A Mormon mea culpa, of sorts, on gay bullying
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, a.k.a. Mormons) has come under fire for recent provocative statements by a senior leader about gays (he sees it as nurture rather than nature) and God’s intentions in their regard (God would not create homosexuals), all of which follow in the vein of discussions we have been having here and here.
(Those posts were on gay bullying and Catholic responsibilities, and Carl Paladino’s rhetoric on gays, respectively. PS: Paladino has amended his comments yet gain. Whatever.)
In any case, on Tuesday the LDS came out with a statement on gays and discrimination (it had earlier amended the controversial statements by Apostle Boyd Packer for the official version) that was rather substantial. From my story at PoliticsDaily:
[O]n Tuesday, just an hour after the nation’s largest gay civil rights organization delivered a protest petition with 150,000 signatures to the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, a Mormon spokesman issued a statement denouncing bullying against anyone, including for reasons of sexual orientation, and said Mormons have a special responsibility to be kind to minority groups since Mormons themselves have experienced persecution.
“Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex,” said LDS spokesman Michael Otterson.
“This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations,” he said. “Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment — to love one another.”
The statement also seemed to indicate that the church considers homosexual orientation, or “inclinations,” as innate to some degree, and it made no mention of trying to turn gay people into heterosexuals.
Read the entire statement here. I have not seen anything comparable engagement from Catholic leaders. Anyone?
Full LDS statement here.
There is no reason in principle why the Pope or the U.S. hierarchy could not issue the same statement that our Mormon brothers and sisters have published, but such a Catholic statement would simply be a reformulation and reaffirmation of what the Catholic Church has already said in many documents, including sections 2357-2359 of the new catechism. What is needed now, more than a new document, is absorption and internalization of the full, authentic teaching of the Church on this subject, together with highlighting of the truth that the virtue of chastity is a moral imperative for every human being without exception (CCC 2348).
So, Stephen, you are also opposed to the MN bishops’ effort to amend the State Constitution by sending individual DVDs to every Catholic in the State. This DVD has interviews, testimonials, etc. FAR more than what the Catechism says about same-sex marriage. I’m glad to see that you are opposed to the bishops in this regard.
Stephen, indeed, you are correct. Which is why I think it is so foolish to keep reading the Gospel at Mass every Sunday. I mean, we’ve heard it all before, SO many times! In principle, I suppose there’s nothing to stop the bishops from proclaiming the Good News of Christ resurrected, but really, anyone who doesn’t know it or understand, well, it’s their problem.
I didn’t say that the bishops should issue no new statements on this topic. My point is that any new statement will necessarily reaffirm what the Church has already said. I was also indicating that already existing Catholic teaching on this subject needs to be understood and accepted. If the U.S. bishops were to publish a statement paralleling the Mormon media release from a Catholic perspective, that would be excellent.
No Catholic can oppose what the bishops in Minnesota or elsewhere or the Mormons are doing to defend marriage. Such reaffirmations of the nature of marriage are in line with statements in the new catechism (sections 2331-2336), as well as the Vatican’s 2003 instruction specifically urging Catholics to resist efforts to achieve legal recognition of same-gender unions.
For the Mormon Church as well, this is nothing new. It is a “reformulation and reaffirmation” of what the Church has already said many times. The Church has never condoned bullying or persecution of people with SSA issues. That being said, it has always denounced any sexual relations between anyone other than a man and wife who are legally and lawfully married as sinful and not in line with God’s laws. I don’t see this as a “mea culpa” but rather a reminder to members and others that all of God’s children are to be treated with love and respect regardless. We are all sinners; if persecution of others was justified because of their sins we would all be valid targets. God loves all of His children in spite of our sins and expects us to do the same. He does NOT expect us to accept sin as righteousness.
“provocative statements by a senior leader about gays (he sees it as nurture rather than nature”
Why in the world would the normal, routine process of social science involved in investigating the nurture/nature components of any issue be “provocative”? Are we now at the point where refusal to accept the “nature” argument as the sole determinant of homosexuality means we are “Homosexuality Deniers” akin to the scientifically absurd concept of “Global Warming Deniers”?
