LGBT students of UD recount struggles for acceptance





By Linda Smith

A&E Editor



Senior Jerick Johnson is neither embarrassed nor ashamed of who he truly is. He is a black, “flamboyantly”  – as he puts it sarcastically – gay man at a university with mostly white, straight students and staff. Yet not all University of Dallas students are as comfortable sharing their sexuality. Two females and two males agreed to speak with me about their sexuality on the condition that they remain anonymous. Citing different reasons, they said they too are neither embarrassed nor ashamed of themselves, but that they believe that UD is not an environment in which they can “come out.”

While Johnson said he has had a mostly good experience at UD, he also said that he would never wish for anyone to go through what he has experienced over his four years here.

“Honestly, when I tell people about this school, I tell them if they’re gay, that it’s just not worth it,” Johnson said. “It’s not worth the four years of agony that you spend over the fact that you’re underrepresented, you’re under-cared for here. It’s just not worth it.”

Approximately 84 percent of undergraduates are Catholic, according to the University of Dallas website. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,  “[T]radition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’… Under no circumstances can they be approved… men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies…must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (2357-8)

This nuanced understanding of homosexuality can cause some students to feel uncomfortable or unsure of how to react toward those who are not heterosexual. Similarly, students who are not straight report feeling overwhelmed by the number of students who are religiously opposed to their lifestyles.

Johnson has been out since his freshman year of high school, and considered going back in the closet when coming to UD. While he could not keep it from people, he did find friends who accepted him. However, he also dealt with two incidents in which he felt threatened. The first involved a Facebook group, which claimed to be satirical, called “Make UD the Most Unfriendly to LGBT Organizations.” The second involved a comment on the Class of 2015 Facebook page using a derogatory slur against gay people. In both instances, university employees were quick to shut down these aggressions and help Johnson.

“I remember [members of the office of] Student Life coming to me afterwards and saying that, ‘We want you to know this discrimination is unacceptable. This is not accepted at the University of Dallas,’” Johnson said. “Things have gotten progressively ‘better.’”

Johnson elaborated, saying that he is still approached with questions that seem well-meaning, but are usually micro-aggressions, or things that people say or do that are “unintentionally homophobic, unintentionally racist, unintentionally sexist.” These include overly personal questions about his sexual preferences.

Johnson said his experiences with staff and professors have been largely positive. In fact, in 2011, UD was No. 9 on an annual list published by The Princeton Review of universities most unfriendly to LGBT people and organizations. The ranking went down to No. 14 in 2012. President Thomas Keefe spoke with Johnson and told him that he did not want the school on that list by the end of Johnson’s college career. Johnson also counts Associate Provost Dr. John Norris and Director of Campus Ministry Denise Phillips as accepting, positive people.

“The teachers I’ve had have never made [my orientation] an issue in my education,” Johnson said. “I’ve had really good interactions with professors about me being gay, me being black and me being here. It’s good having people you can talk to.”

A bisexual sophomore who wished to remain anonymous spoke of her experience of biased language in the classroom. She recalled a philosophy professor talking about Plato and bringing up homosexuality in a “negative tone.” While she has not come out to non-friends at the university, she feels like she has been able to find an accepting friend group.

“You still have to be careful what you say,” she said. “But you gravitate towards people of your own kind.”

While that can be the case, some feel that others’ beliefs often prove to be an obstacle to friendship. Junior Kristina Matias, who is physically attracted to both sexes, but only emotionally attracted to males, feels that the smallness of the school makes it difficult to know whether those who identify as LGBT can come out or not.

“There are so many people who I could see being really good friends with, but they’ve become so closed to everything that you say or do, and all of a sudden, they’re going to associate you with that thing and you’re forever going to be held to that,” Matias said. “It’s a small school too, so if you come out to somebody and it’s the wrong person, they could tell a bunch of people. And no one will walk up to you and say, ‘Oh, that’s disgusting’ if you’re gay, or whatever you happen to be, but they’ll look at you and say things. It’s definitely uncomfortable.”

Junior Gabriela Brown believes students could spend their time on better things than judging others. Brown is asexual, meaning that, while she is capable of desire, she does not have sexual desire, and that being physically affectionate with anyone makes her uncomfortable. Like many other UD students, she comes from a Catholic background.

“A lot of people are ignorant as to what [being Catholic] actually entails,” Brown said. “They see it as what they’ve been taught, their parents’ bias. They grow at this school, but they don’t grow past the things they were born and raised into. The word itself — catholic — means universal diversified. If you’re closing out people who are in this universal space that we’re constantly talking about in basically every class of the Core at UD, how can you really call yourself a Catholic?”

Senior Maxwell Frazier said he sees the problem of intolerance not in intolerant people themselves, but rather in the fact that their intolerance goes unchallenged. He said he believes blatantly homophobic people are still accepted by the majority of UD students.

“The tolerant people don’t really have a problem with the intolerant people,” Frazier said. “It’s easy enough to find people that [sic] are cool about it. But people who are viciously and blatantly homophobic still are [finding it easy to be] friends with all these people.”

Some students, including a freshman who wished to remain anonymous, said they have not been personally challenged, but have caught small undercurrents of homophobic language. The student referred to hearing derogatory slurs in the dorm, saying that, “you hear that anywhere, but it sounds like they mean it here.”

“I notice friends getting hate,” he said. “Just because I haven’t received any doesn’t mean my friends don’t. I’ve noticed that, and it does occur on campus. And I notice our lack of groups or organizations. We have nothing pertaining to [LGBT rights] at all.”

Multiple students interviewed agreed that an increase in diversity both at UD and in the world today have led to more acceptance overall.

“I have noticed that they’re incorporating people into the school who are a little less mainstream, traditional students,” Matias said. “So I am noticing just a lot more intrigue in general, people who are a little different than just the straight-out opposition and I do like that.”

Another homosexual senior who wished to remain anonymous said that he has had a good experience at UD, and had not personally experienced any negativity. However, he said he does not believe that the majority of  UD students will change their ideas on sexuality.

“It’s good to have differences of ideas because you can learn from every way,” he said. “It’s important to have this conversation … but I don’t think it’ll ever be fully accepted.”

While the students interviewed noted an increase in acceptance, they said that it needs to grow. Johnson spoke of groups in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, including DFW Fuse, which invites gay and bisexual men between the ages of 18 and 29 to hang out in Dallas and have a support group. Several students proposed forming a Gay-Straight Alliance.

“We need to have an actual LGBT group on campus because we know these people exist,” a freshman who wished to remain anonymous said. “It’s just kept hush-hush, it’s like the elephant in the room. But they do exist, and they need an organization to sit, talk and get through it. Otherwise you’re alone, and the isolation is what kills you.”


  1. UD does not need a student group focused on sexual confusions. At UD, we hate the sin and love the sinner. This Christian attitude does not require redefining vice into virtue.

    We all have desires we are forbidden to act on. We all We all have sexual desires we are forbidden to act on. What’s different in the case of same-sex attracted persons is not the presence of those forbidden desires, but the absence of normal desires. But I’m not to blame for that absence. I do believe that in almost all cases there are somebodies to blame, but then we’d have to acknowledge that this is a psychological and moral syndrome … and most people don’t want to admit that.

    I don’t believe in “gay people,” per se, just as I don’t believe in thieves, adulterers, liars, gossips, cheaters, vengeance takers, and so forth. Sins are distortions of our true selves, as are propensities to sin. There is nothing to be proud of in a propensity to sin. There is also nothing that defines us in a propensity to sin.

    What does distinguish people who are sexually attracted to members of their sex? Here’s where we should be as careful and as sensitive as we can be, if people will allow it and not attack us for it. These desires, precisely because they are wrong by nature and not by attendant circumstances, are more powerful and more a matter of compulsion than are other wrong desires. In other words, we have here a serious moral and psychological disorder.

    UD was founded on the dual creed that a) truth exists and b) that is can be known. My prayer is that UD students with SSA discover the truth, about themselves and about their Creator, during their time at this wonderful university. They are not “gay”; they are sons and daughters of God.

    • Regardless of your belief, it isn’t your choice. If you think it is sinful, keep that to yourself. 5 decades ago, people preached that marrying outside your race was sinful. These homophobic ideas have a short lifespan.

      In short, don’t oppose a student group that could do a lot of good as a support system for others purely because you are uncomfortable with their lifestyle. Try to be more accepting.

      • Upholding a sexual ethic which asserts that non-marital sex acts are immoral does not make one homophobic. I’m surprised that an independent-thinking UD student would say such a thing about an entirely reasonable philosophical claim. From the religious side, if a UD student has a problem with what the Catholic Church teaches, he or she has plenty of other options for a college education.

        The comparison to interracial marriage falls flat. Laws banning sodomy concerned the nature of sodomy itself. Laws forbidding blacks from marrying whites had nothing to do with the definition of marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 women; it had everything to do with the evil philosophy of white supremacy (racists didn’t think blacks couldn’t marry whites anymore than they though blacks could drink out of whites only water fountains). The Catholic Church never had a de fide doctrine on white supremacy (how could it?). Race, unlike gender, was entirely irrelevant to what marriage is.

        I’m further surprised that a UD student (who presumably took Lit Trad II, Western Theo Trad, etc) would suggest that the immorality of sodomy is a recent novelty. Take Dante, for example. In the Divine Comedy, sodomy involves a violence against Nature, the handmaid of God, and is therefore rightly punished beside the blasphemers, far below the adulterers (who are still in Hell mind you). That’s not simply Dante’s imagination at work, and certainly not his personal animus, since the sodomites he actually meets are all noble men, particularly the two interlocutors, Brunetto Latini and Jacopo Rusticucci. Dante’s point is that sodomy and adultery are different offenses in kind. The adulterer is doing something which by its nature is blessed, but is evil in his case because of circumstances. The sodomite is doing something which by its nature is wicked, period. One could add others, such as Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, and others untouched by Jewish or Christian thought, but I won’t belabor the point: the immorality of sodomy is not a recent invention.

        It is simply a plain fact of the matter that when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, they are doing what is by nature the child-making act. That is not so merely “in principle,” but by the plain biological character of the action. Its effect may be frustrated by attendant circumstances, but that is neither here nor there. Sodomy is by nature non-procreative, and thus not marital. If our civilization attaches significant moral repulsion to sodomy, it’s only because sodomy is an act most visibly not of the marital kind. It is Jesus himself who lists fornication and adultery among the filthy things that “come out” of a man. Is sodomy somehow nicer than those?

        Same-sex attracted UD students DO need real care and support. But they will not find it in any group that rejects the immorality of homosexual acts and stands in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, the natural law, and the Western moral tradition. They will not find it in any group that labels people by their temptations. That is ontological nonsense and psychologically damaging. Our SSA students deserve better.

        • I’m amused that the evidence presented here for the immorality of homosexuality comes from a work of fiction. Just sayin’.

          • More amusing that it’s from Dante, whose moral theology was not the greatest (he puts Pope Saint Celestine V in hell, for example). Dante certainly isn’t devoid of theological value (his cosmology is interesting), but he’s certainly not an intelligent source for any kind of modern Catholic approach to sexuality.

          • My point wasn’t that Dante is the end-all, be-all for Catholic sexual ethics. It was simply that the proscription on sodomy wasn’t a recent invention, as evidenced by Dante and many others.

            That being said, Dante is not wrong about human sexuality (Rob you didn’t provide any true objection to my reading of that specific Canto. I agree with you Dante errs in other passages, but not this one). Dante’s insight is found latently in Leviticus, where the sins against nature are described as “abominations,” a very rare word in Hebrew, limited to evils that are in their essence hardly imaginable — bestiality and incest are included, and the vilest of idolatries, such as burning your child to a crisp in sacrifice to Moloch. It is to be found with absolute clarity in Romans 1, where St. Paul says that the pagans did have knowledge of the Creator from the things that were created, but turned away from him and worshiped the creatures instead, whereupon God delivered them over to their vain imaginations — and that included the unnatural forms of intercourse that Paul denotes. This explains why Dante would locate the sodomites with the blasphemers. It is obvious, too, that what Paul is condemning is not pederasty, but the sheer unnatural union of members of the same sex. And it is JESUS who lists fornication and adultery among the filthy things that “come out” of a man. Is sodomy somehow nicer than those?

          • Paul is better, certainly, though Catholic moral theology is grounded on natural law, not scripture (and depending on when Paul is writing, and whether you are reading Paul or Pseudo-Paul, you’re going to find a sexual ethics of varying degrees of weirdness).

