Should families who reject LGBT children by guilty of abuse?

[Hajaland]

No that was clearly me, but it's hardly the beginning of the discussion. Nor the entirety of what I've said of the subject.

And yet it is a clear statement that can be proven or disproven, which is what my point attempted, and in my opinion succeded, to do.
It is the point I'm addressing and the point I want you to address.

You claim that transgenderism meets all the requirements for being a mental illness.
Well, no, it doesn't.

It meets all the requirements of World Health Organisation. If you have a problem with that definition, I'm happy to hear you lay out your issues with it.

[Dream Rua]

It's a hard question to ask.

It is an easy question to answer.

[Holocaust Never Happened]

It's a hard question to ask.

It is an easy question to answer.

Is it really?

Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children, to raise them correctly. If a child of a very religious person turns out to be gay, they will believe that they did something wrong along the way, whatever they do to "get rid of the gay" will be out of a fear that they failed as a parent. They will be despised by their religious community for having a homosexual child, and despised by the rest of the community for trying to get rid of the homosexuality.

It's a hard question when you think about someone other than yourself.

[Dream Rua]

It is an easy question to answer.

Is it really?

Parents are supposed to be responsible for their children, to raise them correctly. If a child of a very religious person turns out to be gay, they will believe that they did something wrong along the way, whatever they do to "get rid of the gay" will be out of a fear that they failed as a parent. They will be despised by their religious community for having a homosexual child, and despised by the rest of the community for trying to get rid of the homosexuality.

It's a hard question when you think about someone other than yourself.

Religion has absolutely no bearing on a parent's legal responsibility to provide a safe environment for their children.

[Alvecia]

And yet it is a clear statement that can be proven or disproven, which is what my point attempted, and in my opinion succeded, to do.
It is the point I'm addressing and the point I want you to address.

You claim that transgenderism meets all the requirements for being a mental illness.
Well, no, it doesn't.

It meets all the requirements of World Health Organisation. If you have a problem with that definition, I'm happy to hear you lay out your issues with it.

I believe I did exactly that:

According to DSM-IV, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern which is associated with distress (e.g. via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however it excludes normal responses such as grief from loss of a loved one, and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.[6][7]

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder.

The DSM

is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together with alternatives such as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO). The DSM is now in its fifth edition, DSM-5, published on May 18, 2013.

I've just read through the ICD-10 and it does not specifically define "mental disorders", simply defines the symptoms.
Transgenderism is included as a Gender Identity Disorder, also know as gender dysphoria.
The APA addresses this:

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

Conclusion: Transgenderism does not fit the current criteria for "Mental illness" or "mental disorder". Instead it is seperately classified as "Gender Dysphoria" which itself is contentious as it "incorrectly pathologises" transgenderism.

[United Marxist Nations]

In that case, I would rather just let the state take them off my hands if they were to transition against my will.

Your will does not absolve your responsibility.

I don't think there is a responsibility to sponsor what you view as sin.

[Dream Rua]

Your will does not absolve your responsibility.

I don't think there is a responsibility to sponsor what you view as sin.

The law does not provide exceptions for your religious views.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't think there is a responsibility to sponsor what you view as sin.

The law does not provide exceptions for your religious views.

Then, as I said, I'd put them up for adoption rather than sponsor sin.

[Dream Rua]

The law does not provide exceptions for your religious views.

Then, as I said, I'd put them up for adoption rather than sponsor sin.

I see, I see.

So, would you neglect your kid and shirk your legal obligations until the child was adopted, or would you suffer the humility of your religious community by feeding the sinful little child you created until you could find another enabler?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

The law does not provide exceptions for your religious views.

Then, as I said, I'd put them up for adoption rather than sponsor sin.

And this is why you should never, ever have children.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then, as I said, I'd put them up for adoption rather than sponsor sin.

I see, I see.

So, would you neglect your kid and shirk your legal obligations until the child was adopted, or would you suffer the humility of your religious community by feeding the sinful little child you created until you could find another enabler?

I would do my best to prevent the sin in the first place by instilling religious values in the child and helping them to resist their urges, getting counselors and medication for depression if necessary; however, if they were hell-bent on doing so, then I fail to see how we would be reconcilable.

[Dream Rua]

I would do my best to prevent the sin in the first place by instilling religious values in the child and helping them to resist their urges, getting counselors and medication for depression if necessary; however, if they were hell-bent on doing so, then I fail to see how we would be reconcilable.

Would that be your answer to every sin, or just homosexuality? For example, if your developed an unshakeable case of envy for the boy next door because his parents treated him like a human child, would that sin be enough to get him kicked out?

[United Marxist Nations]

I would do my best to prevent the sin in the first place by instilling religious values in the child and helping them to resist their urges, getting counselors and medication for depression if necessary; however, if they were hell-bent on doing so, then I fail to see how we would be reconcilable.

Would that be your answer to every sin, or just homosexuality? For example, if your developed an unshakeable case of envy for the boy next door because his parents treated him like a human child, would that sin be enough to get him kicked out?

Most serious sins. If my child was intent on going out and having casual sex all the time, I wouldn't accept it. If they genuinely repented of the deed, I would forgive them, though, as I would with a homosexual person. As I said, slip-ups happen, it is persistence and unrepentence that would make us irreconcilable.

As for sins of thought, those cannot really be helped. It is the sins of act that I would consider the most serious, though.

[Dream Rua]

Most serious sins.

