Many gay Catholics disappointed with cardinals' choice for pope

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/20/MNG24CBSIJ1.DTL

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was raised Catholic but left the church in 1986 after former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the new Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a letter to the bishops on the "pastoral care of homosexual persons." The letter described gays as "intrinsically disordered" and homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

"I think most of us who were gay and Catholic will never forget when Ratzinger's letter came out. It was so stunning in both its breadth and depth of condemnation," Foreman said. "The cardinals have elected the most outspoken and venomous opponent of equal rights for gay people in the Catholic Church's hierarchy." Around the country gays and lesbians responded to the news of the new pope with incredulity and concern, citing Ratzinger's history of speaking out against gay marriage and adoption and inclusion of gays in the Catholic Church.

...but being a gay catholic is very much like being a gay republican or gay southern baptist.

There comes a time when you should not associate yourself with an organization that doesn't support your interests.

but the church opposes war, isn't that good enough? :sarcasm:

:shrug:

... if I hear that lame free-pass "excuse" one more time, I'm going to scream.

That's so maddening.

-- Allen

I take it, then, that you give none of your time (or money) to people who do things you don't agree with?

This isn't just a question about religion.

Also, for the 100,000th time, this is a cultural matter, not just a religious one. Harassing people for belonging to the church of their ancestors comes awfully close to cultural insensitivity.

For example, I once attended one of these highly-touted 'liberal' churches and found it to be full of horrible snobs. But I guess some ideologies are less acceptable than others around here.

<< I take it, then, that you give none of your time (or money) to people who do things you don't agree with? >>

What does that have to do with anything? What's your point? Or are you changing the subject?

<< This isn't just a question about religion.>>

Who said it was? Not only is it about a cruel, regressive, intellectually-backward, bigoted, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-family, anti-science church and its throwback leader/s... it's also about the people who support it, and ENABLE it, and make EXCUSES for it.

<< Also, for the 100,000th time, this is a cultural matter, not just a religious one. >>

Wow! Yeah, sure... it's "cultural"... whatever, dude. --- That sounds an awful lot like what many people say about their "Southern Culture" when defending their prejudices against Blacks and flying Confederate Battle Flags, etc.

As if "cultural" makes it all okay and acceptable? Is that your tack? Aztec human sacrifices were "cultural" too. Female circumcision is "cultural" too. And as I mentioned above... many people thought that slavery in the US was "cultural". Just because something is "cultural" doesn't mean we must automatically accept it and pay respects to it. It doesn't make it right.

<< Harassing people for belonging to the church of their ancestors comes awfully close to cultural insensitivity.>>

Oh brother... so now it's "harassing" AND "bashing" to criticize the church, its policies, its leaders, and its supporters? Amazing.

<< For example, I once attended one of these highly-touted 'liberal' churches and found it to be full of horrible snobs. But I guess some ideologies are less acceptable than others around here.>>

Okay. And? So? What does that have to do with me?

Who said it was? Not only is it about a cruel, regressive, intellectually-backward, bigoted, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-family, anti-science church and its throwback leader/s... it's also about the people who support it, and ENABLE it, and make EXCUSES for it.

Oh, so it's also 'intellectually backward' and 'anti-science' now?

Those two things are demonstrably wrong. I've got news for you - if you profit from living in the USA and spend money there, you are doing the same damn thing you accuse people of.

How does it feel when someone turns the tables on you? You are making an indirect accusation with your inflammatory statements. Don't think that people don't see what you are doing.

What it has to do with you is that you are not making rational arguments, you are making personal attacks and accusations against a group of individuals for whom Catholicism has not just theological but cultural significance.

If you don't understand what THAT means, maybe you should study more history. Look up 'nativism' in an encyclopedia, for starters.

And your statements on what you perceive to be 'southern culture' are likewise bigoted and ignorant. That's a straw man.

And I love how you think any post that responds to one of yours is strictly personal. Do you expect that every response to your posts has to be all about you and only you?

People need some educating around here about American history.

<< Oh, so it's also 'intellectually backward' and 'anti-science' now? >>

Absolutely! For starters, just look at their stances on stem-cells, indefinite life-support, and aids-prevention.

<< Those two things are demonstrably wrong. >>

But I just demonstrated them to be true.

