Did someone say horses?

[_Tiktaalik]

JerseyGirl stated above that Gaz is motivated by love towards his children and a desire to protect them. That may be true, but it wouldn't be sufficient to prevent atrocities from taking place. In the story that I linked to earlier, young women were murdered for choosing their own marriage partners (outside the regligious tradition of their fathers). Their parents felt that this was a "sin" (it brought shame on the family), and probably felt that it endangered their children's souls.

The point of linking to that story was to show how dangerous it can be when people with violent religious beliefs are allowed even a modicum of power. Any child who strays from the path of whatever rules some capricious shaman/prophet/mufti has dreamed up suddenly faces mortal danger.

I used to hope that these kinds of insane beliefs were confined to those parts of the world where the spread of information was still in its infancy. I was disappointed, and I'm becoming more and more alarmed to see them cropping up within Mormonism (which I used to see as a rather benign, peaceful religion).

If people like Gaz are not confronted forcefully (I'm not talking about physical violence here), then we're faced with a Bronze Age future. Jersey Girl says that Gaz has come a long way since that shocking exchange on the thread that Beastie linked. I certainly hope that this is the case.

[_Tiktaalik]

This is what we'd have to look forward to if people like Gazelam had their way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/01/pakistan

Hey, Tiktaalik! You've been missing. Link is just horrifying.

Where have you been, anyway? Under a rock?



KA

:P

Thanks for asking, KA. I've been super busy lately, so not much time to post on here. Sometimes I lurk a bit here and there, but it's hard to post anything when you know you won't have time to actually engage in the conversation.

If I see one of your posts, I always take the time to read it!

[_beastie]

KA-

Thank you for sharing your painful history.

I have a very close friend whose parents have also made it clear that he could never look to them for financial aid, or a place to live, once he became an adult. This wasn’t due to him making a bad decision of some sort, it was just what the parents thought being an adult meant. They were always active LDS, and put on a good show at church, but in the home, they both had such horrible tempers that their children lived in fear of them. My friend’s father once became physically threatening and seemed to lose his mind because my friend, as a child, accidentally left a ham sandwich under the couch. After my friend was grown, he discovered that his father had been sexually molesting his sister for many years. He only confessed and had to face excommunication because she finally went to her college bishop and then to a counselor, and told him if he didn’t confess she would do it for him.

I think that parents who are able to emotionally disconnect from their children in the way we’re discussing usually have other problems going on. I’m not saying or insinuating that is the case with Gaz – he may be the exception to the rule. But in the cases I’ve heard wherein parents are willing to “cut off” a child – even an adult child - there are other emotional dysfunctions occurring, as well.

My parents weren’t perfect – no parents are perfect. They lost their tempers and yelled at us sometimes. What parent doesn’t? My father didn’t understand positive reinforcement, and relied almost solely on negative criticisms to “shape” us, which resulted in constant struggles with self-esteem in his daughters. But he and my mother have always been there, financially and emotionally, for their children, even when we became adults. They watched us make really bad decisions sometimes, and warned us about them. Yet they didn’t behave punitively or vengefully when we did face the consequences of our bad decisions. My father, given his natural tendency to criticize and pressure, did briefly try to influence me against leaving the church through negative behaviors, but my mother, seeing where that could end up, took him to the Stake President who convinced him that his job was to love me, so that if, one day, I was ever able to consider returning to the church, his behavior would not be a roadblock for me. So he took that advice, and our relationship hasn’t been damaged by my apostasy, although I realize it broke his heart.

I agree with liz that parents have the right to set rules for their household. I agree with EA that those rules ought to be sane and sensible, and if those rules don’t allow for children to become more independent as they mature, the rules will backfire. Studies show that there are two groups of children who tend to be the most rebellious and engage in risky behavior as teens, and they are children who grew up with NO rules, and children who grew up with too many strict and unbending rules.

