Features

What conservative gay Christians want

It’s not church doctrine on marriage that needs to change. It’s almost everything else

20 February 2016

9:00 AM

20 February 2016

9:00 AM

The LGBT rights movement — so the story goes — has split the Christian churches in two. On one side are the progressives, who believe that Christianity should accept gay people and recognise gay marriage. Lined up against them are the conservatives, who hold fast to the belief that being gay is sinful. It’s not entirely false, that story. There are just a vast number of Christians who don’t fit into it.

Ed Shaw is an evangelical pastor in Bristol and is gay — or, as he puts it, he ‘experiences same-sex attraction’. It’s a less misleading term, he tells me. ‘If I say to people in conversation, “I’m gay,” they tend to presume that I’ll be delighted if they match me up with their gay friend Barry.’ Which isn’t what he’s looking for: ‘I’d love to meet any of their friends, but I don’t want to be match-made with people because I’m not interested in that sort of relationship.’

Shaw is one of the founders of Living Out, a website written by gay people who are also traditionally minded Christians. As he points out, this is quite a large constituency. The ‘horror stories’ about churches rejecting LGBT people dominate media coverage, he says: Living Out exists partly to record more positive experiences.

Shaw’s is one of them. ‘As a pastor,’ he says, ‘I thought being open about my sexuality would be a disqualification for the job, and would mean that people would stop coming to me.’ Instead, they started calling on him more than ever. ‘Because they think, this guy finds life tough, it’s not easy for him, he might be able to help me. I think previously I thought the deal was, try and fake it as a perfect person, and then people will listen to you.’

When Shaw writes in praise of the ‘real elements of beauty’ in gay relationships, or laments how the C of E’s ‘hypocrisy’ has ‘hurt a lot of people’, he sounds like a liberal Anglican. At other times, he sounds like anything but. Sex is ‘not a small issue that we can afford to disagree on’, he says; ‘marriage between a man and a woman, union in difference, sex within that’ is one of the most important ‘pictures of God’s love for us’. The Bible starts with a marriage in Eden and ends with a marriage between Christ and the Church. ‘It’s not just a couple of verses in Leviticus that we need to change,’ Shaw argues: reconstructing marriage would mean ‘ripping out the heart of almost every part of scripture’.

[Alt-Text]


For gay people who believe this, the question remains of how a celibate life can be anything other than a lonely one. It is easy to say that friendships are intimate and fulfilling, too — but that can sound glib, because the modern world neglects friendship to an extent that would have amazed previous centuries.

Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed slept in the same bed and wrote letters of passionate devotion to each other. Michel de Montaigne, who treated erotic love as a rather embarrassing and second-rate experience, wrote at the death of his friend (in John Florio’s translation): ‘We were co–partners in all things… I was so accustomed to be ever two, and so inured to be never single, that methinks I am but half my self.’ Nowadays people rarely talk about their friends like that, only (sometimes) their spouses. Is that a gain?

The cult of romantic love, as the gay liberal Catholic Andrew Sullivan once put it, elevated ‘the longing for union with another being, the sense that such a union resolves the essential quandary of human existence, the belief that only such a union can abate the loneliness that seems to come with being human’. By contrast, Christian churches might have preserved the importance of friendship: for most of history, Christians regarded marriage as inferior to celibacy, and friendship as one of the greatest goods. Instead, Sullivan observes, the churches became ‘our culture’s primary and obsessive propagandists for the marital unit’ and made it synonymous with happiness. This not only leaves out the widowed, the lonely, the young, the unlucky in love and any married people who do not, in fact, discover every possible joy in being coupled-up; it also tells gay people that if they don’t get married they will always be missing something indispensable.

Eve Tushnet, the author of Gay and Catholic, says that when she converted she didn’t know what she was supposed to do. ‘The biggest issue for a gay Catholic,’ she says on the phone from Washington DC, ‘is: “What is my future going to look like?” I guess the other big one is “Why is God doing this, why is this happening in my life?” ’

For Tushnet, the future became clearer when she asked where specifically God was calling her to love — which led to volunteering at a crisis pregnancy centre, and to a deepening of friendship. Tushnet sees this life as an expression of her sexuality, not a denial of it. ‘The desire for same-sex intimacy and love and the recognition of beauty in people of the same sex — these are inherently good things, and in many ways basic human needs.’ Some people find it possible, she says, ‘to take all of that energy and intensity of erotic love and let it flow into a relationship to women or to beauty or to God’. That kind of ‘sublimation’ has always made intuitive sense to her.

‘For other people, that’s not intuitive at all, and if you say “sublimation” they’re like, “Yeah, OK. Or I could just bang my head on a wall 15 times, that would be equally sensible.” And I think for them, often people do end up developing a really deep and beautiful theology of the sacrifice of one’s sexuality.’ Which can help them to ‘view it as something that’s beautiful — that even in the sacrifice you are doing something that is deeply beautiful and honoured by God’.

Tushnet suggests a couple of things which would make life easier for LGBT Christians. First, for people to recognise and affirm the ‘real power’ of their friendships and leave behind the fear that depending on your friends is ‘clingy’ or ‘weird’. Secondly, she wishes the Church would remember its original role as a family for its members: ‘the people who would take care of them when they’re sick, the people who they could share their secrets and their fears and their hopes with, the people who they could make a life with’.

When the Anglican synod meets this month, there will be a lot of talk of how the recognition of gay people’s experiences could change Christian doctrine. What it might do instead, in the long run, is leave the doctrine standing and change everything else.

Dan Hitchens has just been appointed deputy editor of the Catholic Herald.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Dominic Stockford

    Change doctrine and it isn’t the church any more. Not that this has stopped them so far.

    • Jacobi

      Doctrine does not change, in spite of the endless attempts over the centuries to do that. This century is no different from the previouis twenty.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Indeed.

        To be clearer – if the CofE changes the doctrine that IT follows then it will cease to be the church.

        • JabbaPapa

          Didn’t the 59 declarations of heresy and schism already do that 500 years ago ?

          • Dominic Stockford

            If you must seek Biblical Christians to troll, please ensure that you make sure that your ‘clever’ comments are accurate and factual first.

          • JabbaPapa

            Where in the Bible are those 59 to be found then ?

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        incorrect-doctrine has changed many times over the. years when the bible was edited and rewritten

        • JabbaPapa

          when the bible was edited and rewritten

          Hasn’t happened since at least the time of King David, unless of course you’re referring to certain Protestant abuses ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            1400s was the last time I believe

          • JabbaPapa

            The Bible was not “edited and rewritten” in the 1400s.

    • Naters

      doctrine CAN, however, be developed. before Vatican 2, the church’s Code of Canon Law said no teaching could ever be presumed to be infallible. So even if you believed in that teaching, you couldn’t just assume it was infallible.

      • JabbaPapa

        before Vatican 2, the church’s Code of Canon Law said no teaching could ever be presumed to be infallible

        This is nonsense.

        The 1917 Code stated : “Nothing is understood as defined or declared infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” — which means that doctrines that the Magisterium has clearly and lawfully declared to be infallible are most certainly to be considered as such.

        Regardless, both Vatican I on Papal infallibility and the 1983 Code of Canon Law are binding, so your stuff about the 1917 Code is irrelevant anyway.

        • Naters

          i said i wasn’t gonna talk to you anymore. so stop responding to me please.

          • JabbaPapa

            Stop typing nonsense, and I’ll stop pointing it out.

          • Naters

            ok. well first of all, it is NOT evident that homosexuality is unnatural nor is it evident that anything it leads to is wrong, and that includes the sexual part. it has been proven to actually provide many benefits, including relieved loneliness, lower anxiety, decreased tensions, increased self-esteem, ect. so given all these studies, it is NOT that evident that it is so so wrong.

          • JabbaPapa

            I’ve answered these points elsewhere in the thread to someone else, so I’ve no need to repeat my position here.

            I’ll just add that not everything that provides pleasure or satisfaction is necessarily virtuous.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Aren’t you getting confused with a study on cat ownership?!

          • Naters

            the church used to describe these kinds of relationships as based “more on the spirit than on the flesh” and “not of nature but of the Holy Spirit”.

          • JabbaPapa

            That sounds like rubbish to me, and some sort of invention of gay propaganda.

          • Naters

            apparently you haven’t studied your history. the church used to perform same-sex unions in the 13th century, and one of the parts of the ceremony being “that they be joined together more in spirit than in flesh”.

          • JabbaPapa

            the church used to perform same-sex unions in the 13th century

            That is complete nonsense — and I say this because I’ve looked into these sorts of claims before.

            Those who claim this sort of thing are in the habit of taking some individual cases of some extreme abuses and then pretending that they were somehow “authorised” by “the Church”. In other words, they’re lying through their teeth.

          • Naters

            explain Sergius and Bacchus then and why Bacchus called Sergius his “other half”

          • JabbaPapa

            See ? Told you that this was gay propaganda.

            It is very twisted to assume that all friendship between two people must be sexual.

          • Naters

            the only reason you’re saying the things you are right now is out of disgust at things you don’t find good

          • JabbaPapa

            You have made several false claims about the Church and her teachings and practices, and my basic purpose is to openly disagree with those falsehoods.

            I have said exactly nothing against homosexuals in general nor against any homosexuals individually.

            I have stated my disagreement that homosexuality should be promoted, for various reasons, none of which are “hatred of homosexuals” nor “disgust”.

          • Naters

            but you do have an underlying fear of homosexuality saying the things you are. same-sex unions were performed in Serbian christian churches before the 18th century, and the ceremonial process went like this:

            “The priest shall place the right hand of the elder upon the holy Gospel and upon that of the younger. Then: Blessed be God, now and forever and ever. Amen

            Then shall the priest take the holy belt and tie it around them. And they that are about to be joined shall hold the holy belt in their left hands.

            O Lord, Our God, who hast given unto us the promise of salvation accept Thou these thy two servants, N. and N. who love each other with a love of the spirit, and have desired to come into thy holy church, and grant unto them hope, unashamed faithfulness and true love.

            …Thou also didst deem it proper for the holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus to be united. Bless Thou these thy servants. Grant unto them grace and prosperity, and faith and love; let them love each other without envy and without temptation all the days of their life.

            For these thy servants [and] for their being joined unto each other, we beseech Thee, O Lord. That the Lord our God unite them in perfect love and inseparable life, we beseech Thee, O Lord. For the presanctified gift of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they receive it without sin and that it preserve their union without envy, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

            [The First Epistle of] the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians… Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

            Then: Peace be with you. Then shall the priest kiss them. And the two that are to be joined shall kiss each other.

            And he shall dismiss them.”

          • JabbaPapa

            you do have an underlying fear of homosexuality saying the things you are

            That is nonsense. You’re just trying to mount some ludicrous false accusation of “homophobia” (whatever that might happen to mean this week).

            But in fact, my motive concerns public disagreement with your continued false representations of Church realities, present or historical.

            same-sex unions were performed in Serbian christian churches before the 18th century*

            More nonsense, based on the exact same gay propaganda and extreme abuses falsely presented as if they were “normal” Church business, whereas in fact the sorts of things that homosexuals have gotten up to, historically, in their false ceremonies imitating blessings or counterfeiting marriage (only rarely with the complicity of any priests), are blasphemies against her Liturgy and her Sacraments, which were strongly repressed if & when discovered, including in such times and places as when the normal civil law punishment for them was the death penalty.

  • JabbaPapa

    One of the basics of Spirituality and therefore of Christianity in particular is the submission of desire to the Will, the Intellect, and our Faith in and love for God. Such submission will of course be harder or easier for some things and for some people than others, but this can hardly justify simply abandoning the effort completely and pretending that doing so is “Christian”.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      everyone is entitled to make up their god as they see fit

  • chrisvogel

    The essential feature of church doctrine towards homosexuals and bisexuals, now and in the past, has been vicious persecution. We are grateful that modern secular governments do not permit the church its traditional responses to difference: torture and mass murder. As for those homosexuals and bisexuals who choose conservatives sects–which is their right–they are fully and personally responsible for the loneliness, alienation and lack of family life that this causes. In any case, they and their co-believers are further evidence, were it needed, that religious people are capable of believing anything at all. no matter how foolish, arrogant, wrong, malicious, and wilfully ignorant it is.

    • Tiffany

      Agreed, I’m grateful for a government that doesn’t permit mass murder or torture either. But then again historically, the track record of modern secular government isn’t spotless on those counts either.

      Should the blame and fears of bigotry and prejudice, both historic and suspected, sit solely on ‘the church’, ‘the government’ or whatever institution we might want to put in the firing line? I think plain old human beings are more than capable of their share of horrors all on their own, without needing to give anyone else credit for it.

      We’re also grateful for institutions and individuals across the world and through time that stood up, and still stand up against evil perpetrated and planned by others – even by their own governments (modern secular or otherwise).

      I found your last comments very troubling. Do you really feel comfortable making the statement that a whole group of society could be ‘fully and personally responsible for loneliness, alienation and lack of family life’? I think that’s a rather insensitive comment to make.

      • chrisvogel

        Last first: individuals, like those in this article, are responsible for the choices that they make, and the consequences thereof, all of which are perfectly obvious (apart from their foolish and self-destrutive religious delusions, which they also claim to have chosen). Not insensitive, just realistic, although that is apparently an uncommon approach among the very religious. As for this being a “whole group”–I presume you are referring to the subjects of this article–they are a statistically insignifant and an entirely temporary “group”, born of the gradulal but as yet incomplete abandonment of nonsensical and destructive religious doctrine.
        As for the source of persecution, it is always religion, in some form or another, that convinces a community to murder (etc.) some of its members. Not all religions are deist, but they have in common, having attached themselves to an ideology with a Book and a Prophet, both preaching that those who disagree are not merely mistaken, but are rather deliberately evil. There are no significant differences in this (or any other) respect between Naziism, Stalinisn, Christianity and Islam. Indeed they all suffer from the same prediliction to victious persecution (in the absence of restraining government) evidently inherent, particularly, in monotheisms.

        • Zoran

          Reading your many posts and you have been quite outspoken so I presume you don’t mind a plain word ; you seem to love yourself more than you love God (and have no difficulty libeling all and sundry as well) – hence his will must be subservient to yours and, my my, you do sound rather cross when others don’t agree. An old preacher I knew when asked about a different but similarly deep seated problem replied “why don’t you go somewhere quiet and die”. In case you think he was being literal he was talking about death to self – it needs putting to death, you won’t be content until you do it.

    • jeffersonian

      ‘As for those homosexuals and bisexuals who choose conservatives sects–which is their right–they are fully and personally responsible for the loneliness, alienation and lack of family life that this causes.’

      What a remarkably cheerless and ungracious point of view – particularly from someone with a rainbow flag heart as avatar. Not very ‘Christian’ is it?

      • chrisvogel

        The grace inherent in my response results from having known, for decades, both homosexuals (etc.) in properly fulling relationships and those, as in the article, who adhere, being religious conservatives, to childish delusion and ridiculous fabrication, to their own serious disadvantage. You are correct in observing that this latter choice is cheerless.

        • jeffersonian

          So much for the Christian love in your heart.

          • chrisvogel

            My love for others is not the mealy-mouthed, malicious, and destructive “love” that Christians so often profess. It is rather a more general, and much more generous hope that all individuals can live happy and fulfilling lives without the persecution of people like you.

          • jeffersonian

            How on earth have I persecuted you?

            You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

          • chrisvogel

            You would find the answer in reading my posts. Too much to expect. The mantle of shame lies so heavily on the Roman church that you have become used to it. Just more sky fairy fantasies that you can inflict on others.

          • JabbaPapa

            crikey, you’re paranoid

          • chrisvogel

            Nope, just many years experience in knowing loathsome little birks like you.

    • Jacobi

      That is not so.

      The Church, can’t speak for the church, has always offered a simple solution, that is don’t do it and if you continue, then by all means come to Mass and be part of the Catholic Church just as any other Catholic who is not in a state of grace can do. But, and this applies to sinners of all sorts, do not receive Holy Communion.

      Quite simple really.

      • chrisvogel

        Childish, simple-minded, foolish and destructive, and exactly what you would expect from the Roman church. Mind you, it is having to withdraw from what has been an endless string of energetic efforts to do as much damage as it can to sexual minorities, since even its own members cannot, for the most part, put up with it. How grand of you and the church to allow them back in the doors, despite this, if only as marked inferiors, but it is evident that few are so foolish to go there again.

      • Jacobi

        Timings are getting mixed up here and am trying to change!
        See above.

    • Jacobi

      That is not so.

      The Church, I can’t speak for the church, has always offered a simple solution to this problem. That is don’t do it, and if you can’t or won’t, then by all means come to Mass and be part of the Catholic Church, until such time as you can change. But, and it is a big but, and it applies to all sinners not just sins of this type, do not in the meantime receive Holy Communion, which after all we are only required to receive once a year and if we can, and that would not apply to astronauts or to long term prisoners of terrorist groups and one or two other groups I can think of.

      Quite simple really.

      • chrisvogel

        “Change” in this case, is just more childish delusion. It never works, always fails, which often lead the deluded (that is, religious) to suicide, which, tellingly, seems to have been the church’s objective in the first place. Certainly, all of these attempts to alter sexual orientaition, being frauds and having no scientific (or, among decent people, any other) justification, seem driven exclusively by the evidently intense desire among religious conservatives to do a much damage as they can to those who are different.

        • Jacobi

          I do not suffer from childish delusions I am a Catholic, from a largely Protestant family incidentally, which makes me more careful than perhaps need be, by critical examination of and analysis of the Resurrection and the doctrine of the Church.
          Where people have taken the Catholic approach I have never, and I have now a fair amount of experience over the years, including friendship with chaste people who have your apparent inclination, found it to fail.
          And who is trying to alter orientations. Not the Catholic Church. This problem is as old as Fallen Man. Just consult the CCC, (since even as a liberal, you appear to be claiming to be a catholic ). I can give you the references if you wish?

          • chrisvogel

            Lying seems to be an essential component of being religious. The Catholic church has sponsored, and continues to sponsor organizations and “clinics” that claim to alter sexual orientation, and this inclination is commonly supported by its heirarchy and faithful members. And, while we are at it, lets look at what else the Roman church has done, and is doing. Whenever and wherever the subject of decriminalization arises, the Roman church always, everywhere, advocates that homosexuals continue to go to prison. And, wherever and whenever protection from discrimination is debated, the Roman church has always, everywhere, opposed this legislaton, demanding the continuation of firing, eviction and refusal of business services. And, whenever and wherever the subject of legal relationships between homosexuals and their children, the Roman church has always, everywhere, demanded that there be no such recognition. The Roman church never accepts that its doctrine should apply only to itself, but invariably demands that this loathsome fraud should be imposed on everyone. The Roman church has never, ever, not anywhere, done anything useful or constructive for homosexuals or bisexuals, and this is particularly damning when you consider that the usual proportion of its members and their children, are members of sexual minorities. This is “love” that the church preaches and it is indistinguishable, under the modern secular regimes that prevent your natural inclinations to worse, from hatred.

          • Jacobi

            Wrong.
            The Church does not sponsor “clinics” or whatever you call them. Examples if you please.

          • chrisvogel

            The Roman church was never really Catholic; that is just another of its many self-serving fantasies. As for favouring “therapies”, that is something you could have Googled yourself although, I appreciate, any contact with fact and reality would, for you, be a novel and painful experience. Anyhoo, you can start here http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/homohope.HTM http://www.ravishly.com/2015/01/14/catholic-conversion-therapy-sexuality-gender-abuse

            CatholicTherapists.com. and on and on (there are lots more sites in this vein, but I doubt you will read any of them. Just too much fact and reality.
            What a wonderful idea that people should have a choice! This is, of course, exactly opposite to what the Roman church has always preached and demanded. All of its political activites against homosexuals–and there has been a great deal of this–were based upon the premise that Roman church doctrine must be embodied in the law of every nation and imposed upon everyone.
            I don’t have a cross, except what religious bigots such as yourself have imposed. It would never occur to me to do that to anyone else; I have, unlike you, always assume that each person is entitled to think, belief, preach and worship, or not, as they like. Nevertheless, I have survived the cross that you are your colleages have imposed on on all sexual minorities, in part by making public your responsibility for it.
            As for the Roman church’s vile inclinations, the restrictions, thankfully, placed on you by secular governments have enormously improved everyyone’s lives, and will continue to do so until abandonment of the church renders it irrelevant.

          • drdanfee

            I always get wobbly every time I hear faith communities proclaim how terribly holy or rewarding it is to suffer. The reasons for suffering seem so glossed over, so taken for granted, that I think we need to slow down, maybe; then try to focus on both the why and the how of any sufferings that we valorize. Women, for example, have traditionally been encouraged to endure far too many forms of pain and of suffering …. physical abuse by husbands? ….. emotional neglect by ditto? …. other examples are numerous from real world history, up to the present (female so-called circumcision?). Pain, suffering which turn out to be preventable get glossed over as some kind of sacred calling or necessity in far too many narratives that celebrate deeply hard things in life.

            Never to be touched, physically, deeply, and with a non-verbal/pre-verbal solemn joy must surely be among the worst deprivations a human could be asked to endure for the seven to eight decades of our modern life cycle. It is an empirical fact that sustained (20-30 minutes or so), loving human touch releases oxytocin, helping to increase and sustain a particular human state of wellness. Starving people of this part of embodied daily life seems terrible even when necessary because of dire circumstances (risk of transmitting Ebola virus?); let alone a requirement, let alone a kind of holy or sacred deprivation?

            Finding one’s personal way to such discernment is so raw and sensitive a matter that I cannot help but doubt that other people may ask it of someone. Alas. Lord have mercy,.

          • Jacobi

            So what personal faith do you belong to? The Catholic Church gives a logical reason for suffering, but what is yours, just blind chance?. Well just hang on a bit, as a species we have already exceeded our sell-by-date. (and I speak as a scientist (retired ) here.

            Worst deprived? Come on pull the other. Sore hip admittedly but otherwise happy to mix with my pals at our Tuesday/ Wednesday lunch time (hobby related ) sessions. You sound a bit wobbly however. You alright?

            By the way regarding starvation, which has been a problem with many, although I suspect not you, I would refer you to the UN figures on this ” 2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics” which shows that this problem is rapidly declining. There are many other such references but that will do for a start.
            Now sorry about all your problems but as I have said we all have crosses to bear and wjhat is nmore I have a busy dat ahead of me
            God bless!

