Have you changed your view of right or wrong.......

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Oh good. Wrestling through these thoughts while struggling to maintain a relationship with someone you love is miserable. Ask me how I know this....

I think this is a point worth repeating.  My mom always taught me to be sure of my beliefs before being tested on them.  

[TheReader]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Specifically asked about loving someone who does not conform to your moral code? 
 

how did you get to the point of believing personal. allegiance was above moral conviction.

For me, the thinking goes like this: 

In reading the Bible, particularly the New Testament, and especially Jesus' words in the gospels, Jesus makes it exceedingly clear that His command is to love one another. Over and over and over again, He tells the disciples -- (paraphrasing) Look, I'm leaving, I won't be here to love people, so your job when I leave is to love people. So that they will know Me.    

In the book of John in particular, He really hammers this home to them.  Elsewhere He says that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, strength, and the second is like it, to love our neighbor as ourselves.  

So, #1 priority -- Love God.  But then #2 priority -- Love Others.  And according to Jesus, all the law can be summed up *and fulfilled* in those two things. 

So how that plays out in my life: 

I live my life, as best as I can (with admittedly plenty of mistakes, I'm sure), according to God's word. I try my best to have my actions, my life, my decisions, follow the word of God. 

I interact with people, as best as I can (with, again, plenty of mistakes I'm sure), as I feel that Jesus would have. I determine that by reading His word, looking at His actions, looking at what He said for his disciples to do.  In each case that I've read and seen in the Bible, He loves people first. And then He tells them to leave their sin behind. But only *after* He's loved them. Met their needs of the moment. Fed them. Cared for them. Healed them. And then, unless the gospels just ignore it and leave this out, He doesn't hound them, follow them, and govern their morality.  He *first* meets their physical needs and relates to them as people.  And *then* He mentions their need to turn away from sin.  

And yet, when He was leaving, He says that he sent the Holy Spirit to judge and convict of sin.....and He tells the disciples that *their job* is to love people.  In fact, He says a lot that His job isn't to judge, but to love. That He's not here to judge, but to love. And with him leaving, that is what our job becomes -- to love. 

So, that is what I do.  I don't compromise my morals, or feel that personal allegiance is above/more important than my moral convictions......because one of my moral convictions, perhaps the largest one, is that I'm supposed to love my neighbor. 

So, what that boils down to:

If a person in my life, for example, goes out and gets drunk every weekend....I can be their friend, but I won't give them fine wine or a favorite beer as a Christmas gift. On the other hand, though, if I invite them to my house to watch a football game or something, I won't forbid them from having a beer with us. I won't drink more than one, because that's my personal limit (2, if DH & I are sharing both and it's a long day), but I won't keep count of theirs -- my morality governs my actions, not other people's. 

If a person in my life, for example, tells me he is gay....I will say (and have said), "Okay, cool; so, what are you doing this weekend?"  and continue on being their friend just as I was before. If I have an event where I'm inviting people and their plus one, I would invite this friend and his plus one.  Because loving others means (to me) accepting them. Because (as best I can tell), Jesus' example means meeting people where they are. Meeting their physical needs. Ministering to them, loving them. And because (as best as I can read/interpret it), He then said that convicting of sin is the job of the Holy Spirit, not the disciples (us).  So I would invite this person over. With their plus one. 

How do I reach this conclusion: 

For me, it's like this.....I sub in a "normal" sin.  For example, how would I treat a Dallas Cowboys fan*??   I would endeavor to treat them like anyone else, and realize that we all have our flaws, sins, etc, but I won't hold that against them, even though for me & mine, that violates Rule Number One of football season.  They can come to my house and watch football. They can even wear their jersey. They can't make me wear their jersey, though, or go to a Dallas game. 

So that's the litmus test I apply to other situations, too. If I wouldn't do to a Cowboys Fan what I'm thinking of doing (or excluding, treating, inviting, etc.) to this other person who has this other sin, then I know I'm being unfair and not loving people how Jesus wants me to. 

*please know I'm being partly tongue-in-cheek, because I didn't want to sub in any other actual sin b/c I know the definition of sin varies greatly from one denomination, tradition, etc. to another. The Cowboys thing *is* legitimate, though, at my house. And yet, I still used a Realtor who is such a Cowboys fan she has personalized plates and everything. I still rode in her car to view houses -- she wasn't trying to put her plate on my car, so it was a non-issue. 

[TheReader]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Specifically asked about loving someone who does not conform to your moral code? 
 

how did you get to the point of believing personal. allegiance was above moral conviction.

Edited to clarify---I am not personally struggling with this issue.  I do have loved ones who live contrary to what I believe to be right.  I still love them, they still love me.  I wasn't questioning whether a person should continue to LOVE someone who begins some activity (gambling?) ....my question was 'have you changed your mind about the activity being wrong'.  

Thanks for sharing everyone.

Ah, I replied (in length) before I saw this edit. 

So, re: this edit -- no. anything that the Bible tells me is wrong, I still believe is wrong, and I still will not engage in it. 

It's just not my job to decide what's wrong for someone else. 

So, going back to the Dallas Cowboys thing. It's still (and always) Rule Number One -- Never Root for The Cowboys.  And I never will, and you can't make me. 

But if you choose to, that's your thing, and I won't chastise you for it. neither will I attend a game with you, though. Loving a person with different values or a different moral code than me does not mean I have changed my moral code.....it just means the part of my moral code that says "love people" is being kept. 

[Jenny in Florida]

8 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

There are many examples of gay people whose parents handled it this way and they do not feel that they received love from their parents. 

About 20 years ago, when I was still a very serious Catholic, I had a good friend who came out. We became very close. He was struggling with Christianity. His mother responded to his coming out similar to how you would. He was very hurt by his mother's reaction. He asked me to talk with his mother about it. I told him that if I could not tell his mother that I thought his behavior was not sinful. My friend was extremely hurt by what I did and ended our friendship. Now I understand why he reacted like he did. I hurt him very much and so did his mother. I was wrong and regret what I said. 

I wasn't loving him and neither was his mother. 

Thank you for sharing this.