<<I've got news for you - if you profit from living in the USA and spend money there, you are doing the same damn thing you accuse people of.>>

An absurd comparison. It's just as weak as the other "arguments" you've been making.

<< How does it feel when someone turns the tables on you? You are making an indirect accusation with your inflammatory statements. Don't think that people don't see what you are doing.>>

That's awfully vague. You'll have to be more specific than that. Are you saying that I've accused someone of something?

<< What it has to do with you is that you are not making rational arguments, you are making personal attacks and accusations against a group of individuals for whom Catholicism has not just theological but cultural significance. >>

Oh please... spare me martyr act. The hollow cries of "I'm-a-helpless-victim" are getting stale.

<< If you don't understand what THAT means, maybe you should study more history. Look up 'nativism' in an encyclopedia, for starters.>>

"Whaaah! We're victims because you critcize the church policies and it's bigoted leaders. You mean old nasty anti-Catholic BIGOT, poopy-head, you!"

<< And your statements on what you perceive to be 'southern culture' are likewise bigoted and ignorant. That's a straw man. >>

Gotcha! You know it's true, you know I'm right. So you have no choice but to dismiss the comparison as a "strawman".

I'm not going to play into your hands here. This isn't usenet or craigslist - this board has a bit more class and originality than that.

I'll just point out that you continue to make it personal and have nothing to say on the subject of nativism. That's enough for me.

<< I'm not going to play into your hands here. This isn't usenet or craigslist - this board has a bit more class and originality than that.>>

Nice dodge. How convenient that suddenly this is all seemingly beneath you. You won't lower yourself, eh? LOL! --- I see what you're doing with the veiled insults and skirting the rule against name-calling. You don't fool me. And you don't fool many others either.

But, then again... I suppose that such a non-response is easier for you than facing facts and actually admitting the truth. Do as you please... no skin off my nose.

<< I'll just point out that you continue to make it personal and have nothing to say on the subject of nativism. >>

I most certainly do TAKE the bigoty and hatred of the Catholic church and its leaders personally. I've made no secret about that. But you seem to be suggesting that I've made it personal with you. Where exactly have I many any personal comments about you?

Unless you actually support the bigotry and hatred coming out of the church, then I have no argument with you. But you seem to think that I do have an argument with you... so what am I to assume? Does that mean that you DO support those backward and regressive policies and opinions?

I don't know. It's hard to tell. You talk in circles and evade every question I've asked you. You make vague personal accusations, and veiled insults... and then when you're pressed on the issue, you never respond directly... you just move on to the next personal statement, or start up again with the same old tiresome and predictable "poor martyr me" routine.

<< That's enough for me. >>

Then your standards of what qualifies as "enough" are exceedingly low.

no more vacations for you! :hi:

... I see that the martyrs with persecution complexes are still trying to bully people into silence by demanding that the critics pay respects to their church, its leaders, and the supporters/enablers.

Astounding, isn't it?

Much louder now... :eyes: And, yes, it's utterly astounding.

Just because there are RW freeper-types who hate Catholics (almost ALWAYS the same folks who hate Jews) you do not get pass to support a regime that discriminates against gays.

Too call gays who are criticizing the Catholic church's policies anti-catholic nativist bashers has about as much validity as saying that we're 'klan-like' for telling certain anti-gay African-American churches that we oppose their rhetoric.

It is PATENTLY absurd.

Your claims that I 'support a regime' are unsupportable. I do no such thing. I'm sorry I can't fulfill your fantasy in this matter.

Please stick to the topic.

The term 'nativism' does not refer to right-wing fundamentalists - you're in error there.

It was about rich, white, northern elitists who BENEFITTED from scapegoating ethnic Catholics. I could stoop to some people's level and claim that ignorance of history does have grave consequences for its victims, but I won't.

Do look up the subject when you have time.

I know what nativism is. And I'm not a rich, white northern elitist. And for you to ASSUME that we are rich white northern elitists because we are GAY speaks volumes to your ignorance.

This has nothing to do with NATIVISM. And I wasn't saying that YOU support the new anti-gay papal regime, I was rhetorically embracing all who do. If you support it, that's on your conscience not mine.

Mind you, most of the vitriolic anti-catholic sentiment on this board has been from FORMER CATHOLICS. Hardly NATIVISTS.

No one in this thread is "scapegoating ethnic Catholics". You essentially called ARWalden a racist. That's bullshit, and you know it.

