“You clearly have a very shallow understanding of trans issues”, she/he sniped as she/he tossed her head back, squared her/his shoulders before walking off.
Drama queens. Whatever.

ROFL, back attcha. That’s why this article is questionable. Where are the facts? Where are the details? You keep misrepresenting me, putting words in my mouth. Never did I say that being raised by transexuals is ucky, or allude to it being nefarious. What I implied is people who exercise poor judgement like selfishly putting their own needs above their children probably make it a habit to exercise poor judgement in all areas of child-rearing. Just because this article claims that is why the children where taken from the couple doesn’t mean that is what happened. It is lacking credibility because it is lacking evidence. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason like exposure to drugs or something. We will never will know, because the real intent of the article is obviously to manufacture outrage.

My pleasure. It is so easy to be misunderstood... something we are all too familiar with especially regarding Rand... :)

I wish I knew... I only watch stuff when it shows up on Amazon or Netflix... I hope there are more :)

Thanks O.A. :)

Holy Hell rmcd. Way to blow up what I just said. First...I have not read the article...I was responding to Mimi's reference to a family that she knew in a similar situation. I do not think anyone should be jailed for being who they are, (unless, of course, they are a threat to others) but I do not have to like it, or be silent of my dislike of people who make spectacles of themselves. This does not mean that I believe people don't have the right to live the way they want. (Making a spectacle of themselves) It only means that you can't make me like it or accept it. When you cram something in someone's face that they don't care to witness it's rude and intrusive and disrespectful. If I thought it was okay to operate in that manner I would be screaming in my friend's faces how stupid they are for not giving a shit about their country, that I think their lack of interest of current gov shenanigans disgusts me because it's willful ignorance and lazy to boot. But...I don't think that is the way to win anyone over to your way of thinking...even if I KNOW they are in the wrong for not using their noggins.
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future. Live and let live...I'm all for it...just don't go thinking you can convince everyone.

I stand corrected. Yes that is the one. Ragnar! I saw the first season. Is there a second?

Yes... It's just "Viking" though. Lead character's name is Ragnar... bonus.

You are speaking about the series Vikings right? Yes, I liked that one too.

Hello rmcd1957,
I do not believe LS has said what you infer. She has not suggested anyone be locked up or put in a cage. I have not seen where she has suggested any laws are needed. That is just hyperbole. She is suggesting that people maintain some sense of propriety in public and for the sake of their offspring. She has suggested that parents have a moral responsibility to their children, not to do any harm and that entails mental anguish.Whether that has occurred is a question for the children and those involved. I personally do not believe the state has the right to take the children, but that does not mitigate the problems the children may face due to the choices this person has made. I believe this link about sacrifice and the particular entries pertaining to children and the choices one makes regarding their offspring are pertinent. Choosing to have children and do what is necessary should not be a sacrifice, but you have to set priorities for their well being and those should fall higher on your hierarchy. One must take responsibility for one's actions. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrif...
Also there is this:
The Myth
Objectivists do not believe it is proper to have children.
The Truth:
(From “Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964. )
PLAYBOY: Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work—and if so, what kind of work?
RAND: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.
PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?
RAND: Not immoral—I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper—if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.

And

"To an animal, the rearing of its young is a matter of temporary cycles. To man, it is a lifelong responsibility—a grave responsibility that must not be undertaken causelessly, thoughtlessly or accidentally."
“Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 55.

One other note: There are many common values among libertarians and objectivists, but this is not a libertarian site. In fact it is more objectivist by nature.

Respectfully,
O.A.

I read the story wrong. I thought the change occurred after the baby had been born, which kind of suggested the grandparents had been intentional mislead to gain their support. For that, I apologize. The article says you have to trust the writer is telling the truth. Really? I don’t think so. Mention the state; quote the judge; do something that distinguishes it as a factual account. You use the word persecution a lot. It’s easy to rile you up with any story, whether fictional or not, by exploiting your emotional belief that the GLBT community is in a constant state of persecution. Think about it.

Oh, and yes I do know plenty of gays and transgenders, my cousin as a matter of fact, one of my best friends growing up.

She knows what I believe about her lifestyle, and I haven't ever brought it up with her except when she did. When we're around, it's not even a topic of conversation because frankly, she's a big kid. I still bring my entire family (all 5 kids) around her and her partner, and it's a jolly old time.

Lately it's gone south because she brought the topic up again to explain why I wasn't being invited to her "wedding" because of what I believe. I told her I didn't expect to be invited, and though I'd have no problem with her getting a civil union, I couldn't support a gay "marriage" anyhow. She didn't like that, chose to take offense, whatever. I didn't get all pouty when she and others trashed on my Christian faith, but apparently humanists can't take disagreement.

Television is escape not reality. You can over-saturate the market and dull the interest of the viewer. Come back in ten years and discuss the viewing trend then.

Byjr
the story is glaringly missing any factual details. If the courts were involved there is public record. Thiis is all speculation and likely not true with the information provided. There are plenty of gay couples out there with children. There is no legal precedence in recent history to support what the article alleges and there is support out there to show this is a common tactic to incite sympathy to a political cause or agenda. Again the courts cannot remove your children because you had a sec change. If the story were true there is other evidence we do not have