It's Still Not Easy To Be Different/Good People Help Out

[Angel!]

Nov 11, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You and I have markedly different ideas on what constitutes genuine love. I cannot "love" a child by tolerating his choice to engage in immoral behaviour.

I don't think it is the idea of geniune love where you differ from most people. I think it is what you define as immoral behavior where you differ.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 17:01:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 11, 2013 16:07:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I have no problem with "Nick"'s parents throwing him out. He should be able to keep any money he rightly earned, however.

Is the reason you have no problem with the kid's parents throwing him out of their home because he was at least 18 or for some other reason?

I can accept parents throwing any teenager 14-18 out of their house (presumably into foster care if the teenager is still in school). I don't necessarily approve of it. Approval would depend on the case specifics.

For an 18-year-old young adult being thrown out, I not only accept but approve of most cases I've seen. There's a great deal of stress and grief involved in the process; parents aren't in the habit of doing it for no reason. They do it because a child is lazy, rebellious, self-entitled, or--as in this case--unwilling to respect boundaries and prohibitions they've established. Sending such a man out into the world to make his own way and reap the consequences of his choices is certainly the best alternative.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 17:24:07 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Being gay is not a crime, like hello peeps. This young man was responsible, in my books you don't throw that away cause he's gay. Him being gay is and was none of his parents damn business.

They shouldn't have taken any money he earned and saved towards college. That's theft as far as I'm concerned. I don't trust the article as far as I can throw it to report the facts accurately, hence who knows how much was taken and for what reason.

As for "throw(ing) him away", parrot it as many times as you like. It's a faulty premise and I reject it.

[Angel!]

I didn't think you could legally throw a kid out until 18.  Am I totally mistaken on this? 

As far as throwing him out.  It sucks & it was a stupid reason.  But, parents don't have to care for their kids once they turn 18 & parents toss their kids out all the time at that point & older.  I think most of them are shitty parents that do this, I wouldn't just limit that judgement to this kid's parents.

[steff]

A positive from this thread, I just called my mom to thank her for the kind & loving mother she was when my youngest brother came out. 

Throwing out any child, where the only thing they did "wrong" is to be gay, is throwing away that child IMO.   And I have no respect for anyone who would do such a thing. 

[Tennesseer]

Nov 11, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 16:54:21 GMT -5 steff said:

I want to ask to be sure.  Would you throw away your child if they fell boyve with someone of the same sex? 

As in, all day today, this child was still your child. You loved them just like you've loved them their entire life.  Tonight you find out they are gay.  Tomorrow you throw them out, no longer love them, toss them away like trash & completely change everything you've felt about them literally over night. 

How is throwing my adult son out of the house "throwing him away"? He'll waste away to nothing without me? He'll wind up drifting to the city landfill and fall prey to wild dogs?

Living in my wife's and my house comes with the condition that our rules are respected. I don't care what my child feels, I care what he does. Since neither homosexuality nor premarital sex would be tolerated, my son's options are either to respect these prohibitions (and to respect us in so doing), or to find his own way in the great wide world, doing as he pleases without our roof over his head. It's his decision as to which he values more. Obviously my wife and I would do our best to instill our values in our children so that if they were faced with the decision, they would make the right one.

I would still love him. I wouldn't terminate contact with him. And if at any point his values changed and he ceased his immorality, I wouldn't hesitate to welcome him back into my home.

You and I have markedly different ideas on what constitutes genuine love. I cannot "love" a child by tolerating his choice to engage in immoral behaviour.

I will respect your position but it simply boggles the mind.  The kid did nothing in the parents' home which would have violated their 'rules' other than exist.  What a message his parents have sent to the world:  'Our son's behavior is immoral but we will steal his money and car from him.'

Great moral lesson.  Outstanding members of society.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 17:27:59 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You and I have markedly different ideas on what constitutes genuine love. I cannot "love" a child by tolerating his choice to engage in immoral behaviour.

I don't think it is the idea of geniune love where you differ from most people. I think it is what you define as immoral behavior where you differ.

If that's the only point on which we differ, then accept that Nick's parents consider his sexual activities immoral (I'm assuming; there may be many factors involved) and consider their response from the perspective of how you'd handle your child if (s)he was engaging in behaviour that you considered immoral. It could be binge alcoholism, crime, self-destructive behaviour, white supremacism, etc.

Look past the stark difference of opinion on the specific moral issue and consider the parents' reaction from that standpoint.

[Deleted]

I don't think I have the right to make moral decisions for my kids. I would not make morality a condition of my support.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 17:35:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:01:08 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Is the reason you have no problem with the kid's parents throwing him out of their home because he was at least 18 or for some other reason?