P Flanagan, accepting “the normal, routine process of social science” is what Packer and others are not doing, hence the provocation. It seems clear from the research that “nature” is a significant if not determinant part of sexual orientation, which itself can exist across a spectrum.
There is no reason in principle why the Pope or the U.S. hierarchy could not issue the same statement that our Mormon brothers and sisters have published . . . .
Stephen,
Here is a part from the Mormon statement that would be a total reversal for the Catholic Church:
Here is an entire document from the CDF opposing anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians. Here’s just one passage:
“Here is a part from the Mormon statement that would be a total reversal for the Catholic Church: ‘Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment’” (David Nickol).
No, not a total reversal.
I respectfully suggest that the July 23, 1992, CDF document on non-discrimination of homosexual persons is carefully worded and should be interpreted with equal care. It raises legitimate concerns about those kinds of non-discrimination statutes that could harm individuals and society, but I hope that other readers of the document will agree with me in noting that nowhere does the CDF make the sweeping statement that Catholics are morally obliged to oppose every conceivable wording in legislation intended to protect same-sex-oriented people from the “unjust discrimination” which the Church herself rejects (CCC 2358).
It seems to me that a conscientious Catholic legislator could vote for certain wordings, but not for others. This is a matter for prudential ad hoc decisions. The document itself says that “it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area” (foreword). I also believe that solid legislators in the American political context should always try to include the following kind of stipulation in any such legislation: “Nothing in this legislation is to be construed as signifying that the Congress of the United States maintains that homosexual acts are morally acceptable.” This is the amendment that Catholic members of Congress should be trying to add right now if they cannot prevent the overturning of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (which was not a bad compromise from a Catholic standpoint).
“Nothing in this legislation is to be construed as signifying that the Congress of the United States maintains that homosexual acts are morally acceptable.”
Since when is it the job of the US congress to single out homosexual acts?
If they are going to do that, then they would have to include any sexual act that was not vaginal intercourse between married opposite sex couples. Since when was it the job of congress to tell me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my bedroom?
Seems to me you are showing your true colours here. Congress can legislate matters relating to homosexuality, but not anything else.
“No Catholic can oppose what the bishops in Minnesota or elsewhere or the Mormons are doing to defend marriage. ”
I’m Catholic and I oppose it. What right do we have to impose our religious beliefs around marriage on others who don’t share our faith? Seems un-American.
Irene:
I think that both Catholics and Mormons foresee the result of recognizing same sex marriage as a “civil right.” Organizations who refuse to recognize or perform such marriages eventually will be denied rights afforded to those who do. What is really un-American will be the inevitable action of requiring religions to subscribe to perceived civil rights or be penalized for their refusal. If you think that cannot or will not happen, just ask the Mormons how their Church was dissolved by Congress in the 1880′s because they continued to claim that polygyny was a religious rite protected by the Constitution.
Same sex marriage is the camel’s nose coming in to the tent. Eventually, the whole camel will be in the tent by laws demanding equal rights. Those who affirm that fornication and adultery are proscribed by God will be forced to give up their beliefs under the guise of “civil rights.”
So, why should the bishops participate in this 24 hour news cycle with very little substantive discussion of anything? While I think it is great that bullying of gays is finally getting some media attention, since it has been going on forever, why does the church need to jump into it? None of these stories have anything directly to do with the church. Paladino is just using the church for his political ends. Not exactly new. David Gibson says “whatever” to Paladino and the bishops are doing the same by not saying anything. The Mormon’s had to respond because some bishop said something negative. As far as I know, no catholic bishop in the US has said anything similar recently.
“accepting “the normal, routine process of social science” is what Packer and others are not doing, hence the provocation.”
That was not how this post was worded: “he sees it as nurture rather than nature”, implying that nature is the only point of view on the subject and to express doubts about that is in itself provocative. If that was not the intent, a more felicitous wording might have been “he sees it as nurture rather than seeing nature as another possible determinant”.
