PAM

“Of course, dictionaries are written by humans - as are judicial opinions. An opinion is just that - and is written by just one man. Definitions are actually arbitrary, to the extent that they evolve and change over time in our living language, and we can agree to change them, if changing them serves a good purpose.”

The definition is “arbitrary” but the truth it points to and illustrates is not.

If we are to bring men & women together in marriage for the good of themselves, their children & all society…. It is imperative that we be able to identify that unique good with the traditional moniker.

Yes I understand you cherish your vision of radical egalitarianism more than the institution of marriage. That your empathy for homosexuals is greater than your empathy for fatherless children.

Mine is not….

Mine is both the greater good & the common good.

Fitz4,
I think my analogies hold up perfectly well - they are all about human rights and equality under the law. And yes, all of those people did consider themselves little-c conservative.

The problem with you and your jurists is that you're hanging everything on an extremely narrow definition of the word "marriage." Have you looked it up in a dictionary? mine has several definitions. One is "the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments." But another is "Any intimate association or union."

As you know, not every definition need apply at the same time, else we would have great difficulty using words such as "light."

Of course, dictionaries are written by humans - as are judicial opinions. An opinion is just that - and is written by just one man.

Definitions are actually arbitrary, to the extent that they evolve and change over time in our living language, and we can agree to change them, if changing them serves a good purpose. And what could be a better purpose than ensuring equality under the law for all American citizens? How can you *possibly* stand against that and consider yourself anything but a homophobe and a bigot? In what way do those terms not fit you?

"#2. Question: “And would you please define "problematsizing"?”

A: Making problematic."

If you can make up definitions (and words), why can't the courts adjust some? Google that word (and I use the term loosely). You will find this forum as the only reference.

As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually an analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.

PAMSM (the post bellow was in answer to your Post of December 22, 2008 1:08 AM)

Here is a more elaborate dismissal of your flawed analogy & the reason to dismiss this as a faulty analogy.

As the Washington decision illustrates

“”We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State’s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the dissents’ disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the “color-blind” constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State’s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.””

#2. Question: “And would you please define "problematsizing"?”

A: Making problematic.

The California court may make a proper decision, but we can only pray that forces within the law rise to embrace integrity writ large; if we are to prevail.

The problem with arguments from analogy is that there power comes from mere analogy. Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy.

I.E. - the problem with analogy is it is exactly that: a mere analogy.

#1. No said groups called themselves or were “conservatives” – that is simply your analogy that serves your rhetorical interests.

#2. Race is not sex & neither is who you have sex with. Neither is it revolution from a colonial power, nor chattel slavery, - and the rest. All strained and incredulous mere analogies.

EXAMPLE-
Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of anti—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.

Note this qick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.

“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different KIND.”

The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of KIND.

As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually an analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same KIND of things being compared.

If it is not sinful to be gay and sex is a gift of God, then if follows that gay sex in the confines of gay marriage must also be a gift of God. The call to celibacy is a sophistry used to justify biblical teachings which were inevitable given the science of the time (or lack thereof).

When I was preparing to marry my wife, we were taught, as I was in my High School marriage class, that the couple married each other in the sacrament. The job of the priest was to witness. The argument, then, is not about gay marriage but about their civil recognition and the religious celebration of gay weddings.

The civil marriage argument follows from the couple committing to each other in marriage. Such a commitment breaks the bonds of family and places the care of that person and their assets into the hands of the spouse. If a gay married person dies, their partner has the right to dispose of all property, including the body. That is an inalienable right before God, which the family must respect. To help them respect that, we have societies which codify such rights. Equal protection in our system will lead to civil marriage sooner than later, no matter what you call it.

Celebrating the religious marriage is necessary not for the couple, but for the families to acknowledge the new arrangement and to give their tacit consent. To not provide this service to those of us with gay siblings is an insult and a disservice to the families, not the couples. It is also an insult to the concept of marriage, which is the free giving of oneself to another at the expense of all others.

Fitz4,
You say that I am "name-calling" and that it is meant to shut down conversation.

I am applying labels, but only those that your comments have indicated to me are apt.

Here's another label that I think applies, based on your comments here and in the main thread: conservative. I'm guessing that this is one that you'll embrace - am I wrong?

And here's why it's as bad as, or worse than, the other two:

Before the US broke from Mother England, there were people in the colonies who opposed war with England, and supported the king. After all, kings were a matter of biblical, legal, and historical precedent. These people called themselves Tories - another word for conservatives.

When abolitionists began agitating for an end to slavery, those who argued for its continuation, and used the bible, as well as legal and historical precedent to support their case, called themselves conservative.

When suffragettes demanded the vote for women, those men who spoke in opposition, citing the bible, and legal and historical precedent, called themselves conservative.

When Dr. King, and others, called for an end to Jim Crow laws, and for full equality for African-Americans, those who opposed it - citing the bible, and legal and historical precedent, called themselves conservative.

Conservatives - both religious and political - have thrown up roadblocks to every bit of progress toward simple human dignity that has ever been proposed.

If you would turn back the clock on any of the above, then we have nothing to converse about anyway.

BTW - you hardly seem above applying labels yourself: "...homosexualists, radical feminists and fellow travelers..."

And would you please define "problematsizing"?

Persiflage,

Thanks for the link. I'm reading it now.

Farnaz

The Church must oppose the radical political ideology that denies the reality of two complementary sexes and their role in God's plan for creation.

If someone chooses to identify himself as "gay" while living a chaste virtuous life and otherwise adhering to the precepts of the faith, that's his business. But he must recognize there is a very slippery slope from labeling oneself as "gay" to buying into the whole ideology and denying the truth about sex.

The better course is to say, I seek to be a follower of Christ, and all other labels I will shun. I am made for eternity, and I will not allow earthly ideological labels to limit or burden me.

Farnaz - and not to confuse the Indian sage Nagarjuna with real and quasi-mythical Tibetan Buddhist heros like Padmasambhava and Milarepa (Tibet's own Buddha). However as a thinker and philosopher of Buddhism, Nagarjuna was unparalleled, and is often quoted by the Dalai Lama himself.

He was said to be a fully realized master with (among other powers) the ability to live idefinitely or die at will, and lived for 600 years (not quite as long as Methuselah, but pretty long).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism

Farnaz - you're right. Thomas Merton and achieving perfection are too big (especially taken together) for this thread.

Merton was something of an anomaly, and was one minute critical of Tibetan Buddhism as being full of superstition, while only a short time later vowing to spend a year in Tibet because of the great spirituality of it's people....he was probably as deeply conflicted as any of us, in a word.

He had lived a vigorous heterosexual life before taking his religious vows, and seemed to have the contemporay uninformed views and prejudices of his day regarding homosexuality - he strove to keep homosexual men out of the monastery, but on the other hand was perceived as being more accepting of gayness outside the confines of the monastery walls - and of course he came and went more than the average monk.

His divided devotion to both Catholicism and Buddhism remained unresolved in his lifetime - which in fact ended suddenly in the historically momentous year of 1968, rather than 1960. He lived along enough to be widely known as an outspoken anti-war activist.

Perfection as an concept works well in mythology and in worlds of the imagination - but where and how might we find it? I suspect that without certain hidden flaws, a thing could not exist in our phenomenal world.

On the other hand, Buddhism says that the dharmadatu or essential reality is flawless and fundamentally pure in every aspect. We need to ask the awakened about that.....
__________

I like David Hume and I agree that with considerable effort, one can begin to get a glimpse of emptiness as our essential and undivided nature, and the nature of time, being and all things (Dogen) - but the true insight is emptiness with awareness, which at the deepest level recognizes it's own undivided and boundless nature. This is very far beyond individual ego-awareness.

Nagarjuna in the 2nd century C.E developed a dialectic that sought to establish the truth of emptiness/sunyata using logic and rational thought alone .... he's worth reading and is considered the spiritual mentor of Buddhism in Tibet.

Persiflage,

I mean if you can see the grasping, you can release it and get to the emptiness.

I think it was Hume who said that whenever he thought of his "self" all he could come to was associated objects.

Persiflage,

Thanks for your post!

I've had glimpses of the emptiness and I think it is possible to know it. Ditto, to let go of some of the grasping. There is, still, I think this problem of psychological bypassing that obtains for practitioners in the modern West.

Thomas Merton is too big a subject for me to blog on. I don't know how to interpret what he came to as his was a mind always becoming. His was a capacious mind, soul, but one still limited by nonsense, as one sees if one looks at some of his letters and what they say about the dangers of reading fiction that includes matters such as homosexuality.

On the other hand, humans do not reach perfection, wouldn't you agree?

Farnaz

Farnaz - I've seen several publications by Kornfeld. It stands to reason that unless one is able to live an entirely cloistered life, the dissolution of the ego and it's attendant complexes is near impossible, living up to the demands of everyday life. Periodic retreats are one potential remedy.

It's hard to imagine someone emerging from a monastery existence after many years and being able to cope with the madness of our daily lives -and one reason why long incarcerated prisoners return to prison rather quickly.

In the Buddhist view, that process of seeing into the emptiness of the ego, is essential to realization. Thinking of the well-known Catholic contemplative and author Thomas Merton, his struggles were just the opposite, as he dealt constantly with a spartan lifestyle and authoritarian infrastructure and succession of iron-willed abbots at the Trappist monastery of Gethsemane outside of Lousville, KY - where he lived as a monk for 30 years. He wrote widely on Buddhism and Zen as well as Christian mysticism, and died under mysterious circumstances in Bangkok while on a teaching sabbatical in 1960.

I was perusing 'The Three Pillars of Zen' by Philip Kapleau last night, and reading over the commentary by a number of other-wise ordinary people that had pursued the enlightenment experience over many years with varying degrees of success - their journeys were generally intermittant and interrupted by worldly concerns and obligations for long periods of time. A few did achieve extraordinary personal transformations in the end. A noted Zen master remarked that Zen was for healthy-minded people.

John Blofeld, a widely published author on Buddhism, Zen and Chinese culture married a Chinese woman in order that he might pursue his interest in the culture and religion of pre-communist China uninterrupted - although he was disinherited by his family.

By his own admission he failed in his goal of enlightenment because of scholarly, family, and worldly distractions - which he admittedly preferred to the rigors of the one-minded pursuit of his goal and the celebate religious life.

There's definitely a place for qualified guides if we're intent on chasing personal insight and self-realization....
_____________________

Regarding homosexual panic, the one good thing that BF Skinner and behaviorism contributed to humanity is treatment of phobias - through successive approximations one approaches that object of irrational and paralyzing fear until one is able to grasp it firmly in hand, so to speak - thus taking mental and sometimes tactual control over the object of our fear. For many, it's tougher than drinking castor oil, but does have a similar purgative effect!

regards -

Persiflage,

Now there is a condition, "heterosexism." The term is widely used, and, quiet as it's kept, most heterosexists are suffering from what Freud called "homosexual panic." It is terribly sad, really.

Hello, Persiflage,

Re: 'Homosexualist'

Never heard the word. Where did it come from? Sounds like something from the classic "Language and Thought in Paranoia."

Btw, I found your post on Gendlin--Thank you!

There are several highly Buddhist practitioners who, after years of study, concluded that for modern Western life a combination of Buddhist practice and a form of insight therapy were necessary. They believed that once back in the world, Buddhists found themselves ill-equipped to deal with problems that spoke to unresolved inner conflicts.

Of course cognitive behavioral therapy had long drawn from Buddhism, but these folks were not of that mind. One of them, John Weldon (see, e.g., "Toward a Psychology of Awakening"), studied with Gendlin. Another Jack Kornfield (see "A Path with Heart") went a different, less narrow route.
With others, he established insight therapy, which appears to have branches everywhere.

'Homosexualist' sounds downright hermaphroditic.

The kind of thing we could have seen in the circus side show of another generation, along side the bearded lady, the man with 4 arms, the two-headed baby, the sword swallower, and the amazing alligator man.

