Category: LGBT Discussion
This is just beyond sad. How can this mother talk about how much she loves her son and how much of a believer in God she is and still do something like this?
In the video, she says she's known he was gay since he was a small boy. She goes on to say that this is a choice he's made.
http://www.her.ie/life/mothers-shameful-reaction-to-sons-coming-out-goes-viral/
This is why many of us denied ourselves back in the day. The video is horrible, but I see a lot of strength in this young man. Honestly, if I had to say who was going to have regrets one day, it won't be he, but at least one of his parents.
I am deeply offended by the family's reaction to this young man, and the completely un-
Christian way they handled it while claiming to believe the Bible. I am so ashamed of
Christianity when people act like that in the name of Christ.
If my son turns out to be gay, I will fully support him and love him as a person. I cannot
agree with what he does, but I believe in the science too that it is not always a lifestyle
choice. That still doesn't make it part of what I personally believe in, but in so many
places the Bible teaches us to love one another and to love the people who are hurting the
most. If a Christian thinks it is his or her duty to stop this behaviour, or intervene, he or
she should be doing this through private prayer and witnessing only love and acceptance
to this person, maybe sharing that they don't agree, but in no way does the Bible say to
be violent or hurtful towards them. It does say to not associate with sinners, which is a
Christian's choice, but I suspect that would be more comfortable for both parties anyways.
In the case of family, however, there is almost nothing my son could do that would stop
me from unconditionally loving and supporting him, not trying to change him, maybe
explaining the Christian belief but in no way pushing it on the child as this will only drive a
wedge between the family members, and also between the gay person and any
relationship or chance there might be of believing in God. It is up to each person to chart
their own journey and face their maker one day based on what they have done, and for
someone to be so rude and hurtful only means they too will have to meet their maker with
that on their conscience. By the way, it says we as Christians are not to judge. So many
Christians interpret the Bible in the way that is most convenient to them, or that makes
them look holier than thou, and there is nothing bigger of a pet peeve than that for me
because it tarnishes what is supposed to be something beautiful, a belief in God, into
something ugly and despicable. Shame on them and I wish this young man luck on his
own.
By the way, although I am not gay, I have many people I call friends who are, and they
are no more of a sinner than I am. So I am strong and confident enough in what I believe
in to accept that I will not judge, or try to change them through preaching, but perhaps by
just being the best person I can be and being their friend. I'm happy to do it, and I so
wish more Christians smartened up, had the confidence and the security to do the same,
and to condem that type of reaction as shown in the video.
@Post2: You're right, and I know a father who describes the painful regret of how he acted towards his son when he was younger. I'm not a believer, and even when I associated with the Christians, I was a closet supporter of homosexuals and others, and saw right through the sickness that is zealous behavior. I know many Christians who aren't zealous like that: I am married to one. But the atmosphere of evangelical circles forces the nonzealous to feel guilt-ridden and full of shame for, um, having a human conscience.
Shayxz, all I can say is, good on you for speaking up. People like you speaking up are the hope of your faith tradition if it is to survive. There is a very good reason for it: Few evangelicals would be able to listen to one such as I am: a rationalist atheist by intellect, and a secular humanist by morals, because in our moral framework we put human beings before creeds, dogmas and texts. But they will, or potentially will, listen to Christians such as you.
There are even now gay, conservative, Bible-believing Christians with an evangelical mission. I have looked at their website. While I quite obviously disagree with their assessment of evolutionary theory and many other things, I think they provide a place for gay people who hold to your beliefs. I've heard it said, by a few gay people, "Just because I'm gay, that doesn't mean I reject God, and certainly doesn't mean I'm an atheist like you." You might find their apologetic interesting. Besides the standard fare of josh McDowell-style support of fundamentalist Christianity, they have explained the biblical passages about gayness as speaking of occultic practices in the Ancient Near East. I don't know how many Christians will support them or not. But I have heard of this quandary where gays still believe as the Christians do, but are simply gay. And they're right, we cannot expect them to just turn and become schooled in rational inquiry or do as we atheists and look only at empirical evidence for things. They're just gay, that doesn't mean they're not Christians, and some of them still believe heartily in the Christian god.
Anyway Shaydz, if there is hope for the gays in these situations, I think it will come from Christians like you. I didn't watch the video: I've seen enough of this base behavior produced by the moral and ethical stunting these zealous groups tend to create.
Agree with you Shades, and I applaud you, Leo. The condemnation we place on others for the way they live causes a great deal of stress, hurt, and need for damage control. As for not associating with sinners ... well, considering every one of us is imperfect, I never really got that. I think too many take it literally. I imagine it simply means not to subject yourself to people who really are doing some bad things; murderers, rapists and the like. Homosexuals, though their actions are spoken out against by God, hardly fit that bill. They're still equal human beings with rites and responsibilities, hopes, dreams and flaws. God doesn't hate them, or even love them less. You don't hate your son or daughter for going against your rules. At least you don't if you're a decent parent. As I've said before, it's one thing to disagree with homosexuality. But that doesn't make you a homosexual hater. Too few people can seperate the actions of an individual from that individual. For many others, there's no gray area. You either whole-heartedly support homosexuality, or you're an intolerant homophobe. Another problem.
