The Gay Agenda: Pushing Homosexuality On The Front Page Of The New York Times Web Page On Palm Sunday

The New York Times prominently featured an article about a seventh grade boy "coming out" to his family (and his entire school) on their web page on this Palm Sunday. The article was the most prominent article on the page. It was featured "above the fold" with the picture on the top.

Here's the story (free web subscription may be required) Parenting: Accepting Gay Identity, and Gaining Strength

Here are some quotes:

One month before Zach O’Connor, a seventh grader at Brown Middle School here, came out about being gay, he was in such turmoil that he stood up in homeroom and, in a voice everyone could hear, asked a girl out on a date. It was Valentine’s Day 2003, and Zach was 13.

“I was doing this to survive,” he says. “This is what other guys were doing, getting girlfriends. I should get one, too.”

...

Cindy and Dan O’Connor were very worried about Zach. Though bright, he was doing poorly at school. At home, he would pick fights, slam doors, explode for no reason. They wondered how their two children could be so different; Matt, a year and a half younger, was easygoing and happy. Zach was miserable.

The O’Connors had hunches. Mr. O’Connor is a director of business development for American Express, Ms. O’Connor a senior vice president of a bank, and they have had gay colleagues, gay bosses, classmates who came out after college. From the time Zach was little, they knew he was not a run-of-the-mill boy. His friends were girls or timid boys.

“Zach had no interest in throwing a football,” Mr. O’Connor says. But their real worry was his anger, his unhappiness, his low self-esteem. “He’d say: ‘I’m not smart. I’m not like other kids,’ ” says Ms. O’Connor. The middle-school psychologist started seeing him daily.

The misery Zach caused was minor compared with the misery he felt. He says he knew he was different by kindergarten, but he had no name for it, so he would stay to himself. He tried sports, but, he says, “It didn’t work out well.” He couldn’t remember the rules. In fifth grade, when boys at recess were talking about girls they had crushes on, Zach did not have someone to name.

By sixth grade, he knew what “gay” meant, but didn’t associate it with himself. That year, he says: “I had a crush on one particular eighth-grade boy, a very straight jock. I knew whatever I was feeling I shouldn’t talk about it.” He considered himself a broken version of a human being. “I did think about suicide,” he says.

Then, for reasons he can’t wholly explain beyond pure desperation, a month after his Valentine “date” — “We never actually went out, just walked around school together” — in the midst of math class, he told a female friend. By day’s end it was all over school. The psychologist called him in. “I burst into tears,” he recalls. “I said, ‘Yes, it’s true.’ Every piece of depression came pouring out. It was such a mess.”

That night, when his mother got home from work, she stuck her head in his room to say hi. “I said, ‘Ma, I need to talk to you about something, I’m gay.’ She said, ‘O.K., anything else?’ ‘No, but I just told you I’m gay.’ ‘O.K., that’s fine, we still love you.’ I said, ‘That’s it?’ I was preparing for this really dramatic moment.”

Ms. O’Connor recalls, “He said, ‘Mom, aren’t you going to freak out?’ I said: ‘It’s up to you to decide who to love. I have your father, and you have to figure out what’s best for you.’ He said, ‘Don’t tell Dad.’ ”

“Of course I told him,” Ms. O’Connor says.

“With all our faults,” Mr. O’Connor says, “we’re in this together.”

Having a son come out so young was a lot of work for the parents. They found him a therapist who is gay 20 miles away in New Haven. The therapist helped them find a gay youth group, OutSpoken, a 50-minute drive away in Norwalk.

Dan Woog, a writer and longtime soccer coach at Staples High in Westport, helped found OutSpoken in 1993. He says for the first 10 years, the typical member was 17 to 22 years old. “They’d come in saying: ‘I’m gay. My life is over,’ ” Mr. Woog says. “One literally hyperventilated walking through the door.”

But in recent years, he says, the kids are 14 to 17 and more confident. “They say: ‘Hi, I’m gay. How do I meet people?’ ”

...

For the first 10 years, Mr. Woog never saw a parent; meetings were from 4 to 6 p.m. Sunday, so members could get out of the house without arousing suspicion. Now, he says, parents often bring the child to the first meeting.

