No matter how "feminine" a boy may be, he can't be more feminine than a girl. And no "butch" girl need think she cannot find a male mate if she tries. "Gay" is as gay does (and "bi" is as caprice directs), and if one's nightly "lullaby" to oneself during the formative years regularly consists of degenerate fantasies involving another of the same sex, one should not be overly surprised that one's brain and preferences grow around that ideation, like vines around a tree trunk.

We are born only with nerve cells that may be stimulated. These are as they are because God in His wisdom created them that way (through evolution). What we stimulate them with, if anything, is based on experience and culture.

*And is a free-will decision.*

Love is a decision and sexual activity is a decision. If the culture says that using one's procreative energy in a non-procreative fashion is A-Okay, well, we should not be surprised if more people don't go that route.

Our Christian culture (not Obama's or Oprah's or Hollywood's) says "gay" actions (and fantasies) are *not* okay. And it would please me (misguided protests over free speech to the contrary) if all the well-meaning and "open-minded" folk in our modern culture would stop telling my children that *my* culture is outmoded and biased and wrong. Those who want to do bizarre things in the privacy of their homes or motels or bath houses), all too often with the strangest of strangers, don't seem able to keep the experience to themselves—they seem inclined to define degeneracy ever further down. Their words are poison. Their doctors should know, but not my kids.

†

The issues surrounding homosexuality have caused much discussion for years and will, no doubt continue to do so. Opinions differ vastly, depending on one's religious, social and cultural beliefs. And of course, each individual has the right to put forward his side of the argument.

One thing's for sure... society as a whole is a lot more tolerant to differences in sexual orientation than it has ever been. A 'live and let live' attitude is held by the majority of youngsters. It's certainly interesting to hear Don Roberto's take on this subject. It's an opinion that I know is shared by many, but you don't come across many wanting to share this opinion so openly.

Several points stand out:

Recognition of the truth that God has the power to make all things "work together for the good" when persons undergo great trials as they struggle to find the right way.

Recognition of the fact that in affliction great consolation can be found in art (especially I would suggest in that highest of the arts, the living of a good life).

I hope I understand correctly that Ms. Scalia means to present homosexual inclination as one among many great challenges which must be integrated and harmonized with one's more powerful orientation to God and holiness (no small challenge, needless to say).

The article wades into deep waters with the statement that persons with homosexual inclinations are a necessary part of creation or even willed by God (am I misreading here?). Does the writer mean to refer to the "eunuchs" born and chosen as referred to by St. Matthew as intended by God at the beginning of creation or does she see this condition as one of many difficult challenges resulting from our possession of free will?

Is it generous, kind, or loving to define an entire person, to categorize and label them (positively or pejoratively), based on their desires? As you illustrate, some priests are an example of subsuming one's desires into one's commitments, one's covenants, not letting a single dimension of oneself (one's desires, in this case) define the entire self. Allowing a person's desires to chase them into a lifestyle outside the protections and benefits of traditional morality does not sound, to me, kind and gracious.

And if a person is encouraged to blossom fully (which may mean pruning the sexual expressions of one's desires), there's no telling what "exceptionality" God may bring forth.

Don, you ended your remarks by suggesting that gays and lesbians talk about their orientation only to their doctors, so that your children will not have to ever hear such things.

I would venture that decent people in general would not want your children to know explicit details of other people's sex lives. Straight people and gay people alike. For that matter, I really would not be interested in learning in detail about your sexual practices, and I assume you feel the same way about mine. Christian ethics emphasize respect for a zone of privacy. Christian ethics emphasize respect for each individual's integrity as a complex human being created by God.

However, that does not mean that your children, nor mine, have a right to grow up in this world without appreciating that people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered EXIST. People who are LGBTQ do no have an obligation to hide and pretend that they, as people, do not exist. They do not have an obligation to make themselves invisible.

Should people who are gay have sex in public? Well, no -- but then, I would say the same thing about people who are straight: They really shouldn't have sex in public either. Should couples who are gay be able to hold hands in public, or exchange a quick peck on the lips (as my wife and I do on occasion)? If I am going to view people who are gay as real people, with emotions, meaningful relationships, love, etc., then I suppose the answer is yes. And I will, consequently, bring up my child to respect people's right to be who they are. Even as you, perhaps, teach your children something very different.

An article that expresses the tender , compassionate love , may be the best of God's gifts to good hearts ..yet , surprised that the role of the effects of The Fall has been omitted ..

God as love calls even the enemy as 'my wrath ' , respects its freedom and lets it do what it does , when invited in by our choices , until it gets checked by our choice to turn hearts to Him again ..

In my own limited may be awareness of the reasons for these disordered ways , the prime cause could be effects of immorality - by no means , not directly in the parents but in the general culture even ..for we are one body and good or bad , it can have effects in general ...those involved in deliverance ministry and such , with enough experinces in how even houses and objects can get attachments from agents of evil ..

Would even taking in scenes of immorality through media be enough , to set things disordered !

As antidote for such , the Father bond that can be better instilled , may be by better efforts in The Church possibly has not been looked enough into !

'If you have seen Me, you have seen The Father ' ..such a deep embrace and identity in the fulness of Father love would most likley leave no room , for lusting after other rmen ..

and who knows , a Michealangelo , restored to what The Father had intended him to be , would have drawn an image of The Father, not like that of an old man ..and thus would have moved The Church long ago , into a healthier relationship in that critical realm ..

Would love a study of many afflicted , sitting days , in front of the crucifix , absorbing in The Father love that flows as The Spirit , into our Lord, esp. during The Passion ..immersing in same again , in front of The Eucharist ..and gazing at the Icon of Mercy ..to erase out any and all negative images ..thus being able to call on His Name , with ardent longing , at every occasion of enemy induced thoughts ...and on behalf of many others who also need same ..

'Creation is longing for the revelation of the children of God ' and the freedom there of ...to be all that men and women can be , true to their God given identity ..

Thus , the afflicted are special ..like any other afflicted , that need to bring out the best in the rest ,as to what measures to bring to use ..and such an effort seems to be more critical for our times !

May be the glory of The Church will be revealed even better , by establishing a Feast Day, in honor of The Father ...and inviting in The Mother love , into all hearts , by inviting her as Mother of all !

Of course, secularists are supporters of homosexuals. They know perfectly well they are very, very productive people: very capable actors, interior decorators.

And of course, many priests and bishops are homosexuals too.

DR is right. Being "gay" is a social construct, a behavioral choice and not a state of nature. All manner of deviant sexual urges exist and require either that we resist or give in to them. Even monogamy is largely a matter of will and social pressures.

I am one who, after 3 decades as a practicing psychologist, has concluded that homosexual impulses are one of the various crosses that we humans are forced to carry. My compassion for those who suffer from homosexual inclinations is deep, and deepest for those who give in to such desires, live the associated lifestyles, and suffer the psychological pain that usually comes with them. It's my impression that those who cope by choosing celibacy or just swallowing hard and acting as heterosexually as they can have it easier, in general, than those who "come out," exchanging one prison for another that seems to me to be even harder to endure.

Then there is the sad apparent fact that, by trying to normalize the acting out of homosexual impulses, we have sparked the proliferation of that behavior and the associated pathologies, emotional and medical, that tend to accompany them.

No, I think the problem is probably simpler than the author suggests: we are all fallen, and the question for each of us is how we best cope with that sad fact, as individuals and as a culture.

Wow! Has anybody on First Things ever written an article that's so pro-gay? I can't wait to see the reaction. Thanks Elizabeth Scalia.

   My favorite unexceptional person is St. Joseph, a carpenter whose many works of wood have vanished and have no place in any museum of the world.  We have no wooden wheel nor table nor chairs that he made...nor did he grow his business into a chain of successful outlets like Ace Hardware.  In secret he was exceptional...but that's a long Christian story.
   But in the modern American Idol/ Iron Chef/ Hilton- Kardashian world, Joseph was not exceptional.  To use Joseph Heller's phrase as to this world's estimations... from Catch 22, "even among men lacking all distinction...he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest.". The Roman centurion gets more praise from Christ in the gospel than Joseph gets...but is that everything....is Scripture exhaustive besides being true?
    But I'll add....who's laughing now?  Joseph is...precisely.  Aquinas said we'll diversely glow in the resurrected state paralleling our true extent of hidden glory in God's estimation as to how we did as wayfarers.  All Joseph's chairs and tables and  doorposts are gone...his hidden passing of various tests of God however glow in heaven so bright, we'll think him a star at first if we endure and join him.
    So if exceptional means that homosexuals do great dance or interior design work, that's Joseph's chairs and tables.  They'll vanish.  Dance unlike sculpture is accustomed to vanishing at performance's end anyway.
     But if a gay experiences gayness as cross each day and rejects its elaboration further and into sexual acts, and this cross leads him as I recently sensed in a gay Catholic...leads him into a spiritus lenitatis...Merton's softheartedness of the advanced monk, well then....we are facing the exceptional alright.  We are facing sainthood born of a greater cross-bearing than normal.  The Christian gay who lives chastely is perhaps one of the most powerful signings from God possible about virtue because his temptation and his victory are exceptional and beyond the ordinary.

Re: "not everyone will be so keen to applaud the idea of sexual exceptionalism . . ."

Count me as one of the ones not--quite--applauding! Here's why.

I think the number of "truly" gay people is much lower than we (we moderns, we Americans) now think. Even assuming that there is a gay gene (and that is as yet nothing but an assumption), there are still two factors confusing the issue.

First, our behavior and experiences shape us far more than we realize. Abuse, rejection, previous experiences/experiments with the gay lifestyle--all contribute to forming a person who, although he might be genetically "neutral" or even heterosexual, feels and thinks like someone genetically gay would feel and think. But what can be formed can also be unformed.

Second, there is a great deal of confusion in our society about what love is. Friendship and affection used to be acknowledged as powerful and distinct emotions in their own right; now, friendship and affection are often regarded merely as signs of sexual attraction. A guy who has unusually strong friendships with guys (or a girl with girls) who in a previous age would have thought of himself as normal, and gotten married and had children in the normal way, and been happy doing so, is now encouraged to look on his friendships with men as signs of a certain kind of "interest".

