Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

School "outs" boy to his parents

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:41:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Basic re-cap...

The boy was publically "out" at school (boy admits, not just a claim), just not to his parents.
The school feared (their claim) that him being out would make him a bully target.
The school thought (their claim again) that the best way to protect him from bullying included making sure his parents knew he was gay.
The boy did not want to tell his parents.
The school kept telling him to until he agreed (no sign of "force" or "threat of force").
The parents over-reacted and beat him to death. no, wait, that's not right, it says here, "
the boy's parents are supportive but have removed him from school until the controversy subsides."

So all turned out fine. However, the ACLU is still calling this a violation of the boy's right to privacy (thus the controversy that has the boy pulled out of school, thanks ACLU).

In my opinion, the "right to privacy" is an incomplete statement. It should be "right to privacy from..." then goes on with a list. As a minor, you do not have a right to privacy from your parents. As a citizen, you do not have a right to privacy from investigators when suspected of a crime. However, even though you may not have right to privacy from those entities in those situations, you still maintain a right to privacy from the general public (ergo, right to privacy is not a simple on/off absolute kind of thing).

And saying that children have a legally protected right to privacy from their parents (which would be the case if the ACLU decides to sue the school, which they are considering) would open a massive legal can of worms from child crime. When children comit their oh so common acts of vandalism, the parents can no longer be held responsible as the parents cannot legally control their children any more. As such, children, of course, will not have insurance, nor income to pay for damages, and so vandalised victims will be left holding the bag. This extends to all forms of child crimes that are a result from poor parenting attention.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:43:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
hm...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:44:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
why not
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:48:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You raise a good point. Based off my own personal view of the right to privacy, I see a violation; however that "right" is perhaps the most obscure and subjective there is. So I dont know if the schools decision was appropriate.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:52:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with thet3, it is wrong to do but I think that it isn't a right in this case.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:58:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That sucks for the kid, but I don't think the school did anything legally wrong or whatever. It's a tough situation because we want to hold schools accountable for bullying, and because of that, they could easily argue that they were acting in the best interest of the kid and/or to avoid any potential liability.

I bet that this will actually make the whole kid being gay thing a lot easier for him. It's going to become an issue that gets national attention, so people all over are going to be talking about it, and expressing the view WHO CARES if the kid is gay, etc.

The parents are going to be exposed to that and kind of forced to say they don't mind, especially when interviewed by the ACLU, lawyers, etc. They'll probably even publicly support him, which means they likely support him genuinely. As I was saying to my friend last night, there is absolutely no logical reason to be upset that your kid is gay - only emotional reactions. Fear of bullying is the only legitimate concern, but since the kid was out at school, I don't think it's a huge problem. Basically I think this will overall have a positive outcome for the boy as an individual and probably even "the gay community" at large or whatever.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:19:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think what the school did was wrong. Children and teenagers have a natural tendencies to keep information away from their parents.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:29:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a little tricky. Part of me understands the desire to protect the child from bullying, but if no bullying yet occured, then the orientation of the child is their own business. If someone isn't ready to come out to their parents yet, that's between the family, not the school. Sounds like the school jumped the gun.

As for the ACLU, I have another four-letter acronynm for you... GTFO!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 2:59:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Prior to 1985 no one under the age of majority had any rights. In New Jersey v. TLO the Court held that searches of school Lockers required probable cause, assigning RIGHTS to a minor. This opening of the door has lead to the ACLU taking on these types of cases, to clarify what rights children have, and to all but eliminate in loco parentis Doctrine. In short, it is an open question as a result of the Supreme Court.

FYI The fact that he was "out" at school would constitute a waiver of privacy, as school is a public place. There is the conundrum, kids are kids, they are not adults.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 3:07:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 2:59:14 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prior to 1985 no one under the age of majority had any rights. In New Jersey v. TLO the Court held that searches of school Lockers required probable cause, assigning RIGHTS to a minor. This opening of the door has lead to the ACLU taking on these types of cases, to clarify what rights children have, and to all but eliminate in loco parentis Doctrine. In short, it is an open question as a result of the Supreme Court.