            Sodomy certainly isn’t nicer than adultery. Because it’s adultery. Modern Catholic Sexual Ethics has it that Sex has a procreative and a unitive aspect. In adultery, both are absent. In sex among married people not open to life, both are held to be absent. Throwing in the adjective “gay” doesn’t suddenly make these aspects *more* absent.

            If you check CCC 2396 you’ll see that the Church holds gay sex to be a grave offense– alongside masturbation, pornography, and yes, vanilla fornication.

          • Agree with you regarding the catechism’s proscription of non-marital sex acts (to include sodomy, masturbation, fornication, bestiality, etc). From a natural law perspective, they disrespect the basic human good of marriage, a comprehensive union (mind, heart, body) whose biological unity is made uniquely possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. A chosen act consistent respect for all the goods in all persons (to include marriage) is morally upright; one that isn’t, is immoral.

            Your description of the immorality of adultery isn’t quite right. Adultery can be quite procreative, in the conceptual sense that the man and woman are engaging in the behavioral part of human reproduction: coitus. In a very real sense, their adultery could result in a child. What makes adultery wrong, from a natural law perspective, is that adultery violates the basic human good of marriage, which is held to be comprehensive across time (“till death do us part”) and at each time (exclusive). Because it fails to respect the good of marriage with regards to exclusivity, it is non-marital.

            If Western culture singles out some of these acts (like sodomy or bestiality) as “unnatural,” it is because they’re especially visibly not of the marital kind, involving behavior visibly not of the procreative sort. But the primary morally significant thing about all non-marital sex acts is that, in their diverse forms, they involve disrespect for the basic good of marriage. That being said, these kinds of acts aren’t alike in every morally significant respect and degree—the point is just that there is one morally disqualifying feature they all share. Adultery can’t be the same as sodomy, since the adulterer does something which by its nature is blessed, but wicked in his case because of attendant circumstances. Sodomy is wicked period. But insofar as these acts are non-marital, they are considered grave offenses.

          • I don’t have a great source at the moment, I’m just going from memory of Dr. Lowery’s lectures, but iirc the Catholic church does indeed hold adultery to violate the procreative function of sex. I remember the path to that conclusion being a bit crazy.

            Anywho, if we’re agreed that from the Church’s perspective throwing on a condom, watching porn, and having sex with another dude are all essentially similar grave offences, then the rest is quibbling. My broader point is that it’s just silly and misleading to treat gay sex as somehow more of a mortal sin than all these straight sexual mortal sins which are so often brushed over, at UD and broadly among the Conservative Catholic community.

          • Well I don’t think it’s accurate to say watching pornography is a non-marital sex act like contraceptive sex or sodomy or masturbation. But yes, we can say watching pornography is among the sexual sins, like “gay sex”. (The term sodomy is more precise. I don’t like the term “gay sex”…for lots of reasons…but primarily because sodomy isn’t really sex (i.e. coitus), unless sex is defined loosely as any human interaction utilizing at least one reproductive organ. As a matter of biology, the anus is not a reproductive organ. Sorry for being earthy, but precision is important here.)

            I take your point that many sexual sins are brushed over at UD. Sodomy isn’t a common temptation; if one does not struggle with a particular sin, it’s all the easier to condemn it, while being silent on one’s real struggles. UD students shouldn’t point out the wickedness of sodomy while ignoring other wicked behavior. I’m 100% with you that porn, contraception, fornication, etc are huge problems as well, at UD and elsewhere.

            That being said, from a pastoral perspective, it’s not “quibbling” to distinguish between sins that cry out to heaven and sins of incontinence. A man tempted to have sex with a woman to whom he is not married is experiencing normal desires; temptations to fornication occur in the normal course of life. Such a man needs to be continent; that is, he must order his normal desires into their proper expression in the marital act. A man tempted to sodomize another man is a different matter, such compulsions require a different pastoral approach and must be considered as intrinsically disordered. Yes, adultery and sodomy are both non-marital sex acts, and are thus equally immoral in that respect. That does not mean they are equally problematic in EVERY moral respect.

          • Failure to attend mass and receiving the eucharist without being in a state of grace is also a grave sin. If the Catholic students at UD are scaring gay Catholics away from the mass, you are using disapproval of one grave sin to guarantee the other.

          • If you don’t believe the Great Books can lead the intellect to truth, your UD education was an awful waste of money…

        • 1 Anyone who refers to sex as “the child-making act” obviously does not understand the emotional complexities of it.

          2. Of course you can’t get a bunch of UD people together without someone bring up Dante.

      • I do not think that a private, Catholic university needs to “keep it to itself” that it shares the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

      • “Regardless of your belief, it isn’t your choice. If you think it is sinful, keep that to yourself.”

        Are you seriously advocating that proponents of Catholic teaching be silent in regard to homosexuality? At a Catholic university that explicitly “acknowledges its commitment to the Catholic church and its teaching” in its mission statement?

    • First of all I would like to say: did you really just compare homosexuality to a murder or theft? wow.. ok.. cool.. How is that a plausible comparison?! If being gay is “wrong by nature” then why are there gay people all around the world? why are countries beginning to accept gay marriage? I’m not going to start a rant or anything like that, I’m just going to state the fact that the world is a much bigger and more diverse place than UD and if you think that repressing a person’s sexuality and having them deny who they are because you are not comfortable with it is sad. How are you going to teach your children acceptance? How are you going to raise them as well rounded people. I think Homophobia is a serious issue and is against your “laws of nature”. Anyway hope you enjoy the rest of your life living in a bubble of ignorance. See you when gay marriage is legalized everywhere. Have a great life Mrs. UD Alumnus. 😉

      • Why do you call me ignorant, just because we disagree? The Supreme Court will most likely redefine marriage in June, replacing in our law the definition of marriage as a comprehensive union ordered to procreation with the new definition of marriage as primarily an emotional union enhanced by whatever physical activity the partners see fit. It will be highly unfortunate, but it wouldn’t be the first time SCOTUS has issued a bad ruling (e.g. Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, etc). Lucky for us, a panel of unelected judges can’t alter natural law, morality doesn’t work like that. We need to keep witnessing to the truth about marriage and the marital act; no finer time to put that UD education to good use!

      • What does gay people existing all around the world have to do with its natural morality? like any disorder, homosexuality occurs in nature but that is not to say that it is therefore moral behavior. many people are born with a penchant for hurting people, lying, excess, gay sex, promiscuous sex, all of which are disorderly to either natures intention and/or civilized community. You immediately cry “homophobia!” when there is still clearly a debate on the table.

    • For those curious about microaggressions and wanting to avoid them, read UD Alumnus’ comments. Then simply don’t talk like he does.

      “I don’t believe in “gay people,” per se, just as I don’t believe in thieves, adulterers, liars, gossips, cheaters, vengeance takers, and so forth.”

      You’ve made clear your association of homosexuality with dishonesty and promiscuity.

      ” In other words, we have here a serious moral and psychological disorder.”

      Psychological? Not according to the APA or the Catholic Church. For the latter it’s “an objective moral disorder.” In the Catholic Church, the only thing remotely similar to homosexuality is original sin. Original sin is an objective moral disorder and is inherently sinful, and it is the root of most things you would be tempted to do. Homosexuality is not inherently sinful, it just has the objective moral disorder. Homosexuality is its own entire animal in the catechism and there is a whole 2-3 pages on it depending on the page size and font size of your issue. The biggest issue that the Catholic Church has with homosexuality is the fact that it has in actuality very little teaching on the matter.

      • Some history is needed here:

        In the 1970s, gay activists began disrupting APA meetings around the country. Psychiatrists became the hunted. For example, at a 1971 APA meeting in Washington, Frank Kameny led a group of gay activists into the conference shouting “We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered. For us, as homosexuals your profession is the enemy incarnate.” (“The Militant Homosexual, Newsweek, 23 August 1971, pg 47)

        Per Alix Spiegel, granddaughter of Dr. John P. Spiegel (then President-Elect of the APA in 1973), her grandfather was primarily responsible for banishing homosexuality from the APA’s DSM. She notes a Bahamas vacation to celebrate her grandfather’s 70th birthday. Her grandfather emerged from a beach front bungalow with a young man he introduced to his shocked family as his lover. It became apparent that Spiegel had had gay lovers throughout his life, and even told his wife-to-be that he was homosexual, two weeks before their wedding. Spiegel helped organize a group of APA psychiatrists, who met in his apartment, who decided to reform the APA from the inside.

        What finally convinced Dr. Robert Spitzer, member of the APA nomenclature committee who held to the standard medical understanding of homosexuality, to redraft the DSM was a 1973 meeting at a Hawaiian gay bar. Ronald Gold, a gay activist, brought Spitzer to a gay bar after an APA meeting. At the gay bar, Spitzer was so moved by seeing his closeted APA colleagues, introduced to him by Gold, that he went back to his hotel room and wrote the resolution that night. The resolution was presented and passed. (Source:

        So much for science as the basis for delisting homosexuality as a mental illness. Obviously, it was not a result of scientific advances, but rather the result of sheer political advocacy. Homosexual activists admit as much. Per lesbian activist Kay Lahusen, the APA declassification “was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.” Per her lesbian partner, Barbara Gittings “it was never a medical decision, and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.” (Source:

        Sorry, but throwing the APA’s opinion at me isn’t going to fly. APA psychiatrists, at the height of the Sexual Revolution, needed to rationalize their own sexual misbehavior, and they used their profession to do it.

  2. This UD alumnus clearly represents a time when UD was pretty high ranking on the list of LGBT intolerance. I hope you enjoy being on the losing side of history. Also you should probably get to know my boyfriend and me before you go saying ignorant things like accusing us of being seriously morally and psychologically disordered. We ARE gay; we aren’t some afflicted population with SSA making it sound like a disease. I did discover the truth about myself as a homosexual during my time here, and unless you suddenly discover the truth about yourself as a homosexual you don’t really have any grounds to be saying what’s true and what’s not about it. The truth can be discovered, but if your means of “discovery” are hearsay and superstition rather than reason and experience, perhaps you haven’t really discovered anything at all. Homosexuality (note: I use homosexuality rather than your euphemistic patronizing and evasive same sex attraction) is not a moral and psychological disorder. Homophobia however, is. But I do not judge you for it, I’ll just continue talking about how you are a diseased individual that needs to be dealt with carefully, and about how you are a stain, on society and on history, even salvation history. You are the Pharisee, you are the inquisitor, you are the homophobe. But you are a child of God just as the rest of them.

    Your ignorance of gay individuals, your denial of their existence, does nothing to help you or anybody grow spiritually. A GSA is a gay straight alliance, a meeting grounds for people of varying experiences, sexualities, and backgrounds to come together for a greater mutual understanding. If you are afraid that people will start accepting homosexuals when they start knowing and understanding them then that speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. In short, don’t waste your time praying for us to find truth when you are such a stranger to it yourself. You should really hope that we pray for you. Way to boldly defend the truth while hiding your name by the way.

    *yawn* next please.

    • Wrong side of history? Oh please. I could make it a rain a litany of historical examples of those who were told they were on the “wrong side of history.” What matters is being on the right side of the truth. Don’t worry, I’m under no illusions that my beliefs about sexual ethics are under attack and that my side is losing. But defeat is only guaranteed if people stop witnessing to the truth; if UD students don’t rise to the occasion, who will?

      Anyways, why do you assume my beliefs about marital acts are irrational and bigoted? You and I can use our UD education to reason to the moral goodness and badness of specific actions. Believing homosexual sex to be immmoral does not make one a bigot, or the equivalent of a racist (is Pope Francis a bigot?) To convince me you’re right, and that homosexual sex is morally permissible, you’ll need to overcome some (in my opinion) significant philosophical hurdles, nevermind debunking 2,000 years of Catholic teaching. Start by debunking this argument:

      • The problem with your argument, is that it centers itself on either demeaning or diminishing the presence of a person’s sexuality in order to discriminate against them properly. Backed by your religious beliefs there is then much more zeal with which you support your discomfort.

        it really is a shame that someone who claims to be so in bed with logic would use arguments as the ones that you did; arguments that rely entirely not only on your system of beliefs, but on your understanding of sexuality and personhood which, according to science, you are mistaken. Sexuality is not a perversion, it is a defining characteristic of a human person akin to whether or not they have a sweet tooth, height, hair color, and the manner in which they problem solve. Being human persons, people of the LGBTQAI+ community are simply living out their life and their person to the fullest.

