Religion
Related: About this forumOpinion on this video? The Third Way: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church
http://vimeo.com/93079367I'll give my opinion, lots of anecdotes from gay people, a lot of condescension, hard to pin down all the things wrong with it, like I said, anecdotes, including some really inaccurate and bad science. What are your thoughts?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Heddi
(18,312 posts)that as long as someone TRULY BELIEVES that there is a biological, social or cultural reasons reasons to support their position, we really can't criticize their beliefs, no matter how abhorrent those beliefs are.
Also, we should keep in mind (according to that same poster) that "The attitude towards GLBT civil rights is also a rapidly changing dynamic. Are all the people who opposed it in the past homophobic? Probably, but not necessarily. It may have been a position based on some false premises, lack of understanding and a dearth of exposure to GLBT people. "
So see, homophobia and racial bigotry are just a "lack of understanding" and those people may even have biological, social, and/or cultural reasons to support their positions.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)What's wrong with it? Well, if gawd hates homosexuals, why did he make them? And having made them, why would he hate what he's made? And why should they have to live loveless, solitary lives? And why is that guy talking about all the peace and love he's found in the church wearing a shoulder holster?
The god so many people claim to love is such a cruel and capricious sort in his treatment of gay people, women, and any "other" to the norm of white, male, moneyed Christian that I wonder how they think he deserves the name, the love, or anything else.
No thanks. I prefer the company of tolerant and inclusive people, whether a god is involved or not.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the company you prefer?
Warpy
(111,245 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)At times, you come across as very intolerant and rejecting of people with religious beliefs.
So my question was about that.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)Too bad you don't like it. Perhaps you should read my first post on the subject again.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But that's ok, you don't have to answer it.
I just found your statement rather ironic.
I prefer to live in a world surrounded by people that are tolerant and inclusive as well. I don't tolerate bigotry, although I may, like most, have my blind spots.
Intolerance and bigotry are just plain ugly things No matter who they are aimed at.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)Had you bothered to read all of it.
We're done here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If it does, they can get the fuck out.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If they want to be accepted by mere riff-raff like myself, they need to check their bigotry at the door, because I will not be silent, nor respectful of the ideas they hold.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bigotry at the door?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Again, do not conflate people with ideas.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is not always clear with some.
Back to topic, are you willing to take a stand against those that exhibit bigotry towards religious people?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And I have.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is that bigotry towards people is not ok, while "bigotry" (though I don't think that is the correct term and intolerance is probably better) towards ideas is.
What would you consider the kinds of words or statements that would indicate a bigotry towards religious people?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)call the RCC's position on homosexuality (defining it as a sin), forbidding same-sex marriage, or working to deny same-sex parentage adoption, a vile, bigoted position.
If they don't like the idea, change it. It is within their power to do so.
It is not bigotry to point out someone else's bigotry/intolerance.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)on what constitutes bigotry against ideas vs. people.
I fully agree with your position on the RCC's position on GLBT rights.
I also generally agree with your last statement, though I think this is one of the places where the person/ideas distinction gets muddy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I know Catholics that are perfectly fine with same-sex marriage, and adoption. And I do think the church will someday revise its position here.
I define bigotry in a sense, like the legal understanding of criminal conspiracy. An overt act must accompany it. So threatening someone, working to deny them civil rights within the legislature, etc.
I know it's technically bigotry for someone to kick back and say 'you know what, I don't like them gay people'. Fine, whatever. Yes, I will pass negative judgment on that person. But for my purposes here, my effort isn't focused on that, it's focused on the people who get in same sex couple's faces, and tell them they can't marry because they are an abomination, or destroying 'the institution of marriage' whatever the fuck that is, etc.
I have to help, I have to do something, because a WHOLE bunch of people's civil rights are being trodden on, and that something I have to do, isn't kicking back, and being introspective, or observant/deferential to their 'deeply held ideas'. It's not just an 'idea' voiced or unvoiced, it's an idea with overt action. And it is NOT from all catholics. It is from their leadership, yes, but from the membership, I cannot collectively assume all do it, and I cannot collectively attack them for it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am a member of several groups that hold positions that I don't agree with, including some within the democratic party.
I also agree that people should be judge by their actions. The abortion issue is a good example of this. While I think that the issue of when life begins is very much a personal decision, I don't object to an individual setting that bar at conception as long as they do not try to legislate that upon people whose personal bars on this are very different.
The same for GLBT civil rights.
We are all fighting for the same thing and I don't disagree with kicking back against institutions that are trying to impose their ideologies on other people. The RCC is high up on that lists.
But, as you note, many if not most catholics do not agree with many of the church's positions and they should not be kicked, imo.
Response to Warpy (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)
In other words.... it's 1969 again. Gay people don't really exist.
Other thoughts, in no particular order:
Ok.... that's not progress. "Communism with a human face"; but with Francis as Alexander Dubcek. The difference is, Dubcek was SINCERE.
Outstanding production qualities; slick, state of the art. But so was "Triumph of the Will."
"Third Way Productions"; Well that worked for the Clintons.... but there'd be a lot of disagreement on this site over whether or not anyone BESIDES the Clintons benefited in any way.