FYI The fact that he was "out" at school would constitute a waiver of privacy, as school is a public place. There is the conundrum, kids are kids, they are not adults.

Is your Facebook account open for the world to examine? Just because he wanted information to be public in one group setting does not mean that he wants it to be public in another group setting. This was a personal decision that he needed to make; the school had no right to reveal the information to his parents without his permission. Given that he was extremely reluctant, there must be a reason that he did not want to tell his parents.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 5:36:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 3:07:33 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/22/2011 2:59:14 AM, logicrules wrote:
Prior to 1985 no one under the age of majority had any rights. In New Jersey v. TLO the Court held that searches of school Lockers required probable cause, assigning RIGHTS to a minor. This opening of the door has lead to the ACLU taking on these types of cases, to clarify what rights children have, and to all but eliminate in loco parentis Doctrine. In short, it is an open question as a result of the Supreme Court.

FYI The fact that he was "out" at school would constitute a waiver of privacy, as school is a public place. There is the conundrum, kids are kids, they are not adults.

Is your Facebook account open for the world to examine? Just because he wanted information to be public in one group setting does not mean that he wants it to be public in another group setting. This was a personal decision that he needed to make; the school had no right to reveal the information to his parents without his permission. Given that he was extremely reluctant, there must be a reason that he did not want to tell his parents.

Irrelevant, to maintain confidentiality one must maintain it. all or nothing. You want the kid treated as a child, thats fine, he has no rights. It is an open question but we must apply the law. Yes, if it is on my Facebook page it is not private.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 1:40:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
See this goes along with the idea behind "age of consent."

If you have a person dependant on another for food and housing, you should not have the right to make judgement calls on who you may or may not infringe upon, as the person supporting you by default will end up getting the shaft for your decisions.

Do you really think parents deserve to pay for the children's exercising of 'civil rights' just for having a child?
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 4:00:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 1:40:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
See this goes along with the idea behind "age of consent."

If you have a person dependant on another for food and housing, you should not have the right to make judgement calls on who you may or may not infringe upon, as the person supporting you by default will end up getting the shaft for your decisions.

Do you really think parents deserve to pay for the children's exercising of 'civil rights' just for having a child?

Wow...way to many pronouns. it is not about dependency, an 80 year old may be dependent. Parents have to pay just because they have the Child....absofrigginlutly.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 4:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was it legally wrong? No.

Was it indecent? I think so.

Even though both of my parents are aware of my sexuality, neither realizes how "out" I really am. And, to be honest, I'd keep it that way.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 5:34:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the boy was out at school (at his own volition), doesn't his homosexuality then become public knowledge ?

And if its public knowledge then the right to have that information private doesn't apply.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:29:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:41:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Basic re-cap...

The boy was publically "out" at school (boy admits, not just a claim), just not to his parents.
The school feared (their claim) that him being out would make him a bully target.
The school thought (their claim again) that the best way to protect him from bullying included making sure his parents knew he was gay.
The boy did not want to tell his parents.
The school kept telling him to until he agreed (no sign of "force" or "threat of force").
The parents over-reacted and beat him to death. no, wait, that's not right, it says here, "
the boy's parents are supportive but have removed him from school until the controversy subsides."

So all turned out fine. However, the ACLU is still calling this a violation of the boy's right to privacy (thus the controversy that has the boy pulled out of school, thanks ACLU).

In my opinion, the "right to privacy" is an incomplete statement. It should be "right to privacy from..." then goes on with a list. As a minor, you do not have a right to privacy from your parents. As a citizen, you do not have a right to privacy from investigators when suspected of a crime. However, even though you may not have right to privacy from those entities in those situations, you still maintain a right to privacy from the general public (ergo, right to privacy is not a simple on/off absolute kind of thing).

