David Parker is a man’s man, a go-getter and a defender of the innocence of his children. He has not counted the cost, but has gone to the ends of the earth to make sure that the pro-gay marriage, homosexual teachers in Massachusetts don’t have the right to indoctrinate children in public schools into the homosexual lifestyle.
If you doubt that the morals of children are being corrupted via the gay lifestyle by homosexual teachers in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal, then let me attest to the fact that it is happening. Teachers are instructing young children in the mechanics of homosexual acts. I would be happy to provide evidence of the fact to anyone interested. I will not post the link here, as sometimes young people frequent this blog.
Here is part of the article linked to above about David Parker’s plight:
A Massachusetts father who was handcuffed and arrested after objecting to teachers and school managers indoctrinating his 5-year-old son in the homosexual lifestyle will be appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his case because of the “national significance” of the precedent.
“[Unless the case is overturned,] it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be,” David Parker told WND.
David Parker and his team of lawyers talk to the press after an earlier court hearing. Left to right: Robert Sinsheimer, Jeffrey Denner, David Parker, Neil Tassel
He and his lawyers, of Denner Pellegrino LLP in Boston, recently confirmed they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, following an appeals court decision that, as Parker described, allows the “indoctrination” of small children.
“The teachers do not have a constitutional right to do that,” he told WND. “That, to me, is the crux of this.”
He said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents’ free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents’ religious teachings.
“They can just teach the children at home,” Parker said the court found regarding parents.
“But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years,” he said. “That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.
“Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]” he noted.
“It’s not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It’s the teacher’s manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it’s a good ideology.
“It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children,” Parker said. “Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.
“Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they’re minds are being used as battlegrounds,” he said.
“What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called ‘gay’ rights’ to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools,” he said.
He said such a plan eventually will cause those schools to “implode,” because so many concerned parents will see they have no alternative but to remove their children from public schools.
Mary Victrix 
When you say that ‘Teachers are instructing young children in the mechanics of homosexual acts’, what does that actually mean? Are teachers showing children pictures of homosexuals having sex? Are they explaining it to them in detail?
They are explaining and defending the practice of homosexual activity.
Having read the link you e-mailed to me, the only thing I have a problem with is the fairly explicit stuff that one teacher mentioned, which doesn’t seem to be widespread.
It’s good that teachers are actually acknowledging that homosexuality exists and that it doesn’t make you some sort of freak if you’re gay. Even when I was doing sex education at the age of eighteen, there was no mention at all of homosexuality; it was if it didn’t exist.
God Bless this man!
Sex education is bad enough, but teachers promoting and accepting homosexuality is even worse…
Sex education is bad? That’s funny, because prior to my class having sex education, several members of it thought that you couldn’t get pregnant the first time you did it – at the age of sixteen. Do you really want kids going around with ideas like that?
Who holds the primary obligation and right to instruct children; the state or parents? The is the crux. David Parker is indeed a brave man and an example for all fathers in that he’s gone to this length to protect the innocence of his children. But I also foresee a dangerous precedent that may be in the making. What if the Supreme Court rules against him? It seems to me that this would cement the right of every public school and institution in the nation to indoctrinate children in any new fad perversion that comes down the pike, regardless of parental preference. This could basically eradicate the rights of parents.
Not that I think that David Parker is being imprudent. Indeed, I commend him on his action. What he’s doing is right and proper, in my opinion, and we should emulate him. All fathers’ should take a page out of Parker’s playbook and engage society to the fullest degree at every opportunity. But in the meantime; while we’re working towards transforming society, and since we already know that public (and most private) schools are festering cess pools of instruction in every vice imaginable – is it prudent to allow our children to be instructed in such institutions? Obviously, for most cases, no. As parents, we are obligated to instruct our children. If we sincerely cannot home school, then we must at least make every effort to ensure that our children are truly educated, and kept far away from the influence of those that plunder our children’s hearts and minds.
Sex education is a good thing, if done by the parents like Steve said. I was unfortunatly exposed to sex education in school (aka health calss). It was very irreverent twords sex but fortunately my parents were good in telling me everything before hand and answered every question I had so that the school wouldn’t trick me into accepting safe sex as an alternative to not having sex. And I used the word ‘trick’ because yes, the school did teach abstinence as a better thing than using birth control, but they gave you so many diffrent ways to ‘do it’ without getting cought, getting an STD, and getting the girl pregnant that any unchastisized guy will say to him-self “well if i can have sex and not get my girl friend pregnant, my parents will never know… well then why not”. Why did the schools even start doing this in the first place if you really think about it, it not there place at all in fact its a little creepy.
