- Details magazine published an blog piece titled “Would You Really Be Okay with a Gay Kid?” and Albert Mohler posts a response that misses the point and is a glaring example of how many fundamentalists twist meanings to support anti-gay rhetoric.
- The Portland Mercury reviews a Christian children’s book titled “Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies?”
- Another Details article featuring gay dads.
- Christian TV host comes out of the closet. Hat tip: BTB Original article here.
Is it just me or was it that there simply wasn’t that much in the Albert Mohler article to be upset about? Sure, he is steadfast in his identification of homosexual behavior with sin but he was going to be like that anyway. He explores the reasons why it is that Christian parents of his own bent might be easier to come out to than more progressive parents, an item that I find extremely interesting as it does not match my own experience. This last item was given short shrift in the original article and I was pleased to see Mohler pick up on it.
That children’s book looks disgusting. One rung above Cohen’s “Alfie’s Home.”
That children’s book made me laugh and gave me the creeps at the same time. Wow.
Albert Mohler had taken the article out of its context.
Albert Mohler said:
Why?
I read and re-read the article “Would You Really Be Okay With a Gay Kid?” and still cannot find references to the fear of God being reason that parents are worried that their children would turn out gay.
However, I did find these two paragraphs detailing why parents are afraid:
Sounds like they are afraid how homphobics are going to treat their children.
And sounds like something that is indoctrinated into everyone’s minds by ex-gay ministries.
Yes, how true. Considering people like to cherry pick lines off research such as Spitzer’s to prove that homosexuals ought to change and Christians like to take biblical verses out of context and cultural relevance in order to show homosexuality is wrong; it comes as little surprise Mohler likes to take articles such as these and mangles it up from its original message just to point out a “ah-ha!” moment. Doctors should behave better.
Eric,
No. You misread Mohler. He was not “steadfast in his identification of homosexual behavior with sin”. He said:
You, me, Mohler, and everyone else knows that “coming out” is not about behavior. Often – I would say quite often these days – when a kid comes out to his parents as gay he probably has never engaged in any homosexual behavior.
Mohler is not talking about the sin of behavior, he’s talking about the sin of being gay, ie. the sin of being same-sex attracted and recognizing it.
Read it carefully. Mohler is consistent in calling “homosexuality” sin and he suggests that your kid can change and ought to change. And he clearly isn’t talking about changing behavior – he means changing orientation. And anything short of changing orientation is sin.
But that “sin” is not one that can be found anywhere in scripture. The “sin” that Mohler is talking about is the sin of existence.
And that, Eric, is heresy.
hehe, everyone needs to go read the one 5-star review at the book’s page on Amazon. It’s a funny little bit of satire 😉
Does God love Michael’s two daddies? But of course he does; he just doesn’t like their lifestyle. Surely better that Michael should be sent to a children’s home (where he stands a reasonable chance of being sexually abused) than that he should live with two men whose love is an abomination which, unless they repent of it, will cause the loving God to send them to hell to suffer torments for ever.
Why must these articles rehash every stereotype about gay boys? They want to dress in drag, they are effeminate, they don’t enjoy sports, they wish they were really a girl, etc.
Parents who think they can predict the sexual orientation of their boys by these stereotypes may be in for a surprise when their masculine athletic son comes out.
Yeah, I really don’t get that, it’s like the writer was trying too hard “look how gay friendly these men are they watch Project Runway and drink Margarita’s! Did you hear that, GLAAD Awards Committee?? Project Runway AND Margarita’s!”
I don’t do either of those things. My partner and I enjoy things like Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Heroes, Adult Swim, Mythbusters. I don’t drink, and he sometimes will have a beer.
I sometimes think maybe when people ascribe those things to gays, and then say they enjoy them it’s as if to say “I like something that’s SOOOO gay, that I couldn’t possibly be any more accepting if I tried!”
I would rather have someone say “oh I’m so gay friendly, I vote for gay-friendly politicians, I support equality iniatives, I wrote my congressman about DOMA and the FMA. I check the HRC corporate equality index to make sure my company is on it and scored well, and to make sure I frequent businesses that are also scoring well. I tell my kids that it doesn’t matter who they love, so long as that person treats them right. I also tell them that calling someone a “sissy”, or a “faggot” is not tolerated in my house.”
Enjoying Project Runway and Margarita’s isn’t “gay friendly” in my book. The show is about designers and models, not homos. Besides which, enjoying gay culture is not the same as being supportive of gay people. Plenty of racists will go see ethnic comedies soley to laugh at a minority.
I picked up on that too. Mohler is assuming the stereotype of a gay boy…and of course GIRLS are left out (again).
The point is, a father and his gay son can both enjoy the things that interest them, period. It could be sports, or Star Trek conventions or computer games.
