Catholic League: There's a Homosexual Crisis in the Priesthood, Never was a

[estesbob]

I base that on the Bible and “love thy neighbor”.

[Your argument that tries to refute my own about homosexuality being entropic by nature is unappealing and irrelevant. Broad sweeping statements without any sort of justification are the basis for weak arguments that have no moral standing.

You have offered nothing for your contentions other than you personal opinion. If you are asking us to go aganst the consistent teaching of the Church oiver 2,000 years and the widom of nearly every civilization in the history of the qorld you have to offer a liitel more than “Homosexuality is not a sin”

Furthermore, do not even dare to use the justification that a few bad gay men did something, so we must bar all gay men from being a priest. Your argument about history can so easily be turned against you. The injustices of the past are no justification for establishing present day inequalities. Surely you are not suggesting that every gay priest is a child molestor–or that every openly gay man is a child molester?

Not every homosexual Priest molested children but nearly every child molested was molested by a homosexual Priest. The Church has always forbade men with sexual disorders from the Priesthood This was relaxed (though not officially) in the mid 60s and the result was the homosexua Priest scandal.In addtion the word “gay” denotes one who is engaged in homosexual behavior. You simply can not have a Priest who is in the constant state of mortal sin,

**Who said I was intrpreting it for everyone? I said it was my own personal belief. **

Do not dare to presume that I have the audacity to impose my beliefs on others and think that I am holier than thou. It does not mean I am right–It also does not mean that I am wrong. I believe a person is essentially a good person if they have good moral qualities-what Jesus would call a good man. I think that a perfect God would realize that an innate charcteristic of a human–whom he created-- is not a justification for calling their behavior a sin. Is a man who is black less of a human–is he innately sinful for something he cannot control? I should hope not. I realize you will disagree with me here, but I want to hear why you think homosexuality is a sin, besides the fact that you were told it was.

You said homosexuality was no a sin based on your peresonal interpretation of scripture. Sounds to me lilke you are interpretng scripture for the rest of us. I dont have a personal interpretation of scripture as there is no way I have the wisdom and insight to go against the consistent interpreation of the Magestrium over the last 2,000 years. What basis to you have to reject this?

Your last two comments are completely unneccesary.

Please debate in a civilized and frank matter.

There you go moderating again. It would be nice if you could make a post without whining about how you are treated.
[/quote]

 

[estesbob]

Matt,

What is dangerous is retrofitting the Bible to fit your personal beliefs. The opposite of relativism is Catholicism.

It is interestng that one of the most commom scripture verses we see for jusifying sin is “love your neighbor” One uses that and ignore the rest of the bible. Thus "love your neighbor " become “sodomy is OK”

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for acknowledging that it is a big deal. I have been heartbroken by the number of posts on these forums insinuating (or outright declaring) that victims are making it up, only in it for the money, the “everyone else is molesting” fingerpointing, and so on.

I havent seen any posts like-for sure not is this thread.

I also find it very VERY hard to believe that if a 9-11 (I was being generous with the 12-16, but on review of this thread am seeing that apparently 9 year olds are no longer children) boy (man?) was raped by some sleazeball in the neighborhood, there would not be an outraged cry of “pedophile! child molestor!” by the same people who are so quick to point out that when a priest does it, it’s not a crime against a child, because puberty may have started.

Yes a 9 year can have reached puberty. Stateing the obvious does not minimize what happened. But unless we identify the problem we cant solve it. If the Church had never let a pediophile into the priesthood 90% of the abuses would still have taken place. That is why we must be careful with how we evaluate the problem

Honestly, it seems a ludicrous, callous, appalling line of reasoning that comes off as an excuse. Since Catholics are so clear that harming a child is worse than harming an adult (with abortion being the absolute worst sin), if you make the child no longer a child…well, that gets Father off the hook a little bit.

Not a single person has offered the fact the that the majorty of molestations was homosexua rape rather than pediophilia as an excuse. frankly I am havng a hard time seeing what you are so outraged about.

I was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 3 (possibly before, though I do not have memories before 3) - he was a fine, upstanding, married man - most would claim heterosexual, I claim pedophile. BTW, he claimed I seduced him and wanted it ?

Now, there is a world of difference between a 3 year old and a 9 year old. How many 9-11 year olds still believe in Santa? Have to go to bed at 8:30? Watch cartoons on Saturday morning, trick or treat, go to ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? They’re children for all intents and purposes, except one - when people want to whitewash the sins of the priests who went after them precisely because they were children.

