|There are days this almost seems just, given the biblical history of boys in religious authority stoning girls and all.
Vatican Insider is running a piece on the Vatican's issues with the UN resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity. The following paragraph has some really fascinating convoluted thinking which seems to say that because heterosexuality is natural, straights are not subject to the same kinds of moral reasoning as LGBT which even though these states may be natural they are not the same kind of natural as straight--or something a long those lines.
The Holy See shares the legitimate scope of avoiding unjustified discrimination and protecting "LGBT" people from violence , but condemns any attempt to force opinions and conscience, by imposing the idea that any kind of relationship (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender) would be equivalent in terms of nature and morality. (The Holy See never defines what might be considered unjustified discrimination. Based on their own behavior I'm not sure there is anything they actually consider unjustified short of violence.)
This, according to the Holy See, violates several fundamental rights since it weakens the freedom of opinion, expression and religion. What is at risk then, is the freedom of the Church and believers. (Which means what is weakened is the freedom of Churches to publicly condemn and castigate a minority who are the way they are through no fault of their own.)
In addition, family and children would no longer be recognized as a natural reality in themselves but as an object of subjective desire because of the existence of the right for gays to marry, to adopt and establish a “family”, as if natural realities did not exist. (Family and children are a subjective desire. Many people neither want or have children--including Catholic religious-- and the vast majority happen to be straight.)
The Holy See is concerned about the denial of any difference between the reality of relations between heterosexual couples and LGBT people, as well as for the neutralization of sexual morality. The controversy between Rome and Geneva, is based on the opposite evaluation of a premise: whether or not sex is outside the moral sphere. For Catholic morality, human sexuality, like all voluntary activities, has a moral side: it is an activity engaged in by an individual desire, for a purpose; it is not an “identity”. In short, it depends on doing and not being, regardless of the degree of homosexual tendencies that may be rooted in the personality. (Then this is also true for heterosexuals, regardless of the degree of heterosexual tendencies that may be rooted in the personality. This makes gender identity a doing, not a being.)
To deny the moral dimension of sexuality is to deny a person’s freedom in this area and leads, ultimately, to a breach of their ontological dignity. The Holy See is concerned that the recognition of full legal equality for persons with homosexual orientation can lend itself to the demands for marriage between two men or two women.
If I've understood this correctly, the Vatican is inventing a different reality for homosexual orientation than the reality experienced by heterosexuals. Heterosexuality is NATURAL, and transcends in it's ontological nature any doings or desires of any given heterosexual. Heterosexuals 'are' no matter what they 'do'. Homosexuals 'do' irrespective of how homosexual they are. Gender is a hard wired aspect of the ontological nature of heterosexuality. Men are men, women are women, and gays are queer. Ergo to let homosexuals marry is really bad for heterosexuals whether those heterosexuals desire children or not.
Too bad it doesn't work like this in real life. In real life people experience sexual arousal and both gays and straights can 'do' that arousal responsibly or not. Same arousal mechanisms; more or less the same choices; consequences can vary. There is that children thing for heterosexuals, unless of course they are using birth control, which some ninety per cent of Catholics do in the West. In fact some heterosexuals maintain that using birth control frees them from enslaved gender roles. OK mostly that's women, but I know a lot of straight men who are very happy their sexual partner has not made them involuntary daddy's. Sighhhh.
There are days I despair that these sexually stunted boys masquerading as spiritually evolved adult men will ever grow up. I guess it's going to take some more pressure from the rank and file. The good news is when they finally do start maturing, and accept their own sexuality, they will experience what real freedom truly feels like, and part of that is making real choices, not guilt infected coerced choices.