One last comment from my side, just to hear the other bell (pardon the calque) on some new points.

1. I don’t think I said divorce makes evolutionary sense.

2. You are right that not all that is logical is reasonable, and not all that is illogical is unreasonable. Still, St Thomas Aquinas used logic to prove many things which seem, at first blush, unreasonable or outright irrational – the existence of God.

Elsewhere, on another blog, someone quoted Jung saying that patients go to him who had lost their religion.

There is a hidden logic. But perhaps – as St Augustine said – it’s too complex to be understood by the human mind, who like a child tries to put all the ocean in a small pool on the beach.

@Min Weber
As we conclude this exchange, I have only two (three) quick points.

The first, pertaining to your first paragraph of point 10. I believe that same-sex marriage has everything to do with human dignity, and that’s why I fully support it. Also, (second), the economic argument against divorce as a rationale for support of marriage can never be supported by evolutionary science. When one gets divorced (or should I say, when a man gets divorced and the ex-spouse gets her “half” or “whole” of what the man formerly had economically), it is, from an economic point of view, evolutionary nonsense. I’ve been there, done that. However, divorce makes total sense (from the Gospel’s radical point of view on posessions when you give them away: there is no security in them) when personal well-being and the ultimate well-being of the family requires it. Been there, done that. So, I entire support civil divorce for Malta.

And lastly, regarding your point 11. Your argument against companionship, but for marriage as essentially for child-bearing, is entirely without foundation in any reality or logic. If so, marriages would be equivalent to baby-factories, and the “better” marriages would resemble the woman who lived in a shoe.

Yes, unfortunately, the traditional separation of men and wives as observed in the typical Maltese scene occurs all the time. Fortunately, I can say my own (second) marriage is based upon real friendship and respect, and my wife and I entirely exclude that “traditional” social separation, and our individual responsibilities is not governed by traditional gender roles. We give absolute priority to our “everything as a couple” and full support to our “individual and mutual requirements.” Obviously, when there are children, parents have to give them their priorities, where everyone (children and parents) should be respected.

I would suggest for every Cana class: that is the kind of dedication every married couple should have for one another. Unfortunately, it is not the case; and there, perhaps, we have the core reason for the individual and social “breakdown” of marriages. Individuals and society itself often are intrinsically non-supportive of marriage.

Well, I tried; but my two (then three) points is growing….growing…yes, there is another last point, regarding your point 12. My wife can explain to me your point; she is Mediterranean.

But, as for “contradictions,” an analysis of my thought would provide its many apparently irreconcilable “logical” contradictions. Human beings who try to create logical systems to apprehend reality or cling to their primary beliefs–so as not to have them contradicted–will ultimately resist truth. Religion is not a logical system (but there is faith). The core of my thought is the “integrity” of the person, which “Truth” respects, and truth is not always logical; in fact, the way of truth often contradicts the most utilitarian logic.

@ EC

I must tell you it is a privilege to exchange opinions with someone like yourself, even though I disagree with much of what you say. Also, I would like to thank Daphne for being kind enough to allow and actually host this epistolary exchange of sorts. It does her a lot of credit – particularly considering there is a site elsewhere aimed at inciting hate toward her.

I shall react to your post 5 July 2047 HRS, point by point:

1. With regard to John Paul II, I think we are saying basically the same thing – i.e., the Mystical Body of Christ is made of Catholics and non-Catholics. Where we seem to disagree is on the “monopoly” the Catholic Church holds on the interpretation of God’s law, for Catholics. You cannot – by definition – be a Catholic and consider non-Catholic interpretations of God’s law as binding.

2. I consider you a “heretic” from the Catholic point of view – just like Luther, and all the others. Your views are – to my understanding – not orthodox; therefore, by definition, heretic.

3. You are right: there are THREE SYNOPTIC gospels – I meant to say the FOUR CANONICAL gospels (as opposed to apocrypha: lapsus due to the hour of writing… I should be sleeping in the wee small hours of the morning, but there I was instead, and still am, pontificating on the Gospels!