          • JJD

            “the Roman church has never, ever, not anywhere, done anything useful or constructive for homosexuals or bisexuals”

            It has told them the truth. That is more than most other people, religious or not, have been willing to do.

          • chrisvogel

            No truth there; I think you are incapable of it. Just more (vicious) sky fairy persecution.

          • JJD

            “sky fairy” – another “free thinker” incapable of either original thought or original insults.

          • chrisvogel

            I knew how much you detested both original thought and original insults. Fits fine, though.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            don’t confuse your truth with THE truth-THE truth is that there is no god at all…

          • JJD

            As Jack Nicholson once said:

            The truth? You can’t handle the truth.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            haha-i can handle it-it set me free 🙂

          • JJD

            It wasn’t the truth, my friend, and it did not set you free. Maybe the day will come when you will know what real freedom is, and real joy – and thereby recognize your present reality as slavery.

        • JabbaPapa

          I am not a homosexual, but my lengthy abstinence from s€x is utterly incompatible with your extremist characterisations of these things.

          It is anyway grossly uncharitable to seek to deny, by banning it, psychotherapy for those wishing to resist their inclinations towards behaviours they consider as immoral.

          And anyway, some people simply **do** change their sexuality as they grow older — it is a LIE to claim that those who might experiment with homosexuality in their youth must be permanently defined as being “gay”.

          • Sanctimony

            A more logical explanation to your ‘lengthy abstinence’ might be attributable to your lack of attraction to members of either s€x…

            There aren’t many who would welcome a bigoted, hectoring robot into their beds….

          • chrisvogel

            Nope. “Change” is a fraud, and typical of people like you that you should continue it. I researched ‘therapies’, both religious and medical, for the Council on Homosexuality and Religion in the 1980’s and 1990’s. All of those who had been subject to these ‘therapies’ reported that they continued to “struggle”, which is to say that the ‘therapies’ were ineffective. In the end, they all reverted to being gay or bisexual; their ‘shelf life’ was about six months, on average. This is why “ex-gay” organizations continue to disappear (having to revert to being led by heterosexuals) and why “ex-gays” are so uncommon. All of the conventions and conferences that feature them have to be satisfied with one or two, usually imports, and why, when the remaining organizations attempted a “Mass National Lobby” to lobby Congress in 2013, the grand total that turned up was six (6) from the whole country. Therapists that claimed success in this line can provide no examples (they have “lost contact” with all of them). This “change” is a fkae fostered only by religious bigots that seek to do as much damage as they can to those they don’t like, and they sometimes succeed when the “therapy” fails, which it always does, sooner or later.

    • Hippograd

      Don’t worry: mass immigration from the Third World has brought and will continue to bring millions of LGBT-rights activists into the West. The churches won’t be able to carry on their vicious persecution for much longer.

      Onwards and upwards, fellow members of the Progressive Community!

  • Kevin Ytza

    The key is to reclaim Catholic civilization, frankly, from Doo-Wop. The unmarried are integrated into authentic Catholic society seamlessly. If you’ll permit me a long example.

    When I lived as a young man in Chicago, I would travel throughout the city armed with a book, “Ethnic Chicago,” that described in detail the history of each neighborhood. My yuppie friends in Lincoln Park would not accompany me to these “bad” neighborhoods. In fact, even though they were natives of the city’s suburbs, they had never been to neighborhoods on the south or west sides of the city (Garfield Park, Humboldt Park, Jackson Park, South Shore, Bucktown, Pullman, Logan Square, Pilsen).

    What I found in each of the neighborhoods astonished me. It was like a trip to a foreign country. Each neighborhood had the same elements: A massive, beautiful Catholic church that rivaled anything I had seen in Europe, attractive, well-constructed housing stock that in Lincoln Park would be worth millions, wide boulevards, large parks, old storefronts and some remaining corner taverns. In one neighborhood, the priest took me to the basement of a massive church to show me a working bowling alley and an ornate bar. He had grown up in the neighborhood when it was all Polish. He explained that on weekends, the fathers would come home from work and have dinner. Then the family would head over to the church for Rosary and Confession, and down into the basement. The fathers would bowl, the mothers would play cards, everyone would have a few drinks and the kids would run free. I know not everything was perfect, but it seemed like a wonderful life to me. When I described it to my mother, she said, “How do you think it was for me growing up in NYC? Exactly like that.”

  • The Church Mouse

    The Living Out group are not ‘quite a large constituency’. There are currently approximately six gay people in the UK who have identified with it, supported by a large number of straight conservative Christians, who are absolutely delighted to have a group who cannot be accused of homophobia making their case for them.

    • Lorenzo Fernandez

      You tell them, mouse. I counted five, who found the courage to come out to their ever-so-loving churches in their forties.

  • Jacobi

    They have not split the Catholic Church, since its doctrine does not change. Can’t speak for the other churches.

    Incidently you blogger have the advantage over us commenters. There is a “flag up” system in place which automagically blocks us commenters but not you bloggers, apparently. The three letter word starting with S, definitely definitely triggers this as I have found out. I wonder if the other one starting with G, which you as a blogger use freely, has the same effect.

    So I have been careful in what and how I have said..

  • Quinquagesima

    As a single Christian (not, as it happens, same-sex attracted; but that’s not really relevant here), I think this is a brilliant account of the role of friendship, and one which rings very true. Close friendship is an amazing and joyous thing, and is much underrated. At its best, friendship is loving without being at all jealous or possessive, dependable without being stifling, and is uncomplicated. The Church should spend more time thinking about the theology of friendship.

  • cestusdei

    Celibacy is actually quite positive. I suggest the Catholic group Courage for those struggling with this problem.

    • Jacobi

      I could not agree more, and am delighted that at last I have come across a comment mentioning or supporting Courage and other such groups.
      I am not “gay”, (you have to watch such words since some sites automatically flag you up and cancel when you use that word) but I know some chaste “homosexuals”. Over some time, years probably, I have commented on how we, as Catholics, should support such organisations.
      Yours is the only other example I have come across. Please continue!!

      • cestusdei

        Will do.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      What problem would that be?

    • tb03

      Are you celibate? If so, are you planning on staying that way for the rest of your life? If not, what makes you certain it is “positive” to coerce others into lifelong celibacy?

      • JabbaPapa

        what makes you certain it is “positive” to coerce others into lifelong celibacy?

        Has anyone been threatening to cut your parts off, or something ?

        You do not understand Catholic moral theology, most likely because you do not understand the doctrine of Original Sin, nor the **fact** that we are all sinners.

        those who would erase my life and try to destroy my family

        Is your neighbourhood troubled by gangs of religious extremists loaded with weaponry and a desire to kill ?

  • Joseph Sciambra

    As a former “gay” man who is now a Christian, in terms of homosexuality – I am all for denial, because “gay” is a lie: it is neither how we were born nor how God made us; what it is – is a symptom of a deeper psychological problem; you can read more here:
    http://www.josephsciambra.com/2015/09/why-so-called-gay-catholics-should.html

    • GoJebus

      You should say, “as a former member of the human race before I lost my f*cking mind”. You are now a vestige of who you once were, a fully paid up pious numbskull.

    • drdanfee

      Oh dear, JS, your universalized claim that ‘gay’ is a lie flies in the face of six to seven recent decades of empirical human sciences research. Being ‘gay’ is then repositioned, from being a self-evident outlier (sin, crime, defect) to being within ‘normal’ human limits for personhood, life growth and daily life functioning. If you found your own ‘gay’ sense of self not deep enough to be weighed as genuine or capable of decent human living, one can only join you in celebrating that you went another way. But to over-generalize for any and all humans?

    • JJD

      Joseph, your experience of homosexual attraction might not be the same as the next person’s experience of it. Did you ever consider that?

      I’m glad you’ve managed, with God’s help, to get over the psychological problems that were causing your attraction. That doesn’t mean that you can make the same diagnosis and proscribe the same treatment for everyone else who experiences same-sex attraction.

      There may be – indeed I think it’s pretty clear there are – many causes of homosexuality, sometimes within the same person.

      • Miss Floribunda Rose

        Belief in a God is a psychological problem too.

        • JJD

          Think what you want. I’m secure in my belief. Unlike some other groups, who shall remain nameless, I don’t feel the need to go around screaming at everyone “YOU MUST ACCEPT ME!”

    • Miss Floribunda Rose

      God is a lie too. You’ve been had twice over.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      Joseph-youre still gay, fruitcake-your gay face is very severe

      • Fulgentian

        Trolltrolltrolltroll

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          no, dummy-its ok to hate bigots. By your twisted logic, a black man who hates the KK is a bigot? come on, moron

  • James Chilton

    Once you start using the loaded word “gay” instead of the neutral “homosexual”, you’ve assented to an agenda.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      And a very good agenda to assent to, furthermore.

      • JabbaPapa

        The ultra-sexualisation of everything that this agenda is promoting is not a “good”.

    • Miss Floribunda Rose

      The word ‘homosexuality’ was invented by a Hungarian doctor in 1869. It is not a neutral word.

      • James Chilton

        Okay, what does it signify – if it’s not a neutral description?

        • Miss Floribunda Rose

          A mental disorder.

          • James Chilton

            Who says so?

          • sidor

            Shall we rather call it a disorder of the sexual behaviour? In the same way as zoophilia?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            should you be in line to get your welfare, you ignorant tiit?

      • sidor

        Any medical term is neutral in any other respect.

        • Miss Floribunda Rose

          The very fact that the word was invented as a ‘medical term’ makes it non-neutral.

          • sidor

            Could you please explain us non-neutrality of the term schizophrenia? Or, for that matter, diarrhoea?

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            Both are disorders, one of the body and one of the mind. By inventing a word to define attraction between members of the same gender, a judgment has been made: namely, that such an attraction is intrinsically disordered and perhaps in need of treatment or cure. Personally, the subject of “homosexuality” (such an unnecessary word, don’t you think?) bores me, and I have nothing further to say concerning it. As I have said elsewhere, those who define themselves (or others) by their “sexuality” are fools. Time for another pink gin. Cheers.

          • sidor

            What about heterosexuality? Does it too imply disorder in your imagination?

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            No. Neither does “homosexuality”. I am opposed to the “medicalisation” of so much naturally occurring human behaviour, feelings and impulses. Words like “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” should never have been invented. They are not necessary.

          • sidor

            Let’s continue with the list. Is zoophilia a disorder?

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            What on earth is zoophilia? It sounds highly disordered to me, whatever it is! I’ve just coined a new word: Tharg. What is a Tharg? A Tharg is a person who posts comments in the New Statesman. Is there any need to invent such a word? No. Likewise “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”. Anyhow, this particular Tharg is just about to log off. Cheers.

    • Jacobi

      I have known several “gay” people. The one characteristic lacking in all of them is a tendency to be full of, or be inclined to, mirth or light heartedness.

      • sidor

        I don’t think I share your impression. I had a homosexual colleague, a talented mathematician. He was a well accepted member of our group, quite jovial an witty, we all liked him and regularly laughed about his jokes and sharp remarks. The group, however, was entirely male: the women around openly disliked him.

      • James Chilton

        The word “gay” – apart from meaning carefree, jovial, light hearted etc. – has a history of being used as a signifier for promiscuous. It’s obviously been adopted as a euphemism by homosexuals who fear that the correct word for their condition or behaviour, is too ‘clinical’.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          gay is also correct linguistically

      • pobjoy

        Burdened with guilt, like a Catholic, then.

        • JJD

          As opposed to Protestants, who are full of joy, as you so clearly demonstrate…

          • pobjoy

            I don’t recall saying what, if anything, I believe. But as Protestantism seems to be worth gratuitous insult, maybe it’s worth investigation.

          • JJD

            I’ve seen you post in other threads, where your Protestant beliefs have been clearly in evidence. Along with your evangelical joy, and charity, of course…

          • pobjoy

            I’ve seen you post in other threads

            Sensible JJD, who just loves erudition. But if we haven’t noted the wit, the humour, the insouciance also, maybe it’s because we need a teensy bit of joy? 🙂

            Or is it that you need everything explained?

            Protestant beliefs

            The main Protestant belief is that people may be accounted with the
            righteousness of Christ himself merely by trusting him. All evils
            committed, however terrible, are thereby forgiven. And Protestants are said to be ‘filled with joy’ on this very account! And why not?

            Now some won’t admit that they have done anything wrong, so have nothing to be happy about. They must be miserable, because nobody’s perfect. Others admit their wickedness, but love it more than being forgiven for it. So they must be miserable, too. Homosexuals often seem to be miserable, and in the past, I have mentioned the irony of them describing themselves as ‘gay’. ‘Sad to be gay’, not ‘glad to be gay’, I think I might have written.

            Now Catholics, who of necessity have to leave their common sense at the Catholic door, have learned to read, thanks to Protestants; and they note that Protestantism says that it is less than contentment to be ‘gay’. And of course, as ever, Catholics have to run to keep up with Protestants. When they’re not running away from them, that is.

            But the other irony is that a Catholic can never have joy, because he or she admits to being sinful, yet his or her sins are forgiven only at the moment that they swallow God, who looks remarkably like a tiny bit of feuille pastry. Immediately after that, they may commit another sin, and another Mass is necessary, dammit. Before Protestantism brought cool realism to their febrile minds, they would attend Mass to eat God eight times a day, so they would not go to Hades unforgiven. Now that’s devotion; but it’s miserable, ever-anxious devotion, and not at all what Jesus intended, and died for.

          • JabbaPapa

            The main Protestant belief is that people may be accounted with the righteousness of Christ himself merely by trusting him

            That’s not in the Bible.

            All evils committed, however terrible, are thereby forgiven

            That’s not in the Bible.

            his or her sins are forgiven only at the moment that they swallow God

            That’s not Catholic.

            Immediately after that, they may commit another sin, and another Mass is necessary, dammit

            That’s a load of bollocks.

          • JJD

            “the wit, the humour, the insouciance”

            It’s a sad day when you’ve got to sound the praises of your own wit, pobjoy.

            I’ve seen you attempt these things, but all that really comes across is bitterness.

            Take that from one of your devoted readers…

          • pobjoy

            It’s a sad day when you’ve got to sound the praises of your own wit

            True. But now you know it’s there, you can appreciate it.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        wrong-leave the trailer park and go to a big city-gays are very happy

      • Hypatia

        I’ve known 20 gay people. They span the range from saturnine to quite light hearted, just like straights do. Maybe you should expand your acquaintance.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      no, dummy-gay is just easier and shorter to say-there is no agenda-just equality and we are almost there-praise Jeebus for that!

      • Fulgentian

        Right. So the way to make up for feeling insulted is to insult other people. Then leave the board. Pathetic trolling.

  • JJD

    I’ve got a lot of admiration for these people. Although, I would not be willing to agree that same s*x attractions are “inherently good”. They tend towards an act which is, according to Christian teaching, inherently evil. To that extent, they cannot be considered inherently good.

    • Daniel P

      I don’t think the article was calling the sexual attraction “inherently good”. It was calling non-sexual forms of attachment and attraction inherently good.

      • JJD

        It quoted someone from one of these groups who called it inherently good. The words are there, have a look.

  • Miss Floribunda Rose

    Those who define themselves by their ‘sexuality’ are fools.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      let us guess-big fat twice divorced straight white woman huh?

      • JabbaPapa

        Your casual misogyny speaks volumes.

  • Miss Floribunda Rose

    Christians and ‘homosexuals’ bore the @rse off me, to be honest, with their incessant whining and mania for victimhood status. They deserve each other.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      you shut your filthy mouth, biitch-gays have been victimized for centuries

  • Cobbett

    They will be damned eternally…what does it matter ”what they want”.

    • Hypatia

      Who will be damned eternally?

      • Cobbett

        What’s the ‘headline’?

  • john

    I’m a conservative gay Christian, transsexual, commie, black, left handed Sunday school teacher – do I have problems!

    • Sanctimony

      That depends on what you do with your right hand….

    • Antonious

      I wish I was left handed, I would have made it further in my baseball career.

    • Hypatia

      i see no problem with any of your descriptive adjectives except “commie”. How do you define that?

      • john

        As a 60s graduate, I know of no insult more fatal than calling someone a Commie.

  • pobjoy

    Many people lay claim to be Christians, but they cannot all be, if only because they disagree with each other. The only people who can be sensibly accounted Christians are those whose lives and beliefs accord with the only known evidence about Christianity, the Bible. According to the Bible, to be accounted a Christian by Christians, a person has to demonstrate the following: humility, truthfulness, patience, brotherly (or sisterly) kindness, willingness to forgive, gentleness, self-control, trustworthiness, peacefulness and joy that one has been forgiven.

    Those who describe homosexual relationships as ‘gay’ cannot be accepted, because it is a dishonest euphemism. But even if there is honesty, homosexuals who lay claim to be Christian are usually so inept that they cannot see that they cannot qualify for at least one other reason.

    • sidor

      Their attempts to distort our language are much more serious than their religious claims. Gay isn’t a part of the language of literature: it is a street slang word. We have to keep the language clean of all sorts of slang words and vulgarisms.

      • pobjoy

        I agree, abuse of language is offensive, as well as dishonest. So the very term ‘gay Christian’ is self-disqualifying.

    • MC73

      “o be accounted a Christian by Christians, a person has to demonstrate the following: humility, truthfulness, patience, brotherly (or sisterly) kindness, willingness to forgive, gentleness, self-control, trustworthiness, peacefulness and joy that one has been forgiven.”

      That doesn’t exclude anyone who is gay then…

      • pobjoy

        The avatar’s enough.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      wrong-there are currently 38,000 branches of Christianity-no two people worship the same-its all idiocy anyway-and made up by men-the bible was written by men-that is actually historical fact

      • Fulgentian

        What?!
        Of course the Bible was written by men. Which Christians believes otherwise?
        How on earth would you know that the concept of God was ‘made up by men’?

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          zealots believe God inspired the men who wrote the bible instead of men just writing it, which is the truth. All religions can be traced to their origins as to when man made them up-do you not know any history of religion?

      • pobjoy

        there are currently 38,000 branches of Christianity

        Do you mean that there are 38 000 small groups of people who believe the same thing, based on the Bible? You might be right. What is for certain is that billions of people believe the Bible to be written by humanity, but divinely inspired, so keen are they to twist its meaning, in 38 000 ways!

        Or just flatly deny it, as with homosexuality.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          there are only two billion Christians in the world-and most are lay Christians-that is, only partially follow the bible and its tenets. the lower the education, the higher the devoutness

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        It has always baffled me that Christians are keen to apply the prohibitions against homosexuals but would shudder a the thought of going out and burning witches…all in the Bible, just that we tend to pick and mix….

        • JJD

          “…Christians are keen to apply the prohibitions against homosexuals…”

          I don’t think anyone here is advocating the death penalty for homosexuals.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            No, of course…and apologies if you thought that is what I meant

        • JabbaPapa

          WHERE in the Bible is the burning of witches commanded ?

          Meanwhile, Christ clearly condemned the death penalty in that business with the adulterous woman.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Oh if you must be picky! I’m sure it says somewhere ‘thou shall not suffer a witch to live’ or something like that.

        • tb03

          Not denying that Christians burned people accused of being witches, but this is NOT a Biblical teaching. Jesus was an exorcist, which is essentially the opposite of being an executioner. One heals, one destroys. I understand your overall point, just wanted to correct a common misunderstanding of Christianity.

  • sidor

    The entire problem about homosexuality and Christianity is idiotically meaningless.

    Indeed, we all enjoy freedom of faith ans a perfect freedom of associations. If there is a number of homosexually oriented individuals considering themselves as, say, Roman Catholics, they need not try to fight for changing the Church doctrine. Even more stupid is to fight against the opinion of the majority of the Roman Catholics who agree with the Church doctrine about the sinful nature of same-sex sexual relationship. They can and should instead organise themselves into a new religious organisation, call it Homosexual Roman Catholic Church (HRCC), and perform whatever rituals they find appropriate within that church. The entire conflict will immediately cease to exist, and everyone will be happy.

    • JabbaPapa

      That’s the Protestant “solution” for everything — schism and heresy.

      • sidor

        You are not living in the age of Inquisition. There is no legal way to stop a group of people to organise a religion (a church).

        • JabbaPapa

          And how many have you schismatics created ? 50,000 ? 60,000 ? 70,000 ?

          Christ founded ONE Church, not this mad multitude of the Protestants.

    • pobjoy

      call it Homosexual Roman Catholic Church (HRCC)

      The very strong likelihood is that more wealthy members of the RC cult were homosexuals, when that was their inclination, since the days of Constantine. That was not the official position, of course. Those people committed every sort of crime while prosecuting the poor if they dared do the same.

      • sidor

        Constantine wasn’t a Roman Catholic. He was baptised in Arianism.

        • pobjoy

          Were Arians never homosexuals?

          • Fulgentian

            “The very strong likelihood is that more wealthy members of the RC cult were homosexuals”
            Why would you think that?

          • pobjoy

            Because you used a personal pronoun.

          • sidor

            It is reasonable to presume that statistical distribution of this medical phenomenon is invariant with respect to religious affiliation.

          • pobjoy

            🙂 Huh.

          • sidor

            Does this upset you?

          • pobjoy

            Would you be disappointed if not?

          • sidor

            I would then be puzzled by the meaning of your acoustic signal.

          • pobjoy

            I didn’t know you could hear me.

          • sidor

            You phonetically transcripted it.

          • pobjoy

            So what puzzles?

          • sidor

            What kind of emotion did you express using this acoustic signal?

          • pobjoy

            See its context.

          • sidor

            In the context, I see that my decoupling religious affiliation from the sexual orientation had an emotional impact on you. I wonder why.

          • pobjoy

            You do? I don’t think so. I now think that you made what you think is a completely daft suggestion, and was disappointed when I took it only for a poor joke. It now seems that you are the one who is upset, because you really want this hypothesis taken seriously.

            Quite apart from the fact that you know as well as I do that there was no difference between those frightened antichrists, Arians and Catholics, other than tactics, so it’s nit-picking to mention Arianism. So it seems that you thoroughly agree that there was very strong likelihood that more wealthy members of the RC cult were homosexuals, when that was their inclination, since the days of Constantine, whatever his personal belief. That was not the official position, of course. The Catholic praxis was, and remains, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It’s a religion for mugs.

