Jersey Girl wrote: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?
If the lifestyle was really open and influenced other children (rather the lifestyle was homosexual, or other wise), I can not argue this point. However, having once been a Mormon doctrine incited homophobic myself, I'm concerned that Gaz's underlying feelings towards the imagined homosexual child are the real issue ... and once the child was removed from the home (for the sake of the others), what then of the relationship?
This thread really took off, but in a completely different direction than the OP. LOL
First let me state that I am in no way a troll. The "homosexual child" portion of this thread began when someone, who thought it would be fun to portray my character in an unfavorable light, asked me about my long ago stated opinion on the matter knowing what my stance is beforehand.
I'll state for the record that my prior stance on "drowning my kid in a river" was a bit much. There is the viewpoint that lost virtue is a dishonor comparable to death. I think as Jason Bourne (The board member, not the character) has stated the Atonement can cleanse us and restore lost honor. I think that is an incredibly painful process, and the ability to forgive ourselves of our offenses can be a lifelong struggle.
I think the arguement has been well laid out by others here in regards to removing a destructive influence from ones home. Homosexuality is unquestionably a perversion. This is not even an arguement, its a fact. Why would I sacrifice the light in my other childrens eyes because of the love I have towards a wayward child? The bad branch is cut away from the tree and cast aside.
If that child chooses to repent and cleans themselves up and stops the behavior, then they can be allowed back in, but if they are unrepentant and continue to wallow in filth then they wil remain an outcast. I don't see this as a bizarre stance. There are plenty of examples of enableing parents on shows like "Intervention" to show the disasterous results of parents who want to stand by their beloved children no matter what their behavior is. Sometimes love involves making the hard decisions like seperating yourself from a changed person.
Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
EA wrote: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?
Because it's immoral. That he deserves a legal right to remove his children from his home as he sees fit does not mean every reason he might have for kicking his kids out is morally proper. Kicking someone out for being gay, even if he wrongly thinks it is a "bad influence," is not such a reason. You think it's fine. In fact, you just argued any reason is fine. I'm comfortable with that being the basis of our disagreement.
Jersey Girl wrote: 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.
Speaking of honesty, what I said repeatedly is that he said he'd prefer to kill his children if they were gay. (He'd likely want to qualify that by saying engaging in gay behavior). Since I have a quote from him saying just that, I think that suffices. That he doesn't want to actively kill his children right now because they are not, as far as he knows, gay, is really beside the point. Since he just posted backing off that position as being a bit much - a bit - I think that suffices for showing that even he recognizes he expressed it.
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?
I didn't realize you so fundamentally shared his bigoted views towards gays. Well, I don't think you do based on previous posts. In this case, you are playing a familiar role of personal defense where you argue yourself into some silly views. What you likely want to point out is that's what he thinks, and that's what matters.
I don't think being gay is comparable to being a heroin addict in terms of its potential negative influence. That he wrongly believes otherwise doesn't make his stance any less vile. If it were true that many Nazis sincerely thought the Jews were a grave treat to society and deserved to die, I do not think that would prevent me from calling their views monstrous. As we've already gone over, sincerity of belief isn't enough to absolve a person. Indeed, C.S. Lewis's quote becomes apt again.
Jersey Girl wrote: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?
EA wrote:I didn't realize you so fundamentally shared his bigoted views towards gays. Well, I don't think you do based on previous posts. In this case, you are playing a familiar role of personal defense where you argue yourself into some silly views. What you likely want to point out is that's what he thinks, and that's what matters.
Whose posts are you reading, EA, mine? Nowhere in the above did I express that I shared his bigoted views towards gays.
What I did was describe another situation in which a parent might make the choice to evict one of his children from his home in order to protect the remaining children from the potential influence of the sibling's behavior.
How am I supposed to communicate with you when you cannot sort out the connection between the comparisons I've made?
You apparently think I'm comparing heroin addiction to homosexuality when I'm demonstrating situations in which a parent might place the protection of remaining children over the behavior of another.
Good hell!
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Oh hell. I should have kept on reading your post. Here it is!
EA wrote:I don't think being gay is comparable to being a heroin addict in terms of its potential negative influence.
Holy flipping hell, EA. Nor do I think being gay is "comparable" to being a heroin addict. I made a comparison between Gaz's hypothetical and another hypothetical in which a parent might choose to evict a child in favor of protecting or shielding the remaining children from the behavior of the sibling.
Oh. my. god.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
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?
Now, might you answer the question I asked you?
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?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
EA on Gaz's hypothetical to kick his child out of the house if he were gay.
EA wrote:Because it's immoral. That he deserves a legal right to remove his children from his home as he sees fit does not mean every reason he might have for kicking his kids out is morally proper. Kicking someone out for being gay, even if he wrongly thinks it is a "bad influence," is not such a reason. You think it's fine. In fact, you just argued any reason is fine. I'm comfortable with that being the basis of our disagreement.
A parent has the right to draw the line on what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable in their own home and in the case of the hypothetical, protecting/shielding his/her remaining children from the influence of that behavior which s/he deems inappropriate/unsafe or what have you.
In what world, EA, do you determine that a parent setting a boundary for their, presumably, sexually active child is immoral? Is it the world where adult human beings cannot define what constitutes being human actually is?
You tell me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
You are aware that I anticipated and addressed this, right?
To wit:
I didn't realize you so fundamentally shared his bigoted views towards gays. Well, I don't think you do based on previous posts...What you likely want to point out is that's what he thinks, and that's what matters.
I don't think being gay is comparable to being a heroin addict in terms of its potential negative influence. That he wrongly believes otherwise doesn't make his stance any less vile. If it were true that many Nazis sincerely thought the Jews were a grave treat to society and deserved to die, I do not think that would prevent me from calling their views monstrous. As we've already gone over, sincerity of belief isn't enough to absolve a person. Indeed, C.S. Lewis's quote becomes apt again.
-------------
Then you oscillate back to:
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?
No, I don't. But that's because there is a reasonable chance of harm being done to the remaining children in the form of negative influence. This is not the case if, say, a 16 year old holds hands with a member of the same sex in a sexual manner. And, as we've gone over several times now, it really doesn't matter if Gaz thinks otherwise. That just makes him sincere in being a bad parent.
One of the more hilarious aspects of Gaz's extreme morality* is that he puts the sum total of the most outlandish gay pride parade culture into his hypothetical teenage son's brain. Yeah, guess what guys, if Gaz's future 16 year-old boy comes home and has bondage sex with his boyfriends in his bedroom, leaves gay porn laying around, tells his little brothers and sisters who are 7, 10, and 12 all about his gay adventures and just "for fun" lets them try on his leather hood and dresses them in chains, I'd understand him wanting to kick the kid out - though I wouldn't understand wanting to murder the kid. It's interesting how he reads the hypothetical of having a gay son, what it must naturally imply. The reality is that the kid will probably be majorly confused and embarassed about his condition, not really understanding it in the first place, and he may even try extra hard to prepare for a mission and keep everything hidden. Of the gay Mormons I've known, and the gay Mormons I've heard stories about from other Mormons, I can't think of a single example of the Blue Oyster bondage maniac that drags his siblings down to hell in his corrupt lifestyle. I'm not saying this scenario never happens, but it is a very less likely one. The reality is, it won't be that easy for Gaz. The kid will love Gaz, and probably seek nothing but Gaz's approval. He'll be a mini Gaz that is too sensitive, loves music, a dreamer, completely fooled by Joseph Smith's con, and if Gaz ever finds out he's gay prior to 18, which is unlikely, it won't be the easy decision Gaz wants it to be.
by the way, Gaz is weak. If this were a time where drowning people was an acceptable way to resolve differences and Gaz's hypothetical gay son were to be the bawdy gay biker type (at age 14 of course), Gaz would be finished.
...I've enjoyed watching EA easily deflect the criticisms thrown at him.
*which by the way is mostly just an act he gets caught up in that draws him female attention on the forum, he's got this weird Oedipus thing going on..
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.