What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[Basilisa Marie]

Has Lent started early on Phatmass this year? 

[CrossCuT]

if this were my classroom i would make you go  back and reread for understanding.

 

 

maybe you think that stuff doesn't happen, or if it does, its no big deal. like those white folks who say racism isn't happening. cuz it ain't happening to them. if you're the target of prejudice its much more salient, I proooomise.

 

Oh I know it happens. I dont think I once said that I supported. Again, shit happens on both sides but if you are going to argue that youre a victim of all the homosexuals then I just have to laugh. Are you also a victim of all the black people? All those black supporters causing you to feel bad? Do you feel that youre racially discriminated against on a daily basis to the point where youre denied jobs? No

 

You will never experience the same shit that these people go through. And if youre honestly gonna sit here and pout to me about how bad you have it then lol

[PhuturePriest]

Has Lent started early on Phatmass this year? 

 

Why do you always post right when I've run out of props?

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Lots of love to you, FH.

(Edited for crappy grammer)

Edited February 24, 2014 by FutureCarmeliteClaire

[beatitude]

Okay, people. Stop being complete asshats. She wanted to be open about something about herself and talk about it with us. Why does that need to be justified?

 

I have two questions, one for frannie and one for the rest of you. First: Was anyone shocked that there was a coming out thread and I wasn't the one coming out?

 

Jokes aside, Frannie, first of all, I love you :love: and I couldn't care less if you can appreciate how hot I am or not. Can you tell me when and how you came to the point you realized you were gay and how you dealt with it?

 

You're shaping up quite well for such a young whippersnapper. :P

 

Regarding the rest of the thread, it felt quite dismissive to me too, and the posts probing into why Franciscanheart would want to make more than one thread about this remind me of the many times in real life I've heard things like, "Why do they have to come out? They must just want the attention. I mean, I don't go around telling everyone about MY sexuality..."

 

That's because people just assume you're straight and you get to feel like you're the norm. Gay people don't have that. In church communities they also tend to be sidelined. I remember listening to an impassioned sermon from a priest against gay marriage, in which he reiterated that 'we' don't hate 'them', 'we' want 'them' to have the same rights as 'us', but that redefining marriage isn't a right. He told us that 'we' must have utmost love and compassion for 'our friends and family members' who might be gay. He seemed oblivious to the fact that there were almost sure to be gay congregants sitting in the pews right in front of him. It's a big city congregation. And this is a common message given to gay Catholics - sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, it's, "We love you, of course we do, and we respect you, but you're not really us." Maybe we don't even see it ourselves when we do that.

 

Then there is the whole, "It's not a big deal," and, "We love the person and see beyond their orientation, so why talk about it?" approach. Disabled people and people from ethnic minorities experience similar treatment: "I don't see your disability when I look at you, I see the person you really are!" and "I'm colour-blind!" It's unhelpful and actually pretty offensive. These things have a very profound effect on people's lives and it's only possible to treat them as detachable from the person (like a handbag or a hat) if you don't experience them yourself. With regard to sexual orientation, think about a time when you've been in love with someone. Did that experience leave you untouched? Could you strip it away from you like an ill-fitting coat, or did it change you somehow, influence you? It's no different when gay people fall in love, but we can't recognise that, we have to use quasi-medical language ("You have SSA") to imply that their experiences are somehow removed from them as people. And there is an overwhelming tendency to focus on the fact that gay people are sexually attracted to people of the same sex rather than the fact that they fall in love with people of the same sex. We reduce them to what they may or may not want to do in bed even while we profess to do the opposite. It is wrong and it is painful to reduce people to this.

 

As for people thinking that we might be homophobic bigots, you don't have to be rubbing your hands gleefully at the thought of gay people roasting on the cosmic barbecue to be a bigot. I have been bigoted at times. I think most people have. Now I try very hard not to be, and it does sometimes sting to hear people making sweeping assumptions about Catholics. It hurt even more when a friend hesitated to invite me to her house because she has transgender housemates and she assumed I wouldn't be comfortable around them. But that soreness is nothing compared to the exclusion, bullying, and risk of bodily harm that gay people are still far, far more likely to face than I am. (It boggles my mind that Catholics in our society could complain about prejudice and even persecution in the face of that.) It's nothing compared to the loneliness that an unfortunate number of gay Christians have felt in their own communities. If I feel a bit sore over people's rash judgments of me, I can just offer it up as a prayer for people who have far heavier crosses to bear - and I don't mean in the patronising "Their attractions are such a cross for them!" way. I mean in the "Other people's attitudes can be such a cross!" way.

