"Ex-Gay" Conference Protest in Boston 4/28

Apr 27, 2009 Full story: queersunited.blogspot.com 88

There will be a protest tomorrow in Boston, Massachusetts of the so called "ex-gay" conference by Exodus International which unsuccessfully attempts to alter sexual orientation and gender identity.

Read more

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#63 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a 16 yr old teen, living under my roof, eating from my table and wearing the clothes I bought him or her, and footing all the other bills that go along with raising a child, that child will not go through a deprogramming camp, should they announce their gayness. Neither would they be practicing their gayness at that emotionally immature age. Neither would a hetero child of mine age 16 yrs. 16 is simply too immature an age emotionally to be able to handle a sexual relationship on a mature level with all it's consequences.....and no, they don't get to do it a for fun either. It's too serious for that.
So you wouldn't let your sixteen-year-old son or daughter take a date to the school dance? The movies? A church social? Gee, even the most strict fundamentalist churches sponsor forums for teens to date and enjoy companionship.

Being your kid would really suck. You'd undoubtedly damage the kid who would spend decades of his adult life recovering and hating you for the damage you did.

But hey! There is no requirement that people be fit parents before they bring children into this world. So chances are you'll have an opportunity to inflict pain and suffering on an innocent kid for twenty years or so before he's able to leave his miserable family behind.
Neighbors

AOL

#64 Apr 30, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wouldn't let your sixteen-year-old son or daughter take a date to the school dance? The movies? A church social? Gee, even the most strict fundamentalist churches sponsor forums for teens to date and enjoy companionship.
Being your kid would really suck. You'd undoubtedly damage the kid who would spend decades of his adult life recovering and hating you for the damage you did.
But hey! There is no requirement that people be fit parents before they bring children into this world. So chances are you'll have an opportunity to inflict pain and suffering on an innocent kid for twenty years or so before he's able to leave his miserable family behind.
We're talking about kids being sexually active AND INVOLVED with one or sometimes more partners at age 16, not harmless school social activities that do not include sexual activities here, or did I miss the point somewhere along the line in this thread?

Allowing an immature teen free reign to act out every impulse is not my idea of good parenting, nor does reigning in some of those impulses, including drinking and driving, drug use, indiscriminate sexual activities, constitute inflicting "pain and suffering" on them.

My now adult children had perfectly happy childhoods with lots of love and freedom of expression. You make a lot of false assumptions based on nothing.
Robin Hood

Alpharetta, GA

#65 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
I miss the point somewhere along the line in this thread?
We're discussing a movie that we watched before we entered the chat room. Did you see the movie?

Try this:

Your 16yo is sitting at his/her desk in school; class is in session.

Out of the blue, a couple of wierd acting buffoons (see movie) barge into the classroom, kidnap your 16yo and haul him/her away to a sex-change concentration camp run by a NARTH unit sponsored by a radical fundamentalist religious cult.

Your 16yo is denied access to the outside world and is tortured, molested, and brainwashed (according to the police investigation that ensued) for 2 to 6 weeks.

The concentration camp is shut down.
__________

I don't think you raised your kids this way; but *IF* this is how you raised your kids, then it is obvious why you wouldn't understand what the room is chatting about: because you would think it is a normal way to raise your kids.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#66 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about kids being sexually active AND INVOLVED with one or sometimes more partners at age 16,....
If that's what you were talking about, you should have made it clear to the rest of us. We were talking about the article at the top of this thread, which had nothing whatever to do with sexual activity, let alone multiple partners.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#67 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a 16 yr old teen, living under my roof, eating from my table and wearing the clothes I bought him or her, and footing all the other bills that go along with raising a child, that child will not go through a deprogramming camp, should they announce their gayness. Neither would they be practicing their gayness at that emotionally immature age. Neither would a hetero child of mine age 16 yrs. 16 is simply too immature an age emotionally to be able to handle a sexual relationship on a mature level with all it's consequences.....and no, they don't get to do it a for fun either. It's too serious for that.
While most of your comments above are acceptable, you make one fundamental mistake by assuming that homosexuality is only about having actual sex with boys. Of course a homosexual teenager should not necessarily be allowed to have sex -- no differenct from a hetero teen. But unfortunately, many teens are thrown into ex-gay therapies merely for mentioning their attraction to the same gender, or for wearing clothes that appeal to them, or for putting posters of same-gender celebrities on their walls; no different from hetero kids. Their parents instantly go into apoplexy and over-react. Often it is the thought of the social 'shame' upon themselves that these parents react to, not concern for the psychological welfare of their child!
Neighbors

AOL

#68 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a 16 yr old teen, living under my roof, eating from my table and wearing the clothes I bought him or her, and footing all the other bills that go along with raising a child, that child will not go through a deprogramming camp, should they announce their gayness. Neither would they be practicing their gayness at that emotionally immature age. Neither would a hetero child of mine age 16 yrs. 16 is simply too immature an age emotionally to be able to handle a sexual relationship on a mature level with all it's consequences.....and no, they don't get to do it a for fun either. It's too serious for that.
Here's what I orginially said,(above)....which btw got folded, spindled and mutilated TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT by some of the posters who apparently just like to attact folks for the fun of it.

For those who need a correct translation, it means when raising a kid properly, they need loving, safe bounderies set by the parent. No, I didn't mean a room in the basement dungeon.
Next, when raising a child, the parent needs to set the rules and bounderies, not the kid.

Parents pay the bills, for the clothes, ski trips, FOOD, and all the other expensive stuff that goes with raising a kid.

When I was a teen at home, dad and mom were boss, not me. That was the rule. It was the same rule in my house raising my kids. As long as they lived under my roof and I supported them, they were NOT free to do anything and everything they want to. That does not mean I was a tyrant.

Notice I made no reference to gender.

Whatever, I leave you guys to your circle jerk slug fest. These are the kinds of threads that ruin my day, and I need to remind myself to avoid at all costs.

Burning rubber now.........>>>> >>
Robin Hood

Alpharetta, GA

#69 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I orginially said,(above)....which btw got folded, spindled and mutilated TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT by some of the posters who apparently just like to attact folks for the fun of it.
For those who need a correct translation, it means when raising a kid properly, they need loving, safe bounderies set by the parent. No, I didn't mean a room in the basement dungeon.
Next, when raising a child, the parent needs to set the rules and bounderies, not the kid.
Parents pay the bills, for the clothes, ski trips, FOOD, and all the other expensive stuff that goes with raising a kid.
When I was a teen at home, dad and mom were boss, not me. That was the rule. It was the same rule in my house raising my kids. As long as they lived under my roof and I supported them, they were NOT free to do anything and everything they want to. That does not mean I was a tyrant.
Notice I made no reference to gender.
Whatever, I leave you guys to your circle jerk slug fest. These are the kinds of threads that ruin my day, and I need to remind myself to avoid at all costs.
Burning rubber now.........>>>> >>
You're still totally clueless what the chat room's topic of discussion is.

We have a movie "Message in a Bottle" that you watch before you enter the chat room. Then we discuss it.

DUH!!

And remember:
Always get a permit from the fire department before you burn rubber (so you can be politically correct)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#70 Apr 30, 2009
Robin Hood wrote:
And remember:
Always get a permit from the fire department before you burn rubber (so you can be politically correct)
Actually, that's highly toxic and you can't get a permit for burning rubber. Even if you could, it would show complete lack of appreciation for the environment, not to mention anyone else within a half mile!
TTIN

Bay City, MI

#71 Apr 30, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about kids being sexually active AND INVOLVED with one or sometimes more partners at age 16, not harmless school social activities that do not include sexual activities here, or did I miss the point somewhere along the line in this thread?
Allowing an immature teen free reign to act out every impulse is not my idea of good parenting, nor does reigning in some of those impulses, including drinking and driving, drug use, indiscriminate sexual activities, constitute inflicting "pain and suffering" on them.
My now adult children had perfectly happy childhoods with lots of love and freedom of expression. You make a lot of false assumptions based on nothing.
So I take it as long as there's no sex you're OK with your kids dating others of the same sex?
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#72 May 3, 2009
ACLU-Tom wrote:
So, we're supposed to accept those vicious messages just because somebody blamed it on god?
<quoted text>
This country allows people freedom of religion, Tom.

We aren't living in your gay fascist state.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#73 May 3, 2009
Robin Hood wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. I see that you can't grasp the concept.
No, I tend not to grasp or rationalize gay intolerance as being anything other than hypocritical at best and dangerous at worst.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#74 May 3, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So what have you been doing? Telling people what they can and should do based on your own experience?
No. That is your approach.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#75 May 3, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be far more helpful to tell them that, if they are truly gay, they can find happiness and fulfillment as a gay person. Re-inforcing the hatred of their own nature is NOT helpful. That's why all psychiatric, psychological, and medical associations advise against reparitive therapy.
There is more to life than being gay, Jeff. To some people their religious faith is more substanial to them than their sexual inclination and just because it is the most important thing to you, apparently, it doesn't mean everyone is put together the same way you are. For you not to be able to see that shows your own bias and intolerance.

As a person of faith, I could never tell anyone being gay was okay nor would I want someone telling me that. Because my faith teaches me that would be lying.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#76 May 3, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
They were rallying against brainwashing and disparaging the nature of these children. They were rallying for acceptance, understanding, and the beauty of the real world.
Jeff....that is a nicely coded way of saying they were rallying against freedom of thought.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#77 May 3, 2009
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
We have REPEATEDLY told you what they are rallying against, but you are either too thick or plain willful to listen. They are rallying against putting a 16-year old into this socalled 'therapy' AGAINST HIS WILL! Now what is it about this that you don't get?? You keep asking the same stupid question. Go read the fckucking article! It was about a 16-year old crying out for help on the internet because he DOESN'T WANT TO BE THERE! So that me ask you: ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF PUTTING 16-YEAR OLDS INTO THIS PROGRAM AGAINST THEIR WILL? Yes or NO????
Last time I checked a 16-year-old was a minor. He has no "free will". If a 16-year-old was abusing drugs wouldn't his parents have a right to send him to rehab? Who are you to tell people how to raise their children? Its just like what the Nazi's used to do.
AcelibateGayChri stian

Miami, FL

#78 May 3, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So you wouldn't let your sixteen-year-old son or daughter take a date to the school dance? The movies? A church social? Gee, even the most strict fundamentalist churches sponsor forums for teens to date and enjoy companionship.
Being your kid would really suck. You'd undoubtedly damage the kid who would spend decades of his adult life recovering and hating you for the damage you did.
But hey! There is no requirement that people be fit parents before they bring children into this world. So chances are you'll have an opportunity to inflict pain and suffering on an innocent kid for twenty years or so before he's able to leave his miserable family behind.
You're a little wrong. The "most fundamentalist churches" might allow teen socializing, but not dating. What is it with you people that now you want to tell everyone how to raise their children??

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#79 May 3, 2009
Neighbors wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I orginially said,(above)....which btw got folded, spindled and mutilated TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT by some of the posters who apparently just like to attact folks for the fun of it.
For those who need a correct translation, it means when raising a kid properly, they need loving, safe bounderies set by the parent. No, I didn't mean a room in the basement dungeon.
Next, when raising a child, the parent needs to set the rules and bounderies, not the kid.
Parents pay the bills, for the clothes, ski trips, FOOD, and all the other expensive stuff that goes with raising a kid.
When I was a teen at home, dad and mom were boss, not me. That was the rule. It was the same rule in my house raising my kids. As long as they lived under my roof and I supported them, they were NOT free to do anything and everything they want to. That does not mean I was a tyrant.
Notice I made no reference to gender.
Whatever, I leave you guys to your circle jerk slug fest. These are the kinds of threads that ruin my day, and I need to remind myself to avoid at all costs.
Burning rubber now.........>>>> >>
I AGREED with you. Then I ELABORATED on your comment, because while you were discussing only YOUR kids, the forum dealt OTHER unfortunate kids whose parents don't see it your way. Don't be so fcuking sensitive. It's not all about you or your kids!

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#80 May 3, 2009
AcelibateGayChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked a 16-year-old was a minor. He has no "free will". If a 16-year-old was abusing drugs wouldn't his parents have a right to send him to rehab? Who are you to tell people how to raise their children? Its just like what the Nazi's used to do.
A 16-year-old has no "free will"? And you accuse me of being a Nazi?! That's exactly the mentality my father had, and when I decided that I no longer subscribed to his 'Nazi' religion -- after I was NO longer a minor, BTW -- he cut me off like he never knew me. Nice way to raise children -- force your mythology down their throats, and when they prove too to intelligent to buy it, then you just discard them.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#81 May 3, 2009
AcelibateGayChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeff....that is a nicely coded way of saying they were rallying against freedom of thought.
No. The conference went forward. They merely expressed an alternative view. Something you appear to fear.
TTIN

Bay City, MI

#82 May 4, 2009
AcelibateGayChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a little wrong. The "most fundamentalist churches" might allow teen socializing, but not dating. What is it with you people that now you want to tell everyone how to raise their children??
So then they will date they just won't call it that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Depression Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Novel is a deluge of depression 1 hr depressionman22 1
News Roseroot herb shows promise as potential depres... Thu hunter 2
News Depression and One Woman's Lifelong Fight Thu depressionman22 1
News Specialized care for youth with mental health p... Mar 23 31 years an RN 6
News Mental health alert: Many senior citizens suffe... (May '09) Mar 22 Elise Gingerich 16
News Guest opinion: Keep calm and parent on Mar 20 humanspirit 2
News Kiwi comedian Mike King reveals battle with dep... Mar 19 depressionman22 1
More from around the web