Unbelievable! No, wait, I do believe it, making it all the more sad.

Whatever happened to "by their fruits you shall know them?"

I'm always taken by the conceit of people like Mr. Delgaudio. What is it that makes him believe he's so attractive that a gay man would enjoy patting him down? Has he ever actually been hit on by another man, or is this "you wish?" Has it occurred to him that another man (gay or straight, for that matter) might be really repulsed by having to touch him?

And just to push the envelope a little further...why would it make a difference to Mr. Delgaudio if the screener were gay and did find him attractive? Unless it were to actually alter the screener's performance of his job, i.e. the manner in which the screener contacted Mr. Delgaudio's genitalia, I fail to see where the harm lies.

The offensive assumption here is that GLBT persons are indiscriminate both in their attractions and in their sexual conduct. Perhaps Mr. Delgaudio is projecting. I wonder if he had to practice being heterosexual? I'm 54, so it's been a long time since I realized I was straight, but I don't remember that I ever had to practice being that way...

[Editor's note: thanks for the comment. Please leave your full name next time.]

Those who oppose same-sex marriage and allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the military, but say they bear LGBT people no ill will...

...lie.

Let's "speak the truth in love," shall we?

People who oppose same-sex marriage and allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the military, but say they bear LGBT people no ill will are not telling the truth.

Denying same-sex couples the right to love freely and make legal commitments that bring great economic and social benefits is ill will.

Denying LGBT Americans the right to serve their country--especially in a military that advertises itself as a way for young people to get an education and job training--is ill will.

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong from a religious perspective, you are free to believe that. But you are NOT free to write your religiously induced prejudice into civil law and expect the rest of us to believe that you bear no ill will towards LGBTs. It's a lie--and we are not fooled.

Saint Thomas Aquinas identifies mollities as a vice. Yes, translators often translate mollities as 'effeminacy', but you'll have a hard time convincing me that Aquinas's discussion of mollities has anything to with effeminacy in the sense in which Fr Mason understands it.

"Those who oppose same-sex marriage and allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the military, but say they bear LGBT people no ill will..."

They are simply re-stating the ever popular "Some of my best friends....."

Bull!

They are lying and it is best to say so.

FWIW
jimB

Jim Beyer

For those curious to know whether or not they might fancy Mr Delgaudio, and for another instance of his homophobia - http://www.loudouni.com/news/2010-03-10/jon-stewart-lambasts-delgaudio-%E2%80%98it%E2%80%99-comment

The excesses of their allies is all they have left to hold back the tide. It's why the rhetoric has become so inflamed that the SPLC now lists the Family Research Council and others of that ilk as hate groups. They will say increasingly outrageous things to try to keep public opinion on their side--even as their numbers continue to erode. No, there will be no complaints from those opposed to equality, no matter how sensible they claim to be. A robust and vocal push-back by faith groups who support equality is the best we can hope for.

Linda Hirshman writes:

The fight is hot because gays are seeking equal access to the very social institutions, marriage and the military, that confer social approval. In America, and in most of western culture, the soldier and the householder are models of social virtue. If gays can marry and serve their country, well, "Gay is Good" as the old movement button says.

....The right knows it can't make the state punish gays as sinners, for various constitutional reasons, so it is trying to make the state deny them the closest thing it has to consecration: the sacred bonds of warriors and the sanctity of marriage. The gay movement cannot stop churches from telling their congregants that gays are bad. But gay leaders can try to stop the message from coming from the state.

We can expect even more vitriol to come. The Prop8 appeal is being heard today, so expect more fearmongering to inflame, and more attempts to degrade the humanity and decency of LGBT people. Don't expect any conciliatory words from the Prop8 supporters.

Susan Forsburg

Let's rewind and take Brian Merrell's and Portland Rescue Mission's reasoning back to first-century Judea: the apostles approach Jesus and say, "Uh, Jesus, is it really such a good idea for you to be seen sitting around and having dinner with all these harlots and tax collectors? What on earth will your donors think? They just might take offense and stop giving..."

Have we learned nothing from Christ Jesus' behavior sketched out in the gospels? And what of his parable of the Good Samaritan? Merrell and PRM might be as scandalized at its full implications as Jesus' original audience was. In it, Jesus exalts a Samaritan -- in the eyes of the Jews of the day, a heretic (his people had less books in their Bible), a schismatic (they worshipped at their own temple on Mount Gerizim, apart from the "one and only" on Mount Zion) and a renegade (they stood aloof from the political establishment in Jerusalem). Yet Jesus sets this "unholy sinner" with three strikes against him on a pedestal as a paragon of neighborly virtue, while casting model Jews (a priest and a Levite) in a less than positive light, as either too concerned with ritual purity, too filled with fear or too insensitive to others' suffering to aid a fellow human being in distress.

The moral: When someone wants to do good for others (and thus, by extension, to Christ Jesus, a la Matthew 25:31-46), we're in no position to maintain our position on some high horse and look down on them. Simply accept their help and do good with them, so this dark, dank world just might experience a glimmer of God's love.

Is this where we are? Standing in the temple with eyes cast to heaven praying "I thank you God that I am not like other people. Thank you that I am not a homophobe or a tax collector, or even like that poor rural opinionated politician over in Virginia."

These kinds of posts are unnecessary and just as arrogant as anything you may criticize here. It is weak humor or bitter politics or, worse, good old religious pride.

This rhetoric is damaging to the church. Leave it those whose primary concern is not the Gospel of Christ. We are called to live differently, and this does not live up to our calling.

Fear is not cast out by pride.

If you looked up Jeffrey Darling on-line you would sympathize with the decision that a religious group could have in having him front for them, even if you would choose to do so. He is not a neutral figure who happens to be gay.

The other comments speak for themselves. They border on ludicrous and appear that way. I doubt that anyone reading the Cafe is persuaded by them or your reposting of them.

If the Episcopal church is moving toward inclusion, then be thankful. If others are not, then mourn. But throwing apples from the vestry isn't going to persuade them, isn't loving them, and it erodes all of our credibility.

As Jesus accepted the perfume and tears of a prostitute -- quite publicly at a dinner party, no less -- without worrying about his public image or what his supporters might think (Luke 7:36-50), one has a hard time believing he'd turn down a coat from a gay man, no matter how flamboyant, for someone who was naked or near-naked out in the winter's cold, because it might put a dent in his reputation or support.

Hopefully, Mr. Darling will still collect and distribute the coats and sweaters himself. It's wintertime. It's cold outside. Some people have nowhere to live but outside. And many of those people don't have enough clothes to keep warm out there, so they'll freeze. It's as simple as that. Everything else is piffle.