*Nods head in agreement*

Sometimes I wish threads like these were banned, they become so annoying. But, at least I have the option of not looking into them.

exactly. people often say such things like "it can't be natural because if  we would get only homosexuals, humans would die out" or such stupid things but that is/was never the question. it was never the question to have 100% homosexuals,  it's normal that only one part of the humans is homosexual and that will never change because that is what nature is doing, let some people be homosexual. i once read about one theory some have (sisters of homosexuals are more fertile), that could be one reason, there could be many other reasons but it just would be a huge coincidence that every creature has some homosexuals. just read about giraffes and the rate there, it's not like they have a huge problems to stay on the planet because of that...

True

These are topics people need to talk about. Rather, it's so much worse for people not to have a chance to talk about things like this.

Having said that I just wish it didn't resort to some of the attitudes we see here. Let's let that be a lesson guys. Be civil, don't insult each other, express your opinions and get things reasoned out.

Runa216 said:

Why are things like this allowed? Perhaps a better question is why would a person want to post this?

What do you mean "see something he doesn't agree with"? The parent doesn't have to watch the son exercise his homosexuality. He can still be near his son just like he was before he knew his son was gay. The son & father could have the exact same interactions as before. The son is still the exact same person to his father, except when in his private time, he prefers to be with men. The son's homosexuality doesn't alter their relationship at all. In fact, even before the son came out of the closet, their relationship wasn't hurt by the son's homosexualityy.

Wow!!! The ban hammer came down pretty hard in here.....

Anyway, maybe this will leave this thread open to more civilized debates. Recap of decent arguments I've seen in here so far....
-The father is not really angry, more so disappointed. He feels obligated by his religion to do what he did. He is also driven by his fatherly pride to want his son to be just like him.
-That the father could be angry for similar reasons as stated above. Hate of the unknown homosexual phenomenon fueled his message to his son.

I am more inclined to believe the former, Its not exactly filled with hateful wording. Yet I don't think that changes the magnitude of his actions. Not only is the prejudice against Gays just morally reprehensible(opinion), but his disowning of his son is blatently contradictory to core foundations of the bible(where he derives his opinion).

I do not think this guy's father is some kind of monster, he is just yet another victim in my eyes.

I'd argue it's only easier on the surface. Deep down there's going to be all sorts of mixed emotions that are going to be left to simmer. Even if he never talks to his son again, in the back of his mind he'll know his son is gay and that he's too weak to face up to it. He may lose the will to fight but in the long term there's going to be emotional damage.

I think this is a very fair point of view. I'm glad someone finally brings up that the bible is in all probability not for disowning your son. Of course we don't know if this is a christian, but with a name like James, it's either jewish or christian in all likelyhood.

The story of the garden of adam and eve can give clues on how God deals with sin, but the truth is homosexuality is biblically one of many sins. True it is a big one, but it's hard to place sins on levels biblically, yet it is possible to a degree. However the story of the prodigal son is one that sheds another light on the issue. True, in all cases of mercy there is a degree of repentance, so what is the final verdict as to biblically, it is still a tough call imho.

Meanwhile, I like how you see the father as a victim of ideology. Assuming christianity or whathever his faith in God may be is incorrect (it's possible), following its teaching and leading a person to live a lifestyle that is not one of true love (real love, not conditional love), then yes he would be a victim, and it's amazing that you can see it that way. These are the kinds of directions I'd like to see more of.

I think the man obviously would want "something else" for his son is what I meant. A family, with a wife and kids, and therefore grandchildren, etc. Having said that, what if his son married or civil union'd a man one day and wished to bring him home to meet his father? Should his father say "no", already revealing he's fine with his gay son, when actually his feeelings reveal otherwise? I think the man did at least the right thing by revealing his feelings conscisely, honestly, and clearly to his son at the very lease; so as to not cause confusion. 

Jay520 said
"What do you mean "see something he doesn't agree with"? The parent doesn't have to watch the son exercise his homosexuality. He can still be near his son just like he was before he knew his son was gay. The son & father could have the exact same interactions as before. The son is still the exact same person to his father, except when in his private time, he prefers to be with men. The son's homosexuality doesn't alter their relationship at all. In fact, even before the son came out of the closet, their relationship wasn't hurt by the son's homosexualityy."

Exactly, thats hypocresy on its highest levels, everything was fine with his son when he was secretly gay, but when he revealed to his father the truth, his homosexuality was an unacceptable way of life.....what really changed? apart from a son being honest to his father....