I can accept parents throwing any teenager 14-18 out of their house (presumably into foster care if the teenager is still in school). I don't necessarily approve of it. Approval would depend on the case specifics.

For an 18-year-old young adult being thrown out, I not only accept but approve of most cases I've seen. There's a great deal of stress and grief involved in the process; parents aren't in the habit of doing it for no reason. They do it because a child is lazy, rebellious, self-entitled, or--as in this case--unwilling to respect boundaries and prohibitions they've established. Sending such a man out into the world to make his own way and reap the consequences of his choices is certainly the best alternative.

It might be the best alternative from your viewpoint, Virgil.  However, I firmly disagree.  While I agree there might be times when the young person needs to be told he/she will either obey the "house rules" or move out, this would not be one of those times.  If the kid were breaking the law, engaging in drug use or dealing drugs, wrecking the house, or other such shenanigans, yes.  From what I read, this boy had been working and saving money and was a freshman in college - to get an education.  Throwing him out of the house was, in my opinion, the worst alternative the parents could have chosen.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 17:50:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:27:59 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I don't think it is the idea of geniune love where you differ from most people. I think it is what you define as immoral behavior where you differ.

If that's the only point on which we differ, then accept that Nick's parents consider his sexual activities immoral (I'm assuming; there may be many factors involved) and consider their response from the perspective of how you'd handle your child if (s)he was engaging in behaviour that you considered immoral. It could be binge alcoholism, crime, self-destructive behaviour, white supremacism, etc.

Look past the stark difference of opinion on the specific moral issue and consider the parents' reaction from that standpoint.

Were that the case, I'd know my child needed professional help and get that help forthwith.   Somewhere along the line, if my kid made one of the choices you named, Virgil, I've failed him.  It's now up to me to make up for that failure.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 17:48:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:21:11 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How is throwing my adult son out of the house "throwing him away"? He'll waste away to nothing without me? He'll wind up drifting to the city landfill and fall prey to wild dogs?

Living in my wife's and my house comes with the condition that our rules are respected. I don't care what my child feels, I care what he does. Since neither homosexuality nor premarital sex would be tolerated, my son's options are either to respect these prohibitions (and to respect us in so doing), or to find his own way in the great wide world, doing as he pleases without our roof over his head. It's his decision as to which he values more. Obviously my wife and I would do our best to instill our values in our children so that if they were faced with the decision, they would make the right one.

I would still love him. I wouldn't terminate contact with him. And if at any point his values changed and he ceased his immorality, I wouldn't hesitate to welcome him back into my home.

You and I have markedly different ideas on what constitutes genuine love. I cannot "love" a child by tolerating his choice to engage in immoral behaviour.

I will respect your position but it simply boggles the mind.  The kid did nothing in the parents' home which would have violated their 'rules' other than exist.  What a message his parents have sent to the world:  'Our son's behavior is immoral but we will steal his money and car from him.'

Great moral lesson.  Outstanding members of society.

If they actually did that.

Even you have to admit that the "Gay Voices" section of Huffington Post is about as likely to present the objective truth of the matter as Brietbart is to publish a straightforward pros and cons analysis of Obamacare.

For all I know, "Nick" didn't own the car, left his parents with $20K in debts that they cosigned for on his behalf, and they confiscated all of $500 from their joint account when they threw him out. The probability of any such details making it into a HuffPo personal interest story: zero.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 17:55:48 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:50:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If that's the only point on which we differ, then accept that Nick's parents consider his sexual activities immoral (I'm assuming; there may be many factors involved) and consider their response from the perspective of how you'd handle your child if (s)he was engaging in behaviour that you considered immoral. It could be binge alcoholism, crime, self-destructive behaviour, white supremacism, etc.

Look past the stark difference of opinion on the specific moral issue and consider the parents' reaction from that standpoint.

Were that the case, I'd know my child needed professional help and get that help forthwith.   Somewhere along the line, if my kid made one of the choices you named, Virgil, I've failed him.  It's now up to me to make up for that failure.

By clucking your tongue and patting him on the back when he does wrong.

Or if you're not suggesting that Nick's parents tolerate his decision, what are you suggesting? That they send him to one of those brainwashing centers that try to undo 18 years of conditioning in six weeks?

[mmhmm]

Whether, or not, the story is true as told, Virgil, the principles under discussion are still valid.  Sneaking out under the veil of "I don't believe it" doesn't lift the onus from parents who would to this, and they are out there.

[steff]

Nov 11, 2013 17:57:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:48:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I will respect your position but it simply boggles the mind.  The kid did nothing in the parents' home which would have violated their 'rules' other than exist.  What a message his parents have sent to the world:  'Our son's behavior is immoral but we will steal his money and car from him.'

