What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[CrossCuT]

why exactly does her being a bit quick tempered at times make it make more sense to ask her why she bothered to post this topic? now it is true she had posted a topic about this quite recently, but something else was happening there and that post had to disappear... I had offered to bring it back for her, but she chose to just make a new one without those problems... so it's not like she's just constantly bringing it up or anything.

I'm confused about what question you all want answered here... is the question "why did you post this thread"? I think that's self evident, she's sharing something personal and wants to talk about it. why does she have to justify wanting to talk about it? it doesn't seem like a valid question to me, it seems like a dismissive question, and it was obviously interpreted as such. anyway, that's probably enough of turning this thread into a debate over whether arfink's question was valid. I guess the part of the question that said "what specific issues do you want to talk about" makes sense anyway... to which she brought up the Arizona thing.. does that steer us back on any kind of thing resembling a track for this thread lol?

I toootally get all that. I just dont get the aggression.

[blazeingstar]

why exactly does her being a bit quick tempered at times make it make more sense to ask her why she bothered to post this topic?  now it is true she had posted a topic about this quite recently, but something else was happening there and that post had to disappear... I had offered to bring it back for her, but she chose to just make a new one without those problems... so it's not like she's just constantly bringing it up or anything.

 

I'm confused about what question you all want answered here... is the question "why did you post this thread"?  I think that's self evident, she's sharing something personal and wants to talk about it.  why does she have to justify wanting to talk about it?  it doesn't seem like a valid question to me, it seems like a dismissive question, and it was obviously interpreted as such.  anyway, that's probably enough of turning this thread into a debate over whether arfink's question was valid. I guess the part of the question that said "what specific issues do you want to talk about" makes sense anyway... to which she brought up the Arizona thing.. does that steer us back on any kind of thing resembling a track for this thread lol?

 

Why is it so wrong that we want to hear it from her.  I'm sorry but I don't find anything "self evident".  And it's not so much just "why did you make this thread" to what motivates her to speak about this frequently and openly.   As a person who plays everything close to the vest (my office didn't even know I had a boyfriend when I got engaged) I simply don't understand.

 

She has redirected to an issue, but I am not interested in issues.  There are jerks on both sides.  In different scenarios photographer, wedding cake maker and a church refused to provide accommodations for gay couples because it was against their beliefs.  They are now closed.  Should people really loose their entire business because they don't want to make a cake with 2 brides?  Really? 

 

At the same time I don't find anything wrong with serving 2 gay people in a restaurant.  It's mind blowingly cruel and should be considered unacceptable unless they are trying to have sex on the table.  I'd like to see the person who'd argue FOR that kind of idiocy.  And who gets to decide who's gay anyway.  In college I had a very touchy-feely roomate.  We were both very much into guys, but we'd cram 6 of us into a 4 person booth and be hugging and generally carrying on.  So we'd be refused service...totally crazy. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by blazeingstar

[Aloysius]

I toootally get all that. I just dont get the aggression.

personally, I get it.  I warned her for it for a personal attack, but I get it.  I may have responded similarly back in the day when I first made posts sharing those things about myself... though actually my first posts admitting it were done through an account I had made specifically for that purpose.  again, I don't think it was intended this way, but it was obviously interpreted like "why would you bother talking about this, it makes us uncomfortable, please just don't talk about it and keep it to yourself" which is something that one deals with constantly--even the so-called tolerant people of the world, many want you to just not discuss it, so a question like that can definitely feel that way... I know it may not have been intended that way but it definitely feels that way when that's the response one gets.

[Aloysius]

anyway, there are elements to arfink's question that may be valid, and may be interesting, and if it had been worded differently maybe there would've been an answer.  perhaps there still might be... I dunno.  arfink's intentions were right but it definitely came across wrong to Franciscan, and to me.

[Lilllabettt]

my problem is that Im sick and tired of judgment from gay people + allies.  Exclusion from social events, networking opportunities, family gatherings etc.  because what I believe "gets out" despite my best efforts. Palpable aggression from a hostile majority. How many commencement addresses, ceremonies and speeches etc. I have sat through in which the speaker chooses to explicitly brand people like me as homophobes, and the hundreds or thousands of people assembled around me all clapping in agreement. My favorite is signing on to facebook and being shown a solid purple wall of friends and family proclaiming that people who think like me are disgusting bigots.

 

so here's a thread on phatmass with a  gay person + allies who want to question whether I "really have love" in my heart for gay people. 