“It seems clear from the research that “nature” is a significant if not determinant part of sexual orientation, which itself can exist across a spectrum.”
I see this more and more as a presumptive statement, but no one has ever provided a link to the research establishing nature as a determinant. Do you have one?
Stephen, I’d like to try to capture my own visceral response, as I read your statement that opens this thread. Here’s what I hear. Here’s the process that went on in my mind and heart as I listened to your opening statement framing this discussion:
On the one hand, we welcome those who are gay and lesbian. We have one hand held up beckoning you inside. We pride ourselves on our loving, welcoming approach to you.
But. But there’s a huge but. The other hand is also held up. And we intend for you to respect that hand before you walk into the welcoming space. Instead of beckoning — instead of really welcoming at all — this hand warns. It’s held up with the palm displayed, to let you know that you’re not welcome at all inside the welcoming community.
Unless. Unless you listen to us preach at you first, in a way in which we don’t preach to any other groups we welcome inside our welcoming space.
We want to single you out for a sermon on chastity that is not given to any other group of people inside this welcoming space, even when their lapses in that regard have become so egregious that they’re now the butt of jokes on television about what Catholic family values and Catholic respect for the sanctity of marriage really mean. In the lives of some of the church’s most outspoken public figures, who are welcomed unconditionally into our community, though their heterosexual lives in no way exemplify the message of chastity we want to preach to you gay folks before we welcome you.
And so I stop dead in my tracks, as I see one hand beckoning and one hand held up in warning — and as I see that this double gesture is not given to other groups, including the huge proportion of heterosexual Catholics who practice and support the use of artificial contraception.
When I stop dead in my tracks like that due to a visceral mixed message from a community which professes one thing, but does another, I usually try to discern why my innards are wrenched at the duplicity. I try to understand what’s at the root of it. And I certainly keep my distance, since I don’t want such duplicity reaching into my own soul.
And then I begin to wonder, is it really possible to maintain that we love and welcome on the one hand, while we isolate and single out a targeted minority for messages we don’t intend or wish to give to the majority? To give to ourselves? Is this really about loving and welcoming at all?
Or is it, instead, about some unholy delight at having a whip in our own hands, and whipping those who disagree with us? Is it about enforcing a conformity that gives us more delight than welcoming and loving difficult others does? What kind of psychology, and what model of the moral life, delights in kicking at despised others, and calling this holy behavior? What needs does such an appetite for targeting a vulnerable minority group fulfill in those engaging in such behavior? And how does any religious group call the fulfillment of these needs holy and morally good behavior?
What motivates, I wonder, that obsessive and unholy focus of many of my brothers and sisters in faith on a tiny handful of controverted, murky, exegetically problematic texts that, in their view, prohibit homosexuality, when the same scriptures from which they grab that handful of texts are brimming over with non-controverted, plain and clear, and exegetically unproblematic texts about love, mercy, and justice? Why would those who want to erect a huge edifice of condemnation on the basis of that handful of murky texts, while ignoring the plain, weighty sense of the whole scriptures in the direction of love, mercy, and justice, think that anyone would conclude they’re doing something moral?
When the texts they’re using as weapons and the whip in their hands are used exclusively to condemn a group to which they themselves don’t belong? While these texts implicitly grant the ones using the whip astonishing power and privilege to present their own life and natures as normative? And beyond self-examination?
These are the kinds of questions — the process of visceral response — that unfold for me as I listen to your opening message. And I conclude, at the end of the process, that what you’re proposing isn’t about love and welcome at all, though you preface your remarks with that throw-away gesture.
And as a result, along with millions of other Catholics whom you will not drive away, no matter how hard you try to whip us into submission to your agenda, the agenda you wish to define as orthodoxy, I hang on, at the margins, refusing to go away or to accept your invitation to find another church, if I don’t agree with you. I hang on, living my own Catholic life in the best way I know how, in the context of a community that wants me to believe that the welcoming hand is not trumped by the warning hand (when it’s increasingly plain to most Catholics and many people of good will outside the church what the real message is, which hand really counts).
