Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

Sorry, Annies, I agree with LW2. If you give a gift, truly give it. Don't expect anything in return! I'm tired of people bestowing obligations onto others then using a "missing" thank you note as a reason to shame or disown them.

This case, in particular, is ridiculous because this "generous" Auntie was using her niece to avoid a trip to Goodwill. Which, BTW, is exactly where those clothes probably ended up.

Sorry, Annies, I agree with LW2. If you give a gift, truly give it. Don't expect anything in return! I'm tired of people bestowing obligations onto others then using a "missing" thank you note as a reason to shame or disown them.

This case, in particular, is ridiculous because this "generous" Auntie was using her niece to avoid a trip to Goodwill. Which, BTW, is exactly where those clothes probably ended up.

LW2 I don't get how you can say she is your "friend" when you believe that she and her lifestyle are "evil".

LW1: You can't fix your parents or your sister. And life is not always fair. The only person that you can fix is yourself, and you truly need to forgive your parents and your sister and let this go, for your own sake. Harboring these hostile feelings toward your family members hurts you the worst. Do not allow yourself to be bitter and resentful. Life is short. Money cannot buy happiness and nobody is owed an inheritance.

LW2: If you are a Christian, then do as the Bible says and love thy neighbor as thyself. Send a nice card wishing them well and a gift.

LW3: OK, which one of you BTL-ers wrote this letter?

LW2 emphasizes what a good Christian they are, yet I fail to see anything "Christian" in his/her complete disregard of a friend due to the sexual orientation she was born with. Although I'm not Christian, I can't tell you how annoying and hypocritical I find these holier-than-thou attitudes. Seems to me there are Bible quotes (paraphrased) such as "let he who is without sin among us cast the first stone" or "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" or "Judge not lest ye be judged"" I find no sign of Chrisianity in the attitude of the LW. Friends don't treat friends so judgementally.

Oops - I meant LW3 before.

For the record, I'm with sarah stravinska on LW2. You are no friend to your old college classmate. Even if you "believe being gay is a sin" (eye roll) you've clearly forgotten how your beloved Jesus treated sinners.

Hint: Even Jesus didn't judge others. Everyone is a "sinner" so can we assume you've never been to a wedding in your whole life? Being gay is not like having cooties, you know.

LW1 -
You cannot control how stupidly people behave, nor what they do with their money. Your parents don't owe Carla an inheritance, but neither do they owe one to you. They could leave it all to their dog or the Flat Earth Society as far as the law is concerned.

So stop thinking about the inheritance, as it is very obvious that Carla will get it all, because your parents think she "needs" it more. They refuse to see that she'll squander it all, and that every penny will go on drugs.

There is nothing you can do about that, so stop trying. Just don't make any deathbed promises about "taking care of her". Trust me, they'll try to extract one when their mortality comes home to roost on them, and try to enlist a new volunteer for the job of helicopter pilot. That would be you, so don't fall for it.

LW2 -
I hate to tell you this, but if all you can see is how sinful your friend is, he may be your friend, but you sure ain't HIS. And who do you think you are, to think you can pass judgment on him? You're not God, nor His official delegate on the planet Earth.

And whatever happened to "Hate the sin, love the sinner", Mister Big Christian? Probably the same thing as what happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Whoever has never sinned can throw the first stone"...

To addresss your question, no, you are not obligated to go to the wedding, to send a gift or even a card. But then, don't call yourself a friend.

P.S.: DO try to have enough manners to answer the RSVP...

Johanna/LW3, once I got that's what you were talking about in post #1 etc - no the Annie's are correct here, period. The original LW didn't dump the clothes off, she actually packaged and mailed them to the niece after the niece indicated she wanted them, and it's not (just) that there was no thank you note; it's that the receiver refuses to even acknowledge that she received the package when asked directly. Not even responding to say "yes I did receive them, they arrived in good condition, thank you for sending them" IS ridiculously and unconscionably rude.

LW2 - well, while I disagree with the LWs attitude, of course, I feel a little less harsh.
1) If you feel that homosexuality is a sin, that's OK to feel that way; then don't be gay, and understand that it's not contagious. But if you impose what your brand of religion believes onto others, then that actually would be a sin.
2) I think LW2 is a bit more evolved than we're giving credit for. Rather than picketing the wedding or something, she is actually contemplating sending a gift, if that turns out to be the right protocol. That's kind of cool.
3) As for the whether or not you should send a gift, I agree with the Annie's - if it's someone I barely know who's just looking for a gift grab, send your regrets, period. If it's someone I truly care for and wish them well, I send a gift, even if I think they could do better (as you do); that's not germain.

Steve C :
I didn't read the original letter, but.....um, this just doesn't pass the smell test: "the receiver refuses to even acknowledge that she received the package when asked directly."

When asked directly, the niece runs away? Sticks her fingers in her ears and belts out Yankee Doodle?

If by "refuses to acknowledge" you mean "says she didn't get it" then, hmmm, maybe she didn't get it?

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 10 February 2013.

Re: Lise Brouillette
I had the exact same reaction with regard to LW2.
If he feels that strongly that homosexuality is wrong, he should be turning himself into the right wing police for being a so-called friend of a gay person in the first place.
What I want to say now is so simple, basic and true is this....there are billions of people on this planet, and we are not all alike. And not one of us is worth any more than the rest of us.
Live and let live, take care of your own garden, and don't pretent to be a friend to someone you don't really consider a suitable friend candidate if he would have the audacity to follow through with his life plan.
Another hypocrite hiding behind the "Christian" moniker.

LW2: I don't know why you're even worrying about a gift. My guess is that your "friend" wouldn't want a gift from you given the reason that you are declining to attend the ceremony and your disapproval of his/her lifestyle.

Oh, Annies! You've been reading BTL again and wanted to stir the pot today!

LW2: You are entitled to your opinions, of course, just like EVERY SINGLE PERSON is entitled to have their own opinions.

For the record, sarah, the LW did not call the friend "evil" (your quotes, not mine). S/he said that they believe homosexuality is a SIN. There is a big difference.

What the LW is confused about is really quite broad and the Annies nailed it when they said "A gift does not indicate approval of the marriage. If that were the case, quite a few people would not receive one." Just because you don't agree with the marriage (for what ever reason), doesn't mean you don't LOVE the people who are getting married.

My advice is to send a gift.

LW3 has Chris written all over it!

LW2 - I agree that the LW isn't a true friend OR a true Christian with her attitude about the wedding. She needs to re-examine what true Christianity is. But in any event, feeling the way she does, she's correct in not attending the wedding, and I'm sure the couple will be happy that she isn't there. I'm inclined to agree with Soozan that her friend probably wouldn't even want a token gift from her so-called friend since she feels the way she does about her relationship and marriage.

LW1 - Welcome to the world of "My Parents Have A Favorite Child And It's Not Me." Based on what I read, I don't think you're upset over the money, per se. It's the fact that your parents have favored your sister and have possibly lied to you by saying "you'll get it in the will" when you pretty much know that you won't get anything.

I've had many friends like you. Their parents favored their sibling. One of my friends' parents refused to pay for her college eduation, saying they "didn't believe in that." Okay, fine. I'm not saying parents should have to. BUT - they paid for her younger sister's college education. In full. When she confronted her parents, they called her "greedy." She said it wasn't about the money...it was about the favoritsim. I have a feeling you feel the same way.

You say you are ready to walk away from your family. If it stresses you out this much, then you should. Putting the inheritance off the table is not going to change anything. They will still throw it your face that they love your sister more than you. I would go low to no contact with them. I'm sorry you have to go through this :(

LW2 - I agree with the BTLers. I, too, was wondering how you can call someone a friend when you don't agree with their lifestyle. And like others pointed out, Jesus didn't turn his back on people. And being a Christian has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting homesexuality. I am a Christian and have no problems with it. YOU the person are the one who has a problem with it. I went to a Catholic college and there were a number of homesexuals at my college who were practicing Catholics. Don't blame religion on this.

Only send a gift if you really wish them well. If you won't wish them well, then don't send one.

LW1: I agree with Lise #7 that your parents are likely to extract a deathbed promise out of you to take care of your sister. If you hadn't already, that would be the time to yell back at them. While I agree that to forgive them and your sister is the best advice, I can't help but think that doing so would make you feel worse about yourself in the long run. That you believe your parents have lied to your relatives about this makes me think you're screwed either way, so maybe your priority should be to preserve your self-respect. I know that if I were in your situation, I would feel that I don't owe my parents or sister a damn thing.

This reminds me of a letter witten years ago to either Ann or Abby from a son just like you only he had a brother instead of a sister. This LW not only had a ne'er-do-well brother, he had also been the one to take care of his mother in her declining years after their father had died. After finding out that Mom's will left EVERYTHING to his brother, he refused to attend the funeral. He wrote in afterward shocked and hurt that the extended family was extremely hostile and told him it was unforgiveable that he did not attend his own mother's funeral. What I'm saying is to think hard about what could happen if you decide to cut all ties with your parents and sister to preserve your self-respect. To forgive them now would go down hard, but it may be the best thing in the long run. It's true that life isn't always fair, and in some cases, it can be extremely unfair.

Re: Lise Brouillette

You wrote, "Just don't make any deathbed promises about "taking care of her". Trust me, they'll try to extract one when their mortality comes home to roost on them, and try to enlist a new volunteer for the job of helicopter pilot. That would be you, so don't fall for it."

Good point! A good friend of my mother has a husband who did that. When his father was dying, he said to his son, "Promise you'll take care of your mother and sister!" And he did. The problem was that his mother was a rude, demanding, controlling beeyotch and his sister (lived with their mother and refused to work) was just as bad as her mother. Friend's husband practically broke his back to try and keep them happy. Whenevever friend would get upset, all her husband said was, "I have to take care of them! I promised Dad!" and she would say, "He didn't mean for you to kill yourself in the process!" but he kept on doing it. His sister died and about 3 years later his mother died. It was HUGE relief to him....sad to say.

Kitty et all: so I can only have friends who's lifestyles I agree with? And no one can be my true friend if they disagree with my lifestyle?

What about my friends who VOTE differently than I do? Are they not true friends because they disagree with my voting? What about my friends who are vegans? I eat meat, does that mean they can't be my friends because we have different lifestyles?

I'm confused. I was taught that people could be different and disagree and still be friends. Guess Mom was wrong.

LW1: I don't understand everyone's obsession with forgiving people who are clearly not remorseful for their actions and likely to continue. This is obviously not about the money, it's about the parents blatant favoritism and the fact that they went so far as to lie to the relatives to make HIM look like the bad person. The situation will never get better because the parents don't want it to. People who think nothing of giving everything to one child, who scream and call their son a liar, and lie to relatives are not people who deserve forgiveness. If he's so upset that he thinks about it when he wakes up in the morning then he either needs to accept that the sister will always be favored or cut ties with them. It's not worth your sanity to keep this going, and unearned forgiveness will only make him feel worse, not better.

