Staying in the closet: Is it stealing?

[simson918]

Hey all. Oftentimes in the community, closeted individuals are encouraged to remain so if they believe their financial benefactors will cut them off.  As an individual who remained closeted about my sexual orientation and my religious views throughout my adolescence, I find it difficult to condemn anyone who chooses this path, however I'd like to explore the logical implications of this course of action.

 

If an adult child is taking financial support from his or her parents with the knowledge or suspicion that they would not provide this support in the light of the child's political views, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, is the child committing fraud?

 

While I can understand why people remain closeted, I can't classify it as non-fraudulent, no different in process than a woman faking pregnancy to keep a man around, a man telling his wife that he wants kids when he doesn't, or a Nigerian prince scammer.

 

In the case of the closeted child, sometimes they extract from the parents tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of college tuition.

 

Could someone confirm my thinking here, or am I way off base?

[Coreforcruxes]

I have some thoughts here, please let me know if they are helpful. 

"While I can understand why people remain closeted, I can't classify it as non-fraudulent, no different in process than a woman faking pregnancy to keep a man around, a man telling his wife that he wants kids when he doesn't, or a Nigerian prince scammer."

 

IMO with the above statement you are applying general relationship rules to an exceptional relationship. The parents caused the child.

I think parents have an obligation to accept (on matters of moral neutrality) their child they chose to create. The parents certainly have an obligation to want to know and succeed at knowing the emotional state and desires of the child. If the parents do not already know these things about their child then the first and ongoing greatest act of fraud is committed by the parents, the child is merely applying their principle to them. 

There are plenty of reasons outside of fraud for the child to come out of the closet IMO. I think being able to acquire and distribute the resources you need to meet the goals you set is healthy. Relying on a gravy train I think has alot of negative consequences like shock when it dries up and general dependency. 

[Pepin]

I don't think it would be immoral to lie about your sexuality to your parents, as your parents have no right to know about your sexuality, though I think there would be an aesthetic issue if your parents made a contract with you with a sexuality clause. If I was a judge, I'd have a difficult time accepting any contract which had a clause pertaining to the sexual orientation of the child, as it is something which the child has no control of.

 

I don't really have a definite answer. I don't think the parents would be able to use force to get back any money from the child. But I don't know if the child ought to be viewed as slimey, or as caught in a bad situation with irrational people.

[dsayers]

In the case of the closeted child, sometimes they extract from the parents tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of college tuition.

 

This language is vague if not misleading. What do you mean extract? Did the parents give/lend the money or not? Whether the answer is yes or no, the word extract wouldn't accurately describe it.

 

Theft is taking something that belongs to somebody else without their consent.

 

Was the sexual orientation/religion a presumption or an enumerated condition of the money being given/lent? If somebody invests in something without researching it (presumption), that is not the responsibility of others. If however, both parties agree that X is a condition of the transaction (enumerated condition), then to take the money while not fulfilling that condition would be theft.

[prolix]

It is a very interesting question. On one hand you have a point, it is dishonest. But on the other-hand it is grossly neglectful of the parents to put the child in this situation. So which is a more egregious offense, a little white lie that was kind of imposed upon you? Or gross neglect of a parental responsibility? 

 

The parent is initiating the hostility in this instance and the child is responding to it. Now if you are 30 years old and you are receiving funds from parents, that is one thing, you are not a child, at least physically. But if you are 19 and off to college. I will give that a pass. And the 19 year old will, usually, become an independent entity after college. I am going to compare this to a child who is responding to abuse. No matter what the child does it is still just a response to abuse, to a certain extent. If forcing your hand on a child is abuse, and forcing religion on a child is abuse then forcing bigotry is also abuse.

 

Now obviously the child should seek support and consider an exit strategy. But that is a decision they have to make for themselves. More extreme, but it is the same for everybody, you have to compare your values and make the decisions that are right for you. Everyone's specific cases are different.

 

Now imagine it was a workplace, like the movie Philadelphia. Most anarchists know what it is like to keep a lid on views and attitudes of politics to keep their job. And I think this is also still pretty regular for gay people and even some atheists. It is all about weighing your options. Much like anarchists pay taxes. It is a response to NAP violations of the state tax "system". Anarchists are not being disingenuous when they are paying taxes, no, they are responding to the initiation of force with all things considered. Cost vs. benefit.

 

In short, no. Fuck the parents, they are bigots and they would have supported you if they were not bigots. They set aside college money and withhold it because of bigotry, that is the genesis of the situation and the choices of the parent. A child does not have to take responsibility for the irrational bigotry of the parent except in so far as healing themselves from the damage of being subjected to the bigotry of the parents...

[simson918]

This is precisely what makes the topic interesting to me.  This is a circumstance in which most people, (myself included) would advise someone to stay closeted if they believe they'll be cut off, yet upon analysis the action I would advocate, and in fact took for four years with my parents, seems to be fraudulent at best. If I am advocating the consistent application of principle, I don't think I can so flippantly dismiss the fraud simply because the people against whom the fraud is committed are unsympathetic.  This is precisely the kind of emotional fallacy the statists use to justify various plunder programs.

 

The fact is that the parents have the right to be massive bigoted jerks with their own property.  I fail to see how someone saying "You are no longer welcome in my house." violates the NAP, regardless of the reason.  I was very careful to state that the financial relationship is between two adult parties.  It's not enough to say, "They're closed-minded ignorant fools."  The parents are providing resources to the child presumably because the parents agree with the goals of the child, but given the set of beliefs practiced by the parent and the child, it could easily be that the goals of the two are quite at odds.

[AynRand]

I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. I think that's terrible your parents appear to be close minded about this. In my personal opinion it is not fraud to lie about this especially when you have no control over this. I agree with Prolix's statement about anarchists paying taxes. Their is no choice but to pay taxes or face a negative outcome. This situation while hopefully less violent is still comparable because again their is no control over this. You have to pretend to be straight or face a negative outcome.

[WasatchMan]

I agree with Prolix.  If someone's bigotry is the only thing between them giving you money or not, I wouldn't be too hard on yourself for not throwing yourself under the bigots wheels.  Taking the money and doing something good with it is the best option I see.

[prolix]

Take the money and have gay sex in their bed when they are at church...

[dsayers]

Gosh, it sure would be nice if the post I made in this thread 12 hours ago could make it live already.

[HordOfTheFlies]

First I will say that I don't think parents have the obligation to specifically send their children to university or provide non-essential assistance.  However once a parent has offered it I don't think they can ever conditionalize it.  By applying conditions to this type of assistance they are effectively saying that they would provide those resources to their child if only they had a slightly different child.  So to them it's not a matter of whether or not the resources are used for the stated purpose.  The resources are already allocated.  By lying to them you are simply being pragmatic about the way in which you receive the resources that were promised to you.  You have no obligation to be honest to your parents if they are not honest with you.  If they offered assistance without conditions then they were lying because they are now applying conditions.  That doesn't say whether or not you should or shouldn't accept this assistance but I don't find it immoral if you do.

 

 

IMO with the above statement you are applying general relationship rules to an exceptional relationship.

 

This is the crux of the matter.  Without familial ties individuals owe each other nothing and must create value relationships with each other.  The parent-child relationship is wholly different from inception.  Choices with known consequences are made in this arena and as a member of this relationship you must always remember that children are completely dependent on their parents for survival.  These are not random people that just appeared in your life.  These are people that made very specific decisions that you are now a part of with little to no control (at least early on).  Ignoring this detail allows the argument to be reduced to something petty like money which is just a symptom of the much larger issue.

[fractional slacker]

Correct me if I am wrong but this is how I interpret this proposition: Is it okay to manipulate a person who is manipulative?

[HordOfTheFlies]

Correct me if I am wrong but this is how I interpret this proposition: Is it okay to manipulate a person who is manipulative?

 

I wouldn't phrase it that way.  For one thing I don't think the withholding of information is manipulative.  If your parents say "I will give my child a university education" then not telling them about your sexual orientation isn't manipulating them because you already meet the requirements for their communicated action.  No other qualification is necessary.

 

If you are confronted about your sexual orientation then I still wouldn't call it manipulation.  Since no prior conditions were set you still meet the objective standard set forth in the implied contract between you and your parents when they said they would gift you something without conditions.  If they now apply conditions then that constitutes fraud on their part.  At that point you are unable to trust their words or actions so you cannot know if you are manipulating them or not.  They are free to change their behavior at any time without regard to prior interaction.  It would be like negotiating with the Mad Hatter.

[prolix]

Take the money and have gay sex in their bed when they are at church...

Can anyone explain to me why I got 2 negs and no counterpoints for this post? It was a joke. The joke being an extreme summary without context in contrast to my previous post which was, er, quite verbose on the subject. So somebody just came and dropped a neg without telling me why that deserves a neg. How is that neg-worthy? Why would you neg and not explain yourself?