Question for Christians

[syntex72]

I was talking to my aunt and I asked what she though my family would dis-own me for first; "Being Gay or having a black boyfriend?"

This got me thinking some and I was wondering what is better/worse for a fundie..

A) Daughter that is a good girl, polite and quiet but gay.

or

B) "Bad Girl" daughter is a slut?

Which would be worse to a fundie?

I assume having a gay daughter would be easier for fundies than having a gay son. Mind you I am not talking about a flaming queen, but a normal gay son vs normal gay daughter.

what are your opinions?

[SPHASH]

I would think having a gay child would be worse than having a black significant other to a fundie. Speaking as a liberal Christian if I had a child that was gay I would accept them they way they are and wish them all the happiness there is.

[Coco]

They would definitely take slutty girl over gay girl. Because slutty can be "repented of", and they'll learn the "error of their ways". :roll:

[syntex72]

Sphash: my dads side of the family is very intolerant of interracial couplings. This why we laughed when I asked her, because we arent sure who would get shot at first.

coco- wouldnt they think she is to 'far gone' but they can pray the gay away with the other?

[Firiel]

I think they'd rather have a bad/"slutty" (Christian) daughter than a "good" (Christian) gay daughter. Sluts can still go to heaven and will eventually "settle down." Gay people can't go to heaven, and "settling down" doesn't help anything.

I imagine that's the case with my family, anyway.

[Coco]

That's true they think it's a lifestyle choice. Gosh now my head hurts trying to think like a fundie :angry-banghead:

i was one, and it still hurts to imagine...

[Jana814]

I would have to say gay. Mostly cause I'm sure their whole lives they have been told that being gay is wrong.

[formergothardite]

From my experience, being gay is worse. A wild child can get brought back into the fold, forgiven and then have a powerful testimony. The polite, happy gay daughter who starts a family, gives back to the community and lives a full life, there is no hope for her. Going to hell.

[louisa05]

From my experience, being gay is worse. A wild child can get brought back into the fold, forgiven and then have a powerful testimony. The polite, happy gay daughter who starts a family, gives back to the community and lives a full life, there is no hope for her. Going to hell.

Oh, yes. Never underestimate the power of the rebellion-hit rock bottom-come back to Jesus testimony. It is so important that some people just make up the first two parts or greatly embellish. A youth pastor who was a frequent chapel speaker at the Christian school I taught at had his testimony "evolve", over the six years I heard him regularly, from typical middle class Christmas/Easter only Catholic family and a few drinking parties in high school to abusive pagan parents and hard drug addiction. The first version just wasn't dramatic enough.

And slutty daughter might have a baby outside of marriage who, after the return to Jesus, can be held up by grandma and grandpa as proof of their deep anti-abortion commitment. I've seen that, too. Grandchild can even be used as a great sign bearer at rallies regardless of age. And some good Christian guy can marry daughter and thus redeem her and the child and become a super star of forgiving grace himself--now there are two powerful testimonies.

Polite, quiet, well-adjusted gay daughter, on the other hand, presents the problem of not only being a great sinner but living a non-eventful life that might lead someone to believe that gay people are not the scourge of humanity who are destroying America. Can't have that.

[Mama Mia]

Your thread title says your asking this question of Christians, but your question certainly implies a certain type of Christian. Do you mean all Christians, or only fundamentalists? Cause it's not the same thing. At all.

[karismanic]

Does the gay daughter have a partner? In my home church, as long as the daughter remained celibate, there would technically be no sin. Also, the parents would be able to just sat she was called to singleness. In that way, the gay daughter would be the "better" option from my legalistic past.

[16strong]

From my experience, being gay is worse. A wild child can get brought back into the fold, forgiven and then have a powerful testimony. The polite, happy gay daughter who starts a family, gives back to the community and lives a full life, there is no hope for her. Going to hell.

But...but... Xgaygreg has a powerful testimony! :lol:

[Jana814]

From my experience, being gay is worse. A wild child can get brought back into the fold, forgiven and then have a powerful testimony. The polite, happy gay daughter who starts a family, gives back to the community and lives a full life, there is no hope for her. Going to hell.

Makes sense.

[neuroticcat]

Hmmmm...I don't know. Maybe the fundie-universe would implode if you asked this question. Which evil to choose? ha!

I think in fundie-land, the "good" gay girl would be better, because if she was a "good" fundie, she would be deep in the closet and would never act out. No one might ever know she was gay. Whereas the "bad" girl would be acting out and everyone could see.

But if you abstractly asked a fundie whether being gay was worse than being sexually immoral, I think they'd probably say being gay was the worst thing ever. After all, there are some Bible-heroes who were sexually immoral and repented, but the gay people got Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone (tiny liberal Christian rant - the prophets condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for not taking care of the poor and for injustice).

Outside of fundie-land, I think you'd get a wide range of answers from Christians.

[HoneyBunny]

Hell, the world stopped spinning at my parents' house the day I told them I was marrying a non-Catholic. I think it might have been easier for them if I had been a lesbian...as long as I went to Mass every day.

[Toothfairy]

Being gay is much worse. You can't reprogram sexuality. You can reprogram slutty behavior, whatever that means. Off to journey.

[RosyDaisy]

Here's a good one, a woman living with her fiancée, fiancée has a lesbian sister with a long term partner she lives with. Yeah, I get some flack from that. My family is accepting of it, so is my fiancée's family. But the fundie family members never cease to tell us we're all going to hell. I just walk away. I'm not going to give them fuel for an argument. They are looking for a fight, and I'm not going to give them one.

[syntex72]

After all, there are some Bible-heroes who were sexually immoral and repented, but the gay people got Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone (tiny liberal Christian rant - the prophets condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for not taking care of the poor and for injustice) .

The bible never defines or remotely mentions what sins where/had been going on in the cites of Sodom and Gomorrah. The only briefly reference a possible homosexual scenario when 2 men approach the house asking to have the angles so they may 'know them.' This is often a misinterpreted story that is taken to mean what ever fits in to it.

Wikipedia-under christain

Christian

Several theories have been advanced in Christian thought concerning the sin of Sodom. One area of dispute is whether the mob was demanding the homosexual rape of Lot’s guests. A second area of dispute is whether the act of homosexuality or the act of inhospitality and violence toward foreigners is the more significant ethical downfall of Sodom.[40][41]

The first contention between the two positions primarily focuses upon the meaning of the Hebrew verb ידע (yada), translated as know in the King James Version:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. —Gen 19:5

Some Hebrew scholars believe that yada, unlike the English word know, requires the existence of a "personal and intimate relationship".[42] For this reason, many of the most popular of the 20th century translations, including the New International Version, the New King James Version, and the New Living Translation, translate yada as "have sex with" or "know ... carnally" in Gen 19:5 [43]

Those who favor the non-sexual interpretation argue against a denotation of sexual behavior in this context, noting that while the Hebrew word for know appears over 900 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, only approximately 1% (13-14 times)[34][44] of those references is it clearly used as a euphemism for realizing sexual intimacy.[45] Instead, those who hold to this interpretation usually see the demand to know as demanding the right to interrogate the strangers.[46]

Countering this is the observation that one of the examples of know meaning to know sexually occurs when Lot responds to the Gen 19:5 request, only three verses later in the same narrative:

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8

The following is a major text in regard to these conflicting opinions:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7

This reference to "going after strange flesh" is understood in different ways to include something akin to bestiality, having illicit sex with strangers, having sex with angels, but most often God's destruction of the populations of the four cities is interpreted to mean homosexual (same-sex) relations.[47]

Many who interpret the stories in a non-sexual context contend that as the word for "strange" is akin to "another", "other", "altered" or even "next", the meaning is unclear, and if the condemnation of Sodom was the result of sexual activities perceived to be perverse, then it is likely that it was because women sought to commit fornication with "other than human" angels,[48] perhaps referring to Genesis 6 or the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Countering this, it is pointed out that Genesis 6 refers to angels seeking women, not men seeking angels, and that both Sodom and Gomorrah were engaged in the sin Jude describes before the angelic visitation, and that, regardless, it is doubtful that the Sodomites knew they were angels. In addition, it is argued the word used in the King James Version of the Bible for "strange", can mean unlawful or corrupted (Rm. 7:3; Gal. 1:6), and that the apocryphal Second Book of Enoch (different from the one Jude quotes from) condemns "sodomitic" sex (Enoch 10:3; 34:1),[49] thus indicating that homosexual relations was the prevalent physical sin of Sodom.[50]

Both the non-sexual and the homosexuality view invoke certain classical writings as well as other portions of the Bible.[51][52]

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50

Here the nonsexual view focuses on the inhospitality aspect, while the other notes the description detestable or abomination, the Hebrew word for which often denotes moral sins, including those of a sexual nature.[53][54]

In the Gospel of Matthew (and corresponding verse) when Jesus warns of a worse judgment for some cities than Sodom, inhospitality is perceived by some as the sin, while others see it fundamentally being impenitence:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. —Matthew 10:14-15

The nonsexual view focuses on the cultural importance of hospitality, which this biblical story shares with other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.[55]

Within the Christian Churches that agree on the possible sexual interpretation of know (yada) in this context, there is still a difference of opinion on whether homosexuality is important. The Anglican Communion, on its website, presents the argument that the story is "not even vaguely about homosexual love or relationships", but instead "about dominance and rape, by definition an act of violence, not of sex or love." This argument that the violence and threat of violence to foreign visitors is the true ethical downfall of Sodom (and not homosexuality), also observes the similarity between the Sodom and Gomorrah and the Battle of Gibeah Bible stories. In both stories, an inhospitable mob demands the homosexual rape of a foreigner or foreigners. As the mob instead settles for the rape and murder of the foreigner’s female concubine in the Battle of Gibeah story, the homosexual aspect is generally seen as inconsequential, and the ethical downfall is understood to be the violence and threat of violence to foreigners by the mob. This Exodus 22:21-24 lesson is viewed as a more historically accurate way to interpret the Sodom and Gomorrah story.[40][56]

[laura oz]

What a great post! Two big thumbs up. I wish I had a photographic memory so I could debate more effectively.

[neuroticcat]

Yes, this was the passage I was thinking of:

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50

[scc12]

Re: I was talking to my aunt and I asked what she though my family would dis-own me for first; "Being Gay or having a black boyfriend?"

I think most fundies would disown for the gay first.I could be wrong tho.

This got me thinking some and I was wondering what is better/worse for a fundie..

A) Daughter that is a good girl, polite and quiet but gay.

or

B) "Bad Girl" daughter is a slut?

Which would be worse to a fundie?

B I would think.Nice polite girl they can keep quiet.'Ok,so you're gay,just don' tell anyone!"

B would be out there being obvious about what she does,I would presume.

I assume having a gay daughter would be easier for fundies than having a gay son. Mind you I am not talking about a flaming queen, but a normal gay son vs normal gay daughter.

perhaps.They might could get away with 'she's just a tomboy' if she has short hair,wears pants,etc.

A guy who is flamboyant might be harder to explain.

That is presuming they fit those images.I've seen plenty of gay men and women whom I never would have guessed were gay.