For years I have fought my own nature, but no more.Pat correctly points out again, as we often have on this blog, that the old argument about whether or not gays are "born that way" is irrelevant. Not everything a man is born with is virtuous.
Ever since I can remember, I have felt this way. It has always been just below the surface, but I have done my best to push it down. Way down.
Also ever since I can remember, when my ‘tendencies’ would become obvious, people would tell me that it is wrong. My parents, my teachers, and especially my priests would warn me, you can’t act that way, that the Bible says that it is wrong.
Now I know otherwise. I have been denying my true nature. There is a long-standing social stigma against people like me. We are put down and people do not like to associate with us. But the one thing I know is true is that I didn’t ask to be this way. It is not, I repeat NOT something I have chosen. It is who I am. Everyone in my life, for my 44 years, has forced me to deny it. To pretend. And I have listened to them, until now.
I was born this way, the way God made me. No more denying it. I will embrace it and finally be who I was made to be, angry.
Yes, I am angry.
Ever since I can remember, anger has been there. This is not nurture, it is nature. I have always been angry. I could be going about my daily life, happy as a clam, and without warning and with the merest provocation, red-faced anger would envelop me.
Everyone always told me that I needed to get my anger under control, but why? Isn’t this the way God made me? Why should I pretend otherwise, because other people don’t like it? As long as I don’t hurt anyone, I should be as flaming angry as I was born to be, and all you fury-phobes can kiss my grits.
Think this is a stupid post? Yeah, me too. Somebody should tell Arthur Fitzmaurice, Director of the Los Angeles Archdiocesan Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics. Here is what he had to say.In the final paragraph of a March 11 story about the 25th anniversary of the founding of the archdiocesan Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics, ministry co-leader Arthur Fitzmaurice, citing "pain," "hurt" and "bitterness" over the adoption of Proposition 8, says the ministry focuses on "the pastoral side that says 'God made you this way. You’re welcome to participate in the Eucharist.'"
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Instrinsically Disordered
Pat Archbold comes out of the closet:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It's definitely the right of catholics to criticize leaders and programs in their community. And if a gay catholic feels chastity is his/her only way to salvation, by all means, it's their life.
I do think the analogy of anger as reference to homosexuality is weak at best.
1. Anger management classes/programs are successful in the majority of cases. Anecdotally, I have an 'angry' friend who graduated from a program. She has greatly reduced her aggravation by following the techniques given to her in the program.
On the other hand, I have yet to read about or anecdotally encounter any homosexual reparative therapy that has a long-term success rate. Even Exodus International acknowledges their programs are more aimed at helping people live in heterosexual pairings, but NOT actually develop any heterosexual inclinations. Basically it is repression boot camp, which if that is what somebody wants, have at it. However, it doesn't actually make somebody less homosexual like anger management classes make people less angry.
2. Anger can take a toll on health and well being (e.g. stress, blood pressure). In contrast, I have yet to read anything or be advised by my doctor that being a lesbian puts me at any additional health risk. My friends and family have all commented how healthy, happy, and well-adjusted I have been since I came out 10 years ago.
(Personally, I think if somebody doesn't want help for their anger it is their choice. As long as it doesn't harm others. I don't want to be a nanny, or live in a nanny-state.)
So, Stephanie, you disagree with my conclusion in this post, then? Everything a person is born with is, if not virtuous, at least their right to embrace, and demand legal approval for?
It's interesting to see that you guys have moved away from the argument that being gay is a choice.
Though, other than trying to draw a parallel between anger and homosexuality, I'm not sure sure what this post is about.
Re-read the last paragraph Oliver. It's a short post, try to hand on to the end.
being "born" gay is more like being born left-handed, or being born with blue eyes, for example.
I think the inference you take issue with is that if you are born that way, then homosexuality cannot be considered immoral or unnatural.
Have I understood?
I am stating outright that, if it could be established that people are "born gay" that still doesn't mean that being is gay is "OK" or otherwise morally equivalent to being heterosexual.
Many people are born with tendencies that are not morally neutral. Anger could be an example.
In other words, being born a certain way (gay, left-handed, angry, ginger) doesn't necessarily mean that this attribute is either positive or negative. Just that it is.
You have gone to say that sometimes the attributes we are born with are negative.
I was just commenting that anger is a very weak analogy for homosexuality.
I agree with Oliver, things people are born with are neither positive or negative. You could probably find some extreme cases with tangible public danger, but as a fan of civil liberties I believe society should tread carefully on compulsory correction.
I think it is a perilous path when government forces medication. Though it doesn't just have to be government. My grandfather was one of those devil-possessed lefties that was forced to write with his right hand. Granted, that is a light-hearted example when contrasted with female circumcision.
I rarely hear 'born this way' as a specific justification for gay marriage. Instead it is used as counter-argument to the argument that being gay is a choice. Which, like Oliver, I have noticed a nuanced shift by social conservatives. There was a time when 'it's a choice' referred to an actual choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Then it became a choice between therapy/prayer to become heterosexual or continue to be homosexual. Now I hear it argued that it is a choice to be celibate or homosexual.
The arguments I hear for gay marriage (at least presented to the courts), is based in gender discrimination and/or suspect class. Although many suspect classes are characteristics that you are born with, it is not a necessity. For example, religion is a suspect class.
Post a Comment