I continue to be mystified by the RC church's preoccupation with "chastity". Theologically, eschatologically, philosophically.... why must every human being on the planet who isn't "married" be "chaste"?
Response to Smarmie Doofus (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Response to octoberlib (Reply #13)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Seeya!
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I was very saddened, totally disgusted and so enraged that I wanted to throw my beer at my computer screen.
I thought it was some of the most outrageous propaganda I have ever seen.
I had a few other thoughts that I will not mention here.
Response to malokvale77 (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
William769
(55,144 posts)Why don't you just come out and tell us what you think of the video and whether Homosexuality is a abomination or not.
William769
(55,144 posts)Bye bye.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)What a hateful little shit.
William769
(55,144 posts) malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I want to vomit. I think it lasted for 4 posts. MIRC got that one quick. Still it would have been some fun. Sigh
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)etc. so that I can make certain, really conservative and bigoted people aware that some are willing to fight against them. I'm actually surprised I haven't been banned from r/catholicism and some other places as well. Its probably because I'm always polite there.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Aging has made me less tolerant of bigotry. I sometimes wish that was not the case.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)bigoted people I encounter.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)when my give a damn just don't give a damn no more (something my grandmother would have said) LOL
Take care. The world needs people like you.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Enjoy your stay.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Or do I really have to watch a 38 minute video I'm pretty sure I will hate?
Let me guess, testimonials from people claiming the church helped them get over their homosexuality? That sort of thing has been disproven over and over again.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)including not getting enough affection as kids, etc.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As long as you have that as a construct that goes along with a faith/ideology, etc, you're going to run face first into some staggering cognitive dissonance, as people try to resolve the conflict.
The correct answer is that it is natural, and not a 'sin'. Everything else then falls into place and humans could be happier.
Response to Humanist_Activist (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)Hi all,
I'm Catholic, and came across this forum looking for a secular perspective on this film. What I found here was disappointing, in that I have not read a single reply to the movie's points. For example, one person criticized Christian beliefs in general (which is not the focus of the film); another said the film says "gay people don't really exist," which it absolutely didn't (some of the interviewees identify as gay); another confirmed someone in the thought that the film promotes changing sexual orientation, which is also false; and this same person said that some of the people said that their attraction came from emotional abuse, which is never said either (they rather seem to be explaining why they dealt with their attractions so badly and self-destructively).
In short, people here have either completely straw-manned this film, fully ignoring its actual content, or misrepresented it. There is no engagement here with it at all. Which is kind of disappointing. If you don't want to, that's fine (if the film “disgusts” you or something like that), but if this topic interests you I feel it could be useful to clearly re-state some things here:
-- Contrary to claims here, I did not see any bad science in this video. If so please point to an example. In fact, one of the points made in this movie is that trying to change sexual orientation is generally pointless and harmful. This is entirely consistent with contemporary research, which says that a good deal (or most) of same sex attraction is very deeply rooted and unchangeable, while some is a result of environmental factors and so less deeply rooted and subject to change. One woman interviewed here spoke of her experience in a Pentecostal Church, where she was told she had to become heterosexual. She says that it was simply not an option for her, and she has NOT run into this problem in the Catholic Church. (at 9:35 to 10:10 in the video)
-- Also, the whole point of this video is to emphasize tolerance, inclusiveness and better care in the Church of people with same sex attraction. The Church teaching on chastity will never change, but the way the Church cares for its gay members can become much better, and this is the point of the video! It is the opposite of bigoted. Many gay people believe in God and want to be serious Christians, and this is especially important for them.
-- Finally, the accusation of "propaganda" strikes me as unfair. First of all, this is a crowd-funded and independently produced video, so this is a view from the pews, not from the institutional heights. Secondly, I think a few people here were shocked by the very large claims that these gay people make, that they found deep happiness in the Church, and that the Church’s teachings are true. Well, that is what a happy Catholic truthfully says! And these are all genuine testimonies. The whole point of this film is showing that for many there is a happy path between abandoning traditional religion and the everyone-must-be-heterosexual approach. Also, several pretty strong criticisms of the Church and Catholic culture were made in this video (e.g. 27:25 to 28 ish), which doesn’t happen in propaganda.
In any case, I hope that this is useful to a certain extent. I'd finally like to add, that if the idea of leading a happy life without sex shocks you, well, it doesn't do so for many people. If you think otherwise that is your opinion, and it is a popular one, but nevertheless a good deal away from the truth.
The main message of this movie is that deep happiness comes from affection and intimacy on the level of the family, friends, the community, and with God. This is something I think needs to be said more (and atheists can still say the first three).
If you have read up to here I thank you, and appreciate that. I would be really happy to hear some real engagement with some of these ideas, and I’m happy to answer to any arguments, or actually state my own opinion about the film (which I now realized I haven't even given -- though this post is long enough).
rug
(82,333 posts)What happens is, because theology has been conflated with government, it becomes difficult to discuss theology without discussing civil rights.
For instance, celibacy as a choice is much different than celibacy as a social dictate.
Stick around, you'll see what I mean. And don't take anything personally.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)of non-Catholics in the political sphere.
