More reaction on GLBT curriculum

First, let me dispel any rumors that MoJ crashed last night because of the sheer volume of reaction to my posts on the GLBT curriculum (though I cannot rule out that it crashed a sign of divine disapproval).  Second, for those who remain interested in this conversation, here are two more thoughtful responses.

Jonathan Watson writes:

You make the comparison, several times, between race and sexual orientation, as if the parallels were both obvious and settled. I do not think this is the case. A geneticist with experience in the field could easily distinguish between different races of an individual without seeing the individual or knowing anything else about the individual. The same is not true of a homosexual versus a heterosexual individual. The question is still extremely open as to what exactly homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) is or is not. Is it a behavior difference? Environmental? Genetic as yet undiscovered? I, for one, doubt the issue can be resolved without reference to a spiritual dimension, but I leave that up to other authorities, and am still learning on that front.

This does not say that we are to treat GLBT individuals with horror, as if diseased, or as if they have made a deliberate choice to be GLBT (though the "experimentation" commonly discussed on college campuses may be more in that line). And, in fact, the idea of "choice" is a problem in any discussion - if GLBT is a natural and inborn trait, then choice has nothing to do with it, and to talk of respecting "choice" is meaningless - it still comes back to loving another human being qua human being. (Hence, a Catholic school could offer classes discussing how to deal with a GLBT individual, or family, as created beings and in the image and likeness of God.) The idea of "choice" versus "innateness" presents another difficulty - if innateness is the measure, what is the normative decision maker for behaviors of individuals which we find abhorrent (serial killers, pedophiles, cannibals, or others - this is in no way to compare homosexuals to those people, except in terms of innateness and lack of genetic traits). If it is good and loving outcome, then one is again faced with a potential argument that the only real way therefore to know goodness is through outcome-based evaluation. Of course, if one denies that one is able to judge goodness because one's own normative claims are always irretrievable biased, one has therefore reached the point of denying the ability to judge ANY good. (Sounds rather post-modern to me...) You would no doubt totally disregard (despite fairly good evidence) the idea that GLBT is a disorder. But, the question is, why? I do not think that to say someone has a disorder is to accuse them of being tainted in some way - simply an individual in need of assistance. The problem I think that is faced by those who deny that GLBT is a disorder is the lack of any genetic marker for GLBT. Of course, the response to my argument is that to question whether GLBT is a disorder is that it misses the point entirely - that there is NO normative tendency among human sexuality, regardless of whether statistics trend towards heterosexuality or homosexuality. This may be your own position, given your thoughts in earlier emails that you believe that GLBT (or at least, homosexuality) runs deeper than many are aware. If such is the conclusion, those that hold it I fear will indeed find themselves in confrontation with the Catholic Church's thinking on the dual normative aspects of procreate and unitive of the sexual act. (I still struggle with some minor parts of this position, particularly with regard to infertile heterosexual couples.)

Another reader writes:

This issue is one about teaching charity, respect and kindness without reserve. There is no need for a specific curriculum. In my public school, I never learned about what a "moral" family is … and a kid shouldn't need to. Certain lessons are left to the human experience outside the classroom. A kid doesn't need to be taught that a homosexual family is "moral" or "legitimate" in order to simply be kind in a nonjudgmental manner. We don't need to rely on public education for all of our life lessons and values, and if we do, we are in a lot of trouble!

I think in a public school (depending on the population) these issues will come up regardless if they are relevant. But as far as being addressed in a curriculum, I would not want the fed school system to teach any "traditional" (aka acceptable) forms of family, bc it is not very easy to discuss. For example, the issue of gay marriage is really silly to me, bc as a Catholic, I place marriage within the sacrament. So if a heterosexual couple get married in a non sacramental way, the Church does not recognize that as marriage. Yet, when gay couples go through non-sacramental rituals in Vermont I am supposed to be upset that they are getting "married"?

. . . .

Re friends who are gay. I have friends and relatives who are homosexual, but that doesn't change my view towards homosexuality. This issue should be free from emotions, it is grounded in the natural law and knowable through the intellect. If we are talking about the truth, personal relationships shouldn't affect the grasping of that truth. The relationships I have with homosexuals have not broken down because of my Catholic views towards the act. I treat these friends the same as I treat any other friends. We are all sinners and that is why we must appreciate the difference between hating the sin and loving the sinner. One must always treat others with dignity, respect and love. True charity, however, is not confusing the lines of toleration with acceptance.

The Church teaches respect for homosexual persons in their essential humanity and their basic human rights. This does not mean and will never mean approval of homosexual behavior. The danger of placing homosexual marriage on the same level as marriage would mean approval of the behavior that necessarily attaches to that marriage. Hence, that marriage becomes an additional model of marriage in society that would obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.