The Day the Pope Said ‘Gay’

Fielding questions from the press on his way home from World Youth Day, Pope Francis skirted the issue of whether or not a “gay lobby” exists in the Vatican. His expression of support for Institutional Works of Religion prelate Monsignor Battista Ricca, who stands accused of carrying on affairs with men while representing the Vatican in Uruguay, was vague and tentative.

But the pope did use the word “gay,” several times. He was speaking Italian, where, as in English, the word has neutral-to-positive connotations. Though it was introduced by the journalists who were grilling him, Francis seems to have adopted it readily and uttered it without adding invisible scare quotes. In that simple linguistic concession, he demonstrated, once again, his willingness to engage with the world on its own terms.

It would be fair to say that the Vatican framed its statements on the subject of homosexuality in a spirit of pushback, with the gay rights movement doing the pushing. For that reason, official communication from Rome has tended to take a hunkered-down, defensive tone. In a 1986 letter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned that in the decade since it had last addressed the matter,”an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.” Attacking that interpretation meant rejecting the jargon of the party promoting it. In Church usage, there could be no gays, only “homosexual persons”.

This convention seems to have been observed pretty scrupulously. Despite its encouraging tone, “Always Our Children”, a letter from the USCCB’s Committee on Marriage and Family to the parents of LGBT children, conforms to it. Even while extending LGBT would-be communicants a qualified welcome with the jaunty exhortation “wash your hands,” Cardinal Dolan waxes clinical when referring to “the condition of homosexuality” and “same-sex attraction.” When it comes to the letter of Church teachings on homosexuality, Pope Francis hasn’t changed a thing, and almost certainly won’t. But regarding the people most directly affected by those teachings, he’s already bucked established style guidelines.

Many Catholics will resent it. No less than LGBT activists, we use language to construct our identity. A good case could be made that Francis, owing to carelessness, complacency, or both, has just surrendered a share of that identity — not an enormous share, maybe, but big enough to justify nail-biting speculation on whether, or how, it might be reclaimed. If Palestinian statehood is your goal, the last thing you want to do is start slinging around terms like “Judea” and “Samaria.”

With DOMA off the books and support for gay marriage growing, any concession on the Church’s part can look an awful lot like defeatism. But, as Ross Douthat points out in his Times blog, defeatism can look an awful lot like realism. To escape the plenary wrath of gay-marriage supporters, whose eventual victory is starting to look inevitable, Christians, including the Catholic Church, had better learn to play ball. If not, he says, support for traditional marriage could become “radioactive in the America of 2025 as white supremacism or anti-Semitism are today.”

From his days as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis knows this drill as well as anyone. When Argentina’s gay marriage bill was in play, the future pope damned it as “the work of the devil” and “an attempt to destroy God’s plan.” When it passed, he found himself in the paradoxical position of having to work out a modus vivendi for the Church in a country where God’s plan had been voted down. It may have been this experience that shaped Francis’ vision of a “culture of encounter,” or “a beautiful path toward peace,” where Catholics and non-Catholics can “meet one another doing good.” Francis never comes right out and labels it a post-culture war arrangement, but it fills in nicely as one.

Me, I’m all for creating that culture. For one thing, in contemplating the alternative, I don’t, unlike Douthat, underestimate the willingness of a Catholic cultural rearguard to play at scorched earth, making common cause with white supremacists where our interests would appear to coincide. In Crisis Magazine, political science and legal studies professor Stephen Krason argues that the commonly accepted notion of civil rights has become “an excuse for aberrant behavior and ignoring poor personal formation and deep-seated socio-cultural problems among different groups,” including both sexual and racial minorities. On that basis, Krason thinks civil rights is due a radical retooling. Not in my name, thanks.

In the second place, I suppose I should confess that a culture of encounter is what I’ve been living in all my life. As a relatively recent convert, I still have about as many gay close friends as Catholic ones. Referring to them by the words they choose themselves seems like nothing more than simple good manners. It helps throw a positive light on my conversion, indeed, on the whole notion of conversion. Insisting on using terms they find distasteful seems a positive insult, not to mention a sure conversation-stopper, on the order of “His mama calls him ‘Clay,’ so I call him ‘Clay.’”

Here I should pause to acknowledge the Christians who, in their own words, experience same-sex attraction, and reject labels like “gay” and “lesbian.” Message received, ladies and gents — not in your name. But Andrew Sullivan, who calls himself gay very proudly, seems impressed with Pope Francis, less by what, exactly, he said on the plane, than “the gentleness, the humor, the transparency” legible in his manner of speaking. It’s true, Sullivan didn’t single out Francis’ use of the word “gay” for particular praise, but I have to believe it influenced him. Try to say “gay” while smiling — comes a lot easier than saying “homosexual,” doesn’t it?

  • Rambling Follower

    Thanks Max. I am a cradle Catholic myself, a practicing Catholic, as is my husband. We know more gay and lesbian couples raising children than we do practicing Catholics raising children. Heck, we know more Orthodox Jews than we do practicing Catholics. It is the nature of the community we have called home for nearly two decades. Our sons friends run the gamut – culturally, religiously and on and on. The “culture of encounter” is one we (happily) live and breathe every day. I am happy to have a Pope who understands our world…

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    As the Pope’s comments have settled in now after a day (or was it two?) I think this is all making a mountain over a molehill. The Pope hasn’t changed a thing. That he used the word “gay” is the big deal? I think the media is overly parsing language that came off the cuff. Respect for homosexuals was always the position of the church. It was the gay activists who were unhappy with the lack of acceptance to their lifestyle who polarized positions. It was the gay community that was shutting off communication. They heard what they wanted to hear. If the gay community wants to take that parsing as a sign of acceptance, great. They have finally heard what the Catholic Church has been saying.

  • Petro

    This is line of argument is misleading.

    First, although the Catechism says one thing about homosexuality, the practice of many Catholics, including that of priests and bishops, has not matched the Catechism. If anything, the pope’s statement should serve as a call to those who are judging their brethren and acting with disrespect and with a lack of charity to consider what is in their hearts as they do so.

    More legalistically speaking, read Paragraph 10 of this document from 2008: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20080628_orientamenti_en.html

    Read Article 2 of this document from 2005: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

    There may be a debate about what the interpretation of these “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “uncertain sexual” identities means, but Pope Francis’ statement is a clear change in tone. Whether this turns into changes to documents such as these has yet to be seen. But it’s disingenuous to claim that there is nothing new to see here when documents and statements less than ten years old provide a different message on the topic.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I have never in my life seen priests and bishops characterize homosexuals as you claim. I catagorically reject your claim. If you claim the general layman had prejudiced views of gays, well that may be so. And the Pope’s statement hasn’t changed a single heart. If there will be any interpretation change on homosexual acts, I doubt they will no longer be considered a sin. Heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sins, and since gays can never be married practice of homosexuality will always be a sin. That cannot change. In fact as I understand it only sex in a procreative act between a married couple is not a sin. Again, the Pope’s statemenet hasn’t changed a single thing. As I said in my original comment, perhaps gays have finally heard what the church was saying all along.

  • Petro

    Did you read the documents to which I linked? They have nothing to do with whether homosexual acts are a sin. They deal with whether gay men who wish to be priests should be allowed to be priests. They imply that simply being gay is a sufficient reason to deny entrance into a seminary regardless of whether the man is sexually active. Pope Francis’ words would seem to differ from such a belief or interpretation.

    As for priests and bishops being charitable to homosexuals, I think this is clearly not the case. Here is a recent example of a parish priest’s response to the Boy Scouts acceptance of gay members that is distinctly lacking in the respect, compassion, and sensitivity called for in the CCC: http://starofthesea.net/index.php/our-parish/blog/626-fr-lappes-response-to-new-boy-scouts#

    In his own words, the priest rejects the idea of avoiding the unjust discrimination of excluding gay youth from the Boy Scouts. In fact, because gays will not be excluded simply for being gay, he decides that the parish should sever its ties with the Boy Scouts. Note that his reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not the boy is sexually active. He even admits that gays are “through no fault of their own” gay. Nevertheless, he will not allow his parish to work with a group that does not exclude them for who they are.

    This priest’s stated belief is that gays MUST be discriminated against. He believes that not discriminating against them is confirming them “in the confusion of same-sex attraction.” This is in direct contradiction to the CCC’s belief in avoiding discrimination and that:

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

    Confusion implies that homosexuals are really just heterosexuals who need to be set straight from childhood neglect or abuse. This is what the priest declares. Yet the CCC does not say that at all.

    This was the first instance that came to mind. It would not be hard to find many more. The Church may no longer hate and fear homosexuals, but it is far from the “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” called for in the CCC. Francis’ words were a tiny step in this direction.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    First off I’m sure you can find an anomaly somewhere but by and large the overwhelming number of bishops and priests do not discriminate against gays. I still reject that claim. You may have a point in that Francis’s words might – and I emphasize might – suggest that the church can accept gay priests. However the Pope didn’t exactly say that. He said who is he to judge homosexuals seeking God. Perhaps it suggests what you say, perhaps it doesn’t. It would have to be followed up with policy changes. Time will tell. I’m skeptical. But remember rooting out homosexuals is a recent development in response to the pedophilia crimes. If the church feels the crimes are behind us, it can go back to turning a blind eye to homosexual priests.

  • Nordog6561

    “First, although the Catechism says one thing about homosexuality, the practice of many Catholics, including that of priests and bishops, has not matched the Catechism. ”

    Are you talking about the priests and bishops who fail to call homosexuality “intrinsically disordered” or that they fail to mention that Scripture presents “homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity”?

    THAT would match the Catechism, because I just took these phrases verbatim from it.

    Of course we must be charitable to all.

    But what do we say to those who insist, no only that their “gay pride” is a wonderfully good thing, but also that I must not oppose “gay marriage”, even in simply my opinion, or else I’m attacked for being a bigot?

  • oregon catholic

    The problem with gays in the Boy Scouts is that the ‘gays’ are making a sexual behavior issue out of it. Not only is that highly inappropriate for the age group Catholic parishes are concerned with, but it reflects the larger problem of homosexual orientation vs ‘gay’ sexual behavior. At no time have boys with a homosexual orientation been banned, only those who want to make a sexual issue out of it.

    Same-sex attraction is used by the Church in order to separate the two meanings and gay activists don’t like it because it is the behavior they want approval for, not the orientation. They know the Church settled that issue long ago.We talk past each other because ‘gay’ has never been adequately defined in our cultural lexicon – sometimes it stand for SSA and sometimes it doesn’t. We need a clearer definition for the larger conversation and SSA is the best distinction out there so far. I think the Pope unfortunately got sucked into using the terms ‘gay’ and ‘judge’ in a way that made his meaning unclear, or that at least was unclear in the translation.

  • http://www.catholicismforcutters.com/ Broken Whole

    I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with your depiction of the Boy Scout’s former position. The old Boy Scout policy banned any “openly gay” individual from being a scout—essentially making a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that had nothing to do with sexual behavior but which was solely concerned with the declaration (or not) of one’s sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts already ban any sexual behavior, heterosexual or otherwise, on the part of their youth members.

    In short, this is not about a “sexual issue” being made out of things—it’s about a gay young person being able to admit openly that they are attracted to the same sex just as straight young people are able to admit openly that they are attracted to members of the opposite sex without fear of being excluded from a community organization.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I sure wish it did for me. I feel stabbed in the back by the gay agenda, the gay lobby. I was once a very progressive, slightly dissenting Catholic who didn’t want my Church harmed but saw great good in helping those afflicted with AIDS and speaking out for civil unions. Since March 2004, due to local politics, I became “that evil Catholic bigot who refuses to let them get married” without changing one iota of my internal views on the subject.

    I can’t say that I am comfortable with gays and lesbians anymore- not because I hate them, but because they actively hate me.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I fail to see the contradiction that you imply. I see no change in tone. Celibacy is still required for priests, and sexual maturity is required to be able to live a chaste life in celibacy.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    What do you think “Deep Seated homosexuality” means, exactly?