It seems that if a gay person sighs about how their orientation causes them so much suffering, which they are bearing for Christ; and if they let us feel comfortable by talking about their sexuality as something they 'have'; and if they repeat all the chirpy platitudes about how their sexuality doesn't define them (straight people's sexuality doesn't define straight people either, but funny how we aren't expected to use this line), then we will listen to them to say as much as they like. We won't question it if they want to write two or three (or four, or five...) articles instead of just the one. We will laud them as an inspiration. But if a gay Catholic writes differently from that? Well, there's no need to keep bringing this issue up! What is her problem? What can she mean by it??

 

That speaks volumes. Personally I think that the best answer to, "Why is it necessary for you to talk about this?" is perhaps, "Because people still don't see why it's necessary to listen." We listen to a lot of people talking about gay Catholics, but there is very little from gay Catholics themselves, and we need to hear from them.

Edited February 24, 2014 by beatitude

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

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.

 

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

As well Frannie, I am curious whether you yourself have been exposed to the whole Side A v. Side B Gay Christian Debate. If so I am curious what your thoughts are on it.

 

P.S. your posts always bring a smile to my heart.

[NotreDame]

Before everyone gets apoplectic and starts pontificating about a bill they have never read, first read the bill here and see what is being changed in blue text (also pasted below.) It’s not very much.

 

=======

amending sections 41‑1493 and 41‑1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the free exercise of religion.

 

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1.  Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

41-1493.  Definitions

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1.  "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

2.  "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

3.  "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.

4.  "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.

5.  "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.

6.  "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.

7.  "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":

(a)  Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.

(b)  Does not include:

(i)  Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.

(ii)  The ability to raise tax revenues.

8.  "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.

9.  "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.

Sec. 2.  Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

41-1493.01.  Free exercise of religion protected; definition

A.  Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B.  Except as provided in subsection C, government of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C.  Government State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.  The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief.  A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E.  In For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

F.  For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.

 

[Lilllabettt]

Oh I know it happens. I dont think I once said that I supported. Again, poo happens on both sides but if you are going to argue that youre a victim of all the homosexuals then I just have to laugh. Are you also a victim of all the black people? All those black supporters causing you to feel bad? Do you feel that youre racially discriminated against on a daily basis to the point where youre denied jobs? No

 

You will never experience the same poo that these people go through. And if youre honestly gonna sit here and pout to me about how bad you have it then lol

 

that's awesome by the way -i love what you're doing with the word poo. that's great.

 

how about this. how about me not trivialize the struggle of people with SSA and you not trivialize the struggle of Catholics faithful to the Church. okai????

 

you said this:

 

 

You have this weird reverse victim mentality. "Oh no im being oppressed by all the homosexuals in the world! And their demand for equal rights is making my ability to live my life harder! booohoooooo"

 

not being black and all, I can't know what the black experience is like. you're not faithful to Church teaching. so you can't know what that experience is like.

 

I have paid the price for loyalty to the church; cash wise my total loss is high 5 figures. I lost funding for 4 years of school (as in, it was rescinded.)  That changed my whole life trajectory.  My sister's too. Its why my brothers ended up in the military. Did I ever blame you people for that? Never. That was my choice. I took my medicine.

 

try some humility, tastes bad going down but prevents gas and burning.

[CrossCuT]

 

 

try some humility, tastes bad going down but prevents gas and burning.

ditto

[franciscanheart]

You're shaping up quite well for such a young whippersnapper. :P

Regarding the rest of the thread, it felt quite dismissive to me too, and the posts probing into why Franciscanheart would want to make more than one thread about this remind me of the many times in real life I've heard things like, "Why do they have to come out? They must just want the attention. I mean, I don't go around telling everyone about MY sexuality..."

That's because people just assume you're straight and you get to feel like you're the norm. Gay people don't have that. In church communities they also tend to be sidelined. I remember listening to an impassioned sermon from a priest against gay marriage, in which he reiterated that 'we' don't hate 'them', 'we' want 'them' to have the same rights as 'us', but that redefining marriage isn't a right. He told us that 'we' must have utmost love and compassion for 'our friends and family members' who might be gay. He seemed oblivious to the fact that there were almost sure to be gay congregants sitting in the pews right in front of him. It's a big city congregation. And this is a common message given to gay Catholics - sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, it's, "We love you, of course we do, and we respect you, but you're not really us." Maybe we don't even see it ourselves when we do that.

Then there is the whole, "It's not a big deal," and, "We love the person and see beyond their orientation, so why talk about it?" approach. Disabled people and people from ethnic minorities experience similar treatment: "I don't see your disability when I look at you, I see the person you really are!" and "I'm colour-blind!" It's unhelpful and actually pretty offensive. These things have a very profound effect on people's lives and it's only possible to treat them as detachable from the person (like a handbag or a hat) if you don't experience them yourself. With regard to sexual orientation, think about a time when you've been in love with someone. Did that experience leave you untouched? Could you strip it away from you like an ill-fitting coat, or did it change you somehow, influence you? It's no different when gay people fall in love, but we can't recognise that, we have to use quasi-medical language ("You have SSA") to imply that their experiences are somehow removed from them as people. And there is an overwhelming tendency to focus on the fact that gay people are sexually attracted to people of the same sex rather than the fact that they fall in love with people of the same sex. We reduce them to what they may or may not want to do in bed even while we profess to do the opposite. It is wrong and it is painful to reduce people to this.

