Man comes out to family about being Gay, does not go well

Czarcasm

krudler wrote: »

Absolutely, it's far more acceptable in Irish society to be gay now than it was 20 years go. To think otherwise is just blinkered. Do people still dislike gay people for no real reason? absolutely. But I'd wager the majority of people have no problem with them at all, I guess time will tell in the SSM referendum.

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

Export

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

You iz crazeez.

krudler

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

you literally just said to change people's beliefs you need to respect them, now you're saying people's ideas never change even when things are more widely accepted in society? Make up your mind.

Corkfeen

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

But younger generations are far more tolerant than previous generations. The simple fact is that people are less tolerant of homophobic language and will likely call people up on it.

In relation to same sex marriage, in all likelihood it will have a positive effect. The more you treat a group as more equal, the more bigotry will drop.The more comfortable one is with coming out, the more it will benefit society as well. For example people who personally know gay people are statistically less likely to be homophobic. A society that allows same sex marriage means that people are more willing to come out. You'll never eradicate homophobia entirely but the levels can drop.

Czarcasm

krudler wrote: »

you literally just said to change people's beliefs you need to respect them, now you're saying people's ideas never change even when things are more widely accepted in society? Make up your mind.

Things being legislated for in society don't change people's beliefs is what I'm saying. Homosexuality was legalised in Ireland before people eligible to vote in the referendum were even born, and they've grown up with their beliefs, ignorant and all as they may be. The outcome of a referendum isn't going to change their beliefs, and refusing to acknowledge that these people exist isn't going to change their beliefs.

The only thing that will change their beliefs is engaging with these people at their level.

DeadHand

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

Not immediately, no.

But equality in the eyes of the law will, hopefully, have a trickle down effect on the general population so that in future generations the homophobic, young Johnnys of this nation become increasingly rare.

It's chess, not checkers!

Czarcasm

Corkfeen wrote: »

But younger generations are far more tolerant than previous generations. The simple fact is that people are less tolerant of homophobic language and will likely call people up on it.

In relation to same sex marriage, in all likelihood it will have a positive effect. The more you treat a group as more equal, the more bigotry will drop.The more comfortable one is with coming out, the more it will benefit society as well. For example people who personally know gay people are statistically less likely to be homophobic. A society that allows same sex marriage means that people are more willing to come out. You'll never eradicate homophobia entirely but the levels can drop.

Corkfeen I understand where you're coming from, but the story in the OP would render that statistic meaningless, which is itself part of the problem, because if you start quoting statistics, then you have the statistics that say 40% of homeless young people in America are LGBT.

I don't have statistics to hand for Ireland, but I'd say we wouldn't be far off that statistic either.

Czarcasm

DeadHand wrote: »

Not immediately, no.

But equality in the eyes of the law will, hopefully, have a trickle down effect on the general population so that in future generations the homophobic, young Johnnys of this nation become increasingly rare.

It's chess, not checkers!

I know what you're saying, and I'd like to believe that too, but unfortunately the reality doesn't bear out that ideology. At least 50 years ago our excuse was the influence of the RCC in Ireland. What excuse are we going with nowadays when minorities in Irish society are still dehumanized?

To use your chess analogy - the pawns are always first in the firing line, hiding the power players behind them. Ignorance is just as prevalent in society as it always was, only thing that's changed is that nowadays it's just better hidden or indeed swept under the carpet and there is a refusal to acknowledge it's existence.

Rotherham is a classic example of what happens when people ignore reality in favour of being seen as righteous.

PopePalpatine

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do you genuinely think the outcome of the referendum is going to have any effect on young Johnny down the back of the 303 bus '****** this, queer that, scumbag the other"?

"Oh wait, I can't say that now because bum bandits, I mean gay people, are allowed get married now"...

It'll have no effect whatsoever!

Yes, I do believe that, just as the advancement of civil rights made it increasingly less OK for Billy Bob to go "n****r this, coon that, darkie this".

Czarcasm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, I do believe that, just as the advancement of civil rights made it increasingly less OK for Billy Bob to go "n****r this, coon that, darkie this".

For sure, it made it less OK for him to do it, but did it stop him doing it? The WBC and the KKK still exist today, they're just better at hiding it. Hiding something from view doesn't mean it doesn't exist any more. That's like playing peekaboo with a baby. It's a very immature and naive point of view - if you pretend something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

They have laws against homophobia in the States, yet homophobia is clearly not just acceptable, but encouraged in much of the States, and do you think racism is any different? Not when you have people who actively accept and encourage racism, even people who have influence over young people such as music producers and artists who not only use derogatory terms that are directed at black people, but actually embrace and appropriate such terms of hatred in their lyrics, because they know being seen as a "badass nigga" sells more records.

Links234

I would invite anyone following this thread to click the Search This Thread button, go to advanced search, and type Czarcasm into the search by username field just to see the sheer volume and frequency of his posts, it's a bit shocking. I'm saying this, because it might give some folks a little perspective on how this poster usually engages these kinds of threads. It's not just obsessive, it's a tactic where he'll keep soapboxing, keep repeating the same points, and essentially brow-beating other posters into submission, thereby "winning" the argument via brute force posting.

Czarcasm

Links234 wrote: »

I would invite anyone following this thread to click the Search This Thread button, go to advanced search, and type Czarcasm into the search by username field just to see the sheer volume and frequency of his posts, it's a bit shocking. I'm saying this, because it might give some folks a little perspective on how this poster usually engages these kinds of threads. It's not just obsessive, it's a tactic where he'll keep soapboxing, keep repeating the same points, and essentially brow-beating other posters into submission, thereby "winning" the argument via brute force posting.

It's a discussion forum Links, in which the golden rule is "attack the post, not the poster". If anyone, including yourself, has an issue with the content, or the frequency with which I post, they are more than aware already, as you are, that there is a "report post" button, and if that's not quick enough, they can PM the moderators.

I am allowed to hold a different opinion, and I am allowed express that opinion as long as I do so within the limits of civil discussion and refrain from attacking other posters simply because I disagree with them.

I almost forgot - there's also the "ignore" function if you're still unsatisfied with the outcome of the above suggestions (and the "unfollow thread" function!).

Links234

Part of a discussion is also highlighting certain argument tactics and logical fallacies, it's nothing to do with whether you're "allowed" to hold a different opinion or something ridiculous like that, nor suggesting you're doing anything actionable. It's pointing out your tactics, and one only has to look to see how you go about arguing your opinion in these threads.

The who posted? for this thread paints us a similar picture too, that one poster is indeed dominating this thread.

SpaceTime

Czarcasm wrote: »

Corkfeen I understand where you're coming from, but the story in the OP would render that statistic meaningless, which is itself part of the problem, because if you start quoting statistics, then you have the statistics that say 40% of homeless young people in America are LGBT.

I don't have statistics to hand for Ireland, but I'd say we wouldn't be far off that statistic either.

It's hard to know because nobody seems to have surveyed it.
My gut feeling is that the US statistic is probably higher as I don't think that you've quite such a hardline view of homosexuality in Ireland as that that exists in some parts of the US. However, there are undoubtedly a % of homeless LGBT teens and adults and it's something that absolutely should be surveyed properly by one of the rights organisations, the CSO or the DSP itself.

The worrying statistic on Irish homelessness was that on the survey they did on the census night in 2011, there were 3,808 homeless people and 1,581 of them had some kind of disability ranging from physical problems to the level that they were unable to dress themselves, 284 were deaf or blind, 214 had an intellectual disability, 532 had difficulty with learning/remembering/concentrating (cognitive disability), 277 were afraid / unable to go outside (agoraphobic).

A huge % seem to be people who are unable to access social services because they're actually unable to deal with them. We'd solve a lot of Irish homelessness by making social welfare accessible to people who *really* need it rather than making the application process cumbersome and ending up with people getting it who know how to 'work the system' and people who are clever enough to figure out the rules.

I recently had to go through the rules for maternity benefit (insured) for a friend of mine and even the website was basically legal gobldigook.

I have no idea how someone in a crisis situation or someone who is incapable of reading or comprehending those kinds of things would manage. There's a fair possibility they'd just end up sitting on O'Connell Street in a blanket.

I know this is really quite OT, but it annoys me a lot that the Irish system is constructed in such a way that it almost ensures that people who are incapable of dealing with bureaucracy either because they've a cognitive disability, language issues, are blind/deaf or are suffering from serious psychological problems simply fall through the cracks and end up on the street.

We've good services, but the method of access seems like a deliberately designed obstacle course that benefits those in the know, TDs putting applications through for people and those with a brass neck rather than some of the weakest in society.

