Love Saxa does not deserve the benefit of university recognition. As a group whose mission advocates against equal rights for the LGBTQ community, Love Saxa fosters intolerance. As such, the club is antithetical to what a university club should be, and it should be ineligible for any university benefits.

Love Saxa’s self-described mission is the promotion of healthy relationships and sexual integrity. Its core tenets include opposition to pornography and hookup culture, as well as “the primacy of marriage … as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman,” as stated in its constitution.

As a club officially recognized by the Student Activities Commission and thus Georgetown University, Love Saxa receives university benefits, most notably in the form of funding. Love Saxa receives $250 of SAC’s $330,000 annual budget, in addition to the other benefits that university recognition bestows.

In recent weeks, Jasmin Ouseph (SFS ’19) and GU Pride President Chad Gasman (COL ’20) have raised formal concerns about Love Saxa, arguing that its mission is intolerant and thus in violation of the university’s Student Organization Standards.

These standards state “groups will not be eligible for access to benefits if their purpose or activities … foster hatred or intolerance of others because of their race, nationality, gender, religion or sexual preference.”

Marriage rights are vital to the LGBTQ community not only to enshrine equal rights, but also because of the tangible legal and financial benefits marriage allows in the United States, including tax benefits.

Love Saxa’s advocacy of denying individuals’ rights on the basis of their sexual orientations is inherently intolerant. By advocating for unequal rights in its constitution, Love Saxa established its mission in violation of the university’s Student Organization Standards.

A SAC hearing scheduled for Monday, Oct. 23, will determine if Love Saxa has violated these standards and, if so, what sanctions the group might face. SAC can impose sanctions ranging from temporary or permanent loss of privileges to potential fines.

Love Saxa’s constitution also identifies it as “a space [for students] to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person.” By characterizing the LGBTQ experience as “a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person,” Love Saxa has codified a mission that is fundamentally intolerant and hateful.

Moreover, Love Saxa has also publicized its opposition to the right to marriage for members of the LGBTQ community through its actions. Love Saxa has previously brought to campus speakers like Ryan Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow and vehement opponent of same-sex marriage.

By actively advocating a limited definition of marriage that would concretely take rights away from the LGBTQ community, Love Saxa differentiates itself from other Catholic organizations on campus. Though these other groups may agree with Love Saxa’s definition of marriage, actively and vigorously promoting this definition — one that is directly intolerant of the LGBTQ community — is not a primary focus of their missions, as it appears to be for Love Saxa.

Though Georgetown is a Catholic institution that respects the church’s view of marriage, its student groups nevertheless have a responsibility to care for and protect the entire student body.

The university has historically shown extensive tolerance — nothing proves this more than the university’s creation of the LGBTQ Resource Center, the first of its kind at a Jesuit university in the United States.

If we can acknowledge that this center is integral to supporting the LGBTQ community on campus, we can also recognize the importance of protecting this community from those who oppose LGBTQ rights.

This issue is not one of censoring free speech: If Love Saxa is defunded, the group will have the same rights as other unrecognized student groups, including the ability to fundraise, table in free speech zones such as Red Square and use public resources.

Continuing to provide funding and the other benefits that come with university recognition to a group that advocates dismantling rights for other students based on their sexual orientation is entirely contrary to the notion of caring for each and every student, but above all it is counter to the guidelines of the organization that houses the intolerant group.

The Student Organization Standards clearly state that student groups that “foster hatred or intolerance” are not eligible to receive the benefits of university recognition. If SAC seeks to uphold these standards, it must vote to defund Love Saxa.


  1. I love the tolerance the writer(s) of this piece have for people with opposing views. They must feel so welcome by your nondiscriminatory acceptance of all people.

  2. frozen peaches says:

    our school’s policy for tuition funded clubs says that organizations can’t receive funding if they foster an environment of intolerance…idk how you define intolerance, but saying that queer folks and sex workers represent a “distorted view of human sexuality and the human person” seems pretty intolerable to me!!!

    • The term is “disordered” not “distorted”. It means the priorities are out of wack. As in I’m going to put my own views about sex in absolute priority to everyone else’s and if you disagree with me I’m going to attack you instead of try to love and understand where you are coming from. You have a right to disagree but you have no right to shut such a rational view down and thereby be intolerant and hateful yourself. Such actions will get a lawsuit.