I suppose we're in good company after all - now I understand why mother only had just the one child.

A question for liberal minded Catholics:

Should Roman Catholics, worldwide, who oppose the RCC on women's ordination, homosexuality, birth control, etc., secede and form their own church?

Fitz

Your comments show you to be a mighty odd fellow. You are not really in a position to condemn "weird" people. You don't like to be called a bigot and a homophobe, but if you don't want to be called a bigot and a homophobe, then don't be a bigot and a homoobe; otherwise, get a thicker skin.

You want to shut down a whole group of people in ways that are much, much worse than merely calling people unpleasant names. So, why are you suprised when there is a push-back? Do you consider yourself some kind of priviledged character, who can get away scott free with arrogant pretentiousness, and no one will notice?

Your use of the word "homosexualist" is completely ridiculous and undermines all of your cedibility in these matters. I have never heard of this word "homosexualist;" before so I must guess what "homosexualist" means. Perhaps "homosexualist" means a person who knows that gay people want their rights, but nevertheless, does not hate them or oppose them. Wow! what an awfull thing to be!

I am sorry for you that the world is too small for gay people to live in it with you. But like you, they did not ask to be born, and I am afraid that you are condemned forever to live in a world with them. And look at it from their point of view; I am sure they do not like sharing the world with people like you, either.

I think you are paranoid, more than anything else, with your exagerated awareness of gay people, and your belief that gay people persecute straight people, when in reality, it is the other way around. I do not really think there is anything wrong with "shutting down" conversation that is little more than aggressive, mean-spirited paranoia.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo

I wonder if Mr. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo ever reads the comments generated by his own column.

If he did he would see a smattering of Catholics and Christian minds over whelmed by homosexualists, radical feminists and fellow travelers willing to use any means to the end of “problematsizing the Christian narrative”.

This milieu is so unscrupulous so as to proffer “evidence” as to Christ’s homosexuality in vain attempts to derail His eternal Word.

So…in the end we can see that Anthony Stevens-Arroyo supposed conciliatory message toward homosexuals in the Church is almost immediately swallowed up those with the most nefarious means.

So it would go (even further) where serious Catholics to except his compromises.

As they say “The revolution always eats its own”

Can you see Mr. Stevens-Arroyo what lies at the end of the path you would have His Church take?

It is right here in the comment thread of your very article….

Farnaz - thanks for the link. I sent you a response on Eugene Glendlin awhile back, but it disappeared forever on the conversation thread - didn't know of him directly but saw that he was allied with Carl Rogers at University of Chicago.

I included another link below for readers that have further interest in the various schools of Buddhism and meditation techniques.

We're completely agreed on the institution of marriage - in essence it's the implementation of a secular, legally binding contract with all the properties inherent in similar contractual agreements. With or without children, everyone that divorces discovers this first hand, much to their chagrin.

best regards .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81

Persiflage,

Yes. I mean what is the big deal about. I just don't get it. If we want just and love for all humanity, how can we get so caught up in this nonsense.

Marriage, if it is to continue, must be in the secular domain. If religious institutions wish to have a separate celebratory ceremony, fine.

But they should have no say whatsoever in this discussion.

Unfortunately, with Clinton out of the Senate, we will probably be stuck with Caroline Kennedy. Good grief. But I want to see the secularization of marriage in my life time, gay people have the right to marry, the end of tax exempt status for religious institutions.

No religionists of any sort at presidential inaugurations ever, ever again.

___________________________________

On to a more interesting topic. Eugene Gendlin isn't the only philosopher/psychologist of whom Buddhists are fond. Check out "Insight Meditation."

Regards,
Farnaz

Farnaz - sexual preference doesn't move me one way or another. It's just a natural fact and the engine that drives our biological reality.

Being of the same age range as CCNL, it's easy to sit back and pontificate on how life should be, and how folks should act......comfortable in our firmly established points of view. This is not reality, however.

And that's all I'm interested in......

best regards, as always

Btw., Persiflage, Smith is not alone in his Jesus gender surmising.

Frankly, I wasn't at all interested, but wrote something meant to be provocative and amusing to CCNL, and he asked for "attestations." There's quite a bit of literature, including books, on the subject, by traditional "NT" scholars.

Well, Persiflage, assuming he existed, suppose he simply had sex with this boy and/or other boys.

Then what? What if he was bisexual or gay?

Hi Farnaz - I wasn't familiar with the manuscript that you mention. While the text sounds sexual initially, this also has a feel reminiscent of the rites & rituals of the (contemporary) Eleusinian mysteries....it is surmised that drugs, potions, and hallucinogens (ergot derivitives) were employed in these transcendentally based rituals.

Sexual activity would not be surprising......thinking back to my own drug-induced experiences of many years ago.

The 'Kingdom of God is within', said Jesus. I take this to be the substance of the revelation, and not different from the techniques employed by the masters of various Eastern mystical systems - designed to give a brief view or glance of the Ultimate Reality or the Absolute once the neophite is judged ready for the experience.

On the other hand, plenty of sexual activity has been reported at the hand of various gurus and within the confines of 'holy' ashrams to create suspicion. It would seem the ancient quest for enlightenment and realization is not without risk - the black path is the one more commonly followed by the magi of the past and present.

Defining heterosexual marital unions by their (traditionally based) capacity for reproduction seems particularly limited by modern standards.

There are certainly many such marriages that are thriving without children (either natural or adopted). This could be by choice or by nature's design, but choice is generally the controlling factor with couples that opt for no children.

In truth, children are not for everyone - while the quest for a successful marriage is far more pervasive. In Western technologically based cultures reproduction is not the driving force it once was as people consider the various reasons and rationales for marriage.

Books have been written - time to bone up on our current reality.

Persiflage,

You raise and interesting question. This is more for CCNL's benefit than yours, but perhaps it will interest you as well. Persiflage, are you familiar with this? It's caused quite a ruckus among some Christians.

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

CCNL must one day admit to the fact of divergant views - how could the potential homosexuality of the historical Jesus possibly effect the spiritual quality of his message?

On the other hand, if Jesus was actually an Essene or a Gnostic, or a devotee of the Greek mystery religions, he may have followed the likes of Gautama Buddha or the practitioners of Kundalini Yoga - he may have taken an early vow of chastity and followed the subtle & esoteric path where Mary Magdalene was his spiritual female consort and surrogate - not exactly the Yin Yang of tantric practice, but close.

When one contends with mythos, it's well advised that we don't give in to our own pre-conceived notions and personal prejudices when interpreting the past - a clear and objective view without value-laden perceptions is recommended.

CCNL point as to gay "sex' being mutual masturbation is well taken.

It is a plain matter of fact that only a single man & a single woman can perform the "conjugal act" (or the "maritial act" - or biblically the "one flesh union")

This is not simply some obscure biological and scientific fact - but a rather mundane and ordinary fact. (the kind of fact that even children readily understand...Mommy & Daddies make Babaies)

Quoting Professor Germain Grisez

“it is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it cannot be carried out by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair….”

“Though a male and a female are complete individuals with respect to other functions – for example nutrition, sensation, and locomotion- with respect to reproduction they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually.(the.."conjugal act" "maritial act" "one flesh union")

Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism”

Notes a though experiment by Grisez

"Imagine a type of bodily, rational being that reproduces, not by mating but by some individual performance. Imagine that for these beings, however, locomotion or digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by biologically complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anybody have any difficulty understanding that in respect to reproduction the organism performing the function is the individual, while in respect of locomotion or digestion the organism performing the function is the united pair?"

The denial and/or degredation of this fact marks the zeal of a political movment. Not the workings of a cogent mind.

Many of you need a good dose of "Dr. Ruthing" when it comes to the "gay ways".

For a less expensive study of the "gay ways" there is always the "google way". And your conclusion will be: "yes indeed, gay sex is "mutual masturbation" with or without a monogamous relationship."

And one must always check sources e.g. the website "delving into" the gayness of the simple preacher man:

From their note "About Us"-http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

"We are a multi-faith group. As of 2008-FEB, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc."

Give us a break!!!

Was Jesus gay? Was Mary Magdalene really a tramp? Were they married? All interesting questions for the bibliophile.....see below.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

Many heterosexuals have made significant contributions to history. I think we should continue to allow them to marry.

Great to see you back, Pam.

PAMSM (WRITES)
“Yes, I see that judicial homophobes are threading a particularly fine needle to try to justify their prejudice.”

I see – even the Judges in come of this countries most sympathetic venues to the cause of same-sex “marriage” when they rule against you become targets for nothing more than invective.
Same-sex marriage has lost in the majority of state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in including New York, Maryland, Washington State, New Jersey... When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely.
The majority of these court’s have held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state's definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

PAMSM (WRITES)
“I also see that you are only quoting the opinions that back your own homophobia. Two can play that game, although I'm sure it won't dent the wall of your bigotry:”

This is name calling. It is meant to shut down conversation and not facilitate it. This is a species of stridency. You have called me “phobic & a bigot” repeatedly. No I am not going to make your argument for you. I don’t however need to resort to slander and denigration to make my case. I will simply point out how you are wrong both as a matter of law 7 of public policy.

Were the movie-famous 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae really gay?

Either way, a thoroughly entertaining movie, with the original version being made in 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

And Pam - you've always been an impressive and knowledgeable poster. I didn't recall your work history with the friendly skies of United! Nice to have you back......

PS. to Daniel - I didn't realize CCNL was a self-declared fan of gay porn....but I suppose true research knows no boundries.

CNNL is talking about "gay sexual activity" which he probably thinks he knows a great deal about from watching gay porn. That is fine with me.

I was talking about "gay sexual orientation" which is a descripton of a complicated aspect of the personality, something much more complex than skin color or hair texture.

At least he is starting to admit that there is a difference.

Wow, the "Dr. Ruths" are out in force this evening!!!

Scraping away all the rhetoric again, gay sexual activity is nothing more than mutual masturbation. And Alex the Great's "greatness" was due to his method of warfare not where he stuck his penis. Apparently, most if not all the powerful Macedonians to include Alex's bisexual father suffered from this defect. Or maybe it was simply that humankind had not evolved to the point to see that adultery was a bane on society??

My understanding of sexual orientation is that it is a feeling of sexual attraction for people of the opposite sex, or of your own sex. Above and beyond this, there are no other criteria. So gay people can be married and have children, to fit in and to appear "normal" but they are still gay. Gay Catholic priests can try to be celebate, but they are still gay. Straight men can have sex with other men in prison, where there are no women, but that would not make them gay or bisexual.

In the long list of famous gay people, there are a number of men, included, who lived fairly conventional lives with wives and children, but were known to have an episode in their lives in which they were in love with a man. That they are gay is therefore an inference with a high degree of certainty.

Alexander the Great was in love with Hephaistion, and he had little interest or interaction with women. He married a woman he did not know in an arranged marriage to unite the people's and cultures of Persia and Greece. He did not have a tatoo on his forehead saying that he was gay, but historions infer, with some degree of certainty, that he was. People with an anti-gay agenda like to airbrush this out of history, because Alexander was one of the most competent and influential men in history, and the fact of his existence sort of blows their paradigm.

It is not a major point of contention with me if CCNL does not believe this.

Hi Persiflage,
Yes, I'm the old Pam, but not a biologist by profession. I was a Physical Anthropology major in college (art minor), and have had a life-long, keen interest in biology and evolution. My bookshelves groan under numerous books and other publications on the subjects, but I've never worked a day in the field. I gave in to the siren song of the airlines, in order to see the world. I have seen it, and it enabled me to get much closer to my interests via African safaris and trips into the South American rainforests. But no credentials. :)

I agree that there's no changing what nature has wrought. All the religion, psychotherapy, and determination in the world won't make a gay man straight, or vice-versa.

CCNL is hopeless.

Yes, there are truly bi-sexual people, and lots of other flavors besides. I do think that same-sex behvior where there is no other choice (as in prison), will quickly revert to the previous preference once a choice is reinstated. No real change has come about.

