Condoms May Be Used to Prevent AIDS, Pope Says

A press release by Reuters News yesterday at 1:10 PM EST announced that in a new book-length interview of Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald, that the Pontiff has approved the use of Condoms to prevent AIDS in special circumstances. The full interview will be published as, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times.

The book is to be published Tuesday 22 November and will be available on Amazon on 24 November, 2010

The Pope does not say that the use of condoms is moral, but that their use is able to be justified in limited circumstances, for example use by prostitutes to prevent AIDS, “as a first step toward moralization” but that they are, “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.” The Holy Father says that a focus on condoms is in danger of becoming, “… a sort of a drug that people administer to themselves” and loss of attention to sexuality as an expression of love.
I have not read the full text of the interview or even the entire section on condom use, but the official Vatican newspaper has already published significant excepts of the interview and given direct quotes from the Pope himself. What does all this mean? Why is the Pope’s statement making such a stir? It seems to me that:

1. The announcement itself signals a development in papal teaching about condom use. Previously the popes have taught that condom use could never, ever be justified. In that teaching, the assumption was made that condom use was essentially a method of “artificial birth control.” The development here relates to the realization that condoms can help prevent AIDS, a fatal disease.
2. It is interesting that the example of condom use was by prostitutes. (edit: Further investigation shows that the Pope was speaking of male prostitutes, contrary to what I posted yesterday). No mention was made of the use of condoms by a heterosexual married couple where one partner already has AIDS. This may well have been to avoid a facing off of procreative intercourse against against the fact that even when used to prevent AIDS, condoms are considered artificial birth control when used by a married couple.
3. we can rest assured that confessors and spiritual directors will seek “pastoral solutions” for a wide variety of cases. Although it has nothing to do with sex or disease, Once communion under two forms was allowed only in very limited cases, the custom has grown and is now tolerated or accepted as something to be available at all Masses with a congregation. The gay community that is still plagued by AIDS will believe and realize that it could be possible that the regular use condoms during gay sex might be moral, at least where there is a permanent, monogamous relationship.
4. It certainly will increase debate over the “new” allowance for use of condoms in special cases to prevent AIDS. There have been years of debate among Catholic moral theologians over whether the justification for the use of condoms can be based on the “principal of double-effect..” This argument never won the day with Church leaders. There was solid teaching, that all use of condoms was always immoral. The late Cardinal O’Connor said that suggesting condoms as a preventative of AIDS was “The Big Lie.” The Holy Father himself, on his trip to Africa said that condom use might help spread AIDS rather than prevent it.
5. The Popes “new” position can be seen as an instance in which Church leaders are actually taking into account the “historical circumstances” when dealing with personal moral issues. A historicist and personalist approach approach to moral decision-making has grown and been accepted in the area of “Social Ethics.” This may well be another step toward its application in individual / personal ethics (as was recently discussed at a worldwide meeting of 600 theologians in Trent Italy).
6. Some conservative / traditional / traditionalist theologians and similar-minded laity will be concerned that, “the Church is changing (not developing a deeper understanding); and in a way that appears to damage or destroy the assurance that the Church is always correct in its teachings. There might be a fear that this is just a hole in the dike leading to more secularism. On the other hand liberals or progressives, will be encouraged to press for continued developments in seeking to discern, “the signs of the times” and the search for greater insight into Truth through open dialog with other groups, not the least of whom will be gays, women, and immigrants.

It is no wonder that this apparently simple statement by the Holy Father may, in fact, be a blockbuster statement that will cause ripples through the whole Church and the whole world. But all depends on how this moral declaration is understood and implemented. Personally, I wonder if the the Vatican bureaucracy will desire or attempt to block this meaningful development and implementation of the Holy Fathers insight.
Please note that this post is subject to revision and/or editing once the entire text is available.
The interview / book is published by a conservative press and has been praised by Fr. Fessio, a very well-known conservative priest. Although much of the book will seem conservative to many, I urge all thinking Catholics to read and ponder what is in these pages. I can’t wait to read the entire book.