      • frozen peaches says:

        “distorted” is literally in their publically accessible constitution thanks for playing sis try again!!! pls sue me!!!

        • So what. Those advocating removing Love Saxa’s recognition and funding are doing so by attacking their “sexual prefences”. According, the LGBTQ mafia and student government are inciting hatred and intolerance against Love Saxa based solely on “sexual preference” and are guilty of the very same charge they are proposing.

    • You really do not see the logical fallacy of your statement not to mention this whole absurd drama. Ouseph, Gasman, Yourself and this editorial board are all exhibiting intolerant attitudes for Love Saxa is promoting. You and they are essentially guilty of the same charge of fostering hatred and intolerance towards Love Saxa in the Hoya community. Please do not make a fool of yourself by trying to tell me your view LGBTQ issues is more equal than theirs.

    • Intolerance is what the Editorial Board says it is!

    • Well, I expect a Catholic university to hold to Catholic values, wouldn’t you? And what does Christianity teach regarding sexuality? Certain sexual behaviors are proscribed, such as fornication, adultery, prostitution, and sex with the same sex. Defending Christian truth at a Catholic university is not a problem, is it?

    • Andrew Farmer says:

      For a person that is enrolled at Georgetown university not to know the definition of tolerance is unacceptable. So, let me help you.
      • 1 mass noun: The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviors that one dislikes or disagrees with.
      ‘the tolerance of corruption’
      ‘an advocate of religious tolerance’
      This obvious does not imply agreement with said opinions or behaviors.

      • You are willfully ignoring the fact that this is a Catholic University that is in line with Vatican teachings about fornication and extra-marital sex. If you don’t agree with these standards laid out plainly in the school charter, leave and go to another school where fornicators and sodomites run things.

        • Andrew Farmer says:

          Hey, Tim we are in agreement. My response was to someone that has redefined what true tolerance is. These individuals that are attacking Love Saxa are willfully ignorant of the truth.

  3. In addition to banning Love Saxa I think we should also get rid of Dahlgren, the other chapels, and all the Jesuits.

    After all, as this editorial says . . . “[t]hough Georgetown is a Catholic institution that respects the church’s view of marriage, its student groups nevertheless have a responsibility to care for and protect the entire student body.”

    And students must also adhere to this policy. If you are a member of Love Saxa you should be forced to go through diversity training or be expelled from Georgetown. If you are a faculty member or Catholic priest you should be fired because Georgetown must remain safe for LGBTQ people.

    I think there are two actionable steps to take:

    1. Anyone suspected of not agreeing with the political positions of the LGBTQ must be called upon to make a public statement supporting the LGBTQ agenda. A refusal to do so means they should be suspended. Their silence is violence.

    2. We need a special Georgetown-funded LGBTQ house, along the lines of Casa Latina and the Black House. If this administration refuses to support this we should occupy President DeGioia’s office and sue for discrimination.

    We may also want to rename a building after Ellen or RuPaul.

  4. Darrel Harb says:

    Since opposition to homosexuality is the official policy of the Catholic church, and Georgetown is a Catholic university, shouldn’t your priority be getting the administration to denounce the Church’s position?

  5. David Yarbrough says:

    I HOPE this is satire. I FEAR it’s on the up and up. I EXPECT the “Catholic” leadership of Georgetown to deny the Church and do Satan’s will in the world.

  6. Pope Francis, a Jesuit, has been very outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage and gender theory. Apparently the editors of the Hoya believe that the Holy Father is fostering hatred, and if he wished to appear on campus, the University must not spend any funds on such a visit in order to “protect” gay students from him.

    • Agree! Don’t attend a Catholic University if you are opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
      Moreover, this generation of college students who espouse “tolerance,” really just want tolerance for those who agree with them.
      I do not ascribe to the singular view of marriage that Love Saxa promotes. However, my beliefs are not threatened by a student group that doesn’t align with my personal beliefs.
      There should be room on campus for all groups of all beliefs

      • Anthony Nuzzo says:

        Sadly the default position in the face of any expression of dissent from the prevailing views among the intellectually exhausted is to resort to the pejorative. The net effect of affirming Catholic Values is to espouse hate in the minds of the indoctrinated. This is of course a sad state of affairs among the students of academic institutions.

