10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Melinda_Selmys]

I’ve recently come across Dr. Steve Lively’s 10 rules for debating homosexuality. (You can find them on page 15 of the “Is Same Sex Romantic Attraction Sinful” thread, if interested.) I would like to propose a completely different set of principles:

1. Listen to understand before you try to refute: A lot of dialogue takes place at cross-purposes because neither side has the patience to listen to what the other side is actually saying. Looking for weak points, points of disagreement, statements that can be denied or refuted, or opportunities for a brilliant rebuttal tends to create a confrontational situation in which both sides are more interested in winning than in getting at the truth.
2. Don’t claim the right to define the other person’s experience: Psychoanalysis, appeals to statistics, or even second-hand anecdotal evidence will always be trumped by first-hand testimony. If you are talking to an LGBTQ person who is not promiscuous, HIV infected, suicidally depressed, or suffering from a sports wound, and you stereotype them in this way you will look like an idiot.
3. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested.
4. Be the first to admit your own mistakes: The Church and the Christian community are guilty of a lot of genuine wrongs commited against homosexual persons. Own up to this and apologize for it – ideally before you are accused. If you cause offense, apologize for that as well. Don’t make excuses.
5. Don’t talk about charity, manifest it: LGBTQ people get furious about the slogan “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner,” because they see a lot more hatred for the sin than love for the sinner. Genuine love is both affective and intellectual: it adheres to truth, but it feels like love.
6. Offer aesthetically appealing arguments: As Socrates observed, the way to truth is often through beauty. For whatever reason, this is esecially true with queer folks. Make God, the Church and chastity seductive enough that they will want religion more than sex.
7. Seek common ground: Look for things that you can agree about, and do so enthusiastically. This creates sympathy and communion, and makes the hard sayings easier to swallow.
8. Don’t understate the hardships: You are asking your interlocutor to give up their most important relationships, and probably to forgo sex and romance for the rest of their life. Really internalize the enormity of that sacrifice.
9. Offer compelling and realistic alternatives: Your arguments will fail if your interlocutor cannot imagine life without gay sex. You have to show how a homosexual person can live a full, productive and joyful life while living in accord with Catholic teaching, and you have to show what you are doing, or what you are willing to do, to help LGBTQ Catholics shoulder this cross.
10. Don’t argue for show: The person that you’re talking to should be the primary audience for your discourse. If you manifest charity and understanding, reasonableness, mildness, humility, and sympathy to the gay advocate that you’re dialoguing with, this will come across very well to any secondary audience who might be watching. If not, you will impress those who already agree with you, but further alienate those who do not.

 

[Catholicpotato]

golly gee wiz…
Has it come to this. Have we lost the ability to actually stand up for Holiness? Must we tiptoe around while the devil can stomp on us?
Truth CANNOT be compromised. Words mean things. This is what the “other” side understands and we do not. Your rules are a recipie for failure. but you will fail with the reputation of being “nice” so… at least you have that…

 

[manualman]

Great list, except #3. Maybe to a certain extent, but vocabulary IS a tool of argumentation. When you define somebody as “gay” you make that the central part of their identity. Don’t agree to that. Human beings are so much more than their sexuality.

Same goes for “gay marriage.” You surrender the proper definition if you allow, even for the sake of argument, that two men can enter into a relationship that by its very definition is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new human life. No can do.

The rest is quite good though.

 

[Nate13]

Great list, except #3. Maybe to a certain extent, but vocabulary IS a tool of argumentation. When you define somebody as “gay” you make that the central part of their identity. Don’t agree to that. Human beings are so much more than their sexuality.

Same goes for “gay marriage.” You surrender the proper definition if you allow, even for the sake of argument, that two men can enter into a relationship that by its very definition is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new human life. No can do.

The rest is quite good though.

