What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[franciscanheart]

Yeah, but that's not limited to chaste homosexuals and celibates though. The same falls true for married men and women who are in a struggling marriage and find themselves falling for someone else, and even more true for those who get married and 5 years down the road end up in an abusive relationship where they have to divorce for the sake of their children and health but maybe don't qualify for an annulment. I don't think the idea of being in a position where you could fall for someone and have it be reciprocated is limited to some small select group of people.

I think you missed one of the connections or posts. The point Al was helping to make was that it was not necessary for a homosexual to be involved in a romantic relationship with someone in order to experience romantic pain. Because the potential of a relationship is never an option for us, falling for someone of our own sex is especially difficult because it can never be fully recognized. Am I making sense? We aren't suggesting that homosexuals are the only ones who experience romantic pain, just saying that we experience pain despite the fact that -- living as chaste, faithful, homosexual Catholics -- we do not experience romantic relationships. (Please tell me if I'm incoherent.)
 
 

I would imagine the thing that makes it harder for those living a chaste homosexual life would be that usually men and women's best friends (aside from a spouse) are the same gender. As a married man I don't go out for a night on the town with the girls, so my social opportunities to fall for someone I can't have are more limited since I'm not attracted to the guys I hang out with. This entire paragraph is speculation though.

I can appreciate where this might be more easily understood by you. But remember that you are thinking with your heterosexual brain in the context of your heterosexual experiences. I imagine you have plenty of relationships with women to whom you are not attracted or with whom you are not inclined to fall in love. I have [i]plenty[/i] of relationships with heterosexual women and do not fall for them. Why? Because they are not gay. I have never once fallen for a straight woman. I may have been enamored. I may have had a "schoolgirl crush" or something resembling it. But it was never serious and never something that really stole my time or attention.

 

Al may have a different experience, but that has been mine and the experience of many of my good friends who are also gay or bi.

 

Unnecessary information but an interesting point: some of my very best friends are gay males. A lot of lesbian women I know have very good gay, male friends. There is something really nice about being gay that allows us a certain freedom to have really intimate relationships with both sexes that, in many heterosexual circles, would otherwise raise a lot of questions.

[franciscanheart]

Sounds pretty accurate to me.
 
Interestingly enough I've actually had a chance to watch the news tonight, something I never do (not because I don't want to, it's just the time is always lacking.) So as I ate my dinner with CNN on the whole Arizona Freedom of Religion mandate was being talked about. Of course the whole thing was painted as a bill supporting hate, but they had a gentleman on explaining the context behind the bill. As it happened, a baker and photographer were both sued by gay couples because they were told they did not feel comfortable participating in their (pseudo) marital ceremony. All this bill does is protect such private business owners from involving themselves in something contrary to their conscience. I never understood why someone would fight to force someone offer a service, I mean do you really want a baker to make you a wedding cake against their will? Furthermore, all this is disturbingly close to forcing Churches to "marry" gays. We're really getting to the point where even the Church is not sacrosanct, and I've even heard there are liberal lawyers fighting to amend the bill of rights so that they protect the freedom of "worship" and not religion. A poignant distinction. 
 
Very disturbing how everything is turning out. Hopefully our gay Catholic bothers and sisters will stand up to fight the good fight.

I posted the below a few pages ago. Did you watch any section of these videos? I'd be interested in your responses to Anderson, and what things you would support that came out of the mouth of the bumbling (state) congressman.

 

Here are a couple interesting videos about proposed Arizona legislation for anyone interested in watching / responding / discussing.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#/video/bestoftv/2014/02/24/ac-sen-melvin-defends-az-law-1.cnn
 
(I actually jumped back with wide eyes around minute eight of this first video. There's definitely discussion points here if you're willing to hear them.)
 
http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#/video/bestoftv/2014/02/24/ac-sen-melvin-defends-az-law-2.cnn