Along those same lines, with regard to the arts--. It used to be the case that a man who dressed well, read good books, had good manners, etc., was considered to be a real man--the best sort of man, actually--a gentleman. Now, a guy who admits to knowing too much about culture runs the risk of being judged "metro". I don't think this is a reasonable judgment, however; it's a prejudice of our era. One might as well say that traditionally "macho" activities (soldiering and sailoring) are "metro" because soldiers and sailors have sometimes engaged in homosexual activity. (Sparta, anyone?)

Why do I bring this up? Because I think that while it is important for Catholics to protect the lives of all people, and to acknowledge God's love for EVERYONE, even those who seem most terribly wounded, I also think that it is a tragic mistake to simply assume that certain conditions are common, natural (albeit disfunctionally so), and all but untreatable, when they are really the products of our culture's worship of diversity and non-judgmentalism.

We don't look at cleft palate surgery as a sign of non-love for the person with a cleft palate, or cancer treatment as a sign of hatred for the cancer victim. Why should attempts to prevent or cure homosexuality (in cases were homosexuals want to be cured) be any different?

Thanks you for another beautiful essay, Ms. Scalia. I suppose First Things has published more of my poems than any other contributor. God put me here and made me gay to relieve me of the responsibility of procreation and to praise in meter and rhyme creation and the majesty of my Maker. My partner of 37 years, Alan Sullivan, was another regular contributor here. Here is a visit the Blessed John Paul made to me the night of his death. The third time the dream recurred I woke with the entire poem in my head.

Agáp

The night you died, I dreamed you came to camp
to hear confession from an Eagle scout
tortured by forty years of sin and doubt.
You whispered Vespers by a hissing lamp.

Handlers, allowing you to hike with me,
followed us to the Bad Axe waterfront
down a firebreak this camper used to hunt.
Through all I said you suffered silently.

I blamed the authors of my unbelief:
St. Paul, who would have deemed my love obscene,
the Jesuit who raped me as a teen,
the altar boy when I was six, the grief

of a child chucked from Eden, left for dead
by Peter’s Church and all the choirs above.
In a thick Polish accent choked with love,
Te Dominus amat was all you said.

@bill bannon - WOW! What an exceptional insight. Thanks

I weary of condemning sins that do not tempt me. My insight is of very little value. I have too many planks in my eyes. However, if you want to discuss sins such as alcohol abuse, I'm your man. Hypocrisy? Yep, I know about that, too. If you want to talk about heterosexual sin, count me in. So here goes...

Heterosexual sin is, in many ways, far more destructive than anything gay men and women might do. Heterosexual acts sow the seeds for abortion, unloved children, and pain that can last generations. Our house needs cleaning, my friends. Let's start with our own room.

You carry your crosses, you don't celebrate them, you don't allow them to define you!

Alcoholic, rapist, pedaphile, glutton, violent, sex or drug addict, homosexual, mean, selfish,

I have a violent temper, celebrate my specialness - God made me this way, so it must be for a good reason for society and me? No, it's a cross for me to bear - and not for others to bear!

I wonder -- what if the "other" comes first?
What if a chlid grows up with a feeling of being different, separate -- maybe something along the autism spectrum. But "other" is not allowed in a culture where parents openly seek conformity for their kids, uniformity of thought, class, dress, style, believe, manner.
So they seek a way that they can belong to an accepted group. And now that "gay" is socially acceptable, they go there because no matter what other "otherness" you have going, as long as you are "same" in that you are gay you are part of the conforming group.
Once there, habits and patterns reinforce the sexuality part.

Ms. Scalia's article is, I believe, a case of personal experience and natural sympathy for a loved one clouding one's moral judgment. In respect of the question of homosexuality I think women are far more subject to this risk than men. Indeed, I think this is one of the strongest reasons for the tremendous success of the homosexual cultural agenda in the last twenty years. It could not have happened without the support of women who share the views of Ms. Scalia.

Homosexuality is about behavior and not about some amorphous concept of self or "otherness". Homosexuals are identical to non-homosexuals in that each group has inclinations to sin; different sins, perhaps, but sin nonetheless. Conflating one's sense of "self" with one's particular brand of concupiscence is a formula for ameliorating one's sinful inclinations.

I respect Ms. Scalia for disclosing her relevant personal history in the article. It explains much and was honest and forthright of her.

It wasn't the comment made by Larry Kramer that had me rolling my eyes but the reaction from the crowd.

I was reminded of a moment ten years ago when I was having a discussion with a work colleague about weddings and marriage. She told me quite effusively that the wedding of two of her gay friends was "more meaningful and more special than any straight or religious wedding" she had ever attended because "...you just knew that they were getting married for all the right reasons."

It reminded me of the many times a friend of mine has told me that her transsexual gynecologist is just so more sensitive, attune, and aware than any other doctor she has had. My friend also makes sure to add everytime when mentioning this doctor that the doctor is transsexual.

It brings to mind all the times I have heard or been told by people "You need someone to talk to? Talk to J. He's gay. He's a fabulous listener." "You want help with that project? Get H. He's gay. He's a whiz with colour choice." "You need volunteers? Get M. He's gay. He has such a big heart."

I find all of these generalizations very irksome. I also find the romanticizations nauseating.

My friends who also happen to be gay are special people: special people to me. They are special people because they are my friends. They are not special people because they are gay. I did not become friends with them because they are gay. And you know what? Some of these "special" people can be "especially" ignorant, intolerant, prejudiced, hurtful, and just plain HUMAN.

Is this the pendulum factor? Do so many people turn certain groups, causes, actions into idols and place them on a pedestal now because for so long these very same groups, causes, and actions were seen or treated in a terrible light?

Unfortunately, in this case, when Kramer uses the word "special', whether he means it or not, whether he realizes it or not, "special" comes across as "better" or "superior."

I thank you for this article, Ms. Scalia. You wade bravely into deep and treacherous waters, indeed.

Like you, I have close family members who are homosexual, and so the demands of love and human dignity are pressed home more directly than if I didn't, as well as the full dissonance of 'love the sinner, hate the sin'.

Of course, the 'nature/nurture' argument, as it pertains to homosexuality, has been raging for a very long time, and no doubt will rage for a long time to come. Myself, I tend to incline to the 'nurture' side of the argument, but the salient point, whichever is True, is that homosexual persons, just like you and me, are (a) made in the image and likeness of God, and (b) fallen/broken, whether by their own choices, their parents' choices, or the general 'corruption of the Universe', owing to sin and the Fall; or all of the above.

God's design and purpose for human sexuality seems clear enough, and Christian teaching on sexual morality is what it has always been. And so, persons afflicted with same-sex attraction who live lives of chastity and continence deserve the respect and encouragement of Christian people.

I think it behooves us to be very clear that homosexual sins are not inherently more disgusting or offensive to God than heterosexual ones, no matter what visceral feelings they might provoke in us. And, as we would want a measure of grace and mercy shown to us as we struggle with our own besetting sins, so it behooves us to show a measure of grace and mercy to those who struggle with homosexuality while striving to live a Christian life.

In a related vein, it is also worth asking, from a purely social persepctive, whether homosexuality is a greater evil (ie, more destructive of the social order and harmony) than, say, adultery or divorce. Why don't adultery and/or divorce inspire the kind of visceral revulsion that homosexuality does, when (it seems clear) that their destructive effects on the lives of those they touch are so much greater?

Anyway, thanks again, Ms. Scalia. Good, thought-provoking stuff. . .

Alex wrote: "Wow! Has anybody on First Things ever written an article that's so pro-gay? I can't wait to see the reaction. Thanks Elizabeth Scalia."

Alex is correct. On this issue, she writes in an unprecedented way about sexual perversion. Neither the authors of Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, nor the doctors, nor the saints support her. On this question (unlike so many others), she is not speaking like a follower of Christ, whose zeal for the temple of His Father consumed him--and who calls us to have zeal for the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The distinction between having a homosexual orientation and homosexual acts has to be made. If you then ponder why God would create something dysfunctional, it is just the old problem of evil. Some babies are born without limbs; some are born to immediately die. Did God create them that way for a purpose, the purpose of teaching other people something? Does God "love into being" (I just threw up a little when typing that) the damned in order to teach others something?

As a Catholic with Asperger's Syndrome, I know what it's like to be born with a biological tendency toward sinful behavior. My brain formed in a way that mutes sympathy. The word "autism" plays off the ancient Greek word for "self" because autistic persons exhibit egocentric thinking, even as they act with kindness.

The best summary of Asperger's that I have read compares the disorder to being a foreigner in one's own land. We are perpetually "other". Because we are good at mimickry, we continue to feel this separation even when it is not apparent to the people around us. I imagine gays feel similarly.

I can draw two relevant conclusions from my experience.

First, being "other" has its benefits, both for the individual and for the society around him or her. Even liberals understand the value of an outside perspective.

Autistic individuals can aid more-normal people by offering insights into culture and human nature because we experience those things both from without and within. Our culture is changing rapidly and needs such perspectives. Aspies also tend to be blunt and honest — just what a culture sick with political correctness needs.

Likewise, homosexuals help us to understand and force us to reflect on the differences between the sexes. Since the feminization of our culture and the loss of respect for roles in general, this aid is sorely needed. And, because their borderline androgen levels lead to brain formation somewhere between the typical patterns of male and female, gays are often able to utilize the strengths of both (so they often make good artists, architects, and so on).

Second, homosexuals have a rare advantage in understanding someone else who suffered from otherness: Jesus Christ. No matter how well loved Jesus was, He was ever aware that His friends and family could not fully understand Him. Everyone experiences this to some degree, of course. But Jesus, like gays, was surely reminded of this separation more often than most.

I should also point out that everyone understands what it is like to be born with inclinations to particular sins (apart from original sin). Some people have short tempers or little patience. Some have powerful sex drives, while others have little drive to do anything at all. Much of one's personality is influenced, if not defined, by individual genetic inheritance. We all struggle to resist our own biological nature.

Persons with greater temptations are called to greater sacrifice. We should recognize our burdens as gifts, and show sympathy to those with greater burdens while remaining careful never to discourage them from facing those challenges.

