While I also gained an impression that Rilene’s lesbian inclinations might be marginal, she did in fact stay with a woman for 25 years!What I get from Rilenes story is that if you “pretend” to be gay, then you can stop.
I don’t need to be told that. It is self-evident.
This really didn’t resonate with me in anyway.
I’m not completely comfortable with the wording it as “pretending”, but I couldn’t come up with another word. I don’t believe there was any intentional deception, but she wasn’t been honest. With herself or with her partner.While I also gained an impression that Rilene’s lesbian inclinations might be marginal, she did in fact stay with a woman for 25 years!
And “pretend” is not the right word. I don’t believe her behaviour was underpinned by any deception whatsoever.
I suspect had she met a man at an earlier stage, she may very likely have had a ‘normal’ marriage.
I think it more likely to find that a married homosexual “pretends”. Accepting their actual orientation is likely to be a hard and frightening thing, with dreadful consequences for people for whom they care greatly.…
Many gays and lesbians who have come out after decades in a straight marriage have described what they did as “pretending”. I don’t see why the reverse wouldn’t be true…
The other reason Relines story doesn’t resonate with me is that what she describes is something we also hear in straight marriages. She was in a relationship for 25 years - at which point she realised it was an empty partnership. That isn’t something that is unique to homosexual relationships and it doesn’t say anything about the morality of homosexual relationships. It furthers the idea many have that homosexual relationships are not as loving or fulfilling as heterosexual relationships, just because they are homosexual. That takes away from the message it is trying to put across, because it is not true.
I don’t understand your objecting to the movie based on things like this. The movie was not intended to say “all stories are like these stories” or “all lesbians are like Rilene.” Of course they aren’t!I’m not completely comfortable with the wording it as “pretending”, but I couldn’t come up with another word. I don’t believe there was any intentional deception, but she wasn’t been honest. With herself or with her partner.
Many gays and lesbians who have come out after decades in a straight marriage have described what they did as “pretending”. I don’t see why the reverse wouldn’t be true. Her experience as a lesbian is simply empty to me. I also think it perpetuates the idea that people “choose” to be gay. Some do, and I think Reline falls into this category, but they are a very small minority and focusing on them when we’re discussing homosexuals living according to church teaching is to no ones benefit. Especially when they choose it because they can’t “get a man”. As though all a lesbian needs is to meet the right man and she’ll change her ways.
The other reason Relines story doesn’t resonate with me is that what she describes is something we also hear in straight marriages. She was in a relationship for 25 years - at which point she realised it was an empty partnership. That isn’t something that is unique to homosexual relationships and it doesn’t say anything about the morality of homosexual relationships. It furthers the idea many have that homosexual relationships are not as loving or fulfilling as heterosexual relationships, just because they are homosexual. That takes away from the message it is trying to put across, because it is not true.
If I came away with anything from this film it is a great deal of empathy for Margo.
The problem is she isn’t representative of the vast majority of lesbians.I think it more likely to find that a married homosexual “pretends”. Accepting their actual orientation is likely to be a hard and frightening thing, with dreadful consequences for people for whom they care greatly.
Perhaps Rilene pretended - her (lesser) reason might be fear of being alone again.
Any film using case studies such as this will run into issues with the choice of individuals not suiting someone’s preconceived notions.
Most conservative Catholics wont realize that, to them it’ll be more like “of course she found it empty, homosexual relationships can’t not be empty”.I don’t understand your objecting to the movie based on things like this. The movie was not intended to say “all stories are like these stories” or “all lesbians are like Rilene.” Of course they aren’t!
For my part, as a bisexual man in a straight marriage, I think it is the worst sort of nonsense to say that Rilene was deceiving herself about her “sexuality”, as if sexuality was some uber-important guide to human decisions. Men who leave their wives to be with other men surely aren’t all “deceiving themselves” or pretending they can be with a woman. Many of them CAN be with a woman, but choose to be with a man instead. Rilene isn’t typical of all lesbians, but there are lesbians for whom it starts as an experiment, and then they like it. She obviously liked it, and “being wanted” was part of “it”.
**
You say that her story isn’t unlike many straight marriages, and you’re right. Again, the movie was not trying to say that gay people are unlike straight people. Quite the opposite, the movie was emphasizing time after time the commonalities between gay and straight relationships.**
I feel like you came into the movie looking for propaganda, and that’s what you saw. But the movie isn’t intended to be propaganda. It’s intended to create a conversation, and to validate the experiences of people like Paul, Rilene, and Dan.