  • Illinidiva

    That statement (while everyone, even liberal media reporters, know it was tonal) is going to have lasting impact. Every time, a bishop or priest makes an unfortunate statement about gay people the media is going to be quick to remind them that the Big Cheese pointed out “Who am I to judge?” Since Burke and the BurkeClones have a habit of hyprebole on gay issues, I consider this a good thing for the Church as a whole and moderates the tone of the debate. (Recent example of over the top… According to Burke, overturning DOMA will promote murder.)
    And Francis knows exactly what he is doing unlike people who think that he needs to learn how to be “Pope” or doesn’t realize that his words have global reach now. Considering that Bergoglio never gave interviews in Buenos Aires, I’m impressed that he does know how to handle the media. One indication.. the press conference was on the way back rather than the way over so that Rio wasn’t overshadowed by controversies. And while he was just answering the question posed, it is clear that Francis is deliberately deemphasizing the cultural wars and emphasizing mercy. This is also a good thing. The cathecism mentions that excluding and labeling others are sinful as well but most people are willing to do this. There are still parents who disown their gay children and think they are being good Catholics. Francis, I think, would be more upset about that than anyone’s sexual morality.

  • Donalbain

    Yes.. truly you are the victim. You poor, hard done by man. People disagree with you, but dont want to deny you any basic rights that you currently take for granted. People criticising you is the greatest crime in history.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    ” but dont want to deny you any basic rights that you currently take for granted”

    Not *quite* true:

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.lgbt.education/index.html

    Of course that means nothing, until you read this:
    http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650#.Ufgvto3U9-Z

    Homosexuality isn’t even good for homosexuals. The reason they want gay marriage is really an attempt to fix something that can’t be fixed.

    We should have pity on them, and on ALL who have non-standard families. We need a civil union law that accepts spouses of any number, any age, any gender, any species. We need to get the government out of our churches entirely- the government should have NO say in the sacrament of marriage at all, and our ministers should not be asked to be proxies for the government in this area. That is the ONLY reasonable solution. No more civil marriage- only civil unions.

  • http://www.lesbiansinmysoup.com/ Katy

    There is certainly no change of position in what he said, but there does seem to be a change in tone, or at least a different emphasis in tone.

    That’s not a big a deal as some in the media want to make it out to be, but it is significant. It is to me, anyway…

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I don’t know how to assess a change in tone. Was it intended or off the cuff? Part of Papacy is political, in the Aristotlian sense that politics is the relationship of human affairs, but part of it is to uphold the Magisterium which I think requires clarity, and that’s not coducive to politics. I just don’t know what to make of it. It strikes me as an over reaction.
    I’m glad it means something to you. I want to find a way for gays to be integrated into Catholicism, but there are limitations to what the church can do and in my opinion should do. So let’s say it is an intentional change in tone? What does that mean in reality? Will gays accept the fact that SSM will never be endorsed by the church? If the gay community accepts the change in tone as the Church giving in on something, does that mean the gay community now will give in from their agenda?

  • Donalbain

    OK.. so somehow people teaching about gay people is denying you a basic right. If you say so. You truly are the greatest victim in human history. Please, continue to explain this, You will definitely help your side of the argument, and you absolutely won’t make your lot look utterly ridiculous.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I’m done. If you can’t read the links I posted, let me know and I’ll help you with the technical aspects that are beyond your ability.

  • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

    I went off my rocker when I first read his remarks but I had missed the context. He addressed identity. Pope Francis gets that it is not okay to ID as “gay.” In time, I trust you will see this more clearly.

  • Donalbain

    I don’t believe you are done at all. I suspect you will continue this pity party for the rest of your life, and frankly I am glad. You will continue to be a living symbol of the nonsense that we had to fight against to get basic equality for gay people. Please, please continue.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Where is the equality for the polygamous? The pedaterest?

    Equality isn’t all it is cracked up to be, and as my second link clearly shows, what homosexuals need is truth, not politics.

  • cajaquarius

    You say you don’t hate me and that we hate you, but I think you have mistaken fear with hatred. I don’t hate you, I fear you. When you attempt to attach me to caricatures like the disease spreading rat (as your virtue online article tried and, predictably, failed to do), the mentally deranged “disordered” who must be kept from the Priesthood at all costs as the Catholic Church does, the pedophile as NARTH and similar charlatans do, or even the secret ally of Muslim and Marxist working to destroy America/The West as conservatives have done in the past you are making me a deadly enemy of all of society. You are joining in the call for my destruction. I would be insane not to fight you,. And you think I fight because I hate you?

    Brother, I fight because I have to. I fight because my life *literally* depends on it. I fight because my fantasies of meeting a special guy who I can take care of and who will take care of me, who I can cuddle up to, and give myself fully to have made me the target of a campaign whose end goal is my extermination, one way or another.