          • sidor

            I am not a Roman Catholic and therefore I am thoroughly indifferent to what you say/think about that church and its members. However, I couldn’t discern any clear opinion from your exceedingly long post: do you or do you not agree with my statement concerning the invariance of the sexual behaviour with respect to religious affiliation.

            I am also puzzled by your implicitly expressed opinion that the homosexuality positively correlates with wealth.

            Could you kindly clarify these two points?

          • JabbaPapa

            Crikey, it’s a dialogue of the dumb.

          • pobjoy

            I am not a Roman Catholic

            No, you’re not a mug. But you know as well as I do that there was no difference between those frightened antichrists, Arians and Catholics, other than tactics. So your implication that Arians were any less vile, and therefore homosexual, than Catholics, shows that you do not believe in your hypothesis, either.

          • JabbaPapa

            Is sidor’s grasp of history as slippery as an eel in olive oil ?

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      sidor-incorrect-all surveys prove that Catholics accept gays as non sinners upwards of 75%.

      • Fulgentian

        Since when did majority vote make soemthing right or wrong?

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          it doesn’t but usually after education, equality for a minority (women, blacks, gays, etc) is backed by the majority as in this case

      • sidor

        Catholics where? Reference please. In a number of European Catholic countries the population is predominantly negative to the homosexual behaviour (please use the right term).

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          incorrect-gay marriage is supported by majority and legal in almost every European country/ Google gay support catholics-its been 75% for ten years

          • sidor

            Which “almost every European country”? The entire East Europe doesn’t support. And Italy doesn’t.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Italy’s majority does support it, per the latest polls, dumdum-the govt is just stuck sucking the teat of the Vatican-itll come soon, though. and also incorrect-eastern Europe also supports gay marriage in a majority per all pols-have you learned to google? besides , this isn’t a contest-the culture war is over…religious bigotry loses, gays win 🙂

          • sidor

            Sorry to say this: you are lying.

            Italy poll:
            http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/italy-poll-reveals-majority-opposed-gay-adoption-and-same-sex-marriage020215/#gs.dD7d3FM

            An tell us please in which East European country population supports same-sex marriages?

  • Bodkinn

    The trouble with the C of E is that it appears to have no doctrines that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion. One knows that however firmly a tenet may have been held in the immediate past the C of E will always eventually concede to the whimsies of its political masters. So in my life time all the items that were once taboo like homosexuality, priestesses, and abortion have been ejected in favour of a good press and to keep parliament happy. A member of the Anglican Church does not really have the most basic guide lines to know what they are supposed to believe. It is no wonder that the Anglican Church abroad has given up on the mother establishment and goes their own way. The fact that the thirty nine articles of the C of E states that ordination is not a sacrament makes it much easier for them to promote woman than it is for the apostolic churches.

  • douglas redmayne

    I have found that fay conservative Christians are rather twisted people who like to moralist a lot about things like abortion which is none of their business.

    • Fulgentian

      Why is abortion ‘none of their business’?
      They believe it is wrong, that is why they are protesting about it. It doesn’t make you a meddling moraliser to protest when you think someone else is doing something wrong.

      • douglas redmayne

        Because if they are conservatives then they don’t care about inequality in which case they have chosen to focus on abortion to justify themselves. It’s probably because they don’t like women or, in tge case of Catholic priests, it means fewer children to fiddle with.

        • Fulgentian

          “if they are conservatives then they don’t care about inequality”
          “they don’t like women”
          Oh dear. How on earth would you know that? Why the sweeping accusations against ‘conservatives’ in general?

          “to justify themselves”
          What do you mean?

          • douglas redmayne

            The conservative party us the party of the rich who want to keep things as they are and keep the lower orders in place. Given that it is no longer acceptable to play the race card they direct vilification against anyone on benefits. In their hearts they know this is wrong and hence have a need to virtue signal: hence “compassion” for fetuses which is a form of moralising.

          • JJD

            Do you have brain of your own, or are you borrowing John McDonnell’s for the day?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            douglas is correct, sir

          • JJD

            dumb endorses dumber…

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            ok, douchebag, what didn’t he say correctly?

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        it is truly none of their business per the settled law-a woman’s body, her choice-no exceptions

        • Fulgentian

          But you’re already assuming that abortion is just fine. If you think it’s not OK, then of course you’d protest about it, for the sake of the unborn foetus.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            abortion is fine-its settled law here-its kind of common sense-ones body, ones rules-and when the fetus is viable outside the womb (22 weeks), the fetus has rights

    • JabbaPapa

      Thank you for your twisted moralising about “conservative Christians”. One wonders if it is any of your business.

  • Jim Russell

    ****Tushnet sees this life as an expression of her s*xuality, not a denial of it. ‘The desire for same-s*x intimacy and love and the recognition of beauty in people of the same s*x — these are inherently good things, and in many ways basic human needs.’ Some people find it possible, she says, ‘to take all of that energy and intensity of erotic love and let it flow into a relationship to women or to beauty or to God’. That kind of ‘sublimation’ has always made intuitive sense to her.****

    This is a real problem. It’s an overly benign view of the s*xual inclination of same-s*x attraction, which is not properly ordered toward the conjugal love of man and woman (this is all very concrete Catholic teaching). Further, homos*xual inclinations ought not be merely “sublimated” as in Freud but need to be *crucified* as in Christ…..

    • drdanfee

      Hi Mr Russell, Nobody can help but acknowledge your stated faith conclusion? …. except maybe to remind us all that empirical human sciences disconfirms the legacy status of orientation variance as innately defective or criminal. If variant folks are ‘within normal limits’ for predictable individual and small group diffrerences in sufficiently large human populations, then two legacy institutions fall away as disconfirmed. We don’t imprison variant people, then. We don’t treat variant people as defective, disturbed or ill in any known empirical sense.

      What then tends to happen is that the legacy determinations that variance is sin needs to demonstrate how that is truly the human case. A circular definition is so far what we more or less have as center piece of discussion. It starts off assuming that everybody who is not nominally ‘heterosexually oriented’ is beyond the dogmatic bounds, then goes on to try to actively explicate various points along the intellectual circumference of that legacy circle of thought.

      What all that so often misses out on, is clear and lively engagement with the empirical disconfirmation of criminality and defectiveness. These two significant domains of faith traditions received and contemporary research published are frankly at loggerheads, for the time being. I don’t advise using public policy and law in a pluralistic society (post-Christendom, as it were?) to coerce overtly. A trend of change is so far inevitable, in that some traditional faith-based means of responding ….. via imprisonment, monitoring, restraining, or punishing …. and/or via some kind of non-criminalizing but empirically pseudo-health ‘treatment’ … are no longer empirically viable as either public policy or as law.

      This shift of policy and law and understanding of variant people presents most traditionalistic believers with a dilemma, in that they are used to presuming that variant people are something negative which, empirically, we no longer enshrine in policy and law. But, now, in such a changed cultural environment, how exactly are such believers to act towards those variant folks who are no longer empirically understood to be offenders in a criminal sense (orientation variant = offender against self plus others plus God)? ….. or sick per the legacy equation (orientation variant = sick)?

      • Jim Russell

        What stated faith conclusion?

        • drdanfee

          Sorry if I’m mis-reading you, JR, but here is the conclusion I took as faith-based:
          QUOTE; This is a real problem. It’s an overly benign view of the s*xual inclination of same-s*x attraction, which is not properly ordered toward the conjugal love of man and woman (this is all very concrete Catholic teaching). Further, homos*xual inclinations ought not be merely “sublimated” as in Freud but need to be *crucified* as in Christ…..UNQUOTE.

      • JJD

        What human and empirical sciences have disconfirmed homosexual attractions as defective, and – more importantly – by what methods?

        The American Journal of Psychology decided no longer to classify homosexuality as a psychological disorder. But why? No new medical information came to light. They decided to do so because society had decided that treating gay people as psychologically defective was wrong. Science didn’t lead, it followed.

        • drdanfee

          Sorry JJD, but your summary account of this change is not accurate. The professional associations were confronted in the early 1970s in USA by activists, indeed, often at national annual meetings or conferences; but the missing facts involve the activists calling the members’ attentions to the plentiful peer reviewed research that had been slowly but surely published since the 1950s. If the activists had not been able to call professional peoples’ attention to the pertinent studies, change would truly have been more social-political-cultural, minus the human sciences aspects. Also, we must be honest about a second factor that tended to go along with the research getting done and getting published. That factor consisted of more and more openly LGBTQ people who were being more honest with their friends, family members, faith communities, classmates, coworkers and so forth. Actually getting to know a sexual minority person, up close and personal, in daily life significantly trends to overcoming many negative ideas to which we are heir in our various traditions and forms of received knowledge. Oddly, by now …. even the new positive or neutral evaluations of sexual minority people as based on the human sciences …. well, is a kind of received knowledge. All one has to do is get access to a large research database …. say, pubmed …. or psych …. and start looking at the numerous studies using appropriate search terms. In USA, public libraries often have research librarians who can assist.

          Again, just to be very, very clear and accurate: the sciences in this instance of changed views among the several professional associations in human services, health services and education …. led, not followed.

          • JJD

            The same question applies concerning the 1950s: what new scientific evidence came to light in the 1950s, what new facts became available that were hitherto unavailable, and which justified the shift? None as far as I know. Peer-reviewed papers are the expression of professional opinion, not necessarily of scientific fact. This holds true especially in the human sciences, where the boundary between opinion and fact is more blurry than in the hard sciences. Professional opinions are still opinions, and are as much susceptible to cultural influence as any other opinions. Until I can actually see some scientific evidence for the reclassification of homosexuality from psycho-sexual disorder to mere sexual orientation, I will continue to argue that it was reclassified on the basis of cultural imperatives, and not scientific objectivity.

          • drdanfee

            Well as an adult in a democratic society you are free to avoid looking up the plentiful evidence. That kind of personal choice does nothing to contradict or moderate what the plentiful research from numerous angles (using various best practice methods) may have brought to light.

            The question of repositioning of homosexuality, from a presumed disorder of prescriptive heterosexuality, indeed depended on the empirical studies plus changed daily life experiences with so-called OUT people.

            Views in peer reviewed journals are more often informed by some kind of empirical investigation procedure according to out kit of research best and better practices; as an observer of science you already know that. Human Sciences are far from being fashionable opinions, however. Again, a diligent search of PubMed or Psych databases will yield more to review than a simple comment post.

            Since human sciences include investigating human nature and human behavior from a life science range of questions and investigations, the distinction between what some folks might prefer to say are, ‘Real Science’ from ‘Social Science’ is at best a heuristic strategy. That is to say, the distinction has its limits for helping us with the hot button sexuality questions at hand.

            Insisting on ignoring or misconstruing what the human sciences actually have published and how all that came about ….. does little to advance your own points of view, faith-based and otherwise, …..or so I would insist from my side.

            The published research is there, along with sufficient critical method commentaries so that method itself can be carefully evaluated. To dig into that is not going to be just a light, afternoon’s task. I encourage you to try digging, nonetheless.

            As a beginning way of just clearing and sorting some of the most pertinent available intellectual space across diverse views, I found reading David Gushee’s book quite helpful. (An introduction of sorts to the wider conversation from all sides.)

            What I found especially clear and helpful was his early chapters where he clearly describes several faith community changes that do not necessarily have to depend on doctrinal changes (stating those well-known negatives?) as a lot of faith communities tend to have received those legacy doctrines.

          • JJD

            I may have a look at the book you recommend, thanks for that.

            For me, the “lived experience” of homosexuals is just not pertinent when it comes to the specific question of what homosexuality is or isn’t. The deduction that since no negative effects are reported there’s nothing wrong is just not valid. Colour blindness would be an instance of a disorder (something being wrong) without any real negative effects in the lived experience of the person who suffers it. The question is an objective one: is the visual apparatus working in the way it is supposed to work, given the biological point of seeing? Is sexual attraction working in the way it is supposed to work, given the biological point of s*x? (Studies have shown, incidentally, that suicide rates are higher and reported levels of happiness are lower among gay men than among straight men. This is often put down to ongoing persecution, discrimination etc – perhaps an example of confirmation bias in the sciences, or at least in science reporting. Anyway…) The change in lived experience from being closeted to being ‘out’ is likewise of only marginal relevance to the objective matter.

            For some in the human sciences, the fact that gay people, in countries where being gay is OK legally and socially, have comparable “lived experiences” to straight people, or tend to become happier when they embrace their sexuality, will constitute “evidence” that being gay is not a disorder. My problem with that is not the quality of their research or the objectivity of their methods. My problem is simply that their research – let us presume it is high quality research – doesn’t secure the conclusions drawn from it. Drawing conclusions from scientific research is only partly scientific. It is also, often to a large degree, logical and philosophical. Even if your data and methods are sound, you can still make a logical or philosophical mistake whn you get to drawing conclusions. This is what I suspect is going on here.

            But since you assure me that evidence – proper evidence – is indeed out there, I must either go and look at the evidence so as to refute your position, or yield the argument by default due to relative ignorance. It is not reasonable to ask you to produce the kind of evidence required here and now. A link or two might be helpful, though.

            Thank you for the polite exchange in this matter.

          • drdanfee

            Here is a link, JJD and others who might want to dig a bit. It is maintained by the USA National Library of Medicine. It’s tag is, variously, PubMed or MedLine.

            Check it out, at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/

            The online database can be searched using several different apt terms and/or phrases – as usual.

          • JJD

            Sorry to come back on this again…

            I’ve searched the pubmed database, with terms like ‘homosexual’, ‘disorder’, ‘mental’ in different combinations. I looked specifically at the 1950s, since that was where you tell me the significant research dates from. But all I found was articles on homosexuality and venereal disease (unsurprising, since the database is a medical, not a psychological one). The couple of articles that did address homosexuality from the psychological angle seemed – at least from their titles – to assume a negative impact.

            So where is this research? I’d honestly like to know!

          • drdanfee

            Sorry JJD, I hoped the open access PubMed / Med Line database would start us off in looking around. It is a limited DB, since some articles just don’t allow such open access per the publishers. I think our better bet would be to try the Psych DB; but I don’t think that is online open access, so probably would need to go through a research librarian (?at a local higher education site?).

            Feel free to contact me at drdanfee@yahoo.com if you want to share bits on how the search is going or not, to address your own inquiry.

          • drdanfee

            Here is a potentially helpful link to at least a partial historical overview that does include the research-based changes to some extent.

            http://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_mental_health.html

            I think I would also suggest tracking down and digging into Gonsiorek (1982) and related: (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

          • drdanfee

            Also, just for what it’s worth, here is a link to a wide overview of research and LGBTQ issues, reported out in a British context:

            http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/research-report-34-sexual-orientation-research-review-2008

            From this page, one can download the lengthy report. Catch is, it takes a positive social and developmental model of sexual orientation variance, pretty much for granted; so does not much involve studies which hypothesis test a defect or illness model.

    • The Philosopher Queen

      Why does it matter that it is not ordered toward the conjugal love of man and woman?

      • Jim Russell

        Because the Catholic Church defines human s*xuality as being ordered toward that end. Catholic teaching does not buy into a plural concept of “s*xualities” but rather upholds God’s plan for a *singular* concept of s*xuality–one’s “s*xual identity” is understood not in terms of “orientation” but in terms of “man or woman.”

        • The Philosopher Queen

          Even if that were true, this isn’t a Catholic publication.

          • Jim Russell

            So what? And yes, it’s true.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            At the end of the day, spilling your seed into a condom is no more procreative than spilling into your same-sex partner. Is there any reason you think one is OK and the other is not, except pure anti-gay hate?

          • Jim Russell

            Well, of course there is no “pure anti-gay hate” happening.
            Further, your comment is misplaced since *both* examples you offer are contrary to the natural moral law and the teaching of the Catholic Church. But you’re quite correct–both examples are non-procreative, and they’re not acceptable since they do in fact undermine the meaning and purpose of human s*xuality…

          • The Philosopher Queen
          • JabbaPapa

            No, he said that pregnancy avoidance might be acceptable.

            To translate this into English for the slower of mind, by that term he was referring to sexual abstinence within marriage.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            You didn’t even bother to read the link I posted, did you? I’ll copy and paste to save you the trouble of moving your finger half an inch and clicking on the link:

            “… Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has affirmed that the Holy Father was indeed speaking of “condoms and contraceptives” when on the flight back from Mexico, Pope Francis said couples could rightly “avoid pregnancy” in the wake of the Zika virus scare … Fr. Lombardi told Vatican Radio today, “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said … ”

            So the claim that he is just speaking about “sexual abstinence within marriage” seems to me to be utter horsesh*t.

          • JabbaPapa

            Here’s where the real story is : http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2016/02/18/francis-declares-plane-interviews-new-authoritative-form-of-magisterial-teaching/

            But no, Father Lombardi is being misquoted by that gay website.

            http://diariocorreo.pe/mundo/papa-francisco-pragmatico-en-la-lucha-contra-el-virus-del-zika-654901/

            “No es que ese recurso sea aceptado y se pueda utilizar sin discernimiento, al contrario sólo se puede emplear en casos de emergencia”, aclaró hoy el portavoz del Vaticano, padre Federico Lombardi.

            He’s talking about their use in emergency cases, which is nothing new, given that Pope Benedict XVI said something similar a while back.

            Father Lombardi’s full quote starts out by stating quite unambiguously that these means are NOT accepted nor can they be employed without any discernment.

            Meanwhile, in Catholic doctrine, “pregnancy avoidance” continues to mean “sexual abstinence” or natural family planning methods.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            LifeSiteNews is a conservative Catholic news source. Its not a “gay website.”

            And LSN are lifting direct from the Italian transcript of Lombardi’s remarks to the Vatican Radio.

            As for the claim that these are “emergency cases,” again, nonsense. If something is intrinsically evil, then by definition it cannot be done under any circumstances (emergency or otherwise).

          • JabbaPapa

            http://fr.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/19/le_p%C3%A8re_lombardi_revient_sur_la_conf%C3%A9rence_de_presse_du_pape_fran%C3%A7ois/1209953

            L’ONU a demandé début février aux pays touchés par le virus Zika, soupçonné de provoquer des malformations congénitales, d’autoriser l’accès des femmes à la contraception et à l’avortement. Une politique qui a suscité l’inquiétude du Vatican. L’observateur permanent du Saint-Siège aux Nations unies a rappelé mardi que l’abstinence sexuelle était le meilleur moyen d’éviter la contamination.

            http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/19/p_lombardi_commenta_i_temi_del_papa_con_i_giornalisti/1209799

            Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso senza nessun discernimento, anzi, ha detto chiaramente che può essere preso in considerazione in casi di particolare emergenza.

            Your quote is still incorrect, and as you can see, the Papal Nuncio to the UN quite clearly referred to sexual abstinence as the best means to avoid infection.

            Those words are drawn from a part of the speech where Lombardi was explaining what the terms of the debate are, but then he clearly states that no, the Pope was not allowing the use of contraceptives for this purpose. The words have also been chopped up and rearranged in order to make it appear that Fr Lombardi said what he never said.

            (I apologise for my mistake about the website — there is a gay news website with a rather similar name that has a habit of posting this sort of story)

          • The Philosopher Queen

            It hasn’t been chopped up and re-arranged — unless I’m missing something vital, in which case you’re going to have to point out specifically what that is. But Lombardi seems clear to me:

            “Il Papa distingue poi nettamente la radicalità del male dell’aborto come soppressione di una vita umana e invece la possibilità di ricorso a contraccezione o preservativi per quanto può riguardare casi di emergenza o situazioni particolari, in cui quindi non si sopprime una vita umana, ma si evita una gravidanza. Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso senza nessun discernimento, anzi, ha detto chiaramente che può essere preso in considerazione in casi di particolare emergenza. L’esempio che ha fatto di Paolo VI e della autorizzazione all’uso della pillola per delle religiose che erano a rischio gravissimo e continuo di violenza da parte dei ribelli nel Congo, ai tempi delle tragedie della guerra del Congo, fa capire che non è che fosse una situazione normale in cui questo veniva preso in considerazione. E anche – ricordiamo per esempio – la discussione seguita ad un passo del libro intervista di Benedetto XVI “Luce del mondo”, in cui egli parlava a proposito dell’uso del condom in situazioni a rischio di contagio, per esempio, di Aids. Allora il contraccettivo o il preservativo, in casi di particolare emergenza e gravità, possono anche essere oggetto di un discernimento di coscienza serio. Questo dice il Papa. Mentre sull’aborto non ha dato spazio a delle considerazioni. Poi il Papa ha insistito che bisogna cercare naturalmente di sviluppare tutta la ricerca scientifica, i vaccini, in modo tale da contrastare questa epidemia e questo rischio del virus Zika, che sta suscitando tanta preoccupazione, e però bisogna che non si cada nel panico e quindi nel far prendere degli orientamenti o delle decisioni che non sono proporzionati alla realtà del problema. Quindi capire bene la natura del problema, continuare a studiarla, a reagire anche con la ricerca, per trovare le soluzioni più sostanziali e più stabili; evitare comunque un ricorso all’aborto e, se ci fossero delle situazioni di emergenza grave, allora una coscienza ben formata può vedere se ci sono delle possibilità o delle necessità di ricorso a non abortivi per prevenire la gravidanza.”

          • JabbaPapa

            It’s obvious that it’s been chopped up and rearranged.

            There simply is no sentence meaning “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience.” in the transcript.

            —->> The Pope clearly distinguishes between the radicality of the evil of abortion as the extinction of a human life and on the other hand the possibility of recourse to a contraceptive or condom insofar as it might pertain to cases of emergency or particular situations … etc.

            “Ora non è che lui dica che vada accettato e usato questo ricorso” is completely ignored, because it contradicts the pro-contraception spin of the story.

            And then Father Lombardi details some of the extreme cases where such usage could potentially and possibly be permitted after a discernment (which does NOT mean “everyone can make up their own mind about it” — it means after consultation with the Church on a case-by-case basis), whereas the message of the Nuncio to the UN was extremely clear about sexual abstinence as the basic Catholic response to such dangers of infection.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            “… then Father Lombardi details some of the extreme cases where such usage
            could potentially and possibly be permitted after a discernment.”

            Right. I agree. But that is EXACTLY what I’m saying (I did not say, “everyone can make up their own mind about it”), and if that’s what you read Lombardi is saying, we don’t disagree about what he said. And however it may have been chopped up and rearranged, it hasn’t been done in a way that does violence to his meaning (which we agree on).

