I disagree that the parents did not have control over the media. Again, did they put it out there, another parent who opposed the bathroom usage, OR their Transgender Defense Fund/attorney?
Not sure, but how much "control" does a married couple have over the media, especially these days?
Quote:
I did however see them on the local news freely speaking out about the case. So they had some control and say in what the media reported.
After the story broke, obviously--but it's a question of whether or not they were looking for attention. Kind of a moot point at this stage.
Quote:
I do agree that not all parents are cut out to be home schoolers but does Colorado demand that it is an "actual parent" giving the "home schooling" or do they just have "education curriculum guidelines that have to be followed" and administered by ANY adult the family chooses?
No clue.
Quote:
Arrest the parents, no I would not go that far. I once worked in Colorado (not in that County) and even back then there were laws that "some Supervisors" chose to turn their heads and ignore. I fought against "picking and choosing" what was enforced and what was not. Either you enforce equally or you do not enforce.
Very happy to hear this.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
How about this one that suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental illness disorders such as anxiety, panic attacks, and higher rates of suicide versus heterosexuals. *Please note the entire article that shows comparisons of the US vs. "more accepted countries like the Netherlands"*Interesting that the rates were just as high in The Netherlands and Denmark.
Children who are being prompted and promoted into a "lifestyle" that has a high rate of x,y, and z....one would think the parents would try to curtail that lifestyle. I also did not notice in any article pertaining to the OP that said "how many psychological opinions they sought".
How about this one that suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental illness disorders such as anxiety, panic attacks, and higher rates of suicide versus heterosexuals. *Please note the entire article that shows comparisons of the US vs. "more accepted countries like the Netherlands"*Interesting that the rates were just as high in The Netherlands and Denmark.
Children who are being prompted and promoted into a "lifestyle" that has a high rate of x,y, and z....one would think the parents would try to curtail that lifestyle. I also did not notice in any article pertaining to the OP that said "how many psychological opinions they sought".
Here is a noteworthy quote I gleaned from this link.
The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes."
I have seen this in homosexuals and bisexuals that have joined TOL.
Slogan/motto:
Success is a journey, not a destination. So stop running.
Reputation:
March 7th, 2013, 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by resurrected
Do you believe there are earthly consequences to sinful behavior?
If so, do you believe those consequences are God's will?
Yes. No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth
If its true that they do (have much higher incidents of those things) , how else is there to take it that their behavior results in those things?
I'm not denying that certain behaviors can have consequences. What bothered me about that post is the cavalier attitude regarding people in those situations.
you'd be even luckier if you were beaten to death!
come to think of it, we all would.
keep shinin
jerm
Was jerm banned for this? When will he be back?
Yes,
there are a few things Inzl doesn't understand when reading,
1. context.
2. hyperbole
Acw's stance is homosexuality should be illegalized and homos put to death, of course that does not warrant banning, nor is it considered threatening to other members.
However, if you should question that or put those same types of ideas in a sentence to show it's ridiculousness that is a threat.
Obviously contrary to what Acw said being beaten and bullied is not "lucky" for anyone, neither would the extreme of that thought (death) be lucky, hence the hyperbole.
it's truly is a wonder Inzl even has all his arms and eyes when reading the bible,
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out ...
that was over the line Jesus!
it's no wonder these clowns on here get all the theologies they do, and follow after the doctrines of men.
they are truly a blind and ignorant lot, and I have no choice as a follower of Messiah but to forgive them, Luke 23:34, Amen.
Not a single critic of this child and family has addressed the question I asked earlier: What if the kid genuinely identifies as a girl? What if this is no passing phase? What if this is the real deal?
In their little world such things can't and don't happen, so it's literally a possibility they can't imagine. Must be nice.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
March 15th, 2013, 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
Yep. Sure hope they feel better about themselves.
Not a single critic of this child and family has addressed the question I asked earlier: What if the kid genuinely identifies as a girl? What if this is no passing phase? What if this is the real deal?
In their little world such things can't and don't happen, so it's literally a possibility they can't imagine. Must be nice.
Could that be the case? Possibly ... however, six is a relatively young age, IMO, to actually encourage a child to pursue changing their gender.
As for how adults should treat this child, I would say as we should treat all children ... with love and support.
Support doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with everything the child is asking for, but rather showing kindness, trying to understand and making them feel they are not alone and unprotected.
Having said that, I do not believe it's okay to make special rules for this child in a public or private school setting. The other children need to be considered.
There certainly does need to be an anti-bullying policy to protect ALL children, however, that doesn't mean parents get to demand special rules be applied to their child at the expense of all others.
Could that be the case? Possibly ... however, six is a relatively young age, IMO, to actually encourage a child to pursue changing their gender.
That I'm aware they haven't gotten to that point. So far it's a question of identity. No one's talked about the kid's sex life (except Christians here) or surgery (except Christians here) or acted less than rationally (except Christians here). So far the only thing the parents are guilty of is not trying to shoehorn their child.
Quote:
As for how adults should treat this child, I would say as we should treat all children ... with love and support.
It'd be swell.
Quote:
Support doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with everything the child is asking for, but rather showing kindness, trying to understand and making them feel they are not alone and unprotected.