        To diminish their sexuality which is an aspect of their personhood in the way that you have in your statements and arguments and chalking it all up to some dirsorder is not only incredibly short sighted but very deeply discriminatory. Let me break it down for you. In order for you to take yourself seriously when you promote that viewpoint, you have to genuinely believe in your core that there is a psychological disease that is perverting the perception of sexuality of millions of people and that for some reason, your perception is untouched – unsullied – your sexuality is part of the elite group the chosen sexuality. If that is the case, how can you be sure that this disease is actually for all those who are not asexual? perhaps the perversion is actually heterosexuality? The problem with your argument is that not only does it diminish the personhood of the individual (by not taking their sexuality into account) but it is a line so arbitrarily drawn, that no years of tradition can undraw it.

        The interesting thing to me about these arguments is that you are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. So essentially, hate me for being bi-sexual, but treat me as though i were not. There is a problem there, if you are incapable of seeing me and my desires as all valid in a human person, then you are incapable of acting in an accepting and non discriminatory manner. Just like if a person is incapable of seeing a person of color and seeing an equal, they are incapable of treating them as such.

        The fact is, this stance is inherently discriminatory – it allows you to discriminate against a certain human characteristic that you find unpalatable, and supports it with a religious text and doctrine that you have to believe in to justify.

        Yes, more must be done. Yes, UD should have a Gay/Straight alliance, and no this type of discrimination should not be tolerated. The problem with people who are LGBTQAI+ is NOT their sexuality, it is the culture of discrimination, degredation, and de-humanization that has been popular for too long now. We are further into the future and our understanding of the human person is so much more sophisticated, sophisticated enough to prove that which many cultures have known since the beginining of time:

        the gay man is still a man in all senses of the word, should be treated as such, respected equally, and provided the same opportunities as the heterosexual man as there is no difference in the personhood and dignity of the individual, there maybe be characteristics and tastes that they do not agree on, one might like marinara and the other might prefer a pesto sauce, one might be attracted to men, the other to women – these things do not affect or remove legitimacy from the rights they should receive, the treatment they should receive, and the love that is given them.

        • “Sexuality is not a perversion, it is a defining characteristic of a human person akin to whether or not they have a sweet tooth, height, hair color”

          Assuming you meant homosexuals- 2% of the population, who are unable to reproduce on their own. This is a maladaptive behavior. A perversion, so to speak.

          “your sexuality is part of the elite group the chosen sexuality…perhaps the perversion is actually heterosexuality”

          Aristotle and Darwin would both chuckle.

          “hate me for being bi-sexual, but treat me as though i were not. There is a problem there, if you are incapable of seeing me and my desires as all valid in a human person”

          Are you suggesting we all indulge any and every deep dark desire we happen to have? And these are what make us who we are? This is absolute nonsense. We all have to suppress some desires, some of which are disordered, some of which just require moderation. Are you suggesting that denouncing the acts of pedophiles and other people with similar proclivities is some kind of bigotry? Because we are not accepting their desires as a part of their identity?

          • Equivocating tolerance of sexual abuse of children with tolerance of consensual adult homosexual relationships is so bizarre it seems intentionally malicious. Imagine if lgbt people said, “accept straight people who are in love and have consensual sex?! What next, do you want us to say rape is ok??”
            Obviously the above poster is not advocating that we “accept” ALL desires that anyone could possibly have.

        • “if you are incapable of seeing me and my desires as all valid in a human person, then you are incapable of acting in an accepting and non discriminatory manner.”

          What do you mean by “valid”? I certainly don’t deny your experience of same-sex attraction. There is nothing immoral or sinful about having certain desires. We all have desires we can’t act on.

          But if by “valid” you want me to affirm homosexual desires as ordered and homosexual actions as true, good, and beautiful expressions of love, then I simply can’t do that. Both faith and reason prevent me from accepting that claim. Pure reason alone, apart from any appeals to any religion, is enough to determine the moral goodness or badness of specific acts. Homosexual acts are objectively disordered since homosexual acts are, in principle, opposed to the basic human good of marriage, to which our sexual powers are properly ordered.

          I assume you believe in an objective morality, that we simply can’t do whatever we feel like doing. So what is your limiting principle with regards to sexual behavior? I can think of a few sexual acts that both of us would probably find reprehensible (so wicked that I won’t utter their name here). Surely you can provide some justification for calling those acts wrong in of themselves (and not just because the majority of society happens to disapprove of them in 2015 A.D.)

          “Just like if a person is incapable of seeing a person of color and seeing an equal, they are incapable of treating them as such.”

          Oy vey. This is the future my fellow UD students. Upholding traditional morals will make you the equivalent of a racist. Do not be naive, this is the end game. Such calumnies are not fun to endure, but endure them we must.

          • If you will recall, traditional morals and values approved slavery, segregation, subjugation, denial of basic rights and more. Are you suggesting that those values and morals are good, solid, and Christian? Because holding those morals makes you many things, none of which are right.

            Do you, in order to uphold your beliefs, need to categorically prove those other beliefs which do not align with yours to be incorrect, lesser, and morally objectionable?

            Do you need to find your version of the opposing view’s “end game” and then publicize that as the truth?

            In what way does someone’s sexual preference alter or interfere with your life? In what possible world are you “enduring” anything compared to what this community endures everywhere, especially UD?

            Is it so hard for you to see humans as humans and love them because we are *all* children of God? Or do you believe that certain sins are worse than others? If you look to the Bible you’ll find many, many sins listed far more times than homosexuality. Take a look. Give it some thought.

        • Animals do not by definition follow natural law. That’s biologism and the church condemns it. Natural law means simply those moral laws man can come to without SUPERnatural aid.

          • I would just like to state that natural law can be compared to law of nature, and even equated. These are the laws of science and physics that affect human beings and animals equally. These are the laws that determine how every living and non living thing develops. Lots of Catholics, as you said, “condemn biologism”. But please consider that it is that exact thing you condemn that proves your existence and your beliefs.
            Consider watching this. It correlates also with all those ideas that your beloved philosophers taught.
            Science is a very real part of our lives. You want to compare to PHILOSPHY? Look back to those times in human person and Phil and ETH where you learned that animals were monopolar and humans were bipolar. Look back to those times where you learned that animals and plants and all living things shared a soul in the same way that humans have a soul, just to a less activated extent (Aristotle).
            But are you going to tell me that science is wrong?
            Are you going to say that apes have not developed manners to learn language and create tools and form bonds and relationships?
            If simple animals can form bonds that go outside of opposite sex, then why can’t humans? Do we not abide by the same laws of nature that they do?
            Do we not share 99% of our genetics with apes?
            And if you wish to try and discredit genetics, it is those very genetics that allow you to assign sex to any one binary man or woman, and it is the same genetics that allow many animals to be outside of the gender binary.
            I’m catholic, friend. But I’m also bi-sexual. I’ve prayed long and hard on my sexuality since I was a young child, when my feelings were equivalent to simple crushes. I have found nothing but love and acceptance in my spiritual journey, and it saddens me to see someone who did partake in the same education I do fall into the hands of hate and ignorance.
            Also many of the opposing arguments seem to be obsessed with Sodomy? What about lesbains? What about straight TRANS couples? What about people who identify as non binary? What about those who identify as asexual? Please consider that you’re concern for the sexual aspect of many peoples loving relationships is a bit strange. Consider isntead of focusing on the sexual aspect of a relationship, that you focus on the actual relationship itself. Marriage is the sacrament. Not sex. If we are to be true Christians and Catholics, we should be promoting the possibilities for all people to share in a sacred sacrament of bonding two souls together for eternity in love.

            Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

            7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

            2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

            3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

            Just saying.

          • …I’m not anti-science. Nor do I reject your examples of gay sex existing in the animal world. I’m just telling you that the phrase “natural law,” when employed by the Church, is a term with a specific definition. It does not mean what you think it means.

            And Catholicism’s rejection of biologism does not imply a rejection of all empirical science. It simply means that one cannot base ethical arguments on biological realities alone– man’s nature is not simply biological, it is also intellectual and spiritual.

            Your understanding of Aristotle is a bit….odd. Neither he nor Aquinas would think of the animal soul as less “activated” than the intellectual. They are different in kind.

            I have no idea why people are focused on sodomy. If you look through this thread I’ve mostly been arguing with Catholics who want to portray sodomy as some ultimate evil over and above any other sexual sin outside of marriage.

            And I’m not sure that “Catholic”= “get as many people married as possible.” Even setting aside sexual orientation for the moment, Catholic teaching on vocation has marriage as a particular call some, but not all, receive.

            And, finally, marriage does not bond souls for eternity– there is no marriage in heaven.

            (oh, I guess one more thing, the Schroder video. I’m fine with science-philosophy-and-theology-seeking-the-Truth-together thing, given that I’m an orthodox Catholic, but his cosmology is outdated, and his statements about “predating time” are themselves nonsensical)

          • Unless my professor has me understanding Aristotles view of the soul incorrectly, he would certainly see the animal soul as less activated than the human soul. Living things all have life, but having a soul is what makes them living things. And there are different levels of actuality and potentially to the soul, on which humans have a higher level of.

            Also, yes, humans are more than biology. As you said, they are creatures of intellect and spiritually. And as humans, we should have the intellect to understand not to judge and condemn another human being based on how they love, live, express their gender, etc. And as human beings we should also grow in spirituality to understand that damning people for who they love is pretty silly in general.

            And I’m not saying that marriage is for everyone, or that the Catholic Church is trying to get everyone married. I’m just saying that to be a good loving Christian, if someone does feel that they want to share in the sacrament of marriage, thier genders should not matter.

            And economically, marriage is shown to give couples much greater financial benefits, and in means of equality and human rights, all couples should be able to share in those benefits, again, regardless of gender.

          • “I’m just saying that to be a good loving Christian, if someone does feel that they want to share in the sacrament of marriage, thier genders should not matter.”

            But gender DOES matter, because of what marriage IS. Marriage is not simply an intense emotional bond between any two people (in your view btw, what’s so magical about the number two?). Marriage is a particular KIND of relationship, different from ordinary friendship (which can be more or less emotionally intense). In short, it is a comprehensive union of one man and one woman, the only pairing whose union forms an intrinsic part of the behavioral process of human reproduction, the only pairing whose union is truly comprehensive, and thus marital. The whole debate about “marriage equality” isn’t about expanding the pool of people eligible to get married, it’s about replacing the current definition of marriage with a new definition: basically the one you seem to espouse, that marriage is primarily an emotional bond that should be available to any consenting adults. If enshrined into the law, this new definition collapses marriage into ordinary friendship, and makes state/federal “marriage” laws effectively a government registry of friendships. And who wants the government doing that?

          • I am. I’m interested in a government that allows equal rights for all people. I’m interested in a government that respects and grants the rights to all people regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Because that’s the sort of government that is FOWARD thinking and loving and inclusive. Put aside your definitions for a moment and focus on what the bigger picture is: to establish rights for all people.

            And Incase you’re still hung up on the whole definitions thing, you can google the definition of marriage, and this is the first thing that comes up.
            the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
            “a happy marriage”
            synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
            “the marriage took place at St. Margaret’s”
            a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
            “a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel”
            synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
            “a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel”

            And honestly I think the second definition here is most important, because we coined the first definition to apply to matrimony.
            “A mixture of two or MORE elements.”
            That sounds pretty all inclusive to me.
            Also, to say that integrating a new and more inclusive understand of marriage into the law would boil it down to nothing but FREINDSHIP is very silly. frienship is a lot of different things, but if two (or more) people who are friends consent to be married, what’s wrong with that? Being Friends with your partner is a wonderful thing!!!

      • The thing is, the world which UD is part of doesn’t care about 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, nor does it need to prove anything. There are a lot of issues which an institution or individuals can have the freedom to express any opinion on, but this won’t be one of them any more than racism or sexism is.
        Just look at the fact that you chose not to post your name 😉

  3. A question for the LGBT community: how best can we show you love and acceptance, and what specifically do we need to do better? While an orthodox Christian cannot say that homosexuality isn’t a problem (just as we can’t say that stealing and lying and murder aren’t problems), the orthodox Christian SHOULD (I fear we fail this far too frequently) be loving of those who are homosexual (even though we do not believe that living such a lifestyle is within God’s plan for mankind).

    So what can we do to make you feel more loved? The orthodox Christian needs to have the understanding of “hate the sin, love the sinner” and love all men while hating the manifold sins they commit. We’re good at the first part of the saying, but not so good at the latter part.

    I suppose what I’m asking is how we can be as loving friends as possible towards you, without entirely ignoring the fact that we do not believe homosexuality is part of God’s plan. A good friend will always tell his friend if he’s concerned about something in his friend’s life that is detrimental to his well-being, and if a Christian is good friends with a homosexual, he should tell his friend that he’s concerned that his lifestyle isn’t good for his well-being. (Just as, in the same way, if my friends see an issue in my life, they’ll call attention to it–and I try to be grateful even if I disagree, because they are trying to be caring and loving).

    How can we be good friends to you? Or at least, what specific failure trends do you perceive that we can correct? (I’d like to think that at least some of them are unintentional and not malicious)

    • well, this is a difficult question because hating the sin includes refusing to love an inherent characteristic of their personhood.

      That being said, I will not presume to dictate how or why you believe that which you do, in order to answer your question?

      Simply do not hate or discriminate against them. It truly is that easy. If the first thing you see when you look at someone are their sins, then i assure you your social life would be very different. The biggest problem here, is that in heterosexual people it is easier to overlook their “sin” because you have your sexuality in common with them, in the gay, bisexual, transgender or otherwise individual many people find it difficult to overcome their discrimination because you no longer have your sexuality in common – they become too foreign.

      well, they’re not. Your urges and “sins” and desires are no more nor lesser than theirs, the only difference is who they want to get into bed with = so simply put. Just don’t discriminate against them. treat them like people, thats how to be a better friend.

      Treat them like you would a friend.

      • It seems like according to their own doctrine, Catholics ought to be going OUT OF THEIR WAY to be charitable, friendly, and inclusive of people being discriminated against. I think this includes a whole host of things that good Catholics should be doing, like actively discouraging use of slurs, listening and allowing LGBTQAI+ to vocally express their views, making an active effort to include them, or and not make base or insensitive references to their chosen lifestyle.

        I think we can all agree on that.

        However, I’m a little confused by a couple things, and you seem knowledgable enough to maybe explain them.

        1. For argument’s sake, I’m a Catholic, I think that certain sexual actions are immoral, and that Church teaching will never change on that. Is this, to some degree, inherently considered hateful and bigoted. If I’m never going to change on that core understanding, am I acting ignorantly, hatefully, ect.

        2. the ‘micro-agressions’ part. I’ve asked priests how they can be sexual beings and remain chaste, I’ve asked married people what it’s like to be with one person for the rest of their life, I’ve asked people who have changed identities how they came to realizations when the have. Basically, I’ve been curious about things I don’t understand, but I’ve been really afraid to ask a lot of questions out of genuine interest for fear of being “accidentally or unintentionally” bigoted. Could you explain micro-agressions more and why they’re offensive.

        • 1. I would get a good understanding of acceptable sexual actions and compare them to a well informed understanding of what you consider unacceptable sexual actions. Then wonder at the differences once you understand how the various forms of gay/straight/lesbian sex work. Honestly you can think what you want about what kind of sex is unacceptable. I think most people can relate to the idea of “sex is messy, and when it is done in a way that doesn’t appeal to me I find it icky.” What’s more likely to get you called a bigot is if you are against us having the same rights, can’t stand seeing gay people have a kiss on t.v., want to throw up when you see us hold hands, feel the need to write a letter to the school board for teaching that some kids have two mommies or two daddies. Feeling a certain way spiritually is one thing, actively trying to impose those feelings on me and mine, preventing me from having basic rights, is another. At this point I would point out that being against marriage equality means more than just a label for your fellow taxpayers. I’m sure if you met my boyfriend you would love him. We are probably going to end up married, unless it never becomes legal in which case we would just be committed for life. Without marriage equality, if he gets sick or in an accident and is on his deathbed, I can’t see him in the hospital. I can’t say my goodbyes and neither can he. If he dies, I don’t have any right to be at the funeral, and his family could deny me from being able to mourn the passing of the love of my life. If instead it were me to pass, and I had left all of my money to him and our family, they would have to pay a huge portion of it as an excessive tax due to us being no more than strangers under the law. It would be taxed as a gift. If I decided to stay at home and be a homemaker for our children one day, I wouldn’t be able to receive health coverage from his company’s benefits because we are not legally wed. If we don’t obtain mutual custody of our children, unless we both have jobs with benefits, some of our children will not have health coverage. You aren’t going to stop us from making our life together. You aren’t going to tear our family apart. You are just going to make everything unnecessarily harder and more cruel for us by preventing marriage equality.

          Responding to #2 separately and currently

          • “Marriage equality” is a nice slogan, but it misses the point entirely. I think everyone reading this article is for our law to treat all marriages the same. The question for lawmakers is: what is marriage? We can’t get one inch closer to understanding what equality demands, until we’ve first identified what kind of relationship constitutes a marriage.

            To be successful, an argument in favor of gay marriage MUST prove that gender is irrelevant to what marriage IS. Max hasn’t proved that yet, though he is welcome to try.

          • You are hilarious UD Alumnus. The country’s current practical definition of marriage is so paper thin. People can get legitimately married without hardly knowing each other. There is no state test aimed at making sure the couple is in love or that they are good for each other or that they are good people or that they can have children or that they want children or that they would be good for raising children. Marriage in the US is an agreement between two consenting adults to create a family together, and the government respects that title of family with no questions asked. As a result, so do many other organizations such as insurance, hospitals, etc. there are so many rights made instantly available for straight couples as soon as they get married. Gay couples deserve those rights too.

            For a clearer picture on why gender is irrelevant,

            An incredibly abusive man can marry an incredibly alcoholic woman in this country and it is perfectly legal. Nobody can really do anything about it. They don’t even have to love each other. Even the people that know them the best have no say as to whether or not the marriage happens. The government does nothing to prevent this toxic relationship. They can have their children, and scar them and abuse them for years before CPS even finds them out, and this marriage is entirely legal.

            Two exemplary men who love and care for each other very deeply, who would do anything for one another, and who have been in a relationship for 10 years cannot be married.

            As your system works, all marriages akin to the former slip through the cracks, and all marriages akin to the latter are blocked. I think marriage equality works. If you have already read my comment pointing out several of the painful repercussions that come from denying same sex couples marriage rights, and you still think a penis-vagina checklist is relevant then I am pretty sure it is missing the point entirely. It is clear that your definition of marriage for this country is dominated by a genital inventory rather than love. And if after reading everything I said about how homophobic legislation will not prevent same sex relationships and how it will not change gay people and how it will only serve to create misery for homosexuals, and how it does nothing good for them, and you still have this fantasy that we homosexuals should have to prove to you heterosexuals, then please reconsider whether or not you are homophobic/bigoted.

            And you still won’t even associate yourself with your opinion, you won’t even put your name on your argument. Therefore you aren’t worth my time. I said it at the start and I will say it again “*yawn* next please.”

          • “Marriage in the US is an agreement between two consenting adults to create a family together.”

            Talk about paper thin arguments! Your definition proves too much. If marriage is simply a legal agreement between consenting adults, marriage needn’t be between two, or even be sexual, or involve permanent commitment or even cohabitation. Your revisionism collapses marriage into ordinary friendship. And that, all along, has been my point.

            P.S. I don’t know why you continue the name-calling. It doesn’t serve your cause at all.

          • @UD alumns

            Maybe you didn’t read my comment on how your arguement of “marriage boiling down to friendship makes it silly” is silly in itself.

            Maybe you really didn’t read max’s reply, and just decided to skim to a part you though you could pinpoint and argue with.

            But I’ll say it again: two people who get married and are friends are INCREDBLY blessed. There are people all around the world who would die for a relationship based on friendship and trust, instead of being forced to marry someone they hardly know.
            Max is incredibly correct: marriage is paper thin.
            But what holds is that if two people love each other, regardless of their gender identity, they should have every right to be joined together for the rest of thier lives. If you think that two people in love SHOULDNT be married just because of thier gender, then im sorry to say that YOUR argument is very, very weak.
            Please reconsider and possibly reflect on the real reasons you have these feelings. What are you afraid of? What harm could possibly come of two people dedicating thier lives to each other if they love each other?
            People are fickle and can change, but many couples are able to uphold loving families and continue to love each other even after death or seperation.
            People who are married experience many financial benefits.
            I’ll say what’s been said over and over again:
            People of any gender should be able to share in the bonds of marriage.
            Perhaps you simply don’t agree on thier bedroom excursions.
            I don’t agree with couples marrying, having children, then being abusive to thier children or spouses, or cheating on thier spouse and creating a broken home.
            But they are still allowed to be married.
            Why not allow those who are truly in love to live thier lives in peace?
            Why not allow them to share in happiness?
            Your arguments are weak to be honest. Those who argue with you do you the favor of attempting to educate you rather than simply argue.
            Perhaps consider this as a life lesson to love others equally and treat others as you would desire to be treated.

        • 2. micro-aggressions is a wide sprectrum sort of thing and I don’t like typing it so I will call it MA in this comment. I think as long as you are trying to get a genuine understanding of somebody, a question isn’t necessarily an MA, but MAs are up to interpretation. For instance, when I see people refer to my “chosen lifestyle” it makes me cringe a tad, like in Pitch Perfect when Becca’s dad refers to her wanting to be a DJ as “being P. Diddy.” I didn’t choose to be gay, and it’s not a lifestyle. Or is it? I don’t know, but I didn’t choose to be gay. It’s also things like telling a black person they are “articulate” when they speak in a “*normal*, civilized manner” (if this isn’t familiar I would google some videos, its a more common occurence than you might expect). MAs tend to stem from a misunderstanding or bias, and as previously stated, the person usually doesn’t realize it can be offensive. Since the offense is unintentional in some cases, it’s sometimes no big deal.

          Certain things that are almost always going to offend include the following.
          a) which one of you is the (girl/guy)? Neither. Gays are both guys that like guys, lesbians are both girls that like girls.
          b) aren’t you worried about AIDS? Anyone having unprotected non-monogamous sex or sharing needles should be worrying about AIDS. Me being gay does not necessarily make me either one of those.
          c) calling anything gay when you mean stupid or unfair or uncool. No amount of token gay friends you could claim to have makes it okay. Same goes for the use of the word faggot or dyke. It’s insulting.
          d) complimenting someone as being able to pass for straight. It’s like admiring a black person because you think they “act like a ‘normal’ white person.” It’s just cringey.
          There are plenty of other things like “Maybe you just haven’t met the right girl yet,” and what not, but you can find funny videos of those kind of things.

          As for me I am a pretty open book, and I’m generally fine answering people’s genuine questions. I’m happy to have an in-person conversation to answer any question you would have for me. Not everyone is like that. I think a lot of the problem is for some people it’s too personal and feels out of character for someone who doesn’t know them to ask such things.

          • I would just like to agree with you for a second because Hearing others use “gay” or “faggot” or “dyke” as Thier euphemisms for things they think are dumb, stupid, etc, is literally one of the most exhausting miscro aggressions on earth.

            LGBT people are not the butt of everyone else’s jokes. We deserves the same rights as everyone else.

      • I wouldn’t say that “hating the sin” means refusing to hate something that’s an inherent characteristic of the person. Christians view sin as a result of the fall–in short, sin is NOT something that’s supposed to be present in us, but is a result of our refusing to be what God created us to be. Sin is not an inherent characteristic of mankind, it’s something that has and is damaging us. So Christians should “hate” the sins that affect everyone because it’s something that is hurting those whom we are called to love. If I struggle with anxiety, depression, kleptomania, an eating disorder, or something else of that sort, I think we would both agree that that is not some “inherent characteristic” of mine, but rather something I should be not suffering from. Christians similarly view all sin as something that harms the person, and we categorize homosexuality as a sin. So, even if you think we’re incorrect to categorize homosexuality as something that hurts a person, at least grant that there are loving Christians who say it’s wrong because they truly believe that it hurts those it affects and they don’t want to see those people hurt. Maybe we’re mistaken, but I like to think that at the very least we mean well.