I encourage you, dear reader, to comment, raise questions, make suggestions or initiate a dialogue over the acceptability or unacceptability of the Pope’s position on condom use and the implications it raises for Church understanding of it’s relationship to this increasingly post-modern world.

Now it's not enough to be against gays themselves?

Today CNN reported on a young grade school student who was "disenrolled" (I.e. kicked out) of a Catholic Parochial School. Why? Because the parents were partnered lesbians!

Now a child will suffer for the "sins" of the parents. The pastor took the action, and was supported in a public statement by the Chancery (I.e the bishop) because the same-sex couple were violating the teaching of the Church forbidding same-sex sexual behavior.
 
How did the pastor or bishop know that the couple were having sex?

Regardless of their private behavior, was it appropriate to punish the child? And you better believe the child will be negatively affected.

Where is the compassion of Christ in this situation? I am distant from the actual incident, but at least as reported, I see no reaching out with care, love and compassion to the child.There seems to be no compassion offered to  the couple either. Again as reported, for church leaders to say, adults should know the teaching and obey it or suffer the consequences, seems hardly Christlike  [I will certainly will correct distortion of facts, if they are brought to my attention].

One has only to recall the Mexican Cardinal who uttered such hateful words about homosexuals. The Vatican had to remind the Cardinal that even the Catholic Catechism  requires respect for homosexuals. What about the often (usual?) formal, impersonal treatment or total neglect of sex abuse victims here in the U.S?

The argument about the hurtful outcome for the child and other children in the school and the "scandal" caused to the laity" are those commonly dragged out. Some churchmen must begin to realize that the laity are hard to scandalize. The most recent case I can remember of the laity being scandalized is at the cover-up behavior of bishops who hid the crimes of pedophilia.

Just think of what a Catholic/Christian response of love and compassion might look like. The clergy would plainly state there was a pastoral concern for the child and the couple. They could, personally and through others show deep understanding, support and love for the child. They could speak with (not to) the couple and at least appreciate their lives and love for each other.

Thirteen years ago when Cardinal Laveda was archbishop of San Francisco, he was able to work with others to discover a way for same-sex couples to share health benefits and remain employed by Catholic agencies without violating Catholic teaching or principles. Can't at least this kind of solution be arrived at?

We need to act with the love and compassion of Christ FIRST and then deal with the words we use to express the beliefs Catholics hold.

Earlier in the day I had been commenting on a friend D's joy and happiness over being a godparent; the hope he has to support, nurture and love DA, and the big celebration the family had. I shared with him my joy in becoming Confirmation sponsor for my nephew who is 14.

After hearing about the above "incident," I began to ponder what kind of Church these youngsters will grow up into: one showing greater compassion or one so bound to statements of "teachings" and "correctness" that love and compassion will wither. I do agree here with the Holy Father that what we need  is to maintain hope. 

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Church-- It's time to act!

By now most people realize that President Obama briefly mentioned the fact that he will implement actions to reverse the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. Military against LGBT individuals serving in the active forces, the reserves, the National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard. This is a promise still unfulfilled from the campaign. Now is the time for the President, for the Congress, and for the Church to support this change.

Now is the time for the Catholic bishops to speak out formally and clearly that they support elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The statement and use of this law and policy is inherently discriminatory. The Church accepts, as a fact, that much, if not all homosexuality exists in the very make-up of gays. Yes, it does hold that homosexual behavior is forbidden under all circumstances (as is true of masturbation, and heterosexual fornication). But just as clearly, the Church teaches that homosexual persons must not be discriminated against or be treated with disrespect. The position of the Church is clear, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible... They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.... (Emphasis added).

When the Vatican, and later the Ugandan bishops, spoke out in opposition to capital punishment for gays, they also said clearly that discrimination against gays is intolerable. In November 2009 when Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said publicly that, "trans [sexuals] and homosexuals will never get to the kingdom of heaven and it's not me saying it, but St. Paul," Jesuit Fr. Frederico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, simply re-stated  # 2358 from the Catechism (see above).

