Being gay a choice -- blog post
 

This is not by me. I know this has been discussed many times before on TFP but this is just sickening to me. I have been going to this guy's site for over 10 years and this is enough to make me never want to go back.

What does this stem from? Being highly religious? Is it taught from parents? Is it him being afraid? I think some people are simply too afraid to think for themselves. Too afraid to think for themselves because they may just realize that widely adopted beliefs are fucking stupid in many cases. If you think being gay is a choice, you're a fucking idiot and can go to hell. Thanks

/rant

That whole thing makes me mad... but I also feel bad for his kids. He's so afraid of others teaching them tolerance.

No, they don't need other assholes... they've got one now trying to teach them. :no:

where does it come from? who knows.. it could be religious, it could be the fact that he talks with a lisp and has a stack of fashion mags on his table and he's just trying to deny everything and made up this entry to try and deter people into thinking he's a hetero stud.

You know I was thinking the same thing. Notice how he harps on the fact that lots of people have gay feelings but choose not to act on them and thus they aren't gay. I wonder if he's one of them. If he is I think it is really sad at how he is living his life by torturing himself mentally into thinking he is straight for no reason.

I won't be having anyone tell my kids that it's ok either.

Why? What if one of your kids is gay?

I think he just contradicting himself through out the whole damn thing, if its a choice then let them choose!!! why would you have to tell them that its wrong to choose???
You choose to like your girlfriend/boyfriend, you choose what you want to become, it doesnt matter if being gay is right or wrong let them choose for themself. The dude just said its that its his right to think that gay is right or wrong or to support it and what not, then give your kids the right to choose too! By teaching the kid that its okay to be gay, it just telling them that who ever you grow up to be, the society will accept you. Its not like oooo if you think you are gay then you should be gay :S

I dont see how that effect anybody in anyway. I rather would have my friend choose to be gay if that make he/she happy.

If his kids grow up to be gay, would that make it wrong then??? Would he force his kid to marry the different sex even if they are gay, and according to the arse hole that taught them, its wrong and they that they should NOT CHOOSE to be gay?????

the blog is just wrong

I'll post birth abort his ass.:thumbsup:

No, I don't know what I'd do. I'd be pissed. I personally think it has a lot to do with how children are raised and their enviornment.

And yes it is about religion.

Is this to say you'd be pissed because you'd be holding yourself partially responsible, since you think it has something to do with how children are raised?

Whoa whoa. You want your kids to be taught that being gay is NOT ok. So do you believe it is a choice?

If it is not a choice, and some shocking/scarring event that they experienced while growing up in their environment caused them to be gay, is it still NOT ok?

I've had discussions around this topic with my wife. What would we do if one of our kids was gay? The short answer, nothing much. I mean, what can you do? I grew up in an era ('60's & '70's ) where being gay was an object of ridicule. Even now, depending on where you live, being gay and being a visible minority brings you equal amounts of challenge. I happen to live in a city that is fairly enlightened, and by sheer numbers, is forced to be accepting.

If it is a lifestyle choice, and that's the way they want to go, you risk alienating one of your own through disapproval. If it is not a lifestyle choice (and I can't pretend to be an expert here, but I understand that there is ongoing debate on the source of homosexuality) the same argument holds true.

I love my children, and that is unconditional. What I will keep a close eye on, however, is if any of them is being taken advantage of. This is where I will voice my concern. And the door is open to them to come to me for guidance. I can't promise that I will be some super enlightened being, but I can be supportive and protective.

Heck, I just attended my first Dir en Grey concert last weekend with my oldest son because all his friends bagged out on him. If I can bring myself to enjoy an evening of Japanese glam/thrash rock, just so he's not alone, I thnk I can plumb some depths.

Wow, at least you're honest. Hateful sentiment like this saddens me :sad:

And hey, I think we can all agree that Japanese glam/thrash rock is definitely a "lifestyle choice." :) Not that there's anything wrong with that either! Since when did it matter "why" people are a certain way? If that's who they are, it's who they are.

Religion, eh? Define unconditional love for me. Do you think Jesus gives a shit about what gender the two people are who love each other? Really?

(I do not believe being gay is a choice, just to get that out there.)

I had a religious nut neighbor who would tell his kids, starting at age five, that he would have to disown them if they turned out "that way."