            But my point is this: if Lombardi’s explanation of what the Pope says is true, then the Pope clearly disagrees with Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii, because the teaching of those encyclicals is that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil. They cannot be done under any circumstances whatsoever. If you, or Lombardi, or the Pope, think there might be some “extreme cases” in which contraceptive acts could “potentially” be “permitted” after a “discernment” and in “consultation with the Church,” then you don’t believe in the teaching of Humanae Vitae, do you? Paul VI clearly says contraception is “NEVER lawful, even for the GRAVEST reasons.”

          • JabbaPapa

            Well thanks for the helpful clarifications anyway.

            But my point is this: if Lombardi’s explanation of what the Pope says is true, then the Pope clearly disagrees with Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii

            Humanae Vitae : Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

            It condemns the use of contraceptives as a matter of course, in “normal relations.

            Humanae Vitae is not contradicted by such extraordinary cases.

            Casti Connubii for starters has a lesser authority on this question than Humanae Vitae, due to the later text’s integration into the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

            Having said that :

            54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

            55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”

            56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

            57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: “They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

            The fact that a contraceptive could potentially be used to save life or health does not remove the sinfulness of such contraception, but then nor does the purpose of saving a pregnant woman’s life by terminating a life-endangering pregnancy remove the mortal sin that such actions incur.

            Nobody has denied that contraception is sinful, Fr Lombardo pointed out specifically that the Pope did not authorise condom use, and the Papal envoy to the UN specifically referred to abstinence as the proper response.

            Emergency cases are those where two grave sins must be chosen between, and in this case of the disease, failure to protect life versus the failure to protect life.

            This is the only reason why any debate is even possible — but it is a matter for casuistics, that does not redefine nor deny nor change any Catholic doctrines at all.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            Pull the other one, mate. There’s a lot more to Humanae Vitae than that one sentence you’ve cherry-picked. You know as well as I do that this contradicts the key paragraph (no. 14).

          • JabbaPapa

            I directly quoted from paragraph 14, and clearly it is not the case that the Pope “contradicted” it.

            And I’ll repeat myself for emphasis : Nobody has denied that contraception is sinful.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            No, you just cherry-pick the parts of paragraph 14 that he doesn’t contradict.

            Using a contraceptive for a completely therapeutic purpose (as some women take the anovulant pill for medical reasons unrelated to wanting to prevent conception), or even using a prophylactic to prevent transmission of disease to one’s *partner*, with the accepted consequence of impeding conception, is very different from using a prophylactic to prevent the *conception* of a fetus with microcephaly resulting from zika. To prevent conception because you don’t want to pass a disease onto your baby is still to deliberately and directly intend to prevent conception (not simply to accept it as a consequence of some other action), albeit as a means only, and not as an end in itself. But HV 14 says you can’t intend to prevent conception either “as an end OR AS A MEANS” which is the money quote here.

            You know it. I know it. Let’s not spin it any more. Face the facts.

          • JabbaPapa

            It is not true that I “cherry-picked” any quote, and I disagree with your interpretations anyway.

            To prevent conception because you don’t want to pass a disease onto your baby is still to deliberately and directly intend to prevent conception

            The intention of disease prevention is not the intention of pregnancy avoidance.

            Very similarly, a doctor who intends to save a pregnant woman’s life by terminating a life-endangering pregnancy does not intend an abortion, even though the termination of the unborn child’s life is the inevitable consequence of such actions.

            … You know, when Pope Benedict XVI made some roughly similar comments some years ago, the same debate took place, and it led to the same point : that this is a complex matter of pastoral guidance concerning individual cases, and that Humanae Vitae is not completely clear about this sort of fringe situation — because it authorises therapeutic means for the cure of diseases even if they might prevent pregnancies, and because in cases such as these the therapeutic means in question is habitually used as a contraceptive.

            The Magisterium appears to be in no haste to clarify this question, instead referring to the ordinary Authority of case-by-case individual pastoral guidance and casuistics.

            The only Catholics in the older debate that I saw to think otherwise were some liberal Catholics who were keen to interpret the words of Pope Benedict XVI as authorising condom use, and some the more extremist traditionalists who said the same thing for their own purposes of Pope-bashing and “nu-Church”-bashing.

            Really though — all that Pope Francis has said, and Fr Lombardi afterwards, is predicated on the ordinary Authority of case-by-case individual pastoral guidance and casuistics for helping Catholics to discern the appropriate moral behaviour. This “contradicts” exactly nothing.

            From §14 : “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

            The prevention of procreation is neither an end nor a means when the purpose is disease prevention. Pregnancy prevention is not “specifically intended”.

            Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.” — this is irrelevant to this question.

            Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

            to intend directly something — there is no such direct intention of pregnancy prevention, nor of contradicting the moral order, in the problem as it was put to the Pope.

            These are difficult questions in view of the lack of complete clarity of Humanae Vitae regarding prevention of pregnancy as a consequence of an intention of disease prevention and the protection of life ; what is not difficult however is that the ordinary meaning of “pregnancy avoidance” in the Catholic moral theology is sexual abstinence.

            The point here being that in the normal matrimonial relationship, sexual intercourse is described by the Catechism as something that married couples are encouraged towards.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            And note that I didn’t say this changes Catholic doctrine. I said the Pope disagrees with Humanae Vitae.

          • JabbaPapa

            I said the Pope disagrees with Humanae Vitae

            But he doesn’t, as I have already demonstrated.

            Furthermore, Humane Vitae 15 : “On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”

          • Jim Russell

            No, he didn’t. He is powerless to change the Church’s perennial teaching that contraception in marital relations is an intrinsic evil. One cannot do evil so that good may come from it. Don’t be confused by the muddled reporting of what was or was not said on a plane to reporters by a Pope. None of that can change Church teaching.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            In other words, listen to you instead of the Pope on what Catholic teaching is?

          • Jim Russell

            You seem to misunderstand–a papal presser is *not* a source of changing “Catholic teaching.” It would be utterly ludicrous to think it was. That’s not how it works. So–yes–listen to me as I *express* what is Catholic teaching.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            I didn’t say it was a source of “changing” Catholic teaching, or giving it in any authoritative sense. I understand that. But, clearly, the Pope was trying to give an (albeit non-authoritative) *explanation* on the airplane, just as you are doing here. And you’ve given no reason why I should accept the explanations of a random man in an internet combox as being more authoritative than the Pope on an airplane. You must be bonkers.

  • Fulgentian

    “conservatives, who hold fast to the belief that being gay is sinful”

    No they don’t. They believe that gay practice is sinful. Being gay is not viewed as sinful.

    • drdanfee

      I have come across a good many strictly traditional Christian believers who do, indeed, view all sexual orientation variance as sinful, even profoundly sinful. For example, just see the post by Jim Russell in this thread?

      Thus, this range of believer views/doctrines does indeed ask for ‘crucifixion’ as the post helps to make clear.

      How to crucify one’s attractions (aka enduring sexual orientation, to adopt more empirical language) has a not uncommonly attendant degree of equally profound risk. It can be quite difficult for an honestly introspective/self-knowledgeable person to find the precise point or points, wherein the ‘sinful’ orientation stops and humanity in relationship, love, caring and all the many iterations of interpersonal, social and community life begins. So, part of the frequently silenced risk is simply that the person adopts a death-dealing approach to all the bonding-affiliative-intimacy phenomena inside oneself.

      Some people say they have run this inner ‘crucifixion’ gauntlet, but it still remains uncertain …. (a) just how this process of inward life works in any reliable detail and sequence, ….. plus (b) whether the individual reports of conclusion, resolution, positive outcomes are at all generalizable to every possible human being on the planet. We might know more, empirically, if somebody equipped with the contemporary tool box of best research practices could or would study this particular inner human path in earnest?

      We also lack somewhat for a similarly empirically informed and reliable knowledge of that other path or set of paths, often tagged ‘Coming Out’ for verbal convenience?

      Perhaps it is all well and good to be clear about one’s faith and its doctrines, but we might also need to recognize when and how some piece of dogma has not yet been studied well enough to garner empirical understanding, published and available to all?

      • Jim Russell

        ***I have come across a good many strictly traditional Christian believers who do, indeed, view all s*xual orientation variance as sinful, even profoundly sinful. For example, just see the post by Jim Russell in this thread?****

        Uh, no–didn’t say the inclination was sinful. It’s not. Please read more carefully.

        • The Philosopher Queen

          I’m familiar with the concept of sexual orientation. What’s a s*xual orientation?

          • Jim Russell

            Combox filters were throwing my comments into “moderation” mode if the fully spelled-out three-letter-word was contained in the comment. ..

        • drdanfee

          Well sorry I mis-read you, JR. I think we may have different definitions of words at this point. I suspect that what I am meaning by orientation and orientation variance leans more strongly towards the working model that is currently used in research and theory building and theory testing. One could understand that, then, orientation is equivalent to your use of inclination.

          If we go that way for a moment, however, then your criticisms of, say, Eve Tushnet’s positivity about her inclination being able to be lived into morally neutral or even traditionally positive actions and relationships in daily life seems to speak at some distance from you claiming that the inclination is in itself not immoral. Maybe your views are closer to Tushnet’s views? after all?…..

    • outlawState

      Gay practice is sinful, but so is gay inclination sinful.

      Gay inclination derives from engaging in the gay behaviour which is sinful. Anyone who thinks that they are gay should stop it, by which I mean, just shut up and learn something.

      Loose lips can make one gay inclined, to be sure. The media is full of gays who spout garbage on a continuous basis. It’s hardly surprising that they are gay.

      • Fulgentian

        “Gay practise is sinful, but so is gay inclination sinful.”
        Wrong. How can an inclination be sinful?

        “Gay inclination derives from engaging in the gay behaviour which is sinful.”
        I’m not sure it’s that clear cut.

        • outlawState

          Inclination is a punishment from God for sinful behaviour. It discloses that one is a bad sinner. It comes from arrogance, loose lips, a hedonistic lifestyle. It means you’re in serious trouble with God.

          If you becaome gay, you need to repent of your sins and start seeking out God.

          • Nancy Harrison

            So I have a good friend who was the son of a conservative pastor, raised in the church, good kid, never rebelled, believed the Bible and trusted in Jesus as his savior. This guy struggled with feelings of attraction to men as long as he could remember. He had no idea where it came from. He didn’t want it, but didn’t know what to do about it. People like you are why he felt he would have to leave the church. You cannot base all your assumptions about homosexual inclinations on one passage in the Bible. You have to look at the realities of life as well. This passage discusses a specific group of people who were “given over to” their shameful desires. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you are evil because you have some shameful desires and by God’s grace are not “given over” to them. Jesus said that if a man looked on a woman to lust after her, it is the same as committing adultery. If a man struggles with temptation to lust, does that mean he should be categorized as “an adulterer”? I don’t believe so. It’s a warning to not let the temptations overcome you.

          • outlawState

            First, such desires are unnatural, and of are an order of magnitude worse than mere natural lust, but this belongs in the same category too.

            “why he felt he would have to leave the church.”

            He may well be better off leaving the church. Many churches are totally counter-productive when it comes to true godliness. Just because it’s a “church” doesn’t mean anything. Moreover his upbringing may also have been ungodly, and his parents ungodly. Many so-termed Christians are arrant hypocrites. All this needs to be examined.

          • tb03

            First, if you think homosexuality is “unnatural” you are deeply confused. Second, you must have a very low view of the role of Church in someones life. Would you be so flippant if he was thrown out of his house?

          • outlawState

            “you are deeply confused”

            It is you who are confused.

            “Would you be so flippant if he was thrown out of his house?”

            I was thrown out of my parents’ house aged 22, not that I had done anything wrong. I just did not have a job, which irked them. I do not regard being thrown out of anywhere as an insurrmountable evil. Sometimes it may be necessary, if that person has become lazy or refuses to adopt the right path. Churches also can become stale, and many undoubtedly should be closed down. However I did not recommend it here, as the facts are not known to me.

          • tb03

            Sigh, human sexuality is a core part of humanity as created by God. It is theologically impossible for God to make anything sinful. Therefore, because God created homosexuality (just like heterosexuality) it cannot be disordered or unnatural. One cannot repent of being as God intended.

          • JabbaPapa

            It is theologically impossible for God to make anything sinful

            It is NOT theologically impossible for the creatures of God to create that which is sinful.

            Your logic is therefore intrinsically flawed, most likely because you falsely consider homo/bisexuality as belonging to “nature”, except that your “nature” has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with worldliness and our Original Sin.

          • tb03

            No, I’m not arguing that humans cannot be sinful! Sorry if I was misleading. I’m arguing that human sexuality, including homo/bisexuality, is created by God and therefore good. You fundamentally misunderstand gay people

          • JabbaPapa

            You fundamentally misunderstand the mainstream of Christian theology — Christ’s Commandment that a man and a woman shall cleave to each other as one flesh in marriage did not come with a whole bunch of sub-clauses for homosexuals.

          • tb03

            If you are speaking of Matt 19 you are taking this way out of context. Jesus was speaking of divorce and greatly limiting its access. He was not making some sweeping statement about gender complementarity. If we read it in the broad way you are then we have to also see that Jesus completely undermines gender complementarity when he goes on to speak of eunuchs (in both a literal and metaphorical sense. They were the known sexual minority of that time) and NEVER denied them marriage. You can’t read this teaching in a consistent way with full context and come to the conclusion you did, makes no sense.

          • JabbaPapa

            you are taking this way out of context

            Oh good GRIEF, your reading of the Scriptures is warped — it seems the only context you care about is that of your own homosexuality.

          • JJD

            This argument is only a valid argument if homosexuality is a non-deviant form of sexuality, as valid in itself as heterosexuality. But this is denied by the Catholic Church. Your premises are faulty. Your conclusion is false.

          • tb03

            Yes, homosexuality is not “deviant” and is a normal variation of human sexuality. The RC Church is wrong, and just because it is their teaching the damage you may do to gay families will be your responsibility alone.

          • JJD

            You may think that – but I have nevertheless established that your theological argument is not as watertight as you assumed. It depends on the assumption that homosexuality is in no sense a deviant form of sexuality. You would have to argue for that independently. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, because you identify as a Christian, whereas the whole history of Christianity is one of unifrm disagreement with your position.

          • tb03

            its proven already. All credible medical and psychological associations understand that there is not deviance or harm in homosexuality and that SS relationships can be nurturing and loving. Gay parents do just as well as heterosexual parents in raising their children. Twin and population studies point to the innate, inborn nature of homo/bisexuality. This is all well known and documented. You speak with authority, yet don’t seem to understand the basic facts.

          • JJD

            Innate/inborn – no, the “gay gene” theory has been roundly discredited.

            Harm and deviance are not objective medical/psychological terms.

            I don’t deny they can be loving and, in a certain way and to a certain extent, nurturing.

            Gay parents – the most extensive study shows the opposite of what you claim.

          • JabbaPapa

            Political decisions by these or those human institutions are of no consequence to the teachings of the Revelation.

            Gay parents do just as well as heterosexual parents in raising their children

            There is strong evidence, no matter how much the PC establishment tries to repress it, that this is by no means the case. (which is not to deny any individual cases)

            Twin and population studies point to the innate, inborn nature of homo/bisexuality

            Twin studies have in fact demonstrated the opposite.

            http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic

            Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

            “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

            Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Jabba, Im afraid you just went full tard-twins do NOT have 100% DNA!! BAM!!! You lose, bigot!!!!

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            but all religion is made up by man so who cares?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            the church has no moral authority after it allowed-and CONTINUES to allow-the rape and molestations of thousands of boys

          • JabbaPapa

            Funny how you condemn the activity of homosexuals in the Church, and their molesting of adolescent boys.

          • On the other hand…

            Why? Do you equate being gay with being a pederast? I don’t think many will agree with that!

          • JabbaPapa

            No — but statistically, about 80% of the cases of sexual abuse of minors by these particular men involved homosexual priests and adolescent boys ; compared with the situation in the general population where the great majority of crimes of sexual abuse of minors involve men and adolescent girls, but where the 2% of the male homosexual population commits 20% of the crimes, it is clear that homosexuality can be linked with the sexual abuse of minors.

            Paedophilia as such, OTOH, which is the sexual abuse of children under 12, cannot be linked to homosexuality.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            pedophiles are neither homosexual nor heterosexual, you ignorant fool

        • Naters

          logic says that if an act is bad, then what leads to it must also be viewed as evil. otherwise, you’re illogical. being gay does cause the things they do.

      • TheResistance

        Allowing them to co-opt the term “gay” is likely sinful as well.

        Homosexuals, Sodomites and deviants seems more appropriate, lest people get the wrong impression.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        my god youre retarded…

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      thats stupid-that’s made up by bigoted old primitive men. Being gays as we know now simply IS-just like begin black or being left handed. No god cares what we do with our bodies…

  • jim

    How many gay conservatives are there? Most gays are destructive leftists. It’s an outlet for their daddy issues and self loathing.. The conservative gays are mostly lawyers and virulent globalists….for the same reasons.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      no, dumdum-most gays are liberal leaning because the left has given them rights that the rightwing religious kooks forbade them.

      • jim

        …daddy issues…

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          my dad and I get along great-always have-methinks you may have tiny pee pee issues 🙂

          • jim

            Norman.!..Are you coming on to me?..Behave yourself.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I don’t like fat guys so no…

          • JabbaPapa

            What a horrid fatophobic you are !!!

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            well, you being fat is something you can control so its ok to be repulsed by it-im concerned about your health after all

    • Naters

      not all gay conservatives think that gay relationships or homoeroticism are sinful

    • Sue Smith

      I know some extremely right wing gays; they are anti-muslim and proud of it.

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    this self hatred stuff is so very sad-hopefully some day it will end when religion is finally put in its proper place…a bin of antiquity

    • JJD

      People don’t hate themselves only because of religion. Take away religion, and gay people may well still struggle with self-acceptance. Then you will have to look around for someone else to blame.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        most gays self hate because of religion-its very powerful-it really is the only force that works against them

        • JJD

          you assume what you ought to prove.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            its proven (hint-ever heard of court? did you read any of the transcripts when gay rights were fought? they were all based on religious nonsense-thats why they failed). Im an activist, you ignoramus-i know of what I speak.

          • JJD

            “I’m an activist”

            Do you think that means I should respect you *more*?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, but it means you have no argument that can beat mine

          • JJD

            Activists are not well-known for logical rigour or subtlety of argument. They are, however, well known (and somewhat less well loved) for shouting and screaming and stamping their feet until they get their way.

            The fact is, you wouldn’t recognize a good argument if it came up, shook your hand, and said “Nice to meet you. I’m a good argument.”

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            activist like women, gays, Jews and blacks? pretty sure no one gained equality by stomping their feet, you silly ignoramus. It takes years of court battles to defeat the evils of religious bigotry. Praise Jeebus for that!

        • samton909

          yeah, another lie that the gay movement tells itself Honestly, I have never seen a movement that so consistently relies on lying to itself and everyone else.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            samton-im afraid youre a silly ignorant tiit. Gays are only abused because of religious nonsense. There is no secular reason that people hurt and harm them.

    • Jacobi

      That will not happen so long as the Human species exists. But cheer up we have I am told past our sell by date as species go!

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        religion is dying in the educated world-it wont be a factor in advanced countries soon enough

        • JabbaPapa

          That is because Education (except for an elite) is being destroyed for political reasons.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            education -especially of the bible and its creation-makes it impossible to believe in god for most. It isn’t about politics-its about equality for all, which is indeed the highest a human can advance

    • samton909

      Enjoy Britain when Christianity is gone, and Islam takes over. Believe me, it is not that suddenly people are going to give up religion and all become atheists. You are just opening the door to Shariah. Enjoy the ride.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        Christianity is gone in Britain already-what are you talking about? The fear of Islam taking over a European country is just conservative chicken shiittle nonsense-cut it out. Western Muslims are peaceful. They arent a-holes like some radical Christians.

        • JabbaPapa

          Western Muslims are peaceful. They arent a-holes like some radical Christians.

          You’re not very good at deciphering the meaning of news reports about “home-grown” Islamic terrorists or those going off to fight for ISIS in the Middle East and Africa, are you.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            yeah- a few dozen reported so far. Hint-there are TEN MILLION Muslims in the USA-your facts are irrelevant.

    • The Philosopher Queen

      Dumb comment. You make the mistake of confusing all religion with its loudest, most conservative, and most obnoxious adherents.

  • PaulBrownsey

    “When Shaw writes in praise of the ‘real elements of beauty’ in gay relationships…”!

    Thank you SO MUCH, sir. Thank, you. (Touches foreskin, sorry, -lock.)

  • outlawState

    I am not at all surprised that the author of this article is gay. It’s basically gay propaganda. If you spout gay propaganda, God will make you gay to punish you.

    The bible is quite clear (Rom 1) that gay inclination is a punishment from God.

    • Fulgentian

      “Men committed shameful acts with other men”
      That’s the focus of the condemnation in Romans 1, not the inclination.

      • outlawState

        Rom 1:28 “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind.”

        Rom 1:26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.”

        The perversion of the mind and lusts of the flesh are the punishment of God for apostasy and being a fool, such as the author of this tripe. who pretends to be wise but is a fool.

        Rom 1:22 “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”

        • tb03

          No, your missing the forest through the trees overall in your reading of Romans. But, specifically to the verses U discussed, Paul was speaking about people in a much more specific way. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that these verses discuss ALL sexual minorities. A more careful reading reveals that Paul was referring to people who worshipped nature, animals and statues and believed they were wise. This sounds much more like a specific religious practice. Paul was discussing what is most likely cult temple worship and practices among some Gentiles at that time. He was speaking of Idolatry.

          • outlawState

            “People who worshipped nature.”

            This is correct and is what is responsible for God’s wrath. Nature worship does not require temples, or priests, but can be seen in all sorts of perverse forms of human behaviour. Nature worship can include worshipping yourself, governments, people, organizations etc. Anything that is not God and is worshipped, can and will lead to God’s wrath, says Paul.

          • tb03

            Agreed, it also meant those who held an overly legalistic view of God’s law as in Romans 2. This is twisted thinking because in a way those who hold fast to laws that harm people undermine the entire point of God’s law. We do not protect God by upholding the law, but rather God’s law is to protect us and our relationship with God.

          • JabbaPapa

            We do not protect God by upholding the law

            That is a direct contradiction of both the Revelation and the Scripture, insofar as our “protection of God” can only be the protection of our mystical relationship with Him.

          • samton909

            You don’t even believe this nonsense yourself. It is pure delusion.

          • JJD

            So do you think, in all honesty, that St Paul APPROVED of the homosexual practices that were prevalent in the dominant Roman culture? Did he think two men having s*x could ever be morally good?

          • JabbaPapa

            You, on the other hand, are suggesting that these verses discuss ALL sexual minorities

            This is just waffle — the only form of sexuality that is praised and accepted in the Scripture is Marriage for the purpose of founding a family ; the polygamous practices described in the OT notwithstanding, because the OT itself characterises them pretty dubiously.

          • tb03

            Well, remember that eunuchs were sexual minorities. Jesus never denied them marriage

          • JabbaPapa

            Jesus never denied them marriage

            He didn’t have to, because it was forbidden to them already by the Old Testament.

          • tb03

            The OT did more than deny them marriage, they weren’t allowed to be Jewish at all. Jesus thought that? Would you also then deny a soldier who stepped on an IED and sustained severe genital trauma could not marry.

          • JabbaPapa

            they weren’t allowed to be Jewish at all

            This is not true.

            Would you also then deny a soldier who stepped on an IED and sustained severe genital trauma could not marry.

            Impotence is a grounds for annulment, but then Christians are not Jews. The primary purpose of marriage is the salvation of souls, and if a woman is happy to marry a man with genital impairment, then it’s his and her possibility — because sexual abstinence within marriage is also considered virtuous.

            You seem to be suffering under some misapprehension that marriage is of a sexual nature — it isn’t, you’re confusing marriage with procreation. Marriage is Sacramental and it is firmly focused on souls, not on flesh.

            But no matter how craftily you try and twist things about, it is Scripturally, religiously, and theologically defined as the union of a man with a woman.

          • samton909

            Your interpretation is pure nonsense. it is more than clear that he was speaking about homosexual behavior. You really have to live in make believe land to come up with a bizarre interpretation that he really was talking about nature worship.

            Honestly.

          • tb03

            Anyone with a 10th grade education can read the Bible, give it a try

          • JabbaPapa

            Which flawed Protestant translation do you use ? Is it one that has had several books ripped out of it for no good reason ?

          • JJD

            Paul denounces filthy practices, he gives a list, and it includes the acts that are pertinent to what we are talking about on this thread.

            Now if these acts are really not filthy, why would Paul have called them filthy? Do they only become filthy if you do them in a pagan temple? Surely that’s nonsense. These false religions are shown up as filthy on account of the already-filthy acts they promote. If these were good acts, why would they be part of a form of worship Paul is denouncing as filthy? Why would he use good acts as evidence of filthiness? Even on your own reading, it makes no sense whatsoever.

          • tb03

            They were idolatry. Read about Cybele fertility cults in Rome, that’s what Paul is most likely talking about.

          • JJD

            I know about all that, there’s nothing you can teach me. So let’s just stick to parsing the arguments. Try this one (again):

            If Paul thought these were good acts, why would he use them as evidence of filthiness (OR as evidence of divine punishment for idolatry)?

            Take your time…

          • tb03

            I’m having a hard time believing your serious when I plainly answered you question. Those cults did horrific things. Here’s my question…If Paul were referring to gay people in general why didn’t he use the common Greek word for homosexual at that time? Why did he make up a new word if he was speaking in such a general way about LGBT community.

          • JJD

            You plainly did not *understand* the question. Paul talks about men lusting after men. That, he says, is a punishment for idolatry. So – this is the question – how can it be a punishment if it is not a bad thing, but a good thing?

            Your own question: Paul talks about man lusting after men. That is a valid description of the thing in question – a tactful description, but direct enough to leave no ambuiguity as to the meaning.

          • tb03

            Temple s-x was a part of their worship practice, which does follow belief in idolatry. Paul was connecting the Gentiles to the Canaanites who also had similar cult practices

          • JJD

            You’ve said that, I’ve said I know that.

            Your thesis is that Paul does not think gay s*x is a bad thing. If that were the case, why would he list it among the filthy practices of the idolaters? I know it happened in temples, and took the form of worship. But it is clear that Paul is establishing a link between the outrage of idolatry and the moral filthiness of the acts by which these idols are worshipped.

          • tb03

            Last time. Paul is not talking about SS s-x, he is talking about temple s-x. There is a difference

          • JJD

            men lusting shamefully after men. Paul’s words. “Arsenes en arsesin aschemosune” – I even got the Greek for you. That is SS s*x.

            Isn’t it?

            I mean, if you’ll deny *that*, there really is no point.

          • JJD

            To your latest update:

            “men lusting shamefully after men”. You’re avoiding this bit entirely, despite my pointing it out repeatedly. If s*x in temples is the only problem, why does Paul specifically denounce *this* kind of s*x? It is – plainly, plainly – in order to establish a correlation between the filthiness of idolatry and the filthiness of “men lusting shamefully after men”. The only reason you don’t see that is that you don’t want to. Cheerio.

          • tb03

            Come on, you’re smarter than this. Read the entire chapter in context. Paul is speaking of people who did know the Church, but instead started worshipping nature and idols of animals and people. Even though they were fools they thought they were wise, and it was for that reason they practiced temple ritual se. practices. Thus sounds a lot like a religious cult, not a general class of people.

          • JJD

            I would really like you to specifically address Paul’s words: “men lusting shamefully after men”. It is clear that this is something of which Paul strongly disapproves. (And yes, I *know* the broader context is idolatry. But it’s time you got down to specifics.)

            What does the phrase mean? I contend it is a reference to homosexual practices, in a context of condemnation. What do *you* think these words mean?

            Appealing to context doesn’t let you off the duty of explaining exactly what Paul meant by these words. Once you’ve done that, I will listen to you on context. But until you do, the appeal to context looks like a smokescreen.

          • tb03

            No one is denying lust outside of marriage or excessive lust is wrong. I’m afraid you’re conflating excessive lust and adultery with homo/bisexuality.

          • JJD

            So still not actually addressing what I invited you to address, then. I’m somewhat at a loss, but I’ll try again.

            “men lusting shamefully after men” – what does this mean for you? First things first. I need to know how you understand this phrase if there is to be any meaningful exchange of ideas here.

          • JabbaPapa

            Paul is not talking about SS s-x

            You cannot expect anyone to believe such a straightforwardly false statement.

          • JabbaPapa

            They were idolatry. Read about Cybele fertility cults in Rome, that’s what Paul is most likely talking about.

            What nonsense.

      • Naters

        but logic says that if the act is a sin, that the inclination must be treated as evil as well. hence, homosexuality must be evil if everything it leads to is sinful too.

        • JJD

          It may be a natural evil, even a moral evil, but not yet a sin.

          • Naters

            maybe it’s not even a natural evil. if homosexuality is natural, that means if people are born that way, then what it leads to can’t be wrong. after all, god doesn’t make something and then make it lead to bad things.

          • JabbaPapa

            People are born with the Original Sin, which is most certainly an evil.

          • tb03

            No, in Christian theology (at least as I understand it) asserts that all life comes from God. So, the core of our being, our humanity, is created by God, and when he made us he called us “Very Good”. Homosexuality, like all sexuality, is a core aspect of being human to a gay person. It is impossible to believe that God would create something sinful. Original Sin (again, as I understand it) is the belief that humans inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve and is born sinful because of the fall. That is different than believing that the core of a human could be fundamentally sinful as created by God. I’d also like to point out that not all Christians believe in Original Sin (like Eastern Orthodox), and the earliest Christians did not share this view but rather it came hundreds of years later. I’m Lutheran, but I have to say I’m with the Orthodox on this one. Original Sin is an unfortunate Gnostic corruption. That being said one can still believe in Original Sin and understand homo/bisexuality is a part of God’s good creation.

          • JabbaPapa

            Original Sin is a doctrine at least 3000 years old, so it’s hard to see how Ancient Hebrew teaching might be “gnostic”.

            And the Eastern Orthodox most certainly do teach the doctrine.

            Original Sin (again, as I understand it) is the belief that humans inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve and is born sinful because of the fall. That is different than believing that the core of a human could be fundamentally sinful as created by God.

            That is correct anyway — but the Original Sin is in any case an evil, and the fact that we are born with the taint of the evil is not vanished away by the intrinsic good of each created soul.

          • tb03

            Nope, Original Sin is not a Jewish belief. No, E. Orthodox believe in what they call Ancestral Sin and humans do not inherit the guilt of A&E, but do inherit a broken world.

          • JabbaPapa

            Original Sin is not a Jewish belief

            The Jews do not believe in the notion of a taint of sin at birth, but it’s frankly just some hair-splitting, because they have a notion that we are born with a capacity towards sinfulness, functionally equivalent to Original Sin as such — the major difference is that they have no doctrine of Baptism for the forgiveness of this sin, and so reject the notion of the sinfulness of newborns.

            The Eastern Orthodox notion of Ancestral Sin is basically indistinguishable from Original Sin, except according to some radical Protestant falsehoods about the Original Sin that go far beyond the Catholic teaching.

            BTW it does make a nice change to have someone who’s at least conversant with the theological basics to talk to in here.

            The underlying reason why homo/bisexuality is not a “good” is because of its straightforward contradiction of the Virtues of the Christian Family as established by God in His Covenant with His People.

            Anything directly opposed to a Virtue is by very definition sinful in its nature.

            Any attacks against any of the Seven Sacraments are of course attacks against the Church of the Christ, so that the promotion of homo/bisexuality as a “good” is quite clearly unchristian, sinful, and intrinsically evil.

            The opposite of any of the Virtues is quite clearly a Vice.

          • tb03

            Original Sin as understood today was inspired mostly by Augustine who lived in around 350-400 AE, so this was not the earliest Christian view. Augustine did not really influence the Orthodox, so their view hasn’t changed as much from the original disciples.

            Well, my religion only has 2 sacraments (marriage is a human institution. It is good, but not divine and the Lutheran definition of sacraments are divine institutions) and marriage is not one of them. My theological argument for SSM is simple. Human sexuality, including queer orientations, are made by God because human sexuality is a core component of being human. God does not make disordered things, so calling SSM “intrinsically evil” is incorrect because it would then extend to God being evil which is of course impossible. I believe that the conservative Christian view of traditional marriage and biblical arguments against SSM fundamentally has to misunderstand gay people and human sexuality, plus take scripture out of context to justify SSM prohibition. Doing so violates the law that we treat our neighbors as ourselves

          • JabbaPapa

            Original Sin as understood today was inspired mostly by Augustine who lived in around 350-400 AE, so this was not the earliest Christian view. Augustine did not really influence the Orthodox, so their view hasn’t changed as much from the original disciples.

            Wow, so one of the most revered Church Fathers “did not really influence the Orthodox” even though the schism between East and West happened about 600 years later … you have a very strange conception of History.

            Even so, it was first formulated by Irenaeus in the 2nd century against the Gnostics — and the Protestant preference for the Augustinian theory of it is precisely the sort of “Protestant falsehoods about the Original Sin that go far beyond the Catholic teaching” that I alluded to earlier.

            So really so far, you’re getting every salient detail wrong.

            my religion only has 2 sacraments

            Then it is a false religion.

            because human sexuality is a core component of being human

            The human soul, which is the core of human nature, has no s€x life.

            Your theology is quite simply wrong. Unsurprising, because it posits carnality as defining spirituality, which is quite blatantly backwards.

            take scripture out of context to justify SSM prohibition

            Don’t be ludicrous, the Scripture condemns homosexuality quite straightforwardly — those who try to twist it out of context are those who claim the opposite.

          • tb03

            Yeah, your last minute Wikipedia reading is showing. But what is to be expected from someone who believes Protestants have a “false religion”. Your RC superiority complex is both insulting and boring. I’m out

          • JabbaPapa

            So you’re giving up the discussion right after several errors of yours have been pointed out to you. How “surprising”.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            it’s impossible to argue with a moron whose fallback is always “my god done said”….

          • JabbaPapa

            crikey, you’re an idiot

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im sorry, but your made up god simply has no power over me so I will not humor you in regards to civil rights. Im afraid I insist on that point, Jabba.

          • samton909

            So since human sexuality is a core component of being human, that means that pedophiles are a good thing as well? You do understand that your thinking on this matter does not stand up under the slightest scrutiny. And honestly, you accuse the church of taking Scripture out of context? You really enjoy fooling yourself, don’t you?

          • tb03

            Sigh… Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. If that’s your idea of “slightest scrutiny”, try again.

          • samton909

            So God created alcholics, and therefore alcoholism is a good thing? Honestly, you need to think a bit more.

          • tb03

            No! Alcoholism is not inborn. Addiction is a coping mechanism developed over time, not something inborn. You’re confusing tendencies with core nature.

          • JabbaPapa

            What about sexual addiction then ?

          • tb03

            What do you think addiction is? Why do people become addicted to medications or behaviors?

          • JabbaPapa

            Why don’t you just answer the question instead of trying to deflect it ?

          • JJD

            All life does come from God. All that God creates is good. God cannot create something sinful.

            You are right about all these things – yet the Church still concludes that homosexuality is a deviance, and homosexual acts are sinful.

            That is because, contrary to your argument, homosexuality does not pertain to the “core” of anyone’s humanity. If it is viewed as a psychological disorder (whether genetically influenced or not) that becomes immediately evident.

            If God is to be blamed for “allowing” homosexuals, he is also to be blamed for “allowing” Downs Syndrome, and for allowing all sorts or genetic and epigenetic disorders.

            But he’s not – this is the reality of the human species after the Fall. In human generation and development, not everything goes exactly as it should all the time.

          • tb03

            You clearly misunderstand gay people. So, do you then think someone with Down Syndrome is deviance? Why in the world do you think these people’s conditions are due to sin?

          • JJD

            Downs Syndrome is a disorder: if you have it, then, in layman’s terms, there is something not as it should be.

            That is the relevance of it to the matter in hand. Not that Downs people “have sinned”, of course not. But there’s something not as it should be. Likewise with gay people. That’s all.

          • tb03

            You just contradicted yourself

          • JJD

            explain?

          • tb03

            You believe that someone can be born “disordered” but not sinful, yet understand that God cannot cannot create sinful things. You’re talking yourself in circles for the sole purpose to demonize a class of people.

          • JJD

            Do you believe there is such a thing as a congenital disorder? It’s not a matter of faith, really, or of opinion, it is an empirical fact. You can’t take the position that no-one is born with a disorder, for the very good reason that some people are born with a disorder. There is no compulsion upon me to believe that such people are sinful.

            Incidentally, homosexuality is not a genetic disorder, it is not congenital in a strict sense. But a predisposition to homosexuality is, in some cases at least, likely to be genetic.

          • tb03

            Of course their are medical issues people are born with, but those people are not inherently disordered or sinful. Jesus didnt teach that. Why believe that gay people are disordered and sinful, but not the Tri. 21 baby?

          • JJD

            You are getting unduly hung up on the word “disorder”. By disorder, I mean: something is not as it should be (in its proper order). That’s all. And anyone who has a disorder can, to that extent, in that aspect of their humanity, be described as disordered. Not that it’s a nice thing to say, especially to them, but it is not less accurate for that.

            This has to be completely separated from the notion of personal sin. I don’t believe gay people are inherently sinful, I never said they were inherently sinful. I said, to the extent they are gay, they are (in that part of their humanity) to some degree disordered. In that particular case, however, the disorder brings with it a propensity to acts which are, of their very nature, sinful.

          • tb03

            It is highly presumptuous to assign a disordered humanity to someone with congenital defects. As a NICU nurse I can assure you these kids are fully human, just not typical in physiological or anatomical ways.

            So, gay people are not sinning unless they are having SS se.? How can the orientation that leads to sin not also be sin? That makes no sense

          • JabbaPapa

            It is highly presumptuous to assign a disordered humanity to someone with congenital defects

            No it isn’t — though it is extremely clear that you do not understand what the Church refers to by the terms “ordered towards” or “disordered”.

            The existence of Down’s Syndrome is a consequence of our fallen nature just as much as it is a consequence of the mystery of Evil — for nobody can deny that this or any other handicap, physical or mental, is understood as an evil. This does not mean that the handicapped *are* evil ; it means that they suffer evils.

            So, gay people are not sinning unless they are having SS se.? How can the orientation that leads to sin not also be sin? That makes no sense

            Because we are ALL of us tainted with the Original Sin, and because we are all of us therefore concupiscent with desires towards sinful behaviours.

            But the desire to commit sins is not a particular sin of itself, but it is a manifestation of the Original Sin, which is forgiven in Baptism.

            The desire to commit theft is not a particular sin, but any actual theft is sinful.

            We must all of us struggle with our Original Sin and our desire to disobey the moral Commandments that we have received from God in Revelation — but to claim that this struggle, and it can be a hard one, should simply be abandoned by attempting to redefine sins as being “good” isn’t just unchristian, it’s heretical, and constitutes an intrinsic evil in and of itself.

            We are commanded towards the good and away from sins — whereas you are basically claiming that the desires of our fallen nature are sufficient to deny the Commandments of God.

          • JJD

            Hi again. So…

            I did not say they are not fully human. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Go back to what I explicitly said I mean by the word disorder: “something is not as it should be”. Is that understood? When I say “disorder”, that is what I mean. Nothing more than that. You might not like the word, you might use it in a different sense. I realize that, that is why I specifically set out what I do and don’t mean by it, to avoid these misunderstandings. It hasn’t worked yet, but I live in hope.

            Exactly: they are not sinning unless they act upon their propensity. Just like I (pretend I am married) am not sinning until and unless I act upon my (hypothetical) desire to sleep with my neighbour’s wife. Until I act on a desire, it is morally neutral. It is not a sin. If what you are suggesting were true, if what leads to sin must also be sin, it would mean temptation is sin, and the greatest saints in the church’s history would be terrible sinners, because they experienced great temptations.

          • JabbaPapa

            You clearly misunderstand gay people

            Regardless of whether this were true or not, it is of no consequence to the facts that evils occur because of our fallen nature, and that our sinfulness causes us to seek things that are evil.

            The central objection to the notion of homosexuality as a “good” remains that God commanded us to cleave to each other, a man with a woman, so that anything that contradicts or denies that Commandment must be considered as being contrary to Virtue.

            We are all fallen in nature, and tainted by Original Sin, and so we will all of us have actions and behaviours that are contrary to Virtue — many of which will give us worldly pleasure or satisfaction — but all of these things, if they are contrary to Virtues or if they are concupiscent with denying them are necessarily sinful, intrinsically, because they seek to disobey or to reject the Will of God.

            Homosexuality, like many other things that people do, is sinful — and it is pure and simple unchristian to claim that sinfulness can be “good”.

          • On the other hand…

            That was exactly what Jesus expressly condemned, when speaking of the man born blind (or some other impediment) and someone asked whose sin had been responsible for it.

          • JJD

            I mean natural in the sense of non-moral.

          • Naters

            i wouldn’t even say “evil”. but at least you don’t see it as always a “sin”. come to think of it, the only way that something natural could be immoral is if it is used incorrectly.

        • JabbaPapa

          There’s a difference between Original Sin and particular sins.

          • Naters

            but logic says that if something is wrong, then what leads to it is also wrong. so according to logic, homosexuality would be wrong because it leads to these things. it’s also what inspired the church’s 2005 prohibition on gay priests, where they said that homosexuality prevents men from properly relating to others.

          • JabbaPapa

            Sins belonging to the Original Sin are sins, and they are wrong, even though the Original Sin is forgiven in Baptism.

            Acts of homosexuality are contrariwise particular sins of particular individuals.

            logic says

            The established facts of catechetical instruction do not shift and change in obedience to “logic”.

            BTW, Truth is not a product of logic ; logic is just a tool, but Truth is provided by the understanding of reality. Truth is the product of perception and understanding, not thought.

          • On the other hand…

            What ‘prohibition on gay priests’? It is celibacy, surely, not the sexual nature of a priest that is prohibited, otherwise we would lose a huge number of good priests.

          • Naters

            but the letter prohibited priest “with a known sexual orientation”

          • On the other hand…

            But that was under the old JP2 and Ratzinger dispensation. They will never be made to leave. But it might be good to expect all our priests to publicly declare that they do not have a homosexual past that might harm the priesthood and the Church if it came out later -especially the hardline conservative ones, many of whom are known to be gay, despite the incongruous nature of their conservatism. I am talking about gays, not paedophiles. They must all be removed permanently.

          • Naters

            homosexuality is not an illness or a defect like you’re trying to say. unchristian attitudes like yours is!

        • On the other hand…

          But is ‘everything it leads to’ evil, if it leads to nothing different from a celibate life, or is it assumed that, unlike heterosexuals, a homosexual is intrinscally incapable of celibacy? I don’t know the answer, but if is true all homosexual priests should be reported and presumably removed from contact with men. Or be asked to declare their sexuality in public when taking up a post in a parish or school or hospital. If not, why not?

          • Naters

            celibacy itself may not really cause bad things, but the false assumption that they must be does.

          • On the other hand…

            Do you think that celibate, impotent, castrated etc heterosexuals’ condition lead them to commit bad things?

          • JabbaPapa

            Pope John Paul Ii spoke of the “matrix of sin” that we are born into and live within, and it is clear that any taint of our fallen nature and of that individual and collective sin can lead to evil actions, not excluding the things that you mention — except that celibacy, if it is willingly chosen for the right reasons, is defined as being virtuous, as it very often is ; otherwise, the Church could not possibly have expected it of anyone at all.

            It’s nevertheless possible that homosexuals may be endemically less capable of practicing abstinence than heterosexuals.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      stfu you idiot

  • Naters

    i don’t like this author’s assertion that Sullivan is a liberal. actually, he’s not. he’s a conservative/libertarian, and he states so here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Y29iEhhV0

    • samton909

      Sullivan pretended to be a conservative but nobody really believes him anymore.

    • The Philosopher Queen

      He said he’s a “liberal Catholic.” You can be a liberal Catholic and conservative in a political sense, and vice versa.

      • Naters

        but supporting gay rights in the church is not “liberal”.

        • JabbaPapa

          That’s like saying that supporting steak dinners isn’t “carnivorous”.

          • Naters

            my you people seem to ADORE labels, don’t ya?

          • JabbaPapa

            No more than you do, matey ; Naters :i don’t like this author’s assertion that Sullivan is a liberal. actually, he’s not. he’s a conservative/libertarian

          • Naters

            can i PLEASE not have to speak to you again?

          • JabbaPapa

            It’s hardly my fault if you talk to me.

        • The Philosopher Queen

          It is understood to be “liberal” within the context of Catholic discourse.

          • Naters

            but it doesn’t have to be. it’s just a label.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            Its a label, but its not “just a label.” It actually signifies something. Within the context of a discussion about Catholic teaching on homosexuality, people understand that “liberal Catholic” is a label which means “Catholic who disagrees with the current position of the Magisterium on homosexuality.”

            And you’re right, it doesn’t *have* to mean that. The meanings of words are largely social conventions. But it does mean that. And if you started calling Sullivan a “conservative Catholic” within this context it would clearly mean something different to the reader.

          • Naters

            but that’s not a right assertion. calling people “liberals” because they disagree and “conservative” because they agree is not right. it’s reducing people to labels. no one deserves that.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            Its not “reducing people” to labels. That’s like the conservative, pro-hate types who say, “we can’t use the word ‘gay’ because it reduces people to their sexuality.” It doesn’t. It just describes one particular thing about a multifaceted person.

            Of course, I’m sure there are many other interesting things about Andrew Sullivan other than the fact that he is a liberal Catholic. But he is a liberal Catholic.

          • Naters

            but no one should be reduced to that kind of label. gay is not a choice. being a liberal or conservative on the other hand is.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            What does choice have to do with it? And why did you call Sullivan a conservative if your objection is to *all* labels?

          • Naters

            well, to make a point that you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater in order to believe that homosexuality and wherever it leads to is morally acceptable

          • JabbaPapa

            What on EARTH is that supposed to mean ?

          • The Philosopher Queen

            So you were just “making a point” by labelling Sullivan a conservative, but the author was reducing him … ?

          • Naters

            well, because he’s traditional and one of the founders of the marriage equality movement. by the way, he’s a HUGE fan of the Latin Rite.

          • The Philosopher Queen

            Yup, I’m not surprised by that at all. He’s England. In England, liking the Latin Mass isn’t a sign of being ‘conservative’. Or being liberal for that matter. Its only Americans (and to a lesser extent the French) who have this weird thing of trying to bring the liturgy into the ideological culture wars.

      • Naters

        that’s why i don’t like labels.

  • Naters

    you should read this book by my conservative gay catholic friend. it defends LGBT marriage from a roman catholic traditionalist perspective: http://www.amazon.com/Faithful-Truth-How-orthodox-Catholic/dp/1468153900/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365973748&sr=1-1

    • JabbaPapa

      it defends LGBT marriage from a roman catholic traditionalist perspective

      Then it’s delusional.

      • Naters

        maybe in your view it is. but more and more catholics are getting on board with it. maybe you will too one day. but i won’t talk with you anymore after i write this because i don’t want to cause a problem to where you don’t want to support gay marriage someday.

        • JabbaPapa

          maybe in your view it is

          Don’t be ludicrous, the “roman catholic traditionalist perspective” on marriage is that it is a Sacrament between one man and one woman for the purposes of the salvation of their souls and the founding of a family.

          i don’t want to cause a problem to where you don’t want to support gay marriage someday

          I will never support gay “marriage”.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no one cares what you support, fatso

        • samton909

          Actually, more and more Cathollics are getting off the supposed gay marriage train as they learn more and more about the realities of gay life, such as the lack of monogamy, and the medical difficulties, etc. So far, the PR machine has avoided all these unpleasant realities, but in the age of the internet, it is all starting to come out. you can fool all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

          • Naters

            um, your assertions about gay life are unwarranted.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            wrong-over 75% of Catholics support gay marriage-loser!!

    • samton909

      The most you can say is that “it makes an argument”. That argument is weak and unpersuasive and is inherently non-Catholic. don’t try to pass it off as authentic Catholicism, because it is not.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        The Catholic Church has no moral authority after it allowed thousands of boys to be molested

        • JabbaPapa

          Shouldn’t you be accusing the Police and the Law Courts for failing to do their jobs ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Why would the police be to blame if they were never told by the church that it was happening?

          • JabbaPapa

            Should “the Church” or the victims of a crime report that crime to the Police ?

            FYI the Police routinely ignored child abuse complaints throughout most of the West as being not “serious” enough.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            the church who is supposed to protect the children should report the evil deed. Just like a teacher. Or a doctor of a psychiatrist. But when a church doesn’t report it is it much more evil because they say they are moral, they say they are protectors and they say blessed be the children. The other groups I mention make no such moral claim. And remember, many parents were told NOT to go to the police.

          • JabbaPapa

            You seem pretty ignorant about the principle of presumption of innocence, and are you aware that 3rd parties have difficulty lodging complaints based on hearsay ?

            Crimes must be reported by witnesses, not by those who have heard allegations of criminal behaviour.

            And your opinions are anyway biased by your hatred of religion and of the Church in particular.

            Are you aware that the vast majority of those abuse cases involved homosexuals going after teenage boys ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Actually, Im very educated on the matter. The RCC itself reported that over 3000 boys have been molested by priests in the past fifty years. Do you not know this? And please-if you wish to converse you must stop the lies. Pedophiles are almost always straight men-over 95% of the time. In regards to priests, the victims are not teens but children before pubescence, that is , under the age of 12. Are you just anti-gay or simply pulling this crap out of your butt? My opinions aren’t based on hatred, they are only based on facts. Surely youre not supporting a church that protects men who rape children>?

          • JabbaPapa

            Pedophiles are almost always straight men-over 95% of the time

            This is because “paedophiles” are those who molest children under 12, because (as I pointed out elsewhere) there is no link between paedophilia and homosexuality as such, and because over 95% of men are not homosexuals.

            Paedophile crimes are however a small minority among cases of sexual abuse of minors, the great majority of which involve teenagers.

            Nevertheless, the statistics are that homosexuals are responsible for 20% of the crimes, which is a factor of around 10:1 compared to the % of homosexuals in the population.

            Furthermore, the older the child is, far greater is the likelihood that the abuser will choose victims in accordance with his or her typical sexual tendencies.

            In the general population, about 60-65% of cases involving teens involve men and girls. (there is however a significant % of abuse cases where both the perpetrator and the victim are minors)

            In the case of these clerical abuses however, 80% involved men abusing teenage boys. It is blatantly obvious from these statistics that this was a scandal of homosexual clergy exercising their lusts upon teenagers — and please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending that the “man-boy love” sexual fantasy isn’t part of gay culture.

            In regards to priests, the victims are not teens but children before pubescence

            That’s just a lie, the proportion of such crimes amidst the cases of sexual abuse of minors is no different to that which is found in the general population.

            My opinions are … based on facts

            Then you likely have an insufficient knowledge of them — I’ve read several lengthy and detailed reports and analyses of these crimes and of those who perpetrate them — NOT just ones about the clerical abuse scandal, but as pertaining to the general population and the typical patterns of these criminal activities.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            youre really ignorant.
            Pedophilia only involves the molestation of a child prepubescent which means (usually) under 12. No teen is a victim of pedophilia-that’s an ignorance of word meaning.
            No-youre again ignorant of a word’s definition. A pedophile is neither straight nor gay-there is no such thing as a homosexual pedophile or a heterosexual one. Because the child is prepubescent (sexless), it is simply called pedophilia. The truth remains that over 95% of all pedophiles identify as straight men.
            The clergy may be homosexual, but the molestations of children are not classified as homosexual acts.
            Youre letting your bigoted bias cloud your truth-remember, I onlys peak in facts here-theres no use combatting facts.

          • JabbaPapa

            Pedophilia only involves the molestation of a child prepubescent which means (usually) under 12

            Why do you accuse me of “ignorance” and then “correct” me by simply re-stating what I said myself ?

            Youre letting your bigoted bias cloud your truth

            Actually no, you’re the one guilty of doing that — the great majority, statistically, scientifically, of cases of child abuse meaning the sexual abuse of minors are NOT paedophile crimes but involve teenagers.

            the molestations of children are not classified as homosexual acts

            When perpetrated by homosexual men upon teenage boys they are self-evidently homosexual in nature ; just as the molestation of teenage girls by men is self-evidently heterosexual. The % proportion of such crimes perpetrated by homosexuals in the total of the general population is MUCH higher than would be expected if there were no link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors, regardless of the fact that no such link can be demonstrated between homosexuality and paedophilia per se.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I corrected you but you continue to espouse lies-cut it out, old man

          • JabbaPapa

            I don’t fear the truth — some Catholic priests committed some ghastly sexual crimes against minors.

            I’m not the one refusing to look at the facts — you are.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I have truth and law behind me-I don’t need to review your so called “facts”

  • Sue Smith

    I don’t care about peoples’ sexual proclivities, but the massive bullying from the gay lobby has turned me completely cold on their cause and I wish they’d just shut up. They have ‘entitlement’ tattooed on their collective foreheads.

    • tb03

      Honest question: How is demanding equal rights “entitlement”? Personally, I would find it hard to say to a young girl who demands to attend school just like her brothers that she was being an obnoxious entitled brat.

      • JabbaPapa

        They’ve had equal rights ever since the whole civil unions thing, but they carry on demanding more and more.

        • tb03

          No, that’s factually incorrect. At least in America where I live.

          • JabbaPapa

            Is it “factually incorrect” that each individual is equal before the law, and that the SCOTUS decision in favour of gay “marriage” puts them in a position of equality in terms of actual **rights** ?

            If they’re claiming they deserve more, then they’re just carrying on demanding more and more as stated.

          • tb03

            No, being equal before the law applies to a family when there is a marriage which has specific rights and protections to that entire unit that is different than individual protection.

          • JabbaPapa

            You can hardly blame anyone for the biological reality that homosexuality is intrinsically infertile — so where are these “gay families” supposed to come from, except by taking children away from their parents, and handing them over to these gays ?

          • tb03

            That argument is a dud considering it flip flops when discussing infertile couples (intentionally or otherwise) the elderly, marriages of a prisoner, ect. That argument has been tried over and over with complete failure.

            Oh, I have 3 kids and I didn’t swipe them from a straight couple.

          • Joe_NS

            “That argument has been tried over and over with complete failure.”

            No. It hasn’t.

          • samton909

            The simple fact is that even in infertile couples, the inherent complementarity between men and women is still there. This is not there in the case of two men. There are very complex chemical changes that occur between men and women, much of which we do not understand yet. These do not occur between gay men and as a result, gay men are usually not monogamous, and are constantly on the hunt, so to speak. This lack of monogamy is a major difference between the two relationships. They simply are not teh same thing.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            all studies show gays are good parents so you have no argument except your silly “My god done said” shiit…

          • JabbaPapa

            infertile couples (intentionally or otherwise) the elderly, marriages of a prisoner, ect.

            I am not surprised by this special pleading.

          • tb03

            Special pleading? It’s a direct contradiction! It’s the weakest link in your argument.

          • samton909

            And the simple fact remains, that on the whole, those children now will never know what it is like to have a mother. If girls, they will have no one who can model female behavior in all its complex aspects . They will be lacking. This is the testimony of adult children of gay parents, who say that although they love their gay parents, they realize now something was missing. It is always better for children to have a mother and a father. To put them into a lesser relationship, except under the most extreme circumstances, is shortchanging the children.

            It also is very sad that young children are sometimes used as props in gay marriage marches, etc. This is a use of children for political activism that is particularly bad.

          • Sue Smith

            I feel somewhat sympathetic to this viewpoint as I have 4 adult children myself and two of them have their own children. One is being divorced and they have joint access to the children.

            In many respects marriage isn’t worth defending; so few people do get married these days and when they do it’s not going to last for long (if modern stats are anything to go by). However, I believe conservative people have been rail-roaded by the gay lobby and these are the very people who are likely to remain in marriages for the longer haul. When we’re dead and gone they can all do what they like, to be honest. And they probably will. My husband and I have been together for 43 years in April, but he had been married before that. Only 2 of our 4 children got married and only 1 remains married. I think 3 out of 4 of them would say they didn’t want same-sex marriage but would be happy with civil unions, no worries.

            Some things are worth standing and defending, but with the world the way it is each of these things has gradually been capitulated in the name of ‘progress’ but, I say again, it has not produced a better society. Very far from it.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            your philosophy is hindered by your religious ignorance

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            nope-most gay parents are lesbians

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            gays have adopted tens of thousands of kids abandoned by straight people-the more you know….

          • Sue Smith

            I’m not sure it could be regarded as “carrying on” – they are much more serious and better organized than that.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no one is asking anything more than equality (hint-being served in a public store is also equality)

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          Jabba-wow-youre ignorance is immense-what civil unions thing?

      • Sue Smith

        Fair question; honest answer. If you are continually hammered by a lobby which insists that their behaviour is ‘the new normal’ and that conventional social arrangements HAVE to be altered to accommodate them then that could be considered ‘entitlement’. There’s no sense of compromise, since they already have legalized civil unions. No; they want what they want and they want it now – irrespective of what the rest of the community thinks. It’s the more and more and more thing which defines ‘entitlement’ and the sense that it’s theirs by right, irrespective of any other considerations. It’s not equal rights really, is it, but a sense that this is ‘the new normal’ and the rest of us had just better get with the program.

        So your example is in no way analogous. I say again, I don’t care about their sexuality – people are people. But I dislike intensely being bullied because I’m of the mainstream and the impression is being created that it’s people like me who are socially deviating and abnormal. The pendulum has swung much too far and there are very many people who feel as I do. We’ve given our goodwill, empathy and imprimatur yet this is never going to be enough.

        • tb03

          Homosexuality is a normal human variant, so expecting fair treatment for the same relationship is not out of bounds. Civil unions (at least in the U.S.) were not equal. Example: I was married 8 years by the time the Windsor ruling was made. Until then I carried all the benefits for my family including our health insurance. My employer offered domestic partner benefits, but since we were not considered married the benefit was considered taxable income. Healthcare is expensive in America, so this translated into thousands of extra tax dollars we spent that a married couple didn’t have to spend. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg considering our children had one of their parents completely erased from their birth certificate until, like, 6 months ago! So, arguing that entire families should be burdened and placed at risk because of your annoyance simply is not compelling by any reasonable standards.

          • Joe_NS

            “Normal human variant”!

            Good grief!

            You’re skirting rank nonsense there.

          • On the other hand…

            But surely, if is part of human behaviour and not a disease, and is culturally accepted by many societies present and past (and was never considered as ‘odd’ in Europe until the 18-19th centuries), it must – be definition – be considered ‘normal’ however distasteful to a member of a non-accepting cultural group.

          • JabbaPapa

            and was never considered as ‘odd’ in Europe until the 18-19th centuries

            Ah, that explains all those people who suffered the death penalty for it.

          • On the other hand…

            Actually it was a class difference – poor people had to toe the line, but the Lord Byrons etc..

          • JabbaPapa

            Actually it was a class difference – poor people had to toe the line, but the Lord Byrons etc..

            I was unaware that Lord Byron lived prior to “the 18-19th centuries” … (you can’t even keep your own story straight)

            Your Marxist or crypto-Marxist doctrine of class struggle is BTW completely anachronistic regarding the period that you refer to.

            Nothing of what you’ve claimed removes the fact that homosexuality was defined as a capital crime throughout Europe.

            The fact that in the 18th to 19th centuries, society started looking the other way (as in your Lord Byron example, among many others I could think of) tends to demonstrate the exact opposite of your original claim.

            How many famous 14th century homosexuals can you name ?

          • On the other hand…

            There were just as many then as there are now. Human nature doesn’t change, Maybe society had more concerns than worry about what anybody did in bed. Apart from the fact that most families lived and slept in one room and privacy was non-existent — except in the upper class (sorry to sound Marxist, which I’m not) homes.

          • JabbaPapa

            There were just as many then as there are now

            Prove it.

            Prove, please, that the incessant increase of gay & s€x propaganda since WW2 and the 1960s has had no effect on sexual mores, habits, and practices (whereas it is blatantly obvious that they have radically changed).

            You’re just assuming for the sake of some petty a priori disagreement with me that sexual morality does not change, which is utterly incompatible with the atheist notion of “progress” that defines the foundation of the rest of your argument.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            its always been 3 to 5% throughout human history-all scientists agree on that. Prove your god exists

          • JabbaPapa

            There were just as many then as there are now

            I doubt that you have any evidence to support this conjecture, especially given that there is still difficulty in establishing scientifically how many there are even today.

          • Joe_NS

            Surely. But every one of your hypotheticals is false and tendentiously so, potted history.

          • samton909

            But you are not demanding an adjustment to the tax laws to solve this problem, you are demanding that everyone must be forced to accept whatever arrangement you have constructed, and no one is allowed to disagree, or they will lose their job. See Brandon Eich. You do not demand equality, you demand total acceptance and the suppression of free speech and thought. Your movement, unfottunatly, is built on multiple lies (such as the lie that most gay couples are monogamous, when in fact they are not) As long as you base your movement on suppression of the truth, and of forcing others to submit to your desires, then you are simply endorsing your personal totalitarian state. No more free speech, no more free thought.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          Sue-youre so ignorant and foolish-gays have never asked for acceptance-just equality under the law-why would gays care what you, a backward trailer trash hillbilly thinks of them???

      • samton909

        You don’t demand equal rights. You demand special rights, as in no one can object to your sexual proclivities, in fact, you demand that children must be taught to praise those proclivities. You demand that people must be fired for speaking their minds.. You demand that anyone who disagrees with you must be suppressed. *see Brandon Eich) For my taste, there is too much of the totalitarian state involved in what you want. What you want is far, far from “equal rights” You demand submission to thought and will and deed, just like a totalitarian state. No free thinking is allowed in your philosophy, Horatio.

        • tb03

          No. No. No. No. Well, people are entitled to their opinions. Are you so fragile that this is harming you? (Eich resigned because he lost respect of his employees, btw). At the risk of brutally attacking your fragile ego; you are simply clueless about who gay people and how SSM bans harm innocent families.

          • JJD

            SSM is not “banned”, as far as I know, it simply doesn’t exist where it has not been specifically legislated for.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          lies-youre an idiot-only equality was desired and granted-youre mistaking special rights given to religious institutions like not paying taxes…THAT is a special right!!

          • JabbaPapa

            How much tax does the “special” “institution” Stonewall pay, then ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Stonewall the bar in NY?

          • JabbaPapa

            Stonewall the gay activist organisation.

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      no one has bullied you, you silly old hag-name one example please

  • Naters

    people are always calling gay marriage supporters “liberals” and opponents “conservatives”. i’ve had enough of labels. and for the record, you can be a religious conservative and still believe homosexuality is a normal part of life that does not deserve condemnation.

    • Jacobi

      But you cannot be a Catholic. Matter of choice. Simple!

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        most catholics don’t follow the church verbatim (birth control, supporting gay equality, etc)

    • samton909

      Putting it up your patootie is not a normal part of life

      • Naters

        yeah? well i guess that means our 1000+ animal species aren’t natural either then, are they?

        • pobjoy

          Perhaps animals do what they perceive to be wrong.

          • Naters

            animals aren’t capable of wrong.

          • pobjoy

            How do you know?

          • Naters

            animals have no conscious.

          • pobjoy

            Literate people will take that as evasive agreement that animals may do what they perceive to be wrong.

          • JabbaPapa

            How on EARTH can animals distinguish right from wrong without a) consciousness, and b) knowledge of good and evil ?

            These belong to mankind alone, as you’d know if you didn’t ignore the teachings of Scripture in favour of your personal opinions.

            And this is regardless of the fact that the conduct of brute beasts does not constitute a desirable model of behaviour for rational human beings created in the image of God.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            thats just human egoism-you’ve been trained to think that but its not real

          • JabbaPapa

            Why don’t you go and grunt about in the woods then, instead of playing with computers ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            a gay man invented the computer, dummy

          • JabbaPapa

            You **do** rather enjoy posting complete rubbish, don’t you.

            The first computer was built by Charles Babbage in the 1840s. Babbage was a devout Christian, and far from being “gay”, he married Georgiana Whitmore, and the couple had eight children.

            The first computer programmer was Ada Lovelace, who worked with Babbage, and she wasn’t “gay” either, but was married with three children, and she was a Christian too.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            that’s a lie-the MODERN day computer that you are using today was created by Alan Turing who was not only a war hero, his creation begat the first computer. Charles Babbage did not invent the computer-he aided in creating the first mechanical computer which is as far from the modern day one as a horse is to a car! Is your bigotry so deep you refuse to acknowledge Turing, considered the father of the modern day computer by all engineers and historians? wow-you are truly lost. May god forgive you

          • JabbaPapa

            You **do** rather enjoy posting complete rubbish, don’t you.

            The first modern computer was ENIAC, and was designed by John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert of the University of Pennsylvania. Mauchly was not “gay”, but married twice (his first wife died in an accident) and had five children. Nor was Eckert, having also married twice (his first wife died too), and being a father of four.

            The Turing machine was not a computer in the modern sense of the word.

            Is your bigotry so deep

            In fact I simply do not consider your claims about the origin of computers to be accurate in the slightest.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            sorry-its accepted truth by everyone-only virulent anti-gay morons think counter

          • JabbaPapa

            Do you fantasize about having a sexual relationship with your smug, homosexual, self-satisfied, hateful & bigoted laptop ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, but I do think about your Dad

          • NORMAN DOSTAL
          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            humans are animals and some animals do indeed have a conscious (dogs, dolphins)

          • On the other hand…

            Are we talking about ‘consciousness’ (which all sentient animals have) or ‘conscience’, which refers to the dictates of one or other moral code, and can cause guilt feelings. Dogs do not feel ‘guilt’ but they learn things to avoid to avoid pain. That’s not ‘conscience’. It’s probably merely memory of past experience.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Naw-if there is any kind of soul in humans it is shared by many animals-cats, dogs-Ive seen it expressed.

        • Grant Melville

          The Epistle to the Romans tells us that God allowed this affliction to come in on the human race because of idolatry. Because man had changed the glory of God into the likeness of animals, God gave them up to forget what was natural to man as a species. Animals do all sorts of degraded things that humans normally wouldn’t, because humans are different from animals, a special creation. That distinction is being removed.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            that’s a lie-that’s not the correct translation

          • Grant Melville

            I’m referring to Romans 1 v 21-27. I don’t know of any translation which gives that passage a different meaning to the translation I use. Perhaps my interpretation of the passage is at fault, but I don’t think so, as it’s quite unambiguous.

          • JabbaPapa

            I could probably quibble your fairly debatable interpretation down to its knees, but really I’ll just propose that homosexuality and idolatry belong to the same sinfulness, rather than the one directly causing the other.

