Changing the subject a bit, I noticed this post from Exgaywatch this afternoon where Alan Chambers comments on Stephen Bennett’s recent love note to the administration about Mary Cheney’s baby boy.
Ms. Cheney is used to slings and arrows, many coming from “her community.”
Laurie said,
Timothy…You clearly know significantly more than I do about what Pete possesses, what Pete thinks constitutes typical homosexual activity, where he goes, and what his motives might be.
Yes. Clearly.
Ok, well I guess we are going to talk about the porn thing for awhile. Maybe I should start a new post.
At any rate, rules are no name-calling. If I start a new post, we can take it over there.
Warren, just to clarify, I did not comment on the Cheneys, nor did anything I discussed even touch on my feelings about the Cheney family.
I oppose same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples, but my public discussions would remain in the abstract.
David Blankenhorn, a Democrat, with different views from mine on homosexuality has written an immensely important book, The Future of Marriage, in which he discusses and defends the fundamental structure of marriage as being connected essentially to sexual embodiment and procreation. So, the view that marriage should retain complementarity as essential no more represents an attack on particular LGBTQ people than does the view that marriage should retain its binary dimension represents an attack on particular people who identify as polyamorous.
Timothy, I have no knowledge of Pete’s “collection,†nor have I knowledge of how many times he’s gone where. You clearly know significantly more than I do about what Pete possesses, what Pete thinks constitutes typical homosexual activity, where he goes, and what his motives might be. It would be presumptuous and pointless for me to impute motives to him or anyone else.
Certainly, if someone were using opposition to homosexuality as a subterfuge for indulging in secret, undisclosed temptation or sin, there would be a problem. But, their hidden motives would no more legitimize homosexuality than would someone using opposition to porn as a subterfuge for indulging in porn legitimize porn. Moreover, a relentless commitment to exposing perversion does not always emerge from attraction but, rather, it often emerges from concern for our culture. The assumed, imputed, or real motives of those who oppose immorality are culturally irrelevant, though, on a personal level, of immeasurable import.
I was expressing my belief that there are people who are deeply invested in, or “excessively preoccupied†with exposing and ridding our culture of all sorts of destructive ideas and activities, which may involve documenting activities; that, in my view, seem a valid civic commitment.
I find the existence of bathhouses, men in diapers (I’m glad to see Boo finds that “unhealthy behavior”), and leather events enormously more problematic for society than someone’s documentation of them. I find it deeply troubling that gay pride parades, for example, are seemingly exempt from obscenity laws and that the Palmer House in Chicago would, for the almighty dollar, host an event that requires blackening its windows.
Regarding nicknames: I’ve learned that it takes very little to earn nasty names from some in the gay community. I have read some of the most obscene epithets imaginable leveled at virtually every conservative who publicly opposes the normalization of homosexuality – speech that by any standard constitutes hate speech.
It seems that an evaluation of someone’s obsession should take into account the object of their “excessive†preoccupation. An obsession with eliminating the destructive presence of slavery as William Wilberforce had, or eliminating racism as Martin Luther King Jr. had, or with making music as Mozart had, or decreasing the presence and public affirmation of deviant sexual practices signify, to me, healthy obsessions. I was wondering if you think that, for example, making porn for decades constitutes an obsession?
Sorry Warren, I’ve got to violate your injunction one last time. Delete it or not as you wish.
Criticisms leveled at LaBarbera sound distinctly similar to the ones made of Christ as he supped with whores and loathsome tax collectors. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Peter says he goes to these things “undercover.” Christ was ministering to those he dined with. Peter has no indication in his “reports” from these things that he talks to anyone in Christian love. It’s all “EWWW look at this!!!” and “EWWWWWWWWW!!! Look at THIS!!!” Do you really think Christ hung out with His disciples passing around all the r-rated pictures of prostitutes he took?
IML had the entire hotel booked and off limits to children, ensuring privacy. Peter puts pictures of men in diapers up on a publically accesible website where anyone can see them. Who is doing more to expose children to unhealthy behavior?
He also said in that article:
“There is the federal Defense of Marriage Act that passed in 1996 and, to date, it has not been successfully challenged in the court, and it may be sufficient to resolve the issue.”
So I concur that he is not a vigorous advocate of any extreme position but politically, it seems he has staked out ground that favors the status quo. Where he is now, I do not know.
I think Dick Cheney has been pretty clear that he does not support same-sex marriage but he loves his daughter and is supportive of his grandchild.
Warren, I think you may be mistaken.
In August 2004, Dick Cheney said the following:
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney said. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
“The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that’s been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage,” he said.
Cheney has been clear that he opposes a federal effort to dictate marriage rules to the states. But he also said he would leave administative policy to the President. I don’t think it is clear, however, that Cheney opposes same-sex marriage per se (though I suspect that is the case).
In 2000 in the debate with Joe Lieberman he said
“Like Joe, I’m also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.”
I suspect (and these are just my guesses) that Cheney is conflicted on this issue. And like most of America, his views are in the process of change. On the one hand he is concerned about too drastic of a change to an ancient institution and on the other he is concerned about his daughter and grandson.
I wonder if Christ said, hey yo, loathsome tax collectors and skanky ho’s, about I come to dinner?
Hmm, am I violating my injunction to get back to thread? Yes, but I do run this blog.
Ok, now possibly back to the Cheneys.
Criticisms leveled at LaBarbera sound distinctly similar to the ones made of Christ as he supped with whores and loathsome tax collectors. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Warren and Timothy,
Warren, just to clarify, I did not comment on the Cheneys, nor did anything I discussed even touch on my feelings about the Cheney family.
I oppose same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples, but my public discussions would remain in the abstract.
David Blankenhorn, a Democrat, with different views from mine on homosexuality has written an immensely important book, The Future of Marriage, in which he discusses and defends the fundamental structure of marriage as being connected essentially to sexual embodiment and procreation. So, the view that marriage should retain complementarity as essential no more represents an attack on particular LGBTQ people than does the view that marriage should retain its binary dimension represents an attack on particular people who identify as polyamorous.
