rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/21/84)
> What about the "inalienable rights" of the parents to raise their children > according to their own standards? They are worth squat. They are not rights at all. What right does a parent have to "expect" to raise children to mold them as *they* see fit? Children are not pieces of property; they are human beings who are growing up to be independent (hopefully) thinking (hopefully) adults (hopefully). Parents don't *own* them; they are charged with the responsibility of bringing them up to be independent thinking adults, and there are NO rights associated with that responsibility. Parents who expect their children to live up to *their* expectations (being a doctor/lawyer/athlete/hotshot) so that *they* can gloat and take pride in what their children have done, or parents who engage in any similar form of psychological manipulation of their children, are as guilty of child abuse as the ones who beat and molest their kids. Emotional abuse can leave deeper scars than physical abuse. [OBVIOUSLY MR. ROSEN DOESN'T HAVE VERY STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. -ED.] -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/04/84)
> I do recall walking into a college library, while a high school > student, and picking up a research report, published by the government, > that happened to be sitting on top of the desk I chose. It stated > simply and clearly that homosexuals were social deviates, and outlined > a series of stages in the development of their deviate behavior, citing > copious quantities of research results, beginning with early childhood > development, socialization as children, influence of family structure, > and characteristics of homosexual prison subpopulations. Anyone who believes government research reports (esp. on sociological topics)... > Well, I don't think homosexuality is anything different now than it was > then, and I'm inclined not to believe the intended message of that > report. Which leads me to conclude that 1) it was wrong, 2) I'm just > wrong, 3) deviance isn't all it's cranked up to be, 4) we know a whole > lot less than we sometimes make out (or the world is just more > complicated than we acknowledge). I favor 4). I do, too, but I also favor (3) as well. > 1a)Net readers who think parents don't have the right to > brainwash their kids don't have kids; What worries me is that the antithesis of (1a) seems to be more true than (1a) itself. [PLEASE FOLLOWUP ONLY TO NET.KIDS] -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr