Andrew Sullivan would reject ideas and opinion expressed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger citing the examples of the Bible and Hebrews Scriptures. Homosexuality is a sin because it is unnatural for a person to have sexual relations with the same sex. This issue is stated in Leviticus: “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Sullivan 188). At the level of policy, Sullivan argues that the Church oppose homosexuality, which by its very nature is at odds with the norm of the procreative family, a norm which is major contribution to the civilization of humanity. The essay is an effort to make explicit this "civilizing" role of heterosexual marriage, a role recognized, emphasized, and sanctified by biblical religion. In contrast to Andrew Sullivan, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger states that homosexuality cannot be regarded as a sin because “human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator” (Ratzinger). The church should express Christ's love and compassion toward homosexual persons, but should also uphold the vision for sexuality and marriage.
Thus, Andrew Sullivan would agree with some ideas expressed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger recognizing the difference between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation. “Persons with a homosexual orientation are not to be condemned or prosecuted, but treated with dignity, respect and compassion” (Sullivan 190). The homosexual movement is interpreted by the colloquium as part of a larger sexual agenda rooted in a destructive lack of discipline and restraint.
He concludes that homosexuality is such a threat to heterosexual marriage (which does involve commitment to a common good) that society ought in every acceptable way possible discourage homosexuality. Similar to Andrew Sullivan, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger states that: "as in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God" (Ratzinger).
The main difference between the critics is the way they use arguments and perspectives of the Scripture. Andrew Sullivan uses direct meaning of the Scripture while Cardinal Josef Ratzinger applies general concepts and views on human nature and divine nature of every person to homosexual relations. Thus, Andrew Sullivan would oppose Cardinal Josef Ratzinger because homosexual behavior odds with God's purpose for sexual union, a purpose which is revealed in Scripture. Jones defends a "high view" if Scripture which, he argues, explicitly condemns homosexuality and establishes heterosexual marriage as God's standard.
Andrew Sullivan would state that a homosexual person should hide its sexual orientation because "it violates the God's plan for human sexuality" (Sullivan 188). The distinction between homosexuality as a condition of sexual predispositions and homosexual behavior becomes important. Its opposition to homosexual behavior is rooted in the interpretation of Scripture as unequivocally viewing homosexuality as immoral and is founded