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?

[Clownboat]

Do you think that telling your gay child that they might as well take on a diet of eating raw bloody pig guts that is known to cause disease if they are going to tell you that they are gay, would make for someone being a bad parent? This argument could probably be made, but should have a thread of its own.

If that is what I said, that might be the case. However, I asked what a parent should say to a child who says that they plan on a diet of raw bloody pigs guts, since the proper response would appear to be "I love you and I will support you whatever you do."

This thread is about a child telling their parents that they are gay. NOT about whether we should allow are kids to do whatever they wants.

To be a parent, requires common sense. If you child wants to do something that will harm other members of society, it would be wrong to just say, "do whatever you want". You should know this... I assume you do and are just playing dumb here. If not, please reconsider having children if that is not too late.

To me, this would be like adopting a minority child and then telling said child that they are bad for being said minority. Now, if a child could control what minority to be born from, that could change the scenario.

Haha! Specific race "X" child. You're race "X", you might as well choose to eat bloody pig guts if you're going to chose to be race "X". Do you see how this would be unfair? Can you empathize with the child in this scenario?

Yes, an argument Ad Absurdum does sound absurd. Skin color, bone structure or whatever you wish to define as race, does not define behavior.

I never defined race. Once again, you seem to be playing dumb or you truly are struggling to see the correlation between punishing someone for something they cannot help.

I suggest you read this part twice, because it is crucial:
We are talking about consensual love between to humans. It would be a false analogy to once again try to compare this act with one that does cause harm like you have done in the past here when you compared it to not being exactly like murder.

You need to keep in mind that these kids are not telling their parents that they are taking part in an activity that will cause health issues, which is something every parent should care about. They are telling you which sex they are attracted to, and so far, all evidence I have seen suggest that they cannot control said attraction, just like you cannot control what race you are.

Well, we'll accept, for the sake of argument, that there is no intent on acting on such desires. Why would one then say that they would support them whatever they might choose to do?

This is your straw man. You answer it.
I am a parent, and IMO the default stance that you should tell your children to just do whatever they want is wrong.

Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. It is not:
- Eating raw bloody pig guts.
- It is not ANYTHING like murder. Not even "not exactly" like murder. "Nothing" like murder.
- It is not the freedom to do "whatever you want".

Thank you for posting the modern definition of bigotry. I presume that you are implying that you do not view me with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of my opinion.

I do not fear you for the sake of myself. I fear you for the sake of my children, other parents children and the suffering you would impose on my fellow humans.
I fear the affect your fruits might have on some of those around you.

That opinion being that I do not think that blanket statements like, "I will support you whatever you do." are good parenting.

We are in agreement. I share your opinion, but this is not about parents telling their kids to do whatever they want.

[Strider324]

So, in your worldview, the salient definition of the Gay Lifestyle is that they are promiscuous?? How convenient. Gee, if I wanted to sit in judgement of homosexuals, I couldn't think of a more Archie Bunkeresque approach....

Pretty much, yes...and calling it 'Archie Bunkeresque' doesn't make it less true. What WOULD you call a 'homosexual lifestyle,' if it isn't about actively engaging in homosexual sex?

Actively engaging in sex is what hetero and homo sexual couples BOTH do. But YOU have added the hateful, ignorant pejorative that somehow homosexuals are promiscuous. Either provide some evidence for that ignorant claim, or retract it.

Let me try to reach your level....

I had a job as a regional ops mgr that required me to stay in Salt Lake City for 3 days at a time. I went there about 20 times over a 2 year period. Every time I went there, these Mormon women would come and sit next to me, smile, take off their wedding rings, and proposition me to bed. Therefore, by the same quality of logic you bring to this thread - All Mormon women are sluts.

[Strider324]

So, in your worldview, the salient definition of the Gay Lifestyle is that they are promiscuous?? How convenient. Gee, if I wanted to sit in judgement of homosexuals, I couldn't think of a more Archie Bunkeresque approach....

Pretty much, yes...and calling it 'Archie Bunkeresque' doesn't make it less true. What WOULD you call a 'homosexual lifestyle,' if it isn't about actively engaging in homosexual sex?

Actively engaging sex is precisely what both hetero- AND homosexual couples do. You have added randomly, and without a shred of support, the pejorative that homosexuals are promiscuous. Provide some evidence of this ignorant, hateful claim or retract it.

[Clownboat]

Focusing on the topic at hand, how does one support being "gay"? If someone is "gay" regardless of what they do, how does that being "gay" effect one's relationship with one's parents?

IMO, it should not effect the relationship with the parents anymore than the skin color of the child should. However, it seems obvious that some parents would view it as an activity that they would liken to eating of raw bloody pig guts.

I'm white. My daughters are white. How dare they choose to be white!
Ridiculous, right?

How does one act white?

You don't. You just are white if you are white. Kind of like, if you're gay, you're gay. There seems to be no decision being made over being white or being gay. Yet for being gay, you would want to punish a biological being that cherishes love (just like you and I) by telling them not to act on those same desires that you and I hold dear and act on for ourselves.

Why should being with the one you love only be reserved for straight people?

This whole presumption that a desire is equal to an ethnicity, yet without the connotations that go with publicizing one's ethnicity, is absurd.

If neither are a choice. Pointing this out would not be absurd. So far, all evidence presented suggested that homosexuality is not a choice.

Why would I even refer to myself as "white" unless I planned to act in a way that some would consider "white"?

This is not about referring to yourself as "white". This is about punishing/tormenting people over something they cannot control. You know, like how you cannot control the fact that you are white. Once again, you confuse the actual point being made, which is making people suffer for something they cannot control that harms no one and actually is an activity you cherish for yourself. You just seem to want to reserve it for yourself and don't seem to take in to account that fact that homosexuals are just like you with the exact same desires that you have.

It is odd because those are things that you do not approve of and you do not wish to focus on the point being made, but conflate things to be similar in ways that I did not say or even imply. My point is that there are things that even you do not approve of and that you probably voice your disapproval to your child and not just pat them on the head and say, I will support you whatever you do.

Why do you keep suggesting that approving homosexuality is the same thing as allowing you child to do whatever they want. Please make this connection or drop it. It is distracting to the topic at hand.

And I am saying that it would be wrong for you to not accept your child for the race they are.

So, now homosexuality is a race? That is interesting. Given that I consider race a somewhat questionable term, it is good that you have clarified the definition for me. How is it that you came to the conclusion that homosexuality is a race?

Reading comprehension here is your issue. Do not make it mine. I have never suggested that homosexuality is a race. If I could hold your hand to make sure you are following along, I would. I can't, so I really need you to try to avoid these straw man:
- Let your kid do whatever they want.
- Homosexuality is a race.
These are things you suggest and I disagree with both of them. They are bad arguments, and they are not mine.

Is there something confusing about the fact that humans are biological sexual beings? Why should a group of people suffer ridicule for acting out on these natural and innate (so it seems) feelings, all the while people like you and I don't have to deal with bigotry for acting on the same biological sexual feelings?

On the contrary, there are those who call all sex between a man and a woman rape. Is that not bigotry? I do not deny that humans have all kinds of desires. That is precisely the point I was making. So, what other desire do we as humans have that is free of social folkways and morays? In fact, sexuality is not free from folkways and morays, even among homosexuals. In fact, that has been made that clear on this thread, with regard to promiscuity as a generally accepted behavior among homosexuals.

Complete and utter distraction in order for you to avoid addressing the question that was posed to you. You make it sound (with your last sentence) that promiscuity is a homosexual thing. I was raised in a Christian home with 4 siblings. We all had sex before marriage and non of us are homosexual. For you to conflate promiscuity to only homosexuality is dishonest.

Given the fact that all groups have folkways and morays, is it not less than responsible as a parent to say to a child that they will support that child regardless of the child's behavior?

This depends on the behavior, so your question is unanswerable. Is harm being done would need to be considered. You don't allow for this when you mention, "child's behavior".

[bluethread]

]

This thread is about a child telling their parents that they are gay. NOT about whether we should allow are kids to do whatever they wants.

To be a parent, requires common sense. If you child wants to do something that will harm other members of society, it would be wrong to just say, "do whatever you want". You should know this... I assume you do and are just playing dumb here. If not, please reconsider having children if that is not too late.

So, we agree. I started this line of discussion by responding to KCKID saying that masteblaster was wise when he said, "I would steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life."

Yes, an argument Ad Absurdum does sound absurd. Skin color, bone structure or whatever you wish to define as race, does not define behavior.

I never defined race. Once again, you seem to be playing dumb or you truly are struggling to see the correlation between punishing someone for something they cannot help.

I suggest you read this part twice, because it is crucial:
We are talking about consensual love between to humans. It would be a false analogy to once again try to compare this act with one that does cause harm like you have done in the past here when you compared it to not being exactly like murder.

The term "love" can refer to emotion, desire, and/or action. Therefore, it is not a very useful term in these discussions. If we are talking about emotion or desire only, why would a parent say they "are supportive of whatever path he takes in life". Admittedly, they might be supportive of the individual as a human being, but being supportive of the path would be dependent on the perceived nature of the path. That was my point. The reason such a statement would be considered wise is based on the speaker's viewpoint.

You need to keep in mind that these kids are not telling their parents that they are taking part in an activity that will cause health issues, which is something every parent should care about. They are telling you which sex they are attracted to, and so far, all evidence I have seen suggest that they cannot control said attraction, just like you cannot control what race you are.

Well, we'll accept, for the sake of argument, that there is no intent on acting on such desires. Why would one then say that they would support them whatever they might choose to do?

This is your straw man. You answer it.
I am a parent, and IMO the default stance that you should tell your children to just do whatever they want is wrong.

Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex. It is not:
- Eating raw bloody pig guts.
- It is not ANYTHING like murder. Not even "not exactly" like murder. "Nothing" like murder.
- It is not the freedom to do "whatever you want".

No, homosexuality includes both the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex and acting on that desire. It is you, not I, who set up the "straw man" of one who proclaims a desire that they may or may not intend on acting on. If that person does intend on acting on those desires, we are talking about sexual activity. If that person does not intend on acting on those desires, what is the point of making the statement?

Thank you for posting the modern definition of bigotry. I presume that you are implying that you do not view me with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of my opinion.

I do not fear you for the sake of myself. I fear you for the sake of my children, other parents children and the suffering you would impose on my fellow humans.
I fear the affect your fruits might have on some of those around you.

What is the difference? Why is one who fears those who promote homosexuality suffering from a "phobia", while those who fear those who oppose homosexuality are not? It appears that you are saying, if your child said, "I have a physical revulsion to homosexuality", you would not "steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." That is my point.

That opinion being that I do not think that blanket statements like, "I will support you whatever you do." are good parenting.

We are in agreement. I share your opinion, but this is not about parents telling their kids to do whatever they want.

Not precisely, I was responding to view that "I will steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." is only wise, if one considers those paths to be safe. What is the wise thing for the parent who does not consider those paths to be safe supposed to say?

[Clownboat]

So, we agree. I started this line of discussion by responding to KCKID saying that masteblaster was wise when he said, "I would steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life."

Like I said, you were straw manning me.

The term "love" can refer to emotion, desire, and/or action. Therefore, it is not a very useful term in these discussions. If we are talking about emotion or desire only, why would a parent say they "are supportive of whatever path he takes in life". Admittedly, they might be supportive of the individual as a human being, but being supportive of the path would be dependent on the perceived nature of the path. That was my point. The reason such a statement would be considered wise is based on the speaker's viewpoint.

To bad. Love is the word I used. Your wine about the word I chose to use does not distract from the point I made.
Once again:
We are talking about consensual love between to humans. Not telling your child that murder is OK if they want to do it. The point you miss is about the fact another person is not being harmed. Unlike when you murder someone. The word "Love" is irrelevant here. It seems that I am talking right passed you.

No, homosexuality includes both the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex and acting on that desire.

No. You don't have to act on the desire. Having the desire is the determining factor.
Consider your logic (or lack of logic as it is):
A man that is attracted to women is not heterosexual until he has sex with one. If you wait to have sex until marriage, your not gay or straight according to you.
I find your definition lacking.

It is you, not I, who set up the "straw man" of one who proclaims a desire that they may or may not intend on acting on. If that person does intend on acting on those desires, we are talking about sexual activity. If that person does not intend on acting on those desires, what is the point of making the statement?

This has been shown to be wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1390945518

What is the difference? Why is one who fears those who promote homosexuality suffering from a "phobia"

This is your claim. Please stop asking me to evidence/explain your claims.

It appears that you are saying, if your child said, "I have a physical revulsion to homosexuality", you would not "steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." That is my point.

Please explain further. I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make.
Specifically: "steer him to resources"

Not precisely, I was responding to view that "I will steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." is only wise, if one considers those paths to be safe. What is the wise thing for the parent who does not consider those paths to be safe supposed to say?

Unanswerable. I lack information. If you want an honest answer, you will need to spell out the scenario. There is no blanket statement that would cover every scenario.

Why do you ask for such a thing? Is it because your canned answer would be "the Bible says so". This is not good enough for me, so I would need to examine the scenario before I could even suggest a response. I just don't have a cover-all response like you may. I would need to examine the scenario.

A big key is... does the activity harm anyone, you for some reason don't seem to get this very important point. My evidence for this is the fact you compared homosexuality with murder. It seems to me that you lack making this distinction. Perhaps this explains why you don't seem to have an issue with holding something that you treasure for yourself from your fellow man. "A loving relationship with the person you love"

[bluethread]

So, we agree. I started this line of discussion by responding to KCKID saying that masteblaster was wise when he said, "I would steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life."

Like I said, you were straw manning me.

No, it was not clear whether or not you supported the blanket "whatever your path" advice. It now appears that there are certain paths that you would not support and those other paths do not include homosexuality in general. For some other people those other paths do include homosexuality in general.

The term "love" can refer to emotion, desire, and/or action. Therefore, it is not a very useful term in these discussions. If we are talking about emotion or desire only, why would a parent say they "are supportive of whatever path he takes in life". Admittedly, they might be supportive of the individual as a human being, but being supportive of the path would be dependent on the perceived nature of the path. That was my point. The reason such a statement would be considered wise is based on the speaker's viewpoint.

To bad. Love is the word I used. Your wine about the word I chose to use does not distract from the point I made.
Once again:
We are talking about consensual love between to humans. Not telling your child that murder is OK if they want to do it. The point you miss is about the fact another person is not being harmed. Unlike when you murder someone. The word "Love" is irrelevant here. It seems that I am talking right passed you.

Yes, you are talking right past me, because I am talking about the difference between what one says to one's child when one is not opposed to that one's child's path and what one says when one opposes one's child's path.

No, homosexuality includes both the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex and acting on that desire.

No. You don't have to act on the desire. Having the desire is the determining factor.
Consider your logic (or lack of logic as it is):
A man that is attracted to women is not heterosexual until he has sex with one. If you wait to have sex until marriage, your not gay or straight according to you.
I find your definition lacking.

It is you, not I, who set up the "straw man" of one who proclaims a desire that they may or may not intend on acting on. If that person does intend on acting on those desires, we are talking about sexual activity. If that person does not intend on acting on those desires, what is the point of making the statement?

This has been shown to be wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1390945518

The term I used was homosexuality and merriam-webster.com defines that as:

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

The term homosexual refers to a state of being, while homosexuality encompasses both the state of being and the activity that characterizes that state of being. Now, we can separate that activity from the state of being. However, why would anyone publicly refer to themselves in terms of a state of being related to an activity that they are unlikely to engage in?

It appears that you are saying, if your child said, "I have a physical revulsion to homosexuality", you would not "steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." That is my point.

Please explain further. I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make.
Specifically: "steer him to resources"

Well, since it is masterblaster's phrase, I presume it means resources that encourage that behavior, if that is the child's choice.

Not precisely, I was responding to view that "I will steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." is only wise, if one considers those paths to be safe. What is the wise thing for the parent who does not consider those paths to be safe supposed to say?

Unanswerable. I lack information. If you want an honest answer, you will need to spell out the scenario. There is no blanket statement that would cover every scenario.

Precisely, when a parent says, "I will steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life.", that is a bit disingenuous. It all depends on those resources, that path and that parent's view of them.

Why do you ask for such a thing? Is it because your canned answer would be "the Bible says so". This is not good enough for me, so I would need to examine the scenario before I could even suggest a response. I just don't have a cover-all response like you may. I would need to examine the scenario.

I ask such a thing because that is the statement of masterblaster, that KCKID said was wise. My point is that "I will steer him to resources that are supportive of whatever path he takes in life." is a canned answer that sounds loving and tolerant, but only ignores that fact that children often chose to follow paths that parents find unacceptable. Is it realistic to expect parents that see something as unacceptable to steer their children to resources that are supportive of that path?

A big key is... does the activity harm anyone, you for some reason don't seem to get this very important point. My evidence for this is the fact you compared homosexuality with murder. It seems to me that you lack making this distinction. Perhaps this explains why you don't seem to have an issue with holding something that you treasure for yourself from your fellow man. "A loving relationship with the person you love"

No, I think parents and children should have a relationship that is truly loving, ie. one that recognizes that there are paths that parents can not support and that that does not necessarily make them bad parents. It just makes them individuals that care enough to discourage paths that they find unacceptable.

[Danmark]

The term I used was homosexuality and merriam-webster.com defines that as:

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

The term homosexual refers to a state of being, while homosexuality encompasses both the state of being and the activity that characterizes that state of being. Now, we can separate that activity from the state of being. However, why would anyone publicly refer to themselves in terms of a state of being related to an activity that they are unlikely to engage in?

Why would a heterosexual who is celibate refer to himself or herself as 'heterosexual' if they are not going to engage in a heterosexual act?

The definition you gave is in the disjunctive, not the conjunctive. That definition is satisfied by either 1 or 2. It does not require both.

[bluethread]

The term I used was homosexuality and merriam-webster.com defines that as:

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

The term homosexual refers to a state of being, while homosexuality encompasses both the state of being and the activity that characterizes that state of being. Now, we can separate that activity from the state of being. However, why would anyone publicly refer to themselves in terms of a state of being related to an activity that they are unlikely to engage in?

Why would a heterosexual who is celibate refer to himself or herself as 'heterosexual' if they are not going to engage in a heterosexual act?

The definition you gave is in the disjunctive, not the conjunctive. That definition is satisfied by either 1 or 2. It does not require both.

I find that celibate people do not generally volunteer that they are heterosexual. They generally say that they are celibate.

Regarding the definition, it was not may intent to imply that one must do both, but that the activity is also connected to a public confession. Clownboat seems to want to presume that when one confesses to being homosexual, they are never indicating an intended behavior. The definition of homosexuality shows that intended behavior is a possibility and therefore is not an uncommon implication and/or inference. That is why I presented the two options, the one with the desire but not the intent and the other with the desire and the intent.

[Danmark]

The term I used was homosexuality and merriam-webster.com defines that as:

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

The term homosexual refers to a state of being, while homosexuality encompasses both the state of being and the activity that characterizes that state of being. Now, we can separate that activity from the state of being. However, why would anyone publicly refer to themselves in terms of a state of being related to an activity that they are unlikely to engage in?

Why would a heterosexual who is celibate refer to himself or herself as 'heterosexual' if they are not going to engage in a heterosexual act?

The definition you gave is in the disjunctive, not the conjunctive. That definition is satisfied by either 1 or 2. It does not require both.

I find that celibate people do not generally volunteer that they are heterosexual. They generally say that they are celibate.

Regarding the definition, it was not may intent to imply that one must do both, but that the activity is also connected to a public confession. Clownboat seems to want to presume that when one confesses to being homosexual, they are never indicating an intended behavior. The definition of homosexuality shows that intended behavior is a possibility and therefore is not an uncommon implication and/or inference. That is why I presented the two options, the one with the desire but not the intent and the other with the desire and the intent.

My concern in why homosexuals are treated differently than heterosexuals, either in terms of law, prejudice, denial of rights, OR conceptually.

Why is a homosexual's statement of gender preference called a 'confession?' Would a heterosexual's statement of gender preference be called a 'confession?'