Chad, thank you for sharing your story. I also see that you edited your comment at 1:28am, I hope you weren't too upset and didn't lose any sleep.
My original post was at like 12:30 am, so not really a big deal. I'm always up till 3 am, I'm a university student during finals season. Thank you for your concern, but I wasn't upset at all. If I wasn't able to comfortably talk about my struggles, I wouldn't, as most don't. I'm proud of what I went through because I'm proud of the man I'm becoming.
However, just because my comment may have triggered you doesn't mean you should character assassinate me or straw man my position on the issue.
You should probably stop using words that you have personally insinuated that you find inflammatory, like "triggered". I was not "triggered," I was responding to a vital topic which I have a great deal of personal and learned knowledge on.
On to my actual response to this part though, every single thing I said in my post was apt, in relation to the post of yours which prompted my response on this issue. I am not at all sorry for being straightforward on an extremely important issue that you (nor several others here) clearly do not understand.
I'll present to you what I believe is a reasonable and rational position, here are three axioms:
1) An individual has the right to disclose their sexual orientation to whom ever they want, whenever they want or if at all.
2) Individuals have the right to freedom of assembly in a public space and the anonymity associated with it.
3) A tax payer and legal guardian of a minor(under 18) has the right to know the syllabus and material presented in a program at an educational institution funded by citizens.
If you disagree with any of the above statements formulate your argument based of logic, reason and rationality rather than an emotional appeal.
GSAs are not "programs," as in those headed/managed by faculty. They are student clubs, headed/managed by students, for students. I believe the one in my high school that I helped start had a liaison to the teachers, and it was the librarian. Don't ever remember dealing with her at all in relation to the GSA though.
No. That's such a strawman. No one is saying that. Are you going to ask me when when did I stop beating my wife?
You literally said, "if parents want to know what their kids are up to at a school sponsored program, I think they have the right to know." Or are you reneging on that comment now? Because that is the end result of this belief, regardless of if you admit it or not. Just because you don't understand an issue, does not mean it's not vital, with lives hanging in the balance.
Nice red herring with the "wife beating" thing though, classic move bud.
Yes, every culture has a different approach when dealing with issues of sexual orientation, who are we to infringe on them?
When it leads to people being persecuted/physically attacked for things they can't control (orientation, ethnicity, etc), then hell yeah, it's time to do some infringing. One cannot control being homosexual, the only choice is whether or not they accept it. One can, however, control being a homophobe. (obviously that's not to say you're a homophobe, though I imagine you'll take it that way, hence this edit to clarify)
That's a character assassination.
Please explain how. As it is a fact that anyone who supports this kind of legislation is, in effect, supporting hardship for unknown numbers of already vulnerable children.
For the record I neither agree nor disagree with the legislation. Once again, if you formulate a reasoned critique against it and I'll keep an open mind, make your critique rational and calculated. Don't just say "It'll kill gorillions of children!"
Well that is the argument, and it's a well documented fact that LGBT children are much more likely to attempt/commit suicide than their heterosexual peers. So, take it or leave it, I suppose. Again, just because you don't understand an issue and it doesn't personally effect you doesn't make it any less vital for countless others. It's important for you to educate yourself on it, as I have done for, for instance, farmers issues relating to children working on farms and the NDP legislation relating to that.
Sources re. suicide figures:
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446760/
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/
-
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815
Betrayal is one of the most damaging things a person can experience is their life. I'm sorry to hear that your friend was so asinine and malicious. I'm sure this was not an easy experience to write about, however your antidote does not give you moral high ground.
No, of course it doesn't. I never insinuated that it did. It does, however, mean that I know a great deal about this issue. Meaning that I have an informed perspective.
?Is the child also a terminally ill refugee? I'm not advocating the abolish of any support groups...sheesh! Another straw man and character assassination.
Nice red herring redirecting question
And again, by not educating oneself on this issue, that is what anyone who supports this legislation is, in effect, supporting.
.......
Another character assassination.
A well deserved character assassination to anyone who supports this legislation. Certainly not personally directed at you. It is one that I'll be more than happy to deliver to anyone who supports this type of horrific legislation negatively affecting those without a voice.
Here lies the core of the issue. My only concern is that there may or may not be a political agenda within these associations. We live in an age where deconstuction, post-modernism and neo-marixism is being promoted in our schools and in post-secondary institutions. Ideas such as:
"White privilege" - code for collective guilt on an ethnic group. Because nothing bad happened in the 20th century when collective guilt was applied on an ethnic group.
"Safe Spaces" - code for segregation.
"Trigger warnings" - code for censorship.
...and lastly and my favorite "Social justice".
So in relation to all of that, why on Earth would a child being in a GSA be a problem? There are clearly bigger fish to fry than vulnerable children having clearly defined support structures. LGBT children are already far more prone to support liberalism regardless of where they grow up or how they're taught, as liberalism is the only reason we are finally able to publicly express ourselves and our love for our partner(s) for the first time in thousands of years, and typically, left-of-centre political parties are the only ones that support our equal rights.
I've never endangered the life of any child. Shame on you for insinuating that. In conclusion, just because someone slightly disagrees with you does not mean you should attribute malice to them. After spending so much time on the SSP Canada threads I thought you would have come out with a more nuanced approach.
I certainly never said or insinuated that you have endangered the life of a child. I insinuated that by supporting the UCP/their out-the-kids Bill, anyone in support of such actions will, in effect, be endangering the lives of children.
It seems that you may need to take some of your own advice. Obviously this is an extremely personal topic to me, which I am also extremely knowledgeable about. So there is bound to be emotion in my responses. However, you read way too much into my response as a directed personal attack on you. Of course the impetus for the response was your comment. However, after the initial question I posed to you, in my view the framing of my post was clearly directed towards the general audience of everyone reading this thread.