If your church would stick to "The Third Way" within their churches, I would have far less of a problem with it.
rug
(82,333 posts)As I recall, at one time you considered it "your church".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or, I should say, I gained life experience that lead me to question many of its foundational assumptions, about the nature of nature, and the nature of man, and I found it to be wrong about both, what I was taught in the church didn't fit with the people I knew around me, my family, and furthermore, the lack of evidence for God just added to it.
for the kind welcome. You also responded to that other post better than I could have, which I appreciate. I've only had the “we're tolerant here so shut up” a few times, but it's always bewildering.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)it wouldn't even be an issue.
Hard to argue that it would be a problem if it ONLY impacted people who electively become members of the RCC. But it goes much beyond that. (Which brings us full circle to the old 'separation' firewall, in much need of repair.)
rug
(82,333 posts)gopiscrap
(23,756 posts)Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)gopiscrap
(23,756 posts)hope you have fun here and maybe we can learn together!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)to have a full, complete life.
Your church denies this aspect of humanity for homosexuals, insisting the only way they are allowed to live and be Catholics in good standing is to remain celibate.
Oh you wrap it up with lovely paper and a pretty bow, but inside is raw, ugly hatred. Homosexuality is NOT "disordered" as your church officially teaches. It pains me to read your defense of your church's bigotry on what is normally a website that encourages tolerance and acceptance. Your church only tolerates and accepts homosexuals if they live by your fucked up rules. That's not tolerance. That's not acceptance.
rug
(82,333 posts)Are you saying that's the motive? It's hard to make out exactly what you're trying to say. Your usual vitriol obscures it, perhaps purposely.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Something people have to live with, suffer from, rather than just one end of the spectrum of sexual orientation that exists.
rug
(82,333 posts)Experts in pathology had it wrong, as does the RCC which lacks both the expertise and the competence to make statements on human pathology.
Do you think inside the APA's erroneous diagnosis was "raw, ugly hatred"/
No, what's going on here is a different kind of pathology, a raw, visceral revulsion for the RCC that emerges when any discussion about it arises.
Too bad you exhibit is well about the religion that was "your church".
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed suit in 1975. From the entry on homosexuality and psychology on wikipedia:
rug
(82,333 posts)published by the American Psychiatric Association, until 1986.
Homosexuality was dropped from the list in 1973, and that's what we're talking about here, not "ego-dystonic homosexuality."
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
April 02, 2013
...
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM list of paraphilias. But psychiatrists replaced homosexuality in the new 1980 edition was "ego-dystonic homosexuality," which was used to describe people who were distressed about their homosexuality. Eventually, in 1986, that diagnosis was dropped, too....
rug
(82,333 posts)Until 1986.
"Homosexuality" and "ego-dystonic homosexuality" aren't terms that can be used interchangeably nor is each a synonym for the other.
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.
This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.
...
In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).
They're plainly not the same thing. (Emphases added by me.)
rug
(82,333 posts)Wisely rescinded.
They still aren't the same thing, though.
rug
(82,333 posts)Rob H.
(5,351 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It didn't. They both stank.
Agreed. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Absolutely, yes.
What else could it have been?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Other than, "What else could it have been?", do you have anything to support your statement?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And hardly limited to just the United States. Hell, look what England did with Turing.
People with deep-seated hatred, mistrust, or bigotry will seek cover for their claims and actions. Horrible cover. I think I is awful and regrettable that the science of medicine was, in fact, abused to give that sort of cover. People still try it today, with claims of reparation therapy/boot camps, horrible things like that, but the gear has turned. We're past that as a collective. Science has, in that specific issue, divorced itself of the prejudices of the people employing it.
That doesn't make it right. That doesn't atone for what was done. But for now, on to the next problem.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Now, I understand that these are ancedotes but here's a few problems.
First, the entire section that seems devoted to absentee or abusive parents. I view it as filler, but does it serve a deeper purpose than this?
I love this gem:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]6:08 - Melinda: You have to understand that for women especially its very often not so much a matter of strong physical attractions to one gender or another gender. Its a matter of how you emotionally interact with other people.
May I just say that this may be true for her, but don't extrapolate without evidence.
Both Julie and Christopher seem to treat being in relationships with the same sex as if it were a drug. Julie's use of "gay lifestyle" repeatedly, is like nails on a chalkboard. Especially with phrases like "falling back into the gay lifestyle." Not to mention the overall tone is rather insulting to those people who are in healthy relationships with others of the same sex, since it treats them as if it were drug abuse.
And we are only 10 minutes into this...I don't know what to call it.
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]13:20 - Charles: I masturbated a lot to body building magazines because that was the image, that was the ideal image that I thought a man looked like. So I'd masturbate to those images, not knowing that really what was going on inside of me was that I didn't feel like a man at all. So my wanting to connect and bond with men that should have been done when I was 10, 11, 12, those needs were never met so the homoemotional needs became homosexualized.
This shows the weakness of testimonials, great for pulling heartstrings, but otherwise useless, hurtful to others, and in many cases, simply inaccurate when extrapolated beyond the person's personal experience, because of confirmation bias.
