Aquinas and More. Good Faith. Guaranteed.

Homosexuals Just Want to be Left Alone

by Ian on March 6, 2007

Just in case you still buy that line:

After this April's implementation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR's), British religious schools may no longer be allowed to teach school children that the Christian viewpoint on sexual morality is "objectively true," a government report says.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament, has issued a report on the implementation of the regulations recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of "non-discrimination."

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified "so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong."

The report says the regulations will not "prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful," but they may not teach "a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true.” Published February 26, the report says, "We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations."

With the Equality Act 2006, the government empowered itself to create regulations making it illegal for anyone providing goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions, to discriminate against that person on the grounds of sexual orientation. The SOR's are scheduled to come into effect in England and Wales and Scotland in April of this year after a ratifying vote in Parliament. They came into effect in Northern Ireland January 1.

It has never been a matter of just being left alone. It has always been full, unconditional approval and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. This year the Democratic-controlled congress will most likely pass federal non-discrimination laws for homosexuals. It's only a matter of time before your first amendment rights will be subordinated to approval of the homosexual agenda.

If you doubt this can happen in America, the Massachusetts's Supreme Court ruled a couple of weeks ago that children in public schools MUST attend classes and take material that promote homosexuality as acceptable. According to the court, the only way parents can avoid indoctrination is to remove their kids from public schools, they aren't allowed to opt out because it might make homosexuals feel bad.

via: EWTN Headlines

{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }

Ethan March 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm

This discussion isn’t about the standing of non-Catholics in the Christian world, but about whether or not homosexually inclined people should have their views forced on others without those same views. So you don’t think I’m trying to avoid your proposed statement, however, I will answer that the Pope’s comments regarding his own authority (which is infallibly defined, as part of Faith and Morals), his comments about those “Outside the Church” (which to some extent are also infallible), and the Council’s teachings about non-Catholics having a role in God’s plan for Salvation, aren’t at all at odds with each other. God’s plan for everyone is that they become Catholic – whether this happens before, at, or after death – is what the Church’s teachings regarding the statement “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (which is still taught, AND is infallible), is all about.

Your argument about the morals behind homosexual acts distorts the reasons that the Church calls them immoral. You would have us believe that they are immoral because they are contrary to a human tendency, when tendencies themselves change from person to person. You give no thought at all to whether or not the act, in and of itself, is immoral – you seem to believe that the act is actually good, even when the intended end of the act, the biological PURPOSE of the act, is completely avoided.

Granted, the unitive and the procreative aspects of sexuality are BOTH important, but they are also BOTH necessary in order for the act to be a good one. Not meaning that life MUST be created for every act, but that the people participating in the act MUST be open to life, which is one of the things that makes NFP morally acceptable. If NFP promoted sexual acts that were completely closed to new life, Pope John Paul II would NOT have endorsed it, and would probably have spoken against it AS immoral. Sexual acts CANNOT be closed to new life.

I have to go now; I’m sure that you’re going to bring up the issue about married couple who are too old to conceive and how this relates to them. I’ll cover that when I can.


