Law-abiding, taxpaying Gay individuals and couples in the United States contribute their fair to society. We are every bit as likely to conduct our lives with decency and humility as our Straight counterparts. So why is it that we should be denied the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight individuals and couples have always taken for granted? And how is it that voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them DO NOT apply to minorities?

Seeking fair treatment for Gay Americans does not amount to “flamboyant celebration.” It is a matter of equal rights under the 14th Amendment. After all, how would YOU feel if YOUR tax dollars were being used to support organizations and institutions that discriminated against CATHOLICS?

Question: Chuck, if homosexuality was illegal (as it used to be) would homosexuals be “law-abiding” citizens obeying this particular law? I doubt it. What if homosexuals were the majority and not the “minority”? Do the numbers of a particular category of people necessarily mean we should have sympathy for them. There is (thank God) a small number of cannibals in the world, but I don’t think we seek to be their advocates. Point: It is not possible for a practicing homosexual to “conduct lives with decency” as homosexuality is by nature indecent. So your launching pad is simply incorrect. Clarification: Catholic Teaching is not asking that the basic human rights be taken away from homosexuals. They are free to own property, receive a just wage, and are even free to marry insofar as they do not try to “marry” a person of the same sex, an infant, one’s pet dog, or a tennis ball; all such cases could never constitute a real marriage, and thus should never be even legal. Also, a person can forfeit one’s right by breaking a law such as is the case with a mass murderer, a drunk driver, a child molester, or (in this case) a homosexual. Error has no rights. It doesn’t matter if the entire world voted unanimously for a law that is contrary to Natural Law and divine positive law; it is NO law at all. For the record: much of our tax dollars discriminate against Catholics. The United States is far from being a Christian nation. Catholics are in exile. Conclusion: Chuck, we all have strong inclinations toward sin. By grace, we can conquer sin and be holy as our heavenly Father is holy. Let us pray for homosexuals that they would receive the grace to be made holy and whole. Peace. T

“Additionally, ever since Pangea broke up”

Wonderful metaphor!

For forty years we have been browbeaten by the government of the fact that cigarette smoking kills, taking on average eight years off of your life.  Probably billions of dollars have been spent encouraging and demanding that smokers quit their addiction.  Taxes on cigarettes have multiplied with the same intention.  Five bucks a pack now is not unusual.

That same government organization, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, has calculated that active male homosexuals take twenty years off of their lives with the activities that they engage in (including smoking).

Yet the public relations campaigns relating to homosexuality, relating to “gay”, “pride”, “normal”, “equal rights”, “anti-discrimination” and other terms designed to demand that homosexuals not be discriminated against and be accepted without reservation.

What is wrong with this picture?

Are we engaged in a homophobic campaign encouraging homosexual men to shorten their lives?

Ray, your analysis is off. Smoking is a choice. Last time I checked, a straight man can’t go into a gas station to buy himself a pack of life-shortening homosexuality. He isn’t afforded that CHOICE.

Using your train of thought, perhaps we should also not treat those born with other potentially life shortening conditions as “normal”, nor should we afford them with “equal rights”. Conditions like mental retardation, MS, etc. Why should they get equal rights? After all, they too were born into a lifestyle that is statistically shorter by nature.

Or perhaps you believe that homosexuality is a choice, despite much medical evidence that would point to the contrary. In that case, it would be pointless to discuss any further!

It’s important to distinguish between having homosexual tendency or orientation and living a “homosexual” lifestyle.  The former is not a choice.  The latter is of course a choice.  And that’s where morality comes in.

The Church does not in any way condemn a person with such tendencies, but it does recognize the condition as disordered. Similar to the way any reasonable person would recognize that MS or mental retardation or OCD or missing an arm is “disordered” in that something is clearly wrong. That doesn’t mean they are any less of a person, of course. They are just as much a child of God and beautiful and should be respected and loved as any other person should be.

But the issue here is behavior.  And that is absolutely a choice.  We are all faced with sinful temptations that go against the Natural order(law) and God’s law - regardless of our sexual tendencies or anything else. We all have a choice to act on them or not.

So what behavioral or lifestyle choices, not relating to sexuality, do homosexuals uniquely choose to make that should have them added to the not “normal” category or the non “equal-rights” category?

Because if you are suggesting that is is acceptable to be ‘disordered’ then it should also be acceptable to engage in ‘disordered’ behavior, no (unless it is illegal of course)?

Someone born with one arm is not ordered to do things that take two arms - and logically it would be ridiculous to discriminate against them for engaging in behavior that requires using their one arm (again, that is how they are ordered).

Homosexuals are not ordered to be heterosexual, so wouldn’t it be unfair to require them to conduct behavior that is against how they are ordered? Do we tell the one arm man that he is not to act on his human instinct to eat because he can only do so with one arm? Or do we tell him he MUST do so with two arms or he will not be afforded equal rights?

Can we really insist that a homosexual must not act on his or her instinctive sexual desires (which are legal) and furthermore, if they are “good” and they abstain, can we really say that they then will be considered acceptable?

Is it fair to require someone who has torette syndrome to not engage in the behavior of screaming out loud? That’s not a choice I suppose one could argue - or is it? Are instinctive behaviors like eating, drinking, nurturing, etc. choices? Can I really choose not to eat until I die? After all, it’s E-A-S-Y to go against human instinct, right? Aren’t we confusing human instinct with choice? How can the questions “Should I engage in sexual activity Such as should I take a walk or what should I wear?

And if we aren’t speaking of sexuality then what behavioral or lifestyle choices put homosexuals in the non ‘equal rights’ category? (as Ray suggests) Smoking? (as Ray also suggests) Drug use? If so, are these things so unique to homosexuals that they shouldn’t be afforded equal rights?

