«

Parent of Gay Kid Literally Says It

Tolerance and acceptance are not enough. You. MUST. celebrate. my. kid’s. gayness.

Crusading militant narcissism on steroids. With the state at its back it will be draconian.

  • http://znfrey.com/blog/ Zach Frey

    Because “Our orientation is a fundamental part of who we are.”

  • Andy, Bad Person

    For a movement that’s all about love, there sure is a lot of hate over on that site.

  • http://aquinasdad.blogspot.com Aquinas Dad

    You “tolerate” me being Catholic? You :accept” my faith?
    Not good enough! You must CELEBRATE my Catholicity!

    • The True Will

      But that’s DIFFERENT! You can stop being a stupid benighted hateful Catholic any time! You aren’t going to tell us something absurd like insisting you were BORN THAT WAY?

      • Jared

        Born again this way ;)

      • Bain Wellington

        Leaving aside your intemperate and inflammatory response, I note only that, in claiming people are born with same-sex attraction, you presume what has never yet been proved.

        • Bain Wellington

          Sorry, that was meant for The True Will, not for Jared

      • jpct50

        Where’s the scientific evidence that you were born “that way”?

    • The_Physeter

      I am your parent. I tell you in no uncertain terms that you must be a baptist, and if you become a Catholic, I may tolerate it but I will no longer love you. Sound fair?

  • http://blog.derherralipius.com/ Alipius

    The whole article doesn’t make any sense. She seems to be saying that if your child is gay and you don’t support gay marriage, you hate your child. Utter nonsense. Just because as a parent you don’t support gay marriage it doesn’t mean you don’t love and support your gay son or daughter.

    • pittsburgh mama

      One thing I often wonder is why these parents don’t consider that there are some other tendencies that their children could have that they still wouldn’t encourage. Isn’t there evidence suggesting that some people are more prone to alcoholism or drug abuse? I don’t see anyone saying (at least not yet) that the government must promote the use of heroin because some people have an inborn tendency that makes them more susceptible to heroin abuse. And no one would say that a parent clearly doesn’t love their child because they want him or her to stop using.

      It’s one of those bizarre “If it is natural, it must be good” arguments. There are tons of things that occur in nature that are definitively not good. (Sure, some animals engage in sexual behavior with other animals of the same sex. Some animals also eat their mates post-coitus, or eat/slay their offspring or others’.) But that knowledge seems to go away when it comes to moral considerations of homosexuality. “I/my child was born this way, therefore it is clearly good, and to compare it to other things that are also inborn and bad is offensive, because this is not bad…because it is inborn.”

      • thomas tucker

        Bingo. Schizophrenia and blindness occur in nature too- are they to be celebrated and cherished? Or do we try to ameliorate the condition?

        • SouthCoast

          Unfortunately, as I recall, back in the late 60s and early 70s there were (hopefully “were” and not still “are”) fringies in psychology who cheerfully proposed celebrating schizophrenia, because, hey, it’s their reality and who are we to judge!

          • TKDB

            It’s only a matter of time, really. We’re already seeing the push in that direction with regard to gender identity disorder, and riding the coattails of the fringe you have people claiming to be “transethnic” or “otherkin” (transspecies, essentially) arguing that they should be due the same consideration that liberals are pushing for GID.

          • The_Physeter

            Citation needed.

        • Bob

          (I seem to tripping the spam meter so sorry about some of the weird spellings.)

          OK, quick self-quiz to find out whether you’re a bug-eyed nutball or possibly a normal person.
          Give yourself 1 point for every Yes answer, 0 points for every No answer.
          1. Do you think being g_y is akin to being an alcoholic? Some kind of “genetic predisposition” to obviously self-destructive behavior that can, though self discipline and a good support network, be successfully resisted for the entirety of one’s life?
          2. Do you think it’s akin to schizophrenia — a mental illness that may or may may not be curable but is certainly treatable with appropriate mental health care (and possibly pharmaceuticals)?
          3. Do you think it’s is akin to a chronic physical problem like diabetes or MS — again, treatable with medical help if not (yet) curable?
          4. Do you think it’s a warped view of one’s self-identity or even a delusion? No one is g_y. Just like there are no Martians. But some people may think they’re g_y, just like some poor sap might think he’s a Martian.
          Now, add up all your points.
          If you got 0 points, you’re possibly a normal person. (More testing needed to confirm.) If you got any points at all, even one, you’re a bug-eyed nutball.
          Look, folks, there are certainly some confused people who think for a time that they’re gay, when they’re not, and some others who do things against their nature experimentally. But for people who are actually, truly gay, they’re just gay. Asking “why” is like asking why I write with my left hand and cut my meat with my right hand. I don’t know. It sure did bother the nuns at Little Flower Elementary. Just wasn’t natural. Seemed to them like a problem in need of a solution. And they tried, boy, they tried. But I’m just as afflicted by my condition as ever.

          • An Aaron, not the Aaron

            Left-handedness is a bad example. I’m as lefty as you can get and mid-life I learned to eat with my right, which now feels more natural than eating with my left. Left-handedness is deeply ingrained, but changeable. And what exactly is your problem with making a connection to alcoholism? The only arguments I’ve ever heard against that connection are “how dare you imply that homosexuality is like alcoholism!” and … oh wait, that’s the only one. Outrage is not an argument.

            • Bob

              My problem is that it’s an assertion without a basis in fact.
              Mere assertion is not an argument, either.
              When your argument lacks basis in fact, I need no argument against it. It’s up to you to support your case with facts.
              I’m a little baffled that you would even try to change yourself from lefty to righty.

              • An Aaron, not the Aaron

                My right-handed sister lost her right arm to cancer. One of the less serious but still annoying adaptations she had to make was learning to eat left-handed. I switched in solidarity.

                The point of the homosexuality-alcoholism correlation is to rebut the argument that since SSA is deeply ingrained and unchangeable (not a proven position, but granted for the sake of this argument), engaging in homosexual behavior should be tolerated in those who are SS attracted and even, according to Mark’s link, celebrated. However, if SS activity (trying to avoid Patheos’ spam filter here) is as destructive as the Catholic Church makes it out to be, then, like alcohol abuse, it is to be avoided whether one is irrevocably conditioned to engage in it or not.

                • Bob

                  Ah, I see.
                  To me the issue of actual sexual activity, and the moral judgments one makes about that activity, are separate from questions about whether a person’s sexual orientation is inborn or is, rather, a malleable condition.
                  That question is an important one to settle because the view that homosexuality is akin to halitosis or diabetes is crucial to the view that “SSA,” as many Catholics call it, is disordered and therefore worthy of pity (or scorn, depending on your point of view and general disposition) rather than respect.
                  For Mark and many of his commenters, saying that someone’s sexual orientation is NOT worthy of pity or scorn, but rather of respect, is tantamount to saying he should be COMPELLED to “celebrate” someone’s gay-ness.
                  So, that’s what is at issue here, in my view.
                  So sorry about your sister. My best wishes to her.

                  • An Aaron, not the Aaron

                    I agree with your first statement. There is no moral conclusion to be made about an inclination on the basis of whether it is inborn or learned. But pro-gay people tend to conflate the two and argue that because an inclination is inborn (again, not a given), it is necessarily moral (at least for that person). Such an argument misses a key step, which is considering whether the action, apart from motivation, is moral in and of itself.

                    Mark can defend himself, but I don’t think he believes failure to scorn or pity those with SSA is tantamount to celebrating SS activity. He can correct me, but I think he’d say that SSA is one of many disordered appetites to which fallen man is prone. I think one of the reasons why it, above other appetites, gets so much attention is the seeming permanence of it (which I think is more a matter of perception than reality). That and the constant drumbeat of propaganda to which we are lately subjected.

                    And thanks for the sentiment. She is doing very well.

                  • Jon W

                    For Mark and many of his commenters, saying that someone’s sexual orientation is NOT worthy of pity or scorn, but rather of respect, is tantamount to saying he should be COMPELLED to “celebrate” someone’s gay-ness.

                    That’s exactly what it does mean. To point out that being a ginger is not a matter of pity or scorn is to say, in other words, that having orange hair is a beautiful and wonderful thing, even if it doesn’t necessarily conform to our current culture’s overdone standards of beauty.

                    We “respect” that which is deserving of it. Much of the culture is so screwed up sexually, they cannot imagine that someone’s “natural” impulses (however ingrained in them) do not deserve respect. They imagine that to criticize a person’s sexual impulses is tantamount to disrespecting the person. But this, as many people have pointed out on this thread, is manifestly false in cases where there is already broad agreement on the pathology of the impulses in question.

                    Everyone recognizes that you can love and respect an unhealthily overweight friend without respecting the impulses that lead them to continually overeat. And we also understand that the various genesis of the impulses in question and the fact that they may even have a genetic cause in no way changes the judgment that the impulses are unhealthy and need to be restrained or redirected. It may change their moral culpability, but moral culpability was never the question here.

                    Mark wants to be free to respect the person but disrespect these particular pathological impulses, just like he respects himself as a person but rightly disrespects his own gluttonous impulses. But our society, having made the judgment (on extremely tenuous grounds) that consent is the only moral criterion for judging someone’s sexual behavior, finds that position disgusting and horrifying: equivalent to disrespecting someone’s orange hair, an intrinsic and beautiful part of who-they-are.

                    So we are at an impasse. You (and the rest of the culture) have decided that consent is all that matters. You have about 40 years worth of speculation based on false political philosophy, junk science, and incoherent appeals to “nature” and the natural behavior of other simians “backing” this up. We have thousands of years of reflection on natural law, religious teaching, and an almost completely consistent human tradition (at least as regards the forms of behavior accorded social respect) backing up our position.

                    And all Mark’s asking, apparently, is that we be allowed to express this position, advocate for it, and run our businesses, our public lives, and our religious observances based on it. But the people of HuffPost, WashPost, NYTimes, Salon, etc, etc, etc, are eagerly, self-righteously, and impetuously asserting their own moral rectitude and our depravity.

                    Ten to one, within my lifetime churches will lose their tax-exempt status over this issue. People are already calling for it. When that happens, our ability to practice and serve will be severely diminished (at least from society’s POV. Who knows what good the Holy Spirit will accomplish in this?) But whatever this is, don’t pretend it’s not a big deal.

                  • Bob

                    “And all Mark’s asking, apparently, is that we be allowed to express this position, advocate for it, and run our businesses, our public lives, and our religious observances based on it.”
                    If that were true, we could leave it at that. You already have the right to do those things (and I think you’re going win the contraception mandate case in the end).
                    There’s nothing new about a group holding beliefs that were once in line with the larger society, but over time become at odds with it, as the culture changes. If that’s all that were at play here, then the whole “homosexuality is evil/disordered” thing would be rather boring, since it would just be another example of what happens when cultural mores change.
                    But in this case, there’s also the strange phenomenon whereby people on the losing end of the cultural shift see themselves as, somehow, victimized by the culture simply because the culture no longer accepts their opinions.
                    That’s silly. The fact that your views have become unpopular with the wider society does not mean — in this country — that you are not free to hold them and disseminate them. This very blog is an example of this freedom being exercised. You are entitled to think that homosexuality is a pathology, but others are free to find that repugnant. So when you say that “our society… finds that position disgusting and horrifying,” my answer is, Yeah? So? Which of your freedoms has been reduced by society’s judgment? If “the people of HuffPost, WashPost, NYTimes, Salon, etc, etc, etc, are … asserting their own moral rectitude and our depravity,” so what? Isn’t that what NewsMax, Fox News, Lifesite News, and other right-wing sites do to them? What’s new here?
                    You have the right to make an argument, not to win the argument. And your argument is being made. The fact that the public is rejecting it does not mean that your rights have been trampled.
                    So we come back to your original thesis, that my saying that something is worthy of respect somehow COMPELS you to agree. It doesn’t. I actually do think that redheads are quite lovely. But you are free, JonW, to continue to find them hideous.

                    • Jon W

                      I am not free to find them hideous, and if I did I would, to that extent, be a bad person. (And I don’t, I just used gingers as an example because for some weird reason the internet decided to pick on them.)

                      The point is that we will be absolutely compelled to act against our beliefs. Cake makers and photographers are already being compelled to cooperate with ceremonies they find morally repellent. Beliefs have consequences, and our society’s refusal to recognize that differences in belief are bound up in different ways of life means they’re just going to downplay these differences (like you’re doing) and demand we get on board, since “of course any right-thinking person obviously has no rational justification for such awful discrimination and hate.”

                    • enness

                      “The fact that your views have become unpopular with the wider society does not mean — in this country — that you are not free to hold them and disseminate them.”
                      So why are a couple of college students trying to get a Catholic chaplain fired for standing by Catholic teachings?

                    • Joan

                      It’s not that we’re upset that “society doesn’t accept our opinions”, it’s that society is accepting a fallacy. More like the Emperor is naked and the majority can no longer see it.

              • Maiki

                Dunno, my dad had the same crazy “don’t write with your left hand” teachers in school (not nuns, secular school), and he wrote with his right. Still does. He is ambidextrous and has good penmanship, but writes with his right (because it feels natural to write backwards with his left). He does some things righty and some things lefty. In other words, in the face of overwhelming societal pressure to be a righty, it was easy enough to change. So, is that a good comparison? Does it mean gay people can “learn” to like straight sex? It seems like a weak comparison, from both sides.

                • An Aaron, not the Aaron

                  I didn’t say that the changeability of handedness has anything to tell us about the changeability of sexual attraction. I was merely pointing out that it doesn’t support Bob’s position. I’m not an expert in this field, but I don’t think we know enough about such inclinations to draw bright line conclusions either way. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that it is changeable for some and not for others. What we can be certain of is that SS activity is disordered (a moral judgment of the activity, not a psychological (or moral) judgment of the person), in that it is not ordered to the good of the human person. How we help our fellow travelers in light of that truth is a pastoral question guided by the notion that we should help each other to step away from spiritual cliffs, not encourage each other to leap.

          • Jon W

            Yeah, I have a hard time understanding why the comparison to alcoholism is forbidden, unless you’ve dogmatically decided that there’s no good or bad in regards to sex (once consent has been solicited and received).

            • pittsburgh mama

              Exactly.

              I have struggled for most of my life with overeating. Many people in my family do. I am not sure how much of this has to do with how I (and my relatives) were raised and how much may be part genetic. But I don’t go around demanding that the USDA revise the food pyramid to say that eating 10 bacon cheeseburgers a day is just as good as eating the appropriate number of servings of leafy greens.

              But, sometimes I tell people they need to stop fat-shaming others. Because it isn’t helpful. Treating me like a pariah isn’t going to “fix” anything, and I’m still a person no matter what sinful habits I have. I used to avoid confessing gluttony-related sins because of embarassment. I don’t doubt that many people avoid confessing masturbation, or pornography, or lust, for the same reasons. For the same-sex attracted person I would imagine this is even harder. But just pretending that our sinful inclinations are okay just because they’re how we’re inclined is crazy. For a while I was really big (ha) into “fat acceptance.” I also felt horrible physically and spiritually most of the time. Interestingly, once I admitted to myself that I really had a problem, and it wasn’t just a physical or health problem but a spiritual one, and brought it to the confessional, it’s been easier. Do I still struggle? Yes. But in that struggle I’ve found so much grace, and from a purely health-related standpoint I am doing much, much better than I was.

          • L. Legault

            The whole “born this way” argument is a red herring, entirely irrelevant to the debate. In fact, I think being gay is akin to deafness in that you can be born deaf; the events of your life, like accident or illness, can make you deaf; and you can choose to behave in ways that can lead to your deafness, however unintentionally. Further, like homosexuality, or more so, deafness has its own culture, its own norms, even its own language. Like homosexuality, the culture of deafness has in recent years been known to demand that the non-hearing-impaired celebrate deafness, to insist that the deaf should not seek to alleviate their condition, and even on occasion to threaten those who do so with violence. (I think this is rare but it has been known to happen.) In short, deafness can in certain conditions be a choice, and in others a purely natural affliction. Yet that has nothing to do with my attitude to deafness. I don’t hate the deaf whether I have reason to think that their condition in this case or that is natural or self-inflicted, curable or not. I do think it is foolish of them to reject the opportunity to relieve their deafness if this is realistic; and yet I would not dream of insisting that they do so. All of this is much the same as my attitude to homosexuality. I’m willing that society should make some reasonable accommodations for the deaf and in particular cases would make many, if there were a deaf person of whom I was especially fond. I cannot help but regard their condition as a disability, which in both practical and absolute terms it is, and some deaf advocates and activists would resent that very much. Yet my attitude to the deaf is probably widely shared and not regarded as a sign of hatred, while my attitude towards homosexuality is.

            • Bob

              What is your attitude toward homosexuality?
              Cochlear implants make it possible for some people to hear who would otherwise be deaf. That’s awesome. But I’m unaware of a similar technology or effective “treatment” for homosexuality.

              • Jon W

                Just because homosexuality is way, way, way more complicated than a simple mechanical issue does not mean that it is therefore a perfectly fine way to live a flourishing human life.

              • thomas tucker

                But Bob, cochlear implants haven’t been around for very long, compared to how long deafness has been around. Bad example.

                • Bob

                  Bad example of what? I’m not the one comparing deafness to homosexuality. I’m trying to understand the comparison Legault is making.

                  • L. Legault

                    My point is not very complicated, so that I’m left at a loss to know what question you want me to answer, Bob. What is my attitude to homosexuality? That like deafness it is a disability, that like deafness it may sometimes self-inflicted, in a sense, that it is also often the result of accident or heredity, that each have their own particular culture as the result of this disability, and that none of these pathways has anything to do with my attitude to homosexuality (or deafness), or the social and legal accommodations that must be made for it.

                    No disability entitles those afflicted by it to compel society to alter its customs and laws in fundamental ways in order to accommodate them. We must, as fellow-citizens, (and for Catholics, as believers) do so as far as possible. I was willing to go so far as civil marriage, but that is now, in my country, irrelevant. Having been willing to make any number of concessions, and not being in the habit of making crude or stupid jokes or comments about gay people, I now find that I must not only tolerate crude and stupid comments about those who do not support gay marriage, but that my right to speak against it without penalty, like the threat of legal action by our human rights commissions (I’m Canadian), or to keep my job, is indeed under threat. I don’t understand the commentators here who seem to believe that this could not happen, at any rate in the United States. In many circles – the ones with the power, like media, most politics, universities, big businesses, and, above all, government work – it has become almost impossible to express any conservative views at all.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        Genetic predisposition to alcoholism is what came to mind for me. You can have it and live a perfectly good life if you just keep a watchful eye on your intake. It is *not* to be celebrated.

        • Beccolina

          Exactly. My husband has 6 brothers who tried the celebration part of that. The result is broken marriages, alienated children, jail time, etc.

      • kmk

        “If it’s natural, it most be good” arguments–

        What is really strange is her argument about choosing to give birth to a child. So, you are not a parent until you choose to carry the child to term and give birth. How natural is that? What about the parental love beginning at conception, no matter what?? Actually, she should be very concerned about that–we can already selecting which pre-born children are “allowed” to be born based on sex, physical “perfection,” etc. If there’s a way to “deselect” pre-born children who have any mental or emotional or sexual orientation issues, then wouldn’t that lead to much more than a lack of tolerance for these little ones?

        The comment by Terry Nelson in the post that Mark linked to earlier this week –the one about his friends who have no problem with gay marriage also have no problems with no fault dovorce, embryonic stem cell research, cohabitation, abortion, etc.–that makes sense to me.
        Lord, have Mercy!

        • Rachel

          @kmk – Like you, I began to balk at the entire article when she threw in – ever so casually – about choosing to be a parent as a result of haven given birth rather than at the point you saw the two blue lines. If your parenting begins only at that point, you’ve wasted approx. nine good months helping your child have a great, healthy life or share we endorse total prenatal neglect as a valid choice?

          • Rachel

            typing with a child on your lap is never advised…..sorry for the mistakes that cleared spellcheck. It should be…”choosing to be a parent as a result of HAVING given birth….” and “helping your child have a great, healthy life or SHALL we endorse…”

  • Psy

    What you wrote doesn’t come across as tolerant or accepting to me Mark, I’ve taken in and supported gay children disowned by their faithful parents. Tough love I suppose on their part but I got them to graduate from high school and one went on to college. But hey, go ahead an judge other peoples families.

    • Mark Shea

      I judged no one.

      • Psy

        “Crusading militant narcissism on steroids”

        • thomas tucker

          “disowned by their faithful parents”- faithful to what? Some unChristian idea that you are supposed to hate the sinner, not the sin?

          • Psy

            One of the children parents was a Preacher, anther’s mother was pressured, gossiped about and subject to about by her fellow Christians the third teen was subjected to slurs from his father. The rest of the kids I took in were victims of sexual abuse, but that is a different topic.

            • Beccolina

              The readers here, and the teaching of the Catholic Church, don’t support throwing out and abandoning your children for being gay anymore than they accept throwing out your daughter when she confesses she’s pregnant out of wedlock. However, the parent with the pregnant teenage daughter can say, “We love you. We will support you. You and your baby are welcome here, but we don’t support you continuing to fornicate.” and the parent of the gay child can say, “We love you, you are welcome here. We will support you, but we don’t support acting on homosexual desires.”
              It’s the last part we get screamed at about. My oldest child’s best friends in HS was an openly lesbian student (a student I had a few years before and who was very dear to me in her own right). I love her dearly, but it grieves me to see that she is in an active, sexual lesbian relationship because I know that is damaging to her spirit. No one celebrates when MS invades their child’s body. We love our children and hate the MS. We fight it. We look for solutions to it. Why celebrate when a child’s soul is under assault by temptation? Why urge a child to embrace that soul-sickness?

            • Mark Shea

              You did the right thing.

        • Mark Shea

          Yes. That’s a judgment of an idea, not a person. I have no idea how culpable this person is for saying this foolish and wrong thing. But if you are going to insist that stating an idea is foolish and wrong necessarily means judging the person saying it, then you will never be able to argue about any idea ever again. It is crusading and militant narcissism to tell people that they are bound to approve of behavior they believe to be wrong.

          • Guest

            I’m afraid Mark that narcissism does not describe an idea, it describes a personality and that’s pretty personal.

            • Jon W

              So does “hateful”, “closed-minded”, “bigoted” and other words that get thrown around in certain places. The words describe personalities, personalities of personal people. That doesn’t make them ipso facto out of bounds. That means that their use describes certain objective characteristics of the persons being so described.

              Mark’s point is that he’s not pronouncing on the state of their soul, just describing the objective characteristics of the people in question. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself. Human society wouldn’t exist if you weren’t allowed to, occasionally, remark upon the fact of something’s objective formal similarity to a spade.

            • Jon W

              I’m frustrated by the fact that I made a perfectly valid (and, I think, interesting) philosophical point below about the incoherency of modern liberal rhetoric (whether Liberal or Conservative) and most of the ink on this thread has been spilled arguing about whether Mark’s being “judgmental”. Sheesh.

    • SteveP

      Psy: parents can forcibly emancipate their children? I mean other than abandonment? What State is this?

      • Psy

        Legal or not its the reality, I live in Washington probably 100 miles SW of Mark. The state wasn’t involved and everything came out of my pocket. The parents knew where they were and were free to come and visit or take them home. None came to visit and only one person said thanks for giving them a home. It took time but they where able to work things out with their parents. I just stayed out of the drama and supplied a roof over their heads.

        • An Aaron, not the Aaron

          God bless you for doing that, Psy. Abandoning children to the world is evil (and definitely bad parenting), but so is abandoning them to the world of sin. No parent can justify cheering as their child leaps off a spiritual cliff.

        • SteveP

          Psy: Thank you for the answer; I think I understand: parents and teenagers can become disaffected precisely when a teen is roiling into affective maturity. It is a difficult time for all involved I’m told. Bless you for being an anchor point for those who can and will accept you in that role.

        • Psy

          My daughter gets the credit, I was usually at work 12 hours a day.

        • Rita

          I can only assume that you took in girls who were thrown out their homes because they were pregnant or refused to have an abortion. Kids are abused and neglected for all types of reasons and I can assure that the majority of reasons for the abuse has nothing to do with being gay.

  • Jon W

    Okay, wait a second. This kid’s mother is exactly right for the same reason we believe that “letting gays ‘marry’” will affect heterosexual marriages. How other people behave and how they express their beliefs about what human flourishing consists in absolutely affect us. We partly judge our own achievements in life and our actions according to the ideals that people in our society express and attempt to live out in their lives, and when we don’t match up to the standard they implicitly preach, we struggle with that.

    Furthermore, people support ways of life that they understand as good, and that social support that flows out of the judgment that a particular way of life is good is part of what allows us to live those ways of life happily and decently. And the ideals of the society determine the form that help will take and thus the form the life will take. So, for example, if a society believes that marriage is a permanent relationship, but that a lot of its members are suffering in their own marriage relationships, they’re going to look for a way to provide relief within the relationship and devote a lot of resources to doing so. But if they believe it’s not intrinsically permanent, then they’re not going to devote a lot of resources to helping the participants live good lives within that relationship. Rather, they’re going to pretty quickly point out that, well, after all, divorce, however tragic, is an option…. This social judgment affects the well-being of every society member.

    Mark is absolutely right that the ultimate end of the gay movement is not tolerance but rather approval. This is because ways of life that a society has decided are good must be aided, supported, and helped by that society because human beings are social animals, and no matter what libertarian, American, Wild West, Laura Ingalls Wilder fantasies we entertain, we need the help of a society to live good lives. “The man who lives without a city is either a beast or a god.”

  • Alexander Anderson

    “Our orientation is a fundamental part of who we are.” Here’s the conceit. Here, in fact, is the degrading part. I mean, when this country argued for Civil Rights for blacks, we argued, quite rightly, that blackness is ephemeral, cosmetic. It was their essential being, their essential being was human, and their rights are human rights. Now, we argue for gay rights by saying that they are intrinsically different from everyone else. How anyone can see the current movement as in the same spirit as the older one is beyond me.

  • SteveP

    From the comments on the article: “Tolerance is just softer word for hate.” While I’m aware there is an “Urban Dictionary,” a similar “Progressive Dictionary” would be helpful for translations; or ought I just assume that all words are synonyms for hate unless the word is explicitly “love”?

    • The True Will

      Unless you are talking about loving the sinner, not the sin. It’s love me, love my sin.

    • Jon W

      Tolerance absolutely is a softer word for hate. That guy is (nearly) right on. We tolerate what we hate but must put up with for whatever reason. We accept, celebrate, and enjoy what is intrinsically good. To say we “tolerate” homosexuality is to say we hate it, but we recognize that trying to go in and police people’s bedrooms is not a job for the state.

      • SteveP

        I think I understand what you relay: hate is an emotion; tolerance is an action usually manifested as inaction. Still, I find the equation of the two words, as noted previously, to be curious.

        • Jon W

          Yeah, the guy isn’t being super-precise with his language. He’s just realizing that all this talk about “tolerance” actually implied disapproval, and our society has decided that it has no grounds from which to disapprove of homosexuality.

      • L. Legault

        No, Jon W. There are things and, occasionally, people that I hate (or as close to hate as my nature allows me). I don’t “tolerate” them: if they are innocuous (nothing bad is really innocuous, but I can to some degree put up with it), I ignore them; if they are dangerous, I fight them. THIS IS THE LIBERAL COMPROMISE: to “tolerate” behaviour and beliefs of which you disapprove. If you reject that compromise, if it’s not good enough for you, on the grounds that it is “soft hate” or intolerance in disguise, you will end by destroying the very possibility of compromise on any serious issue. Not a good idea, politically. Don’t go there. At the very least, it’s a call to an Inquisition. It could end up being a call to arms.

        • Jon W

          Um, you’re making the very point that I was making. I just think your definition of “disapprove” is similar to my definition of “hate”. By “hate” I did not mean, “intend to extirpate as soon as possible by any means available.”

          But, sure, your style “hate” is a call to arms. I agree. And that call is being sounded right now by every single person on Huffington Post, Salon, New York Times, etc, etc, etc. And our side is still using the moronic rhetoric of liberal “tolerance” as though that had any power in the face of such clear differences in ideals and way of life.

          • L. Legault

            All right, I missed something. But what? Your comment is so oblique here that I simply don’t understand it, a rare admission from me. Could you try to be more clear? ( notice you are critical of “classical liberalism”, below. Is that a part of what you meant, that the “liberal compromise” cannot be made to work?

            • Jon W

              I think it can be made to work, especially in certain circumstances. What I object to is “metaphysical liberalism”, in which we imagine that society is supposed to be set up and run along liberal lines, as though John Locke and the American Founding Fathers discovered the One True Way of human government. Mankind just does not live and operate that way, and we’ve been lying to ourselves if we thought it would.

              What I wish we would do is be honest with ourselves and outline very clearly those things that we will tolerate and the extent to which we will tolerate them, while being very forthright about the fact that we think they’re bad but we’re going to allow them anyway. Instead, we just kept telling ourselves that each act of tolerance was actually the discovery of an eternal Human Right, and we were just “oh, so advanced” over our benighted ancestors, such that today the society has no way of articulating why it’s both not going to police people’s bedrooms but nevertheless will not celebrate their perverse lifestyle.

  • Advocate

    The same adolescent “argument from emotion” as: “Mom & Dad, I’m living with my girlfriend, and you must affirm our cohabitation (and subsidize our rent).”

  • frenchcookingmama

    I will go on record as saying I don’t support the gay lifestyle. Anyone who’s struggling with this lifestyle needs to read and re-read Terry Nelson’s post at Abbey Roads.

    I’m a stepmother of a gay man who’s in an incredibly destructive lifestyle. We’re talking the whole kit ‘n caboodle: gay bars, cruising, drug abuse, alienated from family, sexually active gay men as his only “friends” and the only ones he listens to.

    That’s to be celebrated? About as much as the hetero equivalent, the hook-up scene, should be.

    Society needs to stop equating sexual activity with acceptance of sexuality.

  • Mary P

    Maybe you should try to imagine being in this woman’s shoes for a few minutes before labeling her a militant narcissist. She loves her kid like we all love our kids and she has no doubt heard a lot of ugliness and slurs cast in his direction. And she may know people who define “tolerance” as “I won’t beat your kid up as long as he hides himself in a closet.” You don’t have to agree with her to understand why she might feel the way she feels.

    • Jon W

      See this? The homosexual movement is the rediscovery of Aristotle. It turns out that Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Pius IX were right all along, and we’re reaping the whirlwind we sowed by pretending that Classical Liberalism had changed human nature or else that Christian society was always going to survive as long as there were doors to knock on and tracts to hand out.

  • MG

    The year is 2063. From the popular magazine, The Mainstream, excerpts from the following article titled ” Confessions of a Heteros*xual” by Anonymous

    I am a male heteros*xual……………There……………I said it!! Shocking I know but as far back as I can remember, perhaps at age 3, I remember being repulsed by the idea of physical intimacy with another man. I don’t know why but i just know that I have always been this way. I held this secret within me for many years not really understanding why I felt this way. Being raised by my “mom”, my state appointed guardian, I remember how she celebrated the power and pleasure of open s*x. She often rekindled the stories of the Great Oppression and how through the great Civil Conflict and the help of the state, humanity was unshackled from the burden of s*xual discrimination. The concept of marriage was abolished long ago after the great Civil Conflict but I remember reading about it in history class. S*xual intimacy with anyone for any reason was encouraged as a healthy expression of our humanness. S*xual org*sm is the one thing that makes us truly human. Even knowing this though, I just could not shake this nagging repulsion to open s*x, especially with men.

    Even as a young child, I knew I was different. All my friends at school and my spiritual academy were raised by a variety of Diversi-fams, the state recognized unit of persons one was raised in. My friends were s*xually diverse, predominantly bis*xual , or transgendered. I just did not seem to fit in. Something within me craved union with only a female, exclusively, but I knew that I would be ridiculed for this. I remember once a very popular boy in my school made advances at me. My friends were so excited for me and encouraged me to “hook” with him but I made some lame excuse to avoid his advances. I felt like such a loser, almost like those very sad people in our society who for reasons I can not understand, actually chose to not have s*x………at all!!!!! It is proven through science and medicine that these people are mentally ill because of their as*xual identity. Everyone knows that to be truly human, one must experience org*sm. I feel sorry for them, but I have to admit, at times I feel a kinship with them. I am so confused and don’t know where to turn. Everbody knows that s*xual expression is found throughout nature and that org*sm is the penultimate spiritual experience we all long for. However one chooses to express and enjoy org*sm does not matter. If there is one thing that the Great Oppression taught humanity was that there was no place for bigotry and exclusivity, especially in regards to s*xual expression or, s*xpression, as we like to refer to it.

    But here I am on the outside looking in. I once tried to talk with a school counselor about how I felt. I danced around the idea but basically asked the counselor what she thought about a man that is repulsed about having s*x with another man. No way was I going to let her know that is what I was feeling!! As I suspected, the counselor berated the idea. She said that obviously this individual had some form of severe s*xual repressive disorder and certainly had a heart full of bigotry and hate. Am I a bigot and full of hate for having this feeling since birth? I was created this way and as far back as I can remember, I have always had this repulsion. What is wrong with me? I am confused and not sure where to turn or with whom to talk.

    • Brian

      “But doesn’t everyone belong to everyone else?”
      — Aldous Huxley, “Brave New World”

  • Mary P

    Wow. The old ” nose in the camel’s tent” logic. I guess I am going to have to try harder to “tolerate” people who for some reason either nature or nurture must engage in scorn, loathing, or ridiculously unhinged thinking no doubt based in fear about persons whose struggles they cannot actually appreciate.

  • Adam L

    I’m sorry, but I think the analogy to alcoholism is highly problematic. I understand that the point in making the analogy is that they are both instances of disordered appetites and in both cases the person experiencing those disordered appetites is morally obliged to resist acting out on those inclinations. But the comparison between the two is problematic for a couple of reasons. The first is that, while both may be instances of disordered desires, in the case of alcoholism, the disorder lies in the degree of the desire, not its object (indeed, it is regarded as an addiction). In the case of SSA, the claim of disorder stems from its object as opposed to its intensity. In the former case we are dealing with an addiction to a substance whose use, in itself, is generally regarded as licit, while in the latter case we are claiming that the object of (sexual) desire is misplaced. The likening of SSA to an addiction will therefore be off-putting to many (especially given as the inherently self-destructive nature of alcohol abuse is readily apparent, whereas it is not so obvious with SS activity).

    Another problem that I see with the analogy is that SSA would seem to be far more integral to a person’s identity and self-image. While it may be the case that both alcoholism and SSA are more or less “fixed”, at least insofar as they are inclinations or appetites, I don’t think alcoholism is as tightly bound up with issues of personal identity as SSA is. I don’t mean to say that alcoholism doesn’t affect a persons self-image or their relationships with others, but there is an important difference. SSA is much more bound up with how a person relates to their own sexuality, how they relate to others of the same and opposite sex, and how desires for love and intimacy are expressed. It is therefore a very sensitive subject, especially given that many with SSA also struggle with feelings of inadequacy and alienation, and the comparison to alcoholism seems to just gloss over all that.

    For these reasons I think the alcoholism analogy is problematic, and may even be doing a disservice in trying to persuade those who do not already accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality. I think part of it is just the nature of the beast – analogies are always to some degree problematic, and with SSA it may simply be difficult to find a really good analogy. Nevertheless, I think we should be careful about making analogies, such as with alcoholism, when discussing this issue.

  • An Aaron, not the Aaron

    I agree that alcoholism is not the go-to analogy, but can be an effective rebuttal analogy to the “want to do, therefore must do” argument made by pro-gay apologists. Most of your criticisms of its use seem to track with one of my earlier posts as different flavors of the “how dare you make that connection” argument. I agree that “the appetite you like to indulge is like an appetite you find repulsive” argument can be off-putting from an emotional standpoint and should be less favored when trying to address people directly involved, but it is still useful for policy discussions in my opinion.

    • Adam L

      I don’t think it’s accurate to say that my criticisms constitute variations of an emotional “How dare you!” response. A (partial) explication of such responses, perhaps – I was pointing out that there are real and important differences between alcoholism and SSA, which can easily get overlooked and lead to misunderstanding when using such analogies. Then throw in the fact that there is a strong emphasis on orientation change within some Christian circles and the reaction becomes very understandable. Not that the analogy is entirely off-base, but I think that the pros are outweighed by the cons and therefore its use should generally be avoided.

      • An Aaron, not the Aaron

        I didn’t address all of your objections, so you’re right that not all of them are rooted in “how dare you.” The one I didn’t address – that SSA is integral to a person’s identity and self-image – is a question of perception. An alcoholic would probably agree that his condition is deeply ingrained, but is not integral to his identity. He is an alcoholic, but that isn’t primarily who he is. The trend over the last 50-60 years has been to elevate the importance of sexual inclinations with regard to the person’s being. But that is a choice we have collectively made. One doesn’t need to identify as gay simply because he finds himself attracted to members of the same gender any more than a married man has to identify himself as “adulterer” simply because he finds himself attracted to women who are not his wife. SSA becomes integral by choice, not necessity.

        I don’t think we are in any great disagreement on the use of the alcoholism analogy. I just think I’m slightly more willing to use it than you are.

        • Adam L

          But yes, I think you’re right – our disagreement seems primarily to be over issues of strategy when it comes to persuading others.

        • bridgit

          “One doesn’t need to identify as gay simply because he finds himself attracted to members of the same gender any more than a married man has to identify himself as “adulterer” simply because he finds himself attracted to women who are not his wife. SSA becomes integral by choice, not necessity.”

          Very well said and true. As a woman who has struggled with SSA since I was 15 (I’m now 49) I’m in complete and wholehearted agreement with this statement. I’ve never allowed my struggles with SSA to become intergral to how I viewed myself. I’m a heterosexual with issues. :).

          In reality, though, all I am is a sinner who, by the grace of God was brought back to the Catholic faith when I was 30 ~ and I am very grateful for that gift.

    • Adam L

      The other thing I was trying to get at was why so many people such as Amelia see a rejection of homosexuality as a rejection of the person. I think this a big sticking point in arguments over this issue. Often when discussing this issue we like to emphasize the distinction between desire and action, pointing out that the Church condemns the action and not the inclination. We have to keep in mind that there is another distinction at work, however – the distinction between the person and the desire. I suspect that may be where the real hangup is for a lot of people. We claim to love the person, but also claim that SSA is an “objectively disordered” desire. I think people like Amelia see such a position as incoherent and possibly dishonest.

      Amelia is right when she says that to love a person means loving the whole person. I don’t think the problem is that she doesn’t see the distinction between desire and action, or even between the desire and the person per se. And if you pointed out that the inclination to alcoholism is unchosen and even has a genetic component, she would likely agree. All the same, I think she would still insist that SSA is fundamental to a person in a way that alcoholism (or some other fixed, even unchosen desire) is not. Someone who holds this view would likely see a characterization of SSA as “objectively disordered” as necessarily being a rejection of the person, or at least an important part of who they are. I was trying to draw attention to this and offer a possible explanation as to why so many people see it this way.

  • Pam

    Lies about being born that way. I have seen and still see all the grooming. If you don’t recognize it you would think you were born that way. Also this sounds like it is written by an atheist. Gods grace is greater than any sin and we all have crosses. So the author would love their child to a lifestyle where most men die in by their forties. Some love. You could show them a path to life.

  • Mariann G.

    To the parent who wrote the article…You are wrong. You do not know what you are saying. This isn’t all kinds of, or how many now feel, or any other jargon you select to write about something that cannot even come close to understanding the love parents have for each of their children, conceived by a husband and wife who love each other with a sacrificial love through the sacrament of Matrimony. SSA, when acted upon, is sodomy, a mortally wounding sin. Parents of Faith love their children so much they know that we were not brought into this world just for this world. Parents of Faith love their children so much they want them to know their immortal soul is so much more than enjoying sexual intimacy. They want for their beloved children nothing short of eternal joy–not the quickie Hollywood has brainwashed people into thinking is mandatory for happiness, and is a RIGHT! Bunk! All you want is promiscuity, but so, too, has Margaret Sangor and her ilk convinced the majority of people in this country who do not have SSA. Until you truly take the time to learn the Teachings of Jesus Christ entrusted to His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and sit in His Presence, you will never understand how wrong you are. By the way, people who love the Lord, God, with all their strength, mind, heart, and soul, love you enough to tell you to stop sinning, to repent, and come follow Jesus

  • Nancy D.

    My comment is, according to this website, too spammy.

  • Nancy D.

    Mark is your email : chez ami@frontier.com?

  • Mal

    The homosexual leadership who promote the corruption of marriage says: those who are not with us are against us. They then go on to say that these people should be punished by the government.

    • radiofreerome

      “[T]hose who are not with us are against us.” Gee, you’re absolutely right. Only someone who’s horribly narcissistic and paranoid would say something like that, a terrible leader suitable for an unstable, violent mob.

      “He who is not with Me is against Me.”

      Jesus Matthew 20:10

      Sorry. Never mind.

  • LaVallette

    Gay marriage:
    Take away: procreation of children within the marriage (self evident), the exclusivity and fidelity, declared by the gays themselves and even gay marrige proponents as being contrary to the fundamental definition of the gay lifestyle, the redifinition of marriage, a hithertho an exclusively heterosexual right because of the fundamental natural design and the diktats of biology and anatamy, add the contradiction between achieving gay activity decriminalization by “getting the state out of the bedroom” and then quickly inviting it back in to approve gay marriage, add to the mix that human rights incluign all civil rights derive their “self evident truth” because they are in accord with nature not when they work against it: and what have you got? The biggest intellectual and moral fraud ever legally pulled on an entire society and culture society! In the face of all this the “legality” of the fraud will be used to FORCE people to submit to the to this “law” in their every day life, regardless of any intellectual or moral basis for their opposition to it. We have already had fortaste of what is to come.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001120721082 Bert Lee

    Yes, you’re being oppressed. Got it.

  • The_Physeter

    I see nothing in the Huffingtonpost article you linked that says YOU must celebrate MY kid. What I see instead is an author saying that parents should love their children.

    Since Jesus Christ preached so much about love–love for neighbors, love for enemies, etc.–one would think Christians would be on the forefront of telling the world that we should love each other. God so loved us, so we should also love one another. It should be the pagans and anti-Christians who preach hate and the Christians who preach love. Instead, you see narcissism and upcoming government persecution when a parent says that people should be loved.

    “Love the sinner and hate the sin,” eh? Maybe you’re admitting now that this isn’t really possible.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X