And saying that children have a legally protected right to privacy from their parents (which would be the case if the ACLU decides to sue the school, which they are considering) would open a massive legal can of worms from child crime. When children comit their oh so common acts of vandalism, the parents can no longer be held responsible as the parents cannot legally control their children any more. As such, children, of course, will not have insurance, nor income to pay for damages, and so vandalised victims will be left holding the bag. This extends to all forms of child crimes that are a result from poor parenting attention.

The "right to privacy from..." argument seems counterproductive to me. The school had no right to insist the boy tell his parents anything unrelated to curricular activities. State schools are also legally required not to hold either bigotry nor preference about gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

The "right to privacy from..." argument overlooks this in favour of a list, however untl that list is complete (which may be never) people will circumvent it. The right to privacy as a statement allows zero room for argument or maneuvre. This is precisely how a right should be presented. Once you introduce any ambiguity at all, people start looking for ways arround it in opportunistic fashion.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 4:42:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:29:42 PM, Veridas wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:41:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Basic re-cap...

The boy was publically "out" at school (boy admits, not just a claim), just not to his parents.
The school feared (their claim) that him being out would make him a bully target.
The school thought (their claim again) that the best way to protect him from bullying included making sure his parents knew he was gay.
The boy did not want to tell his parents.
The school kept telling him to until he agreed (no sign of "force" or "threat of force").
The parents over-reacted and beat him to death. no, wait, that's not right, it says here, "
the boy's parents are supportive but have removed him from school until the controversy subsides."

So all turned out fine. However, the ACLU is still calling this a violation of the boy's right to privacy (thus the controversy that has the boy pulled out of school, thanks ACLU).

In my opinion, the "right to privacy" is an incomplete statement. It should be "right to privacy from..." then goes on with a list. As a minor, you do not have a right to privacy from your parents. As a citizen, you do not have a right to privacy from investigators when suspected of a crime. However, even though you may not have right to privacy from those entities in those situations, you still maintain a right to privacy from the general public (ergo, right to privacy is not a simple on/off absolute kind of thing).

And saying that children have a legally protected right to privacy from their parents (which would be the case if the ACLU decides to sue the school, which they are considering) would open a massive legal can of worms from child crime. When children comit their oh so common acts of vandalism, the parents can no longer be held responsible as the parents cannot legally control their children any more. As such, children, of course, will not have insurance, nor income to pay for damages, and so vandalised victims will be left holding the bag. This extends to all forms of child crimes that are a result from poor parenting attention.

The "right to privacy from..." argument seems counterproductive to me. The school had no right to insist the boy tell his parents anything unrelated to curricular activities. State schools are also legally required not to hold either bigotry nor preference about gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

You have the right to insist anything you want (depending on your adopted rights belief). You just don't have the right to force or threaten.


The "right to privacy from..." argument overlooks this in favour of a list, however untl that list is complete (which may be never) people will circumvent it. The right to privacy as a statement allows zero room for argument or maneuvre. This is precisely how a right should be presented. Once you introduce any ambiguity at all, people start looking for ways arround it in opportunistic fashion.

Making short, absolute statements, while great for 10 second sound bites, are often too broadbrushing to be applicable in the real world. "Lists" apply for everything.

For example, I could broad brush simply with "I'm allergic to nuts," when in reality, there are some nuts I'm allergic too, and some that I'm not. To be accurate to reality would require a list of safe and not safe.

We can also go from reality to moral beliefs (since rights fall in that area rather than reality). Killing people is morally wrong (to most people, since morals are subjective, people can choose to not hold that moral, though the vast majority do). Though we understand that killing in self defense is not wrong, and killing by accident is wrong, but not as wrong as premeditated intent (manslaughter vs murder). As such, we have a list. While it allows for people to try to circumnavigate it be pretending that the murder was an accident, the list is still far superior than a cold cut and dry "killing is wrong" which would toss self defense out the window.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 6:10:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see the problem with this. If the child did not want to to be outed, he should have kept the information private in the first place. The fact that he didn't shows that he consented to the information being revealed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 6:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 6:10:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. If the child did not want to to be outed, he should have kept the information private in the first place. The fact that he didn't shows that he consented to the information being revealed.