The next 7 minutes or so after that talked about how they are broken and are fulfilled by God and God's love through the truth of the Catholic Church. In other words, the same claptrap you hear from any Christian. Of course, I need to point out one statement, this one:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]18:52 - Melinda: I knew that if I became a Catholic, the homosexuality thing was going to have to go, and I told God that I was OK with that, because I was falling in love with my Creator. And my identity and relationship to God just seemed more important than my identity and relationship to my girlfriend.
Frankly, I feel that this goes to the crux of the problems I have with religion in general, it interferes with people's relationships with each other, for unnecessary and unproven reasons. These include not just intimate, sexual relationships, but family relationships, friendships, etc. To put a supernatural being above humanity is just...sickening, not sure how else to term it.
Now we are at the 20 minute mark, and this is where they put this on the screen:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, they are contrary to natural law.
Of course, the issue is this, Natural Law is an outdated philosophical position that is, from an evidentiary perspective, just simply wrong. Then these same people now go into the tried and busted ideas of what sex is for, that sexual attraction to the same sex is disordered, comparisons to the use of contraceptives, which I also think is just stupid, etc.
Even worse, Chris Stefanick explains how homosexuality is "inherently disordered" in this way, that the desire(for sex) cannot be fulfilled according to the design of our bodies. Never mind the fact that our bodies aren't designed at all, who the fuck do they think they are to judge whether someone's needs are fulfilled or not? They are now treating SSA(same sex attraction) as some type of pathology, again, insulting those who are in healthy, same sex, relationships.
Now we get into some quotes from some church leaders, or at least those willing to speak to the people who made this film, first up a nun.
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]22:48 - Sr. Helena Burns, FSP - Theology of the body speaker: I think when a lot of people see, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that a same sex attraction is considered "disordered", they feel like that is very harsh language, or that its a judgment, and actually its not.
Uhm, yeah, well I not only view it as judgmental, but also ignorant and inaccurate, there's nothing disordered about homosexuality unless confined to the outmoded "Natural Law" beliefs of the Catholic Church. Oh, and it is rather harsh, there's no unringing the bell here, its a rather bigoted viewpoint.
Next up, a priest.
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]23:00 Rev. Michael Schmitz: How many of us had told a lie? Well that's a disordered attraction. How many of us have seen a member of the same sex or opposite sex and lusted over them in our hearts and our minds and our actions? Well that's a disorder.
OK, never mind the fact that I don't know how lying is an attraction, that makes about as much sense as, well, nothing, it makes no sense at all. As far as the rest, I assuming this is again something that makes sense within primitive Catholic beliefs about natural law, because it sure as hell doesn't make sense to me how lust is disordered, we need it to propagate our species.
Then it goes into how we are ALL in the same boat, that all of us have disordered desires and such, I find that rather superficial and well, wrong. They even go so far as to invoke original sin. Do I need to roll my eyes at that one? Then they go on a tangent about how the desires aren't sinful, only the actions are, which I find funny, that kinda directly contradicts Jesus, doesn't it?
The next few minutes are about a call to chastity for everyone, gay or straight, and insults, repeatedly, those of us who aren't chaste, by choice, because I personally don't view it as a virtue. Apparently we aren't practicing or capable of "Authentic" love. Gag unto me with a spoon this is disgusting. They even call those people with "same sex attraction" who "follow God's plan" heroes. I wonder what they call those who don't follow God's plan?
I especially like this part:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]26:53 - Sr. Helena Burns, FSP: And I think a lot of these same sex relationships can be true, solid, good, friendships. Because nobody can live without intimacy, we all need intimacy in our lives. Intimacy, unfortunately has come to mean sex, its synonymous with sex, and its not. It means In-too-me-see(interjection, don't ask me why she said this, she did though). We want to be known and loved at our deepest levels and we want to know and love others at their deepest levels. So we can have lots of sex and no intimacy, we can have lots of intimacy without sex.
First off, I like the restrictions here on what is "good", in addition, the false dichotomy at the end is just classic. What about those who have both lots of intimacy and lots of sex?
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]27:22 - Melinda: We also need to understand that people who have chosen to live chastity, one of the biggest obstacles is isolation and loneliness. The Church has to function as family and community, and it has to do so in a way that is more powerful and more real than the family and community that people find in the gay scene. At the moment, we are not anywhere near that.
You know, I wouldn't put so many quotes up except, particularly when it comes to the gays and lesbians doing these testimonials and opinions, something seems off, look at Melinda's use of "gay scene", completely dismissive of the many LGBT supportive communities that exist. I find this typical of the tones of the LGB people(sorry, no transgender people present in the video from what I can tell) in this video.
This gem appears on screen at this time:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
I have yet to have someone give me an example of "just" discrimination against homosexuals. But this section is talking about bullying, there was a section before this that also talked about bullying as well. I sympathize with the bullying, for obvious reasons, and they are criticizing the overall Catholic Culture that encourages this type of behavior, so points for that. Of course, this falls on its face when Julie said that she wanted to tell people, "I'm not what you think gay people are."