And a lesbian who is close to her mother AND father can be anything with an array of interests too.
I just told a mother that her loyalty should be to her lesbian daughter OVER loyalty to her religion. HOmosexuality has been around longer THAN anyone’s religion and women and gay people have paid a high price for it.
If she’d listen to her daughter, rather than her minister, she and her daughter WOULD stop fighting and be close.
If this woman could convert from Jew to Christian, she could convert from expectant and ignorant to accepting and attentive.
And Jason’s last sentence is undeniably true. As long as a suspect minority entertains or serves and defers to the majority, of COURSE they’ll tolerate the suspect gay folks.
It’s the equivalent of liking gays….in their place.
Did Mohler ever consider the dads weren’t concerned about how evil/sinful it allegedly is to be gay, but how much garbage the kids were going to get from bigots like himself?
As to that book–I wonder if God loves people who twist his words to suit their personal bigotries? 😉
Who on earth would be the target audience for the anti-gay children’s book? Gay parents certainly aren’t going to buy it. And the people who were upset about “Heather Has Two Mommies” aren’t going to buy it either, because they don’t want their children hearing any reference to Those Scary Gays.
I’m a gay father myself, and I have to say that I really do hope my kids are straight, unless the world changes to such a degree that we have complete equality. I hope that for the same reasons that I hope my kids are successful and happy and fall in love with people and be in love with them forever. I just want life to be good for them, and I guess part of that is that I want life to be easy for them too. But even as I write that, I can see how what I want for them isn’t even necessarily what is GOOD for them. Our difficulties help to make us, don’t they.
I have four kids. And whatever I want for them, I know they will experience pain and disappointment in their lives. And if one of them is gay, well at least they’ll know it’s okay with dad (whether it’s okay with mom remains to be seen…)
And I hope they know if one of them divorces, that mom and dad still love them…and if one of them drops out of high school and works at burger king until they retire that mom and dad still love them. I guess I hope that I can be as accepting and loving as I would wish people to be toward me.
Very well spoken Jamie. But, according to Mohler, it’s your moral compass that makes you prefer that your kids turn out straight….the one that’s buried so deep inside you that even you don’t recognize it. So that even though you’ve spoken eloquently here about your own motivations and desires for your children, those like Mohler will turn your words into something you never thought, let alone said.
Oh….I think he gets to do that because you’re gay….so..ya know…you are very confused and all. Good grief.
Sin, evil and doomed…are fear inducing words. Isolation and discrimination fulfill that prophecy and the tactics ARE to make failure occur in gay lives.
When that’s not the case, instead there is resentment. As gay children succeed and are loved and accepted, there is resentment.
The love and need for a parent’s acceptance (and approval) is very deep. When children are neglected by a parent, they tend to act out negatively in ways to FORCE their parents to notice them and tend to their duty of them.
This is normal and natural for ANY child to do. It’s just the risk factors are greater for gay kids, unfortunately.
But this is seized on and exploited by the anti gay as a weakness in the gay person, instead of their culpability in isolating gay young people for mental and emotional abuse by their parents and surrounding community.
And Buffy makes a point, that all at once, it’s the PARENT who knows they’ll have to step up and attend to the duty of not only defending their child, but articulating what their child needs from society to succeed.
And parents of gay children are ill equipped or are taught to do the OPPOSITE.
To know that the responsibility to have society accept your gay child rests with you, is a strong test of a parent’s backbone.
But when a parent balks at this prospect, in a way they are saying…’I didn’t sign on for this and don’t make me.” and all over again, conservative or religious communities are pressuring the parent to punish their ‘rebellious’ child.
And here the parent is, knowing their non addicted, child with good grades and talent for creating textile designs or pottery, can’t be THAT bad or doomed.
Mohler and his ilk are good for grand exaggeration and fear mongering, but they lack substance that’s worth the implosion of a parent’s relationship with their gay child.
And THIS is why I say, a parent must show more loyalty to their child, than the religious or educational community will.
As long as the child knows their parents love them, no matter if they are gay….and that child will in turn love them as that same community never will…then it’ll be good for them’
And there will ALWAYS be someone close by in a church or other place that WILL accept them too.
It’s being brave in the attempt to accept is from which all other and GREATER benefits will flow.
I’m a gay dad, too. My teenaged kids (boy and girl) seem to be turning out straight. I used to say I hope they turned out straight for the same reasons Jamie lists. Now I’m actually a little disappointed – not sure why – but I keep assuring them I love them no less. 😉
Rick,
Yeah……it’s not so much the straight part….it’s that blasted heterosexual lifestyle….have you seen some of the things those people post on MySpace???
Good to hear from you!
Rick – funny…
Jamie, someday your kids will recognize how fortunate they are to have you. Probably not till they’re 30 or so, but it will happen 🙂
LOL, good one Pam!