It isn't as simple as that. Many of us LGBT youth (myself EXcluded) fear coming out to their parent(s), but desire a sense of security through school, and GSAs that lie within. Most GSAs and the schools they're in (INcluding my school) have policies that, if the student desires, their sexual orientation remains within the school confidentially. Even in this day and age, a largely unaccepted sexual orientation, especially one that would entail disownment from the parents, is a very tough thing to deal with.

To expect a person to keep a part of himself secret from the rest of the world for fear of persecution is unreasonable.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 9:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 6:17:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/30/2011 6:10:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. If the child did not want to to be outed, he should have kept the information private in the first place. The fact that he didn't shows that he consented to the information being revealed.

It isn't as simple as that. Many of us LGBT youth (myself EXcluded) fear coming out to their parent(s), but desire a sense of security through school, and GSAs that lie within.
If parents can't accept children for what they choose, then something needs to be done about the parents. Treat the problem by fixing the root.
Most GSAs and the schools they're in (INcluding my school) have policies that, if the student desires, their sexual orientation remains within the school confidentially.
I am not aware of school policies like that. Could you perhaps link?
Even in this day and age, a largely unaccepted sexual orientation, especially one that would entail disownment from the parents, is a very tough thing to deal with.
Again, treat the parents.
To expect a person to keep a part of himself secret from the rest of the world for fear of persecution is unreasonable.
I would hardly call it persecution as there is no official persecuted body. What you probably meant was "consequences". Everything in this world, if revealed, has some consequences. It is the job of the offender to analyze actions and consequences before blindly charging into battle (metaphor). Your logic can be applied to murder:
To expect a person to keep a part of himself (once performed, the murder is often emotionally and psychologically rooted into the brain) secret from the rest of the world for fear of consequences is unreasonable.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 9:08:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/30/2011 6:17:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/30/2011 6:10:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. If the child did not want to to be outed, he should have kept the information private in the first place. The fact that he didn't shows that he consented to the information being revealed.

It isn't as simple as that. Many of us LGBT youth (myself EXcluded) fear coming out to their parent(s), but desire a sense of security through school, and GSAs that lie within.
If parents can't accept children for what they choose, then something needs to be done about the parents. Treat the problem by fixing the root.
Most GSAs and the schools they're in (INcluding my school) have policies that, if the student desires, their sexual orientation remains within the school confidentially.
I am not aware of school policies like that. Could you perhaps link?
Even in this day and age, a largely unaccepted sexual orientation, especially one that would entail disownment from the parents, is a very tough thing to deal with.
Again, treat the parents.
To expect a person to keep a part of himself secret from the rest of the world for fear of persecution is unreasonable.
I would hardly call it persecution as there is no official persecuted body. What you probably meant was "consequences". Everything in this world, if revealed, has some consequences. It is the job of the offender to analyze actions and consequences before blindly charging into battle (metaphor). Your logic can be applied to murder:
To expect a person to keep a part of himself (once performed, the murder is often emotionally and psychologically rooted into the brain) secret from the rest of the world for fear of consequences is unreasonable.

Your response fails for 2 reasons:

1) The murderer analogy fails because same-sex relations are, by and large, a victimless affair, whereas murder is not.

2) You would be right about parents needing to be treated. However, due to the commonly accepted idea of parental sovereignty (which is indeed necessary), parents seem to have the right to force LGBT youth into therapy even though many institutions, including the American Psychiatric Association, have declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, nor should be treated as one, or they can disown them. Pair this with the idea that homosexuality still faces opposition and that opposition is still considered reasonable, and you have a recipe for the parents not getting treated.

Also, I can't link you to a policy, but I actually found out that they aren't voluntary--they're mandatory. A final ruling by a federal appeals court in 1997 said that outing a child's sexual orientation--or anyone's for that matter--is legally considered a violation of their right to privacy. This includes police, schools, etc. This article mentions the case in passing, and not much detail: http://gaytoday.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 1:07:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ore_Ele said:
You have the right to insist anything you want (depending on your adopted rights belief). You just don't have the right to force or threaten.

The school evidently didn't give the kid much choice in the matter.

Ore_Ele said:
Making short, absolute statements, while great for 10 second sound bites, are often too broadbrushing to be applicable in the real world. "Lists" apply for everything.

Not unless the list includes everything.

Ore_Ele said:
For example, I could broad brush simply with "I'm allergic to nuts," when in reality, there are some nuts I'm allergic too, and some that I'm not. To be accurate to reality would require a list of safe and not safe.

And I could do what the kid did and come out at school but not at home, when the school asked why I could refer to right to privacy from my parents. The school could then decide that since my parents were the ones that raised my, my grandmother is not technically a parent, and simply tell her, and everyone else they can as long as they aren't strictly a "parent" with the knowledge that the more people they tell, the more likely someone will tell my theoretical parents. Privacy circumvented.

Ore_ele said:
We can also go from reality to moral beliefs (since rights fall in that area rather than reality). Killing people is morally wrong (to most people, since morals are subjective, people can choose to not hold that moral, though the vast majority do). Though we understand that killing in self defense is not wrong, and killing by accident is wrong, but not as wrong as premeditated intent (manslaughter vs murder). As such, we have a list. While it allows for people to try to circumnavigate it be pretending that the murder was an accident, the list is still far superior than a cold cut and dry "killing is wrong" which would toss self defense out the window.

Yet is privacy not self defence in the purest form? If knowing is half the battle, is the best defence not to shield personal information about yourself from those who would use it in wasys undesirable to you?

Its funny that you can equate privacy with murder, but also funny that you expect to be able to dictate people's privacy preferences like this. I notice you've ever included the ability to just say "The right to privacy from everyone" which would contradict your argument, and yet be very possible via your argument. Unless of course you intend to try and make a standardised list, which people will happily circumvent whenever they please, knowing they'll never be punished for it.

While the idea is good, its unsupportable practically and morally. Privacy as a term is absolute, keeping something from absolutely everyone is the epitome of privacy. Privacy as a concept doesn't hurt people anymore than the right to consensual marriage does. Yet once you start adding astericks to previously unshakable rights, does not seem terribly like human nature to be tempted to add asterisks to all rights?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 5:03:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 9:32:25 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/30/2011 9:08:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/30/2011 6:17:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/30/2011 6:10:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. If the child did not want to to be outed, he should have kept the information private in the first place. The fact that he didn't shows that he consented to the information being revealed.

It isn't as simple as that. Many of us LGBT youth (myself EXcluded) fear coming out to their parent(s), but desire a sense of security through school, and GSAs that lie within.
If parents can't accept children for what they choose, then something needs to be done about the parents. Treat the problem by fixing the root.
Most GSAs and the schools they're in (INcluding my school) have policies that, if the student desires, their sexual orientation remains within the school confidentially.
I am not aware of school policies like that. Could you perhaps link?
Even in this day and age, a largely unaccepted sexual orientation, especially one that would entail disownment from the parents, is a very tough thing to deal with.
Again, treat the parents.
To expect a person to keep a part of himself secret from the rest of the world for fear of persecution is unreasonable.
I would hardly call it persecution as there is no official persecuted body. What you probably meant was "consequences". Everything in this world, if revealed, has some consequences. It is the job of the offender to analyze actions and consequences before blindly charging into battle (metaphor). Your logic can be applied to murder:
To expect a person to keep a part of himself (once performed, the murder is often emotionally and psychologically rooted into the brain) secret from the rest of the world for fear of consequences is unreasonable.