LW1 makes my head hurt. First, I believe little of what he says. But more important, kids are NOT entitled to gifts or an inheritance from their parents.

"My parents always made sure she was well provided for." What, and they didn't do the same for the LW?

"But when I said this to my parents, they yelled and screamed and called me a liar." This sounds like something a five-year-old would say. I just don't believe it.

"They then told me the value of the house for the sake of the will, which was a quarter of its actual worth. I suggested they get the house appraised, and they became angry." Hell, I'd have thrown you out on your ass and told you to never come back.

"although when my parents die, it will be obvious that I received nothing from them." Which is what every kid is entitled to.

"I have been a good son to my parents for my entire life." Huh....our definitions of what makes a good son differ markedly.

"

LW2: My attitude is more in line with Steve C and nanchan today about gift-giving for a wedding the LW has stated he is not going to. (My comments will assume the LW is male.)

For the record, I have seen nothing in his comments that he is either passing judgement on his old college friend; he is merely stating his belief about homosexuality and that, because it conflicts with his beliefs, he is not going. He needs to do that to be able to ask his question, which was whether giving a gift to the new couple would mean approval of something he disagrees with, particularly if he is not planning on attending.

That's all he's asking. And yes, I'm sure that by his stating "I think homosexuality is a sin," some of you will say he was setting himself up ... although I say I'm sure he's heard the lectures before. (And for the record, there is NOTHING in the letter that I see that says he's trying to impose his opinions/beliefs on his soon-to-be-married friend.)

That said, the Annie's are right. So I leave it up to the LW, who by the way has already indicated he is sending his RSVP with his regrets. (There is no law that says he MUST go to a wedding, or any event, he does not feel comfortable going to. That said, I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND not stating why; you need not anyway, but if pressured, just say that something came up ... and then make sure that you're following through on their wedding day.) If he wants to give a gift and/or a card, and at least wish his old friend and her new partner well, then he should do so. If he chooses not to, so be it.

That's the best I can do.

L2: I certainly don't agree with the letter writers views. There are plenty of Christians who love and accept gay people and people of ALL backgrounds. Check out the Episcopalians! I promise, we won't bite. =)

That said, if you disagree with a marriage for any reason (think the guy's a drug dealer...she wants to move to Timbuktu...he's got a face only a mother could love...she ran over your dog with their car...) that's fine. You don't have to attend anything. Send a nice card or gift. You care about your friend in the least, don't you?

Re: Gerhardt

On LW1 – I take it that you think that LW1 is a spoiled brat who once thought of his sister as this pure, innocent person who hung the moon, and then didn't turn out the way he wanted (via his comments that she fell into drugs and a wild partying lifestyle).

I guess all I can say is that LW found out that life is not always fair, our siblings don't always turn out as we expect them ... yada yada yada. But are you suggesting, Gerhardt, that there was something that was left out, and that is isn't necessarily that the sister's parents are turning a blind eye to her lifestyle/drug use or condoning it?

Believe me, until I read your comments, I had no reason to think this was a case other than "life isn't fair, so why complain?" which would have been my advice. Now you have me wondering.

Re: Johanna (1)

Agree.

Re LW#1--------
First, I'd like to state that the air contains oxygen, which we breathe. And since that is a given, there will be no need for any of us to EVER mention it again, since it is a well-known fact, stated endlessly.
.
And then, wouldn't it be nice if we could state ONE TIME that there is no LEGAL obligation to leave even a penny to your children, and then after that it would never have to be mentioned again, as if it were the answer to a LW who is getting shafted in favor of a sibling and is upset? ( Oh, wait, it already HAS been mentioned------and mentioned again, and again, etc., etc., etc.) Come on, you guys, coming back and saying "What they are doing is legal" is a non-answer. No one is disputing the LEGALITY of it, so maybe we could stop offering that as a response?
.
Michelle and Krystal have it right-----It's not about the money. It's about the favoritism. It's about rewarding irresponsibility and bad decisions, and punishing responsibility and good decisions. It's about giving one child a slap in the face and another a hug, and getting angry if the slapped child dares to bring up the inequality.
.
Sorry, but the LW has crappy parents-------and to compound everything, if he dares to bring it up, they yell and scream at him. If he walks away from this toxic mess, what will he lose? Exactly nothing. The Annies say to "have a relationship with your parents based on what they are". But 'what they are' is parents who deserve to be walked away from. For his peace of mind, I hope he does so. He doesn't need to stay and have it rubbed in his face every day that they love his sister better, which is what they are saying. Sorry, in most cases, inheritances DO equal love.

Re: Gerhardt #22
I can only say that I hope you have only one child, if any, if you think favoritism as blatant as this, from the people who are supposed to love ALL their kids, is OK and that any child questioning it should be kicked out of their life.

Re: Bobaloo (23)

Exactly.

I have a lot of friends whose "lifestyles" I don't agree with. For example, I have a friend who is Mormon (sorry to offend anybody here) and I don't believe the way she does. If she were to get married in a Mormon tabernacle, I would not attend the ceremony. Conversely, she doesn't believe in drinking. When we go out, I respect her beliefs and don't make comments (like I would ANYWAYS!) and she doesn't give me grief.

There is NOTHING in the letter to suggest the LW has been anything else but a good friend to his college friend. Being a good friend has NOTHING to do with accepting everything about your friends lifestyles.

Re: nanchan
My statement that the LW was not being a true friend was based upon her refusal to attend the wedding and appearing to be judging the other woman. I am a Christian, but would not refuse to attend any of my gay or lesbian friends' weddings. I also eat with my vegan friends and socialize with my friends who support different political parties. Friendship is being supportive and loving with your friends whether or not you agree with them. However, being a Republican, Democrat, or vegan is a CHOICE they have made. Being GAY is not, and therefore isn't in the same category. The LW is not attending her "friend's" wedding not because she doesn't support her choice in life, but because she doesn't support who she IS. That, to me, is not true friendship.

Bobaloo: He finishes the letter with " I am ready to walk away from my family. I deserve better." I don't think he's realized anything. He's whining because his sister is milking their parents for more than he's able to get.

jennylee: In my mind, inheritances NEVER equal love. Ever. What kind of person equates love with money? ...never mind, I think I know.

Re: nanchan
Also - I am a Presbyterian, but would never dream of refusing to attend a friend's wedding because of their religious beliefs, whether they are Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, or any other faith. I would simply not participate in any rituals specific to that faith which were against my own beliefs.

Krystal, the forgiveness is not for the benefit of his family because they are deserving. He needs to forgive them for himself. He may decide to never see them again, but he needs to let go of his anger, disappointment, and grief over the situation or it will fester in his soul and he will never be happy. His life will be tainted. It will change the way he deals with everyone if he doesn't.
I have an aunt who felt the boys were favored over the girls. This may be true due to the time and culture, but wether it was or not she has held on tight to every ofence. She can tell you what each sibling did to her when she was 5, which is now over 50 years ago. She holds on so tight to her grief and anger that she is incapable of seeing any kindness they do for her. She doesn't thank them when they are there for her and she spends much of her time complaining of the rest of the family and how they have wronged her. I pity her. She has driven them away. They don't want to have any family over for fear of either inviting her and having to be in her company or incurring her wrath at being excluded. She bring this attitude to her friends, her job, her daughter, her entire life is saturated in resentment. She refuses to let go and forgive and she is the only one to really suffer from it.
That is why he must forgive. Anger, resentment, and hate are all heavy burdens. Forgiveness is putting down the boulders and accepting the situation. His parents do not mean to hurt him, they are just fools trying to protect their daughter. Let it go. Find any tiny bit of good and distance yourself from it to the point that you don't invoke new hurt.

jennylee: You seem angry. huh. I have two children, both of whom I tell I love them way too many times every day. I spoil them with material things, but also have expectations of them. They must maintain good grades, do their chores, and they know the minimum standard of behavior I will accept. Even though they are 11 and 14 they both work at part-time jobs for extra spending money. With that said, they are incredibly generous. If one wants something but doesn't have enough $, I can't tell you how many times the other will secretly buy it as a gift.

And if my dad wrote a will leaving everything to my brother I would be thrilled for him. I know without a doubt that my parents loved us both. How sad that others equate love to money.

LW1--I'm sorry, but you seem to operating under the misconception that our parents owe you a damn! The cold hard facts are that your parents are obligated to take care of you and feed you until you're eighteen. In fact parents aren't even obligated to provide a college education in spite of the fact that many young people think they're owed that as well. What your parents do with their money and other assets or how they distribute them among their various offspring is their prerogative, not yours. Your parents are not obligated to see to it that you get an inheritance or even on red cent. Look, you've become a strong independent productive member of society while your sister subsists in a life she's wrecked and she's at the mercy of mommy and daddy for financial support. Take solace in the fact that everything you accomplished as been through your efforts alone and quit obsessing over material things to which you have no claim legal or otherwise.

LW2--"I am a Christian and believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will send my regrets." Apparently your narrow-mindedness prevents you from seeing that in spite of your judgmental conservative beliefs, your old college friend was able to look past that and extend an invitation to his nuptials. What do you do? You send your regrets and then struggle with whether or not to even send a gift. Honey, stop trying to rule other peoples lives by your superstitious bullshit. Forget about the gift and in fact, forget about sending your regrets. It's clear that you're no friend to this individual.

Re: Gerhardt #31
"What kind of person equates love with money?" The kind of person who has parents who use money as an expression of their love/approval. In this case, a person who has done 'the right things' all his life but still sees his druggie sister get the family house, among other things.
.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess. My view is that parents who hand over everything to the kid who screwed up care more about, and give way more attention to, that kid, while ignoring the one who did everything right. To me, that translates to loving the 'screw-up' more, since it appears that is the 'currency' the LW's parents use to express their 'love'. Maybe it doesn't to you.
.
In any case, what sort of lesson do you teach your kids when you reward the 'screw-up' and not the other one? How about "I don't need to take responsibility, because Mommy and Daddy will bail me out."
.
You might be fine with your parents doing this, I don't know. I would not. I wouldn't argue with them over the division of the money, but I WOULD walk away from them.

Re: Gerhardt

I agree that no one is entitled to an inheritance. And the LW does come across a bit juvenile.

And I also agree with my fellow posters that if the LW is asked to "take care of sis" then he shouldn't.

But, to forgive or not forgive? I don't know. I have a younger brother who got a lot more in life from our father and then scored big after he died. Were the rest of us upset? Well, I was surprised. I have a total of 7 siblings and the ones that had the most money were the ones that were the most upset.

I frankly didn't care. I never expected too much from the estate so anything I got was gravy. I also knew that my youngest brother was an incredibly unhappy man who really had nothing else going for him in his life than his dependence on our Dad. So in a way, what we came up with as a family (outside of him) was that giving YB more was kind of like an insurance policy for YB, because Dad knew the rest of us could take care of ourselves.

