***DISCLAIMER***  I don't believe all men are effeminate, but I definitely think there is a tendency for popular society to pigeonhole men into being seen as aggressive monsters or metrosexual children.  Given I married a man who is neither, I obviously understand that not all men are effeminate.  That being said, there are glaring problems with the way society tries to feminize men (and coax women into masculinity).  For most of this entry, I'll be focusing on the gents.

I know you folks are likely burned out on all the hullabaloo about Fifty Shades.  Truthfully, I haven't read any articles on Fifty Shades because I'm incredibly disinterested in the entire thing. However, a male friend of mine pointed something out that started what I felt to be an interesting discussion.  

Someone posted a photo of the actors portraying the main characters in the upcoming film adaptation.  There were comments from women (and a few men) commenting on the "hotness" of Jamie Dornan (the actor portraying Christian Grey).  

Someone mentioned something about the movie (and book) being porn for women.  Magic Mike (another soft-porn, mainstreamed movie) was also brought up and then the conversation veered into "Why the sudden interest in porn for women?"

I'm relatively certain that most of my readership would agree that Magic Mike, Fifty Shades and its contemporary ilk are pornographic in nature.  That's not the point of this entry.

I pointed out that the reason this sort of porn is taking root amongst women is due to the concerted effort to confuse, diminish and transpose traditional gender roles.  

In other words, society is telling women that they should be more masculine while simultaneously telling men they need to be more feminine.

I personally know men who use more makeup and hair products than I do.  It's fine for guys to thoughtfully put themselves together in the morning, but when they start insisting on getting waxed eyebrows, mani/pedis and plumping their lips with a touch of gloss... lines are crossed.  

I get the term "metrosexual" is thrown around a lot, but that's simply a politically correct way of saying:

And it's not just a physical change.  Due to the feminist movement that seeks to butcher boys instead of raising up women, things like "Girls Rule and Boys Drool" or the "Boys are Stupid" mindset have turned men into caricatures of petty neanderthals.  Not only does society treat them as perennial little boys who are incapable of mature thought or action, but men, themselves, take on this view and don't realize the rut they've been thrust into.  

And since men don't realize that they've slowly given up the respect due to them as men, women don't feel the need to give it to them.  After all, why respect a man who is no man at all?

It's yet another reason we've got an epidemic of boy-men who live in a quasi-fantasy world that is free of most adult responsibilities, adult goals, and adult consequences.  Women, in turn, get frustrated because they can't find men with solid male traits, but in reality, we've brought this on ourselves by attempting to become masculine in how we operate.

This goes beyond the "assertive / bossy" dilemma.  I'm all for equal rights and gender not standing in the way of one's ability to get a job done.  However, women are becoming increasingly aggressive in their treatment of others.  This overcompensation stems from a deep-seated insecurity about their strength and place within a patriarchal framework (and let's be honest - we do have a patriarchal framework in the US workforce).  

In order to keep up or get ahead, women admit that they try to be "more manly" because of its social and professional benefits.  

Again, this reinforces the gender-bending dysphoria present in our social fabric.  

So what does all of this have to do with Fifty Shades, you ask?  

I believe the current role-reversal of men and women makes traditional male and female roles a fetish.

I realize that might seem silly at first, especially since most of you wouldn't concede to BDSM (present in the Fifty Shades series) being traditional, but give me a chance to explain...

Currently, society is telling us this:

• Men are weak-willed, immature children.
• Women are aggressive and more intelligent than men.

Obviously we know better, but this is the picture society is attempting to paint for us (with alarming success).  

As a result, a book like Fifty Shades becomes popular not just because BDSM is a fetish.  The fetish (and why I think women enjoy it so much) is that the roles are swapped into their traditional (if highly denigrated) roles.  

But what is a fetish if not the warping of something natural?

Christian Grey is an intelligent, successful, confident man.  Ana Steele is an innocent, quietly supportive woman who is also intelligent but not nearly as confident as Grey.  In fact, from what I understand, she's actually portrayed as being highly insecure.  

Christian makes it known that he's interested in Ana.  He wants Ana and revels in her feminine qualities.  He appreciates her femininity.  She, in turn, appreciates his thoroughly masculine characteristics.  

BDSM is a warping of the connection between male and female love, but again, I don't think that's the biggest thing that matters in this case.  Women, today, are craving men - REAL MEN - and our options are few courtesy of the contraceptive movement (<---- that's a great video!).

As a result, women are getting their fix for the socially taboo "traditional man" by finding him in the pages of an erotic book.  They can fantasize of the real man they envision for themselves... a strong, confident, savvy man who knows what he wants and takes it.  

Grey is not the stammering guy in class who is unsure how to ask a girl for her number.  Grey would never wonder when the right time to kiss a girl would be.  Grey certainly wouldn't be found in his mother's basement or fiddling away on XBox until 3 in the morning.  

No no.  Grey would appreciate the beauty of the woman standing in front of him.  He'd instinctually know her wants and needs and willingly rise to the challenge of meeting them. He'd provide for her, take care of her, and make her feel loved, appreciated and above all, wanted.  

THIS is precisely what women today do not get from men.  This is what they want.  This is why they go looking for it in pornography, because in our topsy-turvy world, pornography is somehow more socially acceptable than expecting our men to be men.  

Again, I obviously don't believe all women fall victim to this given that I don't even fit this mindset.  However, it's incredibly easy to see how and why so many women fall into this trap given the terribly difficult time we have finding men who have the potential to be suitable life-partners and dependable fathers for our children.

Frankly, women don't put long-term stock in a guy who wears more eyeliner than she does. Women don't trust that a guy who lives in Mommy's basement can provide for a family. Women understand that a guy who spends more time caressing a game console than they do the curves of her body doesn't have his priorities in order.  

So yeah - I believe the current satiation women are finding in socially acceptable forms of pornography is symptomatic of a much larger, deeper and socially threatening issue.  When the gender norms are blurred to the point where folks have a legitimately difficult time knowing if someone is a man or a woman, it's time to reevaluate - everything.

= Gina turning in her Cardinal Dolan fangirl card.

Remember this past March when the big kerfluffle was caused by gay pride groups during the St. Patrick's Day parades in NY and Boston?  Yeah... things are going to get a whole lot more kerfluffle-y now that Cardinal Dolan decided to come out with this.

Just... ay.

If this isn't confusing to folks, I don't know what is.  

I respect Cardinal Dolan as a priest; I do.  I just don't understand his desire to appease and coddle.  Loving thy neighbor does not include sanctioning public celebration of his or her sin.  

Then again, with the way we've allowed the celebration of St. Patrick to be turned into an excuse to celebrate lewdness, intoxication and common brawling, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when the door's been left open to more moral degradation.  

But still, this (coupled with the cause for Venerable Fulton Sheen) is incredibly, INCREDIBLY disappointing.  

:(

There's a petition making its way around social media seeking to revoke a ban barring homosexual men from donating blood.  

I've seen several impassioned messages accompanying the re-posting of this petition in support of revoking the ban.  However, something struck me about these impassioned pleas to revoke the ban and "restore to gay men their dignity."

None of them - NOT ONE - made an appeal using facts. Each and every posting was geared to strike at the emotional / psychological heart of the reader.  In doing a bit of digging, I realized why.

Should anyone use factual evidence to support their desire to revoke this ban, they'd come up short - severely short.  The FDA regulations are incredibly clear about the risk factors present when blood from gay men is used.  They didn't just decide "We think gay men have cooties so no donations from them!"

Instead, they acknowledged that gay men have an extraordinarily high rate of infection - exponentially higher than any other sampling of the population.  Given there is no real test for HIV that can definitively test if someone has it or not in the early stages (called a "window period" after exposure), the gamble is simply not worth the lives of others.  Even with earlier tests, it takes between 1-3 months to test positive.

