10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[OraLabora]

In general I think this is an excellent post! I only wanted to comment on part of it and I agree with most of it.

I’ll only add one comment, in general those who have not confronted their dark side, but have one, can be miserable people to be around. I know I was

They can be surly, bitter, angry, obsessive, scrupulous. Perhaps they don’t “engage in their sin”, but the alter ego they have built to avoid confronting it can be every bit as unpleasant as the sin itself.

It’s a maturation process and unfortunately I know some folks in their 50s+ who have never matured.

Some have hidden their dark side so well they even forget it is there. However we all have it, and the veneer between good and evil can be thin indeed. I think the Jewish people learned that the hard way in WWII.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That is probably not the ORIGINAL use of the word marriage. There was life before the 14th century you know…

What you are implying is akin to saying the word gay is used to describe the birth of Jesus in Christmas Carols.

Actually the use I’m referring I’ve seen in the eleventh century

 

[Catholicpotato]

Actually the use I’m referring I’ve seen in the eleventh century

Ok then change my statement to 11th century. Perhaps you should not use the word “original”

 

[michelleds]

Actually the use I’m referring I’ve seen in the eleventh century

Dakota, are these “wedded friendship” statements solely from Alan Bray’s work? thanks

 

[Benadam]

I’ll only add one comment, in general those who have not confronted their dark side, but have one, can be miserable people to be around. I know I was

They can be surly, bitter, angry, obsessive, scrupulous. Perhaps they don’t “engage in their sin”, but the alter ego they have built to avoid confronting it can be every bit as unpleasant as the sin itself.

It’s a maturation process and unfortunately I know some folks in their 50s+ who have never matured.

Some have hidden their dark side so well they even forget it is there. However we all have it, and the veneer between good and evil can be thin indeed. I think the Jewish people learned that the hard way in WWII.

Speaking of the dark side, a significant portion of what mankind is made of. That there exists a part of ourselves that we don’t know causing behaviour that mystifies us makes it a matter to explore. This condition is explored by few. Only the intellectually minded become aware of it and only mystics descend into it’s depths in devotion to self discovery. That is untill the Church started a ministry of mercy and understanding devoted to our dark side in the Sacrament of reconciliation. The Catholic Church has been in dialogue with our shadow for two thousand years. This fact is something about the Church that I point to when discussing the dynamic relationship between the shadow and ego as if those terms model a view unkown untill revealed by New Age thinkers.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota, are these “wedded friendship” statements solely from Alan Bray’s work? thanks

No ma’am

 

[michelleds]

No ma’am

see, this would’ve been a good opportunity to tell me more…like what other works besides Bray’s?

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

I wanted to address rule number 3 – Agree to Their Terms. First, I don’t mean that you should do so in cases where that produces nonsense. The gay marriage debate is obviously a debate about the meaning and nature of marriage, so it’s necessary to discuss why we define marriage as we do. In that case, agreeing that gay marriage is marriage means throwing in the towel on the whole debate, which we cannot do. What I mean is that you want to try to express your arguments, to the greatest possible degree, in language that the other side is able to instantly understand, where the language itself does not become an obstacle. Otherwise you end up wasting a huge amount of time debating the meanings of terms, whereas if you just let it go and express your argument in their terms, you can make more headway faster and be more convincing.
I would also add, for the sake of Catholicpotato, that about half of the points on this list are specifically designed to enable you to figure out what kind of argument will work for the person that you’re talking to (whether they need a kick in the pants, a hug, or a sophisticated deconstruction of Plato’s Symposium…), so that you can frame your argument in those terms. My highly intellectualized arguments won’t work for an emotional type, you’re absolutely right – it’s not speaking in their idiom. Agreeing to the other party’s terms includes allowing them to decide whether they would prefer an argument from the head, from the gut or from the heart.

 

[OraLabora]

Speaking of the dark side, a significant portion of what mankind is made of. That there exists a part of ourselves that we don’t know causing behaviour that mystifies us makes it a matter to explore. This condition is explored by few. Only the intellectually minded become aware of it and only mystics descend into it’s depths in devotion to self discovery. That is untill the Church started a ministry of mercy and understanding devoted to our dark side in the Sacrament of reconciliation. The Catholic Church has been in dialogue with our shadow for two thousand years. This fact is something about the Church that I point to when discussing the dynamic relationship between the shadow and ego as if those terms model a view unkown untill revealed by New Age thinkers.

Good point, and I have to say in my own case the Sacrament of Reconciliation, with a very kind and patient confessor, played a huge role in getting me trough my own dark night.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

I have noticed that there appears to be a lack of distinction in some people’s mind regarding several things, to-wit:

1. “debate” vs “testimony” vs “witnessing” vs “everyday talking”
2. real life vs internet
3. Moral Theology forum vs personal
4. family vs stranger vs friend vs co-worker

Melinda, you unfortunately conflated “debate” and “talking” in the OP by referring to a list of suggestions for debating but then calling your list rules for talking to gays.

If a person does not have a good understanding of when to use each of the four different styles I listed in #1 above, then they have more issues with proclaiming the Gospel than just not knowing how to talk to gays. they probably aren’t particularly good with talking to their spouse, co-workers, family and friends.

There’s nothing special about talking to gays; as someone already posted, the general gist of “charity” implied in this list should inform each and every one of our conversations. and that should be true regardless of the topic of conversation. If I’m ordering breakfast, I try to have charity–in my words, actions, body language, and tone.

One last thing, CAF especially the Apologetics section, is a good place to learn how to debate a number of issues. better to cut your teeth here on the internet than with your boss in real life.

Hey Michelle,

This is a well thought out post, and it deserves a well thought out response, so I’ll do my best to deliver. I scrupled for quite a while about what to call this thread, and settled on “talking to gays” because I wanted to highlight what I felt was a problem with the tone of the rules for debating homosexuality – that is that they assume that Christianity’s primary interface with the LGBTQ community is through debate about the issue of homosexuality. I wanted to juxtapose that against the idea of talking to people.
I do think that context is important in any discussion, but I also think that it’s important to keep in mind that whenever you’re debating about homosexuality in a public venue – whether in an auditorium, a casual party, or an internet forum – there is a chance that you’re actually talking to gay people. I’ve had Catholics say things to me that they would never knowingly say to a queer person’s face because they’ve just assumed that because I’m married, and Catholic, and have six kids, I therefore don’t have same-sex attractions. I was some offended, let me tell ya
With regards to the “internet vs. real life” distinction, I have some reservations about that. I tend to use my real name on the internet, because I want to be accountable for the things that I say. If I get mad, and blow up at someone, I really value the fact that they can hunt me down, get redress and reconcile. The problem of anonymity and lack of accountability on the internet is one that Benedict XVI talked about recently, and I think he’s right on the money. I would add that although it’s certainly better to cut your teeth on the CAF, it’s also true that there needs to be genuine feedback, so that people can self-critically evaluate the effect of their words on their audience – so that they don’t make that blunder while the boss is watching…

 

[Benadam]

I wanted to address rule number 3 – Agree to Their Terms. First, I don’t mean that you should do so in cases where that produces nonsense. The gay marriage debate is obviously a debate about the meaning and nature of marriage, so it’s necessary to discuss why we define marriage as we do. In that case, agreeing that gay marriage is marriage means throwing in the towel on the whole debate, which we cannot do. What I mean is that you want to try to express your arguments, to the greatest possible degree, in language that the other side is able to instantly understand, where the language itself does not become an obstacle. Otherwise you end up wasting a huge amount of time debating the meanings of terms, whereas if you just let it go and express your argument in their terms, you can make more headway faster and be more convincing.
I would also add, for the sake of Catholicpotato, that about half of the points on this list are specifically designed to enable you to figure out what kind of argument will work for the person that you’re talking to (whether they need a kick in the pants, a hug, or a sophisticated deconstruction of Plato’s Symposium…), so that you can frame your argument in those terms. My highly intellectualized arguments won’t work for an emotional type, you’re absolutely right – it’s not speaking in their idiom. Agreeing to the other party’s terms includes allowing them to decide whether they would prefer an argument from the head, from the gut or from the heart.

Melinda, thank you for clarifying what you meant.

Your post brought to mind, believe it or not, King David listening to the prophet Nathan’s story about the rich man with plenty taking the poor man’s one and only beloved ewe. Then I was reminded that David was a man after God’s own heart.

Nathan used an argument that appealed to the heart knowing David would be convinced of his sin if it was presented in a way that put David in God’s place before telling him that it is a story about himself.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The Church and the Christian community are guilty of a lot of genuine wrongs commited against homosexual persons.

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.)

