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]

Really? Because someone said something 50 years ago it is somehow less important? Your fourth option is valid but I can't believe that you Danmark would sweep aside C.S. Lewis so callously as irrelevant because of his time.

What does that say for Darwin? Or Aristotle?

I'm sorry you missed the point. I'll try to express myself more clearly. It isn't that the argument is 50 years old; in fact I'm sure it is much older than that. My problem is that the argument is not original and as Goat says, it has been refuted. Not just refuted, but refuted long ago because it never was a good argument

Darwin is a good example to use. The fact that he wrote 150 or so years ago neither validates nor invalidates what he wrote. The fact that his work has been validated by new discoveries, new fossils, the understanding of RNA/DNA as a mechanism of evolution has only enriched our understanding and supported Darwin's work.

I did not mention C S Lewis. Tho' I read him extensively as a child and in my 20's, I did not associate that old saw with him. Still do not, tho' I don't deny he may have tried to reinforce it. It's just when, as a young Christian I first heard that argument, it just didn't sit right with me. Without understanding why, many of those old arguments I heard as a young Christian, just seemed too facile. They didn't ring true to me, even tho' I was a believer.

To this day I do not have a problem with Christian faith and belief; but the dopey arguments are wearing exceedingly thin. I have no problem with those who believe, but too frequently when they try to argue their case, they reveal how little they know about the faith they extol.

[AdHoc]

Really? Because someone said something 50 years ago it is somehow less important? Your fourth option is valid but I can't believe that you Danmark would sweep aside C.S. Lewis so callously as irrelevant because of his time.

What does that say for Darwin? Or Aristotle?

I'm sorry you missed the point. I'll try to express myself more clearly. It isn't that the argument is 50 years old; in fact I'm sure it is much older than that. My problem is that the argument is not original and as Goat says, it has been refuted. Not just refuted, but refuted long ago because it never was a good argument

Ok so what was your point in saying you heard it 50 years ago? And now you're saying its a bad argument because it "is not original" and "refuted long ago"?

My head is spinning... These can't be logical reasons for dismissing an argument. Darwin has been refuted as well but I'm sure many will question that he was refuted accurately or completely or fairly.

Darwin is a good example to use. The fact that he wrote 150 or so years ago neither validates nor invalidates what he wrote. The fact that his work has been validated by new discoveries, new fossils, the understanding of RNA/DNA as a mechanism of evolution has only enriched our understanding and supported Darwin's work.

I did not mention C S Lewis. Tho' I read him extensively as a child and in my 20's, I did not associate that old saw with him. Still do not, tho' I don't deny he may have tried to reinforce it. It's just when, as a young Christian I first heard that argument, it just didn't sit right with me. Without understanding why, many of those old arguments I heard as a young Christian, just seemed too facile. They didn't ring true to me, even tho' I was a believer.

To this day I do not have a problem with Christian faith and belief; but the dopey arguments are wearing exceedingly thin. I have no problem with those who believe, but too frequently when they try to argue their case, they reveal how little they know about the faith they extol.

I think you've taken my point I respect your views and your balance. I correctly guessed that you would be well-acquainted with CS Lewis' writing and you probably have a more balanced view of christian and non-christian thought than I do. Thats why I appealed to you.

[KCKID]

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NIV Leviticus 20:13

And what that is referring to is the pagan practice of male prostitution in the temples of competing Gods in the area of the time. The word 'detestable' that is used is actually comes from the term 'Toevah' in Hebrew, which means 'ritualistically unclean'.
The 'put to death' is a common colloquialism in the Jewish scripture to emphasize the importance, and was not taken literally.. at least for a few hundred years before the second temple.

I do wish Christians would actually understand what the Jewish scriptures were talking about, if they are going to quote it so much.

Below is a YouTube video that explains quite well what you refer to above:

Oh how amusing it is too watch non-Christians (goat) explain scriptures to Christians. It is such a simple verse to understand. It doesn't say anything about male prostitutes in pagan temples. It says that a man is not to have sexual relations with another man...period. Would you like New Testament verses to support homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle? I am sure that you could spin those quite well to....

Ignorance of the scriptures is no defense, Sir Hamilton, and might I say that your ignorance surrounding ALL of the so-called 'clobber texts' is glaringly evident. Goat is correct in 'his' summation of Leviticus and, if you'd cared to watch the video link that I posted (which is even included in your ABOVE response), you would have had this explained to you in detail. If you PERSONALLY don't care for homosexuality or gay marriage or kids 'coming out' to their parents then just say so but don't even attempt to present scriptures of which you are in total ignorance to support this kind of bigotry. Deal?

That said, if you would like to offer texts from the New Testament that present 'homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle' for debate then why don't you start a new thread? I'll debate you on these scriptures any time.

* Do yourself a favor and click on the above video link.

I just believe scripture my friend, something you might want to try sometime if you claim to be a Christian. You calling me ignorant and a bigot doesn't help this discussion. Let us look at the words of the apostle Paul "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27). Now listen you may want to try and gloss over this or play around with some of the words and change their meaning but anyone with a little common sense knows that Paul is speaking of homosexuality. I am more than happy to agree to disagree with your interpretation of scripture but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are a bigot.

First and foremost my reference to your being a bigot was dependent as to whether you PERSONALLY dislike homosexuals and air these views publicly. THAT, in my opinion, would qualify you as a bigot. Please, read that part of my post again. As for my calling you ignorant ...I use that term in the manner that you present scriptures without having a clue as to their context and/or meaning. You've done exactly what I'm referring to with regard to your above passage from Romans 1:26-27. You merely present words without ANY explanation as to what those words mean or what particular events that Paul is referring to. The reason being is, of course, that you don't know what they mean. You only think you know. And, when it comes to presenting scripture with which to support a particular personal view, that's not good enough.

In the text you mention Paul is undoubtedly referring to the pagan worship practices that began to infiltrate the early Christian Church. These practices involved a great deal of sexual/fertility rite activity - both heterosexual and homosexual - to appease the gods that they depended upon for their survival. They even sacrificed their own children to these idols so sex orgies dedicated to these same idols is not such a stretch. And, they're true. You can read up on everything you care to know about idolatry elsewhere on the Internet. Without this background one can't begin to understand what Paul, Jude, etc. are talking about. This entire topic of idolatry and how it found its way into the early Christian Church requires a thread of its own ...actually one that I DID initiate some months ago elsewhere on this forum. That said, die-hard anti-gay Christians often don't allow FACTS to dissuade them.

You bring up the 'man lying' text of Leviticus 18:22 but you appear to be totally unaware of the preceding text, Leviticus 18:21, that refers to the sacrifice of children to the god Molech. See the connection here? It's referring to idol worship and has NOTHING to do with one's sexual orientation. God doesn't even appear to be so much concerned for the welfare of the children but is more irked that the kids are being sacrificed to a false god. Remember, "Thou shalt have no other god but me ..."? It's all about worship practices here ...the same as referenced in Romans 1:26-27. If in doubt about the context or meaning or the event being addressed in scripture ...then be quiet.

What a great effort you have presented as twisting such simple to understand scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Why do you bother? Why don't you just take your bible and throw it away? It is obvious that you don't like or understand simple scripture. Do you think God likes two men having "sex"?

Well, that pretty well does it for me. Anyone who is incapable of debating scripture based on Bible exegesis but instead prefers to bury their head in the sand for no other reason than to spout condemnation on someone else is not worth my time. As for whether or not I think God likes two men having sex ...the question is moot. I don't know and neither do you.

[Sir Hamilton]

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." NIV Leviticus 20:13

And what that is referring to is the pagan practice of male prostitution in the temples of competing Gods in the area of the time. The word 'detestable' that is used is actually comes from the term 'Toevah' in Hebrew, which means 'ritualistically unclean'.
The 'put to death' is a common colloquialism in the Jewish scripture to emphasize the importance, and was not taken literally.. at least for a few hundred years before the second temple.

I do wish Christians would actually understand what the Jewish scriptures were talking about, if they are going to quote it so much.

Below is a YouTube video that explains quite well what you refer to above:

Oh how amusing it is too watch non-Christians (goat) explain scriptures to Christians. It is such a simple verse to understand. It doesn't say anything about male prostitutes in pagan temples. It says that a man is not to have sexual relations with another man...period. Would you like New Testament verses to support homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle? I am sure that you could spin those quite well to....

Ignorance of the scriptures is no defense, Sir Hamilton, and might I say that your ignorance surrounding ALL of the so-called 'clobber texts' is glaringly evident. Goat is correct in 'his' summation of Leviticus and, if you'd cared to watch the video link that I posted (which is even included in your ABOVE response), you would have had this explained to you in detail. If you PERSONALLY don't care for homosexuality or gay marriage or kids 'coming out' to their parents then just say so but don't even attempt to present scriptures of which you are in total ignorance to support this kind of bigotry. Deal?

That said, if you would like to offer texts from the New Testament that present 'homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle' for debate then why don't you start a new thread? I'll debate you on these scriptures any time.

* Do yourself a favor and click on the above video link.

I just believe scripture my friend, something you might want to try sometime if you claim to be a Christian. You calling me ignorant and a bigot doesn't help this discussion. Let us look at the words of the apostle Paul "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27). Now listen you may want to try and gloss over this or play around with some of the words and change their meaning but anyone with a little common sense knows that Paul is speaking of homosexuality. I am more than happy to agree to disagree with your interpretation of scripture but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are a bigot.

First and foremost my reference to your being a bigot was dependent as to whether you PERSONALLY dislike homosexuals and air these views publicly. THAT, in my opinion, would qualify you as a bigot. Please, read that part of my post again. As for my calling you ignorant ...I use that term in the manner that you present scriptures without having a clue as to their context and/or meaning. You've done exactly what I'm referring to with regard to your above passage from Romans 1:26-27. You merely present words without ANY explanation as to what those words mean or what particular events that Paul is referring to. The reason being is, of course, that you don't know what they mean. You only think you know. And, when it comes to presenting scripture with which to support a particular personal view, that's not good enough.

In the text you mention Paul is undoubtedly referring to the pagan worship practices that began to infiltrate the early Christian Church. These practices involved a great deal of sexual/fertility rite activity - both heterosexual and homosexual - to appease the gods that they depended upon for their survival. They even sacrificed their own children to these idols so sex orgies dedicated to these same idols is not such a stretch. And, they're true. You can read up on everything you care to know about idolatry elsewhere on the Internet. Without this background one can't begin to understand what Paul, Jude, etc. are talking about. This entire topic of idolatry and how it found its way into the early Christian Church requires a thread of its own ...actually one that I DID initiate some months ago elsewhere on this forum. That said, die-hard anti-gay Christians often don't allow FACTS to dissuade them.

You bring up the 'man lying' text of Leviticus 18:22 but you appear to be totally unaware of the preceding text, Leviticus 18:21, that refers to the sacrifice of children to the god Molech. See the connection here? It's referring to idol worship and has NOTHING to do with one's sexual orientation. God doesn't even appear to be so much concerned for the welfare of the children but is more irked that the kids are being sacrificed to a false god. Remember, "Thou shalt have no other god but me ..."? It's all about worship practices here ...the same as referenced in Romans 1:26-27. If in doubt about the context or meaning or the event being addressed in scripture ...then be quiet.

What a great effort you have presented as twisting such simple to understand scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Why do you bother? Why don't you just take your bible and throw it away? It is obvious that you don't like or understand simple scripture. Do you think God likes two men having "sex"?

Well, that pretty well does it for me. Anyone who is incapable of debating scripture based on Bible exegesis but instead prefers to bury their head in the sand for no other reason than to spout condemnation on someone else is not worth my time. As for whether or not I think God likes two men having sex ...the question is moot. I don't know and neither do you.

Actually, sir, if you read your bible you will see that YHWH does not like two men having "sex". I don't know what your game is and I really don't care. You just cant seem to accept the fact that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle from a Christian world view. Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't make me hate or even dislike homosexuals. As a matter of fact I work with some and actually like some of them. But I still have the guts to take a stand on the truth unlike some people who call themselves Christians and at the same time want to be politically correct.

[Goat]

Actually, sir, if you read your bible you will see that YHWH does not like two men having "sex". I don't know what your game is and I really don't care. You just cant seem to accept the fact that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle from a Christian world view. Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't make me hate or even dislike homosexuals. As a matter of fact I work with some and actually like some of them. But I still have the guts to take a stand on the truth unlike some people who call themselves Christians and at the same time want to be politically correct.

Well, it seems that is how some people interpret it. However, it was pointed out that the passages you think say that mean something other than what you claim. Not only that, as far as I can see, those passages were written by man.

[KCKID]

Actually, sir, if you read your bible you will see that YHWH does not like two men having "sex".

So, the all-powerful God who created the universe, the galaxies and beyond has human emotions? He actually likes and dislikes things? Sounds rather fanciful to me. That said, in reality neither you nor I can speak for God so no point even trying.

I don't know what your game is and I really don't care.

"My game" is to try keep Christians honest. And, you obviously DO care because you keep responding to me.

You just cant seem to accept the fact that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle from a Christian world view.

Okay, I tell you what. I'll take on board what you say if you can prove to me that YOUR lifestyle is 'sinless' ...deal? If it isn't then you need to stop demanding of others what you can't do yourself. Let me ask, do you adhere to all of the rules and regulations and keep 100% the 'holiness code' of Leviticus? If not then you need to stop hitting homosexuals with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 since that makes you a hypocrite. You need to keep them all or keep quiet. Do you agree with Paul (Romans 3:10) when he states that NO ONE (and 'no one' includes you) is righteous? In other words, the lives of ALL OF US are sinful and fall way short of the glory of God. So, what is it about you that gives you the right to point a finger at someone else?

Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't make me hate or even dislike homosexuals. As a matter of fact I work with some and actually like some of them.

That's good to know. That said, it might be best if you don't refer to these people as though they are simply 'a label'.

But I still have the guts to take a stand on the truth unlike some people who call themselves Christians and at the same time want to be politically correct.

But, you're NOT telling the truth. If you were telling the truth you would recognize that you're as miserable a 'sinner' as the rest of us (according to the Bible) and therefore in no position to make judgment on anyone else.

Here's a little quote:
" ...there is still a need for those nestled deep within the Christian bubble to look beyond the status quo and critically assess the degree to which we are really living biblically."
Francis Chan, Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect Of The Holy Spirit

[Sir Hamilton]

Actually, sir, if you read your bible you will see that YHWH does not like two men having "sex".

So, the all-powerful God who created the universe, the galaxies and beyond has human emotions? He actually likes and dislikes things? Sounds rather fanciful to me. That said, in reality neither you nor I can speak for God so no point even trying.

I don't know what your game is and I really don't care.

"My game" is to try keep Christians honest. And, you obviously DO care because you keep responding to me.

You just cant seem to accept the fact that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle from a Christian world view.

Okay, I tell you what. I'll take on board what you say if you can prove to me that YOUR lifestyle is 'sinless' ...deal? If it isn't then you need to stop demanding of others what you can't do yourself. Let me ask, do you adhere to all of the rules and regulations and keep 100% the 'holiness code' of Leviticus? If not then you need to stop hitting homosexuals with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 since that makes you a hypocrite. You need to keep them all or keep quiet. Do you agree with Paul (Romans 3:10) when he states that NO ONE (and 'no one' includes you) is righteous? In other words, the lives of ALL OF US are sinful and fall way short of the glory of God. So, what is it about you that gives you the right to point a finger at someone else?

Just because I don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't make me hate or even dislike homosexuals. As a matter of fact I work with some and actually like some of them.

That's good to know. That said, it might be best if you don't refer to these people as though they are simply 'a label'.

But I still have the guts to take a stand on the truth unlike some people who call themselves Christians and at the same time want to be politically correct.

But, you're NOT telling the truth. If you were telling the truth you would recognize that you're as miserable a 'sinner' as the rest of us (according to the Bible) and therefore in no position to make judgment on anyone else.

Here's a little quote:
" ...there is still a need for those nestled deep within the Christian bubble to look beyond the status quo and critically assess the degree to which we are really living biblically."
Francis Chan, Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect Of The Holy Spirit

(sigh) I don't know if you have a short memory or if you just deliberately like to misrepresent what I say. I have stated that we all need Jesus. I have stated that heterosexuals commit sexual sins as well. Homosexuality is a sin and I have given you scripture to prove that but you want to twist scripture. You who claims to be a brother in Christ have taken a stand on an issue that I can't due to my deeply held convictions. You have even taken a stand with the views of people on here that don't claim Christ at all instead of standing for the truth of God's word. That is really sad.

[Danmark]

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/d ... netics-usa

The point is that some differences in behavior or brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals could be acquired through differential experience and thus are not unambiguous evidence of differences existing at birth.

With that said, there are other differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that do not appear to be acquired and thus do appear to offer strong evidence of innate differences between the two groups (again, think group averages, not individual people):

Homosexual males typically begin puberty earlier than heterosexual males.
The chance of a male being homosexual goes up by about one third for each older brother he has.
Homosexual males often have more aunts than uncles on their mother's side of the family.
Homosexual males and females are both more likely to be left-handed than are heterosexual males and females.
Homosexual males have penises that are larger, on average, than those of heterosexual males.
Most boys who later identify as gay show preferences for girl-typical toys from a very early age.
Certain characteristics of the inner ear are different between homosexual and heterosexual females.
Certain characteristics of the auditory brain are different in both homosexual females and males.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-mc ... 818.html[i][/i]

[Danmark]

Homophobic? Maybe Youre Gay
By RICHARD M. RYAN and WILLIAM S. RYAN

WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opini ... .html?_r=0

[orthodox skeptic]

[Replying to post 1 by KCKID]

Let me give you a concrete example. Good friends of ours, church-going Christians, faced the dilemma of a seventeen year old daughter telling them that she'd had a one-night-stand and was now pregnant. Being die-hard believers they immediately arranged an abortion. My point is this...until you are faced with a real situation you just don't know what you'll do. As far as the gay issue you may sweat a little bit over the religious angle but in the end you'll do what's right which means you'll advise him to..."keep your mouth shut and don't do it in the street 'cause you're liable to spook the horses."