Queer Gods: The Chinese Rabbit God

This tale concerns a young official of the Fujian province, who was very handsome and intelligent. His beauty captured the heart of a man called Wu Tien Bao, who followed the official wherever he went. Every time the official appeared for a court case, Wu attended. The official became aware of Wu's constant presence, but he did not know why he was following him.



One day, Wu was caught peeping at the official's ass through a toilet wall. After several rounds of beating with bamboo stakes, he confessed that he was attracted to the official. When the official knew the reason, he was so angry that he ordered more punishment and Wu died under heavy torture.
After Wu's death, he told his friend in a dream that "even though it was improper to peep at a man, it was done only because of love and should not have been punished with death. Now the court officials in the nether world have assigned me as Rabbit God to safeguard loving affairs between men, and you should build a temple for me."


The friend built the temple. When there were quarrels between gay couples or when someone suffered for gay love, they went to this temple to worship the Rabbit God, Wu Tien Bao, and they were usually aided by the Rabbit God in their quests.
This story may have inspired the construction of temples to the Rabbit God, though none have been precisely identified. There was, however, a temple in Southern China called "Double Flowers Temple," where a deceased gay couple was worshipped by the general public. The temple was destroyed by the Japanese army during the World War II and no longer exists.

(From glbtq encyclopedia of glbtq culture) 

The Wikipedia post on the Rabbit god states that a modern temple, designed to resuscitate worship of the deity by gay men, has been built in Taiwan.

Our Queer Primate Cousins

A favourite argument used by the religious right against homoerotic relationships, and by the Vatican theologians against any form of sexual expression outside of marriage and not open to making babies, is that such sexual activities are "against nature", and that the "purpose" of sex is procreation.

Well, the people making these claims have never considered the actual evidence from , well, you know, - "Nature" itself, which shows the exact opposite. (But then, when did the Vatican, or the wingnuts, ever consider the trifling matter of evidence to interfere with their convictions?)

In the lively comments thread after an earlier post in this series, reader CS in AZ reminded me of a famous exchange with Anita Bryant:

This reminds me of Anita Bryant, back when she was on her anti-homosexul crusade ... she said that homosexuality was unnatural and so repulsive that "even barn yard animals don't do it" -- then someone pointed out to her that barnyard animals in fact DO do that, with some frequency, as anyone who grew up around farm animals knows very well! LOL... well, she was only momentarily flustered, then she just pivoted 180 degrees and said, "well, that doesn't make it right!"

Well no, but it sure as hell don't make it wrong, either. On the subject of sexual ethics, "Nature" is entirely neutral. However, as so many self-righteous bigots attempt to introduce nature into ethical and political discussions, it is worth knowing just what "natural" sex really is (it's also just fun to know.)

Bonobo females, with onlookers

 

In all the animal kingdom, those closest to us humans are the primates, who are generally divided into three classes - apes, old world monkeys, and new world monkeys. In all three of these groups, and in other mammals, birds, reptiles, birds, fish and even insects, homosexual and non-reproductive sexual activities have been widely reported in formal scientific studies. It is striking though, as Joan Roughgarden notes in "Evolution's Rainbow", that these supposedly "unnatural" sexual activities have been most widely reported among the primates, and especially among the apes, who are closest to us on the evolutionary scale.

Adoption, UK: “Catholic Care” Agency Denied Equalities Exemption.

p style="text-align: justify;">Here in the UK,  equality under the law for the queer community is taken seriously. Although we do not yet have full gay marriage, the legal status of civil partnerships is virtually identical to that of civil marriage in all but name.  Adoption regulations are also explicit in prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ever since the sexual orientation regulations affecting adoption were promulgated, the Catholic Church has sought to avoid their legal responsibilities in the agencies it operates -  mostly unsuccessfully.  One by one, most of the agencies have cut their formal ties with the church, so as to avoid embarrassing it while continuing to provide services within the framework of the law. One agency in Leeds, Catholic Care, has attempted to get around the regulations by changing the terms of its "charitable aims", to state explicitly that it exists to serve only heterosexual couples. In news released overnight, the Charities Commission has rejected this application. The agency laments that it will now have to close, and that the children will lose out.

