Wrong emphasis in same-sex marriage?

[Peter_J]

To be honest if the church pushed that kinda of policy, there is a good chance I wouldn’t feel comfortable coming to mass. I see people like Ron Belgau and Eve Tushnet as examples for how one can be open and on fidelity with the church

I’m only slightly familiar with those two names, but I have made the point elsewhere that the phrase “conservative Catholics” does not describe a monolithic group. (Some might read that as a “throw-away comment”, but it isn’t.)

There was a film made a couple years ago called “The Third Way: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church”. It should be noted that the title does not mean “There’s liberal, and there’s conservative, and then there’s the third way.” On the contrary, the “third way” IS conservative (Ron Belgau and Eve Tushnet are, from what I know, good examples) … it just isn’t the *kind *of conservative that people usually think of, e.g. wanting to criminalize homosexual acts, blocking people from coming out of the closet, pushing them to undergo conversion therapy, claiming that the “homosexual person” is a myth, etc.

 

[at9009]

There was a film made a couple years ago called “The Third Way: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church”. It should be noted that the title does not mean

I saw third way. Great movie and was good to see.

 

[Peter_J]

I saw third way. Great movie and was good to see.

Hope that many readers will watch it, or at least make a note of it, because I know that a lot of readers see something that one person writes on this forum and assume that it is “what Catholics believe”, even if it’s something from left field.

 

[Lou2U]

No- look, it’s very simple. A lot of the time people have to refrain from expressing their sexual tendencies. For example, you don’t say to some fellow, “I feel sexually attracted to your wife.” Or a 70 year old grandpa doesn’t say, “I’m attracted to that 18 year old”, or “I’m attracted to (whatever fetish).”

Same thing with homosexuals. It’s fine, if they keep their preferences to themselves. And don’t act on it. And don’t try to push their ‘culture’. They might seem a bit effeminate or whatever, but, as long as they don’t ‘come out’, they can be given the benefit of the doubt by everyone. This is especially so in Church, we need to accept people charitably. As for witch-hunts, that’s absurd. Most Catholics would prefer to know the less about it the better, and would rather deliberately overlook the matter, if possible.

But this is my whole point. Why shouldn’t two homosexual people act on their preferences? And why should a religious culture be put above their own?

I’m curious, OP, to know if you personally know anyone who has ‘come out’ to you? Or if you’ve seen anyone do so through the media? I’ve had both, and the feelings from these people are that of relief that they aren’t hiding something about themselves anymore; they feel they can be honest with themselves and therefore with the people around them.

You may think in response that sexual orientation shouldn’t define a person and I would agree with you, it shouldn’t. I think the sense of relief comes from being able to understand more about themselves as people, as what makes them them. You and I wouldn’t think twice about being heterosexual, or about it being something to define us. We haven’t had to question it, because in society, being heterosexual is the norm. For all the people where heterosexuality isn’t the norm, they are swimming against the tide. There is, as I said to another poster, a lot more openness on the subject than ever before. That doesn’t mean homosexuality is simply accepted. Society assumes heterosexuality unless people define themselves as otherwise, which is why people choose to ‘come out’.

To get back to your point, whilst I believe society is wrong to assume what it does, I don’t see why homosexual people should have to hide that that is their preference.

I think it will actually be easier and better for them in the long term.

Why do you think this? As I said above, people don’t like feeling as though they are hiding something about themselves.

It worked perfectly well like that until the late 20th Century. No reason why it wouldn’t work today…

Did it, though? I think it much more likely that people were encouraged to hide their preferences, much like you suggest people should do today, and so no real information on it is available. Adding to this that homosexuality was illegal in Britain until 1967 and in the USA until the 1970s, of course.

Lou

 

[Peter_J]

But this is my whole point. Why shouldn’t two homosexual people act on their preferences?

You doing a pretty big game-change here. That homosexual persons shouldn’t act on their preferences (I.e. engage in homosexual acts) is a clear teaching of the Catholic Church – and not the same at all as trying to criminalize homosexual acts, which some on this forum want.

 

[Lou2U]

You doing a pretty big game-change here. That homosexual persons shouldn’t act on their preferences (I.e. engage in homosexual acts) is a clear teaching of the Catholic Church – and not the same at all as trying to criminalize homosexual acts, which some on this forum want.

…in hindsight, I really should have reread through my post .

I do know that that is the teaching - I think what I was trying to say was “why shouldn’t two homosexual people act on their preferences without fear of arrest or being penalised for it?”, but I didn’t add the ending. Sorry .

