It's Still Not Easy To Be Different/Good People Help Out

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 19:01:07 GMT -5 steff said:

Because you say this thread is moot doesn't negate the fact many parents turn their backs on the children, be they teens or young adults, because of their sexuality.

and that it is still worthy of a discussion even if Virgil doesn't think so.  No one is forcing him to participate in it. 

The thread is not moot, IMO.  The matter under discussion is not strictly dependent on this one particular case, Virgil's opinion notwithstanding.

[mmhmm]

That is your personal choice, Virgil.  I hope with everything in me your children are never faced with a situation that will put their well being in jeopardy because of who they are.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

ETA: Biological and genetic studies have been done to find out what determines sexuality. So keep in mind that child would also be the fruit of your loins, Virgil - and you provided your contribution in creating him/her.

Your moral compass has nothing to do with how your child may or may not be born - and you either love and and accept them, as most parents would - or you let your compass make your decision for you.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 19:11:37 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Living in my wife's and my house comes with the condition that our rules are respected. I don't care what my child feels, I care what he does. Since neither homosexuality nor premarital sex would be tolerated, my son's options are either to respect these prohibitions (and to respect us in so doing), or to find his own way in the great wide world, doing as he pleases without our roof over his head.

I would still love him. I wouldn't terminate contact with him. And if at any point his values changed and he ceased his immorality, I wouldn't hesitate to welcome him back into my home

That just saddens me to no end - that you'd disown/remove your child from your home based simply on his (or her) sexuality.

How can you say you would still love him - if you cannot respect HIM for who he is. And FYI - it's not a moral (or in YOUR mind, immoral) choice a person makes. A person doesn't "choose" to be gay - they are either born gay, or they're not.

You're either born a sadist or you're not. There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that you're either born a sociopath or you're not. You're either born an alcoholic or you're not. You're either born with a predilection to violence of you're not.

For that matter, you're either born into a family with tremendous wealth that worships money, or you're not. You're either born into a refugee camp where you're taught to hate Serbians by everyone you know and love, or you're not. You're either born on the wrong side of the tracks in a factory town where your only real career prospects are in a dead-end job and where you desperately covet the wealth you see elsewhere, or you're not.

In case it isn't obvious by this point, good and evil are not decided by what component of one's drives are rooted in one's physical nature, what component is rooted in one's circumstances, what component is rooted in one's culture and teachings. Good and evil are a function of spiritual laws, and it is our responsibility to overcome carnal attitudes, regardless of their origins.

That's as specific as I can get without citing scripture.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 19:24:39 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

ETA: Biological and genetic studies have been done to find out what determines sexuality. So keep in mind that child would also be the fruit of your loins, Virgil - and you provided your contribution in creating him/her.

Your moral compass has nothing to do with how your child may or may not be born - and you either love and and accept them, as most parents would - or you let your compass make your decision for you.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

I'm setting good boundaries and sticking to them. Use whatever feel-good prose helps convince you that lack of tolerance is tantamount to neglect or abandonment, but the real issue is as simple as defining boundaries, enforcing them, and honouring the moral responsibilities of a parent.

It's the same impasse we always run into in these discussions.

[Cass]

Nov 11, 2013 19:18:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 18:46:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd read the update, as well.  As Tennesseer says, it's now a he said/he said situation.  Either could be telling the truth, just as either could be covering up.  The discussion underway here isn't dependent, IMO, on this case alone, however.  It's a discussion regarding morals, ethics, parental responsibilities, and the responsibilities of young adults who still live at home.  It's not dependent on Nick and his story, as I see it.

The "principal" boils down to the following:

Nick is my son. Nick is working, saving for college, living under my roof. One day Nick comes home and says, "Dad, I'm attracted to other men." I'm dismayed by the news, but my reaction is, "If that's the case now, so be it. It's your moral responsibility not to nurture it or engage in the associated practices. It's unfortunate that you can't take a wife, but countless good men have lived in celibacy, and you'll evidently be among them."

