Scalia’s son says homosexuality doesn’t exist

Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is known to be virulently anti-gay (and anti-masturbation).  And his son, Paul, is as well.

We’ve written about Paul Scalia before.  He works for a Catholic group that claims it can “cure” gays.  Which is ironic since the largest “ex-gay” group out there, Exodus International, just admitted that the whole “pray away the gay” thing is a crock.

Well, now it seems that Paul Scalia is claiming that homosexuality doesn’t even exist (which is interesting, since he’s trying to cure something that doesn’t exist).

Paul Scalia, like most anti-gay religious bigots, believes that he’s the one who’s truly oppressed since society refuses to tolerate his intolerance of gay people.  Scalia writes:

Consider how swiftly American society has changed as regards homosexuality. The “Stonewall riots,” the touchstone and unofficial beginning of the gay rights movement, occurred in June 1969. Since then, the demands from the gay community have progressed from simple tolerance, to acceptance, to the right to marry, to now the silencing of any opposition as bigoted and “homophobic.” Those who once insisted on tolerance for their lifestyle will now tolerate no disagreement. Society now requires everyone’s approval of what not long ago was regarded as morally abhorrent.

daily beast to scalia: Do you sodomize our wife?Yes, yes, yes and no.  We absolutely do demand tolerance, acceptance and the right to marry.  But who said that the Scalia boys were no longer permitted to be hateful homophobic bigots?  It seems both are excelling at it.

Young Paul Scalia is suffering from the same malady that afflicts many a conservative.  They suffer from the delusion that the First Amendment gives them the right to not only speak, but to speak with impunity.   In their warped world view, the only way that they can have free speech is for you to have no speech.

So Catholics leaders, for example, are free to bash gays, and blacks, and latinos, and women – and rape children – but if you speak up about them bashing gays, blacks, latinos, women – and raping children – you’re the bad person because you dared to challenge them.

More from Scalia’s son, who now is worried about using the word “homosexual,” which is ironic since the word itself is actually anti-gay, and that’s why the religious right routinely uses it:

In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the CDF document). In short, we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.  The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon. Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person.” His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with “same-sex attractions.” Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an “orientation.”

I often wonder whether a lot of these men so fixated on gay people aren’t harboring their own inner-gay.  Read this from Scalia the younger:

In this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity.

And isn’t that the real issue here.  The right of closeted celibate gay men to be left alone in their own little self-imposed prison of self-loathing.

Sounds a lot like a Catholic priest.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

223 Responses to “Scalia’s son says homosexuality doesn’t exist”

  1. lsjfhvue says:

    True. I blame him for instilling this self loathing in his child. Can you imagine what it must’ve been like to be raised by that hatemongering bigot?

  2. lsjfhvue says:

    Paul, honey, it’s time to come out of the closet girlfriend!

  3. Harley Rummel says:

    This is surely the sickest comment site I have ever visited. I came to it with no antipathy toward gays and leave it with a sense it is a vile sickness. Be gay and be happy, alrigh? Just shut the hell up about it!

  4. Harley Rummel says:

    Utterly reprehensible, totally lacking in truth. A disgusting statement by an evidently disgusting soul.

  5. Reverb says:

    There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won’t hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.

  6. iancartwright says:

    “In short, we should not predicate ‘homosexual’ of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations… [I]t it is better to speak of someone with ‘same-sex attractions.'”

    I wonder if Paul Scalia maintains this principled stand against predicate adjectives when the adjective in question is one he credits with positive associations. Who knows, maybe he does object when someone observes that “Paul Scalia is Catholic,” or “Paul Scalia is American.” Because if collapsing personhood into sexual orientation does a disservice to the dignity of the human person, it needs to be explained why religion or nationality fail to offend as well.

  7. Badgerite says:

    Really!

  8. Jakrabt says:

    Ugh. The Asexuals can have him, us gays don’t want him and neither do the straights! lol

  9. Jakrabt says:

    Paul just has not come out yet as is apparent to most of us ‘seasoned’ gay folk with well-attuned gaydar. He is acting exactly as one would expect a gay child of Justice Scalia to act.

  10. Jakrabt says:

    You could not drive a sewing needle into with a 20 lb sledge hammer.

  11. Jakrabt says:

    It has worked very well with me for years.

  12. Jakrabt says:

    According to most sex studies performed from the 50’s through the 70’s nobody is entirely hetero or homosexual but falls somewhere in between on a continuum. Being a 50 year old gay man who tried for the first 17 years of his life to be straight I tend to agree.

  13. Jakrabt says:

    Yep. Looks like Scalia’s MiniMe is trying to be just as virulently homophobic (anti-gay bigot who often is secretly homosexual, not gay) as dear ole Papa.

  14. shawnthesheep says:

    Seems like the younger is Scalia is arguing that since homosexuals can’t exist, then he can’t be one. “See Dad? I”m not ‘homosexual.’ I just have ‘same-sex attraction.’ But I totally have that under control. Do I have your approval now? How about now? What about now?”

  15. vergil arma says:

    Actually, heterosexuality doesn’t exist. It’s just a case of bisexuality in which opposite-sex attractions are stronger than same-sex ones.

  16. Steve Temke says:

    Fr. Paul, the asshole, said. “to now the silencing of any opposition as bigoted and “homophobic.”

    I’m not trying to silence anyone. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to put them in their places. Their opposition IS bigoted and homophobic, so they can be damned sure that I will refute their hate with the greatest weapon I have…the ability to reason and form rational thoughts. Fr. Paul, and people like him, are so quick to give up this ability in order to believe what some old book says. Pathetic!

  17. karmanot says:

    Italian families have to have at least 2 sons: one to marry, make babies and run the family business; the second son becomes a priest, because (you know) he was chosen by god to be sensitive and special. It doesn’t matter in the order of birth. Families can usually tell by which son volunteers to make and decorate the Holy Mother’s May Flower shrine.

  18. Vicky says:

    “chastity” implies a decision (often religious) (i.e. nuns and priests) (and [or indeed including] “homosexuals”, in this man’s ideal world!) not just the state of being single – I don’t think the families of those people would be pressuring them to have kids!

  19. PhoenixWoman says:

    Heh! The census taker must have gotten Mama Scalia when Nino was at school.

  20. PhoenixWoman says:

    “Isn’t this kind of like when Ahmadinejad tried to claim that there WERE no homosexuals in Iran”

    And the Russians try to claim the same thing, as do those African nations where Howard-Ahmandson-funded churchly homophobics control the public discourse.

  21. Sweetie says:

    The whole tolerance/acceptance thing is something he’s both right and wrong about, John.

    Tolerance and acceptance are levels of bigotry, so it is true — what he’s saying. We are demanding more today. What we’re demanding is the full level of respect and appreciation any productive member of society deserves. What we’re demanding is an end to heterosexism.

    Where he goes wrong is acting as if it’s wrong to demand this.

  22. Sweetie says:

    The whole “nasty clinical-sounding” objection has problems.

    1. Heterosexual is just as clinical. The problem is when people use homosexual and straight instead of homosexual and heterosexual.

    2. It sounds nasty because Americans hate sex and the word has sex in it.

    3. It sounds nasty because it has a lot of syllables and the English language tries to use few when possible. English is similar to Chinese and Vietnamese in that it prefers fewer syllables with greater information density over many syllables with less density (Japanese).

    4. The history of semantic usage makes homosexual sound “nasty” because of the history of the prefix homo being used as a slur.

    Morphologically, homo(sexual )is vastly superior to gay — as long as people use hetero(sexual) equally. Get rid of the -sexual suffix and that will help with both the syllabic length problem as well as the Puritanical objection to anything with sex in it.

  23. Sweetie says:

    It’s not morphologically. It is it terms of cultural semantics.

    Homo and hetero are better than gay and straight because there are not morphological embedded judgments/dichotomies beyond the simple matter of the sex of the person one is attracted to.

    Gay vs. straight is bent vs. straight.

  24. Sweetie says:

    No. He just thinks he’s very smart.

  25. Sweetie says:

    “Nobody’s trying to force anybody to have sex with anybody (male or female) they don’t want to.”

    Are you kidding? I guess you’ve never heard of family pressure to breed.

