Grandfather deserves award for taking in his gay grandson !

10/2/2013

                     This grandfather deserves the award of the year, taking in his
                     gay grandson after his own Mother threw him in the streets
                     read his letter to his daughter...

                                                                   Cheers...Joe... 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/grandpa-letter-gay-grandson_n_4029750.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl18%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D385252

He did his duty.  Shame on his daughter.

Loving children unconditionally is a challenge for many parents.

So, if love is unconditional, why didn't the father reconfirm his love for his daughter, and then take in the grandchild? I don't understand why it's ok for the father to not love his daughter for the reason stated, but it's not ok for the daughter to not love her child because he's gay. And at the end of his note he says if she "finds her heart" or something like that. Sounds as if he is putting conditions on his love for his own daughter, while trying to make everyone think that's ok because she didn't like the gay lifestyle of her son. Doesn't make sense to me, and I don't have nearly as much feeling for the grandfather as some of you seem to have.

Would all of you have felt the same if the son had robbed a store and the mother tossed him out, and then the grandfather took him in? What is suddenly so special about gays that it has become an obsession with so many American people? I don't see as how gay people should be mistreated, but I don't see as how they should get any special treatment just because they're gay.

delete

Robbing  a store is a crime. She would not need to toss him out, he would be in jail.
Having a roof over one's head is hardly special treatment.

DK, it's kind of like the very ugly woman who was mad at a man for being drunk, and was telling him about how bad it was. He told her that tomorrow he'd be sober, but she'd still be ugly.

All I know is right now it's politically correct to bend over backward in order to support anyone and everyone who calls them self gay. Once again, I have friends that are gay, emphasis on the friends, but that doesn't stop me from wondering why the entire country has gone so overboard on the issue. And it isn't an education problem, at least I don't think it is. I know some very smart people who believe the gay life style is a choice. The other thing I can't see is calling people who don't care for that lifestyle bigots. If society now expects everyone to exhibit tolerance toward gays, then why do that not practice what they preach, and exhibit tolerance to the other side? Aren't people who don't care for that lifestyle entitled to their opinion, without any judgment from us? That's what is being asked of everyone, so shouldn't it apply to everyone?

In the last few years there has been an orchestrated movement to stigmatize people who don't believe in the gay lifestyle, and I think that is just as wrong as the reverse. Many people still don't believe others are born gay, and the fact is that so far that hasn't been proven to be true. No matter how much we want to believe it's so, there really is no scientific proof. So, shouldn't society as a whole back off of those who don't like that lifestyle, and let them believe what they want to believe? To receive tolerance, I think one must show tolerance.

And Alice my dear, I'm sorry, but you just didn't answer the question.

I tend to agree with Don.  That doesn't mean I don't understand the views expressed by Dk.  Her points are well taken.  The scales of justice are not not always in balance.  I am sick of the word "Gay" and I am becoming sick of the word, "Christian".  Can you give me a definition of the word, "Christian"?

A Christian is a follower of Christ. Many take the name in vain.

E. Don Harpe wrote:

And Alice my dear, I'm sorry, but you just didn't answer the question.

I do not understand the question,  Being gay is not robbing a bank.
I agree gay people are people and people are imperfect.

Since being gay is no longer considered a crime, the comparison of homosexuality to robbing a store is a non sequitor - it is not a logical comparison

Good point, Ann.

Why not tell that to the mother. I'd almost, but not quite, bet that she'd rather her child robbed a store than to be gay. And if you guys don't understand what I asked, or what I meant, do you want me to put it in really simple terms? I'd think as smart as most of you think you are you would have understood my post.

So, here you go. Small words and a real simple concept. For some people being gay is as bad or worse than being a thief, and I'd think you'd know that. I could be wrong, sometimes I forget where I'm posting.

Apparently, the letter was sent in by "Chad" and is addressed to "Christine". What do I think? I think Chad wrote the letter and sent it to a Gay website on Facebook (FCKH8). JMHO.

BTW, it's written on school graph paper.

Yes, I came across more than one site that questioned the validity of the letter, and reading it from the graphic on the page Joe posted, it doesn't seem to have been sent by a concerned grandfather.

The interesting thing is how the letter, whatever the source, has stirred the responses it has - on the net and here.
Our opinions are clearly based on our perceptions, once again.

Maybe Chad is a thief and stole the letter from Christine. None of the comments I read seemed interested in how the letter came into Chad's possession.

Shelagh wrote:

Maybe Chad is a thief and stole the letter from Christine. None of the comments I read seemed interested in how the letter came into Chad's possession.

Hmm.  It seems we are not the only forum that has this attribute:

Shelagh wrote:

Quote :

We read words on the screen and base our interpretation on the way we are feeling, not on how the poster was feeling at the time.

alj wrote:

Shelagh wrote:

Quote :

We read words on the screen and base our interpretation on the way we are feeling, not on how the poster was feeling at the time.

I read the letter and didn't bother to interpret the words because I could see no evidence to prove: who had written the letter; who had received the letter; how the letter came into the possession of "Chad". Who is Chad? What part does he play in these family relationships?

"Though we don't have the full details surrounding the incident ..."

Why did I read further? I must have too much time on my hands.

Just saying that the letter isn't as important to a lot of responders as the issue involved, that most people have reacted to the issue, based on their own feelings, rather than on the facts behind it.

The "letter" is probably the same hoax the Matthew Shepherd story has turned out to be. Zealots for a cause -in this case, gay acceptance- are relentless in their efforts to shame people who don't see things their way.

I'm starting to weary of these Tolerance Nazis myself.

I have a nephew who is gay.  We have known it since he was very young.  I  am sorry he is that way, but prefer it to having  him be a robber.  We  simply do not discuss it.  His grandmother does not know it.