At one point, one of my sisters was REALLY angry about it all, and asked me why I wasn't. I told her "My inheritance is my DNA." That's IT. I wish the LW would understand that, but people go through different processes with these things.

On an aside: YB is doing GREAT and is very successful now. Sometimes parent/child relationships can be a sick interdependence. I think that was the case with YB and Dad. Once Dad died, he totally came into his own and learned to function well. He was married three years ago and has a small baby now. Maybe the LW"s sister will end up the same way. Hope springs eternal for me, I must admit!

Re: Kitty

I'm sorry, I don't agree with your post.

Just the fact that the LW is FRIENDS is enough for me and it says a lot more about the LW than any one of you is willing to acknowledge. Kind of ironic that most of you are so JUDGEMENTAL against someone having an opinion that is other than your own..... when you slam the LW for not being open enough to accept something that goes against their faith.

I am a Christian, and as I have written before, I have an openly gay aunt who is a MINISTER. This is not about my opinions at all. It is about understanding that people can have different opinions, faiths, sexual orientations, etc and disagree and still be friends.

I feel kind of sorry for you all.

It doesn't sound like LW2 is particularly going into hysterical fits because a gay friend is gay and invited him/her to a gay wedding. It sounds like LW2 has known that the friend is gay for a while and was still enough of a friend to get invited to the wedding. No really, if this person that is getting married thought that LW2 would go into a Bible bashing rage over the thought of attending a homosexual wedding, the invitation would have not been sent, not even as a cynical joke, as LW2 could easily show up to the location with a priest or some other madness and cause a riot.
I think it is quite wise to make oneself scarce in a situation that one does not agree with rather than attending and creating conflict. And there is no reason why two people who disagree over one thing cannot be friends. Putting sexuality and religion aside, these people could have everything else in common and be the best of friends, for all we know.

Re: sarah stravinska
Sarah, I completely agree with you. This woman is no friend at all. How can you call someone a friend and then say you hate what she is? Despicable! And I wish all people like this would stop cloaking bigotry and hate under religion. They should have the guts to say you are a hateful bigot, stop being a two-faced hypocrite.

Re: sarah stravinska
Sarah, I completely agree with you. This woman is no friend at all. How can you call someone a friend and then say you hate what she is? Despicable! And I wish all people like this would stop cloaking bigotry and hate under religion. They should have the guts to say you are a hateful bigot, stop being a two-faced hypocrite.

LW2 certainly strikes a chord with me, since my partner and I sent out our "Save The Date" cards just after Christmas for our upcoming wedding, and some of our friends and family are more conservative and/or conservative Christian.

However, everyone we've invited is fairly close to us, and has had more than one opportunity to socialize with us as a couple over the last several years. And so we've seen them struggle with the issue and slowly learn to accept and understand, to the point where nearly every single one of them is not only coming to the wedding, but eager to do so and genuinely happy for us. (There is one couple who has not expressed anything one way or the other, and I suspect its because they are still struggling with acceptance of the idea of marriage equality, rather than a problem with us as a gay couple in general).

I think, as openly gay people, we do have to leave some room in our lives for friends and family who may be slower to evolve or understand. It's entirely possible that, given a bit more time to get used to the idea, the LW might feel more comfortable sending a gift or even attending their friend's wedding. I like the idea of comparing it to a friend who was getting married in a completely different religion; would the LW, as a devout conservative Christian, refuse to attend a friend's Muslim or Hindu wedding?

While I wouldn't necessarily say that LW2 is a huge gay rights ally, they could still be legitimately fond of their gay friend, trying to leave aside this issue. Which is okay -- it's not great, but it's okay. And it may lead to greater acceptance in the future.

On the flip side, though, before I get too "kumbaya", there is something unsettling for me, as a gay man, to be told that "I am your friend BUT... " and to suggest that you love me as a sinner but not the sin, when you don't seem to make a point of that of any of your straight friends who are also sinners, each in their own way, does seem off-putting and, yes, bigoted. Why is my particular sin so worthy of being called out every time we talk, but no one else's? It's because you have a specific, greater problem with my being gay, that's why. And yes, that's the very definition of prejudice.

For myself, as long as it doesn't directly hurt me or my partner, I do put up with a certain amount of religious prejudice... because I have found that patience and time and just being who we are helps to "bring people around" to re-think some of their assumptions about gay people. But I can also understand perfectly why some of us have no patience for the sometimes-too-casual religious bigotry that *some* (but nowhere near all) Christians express in this country.

Bringing it back around to LW2, I wouldn't come down too hard on him/her, although it'd be nice if the LW could find it in their heart to be genuinely pleased their friend has found love and happiness, and at least wish them well for that reason alone. A gift and regrets would be a nice gesture, if the LW cares for this person and wants to remain at least casual friends.

@LW1: I lean more toward Gerhardt's opinion. I think there's a lot more to this letter than the LW lets on. My job involves working with trusts and inheritances. I've seen really, really ugly sides of people. I've also have dealt with many beneficiaries who sound just like this LW. I've learned never to believe them, because they're always (not usually, always) lying. They misread anything as a slight.
But let's say every, single thing the LW writes is true. Then the Annies gave excellent advice of taking the inheritance off the table, and establishing a relationship with your parents outside of money. I have a feeling this LW is obsessed with talking about the inheritance, and constantly reminding his parents of their unfair treatment. They're probably sick of it, and of him. If he can let the issue of money go, I bet he will find himself a lot happier.

@nanchan, I do hear what you are saying, but let me flip it around on you and ask you this: what if you had a good friend who became an atheist and constantly thought that anyone who was very religious was a foolish idiot who believed myths and nonsense about magical old men in the sky? And what if any time any casual reference to religion was made, this person snorted with derision?

If you were still as compatible in every other way, still liked the same other things, how close could you be to that person who was so adamantly prejudiced about your religion?

Being gay is part and parcel of who we are, and it's something we can't change. Being friends with someone who clearly expresses that we are sinners or evil or going to hell, even if we have other things in common with that person, is still often VERY difficult to do, because they are striking out at something that is an inherent part of who we are -- just like your Christianity is obviously a very important part of who you are.

So... it's not always as easy for gay people to maintain friendships under those conditions as I think you are assuming. It is possible, but it takes careful negotiation, and often the friendships can never be as close as they once were.

And, to all you people who have started whining how mean we are being to LW2, I will say this once, and please try to open your minds enough to listen. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is not the same as a political opinion. Of course you can have friends who disagree with your opinions, but you cannot have friends if one of you believes who and what you are is a sin and an abomination. And the LW obviously doesn't want to give a present, she is trying to find a way not to give a present because she wants to totally deny who and what the woman is.
If you feel homosexuality is a sin, you cannot be a real friend to anyone in the LGBT community and you are a bigot. This is a black and white issue you should have the b**** to admit who and what you are - a bigot hiding behind religion.

Re: nanchan #20
Of course people can be true friends with someone whose lifestyle they disagree with. But then the "lifestyle" is an off-limits subject, something they agree to disagree on and leave it at that, and manipulation techniques and emotional blackmail are off the table.

For instance, I've seen people disagree with *my* lifestyle, because my apartment is quite full, and they're of the opinion that a woman should have a generic, minimalist little Ikea interior. The ones who are true friends have the decency and wisdom to keep their mouth shut. The ones who suffer from verbal diarrhea with the editorials don't get invited back.

The gist of the matter is, everybody is entitled to their opinions, but to push it unwanted on people, through constant harping or refusal to attend this or that, crosses a line.

In the case of the LW, if he was any friend AND any Christian at all, he would wish his friend well enough (and enjoy his company enough...) to attend the wedding briefly (perhaps just the reception) and bring a suitable gift. I'm sure the friend knew of the LW's opinions when he invited him nevertheless. But you don't get to boycott someone's wedding in retaliation for the fact that you don't approve of who they're marrying, and still call yourself a friend. That's not how "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is supposed to translate in real life. Right now, the LW's message is, "I don't like who you're marrying, and therefore I'll punish you by sulking. Shape up or lose me".

And Maggie, sorry to bring this up again... I'm not trying to flog a dead horse here. But I'm not gay, I'm not polyamorous, I don't live in a commune and I don't belong to a cult. My interior is the only thing in my life that makes it possible for me to relate directly to someone who's being disapproved of because of his "lifestyle". ;-D

@Krystal #21
Yep. Exactement.

"He either needs to accept that the sister will always be favored or cut ties with them."
Probably both.

@Gerhardt #22
No, the children are not owed anything and it's their money, and I said the exact same thing in my own post. This being stated, their behaviour is being shameful and, if you don't believe what the LW says, then you've been blessed with a much better family life than I have - and there are plenty of people even worse off than me out there: I was not starved, beaten or molested, just grossly neglected, twarted and married off to the first Dick or Harry ASAP, while by brothers were given everything that was refused to me.

You may side with them all you want, but I agree with those who pointed out that the money may be the vector for favoritism (as it often is), but not the main issue here.

Problem is, when money is the instrument, any complaint from the ones getting the short rift makes them look greedy and money-minded, when the truth of the matter is, it has nothing to do with money, it has to do with parents giving everything to one and nothing to the other.

In this specific case, it also has to do with the fact that the parents are enabling the screwed-up sister. Lemme get my crystal ball out for a sec, and predict the future here: they will leave every last stich to her after lying to the family and demonising the brother to justify it, she will lose and/or squander it all in jig time and then come knocking at her brother's door, and use guilt and manipulation to try and get him to take over after the parents. He will practice the tough love she's long overdue for and the family will drag him in the mud. He'd better quit while he's ahead and walk out now IMHO.

Using money as the instrument for favouritism is the perfect way for the culprits to get away with it, because it makes the complainers look like they're the ones in the wrong. And, sadly, there will always be many people who don't see through that.

LW2: This letter is tough for me to swallow. Usually when someone says they think homosexuality is a sin, I jump on my soapbox and let ‘em have it. But this letter seems different for some reason. Maybe because s/he still wants to send a gift. I agree with nanchan and group that you can disagree with someone's lifestyle and still be friends. Nowhere in this letter does the writer say s/he thinks the friend is evil or that s/he hates friend's lifestyle. Just that s/he disagrees. What trips me up is that the LW won't attend the wedding, and I start to think “No, this person isn't a friend.” A true friend shows up to a wedding whether they agree with it or not. It's called being supportive. I was a bridesmaids in a wedding where I hated the groom. I still hate him; the thought of him makes my skin crawl. He's just an ass, and doesn't treat my friend the way she deserves. But I still stood up there to show support for my friend (and then got super drunk at the reception.) A true friend would attend this wedding, even if s/he disagrees.

Jennylee nailed it in my opinion, and Gerhardt, I'm really surprised at you. You generally respond so rationally that for you to miss this point about money surprises me. Money is VERY symbolic. Why do you think so many marriages break up over how it is handled? It represents power, love, security, etc. you name it. If you don't get that because you believe you are entirely equitable in your own situation, then think of it as food, which is also highly symbolic.