Under the law there are children until 18 . So what?? Not one single person has tried to whitewash what happened. What we have pointed out is the Catholic league is right-there is a homosexual crisis in the Priesthood

 

[estesbob]

Read post 137 of this thread and see what he was reffering to in Jims post. Kevin was disputing this by goofyjim.

I agree with Jim that his SSA and bing chaste is not a sin. I disagree with him in that someone with SSA should not be in the priesthood or for that matter a nun or sister.

I totally disagree with Matt that acting on the SSA (homosexual relation) is not a sin and is a normal for him so acceptable. We can’t rewrite the rules to suit ourselves. Adam, Eve and the snake tried that and see where it led us.

You and I are in total agreement!

 

[mattyc4]

Estesbob,

How about you respond to my points? Every argument I make, you simply avoid. I may be mistaken, but I asked you for some evidence from the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin(pretty much so I can refute it). No dice.

You claim “You have offered nothing for your contentions other than you personal opinion. If you are asking us to go aganst the consistent teaching of the Church oiver 2,000 years and the widom of nearly every civilization in the history of the qorld you have to offer a liitel more than “Homosexuality is not a sin””

Where have you given any justification for it being a sin? How can I prove something is not a sin without refuting “evidence”. Also, I take great offense about the wisdom of nearly every civilization. Not everyone is Christian, nor even a majority. In fact, there are a few major religions that do not believe homosexuality is wrong. I would like to see some evidence–not simply–Oh, I was told it was a sin and I am a good little blind follower.

Again, your part replying to the priesthood: homosexuality is not a disorder according to any established, accredited scientific agency. Your argument is refuted. Try again. You need a new premise.

Please look up personal in the dictionary. How can a personal intrepretatation lead to me intrepretating scripture for everyone? What is the definition of PERSONAL? (also, what basis do you have for blindly following?) Just because something has been around for 2000 years does not make it right or just.

It would be nice if you stopped whining about me whining. I am not the one insinuating that your charcter is greatly flawed. All I want is to discuss in a civilized manner without any personal attacks, Bob.

I have to go to class now,
Thanks
Matt

 

[mattyc4]

Read post 137 of this thread and see what he was reffering to in Jims post. Kevin was disputing this by goofyjim.

I agree with Jim that his SSA and bing chaste is not a sin. I disagree with him in that someone with SSA should not be in the priesthood or for that matter a nun or sister.

I totally disagree with Matt that acting on the SSA (homosexual relation) is not a sin and is a normal for him so acceptable. We can’t rewrite the rules to suit ourselves. Adam, Eve and the snake tried that and see where it led us.

My only problem with this–We HAVE rewritten many rules to suit ourselves…I’m not sure it is neccesary to bring up examples, because they might cause some anger, but I am sure everyone knows some examples.

Thanks,
Matt

PS I am still not convinced this is a rule, per se

 

[estesbob]

How about you respond to my points? Every argument I make, you simply avoid. I may be mistaken, but I asked you for some evidence from the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin(pretty much so I can refute it). No dice.

*CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON HOMOSEXUALITY *

*2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

I have offered the consisent techings of Scripture and the Church on this subect going back 4,000 years. You have offered your opinion that all those who went before us were wrong. I asked you where you got this special insight. So far all you have offered is a comment that you interpret scirpture differently. Note that Iam not asking you to accept my interpretation but you are asking us to accept yours

It would be nice if you stopped whining about me whining. I am not the one insinuating that your charcter is greatly flawed. All I want is to discuss in a civilized manner without any personal attacks, Bob.

There you go again. are you auditioning for a moderators job?

 

[estesbob]

My only problem with this–We HAVE rewritten many rules to suit ourselves…I’m not sure it is neccesary to bring up examples, because they might cause some anger, but I am sure everyone knows some examples.

Examples would be helpful. I dont know about kathleen but i havent a clue as to what you are refering to.

 

[mattyc4]

*CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON HOMOSEXUALITY *

*2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is 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.

I have offered the consisent techings of Scripture and the Church on this subect going back 4,000 years. You have offered your opinion that all those who went before us were wrong. I asked you where you got this special insight. So far all you have offered is a comment that you interpret scirpture differently. Note that Iam not asking you to accept my interpretation but you are asking us to accept yours

There you go again. are you auditioning for a moderators job?

Scripture please.

 

[fix]

Scripture please.

Where did Scripture come from?

 

[estesbob]

Scripture please.

Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10],

If you are going to interpret these verses differently than they have been interpreted throughout the ages please let us know where you got the authority to do this.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Examples would be helpful. I dont know about kathleen but i havent a clue as to what you are refering to.

I am confused also.

 

[jimmy85]

The catholic church must do something, As our lady said in Medjurgore the whole world depends of the santity of the priests.
We are all sinner and we must show compassion for all sinners as well.

But the church could promote more the deacones and that kind of life style, rather than the priesthood in the cases of people that cant be celibate all ther life.

Also the church should lauch some sort of campain to help priest that are in this dire situation, by making them to admit their fault and “then work in order to get this people a stable job out of the priesthood”.

Priest need our prayers more than anybody, they are in a struggling situation everyday.

 

[mattyc4]

Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10],

If you are going to interpret these verses differently than they have been interpreted throughout the ages please let us know where you got the authority to do this.

Gen 19: 1-29 only discusses homosexual rape. Want me to quote you a passage that condemns heterosexual rape, then say it applies and implies that all heterosexual love is wrong and evil. Also, sodomite originally meant a resident of Sodom–nothing to do with sex.

“Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites – the demands for same-gender sex – are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels.” --Inge Anderson

Also, it is widely believed the story of Sodom is more about hospitality then about homosexuality according to biblical scholars.

However, I am very glad you are not quoting Lev., as it is very often mistranslated and is not what it seems.

Romans:

Dr. R.S. Truluck states, “Paul’s writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul’s writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.” (religioustolerance)
The passage you quote could easily be intrepreted differently. It could refer to those who act outside their own sexual norms with the help of illicit substances. There is a lot more on this passage as well, if you want more just ask or do a little research.

1 Cor:
Which translation are you using?

Tim.:
Also depends which translastion you are using. The term that might say homosexual in your version is most likely mis-translated.

The Greek word “arsenokoitai” which has been mis-translated as homosexual, was apparently created by Paul and could refer to prostitutes, pedophiles, boy slaves, pimps, etc. They just don’t know.

Thanks
Matt

 

[estesbob]

Gen 19: 1-29 only discusses homosexual rape. Want me to quote you a passage that condemns heterosexual rape, then say it applies and implies that all heterosexual love is wrong and evil. Also, sodomite originally meant a resident of Sodom–nothing to do with sex.

Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites – the demands for same-gender sex – are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident
with Lot and the angels." --Inge Anderson

By what authority does Inge Anderson interpret scipture for the rest of us? What insight does he have that escaped all those who went before him? By what right does he overturn the accepted interpretations of the last 2000 years

Also, it is widely believed the story of Sodom is more about hospitality then about homosexuality according to biblical scholars.

Widely believed by who ? This is a perfect example of of twisting Scripture to try and justify sin. You will not find this interpretation in any tradition of any church or in any scripture analysis prior this generation. .

However, I am very glad you are not quoting Lev., as it is very often mistranslated and is not what it seems.

And you base that on what?

Romans:

Dr. R.S. Truluck states, “Paul’s writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul’s writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.” (religioustolerance)
The passage you quote could easily be intrepreted differently. It could refer to those who act outside their own sexual norms with the help of illicit substances. There is a lot more on this passage as well, if you want more just ask or do a little research.

By what authority Truluck assume to interpret scripture for the rest of us.? And what special insight was he given that allows him to change the interpretation of these verses from what has been believed for the last 2000 years . Why didn’t any of the Church Fathers pick up on this error? Why did all churches up till the latter half of the 20th century not realize we were in error?

A

Also depends which translastion you are using. The term that might say homosexual in your version is most likely mis-translated.

The Greek word “arsenokoitai” which has been mis-translated as homosexual, was apparently created by Paul and could refer to prostitutes, pedophiles, boy slaves, pimps, etc. They just don’t know.

I am afraid you are confuing Kione Greek with Classical Greek There is no dispute on the translation of this word other than from those who want to twist the verse to support their new improved interpretation of Scripture. Unfortunately those afflicted by presentism , that is those you believe that we are more enlightened than any generation in the history of mankind, twist definitions to justify any perversions they want to participate in

 

[rpp]

Gen 19: 1-29 only discusses homosexual rape. Want me to quote you a passage that condemns heterosexual rape, then say it applies and implies that all heterosexual love is wrong and evil. Also, sodomite originally meant a resident of Sodom–nothing to do with sex.

“Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites – the demands for same-gender sex – are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels.” --Inge Anderson

Also, it is widely believed the story of Sodom is more about hospitality then about homosexuality according to biblical scholars.

However, I am very glad you are not quoting Lev., as it is very often mistranslated and is not what it seems.

Romans:

Dr. R.S. Truluck states, “Paul’s writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul’s writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.” (religioustolerance)
The passage you quote could easily be intrepreted differently. It could refer to those who act outside their own sexual norms with the help of illicit substances. There is a lot more on this passage as well, if you want more just ask or do a little research.

1 Cor:
Which translation are you using?

Tim.:
Also depends which translastion you are using. The term that might say homosexual in your version is most likely mis-translated.

The Greek word “arsenokoitai” which has been mis-translated as homosexual, was apparently created by Paul and could refer to prostitutes, pedophiles, boy slaves, pimps, etc. They just don’t know.

Thanks
Matt

Matt,

Little, if any, of what you wrote or quoted here is consistent with the following sources:

• Traditional Catholic Church Teaching on faith and morals.
• Authoritative Magisterial Church Teachings.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• The Bible.
• Sacred Tradition.
• Common Sense.
• Logic.
• Linguistics.
• The Moral teachings of all other major non-Catholic religions (e.g. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.)
• The safety of children.
• The rights of parents.
• The dignity of persons.
• Reproductive science.
• Modern science’s understanding of Natural Selection.

 

[mattyc4]

Funny. Your response to mine was humorous and not serious, correct? You are saying any intrepretation that does not coincide with your own, is inhernetly wrong, simply for being different? That, my friend, is incredible arrogance and hubris and I know it had to be a joke. Inge was just an example. There are millions of christians who think the same. If you aren’t willing to embrace other opinions and intrepretations and immediately fall back on–“who are you to say that” and “I am always right and infalliable”, the world would never improve. Your intrepretations have not been around for thousands of years…maybe a few hundred at most. The Bible is not exactly infalliable–it condones slavery, the oppression of women, and other equally morally reprehensible acts. You cannot go into a discussion and simply always think you are right.

According to whom? According to biblical scholars.

By what right do you dare tell me my intepretation is flawed? By what right do you dare have the incredible audacity to condemn behavior simply because you disagree with it?
I am simply providing an alternate view point. Maybe mine is right, maybe yours is right. At least I am not blindly following what I am told to do without questioning.

Your last paragraph is rubbish and has no basis in fact. Thats like saying, there is no dispute except for people who disagree with it. A trivial, worthless statement.

Matt

 

[mattyc4]

Matt,

Little, if any, of what you wrote or quoted here is consistent with the following sources:

• Traditional Catholic Church Teaching on faith and morals.
• Authoritative Magisterial Church Teachings.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
• The Bible.
• Sacred Tradition.
• Common Sense.
• Logic.
• Linguistics.
• The Moral teachings of all other major non-Catholic religions (e.g. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.)
• The safety of children.
• The rights of parents.
• The dignity of persons.
• Reproductive science.
• Modern science’s understanding of Natural Selection.

I agree with your first five points. The Bible-well, that depends who you ask. Many many christians would disagree with you.
Sacred Tradition- Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. Tradition is also pointless without relevance.
Common Sense- Pretty offensive point that does not make sense, at all.
Logic- Come on now, are you serious? It is logical to oppress people and give them second class citizenship? It is right? It is moral?
Linguistics-Already addressed.
Other religions-Some of Christianity has no problem, neither does buddhism.
The safety of children- Are you kidding me? Seriously? Did you read any of the prior posts? That is offensive. Gays are a threat to children? No more than heterosexuals.
The rights of parents- Many gay and lesbian parents have children. I am not even sure how you can make this argument.
The dignity of persons- Seriously? What about the dignity of homosexuals. I am not even sure what you are driving at.
Reproductive science- What are you referring to here? the ability to have children without sex?
Evolution- Enough said.

Matt

 

[cmudd]

Cmudd,

Perhaps my choice of words were a little strong. Let me explain why I used them. Regardless of a child’s sexual orientation, I think suicide is an extremely serious matter that requires a good deal of attention. I feel it is irrresponsible to belittle the troubles that homosexual children and teens go through. Perhaps you do not believe the statistics, but everything I have read has led me to believe that homosexuals have a greater risk of depression and suicide. I feel, as a responsible and caring individual, that I must do everything I can to help. Teens who already have problems accepting their sexuality do not need to be told that their “problem” is as serious as suicide. Arguments that have been made for centuries are dandy, but just because of longevity does not make it a valid stance. However, I do apologize for calling you arrogant and irresponsible–It was uncalled for–It is just an extremely serious matter.

