My Boundaries For Non-Christians When Talking About Homosexuality With Me
My Boundaries For Non-Christians When Talking About Homosexuality With Me
Please respect the following boundaries
Updated 3/23/24
Some people, including gays, have respected my position. Others have pointed out the "inconsistencies" in my position and have cross-examined me when I respond. Or refuted my position. And it is those in the latter category that this post is for.
So let's get started.
1) I appreciate it when my efforts to be a respectful Christian are respected and I don't appreciate it when my efforts to be a respectful Christian are opposed.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it when people just let me be a respectful Christian.
And I cannot tell you how much I don't appreciate accusations of hypocrisy being leveled at me. I do not appreciate it when people demand "transparency," and say things like, "If you're a homophobe, just say so."
I will not be pushed into admitting something the world believes I am when I am actually not.
2) On that note, I don't appreciate it when people say, "You don't have to say you're homophobic. You are homophobic because your other words and actions speak for you."
This is MeAVE243's reply again and I highlighted the part when she said the offensive statement.
I will not accept that, ever. And I appreciate it when people refrain from putting words in my mouth and twisting my words and actions to suit their viewpoint.
3) I don’t appreciate nonbelievers citing Catholic doctrine on homosexuality at me as if I don't know what Catholic doctrine says about homosexuality.
I get that many Atheists study religion extensively to defend themselves against adherents of religion, but citing my own religion's doctrines at me as if I don't know what Catholic Church teaching says about homosexuality is not something I tolerate. I don't need to know whether or not an Atheist has read the Catechism on this subject because I already know many Atheists have extensively researched all this.
To give some context, I had given this user a quote from canon and civil lawyer Ed Peters on civil marriage, so don't misqoute what I cited as the Holy See being fine and then claim that the Holy See has no legal jurisdiction because I was quoting a faithful Catholic who is an expert in canon and civil law. Here is a screenshot of the relevant quote.
I was trying to say the Church isn't opposed to marriages that are not sacramental by quoting Peters, even if homosexual acts are sinful and gay "marriage" is a no-no. I was offering a counter-argument to bnd2nd's "sacramental marriage" rebuttal (see several points below to see the screenshot of that rebuttal).
And I can't tell you not to call doctrines of my Church "absolute nonsense" to my face. However, it doesn't sit well with me at all when people do so.
4) I don't appreciate being lectured on equality, abuse, hatred, and true friendship
This is MeAVe's reply again and as usual, I've highlighted the offensive statements.
Lectures about abuse, hate, and equality/inequality will not work on me. I'm so sick and tired of woke jargon like "check your privilege."
Being told that I don't have gay friends and lecturing me about what constitutes true friendship will not be tolerated.
I had a friend who came out as lesbian to me. She knew my position on homosexuality and she knew that I didn't expect her to live by Catholic teaching because she's not Catholic or Christian. But she respected my position, didn't stop considering us friends, and she never accused me of perpetuating hate and inequality. She never accused me of abusing her.
Life took each of us on two different paths so I haven't spoken to her in years, but we parted ways on amiable terms.
So when people play the "you don't really have gay friends since you believe in your Church's teaching, which is promoting inequality" card, you're saying that my friendship with that woman was not real because it didn't fit your accepted definition of equality and true friendship.
And I have only one thing to say to that: you were not there when we were in touch so I will never accept that my friendship was not real.
The only reason I don't truly have gay friends is because our paths in life diverged from each other.
5) I don't appreciate being told that I see gay people as less than human and that I believe they deserve to suffer.
This is MeAVe243's reply to me and I have highlighted the bits where she had the audacity to tell me that I believe gay people deserve to suffer and that I see them as less than.
And here are two screenshots of my later response to everyone who considers leaving me a reply like this:
So let this be a heads-up to anyone who considers leaving an objection like MeAVE's: While I still believe in the Church's teachings and I know they are hard for gay people, I do not expect non-Catholics and non-Christians to live by them!
In the post, I make it quite clear that people should not inflict suffering on gay people simply because they are gay. You'll notice that I firmly, gently, and respectfully corrected a Catholic Monsignor for his lack of sympathy when Secretary Buttigieg said that for a very long time, he would have done anything not to be gay, including two very harmful things.