I’ve heard about this … is this a fairly recent case or is this the case from last year at some point? It’s tragic because it undermines what some parents are trying to teach from home. Granted, many parents do NOT teach their children and this is part of the breakdown. Without parental involvement, you do get kids who are terrified, say, when puberty hits. But, what is very sad is that parents who DO try to teach at home, can be forced to have their children dragged into these classes in SOME states where the morals that they tried to discuss at home get undermined. Anyway, we need to make sure this doesn’t happen in more states. Some states have created their health curriculum and do not allow parents to remove their children. CT, fortunately, still allows parents to remove their children from any part of the curriculum … either lecture by lecture or an entire course if necessary. We have done that and have never been given a hard time. Should this policy change, we will need to change how we educate our children.
For any parents out there who may not be *up* on this, you should speak directly with your child’s teacher each year. Ask them what exactly they will be teaching. Some teachers have told me in private that they are Christian parents themselves and absolutely would NEVER teach such stuff. Each state has its requirements of what the school must teach but each town can *elaborate* on that if they wish. So, you should KNOW what your town’s philosophy is on this. And, do it each year because things can change from year to year.
Currently in my town’s elementary school, health education is mostly about cleanliness and smart choices that all parents probably instruct their children to do or not do. For instance, don’t eat candy on the sidewalk … it could have germs or it might not really be candy! I have no problem with the teachers re-emphasizing this. Brush your teeth and, sadly, don’t touch another child’s bloody boo-boo because there are some serious germs out there (AIDS, Hepatitis, etc) .. they do not even discuss the names of these viruses until older elementary. The adolescent elementary discussions are done where girls are separate from boys in MY town. (Find out about yours!) I make it a point to talk with those teaching it each year to find out what they’re saying … I know both teachers well! It’s truly nothing that I don’t teach them myself, there are no visuals and it’s really more for girls than boys who truly need to KNOW certain things by that age. So I allow it. By middle school, I begin to get more selective and by highschool, I pull them entirely. We are blessed to be allowed to do this. So, for any parents reading this, STAY INFORMED and exercise your rights in a polite fashion. It goes a long way.
However, MA is pretty close to CT and philosophies can tend to ooze on over quite easily. It’s a lot of work, but we must stay informed and then be bold like this gentleman was. He is a living martyr, really … and he will be remembered for his sacrifice. God bless him.
BTW, lifelessonsfromwriting, the problem people have is when their moral beliefs are slaughtered. It would be like having an orthodox Jewish boy in class where everyone told him that his ideas of, say, kosher food were foolish and the teachers or classmates tempted him to eat them and go against his beliefs. Or, that his circumcision was ridiculous and that he shouldn’t continue that practice … get with the times, man! This would be wrong to do. Christians should not be teaching that homosexuals are bad people … just like they shouldn’t teach that alcoholics are bad people, but we also don’t want to imply that there’s nothing immoral about these which is what these programs can tend to do.
That’s our *beef* with them.
-Jen
BTW, lifelessonsfromwriting, the problem people have is when their moral beliefs are slaughtered. It would be like having an orthodox Jewish boy in class where everyone told him that his ideas of, say, kosher food were foolish and the teachers or classmates tempted him to eat them and go against his beliefs. Or, that his circumcision was ridiculous and that he shouldn’t continue that practice … get with the times, man! This would be wrong to do. Christians should not be teaching that homosexuals are bad people … just like they shouldn’t teach that alcoholics are bad people, but we also don’t want to imply that there’s nothing immoral about these which is what these programs can tend to do.
That’s our *beef* with them.
It would also be quite a bit like the child of racist, White Nationalist parents being taught (against their will) that people of all races are equal and that it’s immoral to believe otherwise. In fact, I’ve seen racist parents complain bitterly about this – in exactly the same language that you’re using.
Do you think schools should refrain from addressing racism in case their are racist children in the class whose rights are being trampled?
lifelessonsfromwriting,
Racism is bigotry because it makes judgments about people as a class, based on nothing more than the fact that they belong to the class.
