Gay is a different and non-scientific term — a slang term that is used for group identity as per my previous comment. You have used gay as a race-like notion, for instance, which reinforces my point.

Despite racist criteria, there is one human race. Genetic drift does not delimit subspecies of humankind; and likewise gay identity does not delimit a subspecies of humankind. Rascist criteria — skin shades, bumps on the skull, size of nose, shape of eyes, and on — don’t do the trick either. Gay identity politics likewise does not manage it.

The gay identity may seem benign, to some, but that is irrelevant. It is not a scientific term. It is sociological and political in meaning and in use and in origin. Rather than compare it with “heterosexual” compare it with “straight” as a non-scientific term and notion.

I agree. If the Pope was a psychologist, given a random sample of data from 100 people without knowing their gender – the obviousness of how impossible it would be to determine which ones had male or female genius becomes clear.

Male and female genius are cultural productions, they are unprovable – but they function as useful constructs for cooperating with other people that also share in those ideas. (And the Pope is trying to get 1 billion people to cooperate).

A’s Letters,

It strikes me that Pope Benedict is engaging in stereotyping. Take this, for example:

In describing the “female genius,” he wrote, “She has a special capacity to show love, a delicate sensitivity to the needs of others, a special capacity for the other and understanding of inner conflicts in others.”

A great many women do not have this “female genius,” and a great many men do. The idea of the complementarity of the sexes is offensive except perhaps insofar as it refers to reproduction. It makes just about as much sense to say that men are taller than women, and so husbands and wives are complementary, because husbands can reach top shelves that wives can’t, but wives can squeeze into tight spaces that husbands can’t fit in.

If I had my way, gay would be reserved as a self-designation for those who are “same-sex attracted,” accept it, do not consider it an affliction, do not consider it shameful, and do not consider it sinful to act on it. So by that definition, not all “same-sex attracted” people would be gay. But I understand and respect Wesley Hill’s use of the word and his self-designation as a “celibate gay Christian.” I am almost finished with is book, and I recommend it highly to anyone who is interested in the issue of Christianity and homosexuality, although gay people (in my sense of the word) will disagree with Hill’s moral disapproval of homosexuality.

I think Wesley Hill is, in part, trying to reach out to gay people, and his self-labeling as gay is part of that effort. I think he also genuinely identifies with gay people on some level, though he disagrees with self-accepting gays on fundamental issues. And there is a good reason, at least some of the time, for considering gay to mean “same-sex attracted”—for example, in the case of so-called “ex-gays.” If someone who is gay goes through “reparative therapy” and claims to no longer be gay, it is a pretty silly claim if all that is meant is that he or she has gone from being self-accepting to rejecting his or her same-sex attraction. If we take self-acceptance as the difference between being gay and not gay, then someone can convert from being gay to ex-gay and back over and over and over. For me, claiming to be an ex-gay has to mean that you were once gay (otherwise how can you be ex), and it means no longer being same-sex attracted.

Pope Benedict has described the “male genius” and the “female genius” in The Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church. He wrote in regard to the “male genius” that, “Greater distance from process of gestation and birth enables him to act more calmly on behalf of life; he acts to protect life and guarantee its future; he is a father in a physical and spiritual sense and he is called to be strong, firm, reliable and trustworthy.”

In describing the “female genius,” he wrote, “She has a special capacity to show love, a delicate sensitivity to the needs of others, a special capacity for the other and understanding of inner conflicts in others.”

I would never label myself “gay”. I also doubt I will be “healed” of this struggle. Satan has found a vulnerability in me, and will likely tempt me in the same way my whole life… But God will enable me to not give in. That said, I am open to God changing my struggles and affections if He pleases.

Calling myself a “gay Christian” is like making a point of calling myself a “sinful Christian”. Just plain dumb and senseless. My struggles with SSA don’t make me “gay”. Struggling with SSA is not something to create an identity around. It sucks. It is a hard thorn. It is also not natural, and it is not the way God designed me to work. It is also an abomination to God when I sin sexually. I hardly want to make my sexual sin part of my identity.

The word “gay” quite naturally brings to mind images of sinful behavior. No thanks. I’ll stick with just calling myself a Christian.

This discussion has traveled far from the subject of the original post.

My participation is motivated by my concern for the human rights of children – to advocate for their right to a stable home with their natural parents whenever that is possible. That is not always possible, as you say, and then it is simply necessary that other arrangements must be made.

I respect adults human rights to privacy and strongly support their right to freedom from interference in their private affairs.

This series of comments represents the participants combined efforts to carry on a respectful, civil discussion. That in itself is a good thing.

A Reader,

Well, thanks . . . sort of.

But please understand I am not knocking motherhood. I am wholeheartedly in favor of it. If you will notice, I did not say R. Rick Fitzgibbons was wrong about motherhood. I said the document he cited didn’t support the case he was making.

Here’s what I would say about motherhood vs. fatherhood. Let’s set same-sex marriage aside. Suppose a married couple has young children, and the mother dies. Must the father remarry immediately to make sure his children have a mother? Should he worry that if he raises the children himself, they will be psychologically damaged? If a father loses his job and his wife has an excellent job, should the father not be a stay-at-home dad?

There are things I am sure social science studies can’t tell us, but it seems to me that people who maintain that social science studies don’t capture this or that still quote them when they think the studies support their cases.

We simply do not make decisions in our personal lives based on the findings of social science studies. Any couple entering into, say, an interracial marriage who checked studies to see if their marriage was likely to succeed would be wacky. So I am not prepared to say a man shouldn’t ever be the caregiver for a baby. It may very well be that the ideal is a woman as the primary caregiver for children in conjunction with a man to which she is married. But we can’t insist on the ideal at the expense of everything else.