Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW3, it is really tragic that your sister passed away from cancer at the age of 51. You have my sympathy, because I have younger and older siblings than that, and I would be devastated to lose any of them. So far, so good for us.

That being said, unless you have a crystal ball that will point out the ones who might die soon, hosts have their obligations, and guests have theirs as well. If finances are somewhat equal, the host provides a great deal of hospitality when they have quests, particularly if they are living in a vacation hotspot. The hosts are alternating their lifestyles to accommodate their guests, and the guests have an obligation to return the favor in some way.

You cannot live your life with your siblings spending every moment thinking...I will pay for everything for you, sister, brother, because you might de before me. And I would not be mad at myself for having reasonable expectations for entertaining reciprocity while the living are actually living.

LW3: I guess I should start expecting my brother to pay for everything, since I'm alot older than he is and I'll probably die sooner; then he will be left thinking how wonderful it was that he always got to pay.

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 12 January 2013.

LW1--"I don't intend to rub it in their faces. But it feels like a burden to lie about it." Bringing your partner to family functions where others' spouses and hetero partners are present is not rubbing anything in anyone's faces. When it comes to the religious conservatives who are haters, there's a bumper sticker that sums it up nicely: 'Don't rule my life by your book'. If faced with one of these narrow minded dolts, try education and setting a good example. If one of them gets nasty or makes snide remarks to you or your girlfriend, then teach them what it means to f*ck with a lesbian and make your brothers and sisters proud.

LW2--Your daughter had an abortion 40 years ago because it wasn't possible to carry the child to term. You make it seem as though your daughter had some sort of choice. Get over it! When I was a teenager, I masturbated a lot. Gosh, one of those spilled sperm could have become a child who would be an adult right now; maybe even a doctor or a lawyer, and I could have grandchildren.... See how you sound?

LW3--"I began limiting what we did together and opting for less expensive things, knowing I'd be stuck with the bill." Honey if you wanted to limit yourself and be frustrated and miserable because you were a doormat to your own sister and lacked the spine to say anything for years, that's fine. But to pretend to give anything for your sister to come back from the dead and walk all over you again just sounds like a cry for help. Consider seeing a shrink.

To Chris (#4): I had to log in to tell you - in all seriousness! - that I often read BTL just to see your comments. I always enjoy your straight-up, in-your-face responses, and most of the time, you've expressed quite eloquently just what I was thinking. Thanks for being the voice of the get-over-it brigade!

LW1 - I think the Annies misread your letter. You stated that your mother and sisters would love you when you came out, not that the others would. My advice would be to go ahead and tell them, but to be willing to accept that some may not come around. Not everyone does. I once counseled a woman who had thrown her 13 year old son out onto the street when he told her he was gay, and was proud of it." Yuck. But such attitudes are out there and sometimes persever.


Carly O, where do you get the idea that guests are obligated to "return equal value" to their hosts? I've taken people out to dinner and movies and never once felt they "owed" me anything for it. Your POV reminds me of the old expectation that a young woman "owes" sex to her date if he buys her dinner.

Re: LW1, I think the Annies are being wildly overly optimistic in their response to the LW. There's every possibility that when LW comes out there will be a bad reaction and it could last for years.

But... the only way to get your family to accept who you are is to tell them, and give them the time they need to have their tantrums and shock and outrage and finger-pointing. Then, after a few years, maybe things will improve.

I absolutely do NOT recommend you bring your girlfriend home when you come out, that's a double-whammy that will probably go badly. You need to have this conversation by yourself. You also have to be prepared for their to be a negative reaction (although leave room for your family to pleasantly surprise you!)

You should also be certain you can live without them for a few years. It's still quite common for very conservatively religious families to cut out any openly gay family members, or to insist that the gay family member renounce their sexuality and undergo conversion therapy. You have to be very, very certain in who you are because there is a chance you may lose your family for a few years as they sort through this.

I highly recommend reviewing the information on coming out at the HRC and at Savage Love, both resources offer good pointers.

And remember... it took you several years to really accept and get comfortable with who you are... even in the best case scenario, you can't expect your family to reach the same level acceptance in a matter of hours or days. Make sure you are patient and give them the time to deal with it, even if for much of that time you have to keep your distance from them. (Sometimes the only thing that brings around homophobic parents is realizing they may lose contact with their adult child if they don't start to learn to be more understanding).

Good luck.

LW2, it does seem a bit unusual that you are still dwelling on this so many years after the event. That's really not normal, and more than a bit obsessive. You obviously haven't dealt with this in a healthy way and counseling is definitely indicated. I hope you can find the help you need to get over this, for your sake and your family's.

LW3, I agree, *if* the money isn't an issue. In those cases,an imbalance in how often one person picks up the tab for another (relative or friend) is probably not worth worrying about if the person is someone you are close to and you enjoy their company.

I agree with Carly O, wholeheartedly, on LW #3. Setting boundaries does not equal a lack of love. It does not mean that you are ungrateful to have that person in your life and it doesn't mean that, after their death, you should feel guilty about not letting them mooch off you more.

From the way your letter reads, you didn't cut her out of your life entirely, you just limited doing activities that cost money. Nothing wrong with that.

LW1 - I have no personal experience with this but I do agree that you shouldn't come out and bring your girlfriend all at the same time. It's a shame that this is still a problem in society. It shouldn't matter if you like women or men. Just like it doesn't matter if you like cats or dogs. Good luck to you.

LW2 - If this is still botherin you after 40 years, counseling is way overdue. Please see a counselor.

LW3 - I agree with CarlyO on this one. You shouldn't go through life with the "I better do this because they might die before me," attitude. If you do, then you'll die miserable and possibly broke. Setting boundries does not mean you are being rude or that you don't love the person. Going through life being a doormat is not the way to live.

LW2 -- 1- How do you know that this baby if brought to term would have reached adulthood, and also had a grandchild for you? The person could have grown up gay or single and happy. Your focus on being a grandmother means you need a life.

My sentence should have read ..grown up gay and happy or single and happy

I'm not sure I get this. Your family is Christian, not Islam, and presumably you're not living in the middle east or the middle ages. No one is going to stone you to death. You've already come out to your immediate family and say they will still love you. Sure, some may be disappointed and others in your extended family as well, but did you embrace your orientation the second you realized you were gay? It took time for you to realize and accept it, so give your family the same consideration you gave yourself. They're probably also disappointed you didn't become a doctor or high school valedictorian. They got over it. Most will get over this too, given the time, and those who don't aren't worth your time. The only exception is your grandmother. If you have a good relationship and she's not long for this world, then she probably doesn't have enough time to accept it or change her mind. Why bother?

(deep breath)

LW1: Not all "conservatives" who are "rather Christian" (whatever that means), are anti-gay.

From Yahoo News this morning (Headline:GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out)

A prominent conservative senator said Thursday that he now supports gay marriage.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters from the Columbus Dispatch and other Ohio newspapers that his change of heart on the hot-button issue came two years after his son, Will, told him and his wife that he is gay.

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have—to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman said.

I only copied over a part of the article, but its front page of Yahoo News this morning and you can check it out there.

Furthermore, my home church was among the first to marry gays, my current Evangelical church, although opposed to SSM, has many gay members and we dont' " insist that the gay family member renounce their sexuality and undergo conversion therapy." My aunt is a minister in a church and is openly gay.

I'm getting kind of sick of this stereotype that all Christians or Conservatives are anti-gay. It's as IGNORANT as me saying all gay men wear pink pants all the time and speak with a lisp.

How a person reacts to a family member being gay depends on many things, but the bottom line is that we ALL are or do things that our families may not like. I married an Asian man, my father wasn't happy about it. But he LOVED me and accepted his granddaughter with open arms (although he refused to meet my husband). My mother decided to divorce my father (unheard of in her family: they were convinced Mom would go to hell). She did it anyways and my grandparents were the first to support her. And if you thought Mom had it bad, can you imagine how Grandma felt when her sweet baby girl came out as GAY? I have a friend who's parents disowned him for marrying a black woman, another friend who's parents cut her out when she converted to Christianity (they are Muslim), the list goes on and on and on.

The point is, you have to stand up for who and what you are, and it's not limited to your sexuality. It could be your choice of CAREERS. Or where you decide to LIVE. Or how you decide to live your life (There was a guy on Dear Abby yesterday who's friends cut out the LW's boyfriend because he was REPUBLICAN).

You can't go through your life being scared to be who you are because of others. Be true to yourself. And then realize that love has been known to change many a hard heart.

PS: In general I agree with Mike's approach on coming out more than Chris's. Yes, you need to be yourself, but you being gay is totally separate than your family accepting your girlfriend. They could hate her and accept you being gay, but if you introduce her to your family as a way of coming out, I don't think it's fair to HER. You should keep the two separate for now, then introduce her later on as your girlfriend.

Wow, the Annie's sure were looking today to divide the conservative and liberal minds today, both print readers and BTL'ers.

Re: Holly L. (#5)

While I agree that "get over it" has its time and place, I think what you're seeing in LW2 and her remarks sums up very succinctly – from what I've read and listened to – the experience MANY women who have had an abortion: "My daughter and I never talk about this, but I have never forgotten it. This child would now be an adult, and I would have a grandchild. I will regret this experience until the day I die." Meaning, no amount of counseling or trying to "put it out of your mind" and "get over it," despite your best efforts, can blot this out completely ... the fact that said baby was a living, breathing human being and would soon be a joy in someone's life (even if adopted out or if the mother decided to keep the baby), something that was a part of her for a short time and now is no longer because of a decision she made ... that's what's bothering her, and probably will bother her for the rest of her (in the very least) natural life.

There are just some things in life that people never "get over" just by flipping some switch, and this situation – a woman having an abortion – appears to be one of those things. Indeed, you do have to be sure you live by the consequences, but I'm sure even though women say it's a "difficult, personal" decision, I wonder sometimes if they do think about the consequences and what might happen later in life ... and I don't mean the immediate future, but YEARS from now, when the regret and other ill feelings still persist as though you did it yesterday.

LW1: Um, all I'm going to say about this one is, it's going to take a lot of guts to handle this one. Once you muster the courage to make your announcement, just let the chips fall where they may.

LW2: If you really miss being a grandma that much, why don't you look into foster grandparenting?

When I was growing up, my parents had a friend who didn't have any grandchildren. This lady lived across the street from us, and I spent many hours at her home when I was a child (she was also a babysitter for me when Mom went back to work). I loved spending time with her and she spent many holidays with our family when her own children couldn't make it to her home. I was closer to her than to my own grandparents in many ways (except my father's mother) and when she passed away, I was devistated.

There are a LOT of kids out there who don't live close to their natural grandparents who would love to have a Nana, regardless of whether or not they are related to them. Look into it: you could be a blessing to a small child and help heal the hurt in your heart as well.

LW1 -- I suspect some "purists" would suggest you are not truly "out and proud" if there are still members of your family who don't you are gay. If I'm reading your letter correctly, you have told your mother and your sisters, and they were disappointed, but they didn't rail at you, etc., and you believe that they will eventually get over that disappointment. Since you make no mention of your father, I'm left to wonder whether your father is no longer alive (or otherwise out of picture), or if he's alive and well and still a member of the family whose been left in the dark about this. I'm going to assume your father is either dead or not in your life.

Although you specifically reference your grandmother, I'm going to assume you are also somewhat concerned about the rest of your extended family -- aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. As the cousin of two gay men (one still closeted, one out), let me tell you that there is a very good chance some of your extended family members have suspected you are gay for years and are just waiting for you to come out.

You definitely do NOT want to bring your GF home BEFORE you have come out. In addition to checking in with various gay advocacy groups, you might also want to talk with your sisters and mother again. For one thing, it might help you to know where they are on the acceptance spectrum, if you will. For another, you might also find out that they have told other family members and/or other family members have said things to them that indicate they suspect you are gay. But most importantly, you can ask them to support you when you come out to the rest of the family.

@Jane -- my grandmother died just a couple of months ago. She was 92 years old. I am 42. If I was gay and followed your advice, I would have had to have spent some 20 years hiding the truth from my grandmother. There's no guarantee (and no indication in the letter) that LW's grandmother isn't "long for this world." And if she comes out to everyone else but not her grandmother, that means that if she does ever want to bring her partner with her to family functions, she puts the entire family in the position of having to lie and pretend. Now, depending on the grandmother's response, I admit that lying and pretending may well be less unpleasant than the alternative. The problem is, if everyone but Grandma knows, you can be sure that eventually Grandma is going to find out, and she's only going to be even MORE upset when she finds out from some third cousin twice removed that she was the last to know, rather than hearing about it from the LW.

@nanchan (14) -- yes, there are, of course, plenty of Christians out there who lovingly embrace their gay family members. But the LW says her grandmother believes that lesbians are going to hell. I'm going to assume she knows her grandmother's stance on this because her grandmother has not been shy about sharing her stance on this. I really don't think the LW is assuming that because her family is Christian that they hate gay people. I think she has very good reason to believe -- nay, good reason to KNOW -- exactly what their stance is on homosexuality. What she cannot know is the degree to which they are willing to accept her DESPITE those beliefs or that perhaps those beliefs might even change once they know she is a lesbian.

Agree with Wordsworth (9) on LW3.

@Chris, re: LW2 -- while I do, in fact, think this LW needs to move on already (40 years later, for heaven's sake), I'm betting that one of the reasons she hasn't gotten over this is that she's not being totally honest with us about the circumstances surrounding her daughter's abortion. She says that there was "no possibility" of carrying the baby to term and adopting him or her out. If that was truly the case, then there would have been no need for an abortion -- that's called a miscarriage. Now, as someone who has miscarried three times, I can tell you that sometimes following a miscarriage you do still have to have a D&C -- which is basically the same procedure as an abortion. The big difference that in a miscarriage, the fetus isn't alive at the time of the procedure, and there is no chance whatsoever that the fetus is magically going to come back to life. But the LW doesn't refer to this as a miscarriage; she refers to it as an abortion. I would suggest that when she says there was "no possibility" of carrying the baby to term and putting him/her up for adoption that what she really means is that her 17-year-old daughter was unwilling to go through the humiliation (because 40 years ago there was still quite a stigma tied to being an unwed pregnant teen), unwilling to put her life on hold for 9 months, unwilling to go through the discomforts of pregnancy and the pain of labor and delivery, etc.

There is, of course, the chance that there was "no possibility" of carrying to term because it would have put her daughter's life at risk. I'm betting this is not the case, but I could be wrong, of course. I just very seriously doubt that this would haunt her the way it clearly has for 40 years if this was the case. But again, you never know.

Re: Lisa

You missed the point of my post entirely.

As I mentioned, when my mother divorced my father, my grandparents told HER she would go to hell. They were extremely conservative but more than that, they had never KNOWN anybody who was divorced. In the small country town they lived in, divorce only happened in the Big City and women who were divorced were seen as "fallen women" (their words!) even if they left the marriage because of infidelity (Mom's case).

They didn't KNOW people who were divorced, and so it scared them that Mom would willingly (or so they thought) make that choice. Much like homosexuality is looked at by some, in a way.

In any case, the point of the post is that the LW needs to own her own life and often times, hell threats or NO, people come around when they get to know a real live __________ (fill in the blank: divorcee, gay, lawyer, Muslim, etc).

@nanchan (16) -- I think this is good idea, though there is also the possibility of her simply becoming all the more fixated on "what could have been." My evil BIL cut off his parents from their grandchildren for three years. During that time, my MIL started volunteering at a care facility for kids who were removed (some temporarily, some permanently) from their parents. She loved it. Unfortunately, she had to stop because her immune system just couldn't handle fighting off all the sniffles, sneezes and coughs that were forever going around at the facility -- she kept getting sick and having to go on antibiotics, and her doctor told her that for her own health, she had to stop volunteering there. Meantime, evil BIL has allowed his parents back into their grandchildren's lives, but because of the tension that still exists there and the complexities of keeping these relationships alive, I think my MIL probably enjoyed her time volunteering at the care facility and got more out of that than she does trying to be part of her grandchildren's lives. It's kind of sad, but I think she was actually better off when her son cut her off!

Re: j1p #11

The LW2 means that her daughter's child would BE her grandchild, now 40 years old, if the pregnancy had continued to full term. I had to read it twice, as well.

Re: Chris "religious conservatives who are haters" and "narrow-minded dolts". Religious conservatives have a morality which encompasses more than just "fairness" and "caring". It also encompasses concepts of family, culture and tradition. LW 1 recognizes this and wants to try to live by the precepts of her family's culture. This is kind and noble of her. Her family are not "haters" - she did not say that any of them hate or would hate her. But they would definitely hate that she's gay and would be fearful that she's compromising her morals.

Yo, paying for everything isn't cool and never will be. I have a wonderful friend who isn't doing well economically, and if I had all the money in the world I wouldn't mind taking him out to dinner every night since I really hate eating alone, but it isn't possible. Instead we do things that don't require much money at all and I've never heard him complain. Seriously, some people look for any excuse to feel guilty about anything at all.

@nanchan (21) -- Actually, I really think I understood what you were saying. Yes, SOME people DO "come around" once they actually see someone they know and love going through whatever it is that they have previously been taught was evil, wrong, or what have you. Unfortunately, some don't, so she needs to be prepared for that possibility, as well. I think it was certainly worth telling the LW that it is POSSIBLE her grandmother will feel differently about gay people when she realizes that someone she knows and loves is gay. So, I'm not arguing against any of that.

But at least some portion of your post was about people in general (not just the LW) believing that ALL conservative Christians are anti-gay. You wrote: "I'm getting kind of sick of this stereotype that all Christians or Conservatives are anti-gay." And you know what -- I agree with that, too. My husband is a conservative Republican -- he used to work for a conservative Republican member of Congress -- and yet my husband supports gay marriage and has gay friends. He is beyond frustrated with his party for its stance on gay marriage, stem cell research and a host of other social issues. So I'm with you on this, I am. But the fact remains that SOME Christians and conservatives ARE anti-gay. And the fact remains that some of them, even after their own children come out of the closet, REMAIN anti-gay.

The LW may or may not buy into the stereotype that all Christians are anti-gay -- the only ones she appears to be concerned with are her own family members, and she's not merely "assuming" they are anti-gay, she KNOWS they are (or at least the grandmother). What she does NOT know -- and you rightly point out -- is whether her grandmother may come around or not. There is, of course, only one for her to find out. I honestly wasn't arguing with the point you were trying to make to the LW. I was merely trying to point out that LW didn't make some blanket statement about believing that all Christians are anti-gay. She was speaking specifically about her family, particularly her grandmother, who has made it pretty crystal clear what she thinks about homosexuality. She may feel differently (or at least put those feelings aside for her granddaughter's sake) when she knows her granddaughter is lesbian. She may not. While I hope the LW does find hope in the recent news stories you noted, I would also caution against her getting her hopes up too high about her grandmother following suit. It could happen. It might not.

Re: Bobaloo

I'm sorry to get all Pro-Life on you here Bobaloo, but the "child" wasn't a "living, breathing human being" yet. We don't breathe until after we leave the birth canal alive, and if the termination was early enough, the " child" might not even have qualified as a fetus yet.

What the pregnancy was, was a potential grandchild and now no more than that. She dreams of what might have been. It is a sad memory that she has ascribed way too many "ifs" to. It could very well have become any number of people who brought tragedy or pain to the potential grandmother. Very easy to regret purely conjectural "might have beens."

LW1 -
You say "there was no possibility of carrying the baby to term and having it be adopted", so I assume there was no possibility of you raising this child yourself. I understand your pain, but please - your daughter, NOT YOU, is the one who had the abortion and "this experience". She is not the designated baby machine to provide you with grandchildren and this is not all about you.

This was 40 years ago. If you haven't gotten over this after all this time, you need professional help. Please get it.

LW3 -
"Enjoy the time they have with loved ones"
Yeah, welll, that may be pretty hard to do when they use and abuse you all they can while they're alive, and you feel milked to the hilt every time you see them. When you know in advance that the person is dead broke and that you can only go enjoy your favourite restaurant together if you pick up the tab, that's one thing, but someone who keeps "forgetting" his credit card to dump the bill on you is pretty tacky. And even poor people will find ways to reciprocate somehow with things that don't cost money when they have class.

What's going on here is that your sister didn't and it quite naturally grated on you ever time she used you, but you miss her nevertheless because she wasn't all bad, and now that she's gone you only remember the good things. Please be aware that this is called "idealising the absent", and it's pretty difficult to do with the "present", because then the bad is in your face. It's also not necessarily advisable, as the bad may be unacceptable. People shouldn't put up with just about anything, just because one day the person will be gone.

Re: Lisa

There are other reasons it wouldn't be "possible" for a girl that age to take a baby to term.

Incest, rape, medical conditions (hereditary?), baby being found to have abnormalities (Down's Syndrome? ) family not being able to afford another child, the daughter being mentally incapable of handling the responsibilities of parenthood, drug abuse or addiction..... it doesn't have to just be "miscarriage"

LW2: Another possibility for the long term anguish of the letter writer is that possibly she pressured her 17 year old daughter to have the abortion. When she says "She was 17, and there was no possibility of carrying the baby to term and having it be adopted. " Maybe she meant in her society or social group that was unacceptable for her to have "failed" and raised a teenager who had sex and got pregnant, so she basically told her daughter she had to have an abortion. Years later as an adult the daughter either choose not to have kids or couldn't have kids and therefore the letter writer never got to be a grandmother so she now regrets pushing her daughter into having an abortion.

I am not saying for sure this is what happened, just that it is another possibility.

@Rozelle - Seriously? Justifying narrow-mindedness as being "noble", nice. Hate is hate, regardless of whether the haters think that it's a glorious divine right.