"On this issue, she writes in an unprecedented way about sexual perversion. Neither the authors of Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, nor the doctors, nor the saints support her. On this question (unlike so many others), she is not speaking like a follower of Christ, whose zeal for the temple of His Father consumed him--and who calls us to have zeal for the temple of the Holy Spirit. "

You're assuming a lot about what I'm saying. If you re-read the last three paragraphs, you may understand that -- while I am looking for permission to "wonder" I am also making it clear that homosexuals must also be ready to wonder and sacrifice, and obey, etc...

But I did expect gritted teeth coming from both directions, today! :-)

With reference to the comments by CKG and David (as well as others above) I believe it might be helpful to go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see the Vatican's official website for the current English translation). I quote Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6. The paragraphs following come under the heading "Chastity and homosexuality."

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[141: Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[142: CDF, Persona humana 8] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

"2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Hope that helps!

@BurgoFitzgerald: you make a great point. We need to be uncomfortable with the idea that any group treated as "other" at a given time is somehow "exceptional." I think Kramer meant "special" when he said "exceptional"; I've heard feminists say the same about women, various ethnic groups say it about their "people." It's always a misguided, if understandable, attempt for a disparaged group to elevate themselves.

I must take issue with one point made by Ms. Scalia, when she writes of purpose. The way this paragraph is worded makes it sound as if the Church says that homosexuals themselves are disordered, when in fact it is the desire (and the act) that is disordered. Certainly God has loved all of us into being, but Ms. Scalia is suggesting that this particular kind of "otherness" is an intrinsic, willed-by-God aspect of some people's nature. As her own article suggests elsewhere, I don't think we know enough about sexual identity to make that call (and as DR's posts rightly points out, I don't think we're really willing to talk about the real complexities of sexual identity). Nonetheless, I want to thank Ms. Scalia for being willing to wade into deep waters and for another thought-provoking and thoughtful article.

I do not understand what this article is saying.  It's too cryptic. 

@ Sophia Mason (9:09)

Thank you. I was thinking of exactly that passage from the Catechism, but alas, I have neglected to keep an extra copy in my desk at work. So thanks for providing the reference.

@Sendall, No, no priests or bishops who are keeping their vows are homosexual; they are celebate.

"I believe it might be helpful to go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see the Vatican's official website for the current English translation). "

It always amazes me how many people on both sides of this issue appear to have never taken this very basic step.

Thank you for this compassionate, thoughtful article, that articulates much of my own experience; I am a homosexual man in his mid-twenties who affirms the Church's teaching. As others have noted, the "exceptionalism" does exist, though it comes with the territory of being different, an outsider, rather than from any inherent talents or virtues. The simple condition of having an inverted sexuality makes one stand out and interact differently to events and people than otherwise, just as it does for those with Down Syndrome or Asperger's or any other condition, and that is a scary and somewhat lonely state to be in.

To my mind and understanding, same-sex attraction is born mostly of nurture, of events and relationships in infancy and very early childhood, though some people may be genetically predisposed; that is, they may be more susceptible to developing same-sex attraction than others. It's interesting, and perhaps not surprising, that those of the more sensitive, empathetic, artistic temperament seem more vulnerable to such childhood trauma.

Nonetheless, God can and does bring unbounded good out of evil, and in this sense I fervently agree that God has a purpose for same-sex attraction. Like any other struggle, it can perfect and strengthen us for union with Him. For example, I think that my own experience has given me a deeper sympathy and understanding for all outsiders, has actually deepened and strengthened relationships with friends and family, and has, after years of hedonism, depression, and false love, brought me to know the true love of God.

I ask for the prayers of all here for myself and all those who struggle for chastity, and especially for our brothers and sisters who live the gay lifestyle without knowing or admitting the harm that it does them. Please love the sinner as you very rightly hate the sin; as Chesterton said, every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God.

Peter
Wonderful post...prayers for sure and not just briefly today.

Peter wrote: "having an inverted sexuality makes one stand out and interact differently to events and people than otherwise, just as it does for those with Down Syndrome or Asperger's or any other condition, and that is a scary and somewhat lonely state to be in."

What a true statement, but I think, after reading this piece by Mark Shea, where he equates homosexuality with another thorn in the flesh, gluttony, it strikes me that all of us live in a "scary and somewhat lonely state" whether we're dealing with any of those issues, or alcoholism, etc...we are all in our own hard paths, carrying our crosses. Thank God for Jesus.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/concupiscence-is-not-a-sin

"Born this way" (as Lady Gaga intends it) has less to do with genetics than blame. "If God didn't want me to [your sin here] He wouldn't have created me like this" is a common immature rationalization.

The concept of original sin is the only way that an all good, all powerful, Creator can be reconciled with our obviously imperfect existence. We are all made sinners by the fall and the abuse of our freewill. The sin part of us cannot be ascribed to God or else God is not all good. Even if a 'gay gene' is found, the temptation to homosexuality must be seen like every other temptation, a product of our original collusion with Satan. If it's not than God is to blame and we have no freewill or culpability.

Better to say 'the devil made me do it' than blaspheme by implying 'God made me do it.'

Ms. Scalia says she is merely wondering. I wonder myself. I wonder if she wonders whether God created any other inclination toward perversion (sexual or otherwise) to teach the rest of us. I doubt it.

No clergy responses today?

Barry, the point was: God cannot create perversions. He is all good and all loving. Unfortunately for us God is not the only creative being in our universe.

Many think that the devil can be dismissed in this day and age. To the devil's delight our pride makes us too sophisticated and 'educated' to see his work in the world. So we end up confused about the origins of our sufferings.

When attempting to navigate 'deep waters' it is sometimes necessary to consult ancient maps. The deep mysteries of freewill and pride revealed in Genesis are the only true explanations we have for our estrangement from God.

Liz,
What is unique to Peter's temptation however is that within a heterosexual, if the sexual urge is very demanding, they can avail themselves per I Corinthians 7 of marriage..."it is better to marry than to burn". The gay Catholic has no such remedy ordinarily although there are those who have successfully changed to opposite gender attraction ...unless in some cases complex genetic forces are at work and unalterable as in possibly (I don't know) some cases of chimera.
PS....if it's any help, I took your "planned" into being concept of gays in such a way as to exclude their forbidden actions. God willed Judas into being with any moments of his that were good as when he threw back the money....He did not will his subsequent failure to trust that he Judas was continuing to be willed into existence by God. The suicide came wholly from Judas...though it was foreseen by Christ.
I think our poster above... Peter... was planned and loved into being...minus his active sinful and depressing season.

Craig Roberts writes in response to my comment: “Barry, the point was: God cannot create perversions. He is all good and all loving. Unfortunately for us God is not the only creative being in our universe.”

No Craig, you are wrong here. Ms. Scalia makes her point clear enough when she elucidates her “theory”: “I have a theory that our gay brothers and sisters are, in fact, planned, loved-into-being “necessary others,” and that they are meant to show us something of God from a perspective that we cannot otherwise broach.”

The inclination toward homosexual sin is far from “necessary.” It is as contingent as the fall. Does Ms. Scalia believe that those with the inclination toward man-boy rape are “planned, loved-into-being ‘necessary others.’” I bet you dollars to donuts she does not. Why is does she favor one inclination to perversion over another, similar in many ways, inclination to perversion? Her reasoning seems to be as simple as, “I’ve known a lot of nice homosexuals and they sure are talented aren’t they. So God must have made them the way they are on purpose.” Well, I’m sure there are a lot of otherwise nice and talented pedophiles. So what doesn’t she swim in those deep waters? Because our culture celebrates the former and still (mostly) condemns the latter.

I hope Ms. Scalia’s article is merely a one-time aberration from FT’s otherwise laudable efforts to engage the culture from a Biblically informed perspective. If not, if it is a harbinger of things to come, the cancelation of my subscription will surely follow.

This is why the debate over homosexuality turns to whether one’s sexual orientation is a matter of choice or a condition of birth. A somewhat easy case can be made for heterosexual orientation as a natural condition of birth. The categories of male and female have never changed in any place at any time. We all know that without heterosexuality, we would cease to exist as a race.

Occasionally someone will ask me if I chose to be heterosexual. The aim of the question is to trace the origins of sexual orientation. But even if I could prove that I was born genetically preconditioned to be sexually attracted to women, it wouldn’t mean that acting on the attraction would always be the ethically right decision.

Answering source questions for behaviors will not necessarily lead to moral assessments of those actions. Morality has to do with right and wrong; source questions are more complex. Sources behind behavior could include genetic, cultural, experiential and social contributors. But sources cannot force me to behave in a certain way. They can exercise strong influence over me but, in the end, I must choose to act in relation to those influences. I see things this way based on a high regard for human dignity. And this means that I must look elsewhere for deciding matters of right and wrong.

Consider, as an example, an adulterous woman who complains that her act of adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband. Sympathy toward her for being in a troubled marriage is understandable but it doesn’t mean that her act of adultery was the morally right choice.

If a pedophile feels driven to his behavior from what he identifies as a natural urge of genetic origin, or if he argues that he has a wonderful nurturing relationship with the children he sexually molests, we cannot approve his behavior on either account. No matter what reason he offers, his sexual conduct must be condemned as morally reprehensible. He must be held morally culpable for his sexual choices.

When resolving ethical and legal questions, a person’s choice must be considered as a primary factor in sexual conduct. Arguments for sexuality based on genetic predisposition do not advance discussions about right or wrong or what is best for a society. It is possible to be physiologically inclined toward many different types of behavior. But we must be very careful about using such impulses to define personhood or to justify behavioral choices.

I do not think it is best to speak of any type of sexual desire outside of the context of human choosing. And it is especially misleading to compare civil rights battles regarding race and gender to battles for sexuality. This is a false comparison that removes human choosing from sexual behavior. It also gives people the misleading impression that those who desire certain sexual lifestyles face mistreatment comparable to the wrongful ways African-Americans were treated during the civil rights battles. This is a highly offensive comparison and using it to gain support for sexual lifestyles is a form of emotional manipulation. If people are wrongly treated because of lawful sexual lifestyles, there are sufficient existing laws to provide protection for them. Creating new laws to support sexual lifestyles is unwise and sets a dangerous legal precedent.

A society that intends to condemn certain forms of sexual conduct as illegal (i.e. rape, incest, child pornography, etc), must treat sexuality in the context of human choosing– not as a predetermined condition.

see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/the-strategy-for-gay-marriage-is-working/

On another topic just as interesting to me, why do people automatically assume that anyone named Elizabeth automatically wants to be called "Liz"?