“The evolution in our Christian understanding” (as you rightly put it) is the living tradition – this is the Catholic position. On this too we agree.

4. I still would not agree with you on Matthew 9:12. I think you are imposing a meaning on the word “eunuch” which it cannot bear. Do you really think Christ is there saying that eunuchs should not marry but still engage in sexual relations? I think that Christ is there talking about celibacy. Sexual orientation has really nothing to do with this passage – it is sexual activity which is being targeted here. There might be a hidden logic in the sense that reproduction seems to be the result of Death having been introduced into humanity’s existence by disobedience – it is doubtful whether without Death there would have been the need to procreate. Procreation seems to be a temporary way of cheating Death. (The permanent way is through Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection leading to Eternal Life at the end of times.) Thus celibacy might be seen as a return to Innocence before the Fall – so much so that a couple of lines further down, Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven belonging to children. There was among the Fathers of the Church an argument saying that Adam and Eve were like children.

I am sure Jesus accepts homosexuals, as he accepts heterosexuals and all those who exhibit different types of sexuality. What he does not accept is the sinful living of one’s sexuality. Given that sex is for procreation, homosexual practices are sinful. Being homosexual is not sinful in itself; giving vent to that orientation, is. Christianity is a faith based on self-sacrifice. Forgiveness is one of the hardest sacrifices one can impose on oneself: when someone hurts you, you would want to pay them back, and their family till the seventh generation, with interest to boot. Jesus tells you to forgive: in other words, to overcome your impulses. The same holds for homosexuality, and a myriad other behaviours.

5. Your argument in point 3 begins from the conclusion and moves on to the premise. The closing limb of the last sentence should have been the opening phrase, as it serves as premise to your argument. Once again, this sentence is a contingency, and therefore the rest of the argument is invalid, as you still have not proven the veracity of what you claim to be a fact and which serves as the real premise of your argument.

6. To be fair, you do try to prove this factual veracity in point 5, but you fail to attain your goal, not because you have argued invalidly, but because you did not present any relevant facts! The only fact you present is that you have taught developmental psychology for 20 years. Whereas that might be true (there is no reason to doubt your word), it is completely irrelevant: there is no nexus between your 20 years teaching career and the strength of the biology theory. In his The Remarkable Rocket, Oscar Wilde writes about the Catherine Wheel who believes that by repeating the same thing over and over again, that thing becomes true!

To my mind – but these are all opinions, and nobody will know the truth till the end of the world! – psychoanalysis is stronger than so-called biology because it is in tune with evolutionary thought. It simply does not make evolutionary sense to have homosexuals. At least, I have never met anyone who came up with such an argument. I might – for argument’s sake – make such a proposition myself: homoeroticism might help in times of physical attack, when same-sex love would instigate taking risks which cost one’s life. Thus humans might have evolved homosexuality for better warfare. But I have never – so far – encountered any such argument, except indirectly when Bill Clinton (if I am not mistaken) was on his way to allow homosexual recruits to join the US army.

7. With regard to your Italian – ok now I understand – couldn’t have known before, obviously. It was however necessary to read what the Archbishop had said, as he said very clearly that the Church accepts homosexuals (but not homosexual behaviour).

There is compassion in the Church’s position, and in mine. I do not want homosexuals to go to prison for being homosexuals or for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Or worse still, to be eliminated (as the Nazis tried to achieve). Or even to be simply beaten up, for being queer. I am strongly against such attitudes – and actually decry them. Those who lack compassion are the homophobes. I am not a homophobe. But I am not pro-same-sex marriage, either. The world is not black vs white (homophobes vs same-sex marriage enthusiasts). There is always a third way: tolerance. I tolerate homosexuals but I don‘t think they should get married. I think the majority is of this opinion. To my understanding, it is an enlightened majority opinion. Up till the 70s, homosexual conduct lead to imprisonment (if found guilty). A 100 years ago, the spirit of one of the brightest and more agile minds in Britain was broken by a two-year stay at Reading Goal.

