Should families who reject LGBT children by guilty of abuse?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

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.

When those religious beliefs harm either other individuals/groups, or the ability for the government to function, yes we really do.

[Elepis]

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

But....how can you disagree with being LGBTQ? It is not something you can agree to or disagree to, it just happens, like being blond or having fingers.


Kid: "I have fingers"

Parent: "No you don't, and for that I am going to cut you of of inheritance, stop you going out with friends, ground you and deny your fingeryness"

[Central European Commonwealth]

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

But....how can you disagree with being LGBTQ? It is not something you can agree to or disagree to, it just happens, like being blond or having fingers.

Exactly. And that's why it becomes abuse when parents "disagree" with it and start giving their kids grief for it.

[Ifreann]

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.

We might not need to. We're still going to, because taxes are super useful for having a government that can govern shit, and if we gave people a pass because they say the Flying Spaghetti Monster told them to stop paying taxes then no one would pay taxes.

[Dream Rua]

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.

You're arguing against a point no one was making; clearly, putting a child up for adoption is not abuse, and it is certainly preferable to neglecting the kid. The question, rather, is whether the poster would abandon their child before somebody else assumed responsibility for them, or continue to provide for them as the law requires.

[Grenartia]

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. 2. I pointed out that the first two were already illegal for all kids, and you agreed. 3. 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. 4. 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.

5. By putting the kid up for adoption the family is not being open, positive, accepting to their kid being lgbt. 6. In the next sentence you correlated this to maturity and raising a well-adjusted adult. 7. 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?


8. Perhaps I misunderstood.

1. I don't know where you're getting that last part from, I have literally seen nobody say that.

2. Yes. I did.

3. No. We are suggesting some more things that happen all too often, and should be considered abuse. Putting kids up for adoption is not one of them.

4. All I said was that they shouldn't have been parents if they feel the need to put their kid(s) up for adoption because they're LGBT. That is NOT the same as saying it is abuse for them to.

5. Correct.

6. No, I correlated being open, positive, and accepting to their kid being LGBT as being mature and raising a well-adjusted adult.

7. Because it shows a clear sign that you cannot appreciate that people are different, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If your first reaction upon finding out that somebody is not exactly how you want them to be, is to throw a temper tantrum, or bitch and moan about it, or to resort to violence or coercion to get them to change, then that is immaturity. And I express sincere doubt as to the ability of an immature person to raise a reasonably well-adjusted adult.

8. That seems likely.

[Grenartia]

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.

If their religious beliefs cause them to harm others (yes, even their own children), then by all means, we should force them to violate their religious beliefs. There's a reason we don't allow people to marry kids just because "muh religion".

[Grenartia]

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

We might not need to. We're still going to, because taxes are super useful for having a government that can govern shit, and if we gave people a pass because they say the Flying Spaghetti Monster told them to stop paying taxes then no one would pay taxes.

Indeed. Its the exact same reason why "I actually do believe this" is not a defense against trolling on this forum.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

If their religious beliefs cause them to harm others (yes, even their own children), then by all means, we should force them to violate their religious beliefs. There's a reason we don't allow people to marry kids just because "muh religion".

Marrying children would be forcing other people to follow their religion, not just practicing their religion.

Moreover, that is something wholly different from forcing someone to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse.

[Grenartia]

If their religious beliefs cause them to harm others (yes, even their own children), then by all means, we should force them to violate their religious beliefs. There's a reason we don't allow people to marry kids just because "muh religion".

Marrying children would be forcing other people to follow their religion, not just practicing their religion.

Moreover, that is something wholly different from forcing someone to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse.

Since when was making people not treat their queer kid like shit "forcing them to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse"?

[United Marxist Nations]

Marrying children would be forcing other people to follow their religion, not just practicing their religion.

Moreover, that is something wholly different from forcing someone to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse.

Since when was making people not treat their queer kid like shit "forcing them to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse"?

Since that meant you had to let them do it and even help them get it.

[Neos Ptolemaion]

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, they are still your child, and disowning them is more or less telling them 'you don't matter to me.' Religion of love my ass.

Regardless of reason, parents have the right to disown a child for any reason they wish. There is nothing legally wrong with implying to a child that they no longer matter to the parent.

[Grenartia]

Since when was making people not treat their queer kid like shit "forcing them to sponsor sexual transition or homosexual intercourse"?

Since that meant you had to let them do it and even help them get it.

Because allowing them to do otherwise is forcing other people to follow their religion.

[Greater Orensta]

Since that meant you had to let them do it and even help them get it.

Because allowing them to do otherwise is forcing other people to follow their religion.

My teacher forced her religion on me because she was "Offended by my homosexuality".
So the answer to the question, yeah. To an extent

[United Marxist Nations]

Since that meant you had to let them do it and even help them get it.

Because allowing them to do otherwise is forcing other people to follow their religion.

Which is why I say that it would make them irreconcilable, and the child would be best put up for adoption.

[Arcipelago]

But....how can you disagree with being LGBTQ? It is not something you can agree to or disagree to, it just happens, like being blond or having fingers.

Exactly. And that's why it becomes abuse when parents "disagree" with it and start giving their kids grief for it.

So is it abuse when your parents disagree with a child's choice of leaving school to become a musician and give them grief over it?
LGBT children should be treated like any other, including in terms of abuse. So quite frankly the level of rejection and effect should be more important than the why.

[Khalisako]

If a parent tries to murder or harm their child for such a thing than they are mentally and spiritually lost and should be put in prison.

For example, transsexuals are like witches. They can bring good or bad fortunes into your house, but their path in life is chosen by the creator as a jorney to be taken and learned from, be it for whatever reason.

I don't really know about homosexuals and whatever. I've never heard of any purpose for them but... I don't believe it's acceptable to give troubles to them. Maybe child acts gay, if you feel disgusted by it than simply avoid him. This thin of poisoning and shoving off roofs is unacceptable. Medical systems should be functional enough to accomodate needs of such people... of anybody really. Hopefully everybody.

[Forniphiliac Limbo of Inabilis]

Of course not.

If a couple wants to adopt a kid, whichever kid it may be, it's their choice, and if they choose to do so, it's all good.

If a couple wants to adopt a kid, but want it to have big birthmark around the eye sockets so to resemble a panda, or a blind kid so to experience something different, or even a pansexual dragon-kin kid, it's all good, even if it takes as long as it does for that to happen; it's still their choice.

If a couple decides to abuse, mistreat, abbandon or cause -any- kind of harm to their adopted kid, whatever kind of kid they may be, it obviously has to be considered abuse.

It sorta feels like something basic to see.

[Central European Commonwealth]

Exactly. And that's why it becomes abuse when parents "disagree" with it and start giving their kids grief for it.

So is it abuse when your parents disagree with a child's choice of leaving school to become a musician and give them grief over it?

Leaving school to become a musician is a choice. Being LGBT is often as much of a choice as having brown eyes or being tall. A better analogy would be to ask whether it's abuse when parents disagree with a "child's choice" to have been born with brown eyes and darkish hair, and as of such, the local Grand Wizard finds the kids not looking "pure" enough and the parents give the kids grief for that.

LGBT children should be treated like any other, including in terms of abuse. So quite frankly the level of rejection and effect should be more important than the why.

Of course. Nevertheless, I still think it's psychological abuse to reject your kids for any reason not directly related to a child's choices. And as being LGBT is as much of a choice as being tall or having brown eyes, and as everyone would call it abuse when a family has three kids; two with blonde hair and blue eyes and one with brown hair and brown eyes, and the darker one gets treated like shit while the lighter ones get treated like little angels, I don't see how it would be any way different with a family treating the LGBT kid much worse than their other kids.

[Alvecia]

If a parent tries to murder or harm their child for such a thing than they are mentally and spiritually lost and should be put in prison.

For example, transsexuals are like witches. They can bring good or bad fortunes into your house, but their path in life is chosen by the creator as a jorney to be taken and learned from, be it for whatever reason.

I don't really know about homosexuals and whatever. I've never heard of any purpose for them but... I don't believe it's acceptable to give troubles to them. Maybe child acts gay, if you feel disgusted by it than simply avoid him. This thin of poisoning and shoving off roofs is unacceptable. Medical systems should be functional enough to accomodate needs of such people... of anybody really. Hopefully everybody.

Lolwat?

[Central European Commonwealth]

If a parent tries to murder or harm their child for such a thing than they are mentally and spiritually lost and should be put in prison.

For example, transsexuals are like witches. They can bring good or bad fortunes into your house, but their path in life is chosen by the creator as a jorney to be taken and learned from, be it for whatever reason.

I don't really know about homosexuals and whatever. I've never heard of any purpose for them but... I don't believe it's acceptable to give troubles to them. Maybe child acts gay, if you feel disgusted by it than simply avoid him. This thin of poisoning and shoving off roofs is unacceptable. Medical systems should be functional enough to accomodate needs of such people... of anybody really. Hopefully everybody.

Lolwat?

Judging by that phrase, the user is probably from Pakistan or India. Hijra's in their folklore are considered something akin to witches or fortunetellers.

[Grenartia]

Lolwat?

Judging by that phrase, the user is probably from Pakistan or India. Hijra's in their folklore are considered something akin to witches or fortunetellers.

Would also explain the relative openmindedness towards trans people compared to gay people. With people from the West, its almost universally the other way around.

[Alvecia]

Lolwat?

Judging by that phrase, the user is probably from Pakistan or India. Hijra's in their folklore are considered something akin to witches or fortunetellers.

Sweet, do they get a handbook of spells when they come out? That'd be awesome

[Grenartia]

Judging by that phrase, the user is probably from Pakistan or India. Hijra's in their folklore are considered something akin to witches or fortunetellers.

Sweet, do they get a handbook of spells when they come out? That'd be awesome

If they do, I need to have a word with the various Native American tribes.

[The Alma Mater]

Judging by that phrase, the user is probably from Pakistan or India. Hijra's in their folklore are considered something akin to witches or fortunetellers.

Sweet, do they get a handbook of spells when they come out? That'd be awesome

Certainly. It is called "The Agenda".