        I COMPLETELY agree that it’s all too easy for us to see something “different” than we are and dislike it. I am certain that the reason homosexuality (whether a disapproval of it comes from religious convictions or otherwise) draws more fire from people than other things (which those same people might also view as problems) is simply because not everyone has those tendencies. It’s way too easy to mentally demean someone with the thought “I can’t believe so-and-so does that thing I don’t like” when “that thing” isn’t something one has ever dealt with. For that very reason I think that problem of homosexuality is made out to be a much greater problem than it ought to be; it’s easy to point it out when it’s there, and it’s easy to be self-righteous and condemn something you see as a problem when you don’t have it yourself. Personally, I think that there are probably a number sins that are more worth worrying about than homosexuality. I definitely have many of my own to deal with. =P

        I think what I’m most curious about are the “seemingly well-meaning micro-aggressions”. As far as I’m aware, neither I nor my close friends have ever said anything hostile about homosexuals, and I would be horrified if anyone had. (I remember hearing one UD friend get outraged that her gay friend was dealing with crap from people at his school– I don’t remember whether this friend was at UD or elsewhere). While I don’t think I make myself seem unfriendly to anyone in the LGBT community (honestly, I rarely talk about the issue–I have more interesting things to talk about than sex), it is true that no one at this school had come out to me about it. Perhaps it’s simply because of chance–it’s a small school, so that community will likewise be small, and it could easily happen that I never became particularly close friends with anyone from that group. But I would hate to find out that it was because they felt I wouldn’t love them if they told me. My intention is to be a friend, and honestly I probably would never bring up the issue with such people unless they wanted to talk about it, and I would do my best to listen and understand, even though I likely enough still wouldn’t agree at the end. So is there anything we’re doing that makes us seem less friendly that we may not be aware of?

        • The main thing I would say here is that in my personal experience, the more someone proclaims “love the sinner, hate the sin” the less they really follow it. You really need not worry about hating the sin. Just love the sinner. In fact, love the person. We are all sinners so there is no point in specifying sinner when you really just mean fellow human being.

          And to help further with the MA issue, you said you hardly talk about LGBT stuff because you have more interesting things to talk about than sex. LGBT issues are about so much more than sex. I’m not saying my feelings are incredibly hurt by that implication, and I’m not accusing you of being this awful bigot, but I think this is a good example of an MA. Most reasonable people could look past an MA or simply point it out and move on. The SJWs (social justice warriors) of tumblr might crucify you for it, but it’s not the end of the world. I think the trouble lies in there being a multitude of these and that an LGBT student is already expecting people here to be homophobic. Once burned, twice cautious.

        • I’m waiting on my comments to be moderated and I’m now realizing I replied to either yours or AJ’s as if they were the same comment. Whoops. I’m sure you two can sift out which parts apply to who when they come out.

        • Also, check your Catechism, because you got it wrong. Homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin. It is unlike original sin. It is its own animal.

    • Max-
      Thank you so much for your reply; I did know what I was getting into when typing up that one line. My point there was to try to clarify that if a Christian thinks something is a sin, he cannot approve of it (whether it’s as grave a matter as murder or as small as cheating at cards). There are of course greater and lesser sins, but for the most part I don’t see much value in trying to “rank” them. There’s no point in saying “Oh, you’re terrible because you did X, I’m so much better than you because I only do Y”. Just because Y *seems* less bad than X doesn’t mean that it’s not a huge problem that you’re doing Y. =P

      I’m so sorry that you’ve been treated that way by other UD students. Even if they’re correct in telling you that it’s wrong, calling attention to it by saying you’re “morally depraved” or “disgusting” or deserving damnation is not the right way to tell anyone that you think they’ve gone astray. I’m imagining times I’ve been called out for my own sins (usually in far more gentle ways) and those were painful enough to hear. I can’t imagine how terrible I would feel had I been told that I was any of those things for doing the sins I commit. There’s a way to dialogue with people whom you disagree with; name-calling is not that way. I also don’t think there’s a point in only seeing what you don’t like in a person– there are plenty of things characteristic to me that are unlikeable, whether they’re sins or just plain annoying qualities, and I don’t want anyone to see me as merely those things. I also don’t see a lot of value in blaming people for not upholding standards they don’t believe in. [Similarly, I don’t think the internet is the best forum for persuading others that you have a better standard.]

      While I still hold that it’s wrong, my friends and I have plenty of other things wrong with us, and I don’t see any reason to bring that up within the context of friendship any more often than I’d bring up any other potentially harmful matter I think I see in my friends’ lives.

      I am very grateful for this article and your comments– I was unaware that such micro-aggressions were happening on campus (hopefully because I happened not to be around when they occurred, and not because I failed to perceive them as such). I now know to be more alert to such comments and resolve to stand up against any that bear hate in them.

      I will pray that God guides you to the peace and love and acceptance that He wants you to have (for He knows what you need far better than I). God bless.

    • It would make lgbt people feel more loved if we were able to: visit our partners in hospitals, pay taxes fairly, be able to call an ambulance without worrying about being denied service or laughed at until they die because they are trans, come out in high school without being thrown out by our parents (lgbt teens are at a high risk for homelessness)….
      Frankly, most of us don’t care about your theological wrangling. Start by showing an ounce of understanding that there are brutal realities that you might be blind to, but lgbt people face every day. Many people at UD seem to have only one thing to share– their opinions of lgbt sex acts. There are more important things to talk about, more important ways to show your love, like noticing how at risk lgbt people are for violence and discrimination and actively contributing to solutions for that.

  4. If we just look at the examples raised in this article, it seems that UD is actually doing *really great* when it comes to promoting an accepting atmosphere.

    1. A stupid facebook group. 2. A single instance of a slur. Both of these you’ll find far more prevalent at any major university, especially any with a healthy Greek Life.

    3. Micro-aggressions. It should be noted by the author that micro-aggressions definitionally are going to be *extremely prevalent* in mainstream society. These are small actions whose hurtful content will not even by noticed by most individuals– a typical example would be a medical form asking for your gender being a microaggression against non-binary individuals.

    Asking someone who, regardless of the sexuality, is known to be *extremely* vocal about sex generally, about their sexual preferences, is itself a poor example of a micro-aggression.

    4. The discussion of negative homosexuality in Plato. Unless this was a non-Core class, this discussion was almost certainly about *Pederasty.*

    So, yeah. Given that the examples of “struggle” are all either relatively minor, prevalent in mainstream society, or worse at more liberal institutions, I’d say that Mr. Johnson’s characterization of UD as “mostly a good experience” will hold true for most other LGTBQ individuals.

    PS @ The Editor: it’s best not to crowdsource your definitions of sexual and romantic orientations from tumblr.

    • 1. So you really think that’s not a big deal? For a gay black man in conservative Texas at a Catholic school in an all male dorm, who has to share a communal bathroom with all of these guys, to have to deal with a facebook group they created (jokingly or otherwise) to increase hostility towards gays? I’d be pretty freaking scared of what people might do, even jokingly but taking it too far. There were also people that were involved that did not mean it as a joke. Personally, when I came out to my mom she cried because she was scared of things like these. If this had happened after I had come out, I’m sure she would have tried to get me to change schools.

      2. It’s not just a single instance. We hear them regularly and anticipate them even more. Of course you wouldn’t worry yourself about them, they don’t apply to you.

      3. I think the bigger problem than the microaggressions are the normal aggressions that come with and from them. And I think the questions referred to in the article are possibly more of the nature of “who is the boy and who is the girl in your relationship, aren’t you worried about AIDS, what made you choose to be gay, etc.”

      4. In my experience with Dr. Nelson’s class in Rome, I was actually one of the only people who read the Phaedrus. In the classes preceding our discussion on it he would wave his hands giving this big disclaimer about being sorry that he was making us read it because it was about homosexuality and therefore was “disgusting and gross.” He made the same disclaimer in class several times on the day we actually discussed it. I had participated largely in the discussion, because people who hadn’t read kept trying to put words in Plato’s mouth against homosexuality, so I was refuting their claims with textual evidence. After class I approached Dr. Nelson and asked him if he could not do the whole disclaimer rant about how disgusting homosexuality thing is. His response was something like “No. And I’m sorry. I’m truly sorry. It’s not my belief at all, but I have no choice but to say it. And it’s not that I’m worried about getting fired, and it’s not that I’m worried about students or alumni or parents getting on my case about it, or anything like that. It’s simply that it is my job to teach these students Plato, and I know that unless I say something like that none of them will read it or pay attention to it, and they will all just complain or protest it. It’s just how the students are here. And I’ve never had a gay student speak up before but I thank you for talking to me about it. I meant know harm in saying what I said but I will sadly have to keep saying it in order to teach the class. We can talk about Plato in my office hours if you would like. And please feel free to tell the other gay students.”
      So yea. Congrats. Even your beloved core has been filtered through a homophobic lens to make it more palatable to an overall toxically homophobic student body.

      • So, Locke, I believe you are referring to when Christ whipped people and flipped tables to drive out the money changers from the temple. This was your Saviour, the healer of the blind and deaf, the defender of the weak, the redeemer of the world, the Son of God, without sin, expelling falsehood from a house of God. People were making dishonest money in a place meant for prayer. That was also not out of love but out of righteous anger for people misrepresenting and tarnishing the name of God. So when you are feeling Christ-like in the most divine sense of the word and catch some of us having intercourse in the Church of the Incarnation, by all means, use corporeal punishment.

        In the meantime, the fact that you think corporeal punishment for homosexuals is great and defensible by Jesus is just another reason we don’t feel safe or comfortable at this school. And if instead of thinking it is great and defensible you just think it is funny and cool to joke about, that is almost worse.

  5. UD’s Catholic identity conflicts with approving of any group that promotes the culture (lifestyle) of homosexuality that is growing more and more common in the US. The problem with this culture is that it seeks to portray homosexual behavior as normal and acceptable. As the catechism notes (and the article quotes) “[T]radition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” That being said, we as Catholics and UD as a Catholic university should look to welcome people with homosexual tendencies charitably, just as we welcome people with other particularities, such as physical or psychological disorders, keeping in mind that homosexuality is something that a person should look to overcome. Any person or movement that does not treat it as such is going against catholic identity.

    I’m glad that these issues are being brought up at UD but it is always important to keep the essential clear. UD does not just have an overwhelmingly catholic student body, it as an institution that “acknowledges its commitment to the Catholic Church and its teaching.” (Mission Statement). If that commitment means that we stay on Princeton’s list of “unfriendly to LGBT” campuses, then so be it.

  6. UD has always been toxic, in varying degrees, for those outside the straight, white, Christian demographic. The lack of support and sometimes outright hostility toward poc and queer people has been there since the beginning. I saw it drive away promising students, alienate others, and lead others to self-destructive and damaging behavior. These students would discuss making groups or getting more admin support (lgbt, Hispanic, etc) but being out and getting others to stand with them was a struggle. I saw Catholic students confront them about “that lifestyle” and tell them they were dammed.
    Getting drunk every night and weekend was just part of “the UD tradition,” but God forbid you be gay. It’s a great education, but the culture makes it not even remotely worth it. Denise is a treasure, but one kind heart in a sea of bigotry and hostility does not a good school make.

    • Because there is such a unified thing as “A” Hispanic lifestyle – being a person of color on this campus, I can honestly say I have felt nothing but welcomed. In fact, many have been interested in learning of my background and my culture, in such a way that their curiosity is clearly driven by their love of learning and NOT discrimination.
      Being Hispanic and identifying as gay are completely different, and are treated differently. This does not mean that students who identify as gay should be harassed, but knowing that this is a Catholic school, and that the Catholic Church clearly (and has for centuries) condemned sodomy as immoral, they should not expect such action to be normalized. They should expect charity, but this does not mean affirmation or whole-hearted acceptance of an identity that from a Catholic perspective obscures the whole person.

      • I agree, everyone experiences things differently. I also agree that race and orientation are not the same; of course they are, how could they not be? And sure, I’m aware of the Church’s history, including its somewhat erratic rulings on sexuality and morality.

        These are all tangents, though. So let’s set them aside. The point is that UD can be toxic for students who don’t fit into the straight/white/Christian majority, and that historically, administration, students, and staff have done very little to change that. Your post illustrates this well: you immediately defend the university, rather than list examples of what’s been done to make it more inclusive. There was no mention of even opportunities, or ideas. And sure, you may be homophobic. But my comment wasn’t just about LGBT.

        Why do you think that you chose to respond that way?

        Less rhetorically: What do you think could be done to make the university more inclusive and welcoming? What have you seen done that I, perhaps, haven’t?

        • Why do you assume that things always need to move to be more inclusive and welcoming? Why aren’t they enough so as it is? What about the current state of affairs makes things not welcoming? I have never felt excluded because of my ethnicity, or not welcomed; I felt just as welcomed as everyone else. From my view, there’s not a problem of the University not being welcoming enough – what concrete instances can you offer of failures to include everyone equally?

          • Well I can answer the last one pretty clearly. The University has rejected the formation of singularly pro-homosexual organizations and that has been somewhat of a sticking point for people in favor of changing the mores of Catholicism and its derivatives.

  7. For current and past LGBTQA UD students, there is a Facebook support group and GSA called:
    University of Dallas LGBTQA: Straight+Gay Alliance.