This is nonsense. All it needs to do, is to follow the example of eleven other Catholic adoption agencies before it, and recognise that the interests of the child are more important than slavish obedience to the decrees of bishops. The interests of a child are to be placed with the best parents available. Sometimes, the best available parents will happen to be gay or lesbian. There are numerous scientific studies demonstrate this - even in the animal kingdom, sometimes same sex couples make better parents. Ordinary Catholics know it too - mot Catholics approve of gay adoption, just as most Catholics in many countries approve of gay marriage.

It really is time that the Catholic bishops, and the organizations associated with them, began to consider the evidence before pronouncing for the entire church on matters which they clearly do not understand.

This is the press release from the Roman Catholic Caucus of the LGCM:

Catholic Care: Charity Commissioners' Decision

The Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is delighted at the news that the Charity Commissioners have refused to consent to a change in the charitable objects of the Roman Catholic adoption agency Catholic Care which would have provided that the charity's adoption services were to be provided to "heterosexuals only".


Celia Gardiner, Convenor of the Caucus, said:


"The proposed amendments were deeply offensive to many Catholics. Catholic values dictate that the agency should do its utmost to find loving homes for the children it exists to serve. These objects would have compromised the agency's ability to do so.


Eleven Catholic adoption agencies have successfully adapted so as to comply with the Sexual Orientation Regulations and do so with active support from practising Catholics. We hope that Catholic Care will do the same."

See also:

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

Family Equality and the Question of Evidence

Catholics Support Gay Adoption

Stand By for Gay Marriage, R. I.

In New England, just two of the six states do not yet have marriage equality - Maine, where gay marriage was passed by the legislature before being disappointingly overturned, and Rhode Island.  I would expect that to change next year, after a new governor is elected in November.

The two factors most commonly quoted as reasons for the failure to secure gay marriage have been the implacable opposition of the current governor Don Carcieri, and the high proportion of Catholic voters. (At 46%, this is the highest in the US).  However, a new state level poll confirms what has become apparent at the national level. Support for marriage equality has grown, local Catholics support gay marriage - and support has grown faster among Catholics than among other groups.

Adoption, UK: "Catholic Care" Agency Denied Equalities Exemption.

Here in the UK,  equality under the law for the queer community is taken seriously. Although we do not yet have full gay marriage, the legal status of civil partnerships is virtually identical to that of civil marriage in all but name.  Adoption regulations are also explicit in prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ever since the sexual orientation regulations affecting adoption were promulgated, the Catholic Church has sought to avoid their legal responsibilities in the agencies it operates -  mostly unsuccessfully.  One by one, most of the agencies have cut their formal ties with the church, so as to avoid embarrassing it while continuing to provide services within the framework of the law.

One agency in Leeds, Catholic Care, has attempted to get around the regulations by changing the terms of its "charitable aims", to state explicitly that it exists to serve only heterosexual couples. In news released overnight, the Charities Commission has rejected this application. The agency laments that it will now have to close, and that the children will lose out.

This is nonsense. All it needs to do, is to follow the example of eleven other Catholic adoption agencies before it, and recognise that the interests of the child are more important than slavish obedience to the decrees of bishops. The interests of a child are to be placed with the best parents available. Sometimes, the best available parents will happen to be gay or lesbian. There are numerous scientific studies demonstrate this - even in the animal kingdom, sometimes same sex couples make better parents.

Ordinary Catholics know it too - mot Catholics approve of gay adoption, just as most Catholics in many countries approve of gay marriage. It really is time that the Catholic bishops, and the organizations associated with them, began to consider the evidence before pronouncing for the entire church on matters which they clearly do not understand. This is the press release from the Roman Catholic Caucus of the LGCM:

Catholic Care: Charity Commissioners' Decision

The Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement is delighted at the news that the Charity Commissioners have refused to consent to a change in the charitable objects of the Roman Catholic adoption agency Catholic Care which would have provided that the charity's adoption services were to be provided to "heterosexuals only".

