Yikes! 

  I’ve got to wonder if a kid can sue his parents for violating his civil rights?

  I wonder if forced reeducation camps can be considered a violation of civil rights?

  This is just fucked up in so many different ways.  I’ve gotta say, I think that kid might have been better off waiting until he was 18 to tell his parents.

His blog is painful to read.  How awful.

God Bless America huh? I’m so glad I don’t live in a place where religion has such a corrosive influence on society.

< perspective >

Think about Taliban goons (or Saudi “morality police” walking around roughing up people who cause any offense to Islam.  Women in Burkas, not allowed to hold a conversation with any male outside her family.  Polio hanging on in the human population because Imams spread rumor about US vaccines causing AIDS.  Death fatwa on Salmon Rushdie, etc.

< /perspective >

What is happening to Zach is terrible but is relatively uncommon in our society.  I just hope he gets through it with minimum psychological damage, writes a book about it, goes on talk shows, gets a scholarship to an Ivy-league university, becomes rich, meets the man of his dreams, and lives happily ever after.

He’s certainly had his share of grief and pain. No child should be treated so by his parent.

“I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle. In a physical death you could still have a spiritual resurrection; whereas, returning to homosexuality you are yielding yourself to a spiritual death from which there is no recovery.â€?—The Final Indoctrination from John Smid, Director, Love In Action (LIA), San Rafael’s “ex-gayâ€? clan.

Umm… since last I checked suicide is a big no-no in the church’s eyes… that might only be Catholics, but there is little “spiritual resurrection” available to those burning in hell…

Please note, I am Catholic but not a judgemental one, it is not my view point that people who commit suicide go to any bad place, honestly, I’m still sort of up in the air about all of it, mainly I am of the opinion that unless you are a down right scumbag (ie murderer, rapist, etc) then you’ll probably do ok in the afterlife.  I’m merely trying to point out the church’s views as I remember them.

chief: Umm… since last I checked suicide is a big no-no in the church’s eyes… that might only be Catholics, but there is little “spiritual resurrection� available to those burning in hell…

Beat me to it.  Made me wonder if protestants changed that little bylaw and I never heard about it.

What DOF said, and how about a camp to convert those people into human beings? What a pity that heterosexuality is as terminal as homosexuality. “What the fuck is wrong with you people?“

Well, yeah, protestants don’t generally make a distinction between types of sins, so if you have the saving grace of Jesus, you’re set in the afterlife. 

This downright bugs me.

OMG they are making him cut his hair, get a job, and go to church.  This is an outrage call the UN.

“I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle

Yer right.  All these whiny libruls are just overreacting.  I’m sure everyone involved just wants what’s best for the little guy.

LOL.

Brainwashing school.

It IS possible for a minor to get an attorney and “divorce” his parents. And in this case, I’d say he should.

These people are thugs.

People like those parents make me want to vomit.

My best wishes to poor Zach and anyone else subjected to such nonsense.

I wonder if forced reeducation camps can be considered a violation of civil rights?

It IS possible for a minor to get an attorney and “divorce� his parents. And in this case, I’d say he should.

People like those parents make me want to vomit.

Hmm, it wasn’t very long ago that everyone at SEB (including me) was up in arms defending parents’ rights to raise their kid as wiccans / satan worshipers / muslims / atheists / whatever they saw fit.  Congress shall make no law, and so forth.

I guess that doesn’t apply when it’s parents raising their child to be Christian, and telling them that homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, or satan-worshiping are wrong?

Provided the child wants to be raised to believe that religion.  Come on, the kid is 16, not 4.  This is a decision he’s made himself, not one his teacher crammed down his throat.

Yup, he’s 16.  Last I checked, the age of majority in this country is 18.

That means if he wants to be gay in a couple years, his parents will have to settle for disapproving looks and maybe writing him out of the will.  Until then “Zach” is their responsiblity.  That means they’re responsible for pushing him away from unhealthy life choices like homosexuality, shooting heroin, or selling Amway. 

shana: Come on, the kid is 16, not 4.  This is a decision he’s made himself, not one his teacher crammed down his throat.