This concern has to do with behavior. To compare the perennial and almost universal acknowledgment of the sinfulness of sodomy to white “nationalalism” is a bit of a stretch. But that is exactly the point. The whole success of the same-sex marriage lobby is based on its ability to equate a defense of traditional marriage and morality with bigotry.
The supreme court of Massachusetts and the school boards are engaged in social engineering and parents have a right to resist it.
I will admit; however that the schools in Massachusetts are acting in a perfectly consistent way with the legal status of same-sex marriage in that state. This is why David Parker’s case is so important. It calls into question the legitimacy of
the courts and legislatures playing with an old institution thousands of years old.
Actually, White Nationalism is about behaviour – at least, it is among its more intelligent proponents (of whom there are many, despite the Hollywood steretype). I disagree vehemently with White Nationalism, but I’ve argued with its supporters extensively. By far, their major issue is with the perceived antisocial behaviour of other races. There are those who say ‘he’s black/Jewish/Chinese/whatever, therefore below us’, but they’re not actually that common.
And yes, there are many White Nationalists who feel that their religion calls them to make racial distinctions or even hate those of other races. That doesn’t stop it from being ignorant bigotry – not in their case, and not in yours.
Those who have said it is a sin to be other than white, have always been on the fringe. The irrationality of their position makes a presumption of bigotry a fair judgment.
This sinfulness of sodomy and the reprehensible nature of teaching the acts and lifestyle to children has only been challenged in a significant way in the modern West for the last few decades.
Apples and oranges.
BTW, and I say this with all due respect, you do not know me. For you to compare my position to white nationalism seems a bit prejudicial.
The comparison seems inevitable when you both condemn entire groups of other people based on extremely shaky reasoning.
This sinfulness of sodomy and the reprehensible nature of teaching the acts and lifestyle to children has only been challenged in a significant way in the modern West for the last few decades.
What ‘modern West’ are you talking about here? The one in which homosexuality was considered a mental illness for decades? The one in which homosexuality was illegal in most countries – in some up until the early 90’s?
Hang on, I think I misunderstood what you were saying in that last post – did you mean that it’s only recently that people have started to teach that homosexuality is acceptable, or that it’s only recently that people have started to challenge the teaching that it’s acceptable?
The entire issue of the state teaching taking away the parents’ rights to teach there children sounds a bit like the classic Communist Situation back in Communist Russia. The one thing the Russians understood was that in order to change the people, you had to indoctrinate the children, and seperate them from their parents and grandparents, since the older society knew well what the communists were up to, and would not fully join them. The entire mission is to create the conflict between the parents beliefs and their children’s, for in doing so, there can be no peace in the family, which is of course. is the basic unit of human society…
Lifelessonsfromwriting,
I think I’d like to clarify this a bit further. Like Father Angelo said, there’s a world of difference between teaching bigotry and teaching things that many religions find to be immoral. I hear what you’re trying to say. But where I think you might not be understanding is that for bigots (those who say they hate EVERYONE from one race, creed or even those who say they hate all homosexuals) is very different from a teacher that is instructing kids on how to perform certain acts that some find immoral! I, for instance, would never tell my children that homosexuals are BAD people and to not like them. That would be bigotry. I, in fact, have had friends and acquaintenances who are gay or lesbians. If I were a bigot, I would NOT have wanted to talk to them AT ALL. I know bigots, there’s a huge difference here. As I mentioned above, alcoholism is something that can be viewed similarly, in a strange sort of way. We have friends and family members who are alcoholics. They are dear people and they are struggling with a heavy cross. BUT, that doesn’t mean that I would teach my kids that drinking that much is okay … even if Uncle so-and-so may have had a gene predisposing him to this. It uses and/or abuses the body in a way not intended and that is what makes it immoral behavior. It’s the BEHAVIOR that isn’t healthy. It is the behavior that we don’t want to emulate. Homosexuality is the same way. Let’s face it, we were designed with some pretty funny-looking body parts if we don’t come to terms with the fact that these ‘funny looking’ parts are there for a very specific reason … procreation!!! They aren’t there for mere pleasure … that’s an added bonus. So, to use them for selfish purposes (which is what homosexuality does) alters the entire reason for why we were created the way we were. Does any other species (plant or animal) CHOOSE this lifestyle? No … its species would stop propulgating. It goes against nature. THAT’S what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about HATING homosexuals just like we’re not talking about hating ANYONE, for that matter. But, bigotry is all about hating people. We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Do we all have sin? Of course we do so that is why we dare not judge. That doesn’t mean that this sin with which each of us struggles isn’t wrong. We must call a spade a spade and carry our cross.