Celia Gardiner, Convenor of the Caucus, said:

"The proposed amendments were deeply offensive to many Catholics. Catholic values dictate that the agency should do its utmost to find loving homes for the children it exists to serve. These objects would have compromised the agency's ability to do so.

Eleven Catholic adoption agencies have successfully adapted so as to comply with the Sexual Orientation Regulations and do so with active support from practising Catholics. We hope that Catholic Care will do the same."

See also:

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

Family Equality and the Question of Evidence

Catholics Support Gay Adoption

Same Sex Parents, Furred and Feathered

Gay Marriage, Nepal.

Gay marriage in Nepal is back in the news, with the first same sex wedding in the country between foreigners ( Sanjay Shah, 42, a Briton from Leicester, and an Indian man who did not want to be identified).

The government is bound by a ruling of the constitutional court to provide for equality for all couples, and legal provision for same sex weddings is expected to be included in the new constitution currently being worked out, and due to be enacted some time in 2011. However, even in advance of the legislative environment coming into place, several same sex weddings have already taken place. These are not "legal" weddings because the regulations do not yet provide for them - however, in rural areas, most people do not bother to have their marriages registered with government, as marriages performed by religious leaders are widely accepted.

Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

A favourite argument used by the religious right against homoerotic relationships, and by the Vatican theologians against any form of sexual expression outside of marriage and not open to making babies, is that such sexual activities are "against nature", and that the "purpose" of sex is procreation. Well, the people making these claims have never considered the actual evidence from, well, you know - "Nature" itself, which shows the exact opposite.  In a famous exchange, Anita Bryant once remarked that the things that homosexuals do were so disgusting that "even barnyard animals wouldn't do it." When it was pointed out to her that actually, barnyard and other animals do "do it",  as is well known to farmers, she simply replied, "Well that still don't make it right". No, and it don't make it wrong, either.  On sexual ethics, "Nature" is morally neutral.

"Anita Bryant, Reality Denier"

Gay Marriage Recognised Across Mexico (BREAKING)

The Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriages contracted in Mexico City must be recognized across the rest of the country. (This does not mean that other states are obliged to allow such marriages within their own areas). It is not immediately clear if this includes marriages contracted in other countries, or precisely which aspects of the marriages must be honoured. (It is also not yet clear to me whether Mexico City has a residency requirement - if not, any Mexicans could secure marriage just be travelling there, then heading home and demanding recognition)

At present, Mexico City is the only jurisdiction that conduct same sex marriages. In recent years several states have attempted to introduce similar legislation, but have failed. I did see a statement last week that "several" stated currently have marriage legislation under consideration, but I have not been able to find corroboration or details. I would guess that this ruling by the court, which comes so quickly after the legislation in Argentina, will at least increase the political pressure on other states to follow.

(Last week the court rejected an attempt to have Mexico City's marriage law declared unconstitutional. Yesterday's decision was the second in a series of three related questions the court is considering. They have still to rule on a matter of gay adoption.)

From NYT:

>MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that each of the country’s 31 states must recognize same-sex marriagesregistered in Mexico City, potentially giving gay and lesbian couples full matrimonial rights nationwide.

The court had already ruled this month that Mexico City’s same-sex marriage law, which took effect in March and has resulted in hundreds of same-sex marriages, was constitutional.

But on Tuesday, the court went a step further, ruling 9 to 2 against a complaint from the attorney general’s office, which had said that other jurisdictions should not be required to honor marriages that were performed in Mexico City.

While the court made it clear that state governments were not obligated to enact same-sex marriage laws of their own, it did require them to recognize the legality of such marriages performed in Mexico City.

(Read More)

A Conservative Warning on Gay Marriage: Judge Walker Was Right

Many conservatives are outraged at Judge Walker's verdict striking down California's Proposition H8. Notice though, that GOP politicians are treading very carefully - some are starting to recognize that hatred and bigotry can be a vote loser, not the vote winner it once was. Note also, some conservative voiced are recognizing the solid conservative and judicial foundations of his judgement.

This reading, at Fox News (can you believe) is one of the best I have seen:

My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage

As a conservative Republican representing the next generation of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, I encouraged the readers of FoxNews.com last January to take a careful look at the arguments and evidence in the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The case was presented by a constitutional conservative, Ted Olson, who helped found the Federalist Society, successfully argued Bush v. Gore to the Supreme Court (among fifty-five other cases), and was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General. Working with his Democratic legal partner David Boies, Olson sought to prove that marriage equality is a constitutional question, not a partisan issue.

The trial assembled a thorough record of evidence that Prop 8 unreasonably discriminates against gays and lesbians, relegating them to second-class citizenship. Their plaintiffs, Kristen Perry and Sandy Steir, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrullo, are the face of the marriage equality movement. They wish to share in the myriad societal, economic and psychological benefits of marriage, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a fundamental right owed to all Americans. By denying them the right to marry because of their sexual orientation and gender, Olson and Boies argued that Prop 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional.

Among the seventeen witnesses Olson and Boies called to the stand were experts in areas of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history. 

Economists testified to the economic harm caused to same-sex couples and their children; political scientists to their political vulnerability; sociologists and psychologists to the societal stigma associated with homosexuality; historians to the history of marriage shedding its discriminatory restrictions over time. 

Other testimony included Ryan Kendal, a young gay man who failed a “conversion therapy” attempt to alter his sexuality from gay to straight and the Republican Mayor of San Diego, a former police chief, who testified that “if government tolerates discrimination against anyone for any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do exactly the same thing.”

Surprisingly, the defense’s two lone witnesses also offered compelling reasons to favor of marriage equality. They testified that allowing homosexuals to marry would increase family stability and improve the lives of their children; that sexual orientation is unchangeable; that gays and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination, including Prop 8. 

Another defense witness’ testimony had to be withdrawn as it proved the discriminatory nature of the Prop 8 campaign, which the Plaintiff’s lawyers then submitted as evidence to embolden their case. 

-(Read the full article)

Got that? Evidence submitted for the defendants in the case, which was intended to support Prop 8 against marriage equality,  ended up supporting the plaintiffs - confirming that gay marriage would increase, not harm family stability, and improve, not harm, the lives of children.

A Catholic Case For Blessing Civil Unions

With gay marriage back in the news, one may well ask (and I have been asked) is there a case for the Catholic Church to provide some form of church recognition for civil unions?

"Why Not in Church, Too?"

I have several objections, which I have frequently stated,  to the entire foundations of the Vatican doctrines on sexuality - but the question I want to deal with was very specific and moderate, from a person whose undoubted sincerity and respect for tradition I freely accept, and so, for the sake of argument, I want to address David's question on its own terms - from strictly within orthodox Catholic tradition and teaching. My short answer is yes, undoubtedly; my slightly longer answer is that there should not need to be a case, as liturgical blessing of same sex unions already has an established place in Church history, complete with fixed liturgical rites and ceremonies. However, this traditional practice is no longer familiar to us, and so I need to update it, together with some background information,  for the modern context.

I begin with what is foundational to all questions of marriage - the words of Scripture, in Genesis 2 (which is the earlier of the two creation stories, notwithstanding the familiar numbering):

"It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a companion to help him."

-(Gen 2:18)

Notice please: not a wife, to make babies, but a companion, to help him. So we have it on the very best authority, God's authority, that humans need companions, not for sexual pleasure, nor primarily for procreation, but for help, companionship and support.

The Fallacy of the Church Push Against Gay Adoption

In Australia, the NSW parliament has a bill before it which would legalise gay adoption. The churches are outraged, and pushing hard against the measure, or asking for special treatment. One Australian church agency is asking for exemption  from the non-discrimination clause. Anglicare argues that adoption should not be about politics and the "rights" of gay couples, but about the best interests of the child.