Real nice. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[NotreDame]

I don't get the hostility either, especially from someone who had just started a thread asking for questions and saying "give me your best shot."   Hiding behind "it's an SSA thing, you wouldn't understand" is a cop-out.  Morals and decorum are universal.

 

[Aloysius]

the question was dismissive of a deeply emotional aspect of her life that basically implied "please don't talk about this".  again, I don't think arfink may have intended to imply that, but it was definitely inferred and with good reason--that was definitely the tone of the post.  "why does this topic keep coming up"... "you said it before and it was just blah"... come on now.  that was where the hostile reaction came from.  if someone posted a thread saying they just got engaged--something deeply emotional to them--and you said "why do you keep bringing stuff like this up?" you'd probably get the same level of hostile reaction.  it's not "an ssa" thing.  obviously with ssa there is the moral teachings of the Church and all that so there is a difference, definitely, but she did not say she was engaged in sinful actions, just shared the fact that this romantic attraction is a deep part of her life.  a dismissive reaction to any deep part of one's life, whether it's related to sinful actions or not, with some question that seems to imply that one should be quiet and not talk about it, is going to elicit an emotional response.  that's just universal decorum.

[Lilllabettt]

gay catholic asks straight catholic: do you really have love in your heart for gay people?

straight catholic asks gay catholic: do you really follow the teachings of the church. I mean really?

 

the only answer a rude question should get is: why do you ask?

[CrossCuT]

the question was dismissive of a deeply emotional aspect of her life that basically implied "please don't talk about this". again, I don't think arfink may have intended to imply that, but it was definitely inferred and with good reason--that was definitely the tone of the post. "why does this topic keep coming up"... "you said it before and it was just blah"... come on now. that was where the hostile reaction came from. if someone posted a thread saying they just got engaged--something deeply emotional to them--and you said "why do you keep bringing stuff like this up?" you'd probably get the same level of hostile reaction. it's not "an ssa" thing. obviously with ssa there is the moral teachings of the Church and all that so there is a difference, definitely, but she did not say she was engaged in sinful actions, just shared the fact that this romantic attraction is a deep part of her life. a dismissive reaction to any deep part of one's life, whether it's related to sinful actions or not, with some question that seems to imply that one should be quiet and not talk about it, is going to elicit an emotional response. that's just universal decorum.

You make fair points, but im also referring to the aggression in her original post which had nothting to do with arfink.
But I know that im viewing all of this through a lense of havimg dealt with frequent fh temper tantrums which had nothing to do with her sharing the deeps secrets of her being.

Maybe im becoming the rude one here now so kll just remove myself from the thread.

[Aloysius]

you have a point about the "do you really have love in your heart" question... which of course came after the arfink question we all seem to be arguing about lol.  but yes, I can understand your hostile reaction to that question too.  sort of a similar phenomenon, that question seemed to imply that you don't really love people who are gay, hence your hostile reaction to that question.

[blazeingstar]

the question was dismissive of a deeply emotional aspect of her life that basically implied "please don't talk about this".  again, I don't think arfink may have intended to imply that, but it was definitely inferred and with good reason--that was definitely the tone of the post.  "why does this topic keep coming up"... "you said it before and it was just blah"... come on now.  that was where the hostile reaction came from.  if someone posted a thread saying they just got engaged--something deeply emotional to them--and you said "why do you keep bringing stuff like this up?" you'd probably get the same level of hostile reaction.  it's not "an ssa" thing.  obviously with ssa there is the moral teachings of the Church and all that so there is a difference, definitely, but she did not say she was engaged in sinful actions, just shared the fact that this romantic attraction is a deep part of her life.  a dismissive reaction to any deep part of one's life, whether it's related to sinful actions or not, with some question that seems to imply that one should be quiet and not talk about it, is going to elicit an emotional response.  that's just universal decorum.

 

But HAS a poster ever done more than one thread for getting engaged, married or for having a kid?  I think FH is well within her right and she's made many good points throughout the years with her threads that are essentially about her but you're right.  I think people DO get annoyed when anyone talks about things many times.  Given, it has been years in between, but posters remember.   Please also note that many posters, including myself, are engaged/get married/have kids without ever making a thread on the topic.  For those who aren't getting engaged to other Pham, I do feel like engamement threads are a bit of a "me me me" and I don't understand why they post them either.  But since we're a Catholic message board, I get it in some regards, we want to foster a Catholic community.

