Bill banning parents from trying to 'cure' gay kids moves forward

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman
Nothing like having the Govt tell you what you can and can't do in regards to YOUR OWN KIDS.

Well, as regards their sexuality, I'm more interested in what my kids have to say, and I believe this thread is about allowing them that right.

No, it is not. It is placing the Govt in charge.
The bill seeks to ban the therapy. Not that parents have to seek permission from the child.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So if you think its okay to beat your child, the rest of the world should just deal with it? I hope you see how asinine your statement is

Yep, Because this is equal to beating your child.
Ok then, sure sure.

Good luck in trying to force your children to love you once they are old enough to realise that you have filled their lives with hatred and are making their own choice to leave you in your own hate filled world!

Hate breeds hate!

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
This is an excellent question, and on that note - how is the religious movement to outlaw abortions going?

I don't use my religion to back my views of abortion.
Off topic.

reply to post by macman


I believe that parents should have the right to oversee the morals of their children and teach them common sense. I believe abuse of children is bad but question the governments definition of abuse as related to discipline in some cases. I do not want my kids growing up thinking that it is all right to disrespect elderly people and the rights of other people just because the government says it is alright. It is good for a child to challenge their parents because they have to prepare for the real world, but it is the responsibility of the parent to deter that challenge until they have learned more about the real world and the people who are in it. Children are impressionable and see other people doing immoral and what should be deemed illegal acts and getting away with it.

What I say has nothing to do actually with the rights of homosexual people, they have rights also. It has to do with the right of us to steer our children's beliefs. I understand that what I am saying also gives Homosexuals the right to steer their child's beliefs also, but that is just the way it is. When you make protection for the rights of people you make protection for the rights of all people. A person teaching their children to bully others is not right though, promoting violence is not a constitutional right, freedom of speech is. We are responsible for our children if we have them. We pay the fines if they get in trouble.

I'm sure this post will bring on a lot of negative feedback from those who believe otherwise and want the government to control everyone's lives.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Well, as regards their sexuality, I'm more interested in what my kids have to say, and I believe this thread is about allowing them that right.

No, it is not. It is placing the Govt in charge.
The bill seeks to ban the therapy. Not that parents have to seek permission from the child.

Back in the day...not that long ago, either...it was considered appropriate to assimilate the First Nations into 'normal' society by taking the kids away and "beating the Indian out of them". Trying to 'cure' a child of apparent homosexual impulses is just another method of demonising innocents. Like the article says:

Proponents argue the state law would protect civil rights, pointing to studies that show kids who undergo the reparative therapy are more likely than other kids to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts. Opponents say the bill violates freedom of speech, as well as parents' rights to govern their own children. now.msn.com...

The very fact that any parent would put their perception of 'rights' ahead of their children's right to lead a happy, fulfilling life speaks volumes.

"I may have screwed up my kids forever, but I sure showed the Gubbernent not to screw with my rights!"

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


And yet I see no beating of young people to expel the homosexual out of them. Nice try.

Yet again, it is not the business of the Govt, or this One World crap idea on what I teach my kids, or don't teach them. You are not in charge.

Weren't those beatings of the Indians Govt sanctioned as well??? HMMMMM!!! Makes your argument really valid.

reply to post by GoldenRuled



Good bill given homosexuality isn't a disease...

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

And yet I see no beating of young people to expel the homosexual out of them. Nice try.

Need I point out that not all injury or abuse is physical? Nice try, indeed.

Yet again, it is not the business of the Govt, or this One World crap idea on what I teach my kids, or don't teach them. You are not in charge.

Really? Abuse your kids and you'll find out pretty quickly who is 'in charge'.

Weren't those beatings of the Indians Govt sanctioned as well??? HMMMMM!!! Makes your argument really valid.

Government and Church sanctioned, as a matter of fact. Which only invalidates the argument if that is what you are looking for. You might note a fundamental difference, though, between trying to 'correct' human attributes that are beyond social enforcement and protecting the rights of a child to thrive in their particular material environment.

Fortunately, rectal/cranial inversion is generally treatable.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Need I point out that not all injury or abuse is physical? Nice try, indeed.

There are no laws against "mental" abuse, as it can't be accurately measured.
SOOO.......................

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck Really? Abuse your kids and you'll find out pretty quickly who is 'in charge'.

Again, not abuse. The studies shows it may be damaging.
SOOOO, Again......................

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuckGovernment and Church sanctioned, as a matter of fact. Which only invalidates the argument if that is what you are looking for.

Not really, as it was approved by the Govt, and the church at the time turned a blind eye. What church was that again?
Has nothing to do with my beliefs. Nice side show attempt.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You might note a fundamental difference, though, between trying to 'correct' human attributes that are beyond social enforcement and protecting the rights of a child to thrive in their particular material environment.

If a parent believes that it is a correctable action, then so be it. So long as PHYSICAL injury is not incurred.
But, nothing like some social engineering to deem some as not norm or incorrect, or vice verse.
We already see the backlash of feminized males, through TV, culture and so on. So, it is ok with that then?

WOW, again, love seeing the argument based on tolerance and so on, yet don't allow it to those you oppose.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Fortunately, rectal/cranial inversion is generally treatable.

Ok.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuckGovernment and Church sanctioned, as a matter of fact. Which only invalidates the argument if that is what you are looking for.

Not really, as it was approved by the Govt, and the church at the time turned a blind eye. What church was that again?
Has nothing to do with my beliefs. Nice side show attempt.

Where's the sideshow?

Funded under the Indian Act by the then Department of the Interior, a branch of the federal government, the schools were run by churches of various denominations — about 60 per cent by Roman Catholics, and 30 per cent by the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada, along with its pre-1925 predecessors, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist churches. This system of using the established school facilities set up by missionaries was employed by the federal government for economical expedience. The federal government provided facilities and maintenance, and the churches provided teachers and education. en.wikipedia.org...

The relevance is that you can no more preach or beat the gay out of a kid than you can preach or beat the Indian out of a kid. Attempts to do so are abusive, and should not be countenanced. Hence the Bill in question.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuckGovernment and Church sanctioned, as a matter of fact. Which only invalidates the argument if that is what you are looking for.

Not really, as it was approved by the Govt, and the church at the time turned a blind eye. What church was that again?
Has nothing to do with my beliefs. Nice side show attempt.

Where's the sideshow?

Funded under the Indian Act by the then Department of the Interior, a branch of the federal government, the schools were run by churches of various denominations — about 60 per cent by Roman Catholics, and 30 per cent by the Anglican Church of Canada and the United Church of Canada, along with its pre-1925 predecessors, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist churches. This system of using the established school facilities set up by missionaries was employed by the federal government for economical expedience. The federal government provided facilities and maintenance, and the churches provided teachers and education. en.wikipedia.org...

The relevance is that you can no more preach or beat the gay out of a kid than you can preach or beat the Indian out of a kid. Attempts to do so are abusive, and should not be countenanced. Hence the Bill in question.

The sideshow was stating that a Church pushed it. Looks like the Govt pushed it, ordered it and the 2 Churches offered to run the schools, which were Govt mandated.
Again, Govt doing what it does. What a fantastic job. Lets give them more power shall we....

It is not abuse, no more then pushing for your kids to be Rep vs. Dem.

The Bill is just another overstepping of boundaries by the Govt. No more, no less.


And I also want to add, I think anyone that cries out for a new law because "It's for the children" should be repeatedly hit in the head with a tack hammer.

Originally posted by trysts
I think the bible says you're supposed to kill gay people:

"Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

And yet the very first command from this God is "Thou shall not kill"

I'm always flabbergasted that the so many religious people thing that it is OK to waiver the first command of their master whenever it suits their agenda (both Muslim, Jews and Christians).

It also pretty much invalidates the entire book when it contains this type of contradiction.

TRICKY ...

Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit.
Parents don't have a right to abuse kids.
In their eyes, because of religious beliefs, being homosexual is wrong and they are helping the child.
So are the parents harming the child? Depends on who you ask ...
Does the state have a right to step in if it feels their religion is harmful to the child?

Tricky tricky tricky.

It could be a slippery slope for more government intervention where it doesn't belong

OR

It could be a good thing to help children.

VERY TRICKY. I dunno ....

Originally posted by FlyersFan
TRICKY ...
Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit.
Parents don't have a right to abuse kids.
In their eyes, because of religious beliefs, being homosexual is wrong and they are helping the child.
So are the parents harming the child? Depends on who you ask ...
Does the state have a right to step in if it feels their religion is harmful to the child?
Tricky tricky tricky.
It could be a slippery slope for more government intervention where it doesn't belong
OR
It could be a good thing to help children.
VERY TRICKY. I dunno ....

I commend you on an astute answer (and you know how often we agree on anything).

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So if you think its okay to beat your child, the rest of the world should just deal with it? I hope you see how asinine your statement is

Yep,

Because this is equal to beating your child.
Ok then, sure sure.

You said it is your place as a parent to raise your child as you see fit. If you see it fit to beat your child, that falls into what you said.

Not to mention, mental and physical abuse are equally as damaging. Trying to force a child to be straight is mental abuse.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Need I point out that not all injury or abuse is physical? Nice try, indeed.

There are no laws against "mental" abuse, as it can't be accurately measured.
SOOO.......................

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck Really? Abuse your kids and you'll find out pretty quickly who is 'in charge'.

Again, not abuse. The studies shows it may be damaging.
SOOOO, Again......................

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuckGovernment and Church sanctioned, as a matter of fact. Which only invalidates the argument if that is what you are looking for.

Not really, as it was approved by the Govt, and the church at the time turned a blind eye. What church was that again?
Has nothing to do with my beliefs. Nice side show attempt.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You might note a fundamental difference, though, between trying to 'correct' human attributes that are beyond social enforcement and protecting the rights of a child to thrive in their particular material environment.

If a parent believes that it is a correctable action, then so be it. So long as PHYSICAL injury is not incurred.
But, nothing like some social engineering to deem some as not norm or incorrect, or vice verse.
We already see the backlash of feminized males, through TV, culture and so on. So, it is ok with that then?

WOW, again, love seeing the argument based on tolerance and so on, yet don't allow it to those you oppose.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Fortunately, rectal/cranial inversion is generally treatable.

Ok.

edit on 22-8-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)

No laws against mental abuse? Really?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You said it is your place as a parent to raise your child as you see fit. If you see it fit to beat your child, that falls into what you said.

Nope, sure didn't. Please provide me where I stated that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Not to mention, mental and physical abuse are equally as damaging. Trying to force a child to be straight is mental abuse.

No, no it is not. Again, please show me the statue, anywhere in the US that defines mental abuse and thus provides punishment.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

No laws against mental abuse? Really?

Please provide the State or federal statues.


I will wait.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You said it is your place as a parent to raise your child as you see fit. If you see it fit to beat your child, that falls into what you said.

Nope, sure didn't. Please provide me where I stated that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Not to mention, mental and physical abuse are equally as damaging. Trying to force a child to be straight is mental abuse.

No, no it is not. Again, please show me the statue, anywhere in the US that defines mental abuse and thus provides punishment.

Here's the direct quote, from you, on the previous page:

I raise MY Child how I see fit. Not how the WORLD, you or UN types.

Oops, caught in a lie, huh buddy?

Mental abuse:
domestic-violence.laws.com...

While it is difficult to define, it is ABSOLUTELY illegal, and has been used in court for many different things.