Painful Parent- Adult Child Religious Conflict more widespread today?

[FaithManor]

When I was growing up I knew what religion kids had including that some kids had two religious background. It did not matter to most but there was some not overt prejudice. There were a lot of Jewish kids so they did not face prejudice. Kids around here do not seem to talk about their religion much at school from what I can tell. My kids do not know what religion other kids are.

It is much the same around here. There just isn't much religious talk it seems in the public schools. There is much more of a live and let live mentality. Kids are far more likely to be bullied over clothes - ie. not being in style - or a lot of other stupid things than religion. But it is a little different in the parochial schools. If a child is enrolled who is not from the religious organization that runs the school, my understanding is there can be a lot of teasing, snubbing, and bullying. That said, when my dd went to a Lutheran K-8 when we were not Lutheran, nary a word was said from any child. It was a very loving environment, and since they jumped on bullying like ugly on an ape, the kids knew better than to engage in it for the most part.

[TranquilMind]

I liked this post earlier today but I was out and about and wanted to come back to say, "Thank you!". I do often find it interesting that people equate accepting a non straight child as being a family where anything goes. It's just not the case. I think we look like a rather normal family (except we chose to home school through elementary school). We have rules, we attend church every week, we spend time together, our dds are good students, etc, but we also happen to have a gay child. I never expected to find myself here but here I am. 

 

Do you attend the church where you said your daughter spoke with the priest and didn't agree with his assessment?  Or did you move on?  Do you think this will change when she is older?    Do you agree with the priest, or your daughter, or just uncertain now?  You may have actually answered this but I don't think so - but this thread is large.  My memory isn't perfect. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm proud of us that this thread is still here.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm proud of us that this thread is still here.

A win for rational discussion! 

[Farrar]

In the context of a thread where many posters would like to see 'the gay kids' back in the closet, continual insistence that we remember  'some' kids are experimenting in order to be 'cool' seems iffy to me.

 

And no, I can't be bothered to find and quote the posters I'm addressing. Because although this conversation was quite good for WTM, that bar is pretty low on this topic. And actual dialogue probably isn't worth it until the bar is substantially higher. 

 

In the meantime, I'm quite content that I - and all the other parents of teens I know - do their children the respect of treating their identities as real - no matter where they fall on the spectrum - and not as a fad or the latest cool thing.

 

Yes. Well said.

 

The whole "it's a fad/phase/experiment" thing to me in a conversation like this one is just such the wrong focus.

[Joker]

Do you attend the church where you said your daughter spoke with the priest and didn't agree with his assessment? Or did you move on? Do you think this will change when she is older? Do you agree with the priest, or your daughter, or just uncertain now? You may have actually answered this but I don't think so - but this thread is large. My memory isn't perfect.

I actually said our priest was awesome. He told my dd she is a loved and welcome member of the church. They both agreed that some people are born gay. Where they diverge is acting upon it. He told her to continue to pray and study, which she does. If she decides to date and/or marry, it will be because she's come to a different conclusion than our church.

 

She can continue in our church even then, but she may choose a different one. She may choose a more accepting one. I am fine either way.

 

My mom didn't freak out when I told her I was leaving the Baptist Church to become Catholic. She's even come with us occasionally. I don't expect to get upset if either dd chooses a different church when they are older.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Joker

[justasque]

Yes. Well said.

 

The whole "it's a fad/phase/experiment" thing to me in a conversation like this one is just such the wrong focus.

 

It is interesting to me to compare statements like, "They shouldn't decide one way or the other at such a young age," with "It's a fad/phase/experiment".  That is, if children should keep themselves open rather than fixing on a label when they are young, doesn't that then mean labels might be tried on and discarded?  Is "fad/phase/experiment" then a positive trend in keeping with the idea of not making a firm decision one way or the other when young?  Not validating or arguing pro or con for either of these things, just thinking aloud about the implications of things some posters have advocated for...

Edited April 28, 2016 by justasque

[Farrar]

It is interesting to me to compare statements like, "They shouldn't decide one way or the other at such a young age," with "It's a fad/phase/experiment".  That is, if children should keep themselves open rather than fixing on a label when they are young, doesn't that then mean labels might be tried on and discarded?  Is "fad/phase/experiment" then a positive trend in keeping with the idea of not making a firm decision one way or the other when young?  Not validating or arguing pro or con for either of these things, just thinking aloud about the implications of things some posters have advocated for...

 

To me, those statements are pretty similar in effect. I mean, one is being said about pre-adolescents typically and the other about older teens and college students, but the net effect is saying that the individual's statements about their sexual or gender identity are not to be taken seriously.

[TranquilMind]

To me, those statements are pretty similar in effect. I mean, one is being said about pre-adolescents typically and the other about older teens and college students, but the net effect is saying that the individual's statements about their sexual or gender identity are not to be taken seriously.

 

I disagree that they are similar at all.  Stating that one should not rush in to declare publicly one's sexual preferences very early is not at all the same as saying, "Well it's just a fad...she will get over it.".  I agree the latter is more flippant, especially when applied to young adults. 

 

However, you can't possibly state that young people -especially teens - are not swayed by peers, because it is obviously so.  Look how many with variant preferences kept them quiet over the years.  They were swayed by peer pressure to present as interested in the opposite gender.   When the pendulum swings to celebrate gay preferences, we really can't be surprised if, as many have said, experimentation as a fad becomes a thing.  Personally, I don't think sexual experimentation is a good thing at all for teens, no matter who you are doing it with, due to the disease risk and other reasons. 

 

You will recall that the example of the 8 year olds in class was discussed.  Eight year olds don't need to be discussing sexual preferences at any time for any reason or even thinking about it.   

 

[TranquilMind]

Do we ask straight kids to 'keep their options open' before they identify as interested in the opposite sex ? We do not. Do we request our straight children just 'try on' their heterosexuality - "sure, babe, date that nice boy at school, but don't forget you actually might be gay and this might just be your straight phase ?" Ludicrous. 

 

Telling kids 'not to label themselves' and to 'keep their options open' presupposes there is something wrong with identifying as LBGTIQ as a teen. Something harmful. Something they need to avoid. 

 

It's not like, say, identifying as a lesbian at age 14 puts you in lesbian prison for the rest of your life either.

 

No, we don't say that and why would we tell our kids that they might really be gay so just "try on" heterosexuality?    We assume heterosexuality, because that is how the world works, and that is what biology dictates in nearly all humans.  We do not assume a variant to be the natural state of things, and treat the typical state as an anomaly.  We assume what is typical.

 

That would be like telling our right-handed children to be very sure they aren't really left-handed though they are welcome to "try on" this right handed thing.  Most people are right handed.  We can assume that, until evidence to the contrary that proves itself over time.  We don't rush to declare our kid left-handed and do everything to reinforce that the very first time he picks up a pen as a toddler. 

[TranquilMind]

I actually said our priest was awesome. He told my dd she is a loved and welcome member of the church. They both agreed that some people are born gay. Where they diverge is acting upon it. He told her to continue to pray and study, which she does. If she decides to date and/or marry, it will be because she's come to a different conclusion than our church.

 

She can continue in our church even then, but she may choose a different one. She may choose a more accepting one. I am fine either way.

 

My mom didn't freak out when I told her I was leaving the Baptist Church to become Catholic. She's even come with us occasionally. I don't expect to get upset if either dd chooses a different church when they are older.

 

I remember that you had a discussion with him and it went well, but just not where your daughter came down on how she would deal with this once she did start dating someone the same gender. 

 

Is it fine with her to come to a different conclusion than her church?  Why or why not - I guess I'm asking how strong that religious belief it?   What about you?  Do you agree with the priest or with your daughter or maybe aren't really sure where you are on that, but will flesh it out as your child reaches adulthood? 

 

Just curious. 

 

[Joker]

I remember that you had a discussion with him and it went well, but just not where your daughter came down on how she would deal with this once she did start dating someone the same gender.