Peter @ 10:09. Thank you for such an honest and thoughtful post. You are in my prayers. Please think of me as well. God bless you.

People close to me are doing sexual things that are hurting them. I can't take them aside and tell them to stop what they're doing - I don't know how to tell them without them hating me for it. But if someone runs towards the end of a cliff at full speed and you do nothing to stop them, what will the Master say to me when it comes my time to stand before the Truth? Will I be condemned by by silence because I did not have the guts to explain to them that what they are doing is leading them straight to Hell? And do the ones who are hurting themselves by their homosexual and heterosexual sins ever lay awake at night truly scared that this will lead to their eternal ruin? Does their conscience ever crop up and speak to them? Or have they successfully buried that voice because they choose not to listen? This breaks my heart.

This article provokes both profound thought and powerful emotion, as is evidenced by the responses I have read. I have found something to agree with in virtually every response, as I was by turns drawn and repelled by the article itself. This piece, and the responses to it, embody the many reasons I read First Things.

Whoa Barry...sorry for the confusion. I was not presuming to make Elizabeth Scalia's point for her. I was referring to my point in the prior post...which I don't think you read. *sorry!*

What does the phrase "gay community" signify? All gays? If a gay person lives in New York, is he or she still part of the "gay community" in San Francisco or Atlanta?

Speaking of "the otherness," have you heard of the "Hunky Jesus Contest" held in San Francisco at Easter?
Here's some video of the event in 2011, should you be interested in the depravity (in the video a transvestite says you will need a sense of humor):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKUQI9RAD60

Ms. Scalia has a lot to learn about "secularists" if she thinks that the word is synonymous with eugenics.

Secularists - or at least atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. - have no problem accepting homosexual behavior as normal and natural, because it occurs naturally. Other species show homosexual behavior, and human beings show homosexual behavior. Matters of procreation are entirely moot as well, which is why we differenciate between genotype and phenotype.

What procreational incentive does a worker ant have to providing for the queen? Genetics are a lot more complicated than some facile dedication to progeny.

Homosexuals, therefore, are no different in the secular eye than heterosexuals. It's not a big deal, and no one deserves to be discriminated against because of it.

God does not create "others" whom we may dehumanize and patronize and condescend to in our own preening efforts to showcase our own personal holiness.

This article is ridiculous. Gay people are not something "other". They're just people like everybody else. That's all.

But, hey, if I were to go with this, um, "theory", mabye God made black people "other"...maybe God made Latinos "other". Maybe God made indigenous peoples "other"...maybe God made everyone but straight white heterosexual Catholics "other", therefore I can use them as I see fit. Or destroy them. Or abuse them. Or enslave them. Or deny them basic human rights. And so on...all in the name of my personal holiness, natch...

@Anonymous
If a 'gay gene' is discovered, should "secularists" defend a women who claims the right to abort a gay baby?

Thank you for your comments, Elizabeth Scalia. I found them helpful, have commented on my blog in a provisional way, but I would certainly say that similar questions are ongoing for me.

Thanks very much, Elizabeth, for this article. The issues you raise are very close to those explored by the Catholic priest and theologian James Alison. Increasingly, indeed one might say conclusively, science is demonstrating homosexuality to be simply a part of what is, or, to borrow Alison's formulation, a "non-pathological minority variant in the human condition." Thus, the question "is it true?" becomes increasingly unavoidable as the response to the understanding of human sexuality that underlies the Catechism's designation of homosexuality as "objectively disordered." And thus, the question for theology (also pointed to in your article) becomes, what is the appropriate shape of flourishing for homosexuals? To see how Alison raises and explores these questions, see, for example, his wonderful "Letter to a Young Gay Catholic," which is available in full here: http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng52.html.

Alison draws upon, and develops, the work of Rene Girard (esp. his work on mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism) as an especially productive way into the question and function of what you call here "otherness." A fascinating approach to pressing questions on the cutting edge of Catholic theology!

It really is an unexpected delight to find this serious, loving, honest treatment of the question of homosexuality here at First Things. Again, thank you Elizabeth!

Elizabeth -- I appreciate the thoughtful article. Though I have no one in my family whom I believe is gay, I have often wondered about some of the same things as you.

I like what someone wrote above, that we have enough to be concerned about our own sins then to be self-righteous about those of others. Jesus wasn't quoted anywhere on the subject of homosexuality -- but he did have something to say about divorce. Divorce used to be a source of deep shame; now, not so much, and it is as pervasive in the Christian community as in the population at large. But then, our own sins seem so tolerable compared to those of others...

Uh, then you wonder why God called what they were doing a sin and prohibited it in His scriptures. Can sin be created to perform a necessary role?

@Barry

According to Paul's letter to the Romans (Rom 1:26), God gives man over to dishonorable passions because man has dishonored God. Paul mentions homosexuality, but implies other perversions are included. And, yes, God did intend for the punishment to be didactic.

I'm sure most everyone here will know these verses already. But some might not.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable' (Leviticus 18:22)

Romans 1: [26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Like the author, I too have seen both sides of the gay/straight equation. My nephew, who was straight, contacted AIDS from using injectable drugs in the 1970's and my mothers boss who was gay died unexpectedly in the mid 80's from AIDS--no one even knew he was gay, until the funeral. In my medical environment where I see HIV/AIDS patients most of which were infected ten to twenty years ago, have done quite well with the newer drugs out there and will probably live to be quite old before they pass on. My only quarrel with the new technology of trying to find a "cure" or a "vaccine" for AIDS, knowing that both have consumed enormous amounts of money to achieve marginal success. Especially troubling is finding a vaccine, which to me is not only wasteful of our money, it just doesn't make sense. AIDS is not a measles or mumps or any other communicable disease. In fact, HIV is a very preventable disease except those individuals who accidentally obtain HIV from a known source, e.g. blood transfusions, accidental sticks, etc. If gay people want to be free from the effects of these diseases then it would make more sense in not having sex, much like a hetero couple not having sex when a partner has herpes, same rules apply. The inordinate power of the gay community in the face of the news cycle has prolonged the obvious: homosexual sex is not safe, no matter how many vaccines or cures there are. The virus will replicate and overcome the science, it has already performed that unique act many times in the past.

Am I ignorant for thinking that the pressure to be in a sexual relationship by the time one is 20 may contribute to people engaging in homosexual activity (especially men)?

An unfortunate and emotional article about a very serious social problem in our time with many trying to justify homosexuality merely on emotional feelings. The problem is really very basic in that Christ our Lord gave us a prime directive to live by, and we insist on not following it for numerous reasons. The prime directive is simply: love God above everything, and your neighbor as yourself. I find that armed with this prime directive every situation can be easily resolved, since:
1- if I indeed love God, I will make it a point to follow what He has revealed to us in the scriptures and through his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and,
2- secondly to lovely neighbor I must always remember that love must necessarily start by my respecting him and the freedom, for good and evil, that God has given him.
3- Last of all I must love myself, that is all the good that God created me to achieve in this life, and for which he gives me new graces every new day to grow closer to Him.
So I don't see how we cannot simply follow what the catechism of the Church indicates, and instead play around with an article that creates confusion where there should be no confusion.
Last of all, I am not supposed to judge anyone, so I hope in our Lord's mercy, as amply demonstrated in his passion and death on the cross, for all of us sinners, that those dealing with homosexuality, just like the rest of us will get a fair trial in the end.
But if I love sinners no one can expect that I will love the sin or make room for it; no, the Lord will hold us responsible if we confirm them their sin.
This means that we have to be ready to face the legal persecutions that many of these pro homosexuality laws will bring about, as already evident in Canada and Europe, and pray that we receive the grace to join the ranks of the many confessors that have preceded us, and died rather than submitting to Caesar's will.
With St Francis I wish Peace and Good to all!

Thinking of St. Paul’s list in Romans, I’ve seen malice destroy lives. And fornication, avarice certainly, envy, murder, and deceit, etc.

But frankly, I’ve never seen homosexuality itself destroy anyone’s life. When I think of the lesbians or gay men I know whose lives have been destroyed, there’s always some other sin involved—malice, fornication, right down St. Paul’s list.

Homosexuality is often presented as a gateway to other sin and vice, but as I continue to meet more and more homosexuals, especially young homosexuals who are far removed from the seventies scene whose hedonism so dramatically shaped gay culture, the clearer it becomes that homosexuality is just ordinary humanity, complex, prone to sin, but no more inherently sinful than heterosexuality.

Surely, the best response to Edward Alleyn's catalogue of condemnatory quotes above is that offered in the widely circulated open letter to Laura Schlesinger, which seems worth repeating in this context:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

SC says: This is why the debate over homosexuality turns to whether one’s sexual orientation is a matter of choice or a condition of birth.

SC, while I concur with most of the points you made, I think the real debate over homosexuality turns on whether sexual orientation is an intellectually honest and useful concept, or merely a stalking horse for transgression's apologists, which begs the question of determinism and moral impunity being posed against Judeo-Christian culture's proclamation of human freedom and moral agency.

I find it fascinating that Romans 1 has an extremely long list of sins, but it is never cited to condemn fornication, pride, avarice, or envy. It's only cited for its two verses on homosexuality.

I quoted from Frank J. Matera's book _Romans_ (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament) recently, and it's worth repeating:

---------------------------------
. . . .Paul’s own attitude toward these sexual relationships, be they between adults and minors or between adults and adults, is clear.

The more difficult question today is the hermeneutical issue: What is the authority of Paul’s remark about such relations. For some, this is not and issue. For others, the text raises questions about a phenomenon whose biological and social origins are not fully understood. In my view, further discussion will do well to recognize the following.

• First, Paul’s own position about same-sex relations is clear.
• Second, the example of same-sex relations plays a rhetorical role in Paul’s argument in Romans, and his discussion of such relations is not the main point of the passage.
• Third, while Paul opposed such relationships, they do not otherwise play a significant role in his writings. Other forms of behavior such as greed and strife are condemned more regularly.
• Fourth, Paul’s discussion of same-sex relations occurs in a context that emphasizes all are under the power of sin and have fallen short of God’s glory (3:9, 23). Consequently, no one is in a position to condemn others, for all are in need of God’s saving grace. The most prudent course of action in the present time, then, is to treat all with compassion, aware that only God is in a position to judge another person.
---------------------------------
(I have broken the text into paragraphs and added bullets for readability.)