Timothy, I have no knowledge of Pete’s “collection,” nor have I knowledge of how many times he’s gone where. You clearly know significantly more than I do about what Pete possesses, what Pete thinks contstitutes typical homosexual activity, where he goes, and what his motives might be. It would be presumptuous and pointless for me to impute motives to him or anyone else.
Certainly, if someone were using opposition to homosexuality as a subterfuge for indulging in secret, undisclosed tempation or sin, there would be a problem. But, their hidden motives would no more legitimize homosexuality than would someone using opposition to porn as a subterfuge for indulging in porn legitimize porn. Moreover, a relentless commitment to exposing perversion does not always emerge from attraction but, rather, it often emerges from concern for our culture. The assumed, imputed, or real motives of those who oppose immorality are culturally irrelevant, though, on a personal level, of immeasurable import.
I was expressing my belief that there are people who are deeply invested in, or “excessively preoccupied” with exposing and ridding our culture of all sorts of destructive ideas and activities, which may involve documenting activities; that, in my view, seems a valid civic commitment.
I find the existence of bathhouses and leather events enormously more problematic for society than someone’s documentation of them. I find it deeply troubling that gay pride parades, for example, are seemingly exempt from obscenity laws and that the Palmer House in Chicago would, for the almighty dollar, host an event that requires blackening its windows.
Regarding nicknames: I’ve learned that it takes very little to earn nasty names from some in the gay community. I have read some of the most obscene epithets imaginable leveled at virtually every conservative who publicly opposes the normalization of homosexuality — epithets that by any standard constitute hate speech.
It seems that an evaluation of someone’s obsession should take into account the object of their “excessive” preoccupation. An obsession with eliminating the destructive presence of slavery as William Wilberforce had, or eliminating racism as Martin Luther King Jr. had, or with making music as Mozart had, or decreasing the presence and public affirmation of deviant sexual practices signify, to me, healthy obsessions. I was wondering if you think that, for example, making porn for decades constitutes an obsession?
I re-read the thread and Boo used a quote that seemed to come from Peter which seemed to bring up the ad hominem. Now, though I cannot find where Boo got it. I have deleted all other comments that included that nickname but included that one because I thought it came from a comment by Peter and it may have on another thread.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/wayne-besens-been-taking-his-hate-pill-again.html
I didn’t see your comment about closing that particular part of the discussion until after I posted previous.
As is typical, pro-gay advocates are now resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Peter LaBarbera instead of debating the issue…
And what was the issue again? Oh right, people like Bennet and LaBarbera attacking families. Nothing ad hominem there.
Sonja- what exactly do you think is out of line about pointing out that going “undercover” to leather events for years and years so one can write about “pig sex” is kind of, well, odd?
RE: the observations regarding the visits to porn conventions. This is a blog that functions as a forum. Questions have been raised about the frequency of attendance at various homosexual events. If Peter wants to address the questions, that is fine. I re-read the thread and Boo used a quote that seemed to come from Peter which seemed to bring up the ad hominem. Now, though I cannot find where Boo got it. I have deleted all other comments that included that nickname but included that one because I thought it came from a comment by Peter and it may have on another thread. In any case, the issue is off-topic and I would like to return to the topic so any other comments solely about porn visits will be deleted.
Regarding the topic, we seem to have several views of the Cheneys. Peter, Sonja and perhaps Laurie would like to see the Cheney’s publicly and personally disapprove of their adult daughter’s relationship with Heather Poe. Others would probably like to see the Cheneys come out in favor of Mary’s right to marry. Others (myself included) would like to see the Cheney’s family life stay out of the public policy domain. I think Dick Cheney has been pretty clear that he does not support same-sex marriage but he loves his daughter and is supportive of his grandchild. I note that the picture that stimulated this ruckus included the Cheneys and the child. No pic of the Cheney and Mary and Heather. Is this an accident? Whatever it means, I note that the Cheneys have taken a stand on public policy in the face of what would seem like personal reasons to soften it.
As for what others out of the limelight should do, I believe that is an individual matter to be work out based on the individual facts of each case.
Ck wrote:
Yes, CK, we are going liberal here. Our college democrats club is up to 4 members now.
As is typical, pro-gay advocates are now resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Peter LaBarbera instead of debating the issue…
Warren, do you think it’s acceptable for your homosexual friends to impugn the motives of Peter LaBarbera (a married man with five children) and to constantly refer to him by a derogatory nickname? I’m wondering why you are mysteriously absent when it’s time to tell your homosexual friends that they are out of line…
Laurie,
I do know that some persons use erotica in various forms as a way to liven up their sex life within the confines of their married monogamous relationships. I was clarifying that I have no opinion about that. Sorry if you think that incivil.
My point is that there are plenty of people here at this site who find homosexuality morally objectionable yet have never found themselve compelled to compile a vast collection of gay porn. Nor do they visit bathhouses. Nor do they dress up and sneak into events where they suspect adult materials will be available.
Pete has done so to the point where it has earned himself a nick-name within the gay community – even by those who would otherwise not know who he is. Pete’s famous… if perhaps not for the reasons he would wish to be.
I think it is pretty undeniable that Pete is excessively preoccupied. He is not content with documenting the Chicago Mr. Leather event, but he has to go every year. And take pictures. And he has made the observations of the minutia of male same-sex sexuality his livelihood.
And he gets offended when folks find this sort of behavior to be, well, atypical.
But I don’t see any purpose to make this thread about Pete and/or his proclivities. Before we got off on this tangent I believe we were discussing whether seeking to follow Christ requires one to reject your children and refuse fellowship with all those who violate certain selective sins.