 

Is it fine with her to come to a different conclusion than her church? Why or why not - I guess I'm asking how strong that religious belief it? What about you? Do you agree with the priest or with your daughter or maybe aren't really sure where you are on that, but will flesh it out as your child reaches adulthood?

 

Just curious.

 

I, personally, do not believe it is a sin for her to date or marry. So, I disagree with the church on that one. It doesn't mean I quit going.

 

I grew up in a Baptist Church that believed drinking alcohol was a sin as well as dancing. No one in my family agreed with the church or followed those rules but we were still a big part of our church community. My siblings and mom still are and they still don't agree with the church on those issues.

 

It's one small part of it all.

[justasque]

...

You will recall that the example of the 8 year olds in class was discussed.  Eight year olds don't need to be discussing sexual preferences at any time for any reason or even thinking about it.

 

To be fair, if the 8-year olds were asked by an adult, then they can't be called to task for discussing it.  (It wasn't clear from your recall of the original post in which the story was told what the circumstances were.)  However the discussion came up, the fact that their answers were extremely odd (half claiming to be bi or trans) implies that they were not, in fact, thinking about it in any kind of un-age-appropriate way.  It's not at all clear that any of them had a realistic or accurate understanding of the terms and what they meant, or even if they were using the specific terms in the discussion.  

 

... A mom on one forum said she had about 20 third grade school kids in her class and during discussion, 10 children of the 20 claimed to be bi or trans, and even this young teacher was pretty shocked at that.  How is this possible?

[justasque]

I remember that you had a discussion with him and it went well, but just not where your daughter came down on how she would deal with this once she did start dating someone the same gender. 

 

Is it fine with her to come to a different conclusion than her church?  Why or why not - I guess I'm asking how strong that religious belief it?   What about you?  Do you agree with the priest or with your daughter or maybe aren't really sure where you are on that, but will flesh it out as your child reaches adulthood? 

 

Just curious. 

 

 

As discussed upthread, the Catholic church specifically allows - perhaps even requires - members to disagree with church teachings when their conscience (what God has written on their heart) tells them to do so.  Doing so does not imply a weak religious belief.  

[Pam in CT]

... It's normal to be straight. It's normal, though statistically less likely, to be LBGTIQ.

 

Very much like right- and left-handedness.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, we don't say that and why would we tell our kids that they might really be gay so just "try on" heterosexuality?    We assume heterosexuality, because that is how the world works, and that is what biology dictates in nearly all humans.  We do not assume a variant to be the natural state of things, and treat the typical state as an anomaly.  We assume what is typical.

 

That would be like telling our right-handed children to be very sure they aren't really left-handed though they are welcome to "try on" this right handed thing.  Most people are right handed.  We can assume that, until evidence to the contrary that proves itself over time.  We don't rush to declare our kid left-handed and do everything to reinforce that the very first time he picks up a pen as a toddler. 

 

Correct, but we also know now that some people are naturally left handed, and that there is no reason to force a child to go against their instincts. 

[*Lulu*]

I'm yet to see the multitudes of parents and others rushing to declare our kids gay, and I live in the kind of liberal bubble where you'd see it, if it was a Real Thing.

 

Your perspective here only makes sense in a normal/abnormal paradigm. 

 

I don't think that way. It's normal to be straight. It's normal, though statistically less likely, to be LBGTIQ.

 

Yep. And even with the comparison to right vs left handedness, most parents would agree that forcing a child who is showing strong inclination to be a lefty to use their right hand is not productive or in the child's best interest.

[*Lulu*]

I was reading a blog post earlier today that made me think of this thread:

 

http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/the-bible-homosexuality-and-the-umc-part-one

 

I don't know that there are more painful parent-adult child interactions over faith today than any other time in history.

 

Although...I bet Paul experienced some pretty intense Passovers with family after the name change and all.

[Farrar]

I live in an absurdly liberal bubble. Many of my parent friends - like me - use gender neutral language when referring to any future romantic figures in our younger kids' lives - as in, well, one day when you fall in love then he or she will blah blah blah - that sort of thing. My kids have always known gay couples, gay people, gay parents, kids with gay parents. I once had to have the hilarious conversation with my kids that, sorry, no, biologically speaking, two men cannot have a baby together, because they were under the mistaken conception that was something that could happen (which makes sense given observations, just is not how that works).

 

And yet! Even in that sort of liberal bubble, I do not know a single 8 yo who has come out. Which is not to say that it could never have happened, but even in the context of growing up in a very LGBTQ positive environment, most younger kids simply do not think about their sexual preferences much. Or think of them as "cool" or "not cool." Most kids don't think of romance of any kind as being "cool" when they're younger, at least in our crowd.

 

Similarly, most of the parents in my liberal bubble were careful to raise their kids as gender neutral as possible - toys, clothes, etc. Several families i know had kids who had phases of being gender non-conforming - as in, girls who insisted on short hair and boy clothes, boys who wanted long hair and liked to wear dresses. One of my ds was gender non-conforming for a long time - he has long hair and used to wear pink tutus out all the time. But in every case I personally know, the kids never strayed from also identifying with the gender that matched the sex they were born with. And they're all growing up happy and well-adjusted and fine. In our case, ds eventually shed the tutus, kept the long hair, and stuck with ballet. In other words, while it may have been "cool" among the 4 yo set to dress in princess dress up, that's really different from a child who says repeatedly and clearly that they are a different gender. It doesn't encourage it - it only opens it up as a possibility for the kids that actually applies to.

[Tanaqui]

Also, I will say, out of the transgender people I know, they aren't all stereotypical. Indeed, I know a transgender man who, despite having the gender identity of "male", also has a stuffed animal collection and likes nail polish. He's just a man who likes these things and happens to not have a penis. It's just not as simple as "I can't like guns unless I'm a man" or "It's easier to be a trans man than to be a butch lesbian".

 

Regarding eight year olds, normal eight year olds have a firm gender identity. And we all know it! When your gender-conforming child says at two or three years old "I'm a boy", nobody questions it and says "Oh, no, you're too young to know that yet".

 

As far as orientation goes - that is, who you're attracted to - while I wouldn't ask a pre-teen point blank "are you gay, straight, or bi?" neither would I be surprised if a child that age declare their intention to marry somebody else, or if they had a childish crush on another child. That's well within the normal range of behavior.

[TranquilMind]

As discussed upthread, the Catholic church specifically allows - perhaps even requires - members to disagree with church teachings when their conscience (what God has written on their heart) tells them to do so.  Doing so does not imply a weak religious belief.  

 

Well, no, the RCC does not permit one to disagree with the Magisterium and official teaching and still call yourself a Catholic in good standing.   You can do whatever you want, but you can't defy Church teaching and stay in good standing. 

 

So at some point, as a Catholic at least, you have to decide when there is an established position.  On some things there are not established positions, and then you have freedom. 

[TranquilMind]

Correct, but we also know now that some people are naturally left handed, and that there is no reason to force a child to go against their instincts. 

 

But that isn't the point.  The point is we don't start declaring something to be true and influence our children when there isn't enough evidence to know.

[TranquilMind]

I'm yet to see the multitudes of parents and others rushing to declare our kids gay, and I live in the kind of liberal bubble where you'd see it, if it was a Real Thing.

 

Your perspective here only makes sense in a normal/abnormal paradigm. 

 

I don't think that way. It's normal to be straight. It's normal, though statistically less likely, to be LBGTIQ.

 

As a matter of mere observation and/or statistics, this is correct. 

 

But in a religious context, the comparison falls short, as being left-handed is rare, but is not a behavior and it is not proscribed in religious tenets.  

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

In the context of a thread where many posters would like to see 'the gay kids' back in the closet, continual insistence that we remember  'some' kids are experimenting in order to be 'cool' seems iffy to me.

 

And no, I can't be bothered to find and quote the posters I'm addressing. Because although this conversation was quite good for WTM, that bar is pretty low on this topic. And actual dialogue probably isn't worth it until the bar is substantially higher. 