  • cajaquarius

    I like this Pope. I like the foot washing business and the way he seems to deny decadence. Sadly, much of the good will he peddles is squandered when the Father Dolan’s of the world attempt to back peddle what he said so he doesn’t sound too kindly to degenerate scum like us homosexuals. Makes me sad more than angry, but it is what it is I suppose. Don’t get me wrong; I am not anti-Catholic at all and find myself very torn on the issue of theology these days.

    I was raised Catholic and still pray for the intercession of saints from time to time. I love many of the saints and even model them in my life to this day, so my faith is suspended somewhere in “Spiritual but not Religious/Searching”. In truth, I will likely never be able to return to the Church and part of me is sad about that (I really can’t return as you can’t do the Sacrament of Reconciliation if you don’t feel Repentance and I simply don’t feel sorry for being romantically attracted to other men). That used to freak me out but not as much any more. If God wants me He knows where to find me. Ball is in His Court. Too many sides of the issue, common views of Scripture is a mess that seems entirely repulsive to my conscience, and there is no way to tell what is real and what isn’t without simply taking the word of a human being on it (I have yet to meet one who claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit who can perform miracles, after all). I wash my hands of it

  • Donalbain

    Please.. please.. please.. please keep comparing child abuse to adult homosexual relationships. The more you do it, the more you look like an idiot, and the more you make people realise that denying gay people equality before the law is a stupid as well as a nasty thing to do. Please Ted Seeber, NEVER stop doing what you are doing.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    The Virtue article wasn’t mine- it was written by a homosexual who escaped from your disordered lifestyle.

    BTW, your group isn’t the only one kept from the priesthood- an active heterosexual flouting the marriage laws of the church with a new partner every week is similarly banned.

    Your life does not depend on it- your fantasy is just that, a fantasy. The reality is that your body itself was made to be heterosexual. The reality is that you should be dreaming about finding that special woman- because the special guy does not exist and will never exist.

    Give up the fantasy, join your own body in reality, and you’ll be happier. You won’t need to fight. You won’t need to struggle. Your life does not depend on fantasy, your life depends on your accepting reality.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    You can return to the Church quite easily. Just admit that biological reality is more important than fantasy.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I’m just showing that your equality isn’t equality at all- it is wanting special rights for YOUR group, in ignorance of biological reality.

    The biological reality is that gender can’t be changed by changing your mind. When you learn that, you will be happier.

  • Donalbain

    Please never stop.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Is that because you want to redefine marriage as consensual instead of conjugal?

  • TheodoreSeeber

    It would help if the New York Times religion reporter would learn Latin, or at least Spanish. A lot of this silliness comes from mistranslation.

  • cajaquarius

    I am aware the virtue article wasn’t yours; I was pointing out that the author was mistaking his own sexual selfishness and poor behavior for homosexuality instead of owning up to it. Hypersexuality and self serving behavior are not inherent to being a homosexual, believe it or not.

    And a celibate homosexual is indeed kept from the priesthood because they fear we will harm kids. Even if I take the same vow to remain chaste as a heterosexual does, I can’t be a priest.

    And yes, when you compare me to diseased animals and blame me for the downfall of society you are threatening my life. Or do you operate under the delusion that people tend to treat sex offenders who target children and people who spread disease with love? I can assure you that it is you who operate under the fantasy of Christian Privilege (thus you can wax poetic about things that effect me as if they were no big deal as you are here).

    I am not romantically interested in women. Never have been, never will be. That is reality. I understand your Christian Privilege has blinded you to the facts, but the great thing about facts is they are true whether you acknowledge them or not. You are my enemy, you will always be my enemy, and I will spend my life working against you and your toxic traditions because I have to. No hard feelings.

  • cajaquarius

    By your logic, airplanes are inherently immoral because we aren’t biologically capable of flight and, thus, shouldn’t fly. And using your teeth to open plastic packaging must be immoral in Seeber Land since teeth aren’t biologically made to open plastic packaging, and, thus, you are immorally using your biology in a way it wasn’t designed. I could go on, continuing to point out how illogical your entire platform really is, but I think two examples is plenty. Check and mate, champ.

  • felliott

    It means some has a great deal more integrity and courage than you do, Ted.

  • felliott

    Ted, you’ve been a self-righteous homophobe for at least fifteen years. You can only vilify, dehumanize, and lie about people for so long before they start to dislike you.

  • felliott

    That was a very ignorant and arrogant post.

    The Catechism may say that “every sign of unjust discrimination” is to be avoided, but “unjust discrimination” in this context is meaningless. After all as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Benedict defined the concept of “unjust discrimination” in a letter on justifying every kind of discrimination under popular discussion about gays and lesbians. (See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html Section II, Applications.)

    Your bigoted assertion that all gays and lesbians lead the same lifestyle is libelous is at the heart of Catholic anti-gay persecution. It is an attempt to justify the creation of a lesser civil status based on the assumption that any lesbian or gay citizen who disagrees with you is guilty of some crime and therefore undeserving of equal protection under the law. Benedict expresses this libel quite clearly in the letter.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I just find it very interesting that being FOR CIVIL UNIONS, for fair housing, and for AIDS research and raising money for AIDS hospice makes me a “self-righteous homophobe”.

    The celibate homosexual should not be removed from the priesthood or denied the priesthood. The *active* homosexual, like the active heterosexual outside of marriage, has a disordered sexuality that should be addressed. And 20% of clergy pedophiles abuse girls.

    If you are asking for equality in civil unions, I’m all for it. What I’m saying is make it non-discriminatory for all. That isn’t a comparison to anybody, that is a statement that I accept the argument that civil marriage is currently discriminatory and should not be discriminatory.

    There is no such thing as “Christian Privilege”, not in a society where the Freedom From Religion faction is suing the pants off of everybody who dares to be Christian in public.

    If you’re not interested in being a parent, be celibate, but don’t take away from people who are. Don’t blame ME for YOUR hangups.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Never hear of a Knife?

    So you are seriously claiming that homosexuality is an improvement in human sexuality to the point of airplane flight, and thus is *superior* to heterosexuality for the production of children? Do you have scientific proof of this advance?

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I’ve got news for you- you can survive without being homosexual

  • felliott

    Ted, saying someone you don’t know has a “disordered lifestyle” is about as offensive as having someone tell you that your mother’s a prostitute.

  • felliott

    Ted, give up air for lent.

  • felliott

    Lisa, I’ve read your obsessive, demeaning, and hateful blog. I doubt you can even find your rocker.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Where the hell did I say all that? “Catholic anti-gay persecution?” Oh alright. I see. You are among the radicals of the radicals. No the catholic Church has a very specific position on homosexuality and it is not persecution. It proves my point exactly. The gay community only hears what it wants to hear.

  • lindenman

    That will do, sir. A little bit of trash-talking is inevitable, but it’s time to dial it back.

  • felliott

    “It was the gay activists who were unhappy with the lack of acceptance to their lifestyle who polarized positions. “

  • TheodoreSeeber

    If everybody looks hateful, obsessive, and demeaning to felliott, perhaps the problem is with felliott, not everybody else.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Acting out on mythological fantasies is not equal to breathing.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Felliott- I have a disordered lifestyle. I’m working on it, but my relationship with food is intrinsically disordered. It is obvious this summer now that I can’t find shirts to fit, but the problem started 20 years ago in college when I decided to declare that all that my doctor and my church had been telling me about the sin of gluttony was false. I’m now paying quite dearly for that sin, as is my son, who doesn’t have the father he deserves.

    In addition to that, I had sexual disorders when I was younger, and I had to accept that women were not sexual objects for me to be romantically interested in, but rather were friend and partners in this thing called life, before I could get married.

    The word disordered does not mean what you think it does.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I find it very interesting that you would classify a man who worked for AIDS patients, in AIDS hospices, and campaigned for the civil unions law in Oregon, to be a homophobe. If I am a homophobe, then you are a heterophobe.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Here’s a partial listing of unjust discrimination, as defined by the Catholic Church and Canon law:
    - Beating somebody up just because they are gay (or in the case of George Zimmerman, a “creepy ass cracker gay rapist”. If homophobia exists, Trayvon Martin was a homophobe).
    - Denying a person food, clothing, shelter, because they are gay.
    - putting a person in quarantine for having AIDS
    - executing homosexuals for having same-sex attraction

    I think you are so extreme, you can no longer recognize a friend when you see one.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X