Just because you don't like the truth of what he has to say does not mean you have the right to slander him like that.

You have to read between the lines.

If you know the history, you know the rhetoric.

I won't back down here. I haven't for several decades, and my family for several centuries. What makes you think I'll start now?

But that's fine, you're entitled to your stubbornness. You're still not entitled to call people like ARWalden nativist - i.e., racist - and I think your words will be evaluated by the DU community and judged on their own lack of merit.

you are assuming that the gay people on this board are continuing a tradition begun by their presumably RICH WHITE NORTHERN ancestors. How dare you assume that anyone comes from this stock? How do you know that we're white?

You make an AWFUL lot of presumptions about who we are and where we come from.

"Oh, so it's also 'intellectually backward' and 'anti-science' now?
Those two things are demonstrably wrong."

Strangely, you didn't even attempt to "demonstrate" how wrong "those two things" are. I've noticed Bill O'Reilly uses such a tactic routinely.

I for one read several articles today about how Ratzo has consistently condemned not only stem cell research but also *all* genetic research and all AIDS research. That makes him pretty friggin' "anti-science" to me. And pretty "intellectually backward" to boot.

After all, in 1992, three and a half centuries later, you guys finally got around to pardoning Galileo for his awful crimes. Something about the earth and the sun, remember?

But leave that.

Here in the 21st century, you profess the existence of "miracles" that defy all laws of logic and physics.

And you turn bread and wine into an immortal's flesh and blood, a process involving lifting the ingredients up in the air and saying magic words.

And you believe that confessing "sins" to a priest and then reciting other words over and over ("three Hail Mary's, two Our Father's") can take away these "sins."

And your Opus Dei goes in for mortifying the flesh (i.e., self-inflicted bodily harm through flogging or wearing a sharp cilice on the thigh) as a means of spiritual attainment.

And while shunning any biological or psychological evidence to the contrary, you condemn homosexuality, because...well, largely because a man through whom an invisible God can speak tells you so.

And whenever he wishes that man can declare that he is "infallible," and you believe he's the only man on earth who has this super-power!

Anti-science? I dunno, brother, it all sounds pretty technical to me.

NT!

called us intrinsically evil. We have a right to be critical of the Catholic church when it opposes our human right and we have NO OBLIGATION to give it a pass. We also have the right to question why anyone would stay in an organization that categorically calls them evil.

I support the rights of gay catholics and wish them well, and no one here is HARASSING. Having an opinion is not HARASSING.

Yes, some question people's motives but are strangely absent when reasons are given.

Because understanding is pretty key to a multicultural society. Unfortunately, it requires work.

:(

another gay person stays in a religion that hates them is pretty callow.

It's also kind of none of your business how gay people internally grapple with other gays who apologize for people who hate them.

You are pretty presumptuous saying that Liberal Veteran doesn't work to live in a multicultural society.

No one is talking about gays here.

They're talking about Catholics in general.

Apparently, they 'support hate' merely by going to church. So now, one is guilty of 'oppression' by choosing to socialize with other Irish, Poles, Italians, etc. Well, there are always the bars, but wouldn't you know it, the New Prohibition, aka Corporate Harassment is closing those down as well.

Let's all socialize at the middle-class church now.

I don't know if ignorance about harassment of the Irish and other Catholic ethnics is worth my contempt here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No one's denying that happens. We're just pointing out the fact that no one here is doing so in this thread, despite your apparent fervent belief some are doing so.

Of course racism exists in America and there is ethnic in-fighting.

Are you seriously asserting the IRISH have it as bad as GLBT people in THIS country? 78 gay and lesbian men were murdered last year alone.

Of course any ethnic harassment is wrong. Give me a link to the hate crime statistics that calculates how many Irish have been murdered by Nativists in 2004 and I promise I will stand beside you and fight.

(Even though, you sure don't seem to be standing beside us.)

But this is a straw-man argument. Racism and ethnocentricity has nothing to do with the GLBT community fighting the policies of the Catholic church.

it's all about gays

and as one of "ethnics" who was brought up in the church, I think I can add my condemnation

I left because the church is homophobic and sexist and has been stuck in the 16th century since JP2 took over

and now, it's regressing back to the 15th century with the election of the new pope

next Sunday, when you're in church, really listen to what the priest says

the first time I really listened, I was heartbroken. it was not the church that I thought it was

"I'm sorry you think I beat you too hard."

minorities and adopting stances that are anti-science and anti-health for OTHERS to live?