8. I must admit I am struck by paragraph 6. And I will tell you why. Many years back, I attended a course at The Hague and rented a room in an old woman’s house. I used to spend the first part of my evenings talking to her in her sitting room, before retiring to my room to study. She once told me how she came to terms with her father’s sexual abuse and with her son’s homosexuality. Her words still ring in my ears, as if she were talking to me now: “I phoned-in on a radio programme and told them my story,” she said. She told me she had always suspected her son was homosexual – ever since he was three! She told me he was so delicate, so precise, so artistic, so girlish. He is now an accomplished violin-player with an important orchestra, who plays sonatas and other pieces with soul-touching virtuosity and graciousness. Needless to say, I am struck due to the similarity with what you have related.

But, then again: at which age does the Oedipus Complex take place according to Freud? Of course, you can present a counterargument based on causality, and I would appreciate that position – though I would not be convinced.

9. We all need love and forgiveness. Yours truly, for instance, needs loads of forgiveness for the harm he has caused others, often times, but not always, unwittingly.

Homosexuals who engage in homosexual carnal relations need forgiveness, like the adulteress, the husband who cheats, the womanizer, the gigolo… and the rest of humanity, yours truly included. Homosexuals are not special; they are humans like the rest of us.

10. Human dignity has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Marriage – as someone else pointed out in this blog – is the institute for child-bearing: MATRI-monium. People get married to have children. Economically, I do not really think marriage makes sense: it entails a lot of investment, moneywise and emotionally. On the other hand, divorce does not make too much economic sense, either. Actually and in a weird sort of way, Paul is right: if you’re married when you read this letter of his, do not divorce; if you’re unmarried, stay that way! It makes a lot of economic sense not to change your civil status. You change it (by contracting marriage) because you want to procreate. (With the breakdown of families brought about by the atomization of society, people want to procreate without marrying. Still, they want to regulate their non-matrimonial marriage!! Why? Because of the heavy investment involved in bearing and rearing children. Once again, this is evolutionary science, not religion!)

Denying two people of the same sex the legal vehicle to enter into a contract whose main feature is child-bearing, does not in the least diminsh their human dignity. As much as not allowing me to inherit George Soros or Silvio Berlusconi does not dimish my human dignity. Short of an express mention in their respective wills, there is no reasonable argument on which I can base my claim to inherit those two people; similarly, homosexuals have no reasonable argument on which to base their claim to marriage (i.e. a child-bearing contract). Human dignity is diminished when you are denied something you are reasonably entitled to. I can inherit neither Soros nor Berlusconi because I am not their offspring or relative (a fact); gays cannot marry because they are not of different sexes and cannot therefore reproduce (a fact).

This argument is similar to the argument used in the United States to deny judicial review to would-be migrants whose visa applications are turned down. The argument runs that no right of the would-be migrant has been trampled upon, since ab initio would-be migrants have no right to enter the United States. (There is a technical argument on the nature of visa decisions which we need not enter into here.) The analogy holds to my understanding: marriage being for child-bearing automatically excludes persons of the same sex to marry. They may cohabit, but they may not have the same legal situation as people who have the complementary physical organs necessary to procreate (whether in or out of order). Since you informed us of your knowledge of Italian, you might wish to watch a movie with Paolo Villaggio and Renato Pozzetto in which the two comedians – tactfully, neatly but incisively – portray a homosexual couple who realizes they don’t have what it takes to adopt a child.

11. That marriage is not for companionship but for child-bearing is proven by the fact that if you go round our towns and villages, you will find kazini and band-clubs full of men drinking beer and discussing football, politics, women, as well as gossiping on the Mayor, the Parish Priest, and the local MP. (The Casino Maltese – Valletta and Sliema branches – are likewise the refuge of men from their wives.) You will also find men staying up late in their garages fiddling with the car, or watching TV without talking to their wives. You will find women in kitchens cooking or supervising their children’s homeworks, or watching soap operas on TV, or on the phone with their mothers. Wenzu u Rozi is the typical husband-wife relationship: Wenzu spent more time with Kurun than with Rozi.

Only a small fraction of marriages are based on a real friendship between man and wife; many marriages are based on mere sexual attraction – despite the Cana Movement obligatory courses which are taken seriously only by the very few.

On the other hand, if we take Margaret Mead’s observations as accurate, one’s third coupling would be for friendship. It would seem that in old age, man and woman get closer on the hormonal level: men have less testosterone and woman more (they start growing light moustaches).

12. I am deliberately avoiding to address the latent (I use the word deliberately) connotations of “my enthusiasm” as at best they would betray a contradictory position on your part, and at worst, being a Southern European, I would consider them highly offensive.

I thought that I better specify which post this is a reply to, as some readers may start to need a road map, and my 4 July at 1939 hrs follows this series, to which it applies. In my last post, I had returned to our original issue for the second time, regarding the theological problem of your equating salvation through “Christ” and “church,” with “the Catholic Church,” and not the “Mystical Body” of Christ, which is a broader configuration inclusive of “Non-Catholics” who may or may not be Christian, and who are not obviously members of the “Catholic Church.” My view is articulated by Pope John Paul II.

Now, in this post, I am returning for the second time to the second issue between us, regarding my scriptural observations regarding what I claim to be a positive attitude of Christ regarding homosexual persons. I don’t know, from your general claim, where you find me “misquoting.” And if you consider me to be a “heretic,” I don’t mind the charge, if you also keep in mind that the Pharisees and scribes leveled the same charge at Christ, without understanding him. Christ just kept on explaining, and eventually dying.

For practical purposes, since you have adopted something of a point form in your post, I will respond according to your post by your section numbers, although I hope to be concise and efficient; your enthusiasm is amply displayed by your long rebutals.

1. There are three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), not four; while John’s is the fourth gospel. I have not dismissed Paul (or ignored him, but I have set him apart momentarily, and for now). Given the evangelization by Paul and his close collaborations with Mark, Luke, and John, Paul’s theologies are so profound and similar to Luke and John, that Paul’s letters (or commentaries and elaborations) on the gospel (as there is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ), are as if Paul may be considered a fifth evangelist.

The New Testament is not complete without all its books (that’s why they are there); and we do have tradition. But we also have an evolution in our Christian understandings, or else why have a Holy Spirit? Christianity is not frozen, but it is a dynamic living “Body of Christ,” whose salvation for us is an action towards a “New Creation.” While salvation has been accomplished by Christ, its action in us is still evolving.

2. I am not misquoting Jesus. The verse (Matthew 19:12) is the New Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition. Yes, Christ did not say “homosexuals” where it is written “eunuchs.” But the application is made metaphorically, and specifically to reasons why some do not marry, in the context of the Lord’s discussion about divorce. I never said Christ was exualting homosexuality–which is a matter of sexual orientation and sexual preference. What I said was implied by Christ’s statement is: that Christ implicitly acknowledged “homosexuals,” the persons (who were born that way); and he accepted them; he did not try, nor would want to change them; but he encouraged them to accept who they are by nature’s design by God, and to live their lives according to his gospel; for there are a variety of “eunuchs,” including those we recognize as celibate.

3. I did not say Christ was approving or disapproving of homosexual behavior; what I precisely said was, Christ seems to be approving of homosexual persons, even welcoming them, I would add towards the Kingdom of heaven. Christ is making an explicit approval of non-sexual behavior, for those who can accept it. Even St. Paul approved, but Paul also says (1 Corinthians 7:36) regarding a heterosexual couple: “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his fiancee, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry.” In logical terms, the same problem may exist for a homosexual couple; and some of us might assert logically, and rightly by logic, that homosexuals ought to be entitled to the same privilege of their respective biologically determined sexual orientations.

