Posted on 08/02/2018 2:58:40 PM PDT by Blue House Sue
On paper, everything was going well for Seth Owen. A valedictorian of a high school in Jacksonville, Florida, with a 4.16 grade-point average, the 18-year-old had been accepted to Georgetown University as part of its Class of 2022.
But he had left his parents’ house in February after they had given him an ultimatum to attend their church, after years of disagreements related to his sexuality - Owen is gay - or move out, he told NBC News. And Georgetown’s financial aid package for him had been calculated based on what his family was expected to contribute, leaving him with a $20,000 gap to pay the tuition for his first year.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Actually, I do agree that parents (especially of adults) can lay down the rules in their own home. Every family should be free to raise their children their way within clear safety boundaries.
It’s just sad that a parent would choose to stop supporting a child for his sexual orientation. And much sadder to me that so many freeper still heartily agree with this. You were lucky in the earlier decades that the whole
Society shunned homosexuality so all gay kids hid it. They weren’t lucky but the parents who love only heterosexual children were.
That’s true to a point, but I don’t blame the parents. When a child becomes so unruly, they really have little choice. Which is worse—allowing a child to undermine the entire household, or letting them go to learn the relationship between personal choice and responsibility? In my book, the latter is the loving response. Love requires hard choices—not emotional responses.
Many of my children left our house under similar circumstances—drugs, sex, violence—but that doesn’t mean I stopped loving them. It just means we couldn’t live together. Even with that, we’ve tried to help them get set for life with varying degrees of success. Some turned it around and eventually admitted we weren’t the sole cause of their misery, but some are still bitter and blame us (or others) for their ongoing problems.
Narcissism kills—either slowly or quickly, so boundaries are essential to maintaining any healthy relationship. Unfortunately, our culture feeds the inherent narcissism of youth and promotes hatred of all traditional values. The left’s victims lay bleeding out across the country, and yet those of us who commit to real love are vilified as haters because we speak the truth—licensiousness leads to death.
I forgot I was calling people mean and nasty. I regret I did that. I should have said that it’s the kind of intolerance leftists show for us. I shouldn’t have name called like that.
We shouldn’t be tolerant of rude or hurtful behavior. But I am tolerant of “other” lifestyles because I want to be free to live MINE.
Like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater?
Is this all just down to “homosexuality is biblically wrong”?
Would hiding your own feelings have made your own moral judgments any less hypocritical?
Actually, the "freedoms" you advocate were imposed on us by a combination of judicial activism and a robust social marketing campaign by media. There was no "collective decision" on the subject of homosexuality; just moral indoctrination by a licentious caste with a hegemony on the means of communication.
Is this all just down to “homosexuality is biblically wrong”?
There is a REASON the practice is condemned by the Bible. If all you know IS that the Bible condemns homosexuality, rather than some of the WHYs homosexuality should be proscribed, I submit you don't know enough about homosexuality to have a matured opinion on the issue.
Would hiding your own feelings have made your own moral judgments any less hypocritical?
You are not wrong about there being a powerful force having planned decades ago to drastically lower society’s moral codes for reasons of distraction and control. And using the judiciary and powerful social marketing in which to turn hearts and minds. Sadly, we the people are those hearts and minds.
I have named ‘Gullibles’ the busy Americans who are apolitical and just glean “info” from social and mass media. They take the notes from the oligarchic memos like sucking lemonade through a straw. This is how we went from respect for other people’s private sex lives, and respect for household closeness (hospital privileges, basic inheritances) to a Huge Gay Agenda than puts gay people much higher on the social scale than straight people. I’m not as dumb as you think.
There is a REASON the practice is condemned by the Bible. If all you know IS that the Bible condemns homosexuality, rather than some of the WHYs homosexuality should be proscribed, I submit you don't know enough about homosexuality to have a matured opinion on the issue.
I am returning your submission. I have enough experience with homosexuality, including a tiny bit of professional experience. I see evidence that sexual orientation is more or less formed in utero. I believe it is a disability caused during the very short period of time of fetal sexual-neurological development, as is sexual identity.
And while I see WHY homosexuality doesn’t work very well for the continuation of a species, I do not see its practice as any more of a sin than many more odious ones that Gd has pointed out, like gossip, which He calls akin to murder. But to many people, sex with the same gender is so disgusting to them that they think that means that particular sin is worse than any sin they might actually be committing. I don’t see it that way. Especially since it is almost never the individual’s choice whom they will be attracted to.
