Did someone say horses?

[_Jersey Girl]

This is for EA who is too lazy to research the post that was reposted here.

While Gaz can be very tolerant and compassionate on many issues, he is cold-hearted when it comes to homosexuality. He's made his position on this clear in the past.

beastie wrote:

Let's just hope for gaze's kids' sake that none of them end up being gay. Poor things would be turned out on the streets.

Gaz replied:

They would only be turned out into the streets because it is currently against the law to drown them in a sack in a river.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7009&p=177693&hilit=drown#p177693

The above comments were made by Gaz over a year ago.

His current position and reasoning is essentially stated on this thread as follows:

Why would I allow one of my children, if they were to turn to homosexuality, to influence my other children with their bawdy lifestyle and profane stories?

They would have to remove themselves from my home. Period.

The story of the prodigal son applies, of coarse.

That's the position you should be addressing, EA. Not what he stated a year ago.

Now you tell me, EA, where you see a "desire" expressed in the potential consequence he stated above.

[_EAllusion]

Your inaccuracies in the above, clearly evidence that you don't follow Gaz's posts nor do you accurately interpret mine.

There is no place on this thread nor on this board where I've claimed to have met Gaz in person once or a few times (or briefly) for that matter.

You said, "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."

This implies you met him in person. If you didn't, and I'm just as free to say I have met him in a looser sense, that all the more weakens the point of bringing it up. I recently met Jersey Girl, and I must say she isn't a great poster.

What contact I've had with Gaz and his wife over the years is sufficient for me to evaluate that he adores and deeply loves his wife and children.

That's really neither here nor there. Even if this were entirely accurate, it's not enough to preclude him from being actively abusive, much less holding very immoral ideas that could potentially lead to abusive actions towards his children.

On this thread, you've reposted a repost of an older series of comments, pulled them out of the context of Gaz's ongoing attempts to come to terms with his religious convictions as they relate to his family under the category of "homosexuality".

Those comments were not pulled out of context. If you post a fuller exchange, the context doesn't change the meaning from the relevant quotes one iota. Further, this is part of a marge larger posting history of making over-the-top vile comments about gays and the negative things he wished would happen to them. That's continued over a substantial period of time now.

Are you willing to admit that you cherry picked a repost on this thread because it is more convenient for you to do versus reading and observing Gaz as he continues to post on the topic?

I have read and observed Gaz's posts. I quoted what was posted here, because that took the least amount of work to make my point.

Do you, infact, see a "desire" in his old reposted comments to kill any of his children?

Only if they are gay. Before you put on your dunce cap and argue that he wouldn't want that day to come, let's just point out that his comment says that his desire to kill a child for being gay would overwhelm his desire not to see his child killed. But I think that's probably just hateful bluster talking. It won't go beyond the pained desire. In reality he'd just treat them like dirt.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have read and observed Gaz's posts. I quoted what was posted here, because that took the least amount of work to make my point.

Amen.

[_RockSlider]

I've ridden a horse a time or two (ok topic touched upon)

I threw my eldest son out of the house ... well not threw as in an instant but gave him two months ... he had been free-loading and taking advantage of the financial situation for way to long.

It was in his best interest that I forced him out. Several years later, he now realizes that.

I believe there are good reasons to apply "hard love" i.e. co-dependency issues and all.


For example, what about kicking an abusive alcholic child out of your house (possible to a sure death)?

[_Jersey Girl]

EA,

I'd like to know if you think that Gaz deserves to be called a piece of crap. If so, why do you think he deserves it?

[_EAllusion]

They would have to remove themselves from my home. Period.

The story of the prodigal son applies, of coarse.


That's the position you should be addressing, EA. Not what he stated a year ago.

That position doesn't contradict what he stated a year ago. A year ago he said he'd kick out his homosexual child. He also said he'd kill them if it wasn't illegal to do so when Beastie attacked him for it. Since it recently hasn't been made legal to kill your gay children, you don't even have any evidence that he's changed his view with these comments. But even if are talking about a softer, less crazed bigot now, he's still favoring ostracizing his child in the event they are gay. Are you cool with that? Are you going to resort back to the, "but he means well" argument now?

[_Jersey Girl]

I've ridden a horse a time or two (ok topic touched upon)

I threw my eldest son out of the house ... well not threw as in an instant but gave him two months ... he had been free-loading and taking advantage of the financial situation for way to long.

It was in his best interest that I forced him out. Several years later, he now realizes that.

I believe there are good reasons to apply "hard love" i.e. co-dependency issues and all.


For example, what about kicking an abusive alcholic child out of your house (possible to a sure death)?

I agree with what you stated above, Rock.

What Gaz has stated (and what EA can't get through his thick head) is that if he were confronted with the fact that one of his children were homosexual, he would remove the child from his home to prevent him from influencing his other children by exposing them to his lifestyle. Gaz is making the assumption that the gay child would relate stories to his other children or engage in a "bawdy" lifestyle, hypothetically speaking, that would be disclosed to his other children.

In terms of the immediate and keeping his assumption in mind, do you think Gaz is using sound reasoning based on how he thinks he would respond?

[_EAllusion]

Yes, it's directly comparable to what Gaz has stated. You are struggling to find ways to condemn him when he has expressed NO "desire" to kill one of his children and when he is predicting what his response would be to the hypothetical instead of knowing what he would do when faced with the reality of the hypothetical say, 10 years down the road.

What Gaz has stated in that comment is that people deserve to die by virtue of being gay. That's the implication of that comment. He has done it in the context of saying he'd kill his own children for being gay if he could. This is a monstrous viewpoint. Your defense of it comes in the form of trying to compare it to a common, though unacted upon desire for vengeance against those who have harmed those you care about gravely. This is also is wrong to the extent they don't deserve to be executed, but it benefits from at least implicating some more complicated views on retribution, capital punishment, and vigilantism. Gaz is just expressing this towards gays. It's no better than saying if his child converted to Judaism he'd kick them out of the house only because killing them would be illegal. Which you also likely would defend, but I'm comfortable leaving it at that.

[_Jersey Girl]

But even if are talking about a softer, less crazed bigot now, he's still favoring ostracizing his child in the event they are gay. Are you cool with that? Are you going to resort back to the, "but he means well" argument now?

Of course, I'm cool with that. Why wouldn't I be? Gaz's reasoning for removing the child from the home is to disallow the possible influence he might have on his remaining children.

Gaz is acting on what rules he is developing for his children regarding behavior and such. Any parent, worth their salt, including myself and including Liz who posted to the same on this thread, draws the line where they see fit to draw it as to what behavior is permissable in their home. The consequence (depending on the age of the child) would be for the child to remove themselves from the home.

Read Rockslider's current post on this thread.

[_Jersey Girl]

EA:

What Gaz has stated in that comment is that people deserve to die by virtue of being gay. That's the implication of that comment.

No. The position he has stated repeatedly on this board is that he believes that the homosexual who is "unrepentant" is already condemned to die on account of their sin.

He has done it in the context of saying he'd kill his own children for being gay if he could. This is a monstrous viewpoint.

He has stated on this thread that his position is that the consequence would be removal from the home. NOWHERE on this board has he expressed a "desire" to kill his children and it is less than honest of you to forward that throughout this thread.

Your defense of it comes in the form of trying to compare it to a common, though unacted upon desire for vengeance against those who have harmed those you care about gravely. This is also is wrong to the extent they don't deserve to be executed, but it benefits from at least implicating some more complicated views on retribution, capital punishment, and vigilantism. Gaz is just expressing this towards gays.

And I just expressed it towards pedophiles. Gaz believes that the homosexual child would place his remaining children at risk. That's his reasoning behind the removal consequence. I have stated repeatedly on this thread that Gaz is predicting his response to hypotheticals and not what he'd do in real life because he has NO WAY of predicting what he'd do if confronted with the hypothetical in reality 10 years down the road.

And neither do you, EA, yet you condemn him for his views.


I based my predicted response to a pedophile harming my child as that I would take a gun, shoot the life out of them and watch them bleed out before me.

Is that what you think I would do in real life if confronted with that situation?

It's no better than saying if his child converted to Judaism he'd kick them out of the house only because killing them would be illegal. Which you also likely would defend, but I'm comfortable leaving it at that.

In his hypothetical response, he is both consequencing the gay child and simultaneously protecting his remaining children from the influence of the child's lifestyle.

If the child were a heroin addict, he would be doing the same exact thing. Or is it your position that in the case of the heroin addict he should allow his remaining children to be exposed to their older brother mainlining heroin in his bathroom and leaving evidence of it around the house?

It's the same damn thing, EA.