Religion The ethics of disowning degenerate family members

D

Deleted member 88

Guest
This is a rather sensitive topic which is why I hope discussion will be fruitful.

www.google.com

The Forsaken: Gay Teens Shunned by Their Religious Families

While life gets better for millions of gays, the number of homeless LGBT teens - many cast out by their religious families - quietly keeps growing.
www.google.com www.google.com

So we have evidence those youth whom are homosexual or otherwise not heterosexual are booted out of their homes by religious parents.

This seems to be a rather common phenomena, in the US and elsewhere. After homosexual marriage was legalized, this apparently accelerated. Even in liberal New York.

So let’s discuss the ethics.

Familial love vs Religion.

Those who prioritize familial love would argue love of one’s child should outweigh and even cancel out religious duties. This has happened, where parents beliefs about these matters change, less due to being convinced their religion is wrong, but on the primal grounds of “I’ll give up my religious belief because I love my child more”.

The opposite is of course handing them over and casting them out.

It is proscribed in the Old Testament to cast the sinner out from among the community, and rebellious or degenerate children were stoned(as in pelted with rocks and killed).

In the New Testament, unrepentant sinners in the church are cast out. Until they repent they aren’t allowed fellowship, they aren’t to spoken too or eaten with. Don’t taint yourself by associating with someone unrepentant.

Sources.

biblehub.com

1 Corinthians 5:13 - Expel the Immoral Brother

God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.
biblehub.com



Anyway, back to the subject.

So what to do with an LGBT family member?

God or family?

Love them yes, always. But what if they won’t change? What if they insist on bringing their lover home? They advertise it to your fellows in the church and other family members.

Or well your religion is prejudiced and backwards, love your kids and smile. :) Seems to be two of the more moderate options.

To cast out a child is extremely hard. It’s tearing out a piece of yourself.

It is my firm contention, that expelling an LGBT child is an extremely hard but occasionally necessary decision.

Why do you ask?

Because it’s not just the degenerate in question. It’s your conscience, the rest of your family’s conscience.

Else your faith may falter, and you may even lose it for your family member. Because you love them more.

God or family?

Taking Jesus’ words, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37

So what does this mean?

It means that if you have a gay or transgender child or family member, they won’t change. You pray; beg them, and do everything you can, but you will not become a sinner yourself.

You the Christian parent are left with no alternative but to cast them away from you.

If you have a gay sibling or transgender sister; you are obligated to expel them from your life, and act as if their very memory is a curse to forget.

So; yes expelling a gay child is a religious command.

If you aren’t willing to sever ties with an LGBT relative, to rip them from your heart-and count them as dead, you are unworthy of eternal life. You may continue to love them, but you are no longer obligated too. In fact it is better that you turn your back on them.

If a relative of mine came out as gay, and I was not willing to disown them, I would consider myself damned.

But what are everyone else’s thoughts?

Agree, disagree, agree with reservations?

Lord Invictus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disowning someone is easier than accepting your role in the development of a person into something wrong I suppose. It's easier to cast out the rape victim than look around for which of your brothers is the rapist. Easier to kill Hodur than admit Loki is evil.



Moral and mental degeneration is a state of misery and suffering, that harms and infects others and weakens the society. I wonder, what is it that a person deserves if they willingly allow someone else they are responsible for to enter into such a state through their selfish action or inaction?





No, no, I'm sure no one is to blame. Theres never any reason that anyone adopts a degenerate mode of behavior besides arriving at that conclusion a priori due to pure contextless choice or in-born mental deficiency.
 
Lord Invictus said:
This is a rather sensitive topic which is why I hope discussion will be fruitful.

www.google.com

The Forsaken: Gay Teens Shunned by Their Religious Families

While life gets better for millions of gays, the number of homeless LGBT teens - many cast out by their religious families - quietly keeps growing.
www.google.com www.google.com

So we have evidence those youth whom are homosexual or otherwise not heterosexual are booted out of their homes by religious parents.

This seems to be a rather common phenomena, in the US and elsewhere. After homosexual marriage was legalized, this apparently accelerated. Even in liberal New York.

So let’s discuss the ethics.

Familial love vs Religion.

Those who prioritize familial love would argue love of one’s child should outweigh and even cancel out religious duties. This has happened, where parents beliefs about these matters change, less due to being convinced their religion is wrong, but on the primal grounds of “I’ll give up my religious belief because I love my child more”.

The opposite is of course handing them over and casting them out.

It is proscribed in the Old Testament to cast the sinner out from among the community, and rebellious or degenerate children were stoned(as in pelted with rocks and killed).

In the New Testament, unrepentant sinners in the church are cast out. Until they repent they aren’t allowed fellowship, they aren’t to spoken too or eaten with. Don’t taint yourself by associating with someone unrepentant.