Would you offer to buy dinner for one of your children but not the other? Would you risk the kind of hurt feelings that would result from that? Then magnify it into a lifetime of doing for one financially (the screw-up) but not the other. THAT is what this is about - not the legality, not the "obligation", the appearance of favoring one over the other. The fact that the one favored is a druggie just seems to make it worse.

And even though I also doubt the hyperbole about "yelling and screaming" (sounds like a child's complaint, I agree) the parents are going on the defense because to acknowledge how wrong they are would mean they'd have to acknowledge that they aren't very good parents - which very few people would do.

I just think you're being remarkably obtuse about the real meanings of money and how it can be a reward or a weapon.

to suggest that you love me as a sinner but not the sin, when you don't seem to make a point of that of any of your straight friends who are also sinners, each in their own way, does seem off-putting and, yes, bigoted. Why is my particular sin so worthy of being called out every time we talk, but no one else's? It's because you have a specific, greater problem with my being gay, that's why. And yes, that's the very definition of prejudice.

Well said, Mike H. I have friends who disagree with me living with my boyfriend, but they never bring it up. If they constantly brought it up, I don't think we would be friends :)

@Joanna: I kind of doubt it was to save the aunt a trip to Goodwill. In the original letter, the aunt had mailed several cashmere sweaters to her niece. Wrapping, hauling to the post office, and waiting in line to pay for mailing takes more time and energy than dropping things off at Goodwill. And if the niece had any sense, she wouldn't have taken them to Goodwill, either, since cashmere sweaters in good condition might fetch a nice price at a consignment store! And there is still no excuse for not acknowledging that something has arrived in the mail.
LW1 - More families have been alienated by the terms of wills than nearly anything else. Which is ridiculous. Life is too short to be bitter and angry about who loves whom most, how much I'll get compared to someone else, blah, blah. "Wear the world like a loose garment" and move on.
LW2 - Jesus ate and drank with "sinners", so what's your problem with doing the same at a wedding?

Re: LW1, Let's remember that he is writing after mounting frustration after years of this treatment, so it's likely a good part of his vitriol is "venting".

Working against him is the apparent greediness, but working for him is the rather large discrepancy in how his parents treat him versus his sister. It's frequently true that the more successful, independent, capable child gets *less* attention and care, for the very reason their parents think they are going to do just fine on their own. It's the wounded, weaker, more problematic child that sometimes gets all the attention "because they need it more" (ironically enough, this just ensures the "weaker" child never learns to be self-sufficient).

I think this is a fairly common dynamic, and I think LW has a right to be frustrated with it. I don't believe he has a right to expect an inheritance, but I think it's reasonable that he expected his parents would treat his sister and him relatively equally -- and THAT, I think, is what really hurts, rather than the money itself. All the money and apparently much of the attention is going to his sister -- and I'm sorry, Gerhardt, but for some people time, attention, and money ARE the only concrete expressions of parental love. LW has been given short shrift by his parents and is lashing out.

I recommend that he DOES start to put more and more distance between himself and his parents and sister. And get over the idea that he will get *anything* from his parents -- they are unlikely to start now. He needs to build his own life, with his own friends, find a wife or a husband, and build his own family. There comes a time when an adult sometimes needs to walk away and be a bit more self-centered, and not keep sacrificing themselves for a family that doesn't appreciate them.

It's possible that when his parents see him pulling away, they get a wake-up call. I've seen it happen. But he shouldn't depend on it. He should wake up each day, not stressed about this situation, but eager to build a life free from that tension, doing what makes him happy and builds a rich, successful life for himself. Heck, look for a fabulous job opportunity on the other side of the country -- realize you can go anywhere and do anything and leave these people behind. A fresh start disconnected from this regular drama may make it easier to put it behind him.

I don't think LW1 should distance himself from his parents. But he should distance himself from his love of their money.

Dear all: please note that the LW is disagreeing with more than their friend's "lifestyle"; being gay isn't a "lifestyle", it isn't a "choice", it's an orientation that is an inherent part of who we are, just like being straight isn't a choice or a lifestyle, either.

I only bring that up because too often the homophobic use those exact words (lifestyle, choice) as a way to justify their prejudice and to keep laws against us in place. So use of the word "lifestyle" in relation to this topic just sets my teeth on edge a bit.

Even though I do absolutely know most of you didn't mean it that way, many in the gay community react badly to saying our gayness is a "lifestyle".

Lise, we're on the same page about LW1 and the symbolism of money. Absolutely. But I do want to point out that at least three times you've referred to your family as having "married you off" to the first - whoever - Married you off? Are you some veiled daughter of Islam who got sold to a neighboring tribe's son? You mean to say you had no choice in the matter? I'm just saying because when the rest of your argument is pithy and reasonable, a statement like that sabotages your credibility. You chose the guy. You married him. So it was a mistake - but it wasn't your family's fault.

Gerhardt - can you see, if you squint really hard, that money is a symbol of love (and power) whether we like it or not? Anything that people want that can be doled out or withheld at a whim is a power tool. And while you're right that the LW would be happier if he could stop thinking about the inheritance, would you advise the same for the druggie sister if the situation were reversed?

Re: Kitty #30
"However, being a Republican, Democrat, or vegan is a CHOICE they have made. Being GAY is not, and therefore isn't in the same category. The LW is not attending her "friend's" wedding not because she doesn't support her choice in life, but because she doesn't support who she IS. That, to me, is not true friendship."
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP , standing ovation!

@Gerhardt #31, 34
If you truly believe this is about money, there is an entire level here that completely escapes you.

And I didn't read any anger at all in Jennylee's post. Don't know where you got that. Hope you don't read any in mine!

@MT #33
I absolutely agree that he has to forgive them, not because they deserve it, but for his own sake, so that the hurt doesn't eat him up from the inside. AFTER he's walked away from them.

Otherwise, they'll mistake him for a sucker and they'll just get started on him right away for him to take over after they're gone.

Re: LW3, I think it's just kind and classy to give a simple acknowledgement of any gift, regardless of how you feel about it. It certainly isn't going to hurt anyone, and I think LW3 is incorrect, and far too shrill and harsh to boot.

Re: Mike H

Interesting you should ask that question, because my BEST friend kind of fits the bill.

What we have both decided is that although we have differing faiths (and she would be much more at home here today than I am), we both understand that we are entitled to our own opinions.

We don't talk about politics (totally different sides) or religion (she is an Atheist). We talk about and care about each other for different things. Like our jobs and careers. Like our families. Like our taste in movies. LIke LIFE in general.

I know for a fact that she would be the first person to help me out if I needed her and she knows the same. That's what FRIENDS are. They are people you can depend on. Has she disagreed with me? Of COURSE! Do I think she's a bit whacked? Yes. Does she know how I feel? Yes. Does she make that not like me as a PERSON? No.

I think you guys are maybe different friends than I am and have. Again, it's really kind of sad that you make it a condition of someone being your friend that they HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. And it's pretty pathetic too. Just think of all the friends you are missing out on. You don't have to DO what they do, you just have to LIKE who they ARE.

(shakes head)

@Johanna post #10 - well, I would assume that when the LW says she can't get any response, she means that she's left voicemails or emails asking if the package was received, and the receiver doesn't even call or email back.

Re: Lilykun (#24)

"That said, if you disagree with a marriage for any reason (think the guy's a drug dealer...she wants to move to Timbuktu...he's got a face only a mother could love...she ran over your dog with their car...) that's fine. You don't have to attend anything."

My thoughts exactly.

I mean, I admit I was thinking, when it came to alternate scenarios, of a young, good-looking white girl marrying a man who's anything other than white – i.e., black, Islam, Bhuddist, Asian, Hispanic, etc. – or the guy in his mid-40s marrying said drop-dead beauty queen who's barely out of college – there have been people there who won't go to those weddings, both in the past (especially with the male minority-white woman setup, back in the day when some of those marriages were illegal) and still today. Same thing there – if you do not feel comfortable going, regardless of the reason – it could be the one-time girl of your dreams is marrying your best friend, and you decide not to go because you don't feel comfortable – then decline the invitation politely and I'd highly recommend not stating why (i.e., keep your thoughts to yourself).

That said, I see "give him a guilt trip" written all over this, and it's showing in several remarks.

Such as Kitty's remark at #30: "The LW is not attending her 'friend's' wedding not because she doesn't support her choice in life, but because she doesn't support who she IS. That, to me, is not true friendship." Look, if the LW doesn't feel comfortable going, then he doesn't have to go. I see it as having zero to do with this being about friendship or even testing friendship – that is, without knowing the woman's motivation for putting whomever on her guest list I won't say that she's trying to see who is her friend and who isn't just by who ultimately accepts and/or shows up, or who declines without a "legitimate excuse" (i.e., "if it's not because of some reason I consider legit, you must disapprove of my marriage and my choice").

He (the LW) can – as I've stated earlier – just state that "I'm busy that day" and wish his friend well ... and then just make sure he is busy that day. (Just in case she's the type that would ask and make sure her friend is holding true to his word, but also to hold true to your word.)

I'd add about the gift ... if you can't afford one anyhow, then just send a card. But that's, as I stated earlier, totally up to the LW. (Personally, at least a card would be a good idea, even if you aren't fully supportive. Just to let her know you care and still think well of her.)

Re: Maggie Lawrence

"Gerhardt - can you see, if you squint really hard, that money is a symbol of love (and power) whether we like it or not? Anything that people want that can be doled out or withheld at a whim is a power tool." I'm sorry, but I don't see where money is a symbol of love. Power, absolutely. But I don't see a correlation between love and power either. I know that I'm one of the few here that don't like LW1's attitude and actions. This is a case of where I think I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong. Which means that I'm probably wrong - but I just don't see it.

Re: Lise

Bah, don't ever worry about what I think of you. You're a gem with a heart of gold, so even if you inadvertently said something offensive in the future I'd know you didn't mean it with malice. I do take offense at jennylee's statement that she hopes I don't have children.

Re: Mike H

Very well said Mike. I do consider myself a Christian but more importantly I believe that if one is fortunate to find love and respect that is sometimes filled with so much hate, that's all that matters. I don't care what “type” of relationship one has, whether Gay or Heterosexual. The only thing that matters is that one has found the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, and they are entitled to all of the same rights as a Heterosexual marriage. There is no shame in loving anyone! One is not required to love only the opposite sex. I say take love wherever you find it and run with it. We are each responsible for our own happiness. Who we marry is no one else's business.

Best of Luck! I wish you and your partner a long, loving and successful marriage!

Mary Clark, sorry to point this out, the LW doesn't state she hates what or who this person is, just that the LW thinks that homosexuality isn't right. My mother thinks having sex before marriage is wrong, the Bible says it is wrong, she has told me that it is wrong, yet I have loads of sex with people who I am not married to and don't plan to marry and I'm preeeeeetty sure she knows. Do you think I should tell her to stop being a hypocrite since she obviously hates me and should disown me?

@nanchan #57: I think you just proved Mike's point. You and your friend can be best friends, because you don't constantly talk about your differences. If she constantly made snide comments about Christianity, or if she refused to come to your wedding, because it was held in a church, you wouldn't be best friends. Nor would anyone here argue that she's your friend. Mike isn't not saying you have to agree on everything; he's just saying it's impossible to be friends if every time you get together, someone points out what they don't like about you (or your lifestyle, or your choices, or whatever PC term that won't offend.)

Re: Gerhardt #60
Gerhardt, I didn't really say I hoped you didn't have children------I said that I hoped IF you had children, you had only one----and that was only IF you thought it was OK to favor one financially and then kick the other out of your life if he questioned or complained. (I believe your phrasing was "I'd have thrown you out on your ass and told you never to come back".)
.
You talk in one of your posts about your kids, and the fact that you are teaching them BOTH to be responsible, caring, etc., and it really sounds like you are raising BOTH of them in the same way, and I commend you for that. And I have to think that, if you treat them the same in all other ways, you would follow through on that premise in whatever inheritance, if any, you leave them, and that if you had a reason for giving more to one than the other, it would be a good one, and not be kept a secret from them. Your case is not the same as the LW's.
.
If no child is truly entitled to an inheritance (a statement I agree with), then neither child is entitled. So go leave all the money to a pet shelter, or to whatever cause you want--------but to give to one and not the other, absent a valid reason, not only is unfair but will cause resentment between the kids, justified or not. You said that you would not mind if your parents left everything to your brother, which means that your parents never equated money with love or approval. But not all parents are like that. I don't think this LW's parents are.

@Casey, #63, thanks -- indeed, nanchan's example *doesn't* actually fit my example as well as she thinks it does, because her friend isn't expressing disgust with her Christianity in some form every time they get together.

Nanchan, you haven't walked in my shoes, and it really seems like you don't understand the point -- which is okay, I'm certainly not suggesting you *must* get my point -- but I do hope you understand that you are making a judgement on our ability to form certain friendships from a place of "not really getting it".

Whether you realize it or not, it *is* incredibly difficult to maintain a close relationship with someone who consistently finds ways to let you know that they think you are a lesser person because of being gay, or that you don't deserve basic, human equality in society simply because of who you are. It's not impossible, but it's definitely not easy.

@Bailey, many, many thanks for your kind words and good wishes, they are much appreciated!

Re: Mike H

And another thing.....

Is being GAY the only important part of who you are? Being straight is NOT the most important part of who I am.

There are so many things that go into the fabric of our beings.... it is so sad that you and so many others want to make that the bar to cross in order to become your "friend".

And there are a lot more people out there who will say, both here and in "real life" the politically correct response of "you are so great, I'm all for you being gay and getting married CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP" because right NOW, it's the popular side to take. You don't know what they say when you aren't around, or what they said even ten years ago.

To me, that is the most hypocritical stance of all to take, and it's SO off topic because the LW doesn't SAY that they HATE their friend. If they hated their friend, they wouldn't be considering sending a gift!!! You guys are reading WAY more into this than there is.

Why didn't my post not post!!?!! Urg! I am not retyping that.

Anyway in short, Mike, Crystal, Lise and some others truly truly get what LW1 is saying. Gerhardt you are truly missing it here. You really are.

I've been there and one of you put it into words how it feels about how bad behavior is rewarded while good behavior is ignored and punched to one side. It is a huge slap in the face. Think of it like this Gerhardt of two employees: one is hard working and knows the job well while the other is lazy, plays on teh computer all day and does nothing. Then the lazy employee gets raise while the hard worker gets nothing. How would that make anyone feel? Mad? Angry? Sorry but this is the best example I can use that you might understand, Gerhardt.

As to LW1 making up the yelling and screaming part, I do believe him cause I have seen it happen personally.

I agree that inheritances should Never be expected (health care, nursing homes. . .) but what should be is being fair to both isn't out of line especially from one's own parents.

I agree with Mike to the LW1 to just walk away from this and be happy in life.

Re: Linda
"Jesus ate and drank with "sinners", so what's your problem with doing the same at a wedding?"
Ooooooh, I LOVE it! LOL

@Maggie #54
"You mean to say you had no choice in the matter?"
I was given the choice to either marry or go to work. Post high-shool education was not in the offing.

I was 19, but no emotionally. After my mother died when I was 12 (and considering the circumstances in which she died), and after 7 years of being shoved in a corner and grossly neglected, shall we say I was a bit lacking in the emotional tools a 19 year-old usually has? I was not yet capable of being on my own.

Not to mention that being shoved in a corner also means I was taught NOTHING about being self-sufficient. Not how to keep a house, not how to cook, not how to balance a checkbook and take care of my own finances. In the advent of me choosing to go to work, I didn't even know how to dress professionally (it is my co-workers at my first job after I separated who taught me that). I had very few marketable skills. To top it all off, my parents lived way out of town. I would have had to move to the big city to earn a living, where I would have been almost completely isolated.

From the moment I was old enough to date, the minute I fell in love with a guy, my father would right away look into the marriageability factor. He was very much in a hurry to transfer me from his household to my husband's. And It was still very much like that back then - this was 1971, it's a completely different world for women now. I remember they were still asking for a woman's father to co-sign her lease when she was alone, even when she was of age. Some pharmacists made you hop and dance for your Pill prescription when they though you looked a little too young to be married. It was a very different time.

The minute I started dating James, the attitude was, oooh boy, she's in love, this one seems feasible at last, let's move fast and strike the iron while it's hot before she changes her mind. I was never proposed to. I was pretty much presented with the fait accompli, as in, this is how things are going to proceed, after my father had a private "discussion" with James about "his intentions".

Some crucial details were not shared with me, such as my father contributing to the household so James could afford to marry me. Since I knew nothing about such matters back then, it took me a while to wisen up on the situation. He sure spent a lot more marrying me off than he would have on my education.

If I had said anything about preferring school to marriage, my father would have snapped, "Do you love the guy or not? You don't know what you want." Well, HE sure knew what he wanted for me. I did go along with the program, because I couldn't think of any viable alternative. Going to work in a factory while living all alone in a rooming house represented a terrifying prospect, and I instinctively knew I was not equipped to handle it. And I can verbalise that now. Back then, I couldn't.

I was hoping married life would present me with an in-between solution, and that together my husband and I could build something that we would find mutually satisfying, especially since I was already collaborating with him professionally, very much shouldering him with his work as a journalist. I was wrong about our prospects, but I couldn't have known that with what tools I had at my disposal to evaluate a situation back then. I tried to choose between the lesser of two evils, and chances are that the alternative would have been even worse.

So, while I wasn't "some veiled daughter of Islam who got sold to a neighboring tribe's son", the reality of women in the Quebec of 1971 was not all that far removed from that. Some choices look a lot more "free" that they really are. Whatever "choice" I had in that matter was quite inconsequential, to the point of being almost irrelevant, and more like being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

I am in a similiar situation as LW1, so I feel your pain. My brother has not worked in almost 5 years, and my parents have been supporting him. I have been self-supporting since age of 23. After LW1's parents are deceased, guess who will end up supporting the sister? He will, as I know I probably will.
LW2: I can't believe you think your problem is whether you need to send a wedding present. Your problem is accepting your friend as he is, with out judgment.
1st time poster, long time reader of BTL.

RE: Lise Brouillette

Thanks for the laughs.

You come here daily and harshly criticize the LWs and brush off all excuses, yet you have 1,000 reasons to justify your own sorry life decisions.

And please stop emphasizing the fact that you live in Quebec as an explanation. I lived there for 15 years, and aside from the bastardized French language, casse croutes and bad drivers, it's not all that different from the rest of Canada.

Re: Gerhardt #60
I don't think Jennylee meant any offense either. Do try to see the point we're trying to make about the money being the instrument and not the real issue.

@nanchan #67
"And there are a lot more people out there who will say, both here and in "real life" the politically correct response of "you are so great, I'm all for you being gay and getting married CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP" because right NOW, it's the popular side to take."
I frankly don't mind you or anyone using my lines (imitation is the best compliment), but I do mind that you turn it into sarcasm. This coming from someone who accuses me of "stealing her words"...

@Kath #68
ALWAYS copy your post (click into the box, select (CTRL+A), and copy (CTRL+C) before you hit that "Post Message" button. I've learned the hard way! ;-D

I can't speak for Lise, but there are still circumstances today where someone might feel forced to marry someone. I almost married my college boyfriend, because I felt such an outstanding amount of pressure from my family. They were just so eager to see me married, especially to someone rich, that they didn't listen to my feelings. I finally broke down to my best friend, telling her how miserable I was, and she told me it would be fine if we broke up; that everything would work out. I, thankfully, listened to her. If I had been 19, with no job, I probably would have married him, because I didn't know better. My parents have since made peace that when it comes to marriage, I'm taking my sweet time to get there and not to rush or push me.

Kath:

I don't equate a loving family to an employment relationship. What I see in the LW's letter is immaturity and greed. Who asks their parents to appraise their house to ensure an equal division of assets upon the parents' deaths? Aside from the fact that it's the parents' decision, it would break my heart if one of my kids grew up like that....to be more interested in my money than in my love.

I think the LW is not completely forthcoming in the letter, and I abhor the part that he is forthcoming with. So his sister made poor choices in life. I don't see where it's his business to insist that for every dollar they give her that they give him a dollar. If they choose to help her more, so what? It doesn't mean that they love him less, just that she requires more help. As for the part about them putting the house in her name based on her lying about him approving of it - I'm calling that a pile of bovine fecal matter. Maybe they did put the house in her name, but I really doubt that it was because she told the parents that the son approved of it and the parents never mentioned it to him until after-the-fact. BS.

I recognize that I'm the only one not seeing what you guys are. I don't understand it, but I know that it's happening.

Re: Paige English #70
"After LW1's parents are deceased, guess who will end up supporting the sister? He will, as I know I probably will."
Paige, he doesn't have to, and neither do you. Same as for the LW, if this is your only inheritance, you're in no way obligated to accept it. Please consider your options and don't let yourself be roped into that kind of slavery.

And welcome as a new poster!

@Toad Groom #71
Considering your skewed, prejudiced view of Quebec, it's no wonder you're skewed about everything else. If all you retained of Quebec is the "bastardised French" (thanks for the slur) and "bad casse-croutes and drivers", what's that got to do what what *I* said?

I don't know where you are now, but thanks for leaving Quebec and good riddance. We don't need angryphones like you.

