I’m lucky that I was slow to figure out and accept my own orientation. When I finally did tell my parents (i’d gotten sick of hiding/lying), they – individually – did the opposite of expectation. Dad got quiet and said he’d never accept homosexuality but he loved me. Mom called me a child molester and then asked me about the other boys in the neighborhood. Charming!

In my personal circle, i’ve known parents who had no issue, ones who were cold and distant, ones who tried to ‘beat it out of em’ and a few who just kicked the kid out for wondering.

While I am troubled at how much of a statist indoctrination machine the schools have become, I’m closer to this bloggers position on the questions. There has to be some judgement on the safety and sanity of the situation. Jenning’s response was inappropriate to my sense mostly because of the cavalier approach, not the net answer.

Don’t be naive Pat. It wasn’t because they refused to eat their veggies or go to school that those gay youth ended up homeless. Besides, some of the studies do go into causation.

That may well be the case, Rob, for all I know. My point is that children need to be protected from abuse. We also need to discourage bad parenting when it happens. And yes, in my opinion, it includes when parents treat their gay children horribly, even if it doesn’t cross the line of abuse or neglect. The good news is that now teens see that such behavior from parents is wrong, and see that many don’t suffer through the same garbage as others. But like many things, it can also turn to the other extreme, where teens may seek refuge even when things are more of a trivial nature. I’m not saying that’s what is happening here, as I don’t know what the statistics are in this case (your link lead me to a French abstract or something).

I have had the occasional conversation with a minor who was on an adult site (they’re lying to get on there, since the one I visit is ’18 and up’. It’s one of the reasons I log everything and have a catagory marked ‘jailbait’ when I suspect or confirm that they’re under 18. I tell ‘em flat out that I’ll chat about most anything except D/s and to think long and hard about doing anything with anyone who will offer to ‘talk shop’ or ‘teach’. “He’s already breaking several laws offering to teach you anything, do you really think he’ll obey laws concerning your safety?”

I’d assume the same thing should apply to teaching teens about ‘vanilla’ as well.

“That’s nice Brewster, but think it through, he’s already breaking the law by buggering a 15 year old, do you really think you’re dealing with an ethical old man?”
“But, sir, Tim said he was a nice guy…”

Don’t be naive Pat. It wasn’t because they refused to eat their veggies or go to school that those gay youth ended up homeless. Besides, some of the studies do go into causation.

Yet in this age of information, gay teens are becoming more aware of their sexual orientation and come out at an earlier age. Many will figure it out before the age of majority and this is why I believe that legal emancipation should become more relevant in these situations.

That’s why GoProud’s involvement in CPAC, incidentally, is so important. Rational beings from the gay world are actually going to be interfacing with those from the straight world. Many of those straight conservatives are parents. They may very well come away from the experience with a better understanding that we don’t all have horns, and that, in the long run, will be a tremendous service to society.

Well I hope it will have a positive effect. But I think it can only reach out to the rational conservatives in the mold of Buckley and Goldwater (well Goldwater was more suppotive of gay rights than most Democrats of his time) and turn their tepid support into something stronger. The social conservatives on the other hand won’t budge if they can’t even react to what ex-gay survivors are saying. I’m sure they’re polite in person, but so was Joe the Plumber. It’s only their successors who will change in the next few generations. Who knows when the time the social conservatives will be the ones promoting same-sex marriage.

Also related to the subject, have any of you seen the statistics on homeless youth? A significant percentage of them are gay and lesbian. So what should be legally done with their parents?

Rob, it depends on why the teens are homeless. If it’s because the children were abused or neglected, then the parents could be charged. But there are plenty of reasons why children leave that are not because of abuse, or even because of bad parenting.

Pat, your comments make it perfectly clear that you would support a state agency’s expansion of the definition of “abuse” to include situations in which Christian parents don’t keep their bile to a “minimum” and “excoriate” their children for being gay. Considering that a large percentage of public school teachers would get “excoriate” wrong on a spelling test, and that many of them believe their legal responsibilities include calling out a SWAT team when a child is caught with a Bible, your perspective reflects the usual backward approach to these situations that all liberals exhibit. The state bureaucrat’s competence and integrity is presumed while the beliefs and actions of the parent are viewed with suspicion, and it should be the other way around. And Pat, before you disingenuously try to defend yourself by stating that I’ve read too much into your comments, let me remind you of the words you’ve used to frame this issue:

“These parents are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality. And thinking these parents are best able to deal with their child’s possible suicidal thoughts is like saying a wolf is best able to protect a flock of sheep.”

Sorry, Pat. You don’t get to define “abuse” the way you have and analogize the relationship of a Christian parent to their gay child to that of a wolf and sheep, and then feign shock that you are not presumed to be a fierce guardian of the parental rights of Christians with an uncompromising allegiance to the letter of the law.

I haven’t misinterpreted your views on this issue or been unfair in my characterizations of your comments at all. What upsets you, Pat, is that I haven’t taken into account your subjective GOOD INTENTIONS which you think should immunize your opinion from the harsh criticism it deserves. Every useless government bureaucrat has good intentions and like yours they don’t mean jack sh*t. You’ve advocated a standard of “abuse” and a misguided trust in state bureaucrats that, if implemented, would lead to devastating and unwarranted intrusions on families.

Pat, I was a gay kid in a family of evangelical Christians, and of course there were conflicts and periods of sadness and alienation. But even in my darkest hours, I did not want or need some do-gooder liberal jacka*s like you coming to rescue me. 99% of families work these things out on their own. My parents ultimately recognized that I have a right to live my life the way I want and today, we have a great relationship and they treat my partner like a son. I realize that it doesn’t work out that way for everyone. Yes, some gay kids get thrown out of their homes and some commit suicide. That happens to a lot of straight kids too, for other reasons. The problem here is that you think it’s up to you and your fellow liberals (cloaked in layers and layers of good intentions) to ensure that no gay kid ever feels alienated or depressed or commits suicide. I know this is going to come as a complete shock to you, Pat, so brace yourself: THE FACT THAT GAY KIDS SOMETIMES FEEL DEPRESSED AND ALIENATED FROM THEIR CHRISTIAN PARENTS ISN’T YOUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

Pat, you and other liberals pat yourselves on the back because you see every incident of a gay kid feeling depressed or committing suicide as a call to action for you to do something about it and make sure it never happens again in the future. However, what you believe is altruism, is really just narcissism because you apparently think that you have both the power and the obligation to keep REAL LIFE from happening to other people. What you really need is a healthy dose of butting the fu*k out. You have no business injecting yourself into these issues and trying to fix them, and as with everything liberals undertake, your efforts would inevitably make the problem catastrophically worse.

That’s right, Rob, as far as it goes. But most kids do eventually grow up. My parents didn’t raise me to accept my homosexuality, but in time I was able to figure it out. Truth has an amazing power — a life all its own.

That’s why GoProud’s involvement in CPAC, incidentally, is so important. Rational beings from the gay world are actually going to be interfacing with those from the straight world. Many of those straight conservatives are parents. They may very well come away from the experience with a better understanding that we don’t all have horns, and that, in the long run, will be a tremendous service to society.

The question though is that can Christian parents who believe homosexuality is a sin can properly raise gay children? From my personal experience, I think the best they can do, is a half-baked job (and that’s for the best cases. The worst ones are the parents of those homeless youth) and that many gay teens who aren’t capable of graduating from the school of hard-knocks (which is a travesty of it’s own), require outside guidance and support. IMHO, parental rights only accepted due to the circumstances that a child may not be able to consent, but it is still antithesis to individual rights.

Simply put, children rights should trump both the state authority and parental rights. Not all teens would be capable of such arrangement, however it’s an option that should be used much more frequently. If a gay teen protests against a his/her parents shoving anti-gay religion into them, then there should be a good case for legal emancipation with alimony.

Like stated in this thread, the problem concerning guidance for gay teens is complex. However I think one way of simplifying it is by distinguishing them from complete dependents and allow them to choose guidance from a school teacher or counselor without legal repercussions from their parents. As for Jennings, the only issue I have is that he could have done a better job in counseling ‘Brewster’ by warning him of those trying to take advantage of him.