NT!

Also, for the 100,000th time, this is a cultural matter, not just a religious one. Harassing people for belonging to the church of their ancestors comes awfully close to cultural insensitivity.

The church attacking a group of people in the world community, calling them evil IS cultural insensitivity.

that's why I left the church

Why???????????????????????????????

it still baffles me to.

<edit> make that declares.

Not to say what people should do, but being a gay catholic is going to mean being disappointed again and again and again.

Why would you stay in a group that doesn't want you?

What could you possibly gain from being around people that hate you except more hurt and insecurity of who you are and if you're right for being who you are?

Form a new group, fuck tradition. Tradition is just an excuse to keep doing what you've always done and not being able to come up with anything new.

is anti-gay. I can't understand why a person would want to remain in a cult that hates them, no matter how strong their beliefs are.

To be ostracized by their religion and disenfranchised from their god. I hope that they stay in and fight like maddogs to change their religion. But Catholicism doesn't seem too open to dissent from the ranks of mere believers.

Gaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

good. now pLay dead. good. now... don't be gay!

Churches. That easy.

http://www.ucc.org

http://www.uua.org

United CHurch of Chirst and Unitarian Universalist Assoc. both try to make gays welcome and treat them like people. UCC is haivng trouble with churches over this and UUA is having a lot less trouble with it. Check them out and go with what is best for you.

Especially in larger towns.

:)

...but some members brag about their PhD's and mensa memberships.

Not for me, thanks. I'd rather hang out with the Italians, Irish, Poles and Mexicans.

Snobbery is a passive (and cowardly) form of hostility.

It's not hostile to LIE about AIDS passing through condoms and encourage people in AIDS-ravaged Africa to not use condoms?

It's not hostile to systematically cover up the rape of children?

It's not hostile to call for the subjugation of women?

You've got a LOT to learn about hostility. Just because someone doesn't kiss your ass when it comes to your faith doesn't mean they're showing you hostility. It just means they don't think you're any more special than they are. And they're right - you and they and I are all worth the same as people.

It's not my faith, so please, could we not make it personal?

I ask again - who here thinks about where their money goes, or for that matter, where it comes from?

Still doesn't change the fact that you slandered someone because you didn't like what he had to say.

I will note that you are not Catholic and retract that part of my statement. However, your hostility comment is still ridiculous. And I notice you failed to indicate that the RCC's stances I pointed out truly are hostile.

we are anti-Irish, Mexican, and Polish because we are gay people who don't like the RCC's policies. TALK ABOUT SLANDER!

I'm talking about Rich Hunt slandering those who disagree with him as "nativists".

I'm 1000% on your side, my friend.

:pals:

:)

Having a Ph.D. or being a member of MENSA does not mean that you are NOT Italian, Irish, Polish, or Mexican. There are many MANY PH.D.s from those categories.

Are you living in the 19th century? That is OUTRAGEOUS.

Do try to follow. I did not say that.

However, some of these 'recommended' churches are lily-white and de-ethnicized.

I know, I've been to a few.

I love how you make presumptions about my ethnicity. By your logic, I've insulted my own.

before you hit the 'post' button.

Hey you did insult your own people. Irish, Italian, Mexican, and Polish does not mean 'not-a-PhD-holder'.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Did you NOT SAY....

"...but some members brag about their PhD's and mensa memberships.
Not for me, thanks. I'd rather hang out with the Italians, Irish, Poles and Mexicans."

You said you would RATHER hang out with Italians, Irish, Poles, and Mexicans than PHDS and MENSAs.

RATHER is the key word. If I say "I don't want to hang out with A, I want to hang out with B' it is implicit that B is not A.

http://www.snapnetwork.org/


Priest abuse struggle brings fame but no end to the pain

BY DAVID GIBSON
New Jersey Star-Ledger - Sunday, January 05, 2003

A year ago, Barbara Blaine and David Clohessy would have been unlikely entrants to the ranks of pop celebrity.

As children, they were sexually abused by priests -- hardly a mediagenic role, much less an easy topic of conversation -- and while they defiantly called themselves "survivors" rather than "victims," they were essentially voices in the wilderness for much of the past decade.

During those years, Blaine and Clohessy, the founder and top spokesman, respectively, of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, toiled to highlight the issue of abusive priests and to press the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy to stop what they said was a pattern of covering up for the molesters.

Then came the whirlwind that started a year ago tomorrow with the publication of the first investigative article by the Boston Globe that detailed the longtime predations of a former priest, John Geoghan, and the efforts of church leaders to protect him.

if you don't want to be part of a religion that's constantly telling you you're fundamentally sinful and unworthy, what were you doing in the Catholic Church in the first place?

one true religion and that if you die outside your religion you will linger in purgatory ad infinitum or, worse yet, hell fire and if you are afraid of death...it isn't too hard to see how the turmoil begins..although the Catholic catechism says if you are gay then you can be gay you just must be celibate...my personal recommendation would be to become an alter boy if you are gay...then under the Ratzinger doctrine you are a victim of a media campaign rather than an evil to be removed.

"my personal recommendation would be to become an alter boy if you are gay...then under the Ratzinger doctrine you are a victim of a media campaign rather than an evil to be removed." :spank:


:)

Reminds me of my friend's upbringing as a Jehova's Witness (she's atheist now). She always heard that if she wasn't one of the Elect, her body would go in the ground and she'd lie there, aware, for all eternity.

To this day she dislikes the dark.

IMHO, telling things like this to children is child abuse.

...because they have the misfortune of being born Irish Catholic.

But I suppose you know nothing about that.

So take your cries of "racist!" somewhere else - no one's buying them here.

It's your country - therefore you DO have a responsibility to know something about history.

We're just correctly pointing out that no one is "scapegoating ethnic Catholics" - YOUR words, remember - on this thread.

No one is.

It sounds like you've got a persecution complex, for all the cries of "racism!" you're making.

Read THE CHURCH THAT FORGOT CHRIST then let me know.

Seriously, I expect Papal Bulls to become fashionable again.

:popcorn:

:shrug:

... won't it be interesting to see how people around here act. Will they change their tune, or will they continue to support and defend that which despises and vilifies them?

and eventually all other Democratic, Catholic politicians.

Because these fundies are against abortion or birth control and PARAGONS of FAMILY VALUES.

Very fishy, IMO.

;)

I think the Papal Bulls are busy covering up for the Papal Priests who unduly touch the calves . . . .

I think you can guess which letters they are. :evilgrin:

:popcorn:

I know a few gay Catholics who would very much like to make a big show of of their "excommunication." That's one reason it's not going to happen.

I used to wonder about gays and lesbians who stayed in the church, but I don't anymore.

In cosmopolitan areas especially, there are gays and lesbians attending Mass, divorced and remarried people attending Mass, "pro-choice" people Attending Mass, and certainly many, many, people who use birth control attending Mass...

I have seen the same thing in other cultures. People who blatantly practice what the Church might call "pagan" spiritualities every day of their lives, will go to Mass for an hour on Sunday and call themselves Catholics.

My own internal spiritual faith has been heavily influenced by the Catholic Church, but does not arise from it. I don't know how that happens. That's probably the way it is with most people. That's how a gay or lesbian couple can attend Mass with their kids and not think anything about it. It's simply a familiar thing they do.

Anyone who feels uncomfortable in Church simply stops coming, and life goes on. This is not the same as politics, where laws discriminating against gays and lesbians can have very serious consequences. (It makes no sense at all to me that there are Republican gays and Lesbians.)

On the other hand, if you have internalized the entire Church teachings wholesale, and then you find yourself in conflict with those -- perhaps because you are gay, or lesbian, or you can't live any longer with the spouse you married in the Church -- well that's when you hit a brick wall.

I've mentioned before that I once had a very horrible relationship with a woman who would not admit to herself that she was a lesbian, and this was mostly because of her religious upbringing (not Catholic, BTW) and her parents' attitudes.

If I attend Mass, or I don't attend Mass, it does not change situations like this, so long as I am very careful how I give my money to the Church. Having my butt seated in a Catholic Church does not imply my whole-hearted support of the Church any more than my voting for Kerry implies I am some sort of "Kerry Democrat." I'm not.

There are other options.

:P

evil. Can I pick the next pope?

Why more gay Catholics don't convert to Episcopalianism--it's Catholocism without the Pope and without the gay-bashing.

Dignity, for those who don't know or remember it, is/was an organization of lesbian and gay practicing Catholics that enjoyed some support from the more liberal elements inside the church--such as the Jesuits, who used to perform weekly Masses on Saturday evenings in a church near the Village in NYC. I had attended a few of these events out of curiosity more than anything else, and found the atmosphere welcoming enough, though I was always bewildered by any GLBT support of a religion so obviously averse to the free expression of their sexuality. At the time John Cardinal O'Connor was archbishop of the Archdiocese of NY, and the clampdown came quickly and mercilessly. The Jesuits were banned from performing Masses for Dignity in churches and had to use the GLBT community center for a while. I don't know if these Masses still take place, since I no longer follow the news on Dignity.

Keep in mind that this policy of repression was soon followed by a massive PR campaign that the archdiocese carried out on TV and radio as well as in print on subway and bus posters. The campaign, called Welcome Home, was intended to bring back the lost sheep. The following Gay Pride Parade had a float with a scale model of St. Patrick's Cathedral and people dressed up as Cardinal O'Connor (resplendent in his white silk and gold chains and stuff) and his assistants (pre-altar boy scandals). On the float was the motto Welcome Back, Unless You're Gay or Lesbian. It got some of the wildest hoots and hollers and applause of any group in the entire parade.

All this is to say that it's unrealistic to expect an institution that only recently apologized to Muslims for the Crusades and to Galileo for being right about the earth revolving around the sun to acknowledge that homosexuality is as right as church homophobes are wrong. For gay people seeking spirituality in their lives, I encourage them to do a little soul searching and find it elsewhere.

Which gay Catholics are happy with it?

Many battered women remain with their abusers, too.

Gay Catholics = self-loathing gluttons for punishment.

Just like Catholic women who would like to use birth control but don't because the church says you can't.

I can appreciate their efforts to inact change the religion they chose, but sheesh. Talk about your uphill battles.

Empty pews and empty tithe collection plates will make more of an impact, and you get to keep your dignity to boot.

but empty collection plates... yes...

for the people involved. If a gay person chooses to stay under these conditions, it is truly hard. If a gay person chooses to leave, it is also very hard. The Church has more than abandoned its children... it is kicking them.

Please show some sensitivity for people's feelings.

Just remember kids, not only are the fags evil and deserve what they get, but Rock & Roll is evil too, so stop dancing or you'll burn in hell with Richard Simmonds.

And never forget to pray for reconciliation with the barbarian religions like the buddhists or the many other cults like Islam, methodism, Calvanism, Jehovah Wittisms, Anglicanism, Mormonitis Indoosisms et cetera...as we look foreward to reconciliation with all these heathen splittists, before they all end up in hell.
Amen.

The Catholic church, and many others maintains the belief that participating in homosexual acts is a choice. Because it is considered a choice, they can consider it a sin. To them, it is no different than adultery, or pre-marital sex. As such, they have every right to preach it their point of view in their churches.

Our side has not made things any easier. We can't get our story straight. Is one born gay, and it is part of who he is, just like eye color? If so, how do you explain those who are bi-sexual or start practicing homosexuality later in life. Is homosexuality a physical trait like eye or skin color?

The other side of things is that homosexuality is a preference and a choice. This is the side I fall on. I really don't care who you sleep with as long as they are over 18. But by admitting this, the church has a right to discriminate. If it is a choice, there are valid arguments against considering gays legal minorities.

This issue and that of abortion are the two areas where I am torn. Perhaps it is because I practice a faith that considers homosexuality a sin. To me, being gay is your choice and none of my business.

I'll field this one. It's called a "sexuality spectrum" - totally gay on one side, totally straight on the other, all shades in between.

It's pretty clear, from studying nature, that homosexuality is intrinisc in some animals. It's the same in the human animal. Sure, backward-looking reactionaries want it to be a choice - easier to judge and codemn that way.

It's not a choice.

How do I explain bisexuality or people who 'start practicing' later in life...

Go into the library and read books by GLBT scholars, thinkers, and writers. Read about GLBT history and how it coincides with the genocide of Native Americans in both North and South America. Do some reading and then we'll talk.

If you are 'torn' on this issue, then you are not on my side. We shouldn't be having to even answer to whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic.

