So my contention is that, inwardly, a homosexual is never a happy, stable person. There is always some chagrin, some inner chagrin that he takes with him. - Gerard van den Aardweg PhD
I'm always surprised at how sensitive gay men can be - especially gay Catholic guys working on their issues. I suppose I should refer to them as same-sex attracted Catholic men - they tend to have an aversion to the gay if they are in Courage or do not act out as gay - which means they are striving to live a chaste life. I appreciate that. On the other hand, if one says something the least bit negative about DADT - gay soldiers, or even gay monks, priests, et al, they are suddenly deeply offended if what is said doesn't suit their sensibilities. Which explains why I end up referring to them as gay, considering how defensive they get for the gay.
.
Anyway. Recent history proves gay people tend to have difficulty with any type of constructive criticism of gay culture and its practitioners - even if one of their own does the criticizing. I recall the late playwright, AIDS activist Larry Kramer, who was highly critical of the trashy, promiscuous side of homosexuality, declaring:
.
"Almost 60 million people whom we live and work with every day think we are immoral. “Moral values” was top of many lists of why people supported George Bush. Not Iraq. Not the economy. Not terrorism. "Moral values." In case you need a translation that means us. It is hard to stand up to so much hate." - Source
.
His critics countered:
.
"Larry Kramer recycles the kind of harangues about gay men (and young gay men in particular) that institutions like the Times so love to print -- that they are buffoonish, disengaged Peter Pans dancing, drugging and f-----g their lives away while the world and the disco burn down around them." - Ibid
.
One might have hoped gay people would have become more tolerant and open to critique after all of these years of lobbying and politicking. Apparently not. HIV rates are climbing once again too.
.
.
N.B. It was not my intention to harm or offend any gay person's feelings with this post.
.
Photo: Spoof on gays in the military. According to Army and Marine chiefs, as well as combat troops in the field, the repeal of DADT would not be welcome:
.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines say letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.
Maybe it's not so much what people say that wears them out, it's that they're always saying it. I could see that it could be very discouraging for someone who was struggling to lead a moral life to have others casually stereotyping them as irresponsible party animals. If they are not spiritually well-grounded it might even push them into a "why bother" frame of mind.
ReplyDeleteIt might also be well for us to consider how language often morphs, especially in this day of instant communication; and Merriam-Webster doesn't always get the memo. For instance, the word "gay". It used to mean "happy and festive". Then it meant flagrantly homosexual and promiscuous. Now? I am noticing a shift to it just referring to same-sex attraction, with or without aforementioned lifestyle. Yet another shade of meaning seems to be "lame"; one recent movie used the term something like; "your parents are chaperoning the dance, that's so gay."
melody, that's a great post. it *does* wear a person out. i feel like i have to constantly defend myself < if not educate others > on the shades of meaning of which you speak. i am a member of Courage, and i am a veteran. do i think DADT is fair and just across the board, in all units, all branches, for all personnel across the board? no, i don't. do i understand the reasoning behind it: unit cohesion for combat units? yes, i do. do i think a repeal of DADT would benefit the military? not necessarily. that said, sexual harrassment of women in the military by heterosexual men has a long and shameful history. not until the 80's did some of that start to wane because of the realization in the culture at large of the abuse of women, subtle & not so subtle. but by and large the persons serving in the military, gay and straight, are there because they chose to be there, volunteered, to serve their nation. they are patriots. i chose to resign my commission in the air force under DADT rather than face a court-martial over something i have absolutely no control over: the fact that i was same-sex attracted. at the time, i was not a practicing catholic and i wanted to be out & proud, so it made the most sense. now that i'm back in the Church and striving to be chaste & faithful, i regret that decision. but it remains the most difficult of my life. i deeply love the military and my country. i love the Church more. and i care about the souls of those living with any kind of addiction. and yes, i believe SSA is an addiction. i don't believe one is born with it; but it certainly feels that way, which explains the strong resistance to change. and not everyone is capable of change. some of us just live with it. you may come to an understanding of how & why you came to be this way, but it doesn't mean you can therefore change it. and just like all Christians, you're called to live a life of virtue; namely chastity. so why should i get offended when someone suggests that gay persons should not serve in the military because they are inherently weak? we all have weaknesses. many of us have addictions. but i met some of the most ethical, disciplined, devoted people in the military who were SSA and admired their perseverance. they were lifers. they did not march in parades, support immoral behavior, etc. if anything, it was likely the life / culture of the military that saved these people. leaving the military & entering the culture at large was my un-doing in some ways because i became that boy who drugged & f****d his way to near oblivion while the disco burned. but God rescued me from all that; and He who makes all things new made ME new again - Deo Gratias. so yes. i get offended. maybe i'm touchy. that's my issue and yes that needs to change. sorry for the long post, but it pisses me off when others go about denigrating the service of dedicated americans just because they're living with a condition over which they had no choice. but they do choose their behavior. they choose to serve their country and are willing to die for their countrymen. man hath no greater love.
ReplyDelete"So my contention is that, inwardly, a homosexual is never a happy, stable person. There is always some chagrin, some inner chagrin that he takes with him."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the case for every human since The Fall?
Sana - I think you are right!
ReplyDelete