My daughter is bisexual/leaning lesbian. Her "coming out" to us was somewhat anticlimactic, because we have no religious or moral baggage attached to non-heterosexuality, and I had basically known she was not straight from the time she was a child. I do not intend to minimize her experience, because I do know she struggled with it, but there has never been any friction on our end of this. 

However, as she has matured and become part of the LGBTQ+ community, she has gathered into her circle so many young adults who carry so much pain and trauma resulting from how their loved ones reacted to their coming out, and it just hurts my heart every time I hear these stories. These young people have lost families, friends, churches . . . They make do with grudgingly doled out "love" in diminished relationships limited by other people's determination to prize their own moral purity above what I consider the primary purpose of being human, which is to care for and about other living beings.

Love that attempts to control someone else doesn't feel like love to me. And beliefs that require one to inflict pain on another human are, I believe, inherently pretty flawed.

We all evolve and learn from our experiences.

At least I hope we do.

[Junie]

I agree with everything that @TheReader except that I am a teetotaler and don't allow alcohol in my house.  But, yes, basically, what she said.

Oh, and I rooted for the Cowboys *once* because it was a playoff situation and the Cowboys had to win for my team to advance.  It was hard, though.

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, bibiche said:

This kind of thread always makes me wonder if people would be better and kinder if they didn’t have God and the Bible to blame things on or if god and the Bible are actually reining them in and they’d be even worse people without them. SMH

Nah. Of the atheist I have known,  they aren’t any more kind or better for it.  

55 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Just a jumping off point, not picking at you specifically.   I’m curious how does this play out with divorce and remarriage?  Divorce is specially laid out as a sin in the Bible.  I’m my husband’s 2nd wife, would you allow us to share a room in your home?  Expect us not to be affectionate in your home?  Would you celebrate our anniversary with us? 

Idk.  So much depends on so many other factors. But I guess so. It’s never been an issue. A few days ago we had someone over who just got married for the fifth time.  My initial thought upon learning that was Good God - WHY?! And my second was well God help and bless them for their try again positivity.   I don’t remember anything being an issue. I think the affect of that on their children has been really hard and that’s sad to me but I’m not listing that out for them. My dad had a couple wives and girlfriends after my mom died.  If they were legally married we accepted it as such.  His girlfriends never slept in the same room with him at my house.  They openly asked what room they should sleep in with no rancor over it.  My mom committed adultery and it devastated my family and forever changed my relationship with her.  But I loved her and she lived happily with me during her last days. (My parents didn’t divorce either.) We have had young men and women move in with us for a time because they don’t have family they can go to.  It’s truly horrible how many college kids struggle with this. They aren’t Catholic .  Many are nominal Christian at best bc of how their family has treated them.  But they lived under my roof and ate at my table for many months until they could get on their feet with little to no issue.  I think the only issue so far was one played grand theft auto game and I just said we love you, but please don’t play that here, or at least not in the presence of my kids bc these are my issues with it. No more playing that with no issues at all.

I can know someone is in grave mortal sin and love them. I can see that and be heartbroken for them. Want healthier relationships for them.  But none of that means I can’t feed them a meal and enjoy it with them. It doesn’t mean I write them off the prayer list as too far gone to be worthy of my love and prayers. I think the only person in grave mortal sin that I flat out refused to allow in my home or be polite to was a life long child rapist/molester. He did jail time for it, but not nearly enough imnsho. I didn’t wish him further harm other than a longer prison sentence. But I could not bring myself to show him basic love or allow him in my home during his last days.  I admit I don’t feel badly about it as I should.  I could sit with someone who talked about how they killed their husband, their unborn baby, cheated on their spouse with prostitutes, prostituted themselves for drugs, embezzled their boss, or more. But I guess my hard and fast line must be child molesting. I couldn’t manage to want good for them unless wanting a bullet for them counts as wanting them to have a good death. 

I’m not sure why this concept that we can love people even when we know they are in grave sin is so hard to comprehend.  I think it’s terribly sad because it means people will always think they are not loved or lovable. And that’s just not true. 

[TheReader]

1 minute ago, Junie said:

I agree with everything that @TheReader except that I am a teetotaler and don't allow alcohol in my house.  But, yes, basically, what she said.

Oh, and I rooted for the Cowboys *once* because it was a playoff situation and the Cowboys had to win for my team to advance.  It was hard, though.

I'm torn between the heart and the laugh smiley, LOL!!! I hope we are never in a position where the Cowboys need to win in order for our team to advance.....:shudder:  I don't know if I could do it. 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I don’t know how it reconciled with homosexuality exactly, but I’d have no problem loving my child if they robbed a bank. Or murdered someone.  I wouldn't help them go on the lam or lie for them.  I would cry and be angry, then buck up, get them the best lawyer possible, visit in prison, put money on the prison account.  Is there another option?  My babies can do wrong.  They are still mine. Does God do any different for us? 
 

I wouldn’t really care if my kids were/are gay.  My extended family has had a suicide we suspect was due to homosexuality.  I think that changes things, puts them in perspective.  *My* reactions will NOT be the reasons my children feel that kind of despair. Just no.  

I have been thinking about this a lot recently because I now work in criminal law. A lot of clients are retained by mom/dad, grandma/grandpa or an aunt/uncle putting up the money, even in some cases where the “kid” is 30+ years old. It just makes me wonder what is the right thing to do. 

Last week, for the first time, I watched a grown man hug his mom, kiss her and say, “Thank you for helping me, mom.” It made my eyes water! I typically have never seen the beneficiary even say thank you, much less affectionately demonstrate gratitude. With that said, some clients have severe addiction or mental illness problems and may not be capable of that. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Edited June 7, 2021 by Quill
Wrong word

[HeartString]

11 minutes ago, Quill said:

I have been thinking about this a lot recently because I now work in criminal law. A lot of clients are retained by mom/dad, grandma/grandpa or an aunt/uncle putting up the money, even in some cases where the “kid” is 30+ years old. It just makes me wonder what is the right thing to do. 

