H'okay, so. Pope Benedict XVI is the "Anti Gay person of the year." (Take a look at the link-name, too.)
A lot of articles on the issue of gay priests sets up Pope Benedict XVI as a sort of wildly prejudiced man, who, perhaps, foams at the mouth on occasion (when we're not looking). But, for the most part, the whywithal is left alone, and that gives the reader no clue as to what the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is and why they are supposed to be outraged about it. It's as if someone said "No! Don't touch the stove - it is hot!" and someone reports "Madam Tiffany is prejudiced against stove-touching. Cooks who use the stove are outraged and demand that Tiffany retract her hurtful statement. Said one flustered cook 'M. Tiffany has clearly crossed the line. It doesn't feel wrong when I touch my stove - some people prefer to use microwave ovens and we let them. M. Tiffany should respect our choice.'" Etc. etc. Except, that is a rather very poor analogy. Mea culpa.
This article actually does have some snippets of what Pope Benedict XVI has said or written, but it doesn't refer to them in the main body of the article which gives nil explication of the Church's position.
So, anyways, if a person is susceptible to suggestion and they don't have their facts marshalled together in neat order, it is easy to become upset about something you haven't the faintest about (old chap). If someone does get upset, then in their array of arguments lies the "love" bit. "But they love each other! What right does the Church have to say it is an intrinsic moral evil?" Afterall, love conquers all, right?
Except, what is love? And what sort of love? And ----- "Semantics!" "Rhetoric!" "Pretty words with no bearing in reality!"
We had a kid for Christmas. And we ate it. Before you have a conniption, a kid is a goat. A goat young...offspring...spawn. See:
This is not what I want to see six days before leaving for Nebraska.