Sad.

wow..this thread has turned.. umm.. sad.

in the bible homosexuality is listed as an abomination so I guess that's where the religious aspect comes in.. but it's kind of weird considering jesus died for everyone and loves everyone.. :rolleyes:

I don't care if my kids are gay, straight, bi or whatever.. they are still my flesh and blood and I will love them as such..

Agreed.

Who am I to judge?

"Judge not, least ye be judged"

Oh and I am not religious either, but some things serve many purposes.

I have a friend whose father actually did that, when the kid came out at 17. It was my good friend's younger brother, and they came from a very evangelical household. The father disowned the son, the son dropped out of high school and ended up on a very bad path for a long time. Eventually the father came around and accepted his son again, and now they get along somewhat... but some very serious damage has been done to their relationship, and it will never be the same between them again. Such unnecessary pain.

EDIT: FYI for all of you who don't know, I was very much a religious nut for a good part of my life, and I still have many friends "in the fold" who are as Christian as they come--and for them, that calling means that they support and welcome people as they are, gay, straight, or otherwise, because they know that Christ would have them do the same. All of them were against Prop 8 in California.

I'm spiritual but not particularly religious.

I think it's a mix of genetic and environmental factors (so partially a choice, but not entirely).

I'm bisexual and don't think it's wrong (the reverse is not mutually exclusive).

I think it's perfectly fine for parents to teach their kids that it is not ok with their religion, so long as they're not encouraging intolerance. I.e., I can tell my kids "There's nothing wrong with kids who stay up til 4am but you're not doing that in my house." I understand it's not a perfect parallel, but I think there's a VERY fine line between teaching that you (because of your religion) don't support something/think it's a sin, etc., and preaching intolerance.

I think I'm going to throw myself to the wolves here, and hop on the other side of the fence.

I'll preface this - I have a couple of gay friends, and have no issue with it personally, however....

I see a lot of folks up in arms about how saddening it is to teach kids to be intolerant. Perhaps it's because I'm not a parent, but I imagine if I have values that I hold near and dear to my heart, I'll do my damndest to instill those same values in my kids.

If it happens that I, for whatever reason - religion, personal, what have you - am intolerant to homosexuals - I don't think it is necessarily an atrocity to try and teach my children to be like minded.

On a personal level, there are a lot of parents out there that teach - and tolerate - a lot of things that I don't think I would or could. Case in point? Kid sized thong underwear. Some folks out there would disagree with me, but I absolutely have no use for it, and and digusted by it even existing. I certainly hope that my (future) child will respect and eventually share that belief. I don't see a significant difference between that and hoping my children share other values, be it my views on other cultures, sexuality, religion, or anything else. I know it's out there, and I don't preach to parents about whether or not I think it's appropriate for their 9 year old to be in a thong - ultimately, it's their decision.

By the same token, isn't exhibiting an intolerant attitude for people teaching their children to be intolerant..... intolerant?

Intolerance for others, unfortunately, is a short step away from hatred for me. I'm sorry, but being unaccepting of someone else based on one aspect of their life that hurts no one else is unacceptable in my house. I have two kids. If either or both of them are gay, that's fine by me. It will make me sad because I will know that they'll have a lifetime of pain dealing with the bigots in the OP and that have posted in this thread.

Yes, I said bigots. Because that's what you are. You're prepared to hate my kids without even knowing them. And that makes you suck because they're the two most wonderful people in the world.

And if they end up straight, I'm going to do my best as a parent to make sure that they're nothing like you.

Jazz, are you channeling Keith Olbermann?

That douche? I hope not.

There are numerous studies linking homesexual orientation to genetic and hormonal deviations from heterosexual individuals. The author seems to espouse the view that homosexuality is merely a behavior, which is blatantly false. To state that homosexuality has no biological basis is to defy the vast majority of scientific progress on the subject.

I would be disinclined to continue reading that author's material without critically processing the information. Riddled with logical fallacies and factual errors.

Oh dear. I just imagined Olbermann's voice and visualized his facial expression while scanning over "Yes, I said bigots. Because that's what you are. You're prepared to..." and you're entirely right, abaya. No offense, Jazz. :D

I appreciate the convenient scapegoat that god makes for being a bigot.

