Father disowns daughter in epic letter when she kicks out her gay son

bigfatfurrytexan

So the quandry you create for yourself when you state being gay is a choice, is that you must have made your own choice in the past. Since I never made a choice and just did what was natural to me, this seems odd. And causes me to wonder if your position is rooted in repressed homosexual urges (i.e., a choice).

I have always done what was natural, and happily married. But to say that homosexual behavior is "natural" is not likely. Yes, we all know, animals do it. But humans who are capable of logical thought and have advanced consciousness are not animals, or so I would hope. Homosexual behavior is not natural, in the sense that it's anti beneficial to the species. Which is why i believe that as you mentioned before.. it might be some form anti-crowding technique to which has evolved throughout society. A society that is beginning to be overcrowded can only logically tolerate homosexual behavior since many don't want to procreate or the wrong people are procreating. However, it is also why i believe some choose to be the "chosen" ones who elevate themselves to that task. Most gay people i've run into while in college and my wife's music friends have all been good people. I do however note that many of them carry a sense of pride and narcissism.

reply to post by Christian Voice


If your son turns up gay, you might try stoning him to death for his clear disobedience to your rules. That's in the bible too. Same chapter as your "clear stance on homosexuality."

WorthlessServent

From your own link: A revealing map of the countries that are most and least tolerant of homosexuality

As with the data we examined earlier on racial tolerance, European, Anglophone and Latin countries seem to be the most accepting. In fact, only one country outside of those three categories had more than half of respondents accepting homosexuality: the Philippines

The two most accepting countries are Spain and Germany, with 88 and 87 percent, respectively, answering "yes."

The U.S. also lags behind much of the Western world by this metric, with only 60 percent answering "yes." Interestingly, with so many U.S. states now allowing same-sex marriage, those states are ahead of much of Europe on gay rights despite the overall low score on this survey.

Did you bother to read the link which you posted??? Or just look at the pictures???
I guess the big bad Gay Loving America isn't as sinfully tolerant as one might think huh??? So now there's nothing to worry about for all you and your holy rolling finger pointers, there is still plenty of bigotry and intolerance of others for you to feel safe and secure for now.

reply to post by WorthlessServant


Perhaps metro areas are more "tolerant" of homosexuality (and all other things) because they are living around it more intimately than old Bubba out north of town here raising his cotton and his family.

Who knows.

I love your avatar. The washing of the feet is a great image Far more Christ like than other images, celebrating his life, not his death.

Regardless, being capable of thought and being capable of sexual function are two different things. In no possible way could I have sex with a man. I could not physically perform the act. Could you? If not, then could you not agree that it might be possible that it is natural? That homosexuals are not abominations?

I don't ask anyone to accept and praise anything. Just to tolerate, to take a less judgemental view of their fellow man.

WorthlessServant
bigfatfurrytexan

So the quandry you create for yourself when you state being gay is a choice, is that you must have made your own choice in the past. Since I never made a choice and just did what was natural to me, this seems odd. And causes me to wonder if your position is rooted in repressed homosexual urges (i.e., a choice).

I have always done what was natural, and happily married. But to say that homosexual behavior is "natural" is not likely. Yes, we all know, animals do it. But humans who are capable of logical thought and have advanced consciousness are not animals, or so I would hope. Homosexual behavior is not natural, in the sense that it's anti beneficial to the species. Which is why i believe that as you mentioned before.. it might be some form anti-crowding technique to which has evolved throughout society. A society that is beginning to be overcrowded can only logically tolerate homosexual behavior since many don't want to procreate or the wrong people are procreating. However, it is also why i believe some choose to be the "chosen" ones who elevate themselves to that task. Most gay people i've run into while in college and my wife's music friends have all been good people. I do however note that many of them carry a sense of pride and narcissism.

edit on 6-10-2013 by WorthlessServant because: Extra Quote

Of we carry a sense of pride. We are only trying to do what comes naturally to us. Its reeks of arrogance when people spout the whole "its unnatural". Simply put, who are you to say what's natural and what isn't? As has been stated already, homosexuality has been around as long as the human race has been around. If that's the case, it sounds pretty natural to me.

It obviously serves some purpose in our species or evolution would have ditched it a long time ago.

reply to post by Scope and a Beam


There are far greater philosophical/theological problems than homosexual animals. Like, for example, the ruthlessness of a lion ripping apart a gazelle; disease; etc.

These problems are solved in expectable ways. In the Judeo-christian tradition, man represents a"surplus" to nature. We are a part of it; and indeed, it is a part of us. But our reason, our ability to probe, reflect, theorize...these are unique human abilities that put us in our own veritable taxanomic category. Humans are the greatest proof of why dualism seems to be a basic ontological factor. We are the only species able to infer it; and this ability confers on us the status of being "different" from the natural order. Again: we are entangled in it; affected by it; but some undefinable part of us, exhibited in how we think, feel and act, is beyond it.

WorthlessServant
you will notice a skew in statistical data that a majority of homosexuals are centralized in cities that are tolerant to gay behavior, and states that have legalized gay marriage or have given them rights. You have to ask yourself.. if homosexuals are so helpless to being the sexual orientation that they are, why aren't the percentages of gay population per capita stable across the country?

You have your logic complete reversed.

First: once one comes of legal age and can participate in surveys, they are able to move to areas where they are more comfortable. Second: laws in areas are voted in *by the people living there.* Which simply reflects more of the first. It may also reflect cultural differences where, possibly due to more open exposure to the concept in media and in those around them, even non-gay people are fine with it.

You make it sound like passing a law to support gay marriage suddenly causes this cosmic event where people in that locale start spontaneously converting or something lol.

reply to post by RedCairo


I'm am stating that the acts of legalizing gay marriage or a society more open to homosexuality enables more cases of homosexuality. My logic is just fine.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


At this point I digress on the matter. There are over 20 pages of debate on this topic and when it all comes undone.. it'll be our hearts that are judged. I'm not one of those people who abhor gay people, i just think it's not right. But i will give you the credit that "natural response to crowding" is the most intelligent thing i've heard on the matter. I have a biological perspective on these sort of things since it's what i studied in college, and that paper you sent me even referred to evolutionary biologists having trouble understanding epigenetic conditions to pre-facilitate homosexuality.

In the end, it misses the point to judge other people, especially as christians. I have my stance on things, but i avoid judging anyone lest i be judged in the same manner. For me to point fingers and to challenge their integrity, well, i'm not the one to cast the first stone. Jesus mentions the parable of the man who's debt was forgiven and then went after someone who owed him a small amount but squeezed him for every penny; which is symbolic for forgiveness and i'm not one to forget my debt. What i feel is important is to believe that Christ died for your sins, and having your heart in order with Him.

Note that i didn't bash homosexuals for being the way they are, i only argued that it was choice and that i felt it was immoral.

WorthlessServant
I'm am stating that the acts of legalizing gay marriage or a society more open to homosexuality enables more cases of homosexuality. My logic is just fine.

Enables more cases? What's a case? What's enabling? This is not a matter of something that is defined by whether it's written on paper officially somewhere.

Whether people are gay or not has nothing to do with the law. If the laws in some areas are more likely to kill them for it, or more likely to allow legal relationships for it, then that will have something to do with who avoids or flocks to such areas and who is open vs. secretive about it.

But the state of its existence is inherently individual, not legal.

reply to post by WorthlessServant



Yes sir....and I will not disagree with what you have said here. Not in the least.

This is the Christianity that I am familiar with, among those close to me.

What bothers me most about this thread is that this is the second time in less than 2 weeks that an unsubstantiated story has been passed off as a true story without anyone questioning its authenticity whatsoever. The last one was a known hoax that involved a pastor who dressed up like a bum before church and was treated horribly by the congregation until he revealed his true identity. That one was never moved to the hoax bin.

I'm all for discussing hypothetical situations, but do we really have to resort to letting these hoaxes slide in order to spark some not-so intelligent conversation? I thought we were better than this.

WorthlessServant
reply to post by RedCairo

 

I'm am stating that the acts of legalizing gay marriage or a society more open to homosexuality enables more cases of homosexuality. My logic is just fine.

Seriously? Being able to marry is NOT going to turn people gay or make them sent to start experimenting. If they are gay they will engage in homosexual acts if the are not gay they won't. whether they can get married or not.

reply to post by Megatronus

reply to post by RedCairo


When something is illegal, it discourages the behavior. Is it so difficult to understand that? Making something legal therefore enables the behavior or no longer discourages it. I never said that it turns people gay by legalizing gay marriage, read correctly what i wrote. If you think i'm wrong.. then look at prohibition for a poster example. It was legal.. became illegal and discouraged (while people still did it), and then overturned and drinking went back up again. If the government revoked incest laws i will put ANY money down that people would start marrying their siblings, even though it is generally frowned upon. If the government revoked polygamy laws, i will again put ANY money down that people would start to have more than one wife, even though it is generally understood that you should have one marital partner.

So again, you continue to question my logic blindly.

reply to post by Bone75

For what it's worth, I did question it on p. 19.

As usually happens with gay-themed threads they start with something very specific, and before one can say boo to a goose they end up with general viewpoints and discussions on the topic.

As a gay member I'm very glad that equality has been passionately defended, but I do also think that sources and assumptions (and motivations for these kind of popular power-point presentations that appear on Facebook, and so forth, and have very suspect narratives) must always be questioned too.

The last thing I want is for another class of people to feel unjustly labelled and unhappy by sheer implication, and to eventually close ranks beyond any further discussion.
My sympathy also has its limits in some cases, since a few immediately defended the anti-gay position with the usual arguments, and they too could have read more carefully or questioned authenticity at first.
Instead they also saw this as an immediate soapbox.
That was their own doing.
If this letter was a fiction to elicit responses showing how anti-gay some are, then it certainly succeeded.
But luckily the opposite is also true.

It's easy to debate abstractions, but real life is usually far more complex, and I have conservative Christian friends who are not homophobic in their daily lives.
And a lot of people don't like thinking about having a child that turns out gay - religious or not.
That doesn't mean I agree with their ideology, which I find highly unpleasant.
Not that homophobia always needs a clear ideology - people worry about grandchildren, and lifestyles and all the terrible things they hear (thinking this shatters their long-held dreams for their kids, and that all gay people live the same lifestyle).
It can be a major shock at first.

But yeah, also a great thread in many ways with many insightful views, and most of what I could add otherwise has already been said more competently.

Christian Voice
reply to post by fenson76

 

So your wife takes birth control meds to prevent her from being in pain ? That's odd. By your reasoning God made the men that do stem cell research, he made the men that created the atomic bomb, he made the men that do chemical and biological weapons, so what's your point ?
I have never heard of a case where something as unnatural as birth control was absolutely needed for pain prevention.
Very very odd indeed.

It's called Endometriosis...read a book other than the bible. So compassionate you are. I have no idea what you are getting at with your comparisons you cited. Your car you drive...is that natural for a human to do? I would think not in your eyes...keep living that dream.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Guess what, it works for my wife so give me another one. Stem cells are natural yet it's an abomination to study them? Um...why is it ok to mess with natural hormones? Btw, you have no idea what kind of birth control she takes. It' s also used for her Ovarian cysts. I pray you never have to deal with the pain she does. It is really a sad thing to think that we are both Christians and you would have my wife in pain. I am done engaging you since you are obviously here for conflict. I bet you are a hoot at the Westboro Babtist potlucks. Peace.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Since you like to take the bible so literally and quote it to meet your needs, how do you feel about Deuteronomy 21:10-14?

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

This is a serious question since I am curious to see if you think this is a right thing to do. If you do not, why do you feel it's ok to pick and choose which scriptures to follow?

reply to post by Christian Voice


I was lurking around on this thread, completely bored out of my mind, and then I saw this post. It was quite interesting to me because it reminded me of the time in my life where I did tell whatever god is up there in not-so-nice words that I didn't really care about his existence. I was quite blunt as well since my relative's church was having a negative impact on my life. Of course, I wasn't outside and I wasn't shaking my fist.

Four years have past since then and I couldn't be happier with the choice I've made. For a few days, the Christian beliefs I had when I was younger made me think I was going to get struck with a lightning bolt, but that never happened and my life didn't take a drastic turn for the worse. I realized that it was okay not to believe in a certain religion or god. It felt like I was free for the first time in my life.

Not that I have anything against people with Christian beliefs. People need to show a little bit more tolerance for all types of religion, not just ones that have less rules and looser views. If someone wants to believe in a religion that promotes strict morals, then that's their own business and not something public for people to criticize endlessly.

You should post your idea for an experiment in it's own thread. It would be interesting to see what types of responses you would get.