The "novelty' of gay recognition and acceptance by "society" in this article is overdone. One just needs to study ancient pagan societies e.g. sodom and gomorrah to note that being gay was not only recognized by that society but was the standard then. Homosexuality was only repressed with the earlier religions. Today's gay recognition is only a remake of primitive culture. I think the novelty is more on the re-packaging of that acceptance.

I am always astonished to discover that most people who can accept variation in almost any other aspect of being human, cannot - quite - accept variation in sexual orientation, but instead will refer back to scripture to support their belief, which we would not use to guide our thinking in for example astronomy, chemistry, geology, etc

Homosexuals are still humans. Being "born that way" or "it's a choice" kind of thing, it's their life however we shouldn't deprived them of the respect they are entitled to as a human being. If they are happy that way, then let's accept and respect that. I know a lot of homosexuals and they are really wonderful people.

"Secularists - or at least atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. - have no problem accepting homosexual behavior as normal and natural, because it occurs naturally."

I don't think history supports you on this claim.

David of the Leviticus quotes
Much of the Old Testament law is void for Christians because the laws either had hidden prophetic meanings...or they were ritualistic prior to grace. God will explain them to you right after you die and show you why they had to be that way at that time. All you're doing is storing up wrath for your afterlife by deriding them on the internet. Are the jollies worth it?

Romans chapter one however is in the New Testament and says that gay actions are against nature. Two different covenants.

Slavery actually took place in Old Testament nomadic cultures partly partly...because there were no prisons.....and because mere survival sometimes made it preferable to death. The no prison part is why there are passages about beating a fool or a slave. Imagine if your local government had no prison so it gave you a guy who was arrested for repeated disturbing of the peace. He now becomes a slave on your farm and you have to feed him but he constantly goofs off and
doesn't work. That where passages like "a rod for the back of fools" comes in.
Even in the US, slavery was awful in many areas but not in all areas. Ghetto moms right now who have lost one or more sons to gunfire on the modern streets would have lost no sons to death in some more benign plantation settings. Elderly black women who have been raped or murdered for several dollars this past year
would have fared better on the more benign plantations than on our modern US streets.
But again...deriding scripture is not a good idea. God kills repeatedly in the Bible for sacrilege...check Herod Antippas on Acts 12 and Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5....after Christ rose....not before. All three were killed for sacrilege. When God decides you've had enough time on earth, the next several moments after death are you becoming aware that you are in the particular judgement wherein God is the judge and the witness and in effect you are being shown why you will be passing on forever to the reality that you have earned in God's eyes.

Diogenes

Diogenes
     The Bible is inspired on morals in particular....unlike mankind who is not inspired on morals.  Augustine showed inspiration in the Bible when he held that every primitive Genesis tale or account predicted Christ.  He only shared some in print.  For example, God in the beginning of the Bible made a hole in the side of man after God put him in a deep sleep and brought forth a woman out of that spot in Adam's side.  What happens millenia later?  Christ expires on the cross...the deep sleep...and a Roman puts a hole in Christ's side with a spear just like God made a hole in Adam's side.  Out comes blood and water from Christ's side....a woman....His Bride.....the Church who baptizes with water and washes consciences clean with His blood which is also in 
the Eucharist.
       The Adam and Eve tale predicted the Christ and His Bride the Church account.

     Noah is told to make an ark 300 cubits long, 30 cubits high, 50 cubits wide and put a hole in the side.  Augustine said....it's Christ again being predicted in the measurements because they are proportional to some men and one in particular...Christ.  Take your height and it's roughly ten times your depth at the chest to back area and it is six times the width of your torso.  The primitive tale predicted a man....Christ... with those proportions who also would have a hole in his side like the ark did that we spoke of above.  If you enter the Body of Christ through that hole, you will be saved from the flood like Noah and others were....the flood of evil and bad choices.  The ark was really Christ prophetically.

     Augustine said all those tales or accounts are predictions of Christ.  Joseph in Genesis is mugged by his brothers and sold into Egypt where he descends into prison, rises from there to the right hand of pharoah and he then distributes grain to a starving world.  That primitive tale is really about Christ who also is mugged by his brothers the Jews, is also handed over to gentiles..the Romans, is killed and descends into the prison of limbo and rises from there to the right hand of not pharoa but God the Father....and Christ distributes grain from there to a world starving in values.

   That's why Christ said, " If you believed Moses, you would believe in me for he wrote of me."....." you search the scriptures for eternal life and it is they which bear witness to me".  

     Diogenes, please find out following this trail what inspired means.

"@Anonymous
If a 'gay gene' is discovered, should "secularists" defend a women who claims the right to abort a gay baby?"

Craig:

Since the argument for abortion has little to do with the genes of the fetus but with the right of women to own their bodies, I guess..it is irrelevant?

MichaelS -- "homosexual sex is not safe, no matter how many vaccines or cures there are."

Certain sexual acts carry a greater risk than others, but those acts are not exclusively "homosexual". Heterosexual couples engage in the same acts. Also, lesbians are physically incapable of engaging in those acts.

But then, when gay people are now God-created "others", you can spread all kinds of uninformed ignorance about them...

"Increasingly, indeed one might say conclusively, science is demonstrating homosexuality to be simply a part of what is, or, to borrow Alison's formulation, a "non-pathological minority variant in the human condition.""

This is completely untrue. Do you have anyone, maybe an actual scientist, other than this dissident priest who supports that statement?

Dr. Dean Hamer, the gay gene researcher, and himself a gay man, absolutely rejects that idea: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

I think you cannot answer the charge I made:

"On this issue, she writes in an unprecedented way about sexual perversion. Neither the authors of Scripture, nor the Church Fathers, nor the doctors, nor the saints support her. On this question (unlike so many others), she is not speaking like a follower of Christ, whose zeal for the temple of His Father consumed him--and who calls us to have zeal for the temple of the Holy Spirit. "

Your response

You're assuming a lot about what I'm saying. If you re-read the last three paragraphs, you may understand that -- while I am looking for permission to "wonder" I am also making it clear that homosexuals must also be ready to wonder and sacrifice, and obey, etc...

But I did expect gritted teeth coming from both directions, today! :-)

The saints uniformly understood that one should meditate on noble and good things--such as "God created man in his own image...male and female He created them." As to perversions of these HOLY things--well, the uniform treatment is blunt, with a statement that it is not proper for Christians to speak or think on such matters at length. You've written more in this whole post that I think you'll find in all the Church fathers and Scripture combined--all of whom were well aware of various perversions.

Your comment "both directions" is itself revealing--you place yourself above the fray. Believing Catholic Christians commit themselves unreservedly to the side of Christ and His Church. Which side, if any, are you on?

I should add that at the risk of engaging in prohibited "judgment," I have reason to believe that Elizabeth Scalia is, all things considered, a far better follower of Christ than I am. I thank God for her writings.

Regarding Barry Arrington's threat to cancel, it sadly could just be a wash, since others would in his place subscribe. But he can appreciate my own personal irony, in that this AM we finally made our yearly $$$contribution. I write to emphasize that it was mailed before reading Elizabeth's homosexual apologetics, or whatever you want to call them. I somehow feel that the editors should know this.

"I find it fascinating that Romans 1 has an extremely long list of sins, but it is never cited to condemn fornication, pride, avarice, or envy. It's only cited for its two verses on homosexuality. "

Well, I am not aware of any groups demanding that the Church alter its position that fornication, pride, avarice and envy are sins, so there really isn't any need to cite those other aspects.

Brian,

"Well, I am not aware of any groups demanding that the Church alter its position that fornication, pride, avarice and envy are sins, so there really isn't any need to cite those other aspects"

But that's an important difference. It's obvious that fornication, pride, etc., are sins because anyone can see that these sins actually do destroy people's lives. Meanwhile, it's become increasingly clear that homosexuality does not destroy people's lives. Even AIDS, which some claim is God's punishment, doesn't visit homosexuals because they are homosexuals. It attacks those who are promiscuous, straight or gay. Homosexuality in and of itself simply isn't sinful. In fact, it seems clear that those people who come early to the recognition that they are gay are more likely to lead healthy, normal lives than those who fight this recognition.

Doesn't homosexuality fall under the umbrella of fornication? How is it that the posts here seem to set a distinction between the two?

Wow. Canceling my subscription to First Things asap. Obviously they are hiring people who cannot simply understand Natural Law, the Catechism, and the Word of God. I believe this author would benefit by making one phone call to Father Paul Check of Courage. She is uninformed and speaking from her emotions only. FT, you are courting some dangerous ground. People with same-sex attraction need our support and love to heal from the lies told them by the enemy...to seek who they were born to be via God's perfect will. Misguided compassion in their case is deadly...they deserve more.

Michael
So you're breaking the the scriptures which Christ said was forbidden in John 10:35 "....and the scriptures cannot be broken".

Romans 1 isn't the private writings of Paul: it's inspired of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 1:26
"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."

But church leaders taught you by osmosis to break the scriptures. The last two Popes called the death penalty "cruel" in public statements and God gives more than 30 death penalties in scripture. The NT tells wives to obey their husbands 6 times in the NT and maybe the Anabaptists follow that along with some Baptists but it's absent in the Catholic catechism and Vat. II.
So leadership has taught you to break the scriptures but Christ hidden and buried in John 10:35 says..."... and the scriptures cannot be broken". You are the product of a modern church milieu. Now your job is to reverse that osmosis.

"But that's an important difference. It's obvious that fornication, pride, etc., are sins because anyone can see that these sins actually do destroy people's lives. Meanwhile, it's become increasingly clear that homosexuality does not destroy people's lives."

(1) Thank you for proving my point. You really think the Church has just failed to notice for 2,000 years that homosexuality is so wonderful?

(2) Homosexuals have higher rates of various physical illnesses and mental disorders. A gay rights group in Canada led by Gens Hellquist actually sued the government last year because it allegedly failed to address these increased health problems in the gay community. And speaking of promiscuity, why do you think so many gay men are promiscuous?

(3) I think people on both sides of this issues are misreading what the Anchoress is saying. She is not saying homosexuality is a blessing. She is saying it is a cross to be borne that only a few have to bear. Those dealing with same-sex attraction are "special" in that the overwhelming majority of us do not have to bear that cross.

