I would say the religious arguments are more based in fear than in the actual teachings, that they’re based upon stray texts that actually don’t mean what you think they mean, and that Jesus himself only said one thing about marriage, which is that you can’t divorce. And we live in a country were countless people are divorced and that doesn’t seem to threaten the religious liberty of Catholics, and it’s as fundamental an issue. So if Catholics can live with religious liberty with divorced people, they should be perfectly able to live with gay people, I mean, as married, as a civil marriage.
– gay conservative (and practicing Catholic) Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan hits the nail on the head, pointing out the hypocrisy of religious conservatives who cherry-pick the bible to oppose some things, while ignoring other parts.
The full answer is even better:
I do have to wonder what it means to be a “practicing” catholic (as opposed to, say, a “cultural” one) while simultaneously being a “practicing” gay person. Being gay actively conflicts with catholic dogma. And if that weren’t enough, being a (paying) member of a catholic congregation gives material and psychological support to an organization that repeatedly and persistently opposes gay rights through political pressure and its policies in action.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, but if you are trying to make one, it is lost on me. Did you watch the video? Or even read the quote? Just because he is a Catholic doesn’t mean he shouldn’t discuss the hypocrisy of fervently anti-gay Catholics (including some leaders) who don’t seem to be bothered enough by divorce to try to outlaw it. His point is that much of the anti-gay rhetoric is driven more by fear than by theology.
I understand his point, and I think it’s well made. I’m trying politely to point out that his allegiance to the Catholic church is itself hypocritical in the larger picture, and therefore a candidate for irony. Do we need reminding of the 2009 Catholic church ultimatum to D.C.? http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/11/the_archdioceses_ultimatum.html
To be fair, Sullivan was critical of the church at the time; kudos. And his position within the church allows him to make the comparison with divorce in an authentic way.
Meh there are practising Catholics who are divorced, or who use contraception or who back in the day ate meat on Friday.
Picking and choosing which parts of the dogma you go with is the essence of practising Catholocism