 

This is outside of the Catholic community.  But just like in my office where my lifestyle is considered abhorrent (like lilbet has mentioned I've also been unknowlingly demonized for my lack of "openess" to other lifestyles)  I don't go around announcing that I'm engaged or that I don't live with my boyfreind, that I don't use ABC (the women in my office actually remind--eg yell to eachother that it's time to take their pill), and I want my kids to be my kids...not in daycare while I go out drinking.

 

I am curious what would make a person talk about anything.  I think, while poorly said, arf was getting at the same thing.

[NotreDame]

 if someone posted a thread saying they just got engaged--something deeply emotional to them--and you said "why do you keep bringing stuff like this up?"

 

"hey I'm engaged, ask me anything!"  - Not analogous at all, bro.

 

you'd probably get the same level of hostile reaction.  

 

Um.  No, actually.  You probably wouldn't get the same reaction.  You'd probably get an explanation from the OP rather than a "shut up you idiot!" 

 

And the hostility came out very strangely in her posts to me as well...
 

[KnightofChrist]

the question was dismissive of a deeply emotional aspect of her life that basically implied "please don't talk about this".

This is projecting your feelings into what he said, not what he said.
 

again, I don't think arfink may have intended to imply that, but it was definitely inferred and with good reason--that was definitely the tone of the post.  "why does this topic keep coming up"... "you said it before and it was just blah"... come on now.

Your quote is incomplete and incorrect. Here's the full quote just for sake of clarity.

"Yeah, why does this topic keep coming up? You mentioned something about your orientation a long time ago now, and as I recall, nobody really had much to say either way. It was very blah. I don't get the feeling that anybody here hated you over it.

What issues do you feel you need to talk about? I'm not trying to be dismissive, I just honestly don't know."

The "blah" part of the quote in context, seems more about making a point that the topic has been brought up before and it didn't really cause drama (unlike now) and she was accepted because no one here hated her over it.

 

a dismissive reaction to any deep part of one's life, whether it's related to sinful actions or not, with some question that seems to imply that one should be quiet and not talk about it, is going to elicit an emotional response.  that's just universal decorum.

Again let's put feelings aside, and what we feel he said to the side, and focus on what he actually said.

"What issues do you feel you need to talk about? I'm not trying to be dismissive, I just honestly don't know."
 

[Aloysius]

ah, of course, I'm just being emotional... probably shouldn't have brought up my personal relation to the topic lol, now I'm just clouded by my emotions I guess, rather than just trying to explain how a post was interpreted the way it was because it could clearly easily be interpreted that way.  I also clearly said I thought his intentions were fine, just that it could easily be interpreted the way it was.

 

meh.  we'll just have to disagree.  she explained in her post why she was bringing it up again anyway--because last time she was misinterpreted a bit, and this time she feels more comfortable talking about it.  I was merely explaining why, though I think well intentioned, arfink's post elicited the reaction it did.  I know he said he didn't intend to be dismissive, but just saying that doesn't make your question not dismissive.  there's nothing wrong with arfink's post except that it seemed dismissive, and to me, understandably so.  I thought the reaction was understandable, if the same post had been made to me (though I doubt it would have been) I would've also been annoyed and/or hostile.

 

so we're on the third page still refusing to talk about the "issues of the day" that FH said she wanted to talk about in the OP.  blazeingstar, I think I tend to agree--wedding related things it should be okay to offer or not offer based on whether one believes in participating in gay marriages or not... but other goods and services it should not be okay to deny.  this is why the Kansas bill died in the Kansas senate--because it was so broad that it would have allowed discrimination on absolutely anything from eating in restaurants to shopping at grocery stores... the kind of absolutely unjust discrimination the CCC says we should be totally against relating to gay people.  if the Arizona bill is that broadly sweeping, then it needs to go away.  that said, people should have the right to not participate in gay weddings, even if they offer services to straight weddings.  

[CrossCuT]

I heard about the Arizona thing but I kind of forgot about it this weekend.

I went to look it up and...I think religious and non religous people alike should be appalled by it. This is a step in the wrong direction. I am extremely shocked that it happened.

 

aoiewru3w9rua;oeijsloierja;woitu

 

To think that being gay would somehow effect someones ability to work? I take offense because its similar to saying that they can deny work to a woman because she is a woman, What has that to do with the merit of the person? I think its sick.