LW!- Money is a symbol of love, and although the LW comes off as whiny, it does make you feel like a needy child to not be on the recieving end of financial largesse, when you have done everything right, your sister has not, yet she is the favored one.
My sister was not a screw up, we both worked hard in school and helped out at home. But she was compliant, and I was outspoken. Our parents paid for her education, gave her an allowance, paid for her wedding, and so on. I worked and paid for all of those things, partly because my dad gambled and drank, and I was trying to help out, and partly because my parents never offered money, and I was too proud to ask. My mom, especially, always took my sister's side and stuck up for her, and I was blamed for everythig.
I accepted that I was not the favorite child, I broke away from my family, and made my way in the world. I assumed I would get no inheritance, because since my sister got all the goodies, she became the one to help them out. When the last parent died, I was very surprised to recieve half of the estate, which was considerably larger than I had been led to believe.
So, you never know. BTW, I quickly gave a lot of my inheritance to my husband and kids, because I resented that when I neded the money, I was told that there was none, and how dare I ask (the one time I did). And I found out, there was plenty, being controlled by a very neurotic parent. And it was tainted, I never wanted the money; I really only wanted attention and love.
So I guess I am saying, cut the LW some slack. If they could suddenly give him some love and attention, I bet he would not crave the money. It is only a symbol for what he really wants.

RE: Lise Brouillette

Why don't you tell me what is so unique about Quebec, since you love to bring the province up during your regular complaining/excuse sessions?

Why is it or was it so much more difficult for women to live in Quebec than, say, Ontario, British Columbia or Massachusetts?

@nanchan, I certainly never said being gay was the only important part of who I am. I'm also funny, personable, ruggedly handsome, have exquisite taste in music, frequently travel to interesting and exciting locales, have incredible friends, and a loving partner who keeps me humble. ;-)

But being gay is the ONLY part of who I am that makes people WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME. That makes people WANT TO TREAT ME UNLIKE OTHER CITIZENS. That makes people THINK I AM LESSER THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

So, yes, nanchan, THAT does mean that it looms large in my life. I've had "faggot" shouted at me more times than I can count, had beer cans chucked out of cars at me while that word has been shouted, had friends end up in the hospital for being gay-bashed. Couldn't marry my partner until AFTER he became a citizen, unlike straight people.

Gay people have lost jobs just for being gay, lost housing just for being gay, been blocked from the hospital beds of their long term partners just for being gay, had their children taken away from them for being gay.

Unless and until all that goes away, nanchan, and this society lives up to its promise of liberty and justice FOR ALL, then your darn tootin' it's a central part of my life -- but not because *I* made it that way, it's the haters that do so.

If it TRULY made no difference at all to society that I was gay and not straight, I certainly wouldn't need to comment about it, either.

Straight people forget that they do, in fact, flaunt their sexuality ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY. When you talk about a husband or boyfriend or hold hands with your opposite sex partner, or a husband kisses his wife goodbye when she drops him at work... it's all being flaunted.

Even if I do nothing but talk about Ike in the exact same way any straight person talks about their significant other, somehow I'm "flaunting" but they are just "talking". And heaven forbid Ike and I try to hold hands in the town center.

So, nanchan, I'll stop making it such a big part of who I am when the bigots stop treating me differently because of who I am. But not until then.

@gerhardt, I think you may be just as fixated on the money aspect of LW1 as the LW himself. But it's also *attention* that is being lavished on the needy sister, not just money. She gets their care, their attention, their emotional support, AND their money, their home. The LW has got... what, exactly? Doesn't sound like much.

These are two children who are not being treated equally by their parents -- and I think you shouldn't be so quick to assume that the parents DO love their children equally, because they certainly AREN'T expressing that to the LW.

It's always a bad idea when parents treat the children significantly differently, because the children will take it to heart -- whether that's what the parents intend or not. I think you are being too quick to let these parents off the hook for their part in this conflict.

Re: Mike H #79
Excellent post! I hope that sinks in with some of the people here BTL who don't seem to get it.

Mike H - I was referring to your Post #78, not #79 (although I agree with your Post #79 too) - sorry for the confusion

@ Mike H Re: #79

"These are two children who are not being treated equally by their parents..."

That's just the thing Mike, they are NOT children. They were children, but now they're both adults. The parents are no longer under any obligation, financial or otherwise to give either of these two people anything. That they choose to give one of them more attention or material assistance is at their discretion. It's their money; they can spend it however they wish. Sure, I get that people are emotional creatures and will get hurt feelings. So what? My feelings will be hurt when I don't win the PowerBall this weekend. That doesn't mean my State lottery board is going to take my feelings into consideration and throw me a bone.

Mike H. - When I read L2, I wondered what your take on the issue would be. I am happy that as usual, your response was well-balanced and diplomatic. Sometimes it takes time for people to reconcile their deeply held ideals with the realities of their loved ones. I do not believe LW2 is any less of a friend because s/he cannot mesh religious beliefs with a friend's lifestyle. I also do not believe that LW2 is intentionally being judgmental.

I have a friend who I love tremendously. I also have deeply-rooted religious beliefs. He happens to be gay. We talk often and deeply and at every turn, I offer him my support and he does the same for me. I am truly happy for him when things go well in his life. When he told me fairly recently that he came out to his family... all of whom have very traditional beliefs, and they treated him kindly, I was so happy for him that I nearly cried. I have met his partner and I also like him a lot. Would I attend their wedding? Probably not. My friend knows this and he accepts my position just as I accept him. If he sees this as a fault in me... then I guess he loves me despite my shortcomings. That is called friendship.

@Chris, of course they aren't obligated -- but by the same token, the adult LW isn't *obligated* to ever talk to his parents again, either. (And of course, even as adults they are still the *offspring* of the parents, if you object to the word "children").

It's really not about the money, Chris -- it's about the unequal treatment. It'd be the same as if the LW and his sister were both married and both had two kids and lived equally far from the parents, but the parents spent all sorts of time with his sister's kids and no time with his. Or if the parents called the sister frequently and never called the LW. It's less about the money per se and instead on the attention, the state of the relationship.

Unequal treatment invariably causes resentment. And with some justification. LW is self-sufficient and independent, and you'd think his parents would express more pride in their son's achievement; but it seems all their energy is wrapped up in the "needier" adult offspring (and again, they are likely enabling her learned helplessness to some degree).

So, no, of course there is no obligation to treat your adult children equally; but by the same token no adult parent should complain at all if the adult child they are neglecting decides to cut them off, because there's no obligation to stay in touch with parents who aren't treating you particularly well while at the same time lavishing attention and money on your sibling.

@sharnee, it's good to see you here, and your kind words made me blush!

Religion has always been an interest of mine, as well as sexuality, so I've been fortunate enough to have had so many interesting discussions with a wide variety of people in my life, and I think that does help me to realize that not every religious person who views homosexuality as a sin is automatically a villain. But we still have to recognize that a lot of the homophobia that is expressed is done so through the lens of religious belief, so it's often very difficult to untangle these issues. I understand when my fellow gays get very sensitive about religious people because of that; and I also understand that not all religious people want to be thought of as "bigoted" even if they do struggle with some aspects of gay people or gay rights.

But mainly it's been my own experience of coming out and seeing the reaction of friends and family evolving over the past 10-15 years or so. What I found most important was in leaving the door open for conversation. Some family members didn't address the issue at all for years, then invited me and Ike to dinner after he and I had been together for a while. They tentatively asked a few questions, then a few more, until we had been talking for nearly 4 or 5 hours. I knew them as loving and generous people who were honestly grappling with reconciling their religious and political views with their knowledge of me as a person and their relationship with me.

And that's why I do try to be respectful to people who are genuinely working these issues out. I understand having strongly-held beliefs, and I rarely want to force-feed someone something that may rock their foundation, or try to browbeat them into changing a belief before they themselves are ready to. On the other hand, you can usually tell the difference when someone is just a flat-out bigot, too, and in those cases distance, separation, is probably a better course than putting up with it and being patient. It's a balancing act, but one in which I've been very encouraged by.

In fact, just recently one of the most religiously conservative members of my family -- who once told me that marriage should never be for anything other than one man and one woman -- told me that she was honored and thrilled to be invited to our wedding.

So I know that people can evolve on these issues, and even if we never see perfectly eye-to-eye on every aspect, there's still value in maintaing the relationship and being open to discussion, when there is genuine respect and caring expressed on both sides.

LW1: Why in God's name do you keep having this greedy conversation with your parents? I can't imagine they were the first to bring up the will so I have to assume every time they take "care" of your idiot sister you ask about what they are going to do for you. You're as sick as your sister. Get therapy and then get a life.

LW2: You're an idiot. Why don't you just stamp the word bigot on your forehead so the "other" people will stop interacting with you? Coward much?

LW3: The annies are right this time. If you accept something you say thank you. They are just two little words and they cost you absolutely nothing so pull your head out of your butt.

Re: nanchan i happen to be "mormon" as you put it. the correct name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for anyone who doesn't know that. members of my church get married in a temple, not a tabernacle as you put it. even if you wanted to attend your LDS friend's wedding, you couldn't if you're not an LDS member. i'm not saying this to insult non-LDS members. that is our belief.

Re: Princess Bride
Actually, what's unique about Quebec is that special blend of North-American business-minded efficiency and Latin and Celtic joie-de-vivre party mentality.

Before anyone from Quebec starts guffawing, let me tell you that, as bad as the bureaucraty can be in Quebec, in Europe it is twice as bad, and in third world countries, ten times as bad. Yeah, I know, worse is no excuse for bad, but still, bad is more bearable than worse.

What's good about Quebec? Hm, let's see now, let me throw the flowers pell-mell in the vase:
1. The countless festivals.
2. The colourfulness of the French expressions spoken here.
3. A full national park at walking distance from downtown Montreal. And one where you can stroll without being raped and mugged at that. And one with a real wild forest and wildlife, not to be compared to NY Central Park.
4. And speaking of which, the relative safety of what is after all a metropolis.
5. The incredibly rich restaurant scene. You can tour the world with restaurants in Montreal, and for peanuts. And, unlike Paris, where you "have to know the spots", all you need to do is get youself to a major artery or in some neighbourhood, and there will plenty to choose from, and very affordable even counting alcohol. And if you don't want to spend in a restaurant, there are grocery stores from all over the world.
6. The scenery, and the old, retro flavour of Montreal and Quebec City - Quebec City is the oldest inhabitated city in North America, Montreal the second.
7. The Montreal architecture - a blend of old Victorian, modern metropolis and typical Montreal - ah, the typical winding stairs of "rues des pignons"!
8. Quebec-made cheeses.
9. Micro-breweries - Quebec beers are amongst the most reputed in the world and many of them won prizes. We're not much good for making wine (too cold), but beers are a different story.
10. The melting pot without the loss of ethnic flavours - there are no ghettos here. Oh sure, there is China Town, and Little Portugal and Italy, and Greek Alley, and Montreal West Indies, and Pakistension... But it is not closed in. Everybody lives everywhere, even if there are concentrations of this or that here and there. Not so much a melting pot, more like a quilt!
11. The beautiful, often quaint and sometimes magnificent churches. Montreal used to be called the "city of 100 belfries".
12. The religious freedom and tolerance. 100 belfries? Let's add the countless synagogues, mosques, temples and assorted prayer houses. No bombings so far.
13. The diversity and racial tolerance. Sure, we have rabid racists here same as everywhere else, and the cops are just as bad (but less brutal) at profiling as anywhere else, but there are no race riots here. Interracial families abound and nobody's batting an eye. If some freak starts hurling epiteths at you in public, that's what he is, a freak, and people will actually defend you.
14. Sexual orientation tolerance. Pierre Eliott Trudeau decriminalised homosexuality way back in the sixties. Gays can marry throughout the country. No gay bashing (last instance was years ago) in gay village Montreal, city comes to a standstill on Gay Pride parade day, one of the biggest in North America.
15. The waterways. This is an island. No lack of water here... Tons of seagulls, reminding you of the sea... And *some* bathing is possible where it's not too polluted, definitely waterboating for those who have a water vehicle. Port of Montreal is a sight, once a year there is a special concert using ship horns as musical instruments (La Symphonie Portuaire).
16. The cultural diversity. One of the dance hubs of the world. Cetic music galore. Hello West Indies soca and kaiso, South Asian Bollywood and bangra music, classical and folklore from every corner of the planet. Jazz Fest. Francofolies. Comedy Fest. Arab Music fest. African Nights. If there was music from Mars, we'd have some of it here.