To Chris, I don't mind your opinion and attitude at all and LW1 needs to get counseling over this but this is one time I disagree with how you came across in your attitude and I'm bit surprised that no one else said anything. There is HUGE difference between sperm going everywhere and having to make the conscious decision to abort pregnancy. The way you put it didn't make what she said any less silly. It made you sound silly by comparing apples to oranges so to speak. I agree that LW1 needs to get serious counseling to get over something that happened 40 years ago.

LW3: I agree enjoy time with your loved ones but does that mean allow them to take advantage of you? That is what the original LW's brother was doing and never once felt guilty for doing it. Only frustration and annoyance builds up when you have one family member doing this to everyone else. I agree with what Lise said.

Re: Bobaloo #15
Bobaloo, if we were talking about the woman who had the abortion herself, I would say you're right. But the LW is not the one who had the abortion, so this obsession four decades after the fact is very much out of place.

She also says there was "no possibility of carrying the baby to term and having it adopted". It sounds like there was an important problem with the pregnancy and that the abortion was a medical necessity. What did she expect her daughter to do, deliver a dead foetus at 8 months just so she could feel like a grandmother? At any rate, there wouldn't be a grandchild for her to grandmother if the baby had been adopted, so either way, there is no baby for her. Frankly, her entire attitude about this is really weird and doesn't make a lick of sense. I think she needs help - I see nothing rational in her entire letter.

Re: "all conservative Christians are anti-gay" -- I think most of us who have been out of the closet for a while realize that not all Christians are homophobic, and in fact not all conservative Christians are, either.

And it's also true that *often* (but not *always*), when a conservative Christian family is faced with a gay relative, they do start to learn more acceptance and become more understanding.

However, on the flip side of the coin, the vast majority of homophobic activity -- anti-gay laws, anti-gay language, hateful speech, suppression of rights, protests, and physical harm towards gays -- does *tend* to come from people who self-identify as conservatively Christian.

So, not all conservative Christians are anti-gay, but a lot of the anti-gay folk identify as conservatively Christian. It's easy to see why there's potential for misunderstanding on both sides of the discussion as a result, but I think it's important to keep in mind that those anti-gay conservative Christians don't represent all conservative Christians.

Re: Kath
Re what Chris said -
One my aunts on my father's side was a Catholic nun, and a staunch pro-lifer of course. She used to say that the reason masturbation is a sin is because it kills all these potential babies. Never mind the fact that the old spern has to get out somehow, and that if you don't help its escape, you'll only have wet dreams... with all these dead babies on your bedsheet in the morning, yikes. Never mind that every time a man has sex with a woman, even if he gets her pregnant, there will be millions of sperm who lose the lottery...

I don't remember if Chris was raised a Catholic, but perhaps there is someone in his entourage who spews out this kind of yurunda. I think we all know some, and it may be why no one said anything. What Chris really meant is that there are countless occasions where "potential" babies are wasted, and he gave a ridiculous example to highlight the irrationality of the LW's position.

Re: Bobaloo This- "... the fact that said baby was a living, breathing human being and would soon be a joy in someone's life" is a lie and completely wrong. It was NOT a living breathing human being. It was a wad of goo that MIGHT have come to term. MIGHT. NO pregnancy is guaranteed to come to term. NO woman is guaranteed to live through a pregnancy. You need an education in biology.

It was not the woman's decision, it was her daughter's and I hope she's not guilt tripping the poor daughter after all these years.
I wish people would get over this attitude that all adoptions result in happy endings. They do NOT.
Yes the LW needs counselling, she's a whack job. Forty years later and she's grieving??? Sounds like her daughter never wanted kids or she'd be expecting great grandchildren in a few years.

Sorry, nanchan, you're wrong. 40% of homeless youth are gay. Half of gay youth have run away from home at least once. 92% say they hear negative messages about being gay all the time. The vast majority don't come out at home until they are financially independent. That's not Buddhists spouting those messages. And sorry you're mad about your "reputation," cause you and your church are oh-so-nice to gay folk. Guess what? We're 6 TIMES more likely to commit suicide than a straight person. We're dying, and it's not from AIDS - it's from hate espoused by Christians. So, you want a change in the attitude towards Christianity? How about your church gets in the face of all other Christians? Write letters to Rush Limbaugh, Paul Ryan, One Million Moms, and the Bush family. Call the Vatican and let the Pope know that gay adoption isn't "discrimination against children." I hear Christians all the time say "oh, but I'm so nice to gays." Specious argument. How about you change our opinion of you by standing up in public and changing the discussion? Yell at the Westboro Baptist Church - don't yell at me. From where I'm sitting, we have every reason to think Christians hate us - your killing us off.

@Lisa, that's why I said < IF > the LW's grandmother isn't long for this world, then why bother telling her. Of course if she is still young-ish and in good health then it's a different story. Honestly, I wish sometimes people would pay more attention to that two-letter word IF.

@Mike, I think the problem is that not everyone can be pigeonholed so neatly into these labels, and people are getting sick of it. It is actually a small minority of extremists that get media attention with those views and who taint the vast majority that believe otherwise, just as the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. I can just as easily point out that the vast majority of people who are critical of people who say they are bi identify as being gay. (Those who aren't gay don't really make a distinction between being bi or gay, and therefore don't feel the need to force someone to identify as "gay, all the way".) There is a very vocal effort to bash Christians and conservatives these days. There are far more Islamists than Christians in the world, and they are far more conservative in their views and far more anti-gay, which is punishable by death. But when was the last time you ever saw a letter or article talking about Muslims being anti-gay? I frankly can't recall ever seeing a single one. But google "anti-gay", and you will have no end of choice on articles regarding Christians and Conservatives.

@nanchan (29) -- yes, miscarriage isn't the only reason. I even mentioned that it could have been a situation where it was medically unsafe for the teen to carry the baby to term, as an example. But the others you list -- incest, rape, etc. -- those don't make it medically unsafe or otherwise "not possible" to carry the baby to term. I was responding to Chris' post suggesting that the LW is treating this as if it were a choice, when the LW, if taken at face value, suggests that there actually was no choice. And if there was no choice, Chris suggests, the LW shouldn't still be hung up on this 40 years later. I was suggesting that perhaps the fact that she IS still hung up on this 40 years later is because she's not being totally truthful when she suggests that there really wasn't a choice in the matter -- "not possible to carry the baby to term."

Please don't get me wrong here, as I am not judging the choice (if there was, in fact, a choice to be made). I am, in fact, pro-choice. And I'm pro-choice even when it's NOT a case of rape, incest, severe birth defects, or the life of the mother is at risk. So, I'm not suggesting that, if the daughter DID have a choice, she made the wrong choice. I'm just saying that it's possible -- and, IMHO, LIKELY -- that the daughter COULD have carried that baby to term, but that for whatever reason, she decided not to. And that reason could well have been an extremely compelling reason -- like rape, incest, etc. -- but that's still a choice. And it was probably the right choice.

But I'm suggesting that it's the fact that it probably WAS a choice -- despite her essentially saying her daughter didn't have a choice -- that haunts this woman 40 years later. Again, not necessarily. It's just one possibility.

@ nanchan Re: # 14

Not all Christian conservatives are anti-gay? That's an absurd statement because by very definition, Christians are anti-gay. Read the Bible. If you are a Christian and not anti-gay then you're either lying (oooh, naughty nanchan) or you're not as faithful to the teachings as you think you are. Sorry.

@ Kath Re: #32

What Lise B. said (#35). Duh!

