Christian pastor/parent blog: If I have gay children

[gabosaurus]

Some good reading for those of you who are devout Christians and also parents of young children. Just in case...

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2014/09/17/if-i-have-gay-children-four-promises-from-a-christian-pastorparent/

[fj1200]

Nationally, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth make up 5 percent to 7 percent of all youth, but as much as 20 percent to 40 percent of the country's 600,000-plus homeless youth. Some studies show that half of those who reveal their homosexuality get a negative response from their families, and more than a quarter are kicked out of their homes. Reducing youth homelessness requires better understanding the challenges facing LGBT youth, experts say.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/09/27/coming-gay-leads-homelessness/16366959/

[tailfins]

Some good reading for those of you who are devout Christians and also parents of young children. Just in case...

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2014/09/17/if-i-have-gay-children-four-promises-from-a-christian-pastorparent/

It's a sin like any other. Just put the word "gambler" or "drunk" in the place of gay. If doing that results in the advice being good advice, it's worth pondering.

[darin]

If either of my kids decide to be homosexuals I'll do what it takes to ensure they have good information on the destructive nature of their chosen behaviour; same as if they decide to be druggies or progressives or whatever.

[Noir]

If either of my kids decide to be homosexuals I'll do what it takes to ensure they have good information on the destructive nature of their chosen behaviour; same as if they decide to be druggies or progressives or whatever.

Yeah, better prepare them for the prejudice, judgements, and insults that are going to be coming their way.

[darin]

Yeah, better prepare them for the prejudice, judgements, and insults that are going to be coming their way.

Well, I'd focus first on things they can control like increase rates of infections, shorter life span, the mind-fuck that comes with the choices they make, the increased rates of domestic violence...I'd do what I can to help them be sure they wanted to choose that lifestyle.

THEN I'd help them - or do what I could - to say 'F-you' to people who judge them based soley upon their behaviour choices and NOT on the quality of their character, while helping them understand that EVERY choice and every act we make is BASED on the quality of our character.

See, I love them too much to blankly support ANYTHING they decide makes them "feel right, good" etc, because I know immediate happiness is NOT Joy. :)

[gabosaurus]

Well, I'd focus first on things they can control like increase rates of infections, shorter life span, the mind-fuck that comes with the choices they make, the increased rates of domestic violence...I'd do what I can to help them be sure they wanted to choose that lifestyle.

THEN I'd help them - or do what I could - to say 'F-you' to people who judge them based soley upon their behaviour choices and NOT on the quality of their character, while helping them understand that EVERY choice and every act we make is BASED on the quality of our character.

See, I love them too much to blankly support ANYTHING they decide makes them "feel right, good" etc, because I know immediate happiness is NOT Joy. :)

You sound like a wonderful and caring parent to me. I totally agree with you.

[stevecanuck]

If either of my kids decide to be homosexuals I'll do what it takes to ensure they have good information on the destructive nature of their chosen behaviour; same as if they decide to be druggies or progressives or whatever.

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" to be straight.

[tailfins]

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" to be straight.

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" not to be a shoplifter?

[Noir]

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" not to be a shoplifter?

We've all seen some crackers, but this retort is something special.
:joy4:

[darin]

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" to be straight.

I decide every day to not have sex with other men. (shrug). I also decide to not be a drug addict. I decide to wear red.

If my kids feel strong SEXUAL attraction to others of their gender I will help them get the mental/emotional help they need - or if they refuse I will understand they will probably die young. Just the facts. Sucks, but its their life.

[PixieStix]

Yeah, better prepare them for the prejudice, judgements, and insults that are going to be coming their way.

As I taught my own child...if you are going to place a label on yourself. Yes, be ready for prejudice and judgements. Life is full of them. That is something that will never change. All the laws in the world cannot negate the consequences of the choices we make.

[darin]

Decide? Really? Please tell us when you "decided" to be straight.

What do you think about this?


To prove how poor this response is, simply note that a pedophile can give the same response. "Do not blame me. I did not choose to become a pedophile. When did you choose not to become attracted to children?"
How many nanoseconds did it take you to see the flaw in thus argument.
"Perhaps you did not choose to be a pedophile, but you do choose whether or not to act on those desires. And the choice of whether to not to act on those desires is very much under the influence of social forces such as praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. So, it is very much a legitimate object of moral concern. Perhaps it makes no sense for me to condemn you for having the desire, but I can certainly have a lot of very strong reasons to condemn you for acting on them. And that is the choice I am talking about when I condemn you and people like you."
At this point, the gay rights activist will shout, "How dare you compare homosexuality to child abuse!!"


http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2011/11/homosexuality-and-choice-argument.html

[fj1200]

What do you think about this?

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2011/11/homosexuality-and-choice-argument.html

Premise flaw; a pedophile violates the rights of minors.

[darin]

Premise flaw; a pedophile violates the rights of minors.

The author is talking about the illogicality of the question "When did you choose" as a way to attack an argument.

From the piece:


Thus proving just how effective emotional rationalization can be at missing the point. This response does not compare homosexuality to child abuse. It compares an argument offered in defense of homosexuality to a potential argument in defense of having sex with children. In doing so, it shows that the argument is unsound. However, proving that an argument is unsound does not prove that the conclusion is false.
There is no moral case to be made against homosexual acts among consenting adults. The gender of one's sexual partner relative to oneself is entirely morally irrelevant – whereas, for many reasons, the age and mental capacity of one's sex partner is highly relevant.
The amount of choice one has in acquiring the desire is equally irrelevant. It is the choice one exercises in acting on the desire that we are looking at in making moral evaluations.
The fact is, the decision of whether, when, how, and with whom one will have sex can be influenced by social forces. There may be limits, but there is also some flexibility. We see this in the different sexual norms of sexual cultures – differences more easily explained by the applications of social forces than by the presence of genes.


Further...



However, grasping at straws in defense of a desired conclusion is immoral. We have way too much of that going on the world, and we are made worse off as a result. This is something that we have reason to condemn. And this applies to the way that the defenders of gay rights use the "choice" argument. In the moral sense, homosexual acts are a choice.

[fj1200]

The author is talking about the illogicality of the question "When did you choose" as a way to attack an argument.

From the piece:

Further...

Actually the original question asked is valid. You presume that being gay is a choice which means that being straight is also a choice. Engaging in an act is certainly a choice but proclivity is not a choice. Your author above is basing his arguments on an already reached conclusion; that being gay is an immoral act and is trying to construct a logical argument in support.

Comparing and demonizing any act that can be classified as a "choice" that violates the rights of another is a fallacy when equating it to two consenting adults.

[Drummond]

Actually the original question asked is valid. You presume that being gay is a choice which means that being straight is also a choice. Engaging in an act is certainly a choice but proclivity is not a choice. Your author above is basing his arguments on an already reached conclusion; that being gay is an immoral act and is trying to construct a logical argument in support.

Comparing and demonizing any act that can be classified as a "choice" that violates the rights of another is a fallacy when equating it to two consenting adults.

Granted, FJ, that the position you're taking on this isn't exclusively a Leftie one .. I have to concede the truth of that .. nonetheless, it does correspond to one which a Leftie most certainly would adopt ! Filed away for reference in case you decide to, again, as you have before, challenge me on your 'Leftie positions' ...

And I have a point, of sorts, to make. How about bisexuals ? People who accept themselves as being such, who nonetheless DO make life-determining choices which have them decide which gender they'll favour. Is there no such thing as a bisexual human being who marries and settles down to lead a married life ?

If 'proclivity' were all that was involved, FJ, then no bisexual people would marry ... BUT THEY DO. So tell me, how do THEY make their choices, and how do they live with them ?

Do you see ? Choice IS a factor .. not only in terms of chosen sexual conduct, but also what people choose to identify with, in themselves. Because otherwise, choice would not be possible, and wouldn't occur.

[fj1200]

Granted, FJ, that the position you're taking on this isn't exclusively a Leftie one .. I have to concede the truth of that .. nonetheless, it does correspond to one which a Leftie most certainly would adopt ! Filed away for reference in case you decide to, again, as you have before, challenge me on your 'Leftie positions' ...

And I have a point, of sorts, to make. How about bisexuals ? People who accept themselves as being such, who nonetheless DO make life-determining choices which have them decide which gender they'll favour. Is there no such thing as a bisexual human being who marries and settles down to lead a married life ?

If 'proclivity' were all that was involved, FJ, then no bisexual people would marry ... BUT THEY DO. So tell me, how do THEY make their choices, and how do they live with them ?

Do you see ? Choice IS a factor .. not only in terms of chosen sexual conduct, but also what people choose to identify with, in themselves. Because otherwise, choice would not be possible, and wouldn't occur.

Actually I have made a small government position. Not that you know anything about that. But way to type 13 words before typing "leftie." :rolleyes: File it away for another episode of Future Fail From Across the Pond...

I'm not too concerned about bisexuals just as I'm not too concerned about homosexuals. They can do their thing as they please whether you buy the choice argument or not. My position is that government is not an arbiter of people's choices/proclivities. So no, bisexual choice is a deflection when you acknowledge that gays have proclivities.

[darin]

Actually the original question asked is valid. You presume that being gay is a choice which means that being straight is also a choice. Engaging in an act is certainly a choice but proclivity is not a choice. Your author above is basing his arguments on an already reached conclusion; that being gay is an immoral act and is trying to construct a logical argument in support.

Comparing and demonizing any act that can be classified as a "choice" that violates the rights of another is a fallacy when equating it to two consenting adults.

Actually the question Noir asked is invalid, and the 'why' is spoken-to brilliantly from the links I posted. And the author is doing the opposite of what you just said, because the author clearly states no moral objection to homosexuality.


Comparing ANYTHING is valid - equating them is not. I can compare Nazism to Christianity. I can compare an apple to an orange. I can compare the choice to have sex with other adults of my gender to the choice to have sex with minors of my gender. Sure I can.

But to throw out "When did you choose to be straight" is silly at best - As described perfectly in the piece I linked to.

[fj1200]

Actually the question Noir asked is invalid, and the 'why' is spoken-to brilliantly from the links I posted. And the author is doing the opposite of what you just said, because the author clearly states no moral objection to homosexuality.

Comparing ANYTHING is valid - equating them is not. I can compare Nazism to Christianity. I can compare an apple to an orange. I can compare the choice to have sex with other adults of my gender to the choice to have sex with minors of my gender. Sure I can.

But to throw out "When did you choose to be straight" is silly at best - As described perfectly in the piece I linked to.

The question steve asked? It is valid if you're going to make a choice argument. If one merely chooses to be gay then one merely chooses to be straight, and I'm not talking about the choice to engage in the act; people in prison choose to engage in the act while not being gay. Nevertheless, the morality position is implicit in his argument. When he made the decision to compare an expressly illegal act which preys on an innocent to something two willing individuals engage in is not coincidental IMO but points to a flaw in his argument. He should have made the comparison to Harleys, I have a proclivity to neither. :eek:

But you're right, of course you can compare anything but if you want to make a point which compares the two they both need to be applicable to the point.

[darin]

The question steve asked? It is valid if you're going to make a choice argument. If one merely chooses to be gay then one merely chooses to be straight, and I'm not talking about the choice to engage in the act; people in prison choose to engage in the act while not being gay. Nevertheless, the morality position is implicit in his argument. When he made the decision to compare an expressly illegal act which preys on an innocent to something two willing individuals engage in is not coincidental IMO but points to a flaw in his argument. He should have made the comparison to Harleys, I have a proclivity to neither. :eek:

But you're right, of course you can compare anything but if you want to make a point which compares the two they both need to be applicable to the point.

The act IS what defines the behaviour. Choosing or not-choosing to act is choosing to live the lifestyle or NOT live the lifestyle. Gay or not is not a matter of biology, it's a matter of choice. The author made it clear, several times over, he has no moral objection to homosexuality; he said "Well, if Gay is a choice, when did YOU choose to be not-gay??" is a stupid counter-argument and provided reason behind calling it a stupid counter-argument. Make sense?

[fj1200]

The act IS what defines the behaviour. Choosing or not-choosing to act is choosing to live the lifestyle or NOT live the lifestyle. Gay or not is not a matter of biology, it's a matter of choice. The author made it clear, several times over, he has no moral objection to homosexuality; he said "Well, if Gay is a choice, when did YOU choose to be not-gay??" is a stupid counter-argument and provided reason behind calling it a stupid counter-argument. Make sense?

Oh, I understand the point he's trying to make but he doesn't automatically own the argument because you like his position. Whether you like it or not one and can be gay and not engage in the act; do you think they're straight if they don't act on their desire? Do you really think that prison makes someone gay? Because the act is going on all the time.

[darin]

Oh, I understand the point he's trying to make but he doesn't automatically own the argument because you like his position. Whether you like it or not one and can be gay and not engage in the act; do you think they're straight if they don't act on their desire? Do you really think that prison makes someone gay? Because the act is going on all the time.

But he owns this argument because his points on the silliness of the question outweigh any alternatives.

Prison makes people gay while they are in prison. When they stop having homosexual contact they stop being gay. Maybe they have urges after prison? Dunno...but our actions define us - we act out of our decisions to do or not to do. Nobody is compelled by genetics towards actions; said another way, it's highly dishonest and borderline stupid to assume people are 'born gay'. :)

Love you, man.

[tailfins]

But he owns this argument because his points on the silliness of the question outweigh any alternatives.

Prison makes people gay while they are in prison. When they stop having homosexual contact they stop being gay. Maybe they have urges after prison? Dunno...but our actions define us - we act out of our decisions to do or not to do. Nobody is compelled by genetics towards actions; said another way, it's highly dishonest and borderline stupid to assume people are 'born gay'. :)

Love you, man.

Irrespective of what attractions one has: There's sin and there's righteousness.

[darin]

Irrespective of what attractions one has: There's sin and there's righteousness.


And we cannot 'do' sin..sin is not an action - in fact, just as nobody can DO anything to 'earn' heaven, nobody can 'earn' hell through actions alone. Always mitigating circumstances left up to God to decide. IN FACT....God "sending" MOST people to Hell smells of nothing but a loser god, who is a bully and egomaniac.

:)

[gabosaurus]

Nobody is compelled by genetics towards actions...

Hate to disagree, but that is how genetics work.
I see a lot of suburban white kids try to act black. But the truth is, they were born white and, no matter how hard they try, they will never be black.
I was born bipolar. It's inherited. There are still people thinking that depression in a learned trait. That everyone has control over their emotions. It's not that way.
Some people are born hyper-aggressive. You can be born to be introverted or extroverted. Everyone is born with specific tendencies.
There are many who will always against homosexuality because that is their religious belief of choice. This is why they choose to deny that homosexuality is a genetic trait. They don't want to believe that they raised a gay child.
My mom was never treated for bipolar while growing up because my maternal grandparents didn't want to admit that their child was "mentally defective."
There are plenty of fine people who did nothing to "turn" their kids gay (Dick Cheney being one of them). They were born that way and the parents had to admit it.

[tailfins]

There are still people thinking that depression in a learned trait.

You apparently haven't learned the idea of "act as if". What that means if you are depressed, make a list of things you would do if you were NOT depressed, then go do the things on that list.

[darin]

Hate to disagree, but that is how genetics work.
I see a lot of suburban white kids try to act black. But the truth is, they were born white and, no matter how hard they try, they will never be black.
I was born bipolar. It's inherited. There are still people thinking that depression in a learned trait. That everyone has control over their emotions. It's not that way.
Some people are born hyper-aggressive. You can be born to be introverted or extroverted. Everyone is born with specific tendencies.
There are many who will always against homosexuality because that is their religious belief of choice. This is why they choose to deny that homosexuality is a genetic trait. They don't want to believe that they raised a gay child.
My mom was never treated for bipolar while growing up because my maternal grandparents didn't want to admit that their child was "mentally defective."
There are plenty of fine people who did nothing to "turn" their kids gay (Dick Cheney being one of them). They were born that way and the parents had to admit it.


Nobody is born hyper-aggressive, or if they are they must either learn to adapt their behaviour - which means the HA goes away - or they do not.
You were born hyper condescending - I get it - but you can control that when you decide to.

Born that way...god. so f'ing offensive of you to claim gay people "have no choice" as if they are 'afflicted'. :(

[gabosaurus]

Nobody is born hyper-aggressive, or if they are they must either learn to adapt their behaviour - which means the HA goes away - or they do not.
You were born hyper condescending - I get it - but you can control that when you decide to.

Born that way...god. so f'ing offensive of you to claim gay people "have no choice" as if they are 'afflicted'. :(

Why do you feel gay people are "afflicted?" What are they "afflicted" with? Different feelings than others?
dmp, I am sure you were a efficient and patriotic soldier, but you know little about psychology and human behavior. That is the job of others.

[darin]

Why do you feel gay people are "afflicted?" What are they "afflicted" with? Different feelings than others?
dmp, I am sure you were a efficient and patriotic soldier, but you know little about psychology and human behavior. That is the job of others.

I'm a much better psychologist than Soldier - but to be a good Soldier you MUST understand the psychology of behaviour.


Why do YOU think Gay folk are afflicted??? You're the one saying they are somehow a victim of their genentic make up when it comes to social behaviour. I'm the one saying "No, Men are gay cuz they like having sex with a person who has a penis". It's their choice. Just like they like cake or beer or hate peas.

[Drummond]

Actually I have made a small government position. Not that you know anything about that. But way to type 13 words before typing "leftie." :rolleyes: File it away for another episode of Future Fail From Across the Pond...