One thing that charities could do, and it would be more useful in many ways than just going around with endless soup kitchens is to actually accompany a homeless person to the DSP office and go through the forms with them!

I have no issue with robust criteria and checks for eligibility but hiding the system behind a mess of forms and confusion isn't really doing anything other than filtering out the most vulnerable. Chancers will find all the loopholes anyway.

Czarcasm

Links234 wrote: »

Part of a discussion is also highlighting certain argument tactics and logical fallacies, it's nothing to do with whether you're "allowed" to hold a different opinion or something ridiculous like that, nor suggesting you're doing anything actionable. It's pointing out your tactics, and one only has to look to see how you go about arguing your opinion in these threads.

Then argue against my opinion then instead of attacking me personally. I've enough respect for you not to attack you personally or to subject you to attempted intimidatory tactics in an attempt to browbeat you into submission and silence your opinion.

You have accused me of soap boxing, and yet it is you who have taken the liberty of going to great efforts to point out to readers and contributors here that I am somehow according to you engaging in some sort of an attempt to stifle the discussion like I'm trying to "win" an argument. A discussion, and a debate, are two different things - one can win a debate, one cannot win a discussion, as the rules are quite different from a debate. A debate has a defined set of parameters and points, a discussion accommodates all points, perspectives and opinions, even when they differ from your own.

The who posted? for this thread paints us a similar picture too, that one poster is indeed dominating this thread.

Naturally if a minority disagrees with the majority, it's going to look like on paper they're dominating the discussion, you should be aware of that more than most people.

sunflower27

It isnt that the parents asked him to move out that is shocking, but that they are disowning their son over it. Ok, They don't agree with him being gay, but to call him a disgrace because of it and to cut him out of their lives is abhorrent.

I can't help but feel they are disgusted that they bore a gay son. That is likely a real issue for them and the son is receiving the brunt of that anger verbally and physically. Disgraceful behaviour that parents could treat their own flesh and blood like that.

nervous_twitch

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'll get a few thanks for that, but do you think anything you've said will change my attitude?

Do you actually care whether you change my attitude or not, or is it just more important to you to be seem to condemn my attitude because it makes you feel better to be appreciated by strangers to you on the internet?

You're more than welcome to come spend a day with me at your earliest convenience, and then you can examine who's attitude needs changing.

It sure as hell ain't mine.

Do you think I posted for thanks?

I rarely post at all, but sometimes I get incensed enough to address what I believe to be poor form. I see a child being forced out of home and family because of his sexual preference ; and I really dont know how or why, but you think he needs to show more respect. Or something.

I do condemn your attitude. Whole heartedly.

Shakespeare's Sister

This "Thanks-fishing" accusation - I don't get it. Do people really think people posted so differently before the thanks system was brought in? Because they didn't.
Thanks aren't THAT important to people!

The cultural relativism thing - certainly if someone was indoctrinated from a very young age into a mindset that causes and celebrates harm to others, I would recognise it's largely not their fault that they have these views, but to "respect" such views and the people who hold them... utterly through the looking-glass stuff. So dishonest. Trying too hard to be different and to look tolerant and enlightened - towards people who do not deserve it. Doesn't mean I'd scream abuse at them (prefer to be above their level) but I wouldn't feel an iota of respect, nor would they for me whether I respected them or not.

wyrn

He's donated $10,000 to a non profit organisation that is building a homeless centre for gay teens.

ATLANTA - A non-profit organization in Atlanta will convert a more than century-old midtown building into a homeless center for gay teens, according to the organization's director. The Lost N' Found organization focuses on helping gay teens overcome homelessness.

His organization is seeing huge donations through diverted funds for Daniel Pierce, the Georgia teen who secretly recorded his parents' reaction to his announcement he is gay. After the video went viral, Pierce saw nearly $100,000 come in to support his fund for living expenses, his parents having forced him to leave the house.
Westbrook said Pierce made contact with Lost N' Found, and offered to give some of that money.
"I would say we're right at $10,000 (through Pierce donations), said Westbrook. "Daniel is an incredibly bright and courageous young man. He is the epitome of who Lost n' Found is here to serve."

Interesting post on Reddit about how the video went viral by a poster

For all the people saying that this was all done to seek money
This guy's boyfriend was a regular poster on /r/gaybros. We are a very friendly community and he shared that video only with us just to show what happened with his boyfriend.
In that thread itself someone requested him to post that video on /r/videos .
That /r/video thread blew up and people asked multiple times from the boyfriend as to how they can contribute.
Only after that he made a gofundme and the initial target was only $2000. The video went viral and people contibuted. Let's not malign the victim.

I suppose there'll be some who will say that it's not enough. I really don't understand why some people are so upset that he's received these donations. Who cares what he does with it. The people who donated felt that he needed the support. Personally I think it's lovely when people get together and help each other out.

diograis

basically still only following this thread to watch everyone slap czarcasm down every time he makes a long, meandering, vague point about how the boy in the video is an "ungrateful brat"

Iwasfrozen

I think both sides are wrong here, the parents are wrong for refusing to accept and deciding turf out a gay child (obviously) but that doesn't excuse the son bad mouthing his father on facebook or calling him a racist or redneck so I can see why he'd be upset about that too.

It's a pity the son couldn't just bide his time quietly until he's old enough to get a job and support himself. Sad situation, sad turn of events.

B.A._Baracus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think both sides are wrong here, the parents are wrong for refusing to accept and deciding turf out a gay child (obviously) but that doesn't excuse the son bad mouthing his father on facebook or calling him a racist or redneck so I can see why he'd be upset about that too.

It's a pity the son couldn't just bide his time quietly until he's old enough to get a job and support himself. Sad situation, sad turn of events.

The kicker for me that raises an eyebrow is that he is 20 years old and does in fact have a job.

Inanna

wyrn wrote: »

He's donated $10,000 to a non profit organisation that is building a homeless centre for gay teens.

B-B-But!

Czarcasm wrote: »

all he is, is a selfish little twat.

dublinman1990

Jaysus, the dad does come up as being more nasty than I ever expected against Daniel. If Daniel was going to put up proof about the incident involving his father, we would be happy to hear from what he had to say about it. Then again if Daniel didn't put up that racism stuff about his father on public record, e.g. Daniel's facebook page over the internet, well than Daniel could have said to the media that all of the racism jargon is basically a load of hot air coming from his father and doesn't even exist.

That would suggest to me that the father is more to blame for his abhorrent behaviour because of his tone in the way that he shouts and roars aggressively towards his own son. That in today's society is increasingly unacceptable behaviour to even tolerate.

The step-mother is no prized pig either in the way that she lashed violently out at her son. I wonder what Daniel's biological mother would have to say about it if she still has a big part in Daniels life. Would it make much of a difference in what she will say about the incident or we would imagine she would keep it private. We may not know the answer to that.

All I can say at this particular is that Daniel does not deserve one bit of the physical and mental abuse that he got from his parents. He still wants to be loved and cherished for who he is but his parents are not cherishing that point with one ounce of humility. For many gay people across the world, that is a horrible and unimaginable way to live with a family like that are like his asshole parents.

On an more encouraging note, it is really touching to hear that Daniel has a heart to help other people that are simply being misplaced because of known discrimination of their homosexuality by those who have an aversion to people being gay. I also wish the gay homeless centre in Atlanta well in all of it's endeavors and it will be a great success story for all gay people who have been badly hurt from their horrible past with their families. It's sounds like a great cause to be working for.

Links234

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

This "Thanks-fishing" accusation - I don't get it. Do people really think people posted so differently before the thanks system was brought in? Because they didn't.
Thanks aren't THAT important to people!

It's a way of hand-waving away the sincerity of the other side of the argument, you accuse them of having ulterior motivation for expressing certain viewpoints. Oh you're only saying X because it'll get you thanks, or because you're just going along with the liberal PC crowd, or whatever. It's a fairly condescending argument tactic.

wyrn

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The kicker for me that raises an eyebrow is that he is 20 years old and does in fact have a job.

What does it matter that he's a 20 year old living at home and working? His family were fine with his living arrangements until this argument. They didn't mention his age or his employment, only his sexual orientation.
For all we know he could be beneficial for the whole family to have him living at home (perhaps he pays rent, looks after other family members or pets). It's immaterial as to why he's still living at home at 20.

The fact is, he's been cut off from his home - both in the sense of his living arrangements and his family all because his family reject him because he's gay. Not because he's bratty but because they don't want a gay son.