10 Rules for Talking to Gays

[Tantum_ergo]

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

I’ll second this, in spades. I’m the first to admit that INDIVIDUAL CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS MAY have done a genuine wrong to an individual homosexual person, or even that somehow somewhere some individual managed to genuinely wrong quite a few people, although the ‘genuine wrong’ was not done BECAUSE of their Catholic faith but rather in ‘spite of’ it.

But “THE CHURCH”? Not “people in the Church, even bishops or Popes, not teaching ex cathedra, at a GIVEN moment”? “THE CHURCH” as in yeah, that institution given to us by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, managed to do a bunch of genuine WRONGS?

I don’t buy it.

Sorry, that’s just the slippery slope to, “the CHURCH has wronged women–we must let women be PRIESTS” now that “the CHURCH has wronged gays–we must let gays marry now!” all the way to “The CHURCH has wronged all people --we must let everybody have the right to choose when and how they will live and die, in every way It is my right to choose to abort! it is my right to choose to euthanize! It is my right to choose not just for me but for others. . .and all in the name of love and 'correcting wrong.”

And just because the slippery slope is given a bad name, don’t think it doesn’t happen. Even the greatest skiers and skaters will ‘slip’ sometimes because the surface is slippery in and of itself. I would love to see historic evidence that shows that when a small evil was permitted, it did NOT open the door to greater and greater ones. . .but historically speaking, that hasn’t happened. Always, ‘one little crack’ has led to great chasms.

 

[dorrbell]

I’ll second this, in spades. I’m the first to admit that INDIVIDUAL CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS MAY have done a genuine wrong to an individual homosexual person, or even that somehow somewhere some individual managed to genuinely wrong quite a few people, although the ‘genuine wrong’ was not done BECAUSE of their Catholic faith but rather in ‘spite of’ it.

But “THE CHURCH”? Not “people in the Church, even bishops or Popes, not teaching ex cathedra, at a GIVEN moment”? “THE CHURCH” as in yeah, that institution given to us by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, managed to do a bunch of genuine WRONGS?

I don’t buy it.

Sorry, that’s just the slippery slope to, “the CHURCH has wronged women–we must let women be PRIESTS” now that “the CHURCH has wronged gays–we must let gays marry now!” all the way to “The CHURCH has wronged all people --we must let everybody have the right to choose when and how they will live and die, in every way It is my right to choose to abort! it is my right to choose to euthanize! It is my right to choose not just for me but for others. . .and all in the name of love and 'correcting wrong.”

And just because the slippery slope is given a bad name, don’t think it doesn’t happen. Even the greatest skiers and skaters will ‘slip’ sometimes because the surface is slippery in and of itself. I would love to see historic evidence that shows that when a small evil was permitted, it did NOT open the door to greater and greater ones. . .but historically speaking, that hasn’t happened. Always, ‘one little crack’ has led to great chasms.

Why are you twisting the words? You miss the point of the whole list that you are actually stuck on this? wow.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why are you twisting the words? You miss the point of the whole list that you are actually stuck on this? wow.

excuse me, could you tell me exactly what words I have 'twisted?" I have asked, as has another poster, for a clarification of a particular assertation made. And, not to be rude, I don’t believe I was addressing you. No doubt when the clarification is made not only will I know better what the poster MEANT, and be able to respond in kind, but YOU will also hopefully wait and see if maybe YOU didn’t ‘leap a little too quickly’ to a response that you might want to rethink.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

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.

I was paraphrasing Paul, see pnewton’s post

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

Huh???

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.

The person who is talking to LGBTQ peopla needs to understand it also, from the other person’s perspective you are basically asking them to give up on finding someone they love, it’s not an easy thing to ask

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

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

 

[Elizabeth502]

Truth is not a language game. …Figure out how to word your argument using their language, or neutral language that is not contested.

I’m not sure that I entirely agree with this, Melinda. Yes, truth is not a language “game,” but language is exceedingly important to truth. Language has always been important to both perception and understanding. For example, constantly “moving” a definition – whether it’s Marriage, whether it’s “sexual relations” (recall President Bill Clinton), whether it’s “values,” whether it’s “family,” whether it’s the misunderstood and manipulated phrase, “forcing” morality onto a society which already incorporates morality into common law and constitutional law, whether it’s “organic,” whether it’s the word “natural” (food, cosmetics,) etc. – these are all subject to misuse and to political use. Among many, many modern phrases.

The starting point of any productive discussion is the understanding of terms and agreement about them, as well as the understanding of assumptions and premises, and the proper use of the latter.