Oh ok, if he’s made his decision I guess that’s the end of it.

Say, how about if my little girl turns 16 and decides she wants to take up smoking, live with her boyfriend, or walk the street for money?  I suppose I should just throw up my hands and get out of the way?  She’s made her decision, right?

And what makes you think you know what’s been crammed down his throat?  There’s plenty of older gay men who would love to “turn out” a 16-year-old who’s going through a rough patch.  “Just come with me, I’m the only one who understands the real you.  Here, have some crystal meth mixed with Viagra!!“

Oh ok, if he’s made his decision I guess that’s the end of it.
Say, how about if my little girl turns 16 and decides she wants to take up smoking, live with her boyfriend, or walk the street for money?  I suppose I should just throw up my hands and get out of the way?  She’s made her decision, right?

  Legally, the only approach they have is if he is actually engaging in sexual activity and even that is somewhat regulated differently from state to state.  Prostitution is illegal even for people of majority in most states so that is not a very good analogy.  Would you be supporting such drastic actions by his parents if he said that girls gave him an erection?
  It is certainly within the parents’ rights and responsibilities to protect their child from possibly dangerous activities.  As long as he is merely proclaiming sexual orientation and not practicing promiscuous, unprotected sex, then he is not endangering himself.  At what point do you allow the person self-determination?  If you had a sixteen year old child who told you that he was an atheist would you send him to an indoctrination camp?

unhealthy life choices

Suuuuuuure.  That’s their motivation.  They’re concerned about his health

“I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle

LOL. 

Yeah, I can see how this qualifies as “raising a kid” in your chosen faith.

During that previous discussion of parental rights, were there a lot of people advocating the position that parents should be allowed to engage in ritual sexual abuse of their kids, provided it was ‘part of their faith?‘

Welcome to Satanist reeducation camp.  Rules: Ritual sodomization will take place before every meal, just after the chicken sacrifices.  Do NOT use the chickens in the pen labeled ‘food’ for the ritual bestiality.

If you had a sixteen year old child who told you that he was an atheist would you send him to an indoctrination camp?

Don’t be silly.  The appropriate action, in this case, is to torture them until they repent, and then urge them to commit suicide before they ‘backslide’.  After all, better their ‘body at the stake’ then their ‘soul at stake’.

Liking men is nothing like shooting heroin. WTF

Also, gay men don’t work like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“Just come with me, I’m the only one who understands the real you.  Here, have a copy of our doctored Bible and the Watchtower.â€?

warbi: Legally, the only approach they have is if he is actually engaging in sexual activity and even that is somewhat regulated differently from state to state.

Hey, warbi the lawyer showed up to offer us a legal opinion.  Tell me, counselor, how many times have you failed the bar exam?  I only ask because you don’t seem to know jack about the law.  Legally, these parents are responsible for Zach.  If they want to send him to “Love In Action,“ or military school, or tell him to cut his hair or get a job, they can.  End of story.

Everyone seemed to agree on that when it was parents raising their kid as wiccan.  Why the sudden change of heart, everyone?

warbi: It is certainly within the parents’ rights and responsibilities to protect their child from possibly dangerous activities.  As long as he is merely proclaiming sexual orientation and not practicing promiscuous, unprotected sex, then he is not endangering himself.

Warbi’s conception of the law seems to be “the law says whatever I think it does.“  You’ve made a new precedent; we can call it the “As Long As He’s Not Endangering Himself Test.“  I’ve never heard of it before, counselor.  What case law can you cite?

In any case, deciding to be gay is certainly a “dangerous activity”.  The best way to maximize your child’s exposure to “promiscuous, unprotected sex” would be to encourage them to join the homosexual culture.

warbi: At what point do you allow the person self-determination?

