|
|
| Posted: 26 Nov 2009 17:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Old Fashioned Views are outdated...that's why they are old fashioned. See there are views from the past that are as relevant today as they were a hundred years ago, ideas like honesty and respect for others. Other ideas like certain people shouldn't hold certain jobs, or drink at certain drinking fountains, or marry certain other people are out dated, and that is how they became seen as old fashioned.
I do hate to tell you this Tim, but gay people didn't spring fully formed from the head of Ellen Degeneres in 90's. Back in the fourties, gay men and women were making those movies, and they still are today.
It wasn't perposterous back then because people acutlaly did it. Just like they do it today. The question was never can gay people get married, they do all the time. The question is if the state should exclude their marriages from recognition, and if so why?
Right now, you've got a moral argument against it, which is actually the same moral argument against eating shell fish (both are an abomination agianst the lord, look it up). But because a number of people including God are grossed out by shell fish is no reason to ban the industry. Likewise, I don't see why the state should worry about what a few people find disgusting, since neither they nor I will be forced to watch what goes on in their bedrooms, and the state simply shouldn't be.
|
| Posted: 03 Dec 2009 02:10 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Read this http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/whatsfordinner.html
It will answer your question about shellfish.
Quote:
“...Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’
“But Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.’
“And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common’” (Acts 10:9-16).
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Dec 2009 22:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
So the next time a lobster falls from the heavens and God directly commands you to eat it, you can feel free to eat it Tim.
Also:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:17
So there's that too. The bottom line is, that a great deal of "old obselete laws" were put aside when christianity went commercial with the Greeks and the Romans, to hold that one section is unchangeable, when you clearly have no regard for other equally strong laws shows a personal prefernce not a godly one. Which is of course fine. If it angers God he will surely strike you down in his time, and if not perhaps it is part of his plan that you should do as you do.
In the end, the bibel tells us not to lay with a man as you do with a woman. Note firstly, this makes no admonishment against lesbians, only those men who lay with other men as they do women. Secondly, as gay men don't lie with women, it would be impossible for them to lay with men as they do women (this is what Maimonides would call a loophole). Likewise, there are scholars who find this text to be in refernce to rape of prisoners and not about consentual sex at all.
So yeah, there's that. The law has always been interpreted by scholars and found to mean differnt things at differnt times. To declare it immutable is to call all men unrighteous as even in your interpretation is subject to your times and philosophies.
|
| Posted: 03 Dec 2009 22:47 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
If you read the link it will explain in detail how God gave different orders for different periods of times.
Example first it was only eat vegetables, then certain kinds of meat, then all meats etc
There's no place in the Bible where God rescinded any orders about men with men or where the definition of marriage was ever changed.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 04 Dec 2009 05:39 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
There's no place in the Bible where God rescinded any orders about men with men
Ok, so where did God give those orders Himself?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 04 Dec 2009 17:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
What you have linked to is an interpretation of scripture. Scripture can be interpreted many ways.
In the end, it is we who decide what each item means, and accept or reject it as is convenient or seemingly truthful to us.
If god made men and women gay, (and he surely did) was it his intention that they should live forever in solitary virginity? Pehaps, or pehaps (as we see through the old testiment) god is asking us to look beyond convention and simplistic understanding of his law to expand our definition of love to include these people as well.
It's all in your interpretation.
|
| Posted: 04 Dec 2009 21:43 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I think your problem is you expect every command to be super simple for one when it's not. That's why Jesus died on the cross because we all have sinned. Keeping all commandments perfectly throughout our lives is impossible.
Having said that while God expects us to fail, he doesn't expect us to get bogged down in any one particular sin doing it over and over again without there being some consequences.
Matches if I follow your logic then I must go with what God made me. He made me to love women so I guess I better go with my fleshly instincts and chase down every woman I run into that looks hot. Bad thing is my wife wouldn't like that too good. We all have to say no to our flesh sometimes. If you just go with it, there is no end to how far you'll go. It isn't about being born gay. It's being born sinners. Anybody could be gay if you tell them it's ok long enough, and they don't hold any inhibitions based on moral or spiritual grounds. It's a choice not like being born a mutant like the X-men movie.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 07 Dec 2009 18:21 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
So you could be gay?
You really believe that the only thing keeping you from being gay is that someone told you not to?
Even though you have a physical revulsion to the concept, it's just societal convention that keeps you from exploring the notion?