In other words, the FDA believes that the need for gay men to feel validation through blood donation DOES NOT outweigh the risk they collectively present to the general population. Given that gay men make up such a tiny portion of our population, the public at large shouldn't be forced to play Russian Roulette with a transfusion simply so they can have another avenue to feel justified in their lifestyle.  

We currently have enough donors who fit regulation guidelines.  Why in the world would we seek to change protective regulations that were created based on solid science?  These impassioned pleas for a restoration of dignity are sad.

I mean that.  They make me sad.

Do sexually active gay men see their own self-worth as being found solely at the end of a syringe? Do they truly believe they hold no worth outside of their ability to strap a rubber band around their arm while squeezing a tension ball?

That's sad.  That's really, really sad.  

They should recognize their own self-worth through their humanity.  They need no more validation than that which their humanity affords.  Men do not have less dignity because they are unable to bear children just as sexually active gay men do not have less dignity because they pose a higher risk for blood donation.

A common argument in favor of repealing the ban is the fact that tainting can happen in other ways - needle sharing, heterosexual sex with infected partners, etc.  Several posters posted about an episode of The Golden Girls which raised this same point.  

While tainting can happen in other ways, the risk in those areas is quantifiably lower than in cases where blood from active homosexual men is used. 

This has nothing to do with discrimination or lack of dignity - this has everything to do with the HIV epidemic that spread like wildfire through (and continues to ravage at an exponentially higher rate) the sexually active gay male community. 

If and when our medical savvy gets to the point where we can screen more quickly and efficiently, by all means, feel free to repeal the ban.  We haven't reached that point yet, so there is NO SCIENTIFIC REASON to alter the ban.

I'm sorry, but the hurt feelings of a few people (because again, contrary to what the media force feeds everyone, homosexuals make up only a tiny portion of the general population) don't justify the heartbreak their blood potentially poses to people who could just as easily rely on blood we've already amassed through approved donors. 

The emotional arguments are impassioned and moving, but they simply do not stand up to logical scrutiny.  This doesn't make me a bigot, this doesn't make me a homophobe, this doesn't make me heartless.  I recognize the emotions of gay men who feel their status is somehow diminished by their inability to participate in a charitable activity, but I also recognize the valid reasons the FDA has for putting the ban into effect to begin with.  I recognize the fear of those who rely on blood donations.  In truth, the latter two trump the former. 

It's not worth the risk. 

And again - gay men shouldn't be basing their worth on what they can or cannot do.  No one should.  Everyone has inherent worth in the eyes of God.  Everyone.
And again

Remember this article?  I feel like it was the one that started them all.  

Little boy wants to dress up like Daphne from Scooby Doo and his mom posts, in the title of her entry, that this implies he's gay.

But no worries, because in the body of the entry, you realize that was simply a bait.  She then writes "Or he's not.  I don't care.  He is still my son.  And he is 5.  And I am his mother.  And if you have a problem with anything mentioned above, I don't want to know you."

I remember when I first read that feeling offended for her.  How could ANYONE dare to have a problem with this?  Who would think to be so callous as to spout anything negative at a little boy who just wants to dress up for Halloween?  Even if it is a little odd.

Now that the feeds have been absolutely SATURATED with stories like this, I've learned to put my critical reasoning skills to better use.

She, like every other blogger after her, sets the stage for inevitable conflict.  They want the conflict; it drives stats.  I refuse to post the litany of these articles because I refuse to give them a bump in referral hits.

Now I just roll my eyes and pass on them.  They're all the same.  Each demanding respect for allowing their boys to dress as girls and play with My Little Pony dolls, or steering their girls away from pink things and more towards "boy toys" like race cars and Legos.  We've all seen them.  It's just...

C'mon now.

Instead of trying to dictate what our kids play with in an attempt to show how forward-thinking we are about gender-stereotypes, how about we just let them be kids who like to play with toys of any sort?  