I'd agree with post 3.
Even if you drop the "Christian" where is the human love?
I know this happens, and will continue, but it is sad when it does.
So these people claim they're doing what's right in God's eyes by kicking their son out of the house. I wonder which part of the bible they use to justify beating up their own son.
This was kind of a sore point for me, since my own family would have reacted in much the same way, especially back then. When I got caught sucking a guy off in the dorm and got suspended for it back in highschool, my mom came to get me and all the way home, she talked about taking a belt to me and beating me real good. She got my older brother to come with her, so he could talk to me and tell me how wrong my actions were. He tried it, and of course, dramatic old me just point blank asked him why he used to love to fuck me up the ass if he really thought homosexuality was wrong. Needless to say, he shut up real fast and Poor mom just didn't quite know what to do, so she shut up as well and we made the rest of the trip home in silence.
I just ran across this. (I hope it comes out all right.)
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/08/29/3477218/internet-raises-over-50000-for-gay-youth-disowned-by-family/
This Guy Was Disowned By His Family For Being Gay So The Internet Raised $50,000 For Him
by Zack Ford Posted on August 29, 2014 at 10:11 am Updated: August 29, 2014 at 11:13 am
Daniel Ashley Pierce
CREDIT: Facebook.
This week, a video went viral of 20-year-old Daniel Ashley Pierce experiencing an intervention of sorts by his Georgia-based family, who disapprove of his being gay. In the video, his family blatantly tell them that because of his “choice,” they can no longer provide him with any support and that he is no longer welcome at home. Individuals across the internet have rallied behind Pierce, raising over $50,000 in living expenses to compensate for the support his family will no longer provide.
In a note posted on the fundraising page Thursday, Pierce extended his gratitude to those who lent their support. “I didn’t realize that this was even set up for me!” he wrote. “I don’t even know how to thank y’all! I wish I could give each and everyone of you a huge hug!”
Many of the nearly 2,000 donors left supportive comments along with their donation:
•“God loves you, just as you are.”
•“The best thing you can do is make a break and surround yourself by a new ‘chosen’ family of friends that love and support you.”
•“You should be proud of yourself for standing your grand and being proud of the WAY YOU WERE BORN.”
•“You are not alone in the world — there are many good people watching out for you.”
•“You are a precious, brave person, Daniel. I’m so sorry your family can’t see that. But know that millions of us out here love and support you and others who bravely own their truth.”
Pierce’s family’s comments and actions in the video reflect many conservative talking points used to oppose LGBT equality. The opening comment, “I want to tell you before I say anything else that I love you,” reflects the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality promoted in many conservative faith traditions. “You have made a choice” and “God creates nobody that way” reflect the notion that sexual orientation can be changed or defined only as behaviors. In fact, his family blatantly rejected all of the available information about sexuality, saying, “You go by all the scientific stuff you want to; I’m going to go by the word of God,” and, “You know you wasn’t born that way.” Another family member adds at one point, “I have a lot of friends that are gay, but they’re friends; they’re not related to me.” They told him that the only way he could stay connected to them was to try to pray the gay away through ex-gay therapy.
Watch the troubling video:
Studies suggest that as many as 40 percent of homeless youth are LGBT, and a recent study of Los Angeles’ foster care system found that nearly 1 in 5 foster youths identify as LGBTQ.
Pierce told the Huffington Post that his family have not contacted the media, but have informed him that they want the video removed from YouTube. He is currently living with supportive friends.
Bob
Now you just watch. someone in that family, and I won't be surprised if it's the mother, will come to him for financial help soon enough.
Or go to the American Center for Law and Justice, the congruent inverse of the ACLU - set up for Christians who get bent out of shape about something. Think defense lawyers like the Phelps.
What he should do is first see that others will mirror the video, then remove it from his own channel and let them fight Youtube / Google.
I had the same reaction: I'm not sure you can disassociate with sinners because supposedly we're all sinners. As for god supposedly decrying homosexuality, I challenge any biblical experts to find one word that Christ actually spoke in the four Gospels about homosexuality. And that has to be limited to those four gospels. Near as I can tell, that was done either by St Paul, who preached after Christ's death and so, in my opinion, cannot be relied on, and old testament tracts that cannot be relied on either because they drastically depart from the teachings Christ tried to spread. If Christ was the son of God and Christ didn't preach against homosexuality, I submit that his god, who was also his father, didn't comdemn it either. That, or Christ is not the son of God. You can't have it both ways. There's a lot that may be open to interpretation, but I submit Christ never spoke one word against homosexuality or gays in general. Prove me wrong or shut up.
Anthony, I think your story in post 8 is fantastic. Thanks for posting it.
Bob
Johndy, that is exactly what I think. Prove to me that words Christ himself spoke were against homosexuals, and then we can talk. I mean but regardless, judgemental people have always sbothered me a lot. Live and let live.
Re: post #9, thank you for that update. I will be sending a small donation as well and
supporting him. I am pleased to see many people stepping up to put their money where
their mouths are, especially Christians, and challenge other Christians to do the same.
Re: posts 10 and 11, I will pray that his family leave him alone and do not pursue him any
further. It is obvious at this point that they do not have his best interests at heart, and
cannot be trusted to continue any kind of relationship without causing more hurt and pain.
There are enough other caring people looking out for this young man anyways. I pray that
Daniel has the wisdom to use this money wisely, and surrounds himself with wise advisors
as to how to deal with his family, any potential lawsuits from them, etc. I agree he should
bring down the video and let Google and the rest of the internet handle the mirrored post
issue.
As for Jesus and his teachings, it is correct he never mentions homosexuality. I am not a
biblical scholar, but he associated with almost every other type of sinner there was in his
day, and even though this is not expressly recorded in the gospel, I think we can infer that
he probably associated with some gay people along the way. Nevertheless, his message to
all sinners was equal and clear, to put their old selves or possessions aside, their sin
actually, and to follow him, loving one another as he loved them. His advice to gay people
would be consistent with this, and so it is the duty of anyone who truly calls themselves a
Christian to follow his example in practice, as much as possible. Where I struggle with the
faith, and what I need to investigate more, is to do with Paul's teachings. Paul was around
some 30 years after Christ was crucified, so his knowledge and teachings are inspired by
the Holy Spirit. I believe Paul's teachings to be divinely inspired, as they are part of the
accepted biblical package we use today, but I have to wonder if everything he said was
inspired directly from God or was some of it influenced by his Jewish heritage? He was a
late convert in life to Christianity, having been a steadfast Jew and a great persecutor of
the early Christians. I would have a much easier time with the whole issue of
homosexuality and the Bible if it was expressly condemned in the Old Testament but not
mentioned again in the New Testament, as one could infer that all sin then was equal. The
fact that Paul teaches specifically against homosexuality troubles me and is beyond my
understanding. I know he was simply trying to instruct the early church of believers on
how to live, but is this instruction of morality coloured by his upbringing in a traditionalist
Jewish faith, or is it completely inspired by the Holy Spirit working within him? This has
given me food for thought and I wish to investigate this further, because for me, if God
views being gay as a sin equal to all others, then we are told to confess it and repent,
trying not to do it again, but then He recognizes we will still fail sometimes. He tells men
not to look at women lustfully in their hearts, because that's already adultery, but I would
submit it is really almost a complete rarity to find a straight man who could honestly say
he has not fallen short here. There are other examples too of sinful things we all do, like
pride, envy, anger, etc, that we cannot always control, and if all sin is equal, then who are
we to judge or say anything at all about being gay, which is not even a choice
scientifically? One can choose to suppress gay behaviour, sure, but we are all human and
will fail at controlling our flesh in various ways, which are different for each person. In any
case, I have gone down a theological road here that I need to study further, and it
deviates far from the o.p. Let me just conclude that Jesus himself did not speak on
homosexuality, and for me as a Christian, my role is to follow His example to the best of
my ability, which means loving sinners, of which I am not the least as the Bible says, and
this definitely includes loving my gay friends in a way no different than how I love anyone
else, whether they are believers or not.
Jesus, if he spoke on homosexuality would be a hypocrite.
All of the people he took on to be his close brothers, were the worst of society, or low class dudes.
He associated with prostitutes, and you name it, so I'll bet some of these were gay.
In different periods in history, it was perfectly acceptable.
Do you know about Rome? Rich men favored boys, and would take them about just like young girls.
Other periods in history, and cultures saw homosexuality, or bisexuality, as the normal.
So, in Jesus's time, this could have been the case, so he'd not be preaching about it.
The thing is, people tent to find anything to relate, or value what they believe, and in this case, that is exactly what is done.
Again I'm no biblical scholar. I do know that Paul's teachings came about decades after Christ's death. I'd submit this as a strong argument against Paul: If you accept that Christ was the only begotten son of God and that his words are the true gospel, then his teachings were divinely inspired and handed down directly from his father. Had his father saw fit to inspire Christ to talk about homosexuality, would he not have done so? Did he do so? Paul is not the only begotten son of God. Ergo, what Paul said is simply not as persuasive regarding what God wants or does not want as Christ, who is the only begotten son of God. . That's if you accept the tenet that Christ is the only begotten son of God. I'd say case closed in my book. Anybody can say that what they say is divinely inspired. It remains to be seen whether, in point of fact, such is true.
Shades, I applaud your post, and in many ways, Forereal I agree with you also. I've always had a difficult time with Paul, and I think Shades brings up an interesting point. Furthermore it is important to remember that much of paul's contravercial writings (such as how women should not speak in church) was written in another time and for another people. But here's the thing. While Christianity, and indeed human society in general is quick to condemn, Christ's teachings were ones of self-mastery, peace, and though it's considered a cliche, love. With love comes acceptence for us. We are not to judge others transgressions, not when we, all of us are guilty of various degrees of sin every day. Certainly that doesn't mean we should condone sinful behavior, but it does mean it is not our place to cast proverbial stones. I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, but I do recall quite clearly that even Jesus Christ himself, when confronted with a woman caught in the act of adultery - which then and now is a very serious transgression - forgave her, even defended her person, though not her sin, and simply admonished her to go, and sin no more. I think People get too wrapped up in following the commandments of an established church, rather than Christ's teachings. These parents likely have it in their minds that what they're doing is right. Either that or they are simply disgusted, or maybe even hurt. Either way, their reaction is deplorable.
Well I have to agree that altruistic, sacrificial love has to be the greatest of all emergent
properties in human beings, no matter how you believe said property emerged. I'm
thinking of a recent exercise where they had two groups work together on a community
project: a group of atheists and a group of religious people. The atheists had a large A on
their t-shirt, and the religious had a large R on theirs. After a short time working together
on that project, the t-shirt was the only way one could tell the difference.
We are all human beings first.
I'm lost for words; I feel totally sick after hearing that. Gives us Christians such a bad name. :( I hope that poor boy called the police since violence was either involved, or nearly.
Re: post #18, well stated and I could not agree more. Thank you so much for expressing
what I was thinking but had difficulty articulating.
Re: post #20, I too think the police should investigate. There is only one proper way to
deal with this, and it is to not cover it up, as many Christians tend to do, thinking that
they do not need the legal system to be involved if God can forgive, but rather the correct
approach is for the justice system to deal harshly but fairly with all criminal acts like
threats of violence. Whether a person forgives another, or loves them, if a person has
contravened a law, such as threatening or perpetrating violence, or abuse of any kind,
they should be dealt with fully through the law and face consequences that are not any
less severe than anyone else just because they may have faith or remorse.
He'd have to press the charges. Maybe get a restraining order.
That be the only way the police would get involved.
A slightly different take on this: note how many Christians here and elsewhere are
speaking up for this young man, and admonishing the family who behaved badly. This is
indeed beautiful and commendable, yes. But in its own way a bit of a sharp lesson to
some, not to tar (and feather?) them all with the same brush. The parents were terrible: I
know personally the fear of being disowned, something I learned about first at age 8. But
in order to correct that behavior, we have to isolate those who did the wrong, not punish
all Christians. Ironic coming from the mouth of an atheist, a secular humanist.
Notice how they defended the boy, an yet held to their beliefs. I understand this: I
support and uphold my Christian Wife's rights to practice freely, even though I see no
undeniable evidence for their god, and even though I see its genocidal, egocentric
patterns as amoral. In fact, She and a lot of other Christians bear none of those
tendencies, and would not in reality be very happy watching the rest of us burn forever
and ever. That stuff is the faith system, but they are the beautiful human beings who
happen to believe it.
Leo, your opinions as stated in the above post are completely valid and I truly do respect
you for your outlook. It is your choice to exercise your free will, and despite your life's
perspective being different from mine, you are a respectable and honourable person for
supporting your wife in her belief and recognizing that everyone has the right to follow
their heart on the issue of whether to believe or not. Your intelligently stated viewpoints
make the world a better place as rational and thoughtful discussions can be had and much
learned from different, but equally valid, points of view. Thank you.
I've read this topic in its entirety, and I've decided to share what will be an unpopular perspective.
in watching the video this guy posted, it's clear to me that he knew how his parents would react, upon him bringing up his sexuality.
his family says that they've known he was gay, ever since he was little, after all.
the fact that he made a video of their reaction, tells me that he wanted to make them look like the bad guys, not to mention he also likely wanted the attention he knew this sort of thing would provide.
and, for what purpose? so that he'd have a reason, in his mind, to trash his family members? so that he could do everything in his power to ruin their image, and gain support for himself from society? not just that, but I believe he knew damn well what he was doing, when he posted this video.
being that he knew how his family felt, yet, still decided to bring attention to his personal business, I'm almost certain he knew that publicizing this would be a fast and easy way for him to make money.
while I don't think disowning him was a good thing, I think everyone is entitled to share their opinions with one another openly and honestly.
so, if I feel for anyone, here, it's the parents who were humiliated, by having this video put up, when this is something that should've been kept private.
Actually, good point Chelsea. I didn't think of it that way, but now I feel like a bit of a
sucker.
I still think the family deserves to be outed for their attitudes, and a little humiliation is
deserved as they brought this on themselves, but if this is the case that the young man
set this up, he is to be outed for his fraud. I wish there was a way to know for sure, but
you are right, signs point to this possibility. I think all of it should have stayed private in
this case, and nobody should profit.
Wow, Chelsea. In reading back through some of your previous board posts, I had to see. You're perspective on these matters has changed significantly in the past few months. Dare I say, without a 'turn signal'. For those unfamiliar with that term, 'turn signal' means when you're changing entire paradigm or perspective, others have a reason or frame of reference to go by. Naturally, you don't have to do that, certainly many teenagers don't do that. But in amongst adults, understanding the how / why of the perspective change helps the rest of us understand you better. Also helps us not make assumptions. I had this conversation recently on another issue with the daughter where perspectives were changing, she didn't want assumptions being made (who does), and I explained the whole turn signal phenomenon, so people have a frame of reference for radical changes.
Hopefully you can see this post in the spirit in wwhich it's meant.
Where I still think it is sad that families act the way they do, she's right, it is there right to feel as they do.
I didn't know he'd shot the bideo, so there is the question why?
I still don't agree it is a Christian thing, and she's not talking about that, but a people thing.
Sure, they can disagree, but they could have done it the acult way, so to speak.
He's earned some money on it too.
Interesting.
The problems comes in when we think in terms of the good guy virsus the bad guy. I'd say they both did some wrong. Maybe he knew what he was doing. Maybe he even knew they'd get violent with him. But if they had such strong convictions, you'd think the family would be proud that they were caught on tape as they upheld the word of God. Perhaps he'd dealt with this attidude for many years, and the build up of resentment finally drove him to expose them for the hate-spouting Christians that they are. I agree that it's their house. They have the right to not only their opinion, but also the right to say what they will and won't tolerate within it's walls. But really, would this family make most Christians proud? They want the video removed, but if they were that emotional about it, and had such strong convictions, then they should at least have the guts to own it, so to speak.
I do understand being resentful enough to be driven to such drastic measures. Have any of you ever had a family member who seemed so kind and nice and understanding when you were out in public with them, and then who either beat you to a whimpering pile of JellO, (whether that's physically or emotionally,) in private where no one else could see? If so, you might understand the need to do something to expose that family member, and show at least one other person what really happens behind that kind and caring mask. I think he just wanted to feel understood, for once.
If some young girl was being sexually abused by her father, and one day she finally got the guts to video it happening and then posted it to Youtube, in order to at least try to be understood, would she be the bad person for bringing her personal family life out in to the open?
Excellent points Anthony. This is a people issue now, not a religious one at all. I am
saddened by all of it, really.
Just goes to show how hard it is to tell one side from another in certain circumstances without knowing the full story. I think Chelsea brought up an excellent point also, though whether he did it for the publicity doesn't excuse his parents for acting the way they did.
Anthony brings up some really good points here. Some of us know exactly what that is like, but some of us were born and raised before there was an Internet, before there was a Youtube, and before there was a convenient way to record and disseminate this stuff. My sympathy for the parents goes something like the sympathy we have for a kid who gets caught on a school security camera breaking into someone else's locker ... and when in trouble, says they didn't know the security camera was there. What parent is buying that one as an excuse?
What I'm guessing happened is the support came later. this is often how it works. And I live in a city where there are a lot of street / homeless youth. They come here because they believe they can get services, and the climate is at least tolerable. Rainy and wet, but it doesn't dip below the 20s usually. And most summers doesn't go above the 90s. Over half these kids were kicked out of the home for being gay or transgendered. This is a serious problem, and depending on where you live and the types of community involvement you're involved with, you may or may not be in touch with this stuff. But in reality when parents act like this, the rest of us are required to pick up where they left off. If this young man has gotten support, look at it this way: You're not paying for it. If you lived in a city like Portland Oregon, or Santa Monica, California, chances are your local taxes would be. Again, this is a serious problem, where half the street youth are either not cisgendered or not heterosexual.
I also echo that, if this was a woman who made that video, the poster who questioned his motives would statistically be very unlikely to have done so.
No matter what the kid's motivation was, I keep thinking "how could any parent turn on their child?"
Perhaps, if there were younger siblings in the house whose lifestyle might be endangered, then you would work with the kid to come up with another living arrangement: maybe a grandparent or something.
No matter what the situation is, you don't abandon your offspring. You brought them in the world, and they are your responsibility until you die. They may not like you--even hate you-- that's their choice. You don't have that option open to you.
Just my opinion.
Bob
yes, Anthony, anyone who chooses to bring their personal family business out into the open, especially on a public forum like YouTube, is the bad guy, period.
as I initially said, I don't see how people are continuing to defend this guy's family, when, in the video, they flat out told him that they've known about his sexuality all along.
yet, he has chosen to make a big deal out of them feeling as they do, instead of leaving things alone, and quietly living his life.
as for me changing, we all go through changes, which shouldn't surprise anyone.
it's ironic that when I have the gall to admit I've changed, and freely explain how I've done so, it's a damned if I do, damned if I don't type of situation, as some of you here seem to see it.
leo, remember me recently talking about how I acted like I wasn't religious, cause I wanted to be rebellious?
well, believe it or not, that's the same reason I acted like I was into the same sex, and was supportive of gay people being open about their sexuality.
growing up, people often told me that I couldn't be with other women.
so, when I thought I was old enough to start thinking about things on my own, one of the first things I did, was experiment with women.
I've never had an actual relationship with one, though, and I've always said that I never would. it was simply something I did, to prove that it was indeed possible.
growing up in an unstable environment often encourages people to act out in ways they otherwise wouldn't.
for me, that meant acting as if I believed things that I didn't, just cause they were different from what I had always been told to believe.
now, I'm admitting how things used to be/why they were that way, as well as how/why I've changed my mind about them, and people are giving me flack for doing that.
it's a shame to know most people have such a hard time accepting other people's changes, and that, when someone comes along and admits things aren't always as they seem, many people are surprised, instead of seeing the person's changes as a sign of their growth/maturity.
honestly, I could choose to not say anything about this, which accomplishes nothing, as far as I see things.
I'm no longer willing to act like I believe in certain things, though, when I don't. that also accomplishes nothing.
I'd much rather be honest about where I've been, where I am, and where I'm going. that's the right thing to do, for myself, and the world as a whole.
people will always make of one another's changes what they want to, but that doesn't make it any less important for me to speak my truth.
if it was so hard to beleive people could change, we'd be in a very different society. I don't understand why it's such a surprise. Our personalities and beliefs are not cast in unmalliable stone; our ideas and perspectives are constantly in flux based on experience and circumstance.
I'm glad you get that, BG.
to add to what you said, being that our life experiences constantly shape us, oftentimes, where we are in our lives makes us comfortable to admit something we never have, cause we felt we couldn't, due to our own inner-struggles.
to some people, that seems to be quite off-putting, but that's certainly the case for me, not to mention, although I'm here to discuss things, I'm also not hear to constantly justify every change I make in life, or the whys, hows, and what's behind those changes.
Well put Chelsea, I didn't know you before but I thoroughly agree with your perspective
and opinions on change and your outlook.
But maybe he’s had enough of living quietly and leaving things alone. How many times has he had to hear the words queer, fag, cocksucker, homo, pervert, and how many times has he had to suffer in silence because of hearing those words, and maybe even worse? We know how this family has treated him on this video, but what went on off-camera? That father seems to be a pretty intimidating guy. How many times did he abuse this kid off-camera? Maybe the kid shouldn’t have exposed his family’s dirty laundry on a public forum like Youtube; I tend to think that we do a lot more of that these days than we arguably should. Look at the Maurie Povich show that’s so horribly popular these days. (I call it MaurieProbe a Bitch, incidentally.) But maybe the kid finally got his piece of vengeance, and believe it or not, I think that’s entirely proper and fair. These supposed Christians aren’t proud of their behavior now that they’re exposed to the light like a swarm of cockroaches, and I’m supposed to feel sorry? Not if they finaly got what they may have richly deserved.
Chelsea, I genuinely asked, I was not giving you flack. I too have been asked: Why did you used to go along with the Christians? Why were you sort of a hanger-on around the edges with those people? I don't mind being asked, I don't take it as flack, and I give it my best answer. As, clearly, you have done here also. For that I appreciate. It was not flack I was intending to give you, Chelsea, it was education I was asking of you. As one who has quietly been skeptical of a lot of things for decades, not out of what some call rebellion, but it just never made any sense to me, it does make sense that people who find out are going to ask questions. What I'm usually surprised at, is when they ask, I answer, and they are surprised I answer rationally, directly and respectfully, and don't get upset. Ironically, many of the questions people have had of me, are the same ones I was asking myself for decades. If I am myself, and I had said questions of myself, then I think it's only fair other people would have similar ones. It was not my intent to give you flack: only my intent to ask and not just assume things.
I'll admit, your perspective is entirely new to me. In other words, Chelsea, if you hadn't answered, I might never have heard of someone like you, with like experiences. So for that I thank you. And I was only seeking to know, just as people in my own life have been seeking to know since I came out as an atheist.
I'll give you an example from my own life, Chelsea:
"So Leo, your Wife wanted at one time to be a Christian minister, still is, in Her own way. How do you square that one with being an atheist?"
I had some practical, and yes humanist, responses: I am the atheist, not She. And I still support anything and everything that She is into. In fact, more freely so now, because I'm not carrying around this idea that I should be believing it when I really always find myself on the wrong side of dogma, as it were, with the Christians. I gave responses, because the question was asked in good faith. Unlike my response on this board topic in Post 28, that question was put to me in sort of a combative sense. But I self-maintained and gave a clear and rational response. People want to know, even from someone like I was. And I was not ever outspoken about anything like that. I was supporting my family believing I was doing it the right way. But when someone is quite outspoken, and then they transition from one perspective to another, people who used to listen to them before will still, presumably, want to listen to them now, and as part of that learn how they decided to change, or what is behind the new thinking. Presumably, you changed to something you feel is better. Although some peple, perhaps some people in your own life, might give you a hard time (a really hard time, not just ask questions), you know it's better. Hell, if I just up and changed careers you can bet there would be a whole ton of people wanting to know why. Questions aren't combative. I reread my Post 28, and maybe I'm just being dense, but I can't see anything combative there. Certainly not like what I have run across with some in real life, and I'm just assuming here, not like what you yourself have run across in your offline life from people who thought of you one way and are now perhaps confused and upset. By the way, if they're confused and upset, perhaps their own beliefs confuse them, and their own dogma upsets them, more than any sort of self-metamorphosis you're going through. If I was combative, it would be instructive for you to tell me how. If shown how, you have my assurance I won't do it again.
In my experience, people who have questions for someone re: a change of beliefs, and I don't mean ad hominem and loaded questions, genuine ones, are the people who respect you. I asked you because I respect you: You've been through more in a quarter century or so, than most people in developed countries go through in 90 plus years, from what you've shared publicly. While you and I approach things, and even approach discussion, often very differently, I respect you enough to ask. What I didn't want to do was just draw my own conclusions. No matter how we wish it were different, the human mind will always find an explanation for things -- which is why if we're not careful we assume instead of ask. And that 'we' most definitely includes me. I might like to think I'm a rationalist, but I am well aware that I'm as vulnerable to the wetware, firmware and software wiring that is our evolutionary and social makeup. So, I do try to ask rather than assume. Though, I'm completely willing to admit if I was wrong in my manner of doing so. But asking with respectful intent is one way to fill in the knowledge gaps without making assumptions. And, if you're undergoing a sort of self-metamorphosis of sorts, the last thing you need or want is the rest of us just assuming things. I'm not asking you to accept my mindset, just asking you to please understand the motivation behind it. I understand a lot of people do question in a way to be combative, and present ad hominem attacks, but that is not my intent, nor has it been.
Oh the girl that is suxual abused, she should send her video to the police, not post it.
This guy didn't have that option.
But, okay, lets say he exposed them, and all. Why's he taking money?
Apparently, this fund was taken up for him without his knowledge. If you were offered 50000 dollars and you were escentially homeless, would you refuse it?
Exactly. And if he wasn't taking money from private donations, let me tell you, he would be taking your money via social services and other things. I'm betting, even though Denver, Colorado, is a lot harsher of a climate, you probably have quite a few homeless folk there. Maybe not as many transients as we do, since it's not temperate like western Oregon. But when these homeless are youth, half are something other than heterosexual. The problem with gays and young atheists in America is exactly the same types of problems we see from young people no longer Muslim in some countries, or young ex-Mormons in parts of Utah. These very insular communities based on zealous ideologies kick out their own as a way to purge out the evil from among them. It's part of how they operate. Osamu Bin Laden turned away thousands of applicants to Al Qaeda, and many others were turned out for unorthodoxy. Fundamentalist Christians are no different. And I'm going to go out on a limb here: can't prove this but ... I'm betting you have an insular vegan hippie community like what we have some of out here, when the kids grow up and start thinking for themselves, maybe have a cheeseburger or two, we'll see these little insular communities disown them too. The terrorist outfit PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment Of Animals) has seen a few family members disowned. It's a failure of an ideology subscriber, when the little ones grow up and don't think exactly the way mommy and daddy do. Whatever that ideology happens to be. The common denominator is two things: ideological orthodoxy and an insular environment. Breeds a very toxic concoction.
Me, no! Just interested though.
I've said I thought the whole affairs sad, and it will happen again sadly, but I did wonder how the money was generated.
Denver has lots of homeless people, but we've built several bran new, and I'm talking from the ground up, nice apartment buildings to shelter them.
Now, the problem is, all homeless don't with to have a home, and this gives the social workers something difficult to do.
This was explained to me by one.
I'm happy to pay taxes for that venture. We've got plenty money to go around, so if the homeless get nice places to live, probided they keep them nice, it is good.
I have seen brand new places become like slumbs within a year, and that too is sad.
The people tare them up, so now they have rules.
Off topic, but wanted to respond to Leo.
So Chelsea, a point of clarification: I know you are always talking about how you've grown
up. Part of being grown up, of course, is answering honest questions without getting
offended. So, what do you mean by "being rebellious" in your post? That term is largely a
Fundamentalist Christian term, but you claim to not be one of these. That seems as
counterintuitive as me claiming not to be an atheist, and then talking about rational
inquiry and empirical evidence as motivation. Of course, groups don't own words, so I'm
asking in good faith. In order for you to be rebellious, there needs to be a someone or
something you are rebelling against. What is the someone or the something? If you are
using it in an evangelical Christian context, then saying as much gives us all the familiar
framework we already know. If not, then clarifying will make it less likely others will
assume things. Sexuality, and mate selection, are such deeply personal things that it's
hard to imagine them in the cheap, school-skipping context of the churchy term
"rebellious." Blowing up jack-o-lanterns, TP-ing people's houses, and doing any number of
young fool activities I and my friends engaged in as young people, the church types could
rightly call "rebellious," since we fools were showing blatant disregard for others and their
property. But human sexual selection, even the casual hookup, simply doesn't work that
way. I'm not being homophobic by saying this but ... I cannot imagine taking another man
to bed, especially as some kind of "rebellion." And we were fools by even the most
permissive of standards.
So, what are we missing? How, if at all, does your definition of "rebellious" differ from
what I said here? Was Wolfgang Amadaeus Mozart "rebellious" for going against his father
and pursuing music? Was William Shakespeare "rebellious" for abandoning his parents'
trade as leather worker to become a playwright instead? The religious of both their time
periods found their acts to be scandalous and sinful. Why, Handel's Messiah, now revered
as a sacred work, was first declared to be sensual and profane, and he also dubbed
"rebellious."
Now, I get it. This young man has yet to accomplish anything. I think now, with the
support he's been given, he has the opportunity to rise above it all, square his shoulders,
do the honorable thing and make something of himself. But, rebellious? Explain. You used
the term, while telling us you don't subscribe to the group who usually uses that term,
and in the U.S. at least, has been responsible for its cultural definition. I put this to you in
good faith. You've seen me in other threads challenge feminist orthodoxy, or blind faith in
the existence of a patriarchy, to other atheists. So you rationally know this isn't a
schoolyard, and you're not being picked on. Consider it a case of educating us, the
ignorant. I have not been homosexual, not even what they now call experimental. The
irony is, and I apologize for the stereotypes but ... The homosexuals I've known have not
been the "rebellious" types, no huligan activities, not even much recreational drug use.
"Rebellious" could only be used against them for the gay thing, by those sects of
Christianity or Islam who forbid it. Other than that, they're straight arrows; ironic they
called the rest of us fools "straight."
You probably have an explanation. So, take a deep breath, put your bright mind to it, and
let us have it. The rest of us might learn something.
I haven't been on here lately, so I haven't read the recent responses till just now.
leo, when I refer to the fact I've done things to be rebellious, I mean that growing up in an abusive environment as I did,caused me to act out in ways that I probably otherwise wouldn't have.
so, in saying that I acted like I was an atheist, when that actually wasn't the case, or saying that I acted like I was into women, when I knew I was only acting like it, to prove a point to the maternal side of my family, that's what I mean by being rebellious.
I was rebelling against what that side of my family wanted for me, cause I could, but also cause that was the only way I knew how to make a different outcome possible for myself, being that I didn't have anywhere else to turn to.
it's sad that growing up in such a toxic environment can often make people act out in ways such as I did, but at the same time, if I'm not honest about this, people wouldn't hear something new, and I'd still be living a lie.
ultimately, being rebellious, as I call it, has been one of the best things I've done, cause I've learned more about myself/the world as a whole, that way, than I probably otherwise would've.
although I've learned a lot, though, I'm by no means advocating that how I've done things is the way others should do things.
also, I'm not trying to come across as snarky, but people here on the zone often seem to jump, when someone has changed their perspective, as I have.
people offline don't have difficulty excepting what changes I've gone through, but they also hang out with me, so are therefore able to better gauge who I am as a person. whereas here, to some extent at least, people read what they want into what they see, or take things personally, when they feel the subject matter is close to them, in some way.
hopefully, this explanation clears things up, as it's the best I can do for now.
Chelsea, sounds like an explanation to me. Thanks, for cluing us in. Actually makes me
glad I asked, rather than yield to the natural temptation to assume. It's also very
informative on yet another residual effect of abuse, like you've been through, and had the
courage to talk about. Thanks, for clarifying.
Speaking of, when I said the young man has an opportunity to make something of
himself, I was thinking of the work you do for the rape crisis shelter. More of these types
of places are popping up around the country for gay young people in crisis, people with
nobody to turn to.
I'm glad you asked, leo.
people can't possibly grasp the kinds of things that abuse will do to individuals, including people such as myself.
what I mean, is, when I was in the situation, I certainly didn't have the copacity to see things the way I do, now that I'm out of it.
so, the more people that are willing to come forward to share their experiences, the better.
cause, some of this shit, I don't believe we can ever get over.
like, even though I've been away from that toxic environment since the summer of 2009, I still find that certain things from the abuse affect me, all these years later, when I thought they would've gone away by now.
It's really tough to put any kind of timetable on stuff like that. Much as we want to, to get over things. But I have known Vietnam vets who 20 years after the war was over, were still suffering intensely from it. Just sayin', don't beat yourself up for not getting over it as fast as you might have wanted. That isn't being weak or dependent, it's just how this stuff appears to work. Someone with psychology background would be able to express this stuff better I'm sure.
Leo