In Mexico, the Supreme Court this week will follow last’s week’s decision on gay marriage in Mexico City with a consideration of gay adoption (and also gay marriage nationally). In the US, GOP candidates for the governorships of Nevada and Georgia are proposing to follow Florida and outlaw gay adoption. In the UK, where the issue is supposedly settled in law, the church is continuing to fight a rearguard action to have its own agencies exempted. What do all these have in common?

A total absence of evidence.

In California's extended trial over gay marriage, the opponents argued that gay marriage was injurious to children, because kids need "one mom and one dad" - but their own supposed expert witness conceded there was no evidence to support his case. But the “expert” was entirely lacking in academic credentials, and the judge ruled that his evidence was no more than opinion.

In Florida, Bill McCollum then the AG, hired “expert witness” George Rekers at vast expense to argue the case in court. He too is entirely lacking in credentials, and has since become a laughing-stock for his travels with a hired male prostitute. (I am pleased to note that ever sine the Rekers story broke, McCollum’s candidacy for state governor has been going rapidly down the toilet.)   

In Georgia, when Karen Handel was asked by an Atlanta TV reporter why she thought gay parents aren’t legitimate, she replied, “Because I don’t.”

In the UK last year, bishops reacted angrily when Terry Prendergast, a child care professional with strong links to the church, stated that there was no evidence that children are harmed by having same sex parents.

Now, here’s the thing.

I absolutely agree with Anglicare that adoption decisions should be based entirely on the best interests of children, placing them with the best parents available. They should not be based on the supposed rights of gay couples - but nor should they be based on religious dogma. Don't they get it? Sometimes, the best available parents are gay.

Abundant scientific research has shown that.

In the California trial,  Judge Walker carefully considered a mass of scientific evidence, and found that same sex couples are at least as capable as any others of making good parents as any other - and in some cases, are even better. (Even in the animal world, research has shown in some species, same -sex couples make better parents.)

That’s at the global level, for couples in general – but in ability as parents, not all couples are equal. Some opposite sex parents are dramatically less able than the ideal, which  is why some kids come into care in the first place. Some gay couples are better than others.  Nobody is asking that all gay couples be given a “right” to adopt, any more than straight couples have such a right.  All we ask is that we be considered along with other couples, so that children may be placed with the best parents available.

Gay adoption – it’s in the best interests of the child.

Gay Marriage: The Fallacy of the Church’s Argument Against.

Writing in El Paso Times, Texan priest Fr Michael Rodriguez has launched an impassioned diatribe against all forms of legal recognition for same sex union. His ranting could easily be dismissed as the lunatic fringe, but as so many Catholic catechismophiles share his ridiculous claims and assumptions, I think it is worth responding in full. This is his key assertion:

“Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions.” 

Not content to invent a supposed moral obligation to oppose all forms of union, he goes even further:

“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”

Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of "equal rights," "tolerance," "who am I to judge?," etc.

What has he been smoking? He claims to base his words on a pastoral letter of the US bishops, which says, in part:

"It is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

Now I disagree with the bishops’ stance, but it as least an understandable, coherent position. It’s a big leap, though, to go from “it is not unjust to oppose…”, to saying that there exists an “absolute duty to oppose …“

He attempts to soften his position by stating

I urge all of the Catholic faithful to treat homosexuals with love, understanding, and respect.

In doing so, I fear that by his own standards, he damns himself. He has already insisted that a Catholic “would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda”. I have never been clear precisely what this notorious “agenda” comprises, but as one who actively promotes it, I am certain that a central part of it is precisely a demand to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect. By urging this part of it, Fr Rodriguez is himself promoting a key component of our “agenda”, and by his own standards is thus committing a “grievous mortal sin”.