Your response fails for 2 reasons:

1) The murderer analogy fails because same-sex relations are, by and large, a victimless affair, whereas murder is not.
SSC have increased:
-Murder rates
-STI disease rates
-Divorces
-Sex outside of partnership
2) You would be right about parents needing to be treated. However, due to the commonly accepted idea of parental sovereignty (which is indeed necessary), parents seem to have the right to force LGBT youth into therapy even though many institutions, including the American Psychiatric Association, have declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, nor should be treated as one, or they can disown them. Pair this with the idea that homosexuality still faces opposition and that opposition is still considered reasonable, and you have a recipe for the parents not getting treated.
You're saying that the parents should not disown their children because of this, and therefore this information should not be told to the parents. Guess what? This can apply to nearly all information. Remember that judge that beat the girl over using the internet? If that was at school, should the school not tell the child that the girl was using the internet? Parents, as the natural people who brought the child into this world should know all information about them. Also, is your frustration based with the premise that the parents CAN disown the children or that they CAN disown them because of being gay?
Also, I can't link you to a policy, but I actually found out that they aren't voluntary--they're mandatory. A final ruling by a federal appeals court in 1997 said that outing a child's sexual orientation--or anyone's for that matter--is legally considered a violation of their right to privacy. This includes police, schools, etc. This article mentions the case in passing, and not much detail: http://gaytoday.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Prox
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:22:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"SSC have increased:
-Murder rates
-STI disease rates
-Divorces
-Sex outside of partnership"

Whether or not this is true (and you can provide proof of a causal connection, which there is not), SSC nonetheless is not constituted of any of these things. And thus it remains a victimless "crime".

I hate to say it, but parents, in return for their associated responsibility, require some amount of power over their children — and knowledge is one of the more important classes of this. Just like a parent deserves to know where her child is at 10PM, she deserves to know about things that are more controversial — like sexuality.

Still, children should be given some breathing room as they mature into adults. There has to be a transition from dependence to independence, and the child will insist on this. As he obtains more responsibility for his actions, he ought to obtain a commensurate amount of power about his person. Development isn't some absolute thing with a break at the age of 18.

But the kid shouldn't have been so naive. Public education comes out of his parents' pockets, and thus ultimately exists for them, not the kid. Whatever relevant information the school recieves about the kid should be reported to the parents.

I just wonder why the school is paying so much attention to a kid who has come out, even without any instances of bullying having occurred yet. :/
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 6:35:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 1:07:32 AM, Veridas wrote:
Ore_Ele said:
You have the right to insist anything you want (depending on your adopted rights belief). You just don't have the right to force or threaten.

The school evidently didn't give the kid much choice in the matter.

Obviously both sides are going to exaggerate their side to their own benefit, but unless we hear any "under threat of suspension" or anything, than there is no forcing.


Ore_Ele said:
Making short, absolute statements, while great for 10 second sound bites, are often too broadbrushing to be applicable in the real world. "Lists" apply for everything.

Not unless the list includes everything.

In whichcase you're broad brushing, but accepting the broad bushing as to not be wrong (turning back to the example of killing in self defense).


Ore_Ele said:
For example, I could broad brush simply with "I'm allergic to nuts," when in reality, there are some nuts I'm allergic too, and some that I'm not. To be accurate to reality would require a list of safe and not safe.

And I could do what the kid did and come out at school but not at home, when the school asked why I could refer to right to privacy from my parents. The school could then decide that since my parents were the ones that raised my, my grandmother is not technically a parent, and simply tell her, and everyone else they can as long as they aren't strictly a "parent" with the knowledge that the more people they tell, the more likely someone will tell my theoretical parents. Privacy circumvented.

except you don't need to claim a right to have it. You don't have to say "I have a right of privacy from my parents" to have, nor invoke it. You either have it 24/7 (until you voluntarily yeild it), or you don't. Just like the right to life. You don't have to say "I have a right to life" in order to have. If I kill you quickly enough that you don't have a chance to say that, I've still violated your right to life.


Ore_ele said:
We can also go from reality to moral beliefs (since rights fall in that area rather than reality). Killing people is morally wrong (to most people, since morals are subjective, people can choose to not hold that moral, though the vast majority do). Though we understand that killing in self defense is not wrong, and killing by accident is wrong, but not as wrong as premeditated intent (manslaughter vs murder). As such, we have a list. While it allows for people to try to circumnavigate it be pretending that the murder was an accident, the list is still far superior than a cold cut and dry "killing is wrong" which would toss self defense out the window.