I also recommending reading my post An Open Letter To Atheists & Freethinkers, as that addresses what I think of seeing others as less than human due to certain characteristics.
I know that I am talking about religious affiliation and facial deformities in that letter due to my lengthy talk about The Phantom of the Opera and how it has shaped and influenced my worldview, but what I say about thinking of others as less than human in that open letter applies in this situation as well. I do not see gay people as less than human, as that would be effectively denying the royal status and dignity that God gave them. I cannot in good conscience deny other people something that God so graciously bestowed on all of us.
6) I don't appreciate when people direct their comments to my friends as well as me.
So this screenshot of MeAVE243's reply is proof that people have directed their replies to my friends as well as me.
And to people who are tempted to do so on this topic, I have only one thing to say: Please leave my friends out of it. If you have something to say, please direct your comments solely to me and nobody else in my social circle.
Thank you.
7) I don't appreciate nonbelievers telling me that my personal idea of Christian love & mercy evidently contradicts Catholic teaching.
So this is a reply from bnd2nd and I hightlighted the bit where they said my personal "interpretation of Christian love and mercy evidently contradicts Catholic teaching."
There is room for me to accompany gay people and people in heterosexual sin without overly rigorous adherence to Catholic doctrine and without totally abandoning Catholic doctrine.
Pope Francis has been doing so since day 1 of his pontificate and I'm following his lead. Whether or not I'm following Catholic doctrine well enough is between me and God and the Church. So if I'm not following Catholic doctrine properly in your eyes, that's not my problem.
Pope Francis is too chummy with sinners for some Catholics' comfort level. And Jesus was too chummy with sinners for the Pharisee's comfort level as well. So if I'm too chummy with sinners in your eyes, just like Jesus and Pope Francis, then that's a good sign.
8) I don't appreciate it when people keep responding to me when I've signaled that I'm done with the conversation and would like people to not respond to me any further.
Once, I had to put my foot down several times because even though I made it clear that I was done with the conversation and didn't want people responding to me anymore, people continued to respond to me out of a burning desire to lecture me about hate, inequality, and abuse.
Here's a screenshot where I put my foot down.
10) I don't appreciate responses with your objections to my viewpoint when my initial message was directed to an OP who endured conversion therapy or other forms of abuse in the name of religion or a fellow Christian who I was correcting due to tgeir problematic stance on homosexaulity and abuse.
Here's a screenshot of a thread were this happened.
So I deleted my responses because people just wouldn't drop the conversation with me when I signaled I'm done, but in this thread, I offered my symapthies to LordofCynders for the abuse he endured in the name of Catholicism while stating that I can't condone homosexual acts, but I am against conversion therapy of any kind and the "pray the gay away" mindset. I was setting my boundaries. As you can see, LordofCynders said he can respect my position. But bnd2nd had to jump into the conversation and voice their objections to the boundaries I set when I was talking to LordofCynders, not them.
Simply put: if I post a message to a poster who was abused for being LGBTQ+ in the name of religion on a public forum or try to correct a fellow Christian for a problematic view on homosexuality, please stay out of my conversation with that person. I don't want your objections to my viewpoint. They're old news to me and no amount calling my views on homosexuality cringey is going to change my mind. And my message was solely to that person. So please mind your own business.
This is my "Just let me be a respectful Christian" point again.
Because you know what? Even if you don't like that I'm a respectful Christian, my God does like it and there are other people who appreciate it, too.
I usually DM the abused LGBTQ+ person if I can and only respond to them on a public forum if the DM option isn't available. And because people have not respected me when I said I was done with the conversation and have continued to respond to me when I said I didn't want any more responses, I will not be reaching out with sympathy to abused LGBTQ+ people or correct fellow Christians on problematic views about homosexaulity on public forums and will wait until platforms that don't have a DM feature implement such a feature.
Because that is the only way I can be a respectful Christian and keep my boundaries intact.
11) I don't appreciate it when people tell me I can't be a good person and a good Christian when it comes to LGTBQ+ people.