Lactantius March 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Ethan: You are right in saying the real subject of our discussion is homosexuality. Your wording is a bit tendentious however: “whether or not homosexually inclined people should have their views forced on others without those same views.” I would prefer to say, “whether homosexuals have a right to lead their lives without being discriminated against by others, provided they do not violate the rights of others.”
The discussion about Pius XII merely concerned the question of whether authentic, but non-infallible, teaching of the Church could change. John Noonan pointed out some areas in which this had taken place. I added the matter of Pius XII. You are correct in pointing out that Pius XII and the Council Fathers of Vatican II have vast areas of fundamental agreement about the Church — how could it be otherwise? The question concerned one very particular question that was being debated in the 1940s: “ Whether there is some way in which non-Catholic Christians are included within the Church and find sources of grace within their own communions. Pius XII said NO, in two diffferent encylical letters, Mystici Corporis, and Humani Generis. The Vatican Council said YES. Please read the actual texts which they issued and tell me honestly if you think they agree.
It is important to note that natural tendencies can be distorted, and we call some of these distortions the seven capital sins. But note, that underneath each of these sins there is a good and important natural tendency. Beneath pride there is the tendency to affirm the goodness of the gifts which God has given to us; it becomes distorted when we take credit for what is a gift of God and proceed to make ourselves the center of the universe. Beneath gluttony there is the important desire for food and drink; it becomes distorted when we harm ourselves by overeating and excessive drinking. Beneath lust there is sexual desire which is important for the preservation of the race and for establishing bonds of interpersonal love between individuals, usually a man and a woman. It becomes distorted when the preservation of the race is deliberately and completely excluded and when unselfish love yields to a total preoccupation with pleasure. The same thing is true of anger, covetousness, and sloth. I have difficulty identifying the good tendency underlying envy, though I think it may be simply the tendency to recognize and appreciate the gifts and talents of others. It becomes distorted when we regard those gifts and talents as harming us.
The question then becomes whether the sexual tendency in homosexuals is simply a distortion or whether it can be legitimate. We are not here concerned about heterosexuals who practise homosexuality; this is a distortion, since it is radically selfish and contrary to the natural inclination they have received. But, in the case of homosexuals, the basic sexual tendency they have received with their nature appears to be toward persons of the same sex. That, it seems to me, is the question that needs to be investigated dispassionately, scientfically, objectively. There is question of a concrete fact, not of a universal truth deduced from some abstract concept of human nature. I don’t claim to have absolute certainty in this matter, but there is enough concrete evidence to raise questions that need to be resolved if we are not to continue to do what could be a great injustice to these people.
In this connection, it is clear that the homosexual tendency is indeed deficient because it is never ordered to procreation. To this extent it is disordered. But the sexual tendency in heterosexual people is not always ordered to procrea­tion. Those who practice sex without any contraceptive device whatever actually conceive about 5% (five per cent) of the time. What is to be said about the legitimacy of the other 95%? Do we just tolerate these evil acts because we don’t always know. Or are they actually good acts which foster the love between husband and wife? Since Pius XI it has been recognized that couples may deliberately choose these infertile periods and avoid the fertile periods. So, infertile sexual intercourse, known to be infertile, may be good and moral, because it fosters love. We could then say of homosexual activity, that although it is known to be infertile, if it fosters love it can be good and moral. No doubt, other factors are important, like the stability and fidelity of the homosexual partners, but the matter in principle seems clear, provided the homosexual tendency is truly a natural phenomenon and just a matter of perverse personal choice.
May I recommend for your consideration an article by Walter Wink: “Homosexuality and the Bible” to be found at: Walter Wink is a Protestant biblical scholar and cannot therefore claim to have any teaching authority in the Catholic Church, but he deserves to be heard on the basis of the strength of his arguments. If they are weak, forget him. But if they are reasonable, then carefully consider what he has to say. The time is long past when we could dismiss a person’s position simply because he is not a Catholic. There were some Protestants involved in the latest revision of the New American Bible, published by the American Catholic Bishops.


Lactantius March 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm

I negelected to say that I do not find all of Walter Wink’s reasoning acceptable, though it seems sincere and well intentioned. But his remarks about homosexuality seem to me worthy of consideration.


Ian March 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Getting back to the original point of this post, do you think that it is appropriate for the government to force public schools to teach that homosexual behavior is normal and further to deny an opt-out option to parents who take exception to such indoctrination?

Also do you believe that it is the government’s business who I rent my home to?


Lactantius March 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm

My immediaate reply to these questions is that the government should pursue the same course here as in the matter of racism; the government should insist on non-discrimination. Since, as it seems, homosexualty is not a matter of choice any more than race is, children should not be made to feel ashamed if they happen to be homosexual. If you offer your house or apartment for rent to the public, you should not be permitted to exclude people you don’t like or disapprove of, provided they do not damage your propertry physically.


Ian March 20, 2007 at 4:45 pm

So.. based on your rather novel understanding of both the scriptures and Church teaching you believe that the government should force children to be taught that homosexual behavior is normal over their parents’ objections?

This isn’t like teaching kids that people with darker skin are just the same as you. This is about teaching kids that a controllable behavior that has been considered a sin for several thousand years is now acceptable. Do you really expect the government to make the fine philosophical distinctions you have been making here between “true homosexuals” and deviant heterosexuals? Who is to determine who is who?

And once it is determined that homosexually inclined people aren’t to be “discriminated” against, who is to say that homosexual marriage or polygamy aren’t a “right” as well? You can bet that the secular government isn’t going to be too interested in your philosophy of interpersonal behavior when it determines that marriage can be between whoever feels so inclined.

On the issue of renting my apartment I believe that I or anyone else should be able to rent to whomever they want for whatever reason they want without the Federal government getting involved. If the local government wants to create rules about that, fine.


Ethan March 20, 2007 at 5:24 pm

The way I see it is this: The government, at least in this country, was founded to PROTECT our rights. If ANYTHING is privately owned, that person may do whatever he wishes (within a common reason, of course).

