9.11

[Sammy Blue]

Well, are you saying that Will should prefer Matt because they are related? And you cannot pick your family, but your family can make it clear that they have no interested in being your family.

 

Actually, a while back we were discussing about the Danfields become a core-part of the CAP family... Matt is related to Robbie and Frank. Technically, he is Will's stepbrother.

 

Wade has a son with Tiffany. Tiffany is the ex-partner of Jeanine, which should in a way make her the same to Will as Robbie was. The age difference makes thinking like this problematic, though, as well as the fact that Tiffany never had a 'mother' role. So Wade is the father of... Will's kind of stepbrother Riley? In a way? (though Will would probably consider Riley more of a nephew...)

 

I might confuse myself here. The point is though, Wade is a part of the family, or is he not? Will is related to neither of them by blood and when it comes to marriages and arrangements there is not much difference either. The only difference you could see is that Will considered Robbie as his father and that should make Matt his brother. Matt however never really considered Will a brother and Will reacted accordingly.  Will statement here was not really that he preferred Wade, his statement was that for the sake of Wade he is cutting Matt some slack.

 

I mean, what exactly makes you part of the family and what does not. As far as I remember Wade is considered part of the family by everyone. I think there was one point when JP made it clear to him that even if he splits up with Matt, he still belongs to the family. Hence they should be 'equally' related...

 

edit: so yeah, my earlier statement in the last post about the blood relationship was kinda nonsense then... I just figured that while I was writing this... damn someone make a family tree pwetty please? :S

Edited January 14, 2014 by Sammy Blue

[Kitt]

We've tried family trees - they come out looking more like a honeysuckle bush or a wild grape vine.

 

I have to disagree with Tim ( big surprise huh?) - while you cannot pick who mother nature sticks you with for relatives - you most certainly CAN choose who you include in your family. 

 

JP CHOSE to include Brad - the son of his cousin's wife and the man she had an affair with and therefore no blood relation- in the Crampton/Shulter family. Robbie became a member of the family thru becoming Brad's partner, as did Frank when he joined with Isadore, both of which were choices.  Hell - even Ace is biologically unrelated to the family.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Kitt

[Mark Arbour]

I think that it is a given that Wade is considered part of the family, but any speculation on that was ended back in Bloodlines, when JP told Wade he would adopt him in a  minute.  I think it was further solidified when JP and Stef gave Wade the ring in Paternity. 

 

This family has adopted many people without direct bloodlines, so that really isn't a factor.  Brad and Will, for example, are not biologically related to anyone at Escorial. 

[B1ue]

I have to disagree with Tim ( big surprise huh?) - while you cannot pick who mother nature sticks you with for relatives - you most certainly CAN choose who you include in your family. 

 I have to disagree strongly with this. And in terms of this story, I'm not certain all the characters would see it that way. Clearly, Will does, which has in many ways poisoned the well for me. I don't think JP does. Even when Brian represented a clear danger to the rest of the family, I doubt he ever stopped seeing him as a brother. That wouldn't have prevented him from having him killed; if anything, it made it his duty to do so, and passing that duty on to Brad must have about killed him.

 

I think Wade feels mostly along JP's lines. Tonto as well. Probably Claire and Jack, possibly Ace as well. Brad less so. I would hope that JP would have been able to temper his mother's influence, but apparently not.

Edited January 14, 2014 by B1ue

[Kitt]

I think I am missing something here B1ue. You disagree that you can choose who you wish to include in your family that is not biologically related?

 

My statement was while you cannot choose who is biologically related, you can choose to include people not biologically related. JP did that when he raised Ace (Andre and Isadores son) and Brad ( Janice Shulter and Kevin Carmichael's son).

[Sammy Blue]

As well as you can choose to exclude those who are biologically related, as happened with Brian.

 

I am not sure if we're talking about the same definition of family here. I didn't understand B1ue's post either.

[B1ue]

As well as you can choose to exclude those who are biologically related, as happened with Brian.

 This. I disagree with this.

 

And quite possibly, we're operating under different definitions of family. I think people too often use it to mean, "closer than a friend." I am trying not to give offense, and not judge what I have no business judging, but this kind of working definition basically offends everything I believe in, so it's a bit of a struggle.

[Sammy Blue]

We all have our own ideas of how to define what a family is, but if we do this we should be more clear about it. I think this topic developed from "about the CAP family" to "our own ideas". That is interesting to discuss, of course, but we should be clear on what is what. Are we talking about how the CAP family deals with it? Or what are general values in our respective societies? Or is it about our own opinion? I was referring to the way the CAP family thinks.

 

If we discuss what status Wade and Matt have in the family, and what relationships Will has with them, then we have to apply the way the CAP family, particularly JP, sees things, and how the persons who are included in a conflict (Wade, Matt, Will, etc:) see things. Anything else is nice to talk about but won't help us much for the issue. It IS a fact that a member of the CAP family has been disowned before, so that means that it IS a real, possible option of what JP could do in another case, too. (though when we talk of Matt that is besides the point, ofc. I'm just explaining what I meant there.). However, we can still discuss those values and compare them with our own.

 

I think I see where you are coming from, I don't really agree with the way the CAP family sees it, either (I like reading it, though). There is probably no other demographic group that knows this topic as well as we do. "No son if mine is gay." In fact, there is a lot of people who believe they can choose their family and that might make this an even more sensitive issue.

 

I think we all can agree that you cannot choose your biological family (well, honor killings aside).

 

We probably all agree on the fact that you can fully include members into your family that are not biologically related. If anyone has doubts, then they are probably not a good choice when it comes to adoption.

 

As you said, the issue is with excluding family members. The question is: What does it mean to exclude a member of your family?

Let's take Brian (that was his name, right?) as an example. He was pretty malicious. He can forfeit his place in the family, physically. Everyone might stop having contact to him. It is understandable, too. There is a certain point where I think everyone would cut the ties.

 

However, does that really mean that he is not a family member anymore? I personally do not think so. As long as he lives, he is a part of the family. Even if he is persona non grata, he is still part of the family, and his existence will still have an impact on other family members. His actions will be linked to the family, if they are known. A person will still be thought of as father, brother, mother, etc. Technically he is still a member of the family. Many stories on here and elsewhere deal with teens that are kicked out of their homes because they are gay. It is often a topic that they 'choose' their new family, say that their family is dead to them. Is that really true, though? I don't think so. In a way, you are stuck with your family. The memories remain and sometimes they might haunt you. That is what I think family might mean, emotionally.

 

But that does not mean that you might not cut all ties to a family member. Is it right? Perhaps, if the circumstances are accordingly. So in that case a person would be part of the family, but in a way they would be not. I doubt that this is that simple that you can say "it is this way, and no other".

 

Maybe it would make sense to see things in several levels, just like you could do a family tree for the cap family, showing who is biologically related, and then one to show who considers whom to be what, who is in what relationships, etc. They would differ a lot. And so would different definitions of family differ about what the CAP family looks like (or any family for that matter).

 

I wonder though: Do you mean it is wrong to exclude a member of the family? Or do you mean it is not possible to do so, emotionally, or whatever the right word is... well, what I elaborated above. In that case we might even agree, in the end.

 

Ps: Those are just some thoughts. It's what I have thought through for maybe an hour, but not my life philosophy. So if you can change my mind or explain how you see things, I'd be glad to hear anyone's opinion. ^^ Oh and I don't judge, either. :3

Edited January 15, 2014 by Sammy Blue

[PrivateTim]

We've tried family trees - they come out looking more like a honeysuckle bush or a wild grape vine.

 

I have to disagree with Tim ( big surprise huh?) - while you cannot pick who mother nature sticks you with for relatives - you most certainly CAN choose who you include in your family. 

 

JP CHOSE to include Brad - the son of his cousin's wife and the man she had an affair with and therefore no blood relation- in the Crampton/Shulter family. Robbie became a member of the family thru becoming Brad's partner, as did Frank when he joined with Isadore, both of which were choices.  Hell - even Ace is biologically unrelated to the family.

 

And of course you miss the point and the connection.

 

Everyone is saying, "how can Matt do that to his brother", but no one has any problem what Will is doing to his "aunt and uncle" (Wally and Clara) and "cousin" (Gathan). You can't get around the fact that they are all Hayes and Robbie's family. That is part of not being able to choose your family. If Will is Robbie's son, then the Hayes are his family.

 

Will was actually closer to Gathan than Matt before he started playing hide the salami with Zach, but now he has no problem treating Gathan like dirt because there is tension between Zach and Gathan. He never treated Matt that well to begin with, but wants to pull the "family" card now?

 

And no one seems to have an issue with how quickly Will forgave Zach for having sex with John and creating family problems between Brad and Claire. If family is that important you would think it would have taken more than a day or two to get over the issues with Zach and then suddenly believe every word from Zach's mouth as gospel.

 

So far Will has a pretty poor track record at choosing potential boyfriends.