When I find more, I'll add them to the list.

Yes, of course, I have complaints (don't we all): the searing heat in the summer, the municipal corruption (although I don't think it's worse here than anywhere else, it's just that the shit's been hitting the fan for months now), the sleet storms, the potholes, the slush, the roadworks (especially in the past year), the snowbanks in the winter, the attitude of the city workers, the wind, some bus drivers' attitude, the wide variations of temperature, the cyclists, the humidity, the dysfunctional relationship many Quebecer still have with commerce, freezing rain, the crumbling infra-structures, hailstorms, the lack of entrepreneurial thinking (getting better), the severe rainstorms in the summer backing up the sewers, the entitled mentality, the FLIPPIN' weather in general...

And some faults are the pendant of their qualities. The Latin and Celtic laissez-faire and swagger is what also gives the bad driving, the chronic jaywalking and the rogue cyclists. Waterways + crumbling infra-structures = BAD bridges. The ancestry of the city means narrow winding streets and labyrinths and non-existent city planning in some districts. And Quebec can be contradictory: religious tolerance, gender tolerance, racial tolerance, but... mentalities in a time warp when it comes to women, even though the social context here is the same as anywhere else in the Western world. Go and figure. One more point towards my argument that intolerance starts (and finishes) with mysoginy, a discussion that has been ongoing between Mike H and I on Delphi...

And btw, Quebec French is not "bastardised" French, but old French, and the vernacular joual is no worse than Parisian argot. It is no more bastardised than American English (drawl, twang, slang) is, compared to British (Cockney, Soho, Scouse) English.

As for "why is it or was it so much more difficult for women to live in Quebec than, say, Ontario, British Columbia or Massachusetts", well, I have never lived anywhere else than in Quebec, although I have travelled a bit. But there may be some religious and historical differences:

Historically, after the British conquered Canada and France abandoned Quebec ("You forget about the stables when the house in on fire... for a few acres of snow..."), the people in Quebec were initially severely repressed, as a way for the British to assert their authority and make sure that everybody knew who had won the war. It tapered off some after a while, but still there were flare-ups, as when they deported the Acadians for refusing to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

The people were left with no figures of authority to turn to for comfort - except the Church. That's when the severe domination of the church over the Quebec people started and, while there was some confort provided, there was also a vise-grip quasi-theocracy installed, which lasted for generations. The churchmen starting telling married couples to make sure they produced as many babies as possible, to ensure the continuity of the French - the "Revenge of the Cradles". It worked, hence the still-existing French Fact in North America, but there was a price... Women with 14 children, always pregnant and dying of exhaustion before they even hit menopause were no better off than village women in Africa, and the backwards mentality still lingers.

I don't know if you're genuinely interested in my answers to your questions. If you are, well, here you go and, if you're not, other readers will be.

Regarding Letter 1 and the favoritism. I bet if we talked to this guy, he would tell us stories that go beyond money. I dated a guy for a few years like the guy in the letter. His parents made it very obvious that the sun rose and set when their daughter did and that their son was only good enough for them if he was their slave boy and paid their bills for them. It was very sad.

The parents showered her with gifts for no reason while he was lucky if he got a cheap shirt or a dollar store item for Christmas. The parents would praise their daughter til kingdom come if she burped while their son didn't even get a thank you for mowing their lawn or shoveling their snow. The son graduated from college and his parents didn't even acknowledge it. The refused to attend the graduation. They never even said, "Congratulations," to him. The daughter dropped out of college after Freshman year but I bet if she graduated, they would've had the biggest party in the world for her. Her birthday and Christmas cards from her parents had notes written in them, saying how they were so very proud of her and she was the perfect daughter. IF my ex got a card from them, it wasn't even signed half the time, let alone a nice note written in it. They charged their son rent and demanded he pay half (sometimes all) of the utilities. The daughter didn't have to pay anything. I could go on.

I bet you the guy in the letter would have simialr things to say.

I think people are being a little hard on LW2. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate a lot of behavior I don't accept. I will tolerate a friend's gambling, but I won't encourage it. I will tolerate a friend's drinking, but I won't encourage it. If a person I care about engages in behavior I feel is wrong or self destructive, I think it's just as bad, or worse, to cheerfully say, "Yeah, man. Do that stuff. Yay bad behavior!" in the guise of being supportive as it would be to say, "I don't agree with what you're doing and I'm not going to stand around and watch you do it." Again, it doesn't matter what the behavior is. It could be going door to door for the Jehovah's Witnesses or mainlining heroin. You've no right to force your belief on others ... but it works both ways. If you want your friend to tolerate your gaiety, then you've got to be willing to tolerate the idea that as mush as he likes you, he still thinks doing other dudes is weird.

Central Park and Montreal's Mount Royal park were designed (yes, both are designed spaces, not natural) by the same landscape architect. He did the former first, as a sort of stepping stone for a new style of landscape design (natural-looking, not manicured--very radical concept at the time) before moving on to NYC.

And I have walked through Central Park many times and not been raped once.

RE: Lise Brouillette

TL;DR

You have too much time on your hands.

Princess, play nice, please. I thought she did a wonderful job and appreciate it.

Re: Jpp
Of course not, but back in the Guilianni mayor days (he's the one who started the clean-up), there was a lof of "wilding" going on and yes, a lot of women were raped, some of them gang-raped. That's not something that ever happened here - so far. Everything is possible anywhere.

As for the architect "designing" the Montreal park, I know that the road cutting through the mountain and joining the western slope to the eastern slope is named after Olmstead. The infrastructures such as that road, the chalet at Beaver Lake and a number of other structures had to be designed of course, but Olmstead didn't exactly strip the entire mountain and replant the trees. And many of Olsmtead's original plans screeched to a halt at the onset of the Great Depression.

It is and always has been a wild forest that has been intruded with human things. THOSE were designed, yes. But the montain grew its forest all on its own, and the wildlife on it was not put there by anyone.

Re: Gerhardt
Thank you, I knew someone would. This is an open comment board, and so we never talk to just one person.

Lol, JPP #91. When I originally read your comment, I didn't realize it was directed at Lise. I thought “Well, that's good you haven't been raped….” I mean, it's still good, just less random.

I don't know what is more amazing. Lise compares Quebec of 1971 to living in an Islamic nation - how dramatic!. Or that she has the time to write that long post about Quebec - which I actually enjoyed reading - when she works 60-80 hours a week as she told us the other day.

Re: The whole Quebec thing:

I know it's pointless to engage, but yes, Quebec in 1971 was like the 19th century. On the eve of the Quiet Revolution, Quebec was sparsely populated, poor, VERY religious, and totally under the thumb of English Canada. Which is why there's resentment today (not to mention a millennium or so of warfare between the English and French, but different topic). It was still a "give a daughter and son to the Church" kind of place and birth control was uncommon. So it doesn't blow my mind that Lise would be "strongly" encouraged to marry young instead of going to work at that point. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but I do find that believable.

Re: Approval of Gay People

I think both sides need wiggle room on this. Mike has good point that you just can't be friends with someone you think is mentally (or actually verbally) condemning you for a part of your identity. It would be like someone thinking there's something "wrong" with me for having red hair or something. It's hard to build on, and it's not the same as a political or religious disagreement. It's frankly more on par with racism, in that this is an innate aspect of this person, and you "don't approve" of it. It's like saying "I can be friends with you, but we can't ever discuss the fact that you're black, because I find it sinful." And exactly that logical.

OTOH, and I say this having watched my best friend come out of the closet, that sometimes people in that situation CAN expect too much as well from the people around them. It's always good to remember that if you're gay, it probably took you awhile to get used to the idea. If you're from a conservative background, allow your family some time too. My friend was lucky that everyone accepted him, even his staunchly Catholic mother (who actually did a complete 180 on the gay thing after he came out- she used to protest against gay marriage and such). But he also knew enough not to demand instant acceptance.

Regarding the actual LW, she can think what she wants, and she has every right to not attend the wedding and let the relationship fall where it may. She can send good wishes and a gift, if she can provide either of those.

Re: inheritance.

Money doesn't equal love, but it is a strong symbol. If the image is "my sister gets everything while I get nothing," than that's upsetting. BUT I still think LW needs to stop with the inheritance issue. It's unseemly to harp on how he wants to profit from his parents' deaths, and he probably won't change their minds. Table it and try to have a relationship outside of that. If he's that hellbent on an inheritance, he can try to sue his sister later.

Been to Montreal a couple of times. Great place to visit and love the transit system, Much better than we have in Day-twah. Restaurants are great too. It took a while to realize that all the great looking stuff on the left side of the menu was actually the same as the stuff on the right, only in French (LOL). Got to Quebec City only once. The old city is beautiful and we beat the heat by going to Montmorency Falls north of town. Luckily, I had enough French in high school to know numbers so we were able to purchase things with little trouble. We also found a great soft-serve ice cream shop in a town called Riviere-du-Loup. I'm hoping we can make that trip again.

Re: Dorothy P
That's right, and I'm at home working today. As usual when I'm at home working, I will take five minutes breaks to unkink my back and then I MAY be working on some post - in five minutes increments. And Dorothy/Bloom Hilda/ Soozan/Princess Bride can't be behind my back breathing down my neck and cracking a whip, imagine that.

@Jers
By the time the Pill arrived in Quebec, the Quiet Revolution was well under way and the church fast losing ground. But before that, birth control was not only uncommon, it was forbidden. You could be excommuniated. Even when the doctor told the woman she could die if she got pregnant again. God's will and all that twaddle.

Re: JustWinBaby
And you'll be welcome! You may want to try some of the islands in the St-Laurent estuary - great place to whale-watch for those who are interested.

If you come back to Montreal, don't miss Tam Tam and the Jazz fest - lots of free shows. Let me know if you come and it will be my pleasure to show you around!