Of course, then they talk about being against bullying, that homosexuals should be treated with respect, but, its still a sin, etc. I find this disingenuous, you can't respect those who you oppose equal rights for, you don't show love, this so called "Third Way" in this manner. Its a lie.
I will say that, straight up, I don't care about the supernatural beliefs they keep interjecting, I frankly don't care if you think Jesus loves you, whatever makes you happy. What I'm concerned about is what you are going to do, within your Church or outside of it, to hurt my family and friends, that is what I care about.
For example the last 5 minutes of: "The Catholic Church is the Truth" BS. Whatever, I'm not here to debate theology. Nice musical score though.
My conclusion is this, from a secular perspective, this is a video for those already in the pews. They get to pat themselves on the back and claim they are being open minded or whatever lie they like to tell themselves. But its nothing more than that.
Particularly as a non-Christian, it falls flat, and I'll be blunt and say that the video does pull the heartstrings so that you sympathize with the LGB people who are in the video, but all I was thinking was I wish, and hope in the future, that some of them see a good secular therapist for many of the issues they talk about in the video.
Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)Thanks for writing what bothered you, and with quotes. A few or your points were a bit strident and excessive, but I'll answer them anyway, though I think that your general assessment that this is a movie directed towards Catholics is correct. The language used is definitely not aimed at non-Catholics, and especially not progressives or non-conservatives. This seems to be a major factor why the problems you found had to do more with anecdotes, turns of phrases, and a bad feel, than the general message. I also think that you misunderstood some technical terms based in natural law ethics.
I would have appreciated if you avoided the "BS" and "claptrap" – since these are evidently things I take seriously.
So first of all, natural law ethics was more or less formalized by Aristotle, and was the dominant ethical theory until recently. Just to be clear there is no dominant theory in academic ethics today, and natural law is still a widely studied and venerable option – just not as popular as it once was. Though Aristotle is still probably the most studied author in philosophy graduate schools. So to call natural law ethics "outdated" is ridiculous.
When Rev. Schmitz uses the term "disordered attractions," this means attraction to immoral things. And yes, some people have a strong temptation to lie, others to steal, others to belittle others, to take drugs, etc. This is all common sense. These attractions are called not "ordered" because they are influences on a person to do unethical actions, which will cause harm, and hence, disorder. You can disagree with what Rev. Schmitz is saying, but the terms he is using are perfectly fine.
And only acting on bad impulses is immoral, having them is morally neutral, and this does not contradict Jesus at all – you seem to have misunderstood a passage of the gospel there. The opposite idea, of condemning people for feelings, is insane and un-Christian.
Next, sister Burns is correct in saying that calling an attraction disordered, even though the language sounds harsh, is not a judgment. A judgment is when you call someone "good" or "bad." And everyone, good or bad, has disordered attractions. Saying that someone has a disordered attraction has no moral component to it, it's just an observation. You can disagree that same sex attraction is disordered (as you do), but you can't call that a judgment – because it isn't one.
I think that that covers the natural law part. Now, you mentioned the passage of the Catechism which says that "unjust discrimination" should be avoided towards homosexuals. The term "discrimination" is clearly being used in its original sense of making a difference, a distinction between people or things, and not in its common sense of treating people unfairly because of prejudice. So the passage isn't implying there are just forms of discrimination towards homosexuals, but that unfairness should be avoided to them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Which is correct. Though there certainly exist just forms of discrimination, in the sense of treating people differently when the circumstances call for it (e.g. "To each according to his needs," etc), and not of being unjust to them.
The two opening quotes you used, I agree are not very good. Though the first one is simply a woman giving her perspective about women. She is not a specialist or being quoted as one, so that seems fine and pretty standard for a documentary testimony. Though I understand the effect that that could create. The second quote is definitely odd, probably not the guy telling his proudest moments, and his theory that his unfulfilled "homoemotional needs became homosexualized" seems a bit shabby as an explanation of the genesis of his homosexual feelings (though in some cases, it seems likely that this could happen). Though such an explanation would definitely work to explain why someone would go use sex because of an unfulfilled need for intimacy – if that's what he was saying (I'm not sure if this guy, Charles, is one of the one's who went through a phase like that).
Finally, to get to what I see as the weightiest part of your objection, you do clearly view the Catholic view on homosexuality wrong, and as a Catholic I definitely consider yours the same. Here there is a clear difference of opinion. Though I won't address that here, as it is pretty late where I am (not in the US), and this is a topic for another post, or even thread. I don't know what to make though of your allegations that Catholic teaching is an "insult" to people who choose not to follow it. As a practicing Catholic I'm actually perplexed by that. If you don't like a point of the ethics that I believe and follow, well, you can disagree with me on one of the things I say. That won't offend me, but that it should offend you strikes me as odd. Isn't that the definition of bigoted: "intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own"? And the Church doesn't tell anyone to be chaste unless they want to follow Jesus and take communion.
I personally think that people get so annoyed at the Christians on this topic, because hearing the ethical teaching gives them pain. So it causes guilt, which means that on some level it is being recognized as valid. Many experiences have re-inforced this theory for me, people who should be indifferent and even unaware reacting with strong passion. Though it still surprises me when non-Catholics have strong reactions to Catholic moral teachings (I don't see this happen when people confront Muslim teachings for example).