I should think that’s rather obvious. You have made moral judgments on other FReepers for making moral judgments to which you don’t subscribe.
And the best response you can give for doing so is regretting that you admitted doing so in your first post; as if not admitting it through your post would have made what you have in your heart any less self-deceiving.
And the best response you can give for doing so is regretting that you admitted doing so in your first post; as if not admitting it through your post would have made what you have in your heart any less self-deceiving.
I’m tired and not understanding you. I apologized. Of course I don’t see myself as hypocritical but I’m willing to hear you out. Would you like something more humble from me? Or what?
I KNOW you are not dumb. I've read your posts for quite some time. I DO think you have trouble distinguishing what is "good" from what you "like."
I see evidence that sexual orientation is more or less formed in utero. ... Especially since it is almost never the individual’s choice whom they will be attracted to.
If you believe that people are predetermined to carry out certain behaviors and actions, by what mechanism do you justify allowing them "freedom?" You can't have it both ways. Either people are masters of their actions, the essential predicate of freedom, or they are not, and must be controlled for the good of society.
Moreover, if people can not control their actions due to some innate predisposition, by what right do you justify punishing them for anti-social behavior?
I don’t want your apology.
I want you to see that in your heart of hearts, you are guilty of the same thing for which you have been critical of others.
Oh my. I don’t think people’s responses to their conditions are predetermined. I know of a (probably born gay) orthodox Jewish man, very lovely, a bit effeminate, with a lisp even, lives a religious life, married a woman, has 7 kids, is a coach in a leadership position of children, just a wonderful man that would set off anyone’s gaydar. I determined he simply put aside his natural orientation and chose to live as a straight, religious man, and not lose his whole community. It’s a trade off. Not many young people today would even do it. They are told their sexuality is Extremely Important.
You jump to a lot of conclusions about me. I do believe we have free will. We are the masters of our actions. But I don’t think it is up to some of us to control the others among us because we don’t like their choices.
I believe I understand the difference between what I like and what is good. I wish I didn’t; I’d be having a lot more fun. ;)
I want you to see that in your heart of hearts, you are guilty of the same thing for which you have been critical of others.
The Declaration really does say “pursuit of happiness” without any morality clause. Freedom for all.
Maybe (scratching my head) we need another example that removes Biblical morality from the equation. Trying to do moral algebra so early in the morning, I might have trouble, but here goes. What if there were a movement in the USA to legalize bigamy? A man can take two wives, or a woman two husbands. (Leave the gay marriages out for the purpose of this analogy.). And the people were voting to allow it or judges were approving it. And many Americans wanted it. Well, it would be one of those freedoms that might look unsavory to a lot of us. But it isn’t Biblically wrong, and people could still have only one spouse if they wanted. We’d have to accept it even if it seemed to hurt the institution of marriage. And hating the people who really want it would be as wrong as worshiping bigamists.
It’s not a great analogy because a bigamist wasn’t “born that way” (though they would say men are born wanting many women). I don’t know if thst even helps.
I am sure if you combed my life and ideas you’d find examples of hypocrisy that I never caught. But I just don’t think this is one of them.
Then I take it you approve of prostitution?
Then I take it you approve of prostitution?
I hope this is fun for you.
Ok, here is what you want to hear: Yes, constitutionally, prostitution is ok. HOWEVER, local laws have made it illegal in most places. We are talking facts and constitutional logic. Selling sex for money is not unconstitutional. Locales can make up their own minds.
But you, of course, have to throw in my personal feeling about prostitution. That is the gotcha, the non-sequitur, the “when did you stop beating your wife?”
It’s not relevant, but I don’t wholeheartedly approve of prostitution. Nevertheless, I’ve lived in cities where it was legal (in Europe) and in cities where it is illegal (LA) and not seen any difference in the number or kind of hookers on the streets. Also, in Europe, the city did not allow pimping, but I saw the pimps. And since it is called the world’s oldest profession, I’d say that there really is no way to eradicate prostitution.
So my approval or disapproval doesn’t affect the situation. I fear for the underaged or naive or captive people traded as prostitutes. I really don’t care one fig about some man calling a willing independent hooker to his hotel room.
Your sure do read a lot of things I didn’t write....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.