Dad, mom ...I'm ...um, I'm gay

[KCKID]

The title/subtitle says it all. This scenario must have occurred many, many times. We've all heard, read or seen instances of this and the types of responses that parents of their gay children have given. While we only seem to have a handful of vocal anti-gay Christians on this forum, I'm genuinely curious as to how they would react if their son or daughter came to them and told them that they're gay. Others, feel free to offer your input.

The question again: How would you (a Christian) respond to your son or your daughter coming out to you that they are gay? Without revealing any more than you need to, has this actually happened to any of you ...either as a gay son/daughter or as a parent?

[Danmark]

All you need to do is produce ANY scriptural context from ANYWHERE in the New Testament that clearly depicts appropriate homosexuality.

But why bother? We both know that it is an impossible mission.
....

Can't we conclude from that, that either there was no homosexuality in the 1st Century Palestine [else, according to you it would have been explicitly forbidden] or that homosexuality existed there and was not prohibited?

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus warns people to not hate or have malice toward their brothers, or to call them "fools" or "raca." Apparently raca is a hard word to translate because there is some controversy as to what it means and even whether it can be translated. But one of the suggestions is that it means "effeminate."
[I'm not sure the import of that, but list it as a matter of full reporting]

What I do not understand, is why you cannot accept that all of the scriptures reflect the culture they were written in and the people and way of life they were written for.

I a culture despised homosexuals for being different, or for practices they did not understand, or they thought were simply "evil choices," then it is natural that prejudices and laws would be written condemning those practices. This does not mean that the God Eternal would get worked up about transitory and merely cultural issues, like whether it is evil to wear a shirt made with wool/linen blend, or eat beef with milk. This god might, however, be concerned with more central moral issues involving love and hate, theft and bearing false witness.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

All you need to do is produce ANY scriptural context from ANYWHERE in the New Testament that clearly depicts appropriate homosexuality.

But why bother? We both know that it is an impossible mission.
....

Can't we conclude from that, that either there was no homosexuality in the 1st Century Palestine [else, according to you it would have been explicitly forbidden] or that homosexuality existed there and was not prohibited?

First Century Palestine was Roman Judea. Part of the Roman Empire. So it is fairly safe to say that homosexuality was happening.

To Jews and then for Jewish-Christians it certainly didn't exist as a continued pratice. And certainly not as some celebarted civil rights cause. That for sure we know.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus warns people to not hate or have malice toward their brothers, or to call them "fools" or "raca." Apparently raca is a hard word to translate because there is some controversy as to what it means and even whether it can be translated. But one of the suggestions is that it means "effeminate."
[I'm not sure the import of that, but list it as a matter of full reporting]

I'd have to say that this would support how utterly debased the whole homosexual behavior thing is. Wouldn't you? It would show that an absolute "giving up" of a person is in effect. And of course we see Paul expound on that later.

What I do not understand, is why you cannot accept that all of the scriptures reflect the culture they were written in and the people and way of life they were written for.

That's just bogus. That's why. Cultural Christianity does not mean that a new style secular pop culture eliminates Christian truth.

I a culture despised homosexuals for being different, or for practices they did not understand, or they thought were simply "evil choices," then it is natural that prejudices and laws would be written condemning those practices.

Then it's OK to be a liar now? An adulterer? An apostate? How far do we go to edit out of Christian truth do we go to accomodate fads?

This does not mean that the God Eternal would get worked up about transitory and merely cultural issues, like whether it is evil to wear a shirt made with wool/linen blend, or eat beef with milk.

And this is justification for homosexual activists to be given rule over Christians in the 21st century? I believe "a different Gospel" is still a dire warning to this day.

This god might, however, be concerned with more central moral issues involving love and hate, theft and bearing false witness.

What part of gay culture is compatible with Christian truth? Women having sex with women or men having sex with men?

So do we have to also change everything about marriage issues just because some homosexuals want their culture validated in a Christian definition?

In the women's group for wives, where does the Lesbian husband go?

In a husband's retreat, where does the male wife go? Etc., etc..

Why can't the LBGT community be satisfied with inventing a new religion based on queer theory paradigm? Why the need to force Christians to submit to an altogether other-worldy belief system?

So, in your logic, is prayer now out of fashion too because "times have changed" and society is moving on from what old fashion Christians believed a long time ago in the 1980's?

Why not just start a new gay religion and make the stand there? You can alter the Bible any which way you so desire.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 102 by help3434]

Or God created each one with a conscience or moral compass.

If you think this, then I must ask, what would your god have this person do?

Do as Jesus did when He was tempted.

This does not work.
You see... Jesus, as far as we know, was not a man in a woman's body like the scenario I made you aware of.

This case is 1 in 10,000. Should he divorce his husband and live like a man, even though he has a vagina?

Should he just except that people like you will never accept him, even though there is nothing he can do about his situation?

Seriously, what would you do if you were in his position? What can you do if both divorce and gay marriage is not allowed in your religious circle? Is this not a case of, damned if you do and damned if you don't? It's not like this man chose to be born this way, he didn't even find out until after he married his childhood sweet heart.

Clownboat,

Do you believe if allowance of this obviously malformed person is accepted that this somehow licenses and affirms gay culture in The Church? 1 in 10,000 isn't exactly a great position for the wholesale dismantling of Christian truth.

You claim Christian truth as if their is Christian agreement. There is no Christian agreement on the matter, therefore for you to claim there is a Christian truth on the matter is not factual.

Either way, I find this question hard to answer because I see no reason to assume Jesus would reject homosexuals like you seem to think. Homosexual temple prostitution, like mentioned in the Bible is condemned, but what you condemn, you do with certainty that only exists in your own mind.

I see nothing wrong with homosexuals that want to be Christians. This is your burden to bare.

Either way, the question remains.
- Should he divorce his husband now that he found out he is a man with a vagina.
- Should he remain in his homosexual marriage because the Bible is clear on its stance on divorce.

What decision could he make that you would not judge him for?

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

....
I knwo literally dozens and dozens of Evengelical Christians that have unmarried daughters and sons that have had the same experience and the babies are all still alive.
....
Notice I did not say what those sons and daughters believed and believed in?

You're correct. I assumed that all of those 'dozens and dozens' had been raised as Evangelical Christians in those Evangelical Christian homes. I also assumed at least some of them retained the Christian beliefs they were taught.

I'm asuming you are not watching the secularization of society very closely. I mean, how many atheists here say they were once raised in a Christian environment?

So isn't it fair to say that either some of them were hypocrites when they had sex without benefit of marriage, or every last one of your self selected sample of "dozens and dozens" abandoned their Christian faith? And if the latter is correct, how do you know?

We don't know if they were Christians ever. Although you hung that label on them. I'd rather allow people their own accountability. From evidence from just a typical trip down Main Street Anywhere Western World, or at the Meet Me At The Flag Pole event for Christian prayer . . . most people do not look to be living a Christian life. In the High School in my twon, where 1700 kids go to school, less than 50 were at the pole. And of course much is made of youth leaving the Chuch as earlier as by the end of High School . While of course premarital sex, STD's and pregnancies are at alarming levels.

Nature abhors a vacuum huh?

[Danmark]

Danmark

....
I knwo literally dozens and dozens of Evengelical Christians that have unmarried daughters and sons that have had the same experience and the babies are all still alive.
....
Notice I did not say what those sons and daughters believed and believed in?

You're correct. I assumed that all of those 'dozens and dozens' had been raised as Evangelical Christians in those Evangelical Christian homes. I also assumed at least some of them retained the Christian beliefs they were taught.

I'm asuming you are not watching the secularization of society very closely. I mean, how many atheists here say they were once raised in a Christian environment?

So isn't it fair to say that either some of them were hypocrites when they had sex without benefit of marriage, or every last one of your self selected sample of "dozens and dozens" abandoned their Christian faith? And if the latter is correct, how do you know?

We don't know if they were Christians ever. Although you hung that label on them. I'd rather allow people their own accountability. From evidence from just a typical trip down Main Street Anywhere Western World, or at the Meet Me At The Flag Pole event for Christian prayer . . . most people do not look to be living a Christian life. In the High School in my twon, where 1700 kids go to school, less than 50 were at the pole. And of course much is made of youth leaving the Chuch as earlier as by the end of High School . While of course premarital sex, STD's and pregnancies are at alarming levels.

Nature abhors a vacuum huh?

You 'hung' that label on the parents of the unmarried children who had fetuses that were not aborted. You claimed that proved something. But when the subject of hypocrisy is raised, you make charges of dishonesty or myopia. When the alternative that none of these children are following their parents' belief system, suddenly you don't know. Why did you bring your "dozens and dozens" example up in the first place? You can admit the hypocrisy/failure to follow continuum or you can abandon your example.

You're concerned about the secularization of America. I see it as the younger generations learning that there parents' belief systems were flawed and unsupportable. I think this is a good thing. One doesn't need adherence to some ancient book to realize how babies are made and to avoid unwanted pregnancy and a healthy life style.

[Joab]

Joab
Don't ya just wish that god would stop making homosexual christians?
I mean what's he thinkin'?

Hmm, Adam was neither gay nor a Christian. And do you have any difinitive proof that anyone is "made" a homosexual?

Well I guess Adam was never going to heaven anyway, since only 'christians" (some flavours at least) get to heaven apparently.

Let's start with science as our guide shall we? Do "lesbians" no longer ovulate after their first homosexual encounter? Do men stop producing sperm once they have gay sex?

You know if god knew so much about science then why did his authorised biography get it all so very wrong? Are you sure that it's his story?

Um, it appears God has made "homosexuals" correctly and that they choose otherwise. Or, of course, you are left with abnormalities in utero right?

There seems to be a serious disconnect between you and all of what you have been told. I'll try once again for YOU.
[center]Homosexuality is not a choice, just like your heterosexuality is not a choice.[/center]

Is it that finally most christians are learning about jesus teachings re: love one another?

That would mean a rise in the number of Conservative Evangelicals right?That doesn't bode well for gay marriage activism.

Evangelical christians and LOVE don't actually seem very compatible.

Still he must know that it irks a small vocal minority of his alleged followers.

The celebration of sin and sinning is supposed to "irk" His followers.

Oh dear. Of course not. It is his insistence on creating homosexuals specifically against the avowed doctrine of evangelical christians that irks the very small group of people known as evangelical christians.

Why do you think he does it?

For the same reason he made those that worshipped Molech? The chaff and the wheat?

Are you claiming that the religious are just vegetable matter? A bit harsh.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 102 by help3434]

Or God created each one with a conscience or moral compass.

If you think this, then I must ask, what would your god have this person do?

Do as Jesus did when He was tempted.

This does not work.
You see... Jesus, as far as we know, was not a man in a woman's body like the scenario I made you aware of.

This case is 1 in 10,000. Should he divorce his husband and live like a man, even though he has a vagina?

Should he just except that people like you will never accept him, even though there is nothing he can do about his situation?

Seriously, what would you do if you were in his position? What can you do if both divorce and gay marriage is not allowed in your religious circle? Is this not a case of, damned if you do and damned if you don't? It's not like this man chose to be born this way, he didn't even find out until after he married his childhood sweet heart.

Clownboat,

Do you believe if allowance of this obviously malformed person is accepted that this somehow licenses and affirms gay culture in The Church?

No, I don't think that, but I also am not clear on what you mean by "allowance". Allowed to go a church, allowed to remain married, allowed to live....?

Either way, some churches are ok with gays and some aren't. So your question is nonsensical unless you are referring to your specific church. Once again, you cannot speak for all churches or for all of Christianity.

Notice readers, he refused to address any of the questions that were aimed at him.

1 in 10,000 isn't exactly a great position for the wholesale dismantling of Christian truth.

There is not such thing as Christian truth in regards to this topic. If there was, we would not have gay Christians, but we do. If there was a Christian Truth, we would not 99% to tell us what it is.

Regardless, 1 in 10,000 is pretty significant.
Think about it. This man can either divorce his husband, or remain committed to his marriage and be in a gay marriage.
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

You so easily condemn homosexuals, yet when presented with a real life scenario, you cannot come up with an answer about what this Christian Truth you rail on about would have him do.