However, as is stated in the CCC, if borne with faith and grace, that cross can lead to great holiness.

Elizabeth,

Who are you following? Your writing has increasingly become questionable. There are few U-turns on the road to dissent.

It's very disappointing to see so many people dismissing and even condemning Elizabeth Scalia without, it seems to me, giving even a minute or two to consider what she is actually saying. It is not at all uncommon for Christians, even in the face of terrible tragedies, to say, "Everything happens for a reason." A favorite saying when I was a child was, "God writes straight with crooked lines." Is it heretical to suggest, or difficult to believe, that there is a reason why gay people exist? To those of you who believe God has a plan for the world, do you believe that it is always obvious and self-evident? "Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads his wings toward the south?"

I don't pretend to know what Elizabeth Scalia thinks of homosexual acts, as opposed to a homosexual orientation, but I saw no endorsement of any specific sexual behavior in what she wrote. Far from it. She herself called attention, in as subsequent comment, to her concluding paragraphs, saying, "If you re-read the last three paragraphs, you may understand that -- while I am looking for permission to "wonder" I am also making it clear that homosexuals must also be ready to wonder and sacrifice, and obey, etc..."

I think it's a good bet that Ms. Scalia knows Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27 at least as well as her critical readers and knows there's a lot more to the Bible, Christianity, and Catholicism than those four verses when it comes to human sexuality. I would urge everyone who was scandalized by her post to read it again—and this time with an open mind. I assume Elizabeth Scalia writes at least in part to try to provoke people to think. To look upon her post as a lengthy question in a public opinion poll and respond instantly with "Agree," "Disagree," or "Don't know," is not to take her seriously as someone who is capable of original thought. And in spite of what some people seem to think, there is still a great deal of need for original thought.

Liked it so much I will subscribe to FT when I get back to the USA

Edmond,

Fornication is when a man has sex with an unmarried woman. Homosexuality is sex with a member of the same sex.

---

Bill Bannon,

You describe one way of interpreting scripture. There are others. I wouldn’t blame the last two popes. Non-literal interpretations of the scripture go right back to the early Fathers.

---

Brian English,

When people cite the high rates of disease among homosexuals as you have, they make two mistakes. First, they focus on gay men and don’t include lesbians in their thinking. Second, and more importantly, they mistake the causes. The high rates of disease are produced by promiscuity, not homosexuality. Homosexuals who are as faithful as I am to my wife are no more likely to have these diseases than I am. As for mental illness, I’ve not read anything on the subject, but I’d bet that chaste homosexuals are as likely to suffer from mental illness as promiscuous ones. The “sin” of having homosexual sex doesn’t produce mental illness; the mental illness is independent of the behavior.

I wouldn’t call homosexuality wonderful, but I do think our experience of homosexuality differs dramatically from its earlier manifestations. Beginning more than a century ago, Western civilization became big enough, anonymous enough, and wealthy enough, for gay subcultures to create small communities that allowed many middling sorts of people to gather and forge an exclusively homosexual identify. These subcultures have existed in many times and places, but they are bigger, more openly acknowledged, and belong to middle and working classes like they never were before. Scale makes a difference.

What also makes a difference is that marriage has changed dramatically over the same century. The marriage ideal became centered on love and mutual respect rather than being centered on an economic model. While people once rarely crossed lines of class or ethnic group to marry, they now married for love and sought greater equality.

Together, all of these forces have transformed our understanding of how couples form and make a life together, including gay couples.

The real test is what we see in the pews. What I see in my pew are straight, gay, and lesbian couples serving each other, their children, and God. If I picked up my pew and placed it in the middle of the church my grandparents worshipped in, it would fit right in if we only looked at the moral uprightness and faithfulness of its members.

I persist in stating matter-of-factly that there is no such thing as a sexual identity. It is a false construct. To construct an identity out of any sexual longing contravenes the pursuit of a gestalt identity. All of us who are not trapped in a particular-identity-construct (the torture of an existential impasse), including those with a homosexual orientation, long for a sense of self not confined to any particular, including sex. We want to be who we truly are, and Jesus, who instituted the Church to remain with us, shows us the way. All kinds of people trap themselves knowingly or unknowingly in particular identities most of the time, some destructive, some not. I recall a person telling me that her brother, after getting out of the military, joined the police force and ran his house like he ran the police station he became a lieutenant in.

One can argue, “What the hell. If so many, if not most, persons live under or get trapped in a false identity, why not give persons trapped in a gay identity the same respect? The reason is simple: Our culture, after establishing a gay identity as a valid identity that must be supported, has led to us teaching aberrant sexual behavior to children as early as 6 years old as normal expressions of intimacy. This is precisely why physically and psychologically destructive anal sex among heterosexual teens has skyrocketed, although in our fear-based political correctness we won’t admit the primary cause (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1).

No, God did not will into being (“loved-into-being”) persons trapped in a homosexual orientation as necessary others. It is one of many results of the Fall (we do need to make John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” required reading at Catholic universities). In other words, God did create us free, and the free act of rebellion in Adam impacted Creation, resulting in aberrations that God did not and does not plan/intend as an act of love, but allows, because he truly made us free, which includes the freedom to rebel with all its radically interconnected and rippling effects of horror.

So, when Ms. Scalia writes, “Such created creatures must be recognized as loved into being,” we must say yes, every human person was willed into being in love with the terrible gift of free choice, which makes guilt inescapable, no matter how convincingly talented psychologists and other social scientists would argue otherwise, especially to patients who are sometimes “cured” by becoming functioning psychopaths (conscienceless when it comes to the harm they do to themselves and others).

We as a culture can, as we are doing, will ourselves into ignorance as a form of tolerance, making not truth, but tolerance, the ascendant virtue, but we will have to blind ourselves to how this form of tolerance is destroying the lives of children to accommodate persons who are not only addicted to dangerous sexual practices, but have decided to normalize their behavior in the eyes of young children, thus endangering their unsuspecting live.

MIchael, when one gay person has intercourse with another that is fornication.

As for self conviction or being trapped in the wrong body, something should be said about too much sexual freedom. My friend was a "man's man", as in he seemed to bristle with testosterone . He was a star athlete and a real "stud" and would have so many beautiful women bed with him. After a while he turned gay and told me wasn't getting the same kick as he was getting with a gay partner. I thought to myself, some people have everything and eventually don't want what they have. It reminds me of adam and eve, they had paradise and it still wasn't enough.

Oh and speaking of adam and eve, on the superlative level, lucifer was in heaven and still he was not satisfied....Or was it really because being the most beautiful angel, he sought to please himself and not God ergo "non serviam", As adam and eve sought greener pastures for themselves so that they could be "better" than God. So it is with us all when we sin, it is sadly only all about self. There is no sin that is not rooted in selfishness and though that is a no-brainer to some here, that is the answer to the problem of homosexuality and other wrongs. Secularism is choosing one's self over God.

Wow! Bravo to Ms. Scalia for such an enlightened article. I imagine it wasn't easy for her to draw these distinctions and conclusions. And bravo to First Things for having the courage to print ideas that, while not exactly new, at least come closer to a modern understanding of sexuality. Most telling though is not the article but some of the comments it has unearthed.
Holy Mackerel (sic) there are a lot of homophobes out there! I always assumed my gay friends are paranoid and exaggerating when they speak about the ignorance and hate they encounter. But I stand corrected (and astonished). Just reading here I've heard homosexuality described as pathology, sin, hateful, degenerate etc. I've read people claiming friends "turned" gay out of boredom or degenerate lust (really??). Or that somehow the '70s created what seems to be called homosexual culture. Wow. Do any of these commentators actually know any gay people? In this weird fantasy world, do black men grin at their masters while chomping on watermelon, all the while secretly lusting for white women? In fact I even read what sounded like a defense of slavery:

@bill bannon
"Ghetto moms right now who have lost one or more sons to gunfire on the modern streets would have lost no sons to death in some more benign plantation settings. Elderly black women who have been raped or murdered for several dollars this past year would have fared better on the more benign plantations than on our modern US streets."

Yikes!! Anyway, I know many gay people, male and female, young and old, and they, clumped together, look just like straight people (o.k. the guys are better dressed). Most are professionals, most are loving, kind people who work to help their families and communities. A few probably have weird personal habits (same as straight folks) that I don't want to know about. All have been gay from the moment they were born, with the same choice about their sexual orientation that we all have: none. A few are celibate, a few dating, a few married (or whatever is allowed in their state). They are about as threatening to "normal" society as a group of Kwanis Club members. Gay people have babysat my children and cared for elderly family members. Why these people and their sex lives spark such fear can only be attributed to the personal issues of the people who fear them (see: Ted Haggart).
P.S. There is no "homosexual agenda" except maybe a plea to stop hating or fearing people for something as unsolicited and neutral as ones skin color.

Edmond,

Paul in Romans distinguishes between fornication and homosexuality. The definition you use is a more modern one. There's nothing wrong with that; definitions change. But you were asking why some distinguish between fornication and homosexuality, and I was explaining why. It's a biblical distinction.

"When people cite the high rates of disease among homosexuals as you have, they make two mistakes. First, they focus on gay men and don’t include lesbians in their thinking. Second, and more importantly, they mistake the causes. The high rates of disease are produced by promiscuity, not homosexuality. Homosexuals who are as faithful as I am to my wife are no more likely to have these diseases than I am."

Obviously. Why are so many gay men promiscuous?

"The “sin” of having homosexual sex doesn’t produce mental illness; the mental illness is independent of the behavior."

You are clearly wrong about that.

"What also makes a difference is that marriage has changed dramatically over the same century. The marriage ideal became centered on love and mutual respect rather than being centered on an economic model."

What are you talking about? The "innovation" in marriage over the last century has been its degradation from a sacred act to a form of contract.

"If I picked up my pew and placed it in the middle of the church my grandparents worshipped in, it would fit right in if we only looked at the moral uprightness and faithfulness of its members."

What about the article in the Times last year that indicated that a survey of gay couples in the S.F. area found that over 50% of them had open relationships. You think 50% of the married couples in your grandparents' church had that arrangement?