So, I feel badly that some struggle with homosexuality. It goes against nature even if they don’t feel it to be a sin. To teach my kids that it’s perfectly normal rips apart my children’s morality. I don’t want my children learning that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and then taught HOW to perform these acts. Just like I don’t want my kids being taught that there’s nothing wrong with drugs (even if they were to become legal one day) and being taught how to use these drugs in a *safe* manner. That doesn’t mean that I’m teaching my kids to hate people who are homosexuals and/or drug addicts! To compare this to the White Nationalists who don’t want their kids being taught that they cannot hate certain races is sort of missing our point which is why I hoped to clarify things.
Peace,
jen
I really don’t see how you can say on one hand that you’re not condemning homosexuality while on the other compare it to alcoholism and drug abuse (or use). I honestly can’t think of anything I’d compare to either of those that I wouldn’t be condemning fairly harshly. If I said that Christianity is like alcoholism, how would you perceive that?
So, I feel badly that some struggle with homosexuality. It goes against nature even if they don’t feel it to be a sin.
Okay, here are two points that I don’t get. Most homosexuals don’t ‘struggle’ with homosexuality – at least, those who live around people who accept it don’t. By far, the biggest source of ‘struggle’ comes from other people, including well-intentioned religious people who see homosexuality as a ‘sin’ or something that needs to be cured. I can tell you from personal experience that when you live among acceptive people, or other homosexual people, it stops becoming a big deal almost overnight; you quickly realize that it’s only one part of who you are and that there are other things in your life that are for more important. When you treat it as something unhealthy or negative, you’re not helping, regardless of how much you think you might be.
I’ve also never understood the ‘it goes against nature’ argument. What is ‘nature’, exactly? Is it firing machines into space? Is it altering plant genomes to yield bigger, healthier crops than would otherwise have grown naturally? Is it giving our species the means to prosper far beyond what we’d be able to achieve without modern medicine and vaccinations? Humans stopped living ‘naturally’ hundreds of years ago.
That’s actually beside the point, though. Homosexuality isn’t about using your ‘funny-looking body parts’ in unusual ways. It’s not about sex, it’s about emotions. If I never have sex with another male again as long as I live, does that make me heterosexual? Of course not, because it won’t stop me from being in love with another man, and it won’t stop me being attracted exclusively to men. Talking about homosexual sex is irrelevant, because homosexuality is far more than that.
I don’t care if homosexuality is seen as a sin by Christians. Even if it was possible to make myself heterosexual, to (somehow) stop me from having physical or emotional attractions to other men, I wouldn’t consider it for a second. Why? Because it would mean giving up the person I love. If you have a boyfriend or husband then you know what it’s like to fall in love with someone and to want to spend the rest of your life with them. Ask yourself, who or what could possibly convince that that feeling is wrong?
lifelessonsfromwriting,
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that homosexuals are intrinsically evil, but that homosexual acts are. It also teaches that the homosexual orientation is fundamentally disordered, but also that it is a cross by which homosexual persons, living a chaste life, can be sanctified.
I think I could illuminate the Church’s position a bit by clarifying the reason why the Church holds homosexual acts to be intrinsically evil. It must seem to some as if homosexuals are being singled out, especially since the Church will not bend, indeed, cannot, on the point of same-sex marriage; however, the Church’s position on the marriage question stems from a fundamental attitude toward chastity that profoundly effects both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
The Church has always taught that the acts proper to marriage and procreation may be used morally only within the context of the marriage covenant and only when there is an openness to life. Virtually all Protestant denominations were in fundamental agreement with this position until the Lambeth conference in 1930, when the Anglican Church permitted contraception. Since then the Protestant position on the matter has changed so drastically that the Catholic Church stands virtually alone in its insistence on the principle articulated above.
You may argue that the Protestants have caught up with the times and the Catholic Church has only confirmed its own irrelevancy, as many do, but that is beside my point. What is important is to note that the Church’s position on homosexuality is consistent with its perennial teaching concerning chastity and human sexuality in general.
With that same principle of chastity the Church forbids sex outside of marriage, contraception, and acts against nature, whether performed by members of the opposite sex, members of the same sex, married persons or unmarried persons.
