16-year-old boy in Tennessee forced to attend "straight camp"
Larry Harvilla
A 16-year-old boy in Tennessee told his parents in mid-May of this year
that he is gay, and has known since he was 13. His parents decided to
respond in what I think is the most un-parental way possible -- they
abandoned their son to a brain-washing "straight camp" in an attempt to
turn him straight.
As we all know, this sort of thing happens all too often, but there is
one major difference in this case. The young man, whose name is Zach,
maintains a blog at http://www.myspace.com/specialkid on which he posted
a laundry list of this "straight camp's" rules and regulations, many of
which are downright dehumanizing and abusive! In fact, the director of
the program in which Zach is entered (or should I say imprisoned), a man
by the name of John Smid, has been quoted:
"I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action
wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could
still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality
you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no
recovery."
In other words, Zach's parents have left Zach to fend for himself
against a man who actively encourages him to kill himself!
I'm outraged, and I hope that you will check out the following links and
be similarly outraged. Even if we can't "save" Zach, it is my hope that
spreading awareness of this story will save the next teenager from that
anti-Christian actions like those Zach's parents have taken.
Zach's blog: http://www.myspace.com/specialkid
E.J. Friedman, a Memphis blogger and one of the leaders of protests
against this "straight camp": http://www.cherrybloss.org/
An online "Save Zach" petition that you can sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/savezach/
My commentary on this issue (warning, strong language):
http://www.phatpage.org/news/
--
Larry Harvilla
E-mail: roads AT phatpage DOT org
also visit: http://www.phatpage.org/
Highways section in progress.
___Approved by: <susanna...@yahoo.com> Susannah Tiller_________
To reach the moderators, email to <ssygl...@ssyglb.net>
To reach the FAQ, check out <http://www.ssyglb.org/>
___________________________________________________________________
alias
garentees that im not gonna tell my parents any time soon ...
--
********************** approved by ***************************
Kalev Hunt
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Co-Moderator
soc.support.youth.gay-lesbian-bi
To contact the moderators, ssygl...@ssyglb.net
To get the FAQ, surf http://www.ssyglb.org/
******************************************************************
Anon E. Mouse
ro...@phatpage.org says...
<snip>
I agree that this is a sickening and horrible situation, but all of the
protesting, complaining, etc. is probably completely worthless. It is a
show of support for the kid, and that is good, but this issue isn't so
simple. In this case, we have a minor and his parents at the core of
the issue. Since it doesn't sound like his parents are abusive in the
traditional sense, it is unlikely to be widely construed as abuse that
they are trying to "fix" his sexual orientation.
Honestly, while I haven't read every single detail about all of this, I
can't pretend to objectively judge them as abusive. I imagine that they
honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, a mental illness; they
probably feel guilty for having "raised him wrong", and this is a
desperate effort on their part and in their minds to help their son.
Now the Smid guy who runs the place, he's a piece of work. I'm not sure
why he thinks he's qualified to treat anything, and what he's doing
sounds to me a lot like "practicing medicine without a license", only
with Psychology.
And, see, the deeper issue in this case is very broad. It has to do
with parental rights vs. state rights in regard to children. It also
touches on the church and state issue. What we have here is the kid's
actual parents, who have otherwise apparently been good enough parents,
having faith in a religion and a worldview that holds that homosexuality
is unacceptable and something to be "fixed". Thus, in turning to their
faith, they find a "promising" program -- at least to their minds -- and
they send their son there. So how does the state tread appropriately
into an area where they are setting general precedent that the state can
override parents' well-intentioned decisions that are based on their own
beliefs--religious beliefs, even? If this issue is ever legally
resolved, it won't be in time to do anything at all for this kid. The
most anyone could hope is that the facility is not properly licensed and
gets closed down. But it will only be closed briefly, I imagine, before
they get sufficient paperwork in place to re-open.
Consider comparing this issue with a case where parents have an
overweight child and send him to a Christian "Fat Camp". At this camp,
they are not left alone, because they could sneak and eat something they
can't have. They're made to work hard and exercise. They are forced to
diet and eat only healthy foods. A regular sleeping schedule is
enforced. They have group therapy to learn to regain their self-esteem
and deal with insensitive types that have ridiculed them for being fat.
Say, they do this through Jesus. Well, I don't think anyone would start
a protest about this situation, and, unfortunately, it is how the
majority of America will probably see the issue with this kid.