I suspect that the reason there are so many gay Catholic priests is that Catholic kids are so immersed in their religion as youths, and Catholicism has such rigid sexual proscriptions, that a young man who comes to realize that he's gay, feels completely trapped. He can't make himself feel attraction to a woman, and knows that to indulge his true proclivities will earn him social ostracism, perhaps even from his family, and excommunication - a ticket to hell.

So he decides to become a priest, thinking that the celibacy will save him from the horns of his dilemma. And we've seen what happens after that.

Human sexual desire is a force to be reckoned with - often stronger than hunger, or even the will to live. Not easily denied. Nature made it so for a reason.

PAMSM - I'm sure you're right about opposite-sex attraction and reproductive drives in general. If sexual orientation is determined in utero via hormones, sexuality is still a pre-determined attribute - like being left-handed.

In either case, trying to alter what nature has wrought is futile and even detrimental to the individual. If you're the Pam from the old days I know your a biologist, so I'm not telling you anything new!

Here I'm just disagreeing with the CCNL point of view that homosexuality needs fixing via some fantasized and futuristic hormonal manipulation process - as though being heterosexual was (socially or culturally speaking) in any way superior to homosexuality as regards positive contributions to humanity. Our burgeoning population doesn't necessarily need more sperm donors - better parenting, better education, better economies and better government are meanwhile indispensible.

I suppose my real point is that heterosexual individuals can and will choose same-sex behavior under a variety of circumstances - which seems to indicate the possibility that humans have a more pan-sexual orientation than either genetics or embryonic developmental hardwiring can account for.

As one example, non-reproductive no-strings-attached sexual fun can be had with members of one's own sex (on the downlow) while living an active and public heterosexual lifestyle. To say that homosexuality in prison populations is universal is no revelation - not the best example, since much of this is forced sex, but still a reality.

How many undeclared homosexuals - to be found among famous and pious Catholics of the past and present there may be is anyone's guess. I'd wager that more than a few famous contributors to the faith were of that very persuasion.....

Hi Persiflage,
I agree with most of what you've written, but not entirely with these two items:

1 - "Any number of heterosexual males would probably have to admit to brief experimentation in the form of sexual dalliences with other young males (mutual masturbation?) during their pubescent years. And yet, they don't consider themselves to be 'homosexual'."

I don't think this has any bearing on their orientation, although it probably scares some of them later when they think back on it. :)
I think this (early puberty) is just a time of great curiosity about sex, combined with a great deal of timidity about the opposite sex. Therefore, boys (and some girls) talk about and experiment with sex among their friends, who are mainly their own sex. Sometimes this also happens with opposite-sex siblings.

"It could well be that most humans are in fact genetically bisexual, with only one clear preference typically manifesting or emerging behaviorally. I think looking at homosexuality as a genetic abberation is just dead wrong - how is sexual preference different from left-handedness?"

This I don't agree with at all. Clearly, nature would select for opposite-sex attraction, as evolution depends on reproduction. But I don't think it's a genetic issue at all. We're probably almost all wired correctly genetically, except those who have extra chromosomes. The problem comes in development, which is an exquisitely complicated process, where timing is everything. In fact, timing is the main thing that separates us from chimpanzees - we're neotenized apes. But I digress. Brains are sexualized early in embryonic development when the embryo's own hormones flood the developing brain (or don't), making it a male or a female brain (one will prefer to play with toy trucks, the other with dolls), regardless of what's under the diaper.

See a general overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

There's plenty more in-depth online - just Google it.

CCNL - in my view any rigid view of human sexuality is bound to be wrong. We know very well that there exists such a thing as a sexual continuum, but where it starts and stops with regard to heterosexuality vs homosexuality is unknown.

Any number of heterosexual males would probably have to admit to brief experimentation in the form of sexual dalliences with other young males (mutual masturbation?) during their pubescent years. And yet, they don't consider themselves to be 'homosexual'.

It could well be that most humans are in fact genetically bisexual, with only one clear preference typically manifesting or emerging behaviorally. I think looking at homosexuality as a genetic abberation is just dead wrong - how is sexual preference different from left-handedness?

Under certain circumstances, many heterosexuals could comfortably engage in homosexual behaviors without compunction, and of that I'm convinced.

Don't you just hate to watch lefties trying to write? It looks like their wrist is broken, or something! Kind of yucky, but I suppose it can't be helped. On the other hand, the list of exceptional lefties is probably a long one - success being based on an extreme effort to overcome the limits and inherent social barriers of being lefthanded, no doubt.

On a more serious note, marriage and religion, like all other institutions, are human constructs ruled by man-made laws based on man-made ethical/moral traditions. Nothing is set in stone and all 'traditions' are subject to change -change being the only constant that we know of.

Since you know all of this, I'm not quite sure why you persist in your resistence to the inevitable? Gay rights in all forms will soon be equivilant to the rights of every other member of society at large - and why not?

Homosexuality is all but completely out of the closet and is a widely recognized social and biological reality. Obama may appoint an openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy, we see in the news today.

Brave new world, or a world built on common sense? I hope the latter is where we're headed...

For CCNL

Hephaestion was not Alexander the Great's boy lover; they were both the same age. They met at about the age of 14 and remained together for the rest of their lives. I think that makes them gay. They both married Persian Princesses as a political gesture to join the Greek and Persian cultures. This does not indicate a sexual interest in women, so they probably were not bisexual.

I do not think that you know what a gay person is or what a bisexual person is. Most of the things you say about gay people are untrue stereotypes which indicate your ignorance.

If you want to know about gay people, then why don't you ask them? They are everywhere and are not hard to find. If you claim not to know any, and if you claim not to know where to find any, nor how to meet any, then I would suggest that you should not worry or care about people who are so invisible to you, that there is no detectablt trace of them.

Persiflage,

Citing a gay site as an authority on gay guys might be questionable but the references to the historians from A the G time period are given so it does appear male Macedonians had "boy" lovers but note they were also into gal lovers making them bisexual not homosexual. Both defects have survived. What are the causes? Gene defects? Hormonal imbalance? Nose (phermone)/Eye/brain communication problems? Effeminate "boys"? Lack of females on the forced marches? Or all or combinations of these?

An observation:

What should be said at any religious blessing of a gay union:

"We gather together today to join these two in heavenly mutual masturbation."

May I offer a link for the famous CCNL electronic home library?

http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-literature/famous-homosexuals/alexander-great-gay/alexander-great-gay.html

No matter how many ways that Fitz can figure out to split a hair, still all of his arguments against gay marriage are based in ignorance of gay people, and ignorance is NEVER due respect. I do not know if you can blame people for being ignorant, but what about people who are willfully ignorant, and proud of it?

Maybe part of his education should be a good swift kick in the pants.

Fitz4 says:
"See?"

Yes, I see that judicial homophobes are threading a particularly fine needle to try to justify their prejudice.

I also see that you are only quoting the opinions that back your own homophobia. Two can play that game, although I'm sure it won't dent the wall of your bigotry:

In Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, ante 309 (2003) (Goodridge), the court considered the constitutional question "[w]hether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage . . . ." Id. at 312-313. The court concluded that it may not do so, determining that the Commonwealth had failed to articulate a rational basis for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. The court stated that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." Id. at 312. The court concluded that in "[l]imiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples," G. L. c. 207, the marriage licensing law, "violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution." Goodridge at 342.

In so concluding, the court enumerated some of the concrete tangible benefits that flow from civil marriage, including, but not limited to, rights in property, probate, tax, and evidence law that are conferred on married couples. Id. at 322-325. The court also noted that "intangible benefits flow from marriage," id. at 322, intangibles that are important components of marriage as a "civil right." Id. at 325. The court stated that "[m]arriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry . . . [and] is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." Id. at 322. "Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition." Id. Therefore, without the right to choose to marry, same-sex couples are not only denied full protection of the laws, but are "excluded from the full range of human experience." Id. at 326.

Dan in the Den,

Hmmm, still no references as to why you believe Alex the Great was gay other than you "just believe"? So I guess you believe in a lot of no eye-witness "history" e.g. visits by "pretty, wingie, talking thingies to Joe Smith and Mahound, the resurrection and ascension of the simple preacher man, and the assumption of his mother??

CCNL

As I said, I googled "Hephaestion" and got over 94,000 references. I didn't read them all; I am not researching this subject, since I was already aware that Alexander the Great had a life long same sex relationship with Hephaestion. I am a little suprised that you have never heard of this. In any event, if you find this interesting, you are free to look it up. It is not my worry, since I am already satisfied that it is true.

Alexander also had blonde hair, among an ethnic people who generally have dark or black hair. He was regarded by his soildiers as "unusual" and of course, he was; he is the link between Classical Greece, and the Hellenistic world that impressed its culture upon the Roman nation and Empire, and then on the subsequent Catholic Church, which was passed down through Medeival Europe to us, in our own day.

So without gay Alexander the Great, we would all probably be speaking Persian today, and Ahkmadinjad would President of the United States. So actually, straight people should like gay people and not regard them as silly figures of fun.

It is all actaully a pretty serious matter after all, isn't it?

This is just too good not to borrow:

"A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

"B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

"C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

"D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

"E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

"F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

"G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your father drunk and have intercourse with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), having your sisters, if any, join you in the same exercise. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)"

Thanks to "inbox_blues" in comments to Joe Solmonese's piece "Obama's Inaugural Mistake" in today's Washington Post.

Pamsm(writes)

"Oh, please. Don't trot out the old "procreation" chestnut. Do you think that marriage licenses should be denied to couples that include a menopausal or otherwise infertile woman? A vasectomized or naturally sterile man?"

Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.

Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

From the Washington State Supreme Court Decision

“But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”

OR

"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1

1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)

See?

DITLD- one of my most favorite books, literary characters!

Dan in the Den,

94,000 references to Alex's boy friend? All related to Alex the Great? Tis the source of the story that is needed not some encyclopedia or dictionary reference. Think Greek or Macedonia historians from the time of Alex. Without that, you are looking at legends or hearsay. Include all the yucky details if there are any.

Fitz4,
You said:
"They all describe marriage as traditionally defined. Even more interesting is that half those cases deal directly with procreation."

Oh, please. Don't trot out the old "procreation" chestnut. Do you think that marriage licenses should be denied to couples that include a menopausal or otherwise infertile woman? A vasectomized or naturally sterile man? For that matter, do you think the U.S. has a vested interest in encouraging population growth? Gay couples often adopt - something we could use more of, given the millions of unwanted children.

I do realize that there are many homophobic straight men out there - I'm guessing that you're one - some of whom wear black robes and are willing to make definitions very narrow in order to satisfy their bigotry. I also realize that it's still possible for homophobic majorities to vote bigotry into law. But this never holds up against the pressure of an idea whose time has come, or a minority that has been unjustly repressed for too long. Look at the right of women to vote, or of equal rights for African-Americans.

Don't stand on the train tracks.

Apart from that, Freestinker and DITLD have expressed my views quite nicely.

CCNL

If you were gay, wouldn't you want gay marriage?

Remember what Atticus Finch said? You don't really know a person until you climb into their skin and walk around for awhile.

Do you understand what he meant by that? Do you think that you could do that?

CCNL

I googled the name "Hephaestion" and got over 94,000 references. You can do the same, and read the ones you care to.

Frankly, I am a little suprised that you do not know anything about Alexander and Hephaestion; is it upsetting to you to realize that Alexander the Great was gay? It didn't seem to interfere with his abilities as a conquoring general, if you think that sort of thing is admirable.

And what about Perry Mason? No wonder he never paid attention to Della.

Alot of people are gay; it is not a big deal; even the currently sitting Pope is more than likely gay.

So what?

CNNL

I gave you the name. You're free to look it up, if you care to. If not, don't bother. It is not a secret, or anything. It is nothing that I am trying to prove. If you don't believe it, that's ok with me.

Dan in the Den,

And your references supporting that Alex the Great had a life-time friend who was gay?? Historians from the time period? Speculation from a later time period? Legend? Book references to all please?

"The proper question is – Is redefining marriage as a genderless institution properly a right in our constitution? OR Ought we as a nation redefine marriage to be genderless?"

Fitz4,

My answer is YES on both counts.

Care to answer your own question?

For Fitz

"Your question begging. The proper question is – Is redefining marriage as a genderless institution properly a right in our constitution? OR Ought we as a nation redefine marriage to be genderless?"

This is not about redefining anything. That is YOUR red herring. It is about simple justice and equality for ALL Americans. Your problem is with the vocal chords of gay people, that they are now using them, to ask for their rights.

When gay people have all of their rights, you will see that your life and your own marriage will continue on as it has, with barely a ripple. The only thing is, that you will have lost your legal basis to scapegoat gay people for all of your personal and emotional failures and shortcomings.

It is a much simpler matter than you are making it. In fact, being gay is not big deal at all; it is almost nothing, in fact; people like you, who make such a fuss over the new found voice of gay people, are the ones who have exagerated it into something big and menacing, both personally to yourself, and to society.

Gay people are not menacing; seeking justice for oneself is not menacing; it is what everyone does. On the bright side, I take heart that people like you actually seem to be afraid of gay people, and no longer regard them merely as sub-human fools, to be mocked and dismissed with prurient and childish laughter.

Yes, maybe you should be afraid, be afraid that people whom you despise so much may one day soon have the same rights as you have.

Fitz4,

I didn't think you could defend the principle (nobody else can either) but I thought you deserved a chance.

Thanks for proving my point!

FREESTINKER (WRITES)
Q. “Please spare us the legal history and address the principle.”

A. The “legal History” along with statutory law IS the law & encompasses the principle in dispute. Your attempt to hone the question toward a satisfactory answer is already addressed within the law itself.

Q. “Should marriage law, or any law for that matter, discriminate against people solely based on their gender?”

A. To date no court has addressed this issue as one of gender discrimination. Rather they have created the “suspect class” of gays – and preceded on that basis,

Q. If your answer is yes, you must provide a compelling government interest for excluding some citizens but not others from obtaining a civil marriage license.

A. That’s called “burden shifting” – and it simply cant be done (as much as you would like) It is you who must provide & show that the State has “no rational basis” for preserving marriage as traditionally understood in the law. Ultimately your challenge is greater than that – as marriage quo “marriage” is a fundamental constitutional right.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN (WRITES)
Q. “No matter how complicated you try to make it, it is merely a matter of simple justice. No matter how many legalistic barricades you throw up against the expansion of equal rights, gay people will never, ever stop asking for their rights.”

A. Your question begging. The proper question is – Is redefining marriage as a genderless institution properly a right in our constitution? OR Ought we as a nation redefine marriage to be genderless?

Q. “This is an argument and a fight that you had better get prepared to wage for the rest of your life.”

A. I am so prepared…sir.

Fizt4,

Please spare us the legal history and address the principle.

Should marriage law, or any law for that matter, discriminate against people solely based on their gender?

If your answer is yes, you must provide a compelling government interest for excluding some citizens but not others from obtaining a civil marriage license.

If your answer is no, then either the legal definition of marriage must be changed to include same-sex couples ...

OR

The law must be changed to provide civil unions for all, regardless of gender, and leave marriage to the private sector to define any way they chose.

Fitz4

So what does all that mean? Are you for gay marriage, or against it?

No matter how complicated you try to make it, it is merely a matter of simple justice. No matter how many legalistic barricades you throw up against the expansion of equal rights, gay people will never, ever stop asking for their rights.

This is an argument and a fight that you had better get prepared to wage for the rest of your life.

Speed123 is evidently so filled with hate that he/she can't even have a civilized debate without resorting to a series of pointless ad hominem attacks.

When people like Speed123 resort to attacks on their opponent's character instead of defending their position, it is a sure sign that their argument is otherwise completely empty.

Pamsm,
“I notice that the case law precedents you cite are from 1987 at the latest, and 1942 (!!) at the earliest. Times do change, you know. Supreme Court decisions aren't chisled in stone. But the constitution still requires equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Hopefully we are evolving to the point where we actually observe that requirement. A few state supreme courts have done so. Good for them!”

The list the New York Supreme Court points to is the exhaustive list of U.S. Supreme Court precedents on marriage.They all describe marriage as traditionally defined. Even more interesting is that half those cases deal directly with procreation.

They don’t have an expiration date.Multiple State Supreme Courts from Washington, Maryland, NewYork have (within the last 5 years) upheld the clear weight of precedent and the law. This is in addition to 30 State constitutional amendments.

This right to marriage –is a right to “marriage” quo “marriage”.

As you say a “few state supreme courts have done so” but those (very) few State Supreme courts have done so against the clear weight of the very right they purport to uphold. As those dissents have clearly stated.

As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -

“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1

"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2

"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3

Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4

1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)

For CNNL,

The name of Alexander the Great's friend was "Hephaestion." (When I say it, I pronounce it like this: Heh-fye-stee-yun."

They did not have a "great affair;" they were life long friends from early teenage years until they died in their 30's. It wasn't a "lifestyle," either; it was just life.

Alexander died soon after his friend died, and his grief for Hephaestion probabaly contributed to his death. Alexander made Hephaestion's funeral into a gigantic and extravagant spectacle.

You are free to look his name up and research it all you want. It is not worth my trouble to do it for you.

And also, there are many, many gay men and women who have children. More in the past than now, gay people commonly marreid and had children, not because they were bisexual, but because they felt socially compelled to.

You seem to know alot about gay porn, for some reason, but I do not think that you know much about gay people at all. If you would like to know how gay people feel about being gay, and what they think has caused them to be gay, and if a person can be gay but still have children, then just ask some gay people. That way, you do not have to make wrong guesses, and you do not have to needlessly speculate in the wrong directions.

What could be easier than than that?

Dan in the Den,

It is assumed that your list of famous people with the homosexual defect did not have offspring the natural way. If they did, they would not be on the list but would be under famous people with the bisexual defect. Might want to "google" for such a list just like you did to find the list of famous gay persons.

And Alex the Great's "affair" with the young man was an authenicated historical event having multiple attestations and eye-witness accounts written during or near the life of said Alex?

daniel- I really hate that term "love the sinner, hate the sin," because gays are neither sinners or sinning. That underlying little lie that people use to defend their actions against gays is the actually the big lie. And until people get over that idea, gays will be fighting for their rights.

This is along the lines of CNNL's comments on my list of gay people.

Some questions for readers of this thread to think about:

Does anyone find this list suprising? Might some of the people be listed incorrectly? What do people think of this list? Does this effect or change the way anyone thinks about being gay?

Without gay people, we wouldn't have Handel's "Messaiah;" we wouldn't have Michealangelo's "Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel;" we wouldn't have the "King James authorized Bible."

There would be alot of other things in life that we take for granted, that simply would never have come into being, and simply would not exist.

Does any of this matter? Does "love the sinner, hate the sin" mean anything when it is splashed around in the real world, with real people, who have suffered and died, and contribited so much that we could all have better lives?

For CCNL

You complimented me on my list of "intrinsically disordered" gay people, noting that it is too bad that none of them were able to "procreate."

Being gay is a collection of traits that is more than same sex attraction. And same sex attraction is more the logistics of sex positions and it is more than "mens kissing mens" (oh my) and girls kissing girls.

Gay people can procreate. I have no reason to believe that none of the people that I listed had children. I would assume that a few of them, maybe even alot of them, had children. Historically, gay people have married and have had children.

Remember Alexander the Great, who had a relationship with his friend Hisphaistion, that is described very much like a modern-day gay couple? He married the Persian Princess, Roxanne. Remember? He was a gay man, married to a woman.

I don't have the time or interest to research the children of the people on my list, but if you are interested in this, why don't you research it?

You would at least admit, that your reflex reaction that none of them had children is more than likely wrong, wouldn't you?

ccnl- the only person with a serious defect is you.You must have a really crappy life- that or you're just a professional troll unable to hold a real conversation or a thought.

But isn't it nice to know all those people with "defects" have contributed so much and you- well, you certainly haven't.

What's this talk about gay people not adding to the evolutionary process? Gay people have all the right parts and the parts still work -- they just don't procreate in the traditional fashion. They can still donate sperm or eggs to clinics, hire a surrogate, etc.

Trust me, the evolutionary process is still alive and well in the homosexual population.

Speedy - I notice that you haven't addressed any of my questions from 12/17 at 5:56 PM. Is that because you have no answers?

Fitz4 - My handle is Pamsm, not "Psalm", which would be most inappropriate for me. My name is Pam - I was forced to add the extra letters when WaPo decided to require registration.

I notice that the case law precedents you cite are from 1987 at the latest, and 1942 (!!) at the earliest. Times do change, you know. Supreme Court decisions aren't chisled in stone. But the constitution still requires equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Hopefully we are evolving to the point where we actually observe that requirement. A few state supreme courts have done so. Good for them!

Dan in the Den,

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.

And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

Speed123:

I see what you mean. It's not the paradox I imagine if I pretend that Jesus isn't, indivisibly and eternally, the same god who inspired all that crazy talk in the Old Testament. Thanks for that!

cornbread,

It is not the catch 22 you imagine when you understand the role of Christ as the fulfillment of the Word in flesh.

Speed123 wrote: "I am not 'proud' when I state that there is an objective truth of right and wrong - good and evil - that is not subject to our individual interpretation."

In your God-inspired holy book you are told: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

Do you obey God's word because it's the right thing to do or because God commands it?

If you don't condone killing gay people, how have you not individually interpreted the divine source of your "objective" standard of right and wrong?

carolinemiranda- let's get something straight. The issue is not getting approval from the church. It's not even being able to get married in a church. It is the right to be married- as recognized by the state. so that gay unions will be accorded the same rights and benefits as any other marriage by the state.

The anger against the RCC and the Mormons, among others, is not so gays can march into your church and have a wedding with a cheesy reception in the basement meeting room. It's the right to go to City hall and be married by a justice of the peace. That's what they are being denied.

Many gays care about their churches because many of them happen to be religious. But the issue os not gaining your approval, it's stopping you from denying them a civil ceremony- which happens to be an arena you have no business sticking your nose in.

carolinemiranda,

You are making way too many assumptions.

There are gay members of the Catholic Church. If you are a member of a church and feel that it was taking part in something morally horrendous wouldn't you look to change it from within rather than leave?

Also, you talk as if the so called "Left" are not mutually exclusive from the Church. Left and Right are. Catholic and Protestant are. Someone can just as easily be gay, "Left", and Catholic as they can be straight/Left/protestant or any other combination. Why are you trying to criticize members of an organization who want that see that organization at its moral best?

It is not clear why gay activists seek the approval and recognition of their relationships by the Catholic Church, an institution they denounce as narrow minded and exclusionary on this issue. The Catholic Church has values and morals not in alignment with the secular world, and it cannot be expected it will change to satisfy the whim of vocal activists. Inclusiveness and diversity touted by the Left cannot come at the expense of sacrificing one's values, so the Left and the Church cannot coalesce on this point. It also is unclear why a religious blessing is so important to activisits, when they are so vehemently critical and angry about the Church's position. Why, then, do they so desperately seek its approval?

Psalm (writes)

""Nope, "he" doesn't. In this country, the constitution does. If you don't like that, there are theocracies you can move to.""

You are misreading the Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

Dear Speed124

STOP scapegoating gay people for all of your failures and short-comings. You are promoting lies, just mean and brutal lies.

Gay people do not harrass and bully straight people. That is your delusion.

The problem is that straight people have bullied and tormented gay people for a couple thousand years, and YOUR church was in the past, and is still today, one of the worst offenders.

