diabetes, all kinds of genetic conditions. Should we say that schizophrenic individuals are normal because they are born that way? Being born predisposed to behavior does not equate with “normality”. Your logic fails on all points.

            • There is nothing loving in your rant. You conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, which means you are either incredibly ignorant of medical and scientific explanations of the differences between these two or willfully malicious, which the rest of your statement supports. “Homosexuality” is not a choice. It is a given. Even the Catholic Courage ministry to gays admits that nobody chooses his sexual orientation and nobody can change from homosexual to heterosexual. The Catholic hierarchy demands celibacy from gays (which is why there are so many gays in the priesthood), but they recognize the reality that sexual orientation is not changeable. A person who is homosexual will always be a homosexual inside. The church can’t heal or alter sexual orientation; it can only demand behavior modification. You can’t pray away the gay. And it is not a mental illness, in spite of your conflating it with schizophrenia. You object to my logic, but offer only malicious prejudice.

              • Val1

                The teachings of the Catholic Church are from God and are unchangeable because truth doesn’t change. You will never find the Catholic Church changing a teaching on faith and morals (rules and regulations, however, can be and are changed).

                Medicine, science and psychology have all proven themselves wrong on many counts through the years. Continually, they revise their position in response to the social and political pressures of their times (e.g. the global cooling of a generation ago became global warming and now we discover much of that position was based on “cooked” data. Jesus loves us and doesn’t want us led into the devil’s lies. That is why is promised Peter that whatever he held bound on earth would be bound in heaven. I will believe the Church Jesus gave us over any human being or any human society every time.

                • Doughlas

                  This is exactly why the Catholic Church should not be in the business of offering university education or health care. These attitudes that you’ve expressed about science belong in the Church sanctuary, not in the Real World of people trying to make the world a better place. It would appear that faith still trumps reason and evidence for most Catholics, except when they board a plane for a trans-national flight or have elective surgery. Science is only reliable when it confirms your biases.

                  • Biaggio

                    I find it amazing that there is so much intolerance for 2,000 years of Catholic culture, history, and teachings, under the flag of “tolerance.”

                  • Sean

                    Well, your on the same page as President Obama. Get the Catholic Church oout of healthcare and education, the two areas at which the Church has excelled since at least the collapse of the Roman Empire.

                    You Liberals all prat the same party line don’t you? And then tell us we are reivisng history. And you’re winning! Californias voted to tax the bejesus out of themselves and make sure more corporations leave the state, dropping the tax burden even more on the middle class, until well all flee the state and leave it to the illegal aliens to trash once and for all.
                    Unless, of course, they can get their one-party system legalized in California so the upper class, on the take conservatives, can keep them in peonage as has been done in Mexico since the Wilson Administration allowed US business interests to pay dictators if they wd cripple Mexican efforts to exploit the lush natural resources of the country to render the country helpless as a commercial rival of the US.
                    Wilson, we must remember, was a Progressive and, as usual with Progressives, a eugenist of the same stripe as Margaret Sanger. .

              • J G

                There is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. This is obvious. It has caused much grief and harm.

                • Wrong. Every scientific medical authority has concluded the opposite of your malicious and hate-filled lie. If there is any group which is being called gay when they are actually pedophiles, it is among Catholic priests.

                  • Bill Guentner

                    JG mad a straight forward comment about the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia and you responded commenting on his “hate-filled lie”. I see no hate in his comment, but I see some in your response. Calm yourself and perhaps people will listen to you.

              • Alecto

                Jerome, what rant is that? Your provocation and willful misinterpretation to fit your predefined image of faithful Catholics adhering to 2000 yr old (longer if you consider fulfillment of Judaic tradition) doctrine as hateful is stunning. I suggest it is you who is full of bitterness and hatred. I cannot further engage, but I will keep you in my prayers.

            • Doughlas

              Alecto, you were a little sketchy on that point about the government having no right to infringe on your religious beliefs. Which ones? Are you referring to your presumed right to force your beliefs on non-Catholics? Remember: Religious freedom ensures your right to practice your religion, not to impose it on others.

              You claim that Christians don’t hate gays, but many Christians hate us with a vengeance. If not, then the word “hate” has no meaning. Did you read “Frank’s” linguistic cluster analysis of this thread (somewhere toward the bottom)? How many times have Jerome and I been called “sodomites” and “diabolical” and “satanic?” How many times have we been told we are going to burn in hell? If Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church were blogging on this thread, I don’t think some of you guys could outdo him. In fact, I think he might pick up a few pointers from you.

              Alecto, don’t ever compare pedophilia with homosexuality. When it is acted out, pedophilia scars children for life. Homosexuality harms no one. There’s the difference. I have been homosexual all my life and it has not hurt me or anyone else. What did hurt was denial, homophobia, and shame. These things hurt not just me but the people I loved.

              Yes, every behavior is a choice. You were not “born” homophobic. Your church taught you to be that way.

              Jerome’s logic does not fail. Yours does. But you haven’t figured out how, yet. You are putting yourself up against virtually the entire medical and social welfare system of North America and Europe. What colossal arrogance. And you persist in thinking that homosexuality is a choice, when it is not. Search elsewhere on this thread and you will find the evidence that I gathered.

              No scientific authority these days would say that homosexuality is in any way like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. This is all pure prejudice on your part. It is engendered by your religious teaching, which has long since declared faith to be superior to evidence. So please don’t even bother to use “scientific” terms. There’s no science to support your position. Nor is there any reason.

              Tell us about the time you chose to be straight. Did you feel an equal attraction to men and women before that? What DID you feel before that? Nothing? Was it like a switch that you just turned on?

              • Alecto

                Please re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The exact phrasing is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

                This Amendment does not contain the language you cite. Free exercise encompasses many, many activities outside the pew. One of those is evangelization. You are certainly free to reject any such attempt, but not free to prohibit me from that activity.

              • Sean

                Doughlas wrote, “You claim that Christians don’t hate gays, but many Christians hate us with a vengeance.”

                Having cited Alecto’s claim that most Christians don’t hate homosexuals, Doughlas throws out a minority opinioni and makes it stand for the whole.
                Doughlas, you realize that your debating skills are practically nonexistant in your bias for homosexuality? With such flawed logic, it’s amazing you keep making statements here.

                • John200

                  Doughlas is a parody of himself. It is his pastime, and
                  sometimes it is hard to tell when he is a serious fool or just fooling.

                  scores a lot of own-goals in his defense of homo”sex”uality. Ask him
                  about …. oh, you know as well as I do. Just have fun with him.

            • Alecto, stop conflating loving married same-sex couples busy living happily ever after with child rapers and the mentally ill. Heterosexuality is far more than a behavior, It’s a big part of you.. it’s the way you love and make love in your married life. Same thing for homosexuality.

            • There is nothing loving about your prejudice, lies and bigotry. Sexual orientation is not a behavior. it is not chosen. It is an innate trait. If you want to prove me wrong, choose to turn yourself gay tomorrow and let us know how long before you realize sexual orientation is not a choice.

      • Aldo Elmnight

        I think he was refering to the homosexual act as filthy (which it is). The value of your willful choices (e.g. engaging in sodomy) is not the same as the value you have as a person. Sodomy is not the same as race.

  • Pingback: Redefining Deviance: The Gay Assault on Franciscan University | Crisis Magazine « News for Catholics()

  • It is important to note who was in charge when the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders removed “homosexuality” as a disorder. Dr. John P. Spiegel was head of the APA at that time. His granddaughter tells the story well here: I watch individuals in positions of power who identify themselves as being “homosexuals” or “lesbians” imposing the indoctrination of the acceptance of behaviour and inclinations as being their person. Persons are not their behaviour or inclination; they are male or female made in the image and likeness of God.

    • Every scientific medical association in the world says sexual orientation is not a choice. And that is based on overwhelming evidence, not a grandkid’s hearsay.

      • Doughlas

        Thank you, Jerome. How, in the face of this fact, can the Church continue to stigmatize gays and lesbians?

        • Gerard

          Doughlas, I’m beginning to think that you haven’t actually read anything regarding homosexuality from the Magisterium.

          • Sean

            Why shd he, Gerard, and have to admit to himself he’s wrong?

        • Sean

          There’s a Jewish liberal radio talk show host here in LA who wakes me up each morning. He is generally fair, even to the point of publically thanking Pope Pius XII for hiding his father in Vatican City during the Nazi terror. His Jewish father masqueraded as a priest and taught systematic theology for two years in the Gregorium!
          Even this lib talk show host understands the difference between born homosexuals and men who become homosexual due to various circumstances that mark their personalities when they’re young and later grow out of it.
          Heck, even on that disreputable show “Cheaters” (a guilty pleasure) there was a lesbian caught with her new girlfriend telling her former live-in lover that she’s not a “real” lesbian:”and never were.”
          And what about those older teen girls we keep hearing about who end up in the suburbs, married, with 2.4 kids, after explaining they only “experimented” with lesbianism in college?
          Obviously, as with the rest of the human condition, there are various hues of lavender.

          • You got your views from a radio talk show host and you don’t seem to recognize that there are bisexuals in the world.

            • Sean

              I get my views from the extremely liberal Bill Handel who supports gay marriage and voted for the Obamarama? That’s too funny.

              Oh, I see. Social progressive that he is, Mr Handel actually had the temerity to publically praise the preVatican II Pope Pius XII, whose blessed memory has been on the liberal hit list since the mid-1960s and so is a traitor to his class.

              Of course there are bisexuals in this world, Jerome. What you failed to learn from my remarks is that those bisexuals promiscuously picked up HIV from their male lovers, not their wives.

              Gee, now who cd those lovers have been?

              Oh, wait, one of the arguments for homosexual marriage is that it will cut down on promiscuity!

              Oops! Another excuse for homosexual marriage bites the dust!

              Does that mean bisexuals will not be allowed to marry their same sex lovers because it wdn’t be “pure”?

              The reams of fallacious logic suborned by homosexuals is amazing. Again, the aim is the death of logic and reason, appealing to emotions. This is the goal of the war being waged by hedonists against common sense.

              • Logic says follow the best medical guidance in any area where it applies. Sexual orientation is one of those areas. The logical conclusion of every medical association is there is overwhelming evidence sexual orientation is not a choice. Please drop the insults, sarcasm, condescension and arrogance.

                • Doughlas

                  Jerome, if my only impression of Catholics were from this blog thread, I would probably conclude that they are all sarcastic, condescending, and arrogant (and more!). Fortunately, I know many who are not.

                  Of course, I know I can also be sarcastic, condescending, and arrogant, but I do not claim to be a Christian. 😉 So I can get by with it. NOT,

      • Gerard

        I don’t think the Church is arguing that sexual orientation is a choice (in fact, in most instances its probably not). It is arguing (indisputably) that sexual BEHAVIOR is a choice, and therefore subject to moral judgement.

        • Every married person has sexual behavior. There is no sexual act unique to gays. Even the one that anti-gays freak out about comes up among heterosexuals for the first five pages of a Google search online. Condemning a married couple for having sex with one another is absurd and cruel.

          • Gerard

            Yes, and even sexual behavior between married heterosexual couples is subject to moral judgement.

            • Sounds like you have set yourself up as that judge.

  • Pingback: Redefining Deviance: The Gay Assault on Franciscan University | Catholic Canada()

  • Scott S

    Sadly we have a the complicit and pop-propoganda major media that refuses to give the public the facts. Like the 71% of new AIDS cases in this country per the CDC ( referencing a past ariticle in Crisis) are male same- sex attracted victims. The significant promiscuity among SSA males that foolishly are led to believe that condoms work as prevention, (not for the last 30 years of this deadly infection) are dying. I call that deviant and dangerous. Abstinence, moral lifestyle, and monagamy is the best prevention for us all, but the gay community would have not accept such limitaion upon their sexuality. The aggressive gay segment will continue to attack the religious rights of us all to pursue their unrestricted sexual lifestyles.

    • If you were sincere in your concern about HIV and AIDS, you would support marriage equality. You can’t decry the dangers of promiscuous gays while denying us the opportunity to live in faithful marriages unless you just want to be cruel.

      • I am engaged to a wonderful guy, but we can’t wed here in California because a bunch of religious conservatives used millions of dollars to frighten the public. But there is no reason to be afraid of two people loving one another for the rest of their lives.

        • Doughlas

          Thank you, Jerome, for entering this conversation. Your points about HIV and marriage are well-made.

        • Sean

          And the millions of dollars spent by the homosexual lobby was finally wasted in one of their interminable wars to make people change logic and reason.

          • Logic and reason favor marriage equality and human rights and dignity for all. The posts here show that the Catholics here only give lip service to their own church’s call to treat gay persons with dignity, respect and compassion.