Wow….I don’t know what I could say to the folks here who already have kids.
I can only recall, say, experiences I had with the teens of Russian/Jewish immigrant friends. They were fish out of water at first. They not only were dealing with Western culture, but also being free to be Jewish and also learning how to navigate living with people of color in large numbers.
Interestingly, some of the folks developed intensely close relationships with black folks (including me). Maybe it was the empathy factor. Maybe it was the freedom to learn about people so profoundly compelling and influential on American popular culture.
I think what I’m trying to say is, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Love makes a lot of things work out. It gives parents more courage and patience than they thought they had. Love, in the right places, will put a sense of pride from child to parent.
Rick, if one of your children might have been gay, they would have the empathetic parent to help them navigate the minefield. Same as any parent that has something more in common with one of their children.
And it seems you got a twinge that maybe that is ONE thing you won’t have in common with your children.
Fear not, there might be grandchildren, and hopefully by then….they’ll have much more freedom…enabled by their parents and grandpa…of course. :0 P
I’m going to go back to the quote that Yuki mentioned. What I found interesting about it was that Mohler seemed impressed by the non-Christian men’s “subtle sign” of “moral knowledge” and the evidence that they are under “common grace.” Yet did he stop to consider that the gay children also are under common grace, and thus also have that hint of moral knowledge? It’s kind of sad to think about, because many Christian writers often try to say that they don’t think homosexuals are worse than any other non-Christian, but it’s kind of clear from their writing, upon closer analysis, that they do indeed think that.
Rick,
It may not be to late for you to make your kids gay…if you can just manage to become a lousy father and incorporate the gay agenda techniques into you modus operandi, you might still be able to pull if off.
Right on Jay….
Mohler isn’t considering the common grace that gay children also have.
It seems in Mohler’s world, morals are something that’s a code among religious teaching, rather than inspired and inherent GOODNESS.
That the spiritual moorings between a parent and their gay child come with the intimacy of KNOWING that child, not just loving them out of parental duty but LIKING that child because they are GOOD kids.
And there is also the matter of the other, non gay children in a family. Their individuality and familial and familiar characters traits.
From Mohler’s and other’s point, there IS no inherent goodness in a gay person, except what is reprogrammed as heterosexuality and the Christian stamp in particular.
In this there is no difference, no individuality within a gay person. And no room to be someone OTHER than what the Christian code dictates.
Heterosexuality, in effect, is meritorious, rather than actual goodness being so.
So the merits and meritorious behavior of gay people can and is ignored as some kind of anomoly, not a matter of equal potential of goodness as someone heterosexual.
I’ve noticed that of course, the more acceptable gay person is the one who is celibate or who claims to no longer be a homosexual.
This is something akin to more benefit and acceptance coming to a light skinned black person.
Again, there is more accpetance of someone who is LIKE, rather than not.
No respect for individuals and their original aspects.
Can a Christian call themselves just and right, who cannot accept difference, or cannot recogize goodness in another, regardless of difference?
Why can’t some Christians truly exposit what the results of immorality or sin really are, and yet ignore the fact that homosexuality is as neutral under the same guildlines as heterosexuality is?
And there are different standards applied to gay people and why don’t the Christians applying these standards recognize or admit the disparity in treatment?
How is heterosexuality coded as meritorious, despite the fact that heterosexuals don’t choose it for example and act on their orientation without challenge?
I think I”m most frustrated by this lack of equal standards and being told that a spade is a heart.
It’s like being spoken to as if a child and that what I”m told is to be taken to irrational leaps of faith.
Mohler is a lot like that. He has that luxury, but not the justification.
And the justification is what I’m looking for. And not only does he have it, he doesn’t seem to feel any obligation to provided it.
And I think setting himself up as an expert on moral teaching requires that he do exactly that.
Opps, I meant to say, not only does he NOT have it.
Sorry…
This is unrelated to the bullet points in this digest, but I think it’s EGW related. There’s a phone call between a Stacy Harp and Joe Brummer that’s been blogged on at Pam’s HouseBlend. I’ve got a lot of admiration for Joe, in this context especially considering how well he carried himself on that conservative radio show some months back.
I listened to the recording of this call between him and Stacy Harp and I was treated to 10 or so minutes of Stacy’s taunting and provoking so childish that it was seriously bordering on harassment. I think Joe is the type to not loose his temper or let frustration get the best of him, but I considering his caller’s vulgarity and maturity, I don’t think anyone has that much patience.
There is a debate whether homosexuality is congenital with a frequent commenter here on Fr. Jake Stops the World, an important blog in the Anglican/Episcopal Church.
Bleh, it seems to involve Peter O, which unfortunately leads to endless rhetoric most of the time, and mostly centering on him.
@Christopher
We posted on that recording here.