What would you do if your child came and told you he was gay?

[beanieboy]

There once was a coach.
He coached a little league team.
When the little boys would miss the ball, he called them a "sissy," and told them they were idiots. This, he told me, would help them try harder to catch the ball.
When they overthrew, he told them that they threw like girls, and belittled them. This, he said, he did because he wanted them to work on the arm and improve it.
When they missed the ball, he called them a wiffer.
He complained about the awful coaches that would say, "That's alright, Billy. You can do it. Keep your eye on the ball. You can do it."
He hated the coaches that said, "Try again. Keep trying until you get it right. You can do this."
He hated the coach that said, "We lost today. But you played hard. I'm proud of you."
He hated the coach that said, "we made a lot of mistakes today. What did you learn?"

He said that kids needed to be belittled, yelled at, humiliated, and called the most insulting of names in order to improve.
But he said all of these things out of "love" to help make his team better players.

Unfortunately, none of them stuck around long enough to improve. In fact, most of them grew to hate the game itself, but to especially hate the coach.

And the coach said, "Fine. Go ahead and quit. But you hate me because you don't want to work. You hate me because you are no good. And the more you hate me, the more it proves that I was a great coach."

The head of the Little League watched his methods, told him he was a disgrace to the the League, and he was removed immediately.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Hank
AsLan although Freak and I agree on very little, I often side with him because of the following:

1. He stands by his principles.
2. He has a good heart.

I think if you will reread what he is saying, you might come to the same conclusion. I believe Freak is truly trying to follow the teachings of Jesus, especially concerning loving others. Compare this to the diatribe that Poly produced against homo-sexuals in this thread. She doesn’t have a clue about the teachings of Jesus.

I don't doubt he is. I'm not even disagreeing with him.

All I wanted, and asked for in multiple posts, was an actual scenario detailing his relationship with an unnamed homosexual before and after initiating the 'communicate without fellowship' stance.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Hank
Compare this to the diatribe that Poly produced against homo-sexuals in this thread. She doesn’t have a clue about the teachings of Jesus.

Hank, you've not even attempted to back up what you believe with any kind of scripture. So everybody believe the way Hank believes. Why? Because you say so? This kind of Christian behavior really gets old. How about giving God the respect that he deserves and finding out what he says about it and then showing us where you come to your conclusions.

 

[Lion]

Gross conversation

Gross conversation

It’s really pretty simple. If the homo is unsaved, you can certainly talk with him and have some type of casual relationship, for the purpose of bringing that person to Christ. You can even work with him at a job. But just as I would not want to have a personal, friendly relationship with a pedophile, I don’t want to have that kind of relationship with any kind of pervert, other than one where I am using the law against that person in order to bring him closer to Christ.

1Cor. 5:9-10 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.

However, if the pervert calls himself a Christian, that is another matter completely. We are to excommunicate them instantly, refuse to eat or even to speak with them until they repent and stop their corruptive behavior, so that they might return to the Lord. Christian peer pressure to the max!

The law does not apply to them for salvation, so don’t try and use it. But we as members of the body of Christ should expel them, for their sake, for our sake and for the sake of unbelievers that might come to the Lord.

1Cor. 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person.

 

[Patroclus]

It amazes me that we, as Christians, have so little to offer in the way of real support. It seems to me that the common reaction to sin is: Don't do it. The problem is that some sins are not that simple to overcome. God doesn't always kick people's drug or alcohol addictions cold-turkey. Why do we expect that people will instantly stop desiring homosexual stimuli?

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Patroclus
It amazes me that we, as Christians, have so little to offer in the way of real support. It seems to me that the common reaction to sin is: Don't do it. The problem is that some sins are not that simple to overcome. God doesn't always kick people's drug or alcohol addictions cold-turkey. Why do we expect that people will instantly stop desiring homosexual stimuli?

So we allow the child molester to wean himself off gradually. Just a few kids to molest in a week rather than his usual average 6 per week.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Polycarpadvo


So we allow the child molester to wean himself off gradually. Just a few kids to molest in a week rather than his usual average 6 per week.

These kind of moronic comments display such a lack of understanding: equating a criminal offense with sexual orientation; show just how quick to judge you are; how inexperienced with actual people you are; and also how you fail to grasp the 'walk a mile in a man's shoes' concept.