Haha I agree to an extent, but pick your battles wisely. Otherwise you will look back and realize 80% of the conversation was spent arguing about terms. All in all I like the list.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

golly gee wiz…
Has it come to this. Have we lost the ability to actually stand up for Holiness? Must we tiptoe around while the devil can stomp on us?
Truth CANNOT be compromised. Words mean things. This is what the “other” side understands and we do not. Your rules are a recipie for failure. but you will fail with the reputation of being “nice” so… at least you have that…

We must be all things to all men so that we might save all.

That is exactly what Melinda was talking about

 

[ConstantineTG]

golly gee wiz…
Has it come to this. Have we lost the ability to actually stand up for Holiness? Must we tiptoe around while the devil can stomp on us?
Truth CANNOT be compromised. Words mean things. This is what the “other” side understands and we do not. Your rules are a recipie for failure. but you will fail with the reputation of being “nice” so… at least you have that…

Sure, lets not be nice. I’m sure homosexuals will convert to the Catholic faith en masse when we keep telling them that they are going to hell.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Sure, lets not be nice. I’m sure homosexuals will convert to the Catholic faith en masse when we keep telling them that they are going to hell.

And they will convert if we sugar coat it? sounds deceptive to me.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sure, lets not be nice. I’m sure homosexuals will convert to the Catholic faith en masse when we keep telling them that they are going to hell.

Don’t forget telling them they have a mental disorder, that always goes over really well.

Melinda, I’m just listen to you on Catholic answers and I wish I had called and asked some questions, could I PM them to you? Oh and I have heard of Tweed, I think I’ve actually passed through it.

 

[thistle]

I’ve recently come across Dr. Steve Lively’s 10 rules for debating homosexuality. (You can find them on page 15 of the “Is Same Sex Romantic Attraction Sinful” thread, if interested.) I would like to propose a completely different set of principles:

1. Listen to understand before you try to refute: A lot of dialogue takes place at cross-purposes because neither side has the patience to listen to what the other side is actually saying. Looking for weak points, points of disagreement, statements that can be denied or refuted, or opportunities for a brilliant rebuttal tends to create a confrontational situation in which both sides are more interested in winning than in getting at the truth.
2. Don’t claim the right to define the other person’s experience: Psychoanalysis, appeals to statistics, or even second-hand anecdotal evidence will always be trumped by first-hand testimony. If you are talking to an LGBTQ person who is not promiscuous, HIV infected, suicidally depressed, or suffering from a sports wound, and you stereotype them in this way you will look like an idiot.
3. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested.
4. Be the first to admit your own mistakes:** The Church and the Christian community are guilty of a lot of genuine wrongs commited against homosexual persons.** Own up to this and apologize for it – ideally before you are accused. If you cause offense, apologize for that as well. Don’t make excuses.
5. Don’t talk about charity, manifest it: LGBTQ people get furious about the slogan “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner,” because they see a lot more hatred for the sin than love for the sinner. Genuine love is both affective and intellectual: it adheres to truth, but it feels like love.
6. Offer aesthetically appealing arguments: As Socrates observed, the way to truth is often through beauty. For whatever reason, this is esecially true with queer folks. Make God, the Church and chastity seductive enough that they will want religion more than sex.
7. Seek common ground: Look for things that you can agree about, and do so enthusiastically. This creates sympathy and communion, and makes the hard sayings easier to swallow.
8. Don’t understate the hardships: You are asking your interlocutor to give up their most important relationships, and probably to forgo sex and romance for the rest of their life. Really internalize the enormity of that sacrifice.
9. Offer compelling and realistic alternatives: Your arguments will fail if your interlocutor cannot imagine life without gay sex. You have to show how a homosexual person can live a full, productive and joyful life while living in accord with Catholic teaching, and you have to show what you are doing, or what you are willing to do, to help LGBTQ Catholics shoulder this cross.
10. Don’t argue for show: The person that you’re talking to should be the primary audience for your discourse. If you manifest charity and understanding, reasonableness, mildness, humility, and sympathy to the gay advocate that you’re dialoguing with, this will come across very well to any secondary audience who might be watching. If not, you will impress those who already agree with you, but further alienate those who do not.

Please explain how the Church is guilty of a lot of genuine wrongs committed against homosexual persons!

 

[po18guy]

golly gee wiz…
Has it come to this. Have we lost the ability to actually stand up for Holiness? Must we tiptoe around while the devil can stomp on us?
Truth CANNOT be compromised. Words mean things. This is what the “other” side understands and we do not. Your rules are a recipie for failure. but you will fail with the reputation of being “nice” so… at least you have that…

The default seems to be that anyone who admonishes the sinner is bigoted and hateful. But wait, isn’t that, by itself, bigoted and hateful?

 

[po18guy]

Haha I agree to an extent, but pick your battles wisely. Otherwise you will look back and realize 80% of the conversation was spent arguing about terms. All in all I like the list.

I remember the arguing over the shape of the table at the Viet Nam war “peace talks”

 

[pnewton]

And they will convert if we sugar coat it? sounds deceptive to me.

Yes, sugar coat what we say with charity. This is not deceptive. It is, “caritas in veritate.” Was there anything specific in the list you think is un-Catholic?

 

[Corki]

We must be all things to all men so that we might save all.

I disagree with this. We must not be “all things”. We must be constant. While we can change our approach, the message is the same and the messenger is the same.

It is also not our job to save anyone, let alone “save all”. The most we can do it to present the truth with charity and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Catholicpotato,

These rules are based on
a) what worked to convert me to Catholicism
b) what I’ve seen work to convert other LGBTQ people
c) what I’ve heard from other same-sex attracted people living out the Church’s teachings on chastity.

I’m working from the principle that you will know the tree by its fruits. The fruit that I see from the “standing up for Holiness” mentality is a progressively more entrenched and divisive culture war, in which the general expectation of the Christian community is that things are going to continue to go to Hell in a handbasket until the blood of the martyrs washes through the streets of New York. I can’t see that the approach that actually works could possibly be described as a “recipe for failure.”

 

[White_Peony]

Wow! So now the government is protecting gays. What next?

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Thistle,

First I should be clear that by “the Church” I mean, by the visible Church including those who may not be acting with the clear authorization of the Magisterium’s authentic teaching authority. Id est, I mean what the average man on the street means by “the Church.”
What harm have we done to homosexual persons? Going back to the fifth century, there are castrations, pillories, imprisonments, experimental surgeries, torture, lynchings, “corrective” rape of lesbians, fag-beatings, autos de fe, executions, and so on, and so on, done in the name of Christianity, and often with the approval of Christian leaders. Some of these things are still going on today (corrective rape in Africa, and “orientation change” cures that involve involuntary imprisonment, electric-shock based tortures, and so forth. Several of these are things where I have met victims, so I can’t buy the “the gay rights movement just made this up to further their agenda” line of justification.)

 

[Nate13]

Catholicpotato,

These rules are based on
a) what worked to convert me to Catholicism
b) what I’ve seen work to convert other LGBTQ people
c) what I’ve heard from other same-sex attracted people living out the Church’s teachings on chastity.

I’m working from the principle that you will know the tree by its fruits. The fruit that I see from the “standing up for Holiness” mentality is a progressively more entrenched and divisive culture war, in which the general expectation of the Christian community is that things are going to continue to go to Hell in a handbasket until the blood of the martyrs washes through the streets of New York. I can’t see that the approach that actually works could possibly be described as a “recipe for failure.”

Haha I agree I’m not sure what is wrong with sugar coating the Truth, if we are talking about sugar coating within the beauty of the Truth itself. It seems to me this strategy is based on helping people visualize what the Truth actually looks like and avoiding subjective arguments.

Also for those who think this is sugar coating:

“8. Don’t understate the hardships: You are asking your interlocutor to give up their most important relationships, and probably to forgo sex and romance for the rest of their life. Really internalize the enormity of that sacrifice.”

It seems number 8 is stating not to sugar coat so I guess you would be in agreement there? It seems to me some people can’t understand the difference between sugar coating something and tactfully arguing you a point.