"It's not that I have a problem with the gays, it's just there's this guy, see, well, actually he's, like, a diety, and he totally doesn't like it when people are the gays, so even though I don't have a problem with the gays personally, this diety-guy is the only person who will let me get, like, eternal salvation, and so 'the dude most definitely can't abide'".

Anyone who doesn't like gays for Christian reasons and still wears mixed cloth clothing is a liar.

So, if your kid is gay, it's YOUR fault.
That would absolve your kid, at least and the only one you'd have a right to be pissed at is yourself.



/me refrains from the obvious...

Gotta say, I quite agree with this. I consider myself religious, and I would have zero problem with any of my kids being gay, and I've worked damn hard to further gay rights.

One of my problems is that this kind of intolerance is not a facet of "religion," it is a facet of fundamentalist religion. Religion does not have to be fundamentalist, and schmucks like this dude in the blog give all us religious people a bad name. The simple fact is that nobody chooses to be gay, and if that's so, how can God really have that kind of a problem with it? What kind of God would create people who have no chance at all not to be sinners unless they spend their lives in miserable self-denial and loneliness? No God I would pray to, that's for sure. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in God, or that I don't think it's important to try and live our lives in a more holy way. God might want difficult things from you, but I just can't believe He's out to fuck you over from the outset.

And as for people, intolerance is intolerance. You can spray a turd with perfume, but it won't smell any better on the inside. If you don't like gay people, fine. But don't pretend it's anything other than pure homophobia.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this issue makes me a bit hot under the collar, so to speak....

"Gay or straight, if you cut us, do we not bleed?"
"There are many mansions in my Father's House."
And so on....
There are many saying in the bible that are wonderfully inclusive, and then a few here and there that
are specifically against exclusive.
Man on man love is forbidden. MASTURBATION is expressly forbidden. Read up on Onan.
Look at this board, and it's sexual slant. Much of what's here, one could find a passage against it in the Bible
if so inclined.
The Bible was written by people, with people's inclinations and dislikes.

Religion is the excuse for the hate in the heart.

That being said, I like the laws here in Canada, and hope you guys in the States come around, when it
comes to homosexuality.

This is a great post, levite.

Actually, the sin of Onan is often misunderstood. It isn't about masturbation. It's that Onan was unwilling to impregnate his dead brother's wife.

I like you. :) I have many friends who are religious, or whatever term you prefer - you know, people who really believe in God and Christ and go to church even when it's not a holiday. And we're friends because they feel the way you do.

Although, NoSoup brings up a fascinating point - if a person truly believes that being gay is wrong (even if I think they're a dumbass for caring about someone else's personal life but I digress) - if they believe that in their heart, how can they not teach that to their children? It only makes sense. I just wish they could find a way to do it without making it a fear thing.

Yes, this is entirely true! The "sin of Onan" was not masturbation, it was his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate marriage. Levirate (from the Latin levir, meaning "brother-in-law") was a sacred obligation in the time of the pre-Israelite patriarchs, and was a mitzvah (a commandment) in Biblical Judaism and until modern times in Rabbinic Judaism. If a married man died without having fathered children, his next-eldest brother had the responsibility to marry the widow and father children upon her, which children would be accounted legally as the descendants of his deceased brother. This was a key methodology of preserving genealogies in a clan-kinship society.

It was not until the Church Fathers were interpreting text for Christians that Onan's sin became associated incorrectly with masturbation.

Although the Torah states that a man who has emitted semen is ritually impure (that is, there are certain ritual functions he is unable to perform until he has washed himself and waited until sunset), there is certainly no prohibition in the Torah, nor any clear prohibition in the Talmud, forbidding masturbation. Such customary prohibitions as have arisen in traditional Judaism did so in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, largely in response to Christian social norms. There is no clear reason why masturbation ought to be forbidden, and thus it should be permitted. And if this is true of men, how much more so of women's masturbation, about which no traditional Jewish authority has ever even acknowledged its existence.

I personally believe that if God did not want you to masturbate, your hands would grow directly out of your shoulders.


*reaches for lube*

Cool. Is that what's meant about "spilling seed onto the barren Earth"?
He pulled out?
Or he jerked off rather than impregnating his bro's wife?

Charl, I believe you, sorry if I seem abrupt.
Grey Cup and all....

