The HHS has decided, predictably, to try to force Catholic hospitals to dispense contraceptives, not surprising as it is headed up by "Abortion-bitch" Kathleen Sebelius. This comes upon the heels of Illinois forcing pharmacists to dispense contraceptives, irrespective of their moral beliefs. The blog "Accepting Abundance" has been bombarded by hate for expressing the point of view that it isn't helpful for gays to PDA in public. The most interesting thing about this is the hopes that Catholics die off, rantings about pedophile priests, and general ranting about "intolerance" the blog has engendered. Which brings up a certain question of priorities. In a world in which extra-marital sex has been raised to the level of a sport, is complaining about gays kissing productive? Is homosexuality new? No, I remember my good friend M. Tullius Cicero kicking around the question of whether homosexuals were capable of true love. Plato wrote two dialogues (Symposium and Phaedrus) that positively dripped with homosexuality. That didn't stop Catholic philosophers from reading and making use of Platonism, and its step-child neoplatonism. Obviously, the discomfort people feel at seeing behavior we disapprove of should not be too great. Only an extreme co-dependent feels actual guilt about other people's sins. (Estase knows whereof he speaks.) I don't expect to recieve a similar deluge of combox junk, but if I do, so what? This is America, and if someone wishes to wish for my death because I think homosexuality is wrong, that's their business. Oh, and don't give me the "Hitler didn't like gays" nonsense. The history community knows about that book written by the Austrian art student from before WW I who wrote his memoirs about his gay relationship with the future Fuhrer. Does that form evidence against gays? Of course not, but Hitler didn't oppose homosexuality because of morality, but because he hated himself.