Sources.

biblehub.com

1 Corinthians 5:13 - Expel the Immoral Brother

God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.
biblehub.com



Anyway, back to the subject.

So what to do with an LGBT family member?

God or family?

Love them yes, always. But what if they won’t change? What if they insist on bringing their lover home? They advertise it to your fellows in the church and other family members.

Or well your religion is prejudiced and backwards, love your kids and smile. :) Seems to be two of the more moderate options.

To cast out a child is extremely hard. It’s tearing out a piece of yourself.

It is my firm contention, that expelling an LGBT child is an extremely hard but occasionally necessary decision.

Why do you ask?

Because it’s not just the degenerate in question. It’s your conscience, the rest of your family’s conscience.

Else your faith may falter, and you may even lose it for your family member. Because you love them more.

God or family?

Taking Jesus’ words, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37

So what does this mean?

It means that if you have a gay or transgender child or family member, they won’t change. You pray; beg them, and do everything you can, but you will not become a sinner yourself.

You the Christian parent are left with no alternative but to cast them away from you.

If you have a gay sibling or transgender sister; you are obligated to expel them from your life, and act as if their very memory is a curse to forget.

So; yes expelling a gay child is a religious command.

If you aren’t willing to sever ties with an LGBT relative, to rip them from your heart-and count them as dead, you are unworthy of eternal life. You may continue to love them, but you are no longer obligated too. In fact it is better that you turn your back on them.

If a relative of mine came out as gay, and I was not willing to disown them, I would consider myself damned.

But what are everyone else’s thoughts?

Agree, disagree, agree with reservations?

Lord Invictus
Click to expand...
As I understand it, according to Christian beliefs, it is not your place as a follower of God to judge others, but rather God's right alone. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" and all that.
 
And people wonder why LGBT is skeptical of the right. Shit like this.

When you have a kid, you have an obligation to care for them. Doesn't matter if they are a fuckup, as long as they are still a kid. There might be a point at which this can't happen (they are harming your other kids, for example, or do something especially heinous like murder), but outside of that, abandoning your kid is wrong.

But on top of that, there is the double standard. As far as I'm aware, having sex before marriage and homosexual sex are all about at the same level of badness, yet only one gets you tossed from the house. Now maybe a poster will claim that they'd throw out everyone equally, but looking at the statistics, that isn't generally the case. So from this we can see that the vast majority a kid is tossed out for being gay, it isn't because the family has a deep religious basis for it, but instead a selective morality that punishes being homosexual/trans harsher than having straight premarital sex. So putting on some pretense of this being religiously justified is laughable to me.

On the other hand, I suspect a number of the homeless are more runaways than castouts, fearing their families response because teens are melodramatic as hell, when the families actually would accept them.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to point out here that in most of these cases, the parents are throwing their kids out on the street but not actually legally disowning them, specifically so that they can maliciously interfere with the child's ability to obtain shelter and/or educational services. Because of the way student financial aid works, this also applies to students who are actually young adults -- even though the legal age of adulthood is 18, you're not considered financially independent for financial aid purposes until you're 24.

In one particularly notable case, a fundie family literally sued their transgender daughter for receiving health care, arguing in court that her having any medical treatment was against their will and that she was therefore legally obligated to go without.
 
Abhorsen said:
And people wonder why LGBT is skeptical of the right. Shit like this.
Click to expand...
1. Virtually no one wonders that.
2. If individuals spouting off fringe positions is enough to have some kind of deep effect on your political thought, thats on you, and you're almost certainly cherrypicking, because you will find individuals on the fringe spouting almost any conceivable position.
 
Shipmaster Sane said:
1. Virtually no one wonders that.
2. If individuals spouting off fringe positions is enough to have some kind of deep effect on your political thought, thats on you, and you're almost certainly cherrypicking, because you will find individuals on the fringe spouting almost any conceivable position.
Click to expand...

Virtually no one wonders that in those terms, no, but plenty of people criticize LGBT voters for consistently voting left. While Invictus' position is extreme even by right-wing standards, it's more "uncharacteristically blunt and maliciously worded" than actually outside the perceived mainstream of right wing positions with regard to LGBT people, and that very much *is* why LGBT voters consistently vote left.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
Virtually no one wonders that in those terms, no, but plenty of people criticize LGBT voters for consistently voting left. While Invictus' position is extreme even by right-wing standards, it's more "uncharacteristically blunt and maliciously worded" than actually outside the perceived mainstream of right wing positions with regard to LGBT people, and that very much *is* why LGBT voters consistently vote left.
Click to expand...
Yes well those are two very different propositions, and the position you describe is as misguided as the first. As you say, it's based on the perceived positions of the right, not the actual fact of positions on the right.
 
