Should families who reject LGBT children by guilty of abuse?

[Grenartia]

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.

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.

1. Note that nothing I said goes against that in any way.

2. A reason for them to not have kids is a reason they should not have kids.

3. The underlined has nothing to do with maturity.

[Grenartia]

Do they serve tolerance goulash in the tolerance gulag?

They do, but it's rather ghoulish gulag goulash

Do they serve the ghoulish gulag goulash in galoshes?

[Alvecia]

They do, but it's rather ghoulish gulag goulash

Do they serve the ghoulish gulag goulash in galoshes?

Indeed, the ghoulish gulag goulash is served in galoshes by ghastly ghosts.

[Serksis Federation]

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.

1. Note that nothing I said goes against that in any way.

2. A reason for them to not have kids is a reason they should not have kids.

3. The underlined has nothing to do with maturity.

1. Correct, so why should a family who rejects their child by putting them up for adoption (because adoption method would be included in the sphere of rejection) be guilty for child abuse?

3. How would not being accepting, and open, and positive to anything or everything be 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?

[Grenartia]

1. Note that nothing I said goes against that in any way.

2. A reason for them to not have kids is a reason they should not have kids.

3. The underlined has nothing to do with maturity.

1. Correct, so why should a family who rejects their child by putting them up for adoption (because adoption method would be included in the sphere of rejection) be guilty for child abuse?

3. How would not being accepting, and open, and positive to anything or everything be 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?

1. Please direct me to where I ever said that they should be.

3. Can you rephrase the question into something less confusing?

[Serksis Federation]

1. Correct, so why should a family who rejects their child by putting them up for adoption (because adoption method would be included in the sphere of rejection) be guilty for child abuse?

3. How would not being accepting, and open, and positive to anything or everything be 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?

1. Please direct me to where I ever said that they should be.

3. Can you rephrase the question into something less confusing?

1. The entire thread is if parents who reject their lgbt kids by abusing, abandoning, or putting them up for adoption should be guilty of abuse. I pointed out that the first two were already illegal for all kids, and you agreed. Making the only part of the thread up for debate would be if lgbt kids getting put up for adoption for being lgbt would be considered abuse. To which I say no, and you disagree. So why should a family who rejects their child by putting them up for adoption (because adoption method would be included in the sphere of rejection) be guilty for child 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.

By putting the kid up for adoption the family is not being open, positive, accepting to their kid being lgbt. In the next sentence you correlated this to maturity and raising a well-adjusted adult. How would not being accepting, and open, and positive to a lgbt person be 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?


Perhaps I misunderstood.

[Mammoth Weed Mountain]

If you physically abuse LGBT child, just for being LGBT, obviously yes. But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

[Vassenor]

If you physically abuse LGBT child, just for being LGBT, obviously yes. But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

What about psychological abuse?

[Mammoth Weed Mountain]

If you physically abuse LGBT child, just for being LGBT, obviously yes. But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

What about psychological abuse?

That's a more complex issue, and I don't know enough about it to make a comment.

[Bottle]

If you physically abuse LGBT child, just for being LGBT, obviously yes. But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

What about psychological abuse?

Might help if a clear definition of psychological abuse were provided. I don't know that there is any real consensus on what constitutes psychological abuse and where to draw the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable treatment.

[Central European Commonwealth]

But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

Who are the parents to "disagree" with how their child's emotions are wired and give their child grief for that?

And before someone mentions "sexual behavior" - maybe it would be good if parents don't fantasize so much about how their kids are having sex.

[Bottle]

But if you just disagree with their decision, no.

Who are the parents to "disagree" with how their child's emotions are wired and give their child grief for that?

And before someone mentions "sexual behavior" - maybe it would be good if parents don't fantasize so much about how their kids are having sex.

I don't think this is a strong argument. Parents get to disagree with their children's choices, and parents are SUPPOSED to regulate their minor children's "sexual behavior" to an extent.

I think it's crummy (and pointless) to disagree with homosexuality. I think it's crummy to vocally disapprove of one's gay child. But I don't think it's inherently abusive to do so.

[Esternial]

Who are the parents to "disagree" with how their child's emotions are wired and give their child grief for that?

And before someone mentions "sexual behavior" - maybe it would be good if parents don't fantasize so much about how their kids are having sex.

I don't think this is a strong argument. Parents get to disagree with their children's choices, and parents are SUPPOSED to regulate their minor children's "sexual behavior" to an extent.

I think it's crummy (and pointless) to disagree with homosexuality. I think it's crummy to vocally disapprove of one's gay child. But I don't think it's inherently abusive to do so.

But what extent would that be, in your opinion?

[Bottle]

I don't think this is a strong argument. Parents get to disagree with their children's choices, and parents are SUPPOSED to regulate their minor children's "sexual behavior" to an extent.