Last week, for the first time, I watched a grown man hug his mom, kiss her and say, “Thank you for helping me, mom.” It made my eyes water! I typically have never seen the benefactor even say thank you, much less affectionately demonstrate gratitude. With that said, some clients have severe addiction or mental illness problems and may not be capable of that. 🤷🏻‍♀️

For better or worse we have an adversarial court system where everyone is entitled to representation. A good lawyer is important and public defenders are just too overworked to do much good. I don’t see how it could be wrong to get a loved one good representation. Tiresome with a repeat offender, sure.  I don’t think it would be wrong to say no, I’m tapped out, I spent all the money I could spare on your last 3 burglary charges, I can’t this time.  But I would help to the extent that I could for as long as I could manage. I also don’t necessarily think it’s a moral imperative to do so, since public defenders do exist and are considered adequate.  
 

I’m also not wealthy enough to be able to just make charges “go away” with a donation or phone call, which would probably be the wrong thing to do, but not something I’m capable of anyway.  Darn it.  🤪 

Edited June 7, 2021 by HeartString

[fraidycat]

9 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Specifically asked about loving someone who does not conform to your moral code? 
 

how did you get to the point of believing personal. allegiance was above moral conviction.

I have changed my views on morality, but it had nothing to do with personal allegiance to anyone,  and everything to do with growing and maturing as a person and broadening my horizons.

My definition of morality is very narrow (harm to and infringing upon the rights of another living, breathing being) yet it is not black & white. Except for intentional murder of another person and sexual abuse, everything else is in a grey area.
For example, causing physical harm to another person for enjoyment or to "feel powerful" is 100% wrong, but for survival/self defense I find it acceptable. The action itself is not the problem, but the intent that drives it. Same goes for animals - harming an animal for kicks & giggles or to assert power is wrong, but for food, self defense, or humane euthanization is not.

I also include mental and spiritual harm in the immoral camp. 
There is no personal allegiance that can ever change my personal conviction that hurting others is wrong.

I do not hold any beliefs around what other people should find right or wrong beyond that. Personal choice and freedom reigns supreme. There are things I will personally not do (abortion, smoke weed, etc.), but I believe in choice and bodily autonomy. I believe that religion, in many cases, is mentally and spiritually harmful, but I support freedom of religion. I am not at all sexually attracted to other females, but I support marriage and relationship equality.

Life: so many shades of grey.

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, Quill said:

I have been thinking about this a lot recently because I now work in criminal law. A lot of clients are retained by mom/dad, grandma/grandpa or an aunt/uncle putting up the money, even in some cases where the “kid” is 30+ years old. It just makes me wonder what is the right thing to do. 

Last week, for the first time, I watched a grown man hug his mom, kiss her and say, “Thank you for helping me, mom.” It made my eyes water! I typically have never seen the beneficiary even say thank you, much less affectionately demonstrate gratitude. With that said, some clients have severe addiction or mental illness problems and may not be capable of that. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Many times someone being charged with a crime may not be able to even access their own funds.  So if family won’t step up with money, they are basically defenseless. 

But also. I would want my loved one to have a lawyer.  That doesn’t mean I don’t also want justice. In fact it might be because I want justice. There’s a lot of people who get some seriously out of proportion sentences for their crimes compared to those with a decent a decent lawyer.  If I knew they committed the crime, I probably wouldn’t pony up bail money though. It helps that I simply don’t have money for all that anyways. LOL

[Murphy101]

16 minutes ago, HeartString said:

For better or worse we have an adversarial court system where everyone is entitled to representation. A good lawyer is important and public defenders are just too overworked to do much good. I don’t see how it could be wrong to get a loved one good representation. Tiresome with a repeat offender, sure.  I don’t think it would be wrong to say no, I’m tapped out, I spent all the money I could spare on your last 3 burglary charges, I can’t this time.  But I would help to the extent that I could for as long as I could manage. I also don’t necessarily think it’s a moral imperative to do so, since public defenders do exist and are considered adequate.  
 

I’m also not wealthy enough to be able to just make charges “go away” with a donation or phone call, which would probably be the wrong thing to do, but not something I’m capable of anyway.  Darn it.  🤪 

Right?!  LOL. I have told people I love that I would not bail them out for stuff. Such as DUI.  Nope. I told them point blank that I hope they lose the license. Yes I know it means they will lose their job. And maybe their kids. I also know I will not give one dime towards perpetuating their self destruction.  If they get sober, they can live at my house until they get their life back together. I’ll personally drive them to counseling and rehab.  But I’m not giving them money and helping them with legal issues doesn’t seem to have actually helped them, so I’m not going to repeat what didn’t work before.

It’s hard to come to that point. But if love is wanting their good, I can’t in good conscious claim to love them if I go past that point.  

Edited June 7, 2021 by Murphy101

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, HeartString said:

For better or worse we have an adversarial court system where everyone is entitled to representation. A good lawyer is important and public defenders are just too overworked to do much good. I don’t see how it could be wrong to get a loved one good representation. Tiresome with a repeat offender, sure.  I don’t think it would be wrong to say no, I’m tapped out, I spent all the money I could spare on your last 3 burglary charges, I can’t this time.  But I would help to the extent that I could for as long as I could manage. I also don’t necessarily think it’s a moral imperative to do so, since public defenders do exist and are considered adequate.  
 

I’m also not wealthy enough to be able to just make charges “go away” with a donation or phone call, which would probably be the wrong thing to do, but not something I’m capable of anyway.  Darn it.  🤪 

Yeah but I do have an internal conflict in some situations where we are “happy” our firm got a sentence reduced to a wrist-slap, but I saw the dashcam footage of a terribly impaired driver, for example. 

But yes, I agree about public defenders. We often have people who were previously defended by PDs and they were neglected at best. 

[WildflowerMom]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

My theory is that the hair brings out the mothering instinct. 

I just laughed so loud at this, my dog jumped straight up from his sleeping spot and looked around. 

[Jenny in Florida]

8 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay?

Sin hurts sometimes. Often ime.

I would recognize that my child was hurting. I would be hurting right there with them. But being hurt doesn’t make a sin no longer a sin.  What I would tell your friend is that his mother was hurting too and she loves him enough to only want what she knows to be Good for him. Obviously he disagrees about what that is. But I’d hope he could remember that she does love him.  