You also seem to be over-looking or not believing the several people of the video saying the happiness they have found:
I agree with you that this a video mainly for Catholics, or perhaps people with close-ish views, I highly disagree that it is going to be a "pat on the back" or something like that. On the contrary, half the witnesses in this video pointed out that their experience in the Church was needlessly difficult. This video has the potential to make a good change, and educate people on a topic often difficult to speak about.
Thanks for your perspective. It sadly confirmed my impression that the language of this video and several points it makes will prevent it from bridging the conservative-progressive gap. Not that this makes the content worthless at all, but a good witness of happy, same sex attracted and traditionally religious people would be something great for progressives to see. I hope that I have properly addressed your post. It is late here, so I can't re-read everything as I would like, though I'd rather post it today.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)where is the evidence that same sex couples harm themselves in their relationships to each other, or any children they raise, or to society at large? What possible justification would there be to treat them differently, either legally or ethically? What would be an example of just discrimination? Can you give just one example?
Also, you have to understand this, its the language used that is insulting, and the unbalanced, unmentioned contrasts. Those are offensive.
Let me see if I can give a blunt example of this: As a Catholic, as a Christian, hell, as a religious person, you can't love your children like I can love mine, to the extent of even sacrificing the sacred for them, for their security, for their lives, for their happiness. Your love for them isn't as real as mine is for my children.
Now, think of that statement, do you understand now how, in talking about "authentic" love versus...what is the contrast? They leave it unmentioned, but the implication is there, and it can be very hurtful and insulting. Also bear in mind that I don't think most people, even those who are religious actually are incapable of the love I'm talking about, very few would imitate Abraham, and thank goodness for that, talk about a terrible role model!
I have yet to have anyone give a rational reason on why acting on homosexual "impulses" is, in any way, immoral or unethical.
In addition, what are "immoral things"? You can have moral or immoral actions, but they aren't objects. Not to mention the comparisons you make are of things that demonstrably harm others, except the drugs one, but I don't want to digress into a drug war rant.
As for your personal theory, the reason I don't react to Muslim moral teaching is because it does NOT represent an existential threat to my friends and family. Many people react strongly because your church lobbies against the civil rights of non-Catholics all the time. I would love to be indifferent to your church, if it would give the rest of society the same courtesy. You and your church uses its amoral teachings to try to push to restrict the rights of those who don't follow them.
Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)this really all does come down to how we view homosexuality.
According to one view, the people who made the video are doing amazing work, helping a group of people who've had a difficult hand of cards given to them find a happy and full life. And they are doing it in the face of two giant, loud, popular voices which will push a huge number of them towards self-destructive behaviors, and missing their call in life.
According to the other view, the makers of this video are trying to fit certain people in a very flawed framework that they just can't fit into, and such an operation could only come at the expense of a huge effort, and a large chunk of their potential happiness. So at best this video would be a good thing to the people willing to live such a difficult life (but still probably lying to them about their shot at happiness), and at worst it is a ploy to lead them on a tragic path of self-denial.
I understand that virtually everyone here can only see this second possibility. I'm worried though that even considering the first possibility is a much too tall order in this conversation. Speaking about bigotry, here is another definition of it, by G.K. Chesterton: "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition." I don't mean that as an insult, such a thing would give me no joy. Just please seriously consider what I have to say, which doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but at least that we can speak properly.
An example I can come up with of just discrimination towards a homosexual couple is in an adoption process. A heterosexual couple, unless they present a serious flaw, should always be favored over a gay couple. It gives the child a father and mother figure. Favoring a same sex couple would be intentionally depriving the child of one, causing him or her unneeded harm, and so be wrong.
From a more general point of view, I believe that homosexual sex acts harm the people involved, but I can't provide solid enough proof for this, because the links between the cause and the effects are too subtle (a troubled person can point to many different problems in his life and past).
On a societal level though, I'm convinced that changing the definition of marriage will have terrible effects. Simply put, marriage is an institution precisely defined by God, or if you prefer, by the laws of nature. Its basic parameters are life long fidelity and heterosexuality, and they can't be changed. Because sex makes children, and it takes a very long time to raise a child, and two people are needed to do it (single mothers have a very hard time). And the institution is needed not only for survival, but also economic, psychological and social well-being. From the perspective of the social sciences, there is no question about this.
Take away the requirement of life long fidelity, and take away the requirement of heterosexuality: it becomes a public love commitment. Which is totally arbitrary: such a thing has no basis in natural or practical needs. So then why make it a legally binding commitment? And who wants the government in charge of who you love? That will seem a bit much. If this changing of marriage keeps going very far, in a couple generations marriage will no longer be a public institution, or at least it will unrecognizable. Though I hope that doesn't happen.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." And the family doesn't work too well without marriage.
About the offense you took from the language the people in the video were using, most of the time it was clearly with what you saw the language as inferring: "if they're saying X, then doesn't that imply Y? That's wrong!" But from the person's perspective they weren't choosing to say such a thing at all. The content of what they meant to communicate bears no offense to you or to anyone whatsoever. Admittedly there were several poor formulations on what is a very sensitive topic, but most of the inferences which are jumping out at you seem to me to be doing so because you're operating in a different framework. This is the frustrating problem.