This stems from being a religious nut and being a homophobe. Probably a homophobe because of the religion he is a member of.

I can drop the following quote and it fits perfectly:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

Much of what I want to say has already been expressed here, but I just wanted to make things a bit clear if there is any doubt: One cannot choose to be gay any sooner than another can choose to be straight.

Do we choose heterosexuality too?

Exactly. I'll believe it's possible to be choose homosexuality the day I wake up and can choose to find men attractive. Simply seeing an attractive lady triggers something inside me, an attraction. I have yet to have that trigger go off on sight of any dude. Simply not wired that way. I don't believe that changeable. In short I don't think you make a gay person straight or straight person gay. It's not a choice and not an option. It's just who you are- end of story.

The problem with saying it's a choice is... who on earth would CHOOSE to be discriminated against because of who you love? Who would choose to be legally unable to marry the person you're in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with (okay, I know hetero people who choose not to marry, but at least they have the option.) Who would choose to be beaten up, ridiculed, and in some cases killed... all because of who you love?

...that just doesn't make sense to me. And to teach kids that it's NOT okay to be gay? Well, if they're straight, you just taught them to treat gays with less respect than straights. And if they ARE gay, you just gave them a lifetime of struggling with their true identity. How is that okay? I'm not saying we should add Gay Pride classes to the school curriculum or anything, but seriously... these are human beings we're talking about.

I really do see the logic in the blog post. It's not illogical, it just isn't empathetic. True as he says, one can choose not to act on homosexual tendencies. They can choose not to have sex with men, give men blowjobs, or even hold hands with men. For these people, its a behavior in excess, just like alcoholism or addiction. To them, they believe these 'tendencies' can be (and should be) controlled in order to keep society from dissolving into a hedonistic mess. Just like we teach people to drink responsibly and counsel them away from alcoholism, it can be done with homosexuality.

There are plenty of alcoholics who have been counseled, received years of therapy, and yet still struggle with the urge to drink every single day. We say they're better off, avoiding that tendency that they have to do the "evil" things. Why can't we say this about homosexuality? Certainly it can be counseled away in the same way as any addiction.

Up to this point, I'm serious. I think it follows logically that ANY behavior, whether alcoholism or homosexuality, CAN be counseled away. Someone CAN learn to ignore their tendencies and their desires, can control themselves into being "normal" members of society.

But its at this point that I separate from their view; SHOULD we? There's a big difference between being able to and doing so. In cases of alcoholism and other addiction, we say YES, we should help these people because their addiction ultimately brings them suffering, and offers them only temporary glimpses of happiness. By counseling them from this bad behavior, they might be able to establish a mean level of happiness and go to enjoy the rest of their life.

But in the question of homosexuality, it is a much more ingrained behavior. It's sexuality, something that most people couldn't resist of the urge of, even with years and years of counseling. We should say "NO" with empathy, simply because training someone to struggle every day to go against who they feel they are or who they feel they love does NOT help them, and it doesn't help society. The benefits do not outweigh the costs, not by a long shot.

Many of the same people who believe we SHOULD counsel homosexuality way would live in absolute agony for the rest of their existence if someone told them they couldn't have sex with women, or that they should resist it with all their being. It brings very little positive result and a dramatic amount of negative result. It would result in a daily struggle which would ultimately cause more mental issues than it would stop.

I really don't see the logic in promoting mental illness in my fellow citizens, so I cannot follow the blog's argument all the way through. People already encounter a mind-numbing amount of mental stress without the pressure of pretending day in and day out to be something you aren't.

Ted Haggard is a perfect example; after being removed from his position at New Life Church for his admitted 'sins' of homosexuality with a male prostitute, he's emerged from therapy "as a complete heterosexual." I don't wish this sort of cognitive dissonance on anyone, and I'm convince that no matter what he says or expresses outwardly, I believe his entire inner being is wracked with the pain of a life-long delusion that he must once again maintain for the world.

Well said.

The whole argument that being gay is wrong is based on emotional based shit learned early in life and passed down for generations, IMO. Logically it's ludicrous on its base.

I think the fact that these people are willing to force an entire lifetime of suffering and mental anguish on someone pretending to be something they aren't, just so they can feel that they're living in a "pure" society free of "sin", is the most cruel thing any human being can inflict on another.