Much of the above has vanished, or at least deteriorated, with the dumbing-down of Western education in the contemporary era, because the above requires accuracy, precision, and logical/critical thinking skills and rejecting the habit of laziness of intellect.

 

[twoangels]

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.

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

 

[dorrbell]

excuse me, could you tell me exactly what words I have 'twisted?" I have asked, as has another poster, for a clarification of a particular assertation made. And, not to be rude, I don’t believe I was addressing you. No doubt when the clarification is made not only will I know better what the poster MEANT, and be able to respond in kind, but YOU will also hopefully wait and see if maybe YOU didn’t ‘leap a little too quickly’ to a response that you might want to rethink.

I already know what shes talking about. Maybe you should reread what she said.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I already know what shes talking about. Maybe you should reread what she said.

Already did several times. Unlike you, I do not know exactly what she meant by saying, “THE CHURCH (along with its members) has done genuine wrongs to gay people in history”. What exactly does she mean by “The Church” here? There are many possible interpretations. I’m glad you think you know what she’s saying, but again, depending on what she means by “The Church”, she could mean something I’m in perfect agreement with or something with which I respectfully disagree and would like to have straightened out in the interests of being able to carry on a real conversation.

 

[michelleds]

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.

 

[Benadam]

1. 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.

The problem with this rule is it sets up a wall that obstructs the introduction of concepts that clarify, and confirm concepts that blurr.

An example would be the term marriage. Any two things can be joined for a common end. If marriage is refered to as the matrimonial bond the debate is unable to wander into the all inclusive definitions allowed by the word marriage.

 

[Catholicpotato]

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.

Absolutely!

 

[Catholicpotato]

I listened to the CA radio show with Melinda on it. It was hard to get past the NPR like smell but it ultimately was a very intellectual and introspective interview. The problem I see here is 99% of the population has no interest in being introspective or intellectual but rather emotional. This applies to homosexuals as well. If you walk up to a person to talk about sexual orientation and start saying things like " There can be only one understanding between the self and the non-self" they are going to run roughshod over you.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The problem with this rule is it sets up a wall that obstructs the introduction of concepts that clarify, and confirm concepts that blurr.

An example would be the term marriage. Any two things can be joined for a common end. If marriage is refered to as the matrimonial bond the debate is unable to wander into the all inclusive definitions allowed by the word marriage.

Isn’t it ironic that the original definition of marriage* could actually refer to a relationship between two guys? How about the term wedded friendships?

Yes the term matrimonial bond is way better, especially when you run into people who know he past of the word marriage

*and yes I’m referring to a definition that predates the 14th century

 

[Catholicpotato]

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.”

Oh I absolutely agree and understand with part of what you are saying. The problem is when you lump these 10 rules together as something that will work for a majority of people. Intellectual people will respond exactly as you have described. Others will not give it a second thought. It actually surprises me that you would assume all paths to the Church are paved exactly as yours was. Some people need a kick in the pants, some people need a pat on the back and a hug…
I also take issue with your assessment of waving the white flag in the Word War. If words were not important in the culture war then there would not be a huge push to re brand and re name anything ever. And we all know that there is. As long as we don’t understand the deception of words we will be victims of our own terms…

 

[Catholicpotato]

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

That is exactly what Melinda was talking about

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

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of Paul and if you have ever read Paul you would understand that Paul would not ever buy into the list of 10 above. I think Paul is probably the most out of context quoted person ever. Shall we discuss why women should be silent?

The whole thing smacks of wishy washy watering down of the Truth. It reminds me more of Pilate than Paul, who said: “What is Truth?” As if the Truth is something to be discussed, debated and deciphered. Nope, the Truth is bloody and hanging on a cross. Period.

 

[OraLabora]

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.

 

[Catholicpotato]

Isn’t it ironic that the original definition of marriage* could actually refer to a relationship between two guys? How about the term wedded friendships?

Yes the term matrimonial bond is way better, especially when you run into people who know he past of the word marriage

*and yes I’m referring to a definition that predates the 14th century

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.

 

[SurlyMermaid]

I think this is a wise list. It doesn’t seem “sugar coating” to me but loving and sensible.

Kudos.

 

[Catholicpotato]

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.and some will never have to Some attempt to hide behind “rules and regulations”, and that works for a while.Or perhaps that works forever. Eventually though, our dark side gets the better of us, and we fall back into its temptation.Sometimes, but not all the time

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 wecan 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,hiding? well I see the judgemental aspect is still there, only now instead of directed at Gay people it is directed at rule followers… 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!how odd you would throw that bit of rhetoric in there.) 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.My experience has been vastly different

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.nope, we would try that much harder to KEEP them from this “dark side” 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.

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.