      • Sean

        Oh please! Marriage is a protection against HIV and AIDS? How many wives in the 1980s found themselves riddled with a disease they never heard of at the time, and had no idea how they contracted it – until their husbands admitted to playing around with a boyfriend?
        Oh wait! That’s factual history deleterious to the homosexual agenda! It must be supressed by shouting :”hate speech” at the top of the homosexual lobby’s lungs until a sympathetic ACLU lawyer comes by to bleed the plaintiff through the courts..

        • Sean, the case you describe of a wife getting an STD from her husband playing around with another male is good evidence for my side. that is the down-low life caused by conservative churches pressuring gays into marrying women. Thank you for making my case for putting an end to that tragic circumstance. Let the gay man marry the man he loves.

          • Marriage, in spite of its many flaws, is still the best way to reduce STD’s for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Recent studies back this up. Google it.

    • Elizabeth Vermilyea

      You know who is infecting people “straight” married men who are on the down low, barebacking.

  • Doughlas

    The reason that the gay community has been successful in shedding the “deviant” label is that homosexuality is no more “deviant” than left-handedness. It is “deviant” only in the statistical sense, not in the moralistic sense.

    The view that homosexuality is disordered is a particular religious view that is totally unsupported by science. Every major medical and social welfare association in this country has agreed on this point.

    Look, Catholic institutions that train students for careers in social work do them a great disservice by putting them at odds with the very science they are there to learn. Franciscan University has an accreditation problem, as it should. It has grouped homosexuality together with addiction, pedophilia, serial murder, etc., rather than with left-handedness, pre-mature baldness, and unusual height. This is hardly an approach that treats homosexuals with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” as the Church requires.

    It’s time for the Church to jettison its teaching that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” That teaching is fast becoming an albatross around its neck.

    • J G

      When homosexuality was removed from the DSM it was not because of “science”, but rather political pressure. The Church cannot jettison divine moral law. Those who do even try to use science to study homosexuality and come up with the “wrong” conclusions are subject to an inquisition, one that makes the Spanish one look like Disneyland. Homosexuals don’t want science unless it is in their favor. Compassion means telling the truth and the truth is that homosexuality diminishes, not flourishes, the human person.

      • Doughlas

        @JG, your story about the DSM is mythical. The year was 1973. That was forty years ago, at a time when homosexuals were hardly in a position to conduct an “inquisition” against the entire U.S. medical establishment. Are you telling me that 137,000 members of the American Psychological Association allowed themselves to be “pressured” by a small group of gay doctors into removing homosexuality from the DSM? And what about the American Medical Association? It is even larger. And the American Psychiatric Association and the American Sociological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics? Did they all succumb to “political pressure?” If homosexuals are so powerful, why do we have only a couple of openly gay members of the U.S. Congress?

        Sorry, but your conspiracy theory just doesn’t add up.

        • J G

          You have heard of Dr. Kinsey? This has been coming for a long time. If I am wrong then why do those who do studies that show contrary results get suppressed? Why do homosexuals constantly attack anyone who dares disagree with them? If I said things like this do you think I would get tenure? You would happily vote me down. In Canada a Catholic bishop was hauled before a “human rights” court for daring to preach the Catholic faith. He is not alone. We both know that you would silence me and those like me if you could. Silence=Death, you remember that?

          • Doughlas

            @JG: What is being “suppressed” is idiosyncratic religious teaching that doesn’t mesh with science. Would you want flat-earth theory taught in your daughter’s science class? You’re taking a very paranoid view of something that is completely reasonable, i.e., the rejection of pseudo-science in academic and professional organizations. Yes, I would happily deny you tenure on a science faculty because (1) you see conspiracies where they don’t exist, and (2) you don’t respect science. Do you want to be operated on by surgeons who don’t believe in medicine?

            Why do homosexuals “constantly attack anyone who dares disagree with them?” Because we are sick and tired of being slandered and we want an end to these bronze-age religious teachings that stigmatize us.

            • J G

              It was a Catholic priest who developed the Big Bang theory. You claim you are slandered and then immediately slander us. You want to “end” our religion. To stigmatize us. Ah we know how that will turn out. The only way to eliminate the Catholic Church is to eliminate Catholics. Your hate so easily turns to violence.

              • Doughlas

                No JG. Just dial it down a bit. You are being paranoid and hyperbolic again. Ever consider singing opera? I do not want to eliminate Catholics. I have many Catholic friends, and I greatly admire the 1000+ Catholics who signed the letter to the Seattle TImes supporting marriage equality a few weeks ago. And I love the nuns on a bus. And Mary Gates. And Andrew Sullvan. And Joe Biden. It is toxic ideas that I don’t like, and your church’s official teaching on homosexuality is extremely toxic.

                • Gerard

                  I’m sincerely sorry that your exposure to Catholicism has been through people who do not hold Catholic teaching. They do a great injustice to truth.

                • J G

                  So the only Catholics you will eliminate are the ones who are truly Catholic. The others you will let go.

                  • Doughlas

                    JG, There’s a consistent pattern in your comments, and I’ve remarked on it before. You see conspiracies where there are none, you see enemies everywhere, and you believe you are being persecuted. I would definitely get help with that. No kidding.

                  • JG Most Catholics support marriage equality under the civil laws of America because they see what you don’t. There is a difference between following Catholic dogma for oneself and imposing it on others via civil laws.

                    • Doughlas

                      Absolutely. Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your religion, not the freedom to make others practice it.

          • schmenz

            My dear J.G.:

            Arguing with a troll is an awful waste of one’s energies, and arguing with a homosexually-disturbed troll is pointless. Anyone who finds it normal to place his generative organ into another man’s execratory organ has already give in to a baseness so unspeakable that the sense of reason is lost in that person.

            The only thing one can do is to try to help him renounce this awful mortal sin – one which cries to Heaven for vengeance – and failing that, to pray for him.

            • Doughlas

              These are the kinds of slanders I’ve been referring to. Catholic teaching requires “that homosexual persons be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Here I am accused of an “unspeakable baseness” and a “loss of reason” deserving of Heavenly vengeance. This is the kind of language you might expect to have heard from Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, in the 15th century. Little wonder that “former Catholics” are becoming the second largest religious aggregate in the U.S. And it is the reason that 50% of American Catholics voted for Obama. There is just a point where this kind of language washes back on you.

              • schmenz

                “This is the kind
                of language you might expect to have heard from Torquemada, the Grand
                Inquisitor, in the 15th century”

                Thank you. I am greatly honored by such a comparison, and if you had any familiarity with Catholic history you would see why I am so honored.

                • Doughlas

                  Earlier, you wrote, referring to me, “Arguing with a troll is an awful waste of one’s energies.” You’ve changed your mind?

                • Doughlas

                  You and JG do not seem to agree about Torquemada.

              • J G

                Torquemada lives, in the homosexual rights lobby. You seem so compassionate as you attempt to silence me and those who disagree with you. You use “hate speech” rules to bully and exclude. In other words you to do others what you claim is done to you.

                • Doughlas

                  Wrong again, JG. I am not trying to silence you. I am trying to expose you, and then you can blather on as much as you like.

                  • J G

                    We do not hide our beliefs. We may have too someday when you make them illegal.

                • What a sick twist that you would mix metaphors like that. Extreme religious conservatives from Torguemada to the Pharisees are the ones who belong together. Religious conservatives are the ones who attacked Jesus. Jesus was constantly exasperated by the self-righteous religious conservatives, and I’m sure that He still is.

                  • Gerard

                    “Religious conservative” is a meaningless term, but if you’re imply that belief in the sanctity of marriage as union of one man and woman and that sodomy is intrinsically evil is synonymous with religious conservatism, than apparently Jesus was exasperated by himself. Moreover, self-righteousness is an equal opportunity vice and infects both sides of this argument–the “religious conservatives” have no exclusive claim to it.

                    • Jesus never spoke a single word against homosexuals during His entire life. And traditional marriages in the Old Testament included polygamy; we changed that. Women were the property of their fathers or husbands; we changed that. Men had the right to beat their wives and children as much as they saw fit; we changed that. Interracial marriages were a sin and a crime for hundreds of years; we changed that. Now that a tiny percentage of couples wish to wed their same-sex spouse, the cry comes up, “We can’t change marriage.” Why not? We have done so many times before.

                  • Sean

                    Um … Guest, your analogy doesn’t work. The Pharisees were the liberals, so to speak, opposing the conservative Sadducees, the sect that refused to recognize anything save the Torah as Scripture. The liberal Pharisees even believed in the resurrection from the dead, a belief many of today’s progressives find nonsensical, something that can only be believed by “sick” conservatives who didn’t have the benefit of hard-headed “realist” (read “atheist”) professors or parents who had little or no time for them.

                  • J G

                    The sick twist is when they bring up the inquisition yet they are the inquisitors.

                    • Doughlas

                      There’s the persecution complex again.

                      JG, in what sense are we inquisitors? Are you being threatened with torture? Do we have you under a lamp? Do you think that is what we would like?

                      Get help.

            • For something to be a sin, it must be a choice. Sexual orientation is not. So says every scientific medical authority on the planet and so says the current president of the only worldwide ex-gay ministry, Exodus International. Google it. 99.9% of (Christian) gays cannot change

              • schmenz

                Dear Jerome:

                With all due respect it is high time we put this myth about “sexual orientation” aside. There is no such thing, and there never has been. It is a great cant phrase that is supposed to silence revulsion over sodomy, and even some liberal idiots in the Vatican have been known to use this grotesquely unscientific phrase. If Exodus International has bought into this “orientation” rubbish then they are whistling past the graveyard. Literally.

                No one is “oriented” to commit sexual perversion, just as no one is oriented to being a wife beater, a felon, a child molester, an adulterer or a thief. We choose these things. Behavior is learned, no matter what kind. I pity those who believe this stuff and end up suffering from hepatitus-B or AIDS.

                Regarding your comment that homosexuals cannot change, it is so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reply.

                In my life I have often failed in my duties as a Catholic and have been a terrible sinner. I hate to say that, but it is the truth. But what happened to remove the horrendous burden of sin off my shoulders was Confession (said, needless to say, to a solid priest who was not soiled by the modernism all around him). My advice to anyone committing the mortal sin of sodomy would be to find a good priest and receive the Sacrament of Penance, followed by a firm resolve to stop committing the sin. Possibly that person will fall again into this evil, but he can always remove the burden once again in the confessional. Failing that, and if that person should die in that state of mortal sin, he will not see God after death and will, on the contrary, spend his eternity in hell.

                I would indeed be a failure as a Catholic if when seeing someone driving over a cliff to his death didn’t try everything in my power to stop him. Sodomites are like that man driving over a cliff; and I am telling you how you can avoid disaster.

                To those homosexually-disturbed people who may be reading this, who are Catholic and suffering from this awful temptation, please ignore the propaganda and try to amend your lives with the aid of the Confessional. When that heavy rock is taken off your backs then will you feel clean again.

                • Doughlas

                  Schmenz, Schmenz. What you’ve written is outside the pale. It’s off the charts. It’s at the deviant end of the bell curve. The best that can be said about your view sexual orientation is that it is highly original.

                  And there you went and said something that is contradicted by Catholic teaching, if we are to believe other Catholics in this discussion, who have been assuring me that homosexuality does NOT get one sent to Hell.

                  And all that stuff about the heavy load (of sinfulness) and the cleansing of impurity just makes me roll my eyes. And speaking of eyes, I see a large beam in yours.

                • Schmenz, my life is proof you are wrong. I did not learn homosexuality. I was so sheltered I had no real idea of what it was. I was terrified because I thought I was the only one in the world with these feelings. I was never molested. I was from a great loving Catholic family which prayed together every night before bed. I was only 12 when I began to discover I was experiencing something different from my many other guy friends. I was so masculine and popular with the opposite sex nobody ever suspected. They, like you, did not realize the hell that fear and repression cause. I remained a virgin, went to therapy to be “cured” when I was 16, and into the seminary at 17. I spent 22 years in ex-gay ministry and longer in therapy, but I learned that there was nobody who can change from homosexual to heterosexual. A homosexual who remains celibate his whole life is still a homosexual. Sexual orientation is real, lifelong, innate and is not chosen and cannot be changed at will. And I did what you suggest as soon as I had the unwanted attractions. I went to my priest at the age of 12 and he wanted to molest me. He was thrown out of the priesthood years later after admitting to having sex with a number of boys from 12-16. His name was John Aurelio. Google him.

                  • schmenz

                    Dear Jerome:

                    Sadly, your life is proof of something different than you are stating here. Jerome, anyone can be tempted to do anything. There is nothing surprising in this. We are born not with “orientations” but with the stain of Original Sin. That stain is washed away in baptism, but after we reach the age of reason we become responsible for our actions before God.

                    Obviously I am not competent to speculate on your home life as a child. If it was as you say, well and good. But criminals can come from loving families as well as disordered ones, those with no father in the house and/or those where divorce was a factor. These are simple realities.