A more appropriate analogy, to my mind, would be a family sending their
black child off to a re-education camp to make him white. I'm not sure
how they would hope to do this at the camp, but maybe they pray for a
miracle and try to make the kid want to be white or something. Now this
would seem absurd prima facie, and rightly so. But, even here, what law
is being broken? As long as the child isn't being straight-up abused, I
don't see anything the state could prosecute the parents for. It is
racial discrimination, but discrimination, as this group surely knows,
is a legally defined issue. And, as defined, parents who have a racial
bias toward their children are not addressed in these anti-
discrimination laws. And the GLBT community, as a whole, is not
addressed in any anti-discrimination laws--much less an issue of parents
toward child.
So, in conclusion, what I'm saying here is that I think many people are
letting their emotions get the best of them in this. If you really want
a free society structured as America's is supposed to be, then you have
to accept some things you don't agree with. That's what we're always
preaching to people, right? And, well, I don't think anyone wants to
generally decide that the state can impose on parents' rights to raise
their children and guide them however they see fit. That being said, I
think this kids parents are doing him a terrible disservice, but I don't
know them well enough to decide if they're unfit parents or not. This
whole thing is obviously hard for them to deal with, and it could be a
positive sign in many ways that they're willing to go to this trouble to
"help" their kid, even if their motives are misguided. Thus, the most
appropriate focus in doing something with this case, I think, needs to
be on the re-education camp. Objective, scientific investigation needs
to take place in order to determine whether or not the methodology of
this camp is criminally harmful. If so, then it could be closed. If
not, then the issue could be construed as being in many ways similar to
a child from a Christian family who attends a secular school until he
tells them he's an atheist. Then they put him in a Christian private
academy where he's forced to attend mass, etc., and can be punished for
uttering anything that can be construed as blasphemy. In such a case,
we can conclude a parental lack of respect and understanding, but they
call the shots until the kid turns 18. In the worst case, if the
program is no more damaging than this, they'll just ruin their
relationship with their child. Unfortunate, yes, but criminal...? I
think that is stretching it.
AEM
jako...@gmail.com
prima-facie evidence it's engendered suicidal ideation? In the context
that Smid has announced that suicide is prefered over homosexuality as
an outcome? No. That's abusive.
zeusgirl
too much emphasis on what I have to say.
Anon E. Mouse wrote:
> In article <E1DlbXJ-...@richmond.servershost.net>,
> ro...@phatpage.org says...
>
> <snip>
>
> I agree that this is a sickening and horrible situation, but all of the
> protesting, complaining, etc. is probably completely worthless. It is a
> show of support for the kid, and that is good, but this issue isn't so
> simple. In this case, we have a minor and his parents at the core of
> the issue. Since it doesn't sound like his parents are abusive in the
> traditional sense, it is unlikely to be widely construed as abuse that
> they are trying to "fix" his sexual orientation.
Actually, for what it's worth, most major psychological and psychiatric
associations do not believe that homosexuality can be "fixed" and
have comdemned any therapies that attempt to do so as misguided at
best, and downright dangerous at worst. The American Psychological
association stopped classifying homsexuality as a mental illness in
1973... before most of us were born.
Programs like this usually cause depression, suicidal tendencies, and
all sorts of nasty psychological ramifications.
So, I don't know about you, but I certainly consider it abusive that
this boy's parents are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, and
can't be "fixed".
>
> Honestly, while I haven't read every single detail about all of this, I
> can't pretend to objectively judge them as abusive. I imagine that they
> honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, a mental illness; they
> probably feel guilty for having "raised him wrong", and this is a
> desperate effort on their part and in their minds to help their son.
Sincere belief in the moral correctness of one's actions does not
automatically absolve someone from guilt. If I sincerely believed that
whacking my child with a 2x4 for every minor misdeed was the correct
way to discipline her, would that make me any less of an abusive
mother?
> Now the Smid guy who runs the place, he's a piece of work. I'm not sure
> why he thinks he's qualified to treat anything, and what he's doing
> sounds to me a lot like "practicing medicine without a license", only
> with Psychology.
Sadly, the way most laws governing Psychology are formulated, you only
get in trouble with statutory bodies if you call yourself a
psychologist. What you do is largely irrelevant; it's what you call
yourself that's regulated.