Still, seventh grade was not easy. “We heard kids across the street yelling ‘homo’ as he waited for the school bus,” Mr. O’Connor says. Zach says classmates tossed pencils at him and constantly mocked him. “One kid followed me class to class calling me ‘faggot,’ ” he says. “After a month I turned and punched him in the face. He got quiet and walked away. I said, ‘You got beat up by a faggot.’ ”

...

His father took him to a gay-lesbian conference at Central Connecticut State in New Britain, and Zach was thrilled to see so many gay people in one place. His therapist took him to a Gay Bingo Night at St. Paul’s Church on the Green in Norwalk that raises money for AIDS care. Zach became a regular and within a few months was named Miss Congeniality.

“They crowned me with a tiara and sash, and I walked around the room waving,” he recalls. “I was still this shy 14-year-old in braces. I hadn’t reached my socialness yet, and everyone was cheering.

“I was the future. Most of the men were middle-aged or older, and to see this 14-year-old out, they loved it. They were so happy.”

Now, as a 17-year-old 11th grader, Zach has passed through phases that many gay men of previous generations didn’t get to until their 20s, 30s, even 40s. “Eighth grade was kind of his militant time,” Mr. O’Connor says.

“Everything was a rainbow,” says Ms. O’Connor.

These days, Zach is so busy, he rarely has time for the gay-straight club. He’s in several singing and drama groups and is taking an SAT prep course.

“I’ve been out so long, I don’t really need the club as a resource,” he says. “I’m not going to say I’m popular, but I’m friendly with nearly everybody. Sophomore year, my social life skyrocketed.”

In music groups he made male friends for the first time. “They weren’t afraid of me,” he says. “They like me.”

His brother, Matt, says sometimes kids come up to him and ask what it’s like to have a gay brother. “I say it’s normal to me, I don’t think of it anymore.”

As for his parents, they’re happy that Zach’s happy.

“Coming out was the best thing for him,” Ms. O’Connor says. “We ask him, ‘Why didn’t you come out in fifth grade?’ ”

The article featured an mp3 you can listen to here: Zach O'Connor on Coming Out Gay

Not only does this article prove (to me) that the New York Times is cramming an agenda down people's throats, it also indicates (to me) that they aren't as serious as they pretend to be in their opposition to the Iraq war and the policies of the Bush Administration, because if they really cared about that stuff, they wouldn't do puff pieces like this promoting the "normalcy" and need for absolute societal acceptance of anal and/or oral sex between two or more men while the nation is supposedly crumbling because of George W. Bush.

What are people thinking doing this big story about this young kid telling his parents he's "gay"? Why is his sexual confusion at an age too young to declare anything definite about himself headline news? What if he changes his mind about himself later? It seems to me he's locked himself in now, with the help of his parents.

What type of parent runs out and finds a therapist who is "gay" right away when their seventh grader announces he's "gay"? Don't people realize that "gay" therapist is invested in spreading the idea that homosexual tendencies and activity are good?

Homosexuals and those who sympathize with homosexuality will likely accuse me of "homophobia".

My response is that I am not afraid of people with homosexual tendencies, and I certainly don't hate them. Actually, I'm more worried for them than those who have decided that enabling them is the best policy.

The Church teaches that homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered orientation towards a serious and intrinsic moral evil. It is a tendency, more or less strong, depending on the individual, to be physically attracted in a sexual way to persons of the same gender. It is a tendency towards a moral evil, not a gift. It is a temptation, a conflict between desire and duty. One never hears of other intrinsically disordered orientations such as alcoholism, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, or kleptomania, celebrated as gifts; they are rightly understood as harmful disorders. Pro-anorexia websites supporting the right to live an anorexic lifestyle are correctly viewed as profoundly dangerous, even in secular society. However, homosexual activism has made such tremendous strides within the culture that any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle is vilified as hate speech. What a difference! Sadly, this politically correct mindset, under the mantle of buzzwords such as tolerance and diversity, has crept into Catholic circles, with the collusion of homosexually-oriented priests and religious (male and female) and has paved the way for preparing rank and file Catholics to tolerate the homosexual lifestyle as a sign of God’s diverse creation, and ultimately, a gift. A correct understanding of Catholic teaching shows that, as with any other aberrant drive or appetite, homosexuality can only be called a gift in the sense that it is a cross to bear. In living as the Church teaches, utilizing prayer and the sacraments, homosexually-oriented persons can overcome their homosexual temptations and merit abundant graces.