Aren’t we confusing a debate about the morals of drug use and other immoral acts with one of sexual preference? Many people smoke - people of different race, sexual preference, age, etc.  Even our President used to. Shall we condemn them also for their life shortening choices?

BTW, congrats on the blog! I love reading your posts…and sorry if this is long winded. It is a topic of great interest to me, i.e. the argument of whether or not ‘choice’ really exists on the most human of levels.

Thanks Phil!  And I appreciate you sharing.

Of course we have choice - we have free will. Free will is one of the fundamental things that make us human persons. However, the ability to exercise it is certainly hindered sometimes.

A few thoughts:

First, just because something is legal does not make it moral. The moral law and civil law are two separate things. Let’s not confuse them.

Second, instinct and choice are entirely different things. And just because something is instinctual doesn’t mean it is morally good. A student may have an instinct to cheat on a test to get a good grade. But that would be an immoral CHOICE to make. The same applies here.

We all have sexual instincts. But there is a moral and naturally good way to act on them. A married man may have an instinct to have sex outside of his marriage. A single person may have an instinct to have sex with somebody else. A homosexual may have an instinct to have sex outside of a marriage (which by definition requires a man and a woman and which we all generally have equal civil rights to enter into). Where morality comes in is in their choice to act on that instinct/temptation or not.

Third, some choices are harder than others. That’s why we must pray for and love those with tough choices that much more. But we must always encourage them to make the right, moral choice. Even (and especially) when it is hard. There is SO much grace in those opportunities if we are open to it.

Fourth, of course our culpability is directly tied to how much choice we truly have in a situation. If somebody is strongly addicted to something or is compulsive (OCD or Tourettes etc.) then certainly they are less morally culpable. But that doesn’t change whether or not the act in question is good or not. A kleptomaniac may not be held as morally culpable for stealing because they can’t help it (and their level of choice is small). But that doesn’t mean stealing is then “OK”. Stealing is still wrong itself.

Where in the New Testament does the Lord address homosexuality?

The law was fulfilled in the New Testament, making a prohibition on plural marriage.  So, too, is it not far fetched that God may have a design for healthy and loving same sex partnerships or marriages? Perhaps more will be revealed to us, in our time, as man’s mind and heart becomes more open.

In the meantime I, personally, find it foolhardy to blindly accept the Church’s teaching concerning homosexuality when so many of her leading “shepherds” are so blatantly leading scandalous lives of their own.  By placing the attention on an easy scapegoat (read: gays and lesbians) is the Church ignoring (or covering up) the skeletons in her own sacristy? 

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has paid out over 100 million dollars to sex abuse victims in Orange County, Calif.  In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, that number is 660 million.  What’s that saying about people in glass houses? 

“In regard to faith and morals, the Catholic Church continues to be our trusty guide”.  Right.  The Bishops notwithstanding.

So by this rationale, I guess homosexuals should be afforded every single right and be accepted as normal, just like heterosexuals. It is their lifestyle and behavior that is unacceptable. Is this correct? Seems like a some folks like Ray believe otherwise (which is why I responded to him).

If it is the behavior that is allegedly immoral, and not the orientation, do homosexuals who abstain from homosexual activity go to heaven?

Kevin - I encourage you to learn a bit more about the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, her teaching authority, revelation, etc. That will help answer a lot of your questions. And there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage. This is written in the Natural Law…not on the closed-ness of hearts and minds. And certainly the fact that the leaders are not perfect and have sinned does not change any of that.

Phil - homosexuals who abstain from a homosexual lifestyle do not sin in that regard.  So yes, they have just as much of an opportunity to go to heaven as anybody else. Further, God has a purpose for their life that does not involve a homosexual lifestyle and that will be more fulfilling than anything else they could imagine.

Dear Matthew-

Wouldn’t you think that the average reader of NCR has done some reading concerning “the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church” et al? 

My unanswered questions remain: (1) where in the NT does the Lord specifically address homosexuality; and (2) is there an allowance for the plural marriage in the Natural Law?  My trusty catechism tells me not, though there are so many instances of plural marriage in the Genesis, that I’ve lost track!  Were the Jews living in accordance with the NL when taking more than one, sometimes several, wives?

Just as more was revealed to the first Christians, maybe more, too, will be revealed to us in our time as it relates to gays and lesbians.  Maybe the arbiter of the NL is making a mistake concerning its teaching.

Kevin,

NCR has all kinds of readers. And I have no idea if you are average among them. All i have to go off of is your comments…which made me think you did not understand the Catholic Church. Forgive me if I was wrong.

1 Cor 6:9-10 is very clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality. But let’s also be clear that Church teaching is not based solely on the NT. It takes into account the entirety of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition in conjunction with the Magisterial authority of the Church.

Polygamy is a different issue. So let’s not confuse that with homosexual acts. But I believe the case could be made that polygamy is not compatible with the natural law. Additionally, it is a much easier and obvious exercise to see that homosexuality is certainly not.

The Church has always and consistently taught that homosexual acts are immoral. This is a moral teaching that will and can never change. There is no revelation in the future that will occur to contradict or change this consistent teaching of the Church. The fact that you even question that it “may change” is what prompted me to urge you to learn a bit more about the teaching authority of the Church.

If you’d like to learn a bit more about this issue, Catholic.com has a good writeup with more details for you and some info if that is something that any of you are struggling with or questioning: http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

God bless you!

Chuck—our tax dollars ARE being used to support numerous organizations and institutions that discriminate against Catholics and their teachings.  I begin with Planned Parenthood.

This entire argument reminds me of the small children who—in pre-school—insist on placing the square-shaped block in the circle-shaped hole.  When children do this, we show concern for their development.  When adults do this, we seek “equal rights.”  I call it absurd, and pray that people open their eyes and come to their senses.