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?

[connermt]

[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."

Is it only me, or does the bolded section above seem very hypocritical...?
Isn't that one wrong trying to correct another wrong?

Isn't that the very point of the story? . . . that sometimes these extreme religious beliefs ARE held by folks who, perhaps without their knowledge initially, turn out to be hypocrites when faced with the true consequences of their beliefs.

Perhaps, but I find it hard to believe that, in this case, their choice was "without knowledge"...

You know me, always willing to give others the benefit of the doubt.


To be more clear, what I meant was that when they had their beliefs against abortion, they might not have realized their beliefs were insincere, or not strongly held. After they have had or encouraged the abortion, if they continue to preach against abortions, THAT is undeniable hypocrisy.

Wow - you're way more generous than I would have been

[connermt]

[Replying to post 169 by Goat]

It was 'without knowledge' of how they would react if they PERSONALLY had to face that choice.

I would say, if this is the case, they should have know what was right/wrong even before personal action is needed. But hey, maybe I'm making this cult fascination too simple....

[99percentatheism]

This post is open for anyone else to reply to. Not just Danmark:

[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."

Is it only me, or does the bolded section above seem very hypocritical...?
Isn't that one wrong trying to correct another wrong?

Isn't that the very point of the story? . . . that sometimes these extreme religious beliefs ARE held by folks who, perhaps without their knowledge initially, turn out to be hypocrites when faced with the true consequences of their beliefs.

How do you verify a tall tale told on an internet debate forum?

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.

So, care to get a scale for your justice?

Your 'scale of justice' remark is a non sequitur, as is your claim that I or anyone here believes everything on the internet is true.

Obviously you proved otherwise.

I think you've focused your attention at the wrong place, as if I'd said that only Christians are hypocrites.

Are you seriously claiming that the only people or families that have abortions are non Christians, or are Christians who don't believe abortion is wrong?

I don't have a good opinion of people that profess to be Christiajn and are pro-choice. I'd excommunicate them from my church if I could.

BTW, do think it odd that you know "literally dozens and dozens" of Evangelical Christians who, presumably don't believe in premarital sex, yet engage in it so frequently that you know "dozens and dozens" of them?

How typical a response. I knew it would come that way.

In your zeal to show Evangelical Christians are not hypocrites, you have proved that "dozens and dozens" of them are just that, hypocrites.

Danmark, how myopic your judgmentalism of me. Look at what I wriote and understand context:

"I know 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?

I have been to many, many, many Churches and congregations and have friends in each. See what I was saying????

You're not bearing false witness towards me are you?

What I showed is that the Evangelical Christians I know have children that do not kill their unborn children for their own betterment and convenience.

No judgementalism was applied. (Until now of course.)

Nice talking with you.

Oh by the way, these Evangelicals were hypocrites?? Not according to Jesus.

watch:

Then some children were brought to Him (Jesus) so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.

- Matthew 19

Evangel means "the Gospel."

[KCKID]

KCKID
Well, that pretty well does it for me.

Really?

My usual comment to those who are in ignorance of the topic under discussion.

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.

KID, haven't you many times rejected and refused to debate scriptures with me and have rejected the very "exegesis" I present? I wouldn't be too judgemental if I were you.

I can truthfully say that I have NEVER rejected and refused to debate any of the 'clobber' passages with you. On the contrary, I've asked this of you any number of times on this very forum. All you ever do is to come back with subterfuge, red herrings, distractions, and the use of unrelated scriptures that appear to be thrown into the mix simply to confuse the issue. You're actually quite good at this but I'm not so sure that that is meant as a compliment.

Let me show you why with some scripture. Scripture that is almost always edited to avoid the obvious exegesis:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
- Matthew 7

I'm not sure what that scripture has to do with this topic but, since you brought it up, are YOU not the one that spends much of your forum time judging others?

As for whether or not I think God likes two men having sex ...the question is moot.

Mute is a more applicable word.

No, 'moot' is the word I meant. I said this in regard to none of us knowing how or what God thinks. And, since we don't, anyone claiming to be the mouth-piece for God on a specific issue renders such to be a moot point.