After a long and healthy debate, the country decided: eighteen years of age.  Been that way since before there even was a United States.

warbi: If you had a sixteen year old child who told you that he was an atheist would you send him to an indoctrination camp?

No, but it would certainly be my right to.  Anyway, I think I could do a better job than some yahoos in Tennessee.  I’d certainly tell him that until he was 18 and living on his own, he would be coming to church every Sunday with the rest of the family, like it or lump it.

shana: Liking men is nothing like shooting heroin. WTF

Nothing like?  Off the top of my head, I’d say they’re both great ways to end up dying from AIDS.  Also they’re both escapist, short-term non-solutions to real, long-term challenges.

Cantrell, you must still be one of those people who have no idea how AIDS works.

Being gay does not mean you are automatically infected.  AIDS is causes by a virus.  It has to be caught…and, being a virus, it does not care what sort of a person it infects (gay, straight, heroin user, blood transfusion recipient).

Being gay does not mean you are going to go around and screw every gay man in sight.  Promiscuous unprotected sex is found among heterosexuals and homosexuals.  In fact, more heterosexuals engage in unprotected sex on a daily basis than homosexuals (due to the fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals).  The real problem here is not being gay, its being irresponsible with one’s sexual lifestyle (gay or straight).

As far as I can tell, the kid’s parents are not up in arms because he is being promiscuous, they are just up in arms because they are fundamentalists and he is gay.  Sexual promiscuity and AIDS is not factored in (except by those who think that “gay = AIDS”).

This kid’s parents has the legal right to send him to this “school”.  The parents are wrong, though, to try to force him to become something that he is not (a straight, god fearing individual).  What they should do is try to accept him for what he is (gay) and teach him responsibility so he doesn’t fall into a destructive sexual lifestyle.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if this “school” twisted him to think he was straight yet he caught AIDS anyway from being promiscuous with women (heck, make ‘em Christian women).  How would you, Cantrell, explain that since you seem to be stuck on the “gay = AIDS” concept?  Could somebody use this to start thinking that “Christian straight = AIDS”?

I’m guessing the whole “better to commit suicide” means only slow suicide, or jumping off something.  That way, you can commit an unreversible suicide and still have time to repent and save your soul?

Daryl said: Legally, these parents are responsible for Zach.  If they want to send him to “Love In Action,â€? or military school, or tell him to cut his hair or get a job, they can.  End of story.

Yeah, and I have no legal obligation to buy toys, and books for my 3 year old daughter.  As long has she has food and shelter, and I don’t beat her, I’m not legally required to give her hugs, kisses, tell her “I love you”, etc.  I can tell her every day that she’s dumb and ugly, then sit her down at the PS2 with Grand Theft Auto.  I’m legally required to care FOR her, not ABOUT her.

It may be legal, but that doesn’t make it a wise idea. 

Shoving someone’s face in a pile of Cher cds while paddling them with a bible and yelling “BAD QUEER! BAD QUEER!“ isn’t going to get the results you want.

It would require to sit down and talk with your child as to why they feel that way.  If forced church attendance is your way of dealing with moral problems, then I think you’re just trying to pass the buck onto the church.  I’d be more concerned with getting him to WANT to go to church, instead of shoving him in and saying “He’s here, my job’s done.“

Being gay does not mean you are going to go around and screw every gay man in sight.  Promiscuous unprotected sex is found among heterosexuals and homosexuals.  In fact, more heterosexuals engage in unprotected sex on a daily basis than homosexuals (due to the fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals).

True.  Analysis of sheer numbers aren’t good, because the homosexual community is so small. (In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 207-9.)

So what we should look at is promiscuity rates within the homosexual communiy.  An early study, done prior to the AIDS epidemic, reflects that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).  This study has come under some criticism for the methodology used.

A more recent study of the homosexual population in Chicago reflects:

...a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland—known as Chicago’s “gay center”—have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago’s citizens will appear in the upcoming book, “The Sexual Organization of The City” (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.[2005]

It does appear that the appearance of higher promiscuity rates that would be suggested anecdotally from a quick view of the culture does in fact exist. 

Furthermore, anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual, allows for the easier transmission of HIV. Anal sex can also cause small tears in the anal lining and on the penis, making it easier for the virus to enter. 

A relatively recent study in Britain found that the majority of homosexual men (60%) engage in anal sex, frequently without condom and even, if they know that they are HIV positive. (Mercer CH et al. Increasing prevalence of male homosexual partnerships and practices in Britain 1990-2000. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8)  We can’t extrapolate the British numbers to America, but I think its fair to say that on a percentage basis a homosexual will be much more likely to engage in anal sex than a heterosexual.

So if we revisit Uber’s comments, specifically this one:

The real problem here is not being gay, its being irresponsible with one’s sexual lifestyle (gay or straight).

I would agree on an individual basis.  However, from the studies available, as a general observation we can conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is much more likely to involve an irresponsible sexual lifestyle.

Consi states:

we can conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is much more likely to involve an irresponsible sexual lifestyle.

I can’t conclude that until I see a study that compares heterosexual lifestyle to homosexual life style.  A recent study (less than 20 years old) would be good.

Uber Gaijin: Cantrell, you must still be one of those people who have no idea how AIDS works.

Being gay does not mean you are automatically infected.  AIDS is causes by a virus.  It has to be caught.

Umm, thank you Captain Obvious—I thought AIDS was from dirty toilet seats and mosquito bites.  Thanks for setting me straight. (ha-ha, a pun, get it!!)

What are some of the best ways to catch the virus which causes AIDS?

> Becoming homosexual is a great one
> Become an intrevenous drug user: also a very effective way to expose yourself to HIV
> Being promiscuous works too

Of course, it’s easy to prevent AIDS:

> Don’t have sex before marriage
> Once married, remain faithful
> Don’t use drugs

This approach, which offers 100% protection against AIDS (not to mention a host of other social ills), is considered far too “radical” by many on the left.

The left is still enamoured with condoms as a method of HIV prevention.  They know perfectly well that in most cultures, getting men to use condoms is essentially impossible.  Instead of pursuing a strategy which actually works (stigmatizing illicit sex, promoting monogomous marriage), they flail ineffectively while millions die.

Uber Gaijin: Being gay does not mean you are going to go around and screw every gay man in sight.

Actually, it pretty much does.  Promiscuity is vastly higher in homosexual communities than heterosexual.

Uber Gaijin: What they should do is try to accept him for what he is (gay) and teach him responsibility so he doesn’t fall into a destructive sexual lifestyle.

Yes, and if my daughter decides to take up smoking, I shouldn’t try to stop her.  I should just accept her for what she is (a smoker), and teach her responsibility (keep it under a pack a day, all right?).  That the idea?

What a bunch of crap.  If you aren’t a tree-hugging hippy, you understand that your job as parent is to overrule your children when they make self-destructive choices.  If my child “decided” they wanted to smoke, or use drugs, or drop out of school, or sleep around, or be gay, they’d have another think coming.

The findings give no support to the idea of a promiscuous society or of a dramatic sexual revolution reflected in huge numbers of people with multiple casual sex partners. Nearly all Americans have a very modest number of partners over their adult lifetime and in the past year: 56% have had 1 to 4 partners over their lifetime and only 20% have had more than 10. The more educated people are, the more partners they have had over their life time. Of all people questioned, whether old or young, 83% had 0 or 1 sexual partner in the last year. The number of blacks or whites with more than 5 partners in the last year was small (6% and 3%, respectively).

Source http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grantsreport.jsp?filename=018403.htm&iaid=141

Contrast that with the other studies.

For someone being coined Captain Obvious, I am obviously not being obvious enough.

Still-not-quite-straight-in-a-non-sexual-way Cantrell states:

What are some of the best ways to catch the virus which causes AIDS?