                    I don’t like to think how many times I have fallen again and again into the same sin. It is an awful struggle. But thank God we have the Sacraments to get us through this life. You can renounce your wrong inclinations just as anyone else can. Don’t buy into that “born that way” rubbish. You are born a child of God and through His Church He has given you the means to overcome sin…any sin…so that you can remain a child of God.

                    Ask Sts Joseph, Philomena and Mary Magdalene for help. I assure you your prayers will not be wasted.

                    • Doughlas

                      Schmenz, that is just rubbish. Those of us in the land called Reality don’t buy these stories of sin and redemption. And you’ve insulted Jerome (again!) by presuming to know what his upbringing was like. I can assure you upbringing has nothing to do with being gay. My brother and I were raised in the same household by the same parents. He is straight and I am gay. I realize you are probably allergic to scientific explanations, so it is probably pointless to refer you to any scientific literature on this subject. As usual, faith trumps evidence.

                    • Alecto

                      You forgot St. Dymphna, who is very powerful in curing mental and emotional disorders. We should all pray for her intercession on Jerome and Douglas’ behalf.

                    • Doughlas

                      Yeah, go ahead and waste your time. That’s time you won’t spend posting hateful comments about gays.

          • Homosexuals like me fight simply to live our lives in peace, to marry the person we love and to not be bullied by those who want to legislate us out of existence. Canada has always had a different tradition than our First Amendment. Their view is that you can hold any position, but you must speak civilly. The Catholic church cannot make gays disappear. In the Courage group they have no power to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual no matter how much the person is committed to trying to change. And they can’t pray away the gay, either. I wasted 22 years trying. The Catholic hierarchy demands that gays live celibate lives at a time when their own priests do not.

    • terry_zimmerman

      Not deviant? Of COURSE homosexuality is deviant. Biologically, it’s obvious. When two parts are evolved to fit together and work together to produce a result, and they are not joined together that way, but stuck somewhere else or stimulated some other way, then it’s deviant.
      Don’t need religion to make the argument. God’s own creation makes it obvious.

      • Doughlas

        Terry, do some research. Talk to some biologists. Just Google it. Your folk wisdom falls way short of the truth.

        • Sean

          Thanks for the invitation, Doug but I’ve had the experience:

          “Two parts fit together and work to produce a result” as Terry points out with quiet cogency. Just as magnetic “like poles” repel, “opposite poles” unite. The paradigm is seen throughout nature. Biologists are quite familiar with it. That there are deviances from the norm simply proves the norm – prove, of course, meaning “test” in this regard. And the test is proven. There is no offspring from like poles, so to speak.

          It never fails that when critics of Catholicism attempt to one-up Christianity they always fall back on Science as being somehow opposed to faith in general and the Catholic religion in particular. However, when science proves inconvenient, the critic too often attempts to pettyfog the discussion with irrelevancies and frequently becomes belligerent since his favorite tool has been snatched from his grasp and used against him.

          I believe that the attempt to force the Church to embrace homosexuality is the result of bishops having accepted another form of deviance – the liberalized, “social justice”-centered orders of nuns. Their attempt to change the Church has only led to sterility. Since nuns no longer remove themselves from the world to be styled “Brides of Christ” their spiritual offspring have disappeared. Sterility always result from the machinations of the culture of death.

          The Church prefers to be at the forefront of the culture of life, Doug. As the Lord Jesus said, “A man leaves his family to cling to his wife,” quoting Himself in Genesis. A wife, by definition, is a female mrmbrt of the human species, not another man. It is the ordinary – normal – way for the priesthood of parenthood to be passed on to another generation..

          You may win in the short run, Doug, but the Church is in the race to the end. Your side will eventually run out of steam, winding up as a footnote in the Christian pageant, on par with Adamites, Collyridians and Nicolaitans.

          I await your volley, Doug.

          • Only God can make a homosexual. And God loves homosexuals so much that God created some of every kind of animal species studied to date homosexual. We know this from science, also a gift from God.

            • Sean

              This response sounds like it was adapted from Lincoln’s observation that God must love poor people very much because he made so many of them.
              Unlike the poor, the true percentage of homosexuals is much the same as any other deviance in nature, as our friend Doug pointed out above. That is to say, a very small percentage. To grant nomalcy to a small percentage of humanity acting in an abnormal manner is as much a mistake as attempting to deprive these same people of their lives or dignity as human beings.
              But we see that in our culture of death, don’t we, when women want to abort a baby because he or she is inconvenient?

              • Stop using abortions to fight gays. We don’t have them. And I am sorry you missed my point entirely. God gives the gift of sexual orientation. It is God’s choice, not ours.

          • Doughlas

            Thanks for sharing the mechanical/electrical analogy, but any biologist will tell you it doesn’t apply to living organisms. Homosexuality is very common in many, many animal species, including bison, brown bears, brown rats, caribou, domestic cats, cattle, chimpanzees, dolphins, marmosets, dogs, elephants, foxes, giraffes, goats, horses, koalas, lions, orcas, raccoons, barn owls, chickens, common gulls, emus, king penguins, mallards, ravens, seagulls, at least 16 species of fish, at least 30 species of reptiles, four species of amphibians, and 75 species of insects.

            And those are just the ones that have been “observed.” (some organisms are very discreet.)

            I have already given my micro-course on the term “deviance” here, but I’ll do it again. “Deviance,” when used in the statistical sense, i.e., when uncontaminated by religious moralizing, is a value-free term. Left-handedness is deviance from a norm, and so are pre-mature baldness and unusual height. Religious folks tend to use the word “deviant” as a slur, an epithet, but this is a sign of profound ignorance and malice. Anyone schooled in math or science recognizes that immediately. All the pious, unctuous, and silken words about compassion and sensitivity can’t change that ugly truth. When “deviant” is used to stigmatize people, it is a term of derogation and a slander that no civilized person should tolerate.

            And guess what? Foreswearing sex and living in Vatican City is not “normal” either. Nor is it “normal” for priests to be celibate.

            As for science being opposed to faith, yes. I’ll take science any day. The Church has NO science-based understanding of homosexuality, and it co-opts the language of science (“intrinsically disordered”–what a crock!) to disguise that fact.

            Science has not been snatched from my grasp. I repeat: Every major health and social welfare association in this country has declared there to be nothing “intrinsically disordered” about homosexuality. The continued denial of this fact by the Catholic hierarchy is a scandal that is besmirching the reputation of the Church in our time. The scientific community’s verdict on homosexuality is diametrically opposed to that of the Church.

            What’s the “culture of Death?” This is an insider’s term, and it sounds like something out of the DaVinci Code. Are you talking about abortion? Homosexuality? Help me here.

            The scripture that you quoted was written long before we–humankind–had any mature understanding of sexuality. I realize you regard the words of Jesus as incontrovertible. I do not.

            Sure, the Church is in the race, but maybe not to the end. The long arc of history leads toward justice and equality, not toward the sort of bigotry, intolerance, and hatred that we have seen displayed in this blog thread.

            • Sean

              “I repeat: Every major health and social welfare association in this country has declared there to be nothing “intrinsically disordered” about homosexuality.”

              Only recently, and only under political pressure.

              “The scripture that you quoted was written long before we–humankind–had any mature understanding of sexuality.”
              Your pardon. The words of Jesus Christ Who, as the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, knows more about “humankind” than you or I or the culturally ordered healthcare establishment.
              Now, Doug, if you don’t believe Jesus knows more than you do about the species, I honestly can’t say anything more to you on the subject.

              • Doughlas

                Only recently and only under political pressure? No, I don’t think so. You’re grossly exaggerating our influence with the scientific establishment. You think that hundreds of thousands of medical and social welfare professionals could be pressured by people like me? Hmmm. Is this a grand conspiracy theory or what? Are you also a Birther?

                You are leaving the conversation? That’s it? You’re never coming back? Did I say something to offend you?

                • Sean

                  You need to read better, Doug. Try reading my post above once more and please notice the suppostive word, “if”.

                  • Doughlas

                    But I don’t, so you’re out.

                    • Gerard

                      Doughlas, someone once said that the best argument against Catholicism is Catholics. I tend to agree. You’re an excellent testimony that the same may hold true for homosexuals. Your arrogance is more than a little repulsive. Sean may stick around (and good for him), but I have better things to do than argue with someone delusional enough to think the created knows more than the Creator. There is no point in trying to convince someone of the truth when they think they are the source of it. With all sincerity, God help you! Adios.

              • What nonsense. No matter how much you twist the truth, the fact remains. Some people are gay. Nobody can change that. Now it’s time to let gays marry the person they love, settle down and build a life together. If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.

                • Sean

                  In another post I said exactly what you’re telling me now. Some people are born homosexuals. Why you want to argue about the point that I agree on is beyond my ken. “Gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. Any time you have to qualify a situation as you do with that term shows that it is not the McCoy but some cheap knock off.

            • Sean

              Sorry, Doug, I forget to mention …

              “Homosexuality is very common in many, many animal species, including bison, brown bears, brown rats, caribou, domestic cats, cattle, chimpanzees, dolphins, marmosets, dogs, elephants, foxes, giraffes, goats, horses, koalas, lions, orcas, raccoons, barn owls, chickens, common gulls, emus, king penguins, mallards, ravens, seagulls, at least 16 species of fish, at least 30 species of reptiles, four species of amphibians, and 75 species of insects.”
              Throughout the Torah, the Hebrews were commanded never to partake of the blood of their sacrifices. This command came as a way of eliminating the concept that a truly human person, created in the image and likeness of God, can somehow absorb the strength, swiftness, tenacity or sure-footedness of the animal being sacrificed. To do so is bestial and beneath the dignity of human nature.
              Because God created us for better things than bestiality. All the OT sacrifices point to that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who commanded us to not only eat His flesh but drink His blood as well. The idea was about lifting human nature to the lofty realms of the divine instead of wallowing in carnality.
              All you told us, Doug, is that if the brown bears and rats can have homosexual traits, we human should be allowed to indulge in them too.
              And so you miss the point of God’s invitation to be better than we can be.

              • Gerard

                And by extension, we males should be allowed to kill our young so we can breed with our females sooner.

            • Gerard


              I’m afraid your statement that “any biologist will tell you it doesn’t apply to living organisms” is objectively wrong, as the biologist writing this post certainly wouldn’t tell you that. In the animal world, the purpose of sex is almost exclusively for producing more animals, hence the term “reproductive” to describe any aspect of it. Homosexual activity in the animal world is of no evolutionary advantage–it is merely a side behavior stemming from the sexual impulse that serves the reproductive purpose.

              As far as celibacy is concerned, I’m not sure what value there is in arguing whether it is natural or not. Jesus dying on the cross for us was certainly not natural.

              And you may want to rethink your preference for science over faith (as if there were any real conflict). Some of history’s most notorious moral monsters shared your preference. Whenever we start treating humans like they are just physical materials without souls, we make history–and not the good kind!

              • Doughlas

                Sorry, Gerard, but you’re not much of a biologist if you don’t know that the majority of some insect species do not reproduce.

                • Gerard

                  Okay, please enlighten this “not much of a biologist” on how the fact that the majority of some insect species do not reproduce has any relevance whatsoever in the argument that I laid out. Or was that just a diversion in an attempt to dodge the argument. BTW, a smidgen of humility on your part would go a long way towards winning anyone over.

                  • Doughlas

                    Gerard, I don’t care about winning you over. I have thought about this a great deal, and I really don’t care about that. I am only interested in exposing you.

                    My point is that non-reproductive sex may be adaptive in some cases. There is a variety of reasons for this, some having to do with allocation of resources and others having to do with genetic trade-offs. It’s not too hard to find reputable scientific literature on this (NOT Discovery Magazine or Catholic Weekly), and I have already provided some pointers to those a couple of times in this thread, so I will just alert you that they are there.

          • Doughlas

            Adamites, Collyridians, and Nicolaitans?

            • Sean

              My point exactly.

              • Sean, you are the Sodomite sinner here, according to the bible. Ezekiel 16:49 describes you to a tee.

                • Sean

                  Ezechiel 16:49: “Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.”

                  Jerome,, if you’re going to be a minister, you need to learn biblical exegesis.

                  Divorcing a citation from its context to form a pretext is just another way of lying, bearing false witness, if you prefer. To plsy your game, all I need do is go to vv 56-58 in the same chapter: “Did you not hold your sister Sodom in bad repute while you felt proud of yourself, before your evil was exposed? Now you are like her, reproached by the Arameans and all their neighbors, despised on all sides by the Philistines.The penalty of your depravity and your abominations—you must bear it all—oracle of the LORD.

                  The context of your citation refers to prostitution and immorality, Jerome, something you support in defiance of Scripture. It is the Prostitute living in luxury, specifically an image of Jerusalem, which prostituted itself “with every passerby”. This passage has nothing to do with moral people who wish to see an end of perversion. It is, instead, quite the opposite.

                  I will post the entire chapter 16 of Ezechiel so everyone will see that you are the liar who attempts to use the Word of God to support immorality, not I:

                  A Parable of Infidelity.

                  1The word of the LORD came to me:

                  2Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations.

                  3You shall say, Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: By origin and birth you belong to the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite, your mother a Hittite.

                  4 As for your birth, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut; you were not washed with water or anointed; you were not rubbed with salt or wrapped in swaddling clothes.

                  5No eye looked on you with pity or compassion to do any of these things for you. Rather, on the day you were born you were left out in the field, rejected.

                  6Then I passed by and saw you struggling in your blood, and I said to you in your blood, “Live!”

                  7I helped you grow up like a field plant, so that you grew, maturing into a woman with breasts developed and hair grown; but still you were stark naked.

                  8I passed by you again and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of my cloak* over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with you—oracle of the Lord GOD—and you became mine.

                  9Then I bathed you with water, washed away your blood, and anointed you with oil.

                  10I clothed you with an embroidered gown, put leather sandals on your feet; I gave you a fine linen sash and silk robes to wear.

                  11I adorned you with jewelry, putting bracelets on your arms, a necklace about your neck,

                  12a ring in your nose, earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head.

                  13Thus you were adorned with gold and silver; your garments made of fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth. Fine flour, honey, and olive oil were your food. You were very, very beautiful, fit for royalty.

                  14You were renowned among the nations for your beauty, perfected by the splendor I showered on you—oracle of the Lord GOD.

                  15But you trusted in your own beauty and used your renown to serve as a prostitute. You poured out your prostitution on every passerby—let it be his.

                  16 You took some of your garments and made for yourself gaudy high places, where you served as a prostitute. It has never happened before, nor will it happen again!

                  17You took the splendid gold and silver ornaments that I had given you and made for yourself male images and served as a prostitute with them.

                  18You took your embroidered garments to cover them; my oil and my incense you set before them;

                  19the food I had given you, the fine flour, the oil, and the honey with which I fed you, you set before them as a pleasant odor, says the Lord GOD.

                  20 l The sons and daughters you bore for me you took and offered as sacrifices for them to devour! Was it not enough that you had become a prostitute?

                  21 You slaughtered and immolated my children to them, making them pass through fire.

                  22In all your abominations and prostitutions you did not remember the days of your youth when you were stark naked, struggling in your blood.
                  23Then after all your evildoing—woe, woe to you! oracle of the Lord GOD—

                  24you built yourself a platform and raised up a dais in every public place.

                  25 At every intersection you built yourself a dais so that you could degrade your beauty by spreading your legs for every passerby, multiplying your prostitutions.

                  26You served as a prostitute with the Egyptians, your big-membered neighbors, and multiplied your prostitutions to provoke me.

                  27Therefore I stretched out my hand against you and reduced your allotment, and delivered you over to the whim of your enemies, the Philistines, who were revolted by your depraved conduct.

                  28You also served as a prostitute for the Assyrians, because you were not satisfied. Even after serving as a prostitute for them, you were still not satisfied.

                  29You increased your prostitutions again, now going to Chaldea, the land of traders; but despite this, you were still not satisfied.

                  30How wild your lust!—oracle of the Lord GOD—that you did all these works of a shameless prostitute,

                  31when you built your platform at every intersection and set up your high place in every public square. But unlike a prostitute, you disdained payment.

                  32Adulterous wife, taking strangers in place of her husband!

                  33Prostitutes usually receive gifts. But you bestowed gifts on all your lovers, bribing them to come to you for prostitution from every side.

                  34Thus in your prostitution you were different from any other woman. No one solicited you for prostitution. Instead, you yourself offered payment; what a reversal!

                  35Therefore, prostitute, hear the word of the LORD!

                  36Thus says the Lord GOD: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your nakedness in your prostitution with your lovers and your abominable idols, because you gave the life-blood of your children to them,

                  37 therefore, I will now gather together all your lovers with whom you found pleasure, both those you loved and those you hated; I will gather them against you from all sides and expose you naked for them to see.

                  38 I will inflict on you the sentence of adultery and murder; I will bring on you bloody wrath and jealous anger.

                  39I will hand you over to them to tear down your platform and demolish your high place, to strip you of your garments and take away your splendid ornaments, leaving you stark naked.

                  40They shall lead an assembly against you to stone you and hack you to pieces with their swords.

                  41 They shall set fire to your homes and inflict punishments on you while many women watch. Thus I will put an end to your prostitution, and you shall never again offer payment.

                  42When I have spent my fury upon you I will stop being jealous about you, and calm down, no longer angry.

                  43Because you did not remember the days of your youth but enraged me with all these things, see, I am bringing down your ways upon your head—oracle of the Lord GOD. Have you not added depravity to your other abominations?

                  44See, everyone who makes proverbs will make this proverb about you, “Like mother, like daughter.”

                  45Yes, you are truly the daughter of your mother who rejected her husband and children: you are truly a sister to your sisters who rejected their husbands and children—your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite.

                  46 Your elder sister was Samaria with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister was Sodom and her daughters, south of you.

                  47Not only did you walk in their ways and act as abominably as they did, but in a very short time you became more corrupt in all your ways than they were.

                  48As I live—oracle of the Lord GOD—I swear that your sister Sodom with her daughters have not done the things you and your daughters have done!

                  49 Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.

                  50Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them.

                  51Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more abominable things than they did. You even made your sisters look righteous, with all the abominations you have done.

                  52You, then, must bear your disgrace, for you have made a case for your sisters! Because your sins are more abominable than theirs, they seem righteous compared to you. Blush for shame, and bear the disgrace of having made your sisters appear righteous.

                  53I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters—and your fortunes along with them.

                  54Thus you must bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done to bring them comfort.

                  55Yes, your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, Samaria and her daughters, shall return to the way they were, and you and your daughters shall return to the way you were.

                  56Did you not hold your sister Sodom in bad repute while you felt proud of yourself,

                  57before your evil was exposed? Now you are like her, reproached by the Arameans and all their neighbors, despised on all sides by the Philistines.

                  58The penalty of your depravity and your abominations—you must bear it all—oracle of the LORD.

                  59For thus says the Lord GOD: I will deal with you for what you did; you despised an oath by breaking a covenant.

                  60But I will remember the covenant I made with you when you were young; I will set up an everlasting covenant with you.

                  61Then you shall remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, those older and younger than you; I give them to you as daughters, but not by reason of your covenant.

                  62For I will re-establish my covenant with you, that you may know that I am the LORD, 63that you may remember and be ashamed, and never again open your mouth because of your disgrace, when I pardon you for all you have done—oracle of the Lord GOD.

                  • Doughlas

                    Do you really expect anyone to read all of that?

                    • Sean

                      No, just enough for them to reallize that Jerome used Scripture inaccurately and in a self-serving manner. Another version of bearing false witness.

                      But it wdn’t do any ill for you to read it all, Doug.

              • Doughlas

                Alright, I’ll raise you one. anterior hypothalamus, suprachiasmatic nucleus, and anterior commissure. Top that!

                • Sean

                  Sorry, anatomy is not my best subject. Aside from knowing that the anterior hypothalmus is in the brain, you got me. I’m quite secure in my area of expertise and don’t feel the need to top anyone.

    • Tout

      How often has it been said “The Catholic Church has to jettison some of its teaching” ? Of course, homosexuals like to say so.

      • Doughlas

        Yes, homosexuals certainly have good reason for saying so. But many Catholics are saying the very same thing. If marriage equality won all four states where it was on the ballot this year, it wasn’t because homosexuals are now more than 50% of the population. We’re still a small minority. It is because we have mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and many many friends who know that we are not “intrinsically disordered” and who resent Catholic teaching on this subject as much as we do.

    • Gerard

      With all due respect, you’ve constructed a weak argument. Left-handedness could also be compared to pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or any other sexual attraction. Can we justify these things because they are “natural”, albeit statistically devient? The Church’s judgement that homosexuality is disordered need not be supported by science as science is incompetent to judge whether it’s a moral disorder–just as it is incompetent to judge on the other sexual tendencies mentioned above. If it were it would find them all to be morally “ordered” since they all occur with much more frequency than homosexuality in the animal world. In fact, using your argument, the pedophile should be upset to be grouped with the serial murderers rather than left-handers. On the other hand, murder as a disorder is also unsupported by science.

      • Doughlas

        I see that you are confused. First, whatever is, is natural. There is nothing that is not natural. But some things (that are natural) are good, while others are not good. How do we discern whether the natural is also the good? Answer: We judge the consequences.

        Pedophila harms children. Homosexuality does not harm anyone. Incest harms individuals. Homosexuality does not. Bestiality is not good for either partner in the act. Homosexual partners can spend their lives together with no harm to either of them. Polygamy harms women. Homosexual monogamy does not harm anyone.

        That’s how you figure out whether something is good or bad. It’s called Consequentialism. Sometimes it’s called “pragmatism.”

        Scriptural or other “authority” is not a reliable basis for determining whether something is good. St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters. God instructed his people to commit genocide against the Canaanites. The catechism says that homosexuality is objectively disordered. But we know that it is not. And we know that genocide is wrong and that holding slaves is wrong, and that eating shellfish is okay, and that there’s no harm in wearing clothing of mixed fabric. I could go on, but I will stop there.

  • J G

    Homosexuals do not want to be tolerated. They want everyone, without exception, to affirm their lifestyle. They will not permit dissent on any grounds, including conscience or religion. No one is more intolerant then the radical homosexual lobby. The next step will be to label us as deviants in need of “treatment.” That will start with children in school. It is diabolical.

    • Doughlas

      @JG: You’re hallucinating. All this talk of “diabolical” plots is intrinsically disordered.

      • J G

        I have been to the University and have seen it myself.

        • Doughlas

          @JG: You mean the university didn’t tolerate discrimination, hate speech, and bigotry? They didn’t allow some students to slander others? They didn’t allow bullying? That’s a recommendation for the university.

          • J G

            That is the point. To disagree with you is the definition of discrimination. You use hate speech to bully others into silence. It is homosexuals who are bigots. So much for freedom of speech and conscience eh? You prove my point, you are intolerant.

            • Doughlas

              JG, you’ve cornered me. I’m intolerant of intolerance. But where’s the hate speech? Hate speech is telling people that they deserve eternal damnation because of their sexual orientation and that they are “intrinsically disordered.” Even people with DSM-classified diseases are not treated that way. Hate speech is slandering entire classes of people because of Bible verses written in the Bronze Age or church doctrine that was promulgated in the Middle Ages. It’s time for the Church to stop pretending that it has any expertise whatsoever about social or medical disorders. It does not.

              • Gerard

                With sincere charity, I would suggest that you honestly evaluate your reasoning, or if my reasoning is wrong, correct me:
                1) Intolerant of intolerance? Isn’t that a logical contradiction? By the same argument, am I not justified in being intolerant of your intolerance of intolerance?
                2) Where and when has the Church taught that homosexuals deserve eternal damnation. Isn’t this a bit of a straw man.
                3) If the natural order is heterosexual relations, would not homosexual relations be a disorder? What possible argument could you give that would not also apply to pedophilia?
                4) On what grounds do you dismiss moral teachings from the Bronze Age or the Middle Ages? Is it merely because it is not today? Will not today become yesterday and then be dismissed as having no moral authority by the same argument? Other than advances in technological and scientific knowledge, what superiority can the modern age claim over other ages?
                5) The Church cannot claim any expertise on medical disorders (which is in the realm of science) but on what do you base your argument that she has no expertise in social disorders? Cannot “social disorders” be another term for sin?

                • Sean

                  I notice, Gerard, that Doug’s silence regarding the polite logic you raise in your coment is pretty loud.

                • Doughlas


                  (1) if you were intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance, that would make you tolerant of intolerance, wouldn’t it?

                  (2) I did not say that the Church teaches that homosexuals are going to hell. I was responding to a Catholic blogger (Schmenz, on this thread) who said that our “awful mortal sin…cries to Heaven for vengeance.” Maybe you should try getting this guy in line.

                  (3) I do not accept your premise that “the natural order is heterosexual relations” for the reasons that I gave elsewhere on this thread. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, down to insects.

                  (4) Teachings from the Bronze Age and the Middle Ages were not informed by science. Moral authority has to be based on something other than tribal imperatives. The superiority that our modern age can claim over other ages is that we have means of discovering the truth that were not available to people in those times. Tradition, scripture, and authority are not reliable guides, and we should use them with caution.

                  (5) The Church has no expertise in either medical or social disorders because the Church is incapable of looking at facts, data, and evidence. The Church does not care about studies, surveys, datasets, or empirical evidence. The Church is interested in preserving Tradition and protecting its own narrow ideological interests.

                  • Gerard


                    1) That’s clever, but you’ve dodged my main question. I’ll ask again: isn’t that a contradiction?

                    2) If Schmenz was referring to the sin of sodomy as one of those that cry out for God’s vengeance, he’s actually quit in line if you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. But, it appears you’ve mischaracterized his remark by equating sodomy with same sex attraction.

                    3) See my comment lower in this thread

                    4) Not all truths are scientific truths. Yes, they may be informed by science but it is an error to reduce all truths to the merely material. We may have more means of discovering scientific truths today, but we are no better at discovering moral truths than people from the Bronze Age or Middle Ages. History bears this out–one need only look at how we conduct war in modern times compared to the Middle Ages. In fact, scientific discovery has given us the means to be even more immoral. I find your argument to be a little arrogant and frankly, tiring.

                    5) That sounds less like an argument than a emotional rant. The Church certainly uses facts, data and evidence. Perhaps you should look up the definitions of these words and get back to me.

              • J G

                Tolerance means that you DO tolerate those you believe are intolerant. There is no such thing as “hate speech” in the Constitution. I believe that you are guilty of “hate speech” so do I get to silence you? And please stop with the “bronze age” thing. I hear that so often from atheists. Try some new insult for a change. Love your neighbor is also a bronze age ethic. It is love to tell someone they are doing something that will hurt them and that is what we do when we say that homosexuality is disordered. Divine law remains divine law, your non serviam not withstanding.

          • Gerard

            Take another look at this post and see if you’ve answered the question you raised above regarding hallucinations. Can you not see the contradictions in your arguments?

            • Doughlas

              No, Gerard. Help me. I cannot see the contradiction. Please spell it out for me.

              • Gerard

                Okay, I’ll try. You were mocking JR for being paranoid about forced affirmation of homosexual lifestyle, but then a little later you imply that holding Biblical truths amounts to hate speech–the very issue that is now playing out in Canada. Seems to me a little paranoia is understandable.

      • Sean

        Ask Stacey Dash and Melissa Joan Hart who tweeted that they were voting for Romney to find out how diabolical the intrinsically disordered can become.

        • Doughlas


      • Gerard

        Whether it is diabolical or not is arguable. But, whether it is a hallucination or reality can be answered by observing our neighbors to the north.

        • Doughlas

          Our neighbors to the North? What are they doing? Please don’t be mysterious. I can’t read your mind.

      • Sean

        Let me use one of your tactics, Doug, when you tell us that JG’s hallucinating: That’s hate speech! How dare you! Who do you thinik you are? I’m going to take you to court.
        Now I’m going to stamp my foot, pout, and hold my breath till I get my way.

        • John200

          A very good impersonation of our homo”sex”ual trolls.

        • Doughlas

          No Sean. It’s not hate speech. It’s concern. The guy has paranoid delusions and a persecutive complex a mile wide. It’s as plain as day. He needs help.

          • J G

            No, you need help. In almost every university I have attended folks like you have persecuted anyone who dares to disagree. You aren’t “concerned” for me. When I hear the term “hate speech” I recognize a blatant attempt to silence speech.

    • Homosexuals want everyone to treat them the same as anyone else – it is still legal in 29 states to fire someone or deny them housing if they are gay or lesbian. It is still illegal for us to marry the person we love in most states. You speak as if those laws were written against Catholics. Then your arguments would have merit. But it is not gays are who are creating laws to make Catholics homeless, jobless and unmarried, it is Catholics doing that to a minority group they can offer nothing but condemnation to; stop the cruelty in the name of Christ.

      • Sean

        And we ALL know how subservient to Catholicism each of those 29 states are!
        The narcissistic immaturity that inflames this blog can’t see beyond its nose. The last acceptable prejudice in the US remains anti-Catholicism, not anti-homosexuals.
        No matter that the Church points to God. Too many people, gay or straight mind you, point to their groins instead.

        • We are not against Catholics, just against the absurd demand that the Catholic church has the right to dictate state policy for all of society.

          There was a time when all states were subservient to the Catholic church. It was called “the Dark Ages.”

          • Alecto

            What about muslims, hindus, jews, and on and on and on? Do you think they have any rights to define their own dogma and doctrine? You seem to ignore what does not comport with your views, Jerome, which, by the way, is a great name.

            • Alecto, the whole point of the American way of religious liberty is to allow each religious group to follow its own tenets. Marriage equality laws are part of that. The Catholic church and other regressive churches can continue to refuse to wed same-sex couples. That is their right, but they have no right to impose their dogmas on other people who wish to wed at the justice of the peace, or any of the growing list of churches wishing to wed same-sex couples the same way they wed opposite sex couples.

        • Here is one of the places where you insist that states should be subservient to the Catholic church. And you don’t realize that all of Creation points to God, not just the dusty dogmas of the Catholic hierarchy’s catechism books.

          • Sean

            Um … where?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit()

  • clare flourish

    Indeed, if you like, remain faithful to Catholic teaching. The earth is not moved, the Bible says, so the church teaches that it is the centre of the universe.

    Oh. Wait.

    Gay love is not immoral and is not contrary to Scripture, apart from in situations- gang rape, for example, as far from the experience of gay men as from the Pope’s.

    The Catholic church- or the hierarchy, perhaps a majority of the worshipers in the US pews accept the truth about homosexuality- should stop the hatred and lies. That is all we ask. Don’t wait five hundred years this time.

    Thank God, the catechism paragraphs on gay people- we suffer no difficulties whatsoever from our condition, only from the evil bigoted prejudice of people like the drafters of those paragraphs- are widely ignored and ridiculed. Truth will out, you know. The church cannot stop it.

    • Doughlas

      @Clare. Thank you, and I totally agree. The Church hierarchy is painting itself into a corner–again! It will eventually come around, or it will become even more of a fossil than it already is. I predict that 50 years from now, when the catechism teaching about homosexuality has either been rewritten or is ignored, the Church will try to re-write history–again! And we will hear lots of spinning about why the hierarchy was so slow in accepting the scientific understanding of homosexuality.

      • Tout

        DOUGHLAS I hope you live at least another 50 years and will remember what you wrote. It has been repeated over and over again. I started a few years ago praying at a Mary-statue downtown (115.000 inhabitants) hanging sign “Whether glad, sad or wary, stay a while, say a Hail Mary”. 5 Pedestrians dared to stop and say a prayer. A girl (18 ?) even knelt on the ground to pray. Most came only to touch the statue. I walked around 4 streets in May, praying, rosary hanging in hand. The 7nt time(2005) mother and son came along. In 2008 lady took over, 50 people praying, singing carried Mary-statue to a church for crowning. Was(2004) in Turnhout(Belgium) prayed at Sacred Heart statue on the central marketplace. The statue in terrible shape, held together with 5 metal bands. Back in Canada, I wrote to 100+addresses & the Mayor there,that the statue needed repair. Was fully repaired in 2006. Around 1963 people were asked to receive H.Host in hand. 1980,some priests(FSSP) in Germany did again the Latin Mass, gave on tongue again. America refused such priests, finally needed them. Now FSSP has their own seminary in America, In Germany they had to add another building; some of their priests all over the world. Canada just got a fourth Latin parish. A shortage of priests is getting smaller. As before, atheists may get wilder and make people suffer again. What else can they do ?

        • Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuals during His entire life. Mary never did during her life, either. Why not follow the example of Jesus and Mary?

          • Gerard

            Actually, unless you were at Jesus’s side during his entire earthly ministry, you really can’t say that he never spoke a word about it. Also Jesus is still alive This may sound like nit-picking, but they’re crucial points to this discussion. Divine revelation is not limited to scripture and the very much alive Jesus continues to guarantee that the Church will guard the truth of revelation both in Scripture and Tradition.

            Arguments like this illustrate why it was important that Jesus found a Church. The gospels do not record Jesus ever uttering a word about abortion, slavery, infanticide, nuclear war, and a host of other particular evils, yet we don’t follow his example by condoning them!

            • Gerard, Jesus never demanded that scripture be made into civil laws for any reason. That practice belongs to another religion and is known as Sharia. You are merely the Catholic version of the Taliban. And you use the name of Christ to justify your human prejudice against a minority you refuse to understand.

          • Ron Van Wegen

            Jesus never mentioned abortion… or golf for that matter!

            • Neither of those existed 2,000 years ago, but there have always been people who were what we now call “homosexual.” They were just not understood and therefore brutalized by ignorant people – just like today.

    • schmenz

      Dear Clare:

      You really do need a crash course on Church history. You might begin with St John Chrysostom and continue on from there.

      As for your panegyric to sodomy, we will quietly pass it by.

      • Sean

        schmenz, I’m afraid Clare will not read Church history. She prefers the version served up today to palliate deviant tastes in social studies, to use the word “deviant” correctly.

        • Come off it. She is right. Pope John Paul II issued an official apology to Galileo and admitted being wrong about the universe. It took him 4 centuries, but someday a pope will issue an apology to homosexuals, too.

          • Sean

            Pope John Paul did not offer an apology to Galileo. He apologized for Catholic excesses. He did have the Congrecation the Doctrine of the Faith lift its verdict against him, however, as a way to palliate – there’s that word again – the secular world which savored the moment of seeing the Church bowing her head to the dust. And then the world went right back to criticizing the Church for her beliefs as usual. Always a mistake for the Church to bow to the culture. The culture never returns the favor.

            Jerome, Iif you wd take the time to read the Galileo case, you’d know that the Church was NEVER against his science. On the contrary, the Church celebrated Galileo for his science. In return, Galileo dedicated his next scientific book, The Assayer, to Pope Urban VIII.

            Galileo’s first problem with the Inquisition regarded that same book. The Holy Office claimed that the astronomer’s atomism rendered void the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Most Holy Eucharist, thus making the change of substance from that of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus a logical impossibility. Galileo explained his theory to the judges and the Holy Office quickly cleared hiim of any charge of heresy and, that same year, 1626, Urban granted Galileo a pension.

            It was against Galileo’s lack of scientific method, his refusal to wait to publish his findings until other astronomers cd back up his claims of a heliocentric solar system – per his promise – that the Church became uneasy. You will recall that, from the mid-1500s on, Protestants kept claiming that the Catholic Church believed “unbiblical” doctrines. Before the Church was going to rule against the literalness of Genesis, she wanted scientific verification Galileo published anyway, breaking his promise and not acting in a scientific manner.

            And then Galileo attempted to tell the Church how to interpret Scripture. In other words, he 1.) did not rely on science and 2.) he overstepped his bounds as an astronomer by trying to tie his idea of theology with science, always a mistake.
            And this remains a problem with fundamentalist Christianity.

            Jerome, you should know what it is you’re knocking before you act as precipitately as Galileo.

            • Ron Van Wegen

              Thank you – if only people would read history the Galileo myth would be laid to rest. And if I hear that flat-earth story once more I will explode!

              • Sean

                Thank you Rip.
                Unhappily Jerome, belying his scholarly, saintly namesake, has little interest in truth finding no place to rest within the dogma of his latterday secularist religion..

                • Sean, you have no helpful information on this topic. You can’t turn a gay person straight, so leave gay people alone. There will always be gay people. The only choice for us is honesty and a lifelong loving marriage, or going back into the closet that you modern day Inquisitors want to stuff us back into. Thank God your kind are being seen as the prejudiced and misinformed.

              • Doughlas

                What you call a “myth” is actually history. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for his views on heliocentrism and he was threatened with torture if he did not recant. He recanted, and he was under house arrest for the next eight years, until his death. His books were on the Index until 1718, and it wasn’t until 1758 that the Church removed its general ban on books advocating heliocentrism. This was 114 years after Galileo’s death.

                In 1990, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, “[The Church’s] verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” (In other words, the only reason we are changing our verdict on Galileo is that it is politically expedient to do so.)

                1992: Pope John Paul II issued an apology for the way Galileo was treated by the Church. This came 350 years after Galileo’s death.

                All these are just facts. There’s no myth anywhere in what I’ve said. The Church is still spinning this story, still hoping to cover it over. This is the way it has dealt with the pedophile priests and it is the way it will eventually deal with its position on homosexuality–with denial, revisionism, and the construction of myths.

            • Sean, you live in your own world where facts don’t exist, just your cruel prejudice and arrogance and pompousness. I will pray for you.

              • Sean

                I actually live very successfully in the large world of reality. I am sorry that your idea of a discussion is to tell everyone how wrong they are and do not understand the art of conversation.

                As the old song says, you are “more to be pittied than censured.”
                And prayed for that your petulance recedes and that you grow in maturity.

                • The current Catholic myth about Galileo is a recent creation, a kind of historical revisionism akin to Holocaust deniers.

            • Doughlas

              Sean, you’re revising history. Urban granted Galileo a pension? Come on! Urban sentenced him to house arrest for the remainder of his life, after having threatened him with burning at the stake. And this for telling the Church how to interpret scripture? I’m certainly glad the Church does not have the power it once did.

        • Doughlas

          Sean, you throw around the word “deviant” like the twisted villain of a Hollywood psycho flick. Hey, I’m not demonizing you. I’m just saying that your language makes you sound sinister and, well, “deviant.”. Did you know that? It really does. There are things you can do about that. I would get some help soon if I were you.

