Homophobia And A Burst of Swearing

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About ozyfrantz

Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary. Ozy can be contacted at [email protected] or on Twitter as @ozyfrantz. Writing is presently Ozy's primary means of support, so to tip the blogger, click here.


  1. Harsh but fair.

  2. Now THAT, dear readers is a perfect example of money well spent and well earned.

    Ozy – thank you for both making my day and making your point.

  3. About the archbishop: not that I agree with him in the least, but what his letter says is rather different than “reject your child or you’ll go to hell”. What he says is that if one does not accept paragraphs 2357–2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which basically say that gay sex is a grave sin, and homosexuals should live a life of chastity) they cannot consider Catholic and should not take Communion and so on.

    Nowhere the archbishop tells the woman to throw out her son, nor that *anybody* is going to hell.

    Now, in any case, as a (definitely pro-LGBT) Catholic I must say that the archbishop’s position is profoundly mistaken. The paragraphs that were mentioned describe the current official position of the Church on this particular issue, but they are certainly no part of the dogmas of the Church: and there is certainly room for dissent about specific issues of the Catechism — after all, there have been previous versions of the Catechism, and positions have from time to time changed (for example, relatively recently, about the doctrine of “just war”).

    To say that one who disagrees with that specific teaching of the Catholic Church “cannot consider themselves to be Catholic” is a serious theological mistake, and I am puzzled as to how an archbishop might make it.

    • To further make my point: another part of the Catechism (paragraph 2267, to be precise) takes a strong stance against the death penalty. Let me quote:

      “Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

      On this issue, I am personally in perfect agreement with the official position; but there are plenty of Catholics (especially in the U.S.) who disagree, and support the death penalty. They are in the wrong, I believe; but I would never dream to say that they are not Catholic, or that they cannot have access to the Sacraments. So why should that be the case for the paragraphs 2357–2359, with which they are presumably in agreement and I am not?

  4. Patrick M says:

    It’s funny to hear the backlash against the gay marriage movement described as a privileged position, because the way I usually hear it put forth is something like “all these middle class, assimilationist gays are setting the course for national LGBT politics and all they care about is having their monogamous, straightlaced relationships legitimized while poor queer kids are homeless, or afraid of getting kicked out of their homes, or afraid of losing their job and then being hungry, etc.”
    And it seems obvious to me that elevating LGBT rights exclusively through a system as constraining as marriage, expands that oppressive institution and does nothing for people who want to be single or just unmarried. The argument to me seemed like the queers against marriage were saying up front they aren’t interested in the privileges of marriage if marriage is a requirement and can we please talk about all the down and out queer kids on the streets. Which is a position against privilege not from it, unless I’m missing something.

    • There’s a difference between “there are important issues other than marriage at stake here, guys, let’s focus on helping these other GLBT’s over here” and “Marriage doesn’t matter.” I can see poor GLBT’s saying the former, but not the latter. The latter statement I associate more with upper-middle-class teens who don’t have any intention of settling down (some of them will change their minds as they grow older; others won’t) and thus don’t see any point in the marriage-equality struggle.

  5. “I’d call you a cunt, but unlike every cunt I’ve ever known you’re neither deep nor hot nor remotely enjoyable.”

    Best sentence in the entire post. Also as good a reason as any for people to not use a word for female genitalia as an insult.


  1. [...] In the early days of this blog, I think I may have posted a few times on the prevailing view of supposedly well-educated U.S. citizens (and probably those of most Western nations) toward Christianity. More on that in a moment, though, after I ridicule off-the-deep end evangelistic former child star Kirk Cameron for his take on his own “crucifixion” for his beliefs. [...]

Speak Your Mind