Painful Parent- Adult Child Religious Conflict more widespread today?

[Ravin]

 

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

 

This verse is one of the more iffy ones when it comes to translation. It takes several culture-bound terms and translates them rather roughly to different culture-bound terms in English. What is read and understood of it by a 21st century American and what was meant centuries and centuries ago are almost certainly not the same things. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by Ravin

[*Lulu*]

This actually has evolved into one of the better LBGTIQ conversations we've had here, but in order to keep it going, can I suggest we drop abortion - either as comparison or bunny trail ? It's a topic too far for these forums, imo.

I agree.

 

I should have found a less divisive example to make my point.

[MercyA]

As a point of curiosity, you happen to have randomly selected a few words that have implications in Greek and English that actually *are* significantly nuanced (though not quite to the point that they actually 'don't mean' their translation).

 

[snipped]

 

I expected someone to post something of this nature, and I'm not surprised it was you, bolt. :) From what I've read here on the forum, I feel fairly confident that you and I do not have the same view of Scripture, and I see no benefit to going round and round with you about it. If you wish to reject the historical and plain meaning of the passages in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, that is certainly your right.

 

However, I would not want to be the one who convinces someone that their homosexual behavior will have no eternal consequences, when Scripture says otherwise. 

[MercyA]

This verse is one of the more iffy ones when it comes to translation. It takes several culture-bound terms and translates them rather roughly to different culture-bound terms in English. What is read and understood of it by a 21st century American and what was meant centuries and centuries ago are almost certainly not the same things. 

 

Ravin, I have to say that I always appreciate your measured and civil tone. :001_smile: However, I can't agree with you that the passage means something substantially different than what it says, especially when the subject is addressed elsewhere in Scripture, as in Romans 1: "...God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

 

As I've said before, I'm not involved in any politics regarding this matter and I would never advocate treating anyone unkindly. However, I do believe the Bible speaks clearly about same-sex relationships, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise. 

[bolt.]

I'm not sure what to do with the "view of scripture" that prioritizes the (alleged) 'plain meaning' of a translated document (in a language that is not the slightest bit 'historical') -- as superior to understanding the original, inspired, words in the actual historical context of their authors.

[bolt.]

Ravin, I have to say that I always appreciate your measured and civil tone. :001_smile: However, I can't agree with you that the passage means something substantially different than what it says, especially when the subject is addressed elsewhere in Scripture, as in Romans 1: "...God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

 

As I've said before, I'm not involved in any politics regarding this matter and I would never advocate treating anyone unkindly. However, I do believe the Bible speaks clearly about same-sex relationships, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise.

Would it help if I told you that this passage applied exclusively to married people? (Why?) Because there were no unmarried free adults in the Roman Empire: it was a situation that would be remedied quickly. New meaning to "exchange" if it's an actual husban or wife being betrayed, eh? Edited May 3, 2016 by bolt.

[Ausmumof3]

I didn't expect you to believe me, Scarlett. But for anyone else reading this, please know that I spent 17 years in that religion, I'm intimately familiar with the teachings, practices, publications, etc., I have had close family and friends who were disfellowshipped, and my father used to be an elder (pastor). I'm not making this stuff up. Honestly, I'm nowhere near creative enough to make this stuff up.

Im trying to stay away from this discussion but just wanted to say it's fully possible for both of your narratives to be true. In a religion with many groups and meeting around the world their can be pockets of function and pockets of dysfunction depending on the individuals involved. I have seen this in our own.

[Greta]

Im trying to stay away from this discussion but just wanted to say it's fully possible for both of your narratives to be true. In a religion with many groups and meeting around the world their can be pockets of function and pockets of dysfunction depending on the individuals involved. I have seen this in our own.

 

 

Absolutely.  Very good point.

[justasque]

I think we've hit on an important point.  It's not easy to reconcile Scripture with same-sex relationships, or with the idea of some people being transgender.  There is a lot that has to be wrestled with to make it fit.  It's not at all Biblically clear that homosexuality is not sinful, or that it's ok to live as other than your birth gender.  

 

Some, like some in this thread, after examining the Scripture, stay with the traditional interpretations.

 

Some, like others in this thread, come to new conclusions about how the Bible is to be understood that support GLBT* acceptance, focusing on the Biblical messages of love and kindness and grace.

 

But there's a third outcome.  Some, in looking closely at the ancient text, and listening carefully to the testimony of GLBT* folks, come to the conclusion that the Bible simply can't be reconciled with the kinds of acceptance that modern society is moving towards.  They weigh the text against what their heart tells them is moral and right and true, and when they find conflicting moral standards that cannot be reconciled, instead of sticking with the traditional interpretations, they conclude instead to reject the text itself, coming to the belief that it is simply not a good or true source of moral wisdom for modern life.  Some retain a cultural Christian identity but reject the specific details, some reject Christianity itself in favor of another religious belief, some reject religion entirely.    

Because of this third possible outcome, these changes in our society are not just about how we treat GLBT* folks.  The changes threaten, at least to some extent, to alter the previously-common Christianity-based moral framework that has been the default assumption for our society as a whole (with of course some exceptions) for a very long time.   We've all got a lot to think about.  