As a lifestyle, homosexuality is statistically unhealthy. As Catholic Answers’ special report on “Gay Marriage” relates:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide successfully. Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals. Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight. Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners. The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals’ propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

In the face of such evidence, it becomes clear that any pronouncements of tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle or the "gifts" that flow from a homosexual orientation run contrary, not only to Church teaching, but also authentic charity. Homosexuality hurts people. It’s a serious disorder, not a gift. Telling people otherwise isn’t Christian and loving. It’s ignorant, cowardly, and irresponsible. Imagine embracing an alcoholic, drug addict, anorexic, or bulimic and telling them that you accept, respect, and support their lifestyle choice! Imagine telling someone diagnosed with the beginning stages of cancer that you support their decision to continue smoking and continuing their other unhealthy lifestyle choices. Yet this is what progressives ask of Christians in regard to the homosexual lifestyle, ignoring evidence that homosexuality is bodily harmful, and becoming outraged at Christian concern for the immortal souls of persons who actively engage in this spiritually deadly "lifestyle".

If you will not believe me, here is what homosexuals admit about themselves: 'The Gay Report'

I encourage you to read this article: The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement. A homosexual man wrote it and he is very honest about what homosexuality actually involves. It isn't graphic or disgusting in its detail. It is an honest, heartfelt life story and it is extremely eye-opening.

Authentic Catholic teaching on these matters is not discrimination against persons with homosexual tendencies. All deliberate sexual acts (whether they are actions done alone or with others) outside of the context of marriage, or which are deliberately closed to the creation of new life (within marriage) are objectively serious matter and to engage in such acts with sufficient reflection and full consent is a mortal sin.

Any sexual act that does not comply with Church teaching is not an act of love. It is an act of masturbation, whether alone, or through the use of another person's body.

This teaching is a struggle for everyone, not just homosexuals, because of our fallen nature and the war of our passions against right reason. We can all pray for deliverance from such temptations, but nobody can reasonably expect that they will forever remain free from any temptation in this area, regardless of the specific nature of the temptation. We are simply called to pray and struggle. Through our struggle we are constantly reminded of our frailty and therefore our total dependence upon God. Such temptations, understood properly, are a means of keeping us close to God, even though they are a cross.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[James]

"Most of the men were middle-aged or older, and to see this 14-year-old out, they loved it. They were so happy.”

---

I bet they were. Evil always welcomes more evil.

James

[David1]

Thomistic,
You discussed your criteria for what gets posted. I realize that the more spiritual and educational material doesn't get much dialogue, but that doesn't mean people aren't reading it and learning from it. I hope you contine these kinds of posts in addition to the others. Thanks for all your hard work.

[Suzanne]

Thomistic,

I believe this is the first time I have commented, but I like everything you post. I imagine that you have a lot of readers who don't comment. Please keep posting and defending the faith!

[James]

"It's not that they hate religious teaching per se, it's that they see it as dangerous to the health and lives of young gay people because it drives them to self-destruction."

---

Are you kidding?

Living chastely, as the Bible and Christ teach and model, would save the lives of millions of homosexuals.

Sodomites self-destruct by NOT following the Church's teaching.

James

[Ralph]

Jameswrich124--

I assure you I am arguing in good faith. I am not trying to flame or enflame, I am only trying to try to provide a more accurate perspective into the motives of some in the gay rights movement and better understand the arguments being made here.

Our perspectives on the proper response to the phenomenon of homosexuality, it seems, is deeply rooted in our political philosophies. Your logic seems to be that if homosexuality is less socially productive than heterosexuality then it is necessary and proper to condemn it. I find this logic very flawed, and I suspect the difference may be because I understand that homosexuality is (usually) a congenital and permanent condition. If gay people cannot be "cured", then what basis does condemnation serve? To encourage them to have children? (Would you want your daughter marrying a "cured" gay man?) What if homosexuality is genetic? Wouldn't encouraging gays to have lots of kids just increase their number?

If your solution is to condemn gays to abstinence, then we get to differences in political philosophy. I believe that it is improper for the government to impose criminal sanctions for things like homosexuality. This is a matter on which we could have an extensive debate, but I'm tring to stick to the issue at hand, the NYT article. I think we both know both sides of this issue pretty well, and I don't think arguing it here would be very productive.

