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]

There is nothing 'muddled' about that. Given that the only aspect of the 'gay lifestyle' that would make it exclusively 'gay' would be sex, and since a committed relationship between two people is pretty much the same between gays as it is straights, then a 'gay lifestyle' means...promiscuity.

D, that is exactly the impression I got from you the first time, that the "gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. This simply reveals a bias on your part that is not absolved by your further statements that 'Not all gays are promiscuous.'

An old married couple, faithful to each other for 40 years, if gay, are 'living a 'gay lifestyle' but are not promiscuous. Perhaps your bias is simply toward the phrase 'gay lifestyle' and you define it in your own way. But I assure you that by continuing to assert that the 'gay lifestyle' necessarily includes promiscuity, you represent your self as an anti gay bigot, even tho' that may not be your intention, or your belief.

I am simply pointing out that in using the language outlined above you are representing yourself in a way that may place you in a harsh light.

Speaking of promiscuity, anyone want to hazard a guess as to the percentage of heterosexuals over the age of 40 or 50 who have only had 'sex' with one partner?

Sexual studies, particularly in the U. S. notoriously under report extramarital sex.
Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia:
"Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

[dianaiad]

There is nothing 'muddled' about that. Given that the only aspect of the 'gay lifestyle' that would make it exclusively 'gay' would be sex, and since a committed relationship between two people is pretty much the same between gays as it is straights, then a 'gay lifestyle' means...promiscuity.

D, that is exactly the impression I got from you the first time, that the "gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. This simply reveals a bias on your part that is not absolved by your further statements that 'Not all gays are promiscuous.'

An old married couple, faithful to each other for 40 years, if gay, are 'living a 'gay lifestyle' but are not promiscuous. Perhaps your bias is simply toward the phrase 'gay lifestyle' and you define it in your own way. But I assure you that by continuing to assert that the 'gay lifestyle' necessarily includes promiscuity, you represent your self as an anti gay bigot, even tho' that may not be your intention, or your belief.

I am simply pointing out that in using the language outlined above you are representing yourself in a way that may place you in a harsh light.

Speaking of promiscuity, anyone want to hazard a guess as to the percentage of heterosexuals over the age of 40 or 50 who have only had 'sex' with one partner?

Sexual studies, particularly in the U. S. notoriously under report extramarital sex.
Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia:
"Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

What has the percentage of heterosexuals who have had more than one partner (or are even 'promiscuous') to do with whether promiscuity is a necessary part of the 'gay lifestyle?'

Personally, I would say that someone living a 'heterosexual lifestyle,' would be promiscuous, since 'heterosexuality,' like 'homosexuality,' are different from one another only in the sex desired, and if one defines oneself soley by that...which sex one wants to have sex with, then promiscuity is certainly part, if not the whole, of it. So, 'heterosexual lifestyle" = promiscuity, and 'gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. Why?

Because the only thing that DEFINES them is the sex. There is nothing else about what gays (or straights, for that matter) do that is exclusive to their sexual preference. All the stereotypes are just that; stereotypes: the mighty hunter of elk in the back woods that can chop a mature redwood down in two strokes and haul it home under his arm isn't living a 'straight' lifestyle any more than the famous wedding planner on TV is living a 'gay' lifestyle, even if the first might be straight and the second gay; they are living a backwoods or a 'wedding planner' lifestyle, and there are gay lumberjacks, and straight wedding planners, even male ones.

This is the point I'm trying to make that seems to be going over everybody's heads: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'gay lifestyle,' (or a heterosexual one) if it is NOT about promiscuous sex, because there is no other aspect of the life they live that cannot be lived by members of the other 'side.'

In other words, I'm not condemning all gays as promiscuous; I"m claiming that only promiscuous gays are actually living a 'gay lifestyle,' because that is what they define their lives by. In any other aspect of their lives, they, like 'straights' are....simply people living 'people' lifestyles, doing people stuff.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 240:

...
This is the point I'm trying to make that seems to be going over everybody's heads: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'gay lifestyle,' (or a heterosexual one) if it is NOT about promiscuous sex, because there is no other aspect of the life they live that cannot be lived by members of the other 'side.'
...

The trouble I'm having with understanding this, is the use of "promiscuous sex", where it would seem that "sex" alone would get your point across.

I just don't understand the need to include "promiscuous" when you speak of this group or the other having sex.

There's also the issue of what "promiscuous" means. Is it meant in ways folks ought'n be proud, or does it mean someone's deserving them a cigar and a shot of brandy?

[bluethread]

I see no other logical way of parsing that other than you saying "My child telling me he's Gay is different from him telling me he's living the 'Gay Lifestyle'" - and that your concern hinges on what you call the 'permission to be promiscuous'. Otherwise, what reason would there be for you to distinguish between 'Being Gay' and 'Living the Gay Lifestyle'. At best your statement is muddled, which is what allows for my interpretation.

That is interesting, clownboat is insisting that we divide the two in support of homosexuality. It appears that whether or not being homosexual and homosexual activity are two different things is not as well defined as some would have it be.

I have been heterosexual all my life. This includes before I had sex.
Please explain what part of this you have issue with.

I said:

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".

Your reply:

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

When you said "No", I cannot help but take that as you being in disagreement. You even bolded the "and" which referred to acting on that desire.

When will you stop speaking on my behalf?
I feel like you are dragging me down to your level in hopes to beat me with experience.

I am not speaking on your behalf. I am pointing out that two people, both supporting homosexuality, appear to take different approaches on the linkage between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. Let's look at the details, Strider (supporting) seems to be faulting dianaid(not supporting) for not linking being with acting. You(supporting) appear to be faulting me(not supporting) for linking being and acting. It appears that the linkage, or lack there of, is therefore not as clear as some might think.

After going back over the posts just prior to and following the one you quote, I noticed that I missed your post #223. That and the apparent difference between the issues we are each addressing leads me to believe that I should start over and make clear what issue I was addressing when I first posted.

From the OP:

The question again: How would you (a Christian) respond to your son or your daughter coming out to you that they are gay?

The premise appears to be that the parent, being a christian, holds the view that homosexuality poses a danger to that parents child and/or others. Given that, how would such an one respond to that child should that child tell them that they were homosexual.

Masterblaster stated that the advice should be that the parent would direct the child to resources that would support whatever path the child should chose to follow.

Strider said that that would be wise on the part of that parent.

I then stated that viewing that response as wise does not really address the question, but rather merely shows that Masterblaster and Strider do not see homosexuality as a danger to the child and/or others. I then, through means of a rather graphic example, attempted to show how such a response might not be wise with regard to something that Masterblaster and Strider might very well consider a danger to the child and/or others.

Now, you appear to me to have stated (my perception not your exact words) that the wisdom of directing a child to resources that would support whatever path a child should chose to follow depends on whether that path poses a danger to the child and/or others. Is that indeed your position now, regardless of what actual words were used prior to this? (Note the question mark denoting an inquiry requesting confirmation and/or clarification, and not a statement of fact.)

[Joab]

There is nothing 'muddled' about that. Given that the only aspect of the 'gay lifestyle' that would make it exclusively 'gay' would be sex, and since a committed relationship between two people is pretty much the same between gays as it is straights, then a 'gay lifestyle' means...promiscuity.

D, that is exactly the impression I got from you the first time, that the "gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. This simply reveals a bias on your part that is not absolved by your further statements that 'Not all gays are promiscuous.'

An old married couple, faithful to each other for 40 years, if gay, are 'living a 'gay lifestyle' but are not promiscuous. Perhaps your bias is simply toward the phrase 'gay lifestyle' and you define it in your own way. But I assure you that by continuing to assert that the 'gay lifestyle' necessarily includes promiscuity, you represent your self as an anti gay bigot, even tho' that may not be your intention, or your belief.

I am simply pointing out that in using the language outlined above you are representing yourself in a way that may place you in a harsh light.

Speaking of promiscuity, anyone want to hazard a guess as to the percentage of heterosexuals over the age of 40 or 50 who have only had 'sex' with one partner?

Sexual studies, particularly in the U. S. notoriously under report extramarital sex.
Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia:
"Lesbians who had a long-term partner reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

What has the percentage of heterosexuals who have had more than one partner (or are even 'promiscuous') to do with whether promiscuity is a necessary part of the 'gay lifestyle?'

Personally, I would say that someone living a 'heterosexual lifestyle,' would be promiscuous, since 'heterosexuality,' like 'homosexuality,' are different from one another only in the sex desired, and if one defines oneself soley by that...which sex one wants to have sex with, then promiscuity is certainly part, if not the whole, of it. So, 'heterosexual lifestyle" = promiscuity, and 'gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. Why?

Because the only thing that DEFINES them is the sex. There is nothing else about what gays (or straights, for that matter) do that is exclusive to their sexual preference. All the stereotypes are just that; stereotypes: the mighty hunter of elk in the back woods that can chop a mature redwood down in two strokes and haul it home under his arm isn't living a 'straight' lifestyle any more than the famous wedding planner on TV is living a 'gay' lifestyle, even if the first might be straight and the second gay; they are living a backwoods or a 'wedding planner' lifestyle, and there are gay lumberjacks, and straight wedding planners, even male ones.

This is the point I'm trying to make that seems to be going over everybody's heads: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'gay lifestyle,' (or a heterosexual one) if it is NOT about promiscuous sex, because there is no other aspect of the life they live that cannot be lived by members of the other 'side.'

In other words, I'm not condemning all gays as promiscuous; I"m claiming that only promiscuous gays are actually living a 'gay lifestyle,' because that is what they define their lives by. In any other aspect of their lives, they, like 'straights' are....simply people living 'people' lifestyles, doing people stuff.

I have to question whether most gays consider themselves living a "gay lifestyle". That is a term used most often by people who fear gays (yeah I've got no idea either). Gays, as a general rule, live "human lifestyles" (and ain't that a big farm) just as heterosexuals do.

The problem arises when one group of people feel they have the right to deny another group of people the right to live a "human lifestyle".

The above sentence is what the "anti-gay" faction of humans are guilty of.

[bluethread]

,

I have to question whether most gays consider themselves living a "gay lifestyle". That is a term used most often by people who fear gays (yeah I've got no idea either). Gays, as a general rule, live "human lifestyles" (and ain't that a big farm) just as heterosexuals do.

The problem arises when one group of people feel they have the right to deny another group of people the right to live a "human lifestyle".

The above sentence is what the "anti-gay" faction of humans are guilty of.

It is true that most people consider their lifestyles to be normative, especially regarding things that they do on a routine basis. However, people also identify themselves based on a certain behavior when they wish for that behavior to receive extra consideration. For example, those who seek to have homosexuality accepted as a social norm refer to homosexuals as a community, implying a common social structure.

[Strider324]

dianaiad scribed:

No, there is no reasonable way you could interpret me as accusing all gays of being promiscuous...and certainly the quote you just used is evidence against your statement/interpretation. After all, if I thought that 'all gays were promiscuous,' I would certainly not write that being gay "doesn't equal permission to be promiscuous," much less 'obligation to be promiscuous.' There is absolutely nothing 'muddled' about that. Would asking you for an apology be a waste of typing time?

I'm not sure why I would need to apologize for you pulling definitions out of thin air to support your bias.

You have now created a definition for the Gay Lifestyle that conflates it with Promiscuity. A definition I note seems to exist nowhere except in your head. Please google 'Gay Lifestyle' and tell me how many entries consider promiscuity to be a necessary or even common element of living this 'Gay Lifestyle'.

I'll save you time. Here is what the Gay Lifestyle is - and this is coming from someone who spend over a decade counseling the LGBT community and working to protect their health.

The Gay Lifestyle consists of decent, honorable, ethical, intelligent and productive people who are forced to either hide their sexuality so as to protect themselves from the hateful, bigoted judgments of the pious, religious 'morality hall monitors', or have to find a way to deal with this ignorant hatred if they are openly LGBT.

I have held dozens of these people in my arms, consoling them as they sobbed uncontrollably after their parents angrily shook a dusty book written by ignorant ass goatherders in their faces and screamed at them that they are no longer welcome in their own homes and are going to be tortured in some place like Cleveland for Eternity. I have been to their funerals after they succumbed to the despair of being constantly judged as 'unclean' and 'perverted' by righteous christians.

Your argument that the Gay Lifestyle is synonymous with promiscuous behavior is a fabrication, and as already pointed out by others - shows your bias.

But humor me - please provide one authentic past personal or public correspondence where you have used the term 'The Heterosexual Lifestyle' to indicate promiscuous behavior. I'll bet $100 right now that you've NEVER used that newly invented term in that context in your life before this thread where you were called out on your bogus representation of the Gay community.

[dianaiad]

dianaiad scribed:

No, there is no reasonable way you could interpret me as accusing all gays of being promiscuous...and certainly the quote you just used is evidence against your statement/interpretation. After all, if I thought that 'all gays were promiscuous,' I would certainly not write that being gay "doesn't equal permission to be promiscuous," much less 'obligation to be promiscuous.' There is absolutely nothing 'muddled' about that. Would asking you for an apology be a waste of typing time?

I'm not sure why I would need to apologize for you pulling definitions out of thin air to support your bias.

You have now created a definition for the Gay Lifestyle that conflates it with Promiscuity. A definition I note seems to exist nowhere except in your head. Please google 'Gay Lifestyle' and tell me how many entries consider promiscuity to be a necessary or even common element of living this 'Gay Lifestyle'.

I'll save you time. Here is what the Gay Lifestyle is - and this is coming from someone who spend over a decade counseling the LGBT community and working to protect their health.

The Gay Lifestyle consists of decent, honorable, ethical, intelligent and productive people who are forced to either hide their sexuality so as to protect themselves from the hateful, bigoted judgments of the pious, religious 'morality hall monitors', or have to find a way to deal with this ignorant hatred if they are openly LGBT.

I have held dozens of these people in my arms, consoling them as they sobbed uncontrollably after their parents angrily shook a dusty book written by ignorant ass goatherders in their faces and screamed at them that they are no longer welcome in their own homes and are going to be tortured in some place like Cleveland for Eternity. I have been to their funerals after they succumbed to the despair of being constantly judged as 'unclean' and 'perverted' by righteous christians.

Your argument that the Gay Lifestyle is synonymous with promiscuous behavior is a fabrication, and as already pointed out by others - shows your bias.

But humor me - please provide one authentic past personal or public correspondence where you have used the term 'The Heterosexual Lifestyle' to indicate promiscuous behavior. I'll bet $100 right now that you've NEVER used that newly invented term in that context in your life before this thread where you were called out on your bogus representation of the Gay community.

No, I haven't. I call heterosexuals living that lifestyle 'promiscuous,' just as I call gays living that life style 'promiscuous.' What I'm saying, and you aren't hearing, is that gays are people. Just people. Everything they do, apart from who they have sex with, is stuff that all people do regardless of their sexual preferences.

A 'lifestyle' is defined by the most important aspect of that lifestyle; the 'lifestyle of the rich and famous" cannot be lived by those who are neither rich nor famous; the 'lifestyle' of the backwoodsman must be lived by someone in the 'backwoods,' and the lifestyle of the waitress involves...wait for it...waitressing. It doesn't matter whether said rich and famous, or backwoods dweller, or waitress is gay or straight, they are living the lifestyle defined by what they find most important in their lives.

I would venture to guess that gay people, as a rule, do not define their jobs, their recreation or their other than sexual social lives by whether they can have sex with the folks around them, so...gay sex is not the most important thing by which they define their lives. When their sexual preferences and the sex itself become the most important things in their lives--i.e., they become promiscuous, then they are living the 'gay lifestyle.'

Perhaps you can look at it this way: you seem to be claiming that everything a gay person might do is part of the gay lifestyle. Well, if that's true, then everything a heterosexual does is part of a heterosexual lifestyle, yes? Does that mean that if a gay person does anything a heterosexual person does, he's no longer living a 'gay lifestyle,' but is instead living a heterosexual one?

Or...is being a wedding planner a part of the gay lifestyle no matter the sexual preference of the one who holds the job? If the planner is 'straight,' is it then no longer part of the gay lifestyle? What happened to it?

The answer is pretty simple; a wedding planner is living the 'wedding planner lifestyle." It is not an activity defined by one's sexual preferences, no matter what stereotype one buys into.

The POINT, Strider, is that the only thing different about homosexuals and heterosexuals is who they find attractive sexually. Letting that define their entire existences....while there are, I'm sure, a few on both ends of the spectrum who do exactly that, I'll bet there are very few; a gay elementary teacher does her job exactly like her straight neighbor in the classroom next door. They both live a 'teacher's lifestyle."

I wrote that my reaction to the OP question would depend entirely on whether my child said 'I'm gay,' or "I'm going to live the gay lifestyle." See if you can figure out why I think there is a big difference, and if you could possibly do so without calling me names and throwing out the insulting condemnations, I'd appreciate it.

[Danmark]

What has the percentage of heterosexuals who have had more than one partner (or are even 'promiscuous') to do with whether promiscuity is a necessary part of the 'gay lifestyle?'

Personally, I would say that someone living a 'heterosexual lifestyle,' would be promiscuous, since 'heterosexuality,' like 'homosexuality,' are different from one another only in the sex desired, and if one defines oneself soley by that...which sex one wants to have sex with, then promiscuity is certainly part, if not the whole, of it. So, 'heterosexual lifestyle" = promiscuity, and 'gay lifestyle" = promiscuity. Why?

Because the only thing that DEFINES them is the sex. There is nothing else about what gays (or straights, for that matter) do that is exclusive to their sexual preference. All the stereotypes are just that; stereotypes: the mighty hunter of elk in the back woods that can chop a mature redwood down in two strokes and haul it home under his arm isn't living a 'straight' lifestyle any more than the famous wedding planner on TV is living a 'gay' lifestyle, even if the first might be straight and the second gay; they are living a backwoods or a 'wedding planner' lifestyle, and there are gay lumberjacks, and straight wedding planners, even male ones.

This is the point I'm trying to make that seems to be going over everybody's heads: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'gay lifestyle,' (or a heterosexual one) if it is NOT about promiscuous sex, because there is no other aspect of the life they live that cannot be lived by members of the other 'side.'

In other words, I'm not condemning all gays as promiscuous; I"m claiming that only promiscuous gays are actually living a 'gay lifestyle,' because that is what they define their lives by. In any other aspect of their lives, they, like 'straights' are....simply people living 'people' lifestyles, doing people stuff.

The problem may be that seem to maintain that this so called 'heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle' means those involved are one dimensional; that their sole focus is on sex. I think this is an absurd assumption in that I've never met anyone outside of lunatic asylum that fits the description. Whether homo or hetero in 'lifestyle' or not, there is no reason to assume 'promiscuity,' particularly since the word is susceptible to great variance in what its use implies about the number of partners and how casual their relationship.

Having talked about it at length, you then say there is no such thing as a hetero or homo sexual 'lifestyle.' I agree that the phrases are hopelessly ambiguous, and you might have saved some trouble if you'd said so at the start. Perhaps I missed it. But then you say if there is such a 'lfie style' then it must be promiscuous. Your analysis that it 'must be' because 'sex' is what defines it, simply does not follow unless you add to your analysis your bias about promiscuity.

I'm afraid I agree that your thinking on this is indeed a bit 'muddled.'

You wrote:


In other words, I'm not condemning all gays as promiscuous; I"m claiming that only promiscuous gays are actually living a 'gay lifestyle,' because that is what they define their lives by. In any other aspect of their lives, they, like 'straights' are....simply people living 'people' lifestyles, doing people stuff.

This statement is simply not supported, unless you change your the first sentence, because what I'm afraid you don't see is that you ARE imputing promiscuity to gays when you insist that their 'life style' must be promiscuous if they call it 'gay.'

A long term committed gay couple, faithful to each other, may very well identify themselves as living a 'gay lifestyle' despite no infidelity.

[Joab]

,

I have to question whether most gays consider themselves living a "gay lifestyle". That is a term used most often by people who fear gays (yeah I've got no idea either). Gays, as a general rule, live "human lifestyles" (and ain't that a big farm) just as heterosexuals do.

The problem arises when one group of people feel they have the right to deny another group of people the right to live a "human lifestyle".

The above sentence is what the "anti-gay" faction of humans are guilty of.

It is true that most people consider their lifestyles to be normative, especially regarding things that they do on a routine basis. However, people also identify themselves based on a certain behavior when they wish for that behavior to receive extra consideration. For example, those who seek to have homosexuality accepted as a social norm refer to homosexuals as a community, implying a common social structure.

Extra considerations. Surely this is a very poor joke. Having equal rights is not EXTRA. Having homosexuality accepted as a human norm, which it so obviously is.