Nobody died in the name of atheism. Or did someone made an atheist crusade or an atheist burning of witches or an atheist inquisition? What you mean is, that religions aren't the only ideologies, that cause harm. Facism, Stalinism, Maoism and so on had many victims. Although these ideologies weren't religious, tehy didn't claim they had to kill you because they are atheists.

going through some of this thread, I hope we're not using the action of one man to depict an entire faith....

This is a serious topic, so Ill tread lightly.

This isnt an issue of tolerance so much as religious blasphemy. Christians have their beliefs and we are entitled to enforce them. That doesnt mean I hate homosexuals. I just believe that as a Christian you are to get married to the opposite sex to have a "biological" (key word) family. Also, many people want their legacy, their bloodline, to continue. To have a gay child means your entire family tree stops dead at that generation (biological one, again key word).

Was the father too harsh? Yes. More tolerance should have been applied. But from his point of view, as a father and a Christian, it must be upsetting that the child wont carry on the name and have that cliche picture perfect family.

But cases like this are actually not an issue compared to other religions. Not to deflect, but Islam/Muslim parents typically react much harsher to these types of situations.

In your world, people choose what sex to be attracted to. In your world, it is natural for a father to block all connections with his son because of a supposed decision that won't harm anyone at all. In your world, any father would be ashamed if its offspring was gay.

That's sadder than I can describe.

By adopting children their name will be passed down yet another generation. Heck, a surrogate mother could be used if the blood part is very important (for some reason).

I am going to jump on this from a said Biblical view.  If he found out his son ended up regularly visiting prostitutes and not getting married, but slept around with women in a bunch of one night stands (say he also got them pregnant), do you seriously thinking that his father would of disowned him?  If you do, then I will back off here.  But, I would say it wouldn't happen.  Add adultery to the fornication charge I am saying here also.  The reality is that his father has a selective respect for the Bible, that is far more emotionally driven.  There are a bunch of other said sins in the Bible that his father would still accept his son over.  Heck, if he found out his son was a hitman, I am fairly sure his father wouldn't disown them.

What pretty much sickens me here is a selective application of things that lead to this state. 

This is still an arguable point. Biologically, the male is genetically made to be attracted to the female. So either its a choice, sexual confusion, or its an anomaly, given that the gay population is a vast, vast numerical minority.

Dont take anomaly as a insult, I meant it as a numerical comparison.  

You use that sentence alot. If he's wrong show it to him gently. Guilt trips do not work, just so you know. That might not be your intention but that's how it comes across, to me at least.

My point was having a "biological" child. The surrogate mother is an option but it also goes against the parents wanting of the "cliche picture perfect family". 

But most of all, this seems to be a religion issue.

Their side of the story is that they hate their daughter for something she has no control over. They are supposedly "saddened" by the fact that she's made this "regrettable decision," when, at it's core, it's a by-product of hate. It is not her choice to be gay, but their choice to hate her for it, and if enough gay-disowning parents were *actually* sad about having to do what they did, they would stand up to the church for spreading such bile in the first place, but in the end they cry merely to excuse themselves, as if an expression of regret actually absolves anyone of guilt.