Laurie- Peter has attended “International Mr. Leather” for fifteen years in a row. Think about that. 15 years. The “bringing perversion to light” excuse might work if he had gone once, maybe even twice, but 16 times? I’ll be the first to admit my own ignorance as to what goes on at leather conventions, but do you think it really changes that much from year to year? What exactly did he need to see this year that he didn’t see the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and that year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and lastly don’t forget the year before that?
Exactly what motivates his obsession is not something I’d care to speculate on, because honestly it would make me feel dirty, but obsession is hardly an unfair term here.
Is “obsessed†the right word to call those who infiltrate the world of prostitution in order to bring it to light?
If someone goes to prostitute conventions undercover for 15 years in a row, dressed as a prostitute, then yes. Yes it is.
Oh, we almost forgot: “Porno Pete†is Wayne’s nickname for me because, you see, the fact that I expose “gay†extremism makes me, well …. a secret gay (make that a secret “leathermanâ€). I suppose according to that logic, Simon Wiesenthal was a covert Nazi and Mother Teresa made hidden donations to Planned Parenthood.
Whatever else Mother Teresa did, I’m pretty sure she didn’t take in yearly viewings of “pig sex” (his term).
There are people on both sides of this issue that feel LaBarbera’s obsession with putting himself in the same seedy situations over and over again is a bit more than creepy. I might be able to buy some of Laurie’s argument if he were discovering anything new, but he isn’t. It’s the same stuff over and over again, which of course leads a reasonable person to wonder if the “research” angle isn’t at least partly an excuse for a cheap thrill.
And since you mentioned it Laurie; the person who seeks to expose the dangers of drug abuse doesn’t generally then use that issue to condemn an entire class of people, most of whom don’t participate in such things. They also don’t, as far as I know, go so far as to use drugs themselves over and over as part of their research.
The truth is, people laugh and snicker at LaBarbera for good reason – the only difference is that we don’t do it behind his back.
Timothy,
I did read your comments carefully, and that’s why I did not claim that you accused Pete of being gay. Rather, I commented on your choice of the word “obsessed.” I discussed others’ ugly and explicit accusations.
I think your claim, however, that you didn’t say Pete is gay represents a distinction without a difference in that you said the following: ” I personally have no idea about whether you will ever “fall into homosexual behavior†and don’t care to speculate.
But I do think it is very odd for a straight man to spend time his time in sexual situations that are targeted at one segment of gay men. And I do find it peculiar for a straight man to have a larger collection of gay porn than the local adult emporium.
I’m not saying that you are gay, Pete, or even that you are same-sex attracted. But I will say that your obsession with seedy sex between men suggests that in some manner you get a thrill of some sort from all of this.” That is more than an insinuation.
Your claim that Pete is “obsessed” is based on the fact that he is willing to inflitrate the sordid world of one segment of the gay population. Does that word pertain to those who care so deeply about pornography that they are willing to expose themselves to it in order to bring it to light? Is “obsessed” the right word to call those who infiltrate the world of drug use in order to bring it to light? Is “obsessed” the right word to call those who infiltrate the world of prostitution in order to bring it to light?
“Obsessed” means excessively preoccupied. I guess to someone who believes homosexuality and even the seamy world of some segments of the gay lifestyle are legitimate, any investment in exposing them is excessive. But for those who believe that homosexual conduct in all its myraid manifestations is profoundly destructive, first to individuals and them to society, exposure to it in order, ultimately to bring it to light is not only not excessive, it is necessary.
By the way, your correction in your last entry regarding “heterosexual erotica” used as a “marital aid” contributes nothing to civil discourse.
ooops… I mean to say “a single dog-eared gay porn magazine”.
I make no assumptions whatsoever as to there is any heterosexual erotica employed as a marrital aid.
Laurie,
If you go back and read what I wrote you’ll see that I don’t claim that Pete is struggling with homosexuality. But anyone who knows much about Pete knows that he is unquestionably obsessed with the issue.
To contrast, consider the large number of individuals who find homosexuality to be morally objectionable but never really find the need to sneak into sex clubs or leather events. And I’d be willing to bet that neither Dr. Throckmorton nor Dr. Blakeslee have a single dog-eared porn magazine. (feel free to correct me, guys, if I’m guessing incorrectly).
Timothy,
I just wanted to comment on the specious notion that because someone is deeply invested in an issue, he or she must struggle with it personally. This assumption is evidenced in the repeated and ugly accusations leveled at Pete and in your characterization of Pete’s investment in this issue as an “obsession.” It is obvious that some who are deeply invested in an issue do, indeed, struggle with it, but certainly not all.
Not everyone who cares deeply about abortion has had one; not everyone who is deeply committed to deracinating racism is secretly harboring racist thoughts; not all PETA members secretly torture animals; and not everyone who cares deeply about the impact of widespread cultural approbation of homosexuality struggles with same-sex attraction.
The reasons why people become interested and invested in particular cultural issues are complex and may involve God’s sovereign call. Perhaps God called Pete to this mission precisely because homosexuality will never be a temptation for him.
Furthermore, there is, unfortunately, a reason that people need to collect material from all segments of the twisted world of sexual deviance from heterosexual pornography to pedophila to the “segment” of the homosexual population to which you refer. And the reason is to provide evidence to those who would never believe such perversion exists without evidence. Sometimes it takes a more visceral experience like seeing these images to motivate even those who know intellectually that such perversion exists to take action.
Since it is true that some who are deeply invested in an issue struggle with it themselves, I can’t help but wonder if some of those who obsessively, viciously, and vulgarly attack Pete are secretly struggling with a still, small voice that questions the morality of acquiescing to homosexual desires.
Remember when “good Christian woman” meant exactly what you just descibed? Or when “that’s real Christian of you” was a compliment?
Timothy,
They will know we are christians by our love. My mother who DOES NOT talk religion with anyone shows this in her actions foremost. I don’t know if she is a christian or not – but she sure does have some qualifications that would make her so. She often talks about her grandmother who was a “good christian woman” by anyone’s standards of that day and how she helped veterans returning from war, brought food to shut ins, raised my mom and her siblings and numerous stories of her patiences, self control, activism, love, humor etc.. When I compare the actions of my great grandmother with the actions of those who would turn away from others in need – I KNOW, YOU KNOW the difference.
