The age old problem has not been other than preventing young ones from making babies before considering the consequences or obligations they would incur or impose upon the family or community when that applied. The problem with applying the same principle to the gay boys is…which one does it apply, is it Davin or is it Joel that gets to stay on the camping trips when the boys have to take the girls home? Will Joel and Davin be allowed unsupervised visits to the pond? Are they even allowed to work the fences out there without supervision?
So it’s not just a liberal flower child bending of the rules or not applying fairly. It’s looking at the fundamental facts that they are not subject to pregnancies. Therefore, understanding they are not of the opposite sex subject to in-discretionary pregnancies, the rules are different…for all gay relationships, it is applied fairly. If Lacey wants to have a sleepover, do we have to start asking if she or her friend is gay? Oops, sorry no can stay. Yet gay or not, she would not normally be allowed to have a boy sleepover…but if she and her male friend is gay, do you now allow that, as they are not boyfriend/girlfriend; so under that implied equality rule, she would be allowed the gay boy sleepover???
Having a gay child changes the traditional thinking, because if you apply the old rules based on couple vs gender, then watch out the curve balls are going to smack you up side the head; with a petulant child asking why your suddenly changing the rules. So is it gender, or is it couples, are is it just time to do the ostrich and hope you’re not a grandparent soon?
I know I’m playing devil’s advocate to some extent, but I did actually have this situation with my bisexual daughter for a while.
I think Lacey is likely to be pissed if she has to start certification of her and her friends’ sexuality…just because Joel moved in and Davin is now turned gay and goo goo for Joel.