Furthermore, Natural Law arguments are based on the idea that principles matter, that things mean something before we apprehend them, and that our apprehension does not change the meaning. I can appreciate why, for example, atheists will discount Natural Law arguments, as they can see no compelling reason to attribute fundamental meanings, even if they are fairly evident, to a random world. But for those who believe the world is not random, things mean something. Human sexuality means both love and life, not one to the exclusion of the other, but an inclusive love that is open to life.
I will also note that this conflict is a struggle for the heart and soul of America. The United States was not founded on secularist principles but on Judeo-Christian ones. The ongoing argument as to the true meaning of separation of Church and State is illustrative of what this struggle is about. In any case religious liberty is also a civil right, and at times conflict between such liberties will have to be resolved by the rule of law. The question is upon what principles will these disputes be resolved? While our Constitution establishes the free practice of religion (or irreligion) and the non-establishment of a state religion, the framers were clear that they did understand and incorporate Natural Law in the Judeo-Christian sense.
The question remains, then, by what authority are questions of who is to provide, and under what conditions is sex education to be provided to children? The state? The school board? or parents? It seems to us that the education of children, especially in matters of morality, is a fundamental civil right of parents, and a fundamental religious liberty.
Dearest lifelessonsfromwriting,
I have thought hardily about how I should answer your above comments. I had many things that I thought I might say. But, then I listened to Father Angelo’s latest two homilies. (You may want to hear them, too, if you really care to understand what I’m saying). They are on airmaria.com and are at the top of the page for now.
Anyway, if I may use another analogy which I know aren’t always perfect, if you and I were to try to discuss upper-level mathematics, say, but you had lots of algebra courses in say, linear, abstract, complex, etc and I was more of a geometry gal with say, euclidean and non-euclidean, topology, etc … we would need to find some middle ground of understanding that we both could discuss. Then, were I to try and explain something of geometry to you, I would need to first have you understand all the basics. You would have to come to the agreement that (a) you WANTED to learn geometry and (b) that you believed geometry to be a valid area of mathematics. Now, I admit, this is a lame analogy since most people consider geometry to be valid today. However, without those two things, I would be spinning my wheels.
That is where we’re at. I do not know where your faith lies … I do not know if you’re Christian or atheist, for that matter. If you do not believe the Bible to be the inherent Word of God and you do not believe God to be the Creator of this earth and all its inhabitants and that we were designed very specifically, then we have no discussion here! We are spinning our wheels. In Geometry language where we must start off with a certain *Given* … a starting ground that we all take for granted, then no amount of intelligent proof will be understood because the initial *given* has not been agreed upon.
I do not see love the way you see love. At times I do, but I see error in that … love is not always a feeling. It’s a gift that comes with great responsibility. People have been known to *feel* love in very inappropriate ways … you say this feeling cannot be wrong. I say it can. I know people whose fathers have molested them and the fathers truly felt that this *feeling* was a good feeling. I know spouses and their children who have been betrayed because of this *feeling* that their spouse had for another. But, without a true belief in God (my *given*), then we have no discussion. One can then believe to do anything he or she *feels* is right … no matter who they are hurting or who they are deceiving or how they are misusing something. It is no longer about a greater good but about their own fleshly desires being fulfilled.
I am spinning my wheels at this point so I will back down from my desire to enjoy a *good discussion* because there is no discussion here without a common starting ground.
Blessings to you on your journey in life,
Jen
frangelo:
The parents, of course, should be the final arbiter in what their children learn in school (up to a certain age). If it was up to me any parent would have the right to take their children out of a sex education class, with the possible exception of study of the human reproductive system in biology (which is arguable less about ‘sex’ than the biological principles underlying reproduction; I doubt many people would argue that learning how gametes divide constitutes ‘sex education’).
Atheists do not believe that the Universe is ‘random’; rather, we believe that it operates under a set of natural laws that are impersonal and scientific in nature. In other words, things happen for a reason, but those reasons are amoral and operate equally on all levels. There is nothing intrinsically ‘special’ or different about what humans do beyond the meaning we place on it.
For most atheists, human sexuality is part of evolution – in fact, reproduction is the main mechanism by which evolution works in the first place. Whether or not homosexuality is part of evolution or simply a quirk that’s non-harmful enough to have lasted this long is up for debate, but I’d personally put my money on the latter. It doesn’t really make a different to me, though; in a naturalistic world, there is no reason why two adults should not love each other regardless of their respective sexes.
If someone follows the teaching of a particular church or holy book, that’s nobody’s business but their own. I’m strongly against the idea of censoring ideas just because they’re not ‘politically correct’, and in fact have argued that those speaking out against homosexuality should be protected and listened to just as anyone speaking in favour of it would be. However, that doesn’t mean that I agree with what the church teaches; far from it. I’ve read books by Christians (I don’t know which denomination they were) which compared the discovery that a loved one is homosexual to discovering that a loved one has died. What good can that kind of attitude possibly do? Even in its less extreme forms, treating homosexuality as a sin or a burden to be carried doesn’t help anyone.
Let me ask you a question: I don’t know if you have children (if you’re a priest then obviously not), but if you do or if you can empathize with those who do, what would you do if one of them admitted that he was gay and in love with another man? Let’s assume for a moment that he’s attempted to change, as I did, and found it both impossible and distressing – again, as I did. Would you want him to live without loving another person to the fullest?
(Sorry, but this is going to be a very long comment…)
I do not see love the way you see love. At times I do, but I see error in that … love is not always a feeling. It’s a gift that comes with great responsibility. People have been known to *feel* love in very inappropriate ways … you say this feeling cannot be wrong. I say it can. I know people whose fathers have molested them and the fathers truly felt that this *feeling* was a good feeling. I know spouses and their children who have been betrayed because of this *feeling* that their spouse had for another. But, without a true belief in God (my *given*), then we have no discussion. One can then believe to do anything he or she *feels* is right … no matter who they are hurting or who they are deceiving or how they are misusing something. It is no longer about a greater good but about their own fleshly desires being fulfilled.
Of course someone can become a sociopath or a hedonist because they’re an atheist, but I have yet to meet a single person who has gone down this route, and I know many atheists. As Christians are so fond of pointint out, we all have a moral impetus within us, one which generally implores us not to do certain things (lie, steal, cheat, kill etc.) Most atheists believe that the source of this is either parental teachings passed down within each culture, evolution, or a mixture of both, while Christians believe that God gave us this morality. Let’s not get into that (it’s an entirely separate argument), but keep in mind that not believing in God does not cause a person to disregard all moral teachings.
We agree absolutely up until you mention God. Of course I believe that any form of ‘love’, regardless of how ardently it might affect someone, is wrong if it causes harm. Paedophilia and adultery both do great emotional harm. Where we disagree is the idea that a homosexual relationship between two adults is harmful. I can see no possible reason that it could do harm to anyone, but that’s because I don’t believe in God or in any sort of religious teaching. Since you do believe in God and do believe that the Bible contains divine truths, your opinion is obviously going to be completely different.
Unfortunately, there’s no real middle ground here, except perhaps for a brief thought experiment: if I put myself in your shoes and imagine that the Bibe’s teachings are absolutely true, I come to the inevitable conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. I can see why you think the way you do, even if I don’t agree with it. If you can, please do the same and put yourself in my position; imagine for a moment that the Bible is nothing more than an old and very influential book, but is no more authoritative than the works of Shakespeare. I’m not asking you to actually believe this, just to imagine that you do. Can you see how someone in my positon couldn’t possibly believe that homosexuality is wrong without being presented with a non-religious and compelling reason? If you can do this, then at the very least we’ll both have acknowledged that each other’s positon is valid from our own respective outlooks on the world, which is something.
If you’d like, you could also take a stab at answering the question I posed to Father Angelo.
Thank you for your time and for the interesting discussion; I look forward to your reply.
Answering your question is very easy! Then I’m off for the day (no more time for this!). 🙂
First of all, I was probably more of your belief in my younger years than you realize. I thought the Bible was an old book with some nice *stories* in it. I looked at it with no greater regard than I did stories in Egyptian mythology. It was my great sense of logic, quite frankly, that made me see the *perfection* in our world … the infinity in even something as microscopic as a cell to realize that this was not by chance. If it wasn’t by chance, then that meant there had to be a creator. (Granted, I am condensing years of thought into just a few sentences and I really don’t want this to be a drawn out thing.) Anyway, from the creator God, I came to question why we had the longing for love unlike the other animal creatures did … or atleast in a very unique way from other animal creatures. Why this LONGING for understanding? I then began to see God as one who desires relationships, etc etc. So, I can absolutely put myself into your shoes. I was never an atheist, mind you, but I was certainly an agnostic. Been there, done with all of that, praise God.
