Dear Abby: Son upset that dad's started dating men

Philly.com ^ | May 19, 2009 | Jeanne Phillips and some unfortunate guy

[End Times Sentinel]

DEAR ABBY: My father is 83. My mother has been dead for more than 30 years. Since then, Dad has been involved with many women.

But, since he turned 70, he has become involved with men, which he says he finds very rewarding and much less complicated.

Dad and I always had an open and honest relationship. We have a lot of homosexual family members and friends.

At the same time, I'm shocked that the fact that he is gay has been so difficult for me to accept.

Have you any suggestions on how I might better deal with this?

- Caring Son in Miami

DEAR CARING SON: Your father appears to be bisexual, which means he is attracted to both men and women.

Whereas he may not have wanted to admit to himself or to you years ago that he had feelings for people of the same sex, it is no longer shocking to be open about it. Times have changed. Today a person's sexual orientation is no longer considered something to be kept hidden.

One constructive way to "deal with it" would be to realize how fortunate you are to have the kind of relationship you have always had with your dad. Be supportive, don't judge and love him for the parent he has always been.

[ElkGroveDan]

Dear Abby,

There's an advice columnist I know who's brain has been devoured from the inside out by a Political Correctness worm. Since this parasite has taken away her ability to offer thoughtful, insightful advice like she used to, do you think she should give it up and leave the advice business to more rational people?

Sick to My Stomach in Elk Grove, CA

[Chickensoup]

www.dearmrsweb.com
Dear Mrs. Web

[RepublitarianRoger2]

“but you clearly cannot ignore “sin no more” no matter how loudly you scream and put your fingers in your ears.”

Oh, no, I’m not ignoring it. I am saying that others are ignoring the “Neither do I condemn thee” part. I can count quite a few posts that read as condemnations.

By the way, if I am not mistaken, this was also the only time that Jesus was known to comment on sexual morality, referencing adultery only, and he never commented on homosexuality.

The famous, original Greek manuscript of John 8:3-11 omits this story completely. Other later manuscripts insert this quote by Jesus *before* John 8, in John 7. Others even place the quote after Luke 21:38 (where it doesn’t really sit comfortably with the rest of the narrative). So, which version of the Bible is correct? Which one is the “truth”? Did Jesus even say this, or was it inserted into the texts later? These are unanswerable questions, unless you simply take whatever different version of the Bible (King James? Revised? NLV? The Living Bible? etc.) that you are reading to be “THE Word of God.”

So, when you say that I cannot ignore a certain passage — oh, do you mean the one that is missing from ancient Greek manuscripts, and placed in different passages and contexts in other manuscripts (thus altering the narrative and placing ambiguities on the intended meaning)? THAT passage?

Again, I have a different opinion than you do. Which is fine with me. I don’t ask that you believe what I believe, and I ask that you grant me the same courtesy.

[JSDude1]

The one closest to the original (and I know if I fail a time or two God will give me grace), but you are distracting from the issue- it’s not “which interpretation” one uses (unless of course the writers of that interpretation did not STRIVE to remain true to the original meaning); the true issue is that one should not take away from ANY part of scripture..I am sure you’ll agree with this..

[sport]

She has been doing that for years, ggoing back to Ann Landers. That is why I stopped reading it. Two queers buggering each other does not interest me.

[grey_whiskers]

Is he sure he's really the old man's son? (Think it over...)

Cheers!

[RepublitarianRoger2]

“the true issue is that one should not take away from ANY part of scripture”

Again, which, of the many various versions of scripture, must one not take away from? And in order to determine whether one is “taking away from” a certain part of scripture, it would be necessary for one to interpret that scripture first, in order to ascertain what one believes to be its meaning, and then from that ascertained meaning, one could then determine whether another person is indeed ignoring or taking away from or failing to follow that particular part. Since this process, starting with ambiguities in original manuscripts and variations in interpretation inherent in the various translations to English and then going on to more variety in interpretation that inevitably occurs among individual readers, is inexact at best, one could then ask which version/manuscript/translation/interpretation is the one which should be taken as a whole, from which no part is allowed to be taken away.

I guess it’s just logically not as simple a question/answer for me...

[rom]

I am quite aware that this story is omitted in all but one of the earlier manuscripts. I was going to bring it up, but decided against it -- because it is not really that important and all modern translations put this disclaimer in the footnotes.

And you'd be incorrect :) -- this is not the only time that Jesus commented on sexual morality.

Here we go:
Matthew 5:27: "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery (Jesus is quoting: Ex 20:14, Deut 5:18); but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So here Jesus takes part of the Mosaic law re: sexual immorality -- and tells you that the standard is EVEN GREATER than we thought. Does this sound like the sort of deity that would then consider homosexuality "okay"? I think from a statement like this you can easily see he shouldn't have to tell you that -- because if looking at a woman with lust is wrong, imagine what anal sex between two men would be considered!

Let us continue:

Matthew 19:4 "And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED WITH HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH (Jesus is quoting Genesis 2:24)" "

Sounds like he's talking about the idealized form of marriage to me, and God's original plan for marriage. This is regards to the Pharisees talking about divorce. He continues to say:

Matthew 19:9, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality (literally in the Greek: fornication), and marries another woman commits adultery"

This is my point -- to walk with Jesus is to live a life that is even more stringent than what the Law said -- because people are prone to finding loopholes in the Law. Jesus understood this and he was constantly rebuking people for this.

We'll end our survey in Luke 7:40 with the Parable of the Two Debtors and the 'sinful woman' (code word for prostitute) who came to hear Jesus speak at the home of the Pharisee Simon.

Luke 7:48"Your sins have been forgiven"
Luke 7:50"Your faith has saved you, go in peace"

Notice that after she has put her faith in Jesus (you'd have to read the entire story, I didn't quote the entire thing here) and repented -- He is faithful and forgives her sins. But we have to place our faith in Him first and then -- we can go in peace (and no longer make war with Him by disobeying His commands). If we continue to willingly sin however (as you can see in the framework 1 John lays out) then we have not really put our faith in Him. Because Jesus was always clear that while He saves, he expects a transformed life.

What do I take from all of this? Jesus' standards are exceedingly high. He never felt he had to comment on polygamy or homosexuality or bestiality or any other sexual deviance, because He quotes the Father's plan for marriage straight out of Genesis. He also tells us that if we come to Him with our sin He will forgive us and help us with our struggle.

I have had an anger issue in the past, and He tells us clearly in Matthew 5:21 that he considers me guilty enough to go to hell for being angry at my brother. After coming to Jesus, I have felt his transformative power and He has helped rid me of my temper. But clearly I stood guilty before Him. So, I do not think a homosexual gets a pass any more than I got a pass before putting my faith in Him.

And if you believe in Truth, opinion is not a valid stance. I'll leave it at that. If you have any other input, I'd be interested in continuing the dialogue :)

[RepublitarianRoger2]

We’ll just agree to disagree. Probably wise to just leave it at that.

[L,TOWM]

You are dead wrong. The significant part of the teaching is THE ENTIRE THING! One part or another of what Jesus is recorded as saying is mot more or less important than any other part. That is cafeteria christianity and God does not work that way. You do not get freedom of “then neither do I condemn you” WITHOUT the “then rise child, go, and sin no more”...

Grace is not a license to do whatever without condemnation. We are called to a higher striving than a basic fire insurance policy. “Therefore be perfect, as your Father in heaven is also perfect.”

Now, I agree with your last paragraph — the LAST thing I would do in this case is bash the guy on the head with a Bible while screaming passages from Leviticus at him. But I would want to have a conversation with the man about the condition of his faith, gently and respectfully, out of love and concern for where the road he is on will take his soul in too short a time...

[MEGoody]

This proves that every gay person makes the choice?

Behavior is always a choice. So the answer is yes, every person chooses whether he/she will have sex and with whom.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

The significant part of the teaching is THE ENTIRE THING!

I already acknowledged that. It was part of the point that I was making regarding condemnation.

My belief system simply does not completely match yours. So, it would probably be wise to simply agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[verga]

Bisexuals are also the main reason AIDS spreads to heterosexuals. Not to mention being bi is all about self gratification since they have NO standards and will stick it in anything that comes their way, male or female. At least full blown gays have (some) standards. I have more respect (but still very little) for them than bi's because of it.

Yeah but they got almost double the odds of getting lucky in a bar /sarc

[CodeToad]

” Be supportive, don’t judge and love him for the parent he has always been.”

Wonder if the old bitty would have responded the same way if the son had reported his dad loved to sodomize poodles, goats, or sheep? “My dad likes to stick his penis into the rectums of other men, sheep, dogs, horses, and other farm animals. Is that OK?”

[Sam's Army]

"don't judge"

Screw you, Eppie. Refusing to make a call on right and wrong (aka Judgementalism) has spearheaded the slide we've been in for the last 30+ years.

[mikelets456]

Your point is true...somewhat. This is why:

First off “do not judge...” is taken WAY out of context. This simply means you CAN NOT judge a person’s heart for God. That is, no one has the right to say “that Christian’s heart is not right with God’s..” Only GOD knows that. telling another Christian they are doing something wrong is actually in the Bible...look under 1 Corinthians chapter 5. You are supposed to “confront” obvious sin with in the Church body. Now outside the Church is a different story....continued below...

Now to the next point. You are right that we are to love that person. However, if you believe something to be WRONG, then wouldn’t that mean the “Christian” is compromising their belief? Why is that ok?
So, yes...we are told to love. However, we can not support the “habit” that we believe is wrong. The easiest way to explain it: Would it be right of me to supply my alcoholic friend with cases of booze? That would mean I love him right? No, that would be wrong... a true friend would be there for him and discourage his lifestyle. Who would be the true friend:
-The person enabling with more alcohol?
-The person who takes the time to care enough not to enable but to take the time to pray, care and help his friend without endorsing his habit?

[longtermmemmory]

Dear Abby has SERIOUSLY jumped the shark.

I thought she had died and her daughter took over.

Advertisers who are near her ad should be put on notice they will be targeted as “do not spend money there” for being anywhere near Dear Abby the lunatic.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the letter is a FAKE, it must have been sent in by some homoadvocate. If the letter writer reaaaly had all those homosexuals in their “family” there would be no letter.

Dear Abby is using the AP fake but accurate reporting.

[Antoninus]

Talk about bad advice. Sheesh.

Whoever is writing "Dear Abby" these days is a brain-dead tool of the gaystapo.

[Antoninus]

Hey, pal, this is what happens when fiscal conservatives decide that social conservatives are expendable. We both lose.