Is there a list of serious sins? Since only most of them would earn your kid a parental shun, which of them would be acceptable?

[The Alma Mater]

Most serious sins.

Is there a list of serious sins? Since only most of them would earn your kid a parental shun, which of them would be acceptable?

Lefthandedness is a very serious one I daresay. Using the sinister hand has always been a sign of devilworshipping after all.

[United Marxist Nations]

Most serious sins.

Is there a list of serious sins? Since only most of them would earn your kid a parental shun, which of them would be acceptable?

Well, the Roman Catholic Church actually does have a list of sins that they consider more serious than others, but I mainly mean sins that are actions.

As I said, it would only earn the shun if it is repeated and unrepentant. If my child were to have homosexual relations once, twice, or even three or more times because he or she was overcome with lust, I wouldn't reject them for that.

[Dream Rua]

Is there a list of serious sins? Since only most of them would earn your kid a parental shun, which of them would be acceptable?

Well, the Roman Catholic Church actually does have a list of sins that they consider more serious than others, but I mainly mean sins that are actions.

As I said, it would only earn the shun if it is repeated and unrepentant. If my child were to have homosexual relations once, twice, or even three or more times because he or she was overcome with lust, I wouldn't reject them for that.

And yet, no matter what nonsense one believes or feels, the law is clear: you are obligated to provide for your child.

For instance, even though I have elevated levels of negative feelings towards parents who abandon their children, the law says I will suffer negative consequences if I punch then in the face.

[Serksis Federation]

Then, as I said, I'd put them up for adoption rather than sponsor sin.

And this is why you should never, ever have children.

No its not, putting a child up for adoption for violating rules set by their parents is not illegal nor is it wrong. Also in this case it would stop several problems in the child's upbringing. There is also the fact that there is not a 100% chance this person's kid will be lgbt.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church actually does have a list of sins that they consider more serious than others, but I mainly mean sins that are actions.

As I said, it would only earn the shun if it is repeated and unrepentant. If my child were to have homosexual relations once, twice, or even three or more times because he or she was overcome with lust, I wouldn't reject them for that.

And yet, no matter what nonsense one believes or feels, the law is clear: you are obligated to provide for your child.

For instance, even though I have elevated levels of negative feelings towards parents who abandon their children, the law says I will suffer negative consequences if I punch then in the face.

Putting a kid up for adoption is not illegal, no matter the reason.

The law also say that if a parent abuses a child at ALL, no matter the reason if it be lgbt related or not. Abuse is abuse, adoption is NOT abuse.

[Grenartia]

And this is why you should never, ever have children.

No its not, putting a child up for adoption for violating rules set by their parents is not illegal nor is it wrong. Also in this case it would stop several problems in the child's upbringing. There is also the fact that there is not a 100% chance this person's kid will be lgbt.

And yet, no matter what nonsense one believes or feels, the law is clear: you are obligated to provide for your child.

For instance, even though I have elevated levels of negative feelings towards parents who abandon their children, the law says I will suffer negative consequences if I punch then in the face.

Putting a kid up for adoption is not illegal, no matter the reason.

The law also say that if a parent abuses a child at ALL, no matter the reason if it be lgbt related or not. Abuse is abuse, adoption is NOT abuse.

While everything you say is true, and that putting a kid up for adoption is infinitely preferable to abusing said kid, I do think that if you are, for whatever reason, incapable of supporting a child who is LGBT, precisely because they are LGBT, to the extent that your options are abandoning them, abusing them, or giving them up for adoption, then you probably shouldn't be having kids in the first place. It shows a clear signal that you are not mature enough as a person to handle the responsibility of guiding a child into a reasonably well-adjusted adult.

[Raventsvo]

Yes they should go to tolerance gulag

[Grenartia]

Yes they should go to tolerance gulag

Do they serve tolerance goulash in the tolerance gulag?

[Isyrannaea]

Yes they should go to tolerance gulag

No.

[Serksis Federation]

No its not, putting a child up for adoption for violating rules set by their parents is not illegal nor is it wrong. Also in this case it would stop several problems in the child's upbringing. There is also the fact that there is not a 100% chance this person's kid will be lgbt.




Putting a kid up for adoption is not illegal, no matter the reason.

The law also say that if a parent abuses a child at ALL, no matter the reason if it be lgbt related or not. Abuse is abuse, adoption is NOT abuse.

While everything you say is true, and that putting a kid up for adoption is infinitely preferable to abusing said kid, I do think that if you are, for whatever reason, incapable of supporting a child who is LGBT, precisely because they are LGBT, to the extent that your options are abandoning them, abusing them, or giving them up for adoption, then you probably shouldn't be having kids in the first place. It shows a clear signal that you are not mature enough as a person to handle the responsibility of guiding a child into a reasonably well-adjusted adult.

If you resort to abandoning or abusing any kid for any reason you shouldn't be having children in your care and surprise, there are laws already active against this. If a person would put their kid up for adoption due to changing circumstances, like finding out they are lgbt does not mean the person shouldn't have kids. A reason for them to not have kids but not that they shouldn't have kids. It also has nothing to do with maturity, a part of being mature is not being accepting, and open, and positive to anything or everything.

[Alvecia]

Yes they should go to tolerance gulag

Do they serve tolerance goulash in the tolerance gulag?

They do, but it's rather ghoulish gulag goulash

[Raventsvo]

Do they serve tolerance goulash in the tolerance gulag?

They do, but it's rather ghoulish gulag goulash

What he said