As for if one of my children were to tell me they were gay, easy! I would love them no less. If one of my children told me they were committing adultery … easy, I would love them. If one of my children told me they had an abortion … easy, I would love them. If one of my children told me they were becoming an atheist … easy, I would love them! HOWEVER, I would let them know with no uncertain terms that I did not agree with their *thought process* and I would be on my knees as St. Monica was on their behalf. I would not allow the sinful behavior in my house. Even though you don’t like my analogy, I will use it again for lack of anything better in so little time. But, if one of my children were into cocaine, I would not allow it in my home and if their home was ridden with it, I would not enter theirs! (Some cultures have no problem with drugs, btw, they see nothing immoral or illegal about it. I do, so even if our laws were to change, I would not change. Because of this, I find it a fine analogy. )
So, as for sexual feelings towards those of my own gender, I do not know the cross you bear. You do not see it as a cross. As you guessed, Father Angelo does not have children. He bears your cross, I can imagine, in a similar way. He was created a man with all of the hormones and longings of other men and yet has made a very specific decision and vow to remain chaste. This is not easy and it’s no secret that some priests have failed miserably at keeping this vow. Nonetheless, he bears this cross and that was what he was saying to you above. The Church does not condemn that you were created with homosexual tendencies … heck, we were all created with SOME tendencies that are anti-biblical! What the Church condemns is the *acting upon* of these tendencies. So, if you just want to *love* other men without using those *funny reproductive parts* … no harm there!!! I love other women and my husband has many friends whom he loves. But, that’s not really what we’re talking about, now is it?
Now that I know you’re an atheist, I can surely agree that we are not dealing with the same *Given*. Take a look at the infinite cell sometime … and contemplate it! Block out what the world tells you and really contemplate it. Be patient, it can take years as I can attest. 🙂
Ciao.
So, as for sexual feelings towards those of my own gender, I do not know the cross you bear. You do not see it as a cross. As you guessed, Father Angelo does not have children. He bears your cross, I can imagine, in a similar way. He was created a man with all of the hormones and longings of other men and yet has made a very specific decision and vow to remain chaste. This is not easy and it’s no secret that some priests have failed miserably at keeping this vow. Nonetheless, he bears this cross and that was what he was saying to you above. The Church does not condemn that you were created with homosexual tendencies … heck, we were all created with SOME tendencies that are anti-biblical! What the Church condemns is the *acting upon* of these tendencies. So, if you just want to *love* other men without using those *funny reproductive parts* … no harm there!!! I love other women and my husband has many friends whom he loves. But, that’s not really what we’re talking about, now is it?
That’s a bit strange though, isn’t it? Given that a man lusting after another woman is considering adultery (by some Christians, anyway), wouldn’t loving another man romantically be just as bad as actually having homosexual sex? Maybe we Father Angelo could comment on this one for us.
Now that I know you’re an atheist, I can surely agree that we are not dealing with the same *Given*. Take a look at the infinite cell sometime … and contemplate it! Block out what the world tells you and really contemplate it. Be patient, it can take years as I can attest. 🙂
I have quite an intimate knowledge of the cell (lots of different types of cells, in fact), but nothing in them has made me consider the divine so far 😉 In fact, genes are more ‘infinite’ than the cell, given that they are effectively immortal so long as their carriers (living organisms) continue to reproduce; they constitute an unbroken, endlessly branching lineage from the first life forms to every living thing on Earth today. Now that, in my opinion, is a far grander realization than anything religion has to offer 🙂
Enjoy your trip, wherever it is you’re going!
Well, I have tried to be pleasant and to answer your questions. I see that you have ‘twisted’ some of what I was trying to say or purposely tried to avoid the point I was making. So be it.
As far as my trip, where I hope to go ultimately, you clearly don’t (atleast for now) care to join. Hey, DNA is pretty cool .. but not my ultimate trip, that’s for sure. I’m thinking MUCH bigger than even that. And, I will continue making my parental choices in health education in hopes that my children WILL join me on that ultimate trip….a far grander realization than that of genetics, to me.
