[Up Yours Marxists]

Well I read the article (twice) and not once did she chastise the actual sin of homosexuality!!!

She just said acting upon it was bad (sodomy), and wrong against the church. Not once did she mention God’s Law against lustful sin and the profession that sin is actually good!

She’s absolutely flat-out deceitful. We don’t need “in-the-closet” celibate gays to continue to shout, “I was born this way and that’s OK”. Miss Tushnet’s professing her colors without shame and expects a gold star and special treatment for her so-called celibacy. These kinds of acts are what’s tearing down the very core of our Biblical Faith!!!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your reading it twice doesn't seem to have given you a lot of insight. That's OK. Some people's writing style doesn't get through to everybody, and, granted, she was writing for "The Alantic" readers, not "Free Republic" readers. We both know that rhetorical choices follow upon how we think we can appeal to a target readership.

However, I think most Atlantic readers get that the Catholic Church has --- I dunno --- something around in there somewhere about whaddaya call it? God? And God's law against lustful sin? They might have taken comparative religion in their Freshman year. They might intuit that. Of course, some don't make the connection.

In any case, she didn't have to lay out every chapter and verse of Romans and the whole Catechism to boot. She was just aiming to explain (to an Atlantic readership, mind you, which probably is more inclined to throw bouquets at lesbians, and bricks at Catholics) that she's an out-of-the-closet Catholic and she has her reasons.

She's not asking to be applauded for being gay. She's asking to be understood that she's chosen chastity, for Christ's sake.

Doesn't work for you? Sorry about that.