Yet is privacy not self defence in the purest form? If knowing is half the battle, is the best defence not to shield personal information about yourself from those who would use it in wasys undesirable to you?

No, no it is not.

1) "Knowing is half the battle" is a cheesy catch phrase, not an accurate statement of reality.
2) You forget that this person does not hold the power of consent, and his parents are his legal guardians. As such, he cannot legally make such decisions, only his parents can.


Its funny that you can equate privacy with murder, but also funny that you expect to be able to dictate people's privacy preferences like this. I notice you've ever included the ability to just say "The right to privacy from everyone" which would contradict your argument, and yet be very possible via your argument. Unless of course you intend to try and make a standardised list, which people will happily circumvent whenever they please, knowing they'll never be punished for it.

I don't equate privacy with murder. I equate an absolute right of privacy against an absolute right of life to show that "absolute rights" are not legit.


While the idea is good, its unsupportable practically and morally. Privacy as a term is absolute, keeping something from absolutely everyone is the epitome of privacy. Privacy as a concept doesn't hurt people anymore than the right to consensual marriage does. Yet once you start adding astericks to previously unshakable rights, does not seem terribly like human nature to be tempted to add asterisks to all rights?

If you're idea of privacy is "keeping something from absolutely everyone" then his privacy was never violated by the school, because he violated it himself by sharing it with people.

Also, there are astericks to all rights. I've already pointed out how killing is sometimes morally acceptable. We simply give it a different name so that it isn't classified under "murder." But all that's been done is a play with words try and force the rights to remain "absolute" when they are nothing of the sort.

If you find comfort in that, then we can do the same with privacy.

"you have an absolute right to privacy" (and now we re-define the word "privacy" into some narrow box).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:44:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your argument, Ore_ele, is that fascist parenting should be effectively required on pain of civil remedies.

0_0.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:38:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ore_Ele said:
Obviously both sides are going to exaggerate their side to their own benefit, but unless we hear any "under threat of suspension" or anything, than there is no forcing.

Given that the child was the one who was basically being ordered to do something against his will, by a person or people who are supposed to hold moderate authority over him, about something that was clearly very personal to him, I feel more inclined to go with the kid purely because if the school's telling the truth then why would the kid allow this to happen? You also have to consider the geograhy, this is Utah, more specifically its Salt Lake City. Plenty of Mormons about and lets be honest, Mormons don't tend to play nice when it comes to homosexuality.

Besides, you can tell by the soundbite that the kid wasn't acting of his own free will. Did you look at the quote?
""He was nervous" about telling his parents, school district spokeswoman Rhonda Bromley told the Salt Lake Tribune. "He initially said, ‘No, that can't happen.' He finally agreed reluctantly."

Its the little things that give these people away, she starts off making sure that we know just how the boy felt, she seems to quote him...and then she absolutely ceases to focus on his emotional state at all. As if to say "That is no longer pertinent" when the opposite is true. While Rhonda is unlikely to have been the one to coerce him given her position, its not outside the realms of possibility that she's blowing the school's trumpet for the sake of people's trust in her schools.

People who lie sometimes add unnecessary details. There is at least one in the article, see if you can spot it.

Ore_ele said:
In whichcase you're broad brushing, but accepting the broad bushing as to not be wrong (turning back to the example of killing in self defense).

Isn't that how we want it? I don't know about you but I don't want anyone to know anything about me until I've met them and even then what I say may or may not be a falsehood because some people can go f*ck themselves. What I do not want is to have a list of people whom I maintain privacy from. Firstly because the list would be about seven billion names long, and secondly because its not an effective method of managing one's details. Unless you intend for every single person to have a seperate list then you're broadbrushing just as much as I am, and who are you to decide who someone should have privacy against and who they should be exposed to?

Ore_ele said:
except you don't need to claim a right to have it. You don't have to say "I have a right of privacy from my parents" to have, nor invoke it.