You are just a punk with a chip on your shoulder; you want special privileges for yourself and your group, at the expense of gay people

The problem is not that gay people exist; they have always existed. The problem is that gay people have come out of the closet and have found a voice. I hardly think that speaking up for oneself after centuries of mute silence constitutes bullying or fascism. That is your delusion, and your mania.

Gay people are done being everyone's scapegoat. If that gives you heartburn, then maybe you should chew on a tums.

No speed123- i don't care to use bigotry to deny people care while I hold my hand out for their money. Nor do I care to allow religious conservatives determine what is considered moral for me. And I don't care for medical personnel who put themselves before their patients. I don't condone discrimination against gays or women. If that makes me selfish- fine. I can live with that more than I can stomach being refused medical treatment at a hospital that my taxes pays the bills for..

Just what fertilization services are provided for in Catholic hospitals. In vitro - I don't think so. Artificial insemination? I doubt it. Natal care yes.

My take on that- all that money can go to hospitals that don't try to force their religious viewpoint on everyone else. Build better hospitals for those who actually believe in what the constitution says.

FYI- yes medicare and medicaid go directly to the doctor or facility- but not in lump sums. Payments are made on behalf of individuals.

PS - I changed my mind...

Let's shut down 1/3 of all hospitals, along with charities, orphanages, churches, food shelters and schools that serve the poorest classes in America.

We should do this so that a wealth, politically connected minority can force society to agree with a behavior that they inherently disagree with.

Let's also call this disagreement "hate speech" and jail anyone who disagrees with this behavior endorsed by the state.

Sounds completely fair.

Homosexuals sure do act similar to power hungry fascists...

"U.S. law condoned slavery and discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years too but that doesn't make it right for them to continue to do so, now does it?"

All I have to say is, wow...

What an outrageous and disrespectful comparison.

No one is trying to discriminate against homosexuals, as I said, civil unions are OK - however, marriage is between a man and woman.

You are the aggressor, free stinker - attempting to intimindate those who disagree your revisionism (even by violence and historical misinterpretation) with into submission.

You wish to destroy any group that disagrees with your opinion (that marriage is a "right") and will use the state/schools/blacklists etc to do so.

Like I said, this is not about rights, this is about power.

"The fact remains that these adoption centers ran for 100 + years before the homosexual power movement gained traction in the state capital."

Speed123,

U.S. law condoned slavery and discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years too but that doesn't make it right for them to continue to do so, now does it?

Of course it's their choice to either follow the law or lose their license. It's a completely fair law and it's completely fair for the Catholic Church to leave. Nobody's rights are trampled in either case.

Sparrow: "catholic hospitals who accept public funds should hire medical personnel who think first about the care of their patient, not their own religion."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you Sparrow?

Welfare of the patient is enhanced by moral practices not denigrated.

Unless you think that abortion is in keeping with the Hippocratic oath...

As for fertilization services, they are provided at hospitals and related facilities; however, your particular secular extremism would deny health care funding by the state for the poor and needy in the name of extreme individual rights of a privileged/proud few lesbians/gays...

PS - medicare pays directly to these hospitals for services rendered.

In any case, your blindness and selfishness are really spectacular...

speed123- hospitals don't normally provide fertilization services for anyone. You go to a specialist for that (I happen to know.) So that has nothing to do with Catholic hospitals. Medicare and medicaid go for medical services for individuals. It is not a grant.

But if you are a hospital or clinic providing services and receive public funding you have a responsibility to the taxpayer. Or should we just let every cult and religion decide who get what medical services and when. catholic hospitals who accept public funds should hire medical personnel who think first about the care of their patient, not their own religion. Hire catholic doctors for those who base medical care on the bible. But I reiterate- if you accept public funds, you have a responsibility to taxpayers who provide the money, and to your patients. Can't accept that, don't go into the medical field.

Following is a partial list of famous people who also bear the Catholic label "intrinsically disordered."

Nick Adams
Edward Albee
Alexander the Great
Lawrence of Arabia
Fancis Bacon
James Baldwin
Tallulah Bankhead
Samual Barber
Leonard Bernstein
Benjamin Britten
President James Buchanan
Raymond Burr
Lord Byron
Lewis Caroll
Willa Cather
John Cheever
Maurice Chevalier
Frederick Chopin
Montgomery Clift
Roy Cohn
Anderson Cooper
Noel Coward
Hart Crane
George Cukor
Dan Dailey
Salvador Dali
Claude Debussy
Edgar Degas
Emily Dickenson
Christian Dior
Daphne Du Maurier
Isadora Duncan
Amelia Earhart
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Erasmus
Errol Flynn
E.M.Forster
Stephen Foster
Frederick the Great
Greta Garbo
Sir John Gielgud
Edvard Grieg
Alexander Hamilton
Dag Hammarskjold
George Frederick Handel
Judy Holliday
J. Edgar Hoover
Vladimir Horowitz
Langston Hughes
Rock Hudson
Tab Hunter
John Maynard Keynes
King James I
Charles Laughton
Henry James
Ernst Mahler
Ian McKellan
Herman Melville
Michaelangelo
John Milton
Sal Mineo
Peter the Great
Alexander Pope
Tyrone Power
Raphael
Maurice Ravel
Franz Schubert
Robert Louis Stevenson
Shepherd Smith
Peter Tchaikovsky
Alfred Lord Tennyson
Henry David Thoreau
Leo Tolstoy
Walt Whitman
Thornton Wilder
Tennessee Williams
Oscar Wilde
Rudolph Valentino
Voltaire

Speed123 says:
"Homosexuality is inherently wrong - it is based on lust, and pride and rebellion from the basic teachings of all religions."

Oh, merde du cheval, Speedy. It's based on exactly the same things that heterosexuality is - lust being part of both. There is also love, companionship, and sharing of life's joys and burdens. Rebellion has NOTHING to do with it. Gays don't choose to be attracted to their own sex any more than you chose to be attracted to the opposite one. Do you recall wrestling with the problem of which way to go? Did the gay "lifestyle" seem almost unbearably compelling to you, but you just exercised all your moral willpower and went the godly way?

"This is not a 'Catholic' thing - this is a moral thing. Catholics are supported by traditional Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Mormons and Black Baptists and Hispanic Evangelicals etc etc..."

Yup - all the patriarchal religions with books written by men, who happen to find gay sex upsetting. Don't kid yourself. Your book also condones polygamy and women as chattel. Think that's right, too?

"You think the individual is supreme (the source of your "pride" and power movement) while the faithful think that only God and his revelation are supreme."

Don't presume to tell me what I think. And who said I had a "movement"? If the bible is the actual, infallible word of a supreme being, then A) he's a third-class one at best, since there's a lot of utter nonsense in there, and B) you're in big trouble for all the things you fail to observe - like the ones mentioned in my post that you "forgot" to answer about.

"There is pride in false rebellion - there is no pride in working (however, successfully as we are all sinners)."

Again, you're really out to lunch on the rebellion thing. Religious gays are really hurt that their churches don't accept them, and those who are atheists don't consider that there's anything to rebel against. Your prescription for them is amazingly heartless - they should just refrain from same-sex relationships, thus giving up any chance of happiness in this, the only life we know for sure exists, in exchange for happiness in a life for which there's not a shred of evidence. Such a deal! And easy for you to say.

"Again I will state that equality does not equal sameness."

Huh??? Are you talking about pure semantics? The WORD "marriage"? You do realize that the bible wasn't written in English, do you not?

Last I heard, churches couldn't marry people without a marriage license from the state. That civil part is the only legally recognized part. The law couldn't care less what form of mumbo-jumbo was said in front of what supposed deity.

"Sorry, Freestinker, gaining access to a list of donors and voters for the purposes of political intimidation and vilification (i.e. BLACKLISTING) is NOT OK in a liberal democracy.

This is not to mention the physical violence and property destruction.

I suppose the ends justify the means in your book..."

Speed123,

No, I never condoned any violence and I never will. You assailed their motives and I merely corrected you. We can agree that violence is never an appropriate tactic but let's be clear, the violence is limited to a very small minority and it is absurd to conclude that the entire movement is violent based on the actions of a few nutbags.

Why can't religious folks just accept civil marriages for same-sex couples and get on with their lives? Why do they insist that it is the government's responsibilty to enforce their peculiar religious opinions by law on everybody else?

"The Catholic Church adoption agency CHOSE to leave Massachussetts under their own free will."

Freestinker, you are full of crap...go figure.

The only reason that non-provision of adoption services would be considered discrimination is if the state created the false "protected status" to homosexual marriage.

The fact remains that these adoption centers ran for 100 + years before the homosexual power movement gained traction in the state capital.

Operating services in accordance with beliefs/creed is not a "choice" for Catholic organizations - just like requiring abortion services in Catholic hospitals would close all medical services in this sector rather than participate in evil.

Gay people are not bad, they are not sinful; they are not perverted. It is with a wicked and evil intent that gay people are vilified and demonized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Being gay is not a sin; this is false doctrine; you can listen to false doctrines all you want, and can repeat them over and over to yourself and to others, but that does not make a false doctrine true.

The Catholic Church's latest position on the subject is that gay people are "intrinsically disordered." This is a tricky legalistic terminology that does not fall trippingly from the tongue, but was dreamed up after long and hard thought.

This clever phrase, "intrinsically disordered" avoids saying that being gay is a sin, and it avoids saying that being gay is an illness; it still affirms, on some other, undefined way, that being gay is bad, and it is a permenant condemnation, that a gay person can never be released from. Aside from being a sneaky devious legal device to support an anti-gay agenda, it is also nonsense.

Gay people are normal. Gay people are good; they are as good as straight people. Denial of these facts does not change the facts that gay people are as good as straight people.

Same-sex marriage, is a grass-roots mass movement involving millions of people, both gay and straight, with a motivated purpose to be free and equal. Like it or not, that is how it is.

Gay people exist among us in the world, and contribute greatly to it. They are not just "nothing;" they are not "God's mistakes;" they are not going away; they are not going back into the closet.

Now they want ALL their rights; there is nothing complicated about it; it is happening, and it is going to happen.

"That being said, it goes both ways as evidenced by the closure of the Catholic adoption agency in MASS due to the fact that the state mandated "non-discrimination."

In this case, exactly who's rights are being trampled?"

Speed123,

As a condition of their State license, all organizations that are licensed by the State of Massachussetts, to perform adpotions or any other public services must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, mental or physical disability, political belief or affiliation, veteran status, or sexual orientation. The law applies to every licensee equally. The fact that some religions inherently approve of and promote discrimination, does not relieve them of this responsibilty. And holding accountable them to this principle does not equate to a trampling of anybody's rights in any way shape or form.

The Catholic Church adoption agency CHOSE to leave Massachussetts under their own free will. They simply excerised their freedom to leave in accordance with the U.S. Constitution so you can't lay their completely voluntary decision on anybody else except the Catholic Church itself.

To reiterate and to educate:

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community with Rock Hudson the "poster boy" at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

Gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

Sparrow, did you know that Catholic hospitals provide 1/3 of all hospitals in the US?

These hospitals often are the only ones that offer medical in the poorest areas of our inner cities in most states...

Do you think we should cut off medicare/medicaid funds because they refuse - on religious grounds - to provide fertilization services to homosexual couples?

This is what you are proposing.

Anything for "equality" and "justice," eh?

And you guys call yourselves free thinkers...ridiculous...

Sorry, Freestinker, gaining access to a list of donors and voters for the purposes of political intimidation and vilification (i.e. BLACKLISTING) is NOT OK in a liberal democracy.

This is not to mention the physical violence and property destruction.

I suppose the ends justify the means in your book...

cnj5954- you should wait until an apology is offered. :-) You really weren't clear so it was misconstrued. Welcome to this side of the chasm!
-----------------------
speed123 wrote:"Yes, think is exactly what I think is necessary; however, it is the militant gay groups (as seen harassing voters in CA who voted in a manner against their wishes) who will not relent until they level all differences and impose their views on society in both the private and public sector."

Yet, the issue is not to force religion to accept gays. the issue is to stop an amendment to the state constitution- and that is an aggressive act of harassment and prejudice on the part of the religious groups who came together to sponsor it.