> And, see, the deeper issue in this case is very broad. It has to do
> with parental rights vs. state rights in regard to children. It also
> touches on the church and state issue. What we have here is the kid's
> actual parents, who have otherwise apparently been good enough parents,
> having faith in a religion and a worldview that holds that homosexuality
> is unacceptable and something to be "fixed". Thus, in turning to their
> faith, they find a "promising" program -- at least to their minds -- and
> they send their son there. So how does the state tread appropriately
> into an area where they are setting general precedent that the state can
> override parents' well-intentioned decisions that are based on their own
> beliefs--religious beliefs, even? If this issue is ever legally
> resolved, it won't be in time to do anything at all for this kid. The
> most anyone could hope is that the facility is not properly licensed and
> gets closed down. But it will only be closed briefly, I imagine, before
> they get sufficient paperwork in place to re-open.
>
> A more appropriate analogy, to my mind, would be a family sending their
> black child off to a re-education camp to make him white. I'm not sure
> how they would hope to do this at the camp, but maybe they pray for a
> miracle and try to make the kid want to be white or something. Now this
> would seem absurd prima facie, and rightly so. But, even here, what law
> is being broken? As long as the child isn't being straight-up abused, I
> don't see anything the state could prosecute the parents for.
<<shrug>>. No law, perhaps. But several United Nations conventions on
Human Rigjhts, and the Rights of the Child. I am not certain if they
have been ratified in the USA, but last time I checked, they gave
everyone the right to live a life of dignity and self-worth, free of
torture, abuse, and degradation.
And that, to me, is really the crux of the matter. Research has shown
that it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation.
Professional groups have condemned it. And yet this kid's parents are
forcing him into something ethically and morally reprehensible.
I don't know about you, but that makes me angry.
> It is
> racial discrimination, but discrimination, as this group surely knows,
> is a legally defined issue. And, as defined, parents who have a racial
> bias toward their children are not addressed in these anti-
> discrimination laws. And the GLBT community, as a whole, is not
> addressed in any anti-discrimination laws--much less an issue of parents
> toward child.
>
> So, in conclusion, what I'm saying here is that I think many people are
> letting their emotions get the best of them in this. If you really want
> a free society structured as America's is supposed to be, then you have
> to accept some things you don't agree with. That's what we're always
> preaching to people, right?
Actually, I don't know who said it, but someone said that your right to
swing your arm stops when your arm comes near my face. Free speech and
free expression are wonderful things, but they don't come at the
expense of someone else's freedoms.
Just because this boy is a minor does not make him any less deserving
of these rights.
> And, well, I don't think anyone wants to
> generally decide that the state can impose on parents' rights to raise
> their children and guide them however they see fit.
To some extent, the state already does that. If you refused to clothe
your children, and didn't feed them, do you think CPS would say "well,
he's just raising his children as he sees fit, we won't intervene?"
Parents have a duty to their children, and children have certain
fundamental rights. The rights to clothing, food, and shelter are the
most immediately obvious, and tangible, but the rights to self
expression and dignity are just as important.
> That being said, I
> think this kids parents are doing him a terrible disservice, but I don't
> know them well enough to decide if they're unfit parents or not. This
> whole thing is obviously hard for them to deal with, and it could be a
> positive sign in many ways that they're willing to go to this trouble to
> "help" their kid, even if their motives are misguided. Thus, the most
> appropriate focus in doing something with this case, I think, needs to
> be on the re-education camp. Objective, scientific investigation needs
> to take place in order to determine whether or not the methodology of
> this camp is criminally harmful.
As I said above, it's been widely accepted for the past *30* years that
reparation therapy of this kind is misguided and harmful.
Moreover, there is no way of proving that it is not harmful, since no
scentific research with a modicum of ethics would condone such an
experiment.
Therefore, this child is basically being forced - against his will
- to participate in a scientific experiment with no supervising
ethics committee, no consent to participate, no right to withdraw...
I don't know about you, but that makes me angry.
> If so, then it could be closed. If
> not, then the issue could be construed as being in many ways similar to
> a child from a Christian family who attends a secular school until he
> tells them he's an atheist. Then they put him in a Christian private
> academy where he's forced to attend mass, etc., and can be punished for
> uttering anything that can be construed as blasphemy.
I find it hard to comprehend that you're equating sexuality with
religious belief.
Although I don't want to get into a long debate over the nature of
religion and the nature of sexuality, I believe that one is genetically
hard wired into us at birth, and the other isn't.
I certainly believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with being
gay/lesbian/bi, otherwise I wouldn't have been posting to this group
for the last 10 years, or co-moderating it for the last 5.
I find it very hard to believe that a poster in this group is condoning
an attempt to change someone's sexuality.
In such a case,
> we can conclude a parental lack of respect and understanding, but they
> call the shots until the kid turns 18. In the worst case, if the
> program is no more damaging than this, they'll just ruin their
> relationship with their child. Unfortunate, yes, but criminal...? I
> think that is stretching it.
>
I don't.
I see this child as a victim of abuse. And that makes me very angry.
Attempting to justify it makes me angrier still.
Regards,
Susannah
Anon E. Mouse
jako...@gmail.com says...
> You'd say it's not abusive even if - as in Zach's blog - there's
> prima-facie evidence it's engendered suicidal ideation? In the context
> that Smid has announced that suicide is prefered over homosexuality as
> an outcome? No. That's abusive.
>
I agree that encouraging suicide is abusive, but I haven't seen that
quote in context, and it is extreme even for someone like Smid.
Please don't get me wrong. I do not mean to be construed as defending
Smid and his like. I'm just trying to avoid falling into the trap of
letting me particular biases guide me in ways that are not at all
helpful to the situation at hand. If I had total control I would have
him removed from the camp and his parents would have to obey my
directives regarding the upbringing of their child. But I can't
rationally hope to push that agenda on the entire nation.
AEM
>
> ___Approved by: <susanna...@yahoo.com> Susannah Tiller_________
>
> To reach the moderators, email to <ssygl...@ssyglb.net>
> To reach the FAQ, check out <http://www.ssyglb.org/>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>
--
Bruce Mirken
Let us bear in mind here that abuse done with good intentions (e.g. saving
their son from the Pits of Hell, which is presumably what the parents hope)
is still abuse. There are plenty of documented cases of -- for example --
religious fundamentalists who believe in corporal punishment seriously
injuring or even killing children in the name of God-ordained punishment. We
have a tendency to treat psychological abuse as being "not so bad," but in
fact it can be just as damaging as physical abuse -- as the trail of
suicides and other misery from these "ex-gay ministries" illustrates.
"Anon E. Mouse" <tigern...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:E1DoihT-...@richmond.servershost.net...
> In article <E1DoKJP-...@richmond.servershost.net>,
> jako...@gmail.com says...
> > You'd say it's not abusive even if - as in Zach's blog - there's
> > prima-facie evidence it's engendered suicidal ideation? In the context
> > that Smid has announced that suicide is prefered over homosexuality as
> > an outcome? No. That's abusive.
> >
>
>
>
> I agree that encouraging suicide is abusive, but I haven't seen that
> quote in context, and it is extreme even for someone like Smid.
>
> Please don't get me wrong. I do not mean to be construed as defending
> Smid and his like. I'm just trying to avoid falling into the trap of
> letting me particular biases guide me in ways that are not at all
> helpful to the situation at hand. If I had total control I would have
> him removed from the camp and his parents would have to obey my
> directives regarding the upbringing of their child. But I can't
> rationally hope to push that agenda on the entire nation.
>
> AEM
--
ғαllєи άŋgзl
a place like this? It's just horrible.
Anon E. Mouse
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: Would all posters please keep your discussions in this thread (and all threads, actually) on-topic. Specifically, please discuss the issues, not what "team" you think one poster or another happens to be on. "He said, she said" is not a useful means of discussion. --Kalev]
In article <E1DoMq8-...@richmond.servershost.net>,
susanna...@yahoo.com says...
> Standard disclaimer: I'm a person as well as a moderator, so don't put
> too much emphasis on what I have to say.
>
> Anon E. Mouse wrote:
> > In article <E1DlbXJ-...@richmond.servershost.net>,
> > ro...@phatpage.org says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree that this is a sickening and horrible situation, but all of the
> > protesting, complaining, etc. is probably completely worthless. It is a
> > show of support for the kid, and that is good, but this issue isn't so
> > simple. In this case, we have a minor and his parents at the core of
> > the issue. Since it doesn't sound like his parents are abusive in the
> > traditional sense, it is unlikely to be widely construed as abuse that
> > they are trying to "fix" his sexual orientation.
