I must present, without further ado, the following passage from an article on Catholic Online:
Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law? Let’s consider an absurd example. I have struggled most of my life with fighting obesity. I am on the “winning end” lately, but just give me another Holiday! A very good argument can be made that obesity also has a genetic predisposition. However, I will fight it my whole life because it is unhealthy. It is a disordered appetite. Should we as a Nation decide that fat people have a civil right to be fat? Should those who insist that they resist that “genetic predisposition” to overeat be called Fata-phobic?
The “disordered appetite” referred to by Deacon Keith Fournier, who authored this spectacularly headdesk-inducing piece, is a simple matter known as homosexuality. As if that’s not enough, Fournier questions whether fat people have a right to be fat? This is an epic WTF? moment.
Yes, Mr. Fournier, those who somehow disbelieve that being fat is never due to genes should indeed be called something akin to your term “fat-a-phobic”. Oh, and those who believe that a perfectly normal sexual preference for those of the same gender is somehow “disordered” really are bigots and homophobes. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
However, namecalling will not change our position on this matter nor will it make us go away.
Did someone offend you by calling you out on your bigoted position? Tough. That so-called name calling is nothing compared to telling people that the way they are (or, perhaps, the way God made them if you believe in a higher power) is deviant and unnatural. Now that is objectionable. Fournier goes on to quote the writings of Pope Benedict XVI from when he was still known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
Well, thank you for at least mentioning that gay people aren’t all murderous fiends. Look, I understand the Catholic doctrine that sex is for procreation. I didn’t major in religion for nothing. I’m not writing this post to bash anyone’s faith, but passages like this really infuriate me, as do articles like Fournier’s. As a bisexual woman, I staunchly reject the notion that I suffer from a “moral disorder” as well as from “disordered appetites”.
Another choice bit from Fournier:
Marriage between a man and a woman, intended for life, open to children, and the family founded upon it, is not up for grabs. Nor is it an antiquated institution. It is the first society, first government, first school, first economy and first church. Strong marriages and the families founded upon them pave the path to the future. Continuing efforts to use the Police Power of the State to give the same legal status as a marriage to homosexual paramours and force the entire society to recognize their relationships as equivalent to a marriage do not serve the common good.
Ah yes, the same Police Power of the State that features a Supreme Court unwilling to listen to a challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? The same Police Power of the State that forbids same-sex marriage in 44 of the 50 states? The same Police Power of the State that only decriminalized homosexual acts in Texas six years ago?
I suppose Fournier’s equation of LGBT individuals with people who don’t weigh what he believes they should is a tip-off to the nonsensical nature of his piece. And really, I shouldn’t expect anything more from someone who all but calls his position one of homophobia (but he resents the notion that someone else might call him out on it). Still, it’s dispiriting to read an article like that right after waking up, and to realize that Fournier is not alone in these opinions.
Maybe I should go back to bed. But that won’t work to effect any change, now will it?