          • Sean

            Oh Doug. You surely know that I will not bow to political correctness. I use words to mean what they say. I used the world “deviant” as I mentioned, correctly. The language is the poorer for the attempt to make everyone using it the same height.

            • Doughlas

              Either you don’t have the courage of your convictions when not on the Internet, or you’re socially challenged. I cannot imagine a company that would not send you to HR for calling another employee “deviant.” It’s just not done. It’s not allowed in schools, either. Where DO you hang out? Taverns?

              • Sean

                Laughing too much to reply more cogently. Taverns, yet.

    • J G

      Clare, there is no such thing as “gay love.” Sin is not love. Divine law does not change. You are right about the truth will out. The Church will speak the truth and you cannot stop it.

      • Doughlas

        More slanders. So now we can’t “love.” This must be because we are evil and intrinsically disordered. JG, did you ever think about undergoing a thorough reality check? Sometimes a university education is just the trick. You may have been in the bubble too long. It’s not healthy. It can even lead to disorders like cognitive dissonance, the “echo chamber” effect, and parallel realities. Best to get that taken care of soon before it gets worse. I’ll pray for you.

      • What an ignorant lie. I love my same-sex spouse with all the fullness I wanted to be able to marry my wife of 26 years. And in my church we have 2 ladies who have loved the Lord and one another for 60 years. They raised their kids and grandkids and now have their first great-grandkid. Their love is so easy to see when you get out of your segregated life.

    • Sean

      Read this, Clare… Carol Leeda Crawford left it earlier and you may have missed reading the story. Deny it all you want. It is the only side of the argument that you can own until you admit, that truth is truth.

      • It is irrelevant. The Catholic church hates gays, but cannot turn them into heterosexuals. It is not a choice. End of story.

        • Sean

          “The Catholic church hates gays”
          That this statement runs in the face of official Catholic teaching demonstrates how false it is, just on the face of it.
          Your statement, Jerome, is purely subjective. It is, however, the creed of your sect. It’s your dogma and you’re stuck with it, along with other people who belong to the First Church of Me. In all the variious denominational forms this church takes, it always comes up with the same credal statement, “Non serviam!”

  • schmenz

    “The success that the gay
    community has achieved in shedding the “deviant” label has relied upon
    convincing the heterosexual world that homosexual behavior is perfectly

    Right. And that is why you, and every other intelligent should never, not ever, use the word “gay” to describe this hideous perversion. If by chance you think this is a minor point please recall that in a War of the Words, those who warp the meanings of words become the victors. If I have to keep reminding writers of this truth until I turn blue in the face I will continue to do so. There is no reason on God’s good earth why you have to accept the terms dictated by your enemies. They have tried to commandeer a perfectly innocent word – quite cleverly, I might add – so that their agenda can advance.

    Do not give this enemy a single inch. So, please stop using that word to describe these people. If you do you will be bringing some sanity back into the mainstream.

    • Doughlas

      Schmenz, people who describe other people with epithets are not usually welcomed into polite society. I guess you have already reckoned with this fact.

  • Elizabeth Vermilyea

    I am curious as to why Ms. Hendershott fails to mention my criticisms about mental illness being included in the description. My concern was that people were equating a condition (mental illness) and an orientation (homosexuality) with behaviors like rape and murder. I have never seen these equated in my not inconsiderable number of years of study and work in the social sciences. Elizabeth Vermilyea (quoted in the article).

    • Doughlas

      Elizabeth, this is an extremely good point. It not only highlights the glaring weakness of the Church’s position on homosexuality, but it also exposes the underlying motivations for that position. Since when do we tell the mentally ill that their disease is sending them to Hell? Since when do we stigmatize and judge people who have MS? Homosexuality is neither a disorder nor a disease, but if it were, wouldn’t we look askance at the Church’s teaching about it? While the Church declares that homosexuals are deserving of respect and sympathy, it is also “othering” us in a way that recalls its earlier stigmatizations of Jews. The breathtaking hypocrisy of the Church’s official stance cannot fail to become a scandal as more and more people (including Catholics) see it for what it is.

      • Ford Oxaal

        I thought you did not care what the Church thinks (Catholic Church?) as you stated in response to my other post. But if a Catholic (a) is ignorant (but not willfully ignorant) of a teaching or (b) does not willfully perform an immoral act (as taught by the Church), there is no sin. The bottom line is that the Church teaches that non-procreative sex is immoral (for creatures capable of moral decisions). Are you intolerant of people who believe what the Church teaches about sex? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

        • Believe the church’s teaching for your own life, but don’t impose it on others via civil statutes. Most Catholics today support marriage equality because they see the distinction you miss.

  • Wow, what a sad article. As a graduate of Franciscan University who believed their lies that being gay was evil and would be cured by marrying a woman, I have experienced the damage firsthand. What these conspiracy theorists above never stop to think about is the damage their lies do to the straight spouses. My ex-wife was a Franciscan U grad, too. There is nothing immoral about being gay. It is not a choice. It is a fact of life. Some people are gay; the Catholic hierarchy’s hysteria is not helping. They got “gay” wrong just as they got the whole universe wrong – just ask Galileo. They issued him an apology 400 years too late. When will they apologize to gay people for courses like this, that list gays with murderers, thieves and every other evil they could think of. Pure prejudice.

    • The article does not acknowledge actual human beings who are homosexual. It only creates a vast conspiracy by dehumanized and demonized “others” who don’t actually exist.

      • Doughlas

        This is exactly right, Jerome. We have seen dehumanization and demonization used throughout history to scapegoat individuals and minorities who “deviate” from the “norm.” And we’re seeing it here. It’s an old, old story, and we still haven’t learned to “read” it as the myth that it is. One of the greatest of all Catholic anthropologists is a man named René Girard, who wrote a classic book on scapegoating. If conservative Catholics would only read it.

        • Thanks Doughlas. Conservative Catholics like to demonize gays so that they can feel morally superior, but this creates the scourge of gay teen homelessness and suicides, both of which are tragic and needless.

      • Sean

        Some humans are born without arms. Some humans are born bold. It is a matter of genetics. It is not demonzing them to note the deficiency they suffer.
        As you suffer. And I am sorry you feel you have to suffer and lash back.

        • You sound no different than bigots of bygone eras. You would get an approving nod from George Wallace in his “segregation forever” days. He grew and changed, though, and admitted he was wrong eventually. I pray your eyes will be opened to your cruel errors someday. I was taught the same garbage you are spewing. If I changed anyone can change.

          • Sean

            Thank you for lashing out and proving my point.
            It has become an old and now laughable attempt to conflate two different situations. And, as long as they act in a mature, neighborly fashion, I have no problem living next door to a homosexual. I’d even let a homosexual marry my sister, just to continue to demonstrate how thoroughly nonsensical this tactic used by the lobby is.
            exhibitions of narcissism and emotional immaturity are hardly on par with telling a man he is worth nothing because of his skin color. For you to fall back on such a hackned, discredited ploy only shows how desperate the movement is.
            Hate on your own time, Jerome, i have better things to do than pout someone to death.

            • “I support marriage equality. It is the same struggle my husband Richard and I endured, the struggle to marry the person you love.” Mildred Loving, whose interracial marriage led to the landmark case that shocked the 9 out of 10 Americans who believed it was a sin as well as a crime to marry outside your “race.”

              • Sean

                Looking for an Earl Warren, Jerome? The law academies train future judges and future attys for the ACLU together, so you may just get your wish.

                • Marriage equality is coming to all 50 states. And a few years after it does, nobody will remember what the big fuss was all about.

                  • Sean

                    Now you fall back on what you dearly hope is the inevitable.
                    And hot doggie! Ruth Bader is ready to retire so the Obamarama can be sure to replace her with another progressive liberal – perhaps Congress woman Rosa DeLauro, a self proclaimed Catholic who was, before she was elected, exective director of Emily’s List, the organization that subsidizes election of abortion loving women to office all over the nation.
                    Amazing how progressives are using homosexuals to further their ambitions.

                    • Conservative Christians sold their souls to the GOP but it has not given them an end to abortion, civil rights for gays or anything else of substance. Instead it has increased the disparity between rich and poor for 3 decades so that the top 1% has seen its income skyrocket while the poor and working class have lost out, and the middle class has remained stagnant or worse. Jesus never said a word about abortion or about gays, but He said a lot about the necessity to help the poor. Conservative Christians have abandoned the actual teachings of Christ for their own skewed GOP false gospel.

                    • Sean

                      Oh Jerome, your idea of morality, actually, the lack thereof, lies at the heart of the moral decay of Western Civilization, robbing it of the strong masculinity needed to keep it strong. Read history. Every civilization that turned effeminate and accepted homosexuality as something normal fell prey to their enemies and collapsed. You are dooming the American Experiment to extinction, susceptible to the lies of tyrants such as the Obamarama. Truth is a victim to ideology as poorly educated children leave school without an appreciation for their country or for Christianity’s many necessary contributions to it. These children have no idea of the rights they enjoy and so do not realize they are losing them to degenerate politicians seeking to impose tyranny on anyone who disagrees with them.

                      Political correctness, the inability to laugh at stereotypical humor which encompasses the foibles of humanity is no longer allowed. .

                      As for your rant about Jesus not saying anything about abortion or homosexuality, not only are you wrong, you demonstrate that whatever your ordination encompassed, it has no more value than that from any other ordination mill that used to advertise on the backs of matchbook covers.

                      Jesus promised that anyone who scandalized children who believe in Him, such as chldren tolday who grow up realizing that they have narrowly escaped being murdered in the womb by their mothers, “it wd be better for him that such have a millstone hung about his neck and be cast into the sea.”

                      Your lifestyle is a scandal since it is unnatural. Abortion is a scandal since it robs children of security in the love of their mothers, who cd have been their executioners.

                      As for homosexuality, in Matthew 19 – Jesus says a man leaves his family to cling to his wife, not his stud. And He also condemns divorce and remarriage in the same breath. So, along with the impossibility of like poles attracting, the unnatural dissolution of relationships instead of living through bitterness and hardship with love is unnatural and children are scandalized by parents who have no discipline.

                    • Doughlas

                      Sean, the National Socialists in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s were hyper-masculine. They persecuted homosexuals and sent them to the gas chambers. And they were defeated in war. So I guess your rule about femininity and civilizational collapse doesn’t exactly hold, does it? The Middle East, which also favors hyper-masculinity and persecutes homosexuals, also looks as though it’s about to self-destruct. Some of the longest-lasting civilizations on earth were either outright matriarchal or dialed down the testosterone. Testosterone tends to make men more aggressive and warlike, and–as we all know–war is not particularly good for civilizations.

                      Are you aware of the origin of the word “scandal” that you used to describe Jerome’s lifestyle? Heinrich Schliemann, the archeologist who discovered the ruins of Troy, traced the word back (through a study of hieroglyphics found at the site) to “skandalé,” a stumbling-block or trap to catch the unwary. That became “skandalizein” in classical Greek, where we find it in the Septuagint.

                      Jerome’s lifestyle is not a stumbling block (or a scandal) for him. But it is for you and your church. Your church is tripping over it bigtime, and it’s causing literally millions of Catholics to leave the church. You can’t see that, but people about to stumble never do.

                    • Sean

                      “Skandalizein” is precisely what I meant, Doug, a stumbling block. Just l;ike the scandal of the feminized clergy which preyed on pubescent teens in the US and other countries because seminaries dropped their stringent spirituality at mid-century. Men exhibiting the mental disorder called pederasty were welcomed into the priesthood. This is a sign of moral decay. As is popular acceptance of homosexuality as “normal” behavior.

                      The lack of this spirituality is what is causing millions of Catholics to leave the Church. Read the surveys, Doug. Half and more of evangelical and pentecostal assemblies are composed of former Catholics. And you also know that they are much less cozy with homosexual behavior than Catholics have been of late.

                      The Church will shrivel until she once again finds her way to speak with the moral courage to once again call sinful behavior by its proper name – and stop ordaining homosexuals who put their carnal desires above their spirituality.

                    • Sean

                      Conservatives found their country attacked by immorality which is a scandal to children. The GOP offered them the haven that the Democratic party used to offer Catholics but no more.

                      Jesus spoke about scandalizing children “who believe in Me.” His worst deprecation was reserved for those scandalizing children for any reason. “It wd be better for him to have a millstone hung about his neck and he be cast into the sea.”

                      A child watches unnatural sexual behavior is scandalized. A child who realizes that he only barely escaped death in the womb at the hands of his own mother is scandalized.

                      Jesus preached, defiantly so, that a man leaves his family to cling to his wife “and the two become one flesh” something homosexuals and lesbians, despite all their sex toys, find it impossible to do without simulating the male/female union which is impossible.

                      Like poles oppose, opposite poles attract. The basic pattern is found throughout nature with unfortunate divergencies that occasionally occur.

                      Is “divergency” a more socially acceptable word than “deviancy”?

                      No matter how you attempt to explain it away, homosexuality is unnatural and, therefore, immoral in its practice, just as it is immoral and unnatural for a capitalist to destroy businesses in his greed, or politicians to place impossible “legal” conditions on banks so that home sales must fail and cause heartache, displacement and death to millions of people.

                      You can’t get around me, Jerome, since what you espouse is unnatural and immoral. Just like the Dodd-Frank Bill or the tolerance of trusts that used to be illegal under Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, but which are now allowed under Clinton and Obama, Democrats.
                      The Democratic Party, one has to recall, is always the party of slavery.

        • Doughlas

          Sean, I can’t imagine why you think Jerome is “lashing back.” He is a very kind and courteous person.

          What is neither kind nor courteous is telling Jerome that he is “deficient” and comparing him to a person without arms. In fact, it is pretty crass of you.

    • John200

      Sad little thing, you didn’t experience the damage firsthand.

      You CAUSED it.

      • Wrong. Well-meaning bigots caused the damage. I went to a Franciscan University priest for advice before proposing engagement. He told me that my same-sex attractions would decrease and eventually disappear over time if I married and continued to live a good Christian life. Every scientific study later said that this was the opposite of what happens. By the way, the priest that gave me the advice you dish out was later thrown out of the priesthood in a pedophilia scandal.

        • Secondly there is nothing “little” or sad about me. I am 6’4″ with an athletic build and I am one of the happiest people you could ever meet. I radiate the love of God whenever I am not being attacked by bigots.

          • John200


            You are on a forum where your interlocutors know the truth. Yet you think you should try to sell homo”sex”ual perversion. That point is useful in declaring you sad, but there is more. You resist the truth. You are not happy, you are locked into sin by your own perverted choice. The effects are bad for:

            – you,
            – the man you are destroying (what you do to him is not loving),
            – your ex-wife, if she exists (sorry, homo”sex”uals are notorious liars; you chose to join a class and you partake in all elements of the definition),
            – others who care what happens to you, and
            – society as a whole.

            Notice, I did not mention the eternal effects, which amount to permanent destruction for you and all those who participate with you. That is the meaning of, “You CAUSED it.” Do you see?

            You practice intrinsically disordered behavior and you know it. You consciously chose it, and chose to continue it. You know the consequences, both natural and supernatural, for you and for all the others. Good people try to help you; you call them bigots. J G has helped you to understand that you are the bigot in this little contretemps.

            I will leave you to find out what you really radiate, the sooner, the better. HINT: It is not the love of God.

        • Doughlas

          Interesting story. I think you’ve got the makings of a book there, and you’ve got the skills to write it. I find it fascinating that the priest who counseled you to marry had not a thought for the welfare or happiness of the woman you were to marry. She was just a prop in his little morality play.

          • The Catholic church is so male-dominated it cannot see its own misogyny.

    • Doughlas

      Excellent point, Jerome. I was also married, so I’ve seen the consequences of denialism first hand. We hurt not only ourselves but our opposite-sex partners–and any children that may be a part of the family. The best thing the National Organization for Marriage could do–if it were really “for” marriage–would be to encourage gays to marry each other and to get out of the mixed-gender pool. There would be far fewer divorces, unhappy marriages, and wasted lives.

    • sajetreh

      Classic. Born gay but has sex with a woman. Wow! How did that happen. Was it a conscience choice? No logic or reasoning. Just desire and feelings. Talk about junk science.

      • Putting a gay man in a heterosexual marriage does not make him straight anymore than putting him in a garage makes him a car.

      • Doughlas

        Sajetreh, it happened because I followed the advice of people like you. Figure it out.

  • Cormac_mac_Airt

    Brilliant article by Anne Hendershott. I see the homosexual haters have failed to convince anyone with their deviant trolling. It’s a more harmless pursuit than attacking faithful Catholics at Sunday Mass.

    • The article is filled with cruel conspiracy theories. The bottom line is that sexual orientation is a gift from God that comes with a strict “no-return” policy.

      • sajetreh

        Man are you in for a rude awakening.

        • If you know of a way to change a homosexual to a heterosexual, please enlighten us. No doctor can do that. No ministry can pray away the gay. The Catholic church teaches that sexual orientation is not a choice, but demands celibacy from those who happen to be homosexual. A tiny percentage of people can live celibate lives (regardless of sexual orientation) most wish to marry the person they love.

  • Juan Lino Lopez

    The “gay” (a contrived political term) lobby deliberately promotes pseudoscientific theories as “facts” and they continually do all they can to ensure that those supposed “facts” are dogmatically accepted as “truths”. And what are those pseudoscientific “facts”? 1) Homosexuality is pre-determined before birth; 2) homosexuals have no choice over what they are or how they behave; and 3) environmental factors, including the presence and attentions of homosexuals, do not affect a child adversely and cause homosexuality.

    And this social engineering campaign has a goal – to ensure that the debate continually shifts from behavior to identity so they can maintain their supposed “victim” status.

    Now, if anyone is interested on some of the things that were done to ensure the APA fell in line with the spirit of the times, the book “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis” by Ronald Bayer is a vital read because it details the guerrilla theater tactics and more straightforward shouting matches that were used to bring about the change at the APA. Similar tactics will be or are being used on the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

    Lastly, deviance, in a sociological context, describes actions or behaviors that violate social norms, including formally-enacted rules, as well as informal violations of social norms. And since the Franciscan University of Steubenville has dared to affirm that behavior can be either “normal” or “abnormal” they must be punished and/or excommunicated for refusing to bow to today’s fashionable theories.

    I will, henceforth, support them financially for their support of the Truth.

    • Juan, every actual scientific medical authority on our planet agrees sexual orientation is not a choice. If you don’t believe it, try making yourself gay tomorrow. The first thing you will discover in your experiment will be that it is impossible to change your sexual orientation.

      • Juan Lino Lopez

        We all want to believe the cultural myth that scientists / psychologists / sociologists, etc., are absolutely neutral (or altogether indifferent) toward the object/data they are analyzing. We also want to believe that a perfectly neutral and completely indifferent judgment is more worthy and valid. But this is a utopian fantasy because no human being is immune from bias and assumptions – like your assumption that I am “straight” and that certain types of behavior are normal. And, of course, you can legitimately say I am also not immune from bias and assumptions – and you would be right.
        While it is always interesting to go back and forth on what constitutes “legitimate science”, etc., I’m more interested in looking at the behavior that human beings use to force others to agree with their biases. And most particularly, the lengths we in our culture will go to take away another person’s freedom when they do not submit to the “politically correct” worldview. While we all say we don’t believe in censorship we certainly cheer when the points of view we don’t agree with are censored. And we will gladly use the “state” to censor those that dare to question the Zeitgeist.
        Well, I believe that this is happening here. A university is offering a course that questions a designation and instead of people fighting for “academic freedom” and applauding those who question the norm, there are calls to take away the program’s accreditation.
        Since many of the comments are appealing to “experience”, has anyone taken the course? Is it a balanced presentation? Are the protesters interested in doing that or are they simply interested in protecting their worldview?
        I work in an educational setting and I can tell you that if it was a bunch of “conservatives” raising hell, the administration would tell them to f*ck off (politely, of course) and the media would swoop down to accuse the conservatives of censorship. But since it’s the latest popular “victim” that’s whining – not presenting reasoned critiques, but just whining – then it’s a
        tragedy and those that refuse to submit must be crucified.

        It seems to me that the true “scapegoat” in our culture is the person or persons that believes in objective truth.

        • If there was any important medical condition affecting your child, you would go and find the best medical guidance you could get. You would not dismiss all scientific evidence the way you do when you talk about sexual orientation. The double-standard is proof of prejudice.

          • Juan Lino Lopez

            To paraphrase you Jerome: “Ad hominem attacks are “the refuge of those who run out of anything worthwhile to say.”

            Anyone who is sick, or has a loved one who is sick, should seek the best medical guidance they can find from “legitimate” doctors.

            I know that some people see science as an oracle (or an all-knowing god) but I simply see it as a tool. A tool that wounded beings called men and women can and do manipulate so that their expectations are left intact. So, I think skepticism is the best especially when it comes to the types of studies you are citing.

        • John200

          Thanks for the closing point, Juan. These homo”sex”ual trolls think they can outtalk me, silence me, tell me I don’t tell the truth (from these worthies I learn that truth is prejudice), I don’t know anything about love, blah, blah, blah……

          If they had enough power to make the truth false, they would surely do so. And scapegoat me. And silence you and a few other commentors. But they can’t.

          There is a reason for that. In my case, I am prepared (maybe overprepared) for everything they have thrown at me. You, too, evidently. The truth puts you far ahead of these little fellows, far ahead of the homo”sex”ual theologian or pastor of some unfortunate sect, or whatever he says he is.

          And there is a reason for that, too.

    • Doughlas

      Juan, tell us about the time you “decided” to be straight. Did you feel an equal attraction to both males and females before you made that choice?

      • Doughlas

        I didn’t hear an answer, Juan. You’ve had an entire day to think about it.

        • Juan Lino Lopez

          I have a very rich life that doesn’t include spending my precious time reading and responding to this conversation. Nevertheless, here’s my reply: Being is a gift and I reaffirm my orientation every morning.

  • This article misses the point – gays want to be full citizens in their own nation. And it is coming, so don’t worry about it. Gays make good neighbors, good co-workers and good citizens. You already deal with us, though some of you don’t know it.

  • TH2

    Does anyone reading this comment thread notice that the sodomite contributors are are the most frequent? Misologic, browbeating, incessant, relentless – classic Alinskian tactics.

    • John200

      Yup, that’s the formula for the homo”sex”ual in disputation about his perversion.

      I would add a few additional characteristic elements of the pattern:
      – First and foremost, not a word of it is true;

      – Second, not a word of it is sincerely believed, not even by the homo”sex”uals themselves;

      – Third, they will eventually exchange email addresses and disappear for a while. Presumably they desire to lick their wounds, or each other’s wounds, or whatever they can find; and
      – Importantly, they applaud each other for their oh-so-kind feelings, enlightened views, and the like.

      The homo”sex”uals never win a disputation, and barely make a coherent point, and cannot win, but you see the purpose is different from logic or good sense.

      Sorry, boys, I didn’t mean to expose your games. You just come around any time you like, there will always be a game on.

      • Doughlas

        John, you have surpassed yourself. This is the most insulting ad hominem I have seen from you. And you are Catholic, aren’t you? What amazes me is that you can publicly identify as a Catholic while showing no apparent concern that the tone of your comments is in flagrant violation of catholic teachings about respect, compassion, and sensitivity. You are suggesting that I and another blogger on this site are going to exchange e-mails and have sex together? I know from earlier conversations with you that everything in your universe is about sex and body parts. I just have to say once again, too, that I am shocked that no other Catholic in this discussion takes you to task for this kind of rant. Everyone is just silent. Shameful, shameful.

        • John200

          Doughlas, you have produced a parody of the homo”sex”ual troll. You are the most insulting homo”sex”ual troll I have seen here. No need
          to ask whether you are Catholic. What amazes you is that I can publicly
          identify as a Catholic while showing that the content of your comments is in flagrant violation of Catholic truth about sin. You and Jerome are having a nice little exchange about perversion on a Catholic forum; but you would never make contact with each other. Oh, horrors! Who could think it?

          You know from earlier conversations, things that are not true. You are shocked that your target has opened up your perverted game and exposed its rottenness in public, and that someone on a Catholic forum talks back. I just have to say once again, too, that I am shocked that you expected Catholics in this discussion to let you “win” with this kind of rant. You also expected to get away with labeling the readers, “Shameful, shameful.” Ha, ha, I admit it, you made me laugh — I would give you credit for trying if your end were not to promote intrinsically evil action.

          The label “shameful” goes with perverted “sex” – homo”sex”ual activity is an example. Do you see?

          Let’s complete your work: you must join Jerome in calling me a bigot. Call me a Neanderthal; troglodyte is also good (most people don’t know
          what it means); unevolved;… I got it! Call me Torquemada, surely you
          misunderstand who he was.

          • Facts: every scientific medical association says sexual orientation is not a choice. The Catholic church admits it, but condemns homosexuals anyway. And we who are homosexual fall into love not just lust, same as anyone else. It turns out we are human after all.

            • John200


              Four sentences, the last one is true. If you can maintain a.250 average, you are improving.

              The Catholic church condemns homo”sex”ual activity, but you are so unsophisticated that you think an action condemned is a person condemned. Many homo”sex”uals think the same.

              As for homo”sex”ual love, you do not love your partner. You don’t even like him. You are destroying him, and he is destroying you. Not very loving, that.

    • The bible has its own definition of a Sodomite sinner, “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;they did not help the poor and needy.” Sounds like the bible is describing conservatives rather than gays.

      • John200

        Ha, ha, ha, ha (infinite sequence of laughter), …. Oh, Jerome. Pure scheiss exigesis. Finally, one observes that you are not even trying. Ha, ha, ha, thank you.