>
> Actually, for what it's worth, most major psychological and psychiatric
> associations do not believe that homosexuality can be "fixed" and
> have comdemned any therapies that attempt to do so as misguided at
> best, and downright dangerous at worst. The American Psychological
> association stopped classifying homsexuality as a mental illness in
> 1973... before most of us were born.
>
> Programs like this usually cause depression, suicidal tendencies, and
> all sorts of nasty psychological ramifications.
>
> So, I don't know about you, but I certainly consider it abusive that
> this boy's parents are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, and
> can't be "fixed".
that would "fix" one's sexuality. And say a child's parents wanted him
to take it. What if it had no negative side-effects? And what if the
family's belief system regarded his homosexuality as a defect, like, say
schizophrenia? The issue can get pretty hairy. This is why I said the
best one could likely hope for realistically is that the program is
found to be clearly damaging and shut down. But what if it isn't so
damaging? What if they just encourage a particular view that encourages
homosexual people to deny their inclinations--much like many such faiths
urge people to remain "pure" until marriage, etc.?
Frankly, I don't know the details of this particular program, but they
do sound questionable. My central issue is with the attack on his
parents. They're being told by a pseudo-authority that the program is
in the child's best interest. What if a quack doctor advised a
dangerous surgery and they went with it? Can they be punished then--
simply for having good intentions but being ignorant? And who gets to
decide such things if they are handled in a manner that is not harmful
in a criminal way to a child?
> >
> > Honestly, while I haven't read every single detail about all of this, I
> > can't pretend to objectively judge them as abusive. I imagine that they
> > honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, a mental illness; they
> > probably feel guilty for having "raised him wrong", and this is a
> > desperate effort on their part and in their minds to help their son.
>
> Sincere belief in the moral correctness of one's actions does not
> automatically absolve someone from guilt. If I sincerely believed that
> whacking my child with a 2x4 for every minor misdeed was the correct
> way to discipline her, would that make me any less of an abusive
> mother?
merely trying to kill them before they killed her? What if you lost
your mind and believed this to be the case? These are sensational
analogies, but my point is that you're picking an extremely obvious
example and using it in an attempt to cast light on a much more
complicated gray-area issue. To be blunt, the issue is gray, your view
is black (as is mine), and theirs is white. You're just pushing for
them to view things as black instead of white, and, in the world as it
is, you're not likely to succeed. This is just a fact of reality,
whether it should be the case or not is beyond the scope of my original
post. But I will say that you and I are probably on the same page in
terms of the "ideal world" scenario.
>
> > Now the Smid guy who runs the place, he's a piece of work. I'm not sure
> > why he thinks he's qualified to treat anything, and what he's doing
> > sounds to me a lot like "practicing medicine without a license", only
> > with Psychology.
>
> Sadly, the way most laws governing Psychology are formulated, you only
> get in trouble with statutory bodies if you call yourself a
> psychologist. What you do is largely irrelevant; it's what you call
> yourself that's regulated.
>
all similar mental health practitioners. There should be a bare minimum
set of qualifications, and there should be laws against taking certain
situations into one's care without very particular qualifications. Smid
seems to have no more business "curing" homosexuality than I have
performing complicated neurosurgery!
that I'm almost embarrassed to admit it. But in these cases extremist
reaction is most often the worst thing to do, so I merely sought to
balance the scales more realistically and try to focus in on the more
immediate issues. Our inclination is to fight the war, but all we can
really hope to do is have a significantly positive impact on one
particular battle. And here we have an issue of tactics, and that
includes a realistic appraisal of the current situation. And that
appraisal entails that we cannot hope to have this child's parents
declared unfit and incompetent at this time and place in the world.
And, further, I think we would be wise to avoid advocating a light-
hearted approach to the state's general intervention in parents' rights
over their children. The state should intervene at times, definitely,
and it needs to intervene here, it seems. But the only clear path I see
is through attacking the organization. Attacking the parents here seems
to invite the kind of quagmire that must be considered strategically as
it will have a HUGE impact, ultimately, if any changes follow from this
or similar instances.
> > It is
> > racial discrimination, but discrimination, as this group surely knows,
> > is a legally defined issue. And, as defined, parents who have a racial
> > bias toward their children are not addressed in these anti-
> > discrimination laws. And the GLBT community, as a whole, is not
> > addressed in any anti-discrimination laws--much less an issue of parents
> > toward child.
> >
> > So, in conclusion, what I'm saying here is that I think many people are
> > letting their emotions get the best of them in this. If you really want
> > a free society structured as America's is supposed to be, then you have
> > to accept some things you don't agree with. That's what we're always
> > preaching to people, right?
>
> Actually, I don't know who said it, but someone said that your right to
> swing your arm stops when your arm comes near my face. Free speech and
> free expression are wonderful things, but they don't come at the
> expense of someone else's freedoms.
>
> Just because this boy is a minor does not make him any less deserving
> of these rights.
>
objective arbiter would have a hard time settling this issue from very
many perspectives. And the underlying issues are much larger than even
the whole of GLBT rights, children's rights, parental rights, etc. This
is the sort of thing that will get worked out gradually over time and
probably always be a dynamic issue in law. That is the strategic
reality. Tactically, there may be things that can be done, but they
will be far less grand and not nearly as satisfying as what I know you
and I would like to see.
> > And, well, I don't think anyone wants to
> > generally decide that the state can impose on parents' rights to raise
> > their children and guide them however they see fit.
>
> To some extent, the state already does that. If you refused to clothe
> your children, and didn't feed them, do you think CPS would say "well,
> he's just raising his children as he sees fit, we won't intervene?"
>
wants the state to have 100% say, basically. I did not mean to say that
the parent should have it. There must be a balance. And where an issue
isn't decided, it must be decided carefully and with respect to both
institutions.
> Parents have a duty to their children, and children have certain
> fundamental rights. The rights to clothing, food, and shelter are the
> most immediately obvious, and tangible, but the rights to self
> expression and dignity are just as important.
>
> > That being said, I
> > think this kids parents are doing him a terrible disservice, but I don't
> > know them well enough to decide if they're unfit parents or not. This
> > whole thing is obviously hard for them to deal with, and it could be a
> > positive sign in many ways that they're willing to go to this trouble to
> > "help" their kid, even if their motives are misguided. Thus, the most
> > appropriate focus in doing something with this case, I think, needs to
> > be on the re-education camp. Objective, scientific investigation needs
> > to take place in order to determine whether or not the methodology of
> > this camp is criminally harmful.
>
> As I said above, it's been widely accepted for the past *30* years that
> reparation therapy of this kind is misguided and harmful.
>
> Moreover, there is no way of proving that it is not harmful, since no
> scentific research with a modicum of ethics would condone such an
> experiment.
studies are done on those exposed to nuclear weapons detonations.
> Therefore, this child is basically being forced - against his will
> - to participate in a scientific experiment with no supervising
> ethics committee, no consent to participate, no right to withdraw...
>
> I don't know about you, but that makes me angry.
>
and let my emotion entirely disregard all of the deeper issues and
varying viewpoints.
> > If so, then it could be closed. If
> > not, then the issue could be construed as being in many ways similar to
> > a child from a Christian family who attends a secular school until he
> > tells them he's an atheist. Then they put him in a Christian private
> > academy where he's forced to attend mass, etc., and can be punished for
> > uttering anything that can be construed as blasphemy.
>
> I find it hard to comprehend that you're equating sexuality with
> religious belief.
what I say in my original post is like, "If you say x, they'll say y."
I'm not saying y or that y is true. I'm just saying that y is an
entailment you must anticipate, however stupid it may seem.
> Although I don't want to get into a long debate over the nature of
> religion and the nature of sexuality, I believe that one is genetically
> hard wired into us at birth, and the other isn't.
>
> I certainly believe that there's nothing inherently wrong with being
> gay/lesbian/bi, otherwise I wouldn't have been posting to this group
> for the last 10 years, or co-moderating it for the last 5.
>
> I find it very hard to believe that a poster in this group is condoning
> an attempt to change someone's sexuality.
>
suggestion! Please don't paint me in a box. I think it obvious that
everyone here is playing for the same team. I'm just trying to be
thorough and balanced in my view. Understand the opposition. Accept
the reality of the environment. Plan action according to reality and
facts. That is how you win. That is how you achieve your ends. If you
reduce your position to a point where you're screaming A and your
oppositive is screaming not-A, and all reason has left the dissent, then
the side with the power wins. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the
power, the majority, or any similar luxuries. Thus, in spite of all
sense of fairness, we are shouldering the burden of keeping the whole
affair on a very narrow path where we can actually hope to get some good
work done. And part of that is facing the reality that I reference
above. When I talk about the opposing viewpoint, when I cite it and
explain it, that is not at all the same as me accepting it. But if your
whoel argument boils down to "GLBT life is perfectly fine", and you
think that's going to cut it, then you're not going to make the kind of
headway that could be made. If it were that simple there'd be no need
for this group at all.
