As Christmas day winds down, thinking still of Pope Benedict's insistence that we who are gay are a threat to family. In 2009, Bao Ong reported in the New York Times that "gay and lesbian baby boomers are more likely to be caregivers than their heterosexual contemporaries, including siblings." Ong states that one in four gay baby boomers are likely to be caregivers compared with one in five of the general population in the U.S., citing a 2006 study by MetLife's Mature Market Institute.
And yet, as I say, we who are gay and lesbian are persistently accused by many faith leaders and the political right of being anti-family and corrosive to family values. This is despite the fact that Carl Jung noted quite some time ago that gay and lesbian human beings often appear to function in the human community as altruists and nurturers who frequently put the well-being of family members first in their lives. In his classic groundbreaking theological reflection The Church and the Homosexuality, Fr. John McNeill argues that the gay gift for caregiving is so pronounced and the gay presence in the caring professions so substantial that, if all gay and lesbian members of the caring professions went on strike for a single day, most of our social institutions devoted to caregiving would have to shut down for the duration of such a strike.
And the connection of all of this to Christmas: Christmas is often a time of serious depression and internal turmoil for many of us who are gay, precisely because our families of origin are intent on giving us signals that we don't count as "real" family when the family gathers to celebrate its togetherness. Many of us who are gay don't bother to attend family celebrations because we know that we'll be given that signal of being second-tier family members, and so we shield ourselves from hurt by absenting ourselves from family tables at holiday times.
Some of us are, in fact, overtly excluded from our family tables. What's particularly troubling to many of us, and weighs on us in particular at holiday times, is that when a family member is in need--often, the mother or father whom married siblings have no time or energy to provide care for--we who are gay frequently step up to the plate and offer care. Only to find that, once we've expended our lives in the caregiving process, the signals from other family members reminding us that we are unimportant, that we occupy a second tier of status when family is defined, don't go away in the least . . . .
Our heterosexual siblings and their children are quite happy to take what we have to offer as long as it's needed, but when the need is over and done with, they seem to go about their own lives as "real" family, and manage to communicate to us that we who are second-tier family aren't needed any longer and should vanish. This is what many of who are gay seem to discover--enough of us discover this that it's a topic of lively conversation among many gay folks I know.
I've been involved with a number of online discussions today with gay or lesbian friends at Facebook who tell me this is their experience. It has certainly been Steve's and my experience. I live in the same city with three nephews who gather with their mother and other family members for family gatherings that they even advertise on Facebook--"The whole family is getting together!"--to which Steve and I are pointedly not invited.
When these same family members have needed us, we've been there for them. But after we met their needs, we were then expected to vanish, and we have discovered that we're not even invited to their family table.
It does hurt. I can testify to that hurt from first-hand experience. I also want to note, as Bao Ong does in the Times article to which I link above, that it's time our society recognize how much a significant number of us who are gay or lesbian give to our families by way of caregiving, particularly by way of eldercare when our heterosexual and married siblings often find themselves unable to provide hands-on care for aging and infirm parents.
Because those who are gay and lesbian provide a valuable service to society at large through familial caregiving, it seems to me important that society find ways to offer networks of support to LGBT people engaged in caregiving for family members. And that our society and its religious leaders stop attacking those of us who are gay as anti-family. Particularly at Christmas time, when the signal that we're no-count second-tier family members often already weighs heavily on the shoulders of many of us . . . .
Merry Christmas.
Pax et bonum
Caregivers? Really? And who's hyperbolic now, Thom? Maybe you and William should pay more attention to your fellow gays suffering from numerous STDs, addictions, psychological and psychiatric issues, and loneliness?
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm in no way going to question William's feelings of betrayal and rejection, it should be noted that family has always been a multi-tiered structure.
Thom, Thanks for this (re)post. Thought-provoking stuff like this is the reason I read your blog.
ReplyDeleteThat and wondering if guys like Peter are actually for real.
Thank you, Bob.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI don't understand what you're getting at Peter, how what you are saying is a critique of William's post. Surely you understand that a lot of gay people DO pay attention and give care to other gay people in our lives who are suffering from addictions, psychological issues and loneliness (I don't know anyone with STD's, singular or multiple).
ReplyDeletePeter's only experience with gay people seems to be those of a seedier orientation. My friends aren't like that, but then I don't spend my time in bathhouses or public restrooms. Perhaps Peter can speak to that element better than you or I.
DeleteIt's simple - get your own house in order, and we might have a conversation about what's wrong outside. Why are you focusing on STDs? Is it because OFFICIAL STATISTICS from health agencies point to this fact of rampant STDs among men having sex with men? Or you want to discredit them, probably, because they are clearly homophobic? It didn't cross your mind that this, and other things, might cause your alienation from the rest of the population?
DeleteIf you care about others, good for you, go on, and make the world a better place for you and others. But at the same time, let others live their lives the way they want. This might, and in many cases means, rejection.
That also ignores the fact that those issues afflict a lot of straight people, as well. (Not trying to derail...just pointing out that bad things happen, regardless of orientation, and one orientation is not more or less likely to be subject to a virus.) I seem to recall the statistic that HIV is most rapidly spreading among straight people these days.
ReplyDeletetl;dr: Shit happens, and it's not a sign of divine disfavor, when it does. To think otherwise is prosperity gospel bullshit.
Was trying to agree with Jordan. No clue why it threaded the way it did.
DeleteAnd what if it is a divine disfavor?
DeletePeter, if you want to talk about getting one's own house in order, then why do conservatives spend so much time addressing gay people and their problems, when the state of heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage is obviously not in order itself? Why, for that matter, do you constantly feel the need to comment on topics pertaining to gay people? Should we take this to mean that YOU have your own house in order?
ReplyDeleteYou should also note that William's original post is not criticizing heterosexual people as a category. It is simply noting that gay people are often not given credit for being caretakers– a role that often falls upon them by virtue of not having children and young families of their own.
Isn't it funny Jordan, that the pope didn't say anything about gays, yet you were able to spin it into another gay controversy? Who is obssesed with whom, Jordan?
DeleteWhy I comment? It's simple - to challenge your ridiculous narrative, especially when it pertains to matters such as the Church, or society in general. That's the reason.
Get over yourselves, guys. When the usability of gay population expires, and it will, you will find yourselves in the trash bin of history. Instead forcing yourselves onto others, focus on your own place in the world. If it's hard to understand, I will write it in plain English - we don't want you here, go elsewhere. Is it clear now? I have no doubt you'll start to bemoan this as a prejudice, but it doesn't change the fact that you're mistaken for coming to us and forcing yourself onto us as some kind of a God's gift to humanity.
"the state of heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage is obviously not in order itself" - really? How is that so? What's the evidence behind this claim? And why does it bother you anyway, huh?
"I have no doubt you'll start to bemoan this as a prejudice, but…"
DeleteYou think?
"Isn't it funny Jordan, that the pope didn't say anything about gays, yet you were able to spin it into another gay controversy?"
I agree that the Pope's words were misrepresented in the media, and I've said so elsewhere before. Nonetheless, surely you can't deny the rising social acceptance of gay relationships was one of his intended targets in the Curia address? I don't think Benedict thinks of us as evil or as with mal-intention and I'm even rather confident he would concede a degree of credibility to our spiritual lives– not certain about you, however. Gay epode are not being self absorbed to understand that the Pope was talking about our place in his conception of the social order.
"When the usability of gay population expires, and it will, you will find yourselves in the trash bin of history..."
When our usability expires? You are probably highly uncomfortable with this fact, but male to male (and female to female) erotic love has been present in most cultures (all?) throughout history and there's no indication that will change in the future.
"Really? How is that so? What's the evidence behind this claim? And why does it bother you anyway, huh?"
I don't know Peter, maybe it's because conservatives are the ones bemoaning the state of marriage today constantly. A 50 % divorce rate to start, the prevalence of contraception, please don't pretend you don't know the party line! It doesn't "bother" me, at least not in the same way it bothers you. I'm not the one who made the comment about getting one's "house in order first". You might want to answer to that original statement of yours and clarify if your own PERSONAL house is in order Peter, as you clearly told other people to shut up while you consider that you yourself have the right to speak. Why is this?
Party line? Are you insane, or plainly stupid? This divorce rate is a hogwash, just as this prevalence of contraception is a rather suspicious claim pertaining to the matter of marriage - I simply don't see how it is, if any, threat to the marriage itself.
DeleteMy personal house is very much in order, thank you. And yours, if I may ask?
You really believe your situation may not change in the future? If prenatal testing becomes more precise and allows parents to determine more than child's sex, in this case sexual orientation, do you really believe that normal, sane parents will choose to have gay children? What's funnier, what about genetic engineering? Do you really think, that people will freely choose to have gay children if other possibilities will be available? We know the answer...
You have no proof that it's been present in most cultures throughout the history, so I'm waiting for more credible validation than this; this doesn't mean it wasn't present in the past - it is simply impossible to prove it. I'm uncomfortable with same-sex love? How did you come to this conclusion if I may ask?
If you're not usable politically right now, then please enlighten me what happened to the Left between 1950s and present, if back then Passolini was expelled from the Italian Communist Party due to his homosexuality and now one of the prominent figure from this party is transsexual?
Rising social acceptance? Are you kidding me? You're conflating legal recognition with social acceptance, while one doesn't exclude the other, they aren't the same. If it's true, then why there's "It gets better" campaign? If it's true, then why do you push for more anti-bullying legislation? If it's true, then why do you create and live in gay neighborhoods (I'd say gay ghettos)? If it's true, then why the crimes perpetrated on gays are on the rise? If it's true, then why there are so many homeless young gays in the streets as reported by many newspapers?
But I want to ask you Jordan - what now? What and how should we do about this whole situation? We can go on and continue this pointless discussion, or we can try to find a solution.
Sorry Peter, I mistook you for a certain brand of Catholic who thinks contraception is ruining society and romantic relationships and us gays are just one more phase in the general dissolution of social order. I'm glad to see you don't see things so simply. On the divorce rate, I would be interested in seeing your refutation of the high numbers of divorce today compared to decades past.
ReplyDeleteAs to my personal "house", no it is not in order. On some days some aspects are more orderly than others. At other moments one thing comes to a mess just as another is being made aright. It's a work, you see, a kind of task that I'm setting for myself. This is why I ask for God's mercy, pray for grace and try to participate in the life of the Church to the extent I am able.
If people find some way to eliminate gay people through pre-natal genetic selection, so be it. It will be a sticky situation, though I wouldn't call it 'genocide' or something like that. At any rate, I personally don't think homosexual desires are encoded genetically like "blue eyes" or "good at math" but probably result from a manner in which certain pre-disposed indivduals are circuited through their exposure to society's networking and structuring of desire generally (a kind of patterning so broad that throwing around a football or taking away a boy's barbie can not hope to change). But I am no expert and so will say no more beyond this.
You take issue with rising social acceptance? I could boomerang your "insane or plainly stupid" line, but what's the point. Yes, gay relationship are increasingly acceptable today, and not just by judicial fiat. This doesn't mean there is not a corresponding backlash. The increasing visibility of homosexual persons also means new and perhaps more aggressive and visible forms of domination, detestation and oppression. That in many ways gay people still need to be protected doesn't at all mean there has been no change for the better. To say the work is going is not to say the work is done, as I'm sure you can understand.
As to the "what now" and this "whole situation", I would need more information from you on what you mean by that. What kind of situation are we in, as you see it, and what kind of solution are you looking for, Peter?
Frankly, I didn't see any serious studies addressing this issue beyond talking points of gay activists and its allies claiming that same-sex marriage should be legalized, among many reasons, because heterosexuals failed at being married. If it's true, then everyone should be able to witness a divorce if one in two marriages fails. Yet, I haven't heard, nor seen anything like that. Maybe I live in a some kind of a bubble?
DeleteI'm in no way going to complain about extinction of gay people. I was just pointing out to certain patterns and conclusions. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm likely right about those issues. Time will tell.
Once again, you didn't answer my questions - if it's so good, then why it's so bad? What do you mean by social acceptance? If the acceptance is rising, then why all this backlash? Don't you think it's self-contradictory to claim everything is fine and it gets better? To me, it seems that you and others simply engage in reality-denial to avoid painful realization of failure.
The last paragraph of the previous entry was only my loud thinking and nothing else. There is no solution beyond war between Christians (and their allies) and gays (and their allies), and defeat is not an option.
Yes, you're living in some kind of buble. Divorce is everywhere, people aren't making this up.
ReplyDeleteWhere? What's the evidence for your claim?
DeleteActually, I did answer your question. People are more accepting of gay relationships today. If you want to refuse to acknolwedge that for some bizarre ideological reason, that's up to you. I can't believe you do not understand what is meant by this:
ReplyDeleteMore and more people don't spit at us, or say they are 'at war' with us, refuse to invite us to family events, or call us names, or vandalize our property or try to induce guilt and shame in our souls, or remove us from their will, or disown us or refuse to acknowledge our partnerships, or any variety of similar behaviours. MORE families are accepting their gays sons and daughters and choosing to love the same people we love and bring into the home without conflict.
This doesn't change the fact that everything mentioned above is still happening for many people and that it continues to happen in lessening degrees for the rest of us, depending on where we go. And obviously "back lash" is another word for "reaction". Less people today have negative opinions about gay people in the past. This is reflected in ordinary experience, in polls and other indicators of the social climate. On the other hand, this fact of rising tolerance incites people to be more vocal and passionate about their disapproval.
Also, no one is saying being gay is "so good". It is, in many cases, more difficult. We are saying "it is not in itself bad", "it is not evil", "it is still possible to live a happy and fulfilled life" and that "one can still find love and be loved" and "there is beauty in our relationships worth celebrating". The fact you are hearing our attempts to secure equal treatment and respect as an assertion that being gay is "so good" is your own issue.
That you consider this a matter of "war" ...well, I'm sorry for you in that regard. War is an exhausting and costly experience that is usually only valuable when levelled at the enemy within.
Once again, you refuse to see the reality for what it really is. What you call growing acceptance, I call, at best, growing indifference. Over the time, whenever and wherever I travel, I noticed that, in reality, vast majority of people don't care about gays and, in private, are ready to ridicule, express their disgust with gays. It's beyond politics, it's a day-to-day life - you don't want to hear it, but it's there..
DeleteWhere are those families willing to bring home homeless gays? More accepting? Tell that to those homeless young gays - they might appreciate this news.
I'm not going to dispute the fact that there no changes of attitudes and opinions on this topic, nevertheless, it's not what you think and claim. Far from it, unless you want to convince me that last year's Teheran Pride Parade was the best ever, or those homeless gays roam the streets because it's a hip thing to do.
This war is a reality whether you want to acknowledge it, or not.
I think that as time marches on the deplorable situation that Mr. Lindsey describes is starting to change. Perhaps in baby steps, but really it is.
ReplyDeleteI have sometimes wondered if the shabby treatment lesbian/gay caregivers receive from their siblings isn't rooted in guilt. I can't help by imagine that many straight people go home and breath a sigh of relief than they managed to dump mom off on their "confirmed bachelor" brother. Then after mom dies they wish they had behaved differently.
Of course, the other group of people who tend to get marginalized by their families are single women (lesbian or straight). Many of the stereotypes and social stigmas surrounding being a "spinster" are still very real in people's minds. Images of Eleanor from The Haunting of Hill House come immediately to mind.
Sexism and homophobia are so closely linked.