10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Melinda_Selmys]

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

In Search of… Good to see you. I’d like to apologize in the event that any of what I said on previous threads, or in my blog, offended you personally. One of my more recent posts explains what was going on with me at the time, but I still ought to have been more charitable.
In this thread, I “drudged up” a list of persecutions because Thistle asked me what wrongs had been done to homosexuals, and I was answering his question. I do, however, think that it’s a mistake to think that gay activists only bring up the persecution of homosexuals for dramatics, or to get everyone emotional – nor is it just a meme. One of the things that impressed me about John Paul II’s pontificate was his willingness to acknowledge and apologize for wrongs that had been done in the name of Christianity – the humility to recognize that as Christians we are all one body, and therefore, in some sense, all bear the responsibility for the wrongs that have been done by people acting as members of the Church. If we are vocal about the sins of other groups, and then refuse to acknowledge the corporate sins of our own Church, this goes down very badly. The horrible things that have been done to LGBTQ people are not just a meme – they’re real. If I had not learned of these things in confidence, I could tell you the names, and show you the faces of the victims.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Well, you are to be commended for bringing about a possible conversion if, indeed, the person becomes Catholic and, in connection therewith, becomes celibate. I do not personally believe myself to be a person who could be persuasive about that to a homosexual person who is still in the lifestyle. Nor do I ever discuss anybody’s sexual life with him or her under any circumstance whatever, whether gay or straight. I do not in any way feel qualified to do that if the person is in some manner having some kind of problem with it.

I do not have any reason to affirm or deny whether homosexuals “choose” to be that way, any more than I have to affirm or deny that foot festishists or “rough sex” people, for example, do.

 

[John21652]

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.

 

[John21652]

Cont.d

1. 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.

I’m going yo call a spade a spade…I cannot ‘love’ that which is wrong and I cannot ‘genuinely love’ anyone who embraces wrongness as a way of life. I will respect their personhood and acknowledge that they are human beings, but that’s it. Tolerance has its limits. Society puts in jail people whose ‘personhood’ is still respected and they are treated as human beings, but they are still incarcerated and denied certain things because society has run out of tolerance.

1. 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.

In other words, paint a dichotomous picture, which means your previous points are almost redundant. If they wont accept the dichotomy even exists, then arguments from aetheticism wont work. Genuine ‘love’ should include firmness.

1. 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.

This contradicts point 6. They have to accept that they are stepping off common ground before 6 can have an effect.

1. 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.

Oh, achy breaky heart…tell that to heterosexuals who can’t find a life time partner, or have kids, either through fate or accident.

1. 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.

I could go along with this. After all, drug addicts face the same problems of trying to free themselves from their addictions. It’s about building strength of character and denying something for a greater good. However, despite being a Catholic, Catholicism is not the only way to find a full and productive life. I’d suggest that in embracing the gay lifestyle, Catholicism is one of the first things rationalised away by Catholics who ‘come out’ and misunderstood, villified even, by others.

1. 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.

This is just asking for some common manners to be expressed. It depends upon the approach they make in the first place. I, for one, do not seek to preach before an audience. If it is an evangelical opportunity in front of an audeince, then perhaps this point may hold. However, for most of us, we only encounter the dialogue you refer to in real life’s social settings.

I have had a few people tell me of their ‘gayness’ and all but one was in a group social setting and all of them were almost challenging those present to start an argument. Braveness comes in numbers, it seems. I have had one person with whom I had a close relationship break the news that he was ‘gay’. He was seeking approval and did not get it. Obviously, he knew that our relationship meant he would get a hearing and he did. But, he wasn’t wanting any conversion and seeks none today. He knows where I am if he decides to accept my non-acceptance.

So, I don’t think you can set “rules” for anyone but yourself, according to your own personality and dispositions, your own circumstances and those moral edicts with which we ground our lives.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Never hold their gaze for more than 5 seconds. Doing so for further will suggest that you are challenging them for authority, in which case they will attack with sparkles and a chorus song.

Also, looking them in the eyes for too long can cause tempory homosexuality and an angry wife. Best to look at their shoes. But only if they’re wearing manly shoes.

 

[ringil]

Never hold their gaze for more than 5 seconds. Doing so for further will suggest that you are challenging them for authority, in which case they will attack with sparkles and a chorus song.

Also, looking them in the eyes for too long can cause tempory homosexuality and an angry wife. Best to look at their shoes. But only if they’re wearing manly shoes.

I used to work with this gay guy and I think he was trying to convert me.

He kept telling me that I would “LOVE” this musical movie “Chicago”. I kept telling him. I can’t stand musicals, no really I HATE musicals!! All that dramatic movement causes me to feel nervous and unsettled.

But this guy wouldn’t give up!! Push, push, push!! So months later I finally saw it and you know what I REALLY couldn’t stand it.

Those gay people and their agendas won’t break me I tell ya!

 

[pnewton]

Actually in the NAB it says “so that we might save SOME” Perhaps not as poetic but probably more accurate.

That is because the use of the word “all” is used in a distributive sense, like we might say “to save all kinds of people.” In the context, Paul mentions a variety of types of people, so I bet that is what he means. Thus, saving homosexuals would be a good application of Paul’s principle of adaptation.

 

[RyanBlack]

Cont.d

I’m going yo call a spade a spade…I cannot ‘love’ that which is wrong and I cannot ‘genuinely love’ anyone who embraces wrongness as a way of life. I will respect their personhood and acknowledge that they are human beings, but that’s it.

This position at odds with Holy Scripture. Nowhere does our Lord say that his commandments concerning love of neighbor, love of other believers, or love of enemy limited to their living their lives in a way that is consistent with our moral standards.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I used to work with this gay guy and I think he was trying to convert me.

He kept telling me that I would “LOVE” this musical movie “Chicago”. I kept telling him. I can’t stand musicals, no really I HATE musicals!! All that dramatic movement causes me to feel nervous and unsettled.

But this guy wouldn’t give up!! Push, push, push!! So months later I finally saw it and you know what I REALLY couldn’t stand it.

Those gay people and their agendas won’t break me I tell ya!

You keep hanging in there brother!

Why, just last week, a homosexual tried to speak to me and I had left me copy of “10 rules for talking to gays” at home, so I didn’t know what to do - I paniced and ran away.

Thank goodness for this guide. Cause otherwise, I would have to talk to them like normal human beings, and heaven forbid that ever happening.

 

[ringil]

Why, just last week, a homosexual tried to speak to me and I had left me copy of “10 rules for talking to gays” at home, so I didn’t know what to do - I paniced and ran away.
:

I first read “panicked” as “pranced” which would give an entirely different visualization of this event.

I would reccommend laminating a small copy of “The 10 Rules for Talking to Gays” that you may keep it for reference in your wallet and/or purse/bag along with ID, credit cards, and other vital information.

It is best to always be on the lookout for opportunities to practice “fraternal correction”.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I first read “panicked” as “pranced” which would give an entirely different visualization of this event.

If I had pranced, then it would have been all over for me I’m sure!

I would reccommend laminating a small copy of “The 10 Rules for Talking to Gays” that you may keep it for reference in your wallet and/or purse/bag along with ID, credit cards, and other vital information.

It is best to always be on the lookout for opportunities to practice “fraternal correction”.

Of course. Although I can’t stop thinking about something to do with a plank and my own eye… sawdust… huh? Nope, it’s gone.

 

[Catholicpotato]

I first read “panicked” as “pranced” which would give an entirely different visualization of this event.

I would reccommend laminating a small copy of “The 10 Rules for Talking to Gays” that you may keep it for reference in your wallet and/or purse/bag along with ID, credit cards, and other vital information.

It is best to always be on the lookout for opportunities to practice “fraternal correction”.

All joking aside, I think many are viewing this as a clever packaging of the old “don’t judge” argument. You will have two camps. Those who think we should be all lovey dovey about it and those who think we should slap some sense into the world. Either way we are called as christians to repent and to spread the Gospel. Some choose to do it like John the Baptist, some like the saint who taught to “preach the Gospel at all times if necessary use words” Each camp thinks it is right and each has it’s place.
But as a re-packaging of a fading philosophy I think the list =FAIL.

 

[pnewton]

All joking aside, I …But as a re-packaging of the old “don’t judge” argument. … I think the list =FAIL.

You are right about it being an old philosophy, but don’t forget that it started 2000 years ago by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount. So let’s not disparage it too much. There is some wisdom in avoiding judgmentalism.

 

[John21652]

This position at odds with Holy Scripture. Nowhere does our Lord say that his commandments concerning love of neighbor, love of other believers, or love of enemy limited to their living their lives in a way that is consistent with our moral standards.

Your response is dishonest.

To make your point you removed half of what I wrote to illustrate my point.

I wrote this - I’m going to call a spade a spade…I cannot ‘love’ that which is wrong and I cannot ‘genuinely love’ anyone who embraces wrongness as a way of life. I will respect their personhood and acknowledge that they are human beings, but that’s it. Tolerance has its limits. Society puts in jail people whose ‘personhood’ is still respected and they are treated as human beings, but they are still incarcerated and denied certain things because society has run out of tolerance.

Note the part you conveniently omitted. It speaks of the limits of tolerance. If you wish to refer to Biblical examples, then try emulating Jesus when he went through the temple, displaying his intolerance of the behaviour of the money lenders. What Jesus did does not mean He loved some people and not others. It simply showed that some things must not be tolerated. Then turn to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9. Paul preached the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

 

[Castello]

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.

Yep, words MATTER and they have real meaning.

I can call myself the queen of England, that does not make me royalty.

And the bit about giving up most important relationships… really? I have very important relationships with people other than my spouse. Our most intimate relationship is to be with Christ.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Never hold their gaze for more than 5 seconds. Doing so for further will suggest that you are challenging them for authority, in which case they will attack with sparkles and a chorus song.

Also, looking them in the eyes for too long can cause tempory homosexuality and an angry wife. Best to look at their shoes. But only if they’re wearing manly shoes.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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

primary sources (Middle English Romances), both in original language (Athelston and Amis and Amiloun, respectively)
lib.rochester.edu/camelot/athelfrm.htm
lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/amisfr.htm

same sources in modern English (same order)
elfinspell.com/EER2Athelston.html
[yorku.ca/(name removed by moderator)ar/amis_rickert.pdf](http://www.yorku.ca/(name removed by moderator)ar/amis_rickert.pdf)

An analysis
sfsu.edu/~medieval/Volume3/Brothers.html (“Merry Married Brothers: Wedded Friendship, Lovers’ Language and Male Matrimonials in Two Middle English Romances” which I’d say is fairly accurate)

In the first story the king uses the term “wedded brother”. Though the four men are unrelated they are always recognized as brothers, by themselves, by their actual families and even by entirely unconnected people.

In the second story the pair are also recognized as brothers, they refer to each other as “my brother” and outsiders refer to the other as “thy brother”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Actually these principals are good for any form of argument. I don’t know why you’re singling out gays.

Agreed! Most, if not all, of her points would apply to any form of argument. I have to remind myself of point 1 ("… more interested in winning than in getting at the truth") all the time.

However, I also feel that this post here has shown me a few things which should be especially followed when talking to gays, particularly points 8, 9 and 10 (ie. don’t underestimate what you are asking of them).

A lovely post, Melinda! Thankyou!

Edmundus

 

[RyanBlack]

Your response is dishonest.

To make your point you removed half of what I wrote to illustrate my point.

I wrote this - I’m going to call a spade a spade…I cannot ‘love’ that which is wrong and I cannot ‘genuinely love’ anyone who embraces wrongness as a way of life. I will respect their personhood and acknowledge that they are human beings, but that’s it. Tolerance has its limits. Society puts in jail people whose ‘personhood’ is still respected and they are treated as human beings, but they are still incarcerated and denied certain things because society has run out of tolerance.

Note the part you conveniently omitted. It speaks of the limits of tolerance. If you wish to refer to Biblical examples, then try emulating Jesus when he went through the temple, displaying his intolerance of the behaviour of the money lenders. What Jesus did does not mean He loved some people and not others. It simply showed that some things must not be tolerated. Then turn to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:9. Paul preached the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

No, I was not being dishonest. I limited myself to the part I did, because your previous statement seemed to me to be stating that, while you tolerate respect as persons those whose lifestyles you do not approve, you do not love them. That position is entirely unscriptural. There was nothing in the remainder of your post that gave me reason to believe that your position was otherwise, which is why I didn’t quote any of the rest of it. Your reply sounds as if that is not what you intended. It sounds to me, based on your reply, but not your previous post, that you are saying that you acknowledge that we are required to love even those whose behavior we cannot tolerate. BTW, 1 Corinthians 5:9 does not teach the exact opposite of what I am suggesting, because I suggested nothing one way or the other as to what we should tolerate. I was simply stating that Christ’s commandments concerning love of neighbor, love of fellow Christians, and love of enemy are not limited to those whose behavior we do tolerate.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

Lemon and Lime,

Hilarious. And I agree, that nothing like this should be necessary at all – it should be just obvious that LGBTQ people are normal people, just like anyone else, and that we should be treated like normal people. Unfortunately, dahling, if you review most of the threads on the forum about homosexuality you’ll find that John21652 is not alone in believing that gay folks are the equivalent of lepers in the Old Testament, and that any show of kindness or sympathy is a failure to Stand Up For the Truth!