> Becoming homosexual is a great one
> Become an intrevenous drug user: also a very effective way to expose yourself to HIV
> Being promiscuous works too

This is exactly what I am talking about.  With this statement, you imply that the virus can tell the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual and prefers the homosexual.  Tell me (since you seem to know), what is it about a homosexual that makes them more prone to AIDS.  If you say “their promiscuity” then it is promiscuous behavior that puts them at risk, not their orientation (thousands upon thousands of promiscuous heterosexuals are infected with a variety of STDs).  Your statement makes you seem to believe that it is orientation alone that causes an increased risk of AIDS, which is factually WRONG.  Straight now?  Doubt it…

Also, “becomming homosexual” is a strange statement.  I do not see how someone can “catch” homosexuality and thus become homosexual or would willingly choose an orientation that goes against biological drives and exposes the person to a whole slew of abuse.  Homosexulaity is not simply “a choice”.  I know this as a fact because I have seen a person re-evaluate their sexual feelings about certain people, and it almost destroyed them.  This person, under normal circumstances, would NEVER put herself, or her family, in a such a situation willingly.

  Uber Gaijin: Being gay does not mean you are going to go around and screw every gay man in sight.

Actually, it pretty much does.  Promiscuity is vastly higher in homosexual communities than heterosexual.

While I could agree that the level of promiscuity in the homosexual community is higher than the heterosexual community (especially if I saw some solid numbers), you make a gross assumption when you state that gay man = screw every gay man in sight.  I, as a heterosexual, have not screwed every woman in sight.  A friend of mine, who is rather promiscuous, has not screwed every woman in sight.  You, who I assume is sexually straight, probably have not screwed every woman in sight.  Why would you assume that a gay person would screw every gay person (of appropriate gender) in sight? 

and if my daughter decides to take up smoking, I shouldn’t try to stop her.  I should just accept her for what she is (a smoker), and teach her responsibility (keep it under a pack a day, all right?).  That the idea?

Did you remember that question?  Smoking is dangerous to one’s health, this is proven.  You assume that when a person “chooses” to be gay, they are automatically at a higher risk for AIDS infection.  This is not true; it is behavior, not orientation, that puts people at a higher risk. 

If you aren’t a tree-hugging hippy, you understand that your job as parent is to overrule your children when they make self-destructive choices.

“Tree-hugging hippy”...you really do a good job at defining your character here.

As a parent my job is to overrule my children when they make self-destructive choices.  Agreed.

Choose to do drugs = bad, overrule
Choose to smoke = bad, overrule
Choose to to be promiscuous = bad, overrule
Choose to drop out of school = bad, overrule
Choose to be gay = ???  Being gay is not automatically bad…it may not even be a choice…

Now, if you really want to be straight, understand this obvious statement: being gay does not automatically cause someone to be AIDS infected or automatically make one promiscuous.  Being gay does not make a person deserving of “reeducation”.

So…every gay person is promiscuous.

Just like every black person is a criminal, every Mexican is illegal, every atheist is evil and every Christian is a bible thumper.

I find a mentality like that far more dangerous than homosexuality.

Anyway, promiscuity isn’t the point here, the point is whether Zach’s rights are being violated. While you certainly seem to be under the impression that anyone under 18 not only has no rights, they also can’t think and decide for themselves, I can guarantee that many courts would see otherwise. No, I can’t cite specific court cases, but there have been instances where, when a minor’s decisions clash violently with their parents’, the courts have ruled that a minor’s rights are being violated.

Usually this happens when the minor’s life is jeopardy, and that isn’t the case here. But while sending Zach to that camp probably won’t kill him, it still isn’t right. The parents are sending him the message that there is something wrong with him, something worth revoking their love for him over. Would you tell your daughter, if she started smoking, that you won’t love her unless she quits? If having total control of your kids is worth that then I’d have to question your parenting skills.