4. I don’t have a problem with my Italian; I don’t speak it, but I understand it and follow Italian TV; I have five years of Latin, and four years of Spanish, and a bit of German, all at university level, with secondary level French. My wife lived in Spain; we both travel in Italy; and when my wife is guiding tourists in Spanish (and understanding Portuguese), French, Italian, and English–and we use Maltese at home–I understand all of my wife’s tours. No, the problem (?) in this case, is that I didn’t bother to read the Bishop of Turin post, because it was unnecessary at that time. Given your exclusionary position about “code of the church” and “those who don’t like it may leave,” I would suggest that your position is more dogmatic than compassionate or understanding. Unfortunately, many have left the church when they have not found the compassion of Christ; on the other hand, I have also found some Christian and Catholic communities to be very receptive of “Gays.”

5. The “biology-psychology debate” is only “growing old” depending upon your perspective. I can provide research by John Money and others who show the biological position to be a strong theory, not a weak hypothesis; and this in contrast to psychoanalytic theories, among others, that attempt to give primacy to environments. I have taught developmental psychology at university level for twenty years, not to mention other relevant courses.

6. You have no idea how I actually feel about my homosexual son: it is not “uncomfortable,” as you suggest. Quite the contrary, when he told me, everything finally made sense–it always had been there, but I had dismissed it. He is one of the most sensitive, socially-perceptive, insightful, artistic, spontaneous, and meticulous persons I have known, ever since he amazed me even at three years-of-age; today he is thirty-two. His three brothers understood him before I ever did. If anything, I have always been honest; the last thing I would want to be would be a hypocrite.

7. The question here is, who is forgiving and loving whom. We all need forgiveness and love. But homosexuals do not need to be “forgiven” for how God made them. We do need to be forgiving and loving towards all those whom we may not understand, and whom we may hurt, intentionally and unintentionally.

8. My ideas are not based upon my feelings, although they are not without feeling. I am a very rational and analytical person, some would say too much so (in my previous marriage). My second wife and I were married in the church less than two years ago, after a civil marriage of twelve years. When we were married in the church, there was no issue, or requirement, for primacy for “children” between us as a couple; we were long past child-bearing years. People get married for companionship and legal reasons. The primary reason people get married–not the ideal reason according to the romantic concept of marriage–or the child-bearing concept of marriage–is economics. Hopefully, those who marry in the church also do so as a commitment to their covenant with each other. I am also supportive of gay-marriage, but not from a religious standpoint; but from the position of human dignity.

@EC

John Paul II was a very intelligent man. And his intelligence had the constant aid of another brilliant man – Cardinal Ratzinger, now his successor.

His words therefore admit of many levels of interpretation.

To my understanding, John Paul was excluding any limitation on God’s grace and powers. If God’s grace were to be limited by the Church, then God would not be omnipotent and therefore not God. (To put it in a very simplistic way.)

So, John Paul’s words can mean that – wittingly or unwittingly – non-Catholics can live God’s law even if they are do not members to the Church.

But the point is not whether the active, conscious membership of the Church is the pre-requisite to attain God’s grace. Once again, if membership of the Church were to be a pre-requisite to attain God’s grace, then God would be subservient to the membership of the Church, and that too is untenable.

The point therefore, is not of the Church being the ticket booth to Paradise, but the Church being the interpreter of the laws of God.

And here, I think I am correct when I say that it is only the Catholic Church which – for Catholics – can give the correct interpretation of the laws of God.

Catholics cannot accept that non-Catholics can be correct interpreters of the laws of God. This doctrine finds its apogee in the highly controversial ex cathedra dogma, into which we need not enter here and now.

John Paul could not therefore have been saying that salvation can be achieved by accepting the interpretation of God’s laws given by institutions other than the Catholic Church. What he meant was that non-members of the Catholic Church who, however, live their lives in conformity with the rules which emanate from the Catholic Church’s interpretation of God’s laws can achieve salvation (through Christ) despite their non-membership of the Church. Need that conformity be conscious? Probably not.

The Church, as mater et magister, is she how nurtures her sons and daughters and teaches them the way. This the reason why the Gospels by themselves do not suffice to find the way – because the Gospels are mere renditions of some of the many traditions of Early Christianity. The orthodox traditions were sifted by the Church, and those traditions were presented as the basis on which the Christian way of life can be constructed.

However, the Church realized that Man’s relationship with God is ongoing – it is a living relationship. The Church believes that God’s laws can be discovered and interpreted with the passage of time.

This is not to say that the laws of God are not immutable – they are immutable and eternal, but they are discovered by Man – either through revelation or through observation or through other means – little by little, and when fact-situations bring forth the necessity to find new norms which try to approach as much as possible God’s eternal, immutable Laws.

Therefore, I think I have to repeat that the position you are taking is, in the eyes of every real Catholic, heretic.

Salvation lies only with the Catholic Church, not in membership per se, but in adopting a lifestyle inspired by or in conformity with the teachings of the Church which attempt to bring Man as close as possible to God.

If I may return to psychology, one might here quote Jung and his description of Christ as the Archetypal Man.

@Karl Flores

I stand corrected.

[Daphne – Go off and read some social anthropology. The incest taboo is fundamental and universal, which is why we all know and remember the historical exceptions (ancient Egyptian royalty). It goes beyond genetics, a subject about which people knew nothing until recently.]

Claude Levi Strauss would certainly agree with you and yet Henry Maine (died 1888) had already put forward the idea of the increased risk of homozygotes attributed to incest before the science of genetics was even established. Like Mendel, who was active in Maine’s lifetime, he observed traits in inbred animal populations and extrapolated his observations to include humans.

Apologies for the name dropping but I do want to stress the point, that social anthropologists do not agree even between themselves.

The question is whether this universal taboo will hold ad eternum or will it be accepted as genetics eliminate the risk associated with it. Western European countries have been questioning the morality behind this issue since Napolean’s times (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm).

Modern genetics have already pinponted both mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosonal Adam. It’s ironic that we are all direct descendants of one man who lived circa 60,000 years ago.

@ EC
I think your view would qualify as “heretic”; also you are misquoting.

1. Christianity – for many reasons which we need not enter into here – is not based only on what the four synoptic Gospels say. It is based on other traditions, including what Paul wrote (or is attributed to him). Therefore, quoting only the Gospels is almost “heretic.” Surely, it is not a complete approach.

2. You are misquoting Jesus. Jesus says “eunuchs” not “homosexuals.” “Eunuchs” are men who are either castrated or incapable of reproduction. Homosexuals are usually neither. Therefore, your argument that homosexuals = eunuchs, therefore Christ is exhalting homosexuality, is invalid.

3. Admittedly, however, there is a strange passage in Mark 14:51-52 which some have interpreted as a reference to homosexuality, while others as the fulfilment of a prophecy found in Amos (2:16). Be that as it may, it is clear from the Genesis story, that intimate companionship was meant for Man and Woman. This has been the living Judeo-Christian tradition. This would also be the context of Jesus’ reference to “eunuchs” – men who could not really enjoy the company of women, not because they are homosexual but because they cannot perform or impregnate. However, the passage you quote is very controversial. Some see it as evidence that Jesus was an Essene. But we can say what it is not. That passage – unlike the one I’ve just mentioned – is certainly not approving homosexual behaviour. Rather it would seem to approve non-sexual behaviour.

4. Now I am realizing that perhaps you do not understand Italian. In the link I indicated above, which connects you to a gay website, there is a quotation from the Archbishop of Turin who insisted on the respect the Church shows individuals, and on the Church’s concomitant condemnation of the ostentation of a certain type of behaviour. To be sure, the Church does not condemn only homosexual practices as sin, but many other behaviours too. Still, the Church obeys (or in theory should obey) Christ’s order to forgive endlessly, on condition that the sinner repents. That is the code of the Church – those who do not like it, may leave.