Frameworks are important. For example, you probably don't realize but when you and others here call the defense of natural marriage things like "an attack on society," that strikes me as incredibly jarring.
Finally, when I said "immoral things," that was a mistake. I meant immoral behaviors or activities. Sorry that slipped by me.
Also, your point about "sacrificing the sacred" for your children is very odd. Part of the point of the story of Abraham is that God did certainly not want him to hurt his son.
In any case, I hope that this has been helpful. It is very difficult to speak of these things on the internet, or even at all, because so many fundamental points needed in the discussion are sadly controversial themselves.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you may believe that, it doesn't make it true. Marriage as an institution and cultural practice predates your church and doesn't belong to it it or your god.
In addition, you failed to provide evidence for any claims of harm attribute to homosexual activity or even the existence of same sex marriage. Marriage is a civil institution for conferring next of kin rights, along with others(shared property, etc.) to a person of your choosing. In most cases this is a loving commitment.
Consider the fact that same sex marriage, as a legal mechanism, has existed in many countries for up to a decade now, and those societies haven't collapsed, indeed many thrive at least as well as those who still don't have legal same sex marriages. The "terrible consequences" you prophesize either don't materialize, or aren't so terrible to those of us who , such as same sex adoption and parentage.
Basically your argument boils down to "Because my God says so(in my opinion)."
This isn't a strong enough argument to justify discriminating against homosexual couples.
Also, just a note, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, his god may not have wanted him to actually hurt his son, but he wanted to test his loyalty, and was happy that Abraham was willing to do so.
Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)It didn't respond to what I wrote. It ignored key arguments.
I find it better to stop internet debates on such topics at this point. Nastiness has a way of getting a grip on the conversation. Besides, the topic of the debates on marriage is a distraction from this thread's topic. In any case, it was pleasant discussing this with you, especially about the video, and I think it gave me the outside perspective I was looking for.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)... with people's relationships with each other, for unnecessary and unproven reasons."
Yup!!!
Religion (in this country, anyway) interferes with too many things - education, freedom to vote as you wish while going to church, choices to be oneself (not just gay, but myriad other ways, such as abortion, for example), equality between men and women, all kinds of stuff. Religion in this country is more harmful than good, at least right now. Maybe in the future sometime it might be helpful and good.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is more harmful than good" and ask what you base that upon.
This appears to be a "belief" and not a fact based on any kind of data.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So I guess there we are. You can't dismiss someone else's beliefs if you can't prove them wrong, you know. That's the standard YOU have established, cbayer.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)And you can help it do just that.
Progressive/liberal believers need support, particularly those that are actively doing something.
One thing that can, and should, be done is to start making sure that we don't throw everyone in the same basket.
The religious right and fundamentalists are a distinct group. Let's make sure we are talking about them when we level our criticisms, and not point the shotgun at everyone who is a believer.
Are you with me?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)but I'll address your points I disagree with that you bring up and assume your claims of the video are true.
Also, the whole point of this video is to emphasize tolerance, inclusiveness and better care in the Church of people with same sex attraction. The Church teaching on chastity will never change, but the way the Church cares for its gay members can become much better, and this is the point of the video! It is the opposite of bigoted. Many gay people believe in God and want to be serious Christians, and this is especially important for them.
The Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is fundamentally bigoted. While the video may be trying to make the treatment of homosexuals in the church better, if the foundation is bigotry, it's going to come across as only a half-measure not addressing the root of the problem. In some ways, by not addressing the fundamental problem, it comes across as disingenuous, which can be seen as propaganda, ignoring the crux of the issue to focus on more superficial things that fit popular opinion more.
I'd finally like to add, that if the idea of leading a happy life without sex shocks you, well, it doesn't do so for many people. If you think otherwise that is your opinion, and it is a popular one, but nevertheless a good deal away from the truth.
It doesn't shock me. But I still find it disingenuous in this case. The Catholic reasoning for celibacy among homosexuals is bigoted and without good reasoning or logic. It relies entirely on faith in a claim that there is a god at all, much less the god of the Bible. And for people who were indoctrinated into church doctrine from a young age, which is the majority of believers from all the data I've seen, many people who choose celibacy didn't come to the idea that they would be happy without sex on their own. And it's the distortion of certain types of sex into "sin" that I find really harmful. I get the distinct impression that the vast majority of people who are gay and celibate Christians wouldn't be celibate at all, nor Christians, if they weren't raised by Christians or indoctrinated into it from a young age.
I think it's possible for people that believe wrong things to be happy. I generally tend to think they are happy in spite of the wrong things they believe. But it says nothing about the claims that are wrong.
Any organization that gets the vast majority of its members through childhood indoctrination will always come across as disingenuous.
Robert_Caritas
(9 posts)I've been reading this sentiment a lot around this forum, that "Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality is bigoted."