A lot of gay conservatives here lament the void of morality in the mainstream gay community (especially Ashpenaz here). Well that void didn’t occur out of thin air. A lot of parents despite being capable of raising straight children, even non-religious ones, just aren’t properly capable raising gay children. They’re partly to blame for this void they enjoying chastising. Fortunately there are organizations like PFLAG that help equip those parents, but not all of them want to make the effort.

Also related to the subject, have any of you seen the statistics on homeless youth? A significant percentage of them are gay and lesbian. So what should be legally done with their parents?

So, it seems to me you have to either (a) renounce your definition of “abuse” as categorically, objectively wrong and an assault on parental rights, (b) stand your ground as an intellectually dishonest liar, or (c) cop to being a complete fu*king imbecile. Your choice. Tick tock.

There’s also a choice d. You are protesting way too much here. I’m not saying I’m not wrong, or even way off-base. But you clearly read more into what I said, and got wildly vicious about it. I could also read more into what you are saying, or more aptly, trying to say, but won’t bother, since it wouldn’t be fair.

I never said that Christian parents who believe homosexuality is a sin cannot raise children. And I never said that all situtations in which these parents have gay children is abuse. But there are times when it does turn into abuse. However, perhaps you are consistent. Perhaps you go off on Christian parents who even hint that gay couples shouldn’t become parents.

We have to give up the statist fantasy that we can work our will on the other side without their doing the same (and perhaps even worse) to us.

I agree Lori. I get your point, an perhaps that’s the point Sean is trying to say in between his frothings of the mouth. We all have different opinions of what bad parenting is. And I see plenty of examples of it even when it doesn’t involve sexual orientation of the kids. Almost all of the time it doesn’t reach the threshold of abuse.

Sean, I gave up trying to have a civil argument with you, but I’ll address two of your points.

However, the best way I can think of for you to learn the true meaning of those terms would be for you to take a job as the principal of a junior high school and then inform the Christian parents of a despondent, effeminate male student that you’ve contacted a child welfare agency because they “are clearly not the best people to deal with their child’s homosexuality.” Now that’s something I would really like to see. Thanks to arrogant Leftists like you who clearly believe that Christian parents raise their children at the pleasure of the state,

If I ever became a middle school principal, you wouldn’t see it. Even if I wanted to, I would not contact child protective services unless there was evidence of neglect or abuse as defined by the state laws. If you think I would jump the gun, that’s why there are laws set by the state and personnel to investigate and see if there was, in fact, abuse.

Leave it up to “the people”? Pat, what “people” are you referring to?

Ask NDT. He brought up the point first, and I responded to it.

Excellent point, Lori.

Leave it up to “the people”? Pat, what “people” are you referring to? If you mean the voting public, then that’s a lovely concept but the reality is that the “people” with the most dangerous amount of control in this area are the self-righteous bureaucrats working for child welfare agencies who are responsible for drafting and promulgating the regulations that govern their ability to intrude on parental rights. And unfortunately, the majority of them (especially in California) have agendas and ideas that are even more warped than yours. Your definition of “abuse” would never prevail at the ballot box even if it were put to a direct vote. It also wouldn’t succeed through the legislative process because even the most committed leftists in the state legislatures would be hesitant to undertake such a high profile assault on Christian parents. Therefore, the filthy job of chipping away at the rights of Christian parents is left to the insidious bureaucrats running the agencies who are free to incrementally re-shape the law to suit their agenda through the regulatory process. At the federal level, the “people” I’m talking about are commonly referred to as CZARS. And no surprise, Obama has been wildly enthusiastic in appointing them to oversee virtually every mundane aspect of our existence.

“Further, I also stated there are some gray areas, and admitted that I don’t have the best solution for those situations, and just expressed my humble opinions.”

“Humble.” Yet another word that you need to look up in the dictionary, Pat. Despite the insincere disclaimer that you “don’t have the best solution for those situations,” the very fact that you have identified Christian parents “excoriating” their gay children as a “situation” that you believe needs a government “solution,” suggests that your concept of humility has nothing to do with the definition found in Webster’s.