I don’t see how they could get that from the film. Rilene specifically said they were happy together. When she was looking for something more, it wasn’t that she was looking for something a relationship could give her. (It was obvious that marrying a man wouldn’t have helped).Most conservative Catholics wont realize that, to them it’ll be more like “of course she found it empty, homosexual relationships can’t not be empty”.
I’m sure that is right.The problem is she isn’t representative of the vast majority of lesbians.
Are I understanding this wrong or are you actually saying that most gay men could actually be in a happy marriage with a woman? If they would just choose to? Maybe you could choose, but some of us aren’t so lucky.I don’t understand your objecting to the movie based on things like this. The movie was not intended to say “all stories are like these stories” or “all lesbians are like Rilene.” Of course they aren’t!
For my part, as a bisexual man in a straight marriage, I think it is the worst sort of nonsense to say that Rilene was deceiving herself about her “sexuality”, as if sexuality was some uber-important guide to human decisions. Men who leave their wives to be with other men surely aren’t all “deceiving themselves” or pretending they can be with a woman. Many of them CAN be with a woman, but choose to be with a man instead. Rilene isn’t typical of all lesbians, but there are lesbians for whom it starts as an experiment, and then they like it. She obviously liked it, and “being wanted” was part of “it”.
I agree with Joie de Vivre on this one. That’s not what many Catholics are going to take from the film. That is my objection. There is enough misconception about the LGBT community amongst conservative Catholics as it is. Why add to it?You say that her story isn’t unlike many straight marriages, and you’re right. Again, the movie was not trying to say that gay people are unlike straight people. Quite the opposite, the movie was emphasizing time after time the commonalities between gay and straight relationships.
That is very uncharitable. I watched the film with an open mind. I assent to church teaching. I choose to live a chaste live because of that teaching. I wanted to like the film and I think we need to have a more open and honest conversations about homosexuality and the Christian faith. I think this film falls short of what we need and won’t be as effective at starting that dialogue as you want it to be.I feel like you came into the movie looking for propaganda, and that’s what you saw. But the movie isn’t intended to be propaganda. It’s intended to create a conversation, and to validate the experiences of people like Paul, Rilene, and Dan.
This is one movie where one of those …“The making of …” might be very interesting. What was the objective of the movie maker? How did the 3 “stars” come to the attention of the movie maker? How were they selected? Why were certain others not selected? Etc.…It’s intended to create a conversation, and to validate the experiences of people like Paul, Rilene, and Dan.
She said she used to cry when she got on the plane to go home. When they started living separately she realised that what she’d felt when she was with Margo was loneliness. Not just the end of the relationship, but the whole relationship. That is not saying they were happy together.Rilene specifically said they were happy together.
It’s normal for everyone who has turned away from sin to look back and recognise that the happiness that they felt was not the godly happiness of being in a state of grace. Habit tends to dull the conscience to the niggles but then once the conscience is awakened again and light is cast over the past, you see everything for what it really was.She said she used to cry when she got on the plane to go home. When they started living separately she realised that what she’d felt when she was with Margo was loneliness. Not just the end of the relationship, but the whole relationship. That is not saying they were happy together.
Did you miss the part where all three made a choice and all three found freedom from the disorder and sin to the extent that they had the grace from God to grasp redemption, **despite **who they are?Nor do I think it will be effective in starting a dialogue with lesbians because many will view it and very quickly decide that it doesn’t represent them or the common experiences many (I’d say most) lesbians have in regards to their sexuality and why they are lesbians. So on this point I find it ineffective.
I wrote an elaborate response to this, but my computer deleted it.Are I understanding this wrong or are you actually saying that most gay men could actually be in a happy marriage with a woman? If they would just choose to? Maybe you could choose, but some of us aren’t so lucky.
I respect that, but I would insist that the film plays at least one very important role. It DOESN’T reinforce the preconceptions conservative Catholics have about gay relationships. In fact, it **severely **undermines those ideas, since all three gay relationships it depicts are not centered around sex, and are not shallow. Don’t underestimate how powerful that depiction could be in helping Catholics understand the experience of their brothers and sisters who are gay.That is very uncharitable. I watched the film with an open mind. I assent to church teaching. I choose to live a chaste live because of that teaching. I wanted to like the film and I think we need to have a more open and honest conversations about homosexuality and the Christian faith. I think this film falls short of what we need and won’t be as effective at starting that dialogue as you want it to be.
