They do not use those words.

But by insisting that they suffer from a genetic abnormality – and therefore cannot be held to have any free will in the matter of their lifestyle – that is exactly what they are arguing: that they, unlike every other human being, are held captive to their sexuality, and must therefore be excused from any social norms, discipline, or expectations that are in conflict with their uncontrollable sexuality.

Blake,

Where in the world do you find gay people arguing that they are “permanently, innately, and incurably defective”? Pardon me for being blunt, but that is utter nonsense. Many gay people (and straight people, too) argue that a homosexual orientation is innate, but “incurably defective”? Did gay people expend their efforts to get a diagnosis of homosexuality removed from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual only to turn around and argue that they are “incurably defective”? What kind of sense would that make? The whole premise of the gay-rights movement is based on homosexuality being a normal variant of human sexuality, somewhat like left-handedness is not a “defect,” but a normal variant.

Perhaps more importantly, there is growing evidence that when a situation like this is defined as a “sickness”, it leads the sufferer toward learned helplessness (away from empowerment), . . .

Regarding alcoholism, can you cite some of this “growing evidence”?

Perhaps more importantly, there is growing evidence that when a situation like this is defined as a “sickness”, it leads the sufferer toward learned helplessness (away from empowerment), and – perhaps more discouraging – there’s also growing evidence suggesting that bystanders are more likely to shun the person who “has an innate defect” than the one who is “making lifestyle choices”, even when the outcome is the same.

Which is, by the way, exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen (when we started turning all behavioral choices into diagnosed conditions).

If gays are truly doing no harm, they should make that the basis of their argument – that, being endowed with liberty, they have the right to behave any way they want, as long as they do no harm. That they instead prefer to choose to avoid this argument in favor of arguments that rely on the idea that they are permanently, innately, and incurably defective and thus require special “pity” treatment seems very Orwellian to me: why would anyone choose to identify as inherently flawed over simply choosing to identify as making the choices they are entitled to make? The answer appears to be, because they are not content to live within the bounds of “doing no harm”.

Alcoholism, perhaps not. Drinking (including drinking to excess) is promoted heavily. Binge drinking in college is epidemic. I remember my father a good fifty years ago describing how he accepted one drink at social functions and held onto it all evening so as not to be pressured to keep having another and another. I don’t drink at all, and I have found the pressure to accept a drink in some situations can be extremely intense. Alcoholic beverages are heavily promoted by advertising even though there are many limitations (some of them self-imposed) on advertising alcoholic beverages. I have no moral objections to drinking. Alcohol is just something I never developed a taste for. I am not even sure I have any moral objections to getting “responsibly” drunk, although one of my least favorite things is being around people who have had too much to drink.

Anthony Tackman,

I don’t see a straw man here. Perhaps you are thinking I am accepting an analogy between alcoholism and homosexuality, but I don’t see it at all, except insofar as people see both as “sinful.” My real question is whether “sinful” people like alcoholics and homosexuals should be excluded from the Christian community or, if they are Catholic, whether they should be denied communion. Regarding alcoholics, I am thinking of those who manage to function well enough to hold a job, keep a family intact, and so on. I have known such people, and I don’t see the point of ostracizing them. As I have said a number of times previously, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, I don’t see why gay people in same-sex relationships can’t be treated almost identically to those who have married in the Church, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried without an annulment. They are, in the eyes of the Church, living in adultery, but they are no longer ostracized. They are invited to participate in parish life, although they may not receive communion.

I would not assume that every alcoholic or everyone who is addicted to drugs is capable of quitting. In fact, it seems from the statistics I have seen that the prognosis for alcoholism is poor.

Patrick,

Is alcoholism sinful? Should alcoholics not receive communion?

First and foremost, the Church proclaims that the mystery of the person, of what it means to be ‘man’ can and ultimately only can be discovered in the light of Christ, Who through His Incarnation has identified Himself with each person in a mysterious but real way. From this flows not only our proclamation of the dignity of each person from the moment of conception until natural death, but also the supernatural dignity we all have. We have been created (in the image of God) for communion with Him. We discover this in Christ. Without this ‘communion’ we have ‘nothing’.

Secondly, the Church needs to continue to reinvigorate and renew her moral teaching according to the Scriptural, Patristic and Thomist tradition which sees ‘Happiness-beatitude” and Communion as our ‘teleology’: our ‘end’, the purpose for which we have been created. Given this ‘vision’ what we want for everybody is real happiness-what could possibly be wrong with this?

In this theology: graced virtue is the focus. The Catechism itself tells us of this vision, speaking ( in the case of the Sixth Commandment: You shall not commit adultery) of an ‘apprenticeship in chastity’. In other words, to be frank: it is not enough to simply say ‘no, you shall not’ [as important as this is]. We must help all to grow in love for God and neighbor (an in this case affective conversion and chastity).

The Catholics need to have courage at the local level (diocese and parish community) of proclaiming the beauty of conjugal love which is human, total, exclusive, faithful, and generative. It is only in this light that all the rest of the Church’s teaching on sexual issues can be seen in the proper light.

In our own day, everything has become ‘politicized and sexualized’. This is a tragic development that prevents the richness of human love to express itself in other ways. For example, have those with same sex attraction or other sex attraction even heard of the beautiful tradition the Church has called “Spiritual Friendship”: deep, affective, intimate relationships between people of the opposite gender and same gender, yet not expressed genitally outside of marriage?

The New Evangelization is just beginning. I believe these aspects are an integral part of it and are desperately needed, as this latest ‘comment’ from one of the Kennedy’s shows.