Charitable groups who accept public funding should understand that gays pay taxes- that money is public funding sources. so that would make groups that discriminate against gays extremely hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

I fail to see how anyone could not realize that gays would react to the amendment. You;re trying to protect rights you already have but want to stop gays from exercising. You have leaders of the religious community who have no problem labeling gays sinners,or reinforcing the view that they are somehow flawed and evil.

Arron, I pretty much agree in terms of state adoption etc.

That being said, it goes both ways as evidenced by the closure of the Catholic adoption agency in MASS due to the fact that the state mandated "non-discrimination."

In the face of monolithic state laws, the Catholic agencies were squeezed out of adoption services.

This is beside the fact that Catholic groups had NO monopoly on adoption services and gay couples could go to dozens of other agencies.

In this case, exactly who's rights are being trampled?

Therefore, it is not as clear-cut an issue as people would like to believe - especially considering the ripple effect on society.

Perhaps, pro-homosexual marriage groups turn a blind eye to ramifications or - worse yet - these results are exactly what they hope for...

" ... it is the militant gay groups (as seen harassing voters in CA who voted in a manner against their wishes) who will not relent until they level all differences and impose their views on society in both the private and public sector."

Speed123,

While they are absolutely determined to level the playing field, from what I understand, the people in CA who are protesting Prop 8, are not interested in "imposing their views" on anyone. They just want completely equal treatment under the law and that is certainly not too much for any law-abiding citizen to expect. And your unfounded, irrational "fears" are a rather lame excuse for denying anyone a State license based solely on their gender.

"I wonder why gay men and women remain Catholic. If they wish to remain Christian they could "convert" to a more liberal branch of Protestantism. "

Because in America, individuals determine their own religious opinions and are entitled to call themselves by any name they like. Indiviuals are the final authority on matters of personal religious opinion.

If someone says they are Catholic, then they are Catholic. They might not be my kind of Catholic or your kind of Catholic or the Pope's kind of Catholic but in America they are still 100% Catholic, as long as they choose to call themselves so.

Speed123:

I applaud your response. I feel and fear, however, that you are in the vast minority of those with strong religious views. For them, it is an all or nothing battle and they do not like losing. They would trample our "rights" in the name of their own strict moral world view.

This is exemplified in ballot measures such as that which passed in Florida regarding adoption. Measures such as that have no place in a fair and civil society.

"Couldn't the Church have a blessing ritual for gays who commit to living with each other?"

Yes and they already do. It's called marriage!

" AND HE HAS THE LAST SAY ON THIS MATTER!"

Nope, "he" doesn't. In this country, the constitution does. If you don't like that, there are theocracies you can move to.

"So, Speedy 123, if that's all that's holding you back I'll will be happy to cede the word "marriage" to you. You will of course have to publicly state that you support a federal recognition of civil unions between gays with the identical benefits of those of their heterosexual counterparts."

Yes, think is exactly what I think is necessary; however, it is the militant gay groups (as seen harassing voters in CA who voted in a manner against their wishes) who will not relent until they level all differences and impose their views on society in both the private and public sector.

I do not wish to restrict rights of homosexuals, I worry about the use of new extreme rights to attack freedom of religion (esp. with charity and social services) and freedom of speech.

That said, I am glad we can find middle ground.

Speed123:

"In any case, there are laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and legal rights provided in civil unions"

For the sake of argument, let us agree that marriage is not a right but a rite. If the word "marriage" is your only objection would you agree that the "civil unions" you talk about above should be identical between heterosexuals who marry in a civil ceremony and homosexuals who marry in a civil ceremony. As it is, the rights afforded by way of "civil union" are not even close between gays than their heterosexual counterparts. Rights regarding property transfer, estates, taxes, health care, immigration rights, and social security which are automatically conferred in heterosexual marriage either have to be worked out in complex legal documents (as in the case of health care powers) or are not available at all (as in the case of social security benefits).

So, Speedy 123, if that's all that's holding you back I'll will be happy to cede the word "marriage" to you. You will of course have to publicly state that you support a federal recognition of civil unions between gays with the identical benefits of those of their heterosexual counterparts.

If you can not bring yourself to do this than you are just another bigoted hypocrite hiding behind religion to justify your prejudices.

I look forward to your response.

Pam, really now...

I am not "proud" when I state that there is an objective truth of right and wrong - good and evil - that is not subject to our individual interpretation.

Homosexuality is inherently wrong - it is based on lust, and pride and rebellion from the basic teachings of all religions.

This is not a "Catholic" thing - this is a moral thing. Catholics are supported by traditional Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Mormons and Black Baptists and Hispanic Evangelicals etc etc...

You think the individual is supreme (the source of your "pride" and power movement) while the faithful think that only God and his revelation are supreme.

There is pride in false rebellion - there is no pride in working (however, successfully as we are all sinners).

Again I will state that equality does not equal sameness.

Homosexual action is a sin, but this does not mean that one does not accept the sinner.

You try to erase that distinction - to erase sin, to erase truth...and it is a fools errand.

"ambivalence of Catholicism towards homosexuality"?? How about the ambivalence of Catholicism toward sexual abuse? Mr Stevens Arroyo is just plain out of touch with everything it appears. This is nothing more than a slap in the face of US citizens that want equal rights.

Outlawtorn103 and Sparrow4, I'm on your side; you missed my point. I'm saying that our simple society will not get it until it is expicitly spelled out. Now apologize. "People like me" as you angrily refer to me know the sting of unequal treatment. Apology accepted.

However well-intended, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's proposal to bless gay celibacy is so insignificant as to be useless and, indeed, insulting. If he wants to continue agonizing over the various ways to hypocritically accept gay sexuality as biological while rationalizing the discriminatory suppression of it, that's his heterosexist prerogative. Those of us living in the real world, however, have long since moved beyond this infantile obsession with hair-splitting. As far as I'm concerned, the path forward is to continue and accelerate the secularization of the West and, with it, the marginalization of the Catholic Church as a relevant institution. It's tin-ear slandering of gay people on a regular basis only furthers that trend.

I agree with other posters, moreover, that I cannot take seriously any commentary that insists upon using the hostile word "homosexual" to denote gay men and lesbians. If Mr. Stevens-Arroyo will not even permit us to choose our own NAME, I'm really not interested in anything he has to say on the subject.

schaeffz :
dwlasher:
Homosexual behavior just does not have any sanction in the Bible from any perspective nor does marriage between homosexuals.

-----

Thus, why I have chosen to NOT take the Bible or Catholic or Fundimentalist Protestant dogma literally.

---------------------------------

It's easier that way isn't it? If the Bible isn't really God's Word, if it doesn't really mean what it teaches, then you could live your life however you choose with no consequence.

Unfortunately, that's not the Bible's message, metaphorically OR literally. That certainly not Christ's message either.

I find it amusing that the only way homosexuals can align themselves with the Bible is to discredit it's teachings. Rationalize away the parts they don't like, and over-emphasize the parts they do.

Being born with a genetic propensity towards a specific behavior is no validator of said behavior, either. The Bible teaches we're all born with a nature that enjoys breaking His commandments. We are all born with weaknesses & tendencies, but being born with those weaknesses and tendencies do not excuse us from gaining mastery over them.

Why not spare yourselves the trouble and embrace Hinduism instead? Hinduism accepts everything, Even your Cut-n-Paste "theology"!

"So no matter how we humans want to make right what God condemns, that will not change God's position on the subject. AND HE HAS THE LAST SAY ON THIS MATTER!"

Only the arrogant claim to speak for G-d. the bible was written by humans. fallible, prejudiced, imperfect humans.

While we're all telling gay people who to live, and what to do, we seem awfully opposed to taking advice from them on how we should live.

I will never understand this obsession with what gay people do. As long as they lead good lives, pay taxes, go to their jobs and function in society, whether as parents, teachers, airline pilots or whatever, it's not my place, or anyone else's to declare what they do is a sin. If you insist on doing so, make very sure you aren't living in a glass house. Because while you're worrying about what 2 men or 2 women are doing in bed, you're paying no attention to the things that really matter. Like saving the planet, fighting hunger and disease, helping people.

You sow the seeds of your own destruction. How stupid. How shortsighted. How unnecessary.

I am a muslim and I join hands with those who opposes gay marriages. It is a transgression against the will of God as known through His Books
Quran, Talmud, and Bible.

Speed123 says:
"Wow! All people want power and pride? - maybe in your sick world; however, people of faith want truth and humility and to live according to the will of God as expressed by Jewish and Christian revelation."

Oh, give me a break! Yeah, you come across as really humble. You're PROUD that you're straight, you're PROUD that you're Catholic, you're PROUD that YOU thereby know exactly what God wants and that you're on the side of right, truth and beauty. And then you want the POWER of convincing all of us that nothing but pearls of wisdom fall from your lips.

In fact, Speedy, you're no better than anyone else at best, and a neanderthal when it comes to understanding and accepting the society you live in.

And you talk about sick worlds? Nothing is sicker than your world of delusion, exclusion, and denigration. Tell me, do you ever do any work on the sabbath? Any at all? Do you ever wear poly-cotton blend clothing?

Sparrow4 tells it like it is.

And before you jump to conclusions, I'm not gay.

"Leave the church Arroyo, you belong to Satan and do his work."

Who are you to cast away people from the Church? To feel like you have the power to say that to someone is the LEAST CATHOLIC statement on this entire page. G-d judges us, and to judge someone on his/her sin is a sin in and of itself.

The ironic thing about all the negative responses is that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's article is completely Catholic. He states from the beginning that it is not a sin to BE gay; only to DO gay. Whether you like it or not, the only thing sinful about gay sexual activity is that it is outside of wedlock--not that it is gay.

While I think the article does try to create a loophole, and therefore is a little far-fetched; it is, in theory, correct if a gay union is able to resist the temptation of sexual conduct and merely live with a strong bond of love. There is nothing "Cafeteria" about this Catholic view.

Well, nothing new here so far. Still the same old buzz words from those who believe that their belief in and interpretation of a supernatural, all-powerful being trump the American Constitution.

How un-American!

dwlasher:
Homosexual behavior just does not have any sanction in the Bible from any perspective nor does marriage between homosexuals.

-----

Thus, why I have chosen to NOT take the Bible or Catholic or Fundimentalist Protestant dogma literally.

speed123 wrote:

Wow! All people want power and pride? - maybe in your sick world; however, people of faith want truth and humility and to live according to the will of God as expressed by Jewish and Christian revelation.

I take that back, you are correct when you say that the modern world wants power and pride...; however, this is a tragedy, not something to aspire to...

Power and pride are an abstraction and an illusion - turn to God and you will find your way.
**********

It is you that equate power with something evil. People in power can use that power for good, not evil or wrong. A person being "in power" simply means he / she makes decisions that can affect lots of people. This category would then include such people as CEO's and politicians. Power can indeed be misused, but there is nothing inherently wrong with being in power.

paulc2 says:
Frankly, the Catholic Church will never bless same sex unions.

------

RE: my previous posts...
Thus, one of many, many reasons I have "Grown Up" and moved on from this backward dogma.

The article raises some humanistic questions based upon some poor logic. First, the assumption that God created homosexual tendencies is incorrect. This is analogis to saying that because a baby is born with a club foot, heart defect, or Down's Syndrome that God caused it (God allows it to rain on the just and the unjust). Or from another perspective to say that God created cold and darkness rather than recognize that cold is the absence of God created light and cold the absence of God created heat.

Next the Bible supports the statement there is no sin in being homosexual....but it does say that homosexual BEHAVIOR is SIN. Both from the fornication perspective as well as the "unnatural use of their bodies." Homosexual behavior just does not have any sanction in the Bible from any perspective nor does marriage between homosexuals. So no matter how we humans want to make right what God condemns, that will not change God's position on the subject. AND HE HAS THE LAST SAY ON THIS MATTER!

