Who does homosexuality hurt?
Please explain your answer.
I'll say what I always say on this and related topics...
Two people who consent to interact with each other on some level, sexually or otherwise, who are adults, should be allowed.
I'll go further...there is *NO* rational reason to prevent gay couples from marrying, because marriage is a contract, and gay people can enter into any other contract except that one.
The people participating: hurts them in that our general society still has a ways to go in regards to accepting gays. Depending on the area, being homosexual can be a rocky road of discrimination.
Children: young children tend to believe whatever you tell them and this is a dangerous power that is abused by those with agendas. I doubt it is a very common occurrence, more like just a possibility I guess but with people being people..., there is a chance some homosexual couples may encourage their child[ren] to become homosexual rather than letting the kid[s] find out for themselves. Of course this is just as applicable on the straight side, but this thread is not about straight folks.
No one: i rarely lose sleep worrying about Sheldon sneaking into my house and giving me surprise buttsecks.
If you only wanted me to choose one, my bad
I suppose it'd depend on how much lube you used....ask sheldon
I realized I left an important choice out:
Those who let it hurt them.
Damn.
LOL@Razz. You're my love!
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. It hurts the baby Jesus.
This is such a weird question. It's a given that homosexuality hurts no one. Homosexuality is what it is, and what is meant to be.
The problem is, the horrible attitudes toward homosexuality. They hurt everyone.
だれも (no one): simply put, there's nothing inherently bad about homosexuality. The only harm that comes to anyone comes from people, under the influence of society. *is obtuse at early hours*
Well, it confuses hunky firemen when professed lesbians start coming on to them.
All I can answer is, "Not me".
Well, it confuses hunky firemen when professed lesbians start coming on to them.
:lol2:
This is such a weird question. It's a given that homosexuality hurts no one. Homosexuality is what it is, and what is meant to be.
The problem is, the horrible attitudes toward homosexuality. They hurt everyone.
Couldn't have said it better.
I'll answer #1 (elspode, ever my model of tolerance and grace); #7 (footfootfoot has a point); and, #10 (Zen. That would be very confusing)
It hurts the one dude's anus, but he likes it.
Funny how when Coke want people to drink something brown and fizzy made of vegetable extracts and sugar which has no nutritional value and rots people's teeth, they spend millions on advertising.
But when teh gays wants to recruit more members (heh heh heh) all they have to do is tell school children that some men like it up the poop shoot.
'cause crack is more addictive than coke.
If you are dating me at the time but you secretly like cock, me then. :)
I'm sorry - I read the question as Why does homosexuality hurt :blush: ...
If you are dating me at the time but you secretly like cock, me then. :)
That isn't the homosexuality that hurt you....it was dishonesty that hurt you.
this reminds me of a joke:
what's the difference between anal sex and a microwave?
hit ctrl+a for the answer
[COLOR=White]a microwave won't brown your meat.[/COLOR]
I know there are some traditional couples who feel their marriage is threatened by teh gheys...but that's just stupidity.
Love is love. Commitment is commitment.
No that's wrong. Because it is dishonesty, and a penis that I will never have. ;)
I'm a product of my environment and upbringing, I suppose.
Rationally, I believe that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever as long as no permanent harm is done.
The truth is, though, that female homosexuality doesn't bother me. But male homosexuality is ewwww.
I don't know why.
I know there are some traditional couples who feel their marriage is threatened by teh gheys...but that's just stupidity.
Love is love. Commitment is commitment.
Isn't it more that they think their vows to each other will be cheapened if 'just anyone' is allowed to go ahead and get married? That's the feeling I get when I read those sorts of discussions.
The truth is, though, that female homosexuality doesn't bother me. But male homosexuality is ewwww.
I don't know why.
It's probably the whole bottom/poo thing.
You should try anal sex some time. Maybe you'd change your mind. ;)
It's probably the whole bottom/poo thing.
You should try anal sex some time. Maybe you'd change your mind. ;)
How to phrase this...
I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.
Oh so you've already tried it or no the thought of the bottom/poo thing doesn't turn you off?
How to phrase this...
I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.
[SIZE="1"][smirk][/SIZE]
Let's bring this thread, for once, back to reality...
If two dudes who are happily buggering one another, or two ladies happily slurping the juices, decide that they wish to be legally and morally entangled for all of time...
Why, how, where, when...can it damage *anything*?
People who love each other should be allowed to enter a legally binding agreement based on nothing more than their love, and it shouldn't matter whether they have tab A going into slot B or whatever. Any heterosexual couple is allowed, nay, *encouraged* to do this whenever they please. Why should a couple who has two tab A's or slots B be different?
I dare anyone to provide a serious argument as to why this premise is wrong on any level.
No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?
I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.
Go ahead. Try it.
You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.
ETA: You can't refuse to acknowledge one side of an argument just because you don't agree with it imo. It is a part of the argument/social discourse and therefore cannot simply be set aside as it forms a part of how society views the issue.
What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.
You can't have the argument without including God into the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.
Not in my theology, it doesn't. And I'm real mod.
What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.[/QUOTE]
In the Constitution of the United States, there's a separation of Church and State (work with me, okay, Radar? TW?).
Marriage, as seen by law, is a *contract*. Its a business deal, pure and simple. Otherwise, when the marriage fails, there'd be no need to divide the property and income into the future and such.
My point is this: Marriage is a contract that is only currently available to heterosexuals. Why? Don't just tell me " 'cause that's how it is".
Tell me *why*...seriously, why?
You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.
And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.
ok then. The reason is that too many people sit around complaining about it and not enough actually get up off their butts and do something about it, such as protesting, raising community awareness etc.
On the other hand, 20 or even 15 years ago, gay people had it a lot tougher than they do now. At least they have a reasonable chance of walking down the road without having the crap bashed out of them these days.
Change in this regard - that is changing the social structure of the environment - happens slowly, but at a much faster rate than ever before. Maybe it's still not fast enough, but to use your words, 'that's how it is'.
Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.
Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.
And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.
That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route, or of course quick weddings before the man went off to war.
Even in many civil ceremonies God still gets a mention.
I still don't see an argument that addresses the ultimate basic notion of marriage as a simple contract.
God in, God out. Marriage before a JOP or a Priest.
*WHY* can't gay people get legally married? Why can straight people do so without question?
"That's just the way it is" does *not* answer my query. I want to hear opinions as to why it is illegal for gay people to enter into the legally binding state of matrimony.
Because it's not socially acceptable. That's about the only reason.
When it is socially acceptable to be gay, then I'm sure marriage will be legal.
There is no other reason.
That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route,
...
And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their
religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.
Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?
And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.
That's true HM. Of course it's also true that often times the family is driven by their religion when they make these sorts of 'judgements'.
Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?
I think Els has been pretty clear on how he defines marriage. It's a simple contract.
How do you define marriage Classic?
For the sake of the argument here is one definition:
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.
My point is not to disagree with Els, but to say that the argument is more based upon ones accepted definition than anything else.
...and my point is simply that all current "socially acceptable" definitions of marriage are wrong.
Race, religion, national origin...none of these things are any longer acceptable reasons to deny the right of marriage between two people in any country which we would call, by almost any set of defintions, "civilized".
Yet it is permissable, nay, *legal*, to deny the right of marriage to two individuals strictly based upon the fact that they happen to be of the same sex.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me an absolute, logical, moral reason why this should be so. A moral reason not based on any one theology or mythology, but a truly, simply, plainly *moral* reason.
right of marriage between two people
Why just 2?
Oh, well if the definition isn't to your liking then write your congressman.
Have I waved the great prophet
Roy Zimmerman at you all lately?
"It's the Lord's holy word
said my second wife to my third..."
Any group of people should be able to enter into a legal contract without exception regardless of sexual orientation.
Thanks for pointing that out, Jinx.
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.
Still, if we are thinking of civil unions, they come with various pension/insurance benefits. Polygamous unions could become tricky in that respect.
Suppose eight people get "married". Do they all get carer's leave when one is sick? How many mother-in-law's funerals can they attend? How would this affect welfare and pensions?
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.
Not that these things should preclude poly-marriage, but I think they're interesting questions.
I can't imagine having another wife in this house, but an extra husband would come in handy sometimes. :)
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.
Read any RAH recently?
Why just 2?
Because then you are a Mormon. Marriage is just between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another.....
No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?
I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.
Go ahead. Try it.
None of that was in the title of the thread.
Read any RAH recently?
err, who? (I guess that means "no".)
Robert Anson Heinlein - One of the preeminent science fiction authors of the golden era.
In particular,
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress discusses line-marriage.
None of that was in the title of the thread.
That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.
That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.
Certainly you could make a case that since there was no other kind of marriage in history that the term "traditional Marriage" only came about because people who were gay wanted to marry and it now introduced an alternative to marriage as everyone knows it. Certainly there is history to it. Arranged marriages were not the status in quo in most cultures, same for dowerys. None of those things were part of US culture. And certainly it has changed over history, and certainly there is this new thing where same sex couples can marry, but to say that "traditonal marriage", as defined between and man and a woman, does not change history. Those who don't support this idea, chose a common theme against it and stuck with just that, because it is not in alignment with what they want. Just a different point of view. I personally don't have to much of an opinion on it.
Please explain your answer.
I can only come up with one group of people that homosexuality can hurt, family. There is a pervasive attitude in our Me Generation that anyone can do anything and it has little to no consequence, as long as it makes you happy. I think if parents and family are not comfortable with choices you make as teens and young adults and you ignore other peoples feelings who support you, then you should really not be surprised when you loose that support, emotional, financial, educational, etc. So yea, you can hurt those around you, even if you don't mean to do it.
I can only come up with one group of people that homosexuality can hurt, family. There is a pervasive attitude in our Me Generation that anyone can do anything and it has little to no consequence, as long as it makes you happy. I think if parents and family are not comfortable with choices you make as teens and young adults and you ignore other peoples feelings who support you, then you should really not be surprised when you loose that support, emotional, financial, educational, etc. So yea, you can hurt those around you, even if you don't mean to do it.
Family gets hurt by other family members' actions all the time that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. We can't do everything that "family" wants us to do and be personally happy. At least that is what I've found. I don't ignore their feelings, but yes mine are more important. I don't treat them like bad people or stupid (even when I think they are), I just say "Look, this makes me happy, you love me, then you should just be happy that I'm responsible, healthy and happy." In my honest opinion if your family tells you want religion, sexual orientation, career ect you should have, and pull support from you without meeting those goals they've set...then they don't have any real love for you. You love someone you want them to be happy and successful, thats it. They shouldn't define what makes you happy, just be happy for you when you find your own definition.
It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition?
Actually, that was more than 'tradition' that was a legal constraint. I'm not sure how it worked in the States, but over here property ownership was simply not legally possible for a married woman, until the Married Woman's Property Act, well into the 19th century. Upon marriage the woman entered into the system of 'couverture': she lost her separate legal existence.
Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.
Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.
But els's point, that still hasn't been addressed (i'm not tail-posting here), is that LEGALLY, god CAN'T have anything to do with the discussion. God is not part of the government, and therefore God can not be the reason to deny two people a social contract.
Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.
Again, that's wonderful, but LEGALLY speaking, it is NOT the government's business at ALL how you feel spiritually. Yes, two people can feel that for eachother and not need marriage at all, but if they want the LEGAL rights associated with the LEGAL contract of marriage, they deserve it. Of course marriage is more than just signing forms. But to the GOVERNMENT, it shouldn't be. In a legal sense, only the legal agreement matters.
Isn't it more that they think their vows to each other will be cheapened if 'just anyone' is allowed to go ahead and get married? That's the feeling I get when I read those sorts of discussions.
Well, I see what you're saying, but to me that's the whole point. How could anyone else's
anything cheapen another's couple's vows, if what you have is strong who cares what everyone else is doing?
I think vows are cheapened more by serial marriage people: hop from one marriage or relationship to another, or by those who marry for money, or for a million other reasons that, to me, seem aside from what marriage should be about. It's my opinion that pretty much "just anyone" can get married anyway...who am I to limit it or to say Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue can get married because they're in love, even if he beats her or she cheats, but Billy Joe and Bobby Jack who are very committed and believe in a purpose in life can't?
I know I'm talking to a very happily married person, so your opinion is valuable to this discussion. So many are not happy...
:)
All tax payers suffer.
When Ellen and Portia got married, my taxes went through the roof. The freaking ROOF, I tell you. :neutral:
But els's point, that still hasn't been addressed (i'm not tail-posting here), is that LEGALLY, god CAN'T have anything to do with the discussion. God is not part of the government, and therefore God can not be the reason to deny two people a social contract.
Again, that's wonderful, but LEGALLY speaking, it is NOT the government's business at ALL how you feel spiritually. Yes, two people can feel that for eachother and not need marriage at all, but if they want the LEGAL rights associated with the LEGAL contract of marriage, they deserve it. Of course marriage is more than just signing forms. But to the GOVERNMENT, it shouldn't be. In a legal sense, only the legal agreement matters.
Just to try and clarify this one more time.
At this point it is illegal for gay people to marry almost everywhere in the world.
Do I agree with this? nope. Not at all.
Why do I think it's illegal? Because it is socially unacceptable at the moment, and until it becomes socially acceptable it will remain illegal.
Why is it socially unacceptable? Because society is underpinned by religious and spiritual beliefs which conflict with facts a lot of the time, but it doesn't change the fact that religion has a big say in what's acceptable and what's not in most societies.
What do I think needs to happen to change things? We as a society need to recognise the rights of the individual to express their love however they choose to do so which may or may not include marriage.
Why hasn't it happened yet? All change takes time. There have been remarkable leaps forward for the gay community over the last 20 years or so, along with many other minority groups. Maybe it's not fast enough, but things are definitely not stagnant.
Do I believe it will happen? Most assuredly yes.
Well, I see what you're saying, but to me that's the whole point. How could anyone else's anything cheapen another's couple's vows, if what you have is strong who cares what everyone else is doing?
I think vows are cheapened more by serial marriage people: hop from one marriage or relationship to another, or by those who marry for money, or for a million other reasons that, to me, seem aside from what marriage should be about. It's my opinion that pretty much "just anyone" can get married anyway...who am I to limit it or to say Billy Joe and Bobbie Sue can get married because they're in love, even if he beats her or she cheats, but Billy Joe and Bobby Jack who are very committed and believe in a purpose in life can't?
I know I'm talking to a very happily married person, so your opinion is valuable to this discussion. So many are not happy...
:)
I was simply making an observation...trying to put myself in the other persons shoes to try and understand the position.
I don't agree with it, but I think that's what it is.
Just to try and clarify this one more time.
At this point it is illegal for gay people to marry almost everywhere in the world.
Do I agree with this? nope. Not at all.
Why do I think it's illegal? Because it is socially unacceptable at the moment, and until it becomes socially acceptable it will remain illegal.
Why is it socially unacceptable? Because society is underpinned by religious and spiritual beliefs which conflict with facts a lot of the time, but it doesn't change the fact that religion has a big say in what's acceptable and what's not in most societies.
What do I think needs to happen to change things? We as a society need to recognise the rights of the individual to express their love however they choose to do so which may or may not include marriage.
Why hasn't it happened yet? All change takes time. There have been remarkable leaps forward for the gay community over the last 20 years or so, along with many other minority groups. Maybe it's not fast enough, but things are definitely not stagnant.
Do I believe it will happen? Most assuredly yes.
What an excellent post.
Read any RAH recently?
Stranger in a Strange Land, the original poly primer.
The reason same sex marriage is not legal yet is that the people that make the laws are frequently christians, and those who aren't, were probably raised with a sort of 'christian-by-default' morality. The original lettering said marriage was between man and woman, and then when same sex couples came along and wanted to get married, the fundies latched onto that wording in order to prevent what they perceive as a threat to their belief structure.
To truly maintain separation of church and state, the word 'marriage' should be struck from the law books. In order to get all those benefits that spouses now share, there should be 'civil unions' under the law. 'Marriage' should be a strictly religious term, and governed by the rules of each religion. Which means that couples would have to have two ceremonies. The legal and the religious, and the religious should have -no- influence on the legal.
But that's my opinion, I could be wrong.
Family gets hurt by other family members' actions all the time that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. We can't do everything that "family" wants us to do and be personally happy.
I didn't say you should, only that your actions often hurt the ones you love or that love you the most as you attempt to go off and define yourself.
At least that is what I've found. I don't ignore their feelings, but yes mine are more important. I don't treat them like bad people or stupid (even when I think they are), I just say "Look, this makes me happy, you love me, then you should just be happy that I'm responsible, healthy and happy."
Right out of the mouth of the Me Generation. Just because they love you does not mean that your actions, any actions or decisions in your life, cannot be hurtful to them in someway and you at least admit that you don't care if you hurt them, as long as you are happy.
In my honest opinion if your family tells you want religion, sexual orientation, career ect you should have, and pull support from you without meeting those goals they've set...then they don't have any real love for you.
I didn't say they didn't love you or would not love you, only that your actions can hurt them in your atttempt to be whom ever you want to be.
You love someone you want them to be happy and successful, thats it. They shouldn't define what makes you happy, just be happy for you when you find your own definition.
Absolutely. But there is no requirement for them to continue to support you even if they love you. Just because they love you does not mean they owe you financial, material, or emotional support. That kind of attitude says that the only thing in life is what is important to you and screw what they think.
Ahhhhh, it all comes down to money in the end, Merc?
"If you're gonna be a mary-queen you'll not get a penny out of me!"?
Fair enough. If a child denies the sexual preference they were born with just to get financial, material, or emotional support from their parents then they deserve eachother.
Well - perhaps not the emotional side of things, but it does make them kinda needy. Obviously from having such overbearing parents.
But els's point, that still hasn't been addressed (i'm not tail-posting here), is that LEGALLY, god CAN'T have anything to do with the discussion. God is not part of the government, and therefore God can not be the reason to deny two people a social contract.
The thing to remember though, is the origin behind laws and governance of a populace. Morality comes from a variety of places, yourself or an external source like the Bible or the Qur'an. The point is God has everything to do with the discussion. Take Thomas Jefferson for example. The man is regarded as one of America's most enlightened and influential political thinkers and shapers. The man was not Christian, but a Deist who took morality lessons from the Bible, specifically Jesus, and applied them to society as a whole. His moral foundation, found in Deism and some of Jesus' teachings, very much so shaped how he thought man should interact within society and how governments should relate with men.
Again, that's wonderful, but LEGALLY speaking, it is NOT the government's business at ALL how you feel spiritually. Yes, two people can feel that for eachother and not need marriage at all, but if they want the LEGAL rights associated with the LEGAL contract of marriage, they deserve it. Of course marriage is more than just signing forms. But to the GOVERNMENT, it shouldn't be. In a legal sense, only the legal agreement matters.
I agree 100%.
I didn't say you should, only that your actions often hurt the ones you love or that love you the most as you attempt to go off and define yourself.
Right out of the mouth of the Me Generation. Just because they love you does not mean that your actions, any actions or decisions in your life, cannot be hurtful to them in someway and you at least admit that you don't care if you hurt them, as long as you are happy.
I didn't say they didn't love you or would not love you, only that your actions can hurt them in your atttempt to be whom ever you want to be.
Absolutely. But there is no requirement for them to continue to support you even if they love you. Just because they love you does not mean they owe you financial, material, or emotional support. That kind of attitude says that the only thing in life is what is important to you and screw what they think.
This closely resembles a few of the conversations I had with my dad when I was 19/20ish. Wow. Talk about flashbacks.
Ahhhhh, it all comes down to money in the end, Merc?
"If you're gonna be a mary-queen you'll not get a penny out of me!"?
Fair enough. If a child denies the sexual preference they were born with just to get financial, material, or emotional support from their parents then they deserve eachother.
Well - perhaps not the emotional side of things, but it does make them kinda needy. Obviously from having such overbearing parents.
Why should parents support the life style of another adult that they don't support? Because they are your spawn? I think not. What overbearing parents? A bit of an assumption on your part don't you think?
[.Quote How could anyone else's anything cheapen another couple's vows, if what you have is strong who cares what everyone else is doing?
That is the argument that annoys me the most. I have know so many people who jump right into a marriage and then are divorced 6 months later. But a pair of lovers who have been together faithfully for 10 years can't possible be married because they are both female. Oh no can't have that.
I don't need some church's opinion to tell me what is right and wrong. I know what is right for me and I am sure they know what is right for them.
Having left a marriage entered into full of love only to be handing more abuse than I plan on ever dealing with again, I know first hand that just being male and female isn't what makes a marriage.
Love, caring, respect are the needed ingredients and they aren't only available to straight people.
I was ashamed of the people in MO when they voted to discriminate against those who live and spend their money in the stores and pay the same taxes as the rest. As for them, Karma will come around.
All tax payers suffer.
Please explain.
Why should parents support the life style of another adult that they don't support? Because they are your spawn? I think not. What overbearing parents? A bit of an assumption on your part don't you think?
Actually yes and yes and yes. They do owe it to the child to give them the support they need in order to succeed (finacial, emotional, everything) even if they don't agree with the child's personal life-style. The parent chose to have the child, their responsibility to the child doesn't end, ever. Even if its a druggie whore, they have the responsibility to try and help them, pay for rehab ect.
To me, you're comments make you sound like its all about "ME" from the parents side. I'm sorry but the parent
chose the relationship, the child
did not.
