E
East_and_West
Guest
Well the gay community is certianly leading the way and is much worse than the straight community. MUCH worse.
- Status
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I would guess he is referring to men who go out of their way talk like sissies and with a lisp and have dramatic hair and clothes styles. And who act effeminate by bending their hands down at the wrist, etc.
I’m sure he was not referring to the things you mentioned. You have every right to enjoy hockey and be casual and be single.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
I agree with you-which is why I posted what I did. Unless someone is literally committing a sex act in front of you with someone of the same gender-how in the name of all that is holy would you have any idea what orientation they are? How could you know other than by using stereotypes like “women in comfortable shoes” or “limp wristed males”.Thanks. That answers the question I posed to Exalt that he didn’t answer. I was hesitant to make assumptions because any ‘characteristics’ of gays I could think of not related to sex all felt like stereotypes.
But I did want to follow up on the thought. I think it is dramatically unhelpful for people to associate women who don’t get into makeup or like hockey instead of the Tango automatically with lesbian sex.
I speak from no small experience because in high school I very much enjoyed being in a showchoir (sing AND dance) and theater in spite of having no gay inclination at all (). Never mind the facts, labeling starts to occur anyways. I think it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to associate certain interests, talents and abilities with homosexuality and it is a problem that is going to get worse as people try to take the word ‘gay’ and expand its definition beyond sexual behavior and inclination.
IMO, you’d do better to FIGHT stereotypes that divide people into cliques and lead to gossip and speculation rather than reinforce them.
Personally, I think a woman who shuns makeup and prefers hockey to figure skating rocks. Keep the faith!
Unless someone comes out to you-there’s really know way to know so I don’t know how anyone could be “reminded” of someone’s homosexual orientation.
D
Daddums
Guest
Our inclination towards sin is a consequence of our fallen nature. It should not be something we take pride in. We all share this inclination though it expresses itself in different ways in different people. Some people are short-tempered while others are inclined towards deceit. These things are not the same as having red hair or being left-handed. Favoring the left hand is not a sin however indulging our rage is even if it we see it as defining who we are.
Daddums
N
Newbie2
Guest
Exactly. And a good argument against those who equate race with sexual orientation.
A guy I knew from college was one of the most effeminate people I"ve ever know, yet he got married and had kids. (We were a bit jealous, because most of the girls that lived on the same floor in the dorm thought he was gay and “trusted” him.
)
E
Exalt
Guest
You misunderstood my post. Here’s what I was responding to:
- “‘Gay Pride’ according to webster’s definition would be akin to a rapist coming out and saying they were proud to be a rapist or a pedophile saying they were proud they liked to “do it” with children.”*
I responded this post with three points. The following is one of those points: - "Second, I feel obligated to point out that there is more to being gay than just wanting to have sex. Certainly, that is a **part of what it means to be gay for many gay people, but it is not the whole story. It seems to me like you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Indeed, the Church condemns merely homosexual *sexual behavior and is silent on all other expressions."
To that, you responded with a post of your own: - “I don’t know how to say this without sounding sarcastic, but what ARE these other characteristics of being ‘gay?’ Honest question.”*
To be quite honest, at the time, I felt it was a silly question and didn’t feel like answering it. It seemed really simple to me. It felt like you were basically asking “What *are *the other things heterosexual couples do other than sex? Honest question.”
The person ignored the aspects of a homosexual *relationship *that does not include sex. Certainly, for many gay people, a homosexual relationship does include sexual behavior. However, that’s only a small part of a relationship, as you well know.
If you would like me continue to explain what all that means, I can, but I think you can take it from here.
Regarding other aspects of being gay, there are definitely stereotypes, some positive (i.e., a knack for picking out clothes that are especially flattering) and apparently some negative (apparently some people on this forum have found some, but personally, I haven’t). However, I wonder about the reality of both these stereotypes. I personally don’t fit the typical gay stereotype at all.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I apologize in advance, but sometimes it is hard to tell here when people are joking and when they are being serious.