You know the funny thing about love?
People can claim they have it all day long. They can proclaim that their actions aren’t out of hatefulness, or that they are upholding God’s Word, or that “real love” is harsh and condemning, or whatever they like. But the funny thing is that other people are pretty good at knowing it when they see it.
So much so that Christ said this is the way that his followers could be determined. By their love.
Not by the love they claim or some special love evident only to other believers. But that the world around them will know who his followers are by the love that the world around them sees his followers show. The kind of love that Joe Sixpack knows, not the extra-special love that looks an awful lot like spitefulness, cruelty, and self-righteousness.
I think it sad, really, that Christians have become known more for their intolerance and cruelty to those around them than they have for their love. And that can’t be blamed on a liberal press or a hedonistic world. The blame for that change in image can be laid squarely at the feet of those who claim the name of Christ but treat those around them with contempt.
In the midst of the debate over who’s welcome at Thanksgiving, let’s recall Sonja’s advice:
Mary needs to know that her WICKED behavior requires them to be divided from her.
So no turkey for Mary, either. Now that there’s some pretty tough love.
Just a thought… I seem to recall there was some criticism of Jesus, too, for whom he invited to Thanksgiving.
Pete, thanks for the lecture on loving one’s neighbor. As expected, you think that there are a lot of “if”s present in Christ’s commandment. (If I fell into homosexual behavior…)
Incidentally, I know some people think you are secretly gay but I personally have no idea about whether you will ever “fall into homosexual behavior” and don’t care to speculate.
But I do think it is very odd for a straight man to spend time his time in sexual situations that are targeted at one segment of gay men. And I do find it peculiar for a straight man to have a larger collection of gay porn than the local adult emporium.
I’m not saying that you are gay, Pete, or even that you are same-sex attracted. But I will say that your obsession with seedy sex between men suggests that in some manner you get a thrill of some sort from all of this.
Boo wrote: “What kind of person thinks stoning kids to death is justified in any time or place?”
Warren: What do you say? Did Jehovah God actually expect the Jews (before Christ) to obey His command to stone their persistently rebellious sons?
Warren wrote: “I have seen lots of pain and heartache in my counseling career when the gap between parents and their adult children becomes too great.”
I think one significant difference between your perspective and mine is this: I believe there is a God-ordained purpose in the shame and pain and heartache that come with sin…I believe it is not something Christians/parents should seek to mitigate (nor to exacerbate)…God uses misery to bring us to our senses.
Appearing to condone it is the key word. I doubt my parents were as concerned about what other people thought as much as they were concerned about me. This allowed me to stay closer to them.
Correction: Is your way loving SUPERIOR and their way … judgmental? …hateful?
Mary, of course we’re all sinners, and I said I would continue to love my son — always. But this is about condoning the sin — or appearing to condone it. What about young children–what would you tell them, if anything, in such a situation? Are you saying that parents who take my approach are not still loving their “gay” children? Is your way loving and their way … judgmental? …hateful? Please clarify, as over the years I have spoken to parents/siblings who love their wayward child/brother/sister with awesome familial love but they do not allow the partner to sleep over, etc.
Peter,
Wow! Let me say as an ex gay woman that my parents (though not perfect) allowed – pardon me – WELCOMED me and my girlfriends to their dinners, events, homes etc…And yes, we were allowed to sleep over. Because guess what – even though the relationship did not have the potential of being wholesome – they people in the realtionship did.
Their warmth and kindness was and is a generous gift in this world. A gift which has not been overlooked by this writer – a gift that has made all the difference. A gift as a model of God. I have learned to extend this to others.
Just yesterday a good friend of mine whose daughter announced her lesbianism a couple of years ago said this ” Brittany (not her real name) told me that if she and Elle (not her real name) break up, that she probably won’t be gay anymore.” Fantastic.
I remember about 5 years earlier that friend asking me what she whould do if her daughter turns out gay. I said “Love her all the same”. Wow – what a difference it makes – to be loving and accepting of an indivdual as a child of God.
If you don’t want “sinful” or “unpotentially wholesome” relationships/behavior at your dinner table then clear the table because no one will be sitting down to share at that banquet.
Thank God! for the love my parents gave to me!
Not to mention (4) What kind of person thinks stoning kids to death is justified in any time or place?
Re 32613 — Boo, the answer to your question (What is your theological justification for not stoning your kids when they disobey you?) lies in answering these two questions:
(1) Who was the Deut instruction given to?
(2) Is that command still in force for Christians/churches today?
Don’t forget (3) Is this commandment something we can use to place a burden on others that won’t affect us?
…And Steve Bennett’s been married for 14 year, not 11.
One addendum. I wrote: “There is no wholesome potential for this male-male relationship.” Of course, there is one wholesome potential: they can leave the sexual aspect and their “gay” identities behind and stay friends — a scenario which I have heard of from former lesbians. I’m sure it’s happened with ex-“gay” guys, too, although there are obvious pitfalls and complications to deal with.
The answer is YES, Warren, and I was anticipating your question. The reason I WOULD allow the unmarried, say, potential daughter-in-law (the live-in girlfriend of my son in this theoretical) to have Thanksgiving dinner — but not sleep over — is that this relationship has the potential to develop into a wholesome marriage. A “gay” relationship has no such potential, and never will.
How many parents have been in this exact situation?! If they like the girlfriend, they want their son to commit to and marry her — I forget the old-fashioned phrase, “to make an honest woman out of her”? Regardless of whether or how strongly they view extra-marital sex as sinful, most parents want their children to “settle down,” get married and produce grandchildren. (I hope doesn’t change with modernity.)
Obviously, committed Christian or religious parents also would pray and yearn for their son to return to his faith — or embrace true religion in the first place — which would result in abandoning casual attitudes about sex, etc.
The homosexual “son”-with-partner parallel situation lies in stark contrast to the above. There is no wholesome potential for this male-male relationship, and there never can be. Sure, there may be in the legal code (e.g., SSM in Mass.) — just as our corrupt laws now allow de facto child-killing thru abortion-on-demand — but that has no bearing on transcendant morality.
Committed Christian or religious (or simply moral) parents of a child in a “same-sex relationship” — BTW, we avoid this PC phrase since it effectively downplays the seriousness of the sinful behavior — must find ways to lovingly communicate to the child that they share God’s disapproval of this unnatural and wrong relationship. Treating the homosexual “couple” like a normal, male-female couple — even one where the 2 are “living in sin” but could become a wholesome marriage — doesn’t cut it and sends the wrong message to the child.
At Americans for Truth, our worldview, again, revolves always around changeable behavior. I truly believe nobody has to be “gay” (proudly homosexual) because I believe in and have seen the power of Christ to change people regardless of their sin problem. That doesn’t mean they won’t — like all of humanity — struggle with powerful temptations, but all proud homosexuality, including embracing “same-sex relationships,” is ultimately an embrace/defense of sin.
Maybe another analogy to SS couples –since incest is rare — involving bad behavior is a man who commits adultery on his faithful wife of 20 years, leaves her for the flirtatious secretary, and moves in with the young babe. Should his good, longtime friends — who loved his real wife — invite the new “couple” over? What about over time, when they start “getting used” to the man with his now-trophy wife– should they let down their moral objections and befriend the new “couple”? Some might say yes — that there’s nothing that you can do about it now, just as parents are largely powerless to stop their grown child’s homosexual behavior — but the important question for our purposes here is: would the friends of the adulterous man be wrong for PERMANENTLY NOT befriending his trophy wife. I think not, even though such commitment to principle may be rare in our lax culture.
PFLAG’s version of how love your “gay” child is a false love. Thre is no obligation to embrace a child’s homosexual partner, and treat him/her like “family.” Indeed, doing so creates serious moral/spiritual problems. That does not mean that as Christians, the parents should not communicate that they love both their son and the “partner” — i.e., love them enough to compassionately communicate the truth that they can only be faithful to a loving and holy God by leaving that lifestyle which “celebrates” behavior that the Bible condemns.
Warren, you took a jab at Steve Bennett’s press release with your snide “love note to the Cheney’s” comment. But ironically, this IS how Steve would show Christian love in this complicated situation. And I sort of think — as a guy who once was in this EXACT situation: Steve had found a happy homosexual male partner as a “gay” man, then was confronted with Biblical truth, left the lifestyle and has now been married to a woman for 11 years, producing 2 children — that he’s earned the right to posit what true Christian parental “tough love” is in this situation.
Steve has lived it; you and I are just theorizing. A public embrace by the Cheney’s of Heather Poe as “family” (and Mary’s legitimate “spouse”) sets a poor example for the nation. A public communication by the Cheney’s of their unfailing love for their daughter Mary and yet disapproval of the lifestyle she has chosen to embrace — imagine that, Warren — would be a moral teaching moment for this nation like few we’d ever seen!
Re 32613 — Boo, the answer to your question (What is your theological justification for not stoning your kids when they disobey you?) lies in answering these two questions:
(1) Who was the Deut instruction given to?
(2) Is that command still in force for Christians/churches today?
Maybe Warren would like first crack at answering those…
Let me get this straight, Warren: You don’t have a big problem with Tim Kincaid’s egregious misuse of Deuteronomy, but you are confident that I misapplied Matthew and Luke. As Bill Engvall would say, “There’s your sign…”
But would you let her come to Thanksgiving? This is a sincere question, not an attempt at a gotcha.
Sorry guys, typo… THat should be:
BTW, I’m willing to hear from parents who WOULD allow their child’s SS partner to … allow their child’s “gay” partner to do the things I wouldn’t….
Tim, if one of my children announced that they were “gay,” (I use quotes not to be snide but bec. I do not share your assumptions about the word), I would not “shun” him or her, but retain the love and compassion of a caring and concerned parent. But I believe somewhere back on XGW’s site, Alan Chambers, in condemning Steve Bennett, implied that there was consensus on HOW to love your child. (Maybe he didn’t mean to — and for accuracy’s sake I will say that I challenged Alan for his remarks because he distorted the context of Steve’s press release; Bennett made very clear on his website that he was NOT condemning opposite-sex adoptive parents.)
In my theoretical, I would never let a child let his same-sex partner stay over night or even, say, have Thanksgiving Dinnner with the extended family. Why? Because I would not want to communicate any approval of the relationship — ie., a sinful sexual relationship — especially if there were younger family members/relatives present who might misinterpret that as approval. Sorry Tim, but for many people of faith and traditionalists, this IS “tough love,” not bigotry. In the same vein, if my son were living with a girl and they weren’t married, I wouldn’t let her sleep over.
Loving her as themselves? If I fell into homosexual behavior — something your comrades think is imminent, given their childish accusations that those who publicly fight the “gay” movement must be secretly “gay” — I would want my parents, Christian friends, etc., to affirm that homosexuality is not my destiny because homosexual acts are wrong and Christ can help people overcome (as He so clearly has). So, again, it comes down to how we view the Scripture.
You guys are the ones going around redefining such morally-based behavior as “bigotry,” a reckless accusation IMO because your new morality is subjective, where as ours is based on ancient Judeo-Christian teachings and understandings. Who’s to say YOU are not bigoted against traditionalists? I suppose that it’s inevitable these days that one man’s faithfulness to God is another’s “prejudice.”…
BTW, I’m willing to hear from parents who WOULD allow their child’s SS partner to , but there is no consensus that says to be “loving” you MUST treat the same-sex partner like you would a (normal, opposite-sex) married spouse.