As for people thinking that we might be homophobic bigots, you don't have to be rubbing your hands gleefully at the thought of gay people roasting on the cosmic barbecue to be a bigot. I have been bigoted at times. I think most people have. Now I try very hard not to be, and it does sometimes sting to hear people making sweeping assumptions about Catholics. It hurt even more when a friend hesitated to invite me to her house because she has transgender housemates and she assumed I wouldn't be comfortable around them. But that soreness is nothing compared to the exclusion, bullying, and risk of bodily harm that gay people are still far, far more likely to face than I am. (It boggles my mind that Catholics in our society could complain about prejudice and even persecution in the face of that.) It's nothing compared to the loneliness that an unfortunate number of gay Christians have felt in their own communities. If I feel a bit sore over people's rash judgments of me, I can just offer it up as a prayer for people who have far heavier crosses to bear - and I don't mean in the patronising "Their attractions are such a cross for them!" way. I mean in the "Other people's attitudes can be such a cross!" way.

It seems that if a gay person sighs about how their orientation causes them so much suffering, which they are bearing for Christ; and if they let us feel comfortable by talking about their sexuality as something they 'have'; and if they repeat all the chirpy platitudes about how their sexuality doesn't define them (straight people's sexuality doesn't define straight people either, but funny how we aren't expected to use this line), then we will listen to them to say as much as they like. We won't question it if they want to write two or three (or four, or five...) articles instead of just the one. We will laud them as an inspiration. But if a gay Catholic writes differently from that? Well, there's no need to keep bringing this issue up! What is her problem? What can she mean by it??

That speaks volumes. Personally I think that the best answer to, "Why is it necessary for you to talk about this?" is perhaps, "Because people still don't see why it's necessary to listen." We listen to a lot of people talking about gay Catholics, but there is very little from gay Catholics themselves, and we need to hear from them.

Beatitude, I will never be able to express my full gratitude for the time you took to write that post. You have said so eloquently the things I try (and often fail) to convey to everyone. Thank you. You are the good we need in this world.

[eta: UGH! Posting on a phone is not so easy.] Edited February 24, 2014 by franciscanheart

[Ice_nine]

so a few things to mention. I took a shot of whiskey for every time I read the word "dismissive," so the past few pages have been a bit blurry.

 

Hostility is associated with heart problems so just as a friendly reminder, you can avoid a myocardial infarction by reducing your raeg. I want all of you bastards to live long and healthy lives.

 

Lastly, I have a Q for FH if she feels so inclined to answer. Why do you feel the need to identify as gay? I know you might have touched on this before, but for myself I feel the pressure to tick a box on the sexual orientation question is wholly imposed via external means by an external culture that is hostile to the core of what I believe as a Catholic. Does that make sense? I don't think my refusal to identify is because I'm on the default setting of a heteronormative culture.

 

If you're willing to discuss how identifying as gay helps you deal with sh** I'd be interested in hearing you out. If it's not something you want to or know how to answer, that's fine :)

[franciscanheart]

so a few things to mention. I took a shot of whiskey for every time I read the word "dismissive," so the past few pages have been a bit blurry.

Hostility is associated with heart problems so just as a friendly reminder, you can avoid a myocardial infarction by reducing your raeg. I want all of you bastards to live long and healthy lives.

Lastly, I have a Q for FH if she feels so inclined to answer. Why do you feel the need to identify as gay? I know you might have touched on this before, but for myself I feel the pressure to tick a box on the sexual orientation question is wholly imposed via external means by an external culture that is hostile to the core of what I believe as a Catholic. Does that make sense? I don't think my refusal to identify is because I'm on the default setting of a heteronormative culture.

If you're willing to discuss how identifying as gay helps you deal with sh** I'd be interested in hearing you out. If it's not something you want to or know how to answer, that's fine :)

Happy to answer as best I can with current understanding. I'm out delivering a few hundred hot dogs (long story) with my fractured pelvis (a short, pathetic story) so it'll be a few hours but I'm totally game to have that conversation.

More soon.

[Ice_nine]

Happy to answer as best I can with current understanding. I'm out delivering a few hundred hot dogs (long story) with my fractured pelvis (a short, pathetic story) so it'll be a few hours but I'm totally game to have that conversation.

More soon.

 

there's too much innuendo in this post I can't even . . .

[franciscanheart]

there's too much innuendo in this post I can't even . . .

:hehe: