What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[Slappo]

Every grammar Nazi is allowed one typo every now and then.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to tar myself as a penance...

I've heard it's far more penitential if you let someone else do the tarring.

 

and yes I'm volunteering.

[PhuturePriest]

I've heard it's far more penitential if you let someone else do the tarring.

 

and yes I'm volunteering.

 

You were one of the few who defended my leg shaving. I therefore grant you the honor.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Every grammar Nazi is allowed one typo every now and then.
 
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to tar myself as a penance...

  

I've heard it's far more penitential if you let someone else do the tarring.
 
and yes I'm volunteering.

  

You were one of the few who defended my leg shaving. I therefore grant you the honor.

You know you've been on Phatmass too long when the above conversation doesn't make you the slightest bit concerned.

[PhuturePriest]

Alright, fresh new question after Claire's really witty and funny comment: How should you talk and respond to a Catholic friend (You can also get into non-Catholics as well, but Catholics specifically would be nice) who comes out to you? Obviously "With love, support, and understanding" are no-brainers, but anything specifically on how you should conduct yourself? Anything that you should definitely not do or say?

[CatherineM]

Don't assume they are having sex. Find out if they've told their family yet so you don't accidentally out them if they haven't. Recommend the Courage website. It's a good place to read up on other Catholics who have the same hurdles.

Mostly make sure they know it won't affect your relationship with them.

[PhuturePriest]

Don't assume they are having sex. Find out if they've told their family yet so you don't accidentally out them if they haven't. Recommend the Courage website. It's a good place to read up on other Catholics who have the same hurdles.

Mostly make sure they know it won't affect your relationship with them.

 

Good stuff. As a thought of what not to say, I think in general asking "Are you sure?" is probably a terrible thing to say in response. :P I of course haven't done that, to be clear.

[EmilyAnn]

Annoying questions:

 

How do you know if you've never had sex with (gender)? - this is possibly the dumbest question ever.

 

So have you ever been attracted to me? Don't flatter yourself.

 

Why do you call yourself gay/bi/homosexual/whatever? That implies you're having sex/living a (whatever) lifestyle, supporting the (whatever) agenda! No, it doesn't. I personally find the term "SSA" ridiculous - just call a spade a spade. 

 

As long as you're not having sex it's fine, but why do you need to talk about it? Because ignoring something is obviously going to make it or the related issues go away. 

 

Those things are all part of the reason I've never come out as bisexual. For other reasons, read the beginning of this thread. 'Nuff said.

[Norseman82]

Frannie, I will attempt an answer to your question regarding the Arizona Law, although because I have actually read (and thus more familiar) the Kansas House Bill from a couple weeks ago which I believe was similar in many regards. So this is more of a general civil political theory idea than necessarily the specific legislation, I hope that is fair to you and consistent with what you were seeking in asking the question. Also I hope you actually read this because this thread has just gotten a little bit wonky. Before I get started I am hesitant to put my ideas down into words because I fear I may not do the well formed ideas I have justice in writing them. I pissed off a good number of my gay friends this week by trying to explain my thoughts of Facebook...mea culpa, should have known that was a bad place to discuss this. Anywho...please know that I do not mean any offense and if you can take something I write as offensive or innocently ignorant but loving, I mean it the second way :) It is fully possible that somebody will disagree with me, and I am open to changing my position if somebody can show me how and where my logic is flawed, but I do ask you to remain charitable as I've been quite burned these last couple weeks with very hateful language and I am very torn down right now. now that the caveats are done.

 

The greatest problem I am seeing right now in regards to religion in society is how far religion can be expressed. The HHS mandates, adoption agencies loosing licenses for refusing to adopt to gay couple on religious principles, A Methodist Non-Profit loosing it's status in Mass. I think for not renting a gazebo to a Gay Wedding. It's becoming a mess. We as Catholics know that our faith is not simply limited to going to Mass on Sunday or saying a few prayers, our faith is supposed to be LIVED and our every action ought to be guided by those principles.

 

From here I take two roads. First I do not think that it is necessarily loving to refuse service to somebody on one characteristic of that person, gay, black, arab, Indian, chinese. woman,gay, straight,..whatever. There are although times when because of a certain ACTION or support of an action a Catholic might be morally obligated to refuse service. Assisted Suicide, Participating in a Gay Wedding, Adopting Children to Gay Couples, just for a few. These things are issues of morality, strengthening and protecting the family, and the dignity of life and marriage. The Second road is that if Catholics are to live their faith it is logical to assume that among the other 60,000 or so religions in the world there are other religions which sincerely believe their faith must be lived as well, and they might believe some things which we as Catholics flat out disagree with.

