The PBS Film Festival was held at the Lyric Thursday night.
Share
Without a spare seat in the house, 'For the Bible Tells Me So,' the movie that aired at the Lyric last night, ended in loud applause and a standing ovation from the audience.
Scott Russell, a member of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Association (LGBTA) caucus, said that the series of events this week at Tech is intended to coincide with AIDS Awareness week.
The film "discusses looking at sexuality in the context of fate," Russell said.
In viewing the movie, the audience was able to hear the stories of families and put a little bit of personal faith on the issue of homosexuality, Russell said.
The movie specifically targeted the Christian faith and how it has impacted the livelihood of homosexuals.
In the movie, The Reverend and Professor Peter Gomes from Harvard University said that "they are failing to read the Bible in its context" in regards to Christians who believe that homosexuality is an abomination.
Gomes stated that an abomination is a ritual wrong within the context of the Bible, and it does not intend to mean innately immoral.
Laurence C. Keene, another reverend featured in the movie, said, "when someone says to me this is what the Bible says, I say, 'no this is what the Bible reads.'"
During testimony given by Joan Brown Campbell, the woman featured in the film, she said that certain parts of the Bible literally told you to take all you have and give it to the poor.
Campbell asserted that no one really does this and that should be considered the same type of out dated belief as the one that classifies homosexuality as an abomination.
Keene also shed some light on the story of Sodom and Gomorra in the Bible, which many readers believe to have been destroyed because of the sexual practices of the city.
He said this assertion is "part of our secular wisdom or lack of wisdom."
Keene said she believes Sodom and Gomorra in context of the Bible is showing what happens to a city when they do not take the proper steps to provide hospitality to traveling visitors.
Dick Gephardt, a politician who promoted the end of homophobia in his campaign and father to Chrissy Gephardt, experienced firsthand being surprised by his daughter's profession of her homosexuality.
Gephardt said in response that he and his wife showed "unconditional love, which is what we have for our children."
Mary Lou Wallner, founder of the organization To Educate About the Consequences of Homophobia (TEACH), also gave testimony regarding her daughter's confession of being a homosexual.
Initially, Wallner showed distain towards her daughter's sexuality. Writing her disapproving letters, she eventually drove her daughter to commit suicide.
By committing to relearning former practices she has received new perspective from the Bible and specifically James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Wallner said.
Through her search for a new perspective of the beliefs she cherished since childhood, Wallner said she learned that she had to take what the Bible said within the culture and context it was written and not literally.
Wallner soon after began TEACH ministries, which was intended to assess homophobia and to stop spiritual violence.
A verse which drove the movie's call to acceptance of homosexuality was Phil. 4:8. "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things."
Leave a comment 38 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Quoting a bible verse that is describing things as being noble, right, and pure is ridiculous in context to what they are. The bible describles it as a sin of the flesh that is immoral. Isn't it funny how they try to justify their sins with the bible by twisting its verses to support their cause?
Reply to this Top
I think the bible says it best: Leviticus 13 ‘If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."
Reply to this Top
Obviously Alan Hudson did not go see the film, or he would not be treating the issue so ignorantly.
Reply to this Top
The Bible also says that a man who commits adultery with another man's wife should be put to death. Where are the activist's fighting for this decree to be upheld? Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." American Standard Version
Reply to this Top
If there's one thing that the bible's consistent about it's the condemnation of homoseuality. Trying to promote a tolerant version of christianity that obfuscates that point of view is preposterous. If the principles of your religion are in conflict with what you know is right, then reject the religion -- don't try to twist it into something it's not. The "I know that's what it says, but that's not what it means" argument is ridiculous. Yes it does mean it, and its wrong.
Reply to this Top
On a side note, I had to repost my comment below a second time after the online system rejected it because I used the word s-e-x as part of the word homos-e-xuality. Commenting on an article about homos-e-xuality, mind you. So I reposted, deliberately misspelling it. This partially underscores the problem. There's nothing wrong with s-e-x, the word or the act.
Reply to this Top
As the father of a g-a-y (yet another banned word) Hokie, I would hope that those who condemn my child take some time and re-read the Bible. This time pay attention to the lessons of compassion and forgiveness in the life of Christ. You will miss it if you cannot separate 2000 year old ignorance and fear from the timeless message of love. While my child has encountered some intolerance at VT, mostly it has been a positive and supportive experience. God Bless.
Reply to this Top
the bible says this...the bible says that...jesus loves all...but you get no love if you're homo???
Reply to this Top
3:35 and 12:07: i think the CT started to get stricter after the suicide, some guy or guys were posting inappropriate comments
Reply to this Top
hmm, i think that we should really consider what this type of stuff is doing to our society if you are homoseual, that is your choice, but you are wrong; just because you feel a certain way does not mean in any form or fashion that you are right, 2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter you feel about it
Reply to this Top
My problem with g-a-y rights activist groups (and the whole issue for that matter) is that they are attempting to make everyone agree that homose-x-uality is RIGHT. Not tolerated mind you, but RIGHT, and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. Yes, the bible says that adulterers should be put to death and obviously we as a society will never do that. But at the same time there are very few people who would try to convince you that adultery is "right" and "pure" and "good," because it isn't and the same is true for homose-x-uality. I do NOT mind you, NOT think that g-a-ys should be punished or oppressed or whatever. I do however want them to stop trying to convince us that their sin is anything other than that, a sin. It is a sin the same as adultery, stealing, lying are all sins, yours is nothing special.
Reply to this Top
It never ceases to amaze and sadden me to see how ignorant people think they can justify their beliefs regarding this and other supposed "sins" based solely on quotations from the bible. Please wake up from your delusions. The bible, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, is not the "word of god." It is a book compiling the opinions and stories written by a bunch of men. It is a work of fiction, as is any other "holy" book. If you're going to talk nonsense about "sins" at least make some effort first to find some credible evidence to support your views before pulling out the bible verses. You may actually learn something for a change.
Reply to this Top
A large portion of the film directly addressed the following verse used in Alan Hudson's comment: "I think the bible says it best: Leviticus 13 ‘If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.'" (The verse by the way is actually Leviticus 20:13). In Leviticus 11:19 you will also find that it is an abomination to eat shrimp. The film will clear up for you the contextual meaning of abomination. Funnily enough, the director of the film said that all the hate mail he has received was exclusively from people who have not actually seen the film. I am not a member of the LGBT community but I don't believe in blind hate or discrimination. Please watch the film before you lend your criticism to this discussion. Ignorance is not attractive. Lastly, I encourage everyone to see this very moving film (which is not 'Christian-bashing' as some may expect) regardless of your belief.
Reply to this Top
From a Christian standpoint, G-a-y people are still people, but beyond that, they are wrong. their lifestyle is wrong, and i'm tired of the in-your-face attitude associated with g-a-y people. you can't say a single thing about g-a-y-s without being labled a homophobe. just because i don't agree with your lifestyle doesn't make me a bad person, so stop making me feel that way. if you want to go against what is decent and moral, expect some opposition and learn to live with it. God Bless.
Reply to this Top
From a Christian standpoint, James, I can't believe your arrogance that you think you are the authority on what the bible means. Everyone who reads the bible should interpret it for themselves and stop applying their interpretation to the practice of judging others.
Reply to this Top
Tommy: I am actually sorry to disappoint YOU, but the Holy Bible is in fact the true word of God. You disagree with me on that point and I'll live with it, but it is your opinion that the bible is a piece of "fiction" and your opinion makes my evidence no less credible. I invite you to enlighten me on what you consider to be "credible" evidence on the subject matter of sins, if not from the bible or other holy books. Please, learn me something. :-) Jason: I can't believe you are so eager to jump upon someone and call them arrogant simply for disagreeing with you. You wish for people to stop applying their own interpretation of the bible to the practice of judging others but that is exactly what you are doing to those that disagree with you. You label them arrogant homophobes when they have done nothing to you but had the audacity to respectfully disagree. And please do not respond by railing on me for judging you because I am not and if you think I am, I don't mean to so please forgive me. I am simply attempting to point out what I believe to be a couple errors in your methods.
Reply to this Top
Sorry, forgot to add one more thing. Tommy, if i can't use the very same source that this movie apparently (I admit I have not seen it) uses to justify homos-e-xuality to speak out against it then what can I use? And wouldn't that in some way and at least to a certain point nullify the movie's argument?
Reply to this Top
James, the definition of homophobia is as follows: "Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homos_xuality or homos_xuals. It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homos_xual people, s_xual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry." Going by that definition, I don't know what other label would fit someone who says that this sort of lifestyle is wrong. It seems that Homophobe would be the appropriate title for a person of your persuasion.
Reply to this Top
Chris, I wasnt aware that my disapproval of homo_s_exuality made me a homophobe. When did it become wrong to disapprove of something in this country? Isn't that what a free country is all about...having its citizens entitled to their own opinions? By calling my disapproval Homophobia, you are telling me that it is wrong for me to have an opinion on the matter, thus forcing me to feel that acceptance is the only answer. I find that ridiculous...if we are to go by that definition, by disapproving with what I believe, I suppose you could be considered a Heterophobe in my eyes.
Reply to this Top
James, of course you're right, it would be sad if you were not allowed to denounce someone based on a choice they have made. You may, and probably do, express your disapproval of people who choose abortion. You may, and probably do, show your disapproval of people who choose religions other than Christianity. You always have the option to berate and belittle people based on the choices they make. In this case however, the term homophobe is applied because you have condemned a person for a "sin" in which they had no choice. S_xuality is not a choice. One does not wake up one morning and decide they are g_y. You may as well condemn someone for having blond hair, or dark skin (but we have terms for that as well). You have the right in this country to say what you will about anyone, but voices of hatred and bigotry will always be labeled accordingly.
Reply to this Top
Let's try some intellectual honesty for a change. First, 'Christianity' is not in itself a religion. There are many, many different Protestant sects, plus Roman Catholicism and several branches of Orthodoxy, which form what is traditionally referred to as 'Christianity.' Really, the only common denominator of all of them is the fact that the followers of each of those sects believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God. I, personally, am Catholic. The Catholic church, contrary to popular belief, asserts quite strongly that homose-x-uality itself is inherently AMORAL and is not sinful in the least. It is simply the practice of homos-e-xuality - ie, sleeping with a member of the same s-e-x - which is sinful; and even then, it is no more sinful than extramarital s-e-x between straight partners. The reason for this belief is that the act of s-e-x is dual purposed - one purpose is unitive (bringing man and woman closer together in their bonds of matrimony), which is not necessarily something foreign to a homose-x-ual couple. The other purpose, however, is procreative (making more humans), and that purpose is INHERENTLY foreign to homose-x-ual couples. This is why homos-e-xual s-e-x is considered immoral, which homos-e-xuality itself is considered amoral, in the context of Roman Catholic teaching.
Reply to this Top
I just want to throw a thought out there for those of you who are against homos_xuality. Imagine if you were in their shoes. Imagine if the world said that you could not be with the person of opposite gender that you loved so dearly. How would that make you feel? I once was very against homos_xuality, but then I put myself in their shoes. I personally could not live in a world that insisted that I not be with my one true love. And I just can't imagine a loving God who would condemn His own children for loving someone of the same gender. Homos_xuality is a choice just as much as heteros_xuality is a choice. I did not choose to be heteros_xual. I could not love another man the way I love my wife. Therefore, I can understand that someone who is homos_xual could not love someone of the opposite gender the way they can love those of the same gender.
Reply to this Top
Some questions about From Phil. 4:8 – Who "accepts" homos-e-xuality? Where in the Holy Bible is this deviant sin “accepted?†Homos-e-xuality is "true?" Homos-e-xuality is “noble?†Homos-e-xuality is “right?†Homos-e-xuality is “pure?†Homos-e-xuality is “lovely?†Homos-e-xuality is “admirable?†Homos-e-xuality is “excellent or praiseworthy†— “think about such things." Huh, this is NOT what Phil 4:8 says in my Holy Bible – the New International Version. Do these deviants have their own holy bible?