I am not arguing, as you seem to suggest, that a society based on homosexuality alone could thrive. I know gay parents and do not fear that phenomenon (the ones I know are much better parents than some straight parents I know), but the fact that homosexuals compose, at most, a few percent of the population means that the "what if everybody did it" test doesn't apply. If everyone became a dentist society would fall apart, but I don't condemn schools of dentistry.

As for this country being exceedingly tolerant of homosexuality, I disagree. It is only since the AIDS crisis forced many gay men to come out to their friends and family that gays were generally expected to eventually come out. The NYT article shows how strongly stigmatized gays still are in example after example at Zach's high school. Hollywood is bending over backwards to make homosexuality seem accepted in America, but outside of LA and a few other "progressive" urban areas gays are still marginalized. It has been only 14 years since the Bandon Teena murder and 8 since the Matthew Shepard murder -- many gays still fear for their lives if they leave a "gay friendly" city. Do you think two men can hold hands walking down Main Street in most towns in America without generating glares and shock?

Your comment on personal responsibility is weirdly contrary to the rest of your argument. I strongly believe that personal responisibility should be a guiding virtue in our society. A "permissive" stance on homosexuality is strongly pro-personal responsibility. In the article, Zach's parents are not making Zach a victim of his sexuality, they are giving him the support and guidance he needs to take reponsibility for himself. If they shunned him, tried to change him, told him he could never have sex, then they would alienate him and he would become vulnerable to the worst and most predatory elements of society. Read the article again -- which Zach is more likely to engage in self-destructive behavior? The troubled kid at 13 or the strong and self-confident young man at 17? Which is going to take personal responisibility of his actions?

As for a "victim" culture, I see that M. David believes that the NYT ran this article on Palm Sunday specifically to offend Catholics. While I disagree with Aaron that nobody in the newsroom would even know that it was Palm Sunday, I agree with his sentiment that most of them never thought twice (or even once!) about it. I was surprised, as a non-Catholic, that anyone would think it was an intentional slight. What sort of person thinks that the NYT jimmies its production schedule and front page articles just to make sure offends HIM?

Finally, your closing comment about how it "must be nice" to have "no responsibility" and that that's "my probelm" is rather incoherent, but I assume that you're insulting me. I consider myself a very responsible person. I believe that the only way we can really own our mistakes is if we're free to make them, fully informed of the consequences ("free to fall" was Milton's phrase, I believe). That way they are ours and ours alone, and we can't blame mom or the government or our teachers or whomever for them. Personal responsibility. So let's argue in good faith, shall we? You don't know anything about me (or I you), so let's keep personal slurs out of it.

[Ralph]

James--

Of course it's not the "abstain" part of religious teaching that the gay activists see as dangerous. If the church gave this message to all of its members without regard for their homosexuality there wouldn't be such a problem. But we all know that gays are singled out for special treatment on this topic and often turned into pariahs by their families and churches when they can't change their sexuality. Is it any wonder that they end up emotionally and psychologically damaged?

[EdmundS]

I find this exchange somewhat bemusing. The Catholic Church has long had a significant minority of repressed and active homosexuals in its hierachy. Denouncing gays, for some, is a way of keeping close to a topic that interests them.

It seems to me that there are many more critical issues to be dealt with.

[EdmundS]

As for changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality, it's only a matter of interpretation and emphasis and could be easily accomplished. It isn't true that it's teaching has historically been consistent. Even as a child, I remember being taught that being gay was sinful. Now there's not so much wrong with being gay (presumably because of an increasing likelihood that it's at least to some degree genetic). But gay acts are the problem.

[Ralph]

By the way, those life expectency numbers for gay men are very suspicious. I found two articles on the subject which, if true, cast very serious doubt on the validity of those numbers. If you want to make rhetorically and logically sound arguments, you should probably base them on something more substatial:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

http://www.slate.com/id/2098/

The short version: In the '80s and '90s so many gay men died of AIDS that the life expectency among gay men was about 8-20 years lower than for the general population. BUT, now that the risks of HIV infection are known, this number must be much better today. Unfortunately, no one has done a proper epidemiological study. The numbers often tossed around for the post-AIDS era -- life expectencies of 38 or 42 years -- are often based on laughably inaccurate techniques, such as averaging the ages at death of men identified as gay in the obituary section of a paper.

