The homosexuality could rub off on them.
Advertisement
by Reko Guire » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:55 pm
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:07 pm
by Neanderthaland » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:12 pm
by Neanderthaland » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:18 pm
Richard Carroll - Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago wrote:"We found evidence that supports the minority stress model - the idea that being part of a minority creates additional stress," he says.
"There are external stressors, like discrimination and violence against gays, and there are internal stressors, such as internalised negative attitudes about homosexuality."
The external stresses on a same-sex relationship include what Carroll describes as the "double closet phenomenon" when victims are reluctant to report abuse because they do not want to be outed to the authorities.
But it is the internal stress, says Carroll, which can be particularly damaging.
"Sometimes homosexual individuals project their negative beliefs and feelings about themselves on to their partner," he says.
"Conversely, we believe that victims of domestic violence in same-sex couples believe, at some level, they deserve the violence because of internalised negative beliefs about themselves."
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:21 pm
Nousa wrote:Grenartia wrote:And in neither case does it justify you not explaining things in your own terms.
I've already stated you can quite literally copy and paste what Indiana said and take it as my exact views; not sure why this is complicated for you. Sounds like a personal problem, to be honest.
by Necroghastia » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:38 pm
“A birth mother’s wife will never be the biological father of the child, meaning that, whenever a birth-mother’s wife gains presumptive ‘parentage’ status, a biological father’s rights and obligations to the child have necessarily been undermined without proper adjudication,”
by Necroghastia » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:48 pm
I don't really understand what you're even asking about transsexuals, however.
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:50 pm
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:It’s interesting that people think there is such a thing as “parental rights”. Maybe we should also argue that there is such a thing as the rights of a master to beat and even kill a slave.. Why not call a spade a spade. Power is power, not “rights”.
How are you more left wing than I, eh?
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:52 pm
Grenartia wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
I think we disagree on terminology here. I don’t think there can be rights over other humans while you think they can exist.
Thanks for confirming the widespread but uncomfortable belief that socially children aren’t fully people which has been true from ancient history to the present day.
Children are not fully developed enough to have the same rights as adults. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a child.
by Necroghastia » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:10 am
Nousa wrote:Necroghastia wrote:Not really. It's empty legalese that means nothing.
That you do not understand it does not make it meaningless jargon, because its well established in case law and precedent with real meaning here. With regards to your example of a sperm donor, as part of the sperm donor process said donor(s) are required to waive their legal rights and in return are absolved of obligations before the actual donation occurs; i.e. proper adjudication.
A trans woman and a cis woman can have a biological child together. A trans man and a cis man can have a biological child together. This is an obvious point that negates Hill's premise that "a birth mother's wife will never be the biological father."
Namely because trans is a social construct and does not change the underlying biological realities of the sexes? Yes, a Transsexual can have children with a Heterosexual...
because of their biological realities, which is in line with what Hill says.
Yes, they may identify as something else, but that doesn't change their chromosomes, no?
by Necroghastia » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:37 am
If you mean in terms of the legal case presented by Indiana, it's quite obvious; proper adjudication would not be rendered in many cases that would be effected by the lower court's precedent. In particular, adoptions or children from prior relationships.
You mean a transgender person can have children with a cisgender person. The examples I'm giving are very much in the range of "not hetero."
I understand you wish to play semantics with your socially constructed terms, but it's not really relevant to your point.
Hill explicitly says "a birth mother's wife," which has nothing to do with "biological realities."
You need to go re-read the brief and article in question because you don't even understand what Indiana's talking about in their case and this shows it. Hill does specifically speak of biological fathers, which is rather relevant in a case involving a Lesbian couple no? You've chosen to engage in a cherry pick of a single term from the brief instead of looking at what the whole brief is even about.Implicit transphobia aside, the chromosomes don't matter in the slightest, because that could change what they're registered as by the government.
Given Hill (and thus Indiana) are talking about biological fathers, chromosomes very much matter given, yah know, basic biology and the overall legal thrust being made here? Again, you seem pretty ununiformed on this and operating on a knee jerk basis; might I suggest taking a step back and objectively re-reading the case and the reporting on it before continuing this?
by Grenartia » Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:35 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Children are not fully developed enough to have the same rights as adults. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a child.
>anyone who isn’t a child
Thanks for letting me know that “child” is an insult. Before feminism in many Eurasian societies feminity was also an insult..
I think the implications are fairly clear.
>not fully developed enough to have the same rights as adults
What’s this? Might is right?
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:38 am
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:42 am
Grenartia wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
>anyone who isn’t a child
Thanks for letting me know that “child” is an insult. Before feminism in many Eurasian societies feminity was also an insult..
I think the implications are fairly clear.
>not fully developed enough to have the same rights as adults
What’s this? Might is right?
Blatantly bad arguments blatantly made in bad faith. You're clearly another EdgyPosterTM.
The simple fact is that children are not capable of the kind of thinking necessary to safely and responsibly exercise the rights adults have. And honestly, I'm worried you're one of those "children can give consent to sex" types based on your arguments so far.
by Grenartia » Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:44 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Blatantly bad arguments blatantly made in bad faith. You're clearly another EdgyPosterTM.
The simple fact is that children are not capable of the kind of thinking necessary to safely and responsibly exercise the rights adults have. And honestly, I'm worried you're one of those "children can give consent to sex" types based on your arguments so far.
I’m not one of the pedophilia advocates.
Instead I’m just someone who is really tired of parentism which smells like China.
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:59 am
by Grenartia » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:10 am
by Nekostan-e Gharbi » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:32 am
Grenartia wrote:Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
I agree. Children can not reasonably consent to self-harm.
Not just self-harm. Sexual activity as well.
Furthermore, children simply are not capable of the kinds of decision making necessary to function on the same level as adults. This isn't even an opinion, this is basic fucking fact. Psychology 101. Acting like this is not true is not just factually wrong and intellectually dishonest, it is downright harmful to the very children you seek to help.
You're sick and tired of authoritarian parenting? So am I. But the alternative isn't no parenting whatsoever, so stop ripping off Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty.
by Kernen » Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:39 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Not just self-harm. Sexual activity as well.
Furthermore, children simply are not capable of the kinds of decision making necessary to function on the same level as adults. This isn't even an opinion, this is basic fucking fact. Psychology 101. Acting like this is not true is not just factually wrong and intellectually dishonest, it is downright harmful to the very children you seek to help.
You're sick and tired of authoritarian parenting? So am I. But the alternative isn't no parenting whatsoever, so stop ripping off Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty.
Well, Libertarianism and children are incompatible.
by The New California Republic » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:04 am
Reko Guire wrote:I don’t care what kind of sex people have but the idea that gay couples and married couples should be treated equally is insane.
by Atheris » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:05 am
by Senkaku » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:52 am
Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Not just self-harm. Sexual activity as well.
Furthermore, children simply are not capable of the kinds of decision making necessary to function on the same level as adults. This isn't even an opinion, this is basic fucking fact. Psychology 101. Acting like this is not true is not just factually wrong and intellectually dishonest, it is downright harmful to the very children you seek to help.
You're sick and tired of authoritarian parenting? So am I. But the alternative isn't no parenting whatsoever, so stop ripping off Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty.
Well, Libertarianism and children are incompatible.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cheblonsk, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Google [Bot], Rusozak, Thaloska, Vassenor
Advertisement