If a Catholic, such as myself, wants to start a school for Catholics to teach them the Catholic Faith, and the school is privately owned by me, when I can’t teach the Faith as the Church teaches it, the government is now abusing its power in order to prevent my rights that were won by people giving their lives for them. Why would others, realizing that the school is designed for Catholics, want to go there to learn, EXCEPT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST US? If you came across a school for homeless children, or a hospital for the homeless, or any facility designed to help those who need it, would you demand that they open their doors to those who don’t fit the profile of what the facility was designed for, even at the expense of the cause of the facility?

I can understand that if the majority of the population feels that homosexuality isn’t necessarily wrong, that if a school is owned by the state then it’s up to the state, and in effect, the majority, to decide what to teach at that school. But if I started the school for a purpose, and it is my school to do with what I will, I’m not going to stop teaching that purpose that I believe to be morally right, even if the state forbids it. They don’t have the power to do that, even if they choose to do so.

You said that they shouldn’t be discriminated against, provided they don’t violate the rights of others. Where do you draw the line to define where Ian’s rights are violated?


Ethan March 20, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Do you know that people now have the right to be Satanists, but in certain areas they don’t have the right to be Catholic? And I don’t know if there’s anywhere a Catholic can go in this country without being put down (discriminated against) for having a higher standard of morals.


Ian March 21, 2007 at 8:20 am
Ethan March 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm

This was just released by the USCCB as a response to pamphlets that were sent to the Bishops by a dissenter.

“Moreover, Professor Maguire states that “homosexuality is not a sin.”[21] If, by this, Professor Maguire means that the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, then this is true. However, if this is interpreted to mean that homosexual acts are not sinful, then this is erroneous. Because such acts do not result in the loving union of a man and a woman nor are they ordered to the procreation of children they are intrinsically disordered.[22] It is this intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts that prevents a “same-sex” union from expressing an authentic Christian understanding of marriage.[23]”

The Church’s position is that ALL homosexual behavior is sinful. Inclinations are meant to be battled in favor of something more in line with God’s plan.


Lactantius March 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I have read the latest postings but don’t find in them any further light and insight. I know that for my part I really have nothing new to say. Evidently neither side in this discussion has convinced the other. I have no desire to say again what I have already said once as clearly as I am able. I suggest we pray for one another, asking God to confirm us in the truth where we are right, and lead us out of error where we are wrong. At the same time let us remember the words of St. Paul to the Christians at Corinth: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). Faith, it seems to me, has three essential elements: 1) openness to the truth wherever it may be found. 2) acceptance of the truth that has been found, not running away from it, and 3) commitment, shaping one’s life according to the truth that has been found and accepted. I try to do this without claiming complete success. I’m sure it is your endeavor also. God bless you always.