 

[pnewton]

I disagree with this. We must not be “all things”. We must be constant. While we can change our approach, the message is the same and the messenger is the same.

It is also not our job to save anyone, let alone “save all”. The most we can do it to present the truth with charity and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

The statement is a direct quote from St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:19. It is speaking of the approach that is used, which is the same thing that this thread addresses: the approach. No one is suggesting that we compromise with sin in using a wise approach.

I Corinthians 9:19 Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law—to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law—though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ—to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Hey All,

I’m not talking about “sugar-coating” anything. I’m talking about implementing 1 Corinthians chapter 13.
That said, I do understand the reservations of some people towards using the word “gay.” My reason for using it is this: if you say to an LGBTQ person “You’re not gay. You’re a heterosexual with same-sex attractions” they will immediately go about trying to translate what you’ve just said into an idiom that they can understand. The result will be “You’re not gay. You’re just a straight person who happens to be gay,” which, as you can see, is total nonsense. The most charitable conclusion that they’ll be able to come to is that you don’t understand what the word gay means. More likely, they’ll just decide that you’re an imbecile whose committed their life to inane babbling.

 

[Kolbe300]

1. Listen to understand before you try to refute: A lot of dialogue takes place at cross-purposes because neither side has the patience to listen to what the other side is actually saying. Looking for weak points, points of disagreement, statements that can be denied or refuted, or opportunities for a brilliant rebuttal tends to create a confrontational situation in which both sides are more interested in winning than in getting at the truth.
2. Don’t claim the right to define the other person’s experience: Psychoanalysis, appeals to statistics, or even second-hand anecdotal evidence will always be trumped by first-hand testimony. If you are talking to an LGBTQ person who is not promiscuous, HIV infected, suicidally depressed, or suffering from a sports wound, and you stereotype them in this way you will look like an idiot.
3. Agree to their terms: Truth is not a language game. If what you’re saying is true, you should be able to express it in any language. Insisting on terms like “homosexual inclination,” “lifestyle,” or “nature” (in the natural law sense) is basically a fancy form of begging the question. It’s good and right in theological documents from the Vatican, for the Bishops, but it is bad practice in practical evangelism. Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested.
4. Be the first to admit your own mistakes: The Church and the Christian community are guilty of a lot of genuine wrongs commited against homosexual persons. Own up to this and apologize for it – ideally before you are accused. If you cause offense, apologize for that as well. Don’t make excuses.
5. Don’t talk about charity, manifest it: LGBTQ people get furious about the slogan “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner,” because they see a lot more hatred for the sin than love for the sinner. Genuine love is both affective and intellectual: it adheres to truth, but it feels like love.
6. Offer aesthetically appealing arguments: As Socrates observed, the way to truth is often through beauty. For whatever reason, this is esecially true with queer folks. Make God, the Church and chastity seductive enough that they will want religion more than sex.
7. Seek common ground: Look for things that you can agree about, and do so enthusiastically. This creates sympathy and communion, and makes the hard sayings easier to swallow.
8. Don’t understate the hardships: You are asking your interlocutor to give up their most important relationships, and probably to forgo sex and romance for the rest of their life. Really internalize the enormity of that sacrifice.
9. Offer compelling and realistic alternatives: Your arguments will fail if your interlocutor cannot imagine life without gay sex. You have to show how a homosexual person can live a full, productive and joyful life while living in accord with Catholic teaching, and you have to show what you are doing, or what you are willing to do, to help LGBTQ Catholics shoulder this cross.
10. Don’t argue for show: The person that you’re talking to should be the primary audience for your discourse. If you manifest charity and understanding, reasonableness, mildness, humility, and sympathy to the gay advocate that you’re dialoguing with, this will come across very well to any secondary audience who might be watching. If not, you will impress those who already agree with you, but further alienate those who do not.

Thank you, Melinda. This is fantastic. If this approach were to be taken (and it can be done without an ounce of truth being left out), people outside the Church may actually start to listen. Heck, people* inside *the Church may actually start to listen. Thank you again.