            St Paul’s point, I think, is that focussing on the material divorces us from the Spiritual, and distances us from God.

            Marriage and Procreation are of the Spirit, for the Salvation of Souls and for our co-participation in the birth of the children and brethren of the Lord.

            PS Your translation is accurate

          • Grant Melville

            I wouldn’t cling to any extent to a theory of cause and effect. I would, however, point out that in verse 26 the apostle says “For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts” &c. I would agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the material and the spiritual.

    • Naters

      well, i’m glad to see 4 people fed up with labels.

    • On the other hand…

      But not a Catholic conservative.

      • On the other hand…

        at least not a Cathollc conservative PRIEST!

      • Naters

        yes you can be that too

    • hobspawn

       “…you can be a religious conservative and still believe homosexuality is a normal part of life that does not deserve condemnation.”

      Condemnation of fellow sinners is not a Christian activity. “Hate sin, not the sinner.” There is a difference between forgiving each other’s trespasses, and on the other hand, actively promoting that sin within the sacramental institution of marriage.

      • Naters

        you can’t use “love the sinner hate the sin” anymore. it contains 75% “hate, sin, sinner” and only 25% “love”. besides, jesus never said you should call anyone sinners, but neighbors instead.

        • JabbaPapa

          John : {9:41} Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. Yet now you say, ‘We see.’ So your sin persists.”

          Mark : {2:17} Jesus, having heard this, said to them: “The healthy have no need of a doctor, but those who have maladies do. For I came not to call the just, but sinners.”

          John : {8:42} Then Jesus said to them: “If God were your father, certainly you would love me. For I proceeded and came from God. For I did not come from myself, but he sent me.
          {8:43} Why do you not recognize my speech? It is because you are not able to hear my word.
          {8:44} You are of your father, the devil. And you will carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning. And he did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks it from his own self. For he is a liar, and the father of lies.
          {8:45} But if I speak the truth, you do not believe me.
          {8:46} Which of you can convict me of sin? If I speak the truth to you, why do you not believe me?
          {8:47} Whoever is of God, hears the words of God. For this reason, you do not hear them: because you are not of God.”

  • Sean L

    I’d argue that you can’t *be* a *gay conservative*. Not that you can’t be gay and also conservative in your attitude and allegiance. But if the condition of being gay defines membership of a distinct political constituency, that is not compatible with being a conservative. Gays are equal before the law. Beyond that being gay is of no politcal significance for the conservative, for whom the notion of a “gay community” or “gay rights” are nothing but pretexts for forms of political activism that are disruptive of everything he stands for.

    • Realismista

      A load of old nonsense. being “gay” does not confine the gay person to a “particular political constituency” – your succeeding arguments fell to pieces because they were based on this erroneous foundation.

      • Sean L

        I agree – I think you’ve misconstrued me. If being gay doesn’t define a separate political constituency, membership of which is predicated on being gay, then there’s no issue: one is merely a person who happens to be gay, or, as is the case here, a conservative who is also gay. My point relates only to where being gay *does* define such a political constituency. This is the position of many, perhaps most people who are gay, the silent majority you could say, who generally feel contempt for the gay rights activists who purport to speak in their name, and consider their sexual preferences of no political signifance in and of themselves.

  • Giuseppe Cappa

    Apart from the fact that I refuse to use the three-letter word unless in its proper semantics, [Rom 1:26-27] is clear for anyone. For the Catholic the problem is non-existent, as s3x is only allowed with a
    spouse (of the opposite s3x, obviously) within the sacrament of marriage. All the non-married, members of Clergy in particular, are to abstain, whichever s3x they are attracted to (which becomes more or less
    irrelevant at this point). The Church of England has been following the worst mainstream trends and it is now getting close to the position of nihilism.

    • Nick

      Is s3x the same as kissing and looking womens belly buttons?

    • On the other hand…

      ‘Proper semantics’? Have you ever bothered to look at the OED? Perhaps that explains why you are so confused. Consulta un buon dizionario affidabile, Giù.

      • Giuseppe Cappa

        I know the English language and how to consult dictionaries, thank you.
        The OED incorporates all recent pol. corr. linguistic nonsense,
        including the usage of the term “gender” with the meaning of “s3x”. The
        three-word letter has been used as a pol. corr. term to denote
        homos3xuals only for a few decades, which should not prevent anyone from
        using the correct terminology.

        • On the other hand…

          How far do you go back to determine the ‘proper’ (?) meaning of a word. Incidentally, ‘sematics’ is neither proper or improper. It might be useful for you to look the meaning of that word too.

          • JabbaPapa

            You seem to be willfully denying the politically biased nature of your own delusions.

          • On the other hand…

            No bias – i was replying to a biased, misleading and erroneous post. As a linguist I was merely pointing out that many words – especially adjectives – do not have a ‘proper’ fixed and unchanging, objective meaning. The science of semantics deals with this subject – the meaning of meaning. Today ‘gay’ is understood universally to mean homosexual, but in past centuries it meant many other different things. “I feel gay!” makes you laugh today, but 100 years ago your friends would feel happy for you. Words become ‘dated’, and did not therefore have fixed meanings across time. That’s all.

          • JabbaPapa

            I must apologise — I’m in a FAR more grumpy mood than usual due to current health difficulties and chronic pain.

          • On the other hand…

            Hahaha.. Thanks. Apology gracefully accepted.

          • hobspawn

             “Today ‘gay’ is understood universally to mean homosexual, but in past centuries it meant many other different things. “I feel gay!” makes you laugh today…”

            Some of my best friends are called Gay. I’ll let them know your view. Meanwhile the word means ‘light-hearted’ to me. I don’t have to swallow every degeneration of our once great English language.

          • On the other hand…

            You are obviously beyond salvation!! LOL – ‘degeneration’ of our language.. and our ‘once great language’.. sounds like Georgie Bush having one of his drug- induced highs. Get an elementary Linguistics manual and start swatting up. then you can talk about word meanings with people who really know what they are talking about.

    • Grant Melville

      This issue highlights the importance of simplicity as to the truth. The RCC takes a very sound and simple approach to this question, i.e. that there’s no question at all, it’s plain scripture. I have a wide range of fundamental disagreements with the RCC, but despite that I thank God for its solid position on issues such as this, especially when others are abandoning principles and muddying waters.

  • Nick

    I’m a straight guy but pro gay rights and I have been for a long time.

    However,I don’t see why the church should change their ways and beliefs to suit the LGBT community.I am not religious.

    Why should people have to change their ways simply to please others and it’s grossly unfair for LGBT people to expect that to happen.

    Live and let live.

    • pobjoy

      So you back the fake church because the real one makes you sweat.

      And you’re probably not all that straight, either.

      • JabbaPapa

        So you back the fake church because the real one makes you sweat

        What makes you think he’s backing one of the 70,000 or so Protestant “churches” ?

      • Nick

        Why have you taken such a silly attitude? Is it because you are over sensitive?

        And you assume too much.

        • pobjoy

          You see, folks? The poster confirms a love of Catholics, infamous killers of good people. They have guilty eyes, too.

          • Nick

            Oh dear,you’re one of them aren’t you?

            Are you going to hound me off Twitter?

            Have I invaded your ‘safe space’?

            Are you one of the perma-outraged?

          • Realismista

            No, it;s you who sounds so easily offended….like to dish it but can’t take it.

          • Nick

            I haven’t dished anything out darling.All I’ve done is give an opinion and someone accused me of being a racist.

            Get your facts right please.

          • vieuxceps2

            Really ,Pobjoy. With such a name you don’t need to ponce and prate so camply. Just stiffen your wrist (ooooh get him) and write sensibly about your views.

          • JabbaPapa

            The bloodstained hands of all those who killed and mass murdered in the name of the Protestant revolt against the Church point to your hypocrisy.

      • On the other hand…

        I’m still trying to understand where you really are in this debate about ‘fake religions’ etc.. What is the genuine religion, then?

        • pobjoy

          The pseudo-churches are split, because they have failed. It is seven centuries since the Renaissance, when Europeans who were not papal employees educated themselves, and realised that papalism was an invention so obvious that it would be unable to withstand future scrutiny. Better inventions were required; and Luther, Calvin and others supplied them. But their ideas soon failed, too, and there followed, over successive centuries, an evolution of denominations that attempted to mimic Christianity with increasing verisimilitude. But today, they have not only all failed, they are seen to have failed, and denominations are perceived as “demon nations”, as false churches.

          The position of a false church in an increasingly liberated world has become anomalous. Europe had invented a religion that allowed public respectability, with private licence. It permitted immoral behaviour of the wealthy, because they had privacy, in castles, courts, monasteries and other residences built of stone. The poor, the vast majority, had very scant privacy. The old morality can no longer be imposed now, and a society will do as it wants, within its own limits. Irregular heterosexual relationships are no longer seen as a great barrier to claims for Christian faith. But homosexuality still is, probably because it is far more detectable, socially, than irregular heterosexual relationships; but also because everyone has read Romans 1, in which homosexual relationships are seen to be reactions by haters of the creator (though this does not, in the biblical view, apply to all homosexual relationships, as many suppose).

          So there is a split because some urge the pseudo-churches to become fully conformed to societal morality, while ‘conservatives’ believe that they will lose what last shred of credibility they possess if they comply.

          • JabbaPapa

            What a “surprise” to see the arch-sectarian denouncing sectarianism.

          • On the other hand…

            I see no hint here of ‘sectarianism’ but only a very clear and well-written statement of a perfectly logical – even if debatable by others – position. But sectarian or silly? I don’t understand your objection, Nick, And what is she or he assuming too much of?

          • JabbaPapa

            I see no hint here of ‘sectarianism’

            Well, shall I come over and clean your glasses or your monitor for you ?

            And who is “Nick” ???

            If you do not understand that such a declaration as “the pseudo-churches are split” is intrinsically sectarian, then you pure and simple do not understand even the most simple basics of the topic.

          • Grant Melville

            I don’t want to put words into @pobjoy’s mouth, but what I draw from his comment above is that he would put the RCC and the Protestant denominations into the same category, as sects. He seems to be condemning what he perceives to be sectarianism whether in a Roman Catholic or a Protestant form.

            I suppose it all depends on how one defines sectarianism, and that can differ a good deal.

          • JabbaPapa

            He has overtly encouraged sectarianism in the last few days.

            The Catholic dogma that all of the validly and willingly baptised are Christians is foreign to his outright Heresy.

          • Grant Melville

            Ah. Well, that is an important truth which must be held to – though I’m sure you and I could get into another stushie about what constitutes valid baptism, since I believe in household baptism. Well, moving swiftly on!

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        theres no “real” church-its all made up

        • pobjoy

          Of course it is. So what brings you here, Norman?

    • Sue Smith

      The LGBT lobby is extremely noisy, demanding and shrill and, oh, so entitled.

      • Nick

        Yes these unofficial entitlements which nonetheless seem legally binding,are unfair and should be challenged more.

        • Realismista

          what kind of unofficial entitlements? Let’s see: equal age of consent and the ability to have a legally-binding contract called marriage like heterosexual people. Where’s the unfair entitlement there except in the world of religionists who want to stop other people making choices in civil – not religious – society?

      • Realismista

        Sounds like you’d fit right in, love.

        • Sue Smith

          I take that as an acknowledgement that what I said was right. Thought so.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            you cant possibly ever be right, madam harpy

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        no, silly stupid, Sue-gays just demand equality…just like your gender did 100 years ago…

        • Sue Smith

          It’s called ‘civil unions’. They do have ‘equality’. And usurping the term ‘marriage equality’ is priceless. Most people take that to mean EQUAL roles within a marriage – ie. women have the right to work, etc.

          Get your facts straight.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, dumdum, civil unions have 1,138 less rights than marriage. And remember when your nasty kind tried to stop civil unions in WA? That was when you bigots tipped your hand. So we bypassed you. Most people? Speak for yourself, old woman. Today, marriage equality simply means equality of marriage under the law for all couples. This aint the 50s anymore, honey

          • Sue Smith

            Gimme, gimme, gimme MY RIGHTS!! Gimme them NOW. Gimme them on MY TERMS. Sexist and ageist comments from a bigot like yourself won’t win you any friends. “Marriage equality” means what it says; equality WITHIN marriage. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            well, old woman, others gained your rights a hundred years ago-pretty sure you’d demand yours if people passed laws against ugly old crones named Sue-am I right?

          • Sue Smith

            A nasty embittered gay; ageist and sexist. Well, what a surprise!! And being homosexual is not now (nor will it be anytime in the future) THE NEW NORMAL. All this despite your thuggish bullying to insist homosexuality IS the new normal. We are fed up with having your ‘ishooos” rammed down our throats with a long-handled shovel, destroying the goodwill we already had for marginals like yourself. And seeing cheap old gays dressed up as women at the Mardi Gras. Misogynists too!! And devoid of any class whatsoever. So….!!! (hands on hips)

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, im happy, you silly crone. Rich, lots of friends, world traveler-life is pretty perfect. You have no “we”-you are alone and powerless. Maybe try praying? Now begone! .

          • JabbaPapa

            So you’re a smug self-satisfied narcissist ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im smug, definitely satisfied but hardly a narcissist. I fight for millions.

          • JabbaPapa

            So you’re a smug, self-satisfied, hateful bigot then, by your own admission ?

            What a wonderful set of qualities — no wonder your marriage failed.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            my marriage is now 8 years strong-how many divorces have you had?

    • vieuxceps2

      But that’s the problem. Gays don’t want live and let live. They want society to change to their way. That’s why the gay lobby is so strident ,and nowadays so powerful. They have infiltrated organisations such as government, BBC,the Church , entertainment and the print media so that their notion of what’s “in” and “cool” spread widely amngst those who think that they themselves run things.We have been defeated by the Lez and Gay lobbyists (think only of the BBC for the lesbians) and I expect that their influence is becoming widely accepted as normal within education.
      Don’t misunderstand ,I have nothing against gay people. I just wish that they would leave the rest of society alone.

      • Nick

        I agree with you.Something that I find interesting are the LGBT people who cringe when the likes of Peter Tatchell go on about rights etc and they hate his aggressive gay guy attitude.

        Many gay people are like many straight people who do not want their private lives and sexuality thrust in the limelight for all to see and pick over.

        • JabbaPapa

          If more were like you, most of this destructive culture war would be without object.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            there is no war-you lost-deal with it

      • Realismista

        Utter generalisation-filled nonsense.

      • Linda Redmond

        Very well said, I totally agree with you.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          let us guess-big fat straight white woman who tips 3 bills?

          • JabbaPapa

            So you’re one of those gay misogynists one hears about, then ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I love women-I used to be married to one. My mom and sister are also women. (hint-I hate bigoted women-they should know better)

          • JabbaPapa

            So you abandoned your wife in order to feed your homosexual lusts ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no-she left me and remarried and lived happily ever after as she had the right to. And we remain the bets of friends

          • JabbaPapa

            So your conception and experience of “marriage” is the precise opposite of its actual meaning ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Marriage is what we want it to be-since it has existed thousands of years before any existing religion or creation of any god, and its meaning has changed every few decades in human history, it is indeed what we say it is 🙂

          • JabbaPapa

            So you’re just another tedious post-modernist who thinks that words are intrinsically meaningless ? Why then should anyone bother with anything that you type ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im here to show others that people like you are to be stood up to, that bullies must be taken down and decimated the way I have decimated you. Words, as I said, are what we determine them to be. How do you not know this?

          • JabbaPapa

            I have not been “decimated”, you ludicrous moron.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            yes you have-you have not put forth a single intelligent reply to anything thats been said

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        that’s stupid-gays just demanded equality under the law-and won of course, Who cares what trailer trash backward religious kooks think? (hint: no one)

        • vieuxceps2

          No,gays don’t just want equality, they want special treatment as do all minorities.Try for a Civil Partnership of man and woman and see how far you get.
          I repeat, in case your intellect is as poor as your as your writing style,gays have a strident lobby which is influencing society in ways far beyond their own interests. Nobody wants to oppress them or treat them unfairly but let them keep out of matters which concern normal society. We have enough problems without theirs as well.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            no, dumdum-equality was gained-you just thought because youre straight and worship a certain god that you get to do what you want-0but the court said no. Society doesnt want to treat gays unfairly? are you high or just stupid? Have you heard Cruz or Rubio speak? Tell that to Mathew Shepherd you ignorant biitch!!

          • vieuxceps2

            I fear you may be American as well as maniacal. Who are Rubio,Cruz and Mathew (sic) Shepherd?.Where might I hear them speak? Hyde Park Corner perhaps? Grand Central Station maybe?
            You live,it seems .in a strange world where it’s normal to insult complete strangers for holding views which differ from your own.I will not join you there,but I wish you joy of your chosen life and hope never to see, hear or smell you or any of your kind ever again.
            Not too much to ask is it?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            turns out I have no desire to be kind to bigots who use some fake god to justify their nonsense. If that’s American, then yes, I am proud to be one!!

          • JabbaPapa

            No, it’s not particularly “american” — it’s just plain old bigoted and hateful.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            wrong, my backward friend-to destroy evil religious bigots, one must hate them (and use the courts which is also a good way!)

          • JabbaPapa

            So your “denial” of your hatred is to justify your hatred ?

            As for your bigotry, its existence is blatantly obvious.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I don’t deny that I hate bigots-yes, I am indeed bigoted against bigots-its a good thing

          • JabbaPapa

            So you are indeed a hateful bigot as suggested, and by your own admission.

            How “lovely” for you.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I hate bigots-I want them gone-and the good news is, they are dying off fast!!

        • hobspawn

          The law can not compensate for the fact that homosexual relationships are a class of relationship which never produce child or family. The law used to recognise this fundamental dysfunction, but now it will not be mended until several generations of COGs have been sacrificed to this altar of pride, erected by a tiny minority who, vaunting aloud, but rack’d with deep despair, make accomplices of the unwary.

    • hobspawn

       “Why should people have to change their ways simply to please others and it’s grossly unfair for LGBT people to expect that to happen.”

      The LGBT lobby is driven by fear of extinction. The desperation for official worship of their painful disorder comes not from homophobic persecution, but from their own deep silent suspicion that their preferred type of s e x is fundamentally broken. That’s why COGs are shown off as trophies to verify a lie: buggers can breed. It is a vain tragedy, for which of us knows the loneliness of a child with two fathers?

  • Joe Schmoi

    homsexual behavior is a deviant lifestyle. It is abnormal. Only a small percentage of population is gay. The true church will never allow homosexual marriage. The apostate church already does.

    • The Philosopher Queen

      Hate.

    • Jacobi

      Correct! The relevant references are in CCC 2357. A very small percentage. Best stats in the U S of A, as usual. Homosexuality about 1 1/2 % . Remember the term applies to both sexes. Not all are ” Gay” whatever that means, so active homosexuals probably about one percent.

      • JabbaPapa

        Apparently it’s about 1% of women and 2% of men.

        • Sue Smith

          I think you’ll find it’s a far higher statistic than that!!

          • JabbaPapa

            You should not confuse local or even national statistics, which can indeed vary quite radically, with the estimates concerning the global population.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            historically since mankind began, gays have always been 3 to 5% of the population

          • JabbaPapa

            I doubt that you have **any** evidence to support that claim.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            I have more data supporting it than you do that your god exists so there’s that 🙂

          • JabbaPapa

            I have … data supporting it

            Really.

            Can you please then demonstrate the % of homosexuals in the population for the 8th, 5th, and 1st centuries BC, as well as for the 4th, 7th, 11th, and 15th centuries AD ?

            No doubt you have extensively detailed demographic data for all those periods, despite the fact that modern demographics are an invention of the 20th Century, and despite the fact that the % of homosexuals in the population even today has never been firmly established even though it tends to be settling towards about 1.5 – 2 % of the world population.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            google gay population in ancient Greece. Try ancient rome. All scientists have determined that homosexuality has been a constant throughout man’s history-what are you asking me? the number is 3 to 5%-if its a little less, so what?

          • JabbaPapa

            In other words your claim to have “data” is just a lie.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            still waiting for a single bit of fact proving your god exists…

          • Jacobi

            In UK it is much lower. Don’t be impressed b y what people “say” in polls. A good pollster can get whatever serult yoy pay for.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            wrong-remember, up until twenty years ago there were NO gays at all per polls-why? because people lie. Nowadays, people who experiment are upwards of 25 to 30%-real, true gays? the same as always 3 to 5%

    • Realismista

      You’re abnormal and deviant.

      • JabbaPapa

        Your attempt at goalpost-shifting is pathetic.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          theres no goal post in regards to humans, you pathetic chubby little inconsequential flea. Humanity varies and no one person is “normal”-we are what we say we are-there is no god so we only base our views of humanity on our own sense of empathy.

          • JabbaPapa

            So you think you can justify your Christophobia by reference to your gay activism and your religious views ? That’s just outright atheist bigotry.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            im not christophobia-i just hate bigots. remember, most Christians support gay equality-they’re cool-its just the evil wicked bigots who use religion to “justify’ their hate-those are the human shiit piles I hate. and yeah-duh..wouldn’t a black person be justified s hate the religious views of the KKK?

          • JabbaPapa

            i just hate bigots. remember

            Then you must dislike looking in a mirror …

          • On the other hand…

            wickedly witty… ha-ha-ha

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            wow-you are stupid-try harder please-at least be entertaining

    • NORMAN DOSTAL

      Joe-im afraid youre a dumb, ignorant asss. Homosexuality is perfectly normal-it just isn’t common

      • Jacobi

        Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law. They lack complementariness and they cannot be approved of.

        • On the other hand…

          Yes, according to your definition of ‘natural law’. Correct. But apart
          from the Church (which is the only source of what is ‘intrinsically
          disordered’), who/what defines what is ‘natural’? Statistics? Geography?
          Culture? Ethnicity? History? Or does ‘natural’ mean only what an
          individual does and predicates of others, and vice-versa?

          • hobspawn

            Natural or not, exclusive homosexuality by any individual guarantees the extinction of his line.

            Given that the existence of each of us is contingent on the successful reproduction of the genes of our trillions of ancestors, without exception, terminating that remarkable reproductive lineage by choice, rather than bad luck, could be seen as against our nature.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            so what? we went from 1 billion to 7 billion in 100 years-humans aren’t going anywhere-your argument is moot

          • hobspawn

             “we went from 1 billion to 7 billion in 100 years”

            Amazing what homosexuality can achieve!
             