 

In the meantime, I'm quite content that I - and all the other parents of teens I know - do their children the respect of treating their identities as real - no matter where they fall on the spectrum - and not as a fad or the latest cool thing.

I agree with this too. I was just pointing out that sometimes a teen or young adult might go through a phase. In no way would I ever recommend disrespecting their identities at all. In my family it was just a retrospective observation that I kept to myself that this one family member went through a phase or experimented with their sexuality. Seeing as humans are quite complicated and diverse, I see this as a possibility in some cases.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Well, no, the RCC does not permit one to disagree with the Magisterium and official teaching and still call yourself a Catholic in good standing.   You can do whatever you want, but you can't defy Church teaching and stay in good standing. 

 

So at some point, as a Catholic at least, you have to decide when there is an established position.  On some things there are not established positions, and then you have freedom. 

If I am not mistaken, the current Pope has emphasized our own conscience which was previously more emphasized when I went to high school by the Jesuits and by my cousin who is a nun. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But that isn't the point.  The point is we don't start declaring something to be true and influence our children when there isn't enough evidence to know.

 

It is the point.  It wasn't long ago children were punished for going with their natural tendencies of being left handed.  I believe some even considered it a mark of the devil.  We have sensed wised up and understand that being left handed is as normal as being right handed.  In the same manner we are slowly coming to the realization that sexuality has variations of normal as well.

 

It is slow but the progress is there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree with this too. I was just pointing out that sometimes a teen or young adult might go through a phase. In no way would I ever recommend disrespecting their identities at all. In my family it was just a retrospective observation that I kept to myself that this one family member went through a phase or experimented with their sexuality. Seeing as humans are quite complicated and diverse, I see this as a possibility in some cases.

 

+1

[Farrar]

But that isn't the point.  The point is we don't start declaring something to be true and influence our children when there isn't enough evidence to know.

 

But I also wouldn't say to a child that the thing they're proclaiming as their identity is morally wrong or against my value system.

[TranquilMind]

If I am not mistaken, the current Pope has emphasized our own conscience which was previously more emphasized when I went to high school by the Jesuits and by my cousin who is a nun. 

 

Sure, he has, and he and all other rational and compassionate people disavow discrimination or unkindness but he hasn't changed church teaching which calls homosexuality " intrinsically disordered" and recognizes marriage only between a man and a woman. 

[TranquilMind]

But I also wouldn't say to a child that the thing they're proclaiming as their identity is morally wrong or against my value system.

Perhaps you would not.  I have no idea what you believe.  But what of Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality?  What do they do?  What of those Roman Catholics whose church teaches it is disordered.  What do they do when the child raises the issue or when it happens to come up in discussion? 

Do they say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches but it doesn't apply to you?  We don't believe that?"

[TranquilMind]

It is the point.  It wasn't long ago children were punished for going with their natural tendencies of being left handed.  I believe some even considered it a mark of the devil.  We have sensed wised up and understand that being left handed is as normal as being right handed.  In the same manner we are slowly coming to the realization that sexuality has variations of normal as well.

 

It is slow but the progress is there.

 

That is one side of the coin and certainly promoted by those in favor.  Those who disagree - including the RCC and most churches - state that while customs change,  moral laws never change, and because scripture teaches sex outside of biblical marriage is wrong, so it is wrong for all time,  and not amended for our modern sensibilities. 

 

 

Conversely, no scriptural proscription has ever existed for being left-handed. 

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by TranquilMind

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes. Well said.

 

The whole "it's a fad/phase/experiment" thing to me in a conversation like this one is just such the wrong focus.

I can see your point. There is a very sad history of folks trying to "cure the gay" or "pray away the gay" that still continues to this day:( This was obviously horrible and I would never say to someone that they are going through a phase because who am I to say.