Pathetic.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Patroclus
It amazes me that we, as Christians, have so little to offer in the way of real support. It seems to me that the common reaction to sin is: Don't do it. The problem is that some sins are not that simple to overcome. God doesn't always kick people's drug or alcohol addictions cold-turkey. Why do we expect that people will instantly stop desiring homosexual stimuli?

I completely agree Patro.

 

[s9s27s54]

Sozo.

I agree with you completely.

:thumb:

 

[temple2006]

Sozo...So is hetero adultery. yes? Do you think it should be criminalized?

 

[temple2006]

Sozo....Oh! Do you have any problems with enforcing them? (Hit the submit button too quickly)

 

[temple2006]

Sozo...No offense meant....I was just wondering. If you have a family, it has been my experience that not everybody agrees and you know me...curiosity is my middle name.

 

[Goose]

Homesexuality is wrong. People aren't born homosexual. It's a choice. It's not only a sin, it is and should be criminal and punishable.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Goose
Homesexuality is wrong. People aren't born homosexual. It's a choice. It's not only a sin, it is and should be criminal and punishable.

It amazes me how vague people are with the term 'homosexuality' and then tack on such weighty words as 'criminal', 'stoning death penalty', 'sin'.

Are you talking about someone who speaks to a friend in confidence and wonders if they like guys or girls or both?

Are you talking about someone who is married to someone of the same sex?

Are you talking about someone who is having homosexual premarital sex?

Are you talking about someone who has a single sexual experience with more than one person at the same time, possibly the same sex and different sex?

Are you talking from Christian viewpoint or a secular 'moral' viewpoint?

Should extra or premarital sex with the opposite gender be included in whatever punishments society deems appropriate for 'homosexuals'?

Such sweeping generalizations are indicative of nonchalant judgments that haven't been given the slightest thought.

 

[Goose]

Common liberal tactic: Definition Game

A homosexual is someone who lusts after the same sex and commits sexual acts with them.

 

[Flipper]

Goose: If there's a general agreement on the terms, then there can be useful debate. If not, then the possibility of misinterpretation and talking past one another is much higher. It's not a liberal thing. It's a logic thing.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Goose
Common liberal tactic: Definition Game

A homosexual is someone who lusts after the same sex and commits sexual acts with them.

I see. So a heterosexual, like yourself I'm assuming, previous to marriage, was lusting after the opposite sex, and committing sexual acts with them?

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by AsLan


I see. So a heterosexual, like yourself I'm assuming, previous to marriage, was lusting after the opposite sex, and committing sexual acts with them?

No. You fail to see that homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't the complete opposite of eachother. Here's an example:

ALL homosexuals are perverts

SOME heterosexuals are perverts

Using your logic, NO heterosexuals are perverts. you can't make those kinds of assumptions. See the fallacy?

 

[Kaliinanna]

Originally posted by Goose
Common liberal tactic: Definition Game

A homosexual is someone who lusts after the same sex and commits sexual acts with them.

I disagree. I believe homosexuality is something one is born with, not something one chooses. And homosexuals have emotional feelings, love if you will, for their partners. That's the difference, in a nutshell, between bi- and homosexuals who are only in it for the variety of sex, and those who are truly only capable of loving another of the same sex. I'm heterosexual, but I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals, other than those who are obviously choosing to be so for the sexual aspects of it. If two people love each other, who am I to tell them they can't?
Shoot, for that matter, if two people ARE only in it for the sex, who am I to tell them they can't do it? If it isn't affecting my life or harming the lives of others, then it's not my business to tag them with opinionated labels.

 

[AsLan]

Originally posted by Goose
No. You fail to see that homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't the complete opposite of eachother. Here's an example:

ALL homosexuals are perverts

SOME heterosexuals are perverts

Using your logic, NO heterosexuals are perverts. you can't make those kinds of assumptions. See the fallacy?

Classic.

Q. Define A please.

A. Well, A is B (which is also undefined).

sigh.

For the cheap seats, let's go down this little pathway you've created. Define 'pervert' now.

Is it scary in that mind of yours; where you simply go by long trails of undefined unmovable rules without being able to explain them clearly to someone who uses the same written language as yourself?