By his standards, he also condemns not just himself, but the majority of US and European lay Catholics, and also a significant proportion of the clergy and some bishops. How so? He claims that Catholics have an obligation to actively oppose the homosexual agenda. But numerous (US) research surveys have shown that a narrow majority of Catholics approve of same sex marriage and gay adoption, while more substantial  majorities approve some form of legal recognition, and do not see same sex relationships as being morally wrong. Among the clergy, some individual priests and groups of priests have publicly supported gay marriage, and many more privately support either marriage or civil unions. In Portugal, when the legal process that led to marriage equality first began, the country’s bishops attempted to prevent its introduction by asking for the provision of civil unions instead. As civil unions are one form of legal recognition which the bishops were actively promoting, where they too guilty of the “grievous sin” Rodriguez describes?

In April this year, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, suggested that it is time for the church to reconsider its emphasis on “homosexual acts”, and instead consider the quality of the relationships. Since then three other bishops have said much the same thing. Are they too, condemned, for their “grievous sin”?

So, it would seem that Fr Rodriguez has taken it upon his own authority to condemn a huge proportion of the Catholic church for the grievous sin” of not actively opposing the homosexual agenda. Just what is he condemning us to? Read carefully, once again:

Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”

He cannot be serious. This sounds like the same automatic excommunication recently invoked by the Bishop of Phoenix, and by the Vatican, in the cases of abortion and the “attempts” to ordain women. Is he really taking it on himself to proclaim the automatic excommunication  of half the church, and more?

Let’s be clear on this: It is certainly the collective desire of the the Catholic bishops that we should oppose same sex unions, but it is by no means a moral obligation to do so. Nowhere in orthodox Catholic teaching is there anything that says there is any moral obligation to do everything the bishops urge, and there most certainly is not anything in the Catechism, in the creed, or in our baptismal vows that imposes such a supposed obligation.

On the contrary, one obligation that is stated very clearly in the teaching of the Church, is the obligation to follow one’s conscience. This was stated very clearly by one Fr Joseph Ratzinger, who insisted that conscience must take priority even over the demands of the pope.

When approaching gay marriage from the prism of sexual ethics, many people may well find that the dictates of conscience may lead them to oppose it. But sexual ethics are not the only, or even the most important, dimension of Church teaching. Many Catholics believe that teaching on social justice, and reaching out to the poor and the marginalized, is more important. Approaching marriage equality from the prism of social justice, many Catholics have been led by conscience to conclude that they must support it. This was certainly the case with some of the Argentinean senators who supported their family equality bill, and with “Catholics for Marriage equality in the US”.

So, in focussing exclusively on the approach from sexual ethics, Rodriguez is ignoring a huge chunk of orthodox catholic teaching – on the primacy of conscience, and on social justice. He is also ignoring the evidence of history.

By insisting on the spurious claim of an obligation to oppose all forms of legal recognition, he is including civil unions – but civil unions are just that, legal contracts to provide some protections to the partners in a relationship. They are not about sexual relationships – partners wanting a sexual relationship can (and do) have one without requiring a contract to authorize it. And liturgical recognition of same sex unions has a long tradition in the church, as amply demonstrated by both John Boswell and Alan Bray . To this day, there are echoes of these same –sex unions in the modern Mass, with the paired names of Felicity and Perpetua, Phillip and Bartholomew incorporated into the Eucharistic prayer – just as they were listed in the liturgies for same sex unions. (No, these were not “comparable” to modern marriage – but nor are modern civil unions, and nor were the the early heterosexual marriages comparable to modern marriage.) To the cynics who insist that in practice, civil unions are about sex, I reply that they need not be. In the early church, many saintly married couples committed themselves to voluntary virginity, even within marriage. In the nineteenth century, Cardinal John Newman, who will be beatified next month, was famed for the intensity of his (celibate) love for his dear friend Ambrose St John, even to the extent of insisting on being buried with him in a shared grave “for all eternity”. For any Catholic of homosexual orientation wishing to live strictly within orthodox teaching, which clearly states that the homosexual “condition” is not sinful, this celibate emotional bond might well make a fitting model of emotional friendship. If two such people chose to share their lives together, in chastity, is it in any way conceivable that there is a “moral obligation” to oppose legal protection for their relationship?

Finally, Rodriguez even ignores  the evidence of the Gospels.

By His own words and actions, Jesus Christ clearly showed that He did not reject people in homosexual relationships. He demonstrated this by agreeing to heal the Roman centurion’s “servant” (“paidion”), in a context that would have strongly suggested a sexual relationship. This too, has an echo in the modern Mass – the prayer shortly before communion, “Lord, I am not worthy  to receive you….” is a close variant of the centurion’s reply when Jesus started off for his house “Lord.I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”.

There is additional echo of gay unions in the Mass. Taken as a whole, theologian Gerard Loughlin has shown how it is an echo of the wedding at Cana, a wedding which in Catholic theology, is taken symbolically to represent Christ’s own wedding to his (male) disciples, and to the Church as a whole – including the men. There is even a tradition that the couple getting married were Jesus and His beloved disciple, John.

With three distinct echoes of gay relationships or unions, the Mass itself, the centrepiece of Catholic practice can be seen as promoting the “gay agenda” – or that part of it which seeks inclusion in Church.

Will Fr Rodriguez now cease celebrating the Mass?

  


  
  





To simplify: One would have to be ghastly morally decrepit to think that if 51 percent of Americans opine that rape is OK, then rape becomes, in effect, all right. Sure, the majority is politically capable of such a vote, but this could never make rape morally right.


This is typical of the garbage from the institutional Catholic Church, who blithely ignore their own history, which is full of recognized saints. ordained bishops and even popes who have had sex with men. For centuries (over half its history), the church recognized formal liturgical rites for church blessings of same sex unions, and also buried some same sex couples together in shared tombs, exactly as married couples.
The Mass itself contains three echoes of gay unions - the healing of the Roman soldier's "paidion" - i.e., his sexual servant is recalled in the words, "Lord, I am not worthy"; same sex couples named in the Eucharistic Prayer; and the Mass itself is commemorates Christ's wedding to his Church (male and female). Theologian Gerald Loughlin has noted that one tradition was that the famous wedding was that of Christ to his "beloved disciple" John.

http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2010/07/message-for-nom.html
Same Sex Unions
The Very Modern “Traditional” Marriage
Modern Inclusive Churches
The Queer Mass:
Gay Wedding at Cana
Same sex couples recognised
Gay Centurion.

Catholics Support Gay Adoption.

In the US, the struggle over adoption by lesbian or gay families concerns those states which prohibit it, either by state law, or (in Florida) by a complete constitutional ban. In the UK, where discrimination against gay or lesbian prospective parents is prohibited by law, the battle is entirely different. Here, the Catholic Church is seeking an exemption from the terms of the law for one of its agencies.

My friend Celia Gardiner, who as a lawyer and as chair of the Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, is heavily involved in correspondence with the Charities Commission on the Church's application. I fear I have become totally lost in trying to follow the legal niceties - so don't ask. However, I have undertaken to assist with passing on links to empirical evidence to contradict the claims on which the bishops base their case, so that I can happily share with you.

I have previously pointed out that in claiming that "Catholics" or "the Catholic Church" oppose gay marriage, the bishops (American or British) are being somewhat economical with the truth. It may be what the bishops oppose, it may be what they want the rest of us to oppose - but we do not simply mould our beliefs to episcopal diktat. Contrary to the Vatican line, most American Catholics do not believe that same sex relationships are morally unacceptable, and overall, are in favour or recognizing same sex marriage (that's full civil marriage, not just civil unions).

I have now tracked down similar information specifically on adoption, and guess what? the bishops may oppose it, but Catholics as a whole are in favour. Now note, please, that the data are two years old, from 2oo8 (prior to the US election). All the evidence is that attitudes have moved on since then. For the case of the UK, which prompted my investigation, public attitudes are generally more supportive. Any claim by the bishops that "the Catholic Church" opposes same sex adoption is almost certainly not factually correct. ?