Good luck to you.
lifelessonsfromwriting,
As a priest there all kinds of pastoral situations that arise when I am confronted with the need to exhort people of faith to take the harder course, and not just when it is a matter of homosexual orientation. For example, the Church holds to the insolubility of marriage. There are many Catholics who divorced and then married outside the Church, had children in the non-Catholic marriage and then later want to return to the sacraments. The hard road here is one of celibacy. The Church requires celibacy of the all unmarried–period–not just of homosexuals. I realize that a homosexual person who follows Church teaching will never be able to realize that human intimacy that we all long for, but you asked me, a priest, how I would handle it. Grace and divine love are not to be minimized.
Our Lord says in the Gospel: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Sexual desire is not a sin. It leads to marriage and procreation. That’s a good thing. However it must be chastened and directed toward the glory of God and the good of the person by reserved for marriage. Thus sexual desire unrestrained, or lust, is indeed a sin.
In regard to the relative differences between theists and atheists, I appreciated your point of view, in terms of your defense of a godless universe “operat[ing] under a set of natural laws that are impersonal and scientific in nature.” However, even were I to accept the possibility of law without a lawgiver, which I do not, I would still say that the atheist is still inclined to deny Natural Law because he does not find the nature of things to have any inherent meaning. It seems to me that there should be no question that sex and sexual desire are about love and union, and that there should be is no question that they are also about life and family. Theists are much more inclined to see the inherent relationship.
Even so I do still believe that the logic of Romans 1, as distasteful as it is to the homosexual community, does represent a strand of Natural Law that, while it may more accessible to the religious mind, is not entirely obscure to an irreligious one. As I indicated before, there are young people who read this blog, so I will not go further. Suffice it to say that I know for a fact that even within the gay community there is at least a debate about how safe and healthy homosexual sex really is.
Well, I have tried to be pleasant and to answer your questions. I see that you have ‘twisted’ some of what I was trying to say or purposely tried to avoid the point I was making. So be it.
Did I? If I did, I honestly didn’t mean to!
Here are some civil rights being pulled right from under us as you mentioned in a homily a few weeks ago. God save us. Read this:
Homeschoolers’ setback sends shock waves through state
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL
“A California appeals courtruling clamping down on homeschooling by
parents without teachingcredentials sent shock waves across the state this
week, leaving anestimated 166,000 children as possible truants and
their parents atrisk of prosecution.”
When or if we speak of evolution and “laws” of the universe, we need to acknowledge that the killing of the young and the intimacy with the same gender is not seen anywhere in nature. It would be non-existent or almost non-existent. There are agnostics and atheists who acknowledge this.
When we speak of evolution and “laws” of the universe this concept has never, in a rational mindset, precluded or prohibited the existence of a “Master” designer, a genius who is awesome and complete (whole / holy). In fact, the exceptional, very bright scientists have always acknowledged this. (Louis Pasteur, Einstein, and many others).
One doesn’t need to practice religion to see this.
Look urgently at the promiscuity in general and everywhere because this is degrading everything. The media is making untold billions off this slovenly smut that has killed our cultures, peoples, life and essence of good everywhere on our globe. We all need to be working together to get rid of this junk. It is causing behavior that brings us disease and more disease. Drugs and alcohol deepen this problem. People aren’t even aware of what they are doing. We do know that aids came about in the early 1980’s via the homosexual male community. The “hoochy-coochy” was never designed to be used this way and this carelessly. No pun intended.
Promiscuity is one of the top reasons (added to divorce and parents who aren’t around to supervise and guide children) that we have unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, and diseases. It’s not about family planning (for a one night stand is not about a family or love). It’s about a perverted concept of “self” and mental illness. Who in his/her right mind could be promiscuous unless they were crazy? HUMILITY.
Birth control isn’t and has never been – the answer. All birth control has consequences and side effects. They are at best 50% reliable. Fifty percent is a failure rate. We wouldn’t want those odds to pay our bills, make our investments, earn our income.
Research does tell us that when the father is not in the home, the children are open to abuse and staggering statistics show us the depth of this abuse. Children are often abused and become promiscuous. Where there is fatherlessness we also see gender identity disorder (gid).
I think the fallen angel that landed in the depths of hell is the one causing the confusion, hatred and chaos. Read up on the great Saints. Spend time with the Son of the Most High. Watch the wisdom and grace come to you. No time to write anymore.