Melinda,

It is commendable that you reach out to others so that they too would catch the rays of God’s grace and accept the truth, as you did upon your conversion from active lesbian life. I realize you wish to maintain credibility with the gay crowd (which you said in your blog site and as you explained in Post 50 to michelleds) and are attempting to bridge the division in understanding between gays and straights in this forum. However, in so doing, I fail to see that what you posted above is helpful. You drudged up a list of persecutions and tortures that took place with the involvement of hateful Christians for dramatics, an art that gays utilize to get everybody emotional. What is the purpose of using false meme of unspeakable things that homosexuals have suffered for centuries which have nothing to do with official Church action or teaching? Should not that fact been raised by you off the bat?

ISoG

 

[Ridgerunner]

I will surely brand myself as retrograde here. I don’t particularly argue with the poster’s “rules”, but neither do I discuss anybody’s sexuality with him or her. In what context do these “arguments” come up?

If I believe someone is homosexual, I say nothing about it. I figure if he/she is committed to that life, I am certainly not going to persuade him or her otherwise, and it is not my place to confront him or her about it. I do not have that expertise. If someone lets me know about his/her sexuality, my response is “Oh” or “Mmm-hmmm” and then I deal with whatever business is really at hand.

I imagine, then, that this only comes up in the context of family relationships or in case someone well known to me, would come and say “I’m gay, but I sure wish you could convince me that I shouldn’t be”. In that case, I would do my best.

But honestly, how does a discussion of someone’s homosexuality ever even come up so we need to consider the “rules of engagement”?

On blogs, maybe?

 

[Catholicpotato]

I will surely brand myself as retrograde here. I don’t particularly argue with the poster’s “rules”, but neither do I discuss anybody’s sexuality with him or her. In what context do these “arguments” come up?

If I believe someone is homosexual, I say nothing about it. I figure if he/she is committed to that life, I am certainly not going to persuade him or her otherwise, and it is not my place to confront him or her about it. I do not have that expertise. If someone lets me know about his/her sexuality, my response is “Oh” or “Mmm-hmmm” and then I deal with whatever business is really at hand.

I imagine, then, that this only comes up in the context of family relationships or in case someone well known to me, would come and say “I’m gay, but I sure wish you could convince me that I shouldn’t be”. In that case, I would do my best.

But honestly, how does a discussion of someone’s homosexuality ever even come up so we need to consider the “rules of engagement”?

On blogs, maybe?

I get what you are saying and my wife would agree with you but I am of the belief that this IS a culture war and so we talk about it openly in our culture…

 

[Ridgerunner]

I get what you are saying and my wife would agree with you but I am of the belief that this IS a culture war and so we talk about it openly in our culture…

But that’s a different thing, isn’t it? If somebody, let’s say on CAF, argues in favor of repeal of DADT, for instance, I’ll war with him/her, and did, because in “culture wars” of that nature, the protagonists are generally not personally invested in homosexuality and societal effect is what’s being debated. But if he/she premises the argument on “I’m gay myself and I say being gay is just fine…”, then there’s nothing to be said because the person thinks being homosexual is normal and just fine, has become personally invested in it, and I’m not going to persuade.

 

[wild_thing]

I generally like this list.

I would add though, that we all have the capacity for great darkness. Many of us have not yet confronted our own deep darkness. Some attempt to hide behind “rules and regulations”, and that works for a while. Eventually though, our dark side gets the better of us, and we fall back into its temptation.

It’s a hard fall, puts our faith on the line, and leads into our “dark night of the soul”. When we convert to the faith (or in my case return to the faith after a long absence) we’re filled with the zeal of the newly converted, and that gives enough strength to overcome our dark side, for quite some time. But then we hit the wall and enter our dark night.

When we emerge, that’s when we can begin the true transformation, in the depths of our hearts. I think people who have been through this wringer are better placed to dialogue with folks who not only have yet to confront their dark side, but also with folks who haven’t even begun any kind of spiritual conversion. It’s a case of “been there, done that” and so true empathy is possible, there is less chance of taking on an accusatory or condemnatory tone.

I speak from experience; without going into personal details, all I can say is that in the past, prior to this passage through the Dark Night, I was like many folks on this forum, hiding behind rules and regulations, and was highly accusatory of folks (including gays) who seemed unable to follow what seemed to me like obvious and simple rules. Until I felt flat on my face, and had to confront my dark side. It nearly cost me my marriage. I was on the cusp of losing everything I had: wife, home, family. Within a day or two in fact, and it took a miracle (and a sympathetic Benedictine monk… who says celibate men can’t give good marriage counseling!) to save us. Salvation through Christ is not just some abstract concept for a future afterlife. It begins here and now to those who try to grasp it.

I think many behaviours, including unhealthy sexual behaviours, can best be seen through the prism of addiction. Who are those who give alcoholics the most useful, and least judgmental support? Fellow reformed alcoholics. Fellow addicts who have experienced their own long, painful fall, and who realize how fragile their situation is, and how much the addict seeking reform is him or herself fragile and needs, much more than accusations and judgement, rather an empathetic ear, and an extended hand to help the person back up.

It is very hard for a non-addict to attempt to walk in the shoes of an addict. It is very hard for a straight person to understand the circumstances of the gay person. Telling that person that (s)he will have to break their relationships and face lifelong celibacy (because for a gay person, that’s what “chastity” means), is easy to do from the point of view of say a married straight person.

Yet we are condemning the gay person, perhaps without having faced our own dark side; because if we had faced our own dark side, and experienced it reducing us to a whimpering lump, we would be far less condemnatory of the dark side of others. And we wouldn’t hide behind the farce of “fraternal correction” in so doing. Sometimes that “fraternal correction” is merely ourselves trying to avoid facing our own reality; may those who are without sin cast the first stone… it’s much easier to throw the stone at others than at ourselves. In the end, the best “fraternal correction” is to get our own emotional, spiritual and moral compass in order, keep our heads down, and do the best we can in serenity.

Seeing that serenity is perhaps the best beacon for correction to the person troubled by his or her own capacity for darkness. Especially if the serene believer is able to really express empathy for having been in the shoes of the other sinner (even if it isn’t the same sin), and express how much peace was found through God… perhaps the other sinner will want a piece of that peace him or herself; and that’s when we win a true convert.

Thank you. I know now why I had the impulse to log onto CA today.

 

[ringil]

There is a thing called “charity”. What is the use of a message if it will not be received.

Indeed.

Also, there are many ways to say the exact same thing. You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Check out my signature; I believe it is apt for some posts here. . . .

 

[Nelka]

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.

How about telling gays to keep their hands to themselves!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

How about telling gays to keep their hands to themselves!

Please explain

 

[Benadam]

I will surely brand myself as retrograde here. I don’t particularly argue with the poster’s “rules”, but neither do I discuss anybody’s sexuality with him or her. In what context do these “arguments” come up?

If I believe someone is homosexual, I say nothing about it. I figure if he/she is committed to that life, I am certainly not going to persuade him or her otherwise, and it is not my place to confront him or her about it. I do not have that expertise. If someone lets me know about his/her sexuality, my response is “Oh” or “Mmm-hmmm” and then I deal with whatever business is really at hand.

I imagine, then, that this only comes up in the context of family relationships or in case someone well known to me, would come and say “I’m gay, but I sure wish you could convince me that I shouldn’t be”. In that case, I would do my best.

But honestly, how does a discussion of someone’s homosexuality ever even come up so we need to consider the “rules of engagement”?

On blogs, maybe?

People who have ssa are suffering. If you ask a person who has ssa if it were a choice would they choose to be attracted to their own gender ( I’ve asked 3 ) they say no. One friend told me that even though most people where we work accept the gay lifestyle he felt that those same people never put that about him on the shelf. That placed a wall that got higher over time. Unbeknownst to the so called’ tolerant. One day he sat down at my table in the lunch room and said I feel like I don’t belong here anymore. He thanked me for being someone who could relate to him without judgeing him. To my surprise he said the ‘only’ one. out of 50+ employees on first shift. Even though I was one of the few that openly argued that ssa is a disorder him and I enjoyed a genuine friendship. Anyway, he did leave the company but over the three plus years of lunches and breaks has gained a new appreciation for the Catholic view on the matter. Last I heard a month or so back he was going to RCIA to get confirmed so he could become a godparent. Though still not a believer, but as he say’s someone who appreciates and respects the Catholic faith.

The conversation is most fruitfull if it is between brothers or sisters of the human race of whom one suffers ssa. In my experience dialogue about ssa happens when someone with ssa notices that they can put their sexual behaviour on the shelf and just be another human being among others being human around you.