Children with gay parents

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Same situation with Trinitarians refusing to call you Christian.  Doesn't meet their definition of the word.  Nothing good comes out of parsing words to divide instead of using words to bring people to Christ.   I understand we have a different idea of family than the rest of the world.  But the rest of the world has been using the word family for millenia.  We can't just wrest the word away from them and insist on our own reading.  That's the weapon of the divisive PC culture and you can see how it just does harm rather than good.

It's not just our religion that has the traditional definition of family. I don't care what the world thinks, a gay couple isn't a family, they are just a gay couple, nothing more nothing less. If they have children then they are a gay couple that have children.

[NeuroTypical]

Lilo and Stitch - 2002.  "Ohana means family.  Family means no one gets left behind, or forgotten."   The "Family" was Lilo, Lilo's sister, their dead parents, and Stitch was adopted into it.

It's getting harder and harder to think of Disney in terms of supporting traditional definitions of anything, but there you go.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Stitch was adopted into it.

As an adopted child myself, I'd love to see anyone try to tell my mom and dad that we weren't a "family" growing up. 

[Guest MormonGator]

35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't care what the world thinks,

And remember Robbie, the world doesn't care what you think either. So the feeling is mutual. 

[Jane_Doe]

I think an important distinction needs to be made here between those we love, and those we are directly sealed/seal-able to in the Lord's eyes.  "Family" is a label that can applied to both definitions, but there may be different folks in each category.  

For example: my husband and his best friend have been close-buddies for decades.  This best friend was the Best Man at our wedding, he's "Uncle John" to my daughter, etc.  He is totally loved and family under that definition.  But he's not someone we're sealed directly too.  Though of course we are all siblings in Christ.

A different example: some parents are abusive to their kids.   This wrecks their relationship with the kid: there is no love there left, and sometimes no contact at all for the sake of safety.  This is still family in the fact that the sealing is there (definition #2), but not the love.  Of course the parent's sinful behavior also wrecks their relationship with God.  

 

Now timing this back to homosexual relationships: no, this is not a valid seal-able relationship.  It goes against God's will.  That's obvious.  But what should also be obvious is that these people do care for each other.  And especially for children raised in these households: both of these folks are parental figures, and the kid feels that love/devotion to them.  We should never forget that or how important a child's love is.  Yes, stand for Truth, but also too be sensitive, especially when working with minor children.  

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Now timing this back to homosexual relationships: no, this is not a valid seal-able relationship.  It goes against God's will.  That's obvious.  But what should also be obvious is that these people do care for each other.  And especially for children raised in these households: both of these folks are parental figures, and the kid feels that love/devotion to them.  We should never forget that or how important a child's love is.  Yes, stand for Truth, but also too be sensitive, especially when working with minor children.  

I never used to believe that.  My immature, ignorant brain just couldn't wrap my head around the notion that gay relationships could be considered real in any stretch of the word.  And children with two gay parent figures?  My brain only had images from Oliver Twist or Brave New World - I just couldn't even imagine.

Then I met some, personally knew some, and watched them.  I'm no longer ignorant.  Jane_Doe's statements above are spot on.   And if we're ever going to be effective in ministering to folks in that situation, we might as well deal with the realities of the situation.

Or, you know, you can stomp your foot and repeat your mantra of "they're not families and I don't care what the world says!".  Good for boundary maintenance, I suppose.  Lousy for actually loving thy neighbor as thyself. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I never used to believe that.  My immature, ignorant brain just couldn't wrap my head around the notion that gay relationships could be considered real in any stretch of the word.  And children with two gay parent figures?  My brain only had images from Oliver Twist or Brave New World - I just couldn't even imagine.

Then I met some, personally knew some, and watched them.  I'm no longer ignorant.  Jane_Doe's statements above are spot on.   And if we're ever going to be effective in ministering to folks in that situation, we might as well deal with the realities of the situation.

Or, you know, you can stomp your foot and repeat your mantra of "they're not families and I don't care what the world says!".  Good for boundary maintenance, I suppose.  Lousy for actually loving thy neighbor as thyself. 

You know how gay marriage got legalized?  The LGBT community INSISTED and people believed that it's none of their business because it's not hurting anybody.  Bunch of lies when you talk about them having children.

Anyway, saw a meme about a lesbian who got married to a trans woman and they have a natural-born child.  Yeah, talk about wrapping your head around something.  Dunno why they can't just say they're man and woman.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I never used to believe that.  My immature, ignorant brain just couldn't wrap my head around the notion that gay relationships could be considered real in any stretch of the word.  And children with two gay parent figures?  My brain only had images from Oliver Twist or Brave New World - I just couldn't even imagine.

Then I met some, personally knew some, and watched them.  I'm no longer ignorant.  Jane_Doe's statements above are spot on.   And if we're ever going to be effective in ministering to folks in that situation, we might as well deal with the realities of the situation.

Or, you know, you can stomp your foot and repeat your mantra of "they're not families and I don't care what the world says!".  Good for boundary maintenance, I suppose.  Lousy for actually loving thy neighbor as thyself. 

Love this comment.

A child, especially a young one, isn't in the position to judge the righteousness of their parent's lives.  And a child can indeed bond with many different adults --- mom, dad, grandparents, aunts/uncles, stepparents, foster/adopted parents, etc.  My husband grew up with three parental figures-- his mom, his dad (they were divorced) and his dad's long term girlfriend.  As a kid he didn't understand that his mom & dad were divorced because of abuse, nor that his dad and the longterm/cohabitating girlfriend weren't married and had major issues.  He just understood who was going to be there to hold him when he was upset, who cheered him on, and who would listen when he needed to talk-- in other words who showed him love.  Was the situation ideal with God's Plan?  Not remotely!!  But his parents sins didn't mean he didn't/doesn't love them. 

[NeuroTypical]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My husband grew up with three parental figures-- his mom, his dad (they were divorced) and his dad's long term girlfriend.

The line to tell your hubby that his family "isn't a real family and I don't care what the world says" forms right over there.  I figure there's at least three on this thread willing to go stand in it, right?

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The line to tell your hubby that his family "isn't a real family and I don't care what the world says" forms right over there.  I figure there's at least three on this thread willing to go stand in it, right?

We're talking about something completely different here because the dad and his girlfriend has a potential of becoming an eternal family eventually.

[Jane_Doe]

51 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

We're talking about something completely different here because the dad and his girlfriend has a potential of becoming an eternal family eventually.

The focus here is not on the parents behavior, but on the love a child feels and being sensitive to that.  

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I never used to believe that.  My immature, ignorant brain just couldn't wrap my head around the notion that gay relationships could be considered real in any stretch of the word.  And children with two gay parent figures?  My brain only had images from Oliver Twist or Brave New World - I just couldn't even imagine.

Then I met some, personally knew some, and watched them.  I'm no longer ignorant.  Jane_Doe's statements above are spot on.   And if we're ever going to be effective in ministering to folks in that situation, we might as well deal with the realities of the situation.

Or, you know, you can stomp your foot and repeat your mantra of "they're not families and I don't care what the world says!".  Good for boundary maintenance, I suppose.  Lousy for actually loving thy neighbor as thyself. 

Perhaps "gay families" are, in principle, not entirely unlike breast augmentations. The questions of what is "real" or whether "reality" is  a priority in relation to other things like functionality and how they make people feel about themselves and others is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, this is pertinent only to mortality rather than immortality since neither "gay families" or "breast augmentations"  will exist beyond the grave.

I suspect that the eye of the beholder, as with loving thy neighbor, will be conditioned upon where that eye and heartis predominately focused--whether on this life or the eternities to come.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 24, 2018 by wenglund

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I suspect that the eye of the beholder, as with loving thy neighbor, will be conditioned upon where that eye and heartis predominately focused--whether on this life or the eternities to come.

Yeah, when I advocate that we not act like jerks to people, it's because I am seeking after temporary mortal rewards only.  When you've got an eternal perspective which I obviously lack, there is absolutely zero reason to soften, or deliver truths gently, or invite with love.  

*snort*

[wenglund]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, when I advocate that we not act like jerks to people, it's because I am seeking after temporary mortal rewards only.  When you've got an eternal perspective which I obviously lack, there is absolutely zero reason to soften, or deliver truths gently, or invite with love.  

*snort*

Twice now you have illegitimately twisting my relatively neutral and tolerant comments into a snark/jerk. A healthy dose of introspection may prove of benefit exploring why.

May I suggest dialing way back on the defensiveness and/or virtue signalling? 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The focus here is not on the parents behavior, but on the love a child feels and being sensitive to that.  

I don't see the relevance.  Love is not dependent on being family.  I'm Filipino.  We have uncles, aunts, cousins that are not on the family tree.  It doesn't change a thing if we find out our favorite aunt is actually not a "real aunt" but that her mother and my grandma were classmates in 1st grade.

Edited October 24, 2018 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't see the relevance.  Love is not dependent on being family.  I'm Filipino.  We have uncles, aunts, cousins that are not on the family tree.

If we're talking about speaking with a child, we need to be sensitive to the fact that they do love these adults, and frequently don't understand any errors the adults are making.  Going up to a kid and spurting out "your family isn't real!" isn't going to explain to them God's Plan.  It's just going to cause hurt.  

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

If we're talking about speaking with a child, we need to be sensitive to the fact that they do love these adults, and frequently don't understand any errors the adults are making.  Going up to a kid and spurting out "your family isn't real!" isn't going to explain to them God's Plan.  It's just going to cause hurt.  

And I think you should at least give us the credit of not being dumb and stupid.

Now, here's the other side.  One of my best friends in Church has a daughter that became a son.  I love that kid.  But, his mother thinks because I believe he is making the wrong choices that I am hurting her child.  It's not that I'm saying it to him because I have not.  It's because I BELIEVE it.  So, we don't talk anymore because I'm not about to change what I believe.

Edited October 24, 2018 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And I think you should at least give us the credit of not being dumb and stupid.

Whereas "us" means...everyone in the world who happens upon this forum...it includes the dumb and the stupid.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whereas "us" means...everyone in the world who happens upon this forum...it includes the dumb and the stupid.

I'm not sure I understand this one... 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure I understand this one... 

I mean to say that when you say "us" you're including more than just you. If you said, "I think you should at least give me the credit of not being dumb and stupid"...sure. But by saying "us" you may have inadvertently included someone who is, indeed, both dumb and stupid.

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I mean to say that when you say "us" you're including more than just you. If you said, "I think you should at least give me the credit of not being dumb and stupid"...sure. But by saying "us" you may have inadvertently included someone who is, indeed, both dumb and stupid.

By the context set up by @Jane_Doe, I was using "us" to refer to the people here who stated homosexual families are not {eternal} families... in my recollection, that would be Wade and Rob (and you?  can't be sure on that).  I doubt they're dumb and stupid enough to tell a child, "your family is not real".   I put myself there with them (us, instead of them) because I joined the thread pulling back from NT's side that Jane defended, which I found extreme and have not really addressed Rob's side which is also extreme.  Wade is just being his normal professor-y self - just stating facts like a classroom.

Edited October 24, 2018 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

By the context set up by @Jane_Doe, I was using "us" to refer to the people here who stated homosexual families are not {eternal} families... in my recollection, that would be Wade and Rob (and you?  can't be sure on that).  I doubt they're dumb and stupid enough to tell a child, "your family is not real".   I put myself there with them (us, instead of them) because I joined the thread pulling back from NT's side that Jane defended, which I found extreme and have not really addressed Rob's side which is also extreme.  Wade is just being his normal professor-y self - just stating facts like a classroom.

@anatess2, my position was simply urging for that basic sensitivity of not going up to a kid and saying "you're family isn't real!".  Rather, we should be sensitive to the real love the child feels for their parental figures, even sinful parental figures.  No this isn't remotely radical position, and I think majority people would agree with it.  But I felt it still needed to be reiterated.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@anatess2, my position was simply urging for that basic sensitivity of not going up to a kid and saying "you're family isn't real!".  Rather, we should be sensitive to the real love the child feels for their parental figures, even sinful parental figures.  No this isn't remotely radical position, and I think majority people would agree with it.  But I felt it still needed to be reiterated.

Contextually I look at it like any sin a parent might or might not be involved in. A child loves their parent, regardless.

That has little bearing on a philosophical discussion as to whether said parent's activities will lead to the family being eternal or not.

Homosexual "marriage", of course, is moderately unique in that in order to make the family eternal, one must disband a part of that family. That's only currently a shared trait with mortal polygamous marriages. And there's really no difference in that. No one's going up to a kid and saying, "your mommy has to divorce your daddy and marry a man without other wives or you're all going to hell!" But we are certainly going to speak openly and frankly in a public forum about the reality that in order to gain exaltation the mommy does need to do just that.

Frankly the whole, "a kid might read this" concern is silly. If a kid is old enough to read this forum then they're old enough to start considering that their parents life-style choices might not be the best ones, and they're old enough to understand that believing your parents are imperfect doesn't mean you have to hate or shun them.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Contextually I look at it like any sin a parent might or might not be involved in. A child loves their parent, regardless.

That has little bearing on a philosophical discussion as to whether said parent's activities will lead to the family being eternal or not.

Homosexual "marriage", of course, is moderately unique in that in order to make the family eternal, one must disband a part of that family. That's only currently a shared trait with mortal polygamous marriages. And there's really no difference in that. No one's going up to a kid and saying, "your mommy has to divorce your daddy and marry a man without other wives or you're all going to hell!" But we are certainly going to speak openly and frankly in a public forum about the reality that in order to gain exaltation the mommy does need to do just that.

Frankly the whole, "a kid might read this" concern is silly. If a kid is old enough to read this forum then they're old enough to start considering that their parents life-style choices might not be the best ones, and they're old enough to understand that believing your parents are imperfect doesn't mean you have to hate or shun them.

The OP here was about kids..  Hence my urging for sensitivity.   

[iamdiamd]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The OP here was about kids..  Hence my urging for sensitivity.   

And too much sensitivity gets us this:

--------

In case you’re wondering, I told my stake president I was going to start dating. He’s alright with it as long as I stay “temple worthy.” One time he asked me where I’m meeting these gay LDS single men, and I laughed because I don’t know any others Florida besides myself. If I lived in the Mormon belt in the Western US, that would be more likely. I wish I could find single gay LDS or former-LDS men here in Florida because I think we’d have a lot in common.

------------

Awesome a SP allows a homosexual member to go on homosexual dates as long as he is "temple-worthy".  Cool beans.  Can I date other women in the spirit of obeying polygamy just making sure I don't have "sexual relationships" and still be "temple-worthy"?

Edited October 24, 2018 by iamdiamd