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            turns out gays can and do breed too 🙂

          • hobspawn

             “turns out gays can and do breed too :-)”

            Please cite an instance of homosexual s ex resulting in the conception of a human child of both participants. 

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            gays breed the same way straights do, my obtuse friend-is there a different way?

          • hobspawn

            Sorry to repeat myself, but please cite a single example of homosexual s ex resulting in the conception of a human child of both participants.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            why are you asking stupid questions? If the population was ever in danger of dying out, gays could breed. What weirdo view are you espousing with that idiotic question?

          • JabbaPapa

            why are you asking stupid questions?

            One should always adapt one’s questions to the capacity of those they’re asked of.

          • hobspawn

            You mean they have to resort to heterosexuality!

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            homosexuality helps control you breeders form overpopulating the earth

          • hobspawn

            In a competitive environment you can compete or you can give up. 99% of species which have lived are extinct. They are the ones which gave up.

            Nobody, no scientist, no Malthusian visionary can tell you what is the optimal human population of the Earth.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            millions starving in Africa is probably a good indication that there are too many people there…

          • hobspawn

            Nonsense. The problems in Africa are to do with culture and governance.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            so better governance could produce more food and medicine and shield form ignorance about birth control and diet? ok, maybe…

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          wrong, dumdum-over 1500 species of animals have exhibited homosexual traits-even lifelong in some animals so it isn’t disordered. We have examined it and it is perfectly natural-just not common.

          • JabbaPapa

            Why should rational persons imitate the behaviour of beasts ?

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            we are animals, idiot

          • cajaquarius

            Notice, to all readers, how JabbaPapa has distorted the argument of Norman. This is a common distortion and a common, fallacious argument used almost exclusively by the lying Christians in their anti-gay tirades. It goes:

            Person A: Being Gay is unnatural!
            Person B: Actually, homosexuality is found in X number of species.
            Person A (or sometimes a person C, as in this case): So you are saying we should all act like animals then?

            This is what is known as a Strawman Fallacy. Norman never mentioned anything about justifying his homosexuality by claiming it was practiced by animals, he was responding to someone making the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. This is demonstrably false.

            Because the Godlings know that reality and science isn’t on their side, they rely on lies and distortions to argue their views.

      • Joe Schmoi

        norman eat some hot peppers to remind you of what but hole is really for, its not normal you ignoramus.

  • Mark

    I thought the whole point of religion was to guide/tell it’s followers whats right and wrong? I’m gay AND not religious but even I think it would be a bit silly if Christian religions secularised themselves so much that they were just like everyone else.

    • pobjoy

      You thought, Catholicism is a soft touch alternative to the genuine faith, so I’ll support it. Brave fellow.

      • JabbaPapa

        In fact, Catholic Christianity is the one true Faith. The 70,000 or so ersatz Protestant sects are all based on the outrageous Errors and heresies of Martin Luther and various others who considered their own personal opinions as superior to the Revelation.

        • NORMAN DOSTAL

          no it s not-any number of religions are valid – they are all made up so you cant say my invisible dad is better than yours-its all silly

          • JabbaPapa

            Either one religion alone is truthful, or none are — regardless, the truth is never “silly”.

          • On the other hand…

            .. if the ‘truth’ proclaimed is actually ‘true’, agreed. But….

          • JabbaPapa

            The Revelation isn’t just a mind game to be played like some crossword puzzle.

            Atheists make claims about Religion based on their disbelief in God, and so they reduce it to purely material terms that deny its source in Spirituality (which they simply do not understand), Faith (that they do not have, and so do not understand), and in God (Whom they deny).

            Asking for the atheist view on Religion is like asking a vegetarian to write a beef recipe cookery book.

            Your own views on these questions are yours to have, of course, but you quite simply fail to realise that Christian metaphysics are no less valid than your own atheist ones — quite apart from the reality of divine interventions, that you might prefer to deny if you have no knowledge of any (and they’re not always easy to live with), the fundamentals of atheism are undemonstrable as well as being of a doctrinal nature, proclaimed by the more annoying type of online/militant/radical atheists exactly as if they were some sort of crypto-religious dogma to be believed by all.

            It is not Truth.

          • On the other hand…

            No — based on their non-belief in God.
            The onus is on religionists to explain why there can be a God, not the nonreligious to disprove the impossible.

          • JabbaPapa

            That has exactly nothing to do with my point, quite apart from being a mindless atheist cliché.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            that is silly-you think your religion which was made up on a traceable date by human beings putting a book together is the one religion? The answer is that they are all false. Maybe there is a god but the god is not found in any book

          • JabbaPapa

            Why on EARTH would you think that God might be contained in a book ?

            Atheists have some truly bizarre ideas …

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            religious zealots claim the bible is the word of god-you dont agree? cool! I thought you were a mindless idiot!

          • JabbaPapa

            Did you get your religious “education” from a Jack Chick comic ?

    • theflowerfades

      Just my two cents here: Religion’s quite a bit more than simply reading about right and wrong. That would reduce Christianity and religion to mere philosophy for the record.

      • Mark

        I’ve no doubt that there is more to religion than that, but the subject at hand is gays and Christianity, so it was only in relation to that subject that I was commenting. Perhaps I should have said ‘isn’t a central tenet of religions to guide/tell followers . .etc’ I think it’s important on any subject that diverse points of view are listened to. I’m probably one of the few non-religious people who defend the right of religious people to make their point where a lot of people try to stifle or dismiss the contributions of religious people. Anyway, I tried . . . 🙂

        • theflowerfades

          Well I applaud you for trying but I believe you understand my quick rush to tell you. Many, including Christians, are ignorant of what Christianity says, let alone other religions. I remember when parishioners who attended every week for 40 years believed Dan Brown had his facts straight. It’s a bit scary.

  • pobjoy

    The LGBT rights movement — so the story goes — has split the Christian churches in two.

    It’s a tall story. The pseudo-churches are split because they have failed. It is seven centuries since the Renaissance, when Europeans who were not papal employees educated themselves, and realised that papalism was an invention so obvious that it would be unable to withstand future scrutiny. Better inventions were required; and Luther, Calvin and others supplied them. But their ideas soon failed, too, and there followed, over successive centuries, an evolution of denominations that attempted to mimic Christianity with increasing verisimilitude. But today, they have not only all failed, they are seen to have failed, and denominations are perceived as “demon nations”, as false churches.

    The position of a false church in an increasingly liberated world has become anomalous. Europe had invented a religion that allowed public respectability,with private licence. It permitted immoral behaviour of the wealthy, becase they had privacy, in castles, courts, monasteries and other residences built of stone. The poor, the vast majority, had very scant privacy. The old morality can no longer be imposed now, and a society will do as it wants, within its own limits. Irregular heterosexual relationships are no longer seen as a great barrier to claims for Christian faith. But homosexuality still is, probably because it is far more detectable, socially, than Irregular heterosexual relationships; but also because everyone has read Romans 1, in which homosexual relationships are seen to be reactions by haters of the creator (though this does not, in the biblical view, apply to all homosexual relationships, as many suppose).

    So there is a split because some urge the pseudo-churches to become fully conformed to societal morality, while ‘conservatives’ beleve that they will lose what last shred of credibility they possess if they comply.

    • JabbaPapa

      Your paranoid delusional narrative is just one more proof of your heterodox pseudo-christianity.

  • On the other hand…

    Can’t we draw a distinction between ‘marriage’ (as a purely legal, secular institution) on the one hand, and the totally separate ‘matrimony’ which is a purely religious ‘sacramental’ institution, which every religion is free to legislate on. The important thing is the ‘legal effects’ in terms of succession, mutual responsibilities etc..

    • pobjoy

      The important thing is the ‘legal effects’ in terms of succession, mutual responsibilities etc..

      That has been decided, in law. The argument is whether homosexuals can be recognised as Christians by Christians. Or perhaps it is whether Christians can be shouted down so that their refusal to recognise homosexual marriage will go unheard.

      Can’t we draw a distinction

      As far as Christianity is concerned, that distinction cannot be made. A man and a woman are married by consummation only, not by any third party.

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        pobjoy-wrong-religious marriage does not have to be consummated to be real per all religion-where on earth did you get that? and-not to be too graphic-gay marriages are indeed consummated!!

        • pobjoy

          It helps civil discussion to read what is written.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            why would I be civil to bigots who look at me as less than? Would you demand blacks be civil to the KKK?

          • pobjoy

            Are you saying that you are homosexual, and that some people treat you with less than civility? Because homosexuals have had to face taboo, in most societies, probably since pre-history; unlike black-skinned people, who have very often found objections with each other, but never about skin colour! Complaining about discrimination against homosexuals is a little like complaining about discrimination against thieves, though I’m not suggesting moral equivalence. That discrimination will always be there, irrespective of religion, and no matter how strong are attempts to make it acceptable. So, just as it is best if black people are civil to racists, it is probably as well if homosexuals are civil, and to everyone. If everyone did as they would be done by, it would be a very, very different world to live in.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            Ill leave that to my betters. We have won the culture war-god is dead. I don’t care what people think of gays or what they say-but they will not interfere with my life in public or in business in any way shape or form or they will be punished by the law. The courts and law protect us now. That’s all we demanded. And that we have achieved. The rest will come-bigotry dies out with the old and feeble and backward minded ….soon they will be just a small handful of hillbillies in the south. Praise Zeus for that 🙂

          • pobjoy

            Ill leave that to my betters.

            … who may be only just good enough.

          • Chi-maiingan

            When can we expect others to be civil to homosexual people?

          • pobjoy

            When everyone does as they would be done by?

          • Chi-maiingan

            You could start by not comparing thieves to gay people. And you counsel that gay people and “black people” be civil to those who wish them harm, but that civility should start with those who are hostile to others. Discrimination is wrong, and it is never civil.

          • pobjoy

            And you counsel that gay people and “black people” be civil to those who wish them harm.

            Not so. I wrote that it would be as well if homosexuals are civil. If you insist on using the word ‘gay’ to describe homosexuals, you can do so. But if you deliberately state that I use it in that way, and it appears that you do, I will consider it offensive. It would be a form of theft, in my view.

          • Chi-maiingan

            Apparently, your prejudice takes precedence. Your sermon regarding civility and the Golden Rule rings hollow.

          • pobjoy

            There’s a view that homosexuality is a consequence of self-hatred.

          • Chi-maiingan

            Sorry, that doesn’t even make sense. That you would share such a hateful prejudice tells me everything I need to know about you.

          • pobjoy

            You know it doesn’t even make sense, yet you know that it is hateful? How odd.

          • Chi-maiingan

            Yes, hate doesn’t make sense. It’s irrational. Get a clue.

          • pobjoy

            hate doesn’t make sense

            Of course it makes sense. You hate your existence, because you are unwilling to treat others as you want to be treated yourself; so you hate the one who gave you existence. You express that through rebelliously breaking a basic rule about sexuality.

          • Chi-maiingan

            I have broken no rules about sexuality. I have been true to myself. You are only true to your prejudice, ignorance and hatred. You can go fk yourself.

          • pobjoy

            🙂

          • Chi-maiingan

            Idiot.

          • pobjoy

            😀

          • Chi-maiingan

            You’re nothing but a sociopathic bigot.

          • pobjoy

            😉

          • Chi-maiingan

            Right, you have no defense but a lame emoji.

          • Chi-maiingan

            Fk you.

          • pobjoy

            Ah, a Yank.

          • Chi-maiingan

            Fukk you.

          • pobjoy

            😀

          • Chi-maiingan

            Disturbed, self-loathing closet cases like yourself are poisonous to humanity. Hopefully, you can get some help.

          • Chi-maiingan

            “I wrote that it would be as well if homosexuals are civil.”
            _____________________
            What about those who are uncivil toward homosexuals? Do you have any advice for them? Or is it all on the homosexuals to be civil?

          • pobjoy

            Uncivility is without excuse, and that applies to those who disapprove of homosexuality as much as any others.

        • JabbaPapa

          gay marriages are indeed consummated

          I’ve been told that in UK Law this is actually wrong, because consummation is legally defined as pertaining to husbands and wives exclusively.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            well, if you’ve been told…

      • On the other hand…

        But that applies only to Catholic Christians like yourself, Not to the mass of people. They differ and object to be lectured to on the basis of 2000 year old religious tracts, And whether gay or not, you have no right to try to change the law to suit your narrow view of what is ‘natural’ on the basis of primitive theologies 200 years ago.
        I guess you also condemn condoms, the pill, therapeutic abortion/termination and – horror of horrors – MASTURBATION!

        • pobjoy

          I take it that the poster refers to what has been decided in law. UK law (and law elsewhere) now permits marriage of homosexuals, or at least permits homosexuals to say that they are married. Christians have never imposed their views on any society, because they have never composed more than about 2% of any society. It’s true that pseudo-Christians have imposed their views, by force majeure. But it’s also true that completely non-religious people disapprove of homosexuality, so it is unjustified to say that this disapproval is based on any theology at all.

          Moreover, every religion except some Hinduism disapproves of homosexuality, so the targeting of Christianity is presumably due to conviction that it is the only truthful and valid one. Deliberate confusion of Christians with Catholics, whose lax approach to homosexuality and child abuse is infamous, only serves to confirm that conviction.

          • On the other hand…

            All religions by their very nature have always imposed, often successfully, their behavioural norms on society whenever they had had the power to do so, dating back to 5000 BCE Mesopotamia. All of them, and also modern secularism, and the various militant rights movements are the inevitable reaction to centuries of religiously-inspired social imposed behaviours. North and South Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Russias etc not to mention the horrors of South African Protestantism, Israel, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi etc. and the Incas and Mayas and ancient (and now modern) Egyptians.
            Secularism is the inevitable, and probably permanent, antidote to all this, and religion will – hopefully – never be the same again, as churches are sold off and demolished, and dogmas and the trappings of religious episcopal and papal power become extinct, and the object of horror and mirth! It won’t take long – although the Islamists are hoping to take up the slack.
            This is the biggest challenge we secularists have to face now.
            Not by more persecution, but education – which has helped the free world to demolish the churches everywhere, outside Africa. They are welcome to stay there!
            Now we have to gradually show Muslims the nonsense of their ways, too. Muslim immigrants are welcome, if we can ensure that their religious leaders – many of whom are culturally illiterate – are not given the chance to brainwash them, the way our forefathers were by Catholic and Protestant clergy, well into the 20th century.

          • JabbaPapa

            All religions by their very nature have always imposed, often successfully, their behavioural norms on society whenever they had had the power to do so

            The same can be said of secularism, of every political system, and every other system of public morals.

            Secularism is no “antidote” to the fact that mankind needs systems of ethics and morals in order to construct any stable societies, so I’m afraid you’re just talking anti-religious nonsense again.

            Not by more persecution, but … [by] demolish[ing] the churches everywhere

            The totalitarian “secularism” that you desire is exactly based on religious persecution, no matter what fig leave you try to cover it with.

          • pobjoy

            All religions by their very nature have always imposed

            A religion is a means of coming to terms with conscience in the context of a putative supernal agent. That is quintessentially a private matter, one not even necessarily made known outside the mind of the individual, outside which there may be no other minds. So the above is arrant error, and readers may with justification consider it written merely out of a sense of personal guilt.

            What is evidentially true is that political agents have either invented or altered religions in order to impose political rule. But the great majority of religions, most of which the poster has probably not even heard, have either lacked credibility, or been too democratically aligned to suit authoritarianism. The almost complete annihilation of religions that can be said to take no reference to Jesus of Nazareth, since his influence spread around the known world, demonstrates the overwhelming credibility of his ideas. Despite their complete absence of authoritarianism and indeed denial of authoritarianism, political agencies have been forced to borrow the name of Christ, just in order to seem to act out of propriety, if not logical necessity.

            The consensus of historians is that Christians formed no more than about 2% of the Roman Empire when it took the amazing, sudden decision to pull down its precious temples to various deities, with riots ensuing. This was in order to set up a caricature of Christianity, the religion that it had been persecuting for two centuries, without success. “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. Sort of.”

            So it was this imperial religion that make homosexuality illegal, not the 2%, and that only for apearance’ sake. That prohibition was taken up by denominations, that, despite appearances, were just as opposed to Christiainity as the imperial one was. That is shown by the apostasy of the denominations, that has led them to approve theological and moral stances that even their founders (such as Wesley) would never have countenanced; and by the great exodus of believers from them in recent decades as a consequence.

          • JabbaPapa

            oooooooh look, some more pseudo-history and other falsehoods from pobjoy !!!

            So it was this imperial religion that make homosexuality illegal, not the 2%

            Homosexuality is condemned by the Scriptures, and it was already illegal at the time of Constantine’s conversion.

            This was in order to set up a caricature of Christianity

            Complete and utter nonsense, and various imperial attempts to take control of the Church, mostly in the Eastern Church BTW, were resisted and thwarted.

            The true caricature here is the utter nonsense that you keep on presenting in here as “history”.

            That is quintessentially a private matter, one not even necessarily made known outside the mind of the individual, outside which there may be no other minds

            ??????!!!????!!? “outside which there may be no other minds” ??? Are you really loony enough to seriously think that ?

            And if religion is “quintessentially private” (and no, it isn’t BTW, by very definition**), then why on EARTH do you carry on posting this loony propaganda of yours on a daily basis, as if your “quintessentially private” religion is not only superior to everyone else’s “quintessentially private” religion, but as if you expect others to be convinced to agree with the non-stop flow of your personal and BTW almost completely extra-Biblical opinions ?

            ** Because Religion is the shared practice of a common Spirituality and Faith.

    • JabbaPapa

      This would require that the Church would stop recognising the validity of civil marriage — whilst I think it’s a possibility, it would nevertheless create huge problems in and of itself, though if the civil marriage laws continue on their current pathway of self-destruction, it might conceivably become a necessity.

      • On the other hand…

        Marriage is not a ‘sacrament’ to non-Catholics and many Anglicans. Remember ‘marriage’ was purely legal agreement – non unlike Muslim marriage – in the early centuries of Roman Christianity, a contract without any special sacramental value, apart from the blessing of the spouses, and was performed in their homes before an official recorder – a notarius. Christians and pagans alike.

        • JabbaPapa

          Well, even though your grasp of the history of marriage is flawed, the notion of multiple versions of it existing simultaneously is an invention of the late 20th Century. Your rejection of Religion does not magically vanish away the religious problems that are inherent to such a project, and they are de facto political problems too due to the undeniable importance of Religion in our culture.

          And that’s not even to get started on the intrinsically religious nature of marriage in the first place, in its rituals, its social bonding nature, and its spiritually enriching benefits.

  • Nonbeliever

    “The Spectator’s taste for controversy, however, remains undiminished.” Given they decided to silence what I wrote, I would say that statement is very inaccurate.

  • pobjoy

    he ‘experiences same-sex attraction’. It’s a less misleading term, he tells me.

    What a naive fellow to suppose that the media will object to that which misleads. Unless Ed Shaw wanted to give an impression of media virtue. It’s one of the characteristics of false teachers, anyway. The biblical view of the devil and his servants is that they tell lies; they pretend to be virtuous; they accuse the church; and they try to tell people what to do, how to think, without authority to do so.

    There surely has to be pretension in the condition of experiencing same-sex attraction, yet allowing oneself no outward sign of it. That is the supposed stance of Living Out, Shaw’s organisation, that fully opposes ‘homoerotic sexual activity’. Surely it should be re-named Living Without. So Spectator readers are deceived by the photo of two males holding hands, that signifies homoerotic sexual activity about as clearly as anything is likely to, that is legally permissible.

    So we have an apparent view that Christians agree that homosexual atttraction is acceptable to Christians, when Living Out has no authority to say this; though obviously, people who claim Christian faith but have an embarrassing record of homosexuality would support them in this. Neither do they have authority to accuse the church, the real giveaway sign of the devil’s influence. Living Out says that ‘many Christians now recognise and deeply regret the hurt caused by past and present failures in their responses to those who experience same-sex attraction’. The only people who recognise that they have failed are non-Christians. Christians treat all people alike; except for false teachers. The only response of Christians to homosexuals has always been and always will be that they are potential fellow saints, along with all others, including serious criminals. One does not treat potential fellow saints with any sort of disrespect, or refuse to associate with them. It is people like Ed Shaw who are completely excluded, and that by apostolic command, too.

    • JabbaPapa

      The only people who recognise that they have failed are non-Christians

      The opposite is true — we are all sinners.

    • hobspawn

       “There surely has to be pretension in the condition of experiencing same-sex attraction, yet allowing oneself no outward sign of it.”

      Let’s bear in mind that we are all expected to allow no outward sign of heterosexual attraction in the office every day. The law expects a married person, an employer, a teacher, a doctor, even a child, to master restraint.

      Blake wrote “Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.” There are two ways of reading that. Fortunately most of us learn to murder the baby in its cradle, else in what kind of society would we live?

      • JabbaPapa

        That’s a very good point 🙂

      • pobjoy

        So is a married couple in an office prosecuted for holding hands in a tea break? Is it illegal for young men to kiss their sweethearts in the public park? No, we do not ‘murder the baby’, we flirt, we curse, we get angry, jealous, malicious, mendacious, abusive and drunken, all without the law having any power to curtail. Just read the internet! It was no better when there was medieval complaint of ‘sodomy in holy church’, so let’s have no preaching from the high moral ground.

        And homosexuals holding hands, kissing and cuddling is not illegal, either.
        So the major restraint on homosexuals who claim to be Christians is Christians. But if Christians can be seen to permit homosexuality, as this scurrilous blog presents, it makes excuse for sodomites in ‘holy church’, does it not.

        There are two ways of reading that.

        Not in Blake’s context. it’s a proverb of Hades, and that’s where Living Out hails from, imv. Blake means literal murder, as with

        ‘As the catterpiller chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.’

        Or, ‘Might is right.’ Blake knew about Catholic cardinals and their propensity to act on whatever desire came into their minds, and that never excluded murder of infants, if there was profit in it. But, as there was more profit in keeping the poor poor, it wasn’t very often. Catholics hold up their hands in horror at abortion, but this is only because they know that everyone knows that they made every attempt to destroy dissenters, when they had the power to do so. And still would.

        • JabbaPapa

          Your paranoia is loathesome to witness.

  • Holy God we praise Thy Name

    Gay Christian is a contradiction in terms, like square triangle, married bachelor, meat eating vegetarian, etc.

Close