Frankly, the Catholic Church will never bless same sex unions. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament to be shared bewtween a man and a women. By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory. Obviously, this is not available to same sex couples.

Since same sex couples can not marry, then they are called to the single life. In the Catholic church, the single life requires chastity, whether you are hetero or homosexual.

For the Catholic church, blessing same sex unions, means either undermining the sacramental reasons for marriage or sanctioning out of wedlock sex. It can not contemplate either.

speed123 wrote:
A gay poster writes:

"All people want power and pride. What is wrong with that? So what you are saying is that gays should not want the same things the rest of “normal” Americans want? Maybe they just should not be so uppity?"
**********

No, speed, I'm not gay. I can only assume you meant that as an insult? But I am certainly a supporter of gay rights.

cnj5954- The constitution does not provide for equal protection for gays.

The constitution does not provide equal protection for people with brown hair. The constitution does not provide equal protection for left-handed people. The constitution does not provide equal protection for people who love beer more than wine.

The problem here is that the constitution provides equal protection for ALL PEOPLES. We got the wording right in the beginning. The problem is that we haven't been living up to it throughout all of American history. For a few hundred years we interpreted ALL PEOPLE to exclude women and blacks. In order to fulfill the ALL PEOPLE part, we didn't change the constitution to include women or blacks, we made mention that they cannot be exempted.

The gay community already has equal status with the rest of the American community in the constitution -- but sadly only in writing, not yet in practice. The problem is that we've been trying all these years to pull a fast one on the constitution with our habits and our culture - to exclude the gay community from what belongs rightfully to ALL PEOPLE.

And to Speed123, the gay community is not trying to force you to bow to their will. I assume because you live in America you agree with the terms and conditions of doing so, mainly the Constitution. There is nothing radical about demanding for once in the history of this country that we actually follow the words signed off on 200 years ago. ALL ARE EQUAL. We are simply trying to force you to follow what is already in writing in the Constitution.

This is wonderfully composed. I, too, have been in search of a way to recognize gay unions in our faith, and consider the blessing idea at the end of the piece to be a very simple yet beautiful suggestion. I will certainly bring this up the next time the topic arises.

cnj5954- The constitution does not provide for equal protection for gays.

It provides protection as equal rights for all. that includes people who happen to be gay. And you will find that the extra additions specifying no discrimination based on race, creed, color, etc. came about because people like you are still unwilling to recognize the basic concept of all people are equal under the law. Because people like you still believe in prejudice, and not extending basic civil rights to everyone, despite the law of the land.

"Michelangelo has one of the most extensive archives of any artist and nothing HE has written presumes his experiencing same-sex attraction."

You haven't been reading then. there is loads of evidence, in his poetry, his writing- you are completely wrong on this.

"Please get this through your thick skulls."

Try getting this through your skull...marriage is NOT a "right."

Marriage is a rite!

PS - no matter how much you hate biology or tradition, you cannot make homosexual coupling the same as heterosexual marriage in either form or function.

Equality does not equal sameness.

In any case, there are laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and legal rights provided in civil unions; however, the homosexual fascists (who have created a blacklist for those who disagree with them - along with physical and verbal attacks) want to force the vast majority of people bow to their will and to they will attack churches, hospitals, charities, any individual who does not agree with them etc. etc. once they gain their power in the state.

There are no constitutional guarantees for gay people, absolutely none. People are confusing the policy of this company or that company or the policy of this local government and that local government and society's compassion with constitutional gurantees. The constitution does not provide for equal protection for gays. Please get this through your thick skulls. Without constitutional gurantees any group is at the mercy of the majority. Constitutional gurantees are not based solely on religious dogma, doctrne. Can one imagine if it were? God help us.

"So sick of the arguments put forth by religious people and then pushed on the rest of us who really, really resent this utter garbage based on books written by smelly goat herders."

Right, you are sooo technologically developed that these aspects of human nature and revelation about human flourishing no longer apply to you.

Wow, what stunning ignorance, get back to playing your xbox there, buddy.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo

There is simply no evidence to presume that Michelangelo was a Homosexual.

To say "Both men have left records of their struggles for chastity." is to distort the record of a single incident of arrest (charges dropped).

Michelangelo has one of the most extensive archives of any artist and nothing HE has written presumes his experiencing same-sex attraction.

Then to say:

"Some might even argue that they achieved their greatness in art and poetry, precisely because of the combination of their faith and homosexuality"

The "some might even argue" is such a transparent elision. Are YOU arguing it Mr. Stevens-Arroyo?

Also: Cafeteria Catholics like Stevens-Arroyo argue that our perception of homosexuality has changed(it has). That works both ways however. If Michelangelo had experienced same-sex attraction at that time he would have (as a serious Catholic) interpreted it as just another sinful desire to be controlled. Not as his sole identity that the likes of Stevens-Arroyo would have us abandon the Christian sexual ethic to embrace.

He writes: “Whatever our theological opinions, there are homosexuals in Catholic America who deserve our love and acceptance as fellow pilgrims in this imperfect world.”

#1, Our theological opinions are part of a consistent Christian sexual ethic as outlined in the Magisterium.

#2, In order to “love and acceptance [our] fellow pilgrims in this imperfect world”

CCC 2359 "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

That is authentic Catholic love for our Brothers & Sisters.

LUF...

Ever hear of Jewish revelation that provided the first foundation of civilization of we know it?

Ever hear of Jesus Christ? Who was the Word made flesh and stated this fact plainly.

The Word or will of God is not a mystery to humans - it is presented in the gospels and, then completed in the person of Christ.

Perhaps you would rather be still sacrificing humans to the gods of nature or the fates? Or stoning adulterers (opps, we do still sacrifice humans...it is called abortion)

What relevance does a 2000-year-old book have for people living in the 21st century? The Old and New Testaments don't mention airplanes, computers, and the internet, but these are among the millions of things we take for granted and accept. The Old and New Testaments also do not mention gay marriage (or lesbians at all), and yet these must be banned.

So sick of the arguments put forth by religious people and then pushed on the rest of us who really, really resent this utter garbage based on books written by smelly goat herders.

THE basic problem is the belief that some human beings know God and can speak for God. Balderdash!

A gay poster writes:

"All people want power and pride. What is wrong with that? So what you are saying is that gays should not want the same things the rest of “normal” Americans want? Maybe they just should not be so uppity?"

Wow! All people want power and pride? - maybe in your sick world; however, people of faith want truth and humility and to live according to the will of God as expressed by Jewish and Christian revelation.

I take that back, you are correct when you say that the modern world wants power and pride...; however, this is a tragedy, not something to aspire to...

Power and pride are an abstraction and an illusion - turn to God and you will find your way.

stephenbwise- and to you too! :-)

How to bless gay unions? You don't, if you are following God's precepts.

Sparrow4

I agree and I think St. Paul would too.
We all can be better.

Cheers!

Nope- but hopefully they'll be better people than St. Paul (and you) and will have left the inhumanity behind.

sparrow4 -

After 2000 years people are still referencing
St. Paul.

Do you think 2000 years from now people will be referencing sparrow4?

stephenbwise-

I hardly think I call prejudice and disregard for people based on their choices of partner as spiritual maturity.Bishop Spong wrote a very good article about just this, and I quote:

"Second, these dated and false ideas are then buttressed by biblical quotations that reveal little or no awareness of contemporary biblical scholarship. The favorite verses of condemnation come from Leviticus, which calls homosexuality "an abomination" in chapter 18 and prescribes the death penalty for it in chapter 20; from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19, and from chapter one of Romans. They fail to read the rest of Leviticus which reveals attitudes and values long abandoned as immoral in our day or to note that the Bible itself calls the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah the violation of the Middle Eastern hospitality code. In Romans 1 Paul actually argues that homosexuality is God's imposed punishment on those who do not worship God properly. A strange God this would be!

Several other texts are also frequently cited, but they are usually based on mistranslations of a Greek word (arcenokoitus), which means a wide variety of other practices like Temple prostitutes, with homosexuality being a minor note, if present at all, in that word. All of these texts assume that homosexuality is a choice, for that was the "common wisdom" when the Bible was written some 2000 to 3000 years ago. Other common assumptions of that period of history also found in the Bible are that epilepsy and mental illness are caused by demon possession, that sickness results from divine punishment, that women are property, that menstruation is an abomination, that slavery is legitimate and that God is the cause of everything we did not then understand. These data raise questions first about why anyone today would give credence to a literal understanding of a Bible, containing as it does such obviously outdated ideas; and second, why anyone would pay attention to those who do?"

Now that's spiritual maturity.

Atheists marry. Catholics marry. God or church are not involved. This CIVIL contract is between two people who want to share their lives together in love. Religions should keep their noses to themselves.

If real intimacy with God is our hope, then we have to work to achieve a spiritual maturity that is both childlike and adult - docile yet strong. Jesus tells us "unless you change and become as children..." That said, St Paul's words are also true and might be applied to gays struggling with their identity, who are trying to identify with God.
"When I was a child I used to talk like a child, think like a child, reason like a child. When I became a man I put childish ways aside."

Well, speed123- I see there are many answers to your and stephenbwise's posts. eloquent and powerful answers to 2 petty and prejudiced people.

I post on the catholic thread- not wiht antagonism for catholicism, but with some towards specific issues. Because having experienced some of the most venal prejudice personally in my life, I won't stand for it from anyone, no matter how much they quote the bible and talk about G-d's love, of which they really know so little. (I suggest you reread annkeelerrevansmdiv and schaeffz' posts again. they do know).

schaeffz wrote:
Not that a priest or the Pope would know, but there is much, much more to the sexual relationship between committed partners than procreation.
**********

Much of the logic I see against gay marriage does seem to center around the fact that gay couples cannot procreate, and thus their relationship is not "natural" in the eyes of God or Nature. The logic further goes on to say that anything that is not natural should not be allowed; hence gay marriage should not be legal.

But as you, and many others, correctly point out, marriage is much more than just reproducing. If the capacity to bear children was a precondition for marriage, then couples who choose not to have children, or couples who are sterile should not be allowed to get married either.

Oh yeah, another wonderful example. Jesus was adopted by Joseph! All part of God's plan!

One more comment. God created a celibate man, Adam, then decided that it was "not good" for the man to be alone, and created him a partner, Eve. Seems to me the preference of God is indeed partnership between two people, as opposed to being single and celibate. So why is priestly celibacy held up as the better of the two? Likely because it's priests that run the Catholic Church? Self-righteous justification? Again, I say, GROW UP!!!!

StephenBWise wrote:

I have yet to meet someone passionate for gay unions/marriage who was also passionately in love with God.
**********

So because you personally have never met them they don't exist? What shall we call this logic flaw - The Argument from Lack of Social Interaction?

Not that a priest or the Pope would know, but there is much, much more to the sexual relationship between committed partners than procreation. Re: The Song of Solomon. It is clear that God intended "Marriage" to include the wonderful intimacy that bonds partners together and should underpin all of the life decisions of the partners. My wife and I could not have children. Was our Marriage failed in God's sight? NO! We were Foster Parents to 15 children over the span of 10 years and we adopted and raised two beautiful daughters. Yet, and don't be surprised, we still had a wonderful sexual bond. So happens that one of my daughters is gay. She and a partner could fully follow the example of my Marriage and God's plan for partnership, by joining in their own marriage, raising children, even if not their own, and still participate fully in a religious and faith life together. WHY NOT ?????? Just because homophobic people feel "icky" about homosexual sex, and then use certain Biblical references to back up their "ickyness"? GROW UP !!!!

stephenbwise, you have met no gay/lesbians in relationship who are passionate toward God? you obviously have a very small circle of gay acquaintances.

and yet, how many straight couples have i met who are not passionate toward God? hmmm. why, many.

In fact, my guess is, and it's based in some sort of experience as a person who performs wedding ceremonies, for committed couples, gay and straight, the percentages of couples committed to their relationship with the Divine are fairly similar. Gays and lesbians who are active in religious traditions often must be more passionate about God than their straight counterparts as so much as hatred and opprobrium is directed toward them.