  26. Sweetie says:

    I guess that’s how he felt at a stand and model bar without model looks.

  27. Sweetie says:

    Don’t forget how Germany didn’t repeal Paragraph 175 until something like 1969 (or was it 59?). In any case, it took a very long time to get it repealed and gay Holocaust survivors were barred from restitution. Many of them actually were forced to remain imprisoned.

    And, in the 2000s, we had the oh-so-lovely spectacle of Israeli Jewish groups protesting Holocaust museums. … because they dared discuss the plight of gay victims.

  28. Sweetie says:

    “It’s one thing for a person to have the opinion that homosexuality is wrong. It’s quite another for them to focus their lives to such a point, that they expend all their talent, time and energy, sometimes to the point of violence, to oppose it.”

    The only difference is one of degree of commitment.

  29. Bill Reynolds says:

    It’s one thing for a person to have the opinion that homosexuality is wrong.

    It’s quite another for them to focus their lives to such a point, that they expend all their talent, time and energy, sometimes to the point of violence, to oppose it.

    How many times have these virulent homophobes been eventually force-outed as self-hating gays, themselves?

  30. Bill Reynolds says:

    So, Paul, shall we presume that you would like to go back in history and “right” other past “wrongs”?

    Like make interracial marriage illegal once again?

    Like taking away women’s right to vote?

    How about reinstating slavery?

    ALL these civil rights causes experienced SEVERE and VIOLENT opposition at the time, but were eventually made legal.

    Just like same-sex marriage.

    They eventually passed partly because the more violently they WERE opposed, the more sympathy was given to the victims, by the greater public.

    Republicans like Paul are sticks in the mud, that must be forcibly pulled out and thrown into the fire of bigotry and sexism.

    It isn’t the American way, to keep certain classes of Americans as second-class citizens, denying them the very same rights that YOU enjoy, Paul.

  31. pappyvet says:

    This nut without a doubt did not fall far from the tree.

  32. RMFitz says:

    I don’t recall our conversation but am unable to continue it on Twitchy because the over zealous little toady (from his bio: “I’m a conservative!”) who moderates the comments banned me. Why not head over there now and join the fun everyone’s having agreeing with each other? BTW, who am I going to “report” you to? I suspect things are a little less authoritarian here than you might be accustomed to.

  33. Kevin Bradley says:

    Persecuting gays and lesbians is the only hatred the Nazis had that was allowed to flourish in America after WWII. We were lumped in with Communists and deemed “dangerous.” Thank God that our countrymen and -women are beginning to see that we only want what they want: Someone to love and marry. And in some cases, a family.

  34. southerntragedy says:

    What’s the matter RMFiz? Moved onto a different topic and left the conversation that you started with me 2 days ago? Run away! Saul would be sooooo disappointed that you’ve only learned 2 out of many of his rules. You are clearly, a slacker. But yea! You, rock! Call me a stalker. Report me. I’m sure you’re outraged. Lookit! Squirrel! >>>> Wendy Davis was soooooo, yesterday. Bless your soulless little heart.

  35. mamazboy says:

    It’s so weird to see these crazy closet cases working out their pathologies on the public stage, screaming and carrying on (and sometimes making important policy decisions) about the thing that they are. I’m still hoping somebody with knowledge will out the loathsome Lindsey Graham.

  36. mamazboy says:

    Or, “I’ll be the guy with the kneepads on the other side of the stall. Just whisper, ‘Hypocrite?’ That will be me.”

  37. karmanot says:

    Or: “Let’s grab a sauna at the Cardinal Hotel.”

  38. Butch1 says:

    Ha! It would figure. Those that protest too much.

  39. karmanot says:

    hairy palms are so hot!

  40. karmanot says:

    How very Nazi of him.

  41. karmanot says:

    “until the 1950s when queer uncles became an embarrassment.” Good catch. My two uncles were considered life-long bachelors or Boston Bachelors, but were much loved by the family and never an embarrassment.

  42. John H says:

    Well, I wouldn’t really consider a universal cultural DADT policy to be living without oppression, but you’re definitely correct that the intense culture of paranoia about difference in the 1950s greatly increased active persecution of gay people.

  43. karmanot says:

    It has been reported that Father Paul had a stain on his little black dress.

  44. karmanot says:

    Yep, Scalia Jr. has Maybe Dick in his heart.

  45. karmanot says:

    There are gays in Iran, as I can personally testify having hitchhiked through the length of that country and was on many a nomadic menu.

  46. karmanot says:

    Assholes so tight they could bend re-bar.

  47. mike31c says:

    Both Scalia and his son really needs help. I am going to suggest homosexual sodomy and maybe some masturbation. Then maybe these two would be less a$$hole like.

  48. Grant_Devereaux says:

    The Scalias seem to think that homosexuals were invented in 1969. In fact, they lived fairly without oppression until the 1950s when queer uncles became an embarrassment. Before that , men simply remained bachelors and lived as they pleased. Of course it was against the law, much as smoking pot is against the law, but that didn’t stop it at all. Queers have existed since the beginning of time. They merely want to be left alone and given the same rights and privileges of anyone else. That is not asking for special treatment. The Scalias want special treatment so they can continue to deny homosexuals equality.

  49. dcinsider says:

    Love that!

  50. kingstonbears says:

    Father Harvey doesn’t like the word homosexual? But feels that “same-sex attractions” is too wordy? Get with it girl, your word for the day is “Mo”. Short, simple, and with the right inflection, well, you get the picture.

  51. discus_sucks_ass says:

    sadly I still can’t forget all the people they have done their best to destroy up till then

  52. Bill_Perdue says:

    He’s at least as smart as Ahmadinejad.

  53. BillFromDover says:

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree?

    Like father, like son?

    Assholes, both?

  54. Badgerite says:

    ‘Modern phenomenon’? But I thought ‘the Bible says’……. If the Bible says then it is not a ‘modern phenomenon’. Isn’t this kind of like when Ahmadinejad tried to claim that there WERE no homosexuals in Iran. So it must be the fault of all those mean liberals like Justice Kennedy and Ted Olson who want us to treat them as equal citizens. Gayness must then be a cultural phenomenon that is occurring because of our ‘permissive’ society rather than the fact that a certain percentage of the population are now and have always been gay. It is not good to make anyone live in a ‘closet’. It is not good for them and it is not good for society.

  55. Papa Bear says:

    I thought that was obvious — no one foams at the mouth over imagined sins like a closet sinner…so to speak…
    ;-)

  56. Scott Sorensen says:

    to quote Star Trek:
    Picard: “And he piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon he would have shot his heart upon it.”Sloane: What?Picard: Moby Dick.Sloane: Actually, I never read it.Picard: Ahab spent years hunting the white whale that crippled him; but in the end, it destroyed him and his ship.Sloane: I guess he didn’t know when to quit.

  57. Ninong says:

    Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland, former archbishop of Milwaukee, wrote something very similar in his autobiography. He claimed that many of the “victims” of clerical sexual abuse were actually quite street-wise and sexually seductive to the poor priests. He also made the ridiculous claim that they didn’t consider sexual acts between clergy and young teenage boys to be criminal acts, just sinful acts. Yes, he said that.

    He said and did a lot more than what you will find in his Wiki profile but it’s a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

    Be sure to notice the fact that as archbishop of Milwaukee, he paid $450,000 in diocesan funds to his former male lover to get him to STFU. In Wiki it’s called “preventing a lawsuit.” The Church did not bring charges of misuse of diocesan funds (aka theft) for that. I guess they just didn’t want to open that can of worms.
    He lives in retirement in comfortable quarters provided to him by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

  58. Ninong says:

    There have been several interesting scientific studies performed investigating this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

  59. jsdc007 says:

    Indeed. After reading his opinions in law school, I came to the conclusion that the only reason people think he’s intelligent is because he occasionally peppers his rancid opinions with Latin nonsense, and because his opinions (and especially dissents) tend to be so dreadful, they’re entertaining. They’re also relatively short which makes reading them at 3 am before an exam an easier proposition than, say, reading Justice O’Connor’s opinions.