In the end, call me a gadfly, if you want, but don't try to paint me
into a corner that I consider the oppositions. Don't attack me at all,
in fact. I know your positions, and you know mine--they are nearly
identical. I talk about the positions opposed to ours because that is
smart and necessary. And it stands to get more done that screaming
insults at the opposition and pretending the whole issue is as simple as
a realization of the obvious fact that we're all right and they're all
wrong.
> In such a case,
> > we can conclude a parental lack of respect and understanding, but they
> > call the shots until the kid turns 18. In the worst case, if the
> > program is no more damaging than this, they'll just ruin their
> > relationship with their child. Unfortunate, yes, but criminal...? I
> > think that is stretching it.
> >
>
> I don't.
>
> I see this child as a victim of abuse. And that makes me very angry.
>
> Attempting to justify it makes me angrier still.
>
colloquial definitions. When I refer to "criminal" above, I'm referring
to the law, not my opinion or anyone elses. Under current law, I don't
think very many people will succeed in calling this kids parents
criminals. I don't even think they would likely be decided as unfit
parents. This is the reality of the law--just like it once used to be
the case that black people and women couldn't vote, that marijuana was
legal, that alcohol was prohibited, etc. I'm not even mentioning in
those last remarks what I think the law should be at all. I'm saying
what it is. And that is no attempt at justification. It is a citation
of facts and nothing more. You've reduced your argument to something
like pro-lifer's claim that "abortion is murder". When, in fact, murder
is clearly defined in the law, and abortion, being legal, is absolutely
NOT murder by the legal definition. And that is what I'm saying.
Now, do you see what I mean about emotions carrying people off into
unproductive territory? You are angry -- as am I -- but you've allowed
your anger to carry us off into a debate about a justification I never
made or attempted. This is the exact sort of thing I hope to avoid by
being realistic about the world around us. I hope we can all avoid such
distractions and accept reality for what it is in order to best
understand and change it in a positive way.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I sincerely appreciate
your thoughtful post. I hope I was able to clarify my position,
however, as I really do not think we're very far apart at all. In fact,
I imagine we're sharing nearly the same ground entirely.
AEM
Ann Burlingham
> i have to agree .....thats a sickening thing to do .........that
> garentees that im not gonna tell my parents any time soon ...
Do you think they'd be likely to go to this extreme?
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
Ann Burlingham
> Honestly, while I haven't read every single detail about all of this, I
> can't pretend to objectively judge them as abusive. I imagine that they
> honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, a mental illness; they
> probably feel guilty for having "raised him wrong", and this is a
> desperate effort on their part and in their minds to help their son.
> Now the Smid guy who runs the place, he's a piece of work. I'm not sure
> why he thinks he's qualified to treat anything, and what he's doing
> sounds to me a lot like "practicing medicine without a license", only
> with Psychology.
Putting their child under the supervision of someone tells him that
he'd be better off dead is neglect, at least.
Kimo Marecki
parents i'm gay. I'll live with my boyfriend thought. That was the rudest
thing a parents (or parents) could do!
"Larry Harvilla" <ro...@phatpage.org> wrote in message
news:E1DlbXJ-...@richmond.servershost.net...
Sagittaria
> news:E1DlbXJ-...@richmond.servershost.net...
>> This is absolutely sickening ...
>>
>> A 16-year-old boy in Tennessee told his parents in mid-May of
>> this year that he is gay, and has known since he was 13. His
>> parents decided to respond in what I think is the most
>> un-parental way possible -- they abandoned their son to a
>> brain-washing "straight camp" in an attempt to turn him
straight....
>> Zach's blog: http://www.myspace.com/specialkid
>>
>> E.J. Friedman, a Memphis blogger and one of the leaders of
>> protests against this "straight camp":
>> http://www.cherrybloss.org/
>>
>> An online "Save Zach" petition that you can sign:
>> http://www.petitiononline.com/savezach/
>>
>> My commentary on this issue (warning, strong language):
>> http://www.phatpage.org/news/
Just wondered if anyone had any update on this kid. I visited his
blog and the other links above and didn't find anything. His blog is
now set to private, so I assume he got free and was able to edit it
again, but maybe his parents found a way to do it. Anyone know?