I liked a lot of what you wrote in your original post. However, this is where we diverge.

I believe that intentionally inflicting pain on another human being is "sinful." 

I am not a Christian (largely because I can't find a denomination that doesn't have tripping hazards like this for me), but my reading about Jesus suggest that his followers are not commanded to hurt others in his name.

[HeartString]

31 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yeah but I do have an internal conflict in some situations where we are “happy” our firm got a sentence reduced to a wrist-slap, but I saw the dashcam footage of a terribly impaired driver, for example. 

But yes, I agree about public defenders. We often have people who were previously defended by PDs and they were neglected at best. 

Our system is imperfect for sure, I could go on and on.  I don’t necessarily want to sacrifice my kid to some ideal of how it ought to be though.  If it comes to that we have to play the game the way it’s written.  Trying to fix it is for a different time.  

[Jenny in Florida]

3 hours ago, MEmama said:

This is a weird assumption to make. Are you really suggesting that all gay folks struggle and “hurt”? 

Thank you for saying this.

The only LGBTQ+ people I know who are "hurting" because of their orientation are feeling that hurt based on the actions of others who feel it necessary to "hate the sin."

[Condessa]

10 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How do you say to someone that you love them but tell them that they cannot act on something that is a fundamental part of who they are? 

Well, if you apply this broadly, we do this all the time.  The naturally quick-to-anger person with tendencies towards violence is not allowed to act on that part of their nature.  The person with naturally pedophilic tendencies is not allowed to act on their nature.  In less extreme examples, we as parents work long and hard to train our children out of acting on natural parts of their characters all the time, such as laziness, temper problems, unhealthy habits.  In religious terms, it is the conflict between the natural man and divine nature as a child of god.

That certainly doesn’t mean that you should have a problem with homosexuality, but the reasoning that one cannot love a person and also tell them not to act on a natural part of their makeup as a person doesn’t hold up.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Condessa

[theelfqueen]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

I have been thinking about this a lot recently because I now work in criminal law. A lot of clients are retained by mom/dad, grandma/grandpa or an aunt/uncle putting up the money, even in some cases where the “kid” is 30+ years old. It just makes me wonder what is the right thing to do. 

Last week, for the first time, I watched a grown man hug his mom, kiss her and say, “Thank you for helping me, mom.” It made my eyes water! I typically have never seen the beneficiary even say thank you, much less affectionately demonstrate gratitude. With that said, some clients have severe addiction or mental illness problems and may not be capable of that. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I was thinking about this in the recent Duggar discussions... if my child had been arrested on charges such as those Josh Duggar is facing, in similarly damning circumstances ....if I knew one of my children had harmed my other children in the way he has done....if I believed they had committed a heinous crime but I didn't want to see them suffer ... could I or would i hire an attorney for them? Would I stand by them? I think I wouldn't and that makes me wonder about a lot of things, about myself, about unconditional love and the boundaries of acting on it. 

[Jenny in Florida]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

Nah. Of the atheist I have known,  they aren’t any more kind or better for it.   

I'll bet they're none the worse for it, either.

[Jenny in Florida]

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Well, if you apply this broadly, we do this all the time.  The naturally quick-to-anger person with tendencies towards violence is not allowed to act on that part of their nature.  The person with naturally pedophilic tendencies is not allowed to act on their nature.  In less extreme examples, we as parents work long and hard to train our children out of acting on natural parts of their characters all the time, such as laziness, temper problems, unhealthy habits.  In religious terms, it is the conflict between the natural man and divine nature as a child of god.

That certainly doesn’t mean that you should have a problem with homosexuality, but the reasoning that one cannot love a person and also tell them not to act on a natural part of their makeup as a person doesn’t hold up.

To me, there is an implied "not allowed to act on a a fundamental aspect of their humanity that does no harm to other beings" edit at play here. 

We're also talking about adults, not children whom we are responsible for attempting to nurture into the best versions of themselves.

[hippymamato3]

10 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Ok. Sure.  So. All,of your life you have believed that gambling is morally wrong. Then a loved one becomes a professional gambler.  Do you say, well now I believe that gambling is not wrong.  

If I saw it as morally ambiguous anyway (which in case of gambling I do) then I'd probably decide it was not a big deal. Other things would be more difficult, perhaps, though without knowing what you're talking about I can't be sure. 

[maize]

56 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Well, if you apply this broadly, we do this all the time.  The naturally quick-to-anger person with tendencies towards violence is not allowed to act on that part of their nature.  The person with naturally pedophilic tendencies is not allowed to act on their nature.  In less extreme examples, we as parents work long and hard to train our children out of acting on natural parts of their characters all the time, such as laziness, temper problems, unhealthy habits.  In religious terms, it is the conflict between the natural man and divine nature as a child of god.

That certainly doesn’t mean that you should have a problem with homosexuality, but the reasoning that one cannot love a person and also tell them not to act on a natural part of their makeup as a person doesn’t hold up.

This is so true.

Human culture is largely a matter of *acting differently from instinct*. This is what sets us apart from other animals, because less complex brains do function largely on instinct--natural drives.

It is not a natural part of our makeup to wear the types of clothes any given society requires--but almost all humans do so.

It is not a natural part of our makeup to refrain from hitting people when angry--but most humans past a certain level of maturity do so.

It is not a natural part of our makeup to refrain from trying to mate--even by force--with every appealing potential partner--but most humans do so.

It is not a natural part of our makeup to eat our food with forks and knives or chopsticks or other implements rather than tearing into it with hands and teeth--but humans in societies where such table manners are expected do so.

It isn't a natural part of a child's makeup to learn to read or spends many hours solving math equations--but a great many human children do so. Refraining during that time from other entirely natural activities like playing, fighting, snatching someone else's food, etc.

To be human is to be more than instinct--more than just our natural inclinations. We all reject some natural inclinations.

Edited June 7, 2021 by maize

[MEmama]

9 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Well, if you apply this broadly, we do this all the time.  The naturally quick-to-anger person with tendencies towards violence is not allowed to act on that part of their nature.  The person with naturally pedophilic tendencies is not allowed to act on their nature.  In less extreme examples, we as parents work long and hard to train our children out of acting on natural parts of their characters all the time, such as laziness, temper problems, unhealthy habits.  In religious terms, it is the conflict between the natural man and divine nature as a child of god.

