AITA for refusing to take care of my parents now that they kicked me out at 16 for being gay?

Welcome back, dear readers, to another deep dive into the complex tapestry of familial obligations and heartbreaking betrayals. Today's story presents a particularly thorny dilemma, forcing us to confront the very definition of family and what we owe to those who, at one point, owed us everything. It's a tale that will undoubtedly spark a fiery debate about forgiveness, consequences, and the enduring scars of childhood trauma.\nThis week, we're dissecting a situation where a child, now an adult, is faced with the incredibly difficult decision of whether to care for the very parents who cast them aside during their most vulnerable years. The reason for their abandonment? Simply living their truth. Get ready to weigh in on whether our OP is a heartless child or a survivor rightfully protecting their peace.

"AITA for refusing to take care of my parents now that they kicked me out at 16 for being gay?"

This situation forces us to confront a fundamental question: does biological connection automatically create an unbreakable obligation, even in the face of egregious past harm? Society often dictates that we should care for our aging parents, but this presumption is usually built upon a foundation of mutual love, care, and support throughout life. When that foundation is not only absent but actively destroyed, the nature of that 'duty' becomes incredibly murky.\nThe emotional and psychological trauma of being disowned at 16, especially for an immutable part of one's identity like sexual orientation, is immense. This isn't just a disagreement; it's a complete severing of the parent-child bond at a critical developmental stage. The parents' actions forced OP into survival mode, creating deep-seated wounds and a profound sense of abandonment that doesn't simply disappear because years have passed.\nNow, these same parents, facing their own mortality and dependency, are reaching out, not out of remorse or a desire to repair the relationship, but seemingly out of necessity. This transactional request for care, after years of silence and neglect, feels less like a plea for reconciliation and more like an expectation of a service from someone they previously deemed unworthy of their love or even their home.\nUltimately, the decision rests solely with OP. No one is obligated to set themselves on fire to keep others warm, especially when those 'others' were the ones who struck the match. Self-preservation and protecting one's mental health are paramount. OP built a life from the ashes of their parents' rejection; they are not responsible for rebuilding the lives of those who burned them.

The Internet Weighs In: Can Blood Ever Be Thicker Than Betrayal?

The comments section for this one is going to be a whirlwind, but I anticipate a strong wave of support for our Original Poster. Many readers will undoubtedly resonate with the 'you reap what you sow' sentiment, arguing that the parents' past actions directly led to their current predicament. The overwhelming consensus will likely be that OP owes them absolutely nothing, especially after enduring such a cruel and unjustified abandonment at such a vulnerable age.\nWhile some might suggest that forgiveness is a virtue, the distinction between forgiving for personal peace and re-entering a potentially toxic relationship for care is crucial. The idea that OP should now sacrifice their peace and resources for individuals who caused such profound trauma will be met with significant pushback. The internet understands that 'family' isn't just blood, it's about mutual respect and love, which were demonstrably absent here.

In conclusion, the resounding sentiment here leans heavily towards validating our Original Poster's decision. Family is a bond that should offer unwavering support, especially when children are most vulnerable. When that bond is severed by bigotry and cruelty, any subsequent expectation of care from the wronged party becomes an emotional extortion. OP is not the asshole for prioritizing their well-being and acknowledging that some bridges, once burned so viciously, simply cannot, and should not, be rebuilt. Self-preservation is not selfishness; it's survival.