Reply to this Top
Why does this COLLEGE newspaper label s-e-x an appropriate word that can't be spelled w/o hyphenating it? Are college students too young to read about s-e-x?
Reply to this Top
A clarification from my previous post - I meant to write the word "inappropriate."
Reply to this Top
Kyle, Kyle, where oh where did you get the idea Christianity is NOT a religion? If not, then what is it? Jesus Christ is founder of Christianity hence the name Christ-ianity. Followers of Jesus are called Christians. The ‘sect’s you refer too are creations of man and are called DENOMINATIONS within the Protestant church. The Protestant Church, on the other hand, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church because various disagreements over scripture interpretation that led to the foundings of the various denominations within the Protestant Church. All these ‘sects’ as you call them are sinful creations from HUMANS because various “sects†disagreements over the interpretation of the Holy Bible. A MAN named John Wesley founded Methodist Church. A MAN named Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church. MEN named John Knox and John Calvin founded the Presbyterian Church. Christianity is 1 church under the Lordship of JESUS CHRIST – no one else. If Christianity is “not†a religion as you claim, then what is Islam with its’ various “sects†or denominations like Suni, Shia, Wabi, among some of the more familiar “sects†of Islam? NOTE: Watch your answer you may upset the Muslims of your area like Sudan getting upset over teddy bears named Mohammed.
Reply to this Top
Christian Hokie Dad - it's sad when your son denunces his born predestined s-e-xuality for an alternative lifestyle as g-a-ys call it. Your son is forgivin of his sinful alternative life if he asks Jesus for it and give his life to Jesus. Once done, he should shed his old g-a-y life for his new Christian life. Tell your son to seek out the various Christian fellowship groups on the campus for more detailed answers about the Christian life-style.
Reply to this Top
Mark, while in terms of technicality you may be correct, in terms of modern practicality you are not correct. The long and the short of it is, while Protestants of all sects and Catho9lics all call themselves Christians (a term which denotes nothing more than a belief in Jesus Christ), Christianity is not a religion. I'm not going to get into a discussion about which of the sects are 'valid,' for lack of a better word, and which are not - the point I am trying to highlight is that different sects, rightly or wrongly, opine on the issue of homose-x-uality differently. Catholics have, historically, been painted in a very negative light because of a perceived judgement against homose-x-uals which it does not actually offer. There are other sects of Christianity both more and less accepting of such a lifestyle. At the end of the day, it is illogical to assert that people who believe in Jesus Christ are necessarily united under the same banner. After all, I believe in the rule of law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I accept the rule of law established by the USSR with the same moral weight that I accept the rule of law in the US. Whether the sects of Christianity are morally formed or not is not relevant here; the bottom line is that the sects insist (sometimes vehemently) that they are different from all the others. A belief in Jesus Christ as lord and saviour may be a common factor amongst all such sects, but it is not necessarily a UNITING factor.
Reply to this Top
Joel Sprick, I'd like to address your reply to me. In trying to make a logical point, you are actually being quite irrational. Despite your accusation, I am not applying my interpretation of the bible to judge others; in fact I don't even talk about what my interpretation is. The bible is language. Language is interpretive. My point is this: How is James' interpretation any better or worse than the interpretation of others? Without talking to those who actually wrote the words, we can not hope to ever know the book's definitive, literal meaning. James uses words like "decent and moral" based on his own biblical interpretation, but he then expects others to abide by his definition. THIS is what I referred to as arrogance. Also, to clarify, I don't believe he is a homophobe, but apparently that is the way you INTERPRETED the words I wrote. See how dangerous it is to do that? :)
Reply to this Top
To those of you who blindly profess that being gay is wrong - I simply say you are fools. To base those assertions on a book is even more foolish. IF you were to spend time with me and see my life you'd be amazed at how wonderful and right it is. A partner of 15 years [far longer than ANY of my straight friends my age]; my successful career; my warm and welcoming home; my vast network of friends - straight, married, families with children, gay, and probably just about everything in between; my commitment to my spirituality; my extremely strong moral values; my professionalism; my volunteerism; my philanthropy; my community involvement; my generosity; my intellect; my complete and utter joy at the life I live and the people I have in my life; AND most importantly my acceptance and compassion - even for those of you too narrow, too limited in intellect to even try to see how my life is pretty much exactly like yours. For you to pronounce it as wrong makes me look at you with pitty and sorrow for how sad your inability to understand the human race is. How your manipulation of religion makes you sound about as "Un-Christian" as possible. I don't want you to think I'm right - I do, however expect you to respect my right to lead a happy life in our democratic society. And take note - we ARE succeeding and we WILL earn every single equal right in time. So you can try to expand your mind or you can simply become an extinct dinosaur. The choice is yours because we're moving on without you - Ciao!
Reply to this Top
To those of you who blindly profess that being gay is wrong - I simply say you are fools. To base those assertions on a book is even more foolish. IF you were to spend time with me and see my life you'd be amazed at how wonderful and right it is. A partner of 15 years [far longer than ANY of my straight friends my age]; my successful career; my warm and welcoming home; my vast network of friends - straight, married, families with children, gay, and probably just about everything in between; my commitment to my spirituality; my extremely strong moral values; my professionalism; my volunteerism; my philanthropy; my community involvement; my generosity; my intellect; my complete and utter joy at the life I live and the people I have in my life; AND most importantly my acceptance and compassion - even for those of you too narrow, too limited in intellect to even try to see how my life is pretty much exactly like yours. For you to pronounce it as wrong makes me look at you with pitty and sorrow for how sad your inability to understand the human race is. How your manipulation of religion makes you sound about as "Un-Christian" as possible. I don't want you to think I'm right - I do, however expect you to respect my right to lead a happy life in our democratic society. And take note - we ARE succeeding and we WILL earn every single equal right in time. So you can try to expand your mind or you can simply become an extinct dinosaur. The choice is yours because we're moving on without you - Ciao!
Reply to this Top
To the Christian Hokie Dad. How sad for you to actually believe that your son denounced his predestined s-e-x-uality for an "alternative" lifestyle. Sorry pops. Actually, YOUR dna combined with your wife's DNA to create your son's DNA. We call it reproductive science and THAT my friend is the reality. For you to blame anything on your son or God is to live a naive existence. You'd do well to swallow your fear and open your heart and mind to your SON. Otherwise, you commit one of the most Un-Christian offenses by rejecting him. He's flesh and blood. A mind. A heart. A human being. All of this absurdity of dismissing people in the name of God is sickening. And it goes against everything Christianity teaches - compassion, acceptance, tolerance, understanding. Shame on you for throwing away a human being simply because of who he or she loves. Shame on you. Shame on all of you.
Reply to this Top
Joel Sprick, I'm sorry to have not gotten back to you sooner - I haven't checked this page in the last few days. I appreciate your responses to my posting, and I hope that this reply will help you to understand where I'm coming from. First of all, you mentioned the fact that it is unreasonable to say that you can't use the bible to support your views when the film is doing the same thing. This is actually a valid point if we consider that your only source of information concerning the film is the above article. I would therefore say that the above article is actually a bit misleading. Although that bible passage was probably mentioned during the film, I would whole-heartedly disagree with the article's statement that the verse "drove the movie's call." The most convincing information presented in the film had nothing to do with bible verses, and you'll have to take my word for that until you get a chance to see it yourself (which I still highly reccomend). To answer your first question, then, there is indeed an enormous amount of credible SCIENTIFIC evidence concerning the issue, and I will do my best to briefly summarize some of it for you. Firstly, many people have already mentioned in this forum the FACT that one's orientation is NOT a choice. It is agreed upon in the scientific communtity that it is a result of genes, and therefore predetermined. Part of the inclination to believe that it is a choice may come from the observation that no one "comes out" as a young child, but the truth of the matter is that NO ONE realizes their orientation until reaching puberty. Whether or not it could be said that the phenotype is necessarily a genetic "defect" is less clear, but either way the individual has absolutely no control over it. Also, the issue is in no way unique to humans. A wide variety of both wild and domestic animals have the same tendencies toward that orientation. Now, as for Kyle Minor's argument that procreation is "INHERENTLY foreign to homose-x-ual couples," I would say that the same is true of a couple in which one or both partners is sterile. Yet I haven't ever heard of anyone calling sterility a "sin." Finally (and I'm sorry this message is so long) I really can't do justice to the "bible being the word of god" issue without going much further in depth. I urge you, however, to do some research into the subject yourself. It never hurts to check your sources. I really think that faith (that is, belief without evidence) is a dangerous thing, and so in order to back up your assertion that the bible is the word of god, you logically need to find some OTHER material that will support that statement. As science historian Michael Shermer puts it, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons." While I have no reason to doubt that you are a smart individual, it's never a bad idea for any of us to question our faith.