I will assume you are serious. You can tell the orientation of a person by talking with them. At some point people mention their home life, especially if they are living with a partner. Or if they are dating, it is not unusual to mention who they are involved with and recent activities. If you are not close enough to have sustained conversations, you can observe who they kiss or hug or hold hands with, or even the little intimacies we give only to our partner such as rummaging through our coat pockets while we stoically endure it.
Gender stereotypes, I suppose, may provide a rough guide. But they are often wrong, both in missing folks and in selecting the wrong folks.
E
Exalt
Guest
They could *tell *you? I can’t count the number of times people have said something that implied I was a straight man. It’s annoying, and usually I tactfully inform them of their incorrect assumption, even if they’re something of a stranger.
M
manualman
Guest
Thanks Exalt. We did indeed talk past each other. I consider all forms of physical affection to be fundamentally sexual behavior. Not to say holding hands is sex, mind you. But it IS a behavior specifically related to one’s sexual worldview. I thought you were excluding all such things from your original post.
But I think Fitswimmer is coming from a far different perspective than you are. You don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with same sex romantic behavior up to and including sex, right? She (assuming I read her right) accepts catholic teaching that these actions are inherently immoral (and by definition of sin, harmful to her) and choses not to act on her feelings. She makes the point that catholics often don’t do a good job of supporting people in their struggle to live out catholic morality on the matter. I think she’s dead-on correct.
And I worry that things will become worse as the ‘gay pride’ community continues to push harder for total acceptance and approval of gay sexuality (and the inevitable backlash). People like Fitswimmer get caught in the middle of the polarization that results.
But I think Fitswimmer is coming from a far different perspective than you are. You don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with same sex romantic behavior up to and including sex, right? She (assuming I read her right) accepts catholic teaching that these actions are inherently immoral (and by definition of sin, harmful to her) and choses not to act on her feelings. She makes the point that catholics often don’t do a good job of supporting people in their struggle to live out catholic morality on the matter. I think she’s dead-on correct.
And I worry that things will become worse as the ‘gay pride’ community continues to push harder for total acceptance and approval of gay sexuality (and the inevitable backlash). People like Fitswimmer get caught in the middle of the polarization that results.
W
Writer
Guest
I would agree… There seems a logic disconnect in the reasoning of the prior posters. If homosexuality is a sin, then glorification or pride of the sin can not be placed in the category of a good or healthy thing. If we view homosexualtiy in the context of an inclination or attraction minus the intimacy, glorification or pride of a disorder still does not make any sense, since at the heart of the issue we’re talking about a behaviorial disorder and not the way God intends us to live.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Why would it be annoying? They’re making a reasonable assumption which, though wrong, was likely to be right. If you were a student at a Christian college where 90% of the student body were devout practicing Catholics, would you be annoyed every time someone assumed you were going to mass on Sunday? Unless they knew ahead of time or you wore a T-shirt which said something like “I am an atheist” or whatever, it would be an entirely understandable assumption. Likewise with homosexuality, though the 10% proportion is under debate.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
It is quite a different thing to call A person what he or she is, as opposed to classifying entire groups based on characteristics they can not change or have no control over.Hehehe. You don’t even see the irony, do you?
Feels good to call us bigots, doesn’t it?
Why not just discuss the issues?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Your attitude is to be commended.
E
Exalt
Guest
You’re absolutely right. It is the logical extension to take Catholic teaching on homosexuality and extend it all the way out to the most mundane romantic gestures, even though that couple may not actually be breaking the letter of Catholic law by having sexual contact. It’s enough of a gap, though, for some Catholics to say that though homosexual sex is wrong, everything else is okay; in doing so they neglect the thousands of gay Catholics who do “struggle” with thier “condition.”
That’s correct.
I don’t think they (including the Church leadership as a whole, the letter of the teaching iteself, and the individual parishes) do a good job of supporting *any *gay people, *especially *those who actually subscribe to their teachings! All a gay Catholic (who is totally faithful to the teaching of the Church) has to support them is Courage. Courage is a terrible program/organization. And by that I don’t mean just the lack of good psychological grounds or their focus on “reparative therapy”, I mean that their website is terrible, they’re extremely hard to find and very unapproachable. This is coming from someone who actually sought them out. And as far as official church teaching goes, they’ve got On the Pastoral Care of Homosexuals, which is not only extremely difficult for a lay catholic to understand but at many places extremely insulting. (I might point out the section on violence against homosexuals, which includes perhaps the most insensitive official comment made by the Church in a century and is the *definition *of “blaming the victim”)
So basically, you’re 100% correct on this point. I think the Church has absolutely failed gay Catholics in every single aspect possible.
There are many groups out there who seek to evagelize their message. Catholicism is definately one of them. And so are some gay people. I might point out, however, that though the Church is an *actual *institution, the “gay community” is not. It is the collection of a number of small organizations here and there, and only a small fraction of my personal gay friends are actually involved in those types of organizations.
E
Exalt
Guest
It’s only midly annoying. It’s not like I get upset. I tell them, usually in a manner that is careful to make them not feel bad. (For some reason, many people tend to apologize profusely.)
But anyway, to answer your question, I’m not really sure. There’s nothing that I can really compare it to, except maybe one person who posted who talked about a family member who is always assumed to be gay, even they he’s definately straight. My experience isn’t nearly as bad as his though (because being seen as ‘straight’ isn’t against my religion, but being seen as ‘gay’ is against his).
First: I can personally attest that the 10% proportion is incorrect. In my area, I’d say an estimate of 1 or 2% is more likely. Unless all of them are hiding, which is a good possibility.
Second: I would leave that college and go to one that was more in line with my viewpoints. Unfortunately, that’s not really possible in my case.
EDIT: You’ve given me an excellent idea for a Gay Pride campaign though. T-shirts… Hmm…
D
DLC
Guest
Gay pride is a sin and we must tell this truth in love and with tact.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
The difference there is that assuming a given person falls into 2% of the population implies that there are factors about them which would lead you to believe that they are abnormal (no negative connotation intended; redheads are “abnormal” too), whereas it’s simply a good guess that someone is straight regardless of how they act or what they look like.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
you read me exactly right. I’m not a member of the gay Catholic community-those who remain within the Church even while living the lifestyle-and I’m not a member of the straight community with a husband and family. I do feel that the Church has let people like me down. The only Catholic organization that supports my lifestyle is Courage-and as has been mentioned-I found it lacking. It’s not strongly supported in every diocese, I was unable to even find a group anywhere in my area. It’s a great idea, but it needs more support. If the Church truly wants gay Catholics to live their faith, then the Church-bishops, priests, religious and laypeople-need to support us while we’re struggling to do it. If we really want our young gay people to reject the sin, we need to give them the support they need to make that choice. The voice on the other side is much louder, and trust me-their rationalizations for engaging in homosexual acts can sound pretty good when you’re lonely.
L
latin_rite
Guest
Gay pride?. an oxymoron if ever i heard one.
E
Exalt
Guest
I think the lack of support of gay Catholics is part of a larger issue, namely, a prejudice towards homosexuality. It has served as a scapegoat for the priest sex abuse scandal, in which Ratzinger’s only real work so far has been banning gay, celibate Catholics from joining the priesthood. Documents like “on the pastoral care of homosexuals” are uninformed and in many places demeaning. As you said, Courage is a terrible organization and resources for gay Catholics are minimal.
Why? I think it’s prejudice. They don’t like homosexuality and they would rather just not think about it or address it. That’s why there is no support for gay Catholics. That’s why there are so few documents addressing this issue. They ignore gay Catholics because they’d rather just not think about homosexuality.
They’ve pretty much just left you out to the wolves, in my opinion.
By the way, I completely respect the choice of celibacy. That’s fine if that’s what you believe. I have no right to tell you what your sexual choices should be. But I think I do have the right to be critical of the Church’s response to their own members who happen to be gay. It’s hard enough trying to live a commitment to celibacy, and it’s made even harder by a Church that ignores you.
- Status