Wow. Where do you people get these uncharitable assumptions? For all you know both partners were graciously and warmly invited.
You really think that the OP should try to blackmail his mom into rescinding an invite? Really? That wouldn’t work with my mom, it wouldn’t work with my husband’s mom, and it wouldn’t work with me. How rude and disrespectful to try to manipulate her like that.
Besides, what is so wrong with including gay people on thanksgiving, of all days? What if the cousin’s partner lives far from his family, or worse, doesn’t even have a family? It is an act of kindness to extend your holiday blessings to everyone.
Yes. Even if the pair
had been manipulative about getting the invitation, it is entirely up to the host to decide how to handle that. If a host decides to pass over bad behavior, the other guests do not get to chime in about it. A good guest is not so controlling, but goes along with what the host has deemed the graceful way to deal with the situation. On top of that, defense of the moral code rarely requires that patience, kindness, and so on be abandoned. The sin can be rejected without rejecting the persons trying to defend the sin. Finally, charity requires that the best be assumed about people, even when prudence has to be ready for the worst.
It is also true that charity can recommend that a Christian go ahead and break bread with someone who is knowingly flaunting Church teaching. Of course this is true! Sometimes, yes, one can be forced to pass on a dinner invitation because one has been given the choice to either pass on the invitation or give tacit approval to something immoral, but at other times, when that tacit approval is not a condition, then of course it is OK to eat with people without putting them through a moral acid test.
For instance, if one is invited to a dinner and finds the dinner is an abortion fundraiser, well, one cannot just eat the food and be quiet. If a couple is marrying and a Christian finds they are not free to marry each other, then how can the Christian sanction the false attempt at marriage with his or her presence? You do not have to be rude about it, but you must send regrets; there is no way around it.
There is no moral prohibition on eating Thanksgiving dinner with the unrepentant, because the meal itself implies a family truce is in place. It is not the day to have it out over quarrels or grudges, whether new or old, and so it signifies nothing when the guests are good enough to refuse to have it out. One cannot listen to the truth being flaunted and give tacit approval, but one does not have to pick up the gauntlet every time someone else tries to provoke a quarrel, especially at the Thanksgiving dinner table. The correct thing to do when provoked, when possible, is to say, “No. Not today. Let there be a truce today, for Mom’s sake.”
Couples do not kiss at family gatherings, that’s the polite thing. By just being there, the boyfriend and your cousin are not being scandalous. Be cordial and just go.
And refer to them in proper terms if you DO go. Do not refer to him as just his “friend” because goodness me, that would be just rude
*Proper *terms? What would that be? I say learn the friend’s name, and refer to him by that. As for “friend” being rude, I’m not sure why that would be. If it were a man and a woman living together, it would not be rude to call them “friends” or “housemates”. That would be quite polite, considering the circumstances. If they want someone who doesn’t believe that their sexual relationship is even moral to refer to them as “lovers”, they have a self-absorbed screw loose.
Thanksgiving is a day for truces, but that is not the same as just hauling up the white flag. The presumption ought to be that both sides will lay down their arms. That is not too much to ask, and I would not be shy about saying so.
Call these guests by their given names, and stay out of quarrels about labels.