  8. Hi, writer here. Hopefully by reading the article thoroughly and by checking out the other comments here, you can all see that this is an actual issue which can invite discourse.

    Any and all “definitions” came from the sources themselves. I don’t believe in quoting sites (for news articles, anyway) whose about page reads simply “Post text, photos, quotes, links, music, and videos from your browser, phone, desktop, email or wherever you happen to be. You can customize everything, from colors to your theme’s HTML.”

    • Then you didn’t bother to check whether or not the kids you interviewed were actually informed, or whether they themselves just regurgitated particularly week definitions or conceptions of varying sexualities. If you’re going to act as either an editor for a newspaper, or as an Ally for minority groups, it’s expected that you educate yourself on the topic.

      • 1. I think “the kids” probably know how they feel sexually better than anyone else. It was correct for the writer to ask them how they define themselves.

        2. *weak

        • 1. Ok? It doesn’t matter how accurately someone has described their lack of comfort with PDA, said discomfort is not asexuality.

          2. Ok, that is embarrassing.

  9. I, too, am an alumnus, and my wife and all my children have attended UD. Throughout my nearly 35-year relationship with UD, I can say that UD is a challenge for anyone who attends–regardless of sexual orientation or ethnic/cultural background.

    UD brings us into communion with the best and worst of human thought and action and thereby helps us challenge our presuppositions in an environment that is relatively safe …

    … However, my experience with UD tells me that, while there is not militant hostility to to the LGBTQA members of the UD community, those members do NOT have the same freedom to understand their sexuality and selves without duress under a majority culture that can be overbearing and sometimes fearsome in such a small, tightly-knit community.

    Too often, Catholic teaching at UD is used by some like a club–without the discernment and mercy called for by our very UD educations and lives of faith. THAT is where an LGBTQA support group, even if not supported by University funds–but recognized by the University–would be a blessing. I highly recommend the Gay-Christian Network (

    We need to put our own presuppositions about sexuality (our own and others) up to the light of the intellectual tradition UD espouses–and to do so without fear and Catechetical pull-quoting/hammering. After all, we read Nietzsche, Rousseau, and many others whose thought is categorically inimical to Catholicism. And somehow, we grant mercy to these dead thinkers.

    Would that we grant love, mercy, and acceptance to everyone LIVING among us right now.

    • I do NOT recommend GCN. Anyone at UD should do their research about GCN (especially what “Side A” means) before considering bringing that group on campus. Instead, I highly recommend Courage, an apostolate very much in keeping with UD’s approach to inherent human dignity and Catholic teaching about homosexual acts ( Courage provides both genuine pastoral counsel while remaining fully in communion with the Church. Those seeking to be affirmed in their homosexual lifestyle will inevitably be disappointed with Courage, but it wont be for lack of genuine love, mercy, and acceptance as a son or daughter of God.

      • There is a COURAGE group on campus. It meets every other Friday.
        Go to for more information because the attendees requested anonymity.

        Or call me at 972.721.5375 and I can get you in touch with them if that is your wish.

        In the meantime people, let’s love each other well and pray for each other.

    • As your reference to Rousseau suggests, your proposed support group is grossly underinclusive. Our student body no doubt includes a large number of students who have engaged in all manner of nonmarital sexual conduct, whether alone or with others–and all such students are thus faced with disapprobation. At UD, it is rumored, there are students and even some professors who really believe (so they claim) that sex is reserved for marriage , and that marriage is for life. If indeed students suffer from the disapprobation of their past, present, or expected sexual conduct, ALL these students should be welcome in the support group. And that’s not mentioning the many non-sexual things on which the Catholic Church has slapped its epithets of disapprobation.

  10. UD obviously has all the rights as a private Catholic institution to live by the religion and the catechism, which sees homosexuality as a disorder. UD IS a Catholic school after all. Standing by Catholic tradition is totally UD’s right, but standing by archaic standards in a progressive world has obvious repercussions.

    Aside from that, the catechism even says that members of the LGBT community “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Even if the Catholic church claims that homosexuality is a “disorder”, they at the very least don’t promote violence and hatred toward homosexuals. I think the issue being highlighted in this article is that there are a certain number of students and instances that are homophobic.

    Sure, there are homophobic situations on probably every campus, as some have commented. And I have to say I disagree with Rob S.’s comment about how it’s worse for LGBT students at liberal campuses? Because it’s not. I don’t speak for every student that go to “liberal” universities, but I go to UTD and our school goes out of its way to be supportive of the community, among other minority groups. And of course we have a LGBT support group. So does UT, UTA, SMU, and A&M.

    The student body of UD shouldn’t be impassive about the fact that they are on the list of most unfriendly schools. Even the president of UD doesn’t want the school to be on that list.

    The bottom line is that there are LGBT students at UD who don’t feel accepted with respect on the campus. If these students want a LGBT support group, they should be allowed to have one so that they can have a better experience at this school. More importantly, homophobic students should be more accepting of LGBT students and treat them with respect as humans.

    • My comment is only going by the examples given in the article. If we take the article as accurate, then UD is doing AMAZING. You have a handful of bad eggs occasionally doing stupid stuff on facebook and a few people who need to wash their mouths out with soup (also these situations, the article notes, are quickly dealt with by the administration). You have the omnipresent microagressions which are a problem, but are a widespread *societal* problem. You *don’t* have any fraternities, which are known, even among more liberal institutions, to be horrific dens of racism and homophobia.

      Maybe UD is wildly homophobic, but the interviewed students paint a different picture.

      I personally don’t doubt that you could find really hateful students in attendance– for the past two months some allumni have been yelling at some allumnae that they are going to hell for wearing jeans, which supposedly inspire insatiable lust in all men. But the extreme majority of students when I was attending only cared about your stances on abortion and yoga pants. No one cared about your gay roommate, your methodist pal, the drama majors that hosted weakly orgies in the apartment next to yours, etc.

      If the situation has wildly changed since then, students do not need University funding to put together a support group or educate an ignorant populace.

      • You hAve quite the handfuL of bad eggs, and the rest of the basket is doing nothing about it. That’s the issue. You have a few outright rotten eggs, but the severaL funky eggs are fInE with their rotten-ness, and the majority of normal eggs are fine with the funk and the rotten. There is such a widespread tolerance of bigotry. Note: by bigotry I do not mean simply being against gay marriage but rather those that are outright being rude and insulting to LGBT students to their faces and behind their backs, on the basis of their LGBT status alone. There are plenty of valid reasons to hate me. Hate me for one of those, not because I’m gay.

  11. I think there is a great difference between a group supporting homosexual relations and a group supporting those that experience homosexual feelings but wish to continue to live in a Catholic manner.

  12. So what about abstinence in the gay community? Everyone is complaining about sodomy. There are some who practice abstinence. Pope Francis has said, “Who am I to judge?”.

  13. It is so easy to be a hyperactive zealot with the anonymity of the internet – free from the consequences of being graceless. We are called to live lives of charity and humility. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    • When you speak of “consequences” I can’t help but be reminded of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla Firefox who was fired for privately donating $1,000 California’s Prop 8 Campaign six years earlier. Imagine what would happen to a CEO who publicly embraced the Catholic Church’s position regarding the immorality of homosexual acts. Do you think he or she would be treated gracefully? Perhaps the desire for anonymity isn’t so irrational…

      • There is a huge difference between holding a religious belief and putting money towards imposing that religious belief on those who don’t follow that religion in a secular country.

        • Believing that marriage is a comprehensive union of 1 man and 1 woman isn’t necessarily a religious belief. No one religion “invented” marriage. Therefore supporting a legal initiative to enshrine in law a definition of marriage disputed by no civilization until the 2000s does not constitute imposing religious beliefs (or bigotry).

          There Im being succint!

          • “Imagine what would happen to a CEO who publicly embraced the Catholic Church’s position regarding the immorality of homosexual acts.”

            You specifically tied that belief to the Catholic Church. You are tripping over yourself, UD Alum. If you don’t read your own comments how can you expect anyone else to?

          • ? The Church doesn’t “own” that position anymore than it “owns” the definition marriage as a man-woman union. Faith isn’t incompatible with reason. They are two paths by which the intellect grasps truth. The moral badness of non-marital sex is both a biblical Church teaching and a conclusion of sound moral reasoning. There is no conflict (although mentioning either in public will likely get you Eiched).

      • Also a true Christian shouldn’t care about material loss or being humiliated in the name of Christ. People seem to forget that Christianity was founded under a principle of martyrdom. It blossomed because people were suffering for it. In the early Church people were being killed for being Christian. You are worried about an incredibly wealthy CEO losing wealth? Yay Catholicism.

        • It has nothing to do with his wealth, but everything to do with the fact he should have the freedom to stand for whatever he believes in, without recourse. You have the same freedoms to stand for what you believe in, more so, you have many freedoms that this country has granted, so don’t be be so quick to dismiss those on the grounds that you aren’t getting what you want exactly the way you want it. After all, you can look to a country such as Russia which starkly contrasts the freedoms you enjoy here. So I think the best way to continue this dialogue is to establish the notion that simply stripping someone of their right to an opinion because you disagree, is juvenile at best, and sheds light on your ability to offer a sound argument. Just because someone is wealthy, should not justify the actions taken against that man.

          There are a great deal of people who oppose the gay marriage initiative on non-religious beliefs. If you don’t believe me, please see the following.

 (My opinion of a pretty credible source)

          • At what point did I try to strip away someone’s right to an opinion? All I pointed out was their cowardice in not standing up for it. If he’s going to defend it on the basis of Christian morals, he should pick up a few of them himself.

            Honestly I don’t care for the public discourse as a source after reading Dr Hansen’s dreadful attempt at “defending traditional marriage” through the use of a novel and an archaic understanding of gender roles.

            At the end of the day, I shouldn’t have to wait for you and yours to all decide whether or not I can marry my boyfriend. Our relationship does not impose upon your rights in any way shape or form. We pose no threat to your happiness in enjoying our own. The only rights people have tried to claim that marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws impose on are “religious rights/beliefs,” so at the end of the day any argument against the *legalization* of gay marriage boils down to some religious junk.

            You mentioned that I have many freedoms. That’s nice. I want as many as you or any other citizen of the United States, and so long as I will be subject to the same taxes as you, I think I am pretty well entitled to them. None of your “defense of marriage” could possibly stop gay love from happening. All you can do is hurt gay people with unfair laws. If that’s what you want, then keep grasping at straws. It shines quite a lot of light on the type of person you are.

          • A non-response from Max. Ad hominem attacks against the authors of Public Discourse doesn’t invalidate any of their arguments. How can you claim someone is mistaken when you haven’t engaged their (presumably weak) arguments? One hundred sneers do not make an objection…

          • Actually UD Alumn, I personally sent Hansen a rather lengthy e-mail regarding her article. She never bothered to respond. Here you go.

            The original article
            Dr. Hansen,

            This is by far the strangest argument against gay marriage that I come across from time to time. You attribute certain virtues exclusively to certain genitalia because those are the gender roles your society has imposed upon you. You have the masculine “rough tough and buff, protect and serve” and the feminine “soft and aloft to nurture” and what not. Even if gender is binary, the difference in virtues and personalities in the male-female coupling do not follow the same even break in every instance. Complementarity, as it were, exists neither necessarily nor exclusively between a man and a woman. In fact, it is rather rare, hence the all so special phrase “you complete me,” which signals that a promising couple has found themselves. (Hint: this happens with your “depraved, shallow, ugly, meaningless, detestable” gay couples too)

            So what is the goal of this complementarity if not to reach some sort of androgyny as a couple? The virtues of the husband gradually are picked up by the wife and visa versa. Keeping the wife in mind because of love makes it so that her virtues have a voice in the husband’s head even when they are apart. Love keeps the beloved and their intentions at the forefront of the lover’s mind, and sometimes compromises contradictory virtues. thus you have Pa choosing not to shoot the deer, going against his “masculine” virtue to provide for his family, and instead going with his wife’s “feminine” virtue of finding and respecting beauty in life and nature. But you also have this daughter thinking “what would mom do?” And she decides to affirm her father’s decision, using her mom’s “feminine” virtue of supporting and affirmation and nurturing and such. Now I’ve been entertaining these gender roles but I really don’t see why they are necessary. Laura is made to be her father’s daughter in the story. She looks and acts more like him and I would go so far as to say she adopts his virtues more easily than those of her mother. That’s just her personality. Her sister takes more after her mother. Laura’s experience mirrors that of her father, learning her mothers virtues through love. Thus you have the mother holding the infant and Laura mimicking her by holding a doll. Similarly her sister has more growth to do in regards to learning from her father, hence Pa holds Mary.