And how about we stop patting ourselves on the back for going out of our way to confuse the very clear distinctions between the two sexes.  No matter how many bags of lip gloss your son wants to have, he's going to be a little boy.  No matter how many Wrestlemanias your daughter begs to go to, she's still going to be a little girl.  

And no matter how many times you allow your son to dress in skirts or your daughter to pull on boxers, their biology will remain unaltered.  That includes sex change operations and hormone injections.

Also, this sort of gender confusion does not necessarily mean your child is gay.  But again, throwing that into the mix is a great way to solicit a jump in stats.  

*Shakes head*

We need to have open, honest communication on this topic.  Blog posts like those I reference above are not helpful.  If anything, they're harmful because they seek to divide. They seek to cause in-fighting and paranoia (everyone's out to get me and my son because we're different!).  There are children in serious jeopardy because of this confusion, and patting ourselves on the backs for the bang-up job we're doing with this saturation of gender confusion is not the right course of action.  It's just not.

I don't have the answer on how best to respond to this growing trend, but I just can't take the constant stream of articles that decry any sort of acknowledgement that boys and girls (and thus, men and women) are different; they are.  Does that mean that they are not equals? No; they have equal dignity.  But they are inherently different from one another. Consistently ignoring that (and worse... teaching our children to actively ignore it) is a 
grave error.  

Kids growing up in this climate are the reason we've got fifty billion "genders" on Facebook, men waging legal war against a woman's right to use a private bathroom, and young kids (and their PARENTS) fighting to dictate biology without bothering to think of long-term health consequences.

This is only the tip of the iceberg.  Trying to blur the lines between male and female have led folks to be hyper-aware of not only gender, but sexuality and thus, sex.  

Methinks that's why textbooks like this exist.  It's also why lessons like this exists.

We are hurting our children way, WAY more than we are helping them.  That much is apparent.  We are teaching them it's okay to disregard facts - scientific facts - and create an alternate reality that they then expect everyone else to go along with.  I can't imagine that being a good coping strategy for such a real, all-areas-of-life entrenched problem.  

I just don't have clue one where to begin, or even how to protect my son from falling victim to this sort of confusion.  It's like parents are expected (and even bullied into) encouraging this sort of behavior.

I was recently invited to a birthday party with my son in which the parent informed me the boys would be dressing up as princesses alongside the girls.

No thank you.  I opted to decline that one.  Vince is curious about women's clothing sometimes (my veil and bras come to mind), but I would not actively encourage him cross dressing, ESPECIALLY at such a young age.  

I'm just... ay.

What the heck ever happened to kids being kids?

Well, the gay rights lobby is at it again with their fake indignation and trumped up discrimination allegations.

I'm just about done with them whining about every little thing that doesn't coddle their every self-centered inclination.

By now, I'm sure most of you have seen the kerfluffle caused by trolls at the annual St. Patrick's Day Parades in New York and Boston.

These are two of the biggest parades in the world that celebrate St. Patrick's life and legacy. Of COURSE these yahoos would take it upon themselves to instigate trouble when they'd have a worldwide audience.

I just hate that companies and politicians went and supported this stupidity without stopping to question the legitimacy of those doing the whining.

They're upset because they can't run around with banners labeling them as gay?  Cry me a rainbow river, why don't you?

Pro-Life groups can't march under a banner any more than gay groups can. Where are all the pro-life unions that are decrying that their dignity is being threatened? Where are all the Italian-Americans? Where are all the lovers of ice-cream and chocolate? The pro-puppy groups?

Oh yeah - none of them have anything to gain by feigning discrimination.  None of them are looking to bait an entire population into feeling sorry for them.

ARGH - I'm so sick of people stupidly falling for this.  How did our population come to exchange common sense and critical reasoning for Kim Kardashian and buzz words?

ARGH!!!

ARGH!!!

ARGH!!!

I'm just so beyond done with always being labeled a bigot or a homophobe because I see this for the charade it so blatantly is.  

This sort of fake discrimination touted by the gay lobby is BLATANTLY FALSE and no one seems to care.  Why does no one care?!?!?!

Fr. Levi over at The Way Out There posted another article regarding the slipping of society as it falls further into the cesspool of degradation and disorder it seems hellbent on creating for itself.

The article deals with the "plight" of pedophiles who are demanding to be accepted as normal in the same way that homosexuals are now deemed "normal."  Incredibly, there are psychologists who want to help this along by removing Pedophilia from the list of mental disorders they list in their version of the Bible - the DSM. 

In an attempt to make people more aware that this was happening, I posted the link (along with the following commentary) onto my Facebook page:

'Cause no one saw this coming...

NAMBLA has been attempting to push for declassification of pedophilia for a while. So has IASHS. Homosexuality issue aside, this is severely disturbing that anyone in their right damn mind thinks it's even remotely okay to declassify this as a mental disorder.

Adults wanting to have sex with children is mentally disordered. There's simply no other way of looking at it.

"Oh, but these poor men and women who abused children must live with the stigma attached! They've gotta warn parents when they move into the area! They've gotta have 'the talk' with potential employers!"

Oh flippin' well. What about the children whose lives you shattered? What about what THEY are forced to endure for the rest of their lives?

You get to deal with moments of social awkwardness every now and again. They get to deal with shattered innocence, a void of trust, a shamed self-image, and the stigma of having endured your barbarity.

Your whining behind is lucky we don't still brand people on the forehead. Stop attempting to justify your mental disorder and just accept it for what it is so you can seek help to protect those children who you seek to harm!

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING! I don't care how much you think you love these children, you're outta your dang mind.

About 30 seconds later I got a "like" and an "AGREED!" comment (both from a family member of mine).  Another minute or so later, my good friend posted a video of the South Park parody that deals with NAMBLA's insistence that pedophilia is normal.  Otherwise, there was complete radio silence.

Now I'm not upset that I didn't get "likes" or "comments."  That's not why I post things.  I post them to educate... to make others aware.  However, I have to admit being slightly unsettled by the lack of feedback regarding this particular post.  Typically things this upsetting in nature solicit SOMETHING. 

My first thought was "Folks are steering clear of this because of the connection with homosexuality.  It makes them uneasy."

Well of course it does.  No one likes to look at the truth of this logic because it's somewhat similar to the crazy folks out there shouting that once we accept homosexuality, we'll accept people marrying goats, sheep or dinosaurs.

However, the fact remains that when a minority of folks force others to accept disordered conduct as a product of "It's just the way I am" then other minorities are able to do the same.  They're able to use the same arguments and the same tactics because from a logical standpoint, they've got accepted precedence. 

So I chalked it up to the fact that the majority of my friends are very pro-homosexual marriage and were bristling at the idea that I was advocating homosexuality and pedophilia being on the same wavelength (which I'm not... but people tend to automatically assume that about those of us who disagree with homosexual unions).

The next morning, though, I got two supremely disturbing messages through Facebook from a family member and an acquaintance I had gone to school with.  The first was from a family member who is both a woman, and a mother.  A MOTHER.  Keep that in mind.  The second was also from a woman (though she has no children).

Both stated very similar things, so I'll give you a quick summary. 

Gina, I would've posted this on your thread, but I didn't want to look like I condoned molestation.  The psychologists make a good argument for why pedophilia should be removed from the disorder list because they (the pedophilies) really can't help themselves.  It's unfair to be stigmatized for your entire life because of feelings you can't help.  They shouldn't have to suffer so cruelly just because they have strong affection for children.  They're good people, and they really try to love everyone.  There are chemical imbalances that make them aroused around children, and with the proper medicines, they could live out normal lives that don't involve harming children.

One even went so far as to suggest that children SHOULD be allowed to make the decision for themselves by the time they're 12 because "by that age, I was fully capable of deciding who I should or should not have sex with."

Go ahead and let that digest a little bit.

This person was 12 years old and already felt capable of deciding who she should or should not have sex with.  This means she was ALREADY deciding she SHOULD have sex with some folks (note that 'folks' is plural) at 12 years of age. 

Below is exactly how I felt upon reading those two letters.  I wanted to blast myself off the Earth because no... there is just no way that people can really, truly feel this way.  I simply do not want to live in a world that wishes to allow such perversion to walk around unabated because it's "just how they are."  NO.  My SON lives in this world, and allowing these folks to just "be who they are" without needing to warn ANY of the surrounding families leaves him open to some terrible, terrible things!

I'm successfully irritated.  My charity level is low to non-existent right now, so I apologize in advance.

There has been yet another striking blow to religious freedoms today... this time in Denmark. All over the world, governments are attempting to put religious freedom to death, and no one is any the wiser.  Why?  Because it's all being done under the guise of social justice.

Danish parliament has just passed a law making it MANDATORY for all churches in Denmark to provide homosexual marriage ceremonies.

Take a second and let that process (if you're not too busy hurling).

A government is attempting to FORCE entire religious communities to utilize their sacred houses of worship for a ceremony that goes directly against their religious beliefs as a people.

I'm beyond disgusted. 

Once again the issue of religious freedoms is ignored because folks are too busy crying foul over the issue of homosexuality.

I don't care if two men want to get hitched through civil unions.  Be my guest.  I draw the line, however, when those two men attempt making a mockery of our Sacrament by committing such a sacrilege in front of the Blessed Sacrament in a Catholic Church. 

As I said on Facebook, welcome to the reason I refuse to vote in favor of anyone trying to push this through our court system.

As I said in a previous entry, Australia is quickly following suit. The US won't be far behind.

I'm all for homosexuals getting hitched in churches that condone it. I am NOT okay with a government stepping in to force ANYONE to accept a union that cannot be recognized by aforementioned religion.

Catholic priests cannot "consecrate" a union that is considered abhorrent and inherently sinful. No matter how much a government wants to kick, scream and cry, a faithful Catholic priest cannot (and will not) call a blessing down upon that which is mortally sinful.

Even if one tried to, do you think God would say, "Ya know what?  Alright... since you asked so nicely, I'll be sure to go against that which I've stated - repeatedly - and reward you for your impressively arrogant disobedience."

Again, Lord, mercy. 

Hmmm... I had no idea this is what those "Harmony" shirts I've been seeing were all about.

Apparently folks are looking to boycott Target for it's current push to financially back the Family Equality Council (read: LGBT lobby).  I was completely unaware of this until today!

I don't really have too much of an opinion on this just yet.  Thus far, I don't see the donations as horrible because in order for me to participate, I'd have to be directly purchasing these "Pride" items. 

I'd be happy if they'd offer something like Soaps for Life in their stores as a worthy cause to get behind.  I doubt there would be a conservative call for boycott with something like that.  The liberals might boycott, but the point is, if you don't support a cause, you're not being forced to purchase the items in question in this case.  If Target was donating a portion of ALL sales to the FEC, I'd be singing a different tune.  But they're not.

That being said, I expect to see well-placed signs and tags on these items so I can steer clear of them if I were to enter a Target.  I don't want to mistakenly donate money to something that goes against my belief system - same as I'm sure a pro-abortion person would balk at seeing any of his or her money go into an ultrasound truck that sits in front of a Planned Parenthood for mothers who are on the fence.  So long as signs and tags are visible and plenty, I wouldn't boycott Target itself so much as the particular line of products.

Kinda like boycotting a particular brand of make-up because they do animal testing, ya know?  Obviously not the same level of morality, but my point still stands.

My friend, Christina, said something to me that has been bouncing around in my head for the last few days:

There's something about a fire that doesn't seem to burn you. [This] issue had fire written all over it and you just jumped on in like it was a bubble bath.

Ah... the story of my life.

Last week, when I wrote that "Alone" entry, I got several follow-up messages from the person the entry was originally about.  He gave me permission to post his story here, because I honestly think it's something that folks should be aware of, especially those of us who are active on Christian blogs / forums.

While I was chatting with some folks on a Christian forum, a young man timidly asked for advice with an issue he'd been struggling with.  We happily agreed to hear him out.  He identifies himself as homosexual, he's 19, and he still lives home with his "strict Christian parents."  He loves his parents dearly, but he hasn't "come out" to them, yet.  He was looking for advice on how to best do it without having them disown him.

Within minutes the thread was lighting up with comments like:

"It's a phase."                                        "Keep that to yourself until you get it fixed."
"You'll go to hell!"                                  "You SHOULD be disowned."
"Homosexuality is a disease."                                ETC...

Seriously.  I was absolutely FLOORED.  I immediately jumped in to dispel the notion that his sexuality was a one-way ticket to hell that needed to be exchanged through a one-night stand with a woman (suggested by a particularly vulgar member who, until that point, had been the most proper one of the bunch!).  I then pointed out that the various responses were less than Christian in content. 

You'd think I stumbled upon a hellmouth or something.  Not only was I trying to defend this person against attacks, I was on the receiving end, myself, with no hope of respite.  To say anything contrary to "Gays are evil, hell-bound freaks of nature" was tantamount to painting yourself with a bulls-eye and handing out arrows during open season.  I felt HORRIBLE because all that viciousness simply caused this young man to pull away, completely embarrassed, ashamed and hurt by the torrent of verbal abuse.  Worse, he assumed that response was a unanimously Christian one because no one took a stand against it!!!  Heaven forbid!

For the record:

Condemning a person is NOT CHRISTIAN CHARITY. 

Suggesting that they commit a mortal sin in order to "reverse" another perceived mortal sin is NOT CHRISTIAN CHARITY. 

Responding to a plea for help with vitriol and wishes for the emotional distress of family abandonment is NOT CHRISTIAN CHARITY.

This gentle young man and I have been blessed to have several discussions on this now.  He now understands that regardless of his sexuality, he is a body and soul created and loved by God.  He understands Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and though he doesn't agree with it, at least he doesn't believe Catholicism teaches he's got a sure-ticket to hell just for being attracted to other men.  He also feels better about talking to his parents about this.  After all, a parent's duty is to love above all else.  Heck, our job as humans is to love above all else.  Loving doesn't mean accepting the sins of another, but it DOES mean accepting the person for who they're made as and helping them carry the crosses uniquely granted by God to help them on their path towards Heaven.

Keep folks like this in your prayers.  It takes a lot of courage to be upfront about your deepest struggles, especially when you've got the whole world ready to rip into you. 

And this is why I tend to step into the fire with seemingly little regard for the flames.  On the other end of the verbal assault, someone is feeling the effects.  On the other side of the computer screen, someone is being made to feel subhuman.  When these hot-button conversations ignite, there is someone, somewhere being given a very incorrect view of Christianity through the poor examples of those who laud themselves as being the epitome of Christian practice.  I can't help but feel my own heart break for them. 

So yes.  I frequently involve myself in these types of conversations and threads because if I don't, who will?  Be the change you wish to see, right?  If I had kept my mouth shut and just allowed them to steamroll this person, what type of image would he have of Christianity?  Would there be no nugget of hope regarding coming out to his parents?

And what of the people who could easily have offered their own "Likes" or commentary to mine?  Instead of private messaging, they could have helped this young man feel something of the love of God.  Instead, he was left with a very bitter taste in his mouth, spoon-fed by supposedly loving Christians.

Our duty is not to stand by and allow such ill-feelings to spread.  Our duty as Christians is to love God by loving one another - not silently... not ashamedly... not timidly.  We are called to live our love out loud. 

If that means dancing in the fire, bring on the flames.