Joseph M. April 10, 2007 at 6:18 am

I found this site while studying the relationship between David and Jonathan – hoping not to find Biblical support for homosexuality, but rather tolerance within the religious community in general. Being 24 in a rural Southern Baptist dominated community is difficult, to say the least. Sadly, it appears I should’ve found my ‘back’ button sooner and not read this thread in its entirety. I’m upset, to say the least – with myself as much as my country and my fellow Christians. First, I’ll respond directly to comments that demand attention. I am trying to remain neutral, but do accept my apologies if I offend or sound demeaning. You all are entitled to your opinions, just as I am mine, and I do very much respect you for it. That respect is why I respond, in fact.
Ian: Francis S. Collins – while he is a man of admirable faith and amazing intelligence – is ultimately biased. You failed to mention he has published another work directly tied to his strong religious beliefs. You should specify your sources as biased if you plan to use them, although I hate to say you most likely knew of such and chose not to disclose that fact. The site you linked, NARTH, uses Collins’ research to attack ‘born-gay’ theories, claiming these born-gay advocates are merely seeking publicity with their gay gene theories. I respect Collins immensely, but any author seeks publicity – I am one myself, and the child of one as well. We make a living this way, you see. I also find it hard to believe NARTH – a group dedicated to the ‘Re-Orientation Therapy’ of homosexuals – would be differently inclined. It’s unfortunate, in my opinion, that Collins’ other, wonderful spiritual work should be tainted by a bias as strong as theirs.
Having read your article, now please read mine. Although, you may find it as distasteful and biased as I found NARTH. Instead of ranting and complaining about hetero/Christian persecution – smacks of Rome, I must say, don’t you think? – it deals with why young homosexuals are perceived as or are in fact promiscuous and, more importantly, what needs to be done to keep them safe. (hopefully that link worked…) While it’s a beautiful idea, redirecting our little lost sheep, one cannot deny that a disenfranchised youth is at risk – regardless of why they are so. It also deals with role models, as does NARTH. At least we’ll find some common ground there, I suppose. Again I mean no disrespect in this, but you are completely missing a very pertinent issue, and I can only hope it is not intentional. Need I remind you of a good Samaritan?
Ethan: Yes, sadly, you are right about Satanism. It is disgusting and, quite frankly, just a random bundle and flux of pagan symbols amid various selections from Judeo-Christian demonology. There is still debate, as you probably know, as to just what exactly this ‘Satan’ character truly is. Some more modern, progressive Christians refer to ‘him’ as a mere personification of ill will among mankind. Some hardliners maintain the insistence that ‘he’ is a tactile presence, a tempter of man, a leader of demonic forces, etc. There’s even vast disagreement as to just which fallen angel ‘he’ really is, if in fact ‘he’ was an angel, if in fact ‘he’ is possessed (no pun intended) of a physical body. I’ve studied it in detail for my next work, and all I’ll say is that Lucifer most likely isn’t anything more than a mistrans and the whole idea of ha-Shaitan may in fact be God’s inquisitor on Earth. You know this, I’m certain. You seem to be well versed in passing judgment based on Biblical text. Your comparison between Satanism and Catholicism, however, is apples and oranges. Beware that forbidden fruit, if I may pun again. As a religion, yes: Satanism is protected by law given it does no harm to anyone, yaddah yaddah ad nauseum, but it is kept just as strictly (if not more-so depending upon the location) separate from public function as is any other religion, if that is what you were inferring with your statement of ‘in certain areas.’ In my public school experience though – well over a decade – any reference to Satanism was grounds for suspension/expulsion, even while the Fellowship of Christian Athletes maintained a massive membership (including myself). And as far as your being put down, or discriminated against, for your higher standard of morals: wrong again.
I make a mean garlic and red-pepper chicken, and you’re welcome at my table anytime – that is, if your higher standard of morals permits you to dine with disorder.
Concerning that ‘disorder’ however, Ian and Ethan, I must set aside my tact for a moment. Forgive me, but any who maintain the belief that homosexuality is a choice have moved passed simple human ignorance into what I can only see as willful cruelty. You contradict yourself here, on at least two levels. I’ll state them, then address them in order. First: why would any man or woman, loving God and Christ, *choose* to partake in such a ‘depraved’ act? Second: if you consider it heresy to say that God would create such a ‘disorder’ so be it, but am I wrong in the belief that mankind may never understand the ‘order’ itself of God’s creation? Is mankind’s unquestioning acceptance of this sheer lack of understanding not one of the cornerstones of Christian faith? Perhaps there is room for argument, or even contradiction in my statements, but:
Concerning ‘choice’ I must point a finger. You do not know, as you obviously are not. Lay down your stones, gentlemen. I have never criticized the idea of heterosexuality – in fact, have longed for it at times. I am what I am, however, and will not change nor seek to change. Lament if you must, but read on.
Related to this is the second question of faith. I accept Jesus in all the various roles and functions as any Christian. With that said, understand that I do not accept the words of any man above God or the Son or the Spirit – Apostle, Saint, Priest, or otherwise. I say this with confidence, because I see God’s works around me every day. I see them in every thing – it’s the magic, and the miracle of life. I do not seek proof of an Almighty being, nor do I rely on a translated (often mistranslated) text to establish my belief. It is simply there, as it always has been, long before sex or marriage was a desire in my life. Call me a heretic, Deist, Protestant, whatever. You will not shake my faith, nor will I change any aspect of the miracle of my creation. Perhaps Christ did in fact condemn homosexuality – that was a new one on me. I’ll rely on my faith for now, unless He tells me otherwise. As it stands, considering I’m here to begin with… I doubt He did, or does. But in trivializing homosexuality, you trivialize me. I apologize if I find that offensive, here with the miracle of life within me.
Concerning love, Ethan: you are correct again, yet you tinge your truth with prejudice. Any love that is not directing first to Him is in fact imperfect, but how could you understand my love for Him? Or worse, proclaim that there is none? Sacred text aside – opinions of mankind included: you would deny me a love of God because men have said you can? You would deny us all that, these ‘disorder’ inflicted homosexuals, until we repent our way of life that you, a man, do not understand… Again, I’ll rely on my faith for now. You speak bold words for a mortal, I’ll give you that much. I admire your faith, although I fear it borders judgment, again.
On that line, Ian, God and His works will forever be infallible. The sheer number of religious denominations however… that might suggest a bit of failing within the Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, and forgive me for the expression, but we’re not in Eden anymore. Have not all these congregations undergone a reconstruction at some point? Is this not expected of mankind? I can only hope it would be, as it is our very nature to be flawed, blind, selfish, and sinful. I regret to inform you, but our Holy Men are still Men, regardless of piety and faith. We are not divine – need I rephrase this again? I don’t think I do. Onward.
Ben: Your statement concerning renting only to homosexuals is nothing more than a jab, and a false jab at that. Len would indeed be deemed discriminatory, or a bigot, if she were to do so. Technically, you just did – your jab was more of a hook, it seems. Any heterosexual denied housing due to that fact could pursue legal action. The question is, on the topic of bigots: would you rent from a homosexual, upon learning they are so? I believe that’s an aspect of multiple arguments. You have the choice not to rent from a homosexual, whereas a homosexual – upon advertising that property – waives their right to choose their tenant. And vice versa. Of course, if you meet all financial requirements (ie: credit, income, etc.) then you have the right to pay money to live wherever you want. That’s called equal protection under the law.
Ian: As to your concerns with equal housing law – keep it. If you’re that interested in my sex-life, it would be a bit weird for both of us, I think…
Of course, concerning the gay marriage debate, we’ll most likely disagree again but I feel it should be said regardless. There is a concept among political scholars – you may know of it – often referred to as ‘The Paradox of Democracy.’ It deals with discrimination and majority rule, stating: while each citizen is given their 1-vote, with the majority being the ultimate decider in policy whether through elected officials, ballots, etc etc, the MAJORITY rule cannot apply to any instance where the minority is ‘discriminated’ against. Let me be clear in that ‘discrimination’ means, in this instance, the withholding of any right from a certain population if that right is enjoyed by others. This is pertinent, as you see, for several reasons.
Whether it’s not wanting queers in your rental or marriage rights for homosexuals, if you choose to claim American citizenship (ie: paying taxes in return for equal protection) then you must be held to the doctrine of equal rights. Many hardliners call it ‘special’ rights or treatment, and compare it to reparations for slavery. This is absurd, of course, because if you choose to enjoy the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all citizens, you must also observe the separation of Church (all denominations) and State, regardless of whether you disagree with it. Forgive my rudeness, but I’ll repeat to you a popular quip I’ve heard many times, in person. If you disagree with it, feel free to move. I hear there are lots of Catholics in Italy, although you may dislike their tax system. Come to think of it… their redistribution of wealth is rather Christian at heart. You may enjoy it, actually.
I have more to say, but I fear I’ve lost all objectivity. I respect and appreciate you all, though. You are entitled to your faith and your opinions, and I consider them to be part of His ‘disorder’ in our creation. I am not meant to understand human nature, but I feel closer to Him in the exploration of it. I can only hope this sentiment is shared.
See that your hearts and minds are open, gentlemen, lest you see that “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24) – That I’ll put my faith in.
God bless.


