Homosexual communications

Here is an interesting article that exposes some far separate views of the
world.

link

Starting with the title..

"Proposal would condemn `hatred' but reject unions"

That 'but' should be an 'and'. As a 'but', it puts the rejection of unions as
a flavor of hatred, or somehow implicates a connection between hatred and the
rejection of unions. The Bishops are simply saying both no hatred and no
unions... 2 separtate things.

What lies beneath the surface here, and is seldom voiced, is that normal men
have an automatic aversion to homosexual men. Hatred is always too strong a word
that muddles the communication. It is plainly an aversion, not a hatred. And it mainly a man thing, which women see a little less automatically.

Also, men also look away from overt homosexual displays because of the shame
they see, and this is for the benefit of the actors. This is a cultural aversion
to conduct suited to privacy because of the shame.

Add to this, the deep common sense that homosexual men should not be around
boys, and we have another aversion particular to a man's somewhat automatic outlook upon homosexuals they meet in church.

So when the article says..

The proposed guidelines for ministering to gays and lesbians declare that ``more than a few persons with a homosexual inclination feel themselves to be unwelcome and rejected" in the Catholic Church and says that ``full and active participation is encouraged," as is ``an ongoing personal conversion."

.. it is easy to understand their feelings of unwelcome and rejection. I, and
other men need to work on these aversions which is not an easy thing. All of us
dealing with that 'ongoing personal conversion'.

It would be an easier thing if we could be clearer about the social tensions,
so as to address the resulting atmosphere of aversion that is no doubt felt by
all, although unsaid.

None of this is hatred, so when hatred is prohibited, it never seems to be a
personal directive to the one supposedly doing the hating. A clean up of terms
and language would be useful here.

But gay rights advocates nationally were more critical. Harry Knox , the director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy organization, said, ``it's dangerous and immoral for the church to make the kinds of statements that they are thinking about making."

And Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document ``will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."

And the view from homosexual advocates? Far separate indeed.

Mr. Knox sees the Church as dangerous and immoral. He's not immoral.. the
Church is. It would be hard to imagine how the conversation could start from two
more distanced points.

And Mr. Sinnet brings up the old debate tactic of claiming that you have to
be 'one' to understand 'one'. You have to be a woman to understand abortion. You
have to be married to understand marriage. You have to be un-celibate to
understand. This is nothing more than insisting on autonomy in defining morals
which is the opposite of the Church defining morals.

Mr. Sinnet also throws in something about the clergy keeping their jobs.
Again, quite apart from the point.