Most conservative Catholics wont realize that, to them it’ll be more like “of course she found it empty, homosexual relationships can’t not be empty”.
Q.E.D.It’s normal for everyone who has turned away from sin to look back and recognise that the happiness that they felt was not the godly happiness of being in a state of grace. Habit tends to dull the conscience to the niggles but then once the conscience is awakened again and light is cast over the past, you see everything for what it really was.
Lol. Begging the question.Originally Posted by Joie de Vivre
Most conservative Catholics wont realize that, to them it’ll be more like “of course she found it empty, homosexual relationships can’t not be empty”.
I’m puzzled by this response. Of course, I agree that the man who cheats on his wife with another man is guilty of both adultery and sodomy. Not a good track record, that.“But a man’s leaving his wife for another man is not evidence that he was “lying to himself””.
A man’s leaving his wife for another man* because he submitted to the temptation to experiment*, is evidence he was lying to himself. All our acts are to be subjected for consideration for acceptability through the gauge of conformation to the laws of God.
If he were not married he would be guilty of the singular sin. But being married adds a bonus gift to the evil one as he also desecrated the sanctity of his marriage.
Except that I didn’t say they were lying to themselves. I said that many gays and lesbians who come out after 25 years of marriage have described their behaviour as pretending. Which is very different.I wrote an elaborate response to this, but my computer deleted it.
Suffice it to say that I used the words “aren’t all” and “many” to qualify my statements. Of course, I wouldn’t say that most gay men should get married to women; that’s absurd. But a man’s leaving his wife for another man is not evidence that he was “lying to himself” or that he isn’t capable of marriage. It’s just evidence that he decided to break off his commitment to her.
We’ll just have to disagree on this one. I heard “People choose to be gay” and “Gay relationships are empty”. Two messages I have a problem with. Reline also said her relationship was very shallow - it revolved around money and possessions. Which reinforces the idea about gay relationships been empty.I respect that, but I would insist that the film plays at least one very important role. It DOESN’T reinforce the preconceptions conservative Catholics have about gay relationships. In fact, it **severely **undermines those ideas, since all three gay relationships it depicts are not centered around sex, and are not shallow. Don’t underestimate how powerful that depiction could be in helping Catholics understand the experience of their brothers and sisters who are gay.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I think it is wonderful that they turned to Christ, but doesn’t mean I have to agree that the film achieves something I don’t think it does.Did you miss the part where all three made a choice and all three found freedom from the disorder and sin to the extent that they had the grace from God to grasp redemption, **despite **who they are?
This is the prize! This is the goal for all of us, no matter what sinful inclinations we may have. Sexual orientation does NOT define your entire being so why the endless debate and dialogue about it? As Pope Benedict said, “look at their faces - they have a soul!”
Sheila, I think you’re falling into the old “gay people are fundamentally different from straight people” fallacy. The only difference between a married man tempted by other men and a married man tempted by other women is that it’s probably easier for the former man to find a sex partner. Everything else is the same, and BOTH situations have the potential for the sorts of lies and deceptions you’re talking about.Except that I didn’t say they were lying to themselves. I said that many gays and lesbians who come out after 25 years of marriage have described their behaviour as pretending. Which is very different.
Nor did I say they were incapable of marriage to a member of the opposite sex. There are gays (including some on this board) who have had very successful marriages to the opposite gender, although I do think they are in the small minority. I think they are a small minority because they seem to enter their marriages with both parties fully aware of the situation. Whereas where one party lies about their sexuality, things tend to blow up and neither party is happy. Not just because of their sexuality, but because of all lies and deceptions it has caused over the years.
Absolutely. And I must say, the movie The Third Way deals with the wall between homosexuality and the Church much better than Desire.The message that the Church was welcoming to them and that they were accepted is a message that I very much appreciated because sometimes it feels as though even if someone is chaste they are not welcome anyway (a loud minority in the Church is no doubt responsible for that). Never said directly of course but when a chaste homosexual hears some of the things said about homosexuals in general, it can be hard not to take it personally.