Source: Pew Research, 2008

Some Albatross Same- sex Parents

A key part of the argument against homoerotic relationships, fundamental to the Catholic Magisterium, to the religious opposition more generally, and to the supporters of so-called “traditional” marriage, is that same sex relationships are somehow “unnatural”, “against natural law”. This claim is entirely without foundation. What these groups have in common, apart from their conclusion, is a total disregard for the evidence.  Some research into the Laysan albatross neatly illustrates this.  The disregard of the need for evidence does not only apply to claims for natural law: exactly the same charge can be made against Vatican claims that "homosexuals" are motivated solely by  -indulgence, and that homosexual "acts" lead one away from God - claims that likewise do not stand up to scrutiny. For now, though, I am concerned only about the problem as it applies to the argument from natural law

All albatrosses are large birds nesting in isolated colonies free from natural predators, which makes them easy to study (the birds are trusting and allow researchers to get up real close and personal). Much of their behaviour is well-known. For instance, in one colony at Kaena Point, Hawaii, there are about 120 breeding pairs, who gather for mating every November. They form long-term partnerships, and after copulation, lay a single egg, which they incubate in shifts, taking turns to leave the nests for weeks at a time to feed at sea. They form long-lasting, often life- long pairs, and were praised by former US first lady Laura Bush for their commitment to each other, and the example they offered as icons of monogamy. The obvious assumption that these monogamous pairs represent one male and one female in a neat nuclear family, though, turns out to be false. One third of the pairs are female couples, some of whom had nested together every year since right back to the start of data collection – 19 years.

Ornithologist Lindsay C Young  has been studying this albatross colony since 2003, as part of her doctoral dissertation.  She says that the discovery of so many female pairs forced her to question assumptions she didn’t even know she was making.  This in itself was something of a breakthrough: observations of same sex behaviour or relationships in the animal world are not new, but too often in the past, biologists have simply ignored them, or attempted to explain these observations as aberrations.

Joan Roughgarden quotes one notable scholar who claimed in 2000, at the end of a long and distinguished career,  that  “When animals have access to members of the the opposite sex, homosexuality is virtually unknown in nature, with some rare exceptions in primates”.

But just the previous year, Bruce Bagemihl had published a book reviewing published academic research into over three hundred vertebrate species which engage in same-sex courtship and genital contact. In some of these, homosexual activity is even more frequent than heterosexual intercourse.

The NOM Bus (crash) Tour, and Iowa

The disastrous bus smash that is NOM's tour around the country has reached Iowa. Box Turtle Bulletin has a report, noting the age of participants in the NOM rally, and also noting that here as elsewhere, the marriage supporters drew a larger crowd than opponents. 

This could seem remarkable, here in this rural, mid- western state where passions were so inflamed by last year's court judgement. But it will not have surprised anyone who has been watching the polls, as I have, ever since. This is the comment I posted on the site:

It’s worth reflecting on the record of opposition in Iowa since the court judgement was handed down. Immediately afterwards, opinion polls showed clearly that most Iowans were opposed – and immediately there were loud calls to start the process towards changing the state constitution.

Some months later, an important poll showed that Iowans remained opposed – but did not want the constitution tinkered with. The most recent poll showed that most Iowans now support marriage equality.

In two election cycles – one special election last year, and in this year’s GOP primaries for the state legislature, NOM poured money into campaigns for candidates promising to initiate a ballot to overturn marriage equality – and reports were that their candidates lost big time.

In Iowa, NOM has lost already, and marriage is safe.

More generally, this example shows that even in the rural mid-west, once people have lived with marriage equality for a while, they get used to it and get on with their lives – just as they did earlier with interracial marriage.

Just a Phase I’m Going Through

( I came across this at Google images while looking for something completely different. It turned out to be from the always commendable Presbyterian site, Shuck & Jive. Thanks, Shuck.)