Pat, your solution is not only not “the best,” it’s the WORST. You state that there are “gray areas” and then idiotically suggest that the solution is to redefine “abuse” to include parents “excoriating” their children for being gay. If you believe that is a solution to will diminish the “gray areas” then you are either intellectually dishonest, or a complete fu*king imbecile. So, it seems to me you have to either (a) renounce your definition of “abuse” as categorically, objectively wrong and an assault on parental rights, (b) stand your ground as an intellectually dishonest liar, or (c) cop to being a complete fu*king imbecile. Your choice. Tick tock.

And by the way, as an attorney, if two Christian parents came into my office and told me that a liberal busy-body like you had informed them that they were “clearly” not the best people to deal with their own child, I would gleefully offer my services pro bono for the privilege of making your life a living hell. I would use every option available to me under the law to strip you of your authority, your job, your financial security, and your smug, misguided belief that you know better than a child’s parents what’s best. In such a case, the school has to make a choice to either back the employee (which keeps the state on the hook for liability purposes if the court determines that the employee crossed the line) or to throw the employee under the bus and save themselves, leaving the employee to fend for himself. And to someone like you, I’m sure that sounds harsh and ruthless, but it’s absolutely necessary in such a situation because it’s the only course of action that gets a liberal’s attention. Liberals like you think nothing of turning a Christian family’s world upside-down by reporting the parents to a government agency based on your warped definition of “abuse.” Liberals bask in the adulation of their colleagues for their “courageous” actions as long as they risk nothing personally. Thus, the only way to effectively re-establish the appropriate boundary between parents and the state–a boundary that you have unequivocally rejected–is to ensure that liberals who attempt to usurp parental rights do so at great personal risk if they cross the line. And that’s the point at which liberals consistently crumble and slink away, revealing that their self-righteous beliefs aren’t backed-up by real courage (the kind that is needed to face the risk of personal sacrifice).

So, for your sake (and for the sake of all parents), I hope you’re not employed by the public schools. If for some reason you are, then I hope that if you ever put your personal, sickening definition of “abuse” to the test that the parents of the child victimized by your narcissism hire a lawyer that is dedicated to ensuring that you end up unemployed, financially destitute, emotionally destroyed, and a cautionary tale to Leftist educators everywhere.

I agree. But there are many more people in this country who still believe that even allowing gays to raise kids amounts to child abuse. We can’t protect gay parents who want to raise their own kids without protecting homophobic straight parents, too.

We have to give up the statist fantasy that we can work our will on the other side without their doing the same (and perhaps even worse) to us.

Liberals love to talk about their great commitment to “democracy” They talk a blue streak about it. But whenever the numbers are against them, they prove perfectly willing to steamroll right over the masses who disagree with them just to get their way. Some commitment to democracy.

Not quite, NDT. I am fully aware that the people have the right to decide. And the people have chosen that abuse of children is unacceptable. I’m just expressing the opinion that parents excoriating their children for being gay is abuse. If you disagree, then fine, we’ll agree to disagree, and leave it up to the people. Further, I also stated there are some gray areas, and admitted that I don’t have the best solution for those situations, and just expressed my humble opinions.

Your hypocrisy in this matter comes from your insistence that the state has no right to prevent gays from adopting or fostering children based on the beliefs of others, but that the state has perfect right to prevent heterosexuals from raising children, including those that they produce themselves, because you don’t like those peoples’ beliefs on homosexuality.

If I have ever stated that, I’ll be happy to retract such a statement. If you believe I implied that, well, we’ve been over that before, and once again, you’re wrong.

No, we can’t.

You see, Pat, in your language, parents only have the rights that the state pleases to give them over their children.

It is the reverse. The state only has those rights over children that parents choose, through voting, to give it.

Your hypocrisy in this matter comes from your insistence that the state has no right to prevent gays from adopting or fostering children based on the beliefs of others, but that the state has perfect right to prevent heterosexuals from raising children, including those that they produce themselves, because you don’t like those peoples’ beliefs on homosexuality.