 

Yet I do think people and sexuality are complex and on a spectrum of possibilities and that in some instances a person may go through a phase. However, seeing as this statement may inadvertently feed the negativity that some folks feel towards differences in sexuality or gender identity, I can see your point.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That is one side of the coin and certainly promoted by those in favor.  Those who disagree - including the RCC and most churches - state that while customs change,  moral laws never change, and because scripture teaches sex outside of biblical marriage is wrong, so it is wrong for all time,  and not amended for our modern sensibilities. 

 

 

Conversely, no scriptural proscription has ever existed for being left-handed. 

 

 

And those churches may teach whatever they want.  They just can no longer enforce their beliefs upon the rest of society.

[Farrar]

Perhaps you would not.  I have no idea what you believe.  But what of Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality?  What do they do?  What of those Roman Catholics whose church teaches it is disordered.  What do they do when the child raises the issue or when it happens to come up in discussion? 

Do they say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches but it doesn't apply to you?  We don't believe that?"

 

Right, but then we're back to the crux of this thread and we've been around this track already. I guess I feel like it's disingenuous on some level for people who feel that it's morally wrong regardless to spend time arguing that the problem is that the children proclaiming that they're gay or trans or whatever are too young. That's not your problem with it at all. It's merely a way to make your position sound more reasonable. Instead of, all the people who are gay are disordered or whatever language you want to use, instead you say, oh, but think of the children or some such thing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Right, but then we're back to the crux of this thread and we've been around this track already. I guess I feel like it's disingenuous on some level for people who feel that it's morally wrong regardless to spend time arguing that the problem is that the children proclaiming that they're gay or trans or whatever are too young. That's not your problem with it at all. It's merely a way to make your position sound more reasonable. Instead of, all the people who are gay are disordered or whatever language you want to use, instead you say, oh, but think of the children or some such thing.

 

It also fits with a certain viewpoint preached from *some* pulpits that the evil homosexuals are out recruiting kids to be gay.  Which is why I take a random anecdote posted anonymously on a message board about 2nd graders declaring themselves gay or trans with a grain of salt.  It fuels the paranoia and is more than likely some trolling/stirring the poop.

[Frances]

Perhaps you would not. I have no idea what you believe. But what of Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality? What do they do? What of those Roman Catholics whose church teaches it is disordered. What do they do when the child raises the issue or when it happens to come up in discussion?

Do they say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches but it doesn't apply to you? We don't believe that?"

Respectfully, please stop saying what the Bible says about homosexuality. It's your interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality. If everyone agreed with your interpretation of the Bible, there wouldn't be a zillion different Christian denominations.

[TranquilMind]

Respectfully, please stop saying what the Bible says about homosexuality. It's your interpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality. If everyone agreed with your interpretation of the Bible, there wouldn't be a zillion different Christian denominations.

Read it yourself.  There has been all kinds of revisionist rhetoric lately, but you have to go to the book itself. 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by TranquilMind

[bolt.]

Perhaps you would not. I have no idea what you believe. But what of Christians who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality? What do they do? What of those Roman Catholics whose church teaches it is disordered. What do they do when the child raises the issue or when it happens to come up in discussion?

Do they say, "Well, this is what the Church teaches but it doesn't apply to you? We don't believe that?"

What do they do?

 

They own that they are *interpreters* of the Bible, as is the ordinary role of anyone who believes the Bible, consults it, thinks about it and applies it.

 

They say, "I interpret (or 'I concur with the interpretation of my Church / spiritual authority') that the Bible, and therefore my faith, forbids *ME* from engaging in homosexual relations or cherishing the idea of engaging in those relations. Aside from being naturally straight, I also would not want to sin in that way, even if I was tempted. *MY* religion (in all its specifics) governs *MY* sexual conduct. It does not govern *YOUR* sexual conduct, and I don't expect it to.

 

"I hope we can continue to share the many aspects of Christan faith that are closer to the core of the religion, even though we interpret things differently around sexual sin. Of course you know that love for one another, respect, kindness, and benevolence are very important as we live out our faith. You can absolutely expect those things from me. I will never be unkind to you, to anyone you love, or even to your friends, aquaintences or random strangers. My home and my heart welcomes everyone."