Nick replies, "No, dad. I don't share your beliefs. Homosexuality is good and right and natural, and I choose to engage in it."
My reply is, "Son, I love you but I will not tolerate your bringing that sin, which is lawlessness, into this house. So long as you live here, you will have no romantic or sexual contact with men, and no sexual contact before marriage. If you don't find these rules acceptable, if you won't heed my advice, then it's time for you to make your own way in the world. We'll shelter you for two months, provide you with some necessities, and then you're out on your own; you can do whatever you like. I will always love you, but this is a choice you have to make."

Then Nick either decides to stay and abide by my wife's and my rules, or he chooses to leave and engage in whatever lifestyle pleases him.

I wouldn't terminate contact with him. I would still love him, pray for him, and wish only the best for him. I would tearfully welcome him into my home if for any reason he turned away from his wrongdoing. My wife and I simply will not tolerate lawlessness in our household, including behaviours and lifestyles that western society believes are right and good.

I've read this twice now. 

I still can't believe I read it a first time

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

You're either born an alcoholic or you're not. You're either born with a predilection to violence of you're not.

Sociopathy or sadism can be developed in a person based on their environment. Look how many sociopaths had once been victims of abusive parents or people in authority? Mental illness also has a role in some cases of sociopaths/serial killers/etc.

That's a whole other subject.

You're either born gay or you're not - it's genetic. It is NOT a choice a person makes - and it's not a mental health issue either.

[swamp]

Nov 11, 2013 19:01:07 GMT -5 steff said:

Because you say this thread is moot doesn't negate the fact many parents turn their backs on the children, be they teens or young adults, because of their sexuality.

and that it is still worthy of a discussion even if Virgil doesn't think so.  No one is forcing him to participate in it. 

Virgil,doesn't need to discuss this because he will never have a gay child, or a child who makes choices he considers immoral. 

[Opti]

Tenn, thanks for posting the URL with the update. While its a he said/ he said kind of
thing I was rather struck by two of Nick's Dad's rules given Nick is I believe 18/19
versus say 16 or even 17. One was the demand to take down all social media. While I
agree it might hurt him in the future, its not something I personally would demand of
someone 18 or older. The other was the requirement that he switch departments at work.
Again, very odd IMO to make that a requirement of someone 18 or older. Its one thing to
point out it might be in his best interest if what he says is true, however, to require it
seems a bit much.


I hope he will eventually hear more of the story in the media. Dad says Nick refused
to take the car and Nick in his video said the car was removed from the parking lot
at work before he was able to use it to drive home. Obviously there's a big disconnect
here. Its interesting Dad brings up a possible suspension at work when if Nick was
indeed stranded at work, he was no longer suspended.


Nick seemed like a nice guy on his video and Dad seems like a bit of a control freak
from his response, but its hard to know at this point if my impressions are somewhat
correct or not.

On Virgil's response, I wouldn't expect anything else given how he feels about
non-heterosexual behavior. I do think he would be kinder than what Nick initially
reported.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 20:00:38 GMT -5 swamp said:

Nov 11, 2013 19:01:07 GMT -5 steff said:

and that it is still worthy of a discussion even if Virgil doesn't think so.  No one is forcing him to participate in it. 

Virgil,doesn't need to discuss this because he will never have a gay child, or a child who makes choices he considers immoral. 

The mother in me sincerely hopes you're right, Swamp!

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 19:56:26 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

You're either born an alcoholic or you're not. You're either born with a predilection to violence of you're not.

Sociopathy or sadism can be developed in a person based on their environment. Look how many sociopaths had once been victims of abusive parents or people in authority? Mental illness also has a role in some cases of sociopaths/serial killers/etc.

That's a whole other subject.

You're either born gay or you're not - it's genetic. It is NOT a choice a person makes - and it's not a mental health issue either.

You're either missing or ignoring the basis of my argument.

Notwithstanding that, the choice is to engage in homosexual behaviour or not to engage in homosexual behaviour, not a choice of sexual orientation.

Notwithstanding both those points, your own Wiki link states in so many words that genetics is a small, "non-negligible" factor in determining orientation, among myriad other factors and theories of factors.

At any rate...

[Tennesseer]

Virgil Showlion - if it hasn't been asked already, in your scenario, what sin did your son bring into your home?  I can see you thinking he sinned in your home if you or someone else caught him engaging in sex (with any gender) in your home.  But it is a sin (in your mind) just for being gay?

[swamp]

So Virgil, I'm really curious. What do you consider premarital  sexual behavior that is immoral?  Holding hands?  Kissing?  Hugging?  Second base?  Heavy petting?  Intercourse?  Oral sex?  

[Tennesseer]

Lifting the face veil?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Notwithstanding that, the choice is to engage in homosexual behaviour or not to engage in homosexual behaviour, not a choice of sexual orientation.

Oh please! No doubt you'd probably feel the same way if you found out your STRAIGHT son (or *shock*) straight daughter was engaging in sexual activity while still under your roof or before marriage.

If you found out your (straight) son or daughter had "done the deed" in your home before marriage - would you kick them to the curb too?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 19:21:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That is your personal choice, Virgil.  I hope with everything in me your children are never faced with a situation that will put their well being in jeopardy because of who they are.

Why do you consider homosexuality to be an intrinsic part of a child's identity (i.e. "who they are"), and yet treat every other manner of vice, perversion, addiction, and predisposition imaginable--genetically-influenced or not--as something foreign for which a child will "get help"?

I'll hazard a guess: it's because you see nothing wrong with homosexuality.

My very clearly established position is that I abhor homosexuality. What do you expect me to get out of an argument 100% predicated on the correctness of your assumption?

You've said yourself, if this was an issue of drugs or alcoholism or violence, you'd seek help for a child. If no reasonable help was available, you've stated (and I will quote you, if you so desire) that you certainly wouldn't sit back and simply tolerate the behaviour. Ergo if I reject your thesis that homosexuality is right and good--which I do--then on what basis do you presume to criticize me of jeopardizing the well-being of my child?

You and others try so desperately to pull out sexual orientation and put it on a pedestal as "who (a man) is", separate from the dozens of quirks, flaws, and failures that you deny are intrinsic to his personality or admit are quirks, flaws, and failures. And then you gasp in shock and horror at those of us who regard the pedestal as an empty rhetorical fiction--one predicated entirely on the baseless belief that since you don't see anything intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, it must be right. And not only right, so right that it's intrinsic to a man's identity. A man might not be born predestined to be a killer or a drug addict or a singer or a dancer or politician or a stunt man or a warlord or a liar or a pedophile or a zoophile, but by George don't ever question whether he's predestined to have sex with other men, otherwise you're not accepting "who he is".

Either way, one of us is going to be right on the subject, and one of us is going to be absolutely dead wrong.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 20:48:56 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Notwithstanding that, the choice is to engage in homosexual behaviour or not to engage in homosexual behaviour, not a choice of sexual orientation.

Oh please! No doubt you'd probably feel the same way if you found out your STRAIGHT son (or *shock*) straight daughter was engaging in sexual activity while still under your roof or before marriage.

If you found out your (straight) son or daughter had "done the deed" in your home before marriage - would you kick them to the curb too?

It depends on the circumstances and whether my son or daughter planned on continuing the behaviour. I don't want to answer hypothetical questions about discipline in this particular thread. Maybe if it comes up as an issue later.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 21:11:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 19:21:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That is your personal choice, Virgil.  I hope with everything in me your children are never faced with a situation that will put their well being in jeopardy because of who they are.

Why do you consider homosexuality to be an intrinsic part of a child's identity (i.e. "who they are"), and yet treat every other manner of vice, perversion, addiction, and predisposition imaginable--genetically-influenced or not--as something foreign for which a child will "get help"?

I'll hazard a guess: it's because you see nothing wrong with homosexuality.


I don't pass judgment on homosexuality.  I don't consider it wrong, any more than I consider it right.  It is, for some people, their reality.

My very clearly established position is that I abhor homosexuality. What do you expect me to get out of an argument 100% predicated on the correctness of your assumption?

You've said yourself, if this was an issue of drugs or alcoholism or violence, you'd seek help for a child. If no reasonable help was available, you've stated (and I will quote you, if you so desire) that you certainly wouldn't sit back and simply tolerate the behaviour. Ergo if I reject your thesis that homosexuality is right and good--which I do--then on what basis do you presume to criticize me of jeopardizing the well-being of my child?


I haven't criticized you.   I simply said I hope you - but, mostly your children - never have to face such a situation, Virgil.  If you take that as criticism, so be it.

You and others try so desperately to pull out sexual orientation and put it on a pedestal as "who (a man) is", separate from the dozens of quirks, flaws, and failures that you deny are intrinsic to his personality or admit are quirks, flaws, and failures. And then you gasp in shock and horror at those of us who regard the pedestal as an empty rhetorical fiction--one predicated entirely on the baseless belief that since you don't see anything intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, it must be right. And not only right, so right that it's intrinsic to a man's identity. A man might not be born predestined to be a killer or a drug addict or a singer or a dancer or politician or a stunt man or a warlord or a liar or a pedophile or a zoophile, but by George don't ever question whether he's predestined to have sex with other men, otherwise you're not accepting "who he is".

Either way, one of us is going to be right on the subject, and one of us is going to be absolutely dead wrong.

I'm not going to worry about who's right and who's dead wrong, Virgil.  I haven't entered any contest, and I don't intend to do so.  A person is a person, with all the wonders and the warts that go with the condition of being human.  As long as that person doesn't harm another, or take advantage of one unable to give consent, I have no bone to pick with him/her.  You judge.  I'll try to understand and be of help where I can.  Different strokes for different folks.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 20:23:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Virgil Showlion - if it hasn't been asked already, in your scenario, what sin did your son bring into your home?  I can see you thinking he sinned in your home if you or someone else caught him engaging in sex (with any gender) in your home.  But it is a sin (in your mind) just for being gay?

I follow scripture on the matter. I consider the specific acts prohibited in the Bible. A reference I've provided in the past that more-or-less summarizes my views is this whitepaper by Prof. Robert Gagnon.

I don't make the distinction between a child having sex in my house and a child having sex elsewhere and then returning home to dwell in my house. Just as most husbands/wives wouldn't make a distinction between a spouse having an affair in their house versus having an affair at a neighbour's house.

And before you ask, if Jimmy is a friend and Jimmy happens to be homosexual and I'm aware of it (I do have one friend and a few acquaintances that fall into the category), Jimmy and his "partner" are welcome to stay the weekend at my house provided they exercise the same degree of discretion I'd expect from a heterosexual couple. There's no profit in alienating them. They clearly don't share my views nor do they have any basis to respect my criticisms.

In real life, the issue has never come up.

[Deleted]

I would love to rock Virgil's world.  I bet I could make his head spin.

[Opti]

My guess is petting in the Virgil household is forbidden.



This would probably get you kicked out.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Why do you consider homosexuality to be an intrinsic part of a child's identity (i.e. "who they are"), and yet treat every other manner of vice, perversion, addiction, and predisposition imaginable--genetically-influenced or not--as something foreign for which a child will "get help"?

First of all, a person's sexuality IS an intrinsic part of of their identity.


Secondly, being Gay should in NO way be classified in the category as "vice, perversion, addiction or predisposition". AND - it's not something that a child needs "help to fix".

[Tennesseer]

Nov 11, 2013 21:26:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 20:23:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Virgil Showlion - if it hasn't been asked alreadyb, in your scenario, what sin did your son bring into your home?  I can see you thinking he sinned in your home if you or someone else caught him engaging in sex (with any gender) in your home.  But it is a sin (in your mind) just for being gay?

I follow scripture on the matter. I consider the specific acts prohibited in the Bible. A reference I've prvided in the past that more-or-less summarizes my views is this whitepaper by Prof. Robert Gagnon.

I don't make the distinction between a child having sex in my house and a child having sex elsewhere and then returning home to dwell in my house. Just as most husbands/wives wouldn't make a distinction between a spouse having an affair in their house versus having an affair at a neighbour's house.

And before you ask, if Jimmy is a friend and Jimmy happens to be homosexual and I'm aware of it (I do have one friend and a few acquaintances that fall into the category), Jimmy and his "partner" are welcome to stay the weekend at my house provided they exercise the same degree of discretion I'd expect from a heterosexual couple. There's no profit in alienating them. They clearly don't share my views nor do they have any basis to respect my criticisms.

In real life, the issue has never come up.

So a known gay person (Jimmy) and his lover/mate/husband could stay ìn your home (no hanky panky) because there is no profit in alienating them.  But you would have no problem alienating your hypothetical son.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2013 19:18:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 18:46:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd read the update, as well.  As Tennesseer says, it's now a he said/he said situation.  Either could be telling the truth, just as either could be covering up.  The discussion underway here isn't dependent, IMO, on this case alone, however.  It's a discussion regarding morals, ethics, parental responsibilities, and the responsibilities of young adults who still live at home.  It's not dependent on Nick and his story, as I see it.

The "principal" boils down to the following:

Nick is my son. Nick is working, saving for college, living under my roof. One day Nick comes home and says, "Dad, I'm attracted to other men." I'm dismayed by the news, but my reaction is, "If that's the case now, so be it. It's your moral responsibility not to nurture it or engage in the associated practices. It's unfortunate that you can't take a wife, but countless good men have lived in celibacy, and you'll evidently be among them."

Nick replies, "No, dad. I don't share your beliefs. Homosexuality is good and right and natural, and I choose to engage in it."
My reply is, "Son, I love you but I will not tolerate your bringing that sin, which is lawlessness, into this house. So long as you live here, you will have no romantic or sexual contact with men, and no sexual contact before marriage. If you don't find these rules acceptable, if you won't heed my advice, then it's time for you to make your own way in the world. We'll shelter you for two months, provide you with some necessities, and then you're out on your own; you can do whatever you like. I will always love you, but this is a choice you have to make."

Then Nick either decides to stay and abide by my wife's and my rules, or he chooses to leave and engage in whatever lifestyle pleases him.

I wouldn't terminate contact with him. I would still love him, pray for him, and wish only the best for him. I would tearfully welcome him into my home if for any reason he turned away from his wrongdoing. My wife and I simply will not tolerate lawlessness in our household, including behaviours and lifestyles that western society believes are right and good.

I am disgusted by you more now than I ever have been before.  I did not think my opinion of you could get any lower but you proved me wrong.

[mmhmm]

Sometimes, it's all about differences. 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

And before you ask, if Jimmy is a friend and Jimmy happens to be homosexual and I'm aware of it (I do have one friend and a few acquaintances that fall into the category), Jimmy and his "partner" are welcome to stay the weekend at my house provided they exercise the same degree of discretion I'd expect from a heterosexual couple

So you'd have the same rule if a married sister and her husband or straight couple who were friends visiting from out of town were guests in your home for the weekend? As long as they're guests, and staying in your spare bedroom, they would have to be celibate during their stay in your home.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2013 21:41:11 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

And before you ask, if Jimmy is a friend and Jimmy happens to be homosexual and I'm aware of it (I do have one friend and a few acquaintances that fall into the category), Jimmy and his "partner" are welcome to stay the weekend at my house provided they exercise the same degree of discretion I'd expect from a heterosexual couple

So you'd have the same rule if a married sister and her husband or straight couple who were friends visiting from out of town were guests in your home for the weekend? As long as they're guests, and staying in your spare bedroom, they would have to be celibate during their stay in your home.

Do people usually do it when staying at their friend's house for the weekend?

[Deleted]

We had a thread on that not too long ago...

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2013 22:18:06 GMT -5 oped said:

We had a thread on that not too long ago...

what was the consensus?

[Deleted]

Darned if I remember...