Should a religious school reject the child of gay parents?

[MicroBalrog]

That's the best reason I've heard in favor of the school letting the child enroll.  The question is, do you really think the two "parents" in question would really let the school try to teach the child that their behavior is wrong?  If they're willing to cry afoul to the media over enrollment, do you think they would let it slide if a teacher taught about the passages in the Bible that call homosexuality a sin?

Which is actually the best argument against enrolling the children.

Because when you enroll the children into the school you also enroll the parents into the school, so to speak - even in the most uptight environment, parents are expected to be able to come in and speak to the staff, participate in parents' meetings, etc. You're going to be letting a couple that clearly doesn't share your values have a degree of influence - as parents and clients - into an environment which they clearly loathe and which holds their entire identity as evil.

This, also, incidentally, why there's no way in the world applying to the school is a good idea for the parents either.

A lot of modern LGBT individuals (myself excluded, and I am sure there are many who don't) - construct their entire identity around their sexual orientation. They're not people who happen to sometimes do it with people of their own sex. They are homosexuals, lesbians, or whatever. They have (or expect themselves to have) - differing tastes in movies, music, clothing etc. from straight people in the same way that Greeks have differing tastes in food and music from Italians.

To give an example as to how far this extends, I have once ended up on the grounds of a 'Gay movie festival'.

There exists, it turns out, an entire world of 'gay films' (not gay porn, but serious cinematography meant to aim for the homosexual's sense of style and taste). It was - I gathered from the posters - sort of like artsy-shmancy 'modern cinema', but the point is that a separate style of cinema is perceived to exist. The entire grounds where the festival was held were redesigned to fit, etc. etc.

This is to point to the essence of why this whole thing is a bad idea:

The traditionalist pastor or rabbi feels he's condemning a sin: not unlike condemning an act of adultery or fornication.

The identity-homosexual feels that the pastor is condemning his entire existence as evil. So from the point of view of a homosexual, male or female, sending a child to such an environment would be far worse then it would be for a sinner to send his child to church - after all, we all sin. From the point of view of a homosexual or lesbian, the school's belief hold the couple's entire existence as evil.

As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.

[taurusowner]

Which is actually the best argument against enrolling the children.

Because when you enroll the children into the school you also enroll the parents into the school, so to speak - even in the most uptight environment, parents are expected to be able to come in and speak to the staff, participate in parents' meetings, etc. You're going to be letting a couple that clearly doesn't share your values have a degree of influence - as parents and clients - into an environment which they clearly loathe and which holds their entire identity as evil.

This, also, incidentally, why there's no way in the world applying to the school is a good idea for the parents either.

A lot of modern LGBT individuals (myself excluded, and I am sure there are many who don't) - construct their entire identity around their sexual orientation. They're not people who happen to sometimes do it with people of their own sex. They are homosexuals, lesbians, or whatever. They have (or expect themselves to have) - differing tastes in movies, music, clothing etc. from straight people in the same way that Greeks have differing tastes in food and music from Italians.

To give an example as to how far this extends, I have once ended up on the grounds of a 'Gay movie festival'.

There exists, it turns out, an entire world of 'gay films' (not gay porn, but serious cinematography meant to aim for the homosexual's sense of style and taste). It was - I gathered from the posters - sort of like artsy-shmancy 'modern cinema', but the point is that a separate style of cinema is perceived to exist. The entire grounds where the festival was held were redesigned to fit, etc. etc.

This is to point to the essence of why this whole thing is a bad idea:

The traditionalist pastor or rabbi feels he's condemning a sin: not unlike condemning an act of adultery or fornication.

The identity-homosexual feels that the pastor is condemning his entire existence as evil. So from the point of view of a homosexual, male or female, sending a child to such an environment would be far worse then it would be for a sinner to send his child to church - after all, we all sin. From the point of view of a homosexual or lesbian, the school's belief hold the couple's entire existence as evil.

As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.

A superb post.  Micro, I think you might have a better grasp of the real religious opposition to homosexuality than many self-proclaimed Christians.  You said it yourself.  We all sin.  A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves.  What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin.  And those are all sins we commit everyday.  There is no one righteous; no, not one.  Many Christians forget that, to their peril.

[Perd Hapley]

My identity, on seeker_two's other hand, is wholly based on my high post count.

[Perd Hapley]

A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves.  What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin.  And those are all sins we commit everyday.  There is no one righteous; no, not one.  Many Christians forget that, to their peril.

That is only one view of Christian hamartiology. I'm not even sure it's a majority view.  There is at least some Biblical support for the idea that some sins are worse than others.

[seeker_two]

As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.

Well said...maybe the couple should be investigated for emotional abuse.....

My identity, on seeker_two's other hand, is wholly based on my high post count.

Keep my hands off of you, you perv..... 

[lupinus]

A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves.  What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin.  And those are all sins we commit everyday.  There is no one righteous; no, not one.  Many Christians forget that, to their peril.

Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.

[Strings]

>As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.<

This is what bothers me most of all wit this situation.

This couple has taken their child, and turned them into nothing but a pawn for their political interests (basing that on their immediate run to the media). I really don't see any difference between using a child for self-serving political ends, and using a child for self-serving sexual ends. The damage might not be as great in the former case, but I think it's just as disgusting.

[taurusowner]

Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.

Also quite true.

[RevDisk]

Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.

People into "thug life" (gluttony or Extravagance (luxuria)).  Or people gaming the government check (sloth).  Or whatever you like to call members of any religion that are excessively self-righteous about it (pride).  Or Jehovah's Witnesses (being really annoying).   Or hipsters (envy). 

Plenty of sins have their fandom.  Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.   

 

[MechAg94]

...still on the other hand, maybe the school should accept this child in order to minister to him about spiritual matters and moral behavior...which would include homosexuality as a sin and heterosexuality as God's will....parents may be a loss, but the kid should have a chance....and Christians are supposed to love the sinner yet hate the sin...

That is an interesting thought and maybe a noble purpose, but it depends on how far down that path you go.  They also don't want to bring bad influences into their school either.  Given the likelihood of a set up, I would go with the latter in their shoes.

[BridgeRunner]

This couple has taken their child, and turned them into nothing but a pawn for their political interests (basing that on their immediate run to the media). I really don't see any difference between using a child for self-serving political ends, and using a child for self-serving sexual ends. The damage might not be as great in the former case, but I think it's just as disgusting.

+1.  To wit, previous discussions about what constitutes child abuse.  This sort of thing doesn't include any sort of unwanted physicality, so it doesn't really fit into statutory guidelines, and for some very good reasons.  Nevertheless, parental control over children serve the purpose of of allowing the parent to parent the child, not to use the child.  When parental control is exploited for reasons unrelated to parenting (which includes earning income, no objections to family businesses and the like requiring children to contribute), the parents have probably crossed a line.   Probably not a statutory one, but a moral one.

[Perd Hapley]

On the other side of the coin, some Christians claim that instead of sending your kids to a nice, safe Christian school, it is their duty to bring the light of the gospel to darkest Public School. I'm sure that works out OK for a lot of families, but it seems to ignore the fact that kids are just kids.  You can't expect them (or not all of them) to be crusaders or apologists. 

It's not as bad as what these parents are doing, but kind of similar in my view.

[Strings]

>Plenty of sins have their fandom.  Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.<

I've always prefered lust, myself. If nothing else, the legal ramifications are easier to deal with...    

[lupinus]

People into "thug life" (gluttony or Extravagance (luxuria)).  Or people gaming the government check (sloth).  Or whatever you like to call members of any religion that are excessively self-righteous about it (pride).  Or Jehovah's Witnesses (being really annoying).   Or hipsters (envy).  

Plenty of sins have their fandom.  Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.    

 

This is true. But if someone who was openly Pagan or a member of the "thug life" tried putting their kid there do you think the result would be any different? How about someone who is openly violent and wrathful to other members/families?

Sure, all sins have someone somewhere defining themselves by it. Some more so then others, such as those that go along with being a thug. But homosexuality is the current hot button issue of the day. It's *eta*not*/eta* treated any different then other open and life defining sin by most Christians, even if it seems that way. Most congregations wouldn't treat a set of homosexual parents any differently then unmarried parents.

[roo_ster]

Thanks, several of you, for pointing out another problem that was sort of floating around in my thoughts, but was unable to fully articulate:
Using one's child(ren) as object to one's own fulfillment.

In this case, it is using the poor kid as a tool / lever for the political homosexual agenda.  These folks are not unique in that, however.  Others use their kids as tools, politically, to a greater or lesser extent.  Others use them to fulfill other desires the parent might have, however mundane ("Be the cheerleader I never was!") or monstrous (I'll let y'all fill in this one).

I'm not writing about making your kids study and work hard and brush their teeth or what have you.  That is just part of raising a kid right and socializing them.


As for the whole "sin rankings" thing, some Christians get into that, either by their doctrine or misunderstanding.  From my understanding / POV, many sins (whatever their specificity) begin to harden the heart so that one no longer perceives that it is sin, anymore.  THAT callousness is what many Christians see as a greater threat to other sinners, if not some "greater" sin. 

Kind of like the alcoholic or addict who sees nothing wrong with indulging that substance despite deleterious consequences.  Such a person is difficult to reason with and will not be given responsibility in any church I have been a part of.  The person who was or may still be  and addict, but acknowledges it, works at it...well, I don't have enough fingers & toes to count the number of ministers and lay people with church responsibilities I have met who fit that mold.  Many non-Christians may think Christians are "judgmental," but usually don't stick around to see the forgiveness in action after repentance.