        I knew you could do it.

  • HughieMc

    “full participation of individuals who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or two-spirit in social work education.” I am from the West of Scotland and so am not familiar with some aspects of American English. What exactly is meant by “two-spirit”?

  • no matter how loud you shout you parasites of moral depravity, the Roman Catholic Church will never be defeated , for it has His Divine promise “the gates of hell shall not pervail against it”….the other churches may fold to your demonic demands, but the Roman Catholic Church never will….may the Divine Mercy of Jesus touch you in this life, because His JUSTICE will reach you at your death

  • I have been in a gay-friendly church so long that this article really shocked me. Conspiracy theories, junk science, dehumanization and demonization – all the ingredients for a new Holocaust, or at the very least, for a new witch hunt.

    • Muslim religious conservatives are already killing gays. Now Uganda’s parliament is set to pass the long-debated “KIll the Gays” bill “inspired” by 3 conservative American religious leaders, led by Rev. Scott Lively, who has gone on record in favor of the bill with the death penalty intact. Anyone believed to be gay would be given up to life in prison. If they are caught a second time, they get the death penalty, as do AIDS patients. The northern and western Nile regions of Uganda are heavily Catholic. If even a few bishops get behind this, we have the perfect storm coming against gays. And it may spread in both Muslim and Christian nations at the same time that every scientific medical association has proven that sexual orientation is not a choice.

  • Frank

    Hello, all. I like to do linguistic analyses on sites like this one. I look at the charged language that is being used and I tally the use of words like “deviant.” I also look at who is saying what. I think you might be interested in what I’m finding.

    The terms of derogation–the epithets, slurs, and insults–are coming mainly from Catholics, and they are extreme. “Deviant” and its variant “deviance” are the most common ones. Others include: “diabolical,” “demonic,” “sodomite,” “filth,” “deficient,” “hideous perversion,” “unspeakable baseness.” Gays are also described in the following terms: “You’re gonna burn in Hell.” “You sin.” “[You’re like] a person without arms,” and “gay marriage is a cheap knock-off.” Homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, murder, bestiality, and incest.

    I did find a few personal insults on the other side, but they were mild by comparison with these. There’s definitely a huge imbalance in the tone and posture of the two sides of this debate.

    Just thought you’d like to know.

  • Jacob

    I think the author is correct in stating that the church has a duty to follow it’s own teaching. The problem comes when they attempt to foist their teaching on the rest of society, by influencing, actively, legislation that favors their belief. I am not Roman Catholic, and don’t really want that religious body to tell me and my own religion what is right or wrong. There are areas of significant disagreement, in fact, according to my truth, all of Christianity breaks g-d’s law by worshiping with images and by it’s attempt to define the divine. It is this that is troublesome. So, they see homosexuality as something their divine being imposed on the individual, and that this is a cross for that person to suffer with. Certainly does not fit in the paradigm of my faith. Allow for independent accreditation agencies, but, then make sure a person trained by those agencies are forced to reveal that they are basing some of their work on religion and not on science. The persecution complex that Roman Catholics claim for themselves is so overstated. You are free to practice your religion, but you should not be free to foist it on others, especially when you are the only game in town, which has become more and more the case as groups like the sisters of leavenworth buy up hospital after hospital, leaving non-catholics with few choices outside of the system…

  • sajetreh

    This is a great article and proves what I have been saying for years. Freedom of religion and so-called gay rights can not coexist. The argument is not whether or not the act of a man laying with another man or a woman laying with another woman is sin. Of course the Bible teaches that this act is an abomination to the Lord. This is Church teaching and should be considered such.

    The issue is whether or not the act of homosexuality is deviant. Of course it is. It deviates from the normal purpose of the human reproductive system. What is the purpose of the human reproductive system? To reproduce!! Acts of homosexuality deviate from this purpose. This has to be the argument and the only argument when it comes to science.

    • Doughlas

      Abominations? Like eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabric and touching the skin of a pig? Your theory of deviance and sexual reproduction is merely folk wisdom, and it doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. For an in-depth discussion of the science on sexual orientation, go to Wikipedia’s portal on the subject, called “Biology and sexual orientation.” It will direct you to over 100 scientific studies. All will become clear. Warning: It’s a tough slog. You’ll encounter words like “chromosome” and “gene” and “adaptivity.”

      • sajetreh

        Ha! Ha! Your funny. Leave church teaching to the church. Whether or not you’re an abomination or not isn’t my concern. I am not concerned with your sexual orientation either just sexual reproduction. Something you are incapable of doing with another man. You can’t have clarity unless you start at the beginning. Try “Biology and reproduction.”

        • John200

          Are there two Jacobs? or are you having a dialog with yourself?

          Two of the same name is an old troll trick, which is why I ask.

          • sajetreh

            I don’t know if there are two Jacobs. I do know that I am not one of them.

            • John200

              Thanks for the reply. Now I look around and the name Jacob, whether one person or two, is gone. OK, I withdraw the question.

              Nice to meet you at Crisismag.

              • sajetreh

                Nice to meet you as well John200. Let the battle be joined.

                • What battle? You have nothing to offer. You can rant against homosexuals, but you have no way to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual.

        • Doughlas

          Sajetreh. I’m not interested in reproduction at my age. I am 68. I already have a son.

          • sajetreh

            How obtuse. Uninterested, incapable both deviate from the norm. Is that all you got?

  • What exactly was “the gay assault?” A couple of gay alumni said they did not appreciate being compared to murderers, thieves and child rapers. Who would?

  • jdrman

    I see the usual number of gay bloggers have showed up to argue their case for being non-deviant in the manner outlined in After the Ball…thereby supporting the authors point perfectly! Good examples, I’m not convinced (and never will be).

    • Yes, jdrman, you have made your mind up. There is no point in bothering you with any new facts.

  • Schmenz, my life is proof you are wrong in your assumptions. I did not learn homosexuality. I was so sheltered I had no real idea of what it was. I was terrified because I thought I was the only one in the world with these feelings. I was never molested. I was from a great loving Catholic family which prayed together every night before bed. I was only 12 when I began to discover I was experiencing something different from my many other guy friends. I was so masculine and popular with the opposite sex nobody ever suspected. They, like you, did not realize the hell that fear and repression cause. I remained a virgin, went to therapy to be “cured” when I was 16, and into the seminary at 17. I spent 22 years in ex-gay ministry and longer in therapy, but I learned that there was nobody who can change from homosexual to heterosexual. A homosexual who remains celibate his whole life is still a homosexual. Sexual orientation is real, lifelong, innate and is not chosen and cannot be changed at will. And I did what you suggest as soon as I had the unwanted attractions. I went to my priest at the age of 12 and he wanted to molest me. He was thrown out of the priesthood years later after admitting to having sex with a number of boys from 12-16. His name was John Aurelio. Google him.

    • sajetreh

      It sounds like John Aurelio had abnormal desires as you did Jerome. Your story, while compelling, still doesn’t negate the fact that your desires and actions deviate from the normal purpose of the human reproductive system.

      I don’t care if you have sex with John Aurelio or anyone else. Just don’t keep telling us that your desires for other men are normal to the human reproductive system. That’s is all we ask, that you stick with the truth.

      • Doughlas

        Sajetreh, a complete and willful ignorance of biology seems to be the norm, so you are completely normal in that respect. You know nothing about either sexual attraction or the human reproductive system. You’re long on simplistic notions of both, and you’re way short on understanding of either.

  • Truthwillsetyoufree

    I have read Anne Hendershott’s The Politics of Deviance which calls things by their proper names. A very good article here, but ‘the gay community’?
    If we start to use the vocabulary and twisted meanings of political activists, we start to think like them. Dictatorships start with brainwashing, or marketing, psychographic profiling and manipulation; all very corrupt. The word ‘gay’ itself is deeply manipulative and ‘party of perverted activists’ would be more appropriate and honest than ‘gay community’. Let us call things by their real names rather than appease this bullying movement that has forced its will on the majority.

    • sajetreh

      Excellent point. I remind my children not to referred to those who practice homosexual acts as gay. Homosexual is the scientific name that has been designated for this type of behavior and it is what I ask them to use. My own preference is queer. Strange and unusual behavior.

      I also teach my children to stand up to bullies and fight them if necessary.

      • If you refuse to call a person or a group of persons by the name they wish to use, you are already a kind of bully.

        • Doughlas

          I would agree with Jerome, Sajetreh. By the way, is your name an alternate spelling of Sajit Ray? Would you like to be taunted because of your name or your ethnicity? How would you feel if someone refused to show respect for you by addressing you with a name that you dislike? If you are teaching your children not to use the term “gay” even when their gay schoolmates prefer it, then you are setting them up for trouble. Schools are becoming much less tolerant of bullying now.

  • All the rants against gays here don’t change the basic facts: Two gay alumni contacted the university to ask they stop lumping gay people in with the murderers, etc. Those contacts have been falsely contrived to be some kind of attack on my alma mater, Franciscan University. Not true. And the so-called “gay agenda” is simply this: equality under civil laws, and the basic dignity and respect the Catholic church admits is due to people who are homosexual.

    • Doughlas

      Good summation. You are absolutely right. The Church always seems to run into problems when it tries to interface with the real world. Founding universities and hospitals was probably a bad idea from the start, especially for an institution that values faith over science as much as the Church does. The accreditation thing is where the rubber meets the road. Accreditation standards help ensure that students get the quality education that they’re paying for and that these students are prepared to enter a world where where it is considered outrageous to treat homosexuals like murderers, psychopaths, and substance abusers. I live within five blocks of a Catholic University, and I’ve observed how many of its students are NOT Catholic. They want a degree from an accredited institution so that they can get jobs. If the Catholic Church wants to continue this jihad against gays, they may just have to take it back into their sanctuaries and keep it out of their universities.

  • Pingback: Hendershott: “The Gay Assault” on Franciscan University « Campus Notes()

  • BillMance

    Franciscan University Class of 1990.
    I am a proud graduate and love the school. I wish only for improvement where
    there may need to be. No institution is perfect and no person for that matter.
    The course description in question is:
    SWK 314DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the
    sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential
    association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors
    that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution,
    homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural
    conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant
    behavior. 3 credit hours- The semantics/grammar of the description is poor. It
    may be a summary of the chapters/course outline/course overview. I find it
    hurtful when certain imperatives are included that should not be. For example,
    one behavior listed which I find issue with, (due to the simple fact that I am
    a father of a special needs child), is: mental illness; and that imperative, to
    be labeled as a behavior is flawed. Examination of the course description
    regarding the imperative homosexuality: the Roman Catholic Church teaching
    practicing homosexuality is deviant the person is not (
    ), homosexual behavior may fall outside the norm in society, so as do many
    other things that could: practicing the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a weekly
    basis, going to Mass every Sunday, praying before every meal, taking your
    children to CCD instead of sports practice, eating meals together as a family,
    stay at home mothers, single income families, (the list can continue).I am not
    a therapist and do not have all the answers. Christ was on the Earth to teach
    us how to live our lives and to do our best.) Further analysis of the course
    description: it focuses on the role society plays on influencing deviant
    behavior. Let’s pay attention to the two hot button imperatives: Mental Illness
    and Homosexuality: So a mentally ill person may live a perfectly normal,
    non-deviant life until that person is influenced by society? Homosexual
    behavior may be deviant in society, and again, what is society’s role in
    influencing the deviant behavior?

  • J G

    It is amazing how articles like this draw flies. Homosexuals seem convinced that if only they can get everyone to say that it is okay and not sinful that they will be able to believe it themselves. They KNOW it is sinful. They desperately try to evade the truth. They think if only they can silence us it will all be fine. It won’t Divine law cannot be thwarted.

  • pwrwoman116

    Interesting article. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Hendershott didn’t lace her article with emotionally charged buzzwords or imagery. It remained fairly objective throughout. I only wish the comment war below had a little more integrity. Although I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King that a positive, substantiated peace is superior to the “obnoxious, negative peace” that simply and passively adheres to order, I wish we could strive for that peace through argument without being so horribly offensive and insensitive.

  • Pingback: Atacul homosexualilor asupra bisericilor « Life Mission()

  • Pingback: Pe scurt din lume (27 noiembrie 2012) - Cultura vieţii | Cultura vieţii()

  • rich

    I’m reading a lot of jamming[turning deviants into victims]

  • Phil Ferguson

    What amazes me in this and other like articles is the acceptance, even embrace, of the term “gay” to describe an abomination. By constantly using “gay” and not “homosexual” one “follows” the lead of perversion. To do this the author herself becomes enmeshed in a kind of literary perversion.

  • Dan

    As I read this in 2015, I must say that this thread of two years ago makes for interesting reading.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “Responding to political pressure in the early 1970s, homosexuality was indeed removed as a mental illness from the DSM. ”
    It was more than political pressure. It was via fear and intimidation called “zapping” (sodomites would call it bullying now).