Here is a pro-Catholic argument that instructs Catholic parents to disown their gay son:
Now let's say a child comes out to his devout Catholic parents that he's gay and he is choosing to live an actively gay lifestyle and he refuses to repent of his sin. Because of this, his parents become absolutely enraged and decide to disown him and cut off all ties with him because he will not repent. The family will not talk to him, has cut him out of their will and will not change until the son decides to repent.

I would think of this situation as reasonable. Sort of like an incurred familial excommunication that the son willed for.

Would that be wrong? It's not like the family hates him and won't forgive him, but they simply want nothing to do with him because his sins bring great shame upon the family and he will not give up on his sins. The family agrees to "reown" (so to speak) him if he repents and comes back to them, but unless that happens then they will not.
Shunning was certainly accepted by early Christians. I don't think it should be dealt lightly, but sometimes the flock has to be protected against sinners, lest they be drawn astray.

But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person.
For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within?
God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst."

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
The text forbids such reasoning as, "They are not all bad." Paul evidently sees their sins as intolerable. Lots of "sexually immoral" people do not mean any harm or do any harm. Drunkard seems to refer to anybody that is drunk not just an alcoholic. We are not told, "Lots of drunk people are great fun. Be nice to them." Indeed we are told the opposite. It is clear from the text that the apostle was advocating judgementalism over and beyond what an atheist would. It is insanity to reason as some do, "Homosexuality can be relatively harmless therefore it's not a sin" and claim to be a knowledgeable Bible believer.
Paul does not agree with tolerate the sinner but not the sin. It does not make any sense anyway and is only cherished by those whom it turns into hypocrites. Indeed Jesus himself said that anybody who goes to eternal punishment is in the same condition as one who has never done a good deed in their life. He explained all this in the Gospel of Matthew. He said they are going to Hell not for hurting others but because when they hurt others it was him they hurt. This implies that they could have been seen as good people but because they didn't do good for his sake he condemns them. Both Jesus and Paul then suggested the sinner must be completely rejected.
It is interesting that Paul says God will judge outsiders while urging Christians to judge their own instead of letting God do the judging like he does for outsiders. This is to emphasise that Christians breaking the rules must be given zero tolerance.
Paul said that everything written in the Old Testament was written for our instruction. Scripture permits parents to have a wayward son put to death by stoning just for being a drunkard or immoral - see Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Clearly the parent-child relationship must be ended by the parents if a son is gay. Ideally, God wants the child murdered. If that is not possible today then disinheriting and shunning the child is required.
1 Timothy 6:3-4 says "If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words.”
Christians may say that this is merely questioning the sanity of somebody who leaves Christianity. They add that that questioning is understandable as Christianity is such a marvellous religion. They say it is not incitement to hatred or a medical diagnosis. It is incitement to hatred and a form of abuse to say that somebody is mad when you are not qualified to give a medical diagnosis. And 1 Timothy was giving a medical diagnosis. In those days, any quack had that authority. Nowadays it is medical professionals who are properly accredited. The letter does not have apostates only in mind. It is thinking of anybody who claims to be a believer and who alters the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Catholic then cannot respect the views of an LGBT child. That is making disowning inevitable.
A big part of morality is that we cannot fully understand it and religion says we need revelation from God who does know better than us. The scriptures do state that there are circumstances in which offspring should be disowned. We must obey and not protest. Arguments such as, "It will isolate the son or daughter and he or she will get more stubborn and anti-God and such and such a disaster will happen", simply ignore the fact that God lovingly takes care of the seemingly bad results. They are his concern not ours. We use this logic when obedience to the ban on birth control sometimes seems to cause great harm. And if the son or daughter gets more anti-God, it is he or she alone who has hardened into this attitude. Many believe that children should be disowned for drug pushing etc. There is no mention of the fact that a gay son or daughter is committing a sin graver than murder for he or she leads others into danger of everlasting torment through sex and scandal. The Old Testament refers to homosexuality as an abomination and says this is a quote from God. God comes first - we are to love him with all our hearts and to love others as ourselves, that is less than God. The more you love God the more you will abominate sin for it is the converse of God. God commands us to love sinners but as he comes first, the revulsion for sin we must feel has to be intense. Paul repeated and confirmed the Old Testament teaching of God that evil must be purged from the people by isolating the stubborn sinner. We are urged by scripture to judge as God judges - fairly and by seeing our sin and that of others as something to be hated. Is it fair to expect parents to put up with a gay son whose sin they are to see as an abomination and have it flaunted in their faces?

On a forum where somebody condoned disowning gay sons, somebody wrote this response "You should be ashamed of yourself for EVER thinking that's okay". That shows more concern for rationalist humanistic thinking than for obedience to the scriptures. St Paul was far more severe against the Corinthian man living in sin with his stepmother than the the commentator you have a problem with so imagine what Paul's reaction would have been had the man been having sex with men. He handed the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh and excommunicated him. What you wrote implicitly insults the holy apostle.

Jesus did say we must look for the lost sheep. But the gay son in the example is not a lost sheep but a sheep that refuses to be found.

A poster said that parents disowning a gay son because of shame are being selfish is forgetting the fact that we are entitled to feel shame. And if the poster had taken a minute to think, no parents ever disown children simply because of shame. There are other reasons as well. One of them and indeed the main one should be is that the son or daughter has broken the law of God and committed a sin that cries to Heaven for God to take severe action against it.

In brief, the post that started this controversy is orthodox. Catholic parents do have the right to disown and cut off gay children. Jesus advocated tough love for at the end of the day only it is real love (Matthew 23). Quote:
Jesus said
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Matthew 18:15-17
Titus 3 says that if a man divides the Church you must give him a couple of warnings and then "have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful, he is self-condemned." The text is clear that the person himself is to blame. Nobody can say it is just a rule.
The correct Christian view is that a gay son should be disowned. That the question even arises in a religious context is homophobic in itself. Religion is dangerous.

No Copyright