So the point of our fundamental disagreement, Tim, is HOW you love God? I believe there is ample evidence in Scripture to say that you love God by obeying Him and revering his law — which includes not practicing or advocating sexual immorality (including all homosexual behavior — see Gagnon, who makes the case that biblically, such behavior would be put on a par with incest).
Now, you could ditch the whole thing and say it’s not relevant for today, but I think that’s a stretch because there were “ex-gays,” so to speak, in New Testament times (1 Cor. 6) — ie., people for FORMALLY practiced homo’l behavior. Again, see Gagnon, as he is the foremost authority on the Bible and Homo’y, at least from an orthodox viewpoint.
As Warren rightly noted, my point is that scripture can be used (and has been used) as a justification for all sorts of things that we would all agree are evil. And often the distinctions between which verses continue to be authoritative and those which do not apply can seem arbitrary at best.
One tool used in helping us in our understanding of scripture and its application in our lives is to see if our interpretation is consistent with the message of Christ. The difficulty though is that we all look at scripture and see a different Christ. Some see a harsh disciplinarian who was intollerant of sin and told the woman at the well to go and sin no more. Others see a rebel who flouted the Law and religious tradition by working on the Sabbath and putting the needs of individuals above the religious commands.
But whatever Christ we see in scripture we must agree that he had two commandments: to love God and to love others as ourselves. One might even suggest that we demonstrate that we are loving God though loving our neighbor as ourselves.
In the context of the Cheneys, I find it difficult to see that shunning their daughter would be loving her as theirselves. I think we can agree that none of us seek to be shunned so it’s a bit difficult to see how doing this to others is not only acceptable but proper.
Now I know some may argue, “If I were that unrepentant sinner, I would WANT to be shunned to force me to repent”. But no, you wouldn’t. And the golden rule is not “do unto others the way you want them to do unto you… if you were different than you are”.
I personally believe that unless we are demonstrating love (and not this artificial excuse for arrogance and bigotry called “tough love” or “truth in love”) to our neighbor, we should question whether we are truly where Christ would have us be. You, of course, may disagree.
Sonja – Do you see God’s compassion for us as dependent on our repentence? We may be arguing theological differences here and I would like to know if you see the parable as suggesting that (it seems you do).
Peter – You may see it as a cheap shot but knowing Timothy, I viewed his comment as a caution about how far off one can get if care is not taken in assuming certain Bible passages are for today. A bit snarky perhaps and I won’t let lots of that past moderation.
My view is that Sonja sought to use passages and teaching to apply to the Cheneys that do not apply. She seems convinced she is correct and I am cautious about the relevance. I have seen lots of pain and heartache in my counseling career when the gap between parents and their adult children becomes too great. Personally I like John Piper’s take on things better than what Sonja has implied and am loath to suggest that he does not take the Bible seriously.
Debating Rob is a fine idea if the topic is gay theology. I suspect Rob has a view on this topic but I am not sure that your call for a debate is on topic.
I think you’re missed the point, Pete and Sonja. What is your theological justification for not stoning your kids when they disobey you?
Now that I think of it, has Ex-Gay-Watch of Jim Burroway published anything critiquing Rob Gagnon and his book or site, http://www.robgagnon.net? I heard Rob is having a tough time getting pro-gay theologians to debate him. Why don’t you find someone to take up the challenge, Tim?
Another theological cheap shot from a homosexual activist. Yep, Tim, I hear there’s a big problem of of Christian parents stoning their kids… But now that you’re quoting the Bible, I’d like to hear your Scriptural case for proud “gay” (or, for that matter, BLT) identity. And please don’t say that Paul didn’t understand modern science on homosexuality. I’m looking for something using, perhaps, the NIV or NASB version of the Bible, not the “APA” version.
PS — Similarly, you might ask “What does the inheritance represent?” Is it a literal inheritance, or does it depict how God created man and provided him with all that was required to live a godly life — then gave him freedom to either glorify God or disobey Him. And man used his liberty to do evil rather than good and found himself humiliated, in need of grace and mercy. But hey, maybe it’s just a literal inheritance, Warren.
Timothy, your comment demonstrates complete ignorance of scripture… Who was that command given to? Is it still to be enforced by Christians/churches today? If you study, you might find that stoning is practiced by Muslims (not Christians), which would be the religion applauded by the NGLTF/others when Keith Ellison was elected. (Only Satan could have homosexuals applauding Muslims, who hate them. But I digress…)
Warren, you wrote: “Surely God knew what was on the boy’s heart, but the text gives no indication that the father knew (seeing him from afar off).”
When one studies a parable, one must ask “Who are these characters and what do they represent?” (Jesus, knowing our intellectual incapacity, usually explained them for us.) So who is “the father” in the parable of the prodigal son? Is he just some man, acting without insight? No, he represents God the Father. God knows the hearts of His children. (And really, do you suggest that parents are woefully ignorant of their children’s hearts? My parents sure aren’t…) Jesus was teaching how God the Father works in the lives of His wayward sons and daughters and in the parable He provided a good model for earthly fathers dealing with reckless, sinful children.
It’s hardly sufficient to say that dealing with wayward adult children is a gray area where folks should just do what seems best to them. The Bible provides many stories and instructions which are intended to make us wise…including as to how to handle our rebellious, persistently sinful children. What about the consequences to Eli, to David, to others who failed to correct their disobedient sons? Can we learn nothing from them?
Hey Sonja, why are you pussyfooting around here. Why don’t you just tell us what you know the Word of God says about a persistently sinful child:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Sonja – Well, you certainly aren’t subtle. My point is to interpret Scripture consistently and in context.
Matt. 10 – It certainly seemed to me that you were using Matt 10 to suggest the Cheneys were wrong in their parenting.
Luke 15 – Correct; the point is not about specific parenting actions. It is broadly about the security of the believer within the love and family of God. So to appeal to this parable for specifics is to overinterpret. And as I point out, you want to appeal to the specifics when you believe it supports your point, but you do not want to model the father’s behavior (inheritance giving), when it seems irrelevant to your point.