[MJ]

"Now there's not so much wrong with being gay (presumably because of an increasing likelihood that it's at least to some degree genetic)."

I know that this is what the media is saying, but I don't buy that.

Whenever something bad happens we always try to explain it away - well she was insane at the time, or well he suffers from depression, or oh they have a psychological disorder.

I don't know if I buy all of that.

[Winston7000]

The issue here is a child who as yet has no real sense of himself, of his potential, of the many changes yet to come in his life. And this child, a 7th grader, is "sold-out" by parents who presume that his current tendencies somehow are the indelible features of what should a blessed and long life, once the many anguishes of adolescence pass.

At fourteen, he stamped, marketed, and marked out based on his "feelings" that obviously coincide with the gay media fiefdom of the New York Times. This child, ogled and applauded by lecherous adult "gay" males in the shell of what was once a Christian church, has been assaulted by those who should have protected his youth.

What has occurred, on the whims of a faddish, pampered, wealthy, minority of persons with sexual disorders, who themselves are directed by thuggish activists, is a largely destroyed life. A destroyed life among the millions who have traded in their God-given freedoms that require them to live with the sin and struggle that comes with their particular cross. Among the millions who have bought into the myth that sexual aberrations in its many forms are somehow good and noble and soul sustaining.

There is a lost life here. One young man, struggling with coming to age, might as well as been put on a slave ship to an isle of debauchery.

May God forgive us all who let this happen. And may we all pray for the deep sins that afflict those who were supposed to guide, but failed.

[James]

"James--

Of course it's not the "abstain" part of religious teaching that the gay activists see as dangerous. If the church gave this message to all of its members without regard for their homosexuality there wouldn't be such a problem. But we all know that gays are singled out for special treatment on this topic and often turned into pariahs by their families and churches when they can't change their sexuality. Is it any wonder that they end up emotionally and psychologically damaged?"

---

They're already emotionally and psychologically damaged, Ralph.

I repeat, living as per God's loving morality would indisputably save the lives of millions of homosexuals.

That's God's love. God, in His love, commands us to refrain from sin (all forms of unlove and evil).

James

[JMC]

First of all, if I end up repeating something someone else has already said, it's because I didn't have time to read all 36 comments at the time I read this post, but just had to comment.

In the Epistles, we are told that God permitted "unnatural desires" to proliferate in a people wherein sin was rampant. Well, sin, and particularly mortal sin, has been the "norm" for about 40 years now, and it has only been during the latter part of this time that the "gay rights" agenda became headline news. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who sees this pattern.

[James]

"Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who sees this pattern."

---

No, JMC, you're not. The glorification of sexual perversion, historically, comes out in societies when they lose their moral bearing. Societies rarely last more than 2 to 3 generations after that. Open homosexuality is a marker for the death throe of civiliation.

Europe is dying now. America will be next, if we do not repent of our sins.

James

[Literacy-chic]

Of course it's not the "abstain" part of religious teaching that the gay activists see as dangerous. If the church gave this message to all of its members without regard for their homosexuality there wouldn't be such a problem.

Am I missing something? Doesn't the Church give all of its members who are not united in the Sacrament of Marriage the message to abstain? And aren't even married people called to abstinence under certain circumstances? This would mean that only a certain segment of the Catholics in this world are NOT given the message to abstain? By this logic, promiscuous heterosexual teens should feel discriminated against as well.

Also, I wanted to point out that Winston 7000 makes a good, secular point--the type of point that often gets lost in the moralizing. It is, after all, possible to make effective arguments to contribute to the overall message that are NOT necessarily religiously based. Case in point--the life expectancy statistics. These are not religiously based. Rather, they are sociologically based. So if someone says, "yes, sin, of course, but look over here, too,and we can present an argument more likely to be taken seriously by the people who are perpetuating the error," it is also a contribution to the cause, even if we are not quoting the Catechism or any major Church documents in the process.

Absolutely, you post on a variety of topics! I come here to get my occasional doses of Catholic-flavored bitterness, criticism, and overall negativity, knowing that if the posts don't deliver, the comments will. Quite exhilarating, actually. Though I do wonder where you find the time. . .

[Ralph]

Literacy-chic ---

I don't quite follow your post. My point was in response to James, who misinterpreted me when I tried to explain one reason gay activists denounce the church's teachings on homosexuality as dangerous. James pointed out that the church teaches chastity, which, if followed, would actually save the lives of many homosexuals, not harm them, presumably by protecting them from STDs.