[ktgrok]

I expected someone to post something of this nature, and I'm not surprised it was you, bolt. :) From what I've read here on the forum, I feel fairly confident that you and I do not have the same view of Scripture, and I see no benefit to going round and round with you about it. If you wish to reject the historical and plain meaning of the passages in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, that is certainly your right.

 

However, I would not want to be the one who convinces someone that their homosexual behavior will have no eternal consequences, when Scripture says otherwise. 

 

Historical? When? At what point were they referring to our idea of what homosexuality is?

 

[MercyA]

Would it help if I told you that this passage applied exclusively to married people? (Why?) Because there were no unmarried free adults in the Roman Empire: it was a situation that would be remedied quickly. New meaning to "exchange" if it's an actual husban or wife being betrayed, eh?

 

My husband has studied ancient history for about 20 years now. When I read him your post, his first reaction was  :confused1: , followed by incredulity. With all due respect, that just wasn't the case.

 

Regardless, the passage itself says nothing about adultery or betrayal. Their behavior was condemned because it was "unnatural" (literally, against nature), "degrading," and "indecent."

 

I have to be done here for tonight; I have a hot date with the aforementioned student of history.  :001_smile: Have a good night, all.

[MercyA]

Historical? When? At what point were they referring to our idea of what homosexuality is?

 

Sorry, Katie, I should have been more clear. I meant the interpretation of the passage commonly accepted throughout church history, until recent attempts to explain it away.

[bolt.]

My husband has studied ancient history for about 20 years now. When I read him your post, his first reaction was :confused1: , followed by incredulity. With all due respect, that just wasn't the case.

 

Regardless, the passage itself says nothing about adultery or betrayal. Their behavior was condemned because it was "unnatural" (literally, against nature), "degrading," and "indecent."

 

I have to be done here for tonight; I have a hot date with the aforementioned student of history. :001_smile: Have a good night, all.

Ok, if I have bad info, I need to know. Could you kindly ask him to reccomend a resource for me? I was under the impression that my sources were solid, but, I'm definitely hoping for all the info I can get. Maybe my info is specific to the actual small portion of time during NT composition (not the whole of the Roman era)?

 

I definitely have been (up until now) under the impression that single life was not an option for free persons of marriageable age.

 

I don't want to keep repeating that if it's wrong.

Edited May 3, 2016 by bolt.

[Veritaserum]

As the parent of a transgender teen, I must disabuse you of the notion that this is "cool." There are some places or groups of people that are inclusive and supportive, but our culture at large is so hostile at times I fear for my child's safety. Anyone here want to send their transgender child into a public bathroom after all the "I'll shoot you" type of horrific rhetoric? It's terrifying to hear these comments as a parent. How do you imagine people like my kid feel? Still think someone chooses this to be "cool?" Really, is it "cool" to be harassed, bullied, abused, and murdered at much higher rates than other people?

 

As for the original question of faith vs. a child who is queer in some way, I made the choice to keep my kid close and keep my kid ALIVE. Parents who don't affirm their children's queer identities increase those children's rates of self-harm and suicide. My faith has evolved and expanded to encompass a view of God that affirms queer people.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Veritaserum

[ktgrok]

Sorry, Katie, I should have been more clear. I meant the interpretation of the passage commonly accepted throughout church history, until recent attempts to explain it away.

 

But...that women shouldn't vote and were property of their husbands was also the commonly accepted intepretation of passages for much of church history. Our understandings change. Because that's how it always has been isn't a good enough reason, at least for me. And I don't know of any documents that would even show that the ancient Church fathers thought about homosexuality that way, in regards to a loving relationship between two equals. 

[Veritaserum]

Family Acceptance Project has research on the risks of NOT accepting your queer child's identity:

 

Here's a sample:

 

"Gay and transgender teens who were highly rejected by their parents and caregivers were at very high risk for health and mental health problems when they become young adults (ages 21-25). Highly rejected young people were:

 

*More than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide

*Nearly 6 times as likely to report high levels of depression

*More than 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs, and

*More than 3 times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and sexually

transmitted diseases

 

compared with gay and transgender young adults who were not at all or only rejected a little by their parents and caregivers – because of their gay or transgender identity."

 

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.familyproject/files/FAP_English%20Booklet_pst.pdf

[6packofun]

But...that women shouldn't vote and were property of their husbands was also the commonly accepted intepretation of passages for much of church history. Our understandings change. Because that's how it always has been isn't a good enough reason, at least for me. And I don't know of any documents that would even show that the ancient Church fathers thought about homosexuality that way, in regards to a loving relationship between two equals. 

 

First, obviously self-serving, incorrect interpretations of some other passages in no way changes the truth about those or any other passages.  The fact that people at any point in history used greed or a desire to control as a starting point for their hermeneutic has NOTHING to say about the truth of what the Bible teaches.  People get this confused.  Truth is not weakened by Scripture's misuse.