@Jane -- ah, the big IF -- sorry I missed it. You are certainly correct that's one possibility! And obviously, the LW knows the likelihood of it or not, so she can judge for herself whether Grandma "needs to know" or not.

If I opine that Victorian England was more sophisticated than the present attitude represented by LW1, I'll no doubt get jumped on, but hell, that's part of the fun. How many on this board have repeated the truism that "you can't change what other people think/do, you can only change how you respond to it" ? Now try applying that to the daughter who feels the need to announce to her family that her sexual preference is females.

An announcement of any kind is a tacit request for response. You know they're going to be upset, but you tell them anyway because.....? My point about the Victorians, hard line as they could be, is that they understood that some things are society's business and some things aren't. Who you're sleeping with isn't society's business - but the flip side of that is, you'd better not make a point of rubbing society's face in it. And that went for anyone of any sexual persuasion.

So you announce you're gay because you want them to respond in a way that's acceptable to you, even though you know they probably won't. Doesn't make sense to me. The Victorians also had a term for pairs of people who were homosexual. They were "friends." (And not Facebook "friends" either). That was the socially acknowledged relationship. If a person was flamboyant, he was just "eccentric."

But now we're supposed to be "proud" of our sexual orientation. I'm not "proud" of being a heterosexual - why would someone be "proud" of being gay? I think the LW has allowed politcally correct groupthink to guide her into her present stew. She could bring her girlfriend home and introduce her as her friend. They could share a bedroom. They could show basic respect for the family and have a right to be treated respectfully in return. What never works, and people keep trying to make work is to force people to think, act, talk, and behave in a way that pleases YOU.

Attitudes evolve, opinions can change - but rarely, as nanchan pointed out with today's news, by having it shoved in your face with the demand that if you don't agree, you're "hater."
Which brings me to Steve C's comment: " Hate is hate, regardless of whether the haters think that it's a glorious divine right." To which I would remind Steve that hatred of conservative Christians or religious people of any persuasion because YOU don't like how THEY think is just as abhorrent.

Well, I can see that deep breath was needed. Here's another one.

To the poster who accuses Conservative Christians of killing gays: ridiculous. Suicide by definition is someone killing THEMSELVES. What a bogus post.

To Mike H: There are many other religions who are anti-gay. Try moving to Saudi Arabia and being openly gay, then let me know how that is received.

To Chris: you are so ignorant that it's not worth my typing to respond to you.

I knew you so called tolerant people wouldn't tolerate that reality, and I am off this discussion for the day.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#33):

Without getting into the situation about what caused the LW and her daughter to make the decision they did, what "medical necessity" was there? The only thing I can think of is that there was a health situation affecting the mother of the baby (e.g., an illness such as preeclampsia); oh yes, there could be family situations and other things that could have resulted in what happened.

If the baby inside the womb were already dead, then that's another matter I suppose.

I'll leave it at that because I do not want to turn today's board into a heated debate over abortion. I really don't. I guess the only thing about the LW's "obsession" or whatever about her daughter's abortion 40 years ago, the only comeback I have is I suppose such decisions (or whatever you call it) also affects other people – i.e., loved ones – as well. Many others, and it isn't necessarily resolved through counseling.

@nanchan #43, absolutely -- but we aren't in Saudi Arabia and we aren't reading an advice column based in Saudi Arabia. Most of Annies readers and the LWs are from US or Canada, so religious anti-gay sentiment is overwhelmingly Christian *in this region*.

That's just demographics, nanchan, not intolerant, for me to mention it that way.

@Jane, it's fine to say that -- and I agree, to an extent -- but it's not up to me, a non-Christian, to let people know that the loudest, most vocal conservative Christians don't represent conservative Christianity.

It's up to actual, non-bigoted conservative Christians to be as loud or louder about *their* values, and just as public -- and then it will be harder for the loud *bigots* to keep claiming that THEY are the ones speaking for Christianity.

It's getting better, but it still happens too often that non-bigoted Christians are too meek or too quiet when the loud, bigoted Christians take to the airwaves. If you don't want to be painted with the same broad brush, more of *you* still need to stand up to *them* -- it's not *me* who is the problem, here.

@Jane, also, I read articles all the time about the horrible conditions for gay people in the Middle East, by the way -- but they aren't as relevant *here* in the US because the vast majority of anti-gay activity is funded by three major religious groups: Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians.

So if we are talking about the US, then talking about anti-gay Muslims isn't really as relevant.

Also, evangelical Christians have been actively exporting their anti-gay rhetoric to other countries. If you don't already know about it, the history of the Ugandan "kill the gays" bill is one of the worst examples.

Again, simply stating these facts isn't being anti-Christian, nor is it in anyway equating all Christians with the actions of these Christians. But I offer it as a reason why it is very very very easy to start to equate conservative Christianity with anti-gay activity.

And, again, *I* can't do anything to change that perception. It's up to non-bigoted Christians to "take back the airwaves" from the bigoted ones.

I am confused. If it was "not possible to bring the baby to term", and the daughter "had" to have an abortion, then, what is the inner turmoil about? If it was a medical necessity, then why is there a dilemma? After 40 years, she is still overwrought, it is clearly way past the time when she should have gone to a counselor to resolve this. It doesn't make any sense. Unless she is one of those 'no abortion for anyone, any time, under any circumstance' people, who then had an actual family situation that dictated otherwise. And she has been unable to broaden her mind, and that is what is really bothering her. If so, maybe it is time to allow some compassion and tolerance into her world view.

Mike, I understand where you're coming from on this and think that it makies sense, though I'll add a thought to it. Anyone can call themselves a "Christian" for any reason. That's the sorry thing, because only they know what they mean by it. If someone asks me if I'm a Christian, I can't answer yes or no because I don't know what they mean by that. Do I agree with St. Paul on everything? No. Do I believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah? Yes. And if one only takes the words attributed to him in the New Testament and follows that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because neither true Christians nor anti-Christians would be so full of hatefulness.

He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Good enough for me! But too many sects that claim to be Christian, forgot that part. It isn't Jesus' fault what people do in his name, nor is it God's fault what religions do.
That said, I must remark to Chris that if I followed your line of logic (all good Christians hate gays because of the New Testament) then all Jews do as well, because of the Old Testament. Not a very nice place to go with your arguement.

@ nanchan

"To Chris: you are so ignorant that it's not worth my typing to respond to you."

That's laughable considering that you did just that. You are such a moron.

LW1: It always amazes me when people call themselves "Christian" and then ostracize others. It seems very contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But on to LW's concern. I have a gay friend whose family is conservative and not very accepting. He came out 20 years ago and they are still not 100% OK with it. So I think you need to steel yourself for the reactions of others when you come out to them. Don't bring your girfriend until your family has had a chance to absorb the information and tell you that they love you unconditionally. And I really hope that your family does come around.

Re: Chris

Way to go proving my point.

@Maggie, it is true, anyone can call themselves a Christian. And as for me, I kind of have to take them at their word, right? I mean, I'm certainly not in any position to pick and choose who the "real" Christians are any more than you are (and probably even less so!)

None of my posts have suggested that I think all Christians, or even all conservative Christians, think this way (which I figure you do get). I am just expounding as to why it's commonly felt that conservative Christians do "as a whole" feel this way, because the most frequent, public, loud anti-gay sentiments in the US are expressed by people who are conservative Christian (whether that be Evangelical, Mormon, or Catholic).