  60. FunMe says:

    Like father, like son. You mean like closeted gay? ;-)

  61. Ninong says:

    The biggest Pray-the-Gay-Away outfit, Exodus International, closed up shop and went out of business last month! They publicly apologized for all the harm they caused over the past 37 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

  62. Ninong says:

    It’s Antonin, not Antonio. He’s not Hispanic! His father emigrated here from Sicily at the age of 15. So “Nino” is Italian, not Hispanic. Happy now? LOL

  63. Ninong says:

    Yes, you can search the census records online. The 1940 census was published earlier this year. It helps if you know exactly where you lived when you were born. Even if you’re off by only four or five blocks, as I was, it can take hours to find yourself — or your parents, grandparents or whomever you’re searching for.

    Here’s the link to the 1940 Census to get you started. That’s the most recent one that is released. You can search 1940 and older but not anything newer than 1940.

    http://1940census.archives.gov/

  64. tomtallis says:

    Homosexuals say that Scalia’s son doesn’t exist.

  65. Ninong says:

    The purpose of sex is procreation, therefore anything else is sodomy. Islam takes a similar view.

    Historically speaking, the idea that it was okay to experience pleasure from sexual intercourse is relatively recent. However, the Catholic Church still believes that all acts of sexual intercourse should be open to procreation, which they consider a gift from God.

    That’s why all of my Catholic forebears had 8-15 children. I learned that thanks to Ancestry.com. I already knew all four of my grandparents came from large families with 8-12 children. I was surprised to find out that the same pattern held true for the past 200 years.

    The Church spelled out all of this in great detail in the 1960’s. It’s okay to employ the rhythm method of birth control but only if you have a legitimate reason to do so. It’s up to you to decide if you have a legitimate reason for not permitting every act of sexual intercourse to be open to procreation. Maybe you’re not financially able to support another child, or maybe you have good medical reasons for wanting to avoid pregnancy. Just remember that you have an obligation to leave every act of sexual intercourse open to receiving a gift from God and you should employ the rhythm method only if absolutely necessary for very good reasons. That’s up to your conscience.

    Condoms are absolutely verboten. Any other applicances used to prevent pregnancy are forbidden. Birth control of any sort other than the rhythm method are not allowed. In case anyone doesn’t know what I mean by the rhythm method, it simply means that the wife will use a calendar to cross off those days when she is fertile and might conceive. It also means that no other exotic forms of sexual satisfaction are allowed on those day! That would be a sin, probably even more sinful than masturbation. When I was young, we had to tell the priest exactly how many times we “touched” ourselves — an acceptable euphemism for masturbation. The other one being “played with” yourself. That’s by far the most common sin most young boys had to confess, assuming they don’t use curse words, another sin. Oh, well…

  66. Vicky says:

    How on earth is anything (including societal progress!) a threat to “the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity”? Nobody’s trying to force anybody to have sex with anybody (male or female) they don’t want to. They are perfectly free to be as chaste as they like! They just shouldn’t be shamed into it (or shame anybody else into it).
    The only thing threatening his chastity are his own desires.

  67. discus_sucks_ass says:

    a small correction, it is PAY to “pray the gay away” it is always about money for that type of scum

  68. mamazboy says:

    I’m pretty sure Paul “I’ll meet you at the highway rest-stop bathroom at 11:30” Scalia doesn’t exist.

  69. FunMe says:

    PS: I just thought about something. I think Antonio Scalia is gay, too!

    Antonio … gay! That explains it all. LOL

  70. Ninong says:

    You’re a lot younger than the people who grew up with the term “homosexual,” which I don’t find offensive at all. It’s the opposite of heterosexual — same sex vs. different sex. Heteros is Greek meaning other, another, different. Homo-, when used as a prefix, is from the Greek, meaning same. It’s also Latin meaning man, when used as a noun.

    When I was young, the word “gay” didn’t mean what it does today. The pejorative slang words for homosexual were queer or fruit. Even the word fag was not in general use back then. I don’t remember ever hearing the word “gay” as another word for a homosexual when I was young, back in the 1940’s and early ’50’s.

    Back then most women who openly identified themselves as same-sex oriented used the word lesbian. Then, when the word gay came into common usage, it was used by both men and women. Some of the more “uppity” (haha) women continued to call themselves lesbians. I have heard both Ellen DeGeneres and Rachel Maddow refer to themselves as gay, and on other occasions, call themselves lesbians. They used both words.

  71. Butch1 says:

    Young Paul can shake his head no and stomp his feet and pound his fists and scream and have a tantrum for as long as he wants but that isn’t going to change reality one bit. This little spoiled catholic priest needs to start showing us some respect or he is going to get it right back with the insults he deserves. He and his father do not deserve any more of our time. What they have to say is going to be bigoted and dated and on the wrong side of history. Leave them there.

  72. Ninong says:

    We translated Caesar first, then Cicero, then Virgil. Caesar is so much easier that Cicero or Virgil.

  73. FunMe says:

    Isn’t the son gay? Closeted of course, due to his hateful father.

    Pretty obvious that the MAJORITY of those who lead “gay to straight change” industries as well as those who continue to think anyone can change are actually gay themselves. There have been numerous studies confirming this. Going anti-gay and tying to change GLBT to straight is simply a BIG FLAG confirming that they are gay. In the closet, of course. But STILL gay.

  74. MerryMarjie says:

    Yes, but you’ll have hairy palms when you go!

  75. MerryMarjie says:

    It’s a very hard world for people who can’t or refuse to change. Some people remain the same year after year, firmly convinced that whatever opinion they had 40 years ago is still relevant today. I’m old enough to remember hearing derogatory remarks about Blacks, Jews and Gays when I was a child, but as any sentient human would do, my thoughts and feelings evolved with the times, and I understand now that we’re all human beings, deserving of respect and tolerance. Unfortunately, many people can’t adapt to the changes and they go into the future kicking and screaming, still believing they are right, no matter what.

  76. Ninong says:

    Ah, good old Cardinal Dolan. Caught under oath in an outright lie! Both Archbishop Dolan, then-archbishop of Milwaukee, and Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland, former archbishop of Milwaukee, were called to testify in court about the bankruptcy filed by the Milwaukee Archdiocese.

    What was it Archbishop Dolan said under oath? Oh, yes, he said that he did not transfer that $57 million into the archdiocese’s cemetery fund in order to remove it from the reach of the pending litigation filed against the archdiocese by the victims of clergy sexual abuse. Absolutely not! It had absolutely nothing to do with hiding it from those greedy victims of sexual abuse.

    Then, guess what? Oh, that’s right. A letter from Cardinal Dolan to the Vatican asking permission to transfer that $57 million into the cemetery fund specifically to remove it from the reach of pending litigation was just released! And the Vatican responded promptly granting him permission to move the $57 million to prevent it from falling into the hands of the victims of clergy sexual abuse.

    The only words I added were “clergy sexual abuse.” Dolan said simply that moving the $57 million to the cemetery fund would remove it from the reach of pending litigation. Then, under oath, he testified that he did not make such a request and that the money was not moved to hide it from the victims.

    What about Rembert Weakland? Well, let’s just say that his history is so rich in scandal and outrageous quotes that I don’t have time to itemize them in such a brief post. For starters, I suggest Wikipedia (and, believe me, a lot of the good stuff isn’t even in there — there’s more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembert_Weakland

  77. MerryMarjie says:

    Good work!

  78. Ninong says:

    Just as a point of information: it’s also Latin, meaning man.

    homo -inis c. [a human being , man, mortal]; in pl., [men, people, the
    world]; used like a pronoun, [he, him]; milit., in pl., [infantry].

  79. EdA says:

    I had not realized that rather anomalously for an Italian-American family in the 1930s, somehow Antonin Scalia managed to be an only child. I found this out when looking to see if this son of Scalia’s was the same one. Eugene, who is a partner in a law firm, Gibson Dunn, which has a significant Supreme Court practice advancing the interests of businesses vis-a-vis regulatory agencies. (Eugene Scalia, however, is not supposed to derive financial benefit when his father decides a case in favor of his firm’s clients.) Previously, in 2001, a few months after Scalia helped to appoint George W. Bush president, Bush gave Eugene a recess appointment to serve as Solicitor (Chief lawyer) for W’s Labor Department. But that’s a different Scalia offspring.

  80. Monoceros Forth says:

    Really it’s not far removed from jackasses who whine about “censorship” and “political correctness” when they get scorn for racist and sexist jokes. Nobody’s robbing them of freedom. What they’re deprived of, however, is the automatic social acceptance that for some reason they think they’re owed for being racist and sexist. They want a coarse laugh and a slap on the back for being crude and instead they’re rebuked, which is apparently only because of politically correct censorship.

    Perhaps I’m being overly optimistic here, but I conjecture that the recent Supreme Court decisions and other recent events have, really for the first time, compelled the right-wing Christians to stare social defeat in the face. The notion that their bigotry and religious fanaticism is representative of a silent majority of decent and God-fearing Americans–a “moral majority” if you will–is looking very shaky right now. In a way Scalia Jr.’s words are the words of a defeated man, lamenting about how society changed out from under him.

  81. emjayay says:

    Here’s a copy of what you must have not read a few inches above by rand503:

    I don’t really think the word’s origins are the reason they religious right uses it today. I once knew a guy who would spell it this way: HomoSEXuals.

    They use the term because it sounds cold and clinical and icky, and worse, it emphasis the word sex. Remember — they think our lives are all about ramming our dicks up someone’s ass. Even Cardinal Dolan recently wondered whether all gay relationships are really “genitally based.”

    More: homosexual is the word that they grew up with in the 50s and 60s, and that’s when we were all seen as deviants and abnormal. Even the APA used the word. So they want to harken back to a time when homosexual connoted abnormality. The Washington Times, the moonie rag, until recently referred to any openly gay person as an “avowed homosexual,” as though any openly gay man should really be ashamed of all this.

    Even more: They REALLy hate the term gay for a number of reasons: It debases the original meaning of the word gay, which was happy and delightful. Gays aren’t happy because we are all depressed and diseased you know. And most of all because it’s just a PR scheme to make our lifestyle more acceptable and appear less threatening to the public at large. And so as a matter of a defiance, they will continue to use the word homosexual.

    Lastly, the Bible has been rewritten in recent years to include the word homosexuals who are part of the group who will not go to heaven.

    So for all these reasons, they still use it. And yes, it’s a perjorative word, in their view. In fact, you can always tells a person’s viewpoints on this based on whether they use the word or not.

  82. RMFitz says:

    The bitter, wormy apple doesn’t fall far from the rotten, black-hearted tree.

  83. Naja pallida says:

    Yeah, it’s available online at the National Archives, and other places like Family Search.

  84. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Yes, I realize census records have lots of errors, I was just wondering how you got it, like is it available online?

  85. Ted Hayes says:

    Just as there no homosexuals (homosexuality doesn’t exist), there is no bigoted ass sitting as a Justice on the SCOTUS named Scalia. Paul, you’ve impressed daddy now, so go on your merry way.

  86. Naja pallida says:

    It’s real, from the actual 1940 United States Census. Unlikely that it actually means anything though. Historical censuses are notoriously unreliable and inaccurate. It’s still a funny little tidbit that I thought was worth sharing. Looking at the full record, the information was likely given to the census worker by a neighbor. It is entirely possible that the information came from someone who didn’t even know the family very well. Census workers generally didn’t go out of their way to make sure all their data was accurate. It was more important to get as much coverage as possible.

  87. Skeptical Cicada says:

    That’s awesome! Where is it from? For real?

  88. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Yes, it’s an utterly self-absorbed notion that they’re denied free speech if anyone criticizes them.

  89. Ninong says:

    Yes, of course, because once they all died off, there would be no more homosexuality. That’s known as the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad method. You see, there’s no such thing as same-sex orientation, just same-sex attraction that has to be taught to impressionable teenagers. They have to be recruited by “practicing” homosexuals. It’s such a pleasurable experience that every young person is in danger of being converted if they come into contact with one of those “practicing” homosexuals.

    If we just don’t talk about it and don’t allow them to recruit new members, they will all die off. Also known as the Vladimir Putin method, with hat tip to the Russian Orthodox Church.

  90. Ninong says:

    Castration was considered an acceptable “cure” for boys suffering from homosexual tendencies. Especially if those boys dared to accuse the local Catholic priest (or bishop) of raping them!

    At least 11 or 12 boys were castrated by the Dutch Roman Catholic Church as recently as 1956. Damn! I was 18 years old in 1956. So it’s not like this was ancient history. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17453849

  91. Thom Allen says:

    I heard that Frankie and Benny are sharing Bel Giorgio. He must be exhausted. And that BG had quite a crozier even before he became an archbishop.

  92. Thom Allen says:

    I was reeely hoping that the Nuns would really put it to the Vatican and embarrass the hell out of it. They didn’t go that far, but they didn’t shut down what they were doing, either. I guess that’s progress.

  93. Monoceros Forth says:

    A lot of Catholic doctrines that smell of old fashion weren’t formulated into explicit doctrines until quite late. Depending upon your definition of “late” the same is true even of the enforcement of priestly celibacy, which was not explicitly enforced over the whole Church until the 11th century A.D. (This is a gross oversimplification of a complicated process, I know.)

  94. 2patricius2 says:

    Well if homosexuality doesn’t exist, Catholics certainly don’t exist. Homosexuality was not a choice for me. I always knew I found males attractive, even when I was a little boy. But I much prefer the positive adjective “gay.”

    However, religion really is a choice. People may be raised in a certain religion and may be indoctrinated deeply in a religion. But religion is not part of one’s nature, as sexuality is. If I had been born of Saudi Arabian parents I would probably have been a Muslim. I was raised by Catholic parents, and was for many years a Catholic. People can change religions or give up religious beliefs altogether.

    People may choose to live without acting according to their sexual orientation, but they can’t destroy their orientation, whatever it may be. And the natural thing is for people to act on their orientation during at least part of their lives. Never acting on one’s orientation is unusual, and even unnatural for most people.

  95. Ninong says:

    Yes, and it’s okay for Benedict and Bel Giorgio to live together in their fabulous newly refurbished apartment in that convent in the Vatican gardens provided they never actually “do” anthing, if you know what I mean. They can continue to take their daily walks together in the Vatican gardens and Bel Giorgio can walk to work. Sorry, I forget, he’s Archbishop Bel Giorgio now, thanks to that rushed promotion Benedict gave him. And his position is considered safe as it’s not one the incoming pope would usually change.

    Allegedly they both live a “chaste life,” which could be true. However, for anyone to deny the obvious relationship there takes a huge helping of blind faith.

  96. Indigo says:

    It’s the same as a dozen fingers standing in front of the Vatican.

  97. Thom Allen says:

    I always wondered, if God WERE all powerful why did He need DAYS to make the Universe? He could have done it in a nanosecond and not broken a sweat. I went to Catholic school and they taught the tale of the creation as story that explained evolution. “Let there be light” was the beginning: the Earth, life, etc. just not human life then. That came later.

  98. Ninong says:

    Okay, you and I both consider their view of women to be “dismissive” but they don’t. I guess that means I actually agree with you. Naturally the Vatican doesn’t agree with our view of their treatment of women. As with everything, they do not accept any other interpretation of any of their positions. They think it’s their duty to instruct us on the truth. We’re all just ignorant and in need of instruction.

    Those uppity nuns on the bus were such a PITA that the Vatican sent over one of their enforcers to put them in their place and get them to just STFU. All those American nuns were getting uppity, not just the Nuns on the Bus.

  99. Thom Allen says:

    That’s why the men have to be bareheaded . . .

  100. Monoceros Forth says:

    The Stephen Fry clip is quite good. Thanks.

  101. 2patricius2 says:

    Why believe science and facts, when religious doctrines have all the answers? This is a common mindset of these antigay religious people. They make up science to try to prove their religious, intolerant and biased beliefs. They may not agree to this assessment, but their guiding principle is that the end justifies any means they can use, no matter how dishonest or destructive their means may be. When their dogmatic assertions are challenged, they see themselves as victims and react accordingly, and refuse to accept the fact that they are the ones who victimize and try to silence others.