 

Second, why would there need to be documentation that 1) people lived in loving gay relationships during the first few centuries (I'm asking this, I don't believe you did), OR 2) that anyone specifically considered that scenario at all?  The Bible condemns the ACT--not the person, not the circumstances in which they commit the act.  This is actually pretty simple and straightforward.  As to the first point, does anyone really think that no one had ever seen or heard of people loving someone of the same sex??  That almost seems to go AGAINST what the LGBT community would be interested in supporting because it might show that these relationships have always existed and so, hey it's natural and expected not some new phenomenon.  Not going with that argument?  OK, great, because the point is still that the act itself is what God opposes since it is against His intention for humanity by design.  God actually loves diversity; it's why He created two sexes and puts them together in the first place.  Creating all sorts of scenarios where people FEEL differently has absolutely no bearing on the truth of what God has intended for sexuality.  One sex exchanging what is natural for the unnatural with the same sex (Romans 1) seems to be clearly talking about physical acts.  The emotions involved don't change the act.  How about sex outside the boundaries of marriage?  People today can think of all kinds of reasons why it's OK and even wise.  The Bible doesn't address this, not because people back then lacked sophistication about the many arguments to justify the ACT--it's ONLY referring to the act.  It's wrong, period.  This is also a way that I believe God intends for us to view the sin, as well.  The act and not the person is what is condemned--by Him, and we simply agree with His assessment.  We have absolutely no excuse to withhold love and care to anyone committing sin.

Edited May 3, 2016 by 6packofun

[Χά�ων]

Family Acceptance Project has research on the risks of NOT accepting your queer child's identity:

 

Here's a sample:

 

"Gay and transgender teens who were highly rejected by their parents and caregivers were at very high risk for health and mental health problems when they become young adults (ages 21-25). Highly rejected young people were:

 

*More than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide

*Nearly 6 times as likely to report high levels of depression

*More than 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs, and

*More than 3 times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and sexually

transmitted diseases

 

compared with gay and transgender young adults who were not at all or only rejected a little by their parents and caregivers – because of their gay or transgender identity."

 

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.familyproject/files/FAP_English%20Booklet_pst.pdf

:'(

[MistyMountain]

As the parent of a transgender teen, I must disabuse you of the notion that this is "cool." There are some places or groups of people that are inclusive and supportive, but our culture at large is so hostile at times I fear for my child's safety. Anyone here want to send their transgender child into a public bathroom after all the "I'll shoot you" type of horrific rhetoric? It's terrifying to hear these comments as a parent. How do you imagine people like my kid feel? Still think someone chooses this to be "cool?" Really, is it "cool" to be harassed, bullied, abused, and murdered at much higher rates than other people?

 

As for the original question of faith vs. a child who is queer in some way, I made the choice to keep my kid close and keep my kid ALIVE. Parents who don't affirm their children's queer identities increase those children's rates of self-harm and suicide. My faith has evolved and expanded to encompass a view of God that affirms queer people.

I just met a transgendered teenager facing this. She is bullied and treated horribly at school to the point where she was considering suicide when she found one good friend and a support system through our church. She now at least has a plan for her future and has opened up and been accepted. School is still a horrible experience. She is not doing it to be cool for sure. She is a cool kid who has interests and hobbies that have nothing to do with her identity. People do get crazy over the bathroom debate.

[MercyA]

 Could you kindly ask him to reccomend a resource for me?

 

Yes, I would be happy to do so, and will get back to you.

[MercyA]

And I don't know of any documents that would even show that the ancient Church fathers thought about homosexuality that way, in regards to a loving relationship between two equals. 

 

You're Catholic, right? Here's a start. I also whole-heartedly agree with 6packofun when she says that the act is clearly condemned in Scripture, regardless of the status of the relationship.

 

It really all does come down to Scripture for me. We can accept it, reject it, or twist it to support our own preferences (something I've certainly been guilty of at times). All of us will ultimately be accountable to God for the way in which we handle His Word, which is a sobering thought.

 

Bowing out of this discussion now.

[Joker]

I don't think there can be a productive discussion when the other side just claims that we must be twisting and rejecting the Scripture. The arrogance is astounding to me, honestly. I don't claim they are the ones actually twisting or rejecting. I give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are simply interpreting it differently (as many denominations do on a number of things). It seems on this issue, though, that some are incapable of being gracious. 

 

FTR, I am not twisting Scripture to fit my needs. If I felt I could so, so many things would be easier. I also am most definitely not rejecting Scripture. I have merely come to a different conclusion than you. It's actually not much different than what many Christian denominations do about many things. I also don't claim to be 100% right on anything or claim that's just the way things are period. I know I can easily be proven wrong when I stand before God. 

 

I'm also really sick and tired of the, "it's only the act and not the person", junk. The ones posting here may not be involved in the politics of it but those that are use those same words. And they use them to discriminate, hate, and hurt. 

[ktgrok]

First, obviously self-serving, incorrect interpretations of some other passages in no way changes the truth about those or any other passages.  The fact that people at any point in history used greed or a desire to control as a starting point for their hermeneutic has NOTHING to say about the truth of what the Bible teaches.  People get this confused.  Truth is not weakened by Scripture's misuse.

 

Second, why would there need to be documentation that 1) people lived in loving gay relationships during the first few centuries (I'm asking this, I don't believe you did), OR 2) that anyone specifically considered that scenario at all?  b

 

1. You call the interpretation that women are property of the husband with no rights "obviously self serving" and "incorrect" but they are the historical interpretation. When someone says that you know the right way to interpret the verses about homosexuality because that's the historical way of interpreting them, then they seem to be saying that what has gone before dictates what the truth its. If we are to understand the homosexuality verses based on how they were always interpreted, why not others? I assure you, people made the same arguments about the verses about women, based on the same arguments of that being the plain, historical interpretation. 

 

2. I'd need documentation because for the Bible to have, in it's orignal language and meaning, prohibitions against homosexuality as we understand it there would need to be a word in that language that means what we refer to. For instance, the Bible can't say anything about jet engines, because there was no word for jet engines at the time, or understanding of them. So if someone says to me the Bible says jet engines are sinful, I'd say they are misinterpreting things, because there was no word for jet engine - obviously the passage must mean something else, something that fits the worldview of the people who wrote it.

 

Finally, not in response to this post but to whomever has said that the Bible proscribes it because it is unnatural, we have evidence now that it is natural, as in part of nature, part of the natural way people are born, or at least a strong argument in that direction. 

[ktgrok]

You're Catholic, right? Here's a start. I also whole-heartedly agree with 6packofun when she says that the act is clearly condemned in Scripture, regardless of the status of the relationship.

 

It really all does come down to Scripture for me. We can accept it, reject it, or twist it to support our own preferences (something I've certainly been guilty of at times). All of us will ultimately be accountable to God for the way in which we handle His Word, which is a sobering thought.

 

Bowing out of this discussion now.

 

Um...those are, other than MAYBE a few at the end, 400 years after Christ and lacking in context (shorter passages that I can't figure out what exactly they are referencing) all about child molestation, adultery, prostitution, and worshipping other Gods. And all of them are about lust.

 

None of them are about two same sex people who are in love. 

[livetoread]

I think we've hit on an important point. It's not easy to reconcile Scripture with same-sex relationships, or with the idea of some people being transgender. There is a lot that has to be wrestled with to make it fit. It's not at all Biblically clear that homosexuality is not sinful, or that it's ok to live as other than your birth gender.

 

Some, like some in this thread, after examining the Scripture, stay with the traditional interpretations.

 

Some, like others in this thread, come to new conclusions about how the Bible is to be understood that support GLBT* acceptance, focusing on the Biblical messages of love and kindness and grace.

 

But there's a third outcome. Some, in looking closely at the ancient text, and listening carefully to the testimony of GLBT* folks, come to the conclusion that the Bible simply can't be reconciled with the kinds of acceptance that modern society is moving towards. They weigh the text against what their heart tells them is moral and right and true, and when they find conflicting moral standards that cannot be reconciled, instead of sticking with the traditional interpretations, they conclude instead to reject the text itself, coming to the belief that it is simply not a good or true source of moral wisdom for modern life. Some retain a cultural Christian identity but reject the specific details, some reject Christianity itself in favor of another religious belief, some reject religion entirely.

 

Because of this third possible outcome, these changes in our society are not just about how we treat GLBT* folks. The changes threaten, at least to some extent, to alter the previously-common Christianity-based moral framework that has been the default assumption for our society as a whole (with of course some exceptions) for a very long time. We've all got a lot to think about.

As someone who has utilized all of these outcomes at various points in her life, I think this is an important point. I was raised to interpret the Bible in a more "straight-forward" way, I then spent years using the second outcome, and finally, mentally exhausted, I decided there are parts of the Bible (both NT and OT) that are just wrong and immoral and shouldn't be used as an ethical basis.

[Bluegoat]

To me a major limitation in this discussion is that it is accepting the paradigm of "what the Bible says" as being the entire basis of the question.  Always I would say there is the question - why does it say that, what are the ideas about, for example, the nature of sexuality, that are included?  In a question about gender identity we would ask how a Christian worldview has understood the nature of the body.  If we want to ask why the pagan world around the 1st century accepted homosexuality without a lot of comment and the Jewish/Christian world did not, we would have to look at their worldview.  How does Plato's myth on the subject compare to Scriptural accounts on related topics? 

 

There is no way that is going to be done effectively just by looking at Scripture - and why would we want to do so anyway where there are many different writings from the period on that topic?  The former is just likely to have us read out own thoughts into the text, the latter is so much more extensive and extended that it is much less likely.

[Bluegoat]

Natural in theology, particularly moral theology, does not mean something that isn't biological. 

[MercyA]

Ok, if I have bad info, I need to know. Could you kindly ask him to reccomend a resource for me? I was under the impression that my sources were solid, but, I'm definitely hoping for all the info I can get. Maybe my info is specific to the actual small portion of time during NT composition (not the whole of the Roman era)?

 

I definitely have been (up until now) under the impression that single life was not an option for free persons of marriageable age.

 

I don't want to keep repeating that if it's wrong.

 

I asked my husband about this again, and his response is below. Hope it is useful to you.

 

Virtually all 1st century Romans were married at least once with most having two or more spouses over their lifetimes due to high rates of mortality and divorce.  However, that is not the same thing as claiming that there were few single adults in the Roman empire. Upper nobility married fairly early (early teens for women, early twenties for men) but commoners usually delayed marriage leading to a relatively large pool of single adults.  Common men typically saved money or completed military service in their twenties and then married in their late twenties or early thirties.  Common women tended to marry in their late teens or early twenties but there was still a significant pool of single women.