5. The biology-psychology debate as the origin of homosexuality is growing old. I would tend to agree with the evolutionary psychologists that the basis of homosexuality is not biological. But of course, we do not as yet know for sure, and it is only presumptuous to think that we know everything.

6. Your son’s sexual orientation makes your position uncomfortable, and that I can fully understand. My own son is still very young, so I do not know what her future holds in store – but I can understand your feelings as a parent. Still, personal feelings should not obfuscate the understanding of the rules of general morality.

Let me give an example by hyperbole. The father of a murderer cannot claim that murder is fine, just because his son is a murderer. Now I do realize that the example is strong – and I am not implying (actually I am against) that homosexual practices should be criminalized again. I am referring to attitudes. You are an intelligent man and you understand what I mean.

Of course, I cannot but respect you for your honesty. Despite my respect, I cannot however agree with you on your interpretation of Christianity.

7. Where I can and do strongly agree with you is that true Christians should not hurt others, whether they are sinners or not: John 7:53 – 8:11 comes to mind. Here the Church has a lot to answer for. When the Church held temporal power, it abused of it and literally burnt at the stake those whom she considered sinners. Later, she carried out social obliteration of such people. To my understanding, in this the Church failed the twin commandments of her founder: to forgive and to love.

8. In conclusion. I’m sorry, but I cannot ever be convinced that gays should be allowed to marry. They can be allowed to live their orientation if they do not want to try and evolve it to heterosexuality – it’s their choice, and I respect it. But their choice cannot be imposed on others who do not want the heterosexual basis of the institute of marriage to be changed or “polluted” – be it for religious or other reasons. For sure, gays should not be punished for being gays. They should be encouraged to evolve. Above all, they should be loved – like everybody else, after all.

The idea, however, that whatever feels good for you should be fine for everybody is a very perverted idea, which draws general rules from the particular. It’s like saying that because all mice are animals, then all animals are or should be mice. This is not only a fallacy, but a very dangerous reasoning. It is akin to reasoning such as: all Christians are people, therefore all people should be Christians. Very, very fascistic, to my mind. The alternative is more humane (and therefore more Christian!): all Christians are people, all people may be Christians (if they want to).

Actually, no logical reasoning can ever lead to any other conclusion but the one I am advocating: namely marriage can only be heterosexual. Because this is a contingency, that is, a matter which can only be determined by reference to facts. It is a fact that two men cannot reproduce. Therefore, two men cannot marry – as marriage is an institute (whether human or divine, that’s another story) aimed at the reproduction of the species.

(This is the Catholic view, among others. It is only coherent that the Catholic Church does not allow divorce. If companionship were a priority on reproduction, then the Church would allow it; given that reproduction is a priority on companionship, it does not.)

Homosexual practices allow the gratification of the reproductive instinct without allowing it to bear fruits. Not because the “sperm donor” cannot donate his seed (like the eunuch), but because the “sperm receiver” does not have the apparatus necessary to allow the seed to achieve its finality. (We are not saying here that the apparatus is faulty – to address those who compare homosexual couples to infertile heterosexual ones – but to the absence of an adequate reproductive organ on the receiving end.) Whereas the gratification can be allowed, it cannot be legitimized, as legitimization of such gratification comes from the ethic of reproduction. You can enjoy sex because it leads to reproduction. This is not from a Catholic source, but from a book on evolution!

Now, evolutionists tend to say God does not exist! There I start to lose track.

The bible is just a hodgepodge of 600BC traditions, lore and religion of neighbouring cultures with a bit of bigotry unique to tribal living in the mountainous backwaters.

The area around Jerusalem back then was little more than the Aspromonte. The inhabitants could only watch invidiously as the neighbours were growing sophisticated societies and sometimes getting gobbled up by larger empires. Sometimes they were hired as mercenaries, a desperate measure to get money and see the world.