  102. karmanot says:

    That makes more sense than what I thought: That the Holy Ghost in the form of a pidgin would drop a load on the congregants at Mass.

  103. Thom Allen says:

    Interesting. I thought that the “covered heads” practice went back centuries, similar to the nuns wearing veils.

  104. BeccaM says:

    I lean towards the use of ‘lesbian’ but am not averse to ‘gay’ as a generic term.

    It’s certainly a hell of a lot better than ‘homosexual’.

  105. MichaelS says:

     …In short, we should not predicate the “Christianity” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into ignorant and backward superstitions.

  106. FLL says:

    As usual, the fundie Xtians misunderstand the First Amendment. It which protects freedom of speech, but the First Amendment doesn’t protect people from the consequences of that speech. Fundie Xtians, like Paul Scalia, have the freedom to go on homophobic rants, and they won’t be fined, arrested or jailed for it. But there are social consequences for homophobic speech, such as the vast majority of your fellow citizens shunning you. That needs to be repeated over and over until the misunderstanding about the First Amendment ends.

  107. Thom Allen says:

    I meant “dismissive” as disdainful, almost holding them in contempt as less than what a man is. They can be nuns and sit in the back of the church quietly. Or get married and have children. Just as the Vatican and it’s minions reacted to the “Nuns on the Bus.” Don’t speak out, especially if what you’re advocating is not in tune with what we want. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=0

  108. BeccaM says:

    When they could no longer burn us alive, they resorted to imprisonment and castration.

    Later on, it was chemical castration (or in the case of girls, clitordectomies) and confinement to mental institutions. Often with electroshock therapy.

    I honestly think far too many of today’s generations forget what things were like before Stonewall. What back then was considered perfectly acceptable and ‘normal’ in terms of oppressing gay people.

  109. BeccaM says:

    Actually, some of those fine, upstanding, love-the-sinner Christian types actually DO want to ship us off to concentration camps.

    http://www.advocate.com/society/religion/2012/05/21/north-carolina-preacher-charles-worley-wants-gay-people-put

    Pastor Charles Worley of Maiden, N.C.’s Providence Road Baptist Church recently (May 2012 – ed.) told his congregation that lesbians and “queers” should be rounded up, placed in camps with electrified fencing, and left to die.

  110. samizdat says:

    Lol!

  111. 2patricius2 says:

    That’s easy!

  112. Zorba says:

    According to the Catholic Church, so are such acts (even among married, heterosexual couples) as fellatio and cunnilingus, among others.
    Poor deluded Catholics. How boring their sex lives must get! :-)
    And, PS, don’t even try masturbating, or you’re going straight to hell!

  113. Thom Allen says:

    It’s there now. Bizarre. Thanks, nice to meet AntoninA Scalia.

  114. Stev84 says:

    The more accurate formula is “penis + vagina = children”. They are really only focused on the genitals. Recently a Catholic bishop said that it’s ok for gay men to marry lesbians, because the genitals fit together.

  115. BeccaM says:

    Perhaps because the Church is ruled entirely by men. In other words, it serves them, not the other way around.

  116. BeccaM says:

    Hoo…. long story that one. For a very long time (centuries) it was a purely cultural thing.

    However, that puritanical prig and sexually-repressed misogynist reprobate, Paul of Tarsus, did remark in Corinthians that women should cover their heads when in prayer or at Mass, likening women with uncovered heads with prostitutes. It wasn’t until the Latin Mass rules issued in 1917 that it suddenly became universal law. (And remained such until 1983… had to look that up, as it came after I left the Church.)

    From my reading of history at the time, it was thought by Church authorities that women — especially in Western nations — were becoming too uppity and demanding voting rights and all that. The head-covering rule was, in my opinion, a not-unsubtle reassertion of the patriarchy.

  117. Matt Rogers says:

    Is Antonin transgender? Intersex? That could explain a lot.

  118. 2patricius2 says:

    I can see it.

  119. Stev84 says:

    Although standard newspaper terminology is “gays and lesbians”, there are tons of women who refer to themselves as “gay”. The word can be used for both genders.

  120. ericxdc says:

    and there are no gays in Iran. Hmmm… Scalia the Younger and Ahmadinejad have more in common than we realize!

  121. ericxdc says:

    i see the image you posted perfectly. very, very funny!

  122. Stev84 says:

    The term was invented by a sexologist and spread by other sexologists. It had nothing to with prison officials.

  123. BeccaM says:

    Personally, I thought he was kind of bent in the brain. As near as I could figure, he had that particular solipsistic mindset, such that his religious beliefs were given greater weight than physical evidence.

    And like many Creationist types, one of his favorite strategies was to create these incredibly loaded scenarios — the “improbability” of life arising on its own, for instance — and then immediately fall back to the usual false logic of “If it is accepted as true that ‘A’ is impossibly improbable, ‘B’ is the only possible explanation and must therefore be true.”

  124. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’m guilty of using the word “homosexual” myself for lack of a better general term. “Gay” is not general enough since it implies male-male attraction.

    These days, though, when I see the word “homosexual”, I hear the voice of the Lewis Prothero character from the V for Vendetta movie, spitting out the word in his introductory screed. “Hoe-moe-SEX-uals!”

    Remember — they think our lives are all about ramming our dicks up someone’s ass. Even Cardinal Dolan recently wondered whether all gay relationships are really “genitally based.”
    So true. We’ve all encountered variations on this theme that any relationship between two persons of the same sex is purely selfish, hedonistic, based on mere satisfaction of carnal desire, not at all like the blessed and selfless love between man and wife. There seems to be this odd notion that sexual desire freed from its appointed place in heterosexual marriage is completely untethered, a wild animal ready to attack anything and everything on sight.

  125. Stev84 says:

    They are always using these words like “dignity” and “love” in a way that completely changes their meaning.

    And here is Stephen Fry on their sex-obsession:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt1v5ficjQA

  126. scottrose says:

    If the Vatican is having a hard time figuring out how to talk about homosexuals, maybe it should look at the love sonnets that Michelangelo wrote to another man.

  127. Ninong says:

    In some languages, the feminine maternal is used in reference to the superior protective organization, whether it be a country or a religious institution. In other languages, the masculine paternal is used.

    Mother Russia, for example. Yet, Germany is always referred to as the fatherland. I don’t think “mother Church” is all that common, at least it wasn’t when I was young. In any case, I don’t think it has anything to do with religion and just a customary use of language.

  128. Naja pallida says:

    Erm… it’s showing for me on several different browsers, logged in or not. Anyone else not seeing it?

    Anyway, to transcribe, it lists the head of household, S. Eugene Scalia (36 years old, white), his wife Catherine (34 years old, white)… and his daughter, Antonin (4 years old, white).

  129. Stev84 says:

    I don’t really want to think about it. Urk. *brain bleach*

  130. Thom Allen says:

    Very good points. Though I’ve always wondered why Catholics call the church “mother Church” in light of the fact that they’re dismissive of women.

  131. Thom Allen says:

    There’s no link/photo there, Np

  132. Monoceros Forth says:

    Damn, that word is a different color.

  133. VUnearithe42 says:

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

    Dare I suggest in fact that, in many parts of this country anyway, a
    young man who was not attracted to women and who did not openly pursue a
    relationship of any sort would not be allowed to “live chastely”, not
    without a lot of odd looks, a bit of derision, and pointed questions
    about why he wasn’t looking for a girlfriend.

  134. Thom Allen says:

    Sorry, but that’s just a part of what some people believe.

    Interestingly, the RCC used to just say, “It’s a sin. Don’t do it!” And that was supposed to silence the faithful. Now they have several websites trying to convince us that they’re right. Spouting some pseudo-science and numbers, opinions, pronouncements, etc. I wonder if they are starting to realize that a LOT of Catholics just don’t accept the Apostolic word/fiat. Now they need some evidence. And the church will supply it after it’s “filterd” it and “refined” it to suit its purpose.

  135. Naja pallida says:

    Click on “this”. Damn Disqus and their same colored links. :)

  136. Monoceros Forth says:

    I want to read it too. :( Where is it? (Did you mean to include a link that I’m not seeing?)

  137. Ninong says:

    Well, you’ll be pleased to know that they no longer employ burning at the stake. They probably would if they could but it’s illegal now, so.