That certainly doesn’t mean that you should have a problem with homosexuality, but the reasoning that one cannot love a person and also tell them not to act on a natural part of their makeup as a person doesn’t hold up.

I think part of the problem is that some people on this thread seem to equate  being gay only with sex. It’s just so.much more nuanced than that. And by fixating only on sex (which, tbh is pretty creepy) is to dismiss all the layers and complexities that go into a person's orientation. So by saying sure I can love you but don’t love who you are as a person is ummm… not something that can go over well. 

 

[MEmama]

Also, considering love to be a “sin”  just not something I can wrap my brain around. 

[Murphy101]

55 minutes ago, Jenny in Florida said:

I liked a lot of what you wrote in your original post. However, this is where we diverge.

I believe that intentionally inflicting pain on another human being is "sinful." 

I am not a Christian (largely because I can't find a denomination that doesn't have tripping hazards like this for me), but my reading about Jesus suggest that his followers are not commanded to hurt others in his name.

How do you come to that conclusion? Did not the rich man turn from Jesus bc he didn’t want to live as Jesus commanded? Did Jesus say oh wait, never mind I’ll change it all for you?  Many didn’t like the words of Jesus and were very likely hurt by it bc it pricked their conscious or they didn’t agree with it. I mean. That’s basically why they had him crucified. 

In our imperfect world, hurt and sacrifice cannot be avoid if we love others. It’s not that we want to hurt each other just to hurt each other. It’s that pain is often an unavoidable side affect of doing the right thing. And not doing the right thing just to avoid temporary hurt doesn’t change what is right and often doesn’t avoid hurt either.

I’m sure my alcoholic loved one is hurt that I wouldn’t bail him out or give him the support he wanted bc I viewed it as enabling him and not the right thing to do. My goal was never to “intentionally hurt” him. My goal is to intentionally love him.  Which means I can’t give him what he wants, even if that hurts him. 

[TheReader]

29 minutes ago, Jenny in Florida said:

To me, there is an implied "not allowed to act on a a fundamental aspect of their humanity that does no harm to other beings" edit at play here. 

We're also talking about adults, not children whom we are responsible for attempting to nurture into the best versions of themselves.

This reminds  me of something my dad used to tell me, and which has always influenced my understanding of morality:  Your right to extend your fist ends when you reach my face.  (or, someone else's). 

Homosexuality harms no one, but asking such a person to ignore and stifle and closet their very being, does. For me, I will always choose not to inflict harm.

[HeartString]

49 minutes ago, theelfqueen said:

I was thinking about this in the recent Duggar discussions... if my child had been arrested on charges such as those Josh Duggar is facing, in similarly damning circumstances ....if I knew one of my children had harmed my other children in the way he has done....if I believed they had committed a heinous crime but I didn't want to see them suffer ... could I or would i hire an attorney for them? Would I stand by them? I think I wouldn't and that makes me wonder about a lot of things, about myself, about unconditional love and the boundaries of acting on it. 

The phrase “only a mother could love” exists for a reason.  I don’t think anybody can know until we are in it though.  I’d like to think in Michelle Duggar’s position I would still love my child, and get him a lawyer, then visit him in prison and make sure he was modestly comfortable in prison (basics like soap, toothpaste, Tylenol, ramen, books that prisoners are often denied unless they can buy them themselves) while also wanting to see him stay in prison for his own good, to prevent him from harming others.  I would also take all steps to prevent him from hurting my other children or other children in general. A mother visiting a jailed child is one thing, bringing siblings to visit is another.  

Edited June 7, 2021 by HeartString

[maize]

36 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Also, considering love to be a “sin”  just not something I can wrap my brain around. 

I don't equate sex with love.

Do you?

There are lots of kinds of sex that I consider to be sinful.

There are lots of other things I consider sinful as well.

I don't consider love sinful, regardless of who is loving who.

[Murphy101]

43 minutes ago, theelfqueen said:

I was thinking about this in the recent Duggar discussions... if my child had been arrested on charges such as those Josh Duggar is facing, in similarly damning circumstances ....if I knew one of my children had harmed my other children in the way he has done....if I believed they had committed a heinous crime but I didn't want to see them suffer ... could I or would i hire an attorney for them? Would I stand by them? I think I wouldn't and that makes me wonder about a lot of things, about myself, about unconditional love and the boundaries of acting on it. 

I would not do anything that would get him out of jail or reduce his sentence. Because if they cannot control that tendency (and many claim they were also born that way) then jail is the safest place for them.  It would be unloving to set them lose upon the world knowing they couldn’t control that. I would probably visit them on my own. But I would discourage all my other children from communicating with them.  
 

But I also don’t seem to believe in unconditional love like others seem to. Others seem to think unconditional loves means being accepting of anything someone does.   For me unconditional love means even if they do horrible things I will love them enough to tell them to stop it for their own sake and the sake of others. I would not perpetuate or condone or accept behaviors I think are ultimately not to their good. 

41 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Let's say your brother (if you have one) gets divorced and then wants to get re-married? Would you attend his wedding? Let's say he comes for Thanksgiving - would you tell him that he can't sleep in the same bedroom with his wife (excuse me, "wife")? 

I grew up in the Diocese of Tulsa and have family who attended schools in the Diocese of Tulsa all of the way through high school. Almost every child they knew in school was Catholic. In the years that I lived in Tulsa, I can't think of any non-Catholic that I knew who sent their kids to one of the parochial schools. There might have been more non-Catholics at Bishop Kelley. I'd guess that there are more non-Catholics at Cascia Hall but I never knew anyone who sent their kids there. 

 

Okay. I have lived here my entire life, and I don’t know what to tell you. The schools own numbers say that a super majority are not Catholic at all the high schools and a majority of the primary schools.  You don’t have to believe me. But those are the facts according the diocese schools themselves and have been for at least 15 years.  I would posit that Catholics tend to cluster together is the reason your Catholics family/friends using these schools all have Catholic friends at those schools.  I could say the same. Every Catholic I know that attends those schools has friends who are Catholic there. Doesn’t mean the numbers lie. It means birds of a feather flock together. 

[hippymamato3]

8 minutes ago, maize said:

I don't equate sex with love.

Do you?

There are lots of kinds of sex that I consider to be sinful.

There are lots of other things I consider sinful as well.

I don't consider love sinful, regardless of who is loving who.

Given the term "making love" I assume many/most people equate sex with love. 

[fraidycat]

1 hour ago, Condessa said:

Well, if you apply this broadly, we do this all the time.  The naturally quick-to-anger person with tendencies towards violence is not allowed to act on that part of their nature.  The person with naturally pedophilic tendencies is not allowed to act on their nature.  In less extreme examples, we as parents work long and hard to train our children out of acting on natural parts of their characters all the time, such as laziness, temper problems, unhealthy habits.  In religious terms, it is the conflict between the natural man and divine nature as a child of god.

That certainly doesn’t mean that you should have a problem with homosexuality, but the reasoning that one cannot love a person and also tell them not to act on a natural part of their makeup as a person doesn’t hold up.

These are false equivalencies.

Violence harms another person.

Pedophelia harms another person.

Laziness, temper, unhealthy habits are changeable qualities - choices.

Attraction is not a choice. I did not choose heterosexuality. I am a female attracted to males. That's just how it IS. I choose to be monogamous, however, whether or not I find other men besides my DH attractive.

Edited June 7, 2021 by fraidycat

[WildflowerMom]

2 hours ago, Jenny in Florida said:

Thank you for sharing this.

My daughter is bisexual/leaning lesbian. Her "coming out" to us was somewhat anticlimactic, because we have no religious or moral baggage attached to non-heterosexuality, and I had basically known she was not straight from the time she was a child. I do not intend to minimize her experience, because I do know she struggled with it, but there has never been any friction on our end of this. 

However, as she has matured and become part of the LGBTQ+ community, she has gathered into her circle so many young adults who carry so much pain and trauma resulting from how their loved ones reacted to their coming out, and it just hurts my heart every time I hear these stories. These young people have lost families, friends, churches . . . They make do with grudgingly doled out "love" in diminished relationships limited by other people's determination to prize their own moral purity above what I consider the primary purpose of being human, which is to care for and about other living beings.

Love that attempts to control someone else doesn't feel like love to me. And beliefs that require one to inflict pain on another human are, I believe, inherently pretty flawed.

We all evolve and learn from our experiences.

At least I hope we do.

We are Christians.  I know what the Bible says.   *But* I told ds a long time ago when he was coming into his own, 'if you're gay, you're gay.  I'll always be on your side, no matter what.' I never thought he'd be anything but hetero (and I was right, so far), but I wanted to confront the possibility somewhat early on, because I know that the suicide rate is astronomical for LBTQ youth.   I never ever wanted him to doubt my devotion to him, regardless of his sex. orientation.    My personal feeling is God gave ds to me to nurture and love and I'm doing that no matter what happens.   Even if he were to end up in prison for some heinous crime, I'll be visiting him and sending him care packages and loving him always and forever.  He is my gift from God.   Period.    Christ doesn't stop loving me and He doesn't give up on me every time I sin.  

[QueenCat]

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Thank you.  That makes sense.  

And in my example of gambling.....I do believe gambling to be 'wrong'....not the worst wrong obviously, but I do not gamble.  I don't even buy lottery tickets.  But if say my brother started gambling, I also would not go gambling with him and I would not say, 'well, I really did not understand gambling before, but now that my brother who I love so much is gambling I can see it really isn't so wrong after all.'  But I see that sort of thing pretty often.  In my musing, I am thinking maybe their conviction to whatever belief was not very strong to begin with.   ?  I don't know.  

FTR, I am far less rigid than I was in my youth.  I think that is common.  To become less black and white.  But I think that is a different matter than changing your mind about big picture rights or wrongs.

 

I should say that some things, like gambling, can be both... fine and not fine. Recreationally, fine. Not fine it it keeps you from paying for what your family needs or keeps you from your family. We might gamble on vacation. It comes from the vacation money and isn't much. It doesn't get in the way of paying for our needs, etc. Other things are like this, as well. 

Like you, I see less rigidity as I get older, all in a good way.

[QueenCat]

3 hours ago, TheReader said:

For me, it's like this.....I sub in a "normal" sin.  For example, how would I treat a Dallas Cowboys fan*??   I would endeavor to treat them like anyone else, and realize that we all have our flaws, sins, etc, but I won't hold that against them, even though for me & mine, that violates Rule Number One of football season.  They can come to my house and watch football. They can even wear their jersey. They can't make me wear their jersey, though, or go to a Dallas game. 

So that's the litmus test I apply to other situations, too. If I wouldn't do to a Cowboys Fan what I'm thinking of doing (or excluding, treating, inviting, etc.) to this other person who has this other sin, then I know I'm being unfair and not loving people how Jesus wants me to. 

*please know I'm being partly tongue-in-cheek, because I didn't want to sub in any other actual sin b/c I know the definition of sin varies greatly from one denomination, tradition, etc. to another. The Cowboys thing *is* legitimate, though, at my house. And yet, I still used a Realtor who is such a Cowboys fan she has personalized plates and everything. I still rode in her car to view houses -- she wasn't trying to put her plate on my car, so it was a non-issue. 

 

I'm showing up at your house in my Cowboys t-shirt and earrings! 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, theelfqueen said:

I was thinking about this in the recent Duggar discussions... if my child had been arrested on charges such as those Josh Duggar is facing, in similarly damning circumstances ....if I knew one of my children had harmed my other children in the way he has done....if I believed they had committed a heinous crime but I didn't want to see them suffer ... could I or would i hire an attorney for them? Would I stand by them? I think I wouldn't and that makes me wonder about a lot of things, about myself, about unconditional love and the boundaries of acting on it. 

Yup. I have been thinking about that too. 

I don’t know if there is anything my child could do that would cause me to conclude, “Well, leave him for the wolves,” but I sure do hope I don’t find out. 