I'm sure there are more than just genetic factors that determines the hodgpodge that is a person's sexuality, how many of those factors one has controll of however I am far less certain of.
You see, I think what Jesus suggests to man is not that we shouldn't chase down every woman we see because we have to deny our sexual urges. I think we are asked to no do this because every woman we see is a human being and deserving of our respect and consideration. Likewise our wives are similarly human beings whom we shouldn't wish to hurt with our sexual proclivities. It isn't about denying the flesh it is about aknowledging the soul of those around us.
If I do aknowledge the soul of others around me, I must likewise know that those who are gay are as human as any, and are as deserving of my respect as any. In that, their moral choices are between themselves and god, and not for my judgement, only his.
I think your problem is, you are dwelling on the sex, when what is at question is the love. As any married man can tell you, marriage isn't about sex. It's a wonderful aspect of your life together, but it isn't about sex. As marriage is in a spiritual sense about love, who am I to question if your love is pure, and by that notion who are you to question anothers?
I don't know if gay married couples have sex, or how frequently they do so. Especially if they have children. Their sex life is not my concern, but I see no reason to assume the love they have for one another, for the home they create, for the children they raise should be any less than the love I share with my wife.
If it were just sex every marriage would disolve once partners ceased to be the ideal they were on their wedding day. But we grow old, we grow fat, and often we grow tired, and even when sex is a secondary priority, love still remains the primary function of our lives.
All gay people ask is that they be allowed to have their similar love aknowledged.
|
| Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Choice. Still a choice. Not a race, mutant power, or height. It's not a birth mark. It's a choice. Anybody could choose it if they were not held back by moral beliefs. A person can be taught to accept anything. There is nothing impossible for the human conscience to allow with enough peer pressure. Look at the Nazis. A whole country almost believed murder was ok because Hitler told them so.
When you keep telling kids it's ok if they are gay, you create a self fulfilling prophecy. I guarantee there are kids who experiment with things they would have never known existed otherwise were it not for today's current media exposure of sex.
There's a reason why people say if it were not for the grace of God there go I because anything and everything is possible for human beings without Christ.
I think you are just stuck in liberal land where everything is ok and nobody can help anything or be accountable for their actions. And nobody is talking about being mean to anybody. Just don't pat them on the back for stuff that isn't right.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 07 Dec 2009 19:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Much like global warming, science and study is irrelevant when it interferes with your preconceived notions.
Please Tim, it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with common sense and observation.
But I get it, if god makes gay people gay then your entire philosophy implodes. It has to be a choice, and an immoral one because that is what you've committed to in your philosophy.
That others reading the same text find interpretations outside your perview is irrelevant because that's not the philosophy that moves you.
I understand, all one can ask is that you understand that your philosophy is not the only one in existence.
It is all a question of tolerance. Should you and your philosophy be tolerated by society? I think it should, it harms none but yourself, and perhaps gives you strength when you need it. But within that same notion shouldn't society tolerate philosophies differnt than yours? Shouldn't society seek to make no prefernce between philosophies and simply tolerate personal choices which harm no others?
See that's the thing, even if homosexuality were a choice, it doesn't change the fact that it harms no one in society to tolerate it. It doesn't harm society that someone choose to be orthodox jewish, or atheist. We don't regulate these choices, which are incidently just as sinful perhaps in the eyes of some philosophies as the "choice" to be gay, so why should we regulate these other choices?
If we are to function as a society, we need to have some kind of tolerance for each other. Even when one's philosophies are repugnant to others. So long as the holder of that philosophy doesn't seek to harm individuals or society as a whole through thier holding of that belief society should tolerate it.
So what if an adult chooses to be gay? It doesn't harm you, now does it?
Do you really fear you'll become gay if society allows it? Are you likely to become an atheist because society allows that? Individuals must be responsible for thier own lifestyles, and it isn't for the state to say, "you can't do that" unless those actions hurt others.
Since there is no harm caused by homosexuality, except in the possible damage to one's soul in a specific philosophy, the state and society should tolerate it as it tolerates every other behavior in our society.
But of course if you just want to dismiss such argument as "liberalism" that's fine, but that's not argument, that's just dismissal.
I guess in the end the question is, should society be free, or should if follow a single moral code set down by a minority of it's citizens? I think our founding fathers had an answer to that question.
|
| Posted: 09 Dec 2009 19:39 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
So what if an adult chooses to be gay? It doesn't harm you, now does it? It would be wonderful if every liberal admitted it was a choice, but of course they won't until every law is passed they can get passed surrounding gay law initiatives. Of course that appears to not be going exactly the liberal way with lots of states voting against gay marriage.
Quote:
Do you really fear you'll become gay if society allows it? Are you trying to debate me or crack me up?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Dec 2009 21:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Tim you are the one saying gayness is a choice, and that tolerance of gayness will make people choose to be gay.
I am asking if you really believe that societal tolerance would cause you to question your orientation.
And being gay isn't a choice, at least not one you are aware of. Of course the same can be said of religion. Do you choose to be an evangelical, or have you been moved to be so by the spirit? Do Atheists choose to be so, or can they simply not perceive any way to not be an atheist?
Let us say you lived in a nation other than the U.S. where being an evangelical christian is not tolerated, would that make you choose to be a differnt faith? Or would you cling to the only faith that moves you and makes you who you are? Would all the arguments and threats agianst you as a Christian make you likely to give up your faith, or make you more certain of your path?
Your orientation isn't a choice. It's not a switch. It may be informed by many factors in your life, but like faith, it is just a part of you and makes you who you are. One can deny it, one might even convert theoretically, but not all will and most can't.
And in the end, even if both religion and sexual orientation are a choice, made conciously and deliberatly, what does it matter to society? Society isn't hurt by the existence of Jews or Athesits, how is it hurt by the existence of homosexuals?
If there is no harm to society, why should society be against something?
|
| Posted: 09 Dec 2009 21:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
|
P.S. you call me a liberal again and we might get into a fight. I'm a registered Republican since I could vote, and am a conservative, I just don't buy into the religious reactionary right brand of conservatism or the all government is evil brand of conservatism. I am just a rational conservative, not an idealogue. Government government has a role as referee to the free market, and to do the jobs the market can't. After that it should stay our of bedrooms and our lives, and do what it can to make sure that the rules are fair for all, even if that means it won't always be equal for all.
|
| Posted: 10 Dec 2009 18:36 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I'm a registered Republican since I could vote, and am a conservative, I just don't buy into the religious reactionary right brand of conservatism or the all government is evil brand of conservatism. How about I call you a social liberal then? Of course the way you talk about wanting government run healthcare I'm wondering exactly where are you conservative at?
Back on the gay thing the first thing you, me, or anybody else arguing about this has got to do and that's be honest. That's why I wish the gay liberal movement would stop trying to say they are born that way to try and equate themselves with civil rights movements for black and minorities. This deceptive tactic shows a thinking person right away that there is something not honest and upfront going on in the liberal agenda, this agenda or any other liberal agenda.
Religious freedom has anyone knows was big on the fore father's minds. It's what America is about.
I do challenge you to come up with even one instance where George Washington or any of them wrote down or spoke about anything related to equal rights for gays, gay marriage, or anything remotely similar.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Dec 2009 18:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
~Sam Adams~
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Dec 2009 20:26 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
You know Tim. I think this comes down to one question.
Do you think the government should tell you how to live your life?
Should the government come into your home and declare your relationship invalid, block you from raising children, and do everything in it's power to limit your rights because it disagrees with your lifestyle.
That's the thing that you and a lot of reactionaries don't understand, and what real conservatives do. What ever rule you make for what ever undesirable minority group can come right back and bite you if you should fall out favor. A conservative supports freedom and equality because a conservative knows that once you make a rule to exclude one, rules to exclude others will surely follow. Conservatives are careful and slow in their application of changes, but once a change is warranted they are not shy about it's implimentation.
Right is right, and if you make one set of rules for one, and not another, you take a very big risk (something conservatives are averse to) in hoping you'll never be the other.
|
| Posted: 12 Dec 2009 00:15 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
You are talking about giving away rights for the sake of giving them away. For instance you take adoption. Is it in the best interest of a child to have a mom and a dad or two moms?
At least you have to acknowledge there are legitimate reasons for us to disagree on these kind of serious matters.
As far as the government telling anybody what to do. That implies we arguing about whether or not to make the gay lifestyle illegal. What we tend to argue about is changing existing laws to favor gays. Big difference.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 14 Dec 2009 17:01 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
No Tim, it's about not restricting rights based on a presumption of wrongness that isn't supported by law or science, only religion.
