Grace & Peace!
Here’s the problem, Faithdancer. DeCourcy said that gay people have a demon. All gay people. Now, you may appeal to the specialist definition of “gay” which often appears on these forums (i.e., a same sex attracted person who actively engages in homosexual sexual activity, defines him- or herself according to their sexuality, and participates in and/or promotes [either implicitly or explicitly] a particular political agenda informed by post-modern relativist identity politics), but to the vast majority of folks out there in the real world, “gay” just means someone who is same sex attracted, regardless of whether or not they engage in homosexual sex. DeCourcy did not care to clarify that he was speaking of same-sex attracted folks who engage in homosexual sex.
So to the average person who may have stumbled onto these forums (and who may be struggling with their religion and their sexuality), DeCourcy’s post says to them: same-sex attracted folks have a demon and they love evil. He continues, though, to equate any sort of homosexual, chaste or no (note that his example references only tendencies and desires, so every same-sex attracted person is pretty much covered), to vampires, the basic point being: same-sex attracted people are soul-less monsters.
By defending DeCourcy, you’ve said to the aforementioned average person stumbling onto these forums that it is entirely appropriate to say that same-sex attracted people are demonic, evil-loving and monstrous. Moreover, your defense implies that making such comparisons can be justified by the moral theology they actually caricature and debase, suggesting thereby that such comparisons and views are totally orthodox and should be seen as uncontroversial because the moral theology that ostensibly supports such views (even though they’re caricatures) should be uncontroversial. But what you don’t seem to realize is that associating such views with orthodox moral theology does not rehabilitate the views, but damages the credibility of the theology and damages your own moral credibility for thinking that the views and the theology are perfectly compatible.
I can understand the desire to defend moral theology against those ignorant of it or vehemently opposed to it, but when the line you draw against detractors and others actually puts on your “side” of the line dehumanizing rhetoric that is just this side of crazy, then I think you need to be more careful about where you’re drawing that line.
Anyway, if any were still wondering “why gays turn away from the Church,” reading DeCourcy’s post and your defense of it should answer the question quite handily.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
)