So a lot of people DO make the mistake of assuming, or using shorthand, that "conservative Christians must be anti-gay". I'm just trying to show it's understandable for people to "go there" even if it isn't really fair to all the good, non-bigoted Christians. It's not a wild, unreasonable assumption to make. Heck, even I know better but still sometimes find myself getting a bit wary when I'm introduced to someone who comes on strong with a very conservative Christian vibe.

And all sorts of great, allied, gay-friendly people in the US are Christian, and more Christians are becoming gay-supportive by the day, it seems.

But that's why it seems to me that Christians who are not bigoted, who may in point of fact represent the majority of Christians in the US, ought to be a bit more aggressive in "taking back" the limelight from the bigoted Christians.

And that's a task for Christians to take on; non-Christians can't do it for you.

This isn't even a double-standard, its true for just about any group -- if there's a negative sub-group that starts to take over the public perception, then members of that group have to be the ones who reverse the trend, reverse the bad name that the negative sub-group is giving the group as a whole.

I can help, and certainly do; I've often spoken here and elsewhere and in "real life" about all the supportive religious groups that march in Boston's Pride Parade. And about the conservative Republican Christian family members who have gone from being uncomfortable to being supportive (and just recently sending me a message that they were honored and touched to be invited to our wedding).

But I do want to point out that there is an actual, reasonable basis for the stereotype that conservative Christians are anti-gay, that it didn't happen in a vacuum. At the same time I'll also acknowledge freely and happily that nowhere near all conservative Christians are anti-gay bigots.

I tend to think that kames is more on target about the teen's abortion. Depending on the geographic area - even in the U.S., there was still a lot of stigma on abortion 40 years ago; and minors didn't have the autonomy/rights they have today. I can think of many who were cowed by their parents during that era. At 17, the girl was a minor and her mother would have had to sign for her to have an abortion. Also, there are even today many young girls of that age who are in dysfunctional families where if a parent says "frog," they ask "how far shall I jump." I think this mom can't forget the abortion because SHE demanded that it be performed rather than have HER social circle know that she was "a failure as a mom" and because of her own shame - both for the daughter's pregnancy and for her failing to provide the emotional support she knows she Should have. The comment that they never talk about it is very telling, in my opinion.

Chris THANK YOU for driving nanchan off of here for the rest of the day. Can you please offend her more so she will leave for a week? You are absolutely correct about Christians being anti-gay by definition.

Re: graham072442 #54
That was the first thought that came to my mind, too-----40 years ago it was a horrible, shameful thing to be an unwed mother. (Thankfully, that's gone by the wayside.) I got the feeling that the LW had a hand in the decision to abort the baby, because, at least in her eyes, there was "no possible way" for her daughter to bear the baby and adopt it out, because if nothing else, it reflected poorly on the LW to have a daughter who could do such a horrible thing as be unmarried and pregnant. Very sad that that was the case, but it often was.
.
The LW says SHE will 'regret this experience till the day I die", and talks about living with the consequences. There's some regret there on her part, which makes me think she pressured in favor of the abortion, and now is wishing she hadn't. If it had been entirely her daughter's decision, or if there really WAS no way the baby could be carried to term and adopted out, then there would be no decision to 'regret', even though she might be feeling a sense of loss. Mothers often DID pressure their unwed daughters to get abortions back then.

Re: Steve C Did it ever occur to you that you are the one being narrow minded? Does your "open mindedness" include people who have different beliefs about morality than you do? Or does everyone have to conform to your beliefs?

Homosexuality and abortion in one day?? I'm starting to think the Annies do read BTL and listened to my complaints about not being exciting like Dear Prudie. Now it's on to reading the BTL. This should be exciting! * starts popping the popcorn*

Re: PuaHone Many Christians hate homosexuality because they see it as a sin. They also hate other sins, such as adultery, lying, stealing, etc. That doesn't mean that they are required to hate the person who sins. In fact, Jesus required that Christians LOVE the sinner. I'm not getting into whether it's a lifestyle choice or the way someone was born (I believe it's biological and genetic). I'm just saying that there's a big difference between hating a person who is gay and hating the fact that he/she is gay and some people tend to get the two confused, including some Christians who should know better.

I'm a regular reader, but rarely post. I just wanted to say that I've always enjoyed posts from Chris, Lise B., Zoe and nanchan. I haven't always agreed, but I do enjoy them. Until today.

@nanchan, you usually seem like you have an open mind, but I lost a lot of respect for you today. You needn't agree with anti gay attitudes in order to admit that *many* if not *most* conservative Christians do not accept being gay as a perfectly normal variation of human life. I am happy for YOU that YOUR church is open minded. That doesn't really help the entire gay community though, especially when dealing with religious conservatives who often ARE hateful. And yes, bullying causes suicide, to pretend it doesn't is to participate in cognitive dissonance.

Regarding other religions, those of us who do not believe in a religion or deity tend to point out that many religious texts share the same stories and legends, so it's not surprising that conservatives of all religions are *often* anti gay.

nanchan, I have been reading the BTL comments for about two years and I don't think I've EVER seen you get so defensive as you did here today. It has opened my eyes to your general perspectives.

Oh, I posted much too soon! BTL has actually been interesting and civil today. Mea culpa.

@posters wondering why LW2 is so upset about an abortion that was supposedly necessary, I believe Lisa said it best. The woman is most likely in denial, or fudging the details of what actually happened. To hold onto such regret over something that happened 40 years ago, there's no way she's openly and honestly analyzed and discussed the circumstances of what happened. Most likely any time she starts to feel regret and sadness creep in, she quickly tells herself “It was necessary!” and pushes it out of her mind. Only for it to never go away completely, and for her to never make peace with it. Maybe she pushed her daughter into it; or maybe as someone else wrote, it was “necessary” because of societal reasons; or it was the results of incest or rape. Or maybe, and this cynical, but maybe she got pregnant by a black guy, and they were afraid no one would adopt a “mixed” baby. Whatever the circumstances, she needs to get into counseling yesterday and make peace with this.

@Maggie Lawrence -- an interesting point about the Victorians, which you have made before on other threads, such as sleeping arrangements for unmarried couples when they visit their parents. I think it works better related to the debate over sleeping arrangements than in this case. I, too, have made the argument that I am not proud to be a heterosexual white woman -- I just happen to be a white, straight, female. None of that was a choice. None of that was something I had to accomplish or work toward. Now, finishing the Iron Man -- THAT I'm proud of. Because it was something I had work very hard at in order to accomplish it. I am proud of things I accomplished. I am not not proud of things that I simply am, whether I want to be them or not. So we have a lot of common ground here.

But where I see the difference is that because heterosexuality is "the norm" most people are just going to assume that someone is heterosexual unless 1) they see the person romantically or sexually involved with a person of the same sex or 2) the person tells them. I wish we had reached a point in society when there was no need to "come out" with a big announcement. I wish that a gay person could simply bring home his or her gay partner and everyone would just know, accept and embrace the fact that these are two people in love without their having to be some big announcement and discussion. But we're not there. Not even close.

When I brought my first boyfriend home to meet my family, I didn't have to tell them "this if my boyfriend, not a friend who happens to be male" -- they immediately knew what the nature of the relationship was without my having to make any sort of explanation. A couple of months before I brought him home, I brought my college roommate home to meet my family, and similarly, everyone knew the nature of the relationship and no explanation was necessary. So easy for us straight people to forget that's not how it works when you're gay.

Sure, LW could just bring her friend home and pretend that she's just a friend. But that's what it would be: pretending. And, in order to pull off that pretense, they likely would have to act differently. When my boyfriend came home with me, we weren't "all over each other" but I'm sure we held hands, for example. I bet we might even have hugged or kissed one another a couple of times. When my straight, female roommate came home with me, I can assure you we never held hands, nor hugged nor kissed. I suppose the gay couple could just refer to each other as friends and then continue to do things like hold hands, etc., that might suggest to the family that they are more than just friends -- and then potentially it just becomes the big white elephant in the room. I'm just not sure that's really the better way to handle this -- particularly since it's possible someone will decide NOT to "ignore" that big white elephant and instead start shouting things like how lesbians are all heading to Hell. I'm not a big fan of excessive PDA by ANYONE gay, straight or otherwise -- but stuff that wouldn't typically trip up a straight couple (like holding hands) can be a ticking bomb for a gay couple.

None of the gay people I know, who have shared their coming out stories with me, went into all sorts of illicit detail about what they did with their same-sex partners when they came out to their families because, of course, you're right, what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults is no one else's business, but not being able to acknowledge someone who could possibly be your life partner as anything more than a "friend" just doesn't seem right to me. I have a lot of great friends, some of whom I've known longer than my husband and who are very special and dear to me -- but they are not the same as my husband. Not even close -- and not simply because I don't have sex with them.

Re: Bobaloo #44
"What "medical necessity" was there?"
We weren't told, but if it was impossible to carry to term, then there was one, even if we don't know what it is. Also, please be aware that the medical term for a miscarriage is a "spontaneous abortion", so we don't even know if there isn't some kind of terminology confusion here.

"Such decisions (or whatever you call it) also affects other people"
Yes, and deciding to marry, or to accept or refuse or quit a job, or to go back to school, or to relocate for whatever reason, or to put an end to your marriage, or to have or not to have children, etc etc etc etc, all affect other people around you. So? Is the person obligated to call a family council and put the matter to a vote because of that? No.

"She was 17, and there was no possibility of carrying the baby to term and having it be adopted. "
I read this to mean that the only way the daughter could have or would have been willing/able to carry to term was if there was a couple ready to adopt her baby. And, there was not. I inferred from this that the mother or the daughter was unwilling to carry to term and raise the child themselves - that this was not considered. And, that makes perfect sense. The choice made was, "Neither of us is willing to raise this baby, if it is born. Thus, the pregnancy will be aborted." Perhaps if there had been a couple waiting to adopt, the abortion would have been unnecessary.
This all makes more sense than the idea that "carrying the baby to term" was the part of the sense that was impossible.
Just how I read it. That said, the LW sounds a little nut bar to me. It was her daughter's abortion, not hers. It was none of her business then and its definitely none of her business now.
NevelC

Re: Lise Brouillette

"One my aunts on my father's side was a Catholic nun, and a staunch pro-lifer of course. She used to say that the reason masturbation is a sin is because it kills all these potential babies. Never mind the fact that the old spern has to get out somehow, and that if you don't help its escape, you'll only have wet dreams... with all these dead babies on your bedsheet in the morning, yikes."

If she only knew! My mother worked for a Catholic school and church for a number of years and one day she had to go to the rectory basement to get a box of old files. She opened the wrong door and saw a row of mattresses on the floor, all with holes in them middle of them. She realized that's where the priests secretly "relieved" themselves. Throughout the years of talking with others who worked at churchs, she found out it's very common.

I've always said that no human being can go through life without some form of relieving sexual tension. Although I had A LOT of cranky, crabby nuns in my Catholic school days so maybe they were the ones that did.

Chris,

If you can find one instance where Christ mentioned homosexuality, I will donate $1000 to the American Red Cross.

Your move.

To Lise in response to #35. I didn't take the Christian view of it. I took it as having to make the hard decision to end pregancy of potential child and what comes with it, vs what millions of guys do every day which is no where near terminating very real baby. Apples to oranges. I don't think diminishing woman's feelings is right but she clearly needs help especially since this has been going on for about 30 years.

Re: Michelle
Oooh boy... As for the nuns relieving themselves, well, hm... Mister Crazy singer once told me that, in his little town of Mont Laurier where he was born and raised, there was this huge scandal when he was a child. This was the time when doctors still did house calls... and one was called urgently to the local convent, to remove a tube of toothpaste that had gotten "stuck".

Nobody knows who committed the indiscretion, since this is supposed to be covered by professional secrecy (but then, this was back in the fifties), but it was all over town in jig time, although there was no naming of the nun who had needed "help"!

@Kath #68
I didn't either, and I seem to remember Chris himself is quite allergic to organised religion, but the fact is that most of those spewing all that drivel about "wasted potential babies" are usually quite religious, hence the religious anecdotes. ;-D

Re: Lise Brouillette (#64)

"We weren't told, but if it was impossible to carry to term, then there was one, even if we don't know what it is. Also, please be aware that the medical term for a miscarriage is a "spontaneous abortion", so we don't even know if there isn't some kind of terminology confusion here."

If it was indeed a miscarriage (or in medical terms, "spontaneous abortion"), and as such there is just mere confusion over terminology, then I'd be more open to grief counseling. It'd still not be easy, but at least they can cope.

As far as the response to my original comment, "Such decisions (or whatever you call it) also affects other people"

Except to say I think the situations you list -- those concerning marriage, school, work and relocation -- are a bit different. Nobody ever said the "council" (i.e., family) needed to be consulted in any of them; for instance, I most certainly did not consult my mother or siblings when I accepted my current job out of town. But just think about how the major decision of abortion affects others before following through with getting one. JUST THINK(!) -- that's all I'm saying.

Sorry, locake. Chris didn't drive me off.

As for the poster who is offended by my opinion. Sorry about that. I live in WA state, in the United States of America. Last I checked, we have freedom of speech here. I was excersizing mine.

and to capiscan: right on!

LW3 - Somehow I doubt that if your dead brother returned for a few years with the same behavior that you'd be any happier paying his whole tab again. Everyone dies eventually, and nobody should have to live their lives being taken advantage of.

Re: Steve C
Yes, seriously. Just because you call something narrow-minded doesn't change wrong into right. Every person has an equal right to decide what they think is wrong or right.

Re: Bobaloo
And therefore the woman no longer owns her own body?

Sorry, but I don't see how abortion is any less a major decision than whom you decide to marry. Ah, but I forget... a lot of people claim the right to dictate to women about that too.

