Christian Parents Physically Attack Gay Son Before Disowning Him

[jillian]

Jesus Christ taught his followers to love the sinner and hate the sin.

Love the sinner and hate the sin of homosexual fornication. In time, by your love of the sinner and your hate of his sins, he might be saved.

The parents love their child, so how can you call it hate? Loving their son, however, doesn't mean they have to aid and abet his crimes against God.

++++++++++++++++
Sinners, beware that you not be deceived into love of sin. Do not tell yourself that sin is not sin, reveling in your your lust and desire for sin. For that is the way of Satan, the way to eternal suffering in the lake of fire.
++++++++++++++++

It is my common observation that gays are bigots that hate anyone who refuses to endorse their immoral lifestyle as moral.

Scalia wrote:

“The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are ‘immoral and unacceptable,’ . . . the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, ‘furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,’ …The Court embraces instead Justice [John Paul] Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that 'the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,' . . . This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. “

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct . . . and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ‘[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,’ what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution.’”

“The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of ‘animus’ or ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible -- murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals -- and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct.”

1. jesus never said a word about gay people.
2. our law doesn't care what jesus said.
3. you don't get to use him to defend bigotry.

you're welcome

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus would cast these social conservatives into the swine.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then you are a nut and should be locked up.

Putin did that to the gay nuts in Russia. Interesting to see your support for Putin.

Does it HURT to be that stupid?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I fail to see why some people here want to attack the parents and call them vile names?

The parents just reacted the way the vast majority of parents would when confronted by one of their offspring announcing he was a perverted fudge packer.

Then you're one of the weird parents, because no normal parent disowns their child just for being gay. You may not like it or be shocked, but disowning and beating your own child is idiotic.

Normal parents would disown a grown kid if they found out he was a pedophile, rapist, homosexual, or some other kind of pervert.

The only reason to disown a child would be his committing a serious crime (treason, murder, rape) or converting to a murder cult like Islam.

 

[MaxGrit]

1) Homosexual conduct is immoral and it is sin.

2) There's no bigotry in disapproval of immoral conduct.

3) Jesus is God the Son. His task was to be the lamb whose blood was spilled for the salvation of the saints. Jesus taught what is most important.

4) He delegated the spreading of the Word to his Apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, by the Holy Spirit, taught the truth of the Word.

4) Our laws are based on a system of morality for moral conduct.

5) May God grant you his grace.

 

[MaxGrit]

Then you are a nut and should be locked up.

Putin did that to the gay nuts in Russia. Interesting to see your support for Putin.

Does it HURT to be that stupid?

Why don't you move to Russia and tell Putin how much you love his methods.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Max Grit clearly does not understand Jesus Christ, our Lord an savior, His Gospel, or the path of peace.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1) Homosexual conduct is immoral and it is sin.

2) There's no bigotry in disapproval of immoral conduct.

3) Jesus is God the Son. His task was to be the lamb whose blood was spilled for the salvation of the saints. Jesus taught what is most important.

4) He delegated the spreading of the Word to his Apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, by the Holy Spirit, taught the truth of the Word.

4) Our laws are based on a system of morality for moral conduct.

5) May God grant you his grace.

Exhibiting hostility toward gay Americans, such as 'disapproving' of their 'immoral conduct' solely as a consequence of who they are, is indeed bigotry – which is fine, you're at liberty to be a bigot; but don't attempt to conceal your bigotry behind a facade of religious dogma.

 

[Synthaholic]

Christian Parents Physically Attack Gay Son Before Disowning Him


The religion of peace!

 

[Rikurzhen]

1) Homosexual conduct is immoral and it is sin.

2) There's no bigotry in disapproval of immoral conduct.

3) Jesus is God the Son. His task was to be the lamb whose blood was spilled for the salvation of the saints. Jesus taught what is most important.

4) He delegated the spreading of the Word to his Apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, by the Holy Spirit, taught the truth of the Word.

4) Our laws are based on a system of morality for moral conduct.

5) May God grant you his grace.

Exhibiting hostility toward gay Americans, such as 'disapproving' of their 'immoral conduct' solely as a consequence of who they are, is indeed bigotry – which is fine, you're at liberty to be a bigot; but don't attempt to conceal your bigotry behind a facade of religious dogma.

Exhibiting hostility toward Corporate Americans, such as 'disapproving' of their tax-minimizing behavior solely as a consequence of who they are, profit-maximizing institutions, is indeed bigotry – which is fine, you're at liberty to be a bigot; but don't attempt to conceal your bigotry behind a facade of liberal dogma

 

[Noomi]

LoL. He definitely knew what he was doing when making this video. Bleeding hearts liberals got played hard, like a violin in the hands of a master musician.

Easy way to make mad $$$.

You're such an idiot. Even if the boy knew what was going to happen, what does it matter? His parents are just idiots and should never attack him just for being gay.

If the boy knew, which I think he did or he wouldn't have recorded it....then he was WRONG. I don't agree with what the parents said & did, but the kid was wrong how he did it.

He knew how his parents would react and filmed it. He was beaten by his father - he has proof of that. If he didn't film them and claimed to have been beaten, would you believe him?

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm going to presume his parents innocent of any crimes.

 

[Noomi]

I'm going to assume his parents are innocent of any crimes.

You saw the video, you know his father attacked him. That is a crime, yet you deny it?

You must be stupid.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm going to assume his parents are innocent of any crimes.

You saw the video, you know his father attacked him. That is a crime, yet you deny it?

You must be stupid.

Video is terrible.

 

[Noomi]

I'm going to assume his parents are innocent of any crimes.

You saw the video, you know his father attacked him. That is a crime, yet you deny it?

You must be stupid.

Video is terrible. What crime was the father charged with?

You think the boy should have pressed charges? I don't think he wants to see his father again.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm going to assume his parents are innocent of any crimes.

You saw the video, you know his father attacked him. That is a crime, yet you deny it?

You must be stupid.

Video is terrible. What crime was the father charged with?

You think the boy should have pressed charges? I don't think he wants to see his father again.

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. In many nations, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. -Wikipedia

 

[MaxGrit]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

That's how it works.

 

[Noomi]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

So if I walk up to someone and shoot them dead right in front of you, you will assume I am innocent until proven guilty?

 

[MaxGrit]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

So if I walk up to someone and shoot them dead right in front of you, you will assume I am innocent until proven guilty?

HAHAHAHA thanks for the laugh.

If you are not stupid, then you would figure out the answer to your stupid question that wouldn't have been ask if you're not stupid.

HAHAHAHAHAH so funny.
'

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

So if I walk up to someone and shoot them dead right in front of you, you will assume I am innocent until proven guilty?

Big difference there. If you shot someone dead in front of witnesses, what are the odds that some folks would claim the person you shot dead was in on the crime with you?

This could be a good way to make a lot of money really fast. But, I am sure no one has ever conned people out of money before. That may not be what is happening here, but there is that possibility, until it is proven otherwise.

That is the difference in the 2 scenarios.