--
---->Sagittaria<----
dotdashandy
I'm not entirely sure. I put forward a friend request, with any luck it
will be approved and we'll be able to (or at least I will - I'll fill
you guys in) see if everything is alright with him. This sickens me to
the core. It's what I was afraid for when I came out, but thankfully it
didn't turn out this way. If I get added, I'll be sure to keep you all
informed with what's going on. Also, his profile reads that he is 14,
not 16, as this post title suggested.
Larry Harvilla
> Sagittaria wrote:
>
>
> I'm not entirely sure. I put forward a friend request, with any luck it
> will be approved and we'll be able to (or at least I will - I'll fill
> you guys in) see if everything is alright with him. This sickens me to
> the core. It's what I was afraid for when I came out, but thankfully it
> didn't turn out this way. If I get added, I'll be sure to keep you all
> informed with what's going on. Also, his profile reads that he is 14,
> not 16, as this post title suggested.
Wow, a thread I started a year ago is still getting posts ... ;-)
I figured I should poke in to explain the age issue. MySpace policy is
that users who are under 16 years of age have their profiles set to
"private," meaning only the people designated as "friends" by that user
may view the profile, read the blog, etc..
After all the publicity, and the thousands of e-mails Zach claimed to
have received in a (now-private) blog entry he made last August 1, he no
doubt had to be looking for some privacy. I would assume that that was
the reason for setting his age to 14 on MySpace.
(One friend of mine who is actually 26 does the same thing with the
MySpace blog he uses mostly to chronicle his sexual exploits -- he sets
the age to 14 so he can control who gets to read his naughty stories.) :)
FWIW, Zach would be 17 now; everything that says he's 16 would have been
posted in summer 2005, when all of this was going on.
--
Larry Harvilla
e-mail: roads AT phatpage DOT org
blog-aliciousness: http://www.phatpage.org/news/
Useful gay resources: http://gay.phatpage.org/
Benjamin Prater
account and that is how I was ousted. So not I am going to just stay to
Usenet because I know she dose not even know what that is.
"Sagittaria" <sagi...@emailias.com> wrote in message
news:E1FwvJT-...@richmond.servershost.net...
Laurence Taylor
> This makes me very said did this happen on myspace? my mom found mymayspace
> account and that is how I was ousted. So not I am going to just stay to
> Usenet because I know she dose not even know what that is.
That wasn't very nice. I hope things didn't go badly.
>>Just wondered if anyone had any update on this kid. I visited his
>>blog and the other links above and didn't find anything. His blog is
>>now set to private, so I assume he got free and was able to edit it
>>again, but maybe his parents found a way to do it. Anyone know?
Yes, he was released last year I think, but his original blog was
taken down. After that there were many messages of support and a bit
of news about what he was doing (he seemed fine and carrying on with
life fairly normally) but all entries had parental vetting.
It's since gone (set "private") so I don't know any more. I hope he's ok.
--
rgds
LAurence
...The pictures are much better on the radio
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Benjamin Prater
ever move back home. But it is ok because I believe it will get better.
"Laurence Taylor" <see-h...@nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:E1G8KyV-...@richmond.servershost.net...
Laurence Taylor
> My mom have stopped helping me pay for collage and not I am not allowed to
> ever move back home. But it is ok because I believe it will get better.
>
That's very sad. Maybe one day she will realise that you're still the
same son she always (used to) love.
Although, at the moment, you're lucky in that you actually have a home
of your own; with her attitude at the moment, you probably wouldn't
want to go back there anyway. (I hope that doesn't sound nasty, it's
not meant to).
All the best.
--
rgds
LAurence
...And this is what you do for fun?
Benjamin Prater
> Benjamin Prater wrote:
>> My mom have stopped helping me pay for collage and not I am not allowed to
>> ever move back home. But it is ok because I believe it will get better.
>>
>
> That's very sad. Maybe one day she will realise that you're still the
> same son she always (used to) love.
>
> Although, at the moment, you're lucky in that you actually have a home
> of your own; with her attitude at the moment, you probably wouldn't
> want to go back there anyway. (I hope that doesn't sound nasty, it's
> not meant to).
>
> All the best.
>
thank god she understands.