The first: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents wisely and lovingly approve of his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are good parents. There are (in the media's eyes) a lot of these.
The second: a homosexual child is portrayed as a warm, vulnerable human being, whose parents hatefully, narrow-mindedly, ignorantly and irrationally reject his choice to embrace his homosexual passions. These are evil parents. There are (in the media's eyes) a not many of these.
There is no third category.
What about a radical, belligerent anti-Christian, anti-family activist? Should someone be unwillingly coerced/compelled/forced to subsidize that which is anathema to one's deeply-held religious principles? Additionally, there is the funding/financial issue. If you write the check, that creates a responsibility and entails certain rights.
An adult lives with one's parents at the grace and mercy of the parents. If the adult child is a belligerent radical homosexual activist, the parents are clearly within their rights to kick out the activist, with an aim to save their lost soul, if possible. Hopefully the errant and deviant child will "come to their senses" like the Prodigal Son, repent and straighten out and fly straight.
[Why I chose principles, not values: Forget "values", Nietzsche taught us that "values" are relative and can change or be changed, let's stick with unchanging Biblical Principles instead. Values are vacuous, values change.]
Bizarre. All this advice to Dr. Keyes! I think it's pretty safe to assume he knows what he is doing.