How not to react when your child tells you he is gay.

[sorrell skye]

I would hope above all else every parent would love their child and simply wish for them to be happy and healthy.

And yes that means being supportive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep - I totally agree, Linda.

A few years ago, my youngest daughter (20 or 21 at the time) told me about a young woman she'd met that had expressed an interest in her. My daughter was contemplating dating her and had an obvious crush on her.

I told my daughter that the only important things were:

1. She treats you well

2. That you're happy, whatever choice you make

The crush was short-lived and my daughter didn't pursue a dating relationship with the young woman. If she had, I would have been supportive as long as the above criteria had been met, just as I would want my daughter to be treated well and to be happy in a heterosexual relationship.

Regarding the teaching "love the sinner, hate the sin" that was mentioned upthread: While I agree that the spirit of this teaching is applicable in circumstances where a crime has been committed, I don't consider a loving relationship between same sex partners or opposite-sex partners to be a transgression of any kind (morally or otherwise), as long as both partners are of the age of consent and are conducting themselves in a responsible manner.

It seems to me that, quite often, stone-throwers (the parents/grandparents in this case) are the ones in need of self-examination and the ones in need of casting out the obstructions from their own eyes.

 

[Ausgirl]

Judging from the amount of money that's been donated to him he'll be going to college for free.

Does it bother you, Sam? I'm not understanding why you're so mad, here. Because he's gay? Because his parents are devout Christians, and people are not liking their values? Because people donated to his education?

"let's get her" -- the woman went unhinged and physically attacked her son. She's throwing her child out of the house and cutting him off, because he's gay. Since he was a small boy, she said, with her own mouth, he's been gay, she admits to knowing... but because he refuses to be straight (and the parents, says the mother, are concerned with what other people, presumably fellow churchies, will think of them), he gets all this violence and negativity? It's not about "let's get her", it's about thinking she's a terrible parent, for those reasons.

I also think fundamental religion can be a cult for some, when it rips families apart and causes people to think in ways that not only contradict reason but fosters hatred for anything and anyone who doesn't agree with cult values. But that also does not equate to 'let's get her'. I think you're being a bit overly aggressive to us here, Sam. Perhaps projecting a bit.

 

[Nova]

Maybe he saw it as coming out in the regards that he was telling his parents he won't be forced to change who he is and he is going to live his life as a gay man?

Regardless of the semantics, how these parents acted is awful, violence is never the answer. They could have said they don't agree with his lifestyle, and it is their right(albeit I think stupidly) to think its a choice. But they simply could have said they don't agree, and that they need him to move out, and came up with a plan to get him on his own.

When I hear the term "bible thumper" I don't think of all Christians, I think of the ones who try to cram their beliefs down your throat while not respecting others, again, that's my opinion. It makes me think of the extremist if that makes sense.

Indeed. I was raised a devout evangelical and even we used the term "bible-thumper". It never referred to all or even most Christians.

 

[Nova]

I saw more evidence of hate than love in that video. JMO

There is a lot of middle ground between opening a bottle of bubbly and violently attacking your children for being who they are.

You don't usually disown someone you love

Amen (and Hi!), Donjeta. My stepchildren and I disagree on a lot of things. It would never occur to me to disown them or even refuse to assist them if they need help. It's called "being a parent".

 

[Nova]

Judging from the amount of money that's been donated to him he'll be going to college for free.

Sam, I have no way of verifying this, but it has been reported that the boy accepted only a couple thousand to get started on his own and asked that all future donations be given to a charity for disowned gay youth.

 

[TrackerSam]

Indeed. I was raised a devout evangelical and even we used the term "bible-thumper". It never referred to all or even most Christians.

That an evangecal would use the term makes it no less derogatory, as when a black person calls another the N word.

List of religious slurs
Bible thumper
(U.S.) someone perceived as aggressively imposing their Christian beliefs upon others. The term derives from preachers thumping their hands down on the Bible, or thumping the Bible itself, to emphasize a point during a sermon. The term's target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not. The term is most commonly used in English-speaking countries.[1]
Fundie
(U.S.) Someone who holds to the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith (from a series of essays, called The Fundamentals, written from 1910-1915, defending basic Christian doctrines). Now used derogatively of generally. any who believe the miraculous accounts in the Bible, and particularly, those who are evangelicals or who are active in the politics.
God Botherer
and the list goes on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_thumper#Bible_thumper

Not to mention the TOS on the subject.

As for the money, the Washington Post states $100,000 and another source states it at $60,000 and neither source claims he kept just a little.

 

[gitana1]

Doesn't invalidate the statement you quoted. I guess the derogatory word ' Bible thumper' was meant in a good and tolerant way. The whole story is based on a lie. He wasn't coming out, this was an intervention, so why did the author feel the need to change the fundamental circumstance of what really happened? Re-read the title and first line - How not to react when your child tells you he is gay.
Daniel Pierce, a 19-year-old college student from Georgia in the United States, secretly filmed a conversation with his Christian parents where he is allegedly attacked after revealing his sexuality.

Absolutely, 100%, not a lie, not misinformation not misleading in any way at all. How not to react when you're kid tells you he's gay. That's exactly what this was - a reaction to being told their son is gay. It doesn't matter when they were told - a few minutes, a few days, even weeks. This was their reaction - to have what they called an "intervention", then to scream at, physically attack and then disown their child.

How not react when you're kid says they're gay. This is what the topic was, this is what the tape showed. Period. This was their reaction and it was wrong.

 

[Tricia]

As Co-owner of Websleuths I agree that the title to this thread is appropriate.

There will come a time when gay people are accepted by everyone IMO. That's a long way down the road I'm afraid but we have made progress.

If this family behaved in a loving way toward their son even during this "intervention" that would be one thing but they didn't. Saying they "love" him then behaving as they did doesn't make it OK. IMO

Arguing with someone about being gay is like arguing with someone because you don't like the color of their eyes. It's how they were born. IMO

 

[TrackerSam]

As Co-owner of Websleuths I agree that the title to this thread is appropriate.

There will come a time when gay people are accepted by everyone IMO. That's a long way down the road I'm afraid but we have made progress.

If this family behaved in a loving way toward their son even during this "intervention" that would be one thing but they didn't. Saying they "love" him then behaving as they did doesn't make it OK. IMO

Arguing with someone about being gay is like arguing with someone because you don't like the color of their eyes. It's how they were born. IMO

So as co-owner your opinion is more valid than anyone else's? Just trying to figure out why you felt you needed to throw that factoid in there.
The only thing I've ever argued on this thread was poster's needs to drag religion into it.

Daniel Pierce, a 19-year-old college student from Georgia in the United States, secretly filmed a conversation with his Christian parents where he is allegedly attacked after revealing his sexuality.
That's not when this conversation was filmed, it was filmed during an intervention, so they obviously already knew.

 

[michmi]

As Co-owner of Websleuths I agree that the title to this thread is appropriate.

Well that was random. Is this your way of telling everyone how they should think?

 

[Tricia]

So as co-owner your opinion is more valid than anyone else's? Just trying to figure out why you felt you needed to throw that factoid in there.
The only thing I've ever argued on this thread was poster's needs to drag religion into it.

Daniel Pierce, a 19-year-old college student from Georgia in the United States, secretly filmed a conversation with his Christian parents where he is allegedly attacked after revealing his sexuality.
That's not when this conversation was filmed, it was filmed during an intervention, so they obviously already knew.

No TrackerSam that was not what I was saying at all.

The reason I feel the thread title is not misleading is because this is the parents reaction to his coming out as gay. He had come out before this was being taped yes but their reaction was to hold this "intervention" which was
just horrible.

If the title of the thread was misleading I would have changed it or one of the mods would have changed it. Since as co-owner I feel it is not misleading it will not be changed.

TrackerSam, I would never ever suggest my opinion is more important. I admire so many posters here. They are much smarter than I am that's for certain.

When it comes to making decisions on this forum there are only a select few who are allowed to do so. I was
responding to the people who felt it was misleading and wanted to state why the title was not changing. To do that I had to say I was Co-owner. That's all.

 

[Tricia]

Well that was random. Is this your way of telling everyone how they should think?

No I told everyone why the thread title was staying as it was and not misleading. Had I not stated I was Co-owner I would have no right to post the
title would stay as is.

If I would have said, "The title is not going to be changed because it is not misleading" and left it at that then I would be getting all kinds of grief from posters asking who was I do make that decision.

I only said I was Co-owner so people would know the title of the thread had been looked at by someone who had the ability to make a change if need be. I saw no need to change the title. That's all I was saying.

 

[Dogface]

At the end of the day, no one can justify the behavior in that video. It's that simple. As far as religion being brought into it, they are allowed to not accept his lifestyle based on their own lifestyle. What they are not allowed to do is react with violence.

As far as the comment from Tricia, as co owner she has a ruling hand on what's appropriate as far as threads and their titles go, and she deemed it appropriate in response to the questioning of it. In this case, in regards to what's appropriate, her opinion does mean more.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

So as co-owner your opinion is more valid than anyone else's? Just trying to figure out why you felt you needed to throw that factoid in there.
The only thing I've ever argued on this thread was poster's needs to drag religion into it.

Daniel Pierce, a 19-year-old college student from Georgia in the United States, secretly filmed a conversation with his Christian parents where he is allegedly attacked after revealing his sexuality.
That's not when this conversation was filmed, it was filmed during an intervention, so they obviously already knew.

We're discussing what occurred in the video and, in the video, the parent's objection to their son's sexuality was based on their repeatedly stated religious beliefs/interpretation of the bible ("word of God"). A poster didn't "drag religion into it" - the parents on the video did.

 

[TrackerSam]

No I told everyone why the thread title was staying as it was and not misleading. Had I not stated I was Co-owner I would have no right to post the
title would stay as is.

If I would have said, "The title is not going to be changed because it is not misleading" and left it at that then I would be getting all kinds of grief from posters asking who was I do make that decision.

I only said I was Co-owner so people would know the title of the thread had been looked at by someone who had the ability to make a change if need be. I saw no need to change the title. That's all I was saying.

No one was asking for a change of title.

 

[katydid23]

No one was asking for a change of title.

Yes, I saw people asking for a change of title.

 

[TrackerSam]

But you were replying to me and I didn't ask for a change.

 

[katydid23]

Of course and I think most would. So why the disinformation in the title? It doesn't matter. Nor must the mother jump on the rainbow bandwagon. She loves her son and hates that he's gay. She's refusing to pop a bottle of bubbly.........let's get her.

Sounds a bit like a request for a title change.

 

[TrackerSam]

Originally Posted by TrackerSam
Of course and I think most would. So why the disinformation in the title? It doesn't matter. Nor must the mother jump on the rainbow bandwagon. She loves her son and hates that he's gay. She's refusing to pop a bottle of bubbly.........let's get her.

Sounds a bit like a request for a title change.

You've got to be kidding. See the question mark? See where I said it doesn't matter? That sounds like a request for a title change to you?
Sounds like the old soft shoe to me.

 

[Tricia]

Of course and I think most would. So why the disinformation in the title? It doesn't matter. Nor must the mother jump on the rainbow bandwagon. She loves her son and hates that he's gay. She's refusing to pop a bottle of bubbly.........let's get her.

When a poster states there is "disinformation in the title" I take that very seriously.

Why would I want to leave a title up that has disinformation in it? I wouldn't. I would want to change it. Someone saying a title
has "disinformation" would, I assume, want that title changed. You don't need to come out and say, "Change it".

It is my job to look into something like this and make a change if the title really did contain disinformation.

TrackerSam, you didn't come out and say, "change the title" but you did say the title contained "disinformation".

I came on to state the title fine and I wasn't going to change it. That's all.