Now, I strongly disagree with this, and I'd like to hear what you mean by this, precisely. Catholic doctrine isn't formed overnight (a Pope actually has almost no control over it at all) but over centuries, and certainly not out of fear, hatred or misunderstanding. Everything is rigorously and carefully examined from a philosophical, theological, and scientific view point. So what do you mean by "bigotry?"
Just look at some of the people on the committee which advises the Vatican on science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences They are the best in their fields.
The Church's understanding relies heavily on a philosophy called "natural law," and of course on the Bible. From a natural point of view it is obvious that sex is for procreation. Recreational sex is a purely cultural invention. And the Bible also condemns sex with no procreative purpose. So two of the Church's main anchors hold it firmly in this direction. But this is reasoning, not hatred or fear. And from having read writings of the past few popes, the Church understands the values of twentieth and twenty first centuries very well, so this is not a matter of ignorance or misunderstanding either.
Anyways, I'd be happy to hear what you mean by "bigotry."
Goacher
(38 posts)Maybe you can explain something to me
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has no issue with the marriage of heterosexual couple who, through no fault of their own, can't have children
Why is that?
Response to Goacher (Reply #95)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Plantaganet
(241 posts)If marriage has other goals than procreation then there's no logical reason why a same sex couple cannot be married
Plantaganet
(241 posts)Would anyone be willing to explain what happened here to me?
I go to work for a few hours and I miss out on everything...
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)If the Catholic Church's reasoning relies on it, well, it will be bigoted reasoning.
The foundation of the Church's reasoning is misunderstanding. "Natural law" is a bunk philosophy that supports all sorts of bigotry and misunderstanding. It applies subjective ideas of morality to nature and then pretends they are objective. Their evidence? The Bible, a text which explicitly supports all sorts of nasty bigotry. That's terrible evidence.
Why does the Bible condemn sex with no procreative purpose? Is it for a good reason? I'm guessing the reasoning has some fear behind it, of the sort from a patriarchal culture. Is there any evidence that the Bible holds special knowledge and should be accepted over any other explanation, evidence, or reasoning?
You say it's obvious that sex is for procreation (and nothing else is the implication). Why? There are animals besides us that engage in recreational sex. To me it is just as "obvious" that evolutionarily, recreational sex makes sense. And while I understand why we and other animals do it, I don't say therefore it is something that "should" be done because then it's "natural". The Catholic Church pretends it's preferences are facts. They aren't.
Really, purely procreative sex among humans is just as "cultural" as recreational sex among humans.
Recreational sex, as I've pointed out, isn't just purely "cultural", if you don't ascribe culture to animals like dolphins. Though, culture is natural anyways, so wouldn't recreational sex be natural as well? Culture is just a subset of nature after all, a part of societies formed by more advanced beings. In fact, I always wonder if an example of something "unnatural" can be found. This is what makes natural law philosophy useless. "Nature" has no useful definition, much like "god". It's a completely arbitrary, subjective concept of what is or isn't "natural".
The idea that there are objective moral laws is a recipe of bigotry of all sorts, especially when the source of the objective moral law is something like the Bible. It is not a rigorous way to understand the world. It is an incredibly arrogant and naive way to view the world. An institution that claims that it has access to objective truths based on no evidence and then applying it's opinions as truths to the world around them.
The Catholic Church has spent millennia coming up with terrible apologetics and excuses for,their reasoning, and while it worked when much or the world was illiterate, it is being exposed more and more for the fraudulent, terrible reasoning it is. Saying "sex is obviously just for procreation" is exactly the same as saying "blue is obviously the best color". Preferences aren't facts.
Response to MellowDem (Reply #96)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
hunter
(38,310 posts)It's a lot easier than twisting myself into a complex pretzel.
LGBT rights are human rights, marriage is a human right, and often the Church, as an imperfect human institution, is simply wrong.
auntsue
(277 posts)they sound coached using outdated psycho-babble theories............ "As a girl I didn't have a caring mom so now I think I am attracted to women" "I didn't feel like a man so I confused my male bonding feelings as sexual attraction".
Then there is the reality of the Church's teaching that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" These poor people have been so completely brainwashed..............at the filming of this piece they are telling how they have fit themselves to the church's teaching. Well good for them. I hope they are happy. I hope they can sustain their chase behavior. I would like to talk to them this time next year. All their lovely talk about chastity...we know how this works out - yes.
I grew up in "the church" and I discovered that I am an unrepentant Lesbian and there is no place in that institution for me. period. If someone is looking for a relationship with a loving God check out the Episcopal church.
It was agony for me to watch this all the way to the end ... I have flashback like reactions to it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)appreciate your testimonial here.
I am truly sorry about what you went through and glad that you have found a welcoming and affirming community.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)so many vile memes going on about gays and lesbians. Sounded like right-wing religious propaganda more than anything else.
JPatrickRedmond
(1 post)[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-patrick-redmond/queer-catholics-and-the-t_b_5325001.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices|
"Oh. Wait. There's the rub. As a gay man, I can be gay, I can act gay, I can even be friends with other gays, the church loves me just as I am. But I must not act on my orientation, my biology.
Is there an app for that?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-patrick-redmond/queer-catholics-and-the-t_b_5325001.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices