The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



Think about it

Letter to the Editor | Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Homosexuals and Notre Dame: Frankly, half of the opinions printed on this issue have been absurd. Let me focus on the “Fair Compromise?” letter (Oct. 13). The author is dismayed at the responses to Sean Mullen’s letter. One reason: “Others sought to justify homosexual sex by referring to the fact that pre-marital heterosexual sex is common on campus – as if Mullen, or anyone else, for that matter thinks such sex is okay from the Church’s perspective. Two wrongs don’t make a right.” No. This comparison was not made to “justify” homosexual sex. Rather, it was meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of criticizing someone for not practicing homosexual chastity while very few of us are successful at practicing heterosexual chastity.

When it comes to premarital sex and masturbation, we think “kids will be kids” but when it comes to unchaste homosexuals, we take up arms and flood the Viewpoint with letters. Remember, Jesus tells us not to point out the splinter in our neighbor’s eye when there is a log in our own. It sounds rather arrogant to tell people to prayerfully encourage their homosexual friends to change their ways (assuming out of hand that they are not chaste) when we do not also talk about prayerfully encouraging heterosexuals to live chastely. When we do not live chastely we are all, homosexual or heterosexual, failing to respond positively to the same call to live chaste lives. Also, let us not forget that homosexuality is not chosen, but genetically determined.

As far as the compromise of adding the phrase “non-practicing homosexuals” to the nondiscrimination clause, I’m ashamed that I have to dignify this with a response. Please, think about the implications of the proposed phrasing. Essentially it means we will not discriminate against anyone based on gender, race, religion, etc., regardless of sin level, but when it comes to homosexuals only the chaste are protected. It implies that if they are unchaste, then we can discriminate away! This phrasing is guilty of the same hypocrisy described above. It qualifies the nondiscrimination of one group while leaving the others unqualified.

Paul Leuck


off campus

Oct. 13