That's the thing, although the bible says nothing about pedophelia (in fact arguably encouraging it, since one is a man at age 13, and one imagines an adult woman as well) we ban it and those who practice it by matter of law, and by matter of scientific argument (See the DSM-IV).
With homosexuals, you don't have that argument. There is no law forbiding it, there is no science to suggest it is abnormal. Studies of the children of homosexual couples show no higher negative outcomes than the children of heterosexual couples (many studies actually suggest better outcomes).
If the only argument you have is a personal moral objection, is that what the state should base it's decisions on.
Again, realize Tim, that there are many who would object to your lifestyle on Moral grounds. We defend your right to your lifestyle (by which I mean belife system) because we understand that it is important that we allow people such personal freedom and not to limit their practice there of.
There is no scientific or legal reason to ban you, the Duggars, or homosexuals from enjoying the many societal benefits of marriage and family, and in all cases society benefits from all of your inclusions.
When you start saying it's o.k. to ban one of those groups (either gays or the Duggars) on a moral assumption of a group of people, you open the door to such banning of any group who finds itself in the minority.
If the psychological community still called homosexuals sick, if the law still criminalized homosexuality, you might have an arguement. But they don't, so all you have left is your personal moral queesiness. That's fine, but recognize that such queesiness isn't limited to you and your perceptions of the world, and that for some, you may inspire such feelings.
|
| Posted: 15 Dec 2009 16:11 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
No Tim, it's about not restricting rights based on a presumption of wrongness that isn't supported by law or science, only religion. Hate to tell you but in the early days religion was considered the biggest basis for most laws. Morality was the foundation and morality was based on what the Bible had to say. Most of our basic laws were already in the Ten Commandments.
Quote:
(in fact arguably encouraging it, since one is a man at age 13, and one imagines an adult woman as well Huh? Can you run that one by me again please. I'm missing something.
Quote:
children of homosexual couples show no higher negative outcomes than the children of heterosexual couples I believe that like I believe it's safe to leave teenage boys with priests at night alone.
Again are we talking about the freedom of two grownups to do something in their home, or the freedom of a child to grow up in a normal home without fear of being molested or having being brain washed into a wicked lifestyle. The kid doesn't really get to choose do they? They haven't got enough experience in life to make a determination even if they are allowed any input in the decision.
Quote:
If the psychological community still called homosexuals sick, if the law still criminalized homosexuality, you might have an arguement. But they don't, Well we both know money can push politics and can push science any way it wants.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Dec 2009 23:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Not that I am intentionally ganging up on you Tim, but a few things need to be addressed IMHO.
Quote:
Hate to tell you but in the early days religion was considered the biggest basis for most laws. Morality was the foundation and morality was based on what the Bible had to say. Most of our basic laws were already in the Ten Commandments.
First off, we're not even in those early days of yore. We should be contending with the here and now.
'Religion being the basis for most laws' is actually a bit vague if not flatly incorrect, considering the first amendment and all. Care to list even a handful of those laws that are allegedly based on religion back in those 'early days'?
We can debate how much morality is in your good book sometime if you wish- it's not like we haven't been over this but your retention is highly suspect. What you're saying is an opinion, not a fact.
I like acrobatics. List off some of the laws built specifically on the ten commandments? If I could point to a source that had those commandments and most of Mosaic law in it that was more than 3,000 years old, would you acknowledge it; at least give it a lookover?
Quote:
Again are we talking about the freedom of two grownups to do something in their home, or the freedom of a child to grow up in a normal home without fear of being molested or having being brain washed into a wicked lifestyle.
Yes, the freedom of two consenting adults who are hurting noone to not have government intrude on their lives. Define 'normal' in the case of a home and I dare you to tell me that there are not children who have both a mother and father there that are not afraid of being molested because it's already happened to them by one of those parents. Your fixation on it being a 'wicked' lifestyle is also strictly your hangup, based on religion as Matches pointed out, or you would chosen a different term than wicked. I'll also ask, just for the record, and just for fun since you never answer it, why a non-Christian has to live a Christian lifestyle?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 16 Dec 2009 18:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Tim, you've got your right to your opinion, and you and those like you will continue to express your opinions with voice and ballots so long as the state you empower doesn't take both away.
My gladness is that reason seems to be prevailing generationally at least, and in time, reason will be the final arbitor in the debate.
|
| Posted: 16 Dec 2009 22:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I guess the question I would ask you gentlemen is why should a child be forced to live an atheists lifestyle?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 16 Dec 2009 22:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Should a child be forced to live a christian lifestyle? Trust me, as a parent I can tell you, you can't force a child to live any lifestyle.
All you can do is raise them with your own moral values and hope for the best.
Athesits raise devout believes and vice versa.
You can likewise be the straitest man on the planet and your son can turn out gay, and likewise, gay parents are often put in the awkward position of having their children come out as strait to them.
No one forces a child to live a gay lifestyle, especially not gay parents, they may impose on a child a respect for others, and an encouragement not to judge lest they be judged, and other nonchristian values like that, but it is up to the child to accept or reject those values, just as your children will accept or reject your values, just as you accepted or rejected your parent's values.
As it turns out, kids are people too, capable of the same rational decisions that we ourselves made as we grew and became adults. go figure.
|
| Posted: 17 Dec 2009 02:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I guess the question I would ask you gentlemen is why should a child be forced to live an atheists lifestyle?
I did get a tiny bit of warm fuzzies that you finally acknowledged that question that I've been asking you for years now. Sadly, you avoided answering it, just like always.
Aside from not being a Christian lifestyle, what exactly is so wrong with an 'atheist lifestyle'? I'm curious to hear the list of horrible things we supposedly do just because we don't share the same theological view, and I'm sure you'll be able to delightfully list all the dangers that present themselves to children because of it. Clue me in to a lifestyle I supposedly have no knowledge of. Then maybe you can get around to answering my question, now that Matches has asked a version of it as well.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 17 Dec 2009 18:17 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
One answer for both of you.
Train up a child in the way that he should go and he will not depart from it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 17 Dec 2009 21:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Tim do you even have children?
If not, then realize that you are speaking from an ideal that all non parents speak, and no actual parents do.
Trust me, there are lots of good families (from the Gingriches to the Chenney's) who have raised gay children. Good hard working honest gay children to be sure, but gay none the less.
You can't make your child into anything that they are not, you can only help to guide them to their ultimate destiny. If they sweerve off, it's not necessarily because you were a bad parent, and if they wind up o.k. it's not necessarily because you were a good parent.
You can't raise them up right, because there really is not right when it comes to child rearing, just degrees of wrong.
|
| Posted: 18 Dec 2009 02:00 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
That's not an answer Tim, to anything I asked. Just another deflection, with an empty platitude.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 18 Dec 2009 20:25 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4166
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Yes Matches I'm a poppa, but look I stand by what the Bible says. Perhaps, what you fail to take into account is these days we as parents, no matter how well meaning, fail to take into account the outside forces that raise children these days as much or more so than parents do. You've got TV, radio, internet, books, movies, peers and even the schools to compete against. All these outside forces feed kids all kinds of competing messages. So maybe the idea should be to severely monitor or limit TV, music, movies etc. It can only help.
Parents aren't perfect by any means, but in the end a parent has to take a big portion of responsibility for the morality of their kids. 9 times out of 10 a kid brought up right might go through their rebellious era and then back to the Christian values their parents taught them.
I was rebellious for a while. Got a nice example of the differences between my parents way of life and the world's and while we might have some differences of opinion for the most part I realized they weren't quite as dumb as I had them figured. In fact the older I get the more I realize they actually knew a lot more than I gave them credit for.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 18 Dec 2009 21:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 3839
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
So Tim, the question now becomes why any other family should let your influence as one of those outside forces affect their children. Why should their children have to hear your conflicting message?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 20 Dec 2009 04:11 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 193
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Congrat on being a father Tim. I'm one as well. And if my kids came to me one day and told me they were gay, I'd tell them I love them.
If that happens to you where do you go?
I know...it's a cheap shot, but let's face it that's what these kinds of debates always come down to. It's real easy to look out at the world and make a statement of what is wrong and right, but one thing being a parent has taught me is that when it's your own world, your own family, all the things you held can go right out the window.
When it comes to your family, do you hold this hard line or do you come to see your old ideas as false.
This can go any way, my kids may one day get moved by the spirit and become born again evangelicals. And if they tell me that, I'll tell them I love them. It's their life at the end of the day, and my job as a parent is to care for them however I can, and however they need, and to put my own self to the side for their growth and benefit.
|
|