 

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, Jenny in Florida said:

To me, there is an implied "not allowed to act on a a fundamental aspect of their humanity that does no harm to other beings" edit at play here. 

We're also talking about adults, not children whom we are responsible for attempting to nurture into the best versions of themselves.

 

49 minutes ago, fraidycat said:

These are false equivalencies.

Violence harms another person.

Pedophelia harms another person.

Laziness, temper, unhealthy habits are changeable qualities - choices.

Attraction is not a choice. I did not choose heterosexuality. I am a female attracted to males. That's just how it IS. I choose to be monogamous, however, whether or not I find other men besides my DH attractive.

 

Okay, let's think of an example with something that doesn't harm others, applied to adults.

I personally believe that masturbation and pornography are moral evils.  Sins.  If my adult child chooses to act on his or her fundamental sexual nature by engaging in those things, I will believe they are comitting sin, and wish that they would make a different choice.  It does not follow that if I continue to feel that way, that I have ceased to love them.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Condessa

[theelfqueen]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yup. I have been thinking about that too. 

I don’t know if there is anything my child could do that would cause me to conclude, “Well, leave him for the wolves,” but I sure do hope I don’t find out. 

 

I think I would weep and pray and be sick and be torn to shreds and hold love in a guarded part of my heart, but I do think there might be things so horrifying that I couldn't stand there. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by theelfqueen

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

I think part of the problem is that some people on this thread seem to equate  being gay only with sex. It’s just so.much more nuanced than that. And by fixating only on sex (which, tbh is pretty creepy) is to dismiss all the layers and complexities that go into a person's orientation. So by saying sure I can love you but don’t love who you are as a person is ummm… not something that can go over well. 

I can see how that would be a big problem.  If a parent hates their child's personality, that is different, I believe, than believing that something their child does is wrong.

The people who came to my  mind when reading Ordinary Shoes's statement are some of the kindest, most loving parents I have ever met.  They are so proud of their son (my friend), and are always pulling out photos and telling people about what he has been doing lately.  They have a very close relationship with him, and spend time together weekly.  They also believe in a religion that states that acting on that part of his nature is the wrong choice.  But to say that they do not love their child because they would have preferred that he had made a different choice is not true.  They adore their son.

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, Condessa said:

Okay, let's think of an example with something that doesn't harm others, applied to adults.

I personally believe that masturbation and pornography are moral evils.  Sins.  If my adult child chooses to act on his or her fundamental sexual nature by engaging in those things, I will believe they are comitting sin, and wish that they would make a different choice.  It does not follow that if I continue to feel that way, that I have ceased to love them.

I’m not sure everyone would agree with you that pornography does not harm others. As for masturbation, how would you know your adult child is even doing it? It’s something they could totally hide from you and you would never know. It’s not like they are going to ask if it’s ok to masturbate at a family gathering. But if they were gay they might ask if it’s ok to bring the partner they love to a family gathering and inquire if they will be treated the same as their siblings straight partners. I’m sure you would answer with love, but I’m also sure that you can see how many such children would feel rejected by their families and forced to choose between the love of their life and their family.

[Condessa]

16 minutes ago, Frances said:

I’m not sure everyone would agree with you that pornography does not harm others. As for masturbation, how would you know your adult child is even doing it? It’s something they could totally hide from you and you would never know. It’s not like they are going to ask if it’s ok to masturbate at a family gathering. But if they were gay they might ask if it’s ok to bring the partner they love to a family gathering and inquire if they will be treated the same as their siblings straight partners. I’m sure you would answer with love, but I’m also sure that you can see how many such children would feel rejected by their families and forced to choose between the love of their life and their family.

Yes, I'm sure they would feel rejected, and it would create massive harm to family relationships.  It is a really rough situation for families dealing with this dynamic to navigate.

That does not support the position stated earlier in this thread that one cannot love a person and also want them not to act on a part of their nature.  If this were so, then every parent who learned their adult child was doing something they morally disagreed with (but that came to the adult child naturally and innately) would therefore no longer love their child.  

[Katy]

Yes, I change what I think of as my moral code ALL THE TIME.   There's a line from a song in Beauty and the Beast I really identify with that goes something like, "I was innocent and certain, now I'm wiser but unsure."

One example...  I used to really like the Duggars.  10 years ago I defended them on this board and thought the people critical of them were being far too radical.  I slowly realized how much they whitewashed the cult they are in, and how truly terrible and abusive it is.  I assumed because my faith had been mostly good that it was (mostly) good for everyone.  I was truly naive about how AWFUL their cult is for most people.  And I totally missed the whole aspect of their religion that said it wasn't okay to question their rules.  Questioning rules is the very heart of Protestant faith.  If you can't question it, and get thrown out and isolated if you do, it's a cult.

I've gone through various changes in my judgment about many things over the years.  Usually because I learned about nuances I wasn't aware of before. 

[Condessa]

1 hour ago, fraidycat said:

These are false equivalencies.

Violence harms another person.

Pedophelia harms another person.

Laziness, temper, unhealthy habits are changeable qualities - choices.

Attraction is not a choice. I did not choose heterosexuality. I am a female attracted to males. That's just how it IS. I choose to be monogamous, however, whether or not I find other men besides my DH attractive.

Laziness is an innate part of some people's natures.  So is temper.  So is lustfulness.  Acting on them is a choice.

I have major issues with a religion saying that homosexual attraction is a sin.  How can something that a person has no control over possibly be a sin?  Isn't choice in the very definition of sin?

Homosexual action, like heterosexual action, is a choice.  I can understand a religion having a position against something that is a choice.

 

And I take umbrage with the position that states that parents who disagree with their children's choices necessarily do not love them.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Condessa

[fraidycat]

31 minutes ago, Condessa said:

 

 

Okay, let's think of an example with something that doesn't harm others, applied to adults.

I personally believe that masturbation and pornography are moral evils.  Sins.  If my adult child chooses to act on his or her fundamental sexual nature by engaging in those things, I will believe they are comitting sin, and wish that they would make a different choice.  It does not follow that if I continue to feel that way, that I have ceased to love them.