This is bnd2nd telling me that I cannot be a good Christian and a good person on the matter of LGBTQ+ rights.
Other people do not get to dictate whether or not I can be a good person and a good Christian when it comes to LGBTQ+ people. If I want to be a respectful Christian, I can and I will. Period.
12) I don't appreciate it when people assume I vote for candidates who have policies denying civil rights for LGBTQ+ people.
I realize that Catholics in general use Catholic dogma to inform their voting. And I realize that Catholics and Evangelical Christians are the largest groups that vote for candidates who have policy proposals that deny civil rights for LGBTQ+ people in countries where Catholics and Evangelicals are the majority.
But to me, using my Catholic faith to inform my voting also means that I vote for candidates who have a decent character. I am not a single issue voter and policies are not the defining factor when it comes to my voting decisions.
And as of this post, my voting history is very short. My first time voting was in the 2020 general election.
And given the current Pope's more inclusive approach to accompanying LGBTQ+ people, it's more complicated than a straight yes or no answer to "Do I vote for candidates who have policy proposals that would deny civil rights to LGBTQ+ people?"
And back in 2019, I was writing a book about my experiences as a Catholic and tips for living as a faithful Catholic. One of the chapters was one with voting tips for Catholics. And I addressed rights for LGBTQ+ people in that chapter. One of the things I wrote on that subject was at that time, you could still be denied housing, employment, healthcare, and other basic services in thirty states if you identified as LGBTQ+ and how this was totally unacceptable. I made it perfectly clear that even LGBTQ+ people should have their basic human rights upheld and protected.
That chapter, as well as other chapters from that book, now live on as posts on this blog. My voting tips for Catholics post has been revised. Here's the link to Voting Tips For Catholics.
The reason I even set a boundary about making assumptions about my voting habits in regards to how my faith informs them is because an Atheist dared to mistakenly assume and argue that I do vote for candidates who have policy proposals that would restrict civil rights.
Here are screenshots of the thread in which this happened, with my on-blog commentary:
So the OP was objecting to the fact that in the video that they were commenting on, the person attempts to encourage people to separate their "objectively disordered" (as the Catechism labels homosexual attractions), sexual attraction from their identity. I debated whether or not tell them about my blog post that addresses this issue and in the end, I decided not to. But I'll happily link that blog post here: A Few Notes on the Ascension Press Homosexuality Video.
Even if you are not Catholic, I will respect whichever LGBTQ+ label you choose to identify yourself with. I had two friends who are LGBTQ+. One was lesbian and the other was trans (man-to-woman, if you're curious) and I didn't expect them to live by Catholic teaching, as they were not Catholic nor Christian. As for what happened to them, their paths in life took them on a different path than mine and we haven't spoken in years, but I parted with them both on amiable terms.
Hindsight bias usually isn't good, but in this case, it was helpful. I also should have told him about the blog post on LGBTQ+ identity I linked above. Oh, well.
The second part was me signaling that having made what I actually meant to say, I was stepping away from the conversation for a while to focus on a couple of art projects. I prievously mentioned doing a painting of the Holy Father meeting Maverick in my post, Atheist In the Dungeon Addendum.
So here is the part where Mr. Alexander asked whether or not I vote for politicians whose policy proposals would enact the restriction of LGBTQ+ rights into the laws of the US. And then answered his own question by mistakenly assuming that I have and then to boot, mistakenly argued that I do likely expect non-Catholics and non-Christians to live by the teachings of my church and religion based on that mistaken assumption.
So my very long answer was no, policies are not the defining factor in my voting decisions. The reason I said, "Almost every single Republican" was because there was one Republican who knew his oath before God to defend the Constitution was more important than political expediency and voted both times to convict Trump and remove him from office. And for those of you who don't know who that Republican is, it's Mitt Romney, who I affectionately call "the Mittster." Romney was a man of integrity both times he voted to convict Trump and remove him from office so he kept the faith I placed in him, even though I was not his constituent.