You've argued in a manner consistent with that of a Left winger. Besides, I don't know what you're carping on about .. I acknowledged that your position wasn't exclusively Leftie. Just consistent with one ...

Have you checked on the definition of 'proclivity' ? See this ...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proclivity


pro·cliv·i·ty (pr-klv-t)n. pl. pro·cliv·i·ties
A natural propensity or inclination; predisposition.

You've said that proclivity wasn't a choice. I'm afraid that this dictionary disagrees with you. I can be 'inclined' to thump a Leftie with a cricket bat .. but nothing says I actually HAVE to, and I choose not to (.. invariably ..).

You could apply that argument to all sorts of scenarios, ones where 'proclivity' plays its part. Nonetheless, choice IS THERE.


I'm not too concerned about bisexuals just as I'm not too concerned about homosexuals. They can do their thing as they please whether you buy the choice argument or not. My position is that government is not an arbiter of people's choices/proclivities. So no, bisexual choice is a deflection when you acknowledge that gays have proclivities.

Bisexuality has a 'gay proclivity' as part of its very definition ... how can't it ? Yet, bisexuals do make choices about whether or not to follow that proclivity. My argument stands, because sometimes they make a choice which they stick with, for life.

I think that your answer was a cop-out. I am right, and there's a world of human nature out there, proving it, daily.

Incidentally - shall I again remind you how you fail to live up to your supposed 'Thatcherite' credentials ?

This time, instead just of purely direct proof -- on the subject of Section 28, which was UK legislation Lady Thatcher introduced -- I'll offer this, instead ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/5710650/David-Cameron-says-sorry-over-Section-28-gay-law.html


David Cameron has publicly apologised for Section 28 the law introduced by the Thatcher government banning local authorities from promoting homosexuality.

The Tory leader, speaking at a Gay pride event, went much further than before in apologising for decisions taken by the party when Baroness Thatcher was leader.

Mr Cameron, the first Tory leader to speak at a Gay pride event, said: "I am sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us."

Section 28, which became law in 1988, banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. It became a totemic issue for Conservative modernisers. In 2003, when it was abolished by the Labour government, Mr Cameron voted for only the partial lifting of the ban.

It's obvious from this that Lady Thatcher must have considered choice to be involved, because otherwise, to bother with such legislation would make no sense at all. And, it was choice she disapproved of, believing that Government had a right to intervene.

[fj1200]

But he owns this argument because his points on the silliness of the question outweigh any alternatives.

Prison makes people gay while they are in prison. When they stop having homosexual contact they stop being gay. Maybe they have urges after prison? Dunno...but our actions define us - we act out of our decisions to do or not to do. Nobody is compelled by genetics towards actions; said another way, it's highly dishonest and borderline stupid to assume people are 'born gay'. :)

Love you, man.

:hug99:

If it's a silly question on the one side then it's a silly question on the other side. And you really need to separate the act from the tendencies; rape in prison, and even the military, is at least in part about power and not that they 'become gay' when they're put away.

Someone else can get into the argument of whether gays are "born" or "made" because it's a moot point to me except that there are clearly people who are gay regardless of how they came into that realization. To intimate that they are "broken" will be increasingly a loser argument IMO as they are clearly able to function in society especially when they're not constantly derided.

[fj1200]

You've argued in a manner consistent with that of a Left winger. Besides, I don't know what you're carping on about .. I acknowledged that your position wasn't exclusively Leftie. Just consistent with one ...

Have you checked on the definition of 'proclivity' ? See this ...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proclivity

You've said that proclivity wasn't a choice. I'm afraid that this dictionary disagrees with you. I can be 'inclined' to thump a Leftie with a cricket bat .. but nothing says I actually HAVE to, and I choose not to (.. invariably ..).

You could apply that argument to all sorts of scenarios, ones where 'proclivity' plays its part. Nonetheless, choice IS THERE.

Bisexuality has a 'gay proclivity' as part of its very definition ... how can't it ? Yet, bisexuals do make choices about whether or not to follow that proclivity. My argument stands, because sometimes they make a choice which they stick with, for life.

I think that your answer was a cop-out. I am right, and there's a world of human nature out there, proving it, daily.

Where did I say that people don't make choices? Choices are made every day. But thank you for acknowledging that there is a natural propensity to homosexuality because that definition didn't really help you much.


:blah:

And that is why I own you because the only way you can "thump a leftie" is with a cricket bat. Your words certainly won't work.