Max S. Gordon: “Proud Americans, Be Who You Are”
In other words, I can’t dismiss Paul Ryan’s good-natured homophobia as anything else but what it is, a hatred of gays. I can’t blame a generation gap, or that he’s from some other country that isn’t “free” like us, or any of the bullshit excuses that would let him off the hook. He’s just like me. Only he has privileges that I don’t, because he’s heterosexual. It’s that simple. We try to make it more complicated, bringing in religion and “upbringing,” because if we reduce it down its basic components, it’s just plain ugly and embarrassing. Denying gays and lesbians full equality in this country is no different from having separate bathrooms for colored people.
The grace of “queer” theory is that it says “very well then, instead of tolerating them and putting them in a box aside or discriminating against them as certain fundamentalists do, and persecuting them and punishing them, and even killing them, as has happened throughout history, no, we invite them to teach us something essential about who we are. Because, in fact, it’s not appropriate to put any of us in a prefabricated box. And, as such, it helps us to think about ourselves in more open categories.
Kathryn Pogin & Benjamin Cohen Rossi: “Letter of Inquiry & Petition for Action”
The university already provides access to medications that treat erectile dysfunction, without requiring the insured to justify their use of it (neither medically nor morally), as you require women to justify their use of contraceptives. If faculty, staff, or students are unmarried, providing access to such medications is also materially contributing to gravely immoral behavior. We must ask, then, why the difference? Determining if men are married is surely easier than determining if there are non-contraceptive medical reasons a woman might need contraceptives, so it cannot be a matter of difficulty. If the university can provide access to medications that treat erectile dysfunction without question because you trust the decision to use it wisely to the individual consciences of insured men, why not treat women likewise when it comes to contraceptives? Regardless of whether or not contraceptives themselves promote gender equity, pursuing this suit is an affront to gender equity at the University of Notre Dame. The university’s policies do not treat men and women as equally capable and trustworthy moral agents, and the university is going to court to defend that disparity.
I will stand by some basic assertions:
- Masturbation is not intrinsically evil.
- Contraception is not intrinsically evil either inside or outside of marriage.
- Certainly condoms should be used if effective in avoiding disease, especially the HIV virus.
- Gay orientation is not an intrinsic disorder.
- Homosexual love is not intrinsically evil.
- Marriage between same-sex partners is not intrinsically evil.
- Neither scripture nor theology unalterably dictates that women are intrinsically disqualified from the sacrament of priestly ordination.
Now let’s get down to some serious discussion and dismiss the apodictic stance that sex is intrinsically evil and current church teaching is unalterable.