OK, so I heavily edited my response to him to eliminate the mention of "some caveats," since neither major political perfectly fits my values and rephrase my statement about how wrong he was. I know he didn't ask about just the last general election, but that's how short my voting record is and I know what he asked.
"I do realize Catholics aren't a monolith,"
Says the person who answered his own question by incorrectly assuming and arguing that I vote for candidates who have policy proposals, that if enacted, would restrict the civil rights of LGBTQ+ people.
"But I also realize that Catholics in general use their dogma to inform their voting. This is why they, paired with evangelical protestants have been so successful for so long in denying equal rights to LGBTQ+ people by way of lesgislating their dogma onto any given society they have enough of a majority to control."
And yet he threw me in with "Catholics in general" and Evangelicals and didn't even consider that I might be one of those Catholics who follows the current Pope's approach on accompanying LGBTQ+ people. This is the problem with saying you know Catholics aren't a monolith and then making a sweeping generalization via assuming and arguing that I vote the way Catholics in general vote on the issue of LGBTQ+ rights.
"That you didn't specify."
No, I didn't specify what those caveats were because I changed my answer to say that neither party fully fits my values. And I had my reasons for not being willing to share what those caveats were with Mr. Alexander.
If you want to know what my caveats are, my lovely readers, there was really only one caveat and it was the Democrats' stance on abortion. As a Catholic, I am allowed to vote for candidates who have a permissive stance on abortion, as long I'm not voting for such a candidate because of their permissive stance on abortion. And I didn't vote for any Democrat for their permissive position on abortion. I voted for them for other reasons, which I specified in the previous screenshot, not the one directly above. Here's the link to my post about what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote on voting and pro-abortion candidates: Cardinal Ratzinger on voting and pro-abortion candidates.
But as I said, neither party fits my values perfectly, which is why I'm an independent, even though I voted Democratic and agree with them on a lot of things, as I've said before.
"You voted for a Catholic over the fake Christian demagogue? Congratulations."
I don't know whether or not that was sarcastic. But yes, I voted for a Catholic over the fake Christian narc for many reasons.
Despite taking a pro-life stance, Trump donated money to Planned Parenthood during his term so either way I voted, I would be indirectly supporting abortion, which I as said, is permissible for Catholics to do if they are voting for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons. I know Planned Parenthood offers other healthcare services to expectant mothers besides abortion, but since abortion is their main service, that does not change the fact that I would have been indirectly supporting abortion either way I voted.
So if I was a policies only or single issue voter, voting for Trump on the grounds of his LGBTQ+ policies would be an understandable assumption for other people to make about me.
But I am not a policies-only or single-issue voter, so Trump's character, his reducing funding for programs for people with disabilities, and making fun of people with disabilities, and many other things were reasons why I could not in good conscience vote for him. So while Biden had some policies that I didn't agree with, he also had policies I could support without a problem and his character is better than Trump's.
And no, Biden having the same religious affiliation as me was not even remotely a defining factor in my decision to vote for him and Kamala.
And Mr. Alexander's mistaken assumptions weren't the worst thing about this whole thing. The last thread we both contributed to was one started by a lesbian Catholic who has recently repented of her prior sinful behavior and become celebate, in accordance with the Church's teachings.
So in this screenshot, not only did I praise the OP for doing as Christ has asked her, but I clearly offered her my condolences for the loss of her wife and told her how I liked that she was continuing her YouTube channel and the dreams the two of them had in memory of her wife.
And that is because despite the fact she was living in sin, that doesn't change the fact that losing one's spouse or partner is painful. I offered her my condolences because it's the decent and courteous thing to do.
And that is my biggest issue with Mr. Alexander's assumptions about me: Here I am offering my condolences to a fellow Catholic for their loss, even though she had previously been living in sin and yet in the next thread where we interact again, he assumes and argues quite mistakenly that I expect non-Catholics and Christians to live according to the Church's teachings on homosexuality via my voting habits. In addition, my initial reply was to the OP, but thanks to the fact that Mr. Alexander has made a hobby out of countering the spread and acclaim of "idealogies that are intrinsically harmful to LGBTQ+ people" via contesting claims that people make in the comments section of a Catholic YouTube video on homosexuality and I have expressed multiple times that I am not cool with that, he just has to jump into the conversation and refute my assertions.
If offering my condolences to a fellow Catholic over the loss of their partner and that Catholic had been previously living in sin doesn't say I don't expect non-Catholics and non-Christians to live in accordance with the Catholic Church's teachings on homosexuality, then I don't know what does.
But I want to make something clear: When I correct a fellow Christian who has a problematic position on homosexuality, sometimes, I will agree that homosexuality as a whole is sinful to avoid unecessary conflict with that person. I do not believe that a person's sexual orientation is sinful, in accordance with Catholic teaching. However, I believe that homosexual acts, along with all other forms of sexual activity outside of wedlock are sinful. But if you are not a Catholic or an adherent of the other two Abrahamic religions, I do not expect you to believe in that concept let alone live by it. There's only so much I can do before violating my conscience. Imagine having a conscience that is so strict and constantly doubting itself that even a minor sin is deemed a serious one or a minor sin has been committed when in fact, no sin has been comitted in the first place. A person with this condition is known as a scrupulous person. If you've read some of my other blog posts, you know I am such a person. So, if I actually disobey my conscience, it will scream bloody murder at me. And I am not willing to go there. Now, I know I am very far off from defying my conscience or disobeying my God. But as many scrupulous people do, I often think without sufficient evidence that I am closer to doing so than I actually am. And when an LGBTQ+ activist tries to refute my position, often, the amygdala takes over and I immediately start to lay down my boundaries and enforce them. And only after I've made a mountain out of a molehill do I usually realize my mistake and articulate my actual position, which is this: while sexual orientation is not a conscious choice and is not sinful, homosexual acts are but if you are not Catholic or Christian, I do not expect you to live by that concept. And I also believe conversion therapy and the "pray the gay away" mindset both do more harm than good. One's holiness or righteness with God does not depend on changing one's sexual orientation. But above all, my job is to treat you the way I treat Jesus, because whatever I do to you, I do to both him and myself (the Golden Rule). And sometimes, I fail epically to live by that principle and I will apologize and ask for your forgiveness when I do and make an effort to do better.
15) When I treat you horribly and then offer you my sincere apology for doing so, I ask that you accept my apology.
There are people to whom I have apologized and they have either refused to accept it or accepted it and then taken their acceptance of my apology back once they found out that I hold traditional Christian values.
"Your last comment changes nothing, it is still violent and disrespectful towards gay people."
This makes me feel really hurt. I don't appreciate it when my apologies are dismissed as "still violent and disrespectful towards gay people." I realized what I did wrong and I apologized for it so I don't appreciate it when I'm told that acknowledging my error and apologizing changes nothing.
And besides, this user took what I said out context by only quoting the part in which I apologized. What I actually said in full was, "My job above all is to treat you the same way I treat Jesus. And I've treated you horribly, and for that, I apologize. I make an utter fool out of myself sometimes by being so impulsive. 🤦♀️Ay, ay, ay, the pickles I get myself into."
16) If you are an LBGTQ+ ally and activist, please do not misqoute me and erect strawmen out of something I actually said.
This has happened.
"That doesn't matter, it is STILL an insult, as well as none of your business. Those are private acts between consenting adults and they are not harming anyone."
There is more to sexual ethics besides sexual activity between two people who are of age and the activity being consensual in nature. For example, if two people of age are engaging in consensual sex, but they are both using each other as things for their own inordinate pleasure, they are harming each other's inherent dignity by not loving each other as they should.
"No, I don't understand or accept that obsession for gay sex and the need to denigrate and insult those who like it."
That's not what I said. What I said was, "Sometimes, when I need to correct a fellow Christian over a problematic position on abuse and homosexuality, I will agree homosexuality is a sin to avoid unnecessary conflict. And when I replied to the OP, I was not thinking about potential responses from someone like you. I was thinking about the task at hand: politely correcting a fellow Christian on abuse. I should have explained that up front instead of doubling down on my boundaries and I hope you can understand."