LW1: Consulting PFLAG is a good idea. You are not going to change hidebound conservatives or your grandmother's ignorant ideas, even tho their god made gayness too. Stick with the ones who love you and have begun to accept your L life.
I used to attend PFLAG meetings in support of a gay nephew. A memorable participant was a mother who cried and cried because "my daughter is abnormal." After much discussion and peeling away the layers, we touched on her core fear, that she would never have grandchildren.
Many of your relatives may need time to come to terms with having gay family members. The delay is not fair to you, but it's one of the realities that you may have to deal with. You decide how much leeway you want to give people, but be warned, some of them will not change. Here are my practical suggestions:
1. If you are going to bring anyone home (buddy, lover, whoever) give your family the courtesy of notice that you will have a guest, not surprise them with a visitor to house, feed, and incorporate into family time.
2. You do have to think of the position in which you put your sweetie if you spring her on the family as your s.o. Be sure to ask her if she wants to go through the risk and discomfort of experiencing the family's initial shock. Have a safe place to go to if things get verbally abusive.
3. Whenever you announce or introduce your s.o., there will be initial shock, even among the well-meaning ones in your clan. Give them time to get over it. Their first reaction may not be their enduring one. They may have to think about it and do some personal growth before realizing that a L couple is no big deal. The growth may take minutes or months.
4. Be prepared to be estranged from some of them for a while. Take the high road and keep in touch as best you can with calls, emails, and cards. Soon enough you will see who rises to the occasion and accepts -- even celebrates -- your good life.
5. Try first introducing your s.o. to only the one/two/few family members who would be sympathetic, more sophisticated, etc. Tell them something about your s.o. that will create neutral topics of conversation, like her hobbies, plans for future education or travel. Give them some insight into her character like her volunteer activities, whether she loves dogs, or babysits. If she has a sense of humor, that's a big plus. The word will spread about what a great gal she is.
I know so many L couples who are living wonderful, fulfilling lives, many with the support of their extended families. Once you get over this bump of introducing your first girlfriend to your fam, some things will get easier. Live your life genuinely, and give reassurances to the young teenagers who are struggling with coming out. I wish I could cushion all of them. Love!

@ capiscan Re: #67

Don't try to wriggle away that easily. Christians for millenia have quoted ad nauseum Leviticus 18:22 that says "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination." This has been used as a basis for discrimination against gays in legislation and in religion alike. Clearly the word "homosexual" wasn't in the lexicon of ancient man. Piss off.

@ nanchan Re: #71

You've already established yourself here as a liar and a fraud; that you continue to hang around is a clinical manifestation of your severe narcissism which won't permit you to skulk away in shame. Which, by the way, you clearly lack the gene to process. Your posts serve little more than to add fodder to the growing dossier of idiotic statements and opinions you profess. Like today when you touted your freedom of speech after you made several prior posts where you've demanded that others not respond to your posts. You are a moron. Accept it.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#74)

"And therefore the woman no longer owns her own body? Sorry, but I don't see how abortion is any less a major decision than whom you decide to marry. Ah, but I forget... a lot of people claim the right to dictate to women about that too."

Sorry, but this is EXACTLY the argument that I wanted to avoid -- the "does the woman own her body" argument) Seriously, it was. Because people are NEVER, EVER going to agree on an answer.

You'll note that I made this about how one's decision, and no doubt this IS a major decision (on a completely different level than marrying someone, IMO), not about whether a woman has a right or not.

Thank you very much. :)

Moving on ... .

P.S. -- Annie's: If you're reading this, a suggestion, which you may choose to take or not, but please don't print letters on two emotional, divisive topics (homosexuality and abortion) on the same day again. I can only wonder what your print readers thought about these two letters being printed side-by-side. Different days, maybe.

Who wrote Leviticus? It certainly wasn't Jesus. So why is it quoted as such a defining 'Christian' value. It was 'ONE' desert dweller's idea over 2000 years ago. Why is it revered as such a cornerstone? Since it is Old Testament, what does it have to do with Christianity? I think many people are grasping at straws to validate their behavior and thoughts. Rubbish!!!!

Re: Bobaloo
"You'll note that I made this about how one's decision, and no doubt this IS a major decision (on a completely different level than marrying someone, IMO), not about whether a woman has a right or not."

Bobaloo, please. If you want to avoid controversy, then don't put out arguments about what a major decision an abortion is and how it affects the people around her, because then the clear inference is that she has no right to take that decision on her own - even if you don't say it in so many words.

Re: Lise Brouillette (#79)

"Bobaloo, please. If you want to avoid controversy, then don't put out arguments about what a major decision an abortion is and how it affects the people around her, because then the clear inference is that she has no right to take that decision on her own - even if you don't say it in so many words."

All I'll say to that is ... your interpretation.

Again, moving on ... .

What a surprise! nanchan is a LIAR. It said it was done for the day but it came back. What a liar! I wonder what else he/she lies about.

SLOWcake/PUBE why don't you go get a life and leave me alone?

Or maybe you are really another poster here who shall remain nameless who just can't stand it when it's not all about HER.

In any event, have a lovely weekend darlin' and BLESS YOUR HEART!

LW2: I'm not sure this is your consequence to bear. You don't tell us WHY she could not have had the baby, which is vital info. Yet, if there was NO WAY she could have had the baby, and an abortion was the only choice.

The person who has the abortion is the one who has to bear the consequence or bad feelings. How are you feeling the consequence? I'm going to totally read between the lines here and guess that you agreed to the abortion, or may have discouraged carrying the baby because of whatever ultra-conservative environment prevented having the baby at the time, be it society or family or religion - maybe you couldn't tell people your kid was preggers. Or maybe you made your daughter feel horrible for getting pregnant? Or maybe you are of a conservative ethnicity that doesn't allow for single motherhood - trust me, my ethnicity would never allow it. But, the possibility of her having the baby and you raising it existed. Or you say it didn't. But that would have been one way you could have had that grandchild you always wanted, but didn't know then you did.

At any rate, I sense your guilt is coming from discouraging her from having the baby. Later, you saw all your friends enjoying grandmother or grandfatherhood, and how wonderful it was, and maybe some of them had children who had children out of wedlock, and it was still just as amazing as having a child when married, and there was regret about discouraging the birth way back when, and so the guilt begins.

That your daughter did not have another child all these years is probably why you feel bad, but that's another story I suppose. Perhaps your daughter didn't want to have another baby because of how news of the the first one was received.

I know it's not ideal to have a teenager who is pregnant. But they need support no matter what their decision is.

LW1: I will never understand people who need to be accepted by morons.

LW2: You don't make any sense. If she carried to term and gave the baby up for adoption you still wouldn't have a grandchild.

LW3: Yeah, I always miss the times I let people take advantage of me. LOL It's one thing to miss your sister but that doesn't mean she gets a pass on bad behavior. Get real.

Re: Nevel
Mom was probably involved with the "decision" -perhaps it would embarrass the family or it would interrupt a planned college education-you know all the reasons women do this. That is why she is feeling guilty. she knows in her heart what she did. In my own case it DID embarrass the family and interrupted my college education but I would not trade my 43-year-old daughter and her own 5 children for the best college education in the world and the additional money it would afford. So, if as we are told today by the pro-choice people, it is just a piece of tissue and not a baby, well, why the guilt? But we know better now especially with ultrasound "portrait" studios on every corner. I hope "regretful grandma" makes it to a pro-life clinic where she can get some post abortion counseling. They will offer her hope and the forgiveness she needs to go on.

Re: Carole Schiessel--It's wonderful that you had a supportive family who helped you 43 years ago. Not all girls back then were that lucky. Lots of them were sent away for several months and forced to give up their babies and told to "forget" about them. As if that's possible.

I know if I'd gotten pregnant in high school, I'd have either killed myself or died from an illegal abortion. Or, my father would have beaten me to death. I'm.Not.Kidding. I'd have never, ever been able to go to them for help. Ever. Unfortunately, there are still people like that.

I've had people ask me if I'd have wanted my own (non-existent) daughter to have an abortion. My response is that if I'd had a daughter she'd have never felt she had to make that decision, because she'd have my unconditional support. But then, I didn't worry constantly about "what will the neighbors think?"