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew. So, to Jesus, men having sex with each other is abomination.

Could be; however, we are not told this. So, your point is moot.

Do you need the exegesis to prove that? Well, let's provide it just in case. And I'll use the Septuagint:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 Ye shall not do according to the devices of Egypt, in which ye dwelt: and according to the devices of the land of Chanaan, into which I bring you, ye shall not do; and ye shall not walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall observe my judgments, and shall keep my ordinances, and shall walk in them: I am the Lord your God. 5 So ye shall keep all my ordinances, and all my judgments, and do them; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord your God. 6 No man shall draw nigh to any of his near kindred to uncover their nakedness; I am the Lord. 7 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, for she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers wife; it is thy fathers nakedness. 9 The nakedness of thy sister by thy father or by thy mother, born at home or abroad, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy sons daughter, or thy daughters daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; because it is thy nakedness. 11 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of thy fathers wife; she is thy sister by the same father: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister, for she is near akin to thy father. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister, for she is near akin to thy mother. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, and thou shalt not go in to his wife; for she is thy relation. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law, for she is thy sons wife, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife: it is thy brothers nakedness. 17 The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover; her sons daughter, and her daughters daughter, shalt thou not take, to uncover their nakedness, for they are thy kinswomen: it is impiety. 18 Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival, to uncover her nakedness in opposition to her, while she is yet living.

And thou shalt not go in to a woman under separation for her uncleanness, to uncover her nakedness. 20 And thou shalt not lie with thy neighbours wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. 22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it: neither shall a woman present herself before any quadruped to have connexion with it; for it is an abomination. 24 Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations are defiled, which I drive out before you, 25 and the land is polluted; and I have recompensed their iniquity to them because of it, and the land is aggrieved with them that dwell upon it. 26 And ye shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and ye shall do none of these abominations; neither the native, nor the stranger that joins himself with you:

27 (for all these abominations the men of the land did who were before you, and the land was defiled,) 28 and lest the land be aggrieved with you in your polluting it, as it was aggrieved with the nations before you. 29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be destroyed from among their people. 30 And ye shall keep mine ordinances, that ye may not do any of the abominable practices, which have taken place before your time: and ye shall not be polluted in them; for I am the Lord your God.

You cut and pasted texts from Leviticus. Where is the exegesis in that? Briefly, 'exegesis' means 'exposition or explanation'. Biblical exegesis involves the examination of a particular text of scripture to properly interpret it. In other words, study is often required rather than a superficial reading of a specific scripture. You bolded Leviticus 22 to highlight your cherished text but offered no explanation as to what act in what situation 'God' is referencing. WHO were those men who were allegedly lying with other men as with a woman and WHAT were the circumstances surrounding their doing this in the first place?

I don't know and neither do you.

Then read Leviticus "in context." Employ exegesis.

ex-e-ge-sis
/eksij"sis/
noun
noun: exegesis; plural noun: exegeses1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp. of scripture.
"the task of biblical exegesis"
synonyms: interpretation, explanation, exposition, explication

This is precisely what you DID NOT do.

What IS a divorce? And WHAT does it destroy?

di-vorce (d-vrs, -vrs)
n.
1. The legal dissolution of a marriage.2. A complete or radical severance of closely connected things.
v. di-vorced, di-vorc-ing, di-vorc-es
v.tr.
1. To dissolve the marriage bond between.
2. To end marriage with (one's spouse) by way of legal divorce.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but if the above is so important to you then why are you not hounding the scriptural adulterers (divorcees/remarriages) in your Church as you so zealously do with gays? Are you afraid you'll get lynched?

And WHAT is a Marriage:

Havent you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason

What "reason?" I repeat. For what reason?
A marriage.
And what IS a marriage using exegesis?

. . a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

Why do you continue to shoot yourself in the foot? What you have just presented has nothing to do with the topic at hand but it DOES have everything to do with your conveniently choosing to turn a blind eye to the scriptural adultery that permeates the mainstream Christian Church, i.e. divorce and remarriage. You cannot - ethically - condemn homosexuality while allowing scriptural adultery to flourish without question in your beloved Church.

Now using exegesis KCKID, can you produce one piece of Biblical scripture where a man is not male . . . and a wife is not female?
And for those that may have forgotten:

exegesis (k sdi ss)
n., pl. -ses (-s"z).
critical explanation or interpretation, esp. of Scripture.

Now certainly Mr. KCKID, you do not have to live as God instructed the Israelites to live.

You're right there. The holiness code was tied to ritual cleanliness, a concept that does not apply to we of today. But, since YOU appear to feel that we must stick with the Levitical laws, the fact is that "to'evah" only refers to something that is ritually unclean or taboo for the Israelites. It was used to set them apart from their pagan surrounding cultures. To'evah does not denote a moral sin. 'Abomination' is a horrible corrupted translation of that word that has, unfortunately, become the mainstream connotation among Christians. Most Jews - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - consider the Torah laws archaic and irrelevant to the modern era.

Nor do you have to live like Jesus and the Apostles taught Christians to live.

Which is how YOU live, I presume . . .?

But Christians (or actually the Apostles and Disciples that accompanied him during his divorce debate with the Sanhedrin members) heard and are taught that marriage IS man and woman and that teaching came from Jesus. And, that was reaffirmed at other places in the writings that we now call The New Testament.
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 ...?

[99percentatheism]

KCKID
Well, that pretty well does it for me.

Really?

My usual comment to those who are in ignorance of the topic under discussion.

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.

KID, haven't you many times rejected and refused to debate scriptures with me and have rejected the very "exegesis" I present? I wouldn't be too judgemental if I were you.

I can truthfully say that I have NEVER rejected and refused to debate any of the 'clobber' passages with you. On the contrary, I've asked this of you any number of times on this very forum. All you ever do is to come back with subterfuge, red herrings, distractions, and the use of unrelated scriptures that appear to be thrown into the mix simply to confuse the issue. You're actually quite good at this but I'm not so sure that that is meant as a compliment.

Let me show you why with some scripture. Scripture that is almost always edited to avoid the obvious exegesis:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
- Matthew 7

I'm not sure what that scripture has to do with this topic but, since you brought it up, are YOU not the one that spends much of your forum time judging others?

As for whether or not I think God likes two men having sex ...the question is moot.

Mute is a more applicable word.

No, 'moot' is the word I meant. I said this in regard to none of us knowing how or what God thinks. And, since we don't, anyone claiming to be the mouth-piece for God on a specific issue renders such to be a moot point.

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew. So, to Jesus, men having sex with each other is abomination.

Could be; however, we are not told this. So, your point is moot.

Do you need the exegesis to prove that? Well, let's provide it just in case. And I'll use the Septuagint:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 Ye shall not do according to the devices of Egypt, in which ye dwelt: and according to the devices of the land of Chanaan, into which I bring you, ye shall not do; and ye shall not walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall observe my judgments, and shall keep my ordinances, and shall walk in them: I am the Lord your God. 5 So ye shall keep all my ordinances, and all my judgments, and do them; which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord your God. 6 No man shall draw nigh to any of his near kindred to uncover their nakedness; I am the Lord. 7 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, for she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers wife; it is thy fathers nakedness. 9 The nakedness of thy sister by thy father or by thy mother, born at home or abroad, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy sons daughter, or thy daughters daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover; because it is thy nakedness. 11 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of thy fathers wife; she is thy sister by the same father: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers sister, for she is near akin to thy father. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mothers sister, for she is near akin to thy mother. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy fathers brother, and thou shalt not go in to his wife; for she is thy relation. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law, for she is thy sons wife, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife: it is thy brothers nakedness. 17 The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover; her sons daughter, and her daughters daughter, shalt thou not take, to uncover their nakedness, for they are thy kinswomen: it is impiety. 18 Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival, to uncover her nakedness in opposition to her, while she is yet living.

And thou shalt not go in to a woman under separation for her uncleanness, to uncover her nakedness. 20 And thou shalt not lie with thy neighbours wife, to defile thyself with her. 21 And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I am the Lord. 22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any quadruped for copulation, to be polluted with it: neither shall a woman present herself before any quadruped to have connexion with it; for it is an abomination. 24 Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations are defiled, which I drive out before you, 25 and the land is polluted; and I have recompensed their iniquity to them because of it, and the land is aggrieved with them that dwell upon it. 26 And ye shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and ye shall do none of these abominations; neither the native, nor the stranger that joins himself with you:

27 (for all these abominations the men of the land did who were before you, and the land was defiled,) 28 and lest the land be aggrieved with you in your polluting it, as it was aggrieved with the nations before you. 29 For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be destroyed from among their people. 30 And ye shall keep mine ordinances, that ye may not do any of the abominable practices, which have taken place before your time: and ye shall not be polluted in them; for I am the Lord your God.

You cut and pasted texts from Leviticus. Where is the exegesis in that? Briefly, 'exegesis' means 'exposition or explanation'. Biblical exegesis involves the examination of a particular text of scripture to properly interpret it. In other words, study is often required rather than a superficial reading of a specific scripture. You bolded Leviticus 22 to highlight your cherished text but offered no explanation as to what act in what situation 'God' is referencing. WHO were those men who were allegedly lying with other men as with a woman and WHAT were the circumstances surrounding their doing this in the first place?

I don't know and neither do you.

Then read Leviticus "in context." Employ exegesis.

ex-e-ge-sis
/eksij"sis/
noun
noun: exegesis; plural noun: exegeses1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp. of scripture.
"the task of biblical exegesis"
synonyms: interpretation, explanation, exposition, explication

This is precisely what you DID NOT do.

What IS a divorce? And WHAT does it destroy?

di-vorce (d-vrs, -vrs)
n.
1. The legal dissolution of a marriage.2. A complete or radical severance of closely connected things.
v. di-vorced, di-vorc-ing, di-vorc-es
v.tr.
1. To dissolve the marriage bond between.
2. To end marriage with (one's spouse) by way of legal divorce.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but if the above is so important to you then why are you not hounding the scriptural adulterers (divorcees/remarriages) in your Church as you so zealously do with gays? Are you afraid you'll get lynched?

And WHAT is a Marriage:

Havent you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, For this reason

What "reason?" I repeat. For what reason?
A marriage.
And what IS a marriage using exegesis?

. . a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

Why do you continue to shoot yourself in the foot? What you have just presented has nothing to do with the topic at hand but it DOES have everything to do with your conveniently choosing to turn a blind eye to the scriptural adultery that permeates the mainstream Christian Church, i.e. divorce and remarriage. You cannot - ethically - condemn homosexuality while allowing scriptural adultery to flourish without question in your beloved Church.

Now using exegesis KCKID, can you produce one piece of Biblical scripture where a man is not male . . . and a wife is not female?
And for those that may have forgotten:

exegesis (k sdi ss)
n., pl. -ses (-s"z).
critical explanation or interpretation, esp. of Scripture.

Now certainly Mr. KCKID, you do not have to live as God instructed the Israelites to live.

You're right there. The holiness code was tied to ritual cleanliness, a concept that does not apply to we of today. But, since YOU appear to feel that we must stick with the Levitical laws, the fact is that "to'evah" only refers to something that is ritually unclean or taboo for the Israelites. It was used to set them apart from their pagan surrounding cultures. To'evah does not denote a moral sin. 'Abomination' is a horrible corrupted translation of that word that has, unfortunately, become the mainstream connotation among Christians. Most Jews - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - consider the Torah laws archaic and irrelevant to the modern era.

Nor do you have to live like Jesus and the Apostles taught Christians to live.

Which is how YOU live, I presume . . .?

But Christians (or actually the Apostles and Disciples that accompanied him during his divorce debate with the Sanhedrin members) heard and are taught that marriage IS man and woman and that teaching came from Jesus. And, that was reaffirmed at other places in the writings that we now call The New Testament.
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 ...?[/color]

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.

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.

[Joab]

Don't ya just wish that god would stop making homosexual christians?

I mean what's he thinkin'?

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

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

Why do you think he does it?

[99percentatheism]

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

Why do you think he does it?

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

[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.

[99percentatheism]

[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.

[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.

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?