This isn't just for the adult-child's benefit, a good relationship with your child should be important, and instead of ostracizing them
A: you have more chance of influencing them to make good decisions
B: you get the benefit of a loving respectful relationship
C: if they're successful, they'll pass along the good fortune because you were a part of them gaining that success.
BTW: no when I hurt my parents' feelings it does bother me. I try to minimize damage, which means I hide alot. BUT I'm not going to marry the person they want me to (at 18 nonetheless!), and I'm not going to go to church. Those are my choices to make, not theirs, and although doing so would make them happy, it would make me very very extremely unhappy. Even though I tell them this (and its proven, I've done it "their way" in the past, I got suicidal) they deny that thats possible. So I love my parents, I know they want the best for me, but they don't know what is best for me. I'm not saying that I know either, but I'm a lot more aware than they are.
The parent chose to have the child, their responsibility to the child doesn't end, ever. Even if its a druggie whore, they have the responsibility to try and help them, pay for rehab ect.
Balderdash... You raise the kid as best you can, teach them right from wrong as you know it, do your best to prepare them for life, but as adults they have to make there own way it the world. Any further aid is voluntary, not obligation.
Baby-->child-->adult, that's it, no parasites. :headshake
The parent chose to have the child, their responsibility to the child doesn't end, ever. Even if its a druggie whore, they have the responsibility to try and help them, pay for rehab ect.
Forever? I do not think so. Since when? OMG is this really what the next generation believes? I totally completely and wholeheartedly disagree. The parent has a responsibility to care for and give their
child the best they can until adulthood. After that, it is pure choice, not a requirement. Geez, this is like a scene out of
Stepbrothers.
To me, you're comments make you sound like its all about "ME" from the parents side. I'm sorry but the parent chose the relationship, the child did not.
This isn't just for the adult-child's benefit, a good relationship with your child should be important, and instead of ostracizing them
A: you have more chance of influencing them to make good decisions
B: you get the benefit of a loving respectful relationship
C: if they're successful, they'll pass along the good fortune because you were a part of them gaining that success.
No, Its all about YOU - obviously. Whew?!?
BTW: no when I hurt my parents' feelings it does bother me. I try to minimize damage, which means I hide alot.
Do you think that is the best course of action?> Do you think that is the mature adult way of handling a situation? By deception and dishonesty?
~but they don't know what is best for me. I'm not saying that I know either, but I'm a lot more aware than they are.
Hopefully their years of experience have taught them more than you over your limited time on the planet. If not, then perhaps you are right. However, I would conclude that to be the exception, not the rule.
Where do you think discipline and/or sacrifice come into this equation? You (the child) said that you were part of their success. If so, how did you contribute?
Do you think that is the mature adult way of handling a situation? By deception and dishonesty?
Are you serious? :eyebrow:
Let's hear how
you would handle the situation, Mr. Mature and Honest, mmkay?
First, define the "situation". :confused:
My point, Jinx, was that perhaps her parents don't fully know or understand her because they don't completely know HER. If she is keeping who she is from them, how are they supposed to be able to help and guide her?
First, define the "situation". :confused:
The situation as I understand Merc and Classic to be describing it is; someone who you depend on for emotional or financial support doesn't approve of your lifestyle or something you do.
My point, Jinx, was that perhaps her parents don't fully know or understand her because they don't completely know HER. If she is keeping who she is from them, how are they supposed to be able to help and guide her?
And my question was how would you personally handle the situation. You seemed to have a problem with MTP's course of "dishonesty". So would you be honest and possibly lose financial support, would you try to hide your activities, or would you be a good but miserable dog? You. Personally.
Also, as Merc said, regardless of the rights and wrongs of their particular viewpoint/belief system, those parents may well feel hurt by such revelations. For the gay son or daughter, then, it may feel like protecting the parents from 'harmful' or distressing knoweldge, as well as protecting themselves from potential rejection.
If you don't want to play by the house rules, you have three choices.
1- Cheat and risk punishment if you're caught.
2- Convince the house to change the rules for you.
3- Change houses.
When our kids leave high school, and either get a job or go to uni, they're going to have to start supporting their own lifestyle choices. If they don't get themselves a job, they wont be going anywhere because we wont be funding it for them. Even if they're studying we expect them to have a part time job to fund their wardrobe, car expenses and entertainment. We've already discussed paying for their books etc, but we wont be paying for the uni. That will go on hecs (that's where the govt pays the tuition and then when the degree is finished, it comes out of their tax. A bit like a student loan I'm guessing) just as both Dazza and myself have done.
There are plenty of people here who fund everything and buy new cars for their kids etc, but I don't agree with this course and I definitely don't agree with my child telling me how I should support them. If my kids were to lie to me I don't think I'd feel inclined to say, "that's ok, you're an adult now. I'll just keep paying the bills for you while you talk crap to me." Nope, that's not how it would work.
If they think they know better than me on how the world works, it'll be time for them to step out of my house and into the big wide world.
Here's an example for you. If I found my kids were involved in some kind of hate group, I wouldn't support them in their 'choices'. I am opposed to these types of behaviour and will not support them. I would still love my child, but I would never support those types of choices.
Forever? I do not think so. Since when? OMG is this really what the next generation believes? I totally completely and wholeheartedly disagree. The parent has a responsibility to care for and give their child the best they can until adulthood. After that, it is pure choice, not a requirement. Geez, this is like a scene out of Stepbrothers.
Don't worry not all of us. My parents brought me up with lessons on personal responsibility, accountability for your actions, and acceptance of the results for said actions. To expect someone else to take care of you is naive at best when you are fully capable of supporting yourself. All of my friends are the same way as I am in this regard. My dad tells me even now to "be the person you want to become", take responsibility for your own life and shape it into whatever you want it to be. Never expect anything from anyone, esp. those who don't owe you anything. Appreciate what you have been given, and strive to earn your rewards in life instead of waiting for handouts.
I know they want the best for me, but they don't know what is best for me. I'm not saying that I know either, but I'm a lot more aware than they are.
I laugh when I hear kids say this now, because I used to be the same way until I grew up and realized hey, maybe they DO know a thing or two about life, children, etc. because *NEWS FLASH* they raised you from a pup and have watched you grow and change and learn. They've seen you try, fail, and succeed and to deny them the position that they've earned through blood, sweat, and tears to be in with you today is selfish, ignorant, and disrespectful. The whole point of parenting is to teach the child how to be self sufficient in the world and then set them free to determine the course of their own life. That is their role and anything more is charity that you shouldn't expect from anyone. Your parents are not there to be your wheelchair once you've learned how to stand on your own two feet. The world owes you nothing and has no responsibility to care for your every need, esp. when you've become and adult. Your parents included.
What you are aware of is your own mindset and your own feelings. Your parents cannot know these things, and thus better understand you, unless you TELL them and don't repress anything. Suppressing your feelings and thoughts leads to resentment because the only way to solve a problem is to get down and dirty and SOLVE it.
I'm not going to marry the person they want me to (at 18 nonetheless!)
and its proven, I've done it "their way" in the past, I got suicidal
Its funny: all ya'll who decided to rag on me for sayin my parents do not always know whats best for me, decided to overlook these two statements completely. So I'll say it again, and dumb it down for ya.
My parents wanted me to
GET MARRIED AT 18! They think me
getting a college degree is probably a waste of time. They believe my ex-boyfriend
"owns a piece of my soul" because we had sex. That although I was terribly unhappy with him, and with him mainly because he was the first guy to ever pay attention to me,
THAT I SHOULD STILL MARRY HIM AT 18! That I should get a SECOND job, and
support HIM through school.
I spent FOUR YEARS on anti-depressants, not able to look up from my feet, hiding in my closet or a book. I was suicidal, and took pain-killers recreational. When I wasn't doing these things, I was goin to church or youth group, or praying to God. Trying to be a good Christian, and not understanding why my heart was still devoid, when I had all the "faith" I could muster. When I begged my parents; no I did not "throw a fit," I wrote out all of my arguments, asked them to sit down with me and tried to discuss the issue with them, it ended in literal begging, I begged them to let me stop youth group. I was endlessly harassed at it, not just by other kids, by the youth minister herself. They knew this, they believed it. They made me keep going even though 9 out of 10 times I came home in a complete wreck. Its hard now, not to tear up and talk about it. That was 5 or so years ago.
A couple of years ago, my mom actually told me: "I don't really believe you were ever depressed." That makes sense, since 3 separate doctors and a family counselor all believed it. My thoughts of suicide probably meant nothing either.
Those are a couple of examples, I don't feel like giving anymore, those are personal enough. So while, my parents have years of experience that makes their advise very valuable. They don't know what is best for me.
I'm sorry to hear about all that MTP. Some people just don't quite get what it means to "walk in someone else's shoes". Meaning that they should have taken a step back and thought about what they were asking and forcing you to do from your POV. There's no such thing as a perfect parent, but I'm willing to guess that they do honestly have your best interest in mind. Obviously that doesn't always come through the way you would think, esp. given what sounds like fundamentalist Christian views (Pentecostal by chance?). But in their minds they are pushing you to do what they see as best for you according to their worldview, ya know? In this case, their views are asking too much of you, they didn't understand what you were going through, and it created a rift. I hope you can mend things with your parents, there's no replacement for that strong family bond. And I hope that they can see things from your perspective and try to respect your wishes, even if they disagree. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in dealing with them though. Even though they may have some skewed expectations of you esp. regarding your faith, that doesn't automatically make their combined knowledge about life null and void (unless you ask RKZ).
We can only go by what we see posted on the board. We don't all necessarily know your personal background and life story, just whatever tidbits you happen to post. Which can lead to people seemingly coming off as jerks in response to your comments, when that's not necessarily the case or their intention.
:comfort:
We've still only heard one side. ;)
I never said I don't have a relationship with them. Its good as far as relationships with parents go I think. I'm just sayin although they might try to do what is best for me, and think they are. Proof is that they don't as often as they think. I precisely don't tell them aspects of my life because I know they wouldn't understand, and it would just make them resent me more. The facts are tho: I've been financially responsible since 18, and personally responsible my whole life (never did hard core drugs, A's pretty much all thru school, never any trouble with the law ect ect). I do give my parents credit for helping me along, but I overcame a lot despite them as well. I'm tryin hard to become a success at something or other. To me that should be enuf for my parents, although I should not have to earn their love, I have done more than most children to do so, and to keep it. Right now I do need my parents support in order to reach my goals, and yes I think they owe it to me to try to do everything in their power to help me reach those goals.
Once you have child, they are always your child. You have to treat them as an adult eventually, yes, but your responsibility to them never ends. They are in this world because of you. They are who they are a good chunk because of you. Genetically and conditionally. Therefore, you have the responsibility to try to help them succeed.*
To me a big chunk of that means: achieve personal happiness. Why would this responsibility end at 18? Their life journey is nowhere near its end, you set them on that path, you're their guide. If you don't understand their "gayness," then maybe you should pull your nose out of "the good book" and research it some.
