Homosannah

To the Editor:
Dave Pasinski's article in Sunday's Opinion Section fails to point out an essential aspect concerning homosexual behavior: it is sinful and must be avoided!
When I was taught the faith as a youngster, avoiding the near occasions of sin, or risks for temptation, was also crucial. If, as Dave Pasinski indicates, the Catholic priesthood and seminaries are becoming more gay-friendly, then it is imperative that the Vatican and bishops take action.
A gay-friendly atmosphere helps promote a gay culture which then leads to condoning homosexual behavior. Our priests are called to holiness as well as service. Let's build a priestly culture that promotes both!

Terrence

Well, so much for keeping things light, eh? This may be a touchy issue for some, and even I am a litle loathe to get snarky about it. (By "it", I mean the religious issue. The homophobe issue is deserving of all the sneering contempt we can muster for it.)

I should start by saying I am a Protestant, non-Evangelical Christian. This is in no way an effort to ridicule the spirituality of Christianity, which is really a pretty beautiful thing that does not at all resemble the religion of persecution and self-superiority represented by assholes like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and, with appologies to my Catholic friends, increasingly Pope Adol... I mean, Benedict.

People like the writer of this letter are very vigilant... certainly we're all aware of the increased focus on homosexuality in our culture. This focus is not stemming from the homosexual community, who to a large extent have moved away from their flamboyant, gay-culture roots and are seeking inclusion into mainstream America and promoting their normality. The focus is part of the drive of religious fanatics who see that homosexuals are the last repressed people, a situation that must and inevitably will be corrected, and are trying to do everything in their power to stop that correction from taking place. They are very similar to the armchair racial seperatists who fought the civil rights movement. "That's different," they say. "This is a matter of religion." Bullshit. Until relatively recently, interracial marriages were still illegal in parts of America, and the justification for those laws were almost exclusively culled from the Bible.

The thing is, this entire argument is based on the belief that homosexuality is a sin, something I'm just not willing to buy. Oh, yes, yes, my repressed friend, I'm fully aware that you can open up your bible to that dog-eared page in Leviticus and tell me that God commanded the Israelites not to "lie with" those of the same gender. Good for you. But here's the thing. That was a specific rule, passed specifically to the Israelites, who were struggling to survive on their own after being slaves to Egypt, and were trying to build a nation. Were homosexuality truly a sin that we should all be deeply concerned with, God might have considered including it in the Commandments he passed down for all of us. I like to think he gave those commandments adequate consideration, and the omission there is glaring. Besides, I never see Christians protesting Red Lobster, and yet Leviticus prohibits the eating of shellfish at least as fervently as two guys lying with each other.

Ah, but as Christians, we should really be turning to the New Covenant of the Gospel, right? So why don't you find for me where Jesus decried homosexuals? What's that? You can't? Well, of course you can't, because he didn't. There's a lot of stuff in there about not judging others, and about embracing the outcasts of society, but nothing about tying fags to fenceposts and beating them to death. Strange that, isn't it?

So now the Pope wants to "cleanse" the church of homosexuals. Even if you want to stick by your poorly informed stance on Leviticus, the passage refers only to men lying with men as they lie with women, not the desire to do so. Priests, under a vow of celibicy, aren't lying with anybody. And there's a priest shortage. Seems likely to me that if God was really worried about all the gays involved with his church, he be busy calling up a lot more straight folks to replace them.

Seems to me this is just another campaign of fear, propagated by people that are, most likely, repressed self-hating homosexuals themselves. The only people I ever hear refering to homosexuality as a "choice" are fanatical religious christerbators who are trying really hard not to have to face the realities of their own sexualities. Reasonable straight folks like myself realize that we never "chose" to be straight, and see no reason to assume anyone else has that "choice" either. If these folks believe so fervently that we choose our sexual orientation, doesn't that seem to imply that they made a choice themselves, most likely that of self-loathing misplaced on others instead of self-acceptance?

I'm pretty sick of these self-righteous, insecure tight-asses holding up their right to be ignorant like it's some sort of badge. You can be ignorant, and you can "choose" to be a hate-spewing fuck, but you are deserving of the contempt you get, and a shitload more to boot. One day, you're going to find yourself in the position those segregationists do today, realizing you spent a lot of energy supporting an ideology of ignorance and hate. Tell the grankids all about Pop-pop's letter to the Post Standard, and let them laugh at Pop-pop's stupidity. I'll be laughing too. Hopefully God has a sense of humor.