Lou

 

[Finite]

I think the problem is a lot of gays and atheists take control of the popular media, and brainwash others.

Anyway…

The fact that anyone is even discussing making homosexual acts illegal is ridiculous to me. If we are going strictly by what some church teaches, you can’t really single out homosexual acts, as heterosexual acts are deemed just as bad if the couple isn’t married.

Not to mention, which church’s belief system becomes law? Why should this church take precedent over that church? There’s a reason we keep religion out of government. I for one am grateful not to live in a theocracy.

One could continue to oppose SSM…though that’s not going to change. I oftentimes see others comparing the Obergefell decision to Roe v Wade, claiming that the marriage decision will still be hotly debated 20+ years from now.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The reason Roe v Wade continues to be an issue is because there is always going to be a good chunk of the population that opposes the alleged murder of babies. To suggest that we will still have half the population up in arms over the gay couple down the street getting hitched is silly.

Each generation has become more and more accepting of same sex couples marrying. The generation being born today won’t remember a time when gay people COULDNT get married. I have a hard time picturing those people coming out in droves against it.

It would be like if millennials suddenly began showing a 50% support for re-banning interracial marriage. (No, I’m not comparing the two, simply stating that same sex marriage will be as ordinary to future adult generations as interracial marriage is to today’s young adults).

I say we focus on more pressing matters where real, beneficial change is possible, like abortion. Gay and lesbian couples marrying isn’t having any effect on straight couples marrying. At least, I certainly haven’t witnessed it.

 

[Rau]

I’m…simply stating that same sex marriage will be as ordinary to future adult generations as interracial marriage is to today’s young adults.

Only if the current trend to closing one’s eyes to reality continues.

Person’ in fervent opposition to interracial marriage held that view on the basis of an idea they manufactured. A prejudice of no foundation. The incongruity of two men binding themselves together in a sexual relationship (= marriage) arises from their fundamental and bodily incompatibility - a reality, not an invention, not a prejudice

 

[Peter_J]

It would be like if millennials suddenly began showing a 50% support for re-banning interracial marriage. (No, I’m not comparing the two, simply stating that same sex marriage will be as ordinary to future adult generations as interracial marriage is to today’s young adults).

I think that’s unfair (notwithstanding the not-comparing-the-two qualifier). Perhaps it would make more sense to compare it with past court battles over liberalization of divorce/remarriage laws.

 

[Rosebud77]

But this is my whole point. Why shouldn’t two homosexual people act on their preferences? And why should a religious culture be put above their own?

I’m curious, OP, to know if you personally know anyone who has ‘come out’ to you? Or if you’ve seen anyone do so through the media? I’ve had both, and the feelings from these people are that of relief that they aren’t hiding something about themselves anymore; they feel they can be honest with themselves and therefore with the people around them.

You may think in response that sexual orientation shouldn’t define a person and I would agree with you, it shouldn’t. I think the sense of relief comes from being able to understand more about themselves as people, as what makes them them. You and I wouldn’t think twice about being heterosexual, or about it being something to define us. We haven’t had to question it, because in society, being heterosexual is the norm. For all the people where heterosexuality isn’t the norm, they are swimming against the tide. There is, as I said to another poster, a lot more openness on the subject than ever before. That doesn’t mean homosexuality is simply accepted. Society assumes heterosexuality unless people define themselves as otherwise, which is why people choose to ‘come out’.

To get back to your point, whilst I believe society is wrong to assume what it does, I don’t see why homosexual people should have to hide that that is their preference.

Why do you think this? As I said above, people don’t like feeling as though they are hiding something about themselves.

Did it, though? I think it much more likely that people were encouraged to hide their preferences, much like you suggest people should do today, and so no real information on it is available. Adding to this that homosexuality was illegal in Britain until 1967 and in the USA until the 1970s, of course.

Lou

Seems as if you are contradicting yourself here?

By this emphasis on sexuality?

I am of a different generation and we never talked about sex, Not ever, It was personal and private and that was that .Not even my closest friends and I talked about these things. Some married, one at least had a baby out of wedlock and I knitted for her but never did we discuss our private lives.

“coming out” ? What a stress to put on folk.

And these days unless you declare yourself? You are viewed with what?

Sexuality is a tiny part of who we are. It has been made a huge thing.

 

[Tagetes]

Not even my closest friends and I talked about these things. Some married, one at least had a baby out of wedlock and I knitted for her but never did we discuss our private lives.

Then how do you know about the baby, if you “never” discuss “private lives”? And how do you know folks are married?

Because it is never deemed inappropriate for a straight person to simply state they are or used to be in a relationship.

This whole thread is about sending LGBT people in jails for doing basically the same. For phrases like “this is X, we’re dating” or “I had feelings for Y, but it didn’t work out”.
Or even “I’m single, because under the Canon Law I, a same-sex attracted Catholic, can never marry”.

Sexuality is a tiny part of who we are. It has been made a huge thing.

Uh-huh, because for that tiny part alone some of us get murdered.

 

[at9009]

Seems as if you are contradicting yourself here?

I am of a different generation and we never talked about sex, Not ever, It was personal and private and that was that .Not even my closest friends and I talked about these things. Some married, one at least had a baby out of wedlock and I knitted for her but never did we discuss our private lives.

This is kind of a characterization. Often, people do talk about who they are dating, who they like, etc. It is often for someone to introduce their spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend etc. So, in that it is always pretty explicit about their sexuality (not sexual activity but their sexuality). No one is suggesting people want or should talk explicitly about their sex lives but rather want to be able to talk about the status of being in a relationship or not and being able to talk about their significant other. This also does nothing to stop us from talking about catholic theological positions on sexual activity and the catholic views on marriage and other moral positions.

There number of times I get asked about my relationship status is quite frequent at times (mid-20s guy so I guess of the right age). The follow question when I say single is always to push me or ask about dating prospects. Just saying nope not dating because not attracted to the opposite sex so I’m celibate seems to be viewed as too much for people and somehow throwing my sexuality in their face (kinda feels like a double standard). Instead, I’m expected to play this deflection game apparently.

“coming out” ? What a stress to put on folk.

Just so you are aware, being closeted and trying to make sure certain people don’t find out, watching what I say, deflecting suspicions, etc. is just as stressful and not really a much better scenario. Especially as I age and am still single and not dating, people are going to suspect and some will assume anyway (and some of them will react negatively anyway). Just disclosing and dealing with how people react rather than expecting the worst but hoping for the best is often a better option.

As an example:
Being with family members when something quite negative is said about LGBT/ssa people (not evening talking about moral positions but rather just visceral disgust) and not being stressed, making sure to not show a reaction, worrying about losing the familial relationship, and trying to bury all those issues so one can still enjoy time with family. Instead it ends up being is exhausting acting job at times.

 

[Lou2U]

**Seems as if you are contradicting yourself here?

By this emphasis on sexuality?**

I am of a different generation and we never talked about sex, Not ever, It was personal and private and that was that .Not even my closest friends and I talked about these things. Some married, one at least had a baby out of wedlock and I knitted for her but never did we discuss our private lives.

“coming out” ? What a stress to put on folk.

And these days unless you declare yourself? You are viewed with what?

Sexuality is a tiny part of who we are. It has been made a huge thing.

Not really. Personally, I don’t think people should have this emphasis on sexuality and I don’t think it should have to define people. But it does make a person feel much better to understand something about themselves, and to know that they aren’t alone in whatever they feel, whether it’s worry, guilt, sadness etc. I would also argue that this emphasis on sexuality has been put there by agents such as the media for focusing so much on sex, and for focusing so much on a person’s sexuality.

What I meant by my earlier post (as I said to another poster, not my most well written) is that maybe we as heterosexuals don’t feel as though sexuality should be made a ‘big deal of’, but this could be different for those who are attracted to members of the same sex. Agree with it or not, our society is heteronormative - that is, heterosexuality is seen as the norm. For some people, the only way to stop this thinking is by emphasising their sexuality. I don’t like that, or think people should have to do it, but some people feel they must.

On one hand, sexuality is a small thing. On the other hand, it’s a million questions of “why are you single?”, “when am I going to have grandchildren?”, “can I fix you up with someone?” etc. The CC teaches that there’s nothing wrong with being gay as long as the person is celibate, of course, but think of all the questions asked of them by family and friends. Are they supposed to stay silent, or do they tell them? And if they tell them, will they have support from family/friends on the CC’s teachings? As the previous poster said, the “deflection game” is often the reason people tell their family/friends about their sexual orientation - for an end to perceived deception, and for an end to anxiety and guilt of having to ‘hide’.

Lou

 

[Qoeleth]

Not really. Personally, I don’t think people should have this emphasis on sexuality and I don’t think it should have to define people. But it does make a person feel much better to understand something about themselves, and to know that they aren’t alone in whatever they feel, whether it’s worry, guilt, sadness etc. I would also argue that this emphasis on sexuality has been put there by agents such as the media for focusing so much on sex, and for focusing so much on a person’s sexuality.

What I meant by my earlier post (as I said to another poster, not my most well written) is that maybe we as heterosexuals don’t feel as though sexuality should be made a ‘big deal of’, but this could be different for those who are attracted to members of the same sex. Agree with it or not, our society is heteronormative - that is, heterosexuality is seen as the norm. For some people, the only way to stop this thinking is by emphasising their sexuality. I don’t like that, or think people should have to do it, but some people feel they must.

On one hand, sexuality is a small thing. On the other hand, it’s a million questions of “why are you single?”, “when am I going to have grandchildren?”, “can I fix you up with someone?” etc. The CC teaches that there’s nothing wrong with being gay as long as the person is celibate, of course, but think of all the questions asked of them by family and friends. Are they supposed to stay silent, or do they tell them? And if they tell them, will they have support from family/friends on the CC’s teachings? As the previous poster said, the “deflection game” is often the reason people tell their family/friends about their sexual orientation - for an end to perceived deception, and for an end to anxiety and guilt of having to ‘hide’.

Lou

Though, people today a generally aware enough not to pursue questions like “Why aren’t you married?”, etc. Being homosexual is not the only answer- some people don’t feel called to it, may be ‘married’ to their profession, etc., or simply don’t want to reproduce themselves. They might be from unhappy homes an not ‘believe’ in marriage (at least not for themselves). Or they might be thinking about becoming a priest, etc.

The topic of ‘sex’ is not avoidable altogether, but for good reasons, should always be treated with a certain reserve. Given the Church’s teaching that homosexuals should not act out their desires, it seems to make perfect sense (for everyone) that they are simply treated this reserve, and not mentioned.

 

[Tagetes]

Though, people today a generally aware enough not to pursue questions like “Why aren’t you married?”, etc.

Excuse me, what utopia do you live in? No sarcasm intended, I’m just jealous. I’m asked why I’m single on regular basis, and I have yet to turn 30.

Being homosexual is not the only answer- some people don’t feel called to it, may be ‘married’ to their profession, etc., or simply don’t want to reproduce themselves. They might be from unhappy homes an not ‘believe’ in marriage (at least not for themselves). Or they might be thinking about becoming a priest, etc.

In other words, you suggest we lie.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Rosebud77
“coming out” ? What a stress to put on folk.

I’m not Rosebud77 and can’t speak on her behalf, but to me
“coming out” ? What a stress to put on folk.

would refer to pressure being put on LGBT/SSA people to come out, not merely permitting them to do so if they wish.

 

[Qoeleth]

Excuse me, what utopia do you live in? No sarcasm intended, I’m just jealous. I’m asked why I’m single on regular basis, and I have yet to turn 30.

In other words, you suggest we lie.

How would it be a lie, if someone were to ask what is IMO an impertinent question, to say, “I just prefer to remain single,” or “I don’t feel called to marriage”?

In fact such an answer is perfectly honest, since, according to Church teaching, homosexuals are called to celibacy.

 

[Tagetes]

How would it be a lie, if someone were to ask what is IMO an impertinent question, to say, “I just prefer to remain single,” or “I don’t feel called to marriage”?

It would be a lie. I don’t “prefer” to remain single. The Church forces me to. And I’m not going to sugarcoat it and downplay my sufferings for the sake of some stranger, who wants to put me in jail for falling in love with women.

 

[Tagetes]

And, for the record, telling a LGBT person from a country with anti-LGBT laws that anti-LGBT laws are a terrific idea, and that witchhunts “don’t happen”, and that even those in favor of such laws are going to be mindful and non-abusive, does you no good.
I know better. I live your dream. And it’s my nightmare.

 

[camkutz]

OK- it would be hard to enforce.

But what could be banned would be self-identification as homosexuals. Like racism- there’s lots of racist people around (maybe they can’t help it), but if a person ‘comes out’ and says, ‘I’m racist’, they could be charged with a crime (I think…)

Eventually, people would stop talking about them, and the whole thing would die out, or slip out of visibility…

What I find abhorrent about this is people CHOOSE to be racists and show racist behaviour. People don’t CHOOSE to have same-sex attractions and don’t CHOOSE to have effeminate behaviour. Do you think people would choose to be bullied at school? To be killed and thrown off roofs in middle eastern countries? Do you know how hard it can be for some people with SSA do you think they CHOOSE that life? Regardless if they act on it or not sexual orientation is a lot different than being a racist. Regardless of the nature or nurture argument gay people don’t choose to be gay as straight people don’t choose to be straight.