  7. Pingback: Catholic University May Sanction Catholic Group For Its Traditional Views – MILO NEWS

  8. Pingback: Catholic University May Sanction Catholic Group For Its Traditional Views – USSA News | The Tea Party's Front Page

  9. Catholic people at a Catholic School doing Catholic things?!?! Oh heavens me. Unacceptable. Defund them!

  10. You go to a Catholic university. The Catholic openly condemns gay marriage. If you don’t like Roman Catholic doctrine, don’t attend a Roman Catholic school or church. Stop trying to force your views on others, especially in an institution that rejects your views, you nazi scum.

  11. An actual Georgetown Student says:

    Love reading the poorly thought-out responses from all the “Catholics” to this article.

    If steadfast, virulent opposition to gay rights is part of your Catholic faith, then you should rethink what Christ stood for (answer: marginalized people!) and your faith.

    Also, interesting to note that most of the commenters here seem to not to be old people who no longer go here and not Georgetown students, a younger generation that is by and large alright with gay rights.

    This is a despicable, hypocritical organization–one that has historically had members engaged in the gay sex they claim to fight against.

    Also, if this organization was actually considered with the sanctity of marriage, then they would focus on heterosexual divorce!

    • Your comment makes no sense. Apparently you haven’t gone to a Catholic Church lately or attempted to learn anything about the faith you attack or the brave Saints who have their life for her and for defending the marginalized. The Catholic faith is where these very values you claim to hold dear came from.

    • Your right in that Jesus came not to condemn but to offer them forgiveness for their sins against God. He also said. “Go now and leave your life of sin”. John 8:11.

      • Again, if you don’t agree that homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is a serious sin, a doctrine fully held by the RCC, then go somewhere else. If you feel that the Church is in error in their interpretation of Scripture, then go to another school. It’s that simple.

  12. Pingback: Georgetown LGBT Lobby Calls for Defunding of Pro-Marriage Student Group as ‘Homophobic’ | Bible Prophecy In The Daily Headlines

  13. If it weren’t for men and women having a biblical relationship there would be no LGBT issue now would there? This is the most ridiculous example of an institution even considering its core values.

  14. Jesuit Educated says:

    The idea that Jesus condones gay marriage because he “stood for” marginalized people is fallacious. Consider the woman caught in adultery. Did Jesus stop the Pharisees from stoning her and then say, “And it’s ok! These were two consenting adults! No problem here! YOLO!”?

    Obviously not. He said to her, “Go forth and sin no more.” I.e., the adultery was sinful, I forgive you, don’t do it again.

    You don’t help marginalized groups by pretending they are without sin. You don’t help persons with same-sex attraction by pretending that sodomy should be condoned and celebrated by society.

  15. Pingback: Georgetown College to defund pupil group for believing in Catholic doctrine | WARFAREWEB.COM

  16. Pingback: Georgetown College to defund pupil group for believing in Catholic doctrine | CENSOREDWEB.COM

  17. Jack Sydney says:

    This is Sandra Fluke all over again.

    That a Catholic institution would be pressed to censure a student group whose mission is aligned with core Catholic teachings is decidedly stupid. If you are queer and attending Georgetown, that’s your choice. You knew (or should have known) before applying. It is the height of utter ignorance and brashness to now expect the institution to bend to your “sinful” ways.

  18. this has to be a joke, at a catholic university? the oldest? makes me sad to attend this university that social justice issues have overtaken the value of some of the best education you can get.

    I actually had to look up LGTBQ, had no clue what it even meant. If this editorial is legit, better ban the Priests and Jesuits while we are at it.

  19. I’m confused… the title of the article is Defund Intolerance. It’s that a contradiction. By the expressions in the article the writer is intolerant to different points of view. So anyone that disagrees with the thought of gay marriage is intolerant, yet anyone that disagrees with those that disagree with gay marriage is considered tolerant. Truly this is a postmodern philosophy which isn’t a rational way of thinking.

  20. An Actual Catholic says:

    The Catholic Church defines marriage as between am an and a woman. If someone disagrees with that, then they are not Catholic. Period.

  21. Thawed peaches rot says:

    Ironic that these fools can’t see their hypocrisy.

  22. Haven’t we missed the very purpose of a University? The purpose of a University is not to homogenize thought, but rather to encourage discussion and intellectual exploration of diverse concepts and opinions in order to reach a greater understanding of our fellow man/woman and the world that surrounds us. The Georgetown that I know, fully invested in the Jesuit Tradition allows for free questioning and discussion of varying viewpoints, not the mere condemnation of viewpoints because someone/a certain group does not agree. The world that we live in requires us to constantly take stock, re-evaluate and question our thoughts and decision-making. A position that we once believed to be correct can be proven to be wrong through this type of discussion and intellectual exchange of ideas. There was a time when GPGU was not permitted status on campus. It was only through intellectual courage (rather than lawsuits) and respectful discussion and debate that GPGU obtained status as a student group and helped to create a greater sense of understanding of its viewpoints in the community as a whole. Without such intellectual bravery, the LGBTQ Community of Georgetown would not exist in its current form. Lifestyles, by definition bring about controversy and disagreement. Disagreeing with a chosen lifestyle does not equate with intolerance. One does not have to like or embrace a concept in order to tolerate it. To claim otherwise is to disavow the concept of free will. The LGBTQ Community should not shun Love Saxa. Instead, the LGBTQ Community should embrace them. Show tolerance by example. Educate through the spread of knowledge, debate and discussion without the threat of violence or persecution. Georgetown has a long history of welcoming diversity, not only geographic, but ideological and spiritual as well. It is a place where men and women have studied together equally, regardless of their own religious affiliation. Study Georgetown’s history and you will realize that only through honest, open discussion and exposure to ideas does real positive change come about. Religious Freedom, Civil Rights and Sexual Equality are not concepts that occur overnight. They have all been born out of a process of intellectual discussion and debate that had their start at Universities such as Georgetown. There is no shame in believing in your viewpoint. The Jesuit way is to have the courage to subject your viewpoint to the challenges that the Community has to offer. The only way to understand whether the position that you take is correct is to encourage discussion and debate, to take on the challenges to your thoughts and opinions and remain intellectually honest in those discussions and debates, approaching the ideas of others with an open intellectual curiosity. Real tolerance takes courage. Sadly, the Hoya’s viewpoint regarding Love Saxa displays an absence of courage. Let someone who you disagree with make their case in the open forum of a University through intellectual discussion. Trust that your fellow students have the capacity to see the logic in your arguments and the absence of the logic in your opponent’s position and trust that they have the courage to make the correct choice. Students at Georgetown are at Georgetown because they are some of the best and brightest. The don’t need censorship. They don’t need their ability to reason and make intellectual choices suspended. They need the freedom to explore intellectual ideas, to discuss, to debate, to learn and to grow. While the Hoya is entitled to its opinion, so is Love Saxa entitled to its own opinion. The discussion and debate, the free exchange of ideas and the ability of each student to explore and make informed choices (and to disagree about those choices) is precisely what University life is all about. I may not agree with Love Saxa’s viewpoints, but I believe that they should have the freedom to introduce them into the University conversation as long as they have the courage to engage in the discussion.

  23. Pingback: Georgetown student group targeted for promoting ‘hateful’ Catholic views on ‘sexual integrity’ - winfreezmo

  24. Pingback: Georgetown student group targeted for promoting ‘hateful’ Catholic views on ‘sexual integrity’ | Brief News

  25. A Gay Georgetown Student says:

    @Gtown Alum, Everything you said could be used to condone a club that exists to discourage interracial marriage, or a club that exists to promote the superiority of the white race. After all, all of those clubs have ideas that, according to your logic, should be a platform to be heard so they can enter into the free exchange of ideas central to a university?

    In your lengthy diatribe, you fail to realize the distinction between free speech and the social and professional consequences of that speech. Love Saxa is free to still exist as a club. The student body, however, does not have to financially support a club whose sole mission is the erosion of rights of LGBT students.

    Also, your reference to being gay as a “chosen lifestyle” makes it clear that you very much do agree with Love Saxa. I did not choose to be gay. I did not choose to suffer bullying, discrimination, and initial rejection by my parents because of who I am. I did not choose to have to continually defend the basic right to marry the person I love. I really hate to cast out your opinion just because you are straight, but you really don’t know.

    I came out because of–and not in spite of–the supportive, inclusive, tolerant atmosphere promoted at Georgetown. Love Saxa threatens that, and in doing so threatens the mental health, public safety, and feeling of acceptance for future generations of LGBT students, forcing us back to the shadows. I will not be forced back to the shadows.

    @ The Hoya–Bravo. I hope you know that standing up for what is right is not always easy, but history will reward your courage. I will live longer than all of these homophobic alumni to make sure of that.

    • A Georgetown Parent says:

      Well said!

      • Georgetown should kick you out, along with all the lgbtxyz groups, and this editorial board. If Georgetown is going to claim to be a Catholic, then they need to follow through. People who embrace what you embrace do not belong in authentically Catholic Communities. Love Saxa, by embracing authentic Catholic views does.

    • Love Saxa is about the promotion of the Sacramental Marriage Covenant not the erosion of gay rights. You are paranoid and intolerant buying into political power for your own gender bias and ideology. Want a gay marriage covenant club, go start one. Don’t go off trying to restrict or suppress the free discourse of the beauty of the Sacramental bond for heterosexual students or practicing Catholics or anyone else who wants to learn about Theology of the Body type doctrine then pretend you’re enlightened. You are far from that. I pray you will learn over time. In the mean time you don’t get to suppress other’s rights.

      • A Georgetown Parent says:

        I don’t believe anyone is looking to “restrict or suppress the free discourse..”, the request is to simply not have students/parents fund those view points and ideals.

        • Of course they are looking to “restrict or suppress the free discourse..”. When you are no longer a recognized student off you get no funding to bring in speakers and you have no priority rights to facilities yo hold meetings and or have speakers come and lecture. What don’t you get?

        • Based on your response I would say your okay with Love Saxa being reduced to second class citizens in the Georgetown community. To say that a non-recognized group has the same benefits and access as a formally recognized student organization is ludicrous. Are we going back to “separate but equal”? All because they want the right to promote catholic values within a catholic institution. The SAC recognition standards state that groups will not be recognized nor receive benefits if their purpose or activities foster hatred or intolerance because of their ….sexual preferences. Does not Love Saxa’s sexual preferences deserve the same protections enjoyed by the various LGBTQ groups. Are not the individuals and groups who are actively pushing for Love Saxa’s de-recognition in essence demonstrating hatred and intolerance of Love Saxa’s views and therefore its members. Maybe the students/parents who are involved with Love Saxa don’t want to fund the view points and ideals of the LGBTQ groups. However, we all have to live together and wouldn’t it be great if everyone could respect that others may have a different viewpoint.

        • jack sydney says:

          Under your reasoning then, I and others can legitimately protest against funding for LGBT groups since we do not subscribe to those beliefs which we hold are in violation of our Catholic faith and the values of Georgetown. We chose not to find those views. Cool?

          What’s good for the goose…

    • Were you aware before you applied that Georgetown was a Catholic institution which holds principals against homosexuality, much less same sex marriage?

      You’re no different than Sandra Fluke. You apply to an institution that holds clearly known values and then get upset when/if it maintains those values.

    • Dear @ A Gay Georgetown Student,
      I genuinely appreciate your response because it proves the point that I have been trying to make, i.e. that progress requires a free exchange of ideas in a respectful manner. You make several points that I would like to address.
      You are correct in your conclusion that my argument can be used to support the existence of any club for any reason. Again, that is the point, to encourage discourse involving ideas with which there may not be universal agreement. To use your rationale, any club that supports a viewpoint that opposes one held by you should not receive support. (Should Muslim Student Groups receive funding under your rationale? What about the College Republicans or Democrats?) This type of thinking leads to the very type of prejudice that you oppose and that which you believe has oppressed you.
      The concept of free speech is a hot topic in our society. What most choose to ignore is that the right conferred upon us by the Constitution is only speech free of government intervention. Congress shall pass no law. Free Speech in the greater community, free of government intervention carries with it the burden of standing for whatever you believe in and having the willingness to incur the scrutiny of the Community while you defend the ideas that you choose to present.
      There was a time in our history where white supremacy was the norm. It was only through courageous conversation and discourse that we as a community realized the evils of white supremacy and provoked positive change to recognize equality. Despite Civil Rights and Affirmative Action, we as a society still struggle at times with racial equality. Only though discourse do we have any hope of working together to achieve that goal.
      In your philosophy classes, you are exposed to different ways of viewing the world. The University Experience is not meant to end when class is over. Instead, a student’s University Experience is meant to extend beyond the classroom and into discussion within the University Community and beyond. Any attempt to diminish speech in any form runs contrary to the University Experience.
      We study things like slavery, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, not because we support them, but because of the need to understand. I don’t fear the rhetoric of Nazis’ and Anti-Semites because I believe that my fellow men and women are sufficiently intelligent to recognize the flawed thinking found in those lifestyle choices.
      Without the ability to have open discourse, we aren’t truly free. The price for that freedom is letting people that we don’t agree with speak.
      Your response makes several assumptions about what I think or believe which are incorrect. Please re-read my diatribe. You will find that I never made any reference to either you or your “lifestyle”. My reference was actually to any lifestyle without a singular focus. I don’t care who the oppressor of free speech is. I don’t have to have any opinion about the oppressor in order to oppose the act of oppression.
      While you are correct in your assumption that I do not share in your orientation, you leap to the conclusion that I could not possibly know or understand your viewpoint or experiences. My best friend from my days at Georgetown, a man who stood up in my wedding “came out” to me shortly before my wedding. I understand how difficult a decision that was. He confided in me that he had feared rejection. What he said afterward was even more profound. He admitted that his decision was not founded in courage or bravery, but rather in survival. His admission was a part of who he is as a person, and in order to survive and be happy, “coming out” was what he was compelled to do. In his mind, he had no more choice about coming out than he had a choice about his sexual orientation.
      I have great empathy for your situation. Feeling fearful and rejected by those closest to you is terribly isolating. The world can be a very cruel and lonely place. I am happy that you found support within the Georgetown Community and that the support of the Community gives you strength. I would be ashamed if my University did not provide all those feeling isolated and alone with support and encouragement. Please ask yourself one question…how did this Community reach this point?
      In my time at Georgetown, the issues of “gay rights” and student clubs were hotly contested. GPGU sought funding and recognition as a student organization. It was a contentious time where at the onset the clear majority favored a denial of funding and recognition for GPGU. This discourse wasn’t limited to the courts, but rather engaged the student body and University in sometimes hotly contested conversation, debate and protest. Allowing a largely unaccepted viewpoint to be freely expressed led to the change in thinking that brought about the supportive community that you now enjoy.
      Contrary to your conclusion, I don’t support the ideals of Love Saxa. While I consider myself Catholic, I have not lived my life in accord with many of Love Saxa principles and believe that there is ample room to debate their viewpoints. Truthfully, if there is a line to be drawn with respect to “lifestyles”, I am far more likely to stand on your side of the line than theirs. What I am opposed to is fear and oppression in any form.
      The Community of support that you find yourself in arose because a small minority had the courage to speak and then defended their viewpoint so successfully that they changed public opinion for the better. To do so, they had to make a brave decision and rely upon the intelligence of their fellow men and women to appreciate the logic of their arguments and then to have the courage to make the right decisions over time.
      Any Community cannot successfully legislate against prejudice. Laws and Lawsuits are ineffective at eradicating prejudice. To successfully combat prejudice, one must have the courage to win the hearts and minds of the Community. That is done by allowing people to have a voice, by engaging them in debate and discourse and by trusting that the members of the Community will do the right thing.
      To be clear, I am not a homophobic alum and I do not think that any member of the LBGTQ community should have to ever “live in the shadows”. I do not agree with Love Saxa’s viewpoints, but I believe strongly that Love Saxa should have the opportunity to project their ideas into the Community for debate without fear of censorship or oppression. Love Saxa just happens to be the focal point of this discussion at the moment, but the truth is that any group, including the LBGTQ could occupy Love Saxa’s position in this discussion.
      I believe that humans are capable of rational thought, that they are capable of determining right from wrong and that they are capable of choosing correctly when faced with a choice. Consequently, I don’t advocate for censorship in any form.
      Respectfully, I suggest that “coming out” is not an arrival, but rather merely a step on what will be a long journey filled with many challenges, only some of which will be related to sexual orientation. If you want to experience true freedom on your journey, then you have to allow others to express viewpoints different from those in which you believe without experiencing fear when those viewpoints are expressed. Have the courage and confidence to engage in discussion and discourse, be open to others viewpoints as they test those which you hold and believe in the good found within your fellow men and women.
      Perhaps the greatest human tragedy mankind has ever witnessed was the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the survivors of the Holocaust didn’t oppress the Nazi’s. Instead, they forced the Nazi’s into the open for all to see, believing that the world would understand the evil that the Nazi’s represented and would take action to ensure that such evil would never prevail. If the Holocaust survivors can display this type of courage and faith, surely the LBGTQ Community can endure a small campus group that shuns living together before marriage and advocates for heterosexual couples to wait until they marry to have sex.
      I wish you the very best on your journey. You are clearly an intelligent, articulate individual. Don’t let your past experiences cause you to form judgments of others before you reach a true understanding of not only what others believe, but why they believe it. As you point out, doing what is right is not always easy. Sometimes people think that they are doing the right thing when further exploration and discussion makes them change their opinion. Only through a free exchange of ideas can humans reach a greater understanding that brings about true growth and progress. Fostering the free exchange of ideas is the right thing to do, but it is seldom easy.