 

Here is an interesting snippet from page 153 of The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic by Harriet Flower (link to the book given below):

 

"The average age of Roman men at first marriage was, as far as we can tell, relatively high.  Inscriptions set up by inhabitants of Roman Italy to commemorate their deceased husbands and wives have been used to estimate marriage ages.  This evidence suggests that Roman men tended to marry only around age thirty and that they often married much younger women.  Such high ages for men at first marriage affected female fertility rates in two ways.  First, the fact that men started to marry only toward age thirty meant that sex ratios in the marriage market were somewhat unbalanced: In every generation, more people would be alive at age twenty than at age thirty, so that some women would suffer from a “marriage squeeze†and would not be able to find a partner as a result.  Similarly, the fact that, on average, men tended to be about ten years older than their wives drove up the share of women not in a partnership."

 

Also, the high rates of divorce in Rome meant that both men and women often had periods of time in their lives in which they became single again after marriage.  

 

Here are some sources:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=7SOjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=average+age+a+roman+man+married&source=bl&ots=kLnAQ4CSE2&sig=yu0pt3WgQIQUGy1Jlvzy5I4-KZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB24ry_L3MAhXKJR4KHSDeDkQQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=average%20age%20a%20roman%20man%20married&f=false
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

[QueenCat]

 

Also, the high rates of divorce in Rome meant that both men and women often had periods of time in their lives in which they became single again after marriage.  

 

 

Very interesting, I didn't not know that there was a high rate of divorce in Roman society. People act like that's a new thing in modern culture when apparently it is not ;)

[MercyA]

I don't think there can be a productive discussion when the other side just claims that we must be twisting and rejecting the Scripture. The arrogance is astounding to me, honestly. I don't claim they are the ones actually twisting or rejecting. I give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are simply interpreting it differently (as many denominations do on a number of things). It seems on this issue, though, that some are incapable of being gracious. 

 

FTR, I am not twisting Scripture to fit my needs. If I felt I could so, so many things would be easier. I also am most definitely not rejecting Scripture. I have merely come to a different conclusion than you. It's actually not much different than what many Christian denominations do about many things. I also don't claim to be 100% right on anything or claim that's just the way things are period. I know I can easily be proven wrong when I stand before God. 

 

I'm also really sick and tired of the, "it's only the act and not the person", junk. The ones posting here may not be involved in the politics of it but those that are use those same words. And they use them to discriminate, hate, and hurt. 

 

I said I was bowing out of this thread, but feel compelled to respond to this first. Joker, I cannot imagine the difficulty of your position, and if I have been in any way ungracious or unkind, I sincerely apologize. If the Scripture itself seems harsh, I can't change that.  

 

Of course I believe I'm right; if I didn't, I would change my position! I am not in any way intending to be arrogant or imply that others here are lacking in information or intelligence.

 

Please do try to see it from my perspective, and trust that I've tried to see it from yours.  I don't hate anyone. I am very aware that all of us are born with our own tendencies and challenges. That said, I absolutely believe that heaven and hell (spoken of many times by Jesus Himself) are as real as the earth we now inhabit. I believe Scripture is clear about actions that can affect our relationship with God and our eternity. I engaged in many of those behaviors myself, and "knowing...the terror of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:11) am genuinely concerned for others. I believe that it would be unloving for me to always remain silent about those concerns. However, I won't continue to argue with you here. I wish you and your family only the best.

[Bluegoat]

I think there is a bit of a distinction as well between the idea that marriage was socially proscribed, and it being very difficult not to be married at some point because that was how social structure was set up.  The two can often go together but for individuals who are able to somehow overcome or ignore the structural issues, they may in fact do something different.

 

Really, there aren't many people in our culture who remain single through their lives, and there are a fair number of ways to make it work.  Most people don't seem to want to.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Ravin, I have to say that I always appreciate your measured and civil tone. :001_smile: However, I can't agree with you that the passage means something substantially different than what it says, especially when the subject is addressed elsewhere in Scripture, as in Romans 1: "...God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

 

As I've said before, I'm not involved in any politics regarding this matter and I would never advocate treating anyone unkindly. However, I do believe the Bible speaks clearly about same-sex relationships, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise. 

 

Agree on both points.  Ravin is a rational and articulate person and a pleasure to have in any discussion.

And it is really hard to make that passage say something other than what it clearly communicates about the behavior discussed. 

[TranquilMind]

I think there is a bit of a distinction as well between the idea that marriage was socially proscribed, and it being very difficult not to be married at some point because that was how social structure was set up.  The two can often go together but for individuals who are able to somehow overcome or ignore the structural issues, they may in fact do something different.

 

Really, there aren't many people in our culture who remain single through their lives, and there are a fair number of ways to make it work.  Most people don't seem to want to.

 

Proscribed means prohibited or condemned.  I presume that was a typo that you say that marriage was proscribed. 

 

Agree on your second point.  People don't seem to want to stay married because they (one or the other or both) do stupid things to break the bond. 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, somehow I managed to say the opposite - I am not sure if I meant to put that negatively at first or what.

 

People don't want to stay married for all kinds of reasons.  I think it varies quite a lot based on the purpose of the institution as well.  In Roman society - in most ancient societies really -  it played rather a different role than it does for us, so I think it can be hard to compare the reasons people make that decision.

[TranquilMind]

I said I was bowing out of this thread, but feel compelled to respond to this first. Joker, I cannot imagine the difficulty of your position, and if I have been in any way ungracious or unkind, I sincerely apologize. If the Scripture itself seems harsh, I can't change that.  

 

Of course I believe I'm right; if I didn't, I would change my position! I am not in any way intending to be arrogant or imply that others here are lacking in information or intelligence.

 

Please do try to see it from my perspective, and trust that I've tried to see it from yours.  I don't hate anyone. I am very aware that all of us are born with our own tendencies and challenges. That said, I absolutely believe that heaven and hell (spoken of many times by Jesus Himself) are as real as the earth we now inhabit. I believe Scripture is clear about actions that can affect our relationship with God and our eternity. I engaged in many of those behaviors myself, and "knowing...the terror of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:11) am genuinely concerned for others. I believe that it would be unloving for me to always remain silent about those concerns. However, I won't continue to argue with you here. I wish you and your family only the best.

 

Well-stated.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - but we sin in different ways and have different temptations. 

But you don't have to go.   No one should feel compelled to leave just because others don't agree with what they are saying.  

 

If you have said it all, well, that's another thing.   I think you have been very  measured in stating your clearly unpopular view.  In fact, most people on this thread avoided the sniping insults and the non-questions posed as questions, so that was a happy surprise.   It can be done. 

 

I'm very proud to know those people (well, "know"...as in interact with online). 

 

[TranquilMind]

Family Acceptance Project has research on the risks of NOT accepting your queer child's identity:

 

Here's a sample:

 

"Gay and transgender teens who were highly rejected by their parents and caregivers were at very high risk for health and mental health problems when they become young adults (ages 21-25). Highly rejected young people were:

 

*More than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide

*Nearly 6 times as likely to report high levels of depression

*More than 3 times as likely to use illegal drugs, and

*More than 3 times as likely to be at high risk for HIV and sexually

transmitted diseases

 

compared with gay and transgender young adults who were not at all or only rejected a little by their parents and caregivers – because of their gay or transgender identity."

 

http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.familyproject/files/FAP_English%20Booklet_pst.pdf

But you are simply assuming a cause-effect situation that may not be present.   You are simply stating without evidence that parents not affirming their child's variant behavior cause depression, drug use, and unwise sexual activity.  

 

Let's say every parent of every kid who engaged in this was whole-heartedly accepting and considered it completely fine and benign. 

 

 

Are you honestly arguing that eliminates the high rates of depression,suicide, drug use, and sexual activity of this group? 

 

I think that is an unsupported leap. 

Edited to add that I realize I missed the link so I went to look at it, expecting research.   There is no research there.  It is merely a brochure with lots of photos of happy families, some diagrams, and lots of words about how a parent must accept this or all these dire results will occur.  

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by TranquilMind

[MercyA]

I'm very proud to know those people (well, "know"...as in interact with online). 

 

Me, too.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But you are simply assuming a cause-effect situation that may not be present. You are simply stating without evidence that parents not affirming their child's variant behavior cause depression, drug use, and unwise sexual activity.

 

Let's say every parent of every kid who engaged in this was whole-heartedly accepting and considered it completely fine and benign.

 

 

Are you honestly arguing that eliminates the high rates of depression,suicide, drug use, and sexual activity of this group?

 

I think that is an unsupported leap.

Edited to add that I realize I missed the link so I went to look at it, expecting research. There is no research there. It is merely a brochure with lots of photos of happy families, some diagrams, and lots of words about how a parent must accept this or all these dire results will occur.

 

I am not sure what data you are looking for, but intuitively it makes sense that rejection/isolation by parental figures would factor into the cited outcomes.

 

"Are you honestly arguing that eliminates the high rates of depression,suicide, drug use, and sexual activity of this group? "

 

This comment seems a bit disingenuous as no one claiming those activities would be eliminated, but I think everyone would agree that they tend to be lower in family units with lower levels of conflict/stress.

[Greta]

But you are simply assuming a cause-effect situation that may not be present.   You are simply stating without evidence that parents not affirming their child's variant behavior cause depression, drug use, and unwise sexual activity.  

 

Let's say every parent of every kid who engaged in this was whole-heartedly accepting and considered it completely fine and benign. 

 

 

Are you honestly arguing that eliminates the high rates of depression,suicide, drug use, and sexual activity of this group? 

 

I think that is an unsupported leap. 

Edited to add that I realize I missed the link so I went to look at it, expecting research.   There is no research there.  It is merely a brochure with lots of photos of happy families, some diagrams, and lots of words about how a parent must accept this or all these dire results will occur.  

 

 

Human nature and emotional needs being what they are, I'm pretty dumbfounded you would argue that parental rejection doesn't cause emotional harm.  I agree that it's generally wise not to jump to the conclusion that causation equals correlation.  But in this instance, I think the causative element is abundantly clear.  Acceptance is one of our most basic emotional needs.  Rejection is excruciating.

[bolt.]

 

I asked my husband about this again, and his response is below. Hope it is useful to you.

 

Virtually all 1st century Romans were married at least once with most having two or more spouses over their lifetimes due to high rates of mortality and divorce. However, that is not the same thing as claiming that there were few single adults in the Roman empire. Upper nobility married fairly early (early teens for women, early twenties for men) but commoners usually delayed marriage leading to a relatively large pool of single adults. Common men typically saved money or completed military service in their twenties and then married in their late twenties or early thirties. Common women tended to marry in their late teens or early twenties but there was still a significant pool of single women.

 

Here is an interesting snippet from page 153 of The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic by Harriet Flower (link to the book given below):

 

 

"The average age of Roman men at first marriage was, as far as we can tell, relatively high. Inscriptions set up by inhabitants of Roman Italy to commemorate their deceased husbands and wives have been used to estimate marriage ages. This evidence suggests that Roman men tended to marry only around age thirty and that they often married much younger women. Such high ages for men at first marriage affected female fertility rates in two ways. First, the fact that men started to marry only toward age thirty meant that sex ratios in the marriage market were somewhat unbalanced: In every generation, more people would be alive at age twenty than at age thirty, so that some women would suffer from a “marriage squeeze†and would not be able to find a partner as a result. Similarly, the fact that, on average, men tended to be about ten years older than their wives drove up the share of women not in a partnership."

Also, the high rates of divorce in Rome meant that both men and women often had periods of time in their lives in which they became single again after marriage.

 

Here are some sources:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=7SOjAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=average+age+a+roman+man+married&source=bl&ots=kLnAQ4CSE2&sig=yu0pt3WgQIQUGy1Jlvzy5I4-KZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB24ry_L3MAhXKJR4KHSDeDkQQ6AEINzAE#v=onepage&q=average%20age%20a%20roman%20man%20married&f=false
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

Please thank him sincerely from me. 😊

[TranquilMind]

Nm

 

I don't know what you posted, but I'm really curious how one can simply determine that it isn't the activity causing the depression and drug overuse and sexual promiscuity, but is instead the disapproval of the parents. 

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?  Simple confusion of correlation and causation? 

Really not sure how one can determine that parental beliefs *cause* any of those dire effects, or whether the activity itself causes it, and parents are conveniently blamed.    Where is the proof?  

 

I'm not arguing it is good to reject a child, of course, and honestly, I think very few do, especially today, if by "reject" we mean stop talking to the child or only talk to the child in a negative way, or terminate the relationship. 

 

  I'm not even convinced that maintaining one's religious stance on relationships, long known to the child, in lieu of tossing it out, IS rejecting the child.  But let's say it is.    Where is the proof that rejecting a child "a little or a lot" (undefined in the brochure that I saw) is the cause of depression, or sexual  promiscuity or drug use?  

 

Maybe going against what you believe or have been taught is the cause, causing great internal strife that is going to come out somehow? 

 

How do we know?   I realize you probably aren't going to answer this, because you cut out your answer before, but I am just dropping this here.  Sounds like huge assumptions to me, with lots of parental blame. 

 

What if the kid does something else the parent and the kid's church has always taught is wrong, and this is something he knows deep down. But he does it anyway.  Is the parent to blame if negative effects occur? 

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Human nature and emotional needs being what they are, I'm pretty dumbfounded you would argue that parental rejection doesn't cause emotional harm.  I agree that it's generally wise not to jump to the conclusion that causation equals correlation.  But in this instance, I think the causative element is abundantly clear.  Acceptance is one of our most basic emotional needs.  Rejection is excruciating.

 

I'm not arguing parental rejection doesn't hurt a child.  I didn't say that at all. 

 

What I am saying is that parental disapproval of homosexuality is not a proven cause of the negative effects listed, which are simply assumed to be the result of parental disapproval in that brochure. 

 

How could one know it is not the kid's own conscience and the resulting disharmony with what he believes causing of all those negative effects?  How do you KNOW, is what I am asking, and that's a reasonable question when someone simply presents a command to do A or B WILL result.  Where is the proof for that assertion?  That's all I am asking.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited May 3, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Paige]

I'm not arguing parental rejection doesn't hurt a child.

 

What I am saying is that parental disapproval of homosexuality is not a proven cause the negative effects listed, which are simply assumed to be the result of parental disapproval in that brochure. 

 

Maybe the kid's own conscience and the resulting disharmony is the cause of all those negative effects.  How do you KNOW, is what I am asking?

Sounds merely like, "Kid A has bad problems and is engaging in negative and highly risky behaviors.  Must be the parent's fault" to me. 

 

I think you missed the last line in verita's post: compared with gay and transgender young adults who were not at all or only rejected a little by their parents and caregivers – because of their gay or transgender identity."