I ask people to read what I actually said very carefully, not misqoute and cherry-pick what I said in a effort to counter what they consider to be bigotry driven by a burning desire to do so.
"The acts are NOT sinful!"
Regardless of whether someone is an Atheist or not, the Bible and the teaching of the Catholic Church make it very clear that homosexual behavior is gravely sinful. Denying that it is will not change the fact that it is indeed sinful.
"Irrevelant. The harm your beliefs and speech are causing are REAL."
How is my saying that "if you're not Catholic, I don't expect you to live by that teaching," causing real harm since it's not requiring you to live celibately? How is that irrevelant? I'm sorry, but it's completely revelant.
In misqouting what I said in their second reply, this user dished out friendly fire because I was actually correcting a fellow Christian about abuse and keeping children safe. This thread makes me want a DM feature on YouTube even more.
17) Appealing to my emotions or my humanity will not work.
This has happened. People have appealed to my emotions and my humanity to try to get me to change my mind.
After I have made it clear that I will not change my mind, they have had the gall to say that I lack humanity, I'm self-centered for putting my conscience and my beliefs above the well-being and rights of gay people, I'm a monster, and I truly disgust them.
This does not sit well with me at all. It is my prerogative to not play LGBTQ+ identity politics. When I'm not blogging, I am constantly creating artwork that will hopefully make people smile or even giggle. I am constantly writing stories that do not capitulate to LGBTQ+ identity politics. And why do I write such stories? Because I think stories should be be for a wide range of people, not one demographic that has a few loud voices badgering religious believers who oppose homosexual behavior due to their consciences. There's a quote from the movie Saving Mr. Banks that I love and sums up what I strive to do as a storyteller: "George Banks will be redeemed. George Banks and all that he stands for will be saved. Now, maybe not in life, but in imagination. Because that's what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again."
So I do not have to put up with LGBTQ+ activists protesting my beliefs. I do not have to put up with lectures from LGBTQ+ activists on respect, maturity, eqaulity, and "tolerance," especially when they will not put up with assertive statements and information from those who disagree with them and complain about being lectured by those who do not share their views. And that's because there's another way I ensure another the well-being of others: I try to make them smile and laugh. I instill hope over and over again with my stories. And not by making a big fuss about being "tolerant" with some preachy gay scene. I instill hope by showing that The Phantom of the Opera can learn to manage his truama and that he can find love and have a healthy and loving partnership with another person. I instill hope by showing that Loki can find true love and have a healthy successful relationship with another person. I instill hope by showing that Loki can be trusted. And I don't even make a big fuss about Loki's gender identity and sexual orientation, even though both go as far back as the myths. For those of you who don't know, Loki is genderfluid and bisexual. That doesn't remotely surprise me, since Loki is a shapeshifter and in the myths, he literally got pregnant by a stallion while he was in the form of a mare.
I instill hope by showing that Candon Alpin does not have to be alone and lonely because he's a vampire and one with a conscience.
G.K. Chesterton, the Catholic author and apologist, was friends with playwright George Bernard Shaw, who was agnostic and had major problems with Chesterton being a religious believer and especially Chesterton's Catholicism. Despite these issues, the two men were great friends and admired each other deeply. At one point, Chesterton defended Shaw from some well-intentioned fellow Christians who vilified Shaw because he was agnostic with this lovely quote: "“There is one fundamental truth in which I have never for a moment disagreed with him. Whatever else he is, he has never been a pessimist; or in spiritual matters a defeatist. He is at least on the side of Life…. Everything is wrong about him except himself.”
This quote is from the same guy who also once said, "In Catholicism, the pint, the pipe, and the Cross can all fit together."
So I am on the side of Life, not because I'm woke and choose to engage in LGBTQ+ identity politics and activism, but rather because I choose to make people smile and laugh and do what storytellers do best: restore order with imagination and instill hope over and over again. That's how I respect people.
P.S. I did want to reply to MeAVE and tell her to just shut up, but I didn't actually do it. It drove me absolutely nuts when I read her reply. And one last thing is it does not sit well with me at all when people put friends, church, and sacrament in quotes or refer to any gay friends I've had as my "victims."