I think it's crummy (and pointless) to disagree with homosexuality. I think it's crummy to vocally disapprove of one's gay child. But I don't think it's inherently abusive to do so.

But what extent would that be, in your opinion?

Pretty much the same extent as all other social behavior, really. Parents can and should be aware of who their child is socializing with, whether their child is safe, if anybody is harming their child, and if their child is harming anybody else. I don't think it is inherently abusive for a parent to, say, refuse to let their child date until a certain age. Or to refuse to let their child date a particular person if the parent feels that person is a danger.

I might not AGREE with the parent's choices on those subjects--I might even think they are being downright shitty parents in some cases--but I don't think they are inherently abusive.

Parents are also the custodians of their children's health, and sex has the potential to impact health a great deal. I don't think it's abusive to care if your 13-year-old is having unprotected sex, or if your 15-year-old is sending nude pictures to a 30-year-old "boyfriend", or if your 17-year-old confesses that they have contracted an STD.

[Ifreann]

Your will does not absolve your responsibility.

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

That's why you can claim your taxes back if you explain to the government that you think they're tools of Satan.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

That's why you can claim your taxes back if you explain to the government that you think they're tools of Satan.

If that is a sincere belief, then I think you shouldn't be liable for it. It would only result in more people in prison.

[Esternial]

But what extent would that be, in your opinion?

Pretty much the same extent as all other social behavior, really. Parents can and should be aware of who their child is socializing with, whether their child is safe, if anybody is harming their child, and if their child is harming anybody else. I don't think it is inherently abusive for a parent to, say, refuse to let their child date until a certain age. Or to refuse to let their child date a particular person if the parent feels that person is a danger.

I might not AGREE with the parent's choices on those subjects--I might even think they are being downright shitty parents in some cases--but I don't think they are inherently abusive.

Parents are also the custodians of their children's health, and sex has the potential to impact health a great deal. I don't think it's abusive to care if your 13-year-old is having unprotected sex, or if your 15-year-old is sending nude pictures to a 30-year-old "boyfriend", or if your 17-year-old confesses that they have contracted an STD.

That all makes sense but covers general sexuality of your child, not specifically their hetero- or homosexuality. Whether your child is either, as a parent you'll always intervene if you found out they were sending nudes to a 30-year old "boyfriend" or "girlfriend".

What I would consider abusive, though distinctive from other types of abuse (so perhaps it would warrant a different term), would be to specifically punish or reprimand your child for homosexual feelings. For instance, if a child were to confide in their parent that they had a crush on another classmate of the same sex, giving that child a lecture because they fancied someone of the same sex could, in my eyes, be detrimental to that child's personal development. That child may come to believe homosexuality is bad and that having those feelings is bad as well, I think.

[Central European Commonwealth]

I don't think it is inherently abusive for a parent to, say, refuse to let their child date until a certain age. Or to refuse to let their child date a particular person if the parent feels that person is a danger.

A danger as in what? Having been born with the same hardware? When parents call this a danger, they are comparing romantic relations to predatory relations in the child's opinion. When a kid is still in their formative years, this can damage their wellbeing. Which, when done by a role model, such as a parent, would qualify as abuse.

I might not AGREE with the parent's choices on those subjects--I might even think they are being downright shitty parents in some cases--but I don't think they are inherently abusive.

They are abusive when they disregard their kid's emotional wellbeing because of some fiction they happen to believe in. They're putting their own wants in front of their kid's needs. Parents like that should be spayed or neutered.

Parents are also the custodians of their children's health, and sex has the potential to impact health a great deal. I don't think it's abusive to care if your 13-year-old is having unprotected sex, or if your 15-year-old is sending nude pictures to a 30-year-old "boyfriend", or if your 17-year-old confesses that they have contracted an STD.

It's funny that many of the parents who care so much about their kids romantic feelings, also tend not to give a shit or two about properly educating their kids about these things. Homosexuality among teenagers is in way related to mishaps which occur because your kids are clueless due to parents not caring about educating their kids properly. Again, if parents disregard their kids emotional wellbeing because of some fiction they believe in, and putting their own wants in front of their kid's needs, I think these parents should seriously reconsider breeding, as they seem clearly mentally unfit for the task.

[Bottle]

That all makes sense but covers general sexuality of your child, not specifically their hetero- or homosexuality. Whether your child is either, as a parent you'll always intervene if you found out they were sending nudes to a 30-year old "boyfriend" or "girlfriend".

What I would consider abusive, though distinctive from other types of abuse (so perhaps it would warrant a different term), would be to specifically punish or reprimand your child for homosexual feelings. For instance, if a child were to confide in their parent that they had a crush on another classmate of the same sex, giving that child a lecture because they fancied someone of the same sex could, in my eyes, be detrimental to that child's personal development. That child may come to believe homosexuality is bad and that having those feelings is bad as well, I think.