Brian,

Gay men are promiscuous for the same reason all men tend toward promiscuity. Some people say that Christians are unrealistic to expect priests to remain celibate all their life or to expect people in their teens or twenties to abstain until marriage, and the Christian answer is that faith helps make those demands easier. The idea that homosexuality is sinful because gay men are so promiscuous belongs in the same column. Faithful, gay Christians aren’t promiscuous; their faith helps them.

When you say I’m clearly wrong about homosexuality and mental illness, are you saying that all gays are mentally ill or something else?

There are other innovations in marriage that you are not considering that occurred over the same time: the end of miscegenation laws, the growing acceptance of marriage across class, religious and national lines, the end of parental choice of marriage partners, and the end of coverture laws.

As for the Times article, how many of those gay couples in open relationships were sitting in pews every Sunday? How many were in congregations that supported these open relationships as conforming to God’s wishes?

"Gay men are promiscuous for the same reason all men tend toward promiscuity."

That is a common response, but what does that really mean?

"The idea that homosexuality is sinful because gay men are so promiscuous belongs in the same column. Faithful, gay Christians aren’t promiscuous; their faith helps them."

There are a lot of reasons why homosexuality has been considered a sin (or worthy of condmenation if you want to talk about pagan cultures) for thousands of years. But as far as promiscuity goes, how many faithful gay Christians are there? Study after study has shown that the lifestyle you lead is not typical of gay men.

"When you say I’m clearly wrong about homosexuality and mental illness, are you saying that all gays are mentally ill or something else?"

Now you know I was not saying that all gays are mentally ill. I am saying that gay men have higher rates of depression, addiction, etc. Why is that?

"There are other innovations in marriage that you are not considering that occurred over the same time: the end of miscegenation laws,"

One of my pet peeves. Miscegenation laws made it a crime for mixed race couples to be married. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the police smashed into the couple's home in the middle of the night and arrested them. They were convicted, and their five-year sentences were suspended only on the condition that they agree to never return to Virginia together. Comparing that situation to states simply refusing to recognize gay marriages is outrageous.

"As for the Times article, how many of those gay couples in open relationships were sitting in pews every Sunday? How many were in congregations that supported these open relationships as conforming to God’s wishes? "

I think "few, if any" is the answer to both questions.

Brian,

I’ll have to answer you more fully after the weekend, but in the meantime, consider the shape of your argument.

You are arguing against something based on statistics while I’m arguing based on the experience I have had in a church that welcomes gays, gay couples, and gay families to live openly and be valued equally in the community. I’m talking about Christians while you’re talking about gays in general. So we need to stop talking past each other. We’re talking about two different subs.

One more quick point before I dash: Study after study has shown a higher rate of mental illness in artists than in the general population. Should we discourage people from becoming artists? Does art lead to mental illness?

"You are arguing against something based on statistics while I’m arguing based on the experience I have had in a church that welcomes gays, gay couples, and gay families to live openly and be valued equally in the community. I’m talking about Christians while you’re talking about gays in general. So we need to stop talking past each other. We’re talking about two different subs. "

But those statistics represent real human misery. Your anecdotal experiences can't be extrapolated to an entire community, and the entire community is what we are talking about here.

"One more quick point before I dash: Study after study has shown a higher rate of mental illness in artists than in the general population. Should we discourage people from becoming artists? Does art lead to mental illness?"

(1) That depends on the art.

(2) I think it probably runs the other way.

Brian English,

I want to thank you, and persons like you, for taking the time to dive into this difficult terrain and write so elegantly from knowledge, faith and love. This work is so very important, possibly the most important work in this new millennium, especially for the youth who are being sacrificed on the altars of sexual liberation. Jesus instructed us on how important these children are, not to shun them or keep them quiet. We need to listen to their sorrows and lovingly decide to take up the spiritual arms of truth and move into Satan's conquered territory with a willingness to bear THAT cross of speaking loving truth in and out of season. God bless you in this work.

As a man who is devoutedly Catholic, proudly gay, and (consequently) happily celibate, I cannot thank you enough, Elizabeth, for doing what you can to bring attention from homosexual acts (which have never been a part of my experience) to homosexuality-as-otherness (which always has). This is exactly what's needed to combat the homophobia so rampant among orthodox Christians.

Ms. Scalia seems to be tentatively suggesting a non-transgressive teleology for homosexuality. It has produce a great deal of commentary, the majority of it sympathetic, though a few are outraged and threaten to cancel subscriptions. This seem to be a step forward for FT. Most of those who have commented here apparently want something more than an arid discussion of established opinion.

Brian,

You’re right that the statistics “represent real human misery,” but so do the statistics about heterosexuality—the rise in divorce rates, the rise in fatherless households, etc. The Christian answer to both sets of numbers is a return to faith and a return to faithful living.

An increasing number of Christian congregations and indeed Christian churches have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not the problem we once thought it was. As long as gay Christians can follow the same codes the straight Christians do (lifelong, faithful commitments to a single person, openness to child rearing, etc.), they should be admitted into Christian community where they can grow in faithfulness and righteousness.

We have church members who were alcoholics, had gambling problems, had anger management issues, etc., and in each case, these people sought and were encouraged by to seek help so that they could eradicate their sins and repair their lives. We don’t ask homosexuals to do the same concerning their homosexuality. If they’re alcoholic, then we help with that. If they are depressive, then we help with that, too. And if they are promiscuous, we help with that as well. But we don’t try to cure their homosexuality. We have too many gay people in our congregation living healthy, productive, faithful lives either living alone or with long-term partners (with or without children) to believe that homosexuality in itself is a problem.

And so your numbers about homosexuals are flawed in two ways. First, they are about gay men, not lesbians; including lesbians would skew your numbers down. And, second, they are about the general population and not about gay Christians.

As far as mental illness goes, it is probably true that there’s a correlation, but I don’t see how that correlation is tied to sin. No Christian I know claims that mental illness is a result of sin, for that would mean that ending the sin would end the mental illness. Do you believe that chastity would cure mental illness in gays?

But perhaps I should get clarity on another question. The Roman church used to believe that gays should rid themselves of their sinful desires and marry the opposite sex. It now believes that homosexuality is a permanent condition and that gays should live a life of chastity. Which view do you subscribe to?

As far as miscegenation goes, your point was a blanket indictment that marriage since the turn of the century has been an unrelenting story of an unraveling, and my point was that the history of marriage over the last century has some ups as well as downs. I didn’t compare miscegenation laws to states refusing to recognize gay marriages as you claim I did.

---

Joshua,

Thanks for your witness. What you’ve accomplished is a powerful testament.

"You’re right that the statistics “represent real human misery,” but so do the statistics about heterosexuality—the rise in divorce rates, the rise in fatherless households, etc. The Christian answer to both sets of numbers is a return to faith and a return to faithful living."

You are absolutely correct about that.

"An increasing number of Christian congregations and indeed Christian churches have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not the problem we once thought it was."

But look at the split that has been created in the Anglican Church on this issue. And in some of the other Protestant denominations, the leadership is not really speaking for the rank and file. In any event, do you think these changes in viewpoint were the results of spiritual insights, or were they more along the lines of trying to "get with the times"?

"As long as gay Christians can follow the same codes the straight Christians do (lifelong, faithful commitments to a single person, openness to child rearing, etc.), they should be admitted into Christian community where they can grow in faithfulness and righteousness."

Putting aside for a moment the Church's position that homosexual acts are sinful, your proposed remedy has not happened, and will not happen. As an initial matter, you have writers like Andrew Sullivan (and I believe Larry Kramer if I remember correctly), who insist that being promiscuous is integral to being a gay man. In Sullivan's book in support of gay marriage, he even goes as far as arguing that heterosexual couples will benefit from gay marriage because it might help them get over the whole monogamy thing. Do you really think those views are completely fringe within the gay community?

In addition, look at the European countries where gay marriage has been recognized, and the states in this country where gay marriage and civil unions have been recognized -- after an initial wave of ceremonies, there has no been demand for these. Why is that?

"But we don’t try to cure their homosexuality. We have too many gay people in our congregation living healthy, productive, faithful lives either living alone or with long-term partners (with or without children) to believe that homosexuality in itself is a problem."

But once again, do you really consider your experience to be typical?

"And so your numbers about homosexuals are flawed in two ways. First, they are about gay men, not lesbians; including lesbians would skew your numbers down. And, second, they are about the general population and not about gay Christians. "

Well, lesbians involve completely different issues. Lesbians are also far more likely over the course of their lives to move back and forth between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Finally, lesbian couples in long-term relationships often lead basically celibate lives. So we are left with the shocking conclusion that men and women, even homosexual men and women, are very different from one another.

As far as gay Christians go, I really don't see you and the other families in your church as being typical.

"No Christian I know claims that mental illness is a result of sin, for that would mean that ending the sin would end the mental illness. Do you believe that chastity would cure mental illness in gays?"

Certainly depression can be tied to promiscuity for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Eliminate the promiscuity, you eliminate the source of the depression. Adultery, fornication and homosexual acts can also cause depression and anxiety and, once again, if you eliminate the behavior, you eliminate the source of the illness. Depression and anxiety also lead to self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, so you get addictions that trace back to sexual behavior.

"The Roman church used to believe that gays should rid themselves of their sinful desires and marry the opposite sex. It now believes that homosexuality is a permanent condition and that gays should live a life of chastity. Which view do you subscribe to?"

You will have to show me version of the Catechism where it said that.

"As far as miscegenation goes, your point was a blanket indictment that marriage since the turn of the century has been an unrelenting story of an unraveling, and my point was that the history of marriage over the last century has some ups as well as downs. "

When the percentage of people getting married continues to drop, while the pool of potential marriage partners has continued to expand, I don't see how that could be construed as a positive trend.

Brian,

I can’t speak for the experience of other congregations, but I can only describe how it worked in my congregation and add two other observations. One is that other congregations have asked us to speak to them, and while I haven’t gone on one of the trips, the reports that have come back have all described people’s seriousness and commitment. People are seriously seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. No decision has been made easily or cavalierly. I’ve heard no one say that we have to “get with the times’; we have instead asked ourselves what is the right, just, and faithful thing to do.