Edited April 29, 2016 by bolt.

[Mergath]

Read it yourself.  There has been all kinds of revisionist rhetoric lately, but you have to go to the book itself. 

 

Do you really think you're the only one here who has read the book?

[TranquilMind]

What do they do?

 

They own that they are *interpreters* of the Bible, as is the ordinary role of anyone who believes the Bible, consults it, thinks about it and applies it. They say, "I interpret (or 'I concur with the interpretation of my Church / spiritual authority') that the Bible, and therefore my faith, forbids *ME* from engaging in homisexual relations or cherishing the idea of engaging in those relations. Aside from being naturally straight, I also would not want to sin in that way, even if I was tempted. *MY* religion (in all its specifics) governs my sexual conduct. It does not govern *YOUR* sexual conduct, and I don't expect it to. I hope we can continue to share many aspects of Christan faith that are closer to the core of the religion, even though we interpret things differently around sexual sin. Of course you know that love for one another, respect, kindness, and benevolence are very important as we live out our faith. You can absolutely expect those things from me. I will never be unkind to you, to anyone you love, or even to your friends, aquaintences or random strangers. My home and my heart welcomes everyone."

 

True enough that you can't do anything about others in general who engage in this but I can imagine that when it is your child, instead of say, your neighbor or your co-worker, it cuts a little closer and feels a lot more personal and like a failure of transmitting your faith teachings. 

 

Also, if you say that your faith forbids you and you would not want to sin that way, even if you were tempted, the other person will naturally think you are saying that he/she is sinning and get offended.  You might even be sued, lose your job, or suffer some other penalty just for saying that, depending on where you are, of course.  You are still free to do that at home.

Edited April 29, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Do you really think you're the only one here who has read the book?

Never said that.

 

But I'm also not the one saying that it doesn't mean what it says on its face about sexuality, that it means something else. 

[bolt.]

Do you really think you're the only one here who has read the book?

She's probably one of the few that really thinks she has "just read" the book -- and not actively and personally done that crazy thing called 'interpreting it' (a human skill that varies from person to person) which is how "reading" turns into "understanding"... People who think that books require no interpretation usually interpret poorly because they don't pay attention to how they use a skill that they honestly don't think exists.

 

There are many people (hopefully few here) who really think that "whatever thought first crossed my mind while I was reading is the pure truth of the text" and that anyone who works harder with an important text is doing "revisionist rhetoric".

[TranquilMind]

Right, but then we're back to the crux of this thread and we've been around this track already. I guess I feel like it's disingenuous on some level for people who feel that it's morally wrong regardless to spend time arguing that the problem is that the children proclaiming that they're gay or trans or whatever are too young. That's not your problem with it at all. It's merely a way to make your position sound more reasonable. Instead of, all the people who are gay are disordered or whatever language you want to use, instead you say, oh, but think of the children or some such thing.

 

Well, take that "intrinsically disordered" label up with the Catholic Church. That one is theirs.

 

I do think that sexual things should be delayed until adulthood and would not encourage a child who wished to experiment this way or any way.  Children and teens are not ready for that, period.  To say a child is too young is not at all out of line. 

 

[bolt.]

True enough that you can't do anything about others in general who engage in this but I can imagine that when it is your child, instead of say, your neighbor or your co-worker, it cuts a little closer and feels a lot more personal and like a failure of transmitting your faith teachings.

I couldn't possibly consider myself a failure to have raised a child capable of critical thinking about the deep truths of faith-and-religion, who clings to it through difficulty, applies their intelligence, and *gasp* occasionally reaches a conclusion that differs from mine. I'd be *proud* to raise such a child -- even if I still thought she was wrong and I was right.

 

I plan to transmit my *faith* -- not every last one of my 'faith teachings'. (I'm sure there are thousands of them.) I hope for unity in the essentials. I'm fully prepared for liberty in non-essentials. I don't consider 'in all things, love' optional. (If you happen to be familiar with that slogan.)