Of course suicide is an extremely serious matter. I never made light of the terrible suffering that these people experience. My original contention is that suicide and the homosexual act are both entropic actions and, further, that such a comparison is indeed valid and worthy of discussion. Longevity does suggest some validity. This is not to say that recent thought is invalid rather, it is to heighten the attention that my original contention has garnered throughout history.

I am, of course, open to a civil discussion on the matter. Also, calling your stance arrogant and irresponsible does not imply you are an arrogant and irresponsible individual.

Apology accepted! You are obviously bright. It does your abilities a disservice to resort to *ad homonym *arguments.

To clear up one point, of course homosexual men are much more likely to abuse male teens and children than their heterosexual counterparts. Likewise, heterosexual men are much more likely to abuse female teens and children than their homosexual counterparts.

(To be clear, I am writing about homosexual assault, not pederasty/pedophilia) I suppose I have no argument with this statement. Is this to say that heterosexual men are as likely to abuse girls as homosexual men are to abuse boys? I think the evidence shows otherwise. Whichever the case, however, the vast majority of the cases of abuse in the Church were committed against pubescent boys and young men by other men. This should be cause for some concern. We are not talking about a 60/40 split here. We are talking about closer to 80- 90% of incidences.

I do NOT think homosexuality is a sin, nor is it inherently disordered or entropic.

This much is clear. But why and according to what logic? How is sodomy not a distortion of the natural act and why is the homosexual act not entropic? The sexual act, in its basic employment, is a means by which to procreate. The natural pleasure is an incentive to ensure procreation… a means, not an end. The homosexual act is devoid of procreative potential. When one entirely removes the procreative potential of the sexual act (the very act by which the species is propagated) does man not doom himself?

Homosexuality, at the very latest, has been around since the Greeks. It cannot therefore be an “inherently entropic activity”, which, by definition, would mean: “Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society”(American Heritage dictionary) How can something that has been around for thousands of years steadily deteriorate our society, which has likely become a much better place since the Greeks. How can homosexuality be entropic?

Let me be as clear as I can. The singular homosexual act is entropic, in and of itself. This is not to say that every man and/or society that engages in homosexual activity will die off. However, someone earlier made the correct observation that societal collapse seems to follow sexual licentiousness.

Are you making the claim that gay priests cannot be close to God?

I never made that claim.

Just because an extremely small majority of priests abused their power does not mean that gays should be barred from the church. This argument is an extremely dangerous one to make.

Why is this dangerous? How? Should I be scared to make this type of argument? BTW, the Church does not bar them from anything any more than it bars you and I for acting out on our disordered desires (if you have any).

 

[cmudd]

Do I think Homosexuality is a sin–Absolutely not. Why? It is my personal interpretation of the Bible. I am not sure if this is a relevant discussion, but if you would like, I will go into it in detail if you so please.

Not sure that this is germane. Nevertheless, the Church concurs: homosexual attraction is not a sin; the homosexual act is, however, gravely disordered and is objectively sinful.

I actually didn’t get my entire question out before I was hushed by the professor and a handful of students. My question went something like this: If we are to assume that homosexual attraction is dictated by our genetics, would this not conflict with our understanding of recessive and dominant genes? Homosexual inclinations would naturally lead to a lack of progeny who might pass on this trait because the natural inclination of the homosexual creature would be to avoid intercourse with the opposite sex in favor of sexual intercourse with the same sex. While this would not totally eliminate every trace of the homosexual gene, wouldn’t it be a trait that would, over millennia of evolution, be naturally bread out of a species? You see, at that point there was still some debate as to whether or not homosexuality was genetic (which is not the same as being born with it). Seeing the increase in people who identify themselves as homosexual, I wanted to pose the question/statement as a point of contention. I never got that far, but, as you can see, it is a valid question. And, as always, I made a point to present my contentions in a fairly clinical/sterile fashion.

I know this is anecdotal, but the college I went to was as liberal in its ideological and philisophical approach to education (oops! learning) as one can find anywhere else in the nation. However, the mantra of free speech rarely extended itself to those who had opposing viewpoints. It was a classic case of hipocracy. Funny thing, besides my philosophy courses, the one class where I was free to voice my opinions was Women Studies! I think this might have had something to do with the professor being worried that I might complain to the school about being marginalized becasue I was the only male in the class. Nevertheless, it was a pretty fair give-and-take without much anger or other problems.