Great moral lesson.  Outstanding members of society.

If they actually did that.

Even you have to admit that the "Gay Voices" section of Huffington Post is about as likely to present the objective truth of the matter as Brietbart is to publish a straightforward pros and cons analysis of Obamacare.

For all I know, "Nick" didn't own the car, left his parents with $20K in debts that they cosigned for on his behalf, and they confiscated all of $500 from their joint account when they threw him out. The probability of any such details making it into a HuffPo personal interest story: zero.

Then do 2 minutes of googling and read the local stories & get more information before assuming you know what the parents did or didn't do. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 18:04:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Whether, or not, the story is true as told, Virgil, the principles under discussion are still valid.  Sneaking out under the veil of "I don't believe it" doesn't lift the onus from parents who would to this, and they are out there.

And I've said twice now: if he earned the money and wasn't indebted, it was theft to take it from him. The "throwing him out" part was the act being disputed, and the part I've addressed.

If you want to make this into a discussion about parents stealing money from their kids, talk about the morality of parents stealing money from their kids. Somehow I don't expect it will be an enlightening or controversial discussion.

[Angel!]

Nov 11, 2013 17:50:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:27:59 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I don't think it is the idea of geniune love where you differ from most people. I think it is what you define as immoral behavior where you differ.

If that's the only point on which we differ, then accept that Nick's parents consider his sexual activities immoral (I'm assuming; there may be many factors involved) and consider their response from the perspective of how you'd handle your child if (s)he was engaging in behaviour that you considered immoral. It could be binge alcoholism, crime, self-destructive behaviour, white supremacism, etc.

Look past the stark difference of opinion on the specific moral issue and consider the parents' reaction from that standpoint.

Most of what you listed I wouldn't consider to be a moral/immoral issue rather than illegal and/or self-destructive. I wouldn't be against my kids binge drinking on moral grounds, but definitely on the grounds that the behavior is destructive (and at 18 illegal). I would also attempt to get my kid help for whatever I perceive as a problem before I would resort to throwing them out. Kids also don't just go bad at 18.  If a kid has a drug problem or any other major failing, it likely started years earlier & I somehow failed them along the way.  It strikes me as bad parenting to screw up a kid and then instead of working to fix the problems, just throw them out when you legally can do so.

Not to say that at times behavior isn't so bad that throwing a kid out is the only realistic solution.  But, most people I know that were tossed at 18 weren't lost causes & just had crappy parents.  Some were problem children, but when raised in a crappy environment that isn't unexpected.

Personally I don't find being bi-sexual as a failing or immoral.  But if I did, then I must also feel it was a choice somewhere along the way (you can't be immoral with no choice in the matter, IMO) & recognize I played a role in this & not throw out the child for failing when I failed him. 

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 18:02:59 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:55:48 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Were that the case, I'd know my child needed professional help and get that help forthwith.   Somewhere along the line, if my kid made one of the choices you named, Virgil, I've failed him.  It's now up to me to make up for that failure.

By clucking your tongue and patting him on the back when he does wrong.

Or if you're not suggesting that Nick's parents tolerate his decision, what are you suggesting? That they send him to one of those brainwashing centers that try to undo 18 years of conditioning in six weeks?

Is that what I said, Virgil?  Where did I say anything about patting anyone on the back when that person has done wrong?  DO NOT put words in my mouth, Virgil.  I will NOT tolerate it.  I said my child would need help and would get that help.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 18:11:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 18:04:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Whether, or not, the story is true as told, Virgil, the principles under discussion are still valid.  Sneaking out under the veil of "I don't believe it" doesn't lift the onus from parents who would to this, and they are out there.

And I've said twice now: if he earned the money and wasn't indebted, it was theft to take it from him. The "throwing him out" part was the act being disputed, and the part I've addressed.

If you want to make this into a discussion about parents stealing money from their kids, talk about the morality of parents stealing money from their kids. Somehow I don't expect it will be an enlightening or controversial discussion.

Again, Virgil, stop spinning what I say.  Where in my quoted post do you read anything about the parents stealing the money?  It's not there.  The "throwing him out" part is what's being discussed.  Apparently, it's YOU who wishes to make it about stealing money.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 11, 2013 17:57:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 11, 2013 17:48:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I will respect your position but it simply boggles the mind.  The kid did nothing in the parents' home which would have violated their 'rules' other than exist.  What a message his parents have sent to the world:  'Our son's behavior is immoral but we will steal his money and car from him.'

Great moral lesson.  Outstanding members of society.

If they actually did that.