 

ETA: I don't really get the logic of the, "I love you too much to treat you with common decency." -- type of response to family members. If one is so badly hurt by a family member's differentiation, basic respect and kindness (as for neighbours) seems to be exactly the right way to limit pain and preserve relationship through an initial rough patch.

Edited April 29, 2016 by bolt.

[TranquilMind]

And those churches may teach whatever they want.  They just can no longer enforce their beliefs upon the rest of society.

 

They never were able to do that.  Except maybe during the Crusades.  They were able to teach a standard, and people did what they wanted; some followed and some resisted.  Same as today, though we no longer share a common standard of morality and sexuality. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I couldn't possibly consider myself a failure to have raised a child capable of critical thinking about the deep truths of faith-and-religion, who clings to it through difficulty, applies their intelligence, and *gasp* occasionally reaches a conclusion that differs from mine. I'd be *proud* to raise such a child -- even if I still thought she was wrong and I was right.

 

I plan to transmit my *faith* -- not every last one of my 'faith teachings'. I'm sure there are thousands of them. I hope for unity in the essentials. I'm fully prepared for liberty in non-essentials. I don't consider 'in all things, love' optional. (If you happen to be familiar with that slogan.)

 

ETA: I don't really get the logic of the, "I love you too much to treat you with common decency." -- type of response to family members. If one is so badly hurt by a family member's differentiation, basic respect and kindness (as for neighbours) seems to be exactly the right way to limit pain and preserve relationship through the an initial rough patch.

 

Ditto on the bolded. 

 

I'm not sure that disagreeing with a child's behavior is failing to treat the child with common decency.  It could just be disagreement while one or both still treat each other with decency and even respect.

 

Usually it seems one or both get really angry with the disagreement though and it can create a gulf.   The problem is when one (either one) demands affirmation instead of respects disagreement. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They never were able to do that.  Except maybe during the Crusades.  They were able to teach a standard, and people did what they wanted; some followed and some resisted.  Same as today, though we no longer share a common standard of morality and sexuality. 

 

Surely you aren't serious.

[bolt.]

Ditto on the bolded.

 

I'm not sure that disagreeing with a child's behavior is failing to treat the child with common decency. It could just be disagreement while one or both still treat each other with decency and even respect.

 

Usually it seems one or both get really angry with the disagreement though and it can create a gulf. The problem is when one (either one) demands affirmation instead of respects disagreement.

 

I don't understand the concept of "disagreeing" with someone else's "behaviour". Behaviour is a fact (an event in the past) not an opinion. It can't be disagreed with. If it happened it's true. There aren't other logical positions to hold about events/facts.

 

Children will grow to have their own values, interpretations, and ideas around sin. Their values will govern their behaviour. It's basic cause and effect... Any two people can disagree on a theoretical level (the interpretations) and when they do, that means that their respective behaviour will probably differ. In that way, I suppose you could say that one's behaviour disagrees (differs) from the other... But I I don't think anyone is suggesting that use of language in this conversation.

 

I think you are using "disagree with behaviour" as a code for "disapprove of behaviour" -- and to "disapprove" as a parent-of-an-adult is a presumption to power, which is a violation of the basic peer respect that people expect among equals. It's best avoided if people want to try for unconditional love and continuing in healthy relationships.

Edited April 29, 2016 by bolt.

[Joker]

The Catechism also says...

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

 

I don't see, at all, that others are trying to avoid discriminating against them. I do not see them being accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Don't use the Catechism to only get one point of your argument across.

 

I am following my faith in that I am not discriminating. I respect my dd and I show her compassion and sensitivity. You have no idea what it is like yet you talk on here as if you are some authority on how it should be. You have no clue. Yet, somehow, your brand of Christianity must say it's okay to continue to tell others they are wrong. I can't imagine being a part of something that tells me it's wrong to continue to love and support my own child for only being guilty of being born differently. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Joker

[Tanaqui]

Read it yourself.  There has been all kinds of revisionist rhetoric lately, but you have to go to the book itself. 

 

This is really offensive to everybody who disagrees with you. More than that, it's a statement that seems designed to shut off conversation.