If they turn into an irresponsible, ungrateful, idiotic adult, yes that is partially to blame on you. You fucked 'em up or allowed 'em to fuck up, you gonna just walk away from that and say "Hey not my problem anymore, they're over 18."?
*Definition for those of ya'll who don't seem to be able to look past the monetary meaning of that word:
suc⋅ceed
   /səkˈsid/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhk-seed] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result: Our efforts succeeded.
2. to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like: Grass will not succeed in this dry soil.
3. to accomplish what is attempted or intended: We succeeded in our efforts to start the car.
4. to attain success in some popularly recognized form, as wealth or standing: The class voted him the one most likely to succeed.
5. to follow or replace another by descent, election, appointment, etc. (often fol. by to).
6. to come next after something else in an order or series.
–verb (used with object)
7. to come after and take the place of, as in an office or estate.
8. to come next after in an order or series, or in the course of events; follow.
Once you have child, they are always your child. You have to treat them as an adult eventually, yes, but your responsibility to them never ends. They are in this world because of you. They are who they are a good chunk because of you. Genetically and conditionally. Therefore, you have the responsibility to try to help them succeed.*
To me a big chunk of that means: achieve personal happiness.
No, their
responsibility is to teach you, prepare you, to
survive. If they do that, you owe them, they don't owe you.
You're happiness is your responsibility. Any concern they have with your happiness is out of love, not responsibility, and that's a two way street. If you make them unhappy why in hell should they care if you're happy.
mtp, once a parent- always a parent- true enough.
And you are obviously correct in that raising children partially shapes who a parent is as a person when done raising their children.
But to think that a parent owes you a lifetime debt or something for what you've contributed to who they are now as a person is screwed up logically.
They chose(hopefully) to create you. Are you glad to have a chance to live a life and make of it all that you can?
But as everyone else has told you; there are limits to a parents responsibilities toward their children. Otherwise the child would never learn eternally important consequences and responsibilities.
Are you going to pay them back in some kind of way for any hurtful results they've experienced in raising you since they owe you for your good contributions to them?
Each of you were/ are a source of blessing and hurt to each other. Thats just the results of human relationships.
By your logic, you forever owe any friend you make all of the support they need from you regardless of the horrific choices and consequences they make and bring upon themselves. Not true, life is way more complicated than that.
Enabling and codependency are very real and you can help someone to continue hurting themselves if you don't realize what you are doing. Read up on these at Wikipedia and elsewhere.
Also it was their own parenting choices and the consequences of those choices that has brought them, and you, to this point. If for the most part they made good choices toward/ for you, then you owe them gratitude. Just as I'm sure they are grateful for your good choices.
Likewise, as I mentioned above, it was also to some degree, your choices and the resultant consequences that has brought you, and them to this point in life.
They owe you nothing more than continued teaching and advice after you become an adult.
But having said all of this, just as a parent makes sacrifices out of love for their children when raising them, many that are beyond the required ones; a parent can choose to do so for an adult child of theirs; out of love, not requirement. But those enabling issues must be avoided.
* apologies- this post is off-topic of the OP
I agree wit MTP on this one. As adults we are responsible for ourselves; our parents also share some responsibility for the person we are and the journey we're on. Maybe not legally, but morally.
And the idea that parents know what's best for their children is so bloody dependent upon the individual parents and the individual children it's almost not worth making the point in the first place. MTP had a right, as a struggling youngster, to have her needs taken into account.
To be put through all of that and then have the people who've put you through it turn round and deny the suffering you've been through must be horrible.
Parents make mistakes and so do children. Parents can often offer insight and wisdom by dint of their extended time on the planet. But they can also offer bad advice, damaging counsel and assist in trapping you into an unhappy life. having done so there is a moral weight on them. Having set you onto a destructive path and equipped you with the wrong tools for the world you're in, it is then a bit of a cheek to wash their hands of you when you've reached your majority and are trying to mend things.
I'm glad MTP managed to maintain a good relationship with her parents despite their travails. Clearly she is someone who is a) strong enough to forge her own path and b) understanding enough to recognise the lack of malice in her parents' actions.
If I were her, I would not tell them about my life. There are aspects of my life I have never told my father, because I know he wouldn't get it. Mum knows, because she does get it. Why tell Dad stuff that would give him a negative view of his daughter and possibly make him unhappy?
One of the very few things I regret in life, was telling Gran, in a flurry of teenage arrogance, that I was an atheist. All defiance and nihilistic zeal, I was determined to tear down the edifice of faith. All I actually did was hurt her. Her beliefs seemed (and still do) ludicrous and psychologically damaging to me. But for her, all she heard was that her adored grandchild was going to hell for eternity.
Actually yes and yes and yes. They do owe it to the child to give them the support they need in order to succeed (finacial, emotional, everything) even if they don't agree with the child's personal life-style. The parent chose to have the child, their responsibility to the child doesn't end, ever. Even if its a druggie whore, they have the responsibility to try and help them, pay for rehab ect.
True, until the age of 18. After that it is about personal choices that you make from there on out. I do not feel that as a parent I have a responsibility to continually keep coming back and bailing you out. I will attempt to help an adult-child only for so long before the individual will have to take total responsibility for the choices that they make as adults. Even if they are bad choices. If you are going to become a "a druggie whore", then that is on you. Don't come to me looking for help over and over. It will not be there and to expect it to be there is pure fantasy.
To me, you're comments make you sound like its all about "ME" from the parents side. I'm sorry but the parent chose the relationship, the child did not.
Then you mis-understood. What it is about is a two way relationship with your adult children. But the "responsibility" I may have with one of my children ends with adulthood and when I no longer have a say in their life and what they do. The child gets 100% benefit to adulthood. After that they will be expected to be responsible for all their actions from that point forward.
This isn't just for the adult-child's benefit, a good relationship with your child should be important,
I would agree, but it is a two way street and that adult-child has responsiblities in that relationship.
and instead of ostracizing them
A: you have more chance of influencing them to make good decisions
Try that with an adult-child and see how well that works out for you. Your role is to make them independent contributing members of society. Not be their best friend and most adults will do whatever they want, regardless of the opinions of the parent.
B: you get the benefit of a loving respectful relationship
Not always, you hope for that but things don't always work out that way. And it is not because you failed as a parent.
C: if they're successful, they'll pass along the good fortune because you were a part of them gaining that success.
Pure fantasy.
BTW: no when I hurt my parents' feelings it does bother me. I try to minimize damage, which means I hide alot. BUT I'm not going to marry the person they want me to (at 18 nonetheless!), and I'm not going to go to church. Those are my choices to make, not theirs, and although doing so would make them happy, it would make me very very extremely unhappy. Even though I tell them this (and its proven, I've done it "their way" in the past, I got suicidal) they deny that thats possible. So I love my parents, I know they want the best for me, but they don't know what is best for me. I'm not saying that I know either, but I'm a lot more aware than they are.
Great. Sounds like you have grown into an adult. But because of your choices, your parents have the right not to continue to support you materially. It does not mean that they don't love you if you make that choice. Only that they may not approve of your lifestyle.
Let's do a what if. Ok, now this is not me so don't get any ideas about what I believe. A hypothetical:
Say your parents are devoutly religious. And they do not belive in sex before marriage and all that stuff. You make an adult decision to move in with your boyfriend and co-habitate. Prior to this they completely supported you while you were in graduate school, sent you all the money you needed to pay rent, pay the bills, food, everything, car, insurance, etc. And a little spending money. You are a full time student. They totally disapprove of your actions and you know it but you don't care because you know what is best for you. Do they have a right to withdraw all support and say, look you have a degree, go get a job and support yourself?
I agree wit MTP on this one. As adults we are responsible for ourselves; our parents also share some responsibility for the person we are and the journey we're on. Maybe not legally, but morally.
I agree completely. Morally responsible, not materially responsible. The Lord knows there is a world filled with screwed up parents.
And the idea that parents know what's best for their children is so bloody dependent upon the individual parents and the individual children it's almost not worth making the point in the first place. MTP had a right, as a struggling youngster, to have her needs taken into account.
Agreed. But that is the way the world is set up. Parents are responsible for children and there is no way around that. You can only do the best you can as you know how within the constructs of your own experiences. It is never perfect. I am not sure how you can say that the majority of parents do not believe that they don't know what is best for their children. Don't we see examples of that all the time, someone telling someone else that they don't know how to parent or that they are doing it wrong? Based on what? Other than obvious physical or emotional abuse you would have a hard time telling a parent they were wrong in the way they chose to raise their kids.
Parents make mistakes and so do children. Parents can often offer insight and wisdom by dint of their extended time on the planet. But they can also offer bad advice, damaging counsel and assist in trapping you into an unhappy life. having done so there is a moral weight on them. Having set you onto a destructive path and equipped you with the wrong tools for the world you're in, it is then a bit of a cheek to wash their hands of you when you've reached your majority and are trying to mend things.
True to some extent, but "trying to mend things" is quite different from saying, screw off, I know what is best for me, but you have to bail me out anyway becasue you are my parents. That is not going to fly.
If I were her, I would not tell them about my life. There are aspects of my life I have never told my father, because I know he wouldn't get it. Mum knows, because she does get it. Why tell Dad stuff that would give him a negative view of his daughter and possibly make him unhappy?
One of the very few things I regret in life, was telling Gran, in a flurry of teenage arrogance, that I was an atheist. All defiance and nihilistic zeal, I was determined to tear down the edifice of faith. All I actually did was hurt her. Her beliefs seemed (and still do) ludicrous and psychologically damaging to me. But for her, all she heard was that her adored grandchild was going to hell for eternity.
And now we come full circle to the point of this discussion and thread title. If you know that things that you do will really hurt your parents in the long run why not just go on about what you do and not tell them? But as Classic pointed out that if they do find out you always run the risk that you may lose support from them and hurt them, forever changing the way they view you. How about every single one of you go and make a list of all the things that you know that you would never want your parents to know about you. Write it down. We could all easily come up with at least 10 things and the older we are possibly more. Now take that list and call your parents and tell them all those things on the list. How many would do it? Or would you just rather they did not know
because if they found out you know it would hurt them?
We have another thread here where people are discussing their relationships with their parents.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18863
It is a two way street. As adults all parties involved have responsibilities to each other. If one party feels that they must do something that the other disagrees with then there are many choices that can be made in how you agree to deal with those choices. It matters not that they are your parent/child.
I agree completely. Morally responsible, not materially responsible. The Lord knows there is a world filled with screwed up parents.
And once again it's all about the money.
My parents have taken me in again at the age of 36. So far at no financial cost to them, but you could easily skew it to make it sound like it will be. But yes, they would have taken me back in if I was gay. Why? Because despite the fact their religion tells them it's not acceptable, they are my parents and they love me.