  26. Someone needs to start a petition to withhold graduation diplomas from the members of this editorial board. Whoever wrote this seems completing lacking in logic and rational thought. I shall elaborate:
    – the title impugns the authors, as many have already pointed out
    – the (absurd) right to gay marriage is now (unfortunately) enshrined in federal law, thus the simple views of a few students could not, absent secret superhero mind powers, lead to a change in federal law.
    – by the way, LGBT people still have a right to marry (they just dont want to marry people of the opposite sex). To say they didn’t have a right to marry prior to Obergefell is simply false. And thus to suggest any “rights” were withheld, doesnt hold up. (Do you see what Anthony Kennedy and friends were missing?)
    – to suggest that not supporting gay marriage is to incite hatred, is not a logical line of thought. It may be that one person feels as though others hate him when voicing that view, but generally speaking, one individual cannot tell another how they are to feel or what their spoken words mean. Thats the totalitarians approach.
    – to say that Georgetown is a Catholic institution that respects the church’s view on marriage and then to equate having that view with “inciting hatred” does not quite pass the smell test.
    – what do the writers mean by the importance of “protecting this community from those who oppose LGBTQ rights?” How can you protect someone from words, or even views exchanged in private? You cannot stamp out those views (that would be intolerant, to say nothing of the 1st amendment). So what the heck to the writers mean by “protecting?” Are college age men and women so weak and feeble that they cannot risk hearing a different viewpoint? Are the writers so disgusted by their own history that they can’t appraise it in its entirety? Moreover, dont they understand that the only way they can ever strengthen their own viewpoint is by hearing, engaging with, and appraising the views of others?
    – the writers are partially correct that their view is not censoring free speech. What they propose is accurately described as restricting free speech.
    – i think the 2nd half of Romans 1 is the only explanation as to how the editorial board thinks the way it does….

    Again, Georgetown administrators, please dont give diplomas to these kids (are you sure 4th graders didn’t write it?)

    • Tried Your Way It Doesn't Work says:

      Don’t insult 4th graders like that! They understand marriage is one man one woman, forever, exclusively til death do them part. You don’t want to do that fine, don’t do it then. But don’t pretend that one man and one woman is not how you got here in the first place.

    • Well said, this should be a line in the sand issue. I believe all these student advocating for Love Saxa to be refunded should all be kicked out of the school, and I mean every last one of them. Otherwise, it is past time for the authentic Catholic church to formally deny Georgetown is authentically Catholic. Clearly, this issue is not going to be worked out. There will be no grand compromise where everyone get all along in these private schools. It seems to me it is better to cut losses and just let the people go who don’t belong.

      That said, I do believe the types that want Love Saxa to be defunded also want their perversion to be embraced by the RCC and as such desire to hold Catholic institutions where they can in effect have it declared to believe marriage is between a man and woman to be against their Catholic values and affirming the moral goodness of men sodomizing as many men as they desire in line with their Catholic values. It seems to me the Catholic Church is uniquely coveted by the lgbtxyz crowd, and being embraced by Georgetown, and also having Georgetown reject faithful Catholics is for them a step in the right direction of eventually being embraced by Rome.

  27. Pingback: A student group at a Catholic university is under fire for affirming traditional marriage | The Dirty Conservative

  28. Tried Your Way It Doesn't Work says:

    That’s odd, the editorial writer automatically assumed the phrase “a space [for students] to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person” in Love Saxa constitution referred to LGBTQ. What’s that old expression, if the shoe fits, wear it? No, of course you did not choose the bad things that happened to you. But choosing to wallow in those hurts, choosing not find true help and healing in Jesus Christ, choosing not to “go and sin no more” – those are indeed choices. Love Saxa sounds like they are offering a different way of responding to being hurt by our broken, no fault divorce laden, child aborting, child abusing, human trafficking, pornographic, toxic culture of death. It sounds like they want to explore and offer Christ’s way. Please don’t misunderstand, (or – God forbid – lie about) what Christ taught in general, or abiut marriage specifically. Christ indeed did say what a marriage is and always has been – one man one woman, no divorce. And He Himself also said marriage is not for everyone, so that’s ok if you don’t want to marry as God Himself ordained. However, what is for everyone is following Jesus and obeying His commandments. That does include the one about not committing adultery, which is not limited to those who are married. It applies to everyone. God prohibits (for our own good) *any* sexual activity outside of God-ordained marriage. He designed our bodies and hearts and souls and minds, He knows best how they work and what’s good for them. Jesus was chaste His entire life in Heaven and on Earth, so was His mother and foster father, and many, many saints. Humanly, chastity and marriage are not possible. But with our Loving and Almighty God, all things, even marriage and chastity, are indeed possible. Living according to His plan, not ours, is what is best for all of us because THAT is how God made us to be. Maybe Georgetown doesn’t need all these groups but needs to start all over with everyone – students and teachers and administration – beginning with Catholic Catechism 101.

  29. Hey, why won’t you publish my response?

  30. Pingback: Catholic Students Under Fire at Georgetown for Being Catholic | The Resurgent

  31. Pingback: Why Georgetown SJWs are in line with their SJ Handlers | Buzz Patterson

  32. Michael McCabe says:

    Love Saxa does NOT advocate against equal rights for the LGBTQ community because each person has an equal right to marriage.
    If you are a man and you want to marry, you find a woman who will have you and you marry. If you are a woman and want to marry, then you find a man who will have you and you marry. This right is exactly what Love Saxa promotes, as it is the same marriage right that God instituted when He designed and created our world.
    Unfortunately, there are people who conveniently choose to forget this. As a result, there currently are folks in some countries who also have an alleged “right” to marry someone of the same gender. So these folks have more marriage rights than the rest of us.
    Advocating for equal marriage rights for all, instead of for additional marriage rights for some, is what we all should be doing.

  33. As an alum, I’m embarrassed to see Georgetown students sink so low as to try to de-fund a group that has disagreeable opinions. Whether they’re misguided, steadfastly adhering to doctrine as they see it, or just outright jerks, they’re well within their rights to hold these views– which, I note, I disagree with.

    Something isn’t happening in High School or college to teach GU students they can disagree with somebody and still tolerate dissent.

    It used to be, we would fight on campus to speak, and to be heard. Now, students fight to silence. That’s some scary. proto-fascist stuff.

    It’s a rough world out there. If you try to ban everyone you think is a jerk, you’ll soon find out someone else thinks you’re a jerk.

    Intolerance of intolerance is not progressive. At some level, people are just going to have a difference of opinion. Not everyone shares your moral compass or opinions. Silencing them isn’t going to change their minds, and it isn’t going to win anyone over– in fact, it will make people sympathize with them.

    The answer to speech you disagree with is MORE speech, not less.

    Time to grow up, Georgetown.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *