Advertisement
by Rutthenia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:47 am
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:48 am
Rutthenia wrote:It should be considered "child abuse" if parents abandon their children voluntarily for any reason, really. The whole LGBT issue shouldn't be special in this situation, as it's pretty wrong to purposefully abandon your child, period.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by Rutthenia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:48 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Aelex wrote:No. It's the right of the kid than to chose a life-style as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process but it's also the right of the parents than to not support this life-style even if, depending on it's intensity, said lack of support can be down-right dickish.
Now, as the brother of a lesbian, I myself adopt a stance of "benevolently not giving a shit" because I love her and thus try to don't act any differently as I would if she was straight; but, I honestly don't think I would be as accepting if it was for my own children.
Parents have no right to harm their children, and no-one 'chooses' to be LGBTQIA.
by Romakivila » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:49 am
Noraika wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:That doesn't really answer the question. If I were to try to maintain a child's celibacy or to prevent them from undergoing sexual reassignment until adulthood (and disown them in the event that they were to do the latter after the age of 18), would I be considered 'abusive'?
A parent refusing to allow their child to receive treatment which is medically necessary (which is what transitioning is), to an adolecent is entirely abusive, becuase it compromises the health of the child for the 'preferences' of the parents. The medical standards of care quite clearly state, in the WPATH Standards of Care v7, that even "withholding puberty suppression and subsequent feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy is not a neutral option for adolescents." and that such a decision is not the parent's right to do.
by Aelex » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:49 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Parents have no right to harm their children, and no-one 'chooses' to be LGBTQIA.
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:49 am
Noraika wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:How? I don't technically have legal obligation to them at that point, so, if they do something that they can't take back, and which violates my religious beliefs, why shouldn't I disown them?
Because, once again, that's child abuse, or neglect more specifically.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by USS Monitor » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:50 am
Othelos wrote:It depends on the level of rejection. Ideally a parent who doesn't agree with/like LGBT people would continue to treat the child the same while maintaining a healthy distance. But treating the child badly or kicking out a child for being LGBT should be considered abuse.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:50 am
Rutthenia wrote:Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:
Parents have no right to harm their children, and no-one 'chooses' to be LGBTQIA.
They do, however, have the choice of keeping their sexuality from the knowledge of their obviously anti-LGBT parents/guardians until they can financially sustain themselves independently.
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:51 am
Aelex wrote:Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Parents have no right to harm their children, and no-one 'chooses' to be LGBTQIA.
I was referring to the "life-style". Sure, I'm not saying people chose what they're attracted to as just like I don't "chose" to like beurettes, gay don't chose to like other men. I never implied so in my post and it would be quite intellectually dishonest than to try to claim the contrary.
Anyway, even if they can't chose their fetish, they still can chose their "life-style" by deciding, despite their attraction to them, to not bed other men.
by Rutthenia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:51 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Rutthenia wrote:They do, however, have the choice of keeping their sexuality from the knowledge of their obviously anti-LGBT parents/guardians until they can financially sustain themselves independently.
Which, as someone who is forced to do this, is torturous and harmful.
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:51 am
Rutthenia wrote:They do, however, have the choice of keeping their sexuality from the knowledge of their obviously anti-LGBT parents until they can financially sustain themselves independently.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:52 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Aelex wrote:I was referring to the "life-style". Sure, I'm not saying people chose what they're attracted to as just like I don't "chose" to like beurettes, gay don't chose to like other men. I never implied so in my post and it would be quite intellectually dishonest than to try to claim the contrary.
Anyway, even if they can't chose their fetish, they still can chose their "life-style" by deciding, despite their attraction to them, to not bed other men.
And why exactly should LGBT people be forced to repress themselves when cisgender/heterosexual people don't?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Darjihad » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:52 am
by Renewed Imperial Germany » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:53 am
by Rutthenia » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:53 am
Noraika wrote:Rutthenia wrote:They do, however, have the choice of keeping their sexuality from the knowledge of their obviously anti-LGBT parents until they can financially sustain themselves independently.
Which is also damaging, but not unheard of, because it creates a constant atmosphere of fear around the parents that serves as a detriment. Overall, allowing as much as possible for the open and free expression of one's sexual orientation or gender identity, is the best thing for the emotional and psychological health of the child.
And I've yet to see any serious, well-reputable, or otherwise respected, professional association of professionals in their field, collaborate your claim that being LGB+ or Transgender is a choice. They actually say the opposition.
by Luminesa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:53 am
Darjihad wrote:I'm wondering at what age a parent should be discussing sexual expression with their child without running afoul of child abuse laws anyway.
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:53 am
by United Marxist Nations » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:54 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Rutthenia wrote:How can you represent a whole community of LGBT minors with your own personal experience?
I just put that in there because you clearly decided to ignore the statistics in the OP that show that forced repression is universally harmful.United Marxist Nations wrote:Heterosexual people should be forced to repress themselves too, I think.
So you have a repression fetish? Lovely.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:54 am
Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Rutthenia wrote:How can you represent a whole community of LGBT minors with your own personal experience?
I just put that in there because you clearly decided to ignore the statistics in the OP that show that forced repression is universally harmful.United Marxist Nations wrote:Heterosexual people should be forced to repress themselves too, I think.
So you have a repression fetish? Lovely.
by Luminesa » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:55 am
by Benuty » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:55 am
by Noraika » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:55 am
Romakivila wrote:I'd argue pumping your child full of unnatural estrogen or testosterone could be child abuse, and is by no means medically necessary. I highly doubt doing that would truly effect the suicide rate, and many would come to regret their decision. The child is also not old enough to give meaningful consent until the arbitrary age of 18.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Haganham
Advertisement