And in answer to your second point, no decision has been from the top. These decisions have been reached by congregations talking among themselves and speaking with the pastor. According to the Book of Discipline, the United Methodist Church believes that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching and thus rejects homosexuals as candidates for the ministry and rejects gay marriage or unions. Thus in becoming a reconciling congregation, our congregation has placed itself in tension with church teaching. We present our views at annual and general conferences in hopes that our voice will grow and be heard.

Andrew Sullivan is welcome to his beliefs, but I don’t take him as a guide to all things gay any more than you are likely to take him as a guide to all things Roman Catholic or conservative. Pundits and opinion makers can say what they want; what matters happens on the ground in individual congregations, which is Christianity has always staked its claims.

Still the attitude he and Kramer promote is insidious and wrong. Their views are not fringe in the gay community nor are they representative of all. There is no single gay community any more than there is a single Roman or Christian community. We can find Christian leaders from past eras who claimed it was unnatural to expect men to be celibate or faithful to one woman and therefore allowed certain liberties as long as they were discreet. One reason I happy to see this change go slowly is that I don’t want to see the church correct one error only to fall into another.

I’m not surprised to see an initial wave of ceremonies to be followed by little else. For many gays, the recognition is the thing they seek. But I’m concerned with gay Christians. That group will always be small because it takes more than a momentary buzz of recognition; it takes work, commitment, and faith. There are plenty of straight people who want a church wedding only to disappear afterwards, but we all know that real Christian marriages start long before the ceremony and last long afterward. We don’t need symbolic ceremonies of whatever sort, and a good pastor will work hard to marry only those who are faithful members.

Twice, you ask whether I think my congregation is typical, and I have to say it is from what I’ve seen. I acknowledge that what I’ve seen is limited, but at least it is what I’ve seen and not what I’ve read about. How many times have you read or heard descriptions of what Roman Catholics are like or Christians or Americans are like, only to say that that doesn’t square with your experience at all? Statistics seem to get groups wrong in this way all the time, lumping together people that don’t belong together in your experience. All I can do is urge you to visit—or even better to get to know—a reconciling congregation and see what gay Christians are really like.

You’re right that lesbians raise different issues and that women are different. Neither idea is startling, at least to me. My simple point is that, if we’re going to discuss aggregates, let’s be clear who we’re putting in and leaving out.

You seem to agree that promiscuity can lead to depression, but I’m curious to hear you explain what is sinful about homosexuality per se. To get well, the alcoholic must give up the alcohol that is destroying her life, and the promiscuous must give up the promiscuity that is destroying her life. If homosexuality is not leading the lesbian to alcoholism or promiscuity, why must she give up lesbianism to get well? How is her lesbianism as lesbianism destroying her life?

I’ve never heard a good answer to this question. And it’s the central one.

In sections 2358 and 2359, the Roman catechism describes some people as having “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and says that “homosexual persons are called to chastity.” These ideas that homosexuality may be deep-seated and thus properly responded to with chastity rather than repentance followed by marriage or re-commitment to the opposite sex are new.

Apparently, you believe that every change in marriage in the twentieth century was bad. I look at the successful marriages in my generation and compare them to the marriages in my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and I have to say I see a lot of good features today, especially for women.

@ Mcasey-"I've read people claiming friends "turned" gay out of boredom or degenerate lust (really??). Or that somehow the '70s created what seems to be called homosexual culture. Wow. Do any of these commentators actually know any gay people?"

My brother used to be gay. The lustful dude I mentioned about who turned gay was my classmate in high school. If shifting sexual preferences is something new to you, I am afraid you haven't met enough folks in that category. Check out the archives from hollywood. And of course there are bisexuals who you might also know about?


Congrats to the author, the sought after responses from your article have come in with numbers.

The premise of your entire article is an interesting one: embracing the notion that homosexuality is a state of being which equals an "otherness" I assume in the same sense that one's race is an "other" in comparison to other races, and that men and women who describe themselves as being gay were knit in their mother's wombs as gay. Where is the evidence that anyone is born gay? It's merely anecdotal--men and women state that they "have always been gay," and that they never remember a moment when they weren't gay. But if we use this as the evidence that one was knit together in the womb as a gay man or woman, we might as well say that most people who are reading this article were knit in their mother's womb speaking English. I cannot remember not speaking English--so was I therefore born speaking English? What can be ascertained, objectively, is that an individual was born male or female, with the rare exception of a hermaphrodite. Is homosexuality a true "otherness," then, established in the womb? As a man who lives with same sex attraction, I refuse to bend the knee to contemporary cultural wisdom that says I am defined by whom I happen to find sexually attractive. I don't embrace an identity of being "gay," even though my earliest memory of being attracted to another male was at age six years old. I don't believe because of this that I was somehow "born gay," but rather I believe that in making me male, God made me in His image as a male whose sexuality finds its complementarity in a woman. The fact that I find men sexually attractive is indicative to me of something disordered within me which I have become aware of throughout my life. Viewing homosexuality as a God ordained "otherness," as if it is some sort of blessed state of giftedness to the world I think is buying into contemporary culture, rather than the truth of God's plan for all men and women. For those men or women who find themselves attracted to the same sex, there is I believe for many of them the option for seeking healing of the wounds which I am convinced causes all same sex attraction. When I think of this in my own life, and have seen an attraction to women develop over the course of many years to the point where I am drawn to women with both a sexual and relational longing, I think of the words of Isaiah:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts. For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it. Yes, in joy you shall depart, in peace you shall be brought back; mountains and hills shall break out in song before you, and all the trees of the countryside shall clap their hands. In place of the thornbush, the cypress shall grow, instead of nettles, the myrtle. This shall be to the LORD'S renown, an everlasting imperishable sign.”

As a man who once lived in a gay relationship, which was unfertile and barren, I see in these words of Isaiah a promise which I cling to: “the rain and snow come down and do not return there till they have watered the earth, making it fertile and fruitful, giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth.” I long to be a father, and to be in a life-giving and life-creating marriage. God’s word in my case did not return to Him void, but achieved the end for which He sent it. I am truly changed, and healed, and long to marry a woman. Those who poo-poo reparative therapy I think are living in the ways which are not God’s ways.

The problem that I have with a notion of an "otherness" of homosexuality is that it elevates homosexuality to some sort of intrinsically good state of being for mankind to celebrate. Naturally, contemporary man decries a view such as mine as "homophobic," but that's merely subjective and is aberrational in the history of mankind. As an artistic sort myself, I have been told that my artistry stems from my "homosexuality," 'which I find insulting and absurd, and I see echoes of this in your comment about Michaelangelo. Who cares what Camille Paglia has to say on the subject? I am artistic because I was made in the image of God, who is creativity, embodied. Why should one assign a gift of creativity to the kind of people to whom one is sexually attracted? Is an economist brilliant because of whom he or she happens to find sexually desirable? There is no ownership of artistic brilliance based on sexuality. For every Tchaikovsky, there is a Bach--for every Andrew Warhol there is a Rodin. When I think of this notion of “otherness,” why isn't the conversation one in which we ponder if the plans God has for us, and not to harm us, include living with same sex attraction for a time, but that God offers healing to us? Sarah laughed at the Lord when He told her she would have a child. I have seen the past 30 years become a time in which the world laughs at the notion that God can and does heal men and women from same sex attraction, and I think talk of the "otherness" of homosexuality as some sort of blessing is counter to the plans God has for his children and plays into the current cultural disdain for reparative therapy. I view same sex attraction as a gift, since it has caused me to rely solely on God for strength in battling temptation, but it has nothing to do with my artistic skills or any other intrinsic good that happens to exist within me. Those come because I carry the image of God within me. This notion of an otherness which is to be celebrated I find to be an unfortunate current within Catholic circles in particular, in which homosexuality is held up as a great good, which I think is becoming more and more prevalent. The problem becomes when this notion of embracing the "otherness" of homosexuality becomes reason to castigate those who still offer hope of freedom. Additionally, in elevating homosexuality as some sort of blessed state, it feeds a movement which tells young men and women who may merely going through a phase in their adolescent development to embrace "who they are." When homosexuality is seen as "God given" and "inborn," then reparative therapy becomes viewed as the backward work of psychological neanderthals, and the sad and tragic aspect of this is that this comes from the secular world, motivated by political pressures from the gay community. Why don’t more in the Catholic Church proclaim that possibly that the plans God has for men and women with same sex attraction is to place their sexuality in orbit around their person, rather than viewing their sexual attractions as the primary descriptor of their person, which so often takes place today? As a man who lives with same sex attraction, I find this notion of “otherness” to be detrimental to the good of men and women living with same sex attraction.

James P,

I'm late in catching your fine witness and thank you for that. One of my favorite filmmakers is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. He "came out" early in life and was considered a notorious gay man by many, and he cheerfully indulged this reputation. Not because of his talent, his creative genius, but because of his radical honesty was he able to acknowledge that although he obsessed on having sex with other men, his deepest longing was for a woman (which he was convinced was a natural longing that all men have, no matter how distant their conscious life is from it), and he suffered deeply concerning this. Yet, he did spend the last 6 years of his life with a woman.

Jesus insisted that the truth will set us free, yet in these discussions truth has become anathema. You are one of the bold ones, and we need more like you in this important struggle for the lives of children, many who are being sacrificed on the altars of the sexual revolution.

There is no vocation to gay-marriage. When two become one cannot ever happen with two of the same sex. The Sacrament of Matrimony is an exchange of covenants. God is the maker and giver of covenants. Man is the exchanger of covenants. In the Sacrament of Matrimony, one has to LOVE the other, because the other is him/herself, two become one, in family, in a new human being. Love becomes flesh, a witness, testimony to the love of the two becoming one, a witness and testimony to God's love for his people. A new human being is only part of God's promise "I will be with you for all time" A new soul is created for the newly begotten love made flesh, an immortal soul. "I have carved you in the palm of my hand."
These wonderful truths are also inscribed in our Declaration of Independence, unalienable rights are immortal rights inscribed in the depths of a sovereign person's soul by the Supreme Sovereign Being.

If a pedophile feels driven to his behavior from what he identifies as a natural urge of genetic origin, or if he argues that he has a wonderful nurturing relationship with the children he sexually molests, we cannot approve his behavior on either account. No matter what reason he offers, his sexual conduct must be condemned as morally reprehensible. He must be held morally culpable for his sexual choices. "2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Thank you for your insightful article Elizabeth. You show compassion and understanding.