Even you have to admit that the "Gay Voices" section of Huffington Post is about as likely to present the objective truth of the matter as Brietbart is to publish a straightforward pros and cons analysis of Obamacare.

For all I know, "Nick" didn't own the car, left his parents with $20K in debts that they cosigned for on his behalf, and they confiscated all of $500 from their joint account when they threw him out. The probability of any such details making it into a HuffPo personal interest story: zero.

Looks like the Gay Voices" of Huffington Post is far more fair about posting both sides of the story than Breitbart as Huffington Post updated the article and publishing the father's reply to the initial story.  Now it is a 'he said/he said' issue.

The truth remains to be seen.  In his community, the father has everything to lose.

Bisexual Georgia Teen Kicked Out By Parents Gets Amazing Response From Strangers [UPDATED]

[Jaguar]

I read the updated story, plus I listened to the video and I googled for more info, cause that's what I always do.

[Virgil Showlion]

Is that what I said, Virgil? Where did I say anything about patting anyone on the back when that person has done wrong? DO NOT put words in my mouth, Virgil. I will NOT tolerate it. I said my child would need help and would get that help.

How would you "get help" in this particular case? That's my issue.

Personally I don't find being bi-sexual as a failing or immoral. But if I did, then I must also feel it was a choice somewhere along the way (you can't be immoral with no choice in the matter, IMO) & recognize I played a role in this & not throw out the child for failing when I failed him.

It depends on what you think is the best thing for him.

As for this story, the parents are claiming that "Nick" is a drinking-and-driving, abusive, exhibitionist, violent, indebted deadbeat who was suspended from his job, hates his biological mother, and won't pay his car lease. But I guess he figured he could ride a wave of public sympathy to a $26K payday and did so quite capably. Furthermore, his parents are going on record as having known about his sexual orientation for three years and that it was "NEVER (their) issue".

So this whole thread is moot. Ah well.

[mmhmm]

I'd read the update, as well.  As Tennesseer says, it's now a he said/he said situation.  Either could be telling the truth, just as either could be covering up.  The discussion underway here isn't dependent, IMO, on this case alone, however.  It's a discussion regarding morals, ethics, parental responsibilities, and the responsibilities of young adults who still live at home.  It's not dependent on Nick and his story, as I see it.

[mmhmm]

Nov 11, 2013 18:43:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is that what I said, Virgil? Where did I say anything about patting anyone on the back when that person has done wrong? DO NOT put words in my mouth, Virgil. I will NOT tolerate it. I said my child would need help and would get that help.

How would you "get help" in this particular case? That's my issue.


In the post you quoted, we weren't talking about "this particular case".  We were talking about hypothetical cases you brought up, Virgil ... like crime, drug use, etc. There is definitely help out there for such problems in young people.

Personally I don't find being bi-sexual as a failing or immoral. But if I did, then I must also feel it was a choice somewhere along the way (you can't be immoral with no choice in the matter, IMO) & recognize I played a role in this & not throw out the child for failing when I failed him.

It depends on what you think is the best thing for him.

As for this story, the parents are claiming that "Nick" is a drinking-and-driving, abusive, exhibitionist, violent, indebted deadbeat who was suspended from his job, hates his biological mother, and won't pay his car lease. But I guess he figured he could ride a wave of public sympathy to a $26K payday and did so quite capably. Furthermore, his parents are going on record as having known about his sexual orientation for three years and that it was "NEVER (their) issue".

So this whole thread is moot. Ah well.

LOL!  So, we're going to disbelieve that which doesn't suit us and believe that which does, eh?  Yeah.  Right. 

[steff]

LOL! So, we're going to disbelieve that which doesn't suit us and believe that which does, eh? Yeah. Right.

pretty much looks that way doesn't it?

[Tennesseer]

Nov 11, 2013 18:43:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Is that what I said, Virgil? Where did I say anything about patting anyone on the back when that person has done wrong? DO NOT put words in my mouth, Virgil. I will NOT tolerate it. I said my child would need help and would get that help.

How would you "get help" in this particular case? That's my issue.

Personally I don't find being bi-sexual as a failing or immoral. But if I did, then I must also feel it was a choice somewhere along the way (you can't be immoral with no choice in the matter, IMO) & recognize I played a role in this & not throw out the child for failing when I failed him.

It depends on what you think is the best thing for him.

As for this story, the parents are claiming that "Nick" is a drinking-and-driving, abusive, exhibitionist, violent, indebted deadbeat who was suspended from his job, hates his biological mother, and won't pay his car lease. But I guess he figured he could ride a wave of public sympathy to a $26K payday and did so quite capably. Furthermore, his parents are going on record as having known about his sexual orientation for three years and that it was "NEVER (their) issue".