Indeed, although in this case the request and need seems extraordinary enough to cooperate and encourage the kid.
Quote:
Having said that, I do not believe it's okay to make special rules for this child in a public or private school setting. The other children need to be considered.
No one's in danger. Safety isn't being infringed. And special rules are made for certain students all the time. Why not in this case? Someone has to go first.
Quote:
There certainly does need to be an anti-bullying policy to protect ALL children, however, that doesn't mean parents get to demand special rules be applied to their child at the expense of all others.
I can't see how "all other" students at Coy's school are being demeaned, degraded, or inconvenienced.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
March 15th, 2013, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
No one's in danger. Safety isn't being infringed. And special rules are made for certain students all the time. Why not in this case? Someone has to go first.
I never made a claim of danger. What is being infringed on, IMO, is the comfort and expectation of privacy for the *other* children. I don't agree that in a case where parents are asking for a special right that is not a necessity should be granted.
What reason will be given if the other children demand the same *right* and are told no?
Quote:
I can't see how "all other" students at Coy's school are being demeaned, degraded, or inconvenienced.
I don't believe I used the words demeaned or degraded. Are they being inconvenienced ... you betcha. It is being demanded that all the other children "just deal with it" so that ONE child receive a *special* right that is not medically or educationally necessary.
IF the parents wish to dictate the rules of the school and demand special treatment (which is completely unnecessary), easy to remedy for all involved: home school ...
I never made a claim of danger. What is being infringed on, IMO, is the comfort and expectation of privacy for the *other* children. I don't agree that in a case where parents are asking for a special right that is not a necessity should be granted.
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of a woman's restroom but I don't see an issue with privacy being infringed...
Quote:
What reason will be given if the other children demand the same *right* and are told no?
Kind of a non-sequitar: How would other kids be in a position to demand the same right Coy's asking for?
Quote:
I don't believe I used the words demeaned or degraded. Are they being inconvenienced ... you betcha.
Specifically, how so?
Quote:
It is being demanded that all the other children "just deal with it" so that ONE child receive a *special* right that is not medically or educationally necessary.
I'd say this provides a good educational opportunity for all those involved...and I'm wary of denying a right and convenience to the odd kid out simply because it may not be medically expedient or even necessary. Ideally we'd treat people fairly even if it's not "necessary," or indeed even when (or especially when) it's not.
To go a little geek here, the needs of the one (or the few) may occasionally outweigh the needs of the many.
Quote:
IF the parents wish to dictate the rules of the school and demand special treatment (which is completely unnecessary), easy to remedy for all involved: home school ...
Which is what they're doing now. "If you don't like it get out" seems like a lousy way to conduct ourselves, though.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
Of course you realize this means war! ~ Bugs Bunny
Reputation:
March 15th, 2013, 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
I'm not familiar with the mechanics of a woman's restroom but I don't see an issue with privacy being infringed...
There are normally stalls, all next to one another. IF this were a matter of a single restroom where the person goes in and locks the door behind them, I would agree. However, it isn't.
Quote:
Kind of a non-sequitar: How would other kids be in a position to demand the same right Coy's asking for?
Simple ... since Coy is allowed to use the girl's restroom, the other little boys would naturally believe they are also allowed to use it. While it may or may not bother guys to share such a proud and wondrous movement in the company of women, it is not the same for most women. So why would their be an expectancy for girls to feel differently?
Quote:
Specifically, how so?
By having *their* right to do their private business without having a member of the of the opposite sex in ear shot or view. There are some private moments that not all of are okay with sharing with a member of the opposite sex.
Quote:
I'd say this provides a good educational opportunity for all those involved...and I'm wary of denying a right and convenience to the odd kid out simply because it may not be medically expedient or even necessary. Ideally we'd treat people fairly even if it's not "necessary," or indeed even when (or especially when) it's not.
Well ... that's just it ... you are not treating all the kids fairly. One is receiving a right the others are denied. The others may not all be on board with the one getting special consideration.
Quote:
To go a little geek here, the needs of the one (or the few) may occasionally outweigh the needs of the many.
I don't see it as a *need*. It's not like anyone is denying this child the right to do his business just the same as the rest of the kids.
Quote:
Which is what they're doing now. "If you don't like it get out" seems like a lousy way to conduct ourselves, though.
Only IF the parents have the desire to have the child take this decision personally.
This isn't about the school board, administrators, teachers and all the other parents getting together and saying "hey, let's make this kid miserable ... just because ... ".
The bathroom gender rule was set up PRIOR to this child being encouraged (by his parents) to use the other restroom.
Which is what they're doing now. "If you don't like it get out" seems like a lousy way to conduct ourselves, though.
Some folks love throwing that around, except of course, when it applies to them. It wasn't all that long ago that the right-wing championed "love it or leave it!" Now that that those same folks don't love it, I don't seem to hear "love it or leave it" anymore."
(Well, I suppose there are the freedom-fighting warriors signing their "Dear president Obama, may we secede?" petitions from the comfort of home, but we won't be seeing them actually leaving anything except the couch to grab another bag of chips).
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
I also did not notice in any article pertaining to the OP that said "how many psychological opinions they sought".
Linear Mode