I disagree that porn doesn't harm others.

How would you even know if your child masturbated? Rhetorical, please don't answer.
 

Wishing someone would make a different choice is not the same thing as outright rejecting or causing mental & spiritual harm through chastising, lecturing, and making someone feel wrong about themselves on a core level.

15 minutes ago, Condessa said:

I can see how that would be a big problem.  If a parent hates their child's personality, that is different, I believe, than believing that something their child does is wrong.

The people who came to my  mind when reading Ordinary Shoes's statement are some of the kindest, most loving parents I have ever met.  They are so proud of their son (my friend), and are always pulling out photos and telling people about what he has been doing lately.  They have a very close relationship with him, and spend time together weekly.  They also believe in a religion that states that acting on that part of his nature is the wrong choice.  But to say that they do not love their child because they would have preferred that he had made a different choice is not true.  They adore their son.

Every parent alive wishes their children would make a different choice in something.

I wish my kids (who both work in fast food) would choose to take lunches from home and drink more water vs. the free pop and buying lunch at work. Of course I still love them. I say "I wish you would take some fruit and veggies from the fridge for your lunch because I worry about your health eating all that processed food-like substances.", which is showing love. I don't say "you won't be welcome in my home or at the family gatherings because you are gluttonous and that is a sin".

Love is not just a feeling. It is a verb that is born through actions and words.

[KSera]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

But if say my brother started gambling, I also would not go gambling with him and I would not say, 'well, I really did not understand gambling before, but now that my brother who I love so much is gambling I can see it really isn't so wrong after all.'  But I see that sort of thing pretty often.

I think that’s because there is wrong that is wrong (stealing, murdering, assaulting) and there is “wrong” that is part of a moral code that can change with greater understanding. It’s easy to think something is arbitrarily wrong when you’re not actually acquainted with it and it has no bearing on your life. Then when confronted with it, you can see it more clearly and your view might naturally change. Some people think interracial marriage is wrong. If they change their mind because they meet an interracial couple, that’s not them throwing their moral code out, it’s them realizing they were wrong and didn’t really understand the thing. 

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m not sure why this concept that we can love people even when we know they are in grave sin is so hard to comprehend.  I think it’s terribly sad because it means people will always think they are not loved or lovable. And that’s just not true. 

Through all this “love the sinner hate the sin” discussion, I think it’s the very fact that being gay is considered a grave sin that makes it almost impossible for the person to truly feel loved. It’s simply not the same at all as comparing it to them having committed a crime or other moral evil against someone, and when people compare it to that, it just makes it worse for the person who is gay. I keep thinking of interracial marriage as the best analogy I can come up with. If you are white and marry a person of color and your parents believe the Bible tells them clearly that people of different races should not intermarry. It’s unlikely to be much comfort that your parents say they still love you deeply “despite” the fact that you are committing the grave sin of being married to a person of color. By rejecting the most important, precious thing in your life (your marriage), they might as well be rejecting you. 

[Condessa]

1 minute ago, fraidycat said:

Wishing someone would make a different choice is not the same thing as outright rejecting or causing mental & spiritual harm through chastising, lecturing, and making someone feel wrong about themselves on a core level.

 

. . .

Love is not just a feeling. It is a verb that is born through actions and words.

I agree that there is more to love than just a feeling, that it requires action.  And I agree that wishing someone would make a different choice is not the same as all of those.  My post was not about parents with unloving actions towards their adult children.  It was in response to this :

12 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

How do you say to someone that you love them but tell them that they cannot act on something that is a fundamental part of who they are? 

The idea that you cannot love your child and want them not to act on a part of their nature.

[1234]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm the one who you think wrote the bolded. That's a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Love is faucet that we turn on and off. Yesterday they loved their son and today they don't love him. We can love a person and not love a person at the same time. 

But I think that parents of gay children who claim that they love their children, despite rejecting their lifestyle, want to have their cake and have it too. I doubt their children see if the same way as the parents do. 

Yes! My sister is the one in my family who is behaving this way. She has been outspoken about my dc’s “sin” of not being straight, yet is now playing the victim because they are now grown and it’s bitten her in the *ss. She is acting perplexed that they want nothing to do with her. She wants to be able to say how wrong they are but is offended they don’t still want her in their life. My dc are very aware there are many Christians who have zero problem with who they are, and they are also very aware there are people who disapprove but have rightly kept their opinions on it to themselves.

[HS Mom in NC]

13 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Ok. Sure.  So. All,of your life you have believed that gambling is morally wrong. Then a loved one becomes a professional gambler.  Do you say, well now I believe that gambling is not wrong.  

Of course not.  That person would continue to believe gambling is wrong and continue to love their professional gambling child exactly the same way they loved their child before the child started gambling. Being loved doesn't require conforming to the lover's moral code, so there's no need for the lover to change their moral code to match the the loved one's behavior in order to continue loving them. Love and moral behavior are separate issues unaffected by each other.

[HeartString]

I do wonder if there is anything besides homosexuality that still engenders this particular response? It used be a myriad of things all in the same general category, premarital sex, illegitimate children, inter racial marriage, living together before marriage. Now the only one left is homosexuality.  
 

 

ETA divorce.  Forgot that one.  

Edited June 7, 2021 by HeartString

[MEmama]

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm the one who you think wrote the bolded. That's a misunderstanding of what I wrote. Love is not a faucet that we turn on and off. Yesterday they loved their son and today they don't love him. We can love a person and not love a person at the same time. 

But I think that parents of gay children who claim that they love their children, despite rejecting their lifestyle, want to have their cake and have it too. I doubt their children see if the same way as the parents do. 

Right.

In case anyone needs to hear this, if your child comes out to you please, please do not say any version of “Ok. I'll love you anyway”. That “anyway” speaks volumes, it is telling your child they are flawed. It is a rejection of your child no matter how you try to justify it. It is, in essence, “love the sinner hate the sin” and it is not okay. 
 

Once again, being queer isn’t entirely about sex. Insisting it is and pretending you can reject just one aspect of a person isn’t ok. It isn’t loving, it is hurtful and devaluing. Even if you don’t believe it.