So this whole thread is moot. Ah well.

If only this was the only case ìn the U.S. where a parent kicked their child out of their home because of his/her sexuality.  But most folks know that is not the case.  There are thousands upon thousands of homeless teens who have no family support for various reasons.

Because you say this thread is moot doesn't negate the fact many parents turn their backs on the children, be they teens or young adults, because of their sexuality.

[Jaguar]

Um it says that he graduated with all A's so how can one do that and also be a drinking-and-driving, abusive, exhibitionist, violent, indebted deadbeat who was suspended from his job, hates his biological mother, and won't pay his car lease.

From his attorney :

In response, Nick's attorney responded with the following statement:

Nick’s Father's version of what has happened is very different from the reality Nick has experienced. Nick is consulting an attorney regarding getting his money back, and regarding his Father's attempts to paint Nick as the bad guy. The fact is that Nick graduated High-School with all A's, he has had a job for three years and is currently in college. The truth will be proven in due time.

Nick is very appreciative of all the support and kindness that has been shown by so many.

Nick is hurt by the allegations that have been presented against him, and wishes to respond point by point, but he will not engage in a public back and forth with them, and will only state that he disagrees with his father’s version of events. On the advice of the attorney Nick is not going to make any more public statements at this time but may in the future. For now any further inquiries can be directed to:

Steven Cayton
Attorney at Law
1401 Peachtree St NE
Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404)-290-8990 (c)
(678)-951-0412 (f)
[e-mail]

[steff]

Because you say this thread is moot doesn't negate the fact many parents turn their backs on the children, be they teens or young adults, because of their sexuality.

and that it is still worthy of a discussion even if Virgil doesn't think so.  No one is forcing him to participate in it. 

[Tennesseer]

Nov 11, 2013 19:01:07 GMT -5 steff said:

Because you say this thread is moot doesn't negate the fact many parents turn their backs on the children, be they teens or young adults, because of their sexuality.

and that it is still worthy of a discussion even if Virgil doesn't think so.  No one is forcing him to participate in it. 

Which is why I wrote that sentence.  

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Living in my wife's and my house comes with the condition that our rules are respected. I don't care what my child feels, I care what he does. Since neither homosexuality nor premarital sex would be tolerated, my son's options are either to respect these prohibitions (and to respect us in so doing), or to find his own way in the great wide world, doing as he pleases without our roof over his head.

I would still love him. I wouldn't terminate contact with him. And if at any point his values changed and he ceased his immorality, I wouldn't hesitate to welcome him back into my home

That just saddens me to no end - that you'd disown/remove your child from your home based simply on his (or her) sexuality.

How can you say you would still love him - if you cannot respect HIM for who he is. And FYI - it's not a moral (or in YOUR mind, immoral) choice a person makes. A person doesn't "choose" to be gay - they are either born gay, or they're not.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 11, 2013 18:46:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I'd read the update, as well.  As Tennesseer says, it's now a he said/he said situation.  Either could be telling the truth, just as either could be covering up.  The discussion underway here isn't dependent, IMO, on this case alone, however.  It's a discussion regarding morals, ethics, parental responsibilities, and the responsibilities of young adults who still live at home.  It's not dependent on Nick and his story, as I see it.

The "principal" boils down to the following:

Nick is my son. Nick is working, saving for college, living under my roof. One day Nick comes home and says, "Dad, I'm attracted to other men." I'm dismayed by the news, but my reaction is, "If that's the case now, so be it. It's your moral responsibility not to nurture it or engage in the associated practices. It's unfortunate that you can't take a wife, but countless good men have lived in celibacy, and you'll evidently be among them."

Nick replies, "No, dad. I don't share your beliefs. Homosexuality is good and right and natural, and I choose to engage in it."
My reply is, "Son, I love you but I will not tolerate your bringing that sin, which is lawlessness, into this house. So long as you live here, you will have no romantic or sexual contact with men, and no sexual contact before marriage. If you don't find these rules acceptable, if you won't heed my advice, then it's time for you to make your own way in the world. We'll shelter you for two months, provide you with some necessities, and then you're out on your own; you can do whatever you like. I will always love you, but this is a choice you have to make."

Then Nick either decides to stay and abide by my wife's and my rules, or he chooses to leave and engage in whatever lifestyle pleases him.

I wouldn't terminate contact with him. I would still love him, pray for him, and wish only the best for him. I would tearfully welcome him into my home if for any reason he turned away from his wrongdoing. My wife and I simply will not tolerate lawlessness in our household, including behaviours and lifestyles that western society believes are right and good.