This is a good article. Teenagers are young and prone to mistakes. We were all young once and few can ever say they had sufficient critical thinking skills at a young age. Trust and privacy, like anything of value, needs to be earned. It can't just be given. Some teenagers will not think about the consequences of their actions. As such, it's a parent's duty to protect their child as best they can even when that child doesn't appreciate it.

Then why do you so often appeal to conspiracies when discussing evidence about homosexuality? You've used that to justify throwing out any major research done by any major body. Do you really check the facts or do you just check them from sources that already agree with your pre-existing attitudes? Changing your mind is very hard and nobody likes to admit when they're wrong. One day, I believe you will realize that you're wrong about homosexuality. Whether or not you accept it is another matter.

Because Islam isn't a majority in America and Islam wields little political power. The influence of the Christian Right is enormous in this country and as long as they use Christianity to justify their treatment of homosexuality, then they will be targets.

The bible WAS written by fallible men. And even if it wasn't, all we have left are copies of copies. Attributing a book to God is nothing short of idolotry and a placement of blind faith in men rather than God. Even if men were inspired by God, they were still fallible men. Believe what you want about the authors of the bible, but blindly assuming that the bible isn't flawed is an irrational position and one that can have grave implications.

That's not the only reason. Legally speaking, the law has not always applied equality to every individual of a society. That's why minorities have had to take these matters to court time and again. You may not think it's necessary from your perspective, but I urge you to try and see it from the perspective of homosexuals in that they seek something the government grants to some, but not others.

If that's the case, then why did it take so long for Christians to condemn racism? Why was the story about Ham so widely accepted in justifying slavery and racism? And what of the atrocities committed by Christians against other religions and ethnic groups throughout history? You can't white-wash over such atrocities to justify similar atrocities to homosexuals.

It doesn't matter how different race and sexual orientation may be. The point I made is that Christianity has been used to denigrate both. You could make the same argument about Jews. You can't tell if someone is Jewish by looking at them in the same way you can't tell if they're homosexual. But Christianity has been used to denigrate Jews throughout history. Now it is being used to do the same to homosexuals. Why is that any different?

I don't think that's accurate. The whole reason why gay marraige is an issue is because homosexuals argue that they do not have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexuals in terms of marriage. That is why the Supreme Court is hearing two cases about it right now. You may think they have equal protection, but they certainly don't feel protected at the moment.

I understand that. Christianity has been used to justify and combat a great many atrocities throughout history. That alone indicates that it is the fallible men that are too convinced of their own dogma who are behind these atrocities and not Christianity itself. If Christianity can be used to combat racism, then why can't it be used to combat the treatment of homosexuals?

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. He spoke of marriage. He condemned divorce and adultry, two things that are both legal and common in this country. But he never spoke specifically about homosexuality. As for the rest of the bible, that was written by the hand of fallible men with all too human prejudices. It has proven to have the flaws of men in the past so why assume it is not flawed on the issue of homosexuality?

There has always been non-procreative sex. It didn't begin in the 60s. And prior to that time, child rearing was not a legal requirement for marriage. It has never been a legal requirement. Also in the 60s, the laws and the economy made child-rearing and marriage more appealing. Those incentives are gone now. The sexual component, while a factor, is not the main causation.