There is no right answer; too many variables factor into the decisions that lead to these, and similar, circumstances. To pass judgement on either party while asserting a position of moral superiority is no less disingenuous than the guilty pleading innocence.

It is an unsatisfying reality, but better to accept its imperfections and follow through with your own beliefs than cause more problems trying to find the perfect solution.
 
Syzygy said:
There is no right answer; too many variables factor into the decisions that lead to these, and similar, circumstances. To pass judgement on either party while asserting a position of moral superiority is no less disingenuous than the guilty pleading innocence.

It is an unsatisfying reality, but better to accept its imperfections and follow through with your own beliefs than cause more problems trying to find the perfect solution.
Click to expand...
See the reason this argument fails is I can copy and paste this argument and put it against any interactions between two people.

A husband shouldn't beat his wife, yet:
Syzygy said:
There is no right answer; too many variables factor into the decisions that lead to these, and similar, circumstances. To pass judgement on either party while asserting a position of moral superiority is no less disingenuous than the guilty pleading innocence.

It is an unsatisfying reality, but better to accept its imperfections and follow through with your own beliefs than cause more problems trying to find the perfect solution.
Click to expand...

An Islamic terrorist shouldn't behead his hostage, yet:
Syzygy said:
There is no right answer; too many variables factor into the decisions that lead to these, and similar, circumstances. To pass judgement on either party while asserting a position of moral superiority is no less disingenuous than the guilty pleading innocence.

It is an unsatisfying reality, but better to accept its imperfections and follow through with your own beliefs than cause more problems trying to find the perfect solution.
Click to expand...
etc.

This property makes your argument look like a bullshit generic copout, because it is a bullshit generic copout. In reality, just like my examples, it's easy to come to a conclusion about who's in the right and who's in the wrong in the vast majority of cases (spoiler: It's the parents).

As a parent, you have a duty to raise your kids, keep them healthy, provide shelter, etc. There are a few exceptions to this (detailed in my above post), but none apply when the only thing is that the kid is gay.
 
I mostly agree with the original poster here, but I also think that families should refrain from disowning a family member until they are of age.

If a child decides that they are gay or trans then a family should restrict the child's access to things like boyfriends/girlfriends, internet, ect. and try to get them help and stop engaging in sinful practices.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is biological of psychological, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Only in acting on those feelings.

We all have sinful urges and if gay people choose not to sin in spite of their own urges than that is worthy of respect. I have known of some homosexuals whose faith caused them to stay celibate and I am in awe of their conviction.

Even if they give into temptation and engage in gay activity, as long as they acknowledge what they did is wrong and they try to do better in the future then should still be given support.

But if someone reaches the age of majority and they decide to continue sinning without remorse, then they should be disowned.
 
I'm not going to argue the ethics of disowning a family member based solely on degeneracy. I have three sisters, one is a drug abusing hedonist, the second a Trump Supporting family woman who is a small business owner with her husband, and the third a former militant Radical feminist who now essentially lives as a hermit once her RadFem friends turned on her because she wasn't hardcore enough. Two of them I don't talk too.

The first one, obviously I don't talk with, not because she's a degenerate but because she stole 40 thousand dollars from me from my first deployment by stealing my banking information and depleting my account...while I was overseas. She did this with her boyfriend at the time to start their own little drug business... and on their first go at it...got caught. State police took all the money, she went to jail as an accessory , he dumped her...and I lost nearly everything. Luckily she got arrested before she sold off my car that had been fully paid off. So I guess I didn't lose everything...just almost everything.

Somehow my dad convinced me not to file charges; really played on the family ties and loyalty and not turning each other away. That she was sick and needed help. I was an idiot then and I listened.
But of course someone like her isn't ever sorry for what they do, only that they get caught. Not even two years later she's constantly hitting me up for more money whenever she got into a jam. Eventually I recognized her for the leach she was and had to just cut her out of my life. My Dad wont and he's lost nearly everything; two houses, 7 cars...and almost a hundred thousand in savings He's living in a crap run down house he's slowly restoring. All of his life savings lost to her. And she would have done the same to me without a moments hesitation.

The second sister? Surprisingly we don't talk that much either. Not because we've cut each other out of our lives, but because we're both busy with work and family. But we do occasionally talk and even planning to meet up soon.

The Third sister? She cut ties with me years ago when she hooked up with her Militant Radical Lesbian feminists. Called me a babykiller and wished the most horrible fate to happen to me, all because I was a man who wore the uniform. We haven't spoken since, but the door is open to her if she wants. But she's too proud to ever admit she's wrong. No skin off my back, I'm doing well without her.
 
Last edited:
Abhorsen said:
Okay, then how exactly do you square that with your previous statement?
Click to expand...
I've seen too many domestic disputes to know that casting a blanket of absolute morality on a generalized situation is stupid, it's an absurd simplification.

I agree that it is wrong to disown a child on the sole premise of being homosexual. Too often it is used as justification for deeper problems originating from both parties; there is always something else going on. I'm not going to pretend either parent or child in this particular example (so I would not use the same argument to justify the false equivalencies you presented, especially since I wouldn't not justify them at face value) are saints, because they are not. Just flawed people making bad decisions and for better or worse the parents simply have more leverage over their child.
 
Syzygy said:
I agree that it is wrong to disown a child on the sole premise of being homosexual. Too often it is used as justification for deeper problems originating from both parties; there is always something else going on. I'm not going to pretend either parent or child in this particular example (so I would not use the same argument to justify the false equivalencies you presented, especially since I wouldn't not justify them at face value) are saints, because they are not. Just flawed people making bad decisions and for better or worse the parents simply have more leverage over their child.
Click to expand...
Given that about half of homeless kids are LGBT, and they make up about 10% of the population at most, at least 90ish% of the time a gay kid is kicked out is because they are gay, not for other reasons.
 
The main concern, at least as far as religious devotion is concerned is matters of conscience, conscience, and conscience. Its why you have drama over cakes and bakeries.

Christians today aren't in the business of tying homosexuals to wooden pyres and setting them aflame, but rather "let he who is filthy be filthy still". They do not want to commit the sin of condoning. To bake the lgbt cake, or tolerate an unrepentant homosexual child is condoning their behavior.

Its a sin. According to Christian theology to condone sin, even someone else's.

Casting out a sinning child may be one of the hardest calls to make, but its not for the child's sake at that point, its for the parent's own accounting on the last day.

"Go out in the world, and make your choice as you will, we do not wish to be a party to it".
 
TyrantTriumphant said:
I mostly agree with the original poster here, but I also think that families should refrain from disowning a family member until they are of age.

If a child decides that they are gay or trans then a family should restrict the child's access to things like boyfriends/girlfriends, internet, ect. and try to get them help and stop engaging in sinful practices.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is biological of psychological, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Only in acting on those feelings.

We all have sinful urges and if gay people choose not to sin in spite of their own urges than that is worthy of respect. I have known of some homosexuals whose faith caused them to stay celibate and I am in awe of their conviction.

Even if they give into temptation and engage in gay activity, as long as they acknowledge what they did is wrong and they try to do better in the future then should still be given support.

But if someone reaches the age of majority and they decide to continue sinning without remorse, then they should be disowned.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is generally a result of being sexually abused, when your child says they're gay, it is time to start looking for who touched them.


Which you allowed to happen by your ignorance or inaction.
 
Spartan303 said:
I'm not going to argue the ethics of disowning a family member based solely on degeneracy. I have three sisters, one is a drug abusing hedonist, the second a Trump Supporting family woman who is a small business owner with her husband, and the third a former militant Radical feminist who now essentially lives as a hermit once her RadFem friends turned on her because she wasn't hardcore enough. Two of them I don't talk too.

The first one, obviously I don't talk with, not because she's a degenerate but because she stole 40 thousand dollars from me from my first deployment by stealing my banking information and depleting my account...while I was overseas. She did this with her boyfriend at the time to start their own little drug business... and on their first go at it...got caught. State police took all the money, she went to jail as an accessory , he dumped her...and I lost nearly everything. Luckily she got arrested before she sold off my car that had been fully paid off. So I guess I didn't lose everything...just almost everything.

Somehow my dad convinced me not to file charges; really played on the family ties and loyalty and not turning each other away. That she was sick and needed help. I was an idiot then and I listened.
But of course someone like her isn't ever sorry for what they do, only that they get caught. Not even two years later she's constantly hitting me up for more money whenever she got into a jam. Eventually I recognized her for the leach she was and had to just cut her out of my life. My Dad wont and he's lost nearly everything; two houses, 7 cars...and almost a hundred thousand in savings He's living in a crap run down house he's slowly restoring. All of his life savings lost to her. And she would have done the same to me without a moments hesitation.

The second sister? Surprisingly we don't talk that much either. Not because we've cut each other out of our lives, but because we're both busy with work and family. But we do occasionally talk and even planning to meet up soon.

The Third sister? She cut ties with me years ago when she hooked up with her Militant Radical Lesbian feminists. Called me a babykiller and wished the most horrible fate to happen to me, all because I was a man who wore the uniform. We haven't spoken since, but the door is open to her if she wants. But she's too proud to ever admit she's wrong. No skin off my back, I'm doing well without her.
Click to expand...

Your family need not necessarily be those with blood ties

If anything them being your family shouldn’t factor into your judgement of them as people

Otherwise it’s not so different from nepotism or promoting friends and family to high positions they’ll screw up or covering their backs due to said relations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top