Joseph M. April 10, 2007 at 6:45 am

I failed to address the original blog, it seems… In the arena of religious schooling, I don’t see the pertinence of teaching homosexual equality. If it’s that important to you, it’s your right to teach intolerance. (See Romans 2:24) As far as any rights in the ‘public’ arena are concerned, I feel my opinion is expressed. As far as the ‘homosexual agenda’: if I’d caught that my first go around I never would’ve bothered. I’m glad I missed it though.


Richard May 23, 2008 at 10:58 am

God does not exisist, simple as that.

How obsurb is God? Something that you cannot see but can see us, who is always right, who created us all. What a load of rubish.

If there was no religion this world would be a much better place.


Wolfy June 1, 2008 at 8:39 am

In response to the religious viewpoint on being forced to agree (with terms of property letting, education) it might be worth looking at the possibility that your religious views are skewed towards unconditional prejudice, which as an intellectual you feel you must justify in some way.

I think it has long been a contradiction of the catholic church to preach love, care and acceptance only for the chosen few. Gay men and women have a right to be treated as equals and should not be lumped into a category of ‘liberal’ nonsense and indoctrination. Much like the intergration of interracial couples in early America, it’s simply a matter of time before these religious counterpoints seem outdated and perverse.


admin June 1, 2008 at 10:30 am

The Church does not preach love, care and acceptance only for the chosen few. The Church teaches love and caring for all and acceptance of good. Whether you are living in homosexual sin, adultery, fornication or are a thief, your actions are not accepted.

There is a difference between love and acceptance. If I love an alcoholic, the last thing I would do to show that love is ignore or even facilitate his addiction. In the same way it is possible to love active homosexuals as creatures of God while at the same time condemning and not accepting their actions – just as it is with every other sin.

Religious views only seem outdated and perverse in a society that has lost its moral compass and believes that there aren’t any moral absolutes.


Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: