Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Wesker
Darn you to heck!


Member 1325

Level 11.78

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 09:56 PM #26 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
Furthermore, home schooling materials still have to be mandated by the State. Private/public school teachers are typically certified by the State. So home schooling really won't be illegal.
Not necessarily. Many states only require that ceratin subjects be taught and the cirricullum doesn't have to be state approved. Many cirricullum are religious based and thus wouldn't meet "state" approval.

My whole point in bring this issue up isn't sex education and the like...it is however the fact that a court has determined that parents have less rights in deciding their own kids education that does the state. It is frightening that the state has more rights over your kids than you do. The state says your kid need Ritalin or he's out of school...he goes on ritalin. Your a conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew and you believe homosexuality is a sin..tough shit cause the school says you're wrong...and the list can go on. I believe a ruling like this sets a dangerous precendent by establishing that the state has a greater rights than parents in regards to their children.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Kensaki
_


Member 2194

Level 15.48

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 10:37 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 05:37 AM #27 of 107
In a world of fucked up parents, the state has a responsibility that children have a happy childhood and don't end up as psycho/mental patients because the system didn't pick up their unfortunate situation.

And yes denying a child medisin that helps them function in scociety(Yes I know someone in my family with ADHD and he doesn't function well at school without the drugs sad but true) or put them up against other parts of scociety cause they are sinners in the parents eyes. I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat.

And yes I believe christianity ect. are wrong for putting the sinner stigma on certain groups of people like they do. But thats a discussion for another time.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 10:53 PM Local time: Mar 23, 2006, 10:53 PM #28 of 107
In other words - parents have no right to determine what medications their children take, where they go to school, and how and when they learn about sex?

Sounds like an argument that the government knows what's better for kids than their own parents do. Because once you make the argument for one set of parents, why not apply it to them all?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Kensaki
_


Member 2194

Level 15.48

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 10:57 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 05:57 AM #29 of 107
In one word yes.

I've seen enough parents making their children miserable/sick by their ill actions if intentional or not. I'm in short saying fix it before the shit really hits the fan.

How ya doing, buddy?
Stealth
Indigo 1


Member 207

Level 22.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 10:59 PM Local time: Mar 23, 2006, 09:59 PM #30 of 107
And people bitch when the government wants to control our video games.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?



Kensaki
_


Member 2194

Level 15.48

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 11:00 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 06:00 AM #31 of 107
Never bitched about government control over games to minors myself.

How ya doing, buddy?
Radez
Holy Chocobo


Member 2915

Level 31.81

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 11:01 PM #32 of 107
Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:

Quote:
In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing funda-
mental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their chil-
dren by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in
accordance with their personal and religious values and
beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any
other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with
the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the
subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the par-
ents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the
public schools from providing information on that subject to
their students in any forum or manner they select.
This just means they don't have the right to sue anyone who allows the kid to learn something not explicitly approved by the parent. I think that's reasonable. Well...they can't successfully sue, at any rate.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Last edited by Radez; Mar 23, 2006 at 11:04 PM.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hope™


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 11:28 PM Local time: Mar 23, 2006, 11:28 PM #33 of 107
Quote:
In one word yes.
Then what is the point of parents outside of the actual conception and birthing part? If they have no right to determine anything, then you're basically saying that the government is everybody's parent.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2006, 11:33 PM Local time: Mar 23, 2006, 09:33 PM #34 of 107
Originally Posted by Avalokiteshvara
Isn't it taking the ruling completely out of context to say parents have no determination on the disposition of their children? The ruling says:

This just means they don't have the right to sue anyone who allows the kid to learn something not explicitly approved by the parent. I think that's reasonable. Well...they can't successfully sue, at any rate.
No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.

That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?

Most amazing jew boots
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 04:09 AM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 02:09 AM #35 of 107
Originally Posted by Watts
No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.
Fundamental rights are best described as things like the right to life, the right of self defense, the right of bodily autonomy, the right of property, et al. These are universal (apply to everybody), natural (you have them because you are who you are), and inalienable (you cannot have them taken away, period). The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

Quote:
That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?
The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

These are the ONLY three criteria. At best, they allow for something to be merely probable. There is never a necessary connection. Events can happen with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but there is never a 100% chance.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 08:13 AM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 08:13 AM #36 of 107
And yet, the government is still playing the role of parent to everybody in the country. The government decides what we can or can't use, where we can live, what we can do with our money, and how we can conduct ourselves in our own homes (though this is hard to actually enforce).

The government is everybody's parent, because it's assumed for close to a century now that it knows what's best for us, despite the fact that since everything is politicized, "what's best for us" is usually decided by a vocal minority (prohibition). It's an authoritative oligarchy that has no need or consideration for any individualism or "fundamental rights." Bodily autonomy is already out the fucking window.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 12:29 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 10:29 AM #37 of 107
True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Misogynyst Gynecologist
In A Way, He Died In Every War


Member 389

Level 49.28

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 12:48 PM #38 of 107
Originally Posted by Night Phoenix
Then what is the point of parents outside of the actual conception and birthing part? If they have no right to determine anything, then you're basically saying that the government is everybody's parent.
And why the fuck not? You only have people cheating the welfare system, stealing from the IRS by lying on your tax returns, having more kids so they can get more money or any other number of scenarios.

(People are shitty and think they're exempt from rules for some reason. I don't fucking get it myself.)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 01:09 PM #39 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.
How, exactly, is the government playing the role of the parent on abortion? Playing the role of the parent would be saying "You have too many kids. You must have an abortion." Playing the role of the parent would also be "I think this is wrong, so I'm not going to let it happen." As it is, they leave the decision specifically TO the biological parent.

The government definately plays the role of the parent on a lot of topics. Abortion isn't one of them.

Most amazing jew boots
Alice
For Great Justice!


Member 600

Level 38.35

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 01:16 PM #40 of 107
Originally Posted by Kensaki
In a world of fucked up parents, the state has a responsibility that children have a happy childhood and don't end up as psycho/mental patients because the system didn't pick up their unfortunate situation.

And yes denying a child medisin that helps them function in scociety(Yes I know someone in my family with ADHD and he doesn't function well at school without the drugs sad but true) or put them up against other parts of scociety cause they are sinners in the parents eyes. I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat.

And yes I believe christianity ect. are wrong for putting the sinner stigma on certain groups of people like they do. But thats a discussion for another time.
Oh. My. God. I think I just found my true political polar opposite.

Please tell me you're exaggerating your beliefs just a little to get a rise out of some of us. Please. If not, then at least set my mind at ease by assuring me that you really do live in Norway as your flag indicates, so I don't have to worry about you casting any votes any time soon.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 03:47 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 02:47 PM #41 of 107
Originally Posted by Taterdemalion
Who's to say the parents know best?
Geeze, I love this shit.

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

Originally Posted by Kensaki
I'd wish children where allowed to find their own truth and not have oppressive parents force their fate down the childs throat.
yeah, much better to have a centralized gov't as a moral dictator. did your parents oppress you with their instruction Kensaki, or did they let you find your own way 100% on your own?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Wesker
Darn you to heck!


Member 1325

Level 11.78

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 04:39 PM #42 of 107
Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Kensaki
_


Member 2194

Level 15.48

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 04:42 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 11:42 PM #43 of 107
Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland
Oh. My. God. I think I just found my true political polar opposite.

Please tell me you're exaggerating your beliefs just a little to get a rise out of some of us. Please. If not, then at least set my mind at ease by assuring me that you really do live in Norway as your flag indicates, so I don't have to worry about you casting any votes any time soon.
I am from Norway yes, and I may or may not have spiced it up a little.

Quote:
yeah, much better to have a centralized gov't as a moral dictator. did your parents oppress you with their instruction Kensaki, or did they let you find your own way 100% on your own?
"I sense much hostility in this one."

And yes I don't think many parents know how to raise a child. I had a nice upbringing but more often than not I see parents messing up their kids over religion/political views ect. Or do you like the fact that little Aron learns the black people are the pest of the world. Or little Ali gets fed propaganda about how evil none muslims are. I am for that the government should have a right to say to parents that teaching children things like these will later be a hinder for their kids and that scociety wont accept such prejudice against certain groups.

Or to take another situation. Little Lisa has cancer but can be saved by modern medicine, she wants to live but as she is 13 her parents who believe western drugs are prohibited by their fate refuse her treatment and condemn her to die. Even though she wants to live. I believe everyone should have personal freedom to teach their children but I also believe the government has a responcibility to keep an eye on the child and make sure it is happy and well adjusted to scociety.

I could easily draw up many more senarioes, but that would be pointless.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 06:28 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 06:28 PM #44 of 107
Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.

The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him.

Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted.

Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 06:40 PM #45 of 107
Originally Posted by Wesker
Those of you who think this is no big deal and that the government knows better than parents in this case should realize that a decision like this can be a two edged sword. If the educational system were to take a hard right turn (a fantasy, I know) and your kids were bing taught how evil gays are and how wrong liberal ideas were, wouldn't you then want your parental authority back, or would you still be fine with your kids being taught morals that are in direct opposition to how you're trying to raise them??
Public schools don't teach morality. They leave that to the parents.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 06:49 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 04:49 PM #46 of 107
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).
So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow
The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.
You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 06:59 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 04:59 PM #47 of 107
Originally Posted by Devo
There have always been government laws that supercede a parent's right to raise their child how they "want to" though. One of the more obvious being education itself. Parents who do not let their child partake in some form of education; public, private,homeschooling or otherwise are prosecuted.
Of course, I cited that example much earlier in the thread. All I'm saying is that a government should not be able to legislate morals/ideas/etc because that is the parent's job.

Abuse violates the right's of the child. Which is why we laws against child abuse.

FELIPE NO
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 07:11 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 05:11 PM #48 of 107
Originally Posted by Devo
and or education of anatomy/intercourse is in conflict with "morals."
"By informing them you're encouraging them to have sex! Which is wrong!"

Is that not the basic line that the conservative movement take's on such issues? It surely is the reason why sex education is so horribly outdated and uninformative.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 07:27 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 05:27 PM #49 of 107
Originally Posted by Devo
Which is just nonsense, since when is being educated about a subject encouraging people or kids to commit acts?

People are seriously retarded sometimes I swear.
Yeah I agree. Which is where my argument pretty much falls apart.

That still does not change reality with people who disagree.

Originally Posted by Devo
We're educated about murder, rape, stealing, abuse, molestation all within history. Should we prevent kids from learning history too since apparently "informing" means education is prompting kids to commit illegal and immoral acts?
But not all sides of history are taught. Only the winner's story get's told. I could probably say something about how kids are being brainwashed with blind nationalism to inspire "justified" murder. But I'd be stretching a little too much.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Meth
I'm not entirely joking.


Member 565

Level 26.04

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 24, 2006, 07:31 PM Local time: Mar 24, 2006, 06:31 PM #50 of 107
In this specific case, there was a letter sent out to the parents supposedly informing them of the nature of the survey. The consent form said that it dealt with stuff concerning "early trauma" citing "violence" as an example, and in no way suggested anything specific about sexual behavior.

Any survey that could potentially make a kid uncomfortable to the point of needing a therapist afterwards is fucking dumb.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment Ridan Krad Political Palace 33 Dec 19, 2007 11:36 PM
Tories want new US-Style Bill of Rights Robo Jesus Political Palace 4 Jul 3, 2006 04:44 AM
Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School Locke Political Palace 64 Mar 20, 2006 04:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.