State of California Law Barring Parents From

[traderdan]

No internal torment here....You have a right to be a homosexual,I have a right to say what I want about it, and any law that is passed beyond the multitude of unnecessary,unconstitutional "laws" that we have already should be soundly rejected. Want to start a war? Try to prevent me from doing what I feel is best for my children.

 

[Hohn]

Well, if nothing else, apparently California has solved all of it's other problems if this sort of bull **** is how the legislature spends its time. Good for you California! I feel the world is a better place now.

TOTBALAT syndrome gone wild-- as it tends to do in California.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No internal torment here....You have a right to be a homosexual,I have a right to say what I want about it, and any law that is passed beyond the multitude of unnecessary,unconstitutional "laws" that we have already should be soundly rejected. Want to start a war? Try to prevent me from doing what I feel is best for my children.

I am with you all the way, but you may note that when I stepped out on this limb it got ugly enough for the thread to get closed!

 

[wagyu52]

Yes. All parents should have the right to inflict any treatment on their minor children for any reason whatsoever, including, but not limitted to:

Religious practice, including teachings on parentally enforced arranged marriages
Economics, including exercising the doctrine of "He who shall not work, neither shall he eat" for children of farm families who decide not to go into the family business, but instead demand an education that will allow them to move off the farm and practice a profession of their choosing.
Sexuality, including keeping adolescent daughters locked within the house from first menses in order to "protect the family honor"
And speaking of honor, outright killing them if they do so much as look at a boy when and if they are let out of the house.

Wow, you are a psychiatrist/therapist dream come true. No hidden issues here

 

[Doug]

Maybe Cathy forgot the purple?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Maybe Cathy forgot the purple?

Unfortunately, I don't think so.

 

[tsugaruroman]

No internal torment here....You have a right to be a homosexual,I have a right to say what I want about it, and any law that is passed beyond the multitude of unnecessary,unconstitutional "laws" that we have already should be soundly rejected. Want to start a war? Try to prevent me from doing what I feel is best for my children.

Amen to that!

 

[tsugaruroman]

I mean really, it's not enough for gay to get their right to be gay, now they have to take away my right to be straight and have straight children?

 

[Doug]

I mean really, it's not enough for gay to get their right to be gay, now they have to take away my right to be straight and have straight children?

Apparently, yes.

 

[tsugaruroman]

Apparently, yes.

Because of the stupid sh$t like that this country is loosing its popularity in the world – because we are loosing basic common sense….

 

[IndyGal65]

I am with you all the way, but you may note that when I stepped out on this limb it got ugly enough for the thread to get closed!

Perhaps it was due to this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyDave1776
I find homosexuals to be some of the most twisted and disgusting persons on the face of the planet.

Of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how offensive it may be to others on this board.

 

[RockofStrength]

Yes. All parents should have the right to inflict any treatment on their minor children for any reason whatsoever, including, but not limitted to:

Religious practice, including teachings on parentally enforced arranged marriages
Economics, including exercising the doctrine of "He who shall not work, neither shall he eat" for children of farm families who decide not to go into the family business, but instead demand an education that will allow them to move off the farm and practice a profession of their choosing.
Sexuality, including keeping adolescent daughters locked within the house from first menses in order to "protect the family honor"
And speaking of honor, outright killing them if they do so much as look at a boy when and if they are let out of the house.

Either of these are murder or a threat to commit murder (provided the lack of food would be extended to the point that the child could die) and do not require any other law in order to be dealt with. All others are merely a difference in moral/societal norms, and I wholeheartedly support their right to teach their children those norms. Yes, including locking the daughter in the house. Why? Because my right to homeschool is deemed to be equally backward, demented, and evil by a rather large number of people.

There must be other recourse for such difference in morals besides a legal one: heck, maybe the neighbors could TALK to the family instead of siccing the child protective service on 'em.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Perhaps it was due to this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyDave1776
I find homosexuals to be some of the most twisted and disgusting persons on the face of the planet.

Of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how offensive it may be to others on this board.

You may notice that 1., the situation was already in the tank, and 2., I avoided such unvarnished thoughts until some, well, misguided individual who thinks he is a clairvoyant tried backing me into a corner regarding my motives, specifically refusing to accept my word for my objection having nothing directly to do with homosexuality. Further, I will stand by my position that what two people do with themselves is none of anyone else's business including the government's and mine. Conversely, freedom of thought and expression are still generally accepted as rights and I claim them. In the end, it would be very difficult to make a presentable argument that I believe in liberty if in practice I were to defend liberty only for those with whom I agree. I found it disturbing that as I defended liberty (albeit not that to alter the English language for their convenience or to personal or community imprimatur on their choices) for those with whom I absolutely disagree the response was tantamount to arguing that I am not entitled to my beliefs. It would seem that some fail to see the difference between liberty and winning a pushing contest.

 

[IndyGal65]

You may notice that 1., the situation was already in the tank, and 2., I avoided such unvarnished thoughts until some, well, misguided individual who thinks he is a clairvoyant tried backing me into a corner regarding my motives, specifically refusing to accept my word for my objection having nothing directly to do with homosexuality. Further, I will stand by my position that what two people do with themselves is none of anyone else's business including the government's and mine. Conversely, freedom of thought and expression are still generally accepted as rights and I claim them. In the end, it would be very difficult to make a presentable argument that I believe in liberty if in practice I were to defend liberty only for those with whom I agree. I found it disturbing that as I defended liberty (albeit not that to alter the English language for their convenience or to personal or community imprimatur on their choices) for those with whom I absolutely disagree the response was tantamount to arguing that I am not entitled to my beliefs. It would seem that some fail to see the difference between liberty and winning a pushing contest.

Meh...so you insult a segment of society, not to mention numerous INGO members, with a statement like that because you're upset with another individual who peeved you off? Oooookay.

 

[Mustang380gal]

And in Germany, they're discussing outlawing circumcision.
(Where's my Hitler smilie?)

Emoticon found //:=|

They've already passed a law against it, and have arrested the first rabbi for circumcising a baby. Rabbi in Germany charged for performing a ritual circumcision

 

[Dybber]

California also Wants to allow children to get sex change operation if they want.