Surely God knew what was on the boy’s heart, but the text gives no indication that the father knew (seeing him from afar off). He had compassion on the boy when he first saw him before he heard one word from the boy. He was glad to see his son. Now, had the boy not repented, he may not have thrown him a party but I suspect he still would have had compassion and hugged him and given a meal.
I take strong exception to your assertion that I am trying to render the Bible irrelevant. The passages you advance have some relevance to the subject but, in my opinion, not in the ways you suggest.
How to handle wayward adult children seems to me to be a grey area that is best handled within family and not judged by those who do not know the whole situation. I might choose to take a harder line with a child than my neighbor but it is not up to me to judge my neighbor, is it?
Warren, it seems your purpose is to try to argue away every Biblical passage as irrelevant, and so I begin to wonder what your motivation for doing so might be? Are you evangelizing/exhorting the homosexuals who read your blog by discrediting what the Word of God says? Is your wisdom superior to God’s?
***If there are passages that encourage parents to “accommodate” a persistently sinful child, then please point me to them.***
Matthew 10 — I am well aware of the context — and no, Jesus is not giving instructions on parenting (nor did I so suggest). He is warning the Twelve of the cost of discipleship: hardship and *division* — perhaps from parents or spouse or children. Has something changed since Jesus predicted such suffering? Is it somehow different for us, such that we can be united with Christ, yet have peace and fellowship with family members who are willfully disobedient?
Luke 15 — You know and I know that Jesus’ point in relaying the parable of the prodigal son was NOT about when to give a child their inheritance. (That detail merely provided a culturally appropriate setting from which to tell the story.)
The parable warns of the result of reckless, sinful living and describes the wayward son (representing each of us as sinners) arriving at a place of despair, humility, having godly sorrow before his father (Jehovah God, Our Father), and repenting — and THEN being received back with compassion and joy. (Do you suggest that God was ignorant regarding his son’s intentions? Even my earthly father is able to discern what my attitude is before I come through his door.)
The parable teaches of The Father’s approach to His wayward, immoral, ungrateful sons and daughters, and therefore I submit it is quite reasonable to consider it as a model for earthly fathers.
***Again, if there is scripture which encourage parents to “accommodate” a persistently sinful child, then please point me to them.***
Sonja – Yes, you did respond with the parable. But you did not have comment on my reply to your use of Matt 10 to support your initial premise that the Cheney’s are biblical offbase with their response to their adult daughter. I do not see that it informs the matter given the context of the verse.
You answered with the parable but as I noted, the parable leans away from a shunning stance and rather toward a stance of compassion and connection without approval. Furthermore, you did not indicate if you would give your wayward child his/her share of the estate if he/she asked for it. If you advance the parable as your literal guide, would you not be required to advise parents to follow that course?
Warren, I did not “switch gears”; you asked me what I thought of Piper’s advice and I answered you with the parable.
Oh, I didn’t realize Stephen Bennett was already being discussed here.
His release was more targeted at such a caption being made public on the White House website. It’s not so much about A.I.s, it’s more about believing that what Mary Cheney was wrong – okay, no need for a public press release just for one person right – but then they actually put it on the White House website. In such a case, it seems it was SB Ministries view that a such a public approval merited a public response.
Sonja – You kind of switched gears on me. I addressed your reading of Matt 10 but then you switched to a parable that teaches something about the longsuffering of God for his individual children.
I do not think parables were meant to be prescriptive. If it was to be taken as a precept, the action taken by the father would seem somewhat permissive. If you have a wayward child, are you going to give him/her his part of your estate in advance as the father did in Lk. 15:12?
I wouldn’t.
Furthermore, the parable does not really support your point. Luke 15:20 says, “…but while he (the son) was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
The father in this story had no knowledge of the son’s repentance until after the father ran to the son first. For all the father knew, the son could have been coming back for some more allowance, or perhaps to go to a ballgame.
Warren — found the article. I note an absence of scripture to back up the advice. I prefer to use the Bible as my guide…
What did the father of the prodigal son do (Luke 15)? He had already taught his children about righteousness — one accepted his teaching and one rejected it. Did he change his expectations of obedience? Did he plead for him to come home or accept him back while still in sin? Did he offer hospitality to his rebellious friends? Did he eat or go to ballgames with him?
No.
He waited. He allowed his son to bear the full weight of the consequences of his behavior, until those consequences produced misery and godly sorrow, until the son returned in humility.
And then he embraced him and restored him and joyfully celebrated his repentance…and he taught others to do the same.
Sorry all — The link in comment #32286 should work now. It is to a blog post by John Piper’s son. For those not embracing an evangelical worldview, it might not make much sense.
Warren, your link does not work. Can you try it again?
Sonia – My take on biblical interpretation may be different than yours. The context of Matthew 10 relates to the instruction to the disciples regarding Apostolic ministry. Jesus warned them that they would face hatred and betrayal from family members (vv 21-22). In this context, Jesus offers his teaching about family disruption. For sure, in a situation where life is on the line, at times in history, I suspect, fathers and children have been separated by differing views of Christ. I do not think this is advice from Jesus about how to handle different view points or even children who have different religious views.
Would you advocate parents of children who are wayward with other issues take your advice to the Cheneys? Or might this advice have some merit?
Note to self: cancel dinner plans with Sonja Dalton, schedule root canal instead.
Warren Throckmorton wrote (The Stalking of Mary Cheney, March 2004):
“I submit that the Cheneys are to be respected for their ability to accommodate differences that have divided many families and of late an entire society. From all public appearances, Ms. Cheney and her famous parents are very close.”
But Jesus said (Matthew 10):
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
I submit that the Bible teaches that Christians are not supposed to “accommodate†differences where the difference involves deliberate, belligerent, unrepentant SIN. The “closeness†between parents and a rebellious, immoral daughter is evidence of the LACK of genuine Christianity in the parents, and nothing to be respected or commended.
