You are both funny and interesting and ought to post more.
You can’t sign away your rights. They’re inalienable. The right to associate with persons of your choice and engage in consensual adult practices with persons of your choice is pretty fundamental in western culture. Thus the promise was never binding. That having been said, I don’t think the choices in the poll are good ones. I think she should not jump back into a relationship, OR reject one because of her promise. I think she should take time to figure out who she is, and what she wants/needs out of a relationship.
Enjoy,
Steven
Not legally binding perhaps… but how different is this from a marriage promise to forsake all others?
For that matter, should we see marriage vows as binding forever? Assuming that they were made sincerely, and not made under duress should that be it until death? You promised “as long as we both shall live” didn’t you? (Hypothetical *you *of course).
Even taking duress out of the equation, what if Sandra had made the promise sincerely and freely?
Generally as a (modern, Western) society we don’t see divorce as impossible, or even immoral… why would Sandra’s promise be any more binding?
Very different. Marriages are contracts. Promises to your parents are not.
I think my choice is obvious.
This. Rebuff Cordelia (as a lover, for now), but not for the reasons given in the poll choices.
The answer is, if it would have been okay for her to break her promise while they are alive, then it’s okay when they are dead. That’s the difference in the dying request thing. The reasons given to be able to break the promise were that the guy was no longer around. And you knew that was going to happen when you made the promise. If you didn’t want to do it, you shouldn’t have made it.
From what I gather, most people seem to think it’s okay for a repressed homosexual to break any promise to not pursue such relationships when shaking of the repression.
Marriages are also promises. (My arrangement with my house insurer, for example, is a contract, but I didn’t make a declaration in front of society at large that I’d love and cherish them forever). 
Yes, but you’re a child.
That individual’s bigotry is the lie of the organization that they choose to associate with. Their objection is based on a lie that they have consciously accepted. Believing that your daughter is going to burn in hell because she is homosexual is no different than believing she is going to burn in hell for voting, or marrying outside her ethnicity, or her religion, or because she is an atheist, or because she was seen talking to an unrelated adult male in public.
Those are all lies. Just because a lot of people believe them does not make them true, or just a matter of opinion. These lies and other like them have been and continue to be used by powerful groups to retain their power.
It is PC run amok to suggest every bigotry is just another flavor of the truth. I don’t buy it. Reality is the only test for if something is true or not. Not how fervently you believe your own lies.
There’s no reciprocal promise by Sandra’s parents, to do or not do something of equal or comparable magnitude for her.
I’ve suggested no such thing. I have, instead, averred that both approval and disapproval of homosexuality are value judgments for which the values of true and false do not actually apply.
If I were to state that, for instance, homosexuals are more likely to be child molestors than heterosexuals, I would be making a falsifiable statement of fact. (Of course I wouldn’t say that and I do not believe that.) But saying that homosexuality is immoral and homophobia is right, or the reverse, is not falsifiable, not least because it depends on what moral system the person is talking about.
I think homophobes are full of shit, but to say they are lying is disingenuous. Or stupid. Possibly both.
I’m diggin’ the Katy Perry angle…
Joe
I’m saying this as an Evangelical Christian Republican, with all the “baggage” on this issue that entails…
If she can enter into a committed loving gay relationship with a basically clear conscience, then her promise to her parents is not a factor. The only two things that are factors are- does she really believe that God is OK with it (assuming she believes in God) and can she enter into a committed loving relationship with the other woman.
For anyone who does have a problem with the gay aspect, make it instead a mixed race relationship. The answer becomes clearer. Then realize that it applies back in the gay scenario.
I choose option 3, but I really wanted to answer what’s not on the list “Get counseling and a therapy to deal with the feelings of shame and find out if she really is a lesbian or not; and get a pastor from a non-literal, non-fundie church to explain to her that a healthy, loving relationship is more what God wants than avoiding homosexuality over some wrong interpretation.” She could do both if she gets a proper pastor who not only studied theology but also trained in therapy, as some people do.
It would be ridiculous to keep this promise. I think it’s ludicrous to feel obliged to dead people anyway, but this ws a particulary unreasonable and impractical demand made by dead bigots.