How many parents take pregnant daughters back in? Provide them with free child support to enable them to have a better toehold in the employment market than those with working partners? Apparently "encouraging unmarried mothers " doesn't benefit society. But but its all in the name of love and blood, and I respect that.
What really bothers me is that parents who are commanded by their God to LOVE, above all, would turn their children away for something that science is starting to prove they were born with. It's as much a birthright as a disability would be. But if you do believe in God and are just going to follow the old Testament and St Paul then you are hardly following the teachings of Jesus. Or in fact of a decent human being.
Okay - so someone chooses to withhold funds from their gay son or daughter. Now that is completely their choice. I'm not arguing benefits for those disowned by their families after all.
But say they go and buy pizza instead of having a 5 course wedding breakfast on their child's special day, take in Jimmy-Jo and Jamie-Bob as their hetero offspring lurch from one relationship to another or don't send a card to their daughter's partner's 40th birthday when their daughter has been with them for 20 years and the best the other siblings could manage was three... How well have they parented?
I don't expect parents to accept their children's lifestyle if they are whores, serial mamas, rapists, dug addicts etc etc. But if your child is not doing something that is outside the law and is not making any claim on you financially, then shame on you for not supporting them.
That is not supposed to a be diatribe about hetero couples or individuals, the point is that people are people when it comes down to it. With problems, issues, unpleasantness and all. To single out their sexual preference is as bad as judging someone on the colour of their hair, their height or where their Great-Grandad used to drink.
It bugs me that you would have such negative thoughts about people who were born homosexual that you suggest
that your own children - having never committed a crime - are less worthy of your love and emotive support (sod the money).
And once again it's all about the money.
No that is your continual assumption. It is about responsiblity that parents should have for adult children.
My parents have taken me in again at the age of 36. So far at no financial cost to them, but you could easily skew it to make it sound like it will be.
Really? You don't eat their food. They don't give you money or make you pay rent? Life is not free. All adults living in the house have a responsiblity to contribute. Hey maybe you could take on some responsibility around the house and work off your stay.
But yes, they would have taken me back in if I was gay. Why? Because despite the fact their religion tells them it's not acceptable, they are my parents and they love me.
As would I. The discussion was whether or not your actions
hurt your parents and family and whether or not you cared. Being gay is not some sole act that any parent should abandon their children for. I certainly would not.
How many parents take pregnant daughters back in? Provide them with free child support to enable them to have a better toehold in the employment market than those with working partners? Apparently "encouraging unmarried mothers " doesn't benefit society. But but its all in the name of love and blood, and I respect that.
As would I. But I would also make that person take complete care of that child and learn to balance work, paying for a baby sitter, and taking care of her responsiblity and failure to take precautions for an unwanted or unplanned pregnacy.
What really bothers me is that parents who are commanded by their God to LOVE, above all, would turn their children away for something that science is starting to prove they were born with. It's as much a birthright as a disability would be. But if you do believe in God and are just going to follow the old Testament and St Paul then you are hardly following the teachings of Jesus. Or in fact of a decent human being.
Again you are only talking about the gay issue. MTP opened this up to include many other things. I say that if your parents don't agree with your adult decisions that you make as an adult, don't be surprised if they don't support you. What if your super-duper religious parents find out you are a nurse working in an abortion clinic helping women terminate pregnancies? You think they will not have a problem with that or that they should just accept you back into their house? All I am saying is that there are extreme examples of behavior that can hurt your family that may elicit responses that you did not expect. And you, as an adult making those conscious decisions, must take responsibility for. Not just being gay, but that was one example where you can hurt your family.
Okay - so someone chooses to withhold funds from their gay son or daughter. Now that is completely their choice. I'm not arguing benefits for those disowned by their families after all.
It is not all about money and gaydom. It is about decisions that hurt family members or parents by adult children that they must accept responsiblity for.
But say they go and buy pizza instead of having a 5 course wedding breakfast on their child's special day, take in Jimmy-Jo and Jamie-Bob as their hetero offspring lurch from one relationship to another or don't send a card to their daughter's partner's 40th birthday when their daughter has been with them for 20 years and the best the other siblings could manage was three... How well have they parented?
The best they could have. If you are already 40 years old and you are still blaming your parents for your decisions you have much bigger issues than what your parents did or didnot do as parents.
I don't expect parents to accept their children's lifestyle if they are whores, serial mamas, rapists, dug addicts etc etc. But if your child is not doing something that is outside the law and is not making any claim on you financially, then shame on you for not supporting them.
Who is to judge that? You? With your generally liberal approach to life? Who gets to draw the line? What if your adult child of 38 was on her third divorce with 4 kids and could not stop screwing around on her husbands. Is it your job to mortgage your future and give up everything you have to support her bad decisions and continual bad behavior. Please. There are so many examples of young adults today not accepting responsiblity for their bad decisions. I would certainly help the children as much as I could, but the mother would have to figure things out. She has to be responsible for her actions.
That is not supposed to a be diatribe about hetero couples or individuals, the point is that people are people when it comes down to it. With problems, issues, unpleasantness and all. To single out their sexual preference is as bad as judging someone on the colour of their hair, their height or where their Great-Grandad used to drink.
It bugs me that you would have such negative thoughts about people who were born homosexual that you suggest that your own children - having never committed a crime - are less worthy of your love and emotive support (sod the money).
I have no idea where you came up with the idea that
I:
1. "have such negative thoughts about people who were born (if you believe that) homosexual"
I have family extended family members who are gay. I don't treat them any differently than any of my other family members.
2. "that my own children have never committed a crime"
Ah, but they have, although they were quite minor, it changes nothing.
3. "are less worthy of love and emotive support"
You obviously have not been paying attention. I never said anywhere that one would be less worthy of love and emotive support, in fact quite the contrary.
I only said that their actions can hurt parents and family and that they must accept the risk and responsibility that goes along with those actions. In some cases family may withdraw material support and they should not be surprised by the results.
I only said that their actions can hurt parents and family and that they must accept the risk and responsibility that goes along with those actions. In some cases family may withdraw material supportand they should not be surprised by the results.
Actually you originally said:
I think if parents and family are not comfortable with choices you make as teens and young adults and you ignore other peoples feelings who support you, then you should really not be surprised when you loose that support, emotional, financial, educational, etc. So yea, you can hurt those around you, even if you don't mean to do it.
Which is what I was arguing mainly with you. That should person's family pull their support
emotional, financial, educational, etc. , especially your parents because they have responsibility to you, then by that action it shows their lack of love for you. Even if they don't agree with your lifestyle choice, your parents especially, have the responsibility to love you and support you in any way
necessary. It doesn't matter if they agree or not, if its against their religion or not. No, perhaps a person should not be surprised if their family pulls support when they come out. That depends on the family, BUT that doesn't mean the family is not in the wrong. If the family is hurt by you being yourself in that way, then that is all on the family. They let themselves be hurt because they are too close minded to care that that is YOU, that you cannot act any other way and be a happy fulfilled person.
That has been all I have been saying, or trying to say at least.
MTP opened this up to include many other things.
I did let you get me off on a tangent.
YOU keep bringing it back to money. I have already said, I've been financially independent since 18, by my own choice. My parent's didn't kick me out, although I might have killed my mom if I had stayed at the time, but I chose to move out. Even before that in high school I was supporting myself in ways most parents wouldn't make their children. I had to pay for my college classes and books even back then.
I'm gonna repeat one more time for you (a bit differently): support and success do not only mean money or finacial.
Really? You don't eat their food. They don't give you money or make you pay rent? Life is not free. All adults living in the house have a responsiblity to contribute. Hey maybe you could take on some responsibility around the house and work off your stay.
A: SG being SG, I sincerely doubt that she is just sponging off of her parents. She doesn't seem the type. She has a job, so obviously she's paying for herself.
B: She had no where to live basically after her roommate became such an ass to live with. She never said her parents were letting her live there free. She specifically said "took her in" that is not the same thing. I don't know if you have ever tried to find a roommate, or affordable housing on your own, but if you have then you know its a bitch. Therefore, she probably had no where else she could reasonably afford. Her parents "took her in" meaning they gave her a good place to stay at a price that is affordable to her. I know it took months of persuading/begging/cajoling to convince my parents to let me back, even though I was offering rent from the start.
That should person's family pull their support emotional, financial, educational, etc. , especially your parents because they have responsibility to you, then by that action it shows their lack of love for you.
Not necessarily. The amount of support given (I assume you are referring to financial here) does not equate with their love for the child. It seems as though you hav a very unusual set of circumstances within your situation. I still don't realy get what they are, but your parents love should never be based upon the amount of financial support they give you. Ya can't buy love. Emotional support is a totally different matter. Parents should invariably support their children in whatever endeavors the child chooses. Unless it is unhealthy, dangerous or illegal. Again though, I am not certain that these are really relevant to their love. Different parents parent differently.
I had to pay for my college classes and books even back then.
Many children pay for their own tuition and/or books. I don't understand the relevance.
I'm gonna repeat one more time for you (a bit differently): support and success do not only mean money or finacial.
What are you saying then? What are you looking for from your parents that they are apparently not providing, in your opinion?
When I was a teenager, I absolutely hated my father, or thought I did. I thought he favored my older brothers and gave them things that I didn't get. I believed that he talked to them about things and spent more time with them than with me. I carried a lot of ill conceived resentment toward him for many years. I had no idea what his motives were until I was much older and we talked it out. Only then after I matured did I understand his position and reasoning.
All tax payers suffer.
I'm still waiting on an explanation for this one. I don't know how the tax laws work exactly for married couples, but all I knew is that they got a tax break. I have also heard that in some cases married couples end up with penalties. Like how this article explains:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p48908.asp
Even if they get a bonus, that's just more of their own tax money they get to keep. How would that make anyone else's taxes go up?
Even so, I think this is a petty argument, to me it sounds like: "Lets deny people human rights to save some money." Anyone like a slice of slavery, or how 'bout some tasty child labor ?
The amount of support given (I assume you are referring to financial here) does not equate with their love for the child. It seems as though you hav a very unusual set of circumstances within your situation. I still don't realy get what they are, but your parents love should never be based upon the amount of financial support they give you. Ya can't buy love.
NO, I was specifically saying, again, that it IS NOT about finacial only. PLEASE classic read more carefully.
Emotional support is a totally different matter. Parents should invariably support their children in whatever endeavors the child chooses. Unless it is unhealthy, dangerous or illegal. Again though, I am not certain that these are really relevant to their love. Different parents parent differently.
Again, that is what I said. That was my point.
Many children pay for their own tuition and/or books. I don't understand the relevance.
I said, it was in HIGH SCHOOL. You would make your child pay college tuition when their in high school still? They made me pay for my own college, even though I explained to them that it saved time and money. I take the college course, I get dual credit (high school credit as well), therefore I wouldn't have to take essentially the same class over. They thought it was a waste, so the only way I could get it was by paying myself. BTW: My sis did the same thing, except they paid for it.
What are you saying then? What are you looking for from your parents that they are apparently not providing, in your opinion?
When I was a teenager, I absolutely hated my father, or thought I did. I thought he favored my older brothers and gave them things that I didn't get. I believed that he talked to them about things and spent more time with them than with me. I carried a lot of ill conceived resentment toward him for many years. I had no idea what his motives were until I was much older and we talked it out. Only then after I matured did I understand his position and reasoning.
I am looking for the support that they clearly give my older brother and sister, and do not give me. Of course according to my older bro I "get away with things he never could." I don't know what those things are. He "got away with" wrecking 2 cars by pulling stupid stunts, living with a woman out of wedlock, sleeping around (before he got married), smoking cigarettes, smoking weed (in the house), underage drinking, drinking and driving....
Point is, I've done none of those things, except living with my partner out of wedlock. My parents have now let him move back twice w/o any conditions. I was supposed to move back (finalized it in mar with them), and instead they let him come back(in Oct he decided to get a car instead a of a house loan), therefore I can't.
Although, I don't think money=love. But the fact that they give them financial support I don't get, shows something is lacking, and its not me. To top it off, anything I try to do/want to do, gets shot down without question. The other two don't get nearly as much negativity about their ability to succeed as I do. If they do, my parent's choose to do it privately, whereas they don't mind publicly humiliating me.
Which is what I was arguing mainly with you. That should person's family pull their support emotional, financial, educational, etc. , especially your parents because they have responsibility to you, then by that action it shows their lack of love for you. Even if they don't agree with your lifestyle choice, your parents especially, have the responsibility to love you and support you in any way necessary. It doesn't matter if they agree or not, if its against their religion or not. No, perhaps a person should not be surprised if their family pulls support when they come out. That depends on the family, BUT that doesn't mean the family is not in the wrong. If the family is hurt by you being yourself in that way, then that is all on the family. They let themselves be hurt because they are too close minded to care that that is YOU, that you cannot act any other way and be a happy fulfilled person.
That has been all I have been saying, or trying to say at least.
So what would you say then to my grandmother who divorced my grandfather because he was an alcoholic? She tried to stick it out and support his efforts to get sober, but in the end she couldn't take any more and gave him ultimatum: me and the kids or alcohol. He chose to keep drinking and she left. Was she in the wrong for ending her support? He was addicted to alcohol and could not "act any other way and be a happy fulfilled person". Should she have been infinitely tolerant and accepting of his addiction because that's who he was? Supporting him even though he did horrible things that alcoholics tend to do and chose not to seriously change his lifestyle?
Or how about this: my parents paid for my brother's university education. He was expelled for failing 3 semesters and hid this fact from my parents until the day before we were planning on driving down for the graduation ceremonies. My parents were understandably furious at him for lying to them and deceiving them, wasting so much of their time, money, emotional and academic support on someone who didn't care enough to go to class. This was 2 almost two years ago and now he works temp agency jobs in an economically depressed area and is unwilling to move because of his friends in the area. Should my parents now be willing to give him all that support they once gave if he started taking classes again? After he lied, deceived, and took advantage of their trust and support before? Why should we, his family, go that extra mile if he is unwilling to uphold his end of the bargain and not be lazy?
There are limitations to what people can tolerate and should be expected to tolerate, just as there are limitations to how much support one family members needs to extend to another depending upon the situation.
So what would you say then to my grandmother who divorced my grandfather because he was an alcoholic? She tried to stick it out and support his efforts to get sober, but in the end she couldn't take any more and gave him ultimatum: me and the kids or alcohol. He chose to keep drinking and she left. Was she in the wrong for ending her support? He was addicted to alcohol and could not "act any other way and be a happy fulfilled person". Should she have been infinitely tolerant and accepting of his addiction because that's who he was? Supporting him even though he did horrible things that alcoholics tend to do and chose not to seriously change his lifestyle?
Or how about this: my parents paid for my brother's university education. He was expelled for failing 3 semesters and hid this fact from my parents until the day before we were planning on driving down for the graduation ceremonies. My parents were understandably furious at him for lying to them and deceiving them, wasting so much of their time, money, emotional and academic support on someone who didn't care enough to go to class. This was 2 almost two years ago and now he works temp agency jobs in an economically depressed area and is unwilling to move because of his friends in the area. Should my parents now be willing to give him all that support they once gave if he started taking classes again? After he lied, deceived, and took advantage of their trust and support before? Why should we, his family, go that extra mile if he is unwilling to uphold his end of the bargain and not be lazy?
There are limitations to what people can tolerate and should be expected to tolerate, just as there are limitations to how much support one family members needs to extend to another depending upon the situation.
No, I am still talking about lifestyle choice in the instance of being homosexual. Not being an idiot and using people. "Any way necessary" sometimes means a kick in the ass, or an ultimatum, it can be defined and modified according to the specific people and needs. Again though, parent's have a responsibility to try to help their children, can't just walk away and refuse. That does NOT mean giving them money for nothing ect ect. Calling them on their birthday, asking them over for Christmas (at least sending them a card) ect ect, those are means of emotional support.
No, I am still talking about lifestyle choice in the instance of being homosexual. Not being an idiot and using people. "Any way necessary" sometimes means a kick in the ass, or an ultimatum, it can be defined and modified according to the specific people and needs. Again though, parent's have a responsibility to try to help their children, can't just walk away and refuse. That does NOT mean giving them money for nothing ect ect. Calling them on their birthday, asking them over for Christmas (at least sending them a card) ect ect, those are means of emotional support.
Agreed, parents do that have that initial responsibility.
So basically what you are saying is that you want your parents to support your homosexuality? Is that it? This has virtually nothing to do with college or financial support at all?
Perhaps I'm the only one who missed that :shrug: wouldn't be the first time.
Christ on a bike. This isn't so difficult to understand. MTP wants her parents to support her without her having to be something she's not in order to gain that support. She wants the same level of support and emotional sustenance and sensitivity that her siblings apparently get.
It's not a lot to ask. And I really cannot believe how many times MTP has had to say she wasn't referring to money in this thread.
I'm still not sure though what she wants from them. What does "support" mean? Perhaps she is seeing them more as the people they are and realizing they are not who she thought they were. I dunno what she really wants and maybe they don't either. Does she want a hug every time she comes home? Does she want to chitchat with them? It all seems really unclear to me. Things change when a child moves out - perhaps she should try that again. Most parents do NOT treat all their children the same as their children are different and have different needs.
Have you even read her posts?
[eta] it's not so unusual in families with multiple children for one of those children to end up copping for all the shit and being treated very differently from the others. Often there's no obvious reason why that child gets the thin end. But it happens. Families aren't always such cosy places. Parents sometimes fail their children in fundamental and basic ways, even as they do right by them in others. The child that finds themself in that less than cozy position has every right to feel anger.
Most parents do NOT treat all their children the same as their children are different and have different needs.
It's not about treating them the same in every way or giving them the same things: it's about showing them the same level of regard and concern. It's about giving them equal weight in your mind, and taking account of all of their needs. The examples MTP give are clearly just examples where it's made obvious by the similarity of their needs on those occasions, that equal weight does not appear to have been given to all siblings.
Yup, in fact I just read every one from this thread. Sounds like she is jealous of her older brother or pissed that he got to move back in and now she doesn't. Did her parents know beforehand that she wanted to? I mean before her brother? It seems that moving back in with them is an issue. That, to me would fall under financial support.
I am looking for the support that they clearly give my older brother and sister, and do not give me.
This was not defined though. Leaves the reader to assume.
He "got away with" wrecking 2 cars by pulling stupid stunts, living with a woman out of wedlock, sleeping around (before he got married), smoking cigarettes, smoking weed (in the house), underage drinking, drinking and driving....
Point is, I've done none of those things, except living with my partner out of wedlock. But the fact that they give them financial support I don't get, shows something is lacking
Again stressing financial support, yet repeatedly stating that is not what she is referring to.
Calling them on their birthday, asking them over for Christmas (at least sending them a card) ect ect, those are means of emotional support.
This is what they are not doing? Well that begs a number of questions - Does she see them on Christmas and/or her birthday? Is this common practice in their family? Do they have the money? Do they consider cards and such a waste? I don't know these people at all or what their lives are like. I'm only basing my opinions on one side and although I feel bad for her that she is not happy, there is just too much information missing for me to draw any useful conclusions at all.
MTP, I am very sorry for your situation. I wish it were different and you could all get what you want/need from each other.
Sorry classic, I went back and added a bunch via an ETA. Hadn't intended it to turn into a whole other post :P
LOL - me too - I added way more than you :p
I'll also add as one final (and slightly mischievous) point:
reread this portion of MTPs post; but replace MTP as the narrator with a young moslem woman. I have no doubt that there would be voices raised in anger at the moslem faith, and at a culture that disregards females. There is precious little anger in this thread at the Christian faith and a religious culture that disregarded MTP in decisions on her own life.
My parents wanted me to GET MARRIED AT 18! They think me getting a college degree is probably a waste of time. They believe my ex-boyfriend "owns a piece of my soul" because we had sex. That although I was terribly unhappy with him, and with him mainly because he was the first guy to ever pay attention to me, THAT I SHOULD STILL MARRY HIM AT 18! That I should get a SECOND job, and support HIM through school.
I spent FOUR YEARS on anti-depressants, not able to look up from my feet, hiding in my closet or a book. I was suicidal, and took pain-killers recreational. When I wasn't doing these things, I was goin to church or youth group, or praying to God. Trying to be a good Christian, and not understanding why my heart was still devoid, when I had all the "faith" I could muster. When I begged my parents; no I did not "throw a fit," I wrote out all of my arguments, asked them to sit down with me and tried to discuss the issue with them, it ended in literal begging, I begged them to let me stop youth group. I was endlessly harassed at it, not just by other kids, by the youth minister herself. They knew this, they believed it. They made me keep going even though 9 out of 10 times I came home in a complete wreck.
[eta]It's not about treating them the same in every way or giving them the same things: it's about showing them the same level of regard and concern. It's about giving them equal weight in your mind, and taking account of all of their needs. The examples MTP give are clearly just examples where it's made obvious by the similarity of their needs on those occasions, that equal weight does not appear to have been given to all siblings.
Perhaps, that is all her opinion, I understand, but perhaps her parents don't feel the same way as she does.
Hey classic, did you miss the question I asked you in post #87 or...?
So basically what you are saying is that you want your parents to support your homosexuality? Is that it? This has virtually nothing to do with college or financial support at all?
Perhaps I'm the only one who missed that :shrug: wouldn't be the first time.
I'm not homosexual, never said I was. I don't need to tell my parents' my sexual orientation because I haven't had a significant female partner, I don't plan on telling them unless I do. My parents already support me less for lifestyle choices that they disagree with based on their religious beliefs. I am saying that parents should not pull support from their children because of the child's choice in lifestyle (I.E. homosexuality or different religion.) They can not agree with it, but they should show their child ALL of their love and try to understand. Most parents though are often strong-headed, close minded and believe that they always know best. That is not true, parents do not always know best. Since they choose not to even try to understand the child's particular peculiarities, they instead pull support, or give less.
Yup, in fact I just read every one from this thread. Sounds like she is jealous of her older brother or pissed that he got to move back in and now she doesn't. Did her parents know beforehand that she wanted to? I mean before her brother? It seems that moving back in with them is an issue. That, to me would fall under financial support.
I don't think you did or you would know that: yes I did ask, and get approval in MARCH with my parents to move back. My brother asked in OCTOBER.
I specifically said it in post 107: "My parents have now let him move back twice w/o any conditions. I was supposed to move back (finalized it in mar with them), and instead they let him come back(in Oct he decided to get a car instead a of a house loan), therefore I can't."
This was not defined though. Leaves the reader to assume.
What wasn't defined? Types of support? Because, yes, I have had explained it several times, and give several examples. I have also stated a few examples of both my sister and brother getting benefits I didn't. Here is another one if you want: My parent's have always fully supported my sister in her college endeavors(not financially, they don't have the money to do that, but they fully encourage her), when they tell me its a waste for me to go. My sister only graduated High School 6seats higher than I did, so its not that I show a lack of academic acuity. Sister didn't decide what she was goin to college for until 2nd semester senior year. I knew what I wanted to go for up until 2nd semester senior year, their lack of encouragement probably contributed to my change of mind. Turns out, no matter what else I choode, they only have negative things to say about that as well.
Again stressing financial support, yet repeatedly stating that is not what she is referring to.
Like I said Money doesn't equal love. I'm saying that when I NEED financial support, I don't get it, whereas my siblings do. I have done nothing worse than my older brother (I will say I don't mind my sister getting more, she is a saint) and yet he gets more. I have stated non-financial reasons, like them not letting me move back home. Yes its to save me money, but it wouldn't cost them (I have already said I'm paying rent). Them not supporting my want to go to college is another non-financial example I've cited. The financial reasons are just the more tangible and therefore easier to explain. Most of my issues with
my parents is lack of financial because they don't believe I deserve it, which to me shows a lack of emotional support.
This is what they are not doing? Well that begs a number of questions - Does she see them on Christmas and/or her birthday? Is this common practice in their family? Do they have the money? Do they consider cards and such a waste? I don't know these people at all or what their lives are like. I'm only basing my opinions on one side and although I feel bad for her that she is not happy, there is just too much information missing for me to draw any useful conclusions at all.
MTP, I am very sorry for your situation. I wish it were different and you could all get what you want/need from each other.
No, that I never said they were/weren't doing any of those things. Those were just examples. You read into the wrong things classic.
The situation as I understand Merc and Classic to be describing it is; someone who you depend on for emotional or financial support doesn't approve of your lifestyle or something you do.
And my question was how would you personally handle the situation. You seemed to have a problem with MTP's course of "dishonesty". So would you be honest and possibly lose financial support, would you try to hide your activities, or would you be a good but miserable dog? You. Personally.
Sorry Jinx - I think it completely depends upon the situation, the people involved and the circumstances. More often than not as an adult, I would invariably choose the honest approach.
How about you?
I think you should practice before you preach. Especially about honesty.
ok - sorry MTP, I guess I just don't get it. I'm sorry that your parents are being assholes. Parents tend to do that from time to time. Its just in my experience, they are typically trying to do it for a reason or reasons unknown or not understood by the child. I guess yours are just treating you differently for some unknown reason.
FWIW, My oldest brother is the golden child - he can do no wrong. I know that he is my fathers favorite and he treats him differently than he treats the rest of us, especially me. That has no bearing on the fact that my father still loves me. I was the youngest and mostly all the money for college was gone when it was my turn. I had to pay for it myself.
Sorry about your situation. Hope things improve for all of you.
I think you should practice before you preach. Especially about honesty.
Shouldn't we all.
Which is what I was arguing mainly with you. That should person's family pull their support emotional, financial, educational, etc. , especially your parents because they have responsibility to you, .
Total and utter bull shit.
Agreed, parents do that have that initial responsibility.
Key here. Pay attention.
Like I said Money doesn't equal love.
Absolutely. Which is why if you don't get any from your parents does not mean they love you less, regardless of you choices in life, gay, straight, or whatever....
I think you should practice before you preach. Especially about honesty.
I don't understand this statement.
Why are you talking about money again Merc? She didn't say the problem was her parents not giving her money. Finance is just one of the many areas in which a parent can assist their child.
I've seen the golden child phenomenon in at least two other families.
The one I know the best is where the eldest was a daughter, carried to term after a number of previous miscarriages. After only another year and no miscarriages - another girl. Then eight more years of trying, failed IVF then succesful IVF and many complications and the last couple of weeks in hospital, twin boys born prematurely.
The older girl got everything she wanted.
Luckily for her parents she was a hard worker, not academic but beautiful, which is often easier for a girl.
She was her Daddy's angel, and although very good natured she did know how to manipulate him.
She got a job working for her father and although he cut her no slack (he was very professional) she got a company car, a salary nearly 50% above the going rate for that position and when she moved out of home the company (builders and fitters) did all the work on her house and only charged for materials, allowing her to buy a bad quality house with a significantly low mortgage.
The twin sons decided to go to University. Their fees were fully covered by their parents so they would not come out of Uni in debt. Their parents bought houses in each of the separate University towns because they viewed it as an investment (it was - the father knew the building trade well). They saw it as an issue of trust that the boys would manage the house and charge rent in order to cover household bills and living expenses. Of course they were still paid an allowance because it helped keep them focussed on their study. They were their Mother's Miracle Babies and she was so proud of them.
And the second daughter? My friend. She lived at home and went to the local Uni because her parents were worried she would run up debts if she moved away. Her Dad went with her to buy her first car (second hand from a private seller) but did no more to advise her - she bought it with savings she'd accrued working after school and through college.
She continued to work in a large supermarket to pay for her own socialising - okay her parents didn't charge her rent or a share of the bills, but neither did they ask her older sister for a contribution and she was working full time.
She had always shown herself to be financially reponsible, sensible, acedemic and hard working. I honestly believe that she slipped under their radar. They hadn't had to think about Uni with the eldest daughter - she barely made it out of High School. SO I know they were learning on the job as it were. They had 8 years of friends' experiences with their children and debts and dropping out to draw on by the time the boys went.
But deliberate or not, it seems sad that someone I knew as forceful, intelligent and an all round sparkling person because someone less when she walked in to the family home. I know - I lived there for a while. I saw the walls filled with photos of the beautiful one, with sports trophies of the boys. She had no resentment of the way her siblings were treated, but sometimes - just somethimes - when we were drunk and maudlin, she would wonder why they never did any of that for her, or asked her what she wanted, or said how proud they were at what she had achieved.
Anyway, they you go.
No-one can force a parent to treat children equally, to love them the same or even give them the same support and attention. But to me that's part of what trying to be a good parent is. I've been such a trial to mine and they still take me back in. Mum's admitted I've been the hardest to love just because I'm so much trouble, but I know she does, really.
Why are you talking about money again Merc? She didn't say the problem was her parents not giving her money. Finance is just one of the many areas in which a parent can assist their child.
From what I could see of Mercs last few posts, he agreed with MTP about money.
Sorry Jinx - snip - How about you?
Hey Jinx, did you miss the question or...?
No, I think I answered it.
You see, I was having a hard time reconciling you lying to your boss an/or girlfriend about something as silly as posting on the cellar, hiding it from them by changing your name and having posts removed - and then preaching to MTP about being an adult, being honest, not hiding things etc...
In the grand scheme of things I couldn't give a flying fuck really, I was just momentarily shocked by what I perceive as a lack of integrity. Thus the practice before you preach comment...
Unless you meant something else by "how about you"?
I spoke with MTP at some length the other night about her position vis a vis parental responsibility. By the end of that conversation, I realized that I need to simply butt the hell out of that situation in her life. Her steadfastness in her position, and my core beliefs, are utterly and irreconcilably incompatible, and further conversation was going to result in one of us really disliking the other.
I hate it when that happens.
Unless you meant something else by "how about you"?
Yes, what I meant was how would you handle her situation?
I spoke with MTP at some length the other night about her position vis a vis parental responsibility. By the end of that conversation, I realized that I need to simply butt the hell out of that situation in her life. Her steadfastness in her position, and my core beliefs, are utterly and irreconcilably incompatible, and further conversation was going to result in one of us really disliking the other.
I hate it when that happens.
Sorry to hear that Spode. You are one of the many people I really look up to in the Cellar, and believe have a great life ethic.
I spoke with MTP at some length the other night about her position vis a vis parental responsibility. By the end of that conversation, I realized that I need to simply butt the hell out of that situation in her life. Her steadfastness in her position, and my core beliefs, are utterly and irreconcilably incompatible, and further conversation was going to result in one of us really disliking the other.
I hate it when that happens.
Eh. I understand and respect her opinion and position on the issue. I just think that those of us who are parents look at this issue differently. And that is not to say that everyone who is a parent agrees with me, only that the point of view differs from those who can only guess what it is like.
I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of weeks with regard to what responsibility a parent has to a child after it becomes an adult.
I tried to think back to when I first left school and got myself a full time job. I know that it was at that point that my parents stopped paying for things for me, although they did drop me to the train station etc because we were quite a way away from it. That was until I could get my car running, which my dad helped me with. During this time I had to pay board. Then I moved out of home, at which point my parents still continued to love me and care about what i was doing, but it was the final separation. They didn't approve of the choice I'd made, and it hurt them badly (there was a man involved) but they still supported me emotionally after the initial pain and hurt had settled on both sides.
When the relationship fell apart, I moved back to my mum's house and stayed there for a couple of years. My brother was still living there, and Mum was very glad I'd come home, but I was living there more as a housemate than a child. I paid my share of the bills and bought food etc and just generally lived there as a share house situation. I would not have dreamed of allowing my Mum to support me at that stage.
I moved out again after meeting the father of my two sons and lived with him for about 5 years. Had the kids and then the relationship turned to crap. I left him and lived somewhere else for a while and went into business with my Dad. We did that for a couple of years till I went back to Uni. By this time Mum was getting a bit frail. She'd already had one major cancer episode, and she asked if I'd move back and help her with the house and in return she'd help with the kids while I was studying.
At no time was she supporting me in any way other than emotionally. I was always quite conscious of keeping the finances completely separate and it worked out really well for us.
I would like to think that my kids would always know they could return to their home if they needed to, or if it seemed like the logical thing for all of us, but I'd also like to think that they'd have learned that I wouldn't appreciate freeloading. I've worked hard all my life to do the right thing by the people that love me and I've always shown my parents the respect they deserved. I hope that when my kids are older and they realise how I've struggled for them at times, they'll appreciate me enough to show me the same respect.
In the end, i think that's what it comes down to for me. Most parents will put up with just about anything from their kids, as long as the kids are respectful about what they expect and that they're honest about what's going on in their lives.
Of course there are some parents who don't fit this catagory and I guess that's pretty sad, but communication is the key.
Its funny: all ya'll who decided to rag on me for sayin my parents do not always know whats best for me, decided to overlook these two statements completely. So I'll say it again, and dumb it down for ya.
My parents wanted me to GET MARRIED AT 18! They think me getting a college degree is probably a waste of time. They believe my ex-boyfriend "owns a piece of my soul" because we had sex. That although I was terribly unhappy with him, and with him mainly because he was the first guy to ever pay attention to me, THAT I SHOULD STILL MARRY HIM AT 18! That I should get a SECOND job, and support HIM through school.
I spent FOUR YEARS on anti-depressants, not able to look up from my feet, hiding in my closet or a book. I was suicidal, and took pain-killers recreational. When I wasn't doing these things, I was goin to church or youth group, or praying to God. Trying to be a good Christian, and not understanding why my heart was still devoid, when I had all the "faith" I could muster. When I begged my parents; no I did not "throw a fit," I wrote out all of my arguments, asked them to sit down with me and tried to discuss the issue with them, it ended in literal begging, I begged them to let me stop youth group. I was endlessly harassed at it, not just by other kids, by the youth minister herself. They knew this, they believed it. They made me keep going even though 9 out of 10 times I came home in a complete wreck. Its hard now, not to tear up and talk about it. That was 5 or so years ago.
A couple of years ago, my mom actually told me: "I don't really believe you were ever depressed." That makes sense, since 3 separate doctors and a family counselor all believed it. My thoughts of suicide probably meant nothing either.
Those are a couple of examples, I don't feel like giving anymore, those are personal enough. So while, my parents have years of experience that makes their advise very valuable. They don't know what is best for me.
Sounds abusive. The cellar may be wrong on this one. This sounds like the patriarchs are getting the upper hand on a young girl. Sorry. Nuh uh.
The day I quit listening to my parents was the best of my life. Parents can be wrong. Dead wrong.
I am in total agreement Cicero. As soon as I read that post my hackles went up.
As for parental responsibility: I don't think anybody here is arguing that parents have a financial responsibility to adult children. That said, my mum and Dad have at times stepped in and helped out when I've been broke. Between my mum, myself and my brother (and even J, who has remained to all intents and purposes a member of the family despite our having split long ago and him now having another partner) there is a shared sense of responsibility. None of us have much more than we need for the lives we're leading. We don't have large amounts of money saved, we don't have high wages. My bro and his wife are doing ok, he is self-employed, she's a nurse; mum's on a pension and works intermittently with asylum seekers and refugees. J, like me, is a full-time student with part time earnings alongside.
We all help each other out when needed. There was a spell of about a year where I was just perma-broke, really struggling; between them mum, J and my Bro got me through that. This year I've had an easier time of it (marginally:P) and have been able to return the favour somewhat.
When J and I split and I needed somewhere to go, there was no question but that I'd stay at mum's til I got a place sorted. In typical fashion, the first place I went when i walked out of the door was mum's. It always is. To me, that is what families are.
I was thinking about this thread in relation to going to church.
I know it would make my parents very happy.
I am trying to be a "good daughter" and just feeling round the edges of what that means at the moment.
I can't change myself into my sister, I won't marry the the man I meet who is prepared to take me on and squeeze out a couple of children so that I fit the "normal" daughter template [ETA - my sister didn't do this either!]. My parents would not want me to - they'd be happy if I was happy and although they would prefer a conventional life for me, they would never want me to pretend.
BUT
Along with other, more practical things I can sort out and will sort out, I know it would make them happy if I went to church. Of course the trouble is, I am an atheist. I really, really don't believe it - any of it. So that would make me a massive hypocrite, yes?
But then I think - well, as long as I don't do anything more than attend - and I certainly wouldn't take coommunion - then I'm just doing something for them. They don't really understand that I don't believe. They have never argued with me (or my brother) about not following the faith, because deep down they are sure they are right and we are communing with God in our own way, and will follow our own paths to him (pretty laid back for Catholics actually).
I think I will try Christmas Day and see how much of a worm it makes me feel.
If you go on Christmas at least you get to sing some nice songs.:rolleyes:
Midnight Mass is very popular here on Christmas...mainly because it's stinking hot in just about any church during the day here at that time of year...especially when the churches are filled with good time christians. lol
I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of weeks with regard to what responsibility a parent has to a child after it becomes an adult.
I tried to think back to when I first left school and got myself a full time job. I know that it was at that point that my parents stopped paying for things for me, although they did drop me to the train station etc because we were quite a way away from it. That was until I could get my car running, which my dad helped me with. During this time I had to pay board. Then I moved out of home, at which point my parents still continued to love me and care about what i was doing, but it was the final separation. They didn't approve of the choice I'd made, and it hurt them badly (there was a man involved) but they still supported me emotionally after the initial pain and hurt had settled on both sides.
When the relationship fell apart, I moved back to my mum's house and stayed there for a couple of years. My brother was still living there, and Mum was very glad I'd come home, but I was living there more as a housemate than a child. I paid my share of the bills and bought food etc and just generally lived there as a share house situation. I would not have dreamed of allowing my Mum to support me at that stage.
I moved out again after meeting the father of my two sons and lived with him for about 5 years. Had the kids and then the relationship turned to crap. I left him and lived somewhere else for a while and went into business with my Dad. We did that for a couple of years till I went back to Uni. By this time Mum was getting a bit frail. She'd already had one major cancer episode, and she asked if I'd move back and help her with the house and in return she'd help with the kids while I was studying.
At no time was she supporting me in any way other than emotionally. I was always quite conscious of keeping the finances completely separate and it worked out really well for us.
I would like to think that my kids would always know they could return to their home if they needed to, or if it seemed like the logical thing for all of us, but I'd also like to think that they'd have learned that I wouldn't appreciate freeloading. I've worked hard all my life to do the right thing by the people that love me and I've always shown my parents the respect they deserved. I hope that when my kids are older and they realise how I've struggled for them at times, they'll appreciate me enough to show me the same respect.
In the end, i think that's what it comes down to for me. Most parents will put up with just about anything from their kids, as long as the kids are respectful about what they expect and that they're honest about what's going on in their lives.
Of course there are some parents who don't fit this catagory and I guess that's pretty sad, but communication is the key.
Nice post. I hope I can remain that supportive.
I am in total agreement Cicero. As soon as I read that post my hackles went up.
As for parental responsibility: I don't think anybody here is arguing that parents have a financial responsibility to adult children. That said, my mum and Dad have at times stepped in and helped out when I've been broke. Between my mum, myself and my brother (and even J, who has remained to all intents and purposes a member of the family despite our having split long ago and him now having another partner) there is a shared sense of responsibility. None of us have much more than we need for the lives we're leading. We don't have large amounts of money saved, we don't have high wages. My bro and his wife are doing ok, he is self-employed, she's a nurse; mum's on a pension and works intermittently with asylum seekers and refugees. J, like me, is a full-time student with part time earnings alongside.
We all help each other out when needed. There was a spell of about a year where I was just perma-broke, really struggling; between them mum, J and my Bro got me through that. This year I've had an easier time of it (marginally:P) and have been able to return the favour somewhat.
When J and I split and I needed somewhere to go, there was no question but that I'd stay at mum's til I got a place sorted. In typical fashion, the first place I went when i walked out of the door was mum's. It always is. To me, that is what families are.
I agree. I think your parents home should always be a last resort refuge if you are really in trouble and they should be there for you. But their role should be helping you get back on your feet and out on your own again. I have a brother who freeloaded on my parents for years til they finally told him to leave. I hope I never have to deal with that issue.
I know it would make them happy if I went to church. Of course the trouble is, I am an atheist. I really, really don't believe it - any of it. So that would make me a massive hypocrite, yes?
No, it wouldn't. I go to church with my in-laws, and they
know I am an atheist. I go in respect of their beliefs, in family solidarity, and to be polite. Frankly, I'd feel like a worm if I
didn't go! Give it a try -- you may end up feeling virtuous to have made your parents feel good.
Of course, YMMV.
This is a tricky issue. I don't believe in the Christian God, and am opposed to most organised churches as power organisations. Yet when my brother asked me to be a godfather to his daughter, I agreed, went to the church, and went through with the ceremony (and was discretely delighted when the baby screamed through the baptism).
It seemed a bit hypocritical to do this, but it seemed very petty and anal to refuse.
I don't believe in the Christian God, and am opposed to most organized churches as power organizations. Yet when my brother asked me to be a godfather to his daughter. ~snip~
It seemed a bit hypocritical to do this, but it seemed very petty and anal to refuse.
What role are you upholding as the Godfather? It seems very odd to me that you would be chosen to have that responsibility based upon your beliefs, or lack thereof.
We've asked my brother and his wife to be Godparents to our baby. None of us go to church, but the baby will be baptised anyway.
It's about the tradition for me. It's about Dazza's mother for him.
Nice post. I hope I can remain that supportive.
I'm pretty sure you'll be able to manage it. :)
No, it wouldn't. I go to church with my in-laws, and they know I am an atheist. I go in respect of their beliefs, in family solidarity, and to be polite. Frankly, I'd feel like a worm if I didn't go! Give it a try -- you may end up feeling virtuous to have made your parents feel good.
Of course, YMMV.
I agree that it doesn't make you a hypocrite. My grandpa was a Methodist pastor, my aunt is a Methodist pastor, so I do have a pretty heavy religious influence in my family and I don't want to spend the once a year get together to revolve on my refusal to go to church for an hour and a half.
Its about respect for my family and not wanting to cause pointless drama. Not anything about religion itself.
What role are you upholding as the Godfather? It seems very odd to me that you would be chosen to have that responsibility based upon your beliefs, or lack thereof.
The only serious point is to act as a back-up parent in case of the deaths of both of the natural parents. Of course there are also b-day and x-mas pressies and such like, but she'd get that anyway being my niece. They certainly wouldn't be expecting me to give her any religious instruction! There is also something about puppets and violin cases but that comes later, I'm told.
This is complete bullshit. And note that famous witch hunter Ken Starr is the mouthpiece.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits_1
SAN FRANCISCO – The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.
Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.
The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.
"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."
Why do they want to hurt the homosexuals? What benefits can the anti-gays really get from this? Are they just that big of bigots, that despite a lack of tangible benefits, they have to keep hurting others?