Of course, my original point was not that the message of chastity is dangerous, but that the rest of the message tends to alienate and traumatize young gay men and has even been known to drive them to suicide. That was all I meant to underscore in the post you quote, which I admit was poorly worded. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the message of abstainance was discriminatory.

[Ron Denning]

I read the NY Times article about Zach O'Connor and find it wonderful that a child who was once suicidal and clinically depressed is now a happy and well adjusted human being. Some people happen to be gay and no preaching or prayer or Bible study will take that away. As a 42 year old gay man in a 22 year loving relationship, my "marriage" has lasted longer than my parents marriage and my sister's that lasted six months. To say that every gay person is unhappy and unable to maintain a loving and healthy relationship is a misconception. Someone like Zach will become a well adjusted adult and will fall in love and have a life that many straight people will envy. Love is the greatest commandment and I wish that for Zach and everyone.

[EdmundS]

"Europe is dying now. America is next, if we do not repent our sins."

You might be wrong as many predicting exactly the same things have been wrong in the past. My guess is that compassion and tolerance will prevail.

[Ron Denning]

Love these comments about Europe falling in destruction and we are next. Do these people feel Muslims are the righteous because they forbid homosexual behavior, drinking alcohol, and pornography? Is faith about denying pleasure because we lack self control or is it about loving God and doing what is right in our heart and knowing God? We were once told we would go to Hell if we ate meat on any Friday so rules can change.

[Winston7000]

"Someone like Zach will become a well adjusted adult and will fall in love and have a life that many straight people will envy."

Then again, Zach may one day discover that he was conned by many factors, and find the grace and reparative therapy that will help him overcome his disorder. And he may, indeed, fall in love as so many others are doing now, and find a truly deep faith. We can but hope and pray. And for you, as well, dear Ron.

[Literacy-chic]

Ralph--Sorry. It seemed that you were saying that gay activists were upset because Christians were telling them to abstain and unfairly singling them out. I did think I had missed something, but I couldn't figure out where. . .

[Paul K.]

Dear EdmundS

"Justice and tolerance will prevail" - I hope my sense of humor isn't TOO offensive, but the first thing I thought when I read your comment is: Islam evinces more justice and tolerance than I have seen in some of these comments!

By the way, according to Chesterton, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions."

God bless - Paul K.

[James]

If you tolerate anything, you will get it.

James

[James]

"Love these comments about Europe falling in destruction and we are next. Do these people feel Muslims are the righteous because they forbid homosexual behavior, drinking alcohol, and pornography? Is faith about denying pleasure because we lack self control or is it about loving God and doing what is right in our heart and knowing God? "

---

Sure, Ron. Let me answer, since I made the comment.

First, Europe is falling into destruction. It is rapidly depopulating (as people have forsworn God and chosen contraception, buggery and abortion over begetting families) - and is being taken over rapidly by Muslims (whose European population is growing rapidly). It is also fallen into PC-hell - where all truth and love can be denied because someone might be 'offended.'

Second, pornography and sodomy are evils. Indeed, Muslims agree with Christians on many aspects of morality. So, in answer to your question, when any Muslim forswears sodomy or pornography, he is being good and righteous - yes.

Finally, faith is about trusting and obeying God in love - and knowing that God wants to make you into a more Godly creature (and wanting to want that transformation) - so that you can be saved.

Part of faith IS giving up sinful pleasures (which always harm oneself and/or others), and living life for the good, rather than for the self.

If you need help in learning self-control, talk to any good and serious and orthodox priest.

The hard part is not doing it; it's wanting it.

James

[Ron Denning]

Zach will only be conned if he listens to people who expect so less from his life they are ready to throw him into the gutter. Should he deny his true self like so many Roman Catholic priests who thought even the power of ordination would rid them of homosexuality? We all know better today that even the holiest of positions of power and influence does not change a persons sexual orientation. It is really sad to think about all of the lonely men who marry and have children or entered the priesthood instead of following their own nature and accepted who they are. I am 42 years old and have a solid relationship with someone I met in college and we have built a wonderful life together. Many of my straight friends from college are divorced and realized too late they made bad choices. It isn't all about what makes you happy but if your choices in life are made for the wrong reasons things will surely unravel.