Living the Catholic life of love, joy, and peace as a gay person made to be who I am by God, in a loving, committed relationship of some forty years’ duration, that is the source of the gifts of love, joy, and peace in my life. Because this is precisely what the church has called me to do.
The same church some of whose members now consider it so all important (why, I wonder?) to assure that any welcome I might receive from the community is prefaced by a warning not given to any other group walking into the welcoming space — even as those members celebrate their lovingkindness and largeness of heart when they raise that warning, unwelcoming hand to me.
P Flanagan, you misread my statement and that of the Mormon leader. And the research on sexual orientation is easily found.
If you think that cannot or will not happen, just ask the Mormons how their Church was dissolved by Congress in the 1880’s because they continued to claim that polygyny was a religious rite protected by the Constitution.
Alma,
Whatever the conflicts between the Mormon Church and the US Government, I think almost everyone would agree that the United States had the right to outlaw polygamy. The Supreme Court so ruled in 1878. The Supreme Court has also ruled that states may prohibit the use of peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) in Native American religious practices. Just because something is claimed as a religious practice does not mean it may be outlawed.
Those who affirm that fornication and adultery are proscribed by God will be forced to give up their beliefs under the guise of “civil rights.”
The government cannot force anyone to give up his or her beliefs.
While the civil rights movement has affirmed the self-evident truth regarding the equality of the races, to claim that civil rights must affirm equality of sexual acts would be a lie from the start.
That should read: While the civil rights movement has affirmed the self-evident truth regarding the equality of the races, to claim that civil rights must affirm equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships, is a lie from the start.
“P Flanagan, you misread my statement and that of the Mormon leader.”
Thanks for clarifying, as my comment suggested. Sorry I misread the parenthetical comment.
“And the research on sexual orientation is easily found”
Well, here’s Wikipedia, for a start:
“No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences…”
Nature and nurture, no surprise there.
“The government cannot force anyone to give up his or her beliefs.”
They may not force us to give them up, but they can certainly try to stifle our public expression of them, indeed are doing so already.
Watch First Amendment cases closely, then, as it comes under increasing attack from “Hate Speech” advocates. If religious freedom under the 1st Amendment is undercut, we’ll quickly be like Canada, jailing people for reading from the Bible in public.
P. Flanagan, I’m intrigued with your Wikipedia quote, which you cut off (the ellipses indicate that). Here’s the full quote:
“No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[2] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.”
Even more interesting, when one goes to the two sources cited in this passage, the second — this is where you truncated the quote — turns out to be a 2007 report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists submitted to the Church of England for its “Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.” Which opens by saying,
“The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.”
I wonder why you chose to truncate your quote short of its affirmation that there are biological factors (including intra-uterine ones) affecting sexual orientation.
Which points to a study done for the Church of England that unabashedly supports the human rights of gay and lesbian persons, and decries discrimination against them.
I wonder something else as I think about it: what would happen if our Catholic church ever conducted a real listening exercise about human sexuality. One in which lay Catholics were permitted to speak freely and to share our lived experiences of grace, citing our experiences as sexual beings.
Visionary, I know, and not likely to happen. But still intriguing to wonder about — and to wonder why those with the authority to make this happen don’t seem ever interested in such a listening process. And why they are remaining shockingly, shamefully silent about the epidemic of suicides due to gay bullying in our society.
And how they expect to preserve and credibility at all as moral teachers when they remain silent.
“We want to single you out for a sermon on chastity that is not given to any other group of people inside this welcoming space [. . .]” (William Lindsey).
On the contrary, the Catholic Church, speaking in the name of Jesus, and upholding the clear message of the entire Bible (and not “a tiny handful of controverted, murky, exegetically problematic texts”), preaches the same sermon on chastity to every Catholic and every other person without any exception or singling out, as the new catechism emphatically demonstrates in its sections on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (sections 2331-2400 and 2514-2533).