It seems to me that there are only three possible reasons that might  lead the American bishops to remain  silent on this important moral and human issue.

First, the bishops might claim that "Don't ask, Don't Tell is an example of  "just discrimination." If they believe that is the case, they have a serious responsibility to explain their reasoning because the vast majority of Catholics and others will, first of all, wonder what they mean by "just discrimination." Second, I believe most will be hard to convince that kicking gays out of the military is "just."

A second reason the bishops could give for not supporting elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is the slippery slope argument, that is, that supporting elimination of the policy would /could increase the amount of intimate same-sex behavior among gays or, at the very least, could "send a signal" and seem to "legitimate" that behavior. But remember what we are speaking of here is not sexual behavior, but very real job discrimination with dire consequences for a person's life or, more accurately, a violation of human rights. Even if there is a "slippery slope," (which is impossible to demonstrate), that is not a valid reason to deny this right because of what might happen in the future.

Finally, the bishops might not oppose elimination of  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" out of fear: fear of reactions and negative sanctions from elements in the Vatican or fear of their brother bishops or fear of very conservative elements among some of the Catholic population, such as Opus Dei and Mother Angelica-types, or fear based on their personal inability to see the issue clearly and speak boldly or their own hang-ups over sexuality in general or homosexuality in particular.

All I know is that this is a golden opportunity for the American Bishops to speak publicly to this issue by means of a strong reiteration of the official Church teaching that LGTB people must not be discriminated against and, in deed, must be treated with compassion.

I encourage you, Blog Buddies, to share your thoughts here about this issue, whether pro or con. So the questions:

     Should the Catholic Bishops speak out for the elimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

     Of what significance or importance might such a statement be?

BFN

Taking Stock::- Some thoughts

I recently received a comment from a person who came into the Vatican II Church. It seems that anonymous was happy and found a "new family" in the Church until the display of power and authoritarianism came to the fore in the last few years. Listen to anonymous:

I being a convert to Catholicism lost family ties as well as friendship to become a Catholic and I have found myself suddenly abandoned on a sea of rules and regulations....I have only been around Vatican II theology.... and I now feel so betrayed, disappointed, and disgusted that I can no longer fight the systematic reversal of Vatican II.... and despite that I can no longer worship with people I love as much as my own family I cannot continue to call myself a Roman Catholic and still be true to my conscience...

Do you read frustration, anger, and, especially, deep hurt in this person. What touches me the most is the sense of hurt and betrayal; a sense that "the People of God," collegiality, and ecumenism, no longer characterize the community he was, by the grace of God, called into at a great price.

Yes, I too am frustrated and angry at the re-assertion of 19th century neo-scholastic theology as the guiding force for the "reform of the reform:" the results of which we see in recent liturgical changes, and the reorientation of "inter-religious dialogue" toward "inter-cultural dialogue." [Both are important and necessary]. We have seen the widespread use of the Tridentine Latin Mass encouraged and the Latinization of our English Liturgy as well as permitting conservative Anglican married clergy to join the Roman Catholic Church with little attention to many of our good priests who de facto were required to submit to a promise of celibacy. All of these changes were made without any real attempts to get input from the laity or even the "lower" clergy. At the very least, these changes have the odor power more than pastoral care. Sometimes it seems to me that the fear of secularization and modern culture and the rise of  "Evangelical Catholicism" simply result from a loss of Faith and Hope at the Vatican and among many bishops.

Yes, secularization and our modern culture, especially our rank individualism, present challenges to us as Catholic Christians and to the whole People of God. But my trust and Faith in God and my sense of Hope (probably the least preached on virtue), will not allow me to find solace in returning to the rigid, authoritarian institutional structures of the 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries.