Is it Christian, really, to know no one who looks, acts, feels, believes differently than you? It does make decision-making easy, if you aren't bothered by other opinions, but it's probably not all that helpful.

and as for the article, pardon me? are straight catholics, to use an old biblical term, abominations if they have sex for reasons other than procreation? If you look at the world, and believe in God, then you must accept unbridled passion as God's will. Could there be such beauty otherwise. And if you're going to call passion sin, let he who is casting stones tie the first knot. Let us delight in the day and the love that is offered. And my friends who love each other, be married, wherever, however. Statistics tell us that your marriage will prosper in the company of other committed and successful marriages. Who knows, same-sex marriage may wind up making straight marriages successful. wouldn't that be a riot? because i've seen those stats, and they're not doing all that well!

this article doesn't look a lot like Christmas.

speed123 wrote:

This is about gay POWER/PRIDE, not respect or civility or rights.
**********

All people want power and pride. What is wrong with that? So what you are saying is that gays should not want the same things the rest of “normal” Americans want? Maybe they just should not be so uppity?

StephenBWise:

I love God very much and at the same time feel very strongly about gay unions. So, now you know someone. These are very private matters so you will probably not be hearing this shared to you when someone bumps into you on the Metro. No one except my parents and my partner (and a few priests at my local church perhaps) know about my struggle with reconciling my faith with my homosexuality. And what a struggle it is. Sometimes I feel as if I have to choose one or the other, which is truly painful (since I love the Lord with all my heart and did NOT choose to be gay). I don't know if I care about a title - union, marriage, etc., since to me, it's not about power or pride, but I do want something that allows us to celebrate our commitment to each other. It disappoints me and saddens me that people assume we (as in me and my parter, since not all gays are part of a big cult) have an agenda of some sort.

fr speed123:

>...Finally, in California, all legal rights ARE provided by unions and these should be recognized in all states.

Equality does not equal sameness...and a gay couple is not the same (in either form or function) as a straight couple.

This is about gay POWER/PRIDE, not respect or civility or rights.

Your entire statement is completely INCORRECT.

For example, domestic partnership rights in CA do NOT, I repeat, do NOT state the following: "ARE provided by unions". If you were a GLBT in CA, you would know that. Want to ride in the ambulance, or make medical decisions for your partner/spouse? Better be married. What if your partner/spouse dies, and their biological "family" denies you the RIGHT to make funeral arrangements? Better be married.

As to your last line: "This is about gay POWER/PRIDE, not respect or civility or rights", again, that is completely WRONG. We want, and WILL win ALL of our rights back when Prop HATE is overturned. Deal with it. GLBT's are here, and we aren't leaving!

Speed123

You are the one who says good is evil and evil is good. You are the one who is spreading false dcotrines. You are the one who insists that gay people are viscious and straight people are the victims. You are the one who should be punished. You are the one who should be ashamed. You are the one is is small and petty.

speed123 wrote:
"Moreover, advances in science tend to support the position that this sexual orientation results from genetic make-up."

There is NOT ONE major scientific study that supports this claim, not one....
**********

1) Genetic clue to male homosexuality emerges
Science News, July 17, 1993

2) Bailey and Pillard (1991). J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

"gays are attacking no one-they are not attacking your traditions or our values- you can keep them. You aren't being stopped from doing anything. Except dictating laws that are not in accordance with the Constitution."

Sparrow, you are awfully involved in Catholic threads in very antagonistic ways for someone who proclaims neutrality...

As for gays forcing their rights writ large on society, there are plenty of examples already across the states:

The closing of adoption centers run by Jews/Catholics/Protestant that, according to their creed, do not allow for gay adoption. (occurred in Boston to the oldest Catholic adoption center in the country)

The teaching of pro-gay curriculum in public schools.

Law suits against those who refuses services based on religious exemption - i.e. photographer sued in N.M. for refusing to serve at a gay wedding. Churches can also be sued for failing to rent their grounds for gay marriage ceremonies.

This is not to mention the vicious reaction against religions and regular voters - esp mormons - by gay groups follow prop 8. Attacking churches, blacklisting of businesses and individuals, physical and verbal threats etc.

Finally, in California, all legal rights ARE provided by unions and these should be recognized in all states.

Equality does not equal sameness...and a gay couple is not the same (in either form or function) as a straight couple.

This is about gay POWER/PRIDE, not respect or civility or rights.

When the Catholic Church is healthy, it helps people to know, love and serve God and each other, and to be holy. The sacrament of marriage (with the accompanying grace) helps people in their journey to realize the perfection of love - for God and each other. This can only happen if people consciously seek and struggle to: overcome themselves, be truthful and serve others.

I have yet to meet someone passionate for gay unions/marriage who was also passionately in love with God.

Odd that the official representatives of the RCC who are On Faith panel members do not weigh in on this subject more often.

e.g.

Thomas J. Reese, Jesuit and Senior fellow Woodstock Theological Center

William J. Byron | Catholic Priest, ex-President of Catholic University

Thomas G. Bohlin | U.S. vicar of the Prelature of Opus Dei

speed123- I am neither a Catholic hater nor have I rejected anything, except for the bigotry and small-minded preaching of the religious right.

there are no rights of gays being enforced by the state. It is the state protecting the rights of gays from religious tyrants like you. You are the first to whine about how your lives will be so impacted by gay marriage. How your rights are being infringed- your freedom of religion. So I ask you- how will gay marriage personally affect you? And I mean other than the angst you cause yourself because of your religion. It takes away nothing from you, or your wife or your children. gays are not indoctrinating anyone- they are only asking that they be accepted for who they are and they be treated the same as you.

You, on the other hand, seem inordinately interested in what goes on in other people's bedrooms.

And again= because people like you insist on perpetuating lies- civil unions are not the same as marriage. they do not confer the level of legal rights or benefits and they are not universally recognized.

gays are attacking no one-they are not attacking your traditions or our values- you can keep them. You aren't being stopped from doing anything. Except dictating laws that are not in accordance with the Constitution.

Also,

Arroyo, the deceiver, attempts to placate concerns about gay marriage by stating that the laws of the state and customs of the people can be separated...

He tries to show culture/tradition as the oppressor and the state as the liberator!

A fallacy if there ever was one.

If the extreme "rights" of the homosexual minority are enforced by state law - they will be done so in a totalitarian fashion - i.e. propaganda and indoctrination of children in state schools, use of "hate" laws to ban dissenting opinions, attacks on traditional religious groups who resist state mandates for the toleration of immorality.

This is not about gay rights (which are already granted via civil union in CA), this is the final assault on traditional culture and co-opting the use of state laws/violence to do so.

And Arroyo is a pasty in this game of deception.

This is not about toleration of gays (whom are already tolerated and protected by the law), this is about intolerance towards traditional peoples and cultures.

Sparrow, the Catholic-hater....

It is not barbarian to state that deliberate deception which leads to misinterpretation of Jewish and Christian revelation should be harshly condemned.

Sparrow, you obviously know where the quote comes from and are simply being coy in your allusion to "christian attitudes."

To call what is evil "good" and good "evil" is the true barbarian act that you engage in since the rejection of your Jewish faith.

As for homosexuals, a minority may be born as such; however, it is not the personal, but the act, that is condemned.

Don't confuse the sin with the sinner.

As for Arroyo, this pride-filled "intellectual" should read the gospels and renounce his deceptive ways and propaganda or do his duty and take up the millstone...

Speaking of well-known Catholic gays, I think of Thomas Merton.

I wonder why gay men and women remain Catholic. If they wish to remain Christian they could "convert" to a more liberal branch of Protestantism.

speed123 wrote:"Leave the church Arroyo, you belong to Satan and do his work.

Either that or tie a millstone around your neck and head for the waters."

Is that your idea of a christian attitude? You sound more like a barbarian. anyone who tells someone to commit suicide is more vermin than human- and hardly one to judge the "sinfulness" of gay people.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,
This was a very interesting article. As a gay Catholic, it's always nice to see articles discussing the intersection of my religion and my sexual orientation. I do have a few comments:
Like Tomsj, I question your use of the word "homosexual" instead of gay. I don't believe that you intended any offense, but I would say that as a gay person, I find the word "gay" much more appropriate in most contexts than "homosexual". I think this is similar to how many of my black friends prefer the word "black" to "African-American", although the latter term is not offensive.
What is a little offensive in your article was the use of the term "gay lifestyle". This term has been thrown around so much, I think it's difficult for anyone to use it without strong political implications. What's offensive about it is the idea that there is indeed some lifestyle that all gay people lead. We're as diverse as any other group.
Speed123, I don't know where you've gotten the idea that there isn't a major scientific study that supports the idea that homosexuality is unchosen and unchangeable, but you're completely wrong. Perhaps you could browse the Wikipedia article on the subject? It lists quite a few such studies. It is true that there is no major scientific study that suggests that homosexuality can be changed, but that's the opposite of what you claimed in your comment. Incidentally, the Catholic Church teaches that for some people, homosexuality is unchosen and inborn.

If Catholicism were not so wedded to the idea of the mortification of the flesh, and "tolerance" of the flesh only in the service of procreation, the number of "problems" that touch on sexuality would be greatly reduced. Until Christianity can find a way to accept and nurture homo people and accept their need for sexual expression, Christianity qua "organized" religion will not offer an answer to homo people.

I have been disturbed by the conventional wisdom that we recognize a "Civil Marriage". I posit that marriage is a relationship that exists in all human cultures. The exact definition varies, but it revolves around a monogamous relationship for the mutual benefit of the participants and especially their progeny. There always seems to be some community ceremony that formalizes the relationship with strong religious component.

Today we have a wide variety of relationships ranging from widows pairing up for mutual support to abused, divorced mothers who also need mutual support to homosexual partners that give each other the support they are otherwise denied. These latter relations have a wide range of legal issues, (medical support, joint financial issues,...) that have arisen only in modern society.

So I suggest that we observe the 1st amendment to the constitution that separate the religion from the state. That is, the state should get out of the marriage business and only concern itself with the legal contract aspects of "Civil Unions" and the various faith tradition can attend to the marriage issue. If you faith teaches that a marriage is between a man and woman, I support that. If not, that's OK too.

"Moreover, advances in science tend to support the position that this sexual orientation results from genetic make-up."

There is NOT ONE major scientific study that supports this claim, not one....

Arroyo is a fake Catholic (but a true extreme liberal) that is kept on by Sally Quinn to attack the Church under the guise of internal critique.

Is there even one tenet of Judeo-Christian doctrine/creed that Arroyo is not will to transgress or bend in the name of false equality or political correctness?

I don't think so...

Leave the church Arroyo, you belong to Satan and do his work.

Either that or tie a millstone around your neck and head for the waters.

I do not see any ambivalence in the Catholic Church with regards to gay people. The Catholic Church is probably the most destructive homophobic organization in the world, because it is so large, and so wealthy, and so unyeilding in its villification and demonization of gay people.

ThomasJ: I've always considered the word "gay" to be more derogatory than "homosexual." The latter might be more common in scientific and formal writing, but that doesn't denote it as a disease.

Why should a couple who are committed to each other also have to commit to celibacy simply because their love-making doesn't lead to baby-making? Does the Catholic church expect infertile straight married couples to remain celibate?

To the rescue with embryonic stem cells:

The embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals should meet the standard of many religious groups since said active biological entities have no hope of survival. And the stem cells from these embryos definitely hold the key to the eradication of homosexuality in our life times.

Hmmmm.... I'm always interested in the words we use to describe ourselves and others. Your OpEd piece is interesting, because it shound balanced, but because of your concentration on the word "homosexual" rather than "gay," a word that the religionists have conscripted because it sounds more clinicial (they'd like you to believe we're mentally ill), I come away feeling uneasy. I'm not sure what your message is, and I think that's your point. Pity.