:toast:

Yes, I am perfectly capable of having sex with men. I can spread my legs and not throw up. But that's not the point. I cannot fall in love with a man. I would stay with my partner even if we could never have sex again because we are in love.

You reduce my reality to bedroom acts.

I don't think your bedroom acts are any of my business. I also don't mind if you choose to be with one person of the same sex for the rest of your life. Furthermore, I do not believe same sex couples should be kept from adopting, nor should there be any other discrimination.

However, I still see it as a choice. I am straight. I have urges to sleep with many women, but I choose to only be with my wife. From my point of view, those who are gay have urges to sleep with and be with people of the same sex. Not resisting the urge is also choice.

Like it or not, there are literally millions of Americans who see the issue in this light. Some believe your choice is none of my their business and move on. Others, wrongfully try to push their beliefs onto all of society by legislating morality. Having said that, don't expect those of us who defend you to also say your choice is one that sits well with us. In general, neither organized religion, nor most of those who attend one will ever agree that homosexual acts are not sins. If you are lucky, more and more of us will defend your right to choose.

You know, I'll not be responding to this thread any longer. What happened to tolerance?? Just because I don't agree with you absolutely? Many of those who are church going people stand up for your right to choose every day. You and I don't see eye to eye on nature vs nurture question, but I have stood up for gay rights more times than I can count. Would you rather I shut up and vote like the rest? Would you rather I not speak out for your right to choose when others speak against gay marriage or for anti-sodomy laws? I am not trying to bring you to repentance, but that does not mean I must consider your choice to be spiritually OK either.

"I am not trying to bring you to repentance, but that does not mean I must consider your choice to be spiritually OK either."

I believe that your categorization of people like myself as sinful to be a sin against God itself. Whether you fight for gay marriage or not, your categorization of love as sin will effect every child you come into contact with. Attitudes like this drive gay children to suicide. Your perpetuation of the notion of homosexuality as sin is an immoral act, in my spiritual worldview. I have a right to my opinion as well.

I am by no means against all non-essentialist (non-biological) arguments for the existence of GLBT people. I myself believe that the nature/nuture dichotomy is woefully inadequate to explain our lives.

But your reasoning is steeped in anti-gay rhetoric no matter how you vote. I am not trying to bring you to repentance, but that does not mean that I consider your behavior spiritually okay, either.

Thanks for not outwardly voting against my rights, but I won't count on your support based on your views of me.

...when did you choose to be straight?

But consider this: Homosexuality is an innate ORIENTATION, like left handedness.

You can force yourself to use the other hand but it'll never be your natural inclination.

And some people are actually born ambidextrous.

Yet there it is protected in the first amendment, and in numerous laws at all levels of government banning discrimination based on religion. Some employment law also covers marital status and veteran status, again choices (unless you were drafted). So choice/not a choice is really not the issue from a legal standpoint. Equal protection under law for all citizens is. What any church does in their church is their business. When they attempt to influence public policy, it is everyone's business.

*sigh*

So sad on so many levels.

david

:cry:

It's an important thread.

hehe

In an issue of the Justice and Peace Commission newsletter of the (arch?)diocese of SF about 15 years ago, a writer on the role of Catholic faith for Catholic politicians wrote that "clearly" Catholic politicians take take any political stances that they want "except on the issue of abortion, where the Church's position is clear" . Although a pro-choice non-Catholic, I can understand that they have principled objections to abortion. But what is the doctrinal basis of the favored position of abortion over other concerns like absolute poverty politics, or the environment, or peace? They don't make threats like the one above towards Catholic politicians who support warmongering. And while a new order (now a distinct possibility) devoted to opposing abortion rights has been suggested, what about a Catholic order devoted to protecting the environment?

It seems to me that NOW is the time for progressive Catholics and others to organize at the global level, bringing together many of the umbrella groups in Europe with these kinds of concerns of importance to the Third World (the PRIORITIZATION of social justice and the environment etc). Global networking on the web, and organiizations with chapters of progressive Catholics and others seeking in good faith the reform of the Catholic Church all around the world could lay the groundwork for the global chorus of voices calling for a new direction in the Church when the time comes for the next papal selection.

Some suggest that such outspokenness would have a perverse effect. But how much worse could progressives, who remained very quiet, have done?