Skip to comments.Even If Your Child Is Gay...
Posted on 03/19/2013 6:18:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he had reversed his position on same-sex marriage. The reason was that his son had come out to him and his wife as gay.
This is not the first such instance. Periodically, we hear about Republican politicians whose child announces that he or she is gay, prompting the parent to change his mind about the man-woman definition of marriage.
As a parent, I understand these parents. We love our children, and we want them to love us.
Nevertheless I differ with their decisions to support the redefinition of marriage.
In order to explain why, let's analyze some of Senator Portman's words:
"I'm announcing today a change of heart ... "
These words are well chosen. Senator Portman's position is indeed "a change of heart." That's why he didn't say "change of mind." His change comes from his heart.
In this regard, Portman speaks for virtually every progressive/left/liberal position on virtually every subject. To understand leftism -- not that the senator has become a leftist, but he has taken the left-wing position on redefining marriage -- one must understand that above all else leftism is rooted in emotion, not reason. That is why left-wing social positions always refer to compassion and fairness -- for blacks, for illegal immigrants, for poorer people and, of course, for gays. Whether a progressive position will improve or harm society is not a progressive question. That is a conservative question. What matters to progressives is whether a position emanates from compassion.
Progressives do not seem to recognize that in life there is always tension between standards and compassion. Standards, by definition, cannot allow for compassion for every individual. If society were to show compassion to every individual, it would have no standards. Speeding laws are not waived for the unfortunate soul who has to catch an important flight. Orchestral standards are not waived for the musician who has devoted his or her life to studying an instrument, is a wonderful person and needs the job to support a family.
It is either right to maintain the man-woman definition of our most important social institution, or is it not. We cannot base our decision on compassion for gays, whether the gay is our child, our sibling, our friend or anyone else.
Yes, societies have changed qualifications for marriage regarding age and number, but no society before the 21st century ever considered redefining the fundamental nature of marriage by changing the sexes. That is why it is not honest to argue that same-sex marriage is just another redefinition. It is the most radical change to the definition of marriage in the history of civilization.
How then should people of compassion deal with this, or any other, issue? By asking whether we maintain standards or whether we change them because of compassion. Do we change universities' academic standards out of compassion for blacks and their history of persecution, or do we maintain college admission standards? Do we change military standards in order to enable women to enter fighting units or do we ask only what is the best policy to maintain military excellence?
The only answer that works -- and no answer is perfect in this imperfect world -- is to maintain standards in the macro and show compassion in the micro.
Every parent owes the same love and support to a gay child as to a straight child. In fact, all of us, parents or not, owe the same respect to gays as individuals as to heterosexual individuals. That does not mean, however, that marriage needs to be redefined. It does not mean that, all things being equal, it is not best for a child to have a male and female parent.
Compassion was the reason Senator Portman raised another issue: "My son," he said, "told us he was gay, and that it was not a choice."
This raises an obvious question. Prior to his son telling him that he did not choose to find men sexually attractive, did Senator Portman believe that gay men did choose to find men rather than women sexually attractive? Unlikely.
So why did he raise this? Because the "gays have no choice" issue tugs at people's hearts. Once again, compassion individual is supposed to trump all other considerations.
Finally, the senator also said:
"During my career in the House and the last couple of years in the Senate, I've taken a position against gay marriage rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition." But he has been "rethinking my position, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders."
It would be interesting to find out what exactly his Christian pastor said to him. Did the pastor tell him that Christianity looks favorably on man-man marriage? Or that God made men and women essentially interchangeable? If so, why didn't this pastor tell this to the senator the whole time the senator opposed same-sex marriage?
A final note to parents of gays: Parents who believe in the man-woman definition of marriage do not owe it to their gay child to support the same-sex redefinition of marriage -- any more than gay children owe it to these parents to oppose same-sex marriage. Parents and children owe each other love and respect, not abandonment of convictions.
The entire homosexual “debate” is lynchpinned on the born that way myth.
there is no gay gene.
there is no behavior gene.
behavior is a choice.
homosexuality is a fetish.
a fetish is a choice.
A fetish is not the same as skin color or physical dna gender.
Congrats, you’re on top of things today! Figuring out what people think is getting to be second nature to you, huh?
cutting off the adult offspring is the correct answer.
Mrs WBill has a number of gay friends, leftover from college. It's easy for me to sit back and watch all of their trials and tribulations from the bleachers.
A fair number of them are decent guys who just happen to be gay - it's like being right-handed, or red-haired. It's just one facet of their lifestyle. However, I *have* noticed that they're very infantilized - things that you and I wouldn't give a second thought to, like smushing spiders or climbing under the house to fix a water leak, elicit an immediate "BLEAH!!! I could NEVER EVER do something like that!" reaction from them.
Strange, sez me, and undoubtedly a learned behavior.
As to the rest of the group, I've no doubt that homosexuality is a conscious choice. For lack of a better term, they are "Flaming Drama Queens", who engage in all (all!!) of the traditional gay stereotypes. This behavior is just one more attention-getter that satisfies their need, while maintaining their standing, socially. I've no doubt that if they could find something that was MORE attention-getting, while not harming their social status, they'd drop the whole "Flaming Gay Drag Queen" lifestyle like a hot rock.
As an aside, it's also interesting for me to watch the interactions in the group. Mrs WBill has pulled slowly away from all of them as she has gotten more and more conservative with age - marriage, responsibility, family will do that, I suppose. But the rest of the people in the group have shunned responsibility. The (non-gay, I assume) females are all single and employed in non-responsible positions (largely interacting with kids, which is concerning). Ditto that for the gay men.
Like I said, it's interesting to sit and watch the dynamic from afar. Would be a good long-term project for some psyche major, I'd think.
Indeed, I hope we are different.
I understand hat you're getting at, Goldstate, but I wouldn't put it quie that way.
I think it's more "If sentimentality is the rule..."
Real compassion meansa really caring for the other person's greatest good, his or her ultimate well-being. It is compassionate to understand that a person is yearning for acceptance and respect; it is not compassionate in the least to support and enable their sexual disorder, as if that were their greatest good. It is not compassionate to deepen another person's disorder.
The same "false compassion" is found in a welfare system which reduces your brother or sister to lifelong degraded dependency.
And toleration for alcohol and drug addition which cripples the addict's life-opportunities.
And misguided compassion for pedophiles which shields them from detection and thus enables them to keep on seeking their prey.
The problem here is not compassion. It's lack of insight into the other person's greatest good.
I have only your words. Why do they seem to be so easily ‘misunderstood’ as you claim?
It does not matter how the homosexuals see it. The behavior is wrong. The activity is wrong. Homosexuality is not an identity, it is a behavior.
We are given these ‘needs’ you refer to. They are for procreation and couple-bonding, AND these needs are to be fulfilled within the bounds of marriage. And marriage is the institution God created that is the union of a (as in one or a single) man and a (Again, just one) woman.
Other desires, and their activities, are so far beyond wrong they were given a special word to describe them - abomination.
Seems simple and clear cut to me, regardless of how a homosexual or lesbian, or zoophile, or pedophile, or necrophile might perceive it.
The correct word is homosexual. Gay is happy, joyful. We need to take the language back, and call the behavior what it is.
Would be a good long-term project for some psyche major, I’d think.
I’m happy for you to have things appear so simple to you.
Suppose that's enough, in the current environment?
If your child is gay there is a good chance someone molested him, or her.
Bingo. Thanks to Asperger's I was called a "band fag" for years despite not being homosexual and not being in the band (or even able to play an instrument). Many people equate "different" with "gay". If I were in school now I'd be being actively encouraged by my teachers and peers to "come out". I wonder how many vulnerable kids who are merely socially awkward are being railroaded into the homosex lifestyle by the pro-gay environment in public schools?
Feel free to explain all the ‘nuances’ that you understand. Feel free to explain how something that is wrong should be not only tolerated and accepted, but encouraged and expanded upon.
You are not doing your child any good by not recognizing sin and by not guiding him to avoid the sin. You can still love your child without supporting his decision to turn his back on God.
Easy, some people don’t think some things are wrong, while others think those things are.
“Born that way” was never a good argument, in my view. Most of us, myself especially, were “born” selfish, self-centered and with the desire to benefit ourselves as fully as possible, with no regard for the “rights” of others. That’s why one of the words you hear from toddlers most is “mine.” As we grow older, we find out we are “born” to lie if it serves our immediate purpose, to steal if no one is looking, and to do all manner of things that give us pleasure. Do these tendencies make the behavior acceptable?
Of course not. We are taught not to take things from others, to tell the truth, to have good manners, etc. So some things we are “born” to do must not be done in order to fit into society.
Is being gay one of those things? THAT is a fair question; but to say that being gay is acceptable because one is “born that way” is a terribly weak argument.
Most truths are simple.
And your words and postings give away that you may be one that thinks those things are not wrong.
“If your child is gay there is a good chance someone molested him, or her.”
Yes, and notice how many politician kids turn out to be gay. These are kids whose parents have engagements almost every night and that are raised by hired help... and many wind up in bording school where the teachers live on campus. What kind of people do you think a teaching job on a remote bording school campus where you have to reside and give 24/7 access to the kids and pay about $40k per year will draw sometimes?
You know, jboot, that’s the scary thought, how many kids MISTAKENLY come out as gay, when they’re probably just socially awkward or have Asperger’s Syndrome like you or I? It’s a frightening thought, and it sometimes worries me, although it might explain a number of things.
Newspeak in action. Renaming it redefines it.
Yes, and there are many different truths that people believe in.
It depends on one’s reference.
Incorrect. By definition, there can not exist ‘different’ truths.
While I wouldn’t do either of those things, I don’t think they are right or wrong. It’s just behavior that may or may not be accepted by others or by whatever society they happen to be a part of.
Everyone has things they believe are wrong, and things they believe are right. That’s just how God made us.
Remember though that the homosexual lobby includes a large number of garden-variety libturds. It's not just the gays themselves but the people they have snowed that fills their ranks.
Sorry you dont change your faith or your values because your child takes a wrong path in life.
If your pastor tells you that it is ok to change your faith or your values to keep the love and respect of your child it is time to find a new pastor.
Dennis Prager is the wisest man on radio today.
I believe there can be...God can do anything, even create us as individuals with our own sense of right and wrong/truth and untruth.
I don’t believe there are any absolute moral truths.
"..As Upton explains, "the Sodomite is violent against nature because he denies relatedness to the Other; his erotic energy is turned inward." This is indeed the key point. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality. ..."
IF you accept that God made us, then you also are obliged to heed His word.
Everyone does have things they think are right or wrong, THIS INCLUDES GOD, our Creator. He has been very forthcoming with what HE says is RIGHT and what HE says is wrong. Believing His word, makes it all very simple.
While you may not DO either of those things, accepting them as potentially ‘valid’ behaviors puts you in the group of enablers.
Loving a homosexual son or daughter as one should, while simultaneously opposing homosexual “marriage” are not mutually exclusive, despite what the advocates claim. A lot of folks forget to add love to standing for what’s right, but the Christian walk is not easy. The far-reaching consequences of legally re-defining marriage in this sense will have profoundly negative consequences on our society. When Christians stand for truth but lack charity, or sacrifice the truth in the name of “love”, then we lose our position as a legitimate guiding force in society, as we’re seeing today. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians issues a stern warning that without love, the Christian has absolutely nothing. Part of love is standing firmly for the truth, but we can’t stand for the truth without love of God and love of our fellow man as image-bearers of God.
I believe His word differs with each of us.
I think Portman is a WUSSY father.
His word is absolute. God says some things are wrong and bad. He says others things are good and right. These do not change. They are not good for some and bad for others. They are immutable.
It is wrong for me to kill (murder). In fact, Jesus says even anger, that is not righteous, is a sin.
It is wrong for me to steal, even if I take those ‘gains’ and give them to the poor or to the church.
His word is absolute. He speaks plainly through it and it is easily understandable.
We are all born "trailing clouds of glory."
Thank you God, and please, somehow, forgive all bigots.
What do you use to determine the righteousness of anger?
Bigotry against sin is a virtue.
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight.
Homosexuality serves no useful function in life,it’s a self interest idea.
Jesus showed that. It is anger against ‘wrong’, not persons. He showed that flipping tables and even using a batch of cords to drive ‘thieves’ from the Temple was acceptable.
But were I to become angry at you for your views, well, I’d have to probably engage in a little prayerful repentance.
So, when do you view homosexuality to be Ok or acceptable practice for a society, given that God calls it abomination?
It scares me, too. During puberty I was confused, ostracized and lonely (and, of course, randy as h*ll). Had I been encouraged by authority figures to identify as homosexual, knowing that doing so would bring me affirmation, protection and sexual contact, well, I can’t say with certainty what I might have done. Thank God in those days no such “choice” existed.
I would agree with you -their perception is screwed up. In my opinion -the disorder is like a bad habit -the more one engages in it the more entrenched they become.
One can be attracted to another, enjoy spending time with another, and love another without having sex with them -it happens all the time...
My moral compass is the one God gave to me when He created me.
Life is absolutely amazing in what it does to propagate itself, the mechanisms involved, the intricacies. How anything that blocks that overwhelming drive can be considered natural, or normal, is beyond reason.
But then, reason has nothing to do with it. It’s all about justification.
I let society determine that. I don’t view it as acceptable or unacceptable. I really don’t pay much attention to it except here on FR.
How can any parent 'know' let alone accept and resign themselves to the 'fact' that their child is a homosexual UNLESS the child has engaged in homosexual sex?
Based upon all the 'news', all the homosexual school clubs, and the popular anti bullying of homosexuals campaigns it seems there are quite a few underage homosexual sex practitioners out there having sex... Either that or there are some confused kids being led astray into believing they are destined to be a homosexual even before they have actually been one by having disordered sex...