 

This leads to the question that in a society like the United States which professes the free exercise of religion is it correct to limit the religious expression of somebody if it does not infringe upon the natural rights of somebody? I submit it is not justifiable. If I think it is alright for society to dictate to another religion what their faith requires then how can I be upset when society is doing the same thing to my Church in regards to contraception and abortion. Should not the individual have the same rights of expression of their faith as the legally registered entity of the Church? I liken freedom of religious expression similar to freedom of speech. It boils my buns when I drive to my Church and see the Westboro Baptist Church calling My Church, My Priest, and even myself vile things. I do however support their right to spout such venomous hate, because sometimes we just have to let some people be **self censored**

 

Now that leads to what are natural rights and infringement on them. Rarely talked about in American debates and jurisprudence is the right to freedom of association. Just as we have the freedom to assemble we ought to have the general freedom to choose who we wish to associate ourselves with. Things which are necessary to life should not ever be allowed to be withheld from equal economic treatment, but when it comes to quality of life things like services and restaurants I do not see a clear imperative to equal treatment if motivated by a SINCERE religious belief. The problem with the laws being looked at currently I've heard most people rail against as being too broad, I submit that they are in fact too NARROW in scope. We discriminate in our lives all of the time as shoppers and what we choose to do. My money talks I choose who I support by where I choose to spend my money. The Government does not guarantee a business from failure, I am not told I must be a Patron equally to all store which present themselves to my needs, so why do we tell businesses that they must serve all people who present themselves? Why is the economic relationship a one way street?

 

I also wish to take some time to make clear that those thoughts refer to what I consider private businesses. As in not publically sold or traded on the Stock market, where an actual person owns the business and therefore that individual's (or group) can directly impact the values and principles of the business in a significant way. Applying these principles to Wal-Mart for example would be insane. Wal-Mart has no soul, nor human dignity it has no personhood to protect, because it is a publically traded company. If we were pre-stock market days of Wal-Mart and Sam Walton was still alive and in control, then the company as an expression of his work is tied to him. As well public servants by nature of taking on the role of public servants give up part of their rights in order to serve the general public. Therefore an individual's expression of their rights can become more limited by nature of that role.

 

Now usually at this point (actually long before) I've been shouted down about how discrimination is bad and these ideas would lead us all back to Jim Crow, how much of a hateful, spiteful, poor excuse for a Christian, bigot that I am. So I will address that next if you so allow. I definitely agree that Jim Crow era segregation was horrible, horrific and did horrible harm to the dignity of the human being. I submit however that private and individual freedom of association (personal discrimination if you will) was not the major harm of Jim Crow, but rather it was government policies and structures which prohibited people from fully recognizing the potential of their citizenship. It was unequal application of the law. It was Police Officers who would arrest a black guy for trespassing and ignore the white guy who just lynched a black guy the night before. When I look to the lunch Counter sit-ins of the 1960s that was a private market solution to a problem that was beginning to gain traction when the Mayor (government) got involved to enforce segregation. I think that if I as a Catholic Seminarian walked into a Muslim owned restaurant and for whatever SINCERE religious conviction that person held they absolutely have the right to refuse me service, be it I'm Catholic, wanting to a Priest or just being a general infidel. 

It is a horrible business model, but I think they should have that right. I also have the right to let everyone know that the restaurant refuses to serve Seminarians, Catholics, infidels whatever and I bet a good number of people who may have gone before and would have been served would decide not to support such a business.

 

I think it is shameful that a photographer can be sued in some parts of our country for refusing to photograph a gay wedding because they object to being present. I think it is shameful that any part of our society thinks they can DEMAND a free uniquely human individual to serve their whims, desires and choices.

 

I hope this makes sense, and if I jumped a part at all or you want more clarification I would be happy to provide it. Sorry about the length, but you asked a short but complicated question.

 

My thoughts exactly. 

 

If you don't complete seminary, please run for public office.  Illinois needs you. 

[franciscanheart]

How is the church supposed to provide counsel to a hidden population? How do we serve a people who are not seen?

[PhuturePriest]

Once again, Stephen doing what he does best: making sense and humorous mockery out of stupid statements.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/433501/march-04-2014/arizona-s-religious-freedom-bill---steve-king-on--self-professed-gays-?xrs=synd_facebook_030914_cn_55

 

That being said, Mr. King, I do highly advise that you open your letters up slowly for the next month or two.

Edited March 6, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Winchester]

Once again, Stephen doing what he does best: making sense and humorous mockery out of stupid statements.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/433501/march-04-2014/arizona-s-religious-freedom-bill---steve-king-on--self-professed-gays-?xrs=synd_facebook_030914_cn_55

 

That being said, Mr. King, I do highly advise that you open your letters up slowly for the next month or two.

Remember that phatmasser whose house was raided by the FBI?

 

FP, right?

 

Yeah. Got a postcard from him, postmarked "GITMO".

[franciscanheart]

Annoying questions:

How do you know if you've never had sex with (gender)? - this is possibly the dumbest question ever.

So have you ever been attracted to me? Don't flatter yourself.

Why do you call yourself gay/bi/homosexual/whatever? That implies you're having sex/living a (whatever) lifestyle, supporting the (whatever) agenda! No, it doesn't. I personally find the term "SSA" ridiculous - just call a spade a spade.

As long as you're not having sex it's fine, but why do you need to talk about it? Because ignoring something is obviously going to make it or the related issues go away.

Those things are all part of the reason I've never come out as bisexual. For other reasons, read the beginning of this thread. 'Nuff said.

I would also add:

"Okay?"
"And?"
"So?"

It's a big deal. It's stupid to pretend you don't see the wheelchair a person is sitting in and it's ridiculous to act like a person being gay affects nothing. You don't see skin color? Please find a remote island to live on ASAP; I don't like liars.


Some things people have said to me that I have appreciated:

"Thank you for trusting me."
"Thank you for your honesty."
"I am happy we are friends."

[Winchester]

I think if one were to live on the humours of trees, it would require more than one.

[dUSt]

This thread is gay.

[The Bus Station]

Hmm