    Men and women with “homosexual tendencies” are called to live a life of chastity. No sex for you! Just so you know, your “homosexual inclination” is “objectively disordered” and all homosexual acts are “sins gravely contrary to chastity.”

  138. Naja pallida says:

    I think I figured something out! Here is a tiny excerpt from the 1940 US Census of the Scalia family, with young Antonin, in Queens, New York. Hopefully it’ll come out large enough to read. :)

  139. karmanot says:

    True, a major clue about the nature of the first man: He was so dumb a woman had to teach him the basics of knowledge.

  140. karmanot says:

    Very Like. As always N. you are thoroughly informed on even the most esoteric of subjects. Well done!

  141. Bj Lincoln says:

    I have to keep reminding myself to feel sorry for people like him. I take comfort in knowing this attitude is changing quickly and will die off in time. While we have made great strides, we are not finished and neither are they.

  142. karmanot says:

    “by then I’d already taken up Zen Buddhist practice.” Then you will appreciate this koan: “What is the sound of one finger standing alone in front of the Vatican?”

  143. rand503 says:

    I’ve heard from reliable sources that his wife is the opposite, and quite liberal. But she puts up with him because she’s the good wife.

  144. rand503 says:

    I don’t really think the word’s origins are the reason they religious right uses it today. I once knew a guy who would spell it this way: HomoSEXuals.

    They use the term because it sounds cold and clinical and icky, and worse, it emphasis the word sex. Remember — they think our lives are all about ramming our dicks up someone’s ass. Even Cardinal Dolan recently wondered whether all gay relationships are really “genitally based.”

    More: homosexual is the word that they grew up with in the 50s and 60s, and that’s when we were all seen as deviants and abnormal. Even the APA used the word. So they want to harken back to a time when homosexual connoted abnormality. The Washington Times, the moonie rag, until recently referred to any openly gay person as an “avowed homosexual,” as though any openly gay man should really be ashamed of all this.

    Even more: They REALLy hate the term gay for a number of reasons: It debases the original meaning of the word gay, which was happy and delightful. Gays aren’t happy because we are all depressed and diseased you know. And most of all because it’s just a PR scheme to make our lifestyle more acceptable and appear less threatening to the public at large. And so as a matter of a defiance, they will continue to use the word homosexual.

    Lastly, the Bible has been rewritten in recent years to include the word homosexuals who are part of the group who will not go to heaven.

    So for all these reasons, they still use it. And yes, it’s a perjorative word, in their view. In fact, you can always tells a person’s viewpoints on this based on whether they use the word or not.

  145. Ninong says:

    So why do women have to cover their heads in church? Even a handkerchief will do in a pinch. Surprisingly many Catholic women don’t know the basis for that “rule.” (Is it still in effect? I wouldn’t know. I gave up on trying to make sense of all that stuff back in the 1950’s.)

    It’s so that the angels won’t be tempted to commit sin with those nasty women.

  146. Zorba says:

    Totally incomprehensible. This guy is not a true scientist, and I don’t care how many degrees he has.

  147. Zorba says:

    LOL! Oh, please, K. Envisioning Nino in the very act of sexual intercourse requires some serious brain bleach here! ;-)

  148. rand503 says:

    Well said, Becca. I can’t add anything more. You hit the nail on the head with this guy.

  149. Monoceros Forth says:

    The Aeneid is good. It’s very good. I probably spent more time on that poem than on any other when I was studying Classics. I think though that it stands in relation to Greek epic in much the same way that a modern pastiche on an old movie genre stands in relation to the movies that inspired the pastiche. The Aeneid is roughly to Homer what McCabe and Mrs. Miller is to a classic Western: a superb piece of work well worth reading and study, but there’s something mannered and self-conscious about it.

  150. rand503 says:

    The church has had 2000 years to find a term for us. In various times, they have used sodomites, heretics, inverts, perverts, and others. They have always had a stack of wood piled high, ready for burning with a gay on top. (They liked to call them human candles back then — oh such wit they had!)

    So spare me the lectures on how the church is struggling to deal with us. They want to burn us all once and for all, but they can’t do that anymore. So now they have to come up with something that ‘s a bit more socially acceptable.

    Why don’t they just treat us like lepers and ship us off to a remote island somewhere? Isn’t that what Jesus demanded?

    oh wait, he DID say something about the lepers, but I forgot what it was….

  151. Monoceros Forth says:

    That just boggles my mind. I can imagine a physicist believing in a Creator in a sort of austere, deistic way. But a literal belief in Genesis? Six days, six thousand years ago, the whole bit? I just can’t picture it.

  152. Indigo says:

    That’s a good analysis. I’ve heard pretty much exactly that the last few times I attempted to discuss spiritual issues with a roman priest, although by then I’d already taken up Zen Buddhist practice. It’s difficult to understand how they balance their obvious lies (distortions? wish-expressions?) with the apparent factual evidence. Do they even know they’re speaking lies? Maybe it’s a special kind of pseudo-Aristotelian logic that does not consider empirical evidence? (Or do I mean paleo-Aristotelian ? :>)

  153. BeccaM says:

    Magnificent post. I wish I had more up-votes to give it.

    Re: women and the Catholic Church — let’s not forget their position on Original Sin. Giving in to Satan’s temptation, eating from the Tree of Knowledge, and then talking Adam into eating too, thereby resulting directly in humanity’s fall from grace and expulsion from the Garden of Eden’s paradise — all of it is laid at Eve’s feet.

    For millennia, we women have had to endure being told that we were inherently incapable of being moral beings on our own, that we had to be dominated and ‘owned’ by men in order to be granted salvation and admittance into Heaven.

  154. Indigo says:

    That’s the one but he’s playing an impressive double game right now.

  155. Whitewitch says:

    Oh Thom Allen – I wish you had not shared this…what an awful awful site with horrible articles. Yuck and yuck. Less lesbians then gay males, and all lesbians have lots of sex with men (both straight and gay) where do they get this shite…they must just make it up in their closets.

  156. Indigo says:

    Now THAT’s funny!

  157. Indigo says:

    That sounds like priests. All double-talk and innuendo.

  158. Indigo says:

    I loved the Aeneid.

  159. Ninong says:

    In my personal experience, I am not aware of any real change in the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality or the status of women over the past more than six decades since I was old enough to be indoctrinated in such matters.

    The Church has always treated homosexual acts as sinful and equal to other sinful acts. It’s not a venial sin, it’s a mortal sin in the eyes of the Church. Thanks to their belief in the miracle of confession and absolution, they can separate the act from the person who committed the act. Just confess your sin to the priest and ego te absolvo you’re good to go again. Just say a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys and promise to sin no more. Come back next week and confess all over again. It’s a miracle. Just don’t die in the meantime between the “sin” and your next confession or you’ll go to hell. It’s not good to think too hard about this concept or you’re likely to crack up laughing.

    I can’t forget their treatment of women because it’s directly tied to their belief in the superiority of the male over the female. They will never grant equality to women because they believe Eve was created to compliment Adam to provide a vehicle for procreation. They have never considered Eve the equal of Adam. Remember, they really do believe in special creation no matter what they say to try to gloss over it. They believe the woman’s duties are distinct from the mans and they can say they’re equal but that’s not what they really believe.

    What Fr. Paul Scalia is preaching is pure Vatican spin on homosexuality. It hasn’t changed. They refuse to accept homosexuality as a sexual orientation because that would mean God is responsible and God doesn’t make “mistakes.” Man + woman = children. The end. That’s it as far as they’re concerned. No room for any sexual orientation stuff. Man is for woman and woman is for man and we all know who’s the boss there, right? That’s their view. If man = woman then there would be competition between man and woman = bad. See? Simple, right? So man is superior to woman because the Bible, right?

    “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” — Benedict XVI

    So your “inclination” to commit the “sin” of a homosexual act means you suffer from “a more or less strong tendency” to “an intrinsic moral evil” and this “inclination” of yours is “an objective disorder.” Got it? I have even heard them compare it to the inclination to shoplift or to get drunk or to rape your enighbor’s wife. All of them sins, all of them bad. Bad, bad sin. Person who committed the sin should be treated with sympathy and respect, provided he/she sees the error of the act and goes to confession. Not to worry, you’ll be alright as soon as you leave the confessional. Just do that nasty stuff again, okay?