It's just so much easier to judge than to actually put yourself in their shoes I would imagine.

[KCKID]

All you need to do is produce ANY scriptural context from ANYWHERE in the New Testament that clearly depicts appropriate homosexuality.

To my knowledge there are no such scriptures. Now what? Should that admission now magically turn everyone straight?

But why bother? We both know that it is an impossible mission.

But, I don't care. I really don't. I don't spend my day worrying about the unchristian things that others might be doing. That Bible of yours appears to be a millstone around your neck and I almost feel sorry for you. You only seem to use it to hurl condemning scriptures at others anyway. Toss it on to a high shelf where you can't reach it. You should know Jesus' message by now (it's a 'heart' message) and you shouldn't require your Bible at all.

You are left with a another Gospel and a changed and altered Christianity based on secular pop culture and gay liberation of the late 20th and early 21st Century . . . and those that follow that fad demanding to wash away the reality of Christian truth on marriage and the inappropriateness of same gender sex acts for Christians.

I have no desire to return to bronze-age thinking, culture and superstition, 99percent. I'll stay where I am in the year 2014 even though, I do confess, yearn at times for the good ol' days of the 1950s.

Once again, you could embrace a new religion that glorifies gay sex all you want to and leave Christians to their consistent and honest positions that same gender sex acts are something that is not justifiable for Christians to celebrate or engage in.

Sex acts - gay or straight - are PRIVATE activities. The Church should have no say in it.

[KCKID]

If you require further exegesis, I will be more than happy to employ it.

Sure, if this is the right thread for it I'd love that. Let's start with Romans 1:26-27. However, one more time, exegesis means an EXPLANATION or EXAMINATION of a particular text of scripture in order to properly assess or interpret it. What YOU are required to do is to show Romans 1:26-27 is expressly referring to and forbidding homosexuality as we refer to it today. OR, is that scripture more likely referring to the 'in-the-face' PUBLIC pagan cult worship practices that were encroaching upon the early Christian Church and NOT the consensual relationship between two consenting adults of the same gender ...?

All you need to do is produce ANY scriptural context from ANYWHERE in the New Testament that clearly depicts appropriate homosexuality.

No, that is not what we've decided to do. What we've decided to do is to examine Romans 1:26-27 exegetically.

But why bother? We both know that it is an impossible mission.

We're presently embarking on the task of examining Romans 1:26-27 exegetically. You're tossing in your usual and typical red herrings.

You are left with a another Gospel and a changed and altered Christianity based on secular pop culture and gay liberation of the late 20th and early 21st Century . . . and those that follow that fad demanding to wash away the reality of Christian truth on marriage and the inappropriateness of same gender sex acts for Christians.

Once again, you could embrace a new religion that glorifies gay sex all you want to and leave Christians to their consistent and honest positions that same gender sex acts are something that is not justifiable for Christians to celebrate or engage in.

Yet again, red herrings and avoidance of the matter at hand. Are we going to examine Romans 1:26-27 exegetically or not?

While the above is addressing 99percentatheism, anyone else can jump into the conversation if they wish. The question right now is: What SPECIFICALLY is Romans 1:26-27 addressing? While I certainly DO have more to add to this text 'my' first honest response to this question would be ...I don't rightly know... which is what anyone's first honest response should be . . .

[master_blaster]

I'm too young to (responsibly) be a parent, but my brother is gay and also from meeting others, i've learned that they are just like everyone else. There's nothing really different about the "gay lifestyle" except risk of depression. The worst thing you could possibly do as a parent is to reject the kid or tell them they made the wrong choice and so on. There's no fixing it and there's nothing wrong that needs to be fixed.

I'd have a hard time caring if my kid(s) were gay. I'd probably just hug them, say they can come to me about anything. I don't know if the sex act is a sin or not, but i wouldn't want my kid to suffer or be alone his whole life either, if celibacy is even possible. This middle ground can cause a lot of conflict. I would advise my child to make a decision that feels right and to not waiver.

There are times in life any of us can enjoy being single. There are times we may want a relationship. If he decides on a relationship and ends up having gay sex, i would not want my kid to be tormented over this. I would steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life.