Re: Kitty #30
Being gay is not a choice - correct. However, for every single person who has ever lived or ever will live entering into a romantic relationship IS a choice and getting married IS a choice.

Re: JH #102
That's correct, but what is your point? The LW did not say she wouldn't attend her friend's wedding because she felt MARRIAGE was a sin, but because she believed being GAY was.

Re: Kitty
I think the point is that being gay itself may not be a choice, but it becomes a sin when you start acting on it - by entering a relationship and/or getting married. In other words, you are not sinful as a gay as long as you remain celibate. A common assertion of some Catholics, and one which pushed countless men into the orders even though they had no vocation.

Re: Lise Brouillette
So baed on that, the LW would refuse to associate with her friend if she and her partner acted on it whether they were married or not. She didn't give any indication in her letter that she was intending to do that, and I don't think her friend's choice was either getting married or becoming celebate, so I can't see why it would be objectionable to attend the wedding, but not to continue a friendship with the woman who had a female partner. What am I missing here?

@Jers, you highlight a very important point that I think all gay people in the process of coming out need to remember -- we all took time to figure out and accept who we are, we can't expect our loved ones to instantly "come around" in less time than we ourselves took! Dan Savage gives an excellent rule of thumb, to give family members a year to fumble around and be awkward and ask stupid questions and be insensitive... and then, if at the end of the year, they are still horrible and bigoted and rude and closed minded, then start to detach. (And I would add, that if you have seen genuine progress during that year but they still have a ways to go, maybe give them credit for that and hang in there for the longer haul).

@Kitty, Lise has the right idea with that. For some people they would be more comfortable if all gay people were quiet, closeted, and celibate. To them that would be the "right" response to finding out you were gay. And so they may (consciously or subconsciously) blame or resent us when we decide to actually live honestly and openly and find love and happiness and fulfillment.

But we should be a bit cautious, because for some believers, they genuinely fear for our souls and our afterlives, too. So we feel disrespected by their rejection of our desire to fall in love and have a long-term relationship, and they worry that our "choice" to look for love (in what they see as sin) will have negative, and eternal, consequences.

(Still, I would go back to again questioning why this one particular sin gets so much more attention and focus, when it's mentioned so rarely in the Bible and everyone else is supposed to be a sinner as well -- the focus seems biased and unfair, even for the well-meaning faithful.)

Re: Kitty
I don't think you're missing anything, but the point JH at #30 was making may not have been the same thing the LW was actually concerned about. There are many religious people who will react differently to homosexuality, depending on their personality, the particular brand of Christianity they adhere to and their own interpretation.

Re: Lise Brouillette #104
Lise, that is what an elderly relative of mine used to spout off---------she didn't believe that being gay was anything but a conscious choice, and no way to convince her otherwise----------but she said one day that, for the sake of argument, assuming that it WAS a genetic thing rather than a choice, then BEING gay wasn't wrong, if you were born that way, but that ACTING on it was.
.
Her theory was that people who had sexual attraction to their own gender might not be able to help having the attraction, but they COULD help acting on it. They were supposed to stay celibate, and she actually said "like priests do"!!!!!! I choked on that one. And what was weird, was that she was not claiming this because of any religious belief------she hasn't got a clue about anything that is allegedly in the Bible----------she just said it was "not right, and against nature". We used to have fun saying to her stuff like "Oh, look at that 'unnatural thing' those two male dogs are doing", but she said it was 'not the same thing.' No explanation as to why the dogs were 'sinning', I guess.
.
I cut off contact with her long ago, but I have heard that she has since either changed her mind, or just managed to smother her disapproval----------because her favorite nephew, who was the shining example she always held up to everyone, came out as gay, at age 45. So now she apparently just ignores that fact, because if it's a sin she would then have had to cut off contact with the 'sinner', and she loves him to pieces. Don't know how she squares that with her beliefs, but I know he comes to see her, and I'm guessing they just avoid the subject.

I guess what confuses me about LW2 is the fact that she considers the woman a friend, but won't attend the wedding because she considers homosexuality a sin. But since they're "friends" I would assume that she will continue to have a friendly relationship wih her after the wedding. If so, then I would also assume that she would visit the couple in their home and possibly invite them to hers. How would that be any less accepting or advocating the "sin" than it would be to attend the ceremony? Does she pretend the couple is not married, but are just roommates? I'm not trying to be arbitrary here, just trying to get a handle on the reasoning.

Lise was correct in #104, that was my point.

Kitty in #109 brings up an excellent point that I don't know the answer to.

I have a nephew who is transsexual. He was previously living in a gay relationship. I don't live near him and haven't seem him since he revealed that. I honestly don't know what my reaction will be the next time I do see him. But I guarantee it won't be ranting and raving, however. It will be amicable.

Regarding LW2:

If you feel that you cannot stand with your friend and celebrate their life's milestone, which is very important to them, then you are not their friend. It's really that simple. I think people really need to sit down and think hard about the logic of a deity that would frown on anyone's genuine and wholehearted love of another. What did Jesus say were the most important commandments? Exactly. And 1 Corinthians 13:13: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Why do you think you get to call yourself a Christian, or for that matter a moral person, by specifically and deliberately demonstrating to another person your lack of love for them? Or by telling someone that their loving relationship with another is somehow immoral or unethical? That is in fact the antithesis of Christianity, and essentially a violation of just about all religious and ethical beliefs. If anyone needs to attend that wedding and to understand how important and impactful love is, how it heals and crosses barriers, LW2, that person would be you. If you're really a believer in what Jesus represented and what he commanded, then you should at least be aware of what he commanded you to do, and do it.

As for LW1, he needs to understand, viscerally, that his parents are flawed people who cannot help themselves from perpetuating an unhealthy pattern. They feel compelled to support their daughter at everyone else's expense. He should accept that that's the way it is. He should expect it to continue. He should expect to receive nothing from his parents' estate. Is it fair? Well, yes and no; it's his parents' money and they are free to leave it to anyone they wish. He doesn't "deserve" it. He deserves to be treated fairly, of course, but that doesn't imply monetary compensation.

It's a big tall glass of "Life isn't fair" but what can you do, right? He should be glad he isn't a substance-abusing loser like his sister, who will no doubt blow through whatever money she receives and be back on Skid Row in no time. Instead of looking at the situation like he's getting nothing in exchange for having been a good son, he should look at his situation as ***FREEDOM***. He is not 'obligated' to help his sister, like his parents obviously feel, wrecking their lives, their financial security and their family dynamic to support his vampire of a sister. He is not destroying his life with drugs and irresponsible living. He needs to unplug from that whole situation entirely. Let his parents blow their wad on his sister. Let his sister spend herself into a black hole from which there is no escape. This will NEVER be his problem. He should be glad that, out of everyone in his family, he turned out to be the normal, productive one!

Instead of worrying about who gets the house, buy your own house. Instead of worrying about getting an equal share every time Mom or Dad buys Sis an expensive item, repeat to yourself, "I don't care. I can buy that for myself." Your life does not come with strings. Nobody will ever capriciously decide whether or not you're going to have a roof over your head or dinner on the table. You are self-sufficient. Work on your own improvement, your own career track and your own enrichment, both emotional and financial. You are free to do so! Your parents and your sister, through their own inability to escape from their repeated shitty choices, are not.

Re: lilypants #112
Good post--------I hope he can come to that attitude--------that, unfair as it is, he can't change it, and needs to just go on with his life and distance himself from them if that's what it takes to make him whole again. He can be proud of himself, even though his parents are not proud of him. Whatever he's accomplished in life, HE has accomplished-------in spite of his parents' favoritism to his sister.

Re: JH
Is your nephew remining with the same person he was having a gay relationshuip with? Because once he's a woman, then he's no longer gay being with a man!

I don't know if his gay friend would want to remain in a relationshiop,with your nephew after he's become a woman, but he may. I remember reading about a woman who was married to a man who finally came to terms with the fact that he needed to become a woman. The woman remained with him after he became a her. Now, that's true love!

LW1, been there done that. My husband's parents were so awful. Favored the younger two over the older two ( my husband and his brother) and it was evident in every aspect of their growing up and adult life. When we finally released them, and their promises that when they died we'd get "things"...we were able to walk away from those "things" and the greedy awful people who were controlled by them.. You cannot imagine the joy, the freedom, the unfathomable giddiness we experienced by never, ever,ever,never,ever,never having to feel second-rate EVER again. What a gift we gave ourselves. Go for it, and find someone who makes you whole.

Re: Lise Brouillette
My nephew's FB page says that he broke up with his male partner, so that's over with. He is taking hormones and living as a woman now. He doesn't have any money, though, so I very much doubt he'll ever have gender reassignment surgery. So what he'll do with the rest of his life, I don't know.

I DO wish him well.

Re: JH
I wish him well too, I don't know what it's like to be in that situation, but it would seem to me that living as a woman but still with male parts is like sitting between two chairs, as it would make you a fraud to men looking for a woman.

@JH - Too bad your nephew doesn't live in Alberta - here, we pay for the surgery. Of course, there are many hoops to jump through, but the government health care pays for the change. Cool, eh?

@Lise - I've never been to Quebec, but I can tell you that I've met a hell of a lot of nice people from there here in Calgary. Thanks for the great description - one day I may venture away from the mountains, and travel East. By the way, the name "Trudeau" is a fightin' word out here, lol!

Re: Barbara B.
Probably because sonny boy is but a shadow of his father...;-D

If you manage to venture all the way here, make sure you give me a ding!

LW2: absolutely, if you send a gift, that means you approve of the marriage and the lifestyle - how could the Annies suggest otherwise? How in the world are you "friends" with this person if you so totally disagree with their being gay? You should not send a card, nor a gift. When the friend calls to ask why they haven't heard from you, be true to your religion, don't hide - come out and say how much you hate gay people and how you think this person is going to he//. if you are so hateful, at least stand up to it, and defend it. Then, pluck your head out of the sand, and realize it's 2013 and gays are gonna get married, laws are changing, and you're going to be left waaaay behind as the world progresses all around you. Blacks are free. Women can vote. Gays can get married. 2013 baby, 2013.

I'm with the Annies on acknowledging gifts. It doesn't matter that the LW was getting rid of old clothes. The niece could have easily thanked her for the gesture, and should have done so. What the recipient does with the gift is of course his or her business and isn't obligated to explain. But the giver has every right to expect some kind of acknowledgment, especially in this case when the niece in questions ASKED for the clothes. The only place "Been There" has been is Rudeville, and I wouldn't go bragging about it.

Re: Johanna According to the Annies, the niece asked for the clothes. So yes, she does owe a thank you. Even if she didn't ask it would be easy to say, "Thanks for thinking of me. I can't actually use them myself, but I appreciate your keeping me in mind." This way she does the right thing by acknowledging the gesture, and gently discourages it from happening again. I'm not a fan of the entitled attitude that pervades society these days, but giving a gift (solicited or otherwise) is absolutely entitled to a thank you.