    You poor person. You’re just suffering from an intrinsic disorder. You must leave to live a chaste life and sin no more, okay? In the meantime, another Vatican bank official was arrested last week and charged with trying smuggle 20 million euros ($26 million) from Switzerland into Italy. Actually that’s just the tip of the iceberg. What about that other Vatican official who was shipped off to South America, with a promotion to bishop, by Benedict XVI just a few months ago. He was working in the same Vatican bank accounting department as this latest guy. Why did Benedict want to get him out of Rome in such a hurry?

    The Vatican is just as corrupt as it ever was it’s just that it used to take longer for the historical record to catch up to the events, especially with their well-known secrecy.

  160. Monoceros Forth says:

    Strictly speaking, it is, because all non Greek-speaking peoples are hoi barbaroi don’t you know. :p I was a bit lucky in having Latin teachers who felt strongly that forcing new Latin students onto Caesar was a poor idea. We got put straight onto much more interesting material like selections from Cicero and Sallust.

    I don’t think Sappho (what little we have left of her, anyway) has any equal at all among the Latin poets. Catullus, for all his ability and his admiration for Sappho, falls far short.

  161. karmanot says:

    We are channeling again!

  162. BeccaM says:

    Yes, he was.

    Apparently his math skills were all there, he just had zero grasp of logic and reasoning.

  163. Houndentenor says:

    Silencing the anti-gay bigots? Would that even be possible? there are whole channels on cable that are nothing but right wing or fundamentalist rantings. And entire radio stations. And newspapers. And magazines. And book publishers. How are they being silenced?

    They aren’t. They miss the “good old days” when minorities were terrified to speak up. Now we’re not afraid and they want to make it sound like they are victims of big old mean homosexuals who actually stand up to them. Calling them out on their lies is not a violation of their rights.

  164. karmanot says:

    I’m thinking of Sappho’s Views on love. My Dad read classic Greek and Latin. Since I never got beyond the Gallic Wars, I assumed Latin was barbaric.

  165. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh dear. *makes a face* Not a “young earth” creationist surely?

  166. BeccaM says:

    Also makes me wonder if there’s a genetic component to extreme bigotry, or if it’s all learned.

  167. Naja pallida says:

    You might want to read this.

  168. Quilla says:

    “What I find amazing is how anybody can read Paul Scalia’s illogical,
    science-denying screeds and not see a man whose father probably spent
    every day attempting to beat the gay out of his young son.” – BeccaM

    Oh, my.

    Nail. Head.

    Kudos!

  169. karmanot says:

    For starters, when German’s used their own nomenclature to murder gays. Got it now?

  170. Monoceros Forth says:

    Context, dear boy, context.

  171. johndesalvio says:

    “Homo” is Greek for “same”. How is it anti-gay?

  172. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’m the wrong person to ask. *chuckles* I’ve a bit of schooling but not enough. If I wanted to look for a Latin poem that stood on its own and not just as a reflection of superior Greek verse, I’d look first to De Rerum Natura. But I’m only going on reputation there, not having read it even in translation.

  173. karmanot says:

    Ah, that must be why he is devoted to those Northern Renaissance paintings of Jesus as a buff, pale, blond, blue eyed boy-man.

  174. karmanot says:

    Yep, it’s when the Holy Ghost gives the stork a fetus and then it grows after fertilization (except for the virgin Mary) and then the Easter Bunny rolls back the rock on the womb and it is born.

  175. Thom Watson says:

    As I’ve written elsewhere this past December about Fr. Paul Scalia, “Fr. Scalia is not just a long-time chaplain for Courage, as of 2010 he also had served for six years as its board’s chairman (he might still be the chairman of the board, but the Courage site doesn’t have information about its current leadership) and has written extensively about same-sex attraction and the Catholic church. Given his long and varied connection to the apostolate and to the issue, I think it’s not beyond the pale to suspect that he himself is a ‘person with homosexual desires’ or a ‘person with same-sex attractions,’ as he insists gay people be called.”

  176. Monoceros Forth says:

    And by the way, who is stopping any Homosexual Person or individual who experiences homosexual attractions from not having sex with anyone if they don’t feel like it?

    Not much, aside perhaps from the usual social pressures felt by anyone who doesn’t have a boyfriend or girlfriend. But that’s nothing to do with the “radical transformation of society” which Scalia fils purports to describe.

    Dare I suggest in fact that, in many parts of this country anyway, a young man who was not attracted to women and who did not openly pursue a relationship of any sort would not be allowed to “live chastely”, not without a lot of odd looks, a bit of derision, and pointed questions about why he wasn’t looking for a girlfriend.

  177. slappymagoo says:

    Wow, so “you got raped it must be your fault” isn’t just for women but children as well. Lucky you to find that out at such a young age, huh?

    Sometimes I get the feeling Travis Bickle had the right idea.

  178. slappymagoo says:

    In 5 simple, inelegant words – what got up HER cooter?

  179. karmanot says:

    I would agree that Latin is barbaric. Let’s try to think of a single Latin poem that can rise to the least of the classical Greek oeuvre.

  180. BeccaM says:

    A man who says he feels gays are prevented from choosing celibacy because society accepts and tolerates gay people is absolutely screaming projection.

  181. karmanot says:

    Nor. Number 2 dropping from the rim.

  182. BeccaM says:

    I knew a doctor of physics who nevertheless was an ardent Creationist. Many folks have mastered a capacity for extreme cognitive dissonance and illogic.

  183. karmanot says:

    True, there is the mistaken opinion, bordering on urban legend, that Scalia is intelligent.

  184. karmanot says:

    One wonders how Nino even managed to do the ick act of procreation. I imagine Mrs Nino has been grateful her whole life for just that one-timer.

  185. nicho says:

    As the say, the apples don’t fall very far from the tree — neither do the nuts.

  186. nicho says:

    I knew a guy who belonged to the Courage group. A truly sad person. He really hated himself — and they reinforced that at every meeting.

  187. karmanot says:

    When I got attacked at the tender age of 9, the confessional priest told me it was my fault for ‘occasioning’ sin in another and that I was ‘provocative .’ I had no idea what those words meant then, but never forgot them, because I was led to believe I was an ‘evil’ child. Fortunately, I never got my Damien on in later life.

  188. Thom Allen says:

    Take a look at part of Courage’s website. They’re all over the place. Attacking science, manipulating and misrepresenting statistics, talking about “rights” that don’t exist, preaching, throwing in God and religion all while hating (though it’s sometimes veiled – you know love the sinner, hate the sin). And, “we’re just trying to help you, and we get attacked and reviled.” Not all of the propagandists are priests. One is an MD, one a lay person and there are some others. And, this link has links to other sites, scattered around the country that are also anti-LGBTQ and Catholic-related.

    http://www.couragerc.net/Informed_Consent.html

  189. BeccaM says:

    It’s also the basis of their claims that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” and a “behavior” rather than a natural human condition that doesn’t deserve to be discriminated against any more than it would be fair to declare that having red hair is immoral.

    I usually prefer to avoid overanalyzing the parallels and differences between the struggles for LGBT rights versus African American rights though. Much is the same, yet there are points of divergence. Africans were brought to America and enslaved for a few hundred years; gays were subject to genocide ever since the Christians took over the remnants of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, courts and other governmental institutions with decks stacked against justice and civil rights have been experienced by both — and in neither case is it anywhere near over with.

    I mean, just witness the Zimmerman trial in Florida. If an African American man had chased down a white boy and gunned him down, that man would already be in prison. If it had been a pretty white girl stalked and shot dead, he’d probably be facing the death penalty.

    Still, we’re decades behind even that, given how “gay panic” continues to be allowed as a defense in assault and murder cases. And how we have politicians and religious leaders who assert stuff like this — that being gay is a choice and an immoral one, too. That they should have the freedom to impose their bigotry on society as a whole, and it’s us being ‘intolerant’ for failing to tolerate their intolerance.

    I just hope we’re taking the lessons here: That despite the DOMA and PropH8 victories, our struggle is far from over, and our enemies have not surrendered at all.

  190. Monoceros Forth says:

    I thought Tom Stoppard invented the term in “The Invention of Love”. Kidding, kidding! Though I actually think there’s some merit in A. E. Housman’s complaint in the play that the word “homosexual” is barbaric because “it’s half Greek and half Latin”.

  191. iamlegion says:

    I often wonder whether a lot of these men so fixated on gay people aren’t harboring their own inner-gay.
    Don’t wonder. They are. It is absolutely certain that they all are, but have no idea how to express it – so they wind up trying to destroy any reflection of themselves, like breaking mirrors.

  192. lynchie says:

    Yeah the good work of giving away bibles and trying to convert them to believing the big head in the sky talks to the good priest.

  193. karmanot says:

    Thank you Judy for nailing that old bitch. I saw her filthy, conversion hospice during the early days of HIV. You are spot on about her.

  194. karmanot says:

    “let’s not forget the good work they also do with the poor and in their communities” Why yes, I can think of one who became Pope recently, took the name Francis and did much labor in the fields of poverty in his country. And oh, BTW acquiesced to a tyrannical government so vicious it murdered one of his own brother priests—he remained silent. The regime also dropped untold numbers of bound dissidents from planes into the sea below to drown. He remained silent. You bet we won’t forget!

  195. lynchie says:

    Are you saying that a turd does not fall far from the asshole?

  196. DrDignity says:

    Paul, do you know where babies come from?

  197. BeccaM says:

    Unfortunately, they won’t be satisfied until every gay man and lesbian woman is just as repressed, self-loathing, and closeted — by force, if necessary.

  198. BeccaM says:

    Wow… well, now we know what can happen when a kid is raised by a batshit loony. (Not saying it happens all the time, but still, it sounds like Paul Scalia did not fall far from the crazy-tree at all, and hit all the homophobic bigot branches on the way down.)

    What I find amazing is how anybody can read Paul Scalia’s illogical, science-denying screeds and not see a man whose father probably spent every day attempting to beat the gay out of his young son.

    I find that ending quote to be revelatory in the extreme:

    In this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity.

    An open comment: Hey Paul? You have these intense same-sex attractions but feel too much shame to act upon them? That is YOUR problem, your hang-up, and your self-loathing you’re talking about. Nobody’s stopping you from being celibate.

    What’s your deal anyway? EVERYBODY has to be forced to be celibate and in the closet because seeing just one happy, well-adjusted, and socially accepted gay person shatters your delusions that being gay is inherently an immoral and self-destructive state of being? Just because you don’t want to accept your sexual orientation doesn’t give you the right to project your inner conflict onto everyone else or to deny them the alternative solution which is self-acceptance and psychological well-being.

  199. emjayay says:

    Die Scalia, Die.

  200. karmanot says:

    “the word “homosexual,” which is ironic since the word itself is actually anti-gay, and that’s why the religious right routinely uses it:” Thank you John! I’ve been saying that for years trying to get people to realize that the term is NOT scientific or neutral, but invented by two German prison officials to punish and isolate same sex attracted prisoners.

  201. emjayay says:

    Without knowing it, because I’m sure he has never done any research into what has been written about gay people and sexuality quite extensively over the past few decades, Scalia Jr. has actually stumbled into a crude form of what has been discussed a lot. To put is very simply, is being gay something that makes you different through and through, including maybe your spiritual dimension, or is it just who you are attracted to sexually? Certainly there is a lot of real world evidence for both sides or something in between. Gaydar often works, and not by magically detecting who gives someone a stiffy. Anyway this is a huge subject about which entire books can and have been written.

    It is odd that he uses the older and more medical diagnosis sounding “Homosexual Person” rather than “gay person”. But really, it’s not up to him or his sort to decide. It is of course up to each individual gay person.

    And by the way, who is stopping any Homosexual Person or individual who experiences homosexual attractions from not having sex with anyone if they don’t feel like it? And when did anyone “live chasity”? I thought you lived chastely or practiced chastity (all of which sound like some olde tymey idea of not doing it ever is pure/clean vs. unpure/dirty, for young ladies wearing pearls and white gloves). Or you were celibate.

  202. cole3244 says:

    having a man like scalia on the scotus is a crime against humanity.

  203. dula says:

    The apple doesn’t fall far from the pig’s mouth.

  204. Tor says:

    “I often wonder whether a lot of these men so fixated on gay people aren’t harboring their own inner-gay.” Duh!?!

  205. Monoceros Forth says:

    That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.

    Is that so? That’s a bit of a laugh coming from a conservative Catholic. Enforcing sexual decorum is rapidly becoming the Catholic Church’s most important moral cause, maybe even the only cause they’ll truly fight for. Ninety-nine percent of the time Catholicism gets play in the press it’s about sex–homosexuality or abortion or contraception or, of course, the priesthood’s own habitual difficulties with sexual incontinence. Nothing else seems to matter much any more to the Church leadership than everyone’s sex lives. Who’s offending “the dignity of the human person” here?

  206. rextrek says:

    sick father- sick son(s) – it only goes to show!

  207. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    “And isn’t that the real issue here. The right of closeted celibate gay men to be left alone in their own little self-imposed prison of self-loathing.”

    That’s okay with me as long as they are adults and are not being forced. They’re punishing themselves.

  208. Joseph Styles says:

    “Well, now it seems that Paul Scalia is claiming that homosexuality doesn’t even exist (which is interesting, since he’s trying to cure something that doesn’t exist).”

    This is part of the double-mantra of the religious bigot: LGBT folks don’t really exist, and they–the
    poor religious bigots–are the ones who are truly being victimized.

    This denial/victimage paradigm is also behind the claim we too frequently hear from other right-wingers who deny that LGBT rights struggles “are the same thing” as the struggles for black civil rights. The horrendous irony, of course, is that they are right: LGBT oppression is qualitatively different from the oppression of blacks by white. The oppression of LGBT folks is more thorough-going and of greater intensity and even longer duration. How many black folk were being shunned, attacked, thrown-out by their families, driven to despair and suicide, or put to death by self-proclaimed good Christians in the fifth century?

  209. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I think that is the Catholic charities to which he’s referring. Just think what could have been done for the poor if they hadn’t spent all that money to prevent LGBT persons from being happy.

  210. judybrowni says:

    Ya mean the Catholic charities that refuse to serve gays — and gave up helping orphans find homes in order to spite gays willing to parent? Let’s not forget, the Catholic hospitals that allow women to die, rather than give them life-saving abortions.

    Or perhaps that saint Mother Theresa who refused to supply painkilling medications for the poor and suffering, dying in her hospices, ’cause she believed God wanted them to suffer.

    Even in their good works, Catholic charities promote suffering

  211. judybrowni says:

    This will be news to my brother and his partner of 35 years, and my sister and her wife.

  212. John G says:

    I could have done without the last comment about priests. Yes, there are horrible atrocities that they have committed and covered up, but let’s not forget the good work they also do with the poor and in their communities

  213. TomTO says:

    The trash doesn’t fall far from the dumpster.

  214. nicho says:

    Sounds like he an Ahmadinejad woulf make a good pair.

  215. Zorba says:

    Yep, it apparently does. Too bad old Nino managed to totally pollute the minds of his offspring, as well.
    I hope that these fossils will be consigned to the trash-bin of history sometime soon. (Not soon enough to suit me, though, unfortunately.)

  216. gofigure says:

    When in one major city, Scalia has stayed often at the home of the son of one of his very good friends (RIP the friend) who is a partner in a big name law firm and makes a home with his husband and their children. The guy’s mother thought that perhaps getting to know her son would soften Scalia up. Apparently not.

  217. Indigo says:

    See, now we’re back in the early 1950s. That’s exactly what the priest told me when I was going through the early stages of puberty and woke up to my actual attraction/sexuality. The priest said there was no such thing so I was obviously mistaken to be concerned. (No pedophile he!)

  218. Michael Smith says:

    Crazy runs in the family.

  219. jsdc007 says:

    Like father, like son. Both afflicted with the malady of “Can’t Shut Up-itis.”

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS
CLOSE
CLOSE