The Church cannot force anyone to acknowledge the truth of this message, nor can she coerce anyone into living up to it. Still, as Vatican II teaches in a key passage, moral reality is unaffected by those whose words or lives contradict the message: “For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself” (Dignitatis humanae, section 14).
“I wonder why you chose to truncate your quote short of its affirmation that there are biological factors (including intra-uterine ones) affecting sexual orientation.”
Actually, I truncated the quote with a link to the source to abide by blog policies requesting limitation of pasted text from citations. And my comment most certainly accepted determination by both nurture AND nature.
Thanks for your response, P. Flanagan–and the reminder not to cite extensive bits of texts, which I have probably violated. I appreciate your patience with that transgression.
Even so, I find it interesting that you both truncated and then did not mention a central point that significantly glosses your argument: this is that there is, indeed, strong scientific evidence to support the conclusion that there are biological factors determining sexual orientation, even when the ultimate “explanation” of a given person’s sexual orientation may lie between nature and nurture.
And that the professional community of psychiatrists noting this biological background of sexual orientation in a listening exercise commissioned by a Christian church then went on to note that, given that sexual orientation is not chosen by people, those who are gay and lesbian deserve to be treated with human dignity and to have their full range of human rights respected.
With all due respect to wikipedia, there is no conclusive scientific evidence in the area of genetics or biology that confirms that genetics, hormones, or biological and genetic factors in the early uterine enviroment, play a role in homosexuality, and yet the “social” scientists have ruled out developmental factors despite the fact that they claim to value those men and women who suffer from a homosexual inclination.
P Flanagan.
Would you care to name one person who was jailed for reading from the bible in public in Canada.
Nancy, I believe the point was not that “wikipedia” maintains that there is scientific evidence for the biological determination of sexual orientation (even when there is not yet evidence of a single determining “cause” of heterosexuality).
The point is that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a preeminent professional body in the area of psychiatry in the British Isles, makes that claim. As do all of the bona fide professional bodies in the fields of psychiatry and medicine throughout the developed part of the world.
I suppose this thread as the previous one on bullying will go on.
I am uncertain of the “nose in the camel’s tent” that argues we are on a slippery slope to wher ereligions will have tp “subscribe” to civil practice – I think the word “recognize” strikes me as more in tune with reality.
I also am upset that someone supposes that catholics must support the Bishop of Minesota and his DVD campaign -I’m with Fr. Tegeder – and, I reject the argument that his public critique is ourt of line.
Like the cite from BXVI whho tells his “brother” priests that they must be good children and obey, the infantalization of the clergy is waht must be opposed even as the hierachy would love to impose that on the laity.
Finally, though I’m sure I’ll get a Truth from the beginning response from Nancy,but, what she says is self evident is just gratuitous assertion that advances the discussion none.
Picking up on something William has said, do people believe heterosexuality is genetic (or biologically determined) and that homosexuality is not? Or that heterosexuality is not a choice, but homosexuality is? Or that if same-sex marriage is legal, people who would otherwise have married an opposite-sex partner will marry a same-sex partner? Do people like Paladino not want their children exposed to “homosexual propaganda” because they fear the children will become gay?
“Would you care to name one person who was jailed for reading from the bible in public in Canada.”
Could you not see the link to a dozen or more Google news articles!?
Go through your list. Name me one person who was jailed for reading from the bible in public.
I should have added the magic words “in Canada”
I suspect you will be unable to do so. The search words you used gave you some results that you THINK describe what you wrote. They do not.
I suspect you will be unable to do so because I am Canadian, with a particular interest in freedom of expression, and who, incidentally is against those portions of the Canadian Human Rights Act that restrict freedom of expression.
It is one thing to read the Bible. It is another thing to use the Bible in a hate-filled rant.
If I say, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Ex 22:18), that’s one thing. But if I quote it in a speech advocating the persecution of Wiccans, that’s quite another. It is not hard to construct an anti-Semitic speech drawing on the Gospels. Just because it uses Gospel quotes doesn’t mean it isn’t anti-Semitic.
Also, we have a fetish for free speech (which I share) in the United States that other countries don’t have.
David Nickol,
I agree that the government had the right to prohibit polygamy; I don’t think that was the thrust of my comment. Mormon men were willing to and did go to prison for violating laws against unlawful cohabitation (only enforced against men who claimed the cohabitation was with a wife–prostitution was a free pass); but the government’s campaign went beyond attempts to cease the practice. Those who believed it were disenfranchised.
While you note that the government cannot force anyone to give up beliefs, the result is the same if people lose their civil rights when their beliefs don’t conform to the will of the government.
There have been holocaust deniers sent to jail in Canada, for violating hate crimes legislation, but the only way you can get thrown in jail by the HRTs is for contempt, and the only time that has happened is for another holocaust denier, not for reading the bible in public.
In that case he appealed to the Supreme Court and they found against him.
The case that is confusing Mr Flanagan, I am fairly sure, because it is the only one involving a Christian preacher, was that of Rev. Stephen Boissoin. He was fined and ordered not to communicate his views to a newspaper again (nothing about preaching in public as far as I recall) His was a cause celebre, and despite me finding his views repugnant, I supported his right to them, as did EGALE, the major gay rights lobby group in Canada. The finding against him (it does not amount to a conviction) was subsequently overturned by the courts.
That case was not a national thing, it was provincial…Alberta.
The Belgian Primate, André-Joseph Léonard, has again courted controversy. In a new book the Belgian Archbishop says that the disease AIDS is “a form of justice”.
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/101014_AIDS
Michael,
Here’s a story I just ran across from late August. It is ongoing:
The BBC’s translation is toned down a bit. The word the Cardinal used was maricones, for which “queer” is a rather mild English equivalent. It seems from a Google search that a Dominican Cardinal was way ahead of him, using the slur in 2007.
The Mayor is suing the Cardinal:
At the end of the same story, in reference to the Cardinal’s use of the word maricones:
No mention here so far of this particular example of insensitivity to gay bullying:
“White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett apologized Thursday morning for referring to a gay teen who committed suicide as having made a “lifestyle choice.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43601.html
Mon Dieu! Michael Cowtan, what the hell could he have been thinking?
David Nickol, thanks for the reminders on those corkers by Cardinal Sandoval. Really astonishing. Then again, I doubt it made a ripple in the US, where a UN ambassador’s use of “cojones” was welcomed as a sign of toughness. Lost in translation.
P Flanagan, if you read your linked article you will see that the lifestyle comment was in reference to his being gay, not his suicide, and is therefore not an “example of insensitivity to gay bullying.”
“… she inadvertently stepped into the highly contentious debate about whether homosexuality is innate or a conscious decision. … Jarrett, in an e-mail to Capehart, said that she “misspoke” when she described Aaberg’s sexual identity as a lifestyle choice.”
The latest attack on homosexuals: Archbishop Leonard, the recently nominated Primate of Belgium, said that AIDS was a matter of “intrinsic justice”.
I expect that some “clarifications” will come shortly.
I have had some people get angry with me for saying this, but although sexual orientation is not a “lifestyle choice,” being gay — in the sense of accepting your orientation, calling yourself gay, identifying with other gay people, and engaging in homosexual behavior (or at least claiming that to do so is legitimate) — is indeed a “lifestyle choice.” What is advocated by the Catholic Church — renunciation of your orientation as an objectively disordered inclination to moral evil, dedication to celibacy, and staying in the closet — is also a “lifestyle choice.”
Valerie Jarrett said, “They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice.” I don’t see that it is necessary to interpret that as saying a homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is a choice or a lifestyle choice.
What is annoying, of course, is that “homosexual lifestyle” is a code word everything anti-gay people feel is negative among gay people, and it is used as such. A same-sex couple will be described as living the “homosexual lifestyle” even if the way they lived — described without reference go gender — would apply equally to a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.
I am only 66, but I have seen so many changes. I can remember being slightly horrified at seeing a well dressed black couple in an upscale restaurant, and like many here I am sure, I look back on that now and think “how could I have reacted like that”.
Likewise with homosexuals, I have lived through the era when homosexuals could, and often were, jailed for sexual acts committed in the privacy of their own homes.
I have, because of my family situation, had to examine my mind to discover why I would think that two men holding hands was “icky’, when I have always held my wifes hand in public. To imagine what they do in the privacy of their own homes is still beyond the pale.
But those thoughts are a reflection of my upbringing, and the era.
Just in the past couple of weeks we have had the new National Sex Survey, published by the Journal of Sexual Medicine, and it has caused a lot of comment, especially the results around anal and oral sex. What is apparent is that what homosexuals do in privacy is no longer “icky” to a huge number of people, because they are doing it too, including Catholics, and women.
William Saletan’s two articles are well worth reading if you want to better understand the new norms of sexuality, but warning, they do not mince words.
http://www.slate.com/id/2269951?
http://www.slate.com/id/2270622/
There’s a video zipping around the Internet in which a series of people are asked, “When did you choose to be straight?” A good question.
At America’s “Im All Things” blog today, Michael O’Loughlin cites Gene Robinson saying that major religions need to change what they say and are a contributing factor to gay suicides.
While proponents of CDF as the ultimate word will disagee, the language issue appears to continue to be under the spotlight and the bullying issue and gay teen suicides will accentuate it.
Jeanne, excellent question.
I chose to be straight yesterday. Unfortunately, it didn’t work! :-)
About religions needing to change what they profess in order to prevent suicides –
It seems to me that there is a direct conflict here not only between the 1st Amendment and the right to religious freedom but also a chilling assumption that the government has a right and duty to regulate all morality, not just the morality necessary for the just functioning of the state.
But just what are those moral principles the state may impose? I don’t think that name-calling, as odious as it is, of itself should be under the purview of the state. And, yes, that is exactly what hate speech laws are about. The solution to hate speech and its attendance evils is not government intervention against the acts of speaking. (Lordy, Lordy, I’m sounding like a Tea Partier!!!!) Dreadful problem, I admit.
Thanks David N., for posting Cardinal Sandoval’s remarks.
His main points are:
Point # 1 – Few people would prefer to be adopted by a homosexual couple. Other things being equal (i.e., loving home, ability to provide, etc.) most people, if they had to be adopted, would prefer to be adopted by a heterosexual couple.
Point # 2 – It is possible to bribe Mexican authorities. Actually the good Cardinal did not give Mexican authorities due credit in this area; the fact is their abilities in the area of bribery are legendary, something for which they are justifiably famous.
Point # 3 – The Mexican government at times is heavy-handed and at times seems dictatorial. Has anyone heard of the carnage that preceded the 1968 Olympics in Mexico? I was surprised to learn of this last year during the lead-up to the Olympics in Beijing. It was not much discussed in US news or in our history or social studies classes.
None of the points seem particularly outrageous; in fact they seem reasonable enough.
Speaking of things that are not un-expected; anyone who knows much at all about Mexico’s church-state history would not be surprised by a garden-variety Mexican leftist politico (in this case the mayor of Mexico City) hurling some odd slander (at least) at Mexico’s Catholic clergy. It was not that long ago that Mexico’s socialist, anti-clerical politicos prevented Catholic clergy, by Mexican civil law, from wearing the Roman collar in public.
Finally, as for the Cardinal’s use of the word “maricones”, while that term is clearly derogatory, it is laughable that the Mexican government would consider criminalizing the word. If they did so, they would need to charge most Mexicans (in fact most Latinos in this hemisphere anyway) with discrimination; it is a very common term, widely used.
To clarify a bit; none of the points Cardinal Sandoval made seem particularly outrageous; in fact they seem to be reasonable enough.
They reflect basic, universal common sense and an accurate observation of a part of reality in Mexico today.