[Aloysius]

yeah I've never fallen for a straight guy myself either, straight friends of mine I tend to automatically and easily friendzone with no difficulty... and of course my experience is different because I've been in love with a girl and had many romantic relationships with other girls before too, so while I have on a couple of occasions experienced that romantic pain we're talking about here, having that fact that I'm also attracted to girls does kind of mitigate that for me.  back when I was a bit mixed up and confused and thought I had to really be 100% chaste gay because of my attractions (around the ages of 14-16ish I think was the time period here), I remember those romantic pains were deeply combined with a deep sense of hopelessness... I mean think about it, standard post-breakup reply is "there are plenty of fish in the sea"... I remember thinking along the lines of something like, for me there were no other fish, I was choosing not to take the fish in front of me and also not to look for a new one, no silver lining.  but of course as I developed and understood that many of the struggles I rationalized through some lens of whether my "SSA" could go away or not, it had all just been a kind of shifting fluid sexuality thing (still is fluid from time to time, shifting between Kinsey 2 and 4 I'd say, depending on the circumstances of my life in any given time) and I really settled as definitely attracted to both, then my experience definitely changed and even though there have been occasions of falling for someone, it's much easier for me to be able to let that go.  so I'd guess for those who really are exclusively gay, that experience of hopelessness in the romance department is still a huge part of the pain they experience in seeking to live out chastity.

[NotreDame]

I posted the below a few pages ago. Did you watch any section of these videos? I'd be interested in your responses to Anderson, and what things you would support that came out of the mouth of the bumbling (state) congressman.

 

 

I didn't watch the videos and don't really plan on it.  I read the actual amendment to the law which I posted a number of pages back (and which are linked to in the article below.  The law just re-iterates more explicitly the right to religious freedom:

 

(from: http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/21/news-flash-its-already-legal-to-deny-ser)

 

Actually, Arizona’s laws already give businesses the right to discriminate against gays. Sexual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion. You can read the bill here and see what is being changed in blue text. It’s not very much.

 

I'd suggest reading the whole article as well as the law itself.
 

[franciscanheart]

I didn't watch the videos and don't really plan on it.  I read the actual amendment to the law which I posted a number of pages back (and which are linked to in the article below.  The law just re-iterates more explicitly the right to religious freedom:
 
(from: http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/21/news-flash-its-already-legal-to-deny-ser)
 
Actually, Arizona’s laws already give businesses the right to discriminate against gays. Sexual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion. You can read the bill here and see what is being changed in blue text. It’s not very much.
 
I'd suggest reading the whole article as well as the law itself.

I've read the law and understand what it's doing. I was asking Mortify if he'd seen the videos since he was just commenting on a news story he saw today. Anderson raises a lot of really great points that the congressman is unable to reasonably argue. The preemptive moves they're making are unnecessary based on the fact that they do not have standing laws protecting gay people in any way.

[NotreDame]

I've read the law and understand what it's doing. I was asking Mortify if he'd seen the videos since he was just commenting on a news story he saw today. Anderson raises a lot of really great points that the congressman is unable to reasonably argue. The preemptive moves they're making are unnecessary based on the fact that they do not have standing laws protecting gay people in any way.

 

Which is what the reason.com article says.  Nevertheless, the change to law appears to be benign and reaction to it way out of proportion. 

 

And I didn't mean to interrupt the conversation w/ mortify, just level-setting the issue (at least in my pov) since it's been mentioned a few times before Mortify chimed in.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by NotreDame

[franciscanheart]

Which is what the reason.com article says.  Nevertheless, the change to law appears to be benign and reaction to it way out of proportion.

Can you see, though, where the side who feels attacked and belittled could say the same about the time, money, and energy spent trying to revise this?

[NotreDame]

Can you see, though, where the side who feels attacked and belittled could say the same about the time, money, and energy spent trying to revise this?

 

Well, as an orthodox catholic who believes in religious freedom I feel like I am actually on the side that's being attacked and belittled - not just in AZ, but nationally. 

 

And with their neighbors in New Mexico being sued and prosecuted for not wanting to take part in a gay ceremonies I can understand the desire to clarify the law to make it harder for a judge to impose his/her own views absent explicit law (as happened in NM.)

 

And I don't here the other side complaining about time/money/energy wasted.  I hear them complaining about different things.
 

[PhuturePriest]

Important question I don't believe has been asked: do you support the legalisation of gay marriage? I'm kind of in the middle on it. In one sense, I absolutely agree that homosexual unions are intrinsically immoral. But I also believe premarital sex and contraception are intrinsically immoral, too. Should those be against the law as well? The idea that gay marriage should be illegal but not premarital sex seems to stem from prejudice to me, but I don't know. I haven't heard an argument for why one should be illegal and not the other.

[franciscanheart]

Well, as an orthodox catholic who believes in religious freedom I feel like I am actually on the side that's being attacked and belittled - not just in AZ, but nationally.

And with their neighbors in New Mexico being sued and prosecuted for not wanting to take part in a gay ceremonies I can understand the desire to clarify the law to make it harder for a judge to impose his/her own views absent explicit law (as happened in NM.)

And I don't here the other side complaining about time/money/energy wasted. I hear them complaining about different things.

If you'd listened to or watched the videos, you would have. Also mentioned is that NM has laws protecting gay people in areas that AZ does not. So it's not the same. Anyway, I'm not actually opposed to your thinking re: people being able to deny marriage-related services, so it doesn't much matter. Just wanted Mortify to check it out for more devils-advocate questions / things to think about.

[mortify ii]

Peace be with you,

 

Important question I don't believe has been asked: do you support the legalisation of gay marriage? I'm kind of in the middle on it. In one sense, I absolutely agree that homosexual unions are intrinsically immoral. But I also believe premarital sex and contraception are intrinsically immoral, too. Should those be against the law as well? The idea that gay marriage should be illegal but not premarital sex seems to stem from prejudice to me, but I don't know. I haven't heard an argument for why one should be illegal and not the other.

 

FP, I understand we don't live in a perfect system, but we should always strive to have civil law reflect natural and moral law. I think it's a poor argument to say that since there is no penalty for contraception and premarital sex we ought to remove laws that prohibit same sex unions. 

[Guest]

I just want to say props for being gay and still remaining Catholic and obeying the teachings...I used to hold the belief being gay was a choice and as a result never really had much sympathy for christians who were gay...Although now realizing it's not a choice I feel more compassion...If God created me to be attracted to males and not females and then I was told I would go to he'll if I fell in love I don't know what I would do...It might be peace out church...So anyhow keep being strong and a great example of a faithful Catholic...Prayers....

Edited February 26, 2014 by Guest

[PhuturePriest]

Peace be with you,


FP, I understand we don't live in a perfect system, but we should always strive to have civil law reflect natural and moral law. I think it's a poor argument to say that since there is no penalty for contraception and premarital sex we ought to remove laws that prohibit same sex unions.

But premarital sex is just as intrinsically immoral as sex between those of the same gender. It seeks hypocritical to me to say straight people can sin in whatever way they want, but gay people can't. Edited February 26, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[mortify ii]

Peace be with you,

 

If you'd listened to or watched the videos, you would have. Also mentioned is that NM has laws protecting gay people in areas that AZ does not. So it's not the same. Anyway, I'm not actually opposed to your thinking re: people being able to deny marriage-related services, so it doesn't much matter. Just wanted Mortify to check it out for more devils-advocate questions / things to think about.

 

I did not see the clip you mentioned and so I can't comment on it, if I get a chance to watch it I'll make some points about it.

 

I feel there is a polarization being set here. Many of us who were sitting on fence have to choose sides now. I've noticed many articles about the whole gay rights issue, including supposed denial of sacraments, and even television shows portraying normalcy of same sex couples marrying and raising children. It's clear the top of the pyramid is engineering the rest to find homosexuality acceptability and any view prohibiting or limiting it as either backwards or discriminatory. The question is what will happen when the litigation hits the sanctuary, and the Church starts getting sued for refusing to wed same sex couples. Then the stakes will get very interesting. 

[NotreDame]

But premarital sex is just as intrinsically immoral as sex between those of the same gender. It seeks hypocritical to me to say straight people can sin in whatever way they want, but gay people can't.

 

It's not an apples to apples comparison.  Just like the government wasn't stopping people from having premarital sex, neither was the gov't stopping gay people from having ceremonies. 

 

Legalizing gay marriage isn't allowing citizens to do something they couldn't do before.  It's forcing governments to take positive action to recognize and enforce contracts that they previously wouldn't have.