            Complementarity in relationships does not mean what it does in geometry – the virtues and personalities of the couple do not have to be mutually exclusive and conflicting. Opposites attract to an extent, but you aren’t always going to have those hurricane couples that are polar opposites. Generally with less extreme people there is enough in common to be relatable and compatible and enough difference to learn and grow from one another and to function better as a pair than alone.

            So my question is why would you assume gender roles upon homosexual couples who I would venture to say a priori hardly adhere to them? The conclusion that gay couples lose something entirely central to the meaning of family and love makes absolute sense and I would totally be against it myself, if this lack of complementarity in gay couples is true a priori. But that’s where you will never succeed in making your case.

            These gender role distinctions are ridiculous. It basically boils down to men provide the practical and physical while women provide the emotional and spiritual. Men, functional, women, aesthetic. Why act like it’s that simple? Mankind is both physical and spiritual so it is ridiculous and insulting to assume such a blatant sweeping distinction. The problem with gender roles is not the aspirations but the limitations. Girls SHOULD learn about beauty, but why should boys not learn about beauty? Boys SHOULD learn how to fix things and how things like toilets and ceiling fans work, but why shouldn’t girls? While I can understand that due to biological differences perhaps each gender is more TYPICALLY inclined to each thing, I don’t get why we would want to perpetuate gender roles entirely. They are only there because of this tradition of needing to protect and pass down gender roles, which stems from a time where men and women were much less equal. Let’s get with the times please.


            UD Alum you are grasping at straws at this point. I understand why you refused from the beginning to attach your name to your comments.

  14. When I applied for UD (and I was not Catholic at the time), I was told it was a good school to get a sense for who you were. If you were Catholic, your knowledge of your faith would deepen; if you were not Catholic, you’d be pushed to define what you believe ever more thoroughly against the community that perpetually questions you.

    Although UD is not a community where cruelty should be condoned (and in my case, it never was), it is also not a community that bends to a subjective or popular perspective on things like morality or sexuality. That isn’t inherently bad; you go to the school knowing that. (That’s also why I’ve never been able to muster much care for what the Princeton Review has to say about UD; is a “different world,” as someone on Facebook commented, and it is meant to be one.)

    Anyway, if any of you would like to read a rather interesting article on the inherent problem of defining people by sexual orientation, check out “Against Heterosexuality” by Michael W. Hannon. (

  15. I have GOT to say, BRAVO Linda. If you wanted to piss off every single student and alum that reads the fragile paper that is the UDNews, then great job, mission accomplished. Nothing like not so subtly calling the entire student body homophobic to elicit a strong reaction. Back in my ol’ class of 2011, we had a few gay students. One and ONLY one ever made it a big deal, and we dealt with it by treating he rmostly with kindness (though I do have to say, being told that my disagreement was only based in transphobic homophobia did get tiring after 2 years. Still, what can one do? Love em as best you can if you have to spend time with them, leave them alone to earn that degree in peace if you dont.

    A few other friends of mine were closeted out of fear of being harassed, and that fear in the heart of Texas might be understandable. I mean, in Rome one year,if a professor had the nerve to make slanderous accusations against students for disagreeing with her in English class, what might the professors and students do to an openly gay student? That fear is understandable. I got bullied too for other things my first year at UD.

    But here is the thing Miss Smith. Most of us struggle just as much as the next person to treat others whom we disagree with with respect and decency. But just as I can put up with loud dormmates, drunk friends, and annoying posters, I can deal and did deal with openly homosexual classmates. Did I call them out? No. Did I ever harass them? Nope. Did I ever make fun of them for their homosexuality? No. Did I defend publicly the philosophical arguments for marriage? Yes. I did. And I did so with no malice in my heart. Despite my class mate’s insistence that only misogynistic homophobia could be at the root of the problem, might I add. But name calling only elevates my blood pressure so much before I realize it is a reaction based in fear, not understanding. So patience always ruled the day as far as I can recall.

    I get that the real objective is to change the current of opinions on morality. I really do get it. But name calling is not going to get you there.

    • Linda didn’t call anybody out. We did. The LGBT students of UD. And we didn’t even call them out. We just shared our experiences and our views. Yours are heard all the time here.

    • I think it’s funny that you think you’re some type of progressive. First of all, your comment on how everybody struggles is unnecessary. I think we can all agree on something as simple as that. But this article isn’t about the fact that everybody struggles. It is about the struggles and oppression that the LGBTQ community faces.

      Also, you have to “deal” with somebody being gay? Someone’s sexuality does not affect you, and you don’t have to tolerate it. It is a human being and their sexuality is a part of who they are. I don’t know what these “closeted” friends are that you speak of, but they probably should have taught you something. You’re not an ally if you have to TOLERATE someone. You are one of the reasons we need representation for acceptance of the LGBTQ(A) community.

  16. Damn I wrote a massive reply but the website rejected it. Oh well, I will say this then. In my year, (2011) we had a few openly homosexual students. One of them was NOT liked because she had this habit of accusing people that disagreed with her transphobic homophobes. She caught some grief for that. The rest were, as far as I was ever made aware, treated just as well as everyone other student. So unless this year’s crop has gone bad, I strongly doubt that your conclusions (that the school is homophobic) are true. Heck, your own interviews betray that neutral/positive experience.

    I get it though. You want the Church’s adherents to change their opinions on sexual morality to conform to yours. Thats fine, but be honest and defend that point instead of making stuff up in order to sneakily advance a counterpoint.

  17. “This nuanced understanding of homosexuality can cause some students to feel uncomfortable or unsure of how to react toward those who are not heterosexual. Similarly, students who are not straight report feeling overwhelmed by the number of students who are religiously opposed to their lifestyles.”

    Neither of which are explicit attacks on individuals. That is important to note. Furthermore, being a University, I think it is always important to have one’s ideas challenged. I know that I went in to UD with one set of ideas and I left it convinced of another but I do not resent the University for opening my mind to such things.

    There was recently an article in the New York Times about the concept of “safe spaces” at Universities from frightening or uncomfortable ideas. The article points out that if a space is safe, then it follows that other spaces are unsafe AND OUGHT TO BE MADE SAFER. Remember, we are not talking about danger or explicit harassment. As Miss Smith pointed out, these microagressions are from the Catholic identity of the University and the general consensus on sexual mores (heterosexual or homosexual).

    If your real objective is to anger the community, then you succeeded. Dont just imply that we all hate(d) homosexual students because that is just false and does not produce discussion, it stifles it.

    • There was no “we all hate.” Simply an observation that UD has systematically failed in its treatment of GLQ individuals. There are enough people who hate and not nearly enough being done about it. The homophobia isn’t even swept under the rug. It is just there. Most who aren’t homophobic couldn’t care less about it.

      Viciously homophobic people can be esteemed leaders of organizations such as Crusaders for Life and are just seen as sweet people selling you cookies to save the babies. They can be table parents at Awakening retreats, saying all sorts of excessively homophobic things and talking on and on about how disgusting homosexuals are.

      I do agree though, while we do need a safe place in the form of a GSA, the end goal of course is to make the entire campus safe. But isn’t it clear how unsafe UD is if there is such adamant refusal of a a single safe place? Ultimately we shouldn’t have to have a GSA, but for now we really truly do need one.

      • I can think of no safer place for same-sex attracted UD students that in the spiritual care of a good Catholic priest. Attendance in UD’s chapter of Courage (organized by Denise Phillips) would also be beneficial. That is calumny to categorize so many good people at UD as vicious homophobes simply because they disagree with you about sexual ethics and the definition of marriage. There are insensitive and uncharitable idiots at any school, and bigotry is a real thing, but UD simply isn’t the hate-filled place you’re making it out to be.

          • Non-Catholics can find fellowship and support in the Courage apostolate, even if there are significant differences in theology or spiritual temperament. The bottom line is growth in human virtue, something we all need. Very happy to hear Denise Phillips is leading UDs chapter of this wonderful outreach.

  18. What I would like to say is aimed toward anyone at UD who is GLBT, or a little bit different, and that in a nutshell is: The world is bigger, and better, than UD.

    Get what you went for – a quality education. And then, use that education to make a difference in the world. There are beautiful, supportive, accepting people at UD. Listen to them. There are judgmental, condemning voices at UD. Block them out.

    Best of luck to anyone struggling to find acceptance at UD. But, hear me well: you are loved, you matter, and there is not a damn thing wrong with you.

    • Walt,
      having been in the “world” for 30 years, I can say it is NOT a better place. It is a more permissive, relativistic, tolerant (as long as you have have no deeply held moral beliefs).

      You are correct! The world is bigger than UD.

      We Christ talked to sinners he showed love AND called them to sin no more.
      In The Gospel of John Chapter4, Jesus talked to a Samaritan women asking her for water. He crosses the divides of gender and nationality to talk to her about Salvation while acknowledging her sin.

      Everyone should be accepted for being a child of God.
      Each of us has something ‘wrong’ with us.
      No one is perfect in behavior (Saints and Popes have acknowledged that they are sinners).
      No one is perfect physically (or else we would have the beautiful immortals amongst us).
      All of us have spiritual and physical struggles to overcome with determination and God’s gifts.

      I agree Walt that acceptance public lived sinful lives are probably not accepted at UD, but that should be not only for people living an openly gay lifestyle, but people living in the “hook-up culture, drunken carousing, open academic dishonesty, or openly advocating .

      Turning people away from ANY sin will not be accomplished by un-kind, un-loving behavior but rather with humble (are we all not sinners) charitable acts.

    • A lot of this could be avoided by simply not caring what other people think. Students give me strange looks when I eat a regular meal or meat during a Friday in Lent. I don’t care. They’re good people, and I’m pretty sure I’m good too. If someone’s bad, that seems like a punishment in itself. Unless they physically hurt someone, I still don’t care. So here’s a piece of advice: live without shame! Try it. You might like it.

      The world is better than UD in a lot of ways. (go walk around SMU for a massive example) But intellectual liberality is not one of them if you study the right subjects.

  19. Having been a former LGBT student at UD, a former practicing Catholic, and a now out and proud gay man, I want to offer to those people who aren’t saying they are homophobic the chance to put themselves in my shoes when I went to school there in the mid-2000’s. You will never know heartache or betrayal when people you think are your friends walk up to your face and call you a vile, disgusting human being when they learn you are struggling with your sexuality. You will never know the overwhelming feeling of wanting to kill yourself because you think that the world doesn’t want you and neither does God. You will never understand the pain of feeling like you will lose your family simply choosing to try to understand why you were born that way. Many argue that it’s a choice and a disorder, but for many of us, there is no other choice but to accept oneself. It took a long hard road to discover how I wanted to live my life, and I’ve made it my mission and career to make sure I help those less fortunate than I. If anyone reading this is suffering because of their sexuality, please consider reaching out to Resource Center (the nonprofit that I work for). We have three different programs dedicated to helping LGBT youth and young men. Youth First is dedicated to those 13-21, DFW Fuse listed above is for men 22-29 & United Black Ellument is for the African American 22-29 community. Please call our main information line at 214-528-0144 if you have any questions about joining or helping these programs. I wish I had known about them during my time at UD. Over 75% of all homeless teenagers are LGBT because their families don’t accept them anymore. Please learn to not alienate someone based on their sexuality, as it’s not your fight to judge someone. Believe me, they are judging themselves MUCH harder than you ever would.

  20. The fact that UD allowed this article to be published is not confidence inspiring. It is hard to decipher whether UD as a catholic institution is deteriorating like the Notra Dames of the scholastic world, or whether societal deterioration has finally become so rampant it has been able to permeate even UD’s core values.

    • The goal of the university should not be to shield students from differences in opinion. We are, after all, the university for independent thinkers. This article does not attack the Church or her teachings, but promotes discussion on how we can better care for our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we can’t expect our students to thoughtfully engage one of the largest questions that our generation faces, then how do we expect them to be ready for the real world?

    • …I don’t think the proper Catholic response is “censor the student run newspaper! Squash all voices that dare question whether or not our institution is charitable!”

  21. The nature of some of the comments here remind me of something just published today by Bishop James Conley, former UD Rome chaplain and current Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska.

    “Americans who offer traditional viewpoints on moral issues in the public square have become accustomed to calumny. They know that reasoned arguments will rarely receive reasoned refutation.

    In California, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has become the victim of a well-funded smear campaign because he expects that Catholic teachers shouldn’t publicly undermine Catholic beliefs. Last month, a philosophy professor was suspended from a Catholic university for criticizing heterodox instruction. Even non-believers suffer this fate. Fashion house Dolce and Gabbana is being boycotted because its owners believe that children deserve mothers and fathers.

    In the cultural conversation about moral issues, reasoned arguments seem increasingly drowned out by personal attacks. And twenty years ago today, Pope St. John Paul II predicted this would happen.”

    Read more here:

  22. On all that is holy this University will never receive a dime from my pocket book if a gay alliance is allowed but a fraternity founded upon Catholic ideals is not. You knew what you were getting yourself into when you chose UD, you don’t get special treatment just because you feel oppressed by other people’s beliefs.

    • “You knew what you were getting yourself into when you chose UD…”

      Many of these students come to UD still sorting out their sexual identities and may not come to terms with these issues until they are well into their education at the University. I actually think the opposite of this part of your comment is true. I certainly didn’t know what I was getting into until it wasn’t plausible for me to simply go somewhere else.

    • As Cody said, sometimes people are still sorting out their sexuality when they are coming to UD. You also are ignoring that UD is supposed to be a Catholic university for independent thinkers. The idea is we have a decent Catholic majority but also that the non-Catholic student body help the Catholic students gain exposure to views and the outside world.

      To clarify again, a Gay-Straight Alliance is merely a meeting grounds for people of differing sexual orientation to gain mutual understanding and above all to fight bullying. If only non-catholics show up to the club, cool whatever. If there are Catholics who want to show up to show their compassion for people who have been through a struggle they cannot relate to, if they want to love and accept people, then hey look, we have a Catholic that is also a Christian! GSA’s aren’t “gay kid clubs.” They simply respect people’s dignity as human beings.

  23. If President Keefe wants to make UD more inclusive, here are some things he could do:

    1. Publicly affirm that every member of the UD community, from the high school Odyssey student to the facilities janitor to the sophomore Romer to the Provost, will be treated with the EXACT same amount of respect. Period.

    2. Publicly affirm that UD remains committed, without reservation, to the entirety of Catholic teaching on homosexuality as contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    3. Remind all faculty, staff, and student life employees that any UD student experiencing same-sex attractions can find help and support with UD’s chapter of Courage. Have this message communicated at all UD masses and faculty meetings.

    4. Explain carefully that a student group will be approved if it supports those who experience homosexual attractions but who wish to live in a Catholic manner (like Courage). Explain carefully that a student group will be denied if it endorses the homosexual lifestyle.

    • Well you cant just say “non-marital sex acts are immoral, trust me.” Thats not the UD way. There’s reasoned arguments as to why. I will concede that a comment box isn’t the ideal venue, but Im just so sick and tired of being called an irrational homophobe for believing a reasonable moral proposition. These arguments require some explanation. You don’t have to agree with me, but a sneer is not an objection.


        Perhaps you aren’t an homophobe, but homophobe can be used to mean discriminatory against homosexuals, perhaps etymologically because phobias tend to be irrational fears and the consensus is that discrimination stems from some sort of fear or antipathy.

        Being personally against gay marriage isn’t why you are being accused of being a homophobe on this thread. The fact that in response to an article of LGBT students recounting their personal struggles at UD and the need for some sort of GSA for them to find solidarity with non LGBT classmates, you decide we don’t deserve to feel safe or welcomed here, is a bit homophobic. The fact that you repeatedly have made the micro-aggression that all we care about is sex is a bit homophobic. Refusing to call us GLQ, and instead referring to us as having SSA like it’s a disease, is pretty insulting. If I made a comment that I don’t believe in Catholics but rather people who struggle with reality and have schizophrenic tendencies, (which is not at all what I believe) wouldn’t that strike you as pretty insulting?

        If you want to appear less homophobic, never let the words “hate the sin, love the sinner” leave your lips. Every single homosexual has heard that story way too many times to care and it always ends the same. In our lives, the people who utter those words the most follow them the least. You don’t have to worry about hating the sin. Just love the sinner. And we are all sinners. Sinners are people. Love the people. just look at the order of that adage. You literally put hatred for an act before love for a person.

        Moreover if you truly think you just follow a moral proposition, and that you are not a homophobe, consider using your name so that you aren’t some anonymous person afraid of their own words. How are we supposed to receive your arguments? It’s pretty much like you are talking about us behind our backs.

  24. Do those at UD with SSN really want the pastoral care of the Church and her faithful? Here’s what a program of such pastoral care would look like. There’s some tough love in it. I suspect those with SSN, at UD and other Catholic institutions, would prefer the unqualified “acceptance” you find in much of the secular world, an “acceptance” which affirms homosexual tendencies as normal and good (and even worthy of pride!) and approves of acting upon them. But such “acceptance” is something the Church and her faithful cannot offer.

    “3. … In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

    Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

    “15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

    We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

    An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.”

    • This article has nothing to do with “students with SSA.” It’s about LGBT students. “Students with SSA,” the poor kids that believe their sexual orientation is a curse instead of a wonderful part of who they are, might need the pastoral care of the Church and Her faithful.

      As for us, we would like the Church and Her faithful to practice what they preach and not ostracize us.

      • Max, you bring up something that genuinely interests me: What specifically is wonderful about being gay? People celebrate being gay but what exactly are they celebrating? Is it just the sexual attraction to other men or is there something more? It’s an honest question.

        • @ Louis
          I could answer that for you:
          Just as you celebrate the love you feel for your partner,
          People who are LGTB celebrate that.
          It’s simply a celebration of the gift of love that anyone discovers in another person, And im sure you can relate to that.

          We say celebration because many people oppress and abuse of the relationships of LGBT people, or erase them completely.
          To say “celebrate” is to remind ourselves and others that the love we feel for those we love is in no way lesser to anyone else’s.
          Love is love, friend. And that’s what we celebrate.
          You know what’s wondefful about being gay? And bi? And straight?
          Finding someone you have a deep emotional connection to.
          It’s a universal feeling.
          I hope you can understand and relate.

        • Holy moly. “is it just the sexual attraction to other men?” Really dude? Was that an April fool’s?

          It’s wonderful because it is love. And in basically every gay couple today you have people that have been through a ton of struggle to be together. These are people fighting for love and family. It isn’t even about being gay, it’s about being yourself. It’s about celebrating yourself and that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Perhaps I say it’s wonderful to counteract the general practice of people calling it terrible? In all honesty there is nothing inherently wonderful or terrible about being gay or straight.

          What makes it wonderful is that for our entire lives we are told it is terrible. In simple terms, think Frozen. Elsa’s powers are a part of who she is, but her entire life she was forced to squash that part of herself as if it was evil. That is a terrible feeling/experience. The self-loathing, isolation, and fear are real. When we grow to love and accept ourselves that is something truly wonderful is it not?

          • Thanks for the response. “It isn’t even about being gay, it’s about being yourself.” There I agree with you. I think the label “gay” reduces someone to their sexual orientation, which seems limiting.

            My question, though, was what does “being gay” add to “being yourself”? Again, I understand that being gay means you are sexually attracted to other men. But does it add anything else to who you are?

            You said in response: “It’s wonderful because it is love.” I don’t see how that answers the question. If you’re referring to same-sex couples, then I can see it applies, but I don’t see how it applies to an orientation. The orientation is about love?

            On another point, you said: “When we grow to love and accept ourselves that is something truly wonderful is it not?” It depends on who you are. To entertain your LGBT interpretation of Frozen, Elsa “being herself” was a terrible thing for both herself and the people in the city. It made her unhappy and a whole city miserable. There was something attractive about her in that state (why everyone likes that song “Let It Go”) but also awful. She even hurt someone she loved. It was only when she used her abilities properly — incidentally in a life-giving way, symbolized by the coming of springtime — that she was at last happy.

            But back to your analogy with Elsa: You speak of Elsa’s powers. What are the gay man’s powers that need to be unleashed?

  25. Howdy,
    I am proud of being gay, and that is exactly why I applied to UD.

    To spread the good gay word y’all.

    We’re all sinners.. bottom line, and Jesus said to treat everyone equally in Matthew.

    Allot of the issues from the Catholic Church are not based on Jesus at all.

    My philosophy is that if it ain’t about Jesus then it ain’t about nothing in my opinion

  26. Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only 1.
    Which one seems unnatural now?


    • What if someone came to you and said “Im homophobic, I was born this way. I have these homophobic desires that wont go away. I want to act on these desires.”

      On what principle could you tell this person that no, they cannot engage in homophobic behavior just because they have persistent homophobic desires?

      (For the record, I believe homophobic actions are immoral and constitute unjust treatment.)

      • If you think that anything constitutes unjust treatment, regardless of what it is, you have some things you should probably try to work out aside from your homophobia. You should probably pray on why you think ANYTHING qualifies unjust treatment, because theres a reason why it’s called “unjust”, and quite frankly it’s a bit disconcerting to see you refer to treating a group of people in an unjust manner as something you find perfectly okay. That’s kinda where racism and bigotry stem from, freind.
        And INCASE you were wondering, I would call what you just said a micro-aggression, but honestly its a much larger problem than that.

          • “(For the record, I believe homophobic actions are immoral and constitute unjust treatment.)”

            That’s exactly what you said? I replied to that. It’s the larger issue.

          • “it’s a bit disconcerting to see you refer to treating a group of people in an unjust manner as something you find perfectly okay.”

            Since you already quoted me, I’ll assume you’re misunderstanding what I mean by homophobic actions being “immoral” and “unjust.” That is, I do not find unjust treatment of homosexuals perfectly okay. Does that help?

          • Actually no because you just contradicted yourself. Or perhaps you don’t even understand what you wrote.
            I’ll quote you again.
            1) (For the record, I believe homophobic actions are immoral and constitute unjust treatment.)
            2) Since you already quoted me, I’ll assume you’re misunderstanding what I mean by homophobic actions being “immoral” and “unjust.” That is, I do not find unjust treatment of homosexuals perfectly okay. Does that help?

            I’ll explain: your use of the word “constitutes” implies that you feel the actions of lgtb people deserves unjust treatment. Your second statement is the opposite of your first.

            I’m sorry but these are two completely contradictory statements.
            If you are going to atempt to argue, Please be more succinct.

          • Excuse me, I meant “homophobic actions”
            But my statement still holds. No one should be treated unjustly.
            Homophobia is bad, but no one deserves unjust treatment. Anyone who is homophobic should make a large effort to learn and educate themselves on accepting and loving others as they would wish to be treated.

      • The difference is that me and my husband getting married does not hurt you. Our acting on our homosexual nature does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights. Acting on homophobic tendencies I can’t help but interpret as committing some act of injustice against gay people. This is very clearly hurting somebody. Furthermore, homophobia is taught, not inherited. You’ll notice every homophobe whines about the idea of having to explain to their children that two men kissing is wrong. That is at the front of every homophobe’s mind, making sure to ingrain into their children that they should hate gay people too.

        You just equated a) malicious intent to hurt others with b) two people in love. You really think you aren’t homophobic? You are really going to try and play the victim and say everyone unjustly has labelled you homophobic? No sir, you have again “played the fool,” you have again made yourself clearly to be the homophobe.

          • I’m sorry, but you just erased the validity of every single parent that worked double and overtime to raise their children in a good way.
            You also just erased the validity of a mother in a family.
            Families come in all shapes and sizes.
            The old gender roles of ancient family ideals are incredibly outdated and generally pretty sexist.
            Please be respectful in your comments on family. You may or may not have been raised by a mother and father, and feel comfortable that way. But you do not know the stories and lives of other people who may feel otherwise.
            Family is what those Involved in the relationship define it to be.

  27. Guys We Finally Knocked off the sexist Jeggings article as most popular article !!!!

    This is a Day of Celebration!!!!

  28. As an ardent supporter of UD and the education it offers its students, I very much appreciate this article. Because this article quotes extensively from interviews with self-identified homosexual students, it gives me a valuable insight into their experience at UD—something I have often wondered about and always knew that I had no idea of what it was. I have been asked in the past what it would be like for a student who self-identifies as homosexual to go to school at UD and did not know what to answer. I wanted to say that UD is one of the few places where it is hard not to get a good education, and that makes it worth attending; but that would just be to avoid the intent of the question. This article helps me answer their questions. Of course, the experience of a few is not the experience of all. Still, this article gives me at least some helpful information that I can pass on to others. Thank you!

  29. You just compared homosexuality to hurting people. That is wrong. There is nothing immoral about homosexuaity. There is nothing wrong with people who are gay, lesbian, transgendered, bisexual, asexual,etc. There is no debate on that. Yes, you are a homophobe.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here