Some say that Vatican II has been the cause of a weakened Church, the reason for an increase in "non-practicing Catholics," the lack of converts, and on and on. I would only ask those who feel this way to consider for a moment, "Might it not be the case that the Church and the world would be much, much worse off had it not been for Vatican II?"

I will, and I encourage Anonymous and everyone else who loves the People of God to re-affirm their own commitment to to the Holy Spirit guided words of  Vatican II. At a practical level this will mean finding support through small faith groups who live from Vatican II and more recent progressive theology. Remain close to the Scripture and seek out Vatican II oriented priests for Liturgy. If possible, read good Church history (E.g. McBrien's, The Church) and remember we stand in continuity with a People who go back to Jesus; that our history did not begin with the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. Those who value Vatican II will find common ground with of the institutional Church's social justice principles. Hopefully, we can exert influence to apply those principles within the Church (E.g. for women, LGBT persons, ordination of both genders with attention to married as well as single clergy, significant roles for laity within the Church, not "just" in "Catholic Action" in the larger society, etc.).

In the end there must be compassion for ourselves, for those who are so regularly hurt by actions on the part of the powerful in the Church, and even toward those who understand the Church so differently from the authentic understanding of Vatican II. Conservatives often say, with regard to gays, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." [I believe that statement continues to be a put-down of  gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people, just as those who insult women with regard to ordination when they say, "You lack only one thing, a penis."]. But maye we could say, " 'Hate' revisionist theology and practice, but love the revisionists."

Pax vobis et oremus pro invicem!!

UGANDA UPDATE # 3 Good news, sort of...

On 14 January The Guardian (London, UK) reported that Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni announced that the Anti-Homosexual Act of 2009, "had become a 'foreign policy' issue and needed further consultation before being voted on in parliament." The Guardian reported in the same article that, "James Nasba Buturo, minister of state for ethics and integrity, who is a strong supporter of the bill, said, before Museveni's speech that it was likely that the death penalty provisions would be dropped because of the international outcry." Who made the outcry?

The Gay community.
Gay, human rights organizations and Amnesty International immediately expressed strong opposition to passage of this bill which would restrict the rights and endanger the lives of the estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians in Uganda.

Western Governments.
The international outcry from governments was not immediate but it came. Many western industrialized nations criticized this legislation, including: Australia, Canada, the UK and France. The European Parliament and Sweden threatened to reduce economic aid if the law passes. Former President Clinton, Secretary of State Clinton and four U.S. congress persons have made individual public statements opposing the law. After a telephone call from Hillary Clinton, "...to express strong concerns about the proposed law, [Museveni, the President] said, 'It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests'."

Part of the reason that governments (and, as will be mentioned below, international religious leaders) were slower to act, is based on the complexity of the situation and international relations. Anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda were introduced by the British during the colonial period. Also, the general Ugandan (and African) culture is very conservative with regard to family and sexual mores. In more recent years, conservative Evangelical Christian missionaries have reinforced and expanded upon the traditional mores to intensify and provide a new rationale for anti-gay norms and laws, attitudes and values. Finally, the opposition of the West to anti-gay norms, laws and behavior is seen by many African governments as just a new version of colonialism: to shove down the throats of the people of Africa the "decadent" and "immoral" lifestyle of the West, including homosexuality. As a result, Western governments took stock to see if their "interference" would help the situation or merely increase the nationalist feelings in Uganda. It seems to me that the tide turned as gays and straight supporters mounted ever greater pressure on their governments and that Uganda "backed down" once Western nations threatened to withhold financial aid.

What about the international religious community? They too had the same concern as governments about whether their speaking out would help or hinder passage of the bill. For the churches, the decision was doubly difficult: they had only moral suasion and no money to withhold and for two important religious communities, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, there were internal issues that had to be considered.

The Anglican Communion.
Uganda is an anglophone nation and the Anglican church there is quite significant. Many, if not most, of the Anglican bishops (E.g. Ugandan bishop Joseph Arbura of the Karamoja Diocese) in Africa hold very conservative positions regarding sex, especially regarding gay marriage, gays and women as priests and, especially active gays as bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury was caught between this group and, for example, the practice of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., most of which accepts and supports gays and a minority of parishes that wish to join African Anglican dioceses or the Roman Catholic Church. After much private communication, On December 12th the Archbishop Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Telegraph (a London newspaper) [See sixth paragraph in the interview]:

Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can't see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible - it seeks to turn pastors into informers.

Finally, the Archbishop of York (UK), John Sentamu, himself a Ugandan spoke out publicly on December 24th, saying, "I'm opposed to the death sentence. I'm also not happy when you describe people in that kind of language you find in this private member's bill, which seems not only victimizing but also a diminishment of the individuals concerned."

The Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has its own difficulties with homosexuality but is unalterably opposed to capital punishment and the harassment or oppression of innocent individuals. Although the Church speaks of homosexuality as "objectively disordered" (whatever that really means), it clearly accepts that gay orientation is a "given"  for gays. This means that some people are simply born with a homosexual orientation, period. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate sex is between a married male and female. (There are a number of Catholic moral theologians, and a majority of  Catholics in the U.S. who do not not accept this position).

The Vatican felt it had to condemn capital punishment and the harsh punishments in the law and affirm its teaching that gays should be treated with respect and compassion as are any other citizens. The Vatican, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, realized the danger to priests, counselors, social workers, etc. if they were required to report homosexuals to the authorities and, themselves, face prison. As often happens with the Vatican, its position was made indirectly but officially. In a statement to the UN Panel on Anti-Gay Violence, on December 10th, the Rev. Philip J. Bene, the Vatican's Legal attache said,

Thank you for convening this panel.... My comments are more in the form of a statement rather than aquestion.

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State...

Finally, after the Anti-Homosexual bill was tabled in the parliament, the Catholic bishops of Uganda made a public statement. Admittedly, it was not as clear, direct and forthright as some hoped for. Dr. Cyrian Kizto Lwanga, Archbishop of Kampala, began the statement with, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government's effort to protect the traditional families and its values." [After following this debate and the language used, I wonder if this opening statement is not a code for, "We affirm the idea of keeping the fact of being homosexual illegal]. He continues,

The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of Christian caring approach to this issue. The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill. The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope...

Furthermore, the Proposal to prosecute those who fail to disclose information regarding homosexual acts puts at risk the breach of confidentiality and professional ethics of persons such as Parents, Priests, Counselors, Teachers... at a time when they offer support and advise [sic] for rehabilitation of homosexuals. The Proposed Bill does not contain clauses encouraging homosexuals to be rehabilitated.... [All bold print in the original].

This is a rejection of the bill, at least a rejection  of the death and harsh punishment of homosexuals as well as protection for parents, priests and others who have knowledge about homosexuals. However, the statement clearly proffers an explanation of  homosexuality as something learned or chosen and therefore in need of "rehabilitation." I wonder what kind of support and advice the bishops have in mind: to learn to be "chaste." One can hope it doesn't hearken to "restorative therapy" as recommended to the Ugandan Government by three invited conservative Evangelical preachers. In any event, the Ugandan Bishops' statement seems at the very best to be lukewarm.

Recent examples of Gay marriage and homosexuality in "Catholic" Latin America:
We Do: Mexico City Blazes Trail with Legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage. (22 Dec 2009)
Vatiacn: Gay: deserve respect, compassion.
Argentina men become first same-sex married couple. (29 Dec 2009) (Pic, without DSL may load slowly)

Other Religious influences.
On December 7th, sixty-six U.S Christian Leaders issued a public statement opposing the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 in Uganda. It says in part:

Our Christian faith recognizes violence, harassment and unjust treatment of any human being as a betrayal of Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves. As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda.

....Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children worthy of respect and love.

The first signers of the statement were Thomas P. Melady, Former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda and the Vatican; Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; and Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners.