Personally I think it's fucked up and wrong to lecture your child against having a gay crush.

But I also think it's fucked up and wrong to advocate ideas like "boys will be boys" or to make jokes about chasing your daughter's boyfriends away with a shotgun. I think it's fucked up and wrong to refuse to let your son play with dolls or to make your daughter wear skirts if she'd prefer pants. I think such attitudes are potentially extremely harmful to a child's personal development (they sure were to mine).

For that matter, I think it's fucked up and wrong to teach a child that a supernatural horror dimension exists and they will be sent to it if they are wicked. So do I call CPS on every parent who teaches their child to believe in Hell?

[Esternial]

That all makes sense but covers general sexuality of your child, not specifically their hetero- or homosexuality. Whether your child is either, as a parent you'll always intervene if you found out they were sending nudes to a 30-year old "boyfriend" or "girlfriend".

What I would consider abusive, though distinctive from other types of abuse (so perhaps it would warrant a different term), would be to specifically punish or reprimand your child for homosexual feelings. For instance, if a child were to confide in their parent that they had a crush on another classmate of the same sex, giving that child a lecture because they fancied someone of the same sex could, in my eyes, be detrimental to that child's personal development. That child may come to believe homosexuality is bad and that having those feelings is bad as well, I think.

Personally I think it's fucked up and wrong to lecture your child against having a gay crush.

But I also think it's fucked up and wrong to advocate ideas like "boys will be boys" or to make jokes about chasing your daughter's boyfriends away with a shotgun. I think it's fucked up and wrong to refuse to let your son play with dolls or to make your daughter wear skirts if she'd prefer pants. I think such attitudes are potentially extremely harmful to a child's personal development (they sure were to mine).

For that matter, I think it's fucked up and wrong to teach a child that a supernatural horror dimension exists and they will be sent to it if they are wicked. So do I call CPS on every parent who teaches their child to believe in Hell?

Huh, you make a really a good point.

[Ifreann]

That's why you can claim your taxes back if you explain to the government that you think they're tools of Satan.

If that is a sincere belief, then I think you shouldn't be liable for it.

That might be one of the silliest things you have ever said. And if I recall correctly you, once upon a time, wanted to have your political opponents killed because that's what Stalin would have done. Or was that someone else?

Anyway, point is, that's silly.

It would only result in more people in prison.

I believe that the government generally prefers to just take they money they're owed from people who refuse to pay taxes. Going to prison is more something that happens to people who dodge their taxes.

[Bottle]

Again, if parents disregard their kids emotional wellbeing because of some fiction they believe in, and putting their own wants in front of their kid's needs, I think these parents should seriously reconsider breeding, as they seem clearly mentally unfit for the task.

It's not that I disagree with the spirit here. But you can't swing a Bratz doll without hitting a dozen parents who really shouldn't have had kids. Sure, I totally agree that people who hold homophobic beliefs "shouldn't" have children...but they do. So do people who hold sexist beliefs. So do people who hold racist beliefs. Hell, I think MOST people have at least one or two blind spots in one or more of those areas.

The question isn't whether shitty parents should have children, or whether it's a good thing when shitty parents parent shittily. The question is where to draw the line between shitty parenting and abuse.

[United Marxist Nations]

If that is a sincere belief, then I think you shouldn't be liable for it.

That might be one of the silliest things you have ever said. And if I recall correctly you, once upon a time, wanted to have your political opponents killed because that's what Stalin would have done. Or was that someone else?

Anyway, point is, that's silly.

It would only result in more people in prison.

I believe that the government generally prefers to just take they money they're owed from people who refuse to pay taxes. Going to prison is more something that happens to people who dodge their taxes.

If people actually think the government is Satan, then they'd just not make money to avoid paying it. It would make their lives hard enough as it is to just have that belief.

[Ifreann]

That might be one of the silliest things you have ever said. And if I recall correctly you, once upon a time, wanted to have your political opponents killed because that's what Stalin would have done. Or was that someone else?

Anyway, point is, that's silly.

I believe that the government generally prefers to just take they money they're owed from people who refuse to pay taxes. Going to prison is more something that happens to people who dodge their taxes.

If people actually think the government is Satan, then they'd just not make money to avoid paying it. It would make their lives hard enough as it is to just have that belief.

Some people believe stupid things. We don't actually need to re-order society to accommodate them.

[United Marxist Nations]

If people actually think the government is Satan, then they'd just not make money to avoid paying it. It would make their lives hard enough as it is to just have that belief.

Some people believe stupid things. We don't actually need to re-order society to accommodate them.

Nor do we need to force them to violate their religious beliefs.