Reply to this Top
Tommy Esson. Interesting points, and again, for this discussion to focus only on the Bible as the record of spirituality is fair - but one-sided. Just as other 'faiths' have their versions of religous record and/or theory. The Koran, The Zohar, Buddha Dharma, and so on — simply because one perscribes to one vs. the other doesn't make one 'superior' to the other. On that simple point, and it really is simple, the assumption that The Bible is "it" is not reality. That thinking dismises other faiths and belief systems just as that kind of thinking can condemn a person's s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y, or even instances where some faiths condemn or supress gender differences. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF is the danger of blindly taking the written word as gospel. In doing so, one instantly eliminates so much of what makes the human race so unique, so rare in relation to the totality of the universe. The Bible is a record of one - and only one - point of view or theory. If one chooses to study that theory, more powerr to them. BUT that same person does not get to dismiss those who don't fit the narrow guidelines of that thought. There's a lot out there that doesn't "fit" but is equally valid. The world would be a much safer, less violent, less dangerous place if people understood that reality — Universal Human Truths existed long before organized religion.
Reply to this Top
Tommy Esson, I have just a short point about your rebuttal of Kyle's argument. Sterility is something that SOME heteros-e-xual couples face, but inability to procreate is something that ALL homos-e-xual couples face. Many heteros-e-xual couples have no reason to believe that they will not be able to procreate until they realize that one of the partners is sterile, but you know that homos-e-xual relations will never result in pregnancy.
Reply to this Top
Jason T. Thanks for your response. Yes, you are obviously correct about that. It's just that I cannot fathom how people think that the lack of procreation can automatically label something as "immoral." Sure, they won't be passing on their genes, but can that really be called a sin? In fact (and you'll probably think this doesn't count) there have been a number of documented cases in which one partner in a lesbian relationship has been provided with sperm from their partner's brother, thereby indirectly allowing for pregnancy. Additionally, I suppose a better example of my point would be a person who intentionally avoids procreation altogether. Surely that would be the most deserving case in which procreation could be termed "inherently foreign." I suppose, then, according to the procreation argument, the act of avoiding inter-course of any kind is also a sin. Needless to say, this is not the case. I hope this helps. PS - I enjoyed your response to Joel Sprick. Well argued!
Reply to this Top
Tommy, great example with the people who choose not to have children. That was the missing piece for me. I totally agree with you that child-bearing potential is a questionable basis for judging morality anyway. Glad to hear you enjoyed my previous argument.
Reply to this Top
I keep trying to respond, and the powers that be keep rejecting me, so I'll try again. The point that the Catholic church makes is NOT that procreation is a necessariy outcome of s--, nor even that s-- is a requirement for couples. The point that the church makes is that s-- is a gift from God, but a gift with specific purposes. One of them is unitive, the other is procreative - sterile couple do not act immorally in s-- because they (presumably) make a good-faith effort to fulfill both purposes. Couples which do not engage in s-- likewise do not act immorally, because they aren't 'abusing the gift.' Couples who choose to have s-- but not to have children and thus use contraceptives do, actually, engage in immoral behavior (at least, according to the Church). The ultimate point to take in here is that s-- (and, with it, procreation) is not a required part of anything Catholic - the church merely insists that s-- be used for its specific purposes. This is why homos--ualit as an orientation is not immoral (they don't do anything s--ual, so they don't abuse the gift), but homos--ual s-- is immoral (because it denies the procreative purpose). Homos--uals, fundamentally, are no worse off morally in the Catholic church than those couples who use contraception.
Reply to this Top