No, I don't. However, under your system I would, and until I made that claim then it wouldn't be true. Actually it might not even be true even after I made the claim. QED. Besides, this doesn't answer for the point at hand. If I say as per your list that I have the right to privacy from my parents, then people who want my parents to know something will just tell people who aren't my parents but are still related to me. If I say I have the right to privacy from my friends, they'll just tell my friends' families. If I say I have the right to privacy from the Government, then the Government will send a man in a suit to my door to laugh in my face for ten minutes. If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile, so its better not to give them anything.

Ore_ele said:
1) "Knowing is half the battle" is a cheesy catch phrase, not an accurate statement of reality.
2) You forget that this person does not hold the power of consent, and his parents are his legal guardians. As such, he cannot legally make such decisions, only his parents can.

Then would you prefer "knowledge is power?" or perhaps "Its not who you know or what you know but what you know about who you know?" If you intend to claim my argument as debunked because I reference G. I. Motherf*cking. Joe then I think that says more about you than it does about me.

Secondly, if that's the case then your entire argument is debunked. A child can have secrets just as much as any adult can, and yet the child's parents who may not know about the secret apparantely have to choose if they have the legal right to something they don't know about and potentially have no reason to believe exists. The child is exercising his or her right to privacy under the current scheme. Under your scheme the child is playing a game of thrones with a secret that might be very important to them but not necessarily harmful.

Ore_Ele said:
I don't equate privacy with murder. I equate an absolute right of privacy against an absolute right of life to show that "absolute rights" are not legit.

Yet circumventable rights are a preferable alternative? I don't know about you but I don't expect to get a letter telling me that due to a spelling error on form 59B my right to life has been revoked down to two potential removers of said life, namely my dog and my desk fan. Oops, suddenly no right to life.

This is all ignoring the tendency of humans to corrupt things for their own personal gain, I don't think you've considered the adverse effects this system would have on you.

Ore_Ele said:
If you're idea of privacy is "keeping something from absolutely everyone" then his privacy was never violated by the school, because he violated it himself by sharing it with people.

That's privacy in the extreme, namely what people have should they or until they choose to violate it. Having said that, since the school became aware of the boy's homosexuality by an aide overhearing his conversation, the aide passing it on was breaching the boy's right to privacy. The boy did not tell the school, the boy told his friends. The school found out accidentally and stepped in.

Ore_Ele said:
Also, there are astericks to all rights. I've already pointed out how killing is sometimes morally acceptable. We simply give it a different name so that it isn't classified under "murder." But all that's been done is a play with words try and force the rights to remain "absolute" when they are nothing of the sort.

Do you really think that's the motive? Are you so shallow that you refuse to accept the role accidents play in day to day life?

Murder is intentional, manslaughter is not. Both rob someone of their life, but not their right to life.

Killing someone out of bigotry is to believe they have no right to life because of their affiliation or the subject of that bigotry, and then killing them for it. This includes both the removal of right to life and the life itself.

Saying that someone should be killed because of something they have done or because of an affiliation of theirs or because of some other reason is removal of the right to life, but not their life.

Your logic only works if we consider the first of the three scenarios. While there are exceptions to laws for the sake of self defence or self preservation...are you really going to equate such things with the need to add similar concepts to rights that, up until now, have never called for it, never needed it, and may never need it? Just to suit your own world view? I think you'll find that, democratically at least, your idea won't be well accepted.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 8:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whether or not the boy was under duress aside, no law was broken, because the boy consented. Although federal courts have indeed ruled that schools, the police, or really anyone can threaten to reveal any person's sexual orientation (including children) to anyone against their will--it is considered a violation of a person's right to privacy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 12:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 1:40:23 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
See this goes along with the idea behind "age of consent."

If you have a person dependant on another for food and housing, you should not have the right to make judgement calls on who you may or may not infringe upon, as the person supporting you by default will end up getting the shaft for your decisions.

Do you really think parents deserve to pay for the children's exercising of 'civil rights' just for having a child?

What about situations in which one spouse is economically dependant on the other spouse? Does this still apply?