Court takes couple’s children because father is transgender
Apparently a man isn't fit to be a father if he was born female... -_-
READ ARTICLE: http://blog.timesunion.com/transgender/c...
READ ARTICLE: http://blog.timesunion.com/transgender/c...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 8.
I have no rules? you are really creating scarecrows out in the fields. but the crows are wise.
Maybe mental health issues should be dealt with as that, instead of altering biology.
Mimi wrote: "I knew a father like him who had two young girls. ... You talk about the betrayal that parents felt when they showed up a softball practice with this clown in a dress and wig. He destroyed his daughters. They were mortified to be seen with him. The older daughter begged me .... "
We moved from the state capital (Lansing) to a farm village of 3000 (Fowlerville) when our daughter was 12. The second year, for Halloween, I dressed up as a pirate and gave out Mardi Gras Doubloons to callers. Our daughter was mortified. "Dad! You can't! This is a small town! Everyone knows who you are!!" Then the light went on: "EVERYONE KNOWS WHO I AM !!! Dad, you can't!"
Basically, it was either Ambrose Bierce or H. L. Mencken, but "horrid" is the young womanese expression for "mildly objectionable."
One of our marriage counselors pointed out that the child will leave the home but that we would be living together for the rest of our lives. Marriage is NOT about the children.
In fact, it may be a collectivist, altruist error in logic to claim that the children deserve all the sacrifices of the parents.
Specifically, when our daughter was about 22 or so, she called up one night to apologize for all the grief. I knew it was coming, because I had read Mark Twain who said that when he was 17 and left home, his father was the dumbest man on Earth, but when he returned 10 years later, he was amazed at how wise his father had become...
Although I was first a freshman in 1967, I completed my BS in 2008 and MA in 2010. In one undergraduate class coincidental circumstances brought me out to a dinner with a girl one-third my age with a rainbow on her backpack. She said, "Sex is what is between your legs. Gender is what is between your ears. Orientation is what goes on between the sheets."
And if you don't cater to the whims of a child, the homosexual agenda should fall flat on its face.
So, you're part of that crowd in the 70s that insisted on giving Barbie dolls to boys to combat gender imprinting or whatever the hell they called it?
Tell me, khalling, are you an anarchist? You seem to want no rules whatsoever, not even natural ones.
Do you believe evolution happened/is happening? Because, again, you seemed to be opposed to any rules; what I want uber alles, regardless of sanity or pragmatics.
Sex roles are real, and exist for a purpose. They weren't "invented", they developed... instinctively, one might say. Yes, gender roles vary from culture to culture but they always exist, as they existed before we had culture beyond the family tribe. And not all cultures are equal. It appears to me that the cultures with well-defined gender roles have been more successful than those with no gender roles... those few you can find.
Why should people dress at all?
And this gender-neutral dress we've already adopted (and the general public slovenliness) I strongly suspect was part of the plot to force public acceptance of homosexuality, to further the overall goal of destroying western civilization.
Agreed. You do not, however, cater to the whims of a child.
Since I’m not a member of a protective class like everyone else, I have to take the saturation into my own hands and simple surround myself with people I can tolerate. Hence, who is looking out for me and forcing other people to tolerate me?
I’m not addressing the issue of the social services taking the kids away as there has to be more to this story then what was told. On the narrative presented, I would agree that they overstepped their boundaries but these stories are usually presented in a light to cause change…
Dear khalling, this is where I exercise my restraint and refrain from ad hominem.
Marriage is about the children. It is not altruism, but responsibility, the key difference between liberty and license. You made the kid, you are responsible for the well-being of the kid until the kid is able to care for him/herself.
Unless you're sick in the head, putting your kids' needs first is not a sacrifice. It's like you're saying it's okay to starve, neglect or abuse your dog because caring for the dog you chose to acquire might be collectivist or altruistic. Basic human decency and acceptance of responsibility be damned.
It seems to be part of the pathology, the need for exhibitionism...
Why should there be cultural acceptance of that mental illness, any more than there's cultural acceptance of any other mental illness?
Load more comments...