 

So, the high rates you see mentioned are not vs the general population but vs other gay and transgender youths. You are correct that gay and transgender youths have higher rates of depression and suicide attempts in all families, but within that population is a subset of youth with much higher rates of negative outcomes than the group as a whole. That subset is those with rejecting families. Of course, that does not prove anything directly caused it- we don't know what the controls were, we don't know how the sample was selected, and we don't know if there is another intervening variable that is causing the statistical difference. You can't really, genuinely claim to prove anything, so looking for absolute proof in social sciences is never going to work. But, as it is a very good predictor of behavior and outcomes, the safest assumption at this point is that parental rejection is a key, causal variable. 

 

And if you really wanted the stats with research data, it's not hard to pull up references to journal articles in a web search.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Paige

[TranquilMind]

I am not sure what data you are looking for, but intuitively it makes sense that rejection/isolation by parental figures would factor into the cited outcomes.

 

"Are you honestly arguing that eliminates the high rates of depression,suicide, drug use, and sexual activity of this group? "

 

This comment seems a bit disingenuous as no one claiming those activities would be eliminated, but I think everyone would agree that they tend to be lower in family units with lower levels of conflict/stress.

No doubt, it plays some role, or "factors into" the situation as you state. 

But that was not the assertion made.  Your comment does not address my question.  Again, no doubt that living in low stress/conflict environment is ideal. 

But what if the stress is internal?  What if doing this stuff against your beliefs is causing negative effects?  This could be a cause. 

[TranquilMind]

I think you missed the last line in verita's post: compared with gay and transgender young adults who were not at all or only rejected a little by their parents and caregivers – because of their gay or transgender identity."

 

So, the high rates you see mentioned are not vs the general population but vs other gay and transgender youths. You are correct that gay and transgender youths have higher rates of depression and suicide attempts in all families, but within that population is a subset of youth with much higher rates of negative outcomes than the group as a whole. That subset is those with rejecting families. Of course, that does not prove anything directly caused it- we don't know what the controls were, we don't know how the sample was selected, and we don't know if there is another intervening variable that is causing the statistical difference. You can't really, genuinely claim to prove anything, so looking for absolute proof in social sciences is never going to work. But, as it is a very good predictor of behavior and outcomes, the safest assumption at this point is that parental rejection is a key, causal variable. 

So what is the cause? The rejection?  Or the internal strife?  Or something else entirely?  Maybe even a basic non-resilient personality? 

 

There is no way to know, so an instant jump to "blame the parent", especially when it is - as is undoubtedly true - blame the Christian/religious parent for these outcomes is going to get pushback.

 

 

[Joker]

.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Joker

[Paige]

So what is the cause? The rejection?  Or the internal strife?  Or something else entirely?  Maybe even a basic non-resilient personality? 

 

There is no way to know, so an instant jump to "blame the parent", especially when it is - as is undoubtedly true - blame the Christian/religious parent for these outcomes is going to get pushback.

 

 

 

I don't understand what you are asking in relation to this study.

 

I apologize in advance if you know all of this and are asking a different question, but the cause is assumed to be the parental rejection because that was the experimental variable. All sample populations of transgender youth would be assumed, in the experimental design, to have a rather equal distribution of internal strife and other variables, so if those other variables were as important as parental rejection, the study would have shown no difference or no significant difference between the groups. A pamphlet is not going to have the study data spelled out like a journal, but if you want it, there should be a reference somewhere to look it up and see how the study was designed and how they measured rejection. The way the pamphlet is phrased, however, gives me a pretty good idea of how the study was set up. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So what is the cause? The rejection?  Or the internal strife?  Or something else entirely?  Maybe even a basic non-resilient personality? 

 

There is no way to know, so an instant jump to "blame the parent", especially when it is - as is undoubtedly true - blame the Christian/religious parent for these outcomes is going to get pushback.

 

 

 

If you structure the sample correctly, other factors are assumed to be balanced throughout both groups.

 

If you find a significant positive correlation between the factor you are studying and the negative outcomes, then it is generally valid to say that we do have evidence of causation.

 

That doesn't mean that the factors you cite can be discounted entirely, but their possible presence doesn't negate the significant correlation that has been observed.

[Veritaserum]

I am a Christian parent who unequivacobaly accepts and affirms my child's queer identity. Rejecting a child's queer identity--regardless of a parent's religious affiliation or belief--harms the child. This is not a war against Christian parents. This is a plea for us to stop hurting and even killing our children with our words and actions.

 

There are definitely other factors at play, including a queer person's religious indoctrination growing up and society's acceptance (or lack thereof). However, it is absurd to argue that parental rejection is not a major factor in the health and happiness of a queer person.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Veritaserum

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't understand what you are asking in relation to this study.

 

I apologize in advance if you know all of this and are asking a different question, but the cause is assumed to be the parental rejection because that was the experimental variable. All sample populations of transgender youth would be assumed, in the experimental design, to have a rather equal distribution of internal strife and other variables, so if those other variables were as important as parental rejection, the study would have shown no difference or no significant difference between the groups. A pamphlet is not going to have the study data spelled out like a journal, but if you want it, there should be a reference somewhere to look it up and see how the study was designed and how they measured rejection. The way the pamphlet is phrased, however, gives me a pretty good idea of how the study was set up. 

 

Correct.  Simply arguing "but what about...?" indicates an underlying confusion about how studies are conducted.