You ask me a question to which you expected a paticular response, I did not agree and so I am lying? Wow!
I don't think you are lying. I do not think you have thought through what you are saying. I doubt, for instance, that a two year old is capable of understanding why his diet should be a certain way and I also doubt you expected your two year old to follow some dietary guidelines of yours. At this point, you might say, "But all I said is I explained my reasons, not that I expected my children to always understand them." Then:
Children simply do not have the capacity to understand why we ask them to do certain things.
I am not saying children always understand. I'm saying I do my best to explain my reasons and would never EVER ask them to engage in behavior which they thought was morally or ethically wrong.
It does no good to explain your reasons to someone if they do not minimally understand the reasons. At that point, your reasoning is just gibberish that says, "I have my reasons." That's what "humoring" a person means.
Further I bet you would ask your children to do things that violate their sense of right and wrong if their sense of right and wrong sufficiently differed from your moral knowledge. If their sense of right and wrong demanded them persecute homosexuals, I would expect you to still expect them to not do it per your dictates. If not, then my questioning revealed a more fundamental level of disagreement than I anticipated.
Not always but often. And in my opinion, it is ALWAYS unreasonable to think God would command humans to harm others to prove obedience or to get a special reward.
When you presuppose your answer, it shouldn't be shocking to find out you have that answer. But I don't think the answer here is as simple as "prove obedience" anyway; at least if you regard obedience and trust to be distinct concepts.