Perfect post by Jazz. There should be no doubt, intolerant people are bigots. It is just as wrong as teaching your children that black people are bad. Schools should not be expected to cater to bigots, no matter what the majority opinion is in the country. If you dont' like it you can homeschool, private school, or do public charter schools.

Finally, I don't see why people care if it is a choice or not.

It's threads like this when I really miss Gilda. Wonder how she's doing these days.

I think Tully's last point pretty much sums up the issue for me. My wife is a teacher and I've seen kids in her schools as young as four acting in ways that simply can't be described as anything but gay. A kid from a fundamentalist Muslim family who likes to paint his nails, wear dresses and otherwise acts like a five year old girl instead of a five year old buy sure as shit didn't "learn" that behavior from his family or "choose" to be that way in some conscious sense.

And, to put it another way, EVEN IF being gay is a choice, we treat your creed or religion the same way we treat someone's race. It gets strict scrutiny, you can't discriminate against people on the basis of it. If being gay or straight is a "lifestyle choice" it's without question a more fundamental and baseline choice than the choice of which god to believe in. To take this lovely conversation to a ridiculous extreme, if we're not going to protect people's personal choices about who they fuck which have no impact on anyone else, there shouldn't be any protection for religion either.

That is to say, even if we could all agree that it's a choice and not physiologically ingrained (though I think it's much more the latter than the former), we have no problem at all protecting fundamental choices and the mere fact that it is a choice should not automatically end the discussion of whether or not it should be protected, as is argued above.

Why are any of you people any less bigoted than the anti-gay poster? You rail against his opinions and make judgements on his character.

He simply made a choice, for whatever reason, to think this way. But why couldn't his nature have led him to this choice also? Saying things are all right just based on genetic tendencies is kind of a slippery slope don't you think?

I don't agree that gay folk are bad, but he's got the right to think so, or our freedoms of speech and religion are just so much crap on a cracker. If we have a right to believe something, then we have a right to believe that everybody else is wrong. Otherwise we will all have to believe all of the same things. Who then gets to choose what is right? I guess our benevolent government will figure out what is best for us to believe and instil all of these things into our children for us. Etc......

Intolerance is also a choice, live with it. When people are free to choose, then they will make choices we don't agree with. Some of those choices will make us mad, one way or another.

No, it's full of logical fallacies.

I am more than happy for him to feel any way he wants to about gays. I am more than happy for him to shout from the rooftops how he feels about gays. He can hate them to the core, and join a church that won't let them get married and I'm happy for both him and his church and every member to feel that way. I disapprove, but I'll defend their right to say it.

There are two problems, though.

The first is he's wrong, and while beliefs are something I'm happy to let people express and have no matter what they are, ignorance and beliefs based on ignorance are dangerous. I have never met a gay person who expressed his sexual orientation as a choice, just as I've never expressed mine as a choice. It supposes that every person at some point in his life has a moment where he says "Am I attracted to girls or guys?" and then decides on one, and that gay people pick improperly and ought to train themselves to pick the other, because that's the "right" choice.

Second, he wants to deprive people of something which our courts have described as a "fundamental right" because he believes it is wrong and because he thinks they have some sort of agency about who turns them on. I like speech. I like people to express themselves. I don't like it when expression infringes on the rights of others. For the life of me, I cannot conceive how two men or women getting married has any impact whatsoever on the lives of anyone other than them or their friends. This is not rape or theft or murder or harassment. There is no victim, just like there was no victim when a black man and a white woman got married. My how society has collapsed since we legalized that nonsense.

And, I guess if none of that matters and I have to be a bigot against a group, I'm ok with being a bigot against bigots.

So in my hypothetical where I have two gay kids, I'm wrong to be outraged that someone would hate my kids? Or, to remove the hypothetical, to be outraged that this guy seemingly hates any kids that happen to be gay?

He's got a right to his opinion. I've got a right to mine. However, mine doesn't lead to lynch mobs or hate crimes. Guess whose does.

I'm noticing a lot of logical fallacies here. To each their own.

Exactly!! I don't care if people have their own opinions as long as they're educated, researched, and factual based in cases of this magnitude. But the fact of the matter is that this guy is flat out wrong. Being gay isn't a choice. Acting gay if you are gay is a choice but the actual orientation of liking the same sex in a sexual way is completely out of one's control. He can have his own opinion about this sure, but his opinion is unjust and invalid because he's simply wrong about the fundamental fact surrounding it.

Well you might have to convince this guy he is wrong, and ignorant. Good luck there. There is no requirement for freedom of choice, that you be educated. Plus who is going to educate you that you are wrong?

Let's not lose sight of freedom here. If you believe in freedom, then you must allow someone the freedom to remain ignorant. That person has the freedom to choose wrongly (by whatever stick you have to measure wrongness with), and that choice might just lead them to do something illegal. Can't be helped. The true price of freedom. Once that person does something illegal you then take his/her freedoms away. This has no bearing on a person's choice to believe a thing. Once you start telling people what they can and can't believe you've given up the ghost of freedom and are on the road to fascism, well meaning or not.

I don't believe our public schools should teach that being gay is good or bad, that should be up to the parents, and ultimately the individual. If science teaches that it is natural, which it is, then that should be taught, without the judgement of right/wrong. Same thing with evolution, etc. If you don't like it, then please go to a forum which supports your idiocy, err. ideology.

I honestly wish our government would not be involved in marriage anyway. No tax breaks for a choice in living arrangements. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious rite, or I guess it could be a non-religious contract with your spouse. I do think the government should make parents responsible for their kids, regardless of marriage.

Personally, I don't have time for bigots either, but I would be afraid of anyone that feels justified taking away their right to believe, for their own good, ya know.

Sorry, didn't mean to threadjack.....
-----Added 4/12/2008 at 03 : 11 : 01-----

You are not wrong to be outraged, but it really does no good to get pissed, does it?

Does it always lead to lynch mobs and hate crimes? Even most of the time? By the way I only believe in crimes. Hate is a separate issue and should only be used to establish motive. Hate itself is not a crime. Is murder any less loathsome because someone hated another person, or just because you wanted something from that person? Some people murder out of what they would call love. Does that make it better? I don't think so.

All this reminds me of some lines from The American President (not the best movie, but...):
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."

That kind of sums it up.

Listen, as long as people's personal choices don't affect my life, let them be. live and let live is the philosophy. So, why do we care if the decision is about religion, sexuality, and/or politics? As long as your decisions don't infringe on my decisions, who the hell am I to have an opinion. Go on and make LOVE to whomever you choose (consensual and legal of course), vote for any party you like, pray to whichever god you like, as long as I'm extended the same freedoms I'm happy; isn't that what AMERICA is all about? Isn't that the reason we moved from England on boats? Isn't that the reason the fathers of our fathers spilled their blood on this wonderful soil? We are AMERICANS; We are here because we chose to be different; That is what our heritage is, a heritage of choice and tolerance, and if you don't like it, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. In Mozambique they hang people for being gay, look how far has that country come along,

What gets to me the most about the statement quoted in the OP is not that he is obviously anti-gay, hell, he has the right to feel however he feels, and nobody has the right to tell him any different. What bothers me the most is his plans to teach his own children that it is wrong. While they ARE his children, I feel that forcing a belief on someone is worse than anything else one could do to a child. Giving the child as much information as possible, and letting that child make a decision on who they want to be on their OWN is proper parenting skills in my eyes. I guess it is a fine line there in how people raise their own children, and I know many here are VERY sensitive about their own children, as I am. I just have a hard time seeing people teach their children only THEIR way of how the world should be. I am Baptist, but one of my kids tends to be more Catholic in what they believe in, and the other is more Agnostic ( I believe that is the term) in how she sees religion. Did I force Baptist ways onto my children? no. I let them attend MANY churches and decide on their own what they liked, not that we attend church on a regular basis. Children should be nurtured, not trained.

I love how the Catholic church is so "Bible specific" in how things should be. Considering the Bilble was written by man, and translated by man, I see the inherent risk of errors, omissions, and out-and-out changes that could be made to fit how the church leaders wanted it to be. Anyone can be "taught" that, say being gay is wrong according to the Bible...But then, how does anyone KNOW? They have to have that thing called "faith". Interesting how "faith" can be so closely compared to "hope".
Again, as I said in my now favorite quote by me...."Children should be nurtured, not trained"

Just a reminder to everyone: Jesus died to take away our sins, not our sexuality.