[rjo]

The relationships from the very beginning of this saga are not about blood and about love. A few example ACE, BRAD, CLARA. Brad is related to no one by blood and Ace and Clara only have the same mother, Isidore. That is also true about Matt, Darius, JJ and Will. Darius and JJ have the same mother. Will and Matt are not related at all by blood. The same can be said about JP and Stef. Tonto and JP, Brad and Tonto. however that does not make the tie any less binding. Darius JJ and Will were raised as brothers. Ace and Brad and Cara were raised the same. JP once said to Billy after Brad found Robbie, none of they ( Ace, Brad , or Billy were his children by blood, but he thought of them as his sons. Brian was voted out, exclued from the family. Wade, Marcel, and Matt included not because of blood but love. I feel that that is one of the great strengths of this family not its weakness. I hope you do to. and Tim that dog is died bury it please. As for Will's boyfriends, Jake was Brads first.

Edited January 15, 2014 by rjo

[PrivateTim]

The relationships from the very beginning of this saga are not about blood and about love. A few example ACE, BRAD, CLARA. Brad is related to no one by blood and Ace and Clara only have the same mother, Isidore. That is also true about Matt, Darius, JJ and Will. Darius and JJ have the same mother. Will and Matt are not related at all by blood. The same can be said about JP and Stef. Tonto and JP, Brad and Tonto. however that does not make the tie any less binding. Darius JJ and Will were raised as brothers. Ace and Brad and Cara were raised the same. JP once said to Billy after Brad found Robbie, none of they ( Ace, Brad , or Billy were his children by blood, but he thought of them as his sons. Brian was voted out, exclued from the family. Wade, Marcel, and Matt included not because of blood but love. I feel that that is one of the great strengths of this family not its weakness. I hope you do to. and Tim that dog is died bury it please. As for Will's boyfriends, Jake was Brads first.

 

If Matt is not Will's "brother" because there is no love there, then everyone should stop busting Matt's balls that Will gets to tell Matt who he can sleep with because they are "brothers".

 

If Matt is Will's "brother" because Matt is Will's father's son, then the other Hayes are Will's family too.

 

You can not have it both ways.

 

The family did not meet Matt and decide to let him be a family member, he came into the family because he was Robbie's son and Wade came in because he was Matt's boyfriend.

 

Ace and Billy were his son's because they were his wife's children and Brad he took in out of family obligation. Brad was not a stranger.

[Mark Arbour]

Why can't Will have simply said, "thank you for the apology, but I am going to need time to process it still." That is what a wise beyond his years person would have said while Wally & Clara await THEIR apology from Will.

 

Actually, Will would only say that if he were a liar, because Will didn't feel that way.  Will was honest and direct; he didn't rant and rave, and neither did Matt.  They both said their piece, and it was done.  I'm not finding fault on either side of that exchange.  

 

 

 

Everyone is saying, "how can Matt do that to his brother", but no one has any problem what Will is doing to his "aunt and uncle" (Wally and Clara) and "cousin" (Gathan). You can't get around the fact that they are all Hayes and Robbie's family. That is part of not being able to choose your family. If Will is Robbie's son, then the Hayes are his family.

 

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to have different standards for siblings than for distant cousins.

 

 

Will was actually closer to Gathan than Matt before he started playing hide the salami with Zach, but now he has no problem treating Gathan like dirt because there is tension between Zach and Gathan.

 

 

 

Will and Gathan have argued about Zach, but I don't remember where they're not close anymore, or how Will has treated him like dirt.  I think this is something they disagree on.  Happens to friends from time to time.

 

And no one seems to have an issue with how quickly Will forgave Zach for having sex with John and creating family problems between Brad and Claire. If family is that important you would think it would have taken more than a day or two to get over the issues with Zach and then suddenly believe every word from Zach's mouth as gospel.

 

 

 

Lets remember that it took Will much longer than a day or two for him to forgive Zach for sleeping with John.  The incident with John happened in the Spring of 2000, and here it is, the Fall of 2001, when Will is finally, uh, friendly with Zach again.  I think the counter-argument, that Will carried a grudge for way too long, is much more plausible.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mark Arbour

[Kitt]

And of course you miss the point and the connection.

 

Everyone is saying, "how can Matt do that to his brother", but no one has any problem what Will is doing to his "aunt and uncle" (Wally and Clara) and "cousin" (Gathan). You can't get around the fact that they are all Hayes and Robbie's family. That is part of not being able to choose your family. If Will is Robbie's son, then the Hayes are his family.

 

Will was actually closer to Gathan than Matt before he started playing hide the salami with Zach, but now he has no problem treating Gathan like dirt because there is tension between Zach and Gathan. He never treated Matt that well to begin with, but wants to pull the "family" card now?

 

And no one seems to have an issue with how quickly Will forgave Zach for having sex with John and creating family problems between Brad and Claire. If family is that important you would think it would have taken more than a day or two to get over the issues with Zach and then suddenly believe every word from Zach's mouth as gospel.

 

So far Will has a pretty poor track record at choosing potential boyfriends.

And of course - YOU miss the point again.

 

Matts poor, thoughtless and childish behaviors cannot be excused by anyone else's behavior.  

 

Even if we were to stipulate ( which I do NOT) that all of Wills behavior has been poor for the last three books - that does NOT make it right to for Matt to behave in the manner he has. Multiple wrongs do not make the behaviors right.

[PrivateTim]

Actually, Will would only say that if he were a liar, because Will didn't feel that way.  Will was honest and direct; he didn't rant and rave, and neither did Matt.  They both said their piece, and it was done.  I'm not finding fault on either side of that exchange.  

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to have different standards for siblings than for distant cousins.

 

Will and Gathan have argued about Zach, but I don't remember where they're not close anymore, or how Will has treated him like dirt.  I think this is something they disagree on.  Happens to friends from time to time.

 

Lets remember that it took Will much longer than a day or two for him to forgive Zach for sleeping with John.  The incident with John happened in the Spring of 2000, and here it is, the Fall of 2001, when Will is finally, uh, friendly with Zach again.  I think the counter-argument, that Will carried a grudge for way too long, is much more plausible.

 

Telling the truth is way overrated. When the truth will only fuel more animosity and telling a half truth won't cause any harm, you choose the lesser of two weevils.

 

It is not unreasonable to have different standards for siblings and cousins, but Matt was not raised with Will as a sibling and no matter how distant cousins the Hayes family are, they were important to Robbie and that should be enough for Will to treat the Hayes cousins better. Will has never treated Matt the way he does Darius and JJ, so this "Darius and JJ wouldn't do that" argument is specious.

 

Even since Will started fucking dating Zach he hasn't had a civil word to say to Gathan, he is perpetually pissed off at him.

 

Will did have longer than a day to forgive him, but hadn't. He was still cynical and suspicious of Zach the night of Robbie's memorial, but seven and a half inches later he had forgiven Zach and bought him a car.

 

And of course - YOU miss the point again.

 

Matts poor, thoughtless and childish behaviors cannot be excused by anyone else's behavior.  

 

Even if we were to stipulate ( which I do NOT) that all of Wills behavior has been poor for the last three books - that does NOT make it right to for Matt to behave in the manner he has. Multiple wrongs do not make the behaviors right.

 

No, you miss the point that people with no moral standards can not impose on or expect moral standards of others

 

The is no right or wrong when you do what ever you want because you have the money to make it so, there is only want.

[Mark Arbour]

Telling the truth is way overrated.

 

[rjo]

Mark, isn't Tim a lawyer? I thought lawyers always thought Truth and Justice were the most important? Was I wrong?

[B1ue]

And of course - YOU miss the point again.

 

Matts poor, thoughtless and childish behaviors cannot be excused by anyone else's behavior.  

 

Even if we were to stipulate ( which I do NOT) that all of Wills behavior has been poor for the last three books - that does NOT make it right to for Matt to behave in the manner he has. Multiple wrongs do not make the behaviors right.

Not sure where you see Matt's behavior being defended. I think Tim was saying that Will is trying to act like a moral compass, when the morality he's demanding isn't even something he can live up to himself. It's more Will's reaction being analyzed rather than Matt's behavior being defended.

 

Or, to put it more simply, they're both being idiots, but only one of them is being called on it.

[Gene Splicer PHD]

GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF BEANS

 

[Sammy Blue]

LOL don't give Mark ideas, or we will after the next chapter.

[GLH]

This reminds me of all those Thanksgiving dinners during my childhood when my Dad and his four brothers would get together and argue about EVERYTHING under the sun.  The truly funny part was they all pretty much agreed on the subject, it was the semantics that got in their way. 

[mmike1969]

GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF BEANS

 

Wait. What kind of beans?

[Daddydavek]

Are we talking a 7 inch paper plate or a 12 inch banquet dinner plate?

[mmike1969]

To be fair, Some People are not used to hearing the truth let alone speaking the truth.

Edited January 16, 2014 by mmike1969

[PrivateTim]

To be fair, Some People are not used to hearing the truth let alone speaking the truth.

 

<media>

[Mark Arbour]

<media>

That has to be one of the best movie scenes ever.  Ever.