Gaz, I know that advice from an apostate is probably not worth much in your eyes, but I would give you the same advice as that wise Stake President gave my father. My apostasy was just as serious, in terms of eternal welfare, as homosexuality. Given the fact that two of my sisters were also struggling with the faith, there was a risk my apostasy could “infect’ them, as well. (one of the two did also leave the church, the other remained for family reasons) Yet the SP knew that if my father acted in a punitive and vengeful fashion with me, my father’s behavior could become an obstacle to my return to the faith. Likewise, you should not behave in any way with a homosexual child that could become an obstacle to that child’s return to the faith.

I guarantee that if you throw your child out of the home, your behavior will do exactly that. Your child will hate you, and everything you stand for. Every time your child is forced to engage in an act of prostitution to simply survive, that hatred will grow stronger and stronger. Every time that child tries to sleep on the street at night and is at risk of physical and sexual violence, that hatred will grow stronger. That hatred will prevent your child from ever returning to the fold as you would desire.

In other words, chances are strong that your punitive action would have the direct opposite effect that you intended.

[_Tiktaalik]

[attempts to mock me for being part of "the Twitter generation" when he doesn't know the first thing about me (the attempts therefore fall flat)]

What the hell is your problem, guy? Are you always such a jerk to random people on the internet who don't even want to talk to you?

[_Yoda]

Just to be clear--

I do not condone throwing children out of the home. My point was that, as much as I try to keep an open communication with my kids, there are times when I also have to enforce rules, and be a parent instead of a friend.

Kim's story about her Dad is tragic. I know from the times that I have spoken with Kim that she will definitely NOT be that type of parent, and that her girls will always have the option to come home.

As the parent of an adult child going to college, I can tell you, it is a balancing act. She recently moved out, but knows she can always come back home if she needs to.

However, she also knows that when she is living at home, she needs to respect the rules of the house.

[_harmony]

From horses to homosexual children. That's quite a jump.

[Guest]

To the folks on this thread who have called or implied that Gaz and/or his views are excrement, monstrous or abusive.

I recently met Gaz. He is not a monster, abusive, nor is he "excrement". He is more caring than any of you realize, even about some of you on this board. He is fun, honest, and sincerely striving to live out his faith. He adores his wife and children.

Is there another way to approach someone whose views you disagree with than to level insults and/or essentially call another human being a piece of s***?

And when you call him a piece of s***, Pok, who then is the abuser?

The fact that you met Gaz in person once or a few times and he seemed cool does not in any way detract from the fact that he would murder his children if he could if he found out they were in a homosexual relationship. That is monstrous. It's actually ridiculous to suggest that your intuitive character judgment based on superficial face to face familiarity Trump's his consistently advocating grotesquely evil things in front of all of us, including potentially abusive treatment of his own children. The only real out for him here is his being a disingenuous troll and more of a nuisance, but you don't seem quick to play that card.

It's sad that you want to play the knight in electronic armor and offer up some minimal personal contact as evidence of basic decency for a person you can't possibly know well. This is only compounded by the fact that we all have access to his own thoughts on the subject which are plainly abhorrent. On the brightside, while this is deserving of ridicule, it isn't nearly as deserving as Gaz's vile thoughts about gays.

[_KimberlyAnn]

From horses to homosexual children. That's quite a jump.

It sure is! We need a bridge:

Homosexual Horse

KA

[_zzyzx]

If Horses are really Tapirs, what are Asses? Monkeys? Gerbils? Ocelots? Brothers in law?

[_EAllusion]

I stand by my statement that Gaz is excrement.

Gaz's views on homosexuality are motivated by a strong desire to protect his children. I'd like to know what motivated you to call him a piece of s***.

Are your words any more forgiving of him than you think his are regarding gays?

People doing things because they think they are for the good of their children or anyone else doesn't automatically absolve them of being wrong, even very wrong. And consequently, that doesn't mean we shouldn't respond to them with shame and disgust. In addition to that, people having some positive character traits doesn't preclude them from having negative ones, even very negative. Not to get all Godwin on this thread, but Hitler was generally good with animals.

You're an evangelical. So you might appreciate the aptness of my favorite C.S. Lewis quote for what's going on with your reasoning here:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."