(That does not imply that the Cheneys should be hateful or mean toward Mary, but they should express disapproval — grief, morning, separation — for her sinful lifestyle in words and in behavior. Mary needs to know that her WICKED behavior requires them to be divided from her. Remember the story of Eli and his sons…Eli tolerated such “differences†and was condemned for it. Consequences are in order.)
Really? By days or types of food?
And Jesus tossed Judaism’s dietary laws. What a pick and chooser, ugh.
By Swissalps standards, Jesus is illegitimate. That just occurred to me. Hmmm.
Swissalps,
There is NO such thing as an illegitimate child. My guess, if we did a little digging around in your family tree you would disown yourself for things you would discover. I doubt you consider yourseflfillegitimate. And another idea you might want to consider is that family laws have changed considereably over time to protect children’s rights to care and protection in such a way that identifying those who “claim” to be parents mandates them to provide for the health and welfare of that child. Had those laws been the archais ones of say 1800 America – you might not have had protection and care as your ancestors might have been “questionable” parents.
Oh boy, a non-Christian is going to tell Christians what we can believe!
Dr. James Dobson has to be consistent with his faith & it would be wrong if he condoned what Mary did.
James Dobson is not a pre-Vatican II Catholic, therefore he is by your definition not consistent with his faith. He follows teachings from the Reformation, which was a bunch of people picking and choosing different things. The only real Christians are Mel Gibson and his dad.
Wait, I’m sorry, this is clearly another one of those times where you only wanted to say nasty things about gay people and their you know what kids, and not being careful enough in the crafting of your insults has led you to inadvertantly insult Quakers, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians and the like.
Gay people deserve to be the butt of insulting comments crafted especially for us, Swissalps. It’s one of our Super Rights.
Thanks for writing, but once again, I’m not a Christian. I’m not even very religious, but Stephen Bennett is right in that what Mary Cheney did is nothing to be proud of & you can’t pick & choose which parts of Christianity, which forbids certain sexual activities, you want to follow, nor can you do it for any other faith. If you’re a Hindu, you can’t eat beef, because the cow is sacred.
Dr. James Dobson has to be consistent with his faith & it would be wrong if he condoned what Mary did. It’s not my intent to insult Mary Cheney’s son (it’s not his fault) but if a child is illegitimate, then it’s you know what. Finally, I think that they should make it a crime to perform A.I. Are there any states where this is a crime? I believe in some nations it is. If I’m not mistaken, a Dr. can refuse to give a patient A.I. if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Swissalps said: “Not to be reduntant, but as known, Christianity forbids H&L activities, just as Islam does.”
It is not “known” — it is BELIEVED by many. There IS a difference. Christianity does not fordbid it. A certain approach to scripture forbids it — and it is arrogant, in my opinion, to assert that HIS view of Scripture is THE only correct, “Christian” one. Not to be redundant, but there are many Christians out here that don’t necessarily agree with his take on what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality.
Thanks, Boo. That was the second, desperately needed laugh I have gotten today – and your point could not have been more perfectly delivered.
The real tragedy is that Swissalps illustrates the kind of twisted dilemma in which many find themselves. I personally do not think that God lands one there, but many of the “puffed up” (love KJV sometimes) souls such as Dobson, James Kennedy, etc., give license to this kind of bizarre thought process by their hatred wrapped in scripture.
I have no argument with someone who has a good faith (no pun intended) difference of opinion with me on matters of faith, but when they turn into a swissalps they begin to feel duty bound to change my world and not just their own. I have a problem with that and so should any decent human being.
saying “even Dr. Dobson no longer sides with the Vice President” is like saying “even britney spears no longer has taste or good sense”. We certainly shouldn’t expect any religious sorts to support anything as reckless as “blind faith”. What’s the world coming to?
Every blog needs a Boo
When in doubt, save the chuckle
No kidding – thanks for the laugh Boo.
Seems to me one can have an opinion about certain means of acquiring children without being obnoxious about it. I almost deleted Swissalps comment but then if I had, I wouldn’t have had Boo’s chuckle. Moderating a blog is a hard job sometimes.
Having a baby via A.I. is nothing to be proud of.
You mean like my grad school chaplain did when he found out he couldn’t get his wife pregnant?
Look, I know it’s terribly important to insult gay parents, and their B kids. But like Stephen Bennett, in your haste to do the necessary work of saying nasty things about gay people and their B kids, it can be easy to slip up and insult people who actually matter, not like those gay parents and their B kids who of course everyone agrees should be shunned and driven into the wilderness with sticks.
Dear Dr. Throckmorton:
While I agree with you that it’s unjust for H&L to push Mary Cheney into propagating their views, I have to differ with you on the Vice President & his wife Lynn.
Yes, in 2004, John Kerry shouldn’t have raised Mary, but even Dr. Dobson no longer sides with the Vice President & believes that what the V.P. has done is blind faith. Having a baby via A.I. is nothing to be proud of. If V.P. Cheney & his wife are against H&L activities, then they must let their true feelings be known. The fact that they seem to blindly accept what Mary Cheney has done isn’t good. Not to be reduntant, but as known, Christianity forbids H&L activities, just as Islam does.
I know that some people will think it’s judgmental to say that the Cheneys should decry what their daughter did, but as known, there was a time when having a child out of wedlock was considered taboo-the B word. But @least with a man & a woman who are unmarried, people would say that they engaged in the right sexual activities but outside of marriage. Often times, shotgun weddings would happen so that the kid wouldn’t have the stigma of being considered a B. H&L having children via A.I. was unthinkable.
Nowadays, having an illegitimate child isn’t considered bad. What’s even sadder is that few are willing to take a stand against what Mary did.
Bennett’s criticism is typical of any knee-jerk response. In his rush to demonize gay and lesbian parents he insults adoptive parents. As an adoptee and an adoptive parent I am glad to see him being taken to task.
Alan’s response was better than what I could muster up for such a rant. Kudos to him.