This statement is welcome, as are those by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Catholic bishops of Uganda, for clearly opposing the severe penalties against homosexual persons and those who know and/ or support homosexual persons.

However none of these statements speak to or supports decriminalization of homosexuality or homosexual behavior. This is a challenge that most Christians have not yet faced; nor have they seriously been able to dialogue about other fundamental issues related to the very nature and morality of homosexual behavior.


Evangelicals.
Conservative Evangelical Protestants in the United States and in Uganda, itself, have spoken out in favor of the bill or have remained silent about it. However some, like Rick Warren have spoken out against the excessive punishments in the bill. Still Warren and many other Evagelicals maintain strong opposition to homosexuality. At best, they espouse the idea of  "love the sinner, hate the sin." Like the Ugandan Catholic bishops?

Four Evangelical clergymen are now trying to distance themselves from the three-day conference they presented in Uganda to thousands of police, national politicians, teachers and others in March, 2009, one month before MP David Bahati first introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The following list of articles discuss this issue further, some including hateful and vicious comments made about homosexuals:
Americans' Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push (NYT 4 Jan 2010)
Hate Begets Hate NYT editorial 5 Jan 2010
R.W. Johnson: The Battle Over Homophobia in Africa  (National Post, Canada. 12 Jan 2010

My Reflections.


1. It appears that the death penalty, and possibly the requirement to report homosexuals, with be removed from the proposed legislation; that is a battle won but not the war. Uganda will still have a host of harsh anti-homosexual laws as do many other African nations, some of which have the death penalty.

2.The leading nations of the "West" (since the fall of the Soviet system and the move toward market-based economics in China, more suitably called the "The North") and two (Anglican and Catholic) of the three (Pentecostals) most important Christian communions in Uganda, spoke in opposition to the harsh penalties in the law. This may have been politically prudent to help lessen an outcry from Africa that this move was merely a new form of colonialism and to assuage the ire of their own more conservative hierarchs and members. In my opinion, none of the groups placed their responses in the larger context of society. 

3. Here the immediate issue related to this extremely inhuman proposal  is, and let us put it plainly, to kill homosexual people. But an underlying issue is how the countries of the South and North will relate on a whole host of issues, only some of which are related to sex (E.g. the AIDS epidemic, the use of condoms, the nature of marriage and the family).

In the area of what Catholics call "social justice" issues there is great potential for disagreement and conflict between North and South. In Uganda more than a few leaders railed against the North for interfering with their culture (the homosexuality issue) and said the North ought to be more concerned with "justice issues" such as economic development, the plight of the poor, and the environment. However, many in Africa, and Latin America even more so, are negative on globalization, the capitalist system, and modern forms of democracy, and especially the supremacy of the United States and its spreading of a degrading materialistic and highly individualistic culture.

4. Somehow real homosexual people seem to have been left out of the equation. Reading all the material I have on this issue, other than a few mentions of "compassion" for "them," no one's head or heart seemed to take into account that homosexuals are people just like every one else. Gays are born, live and die just like everyone else, Homosexual persons have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else, Many engage in selfless, altruistic behavior and some do not-- but not any more or less than heterosexuals! Most of all, LGBT individuals have the same goal in life as straights: to be happy and, in the end, to have lived a life well lived. Gays want to love and be loved just like others do; gays are not sex-crazed, selfish people who seek only their own pleasure. Unless one has shared an intimate connection to a homosexual person, it is often difficult to get beyond stereotypes and homophobia. I am sad that the the kind of values, attitudes and behavior that arise out of real intimacy with gays (certainly not always, and perhaps, almost never physical) is not more common. I'm sad too that the public statements by government and religious bodies did not show at least some appreciation for LGBT people as people. Finally, I look forward to, and will continue to work for the day when a distinction between gay and straight will enter conversation no more frequently than whether one is left or right handed. That will be the day when any two people who love each other can express that love and, perhaps, marry each other; that will be the day when no one will be oppressed by harsh and negative laws that say gays are "different."