Honest Questions For Religious Conservatives About LBGT

[forkup]

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh and by the way, how does this?
Become this.
Is the problem reading comprehension, or simple honesty?

You liberals always desire to bring up your own bullshit such as you and your left handedness problem when it has nothing to do with the subject matter but from your own personal experience you try to lay that off on another person. Just putting it back to you. You after all are the one claiming to be a grownup now.

As I pointed out, it was a for religious reasons stigmatized genetic abnormality that got people punished for it. Especially useful to show how social changes effect religious acceptance, so how is that not relevant to this discussion? It's called an analogy.
So I'm guessing the answer to the question was a problem in reading comprehension? It happens to me too sometimes, just so you know. Although my reaction when it happens is an apology not an attack.

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

I've had straight people try to force their habits on me my entire life.....that, of course, is what you are referring to, right?

And so take it up with those specific people or find a people you find more acceptable to hang with but you have no right to lay off your personal issues at another persons doorstep.

Well if you are defending peoples right to do it, why shouldn't it be presented to you. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your way of looking at life?

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

There's a big difference between having the skills to do the job required, and being gay. Being gay doesn't impact your ability to do your job.

Also I could say legislating on making Murder illegal is bullying me. So what? Society makes rules. Some people think these rules are right and others think they're wrong.

However the US DID DECIDED to have Human Rights as a central part of what makes the US the US. They did this in 1789.

So, surely human rights are an important factor here, and being able to do your job regardless of how you were born, as long as you are living within the laws of the country, and as long as you're performing your job, then you should NOT suffer discrimination.

 

[BlackSand]

The reason why I expanded the discussion outside of the realm of religion is because your original comment seemed to include a broad acceptance of discrimination and I felt it made sense to give an actual non religious example of institutional discrimination . I do believe you have one thing wrong. Discrimination is not, not giving special privileges to certain groups. Discrimination is the refusal to give certain groups, the same rights as everybody else. A pretty important nuance. It's the level playing field and sadly enough the US is a country that does pretty bad in that respect to other Western Nations. That's why legislating against it seems like a good idea, every tool a government makes will be imperfect I grant you but I do believe that leaving peoples to their own prejudices without legal pressure to do otherwise is an even worse idea. Laws do guide social mores just as much as the other way around and I refuse to think you believe the mores of the Deep South during the pre civil rights era are exemplary.

I did state minorities "weren't allowed the same privileges" ... Not that anyone was granted special privileges particularly.
Then again ... I don't espouse to the idea that rights come from the government.

Where any number of people ... May not be able to do what is necessary to live a life that treats people equally ... I don't subjugate my responsibility to the government.
It isn't the government's job to mold society or morals ... I already stated the government nor society are my religion.
The tools you speak of are power I am not willing to grant a bunch of nit-wits in Washington DC.
I can do the right thing without legislation, regulations or the government breathing down my neck.

Plus ... You cannot legislate thought.
You can legislate punishment for people who don't think like the idiots in government want them to think ... But that's discrimination.
I am not willing to trade one discrimination for the other ... When the responsibility is mine to manage.
It isn't my responsibility to fix society ... It is my responsibility to live my life to the best of my abilities.
You will never find me suggesting that anyone (much less the government) should have the privilege of making my decisions.

If you cannot handle that kind of responsibility ...
If you aren't interested in expecting that same responsibility from the people you deal with ...
If you cannot do what you need to do without the government telling everyone they have to do things your way ...

... Then I have no use for you nor any government you can come up with.
I discriminate all the time (albeit not necessarily against who you want to describe as minorities).
I am not willing to make my criteria subject to your standards, government or discrimination.

.

 

[RodISHI]

It still comes down to it is your personal responsibility and choice, even in an analogy. I had to reteach myself how to write to pursue something I desired to do years ago. I didn't go to people whom I may want to do business with and tell them "Look this is the only thing I know so you must except it or you are discriminating against me."

Whatever you do or do not do as an adult is still on you and you have no right to force others to accept that same train of thought that you take a stance on.

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

 

[jc456]

Are those sinners running around and are in your face yelling "I am an adulterer" or "I am a liar?" If your answer is no to those then you already have your answer to your question. I did not address re-marrying because it has different criteria.

To your #2 and #3 questions the answer is the same. Quit the "in your face" attitude and everything will be just fine.

So your stance is as long as your sexual preference is a secret I have no problem? To 2 and 3 you didn't answer at all. How do you reconcile Jesus teachings concerning forgiveness with refusing to hire gay people? That was the question.

Simple, the Bible is bigger than Jesus

That opens a whole other can of worms. If you say I'm allowed to ignore those teachings that don't fit your political narrative you just admitted to use religion as a cover for them. Kind of the point of the question but glad to have it confirmed.

The Bible is the Bible . It contains many passages. Read it

There are several versions of the bible...which one are you referring to?

well you referenced Jesus, so which book were you referring to?

 

[jc456]

If you are a Christian, you follow the teachings in the bible. The baker sold the gay couple everyday items, no problem. It was when they asked him to back a cake specifically for their wedding, he declined. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners. But he did follow and support them when they were sinning.

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - New International Version
You follow this teaching?
Scary Bible Quotes, NIV
Or these ones?
I'm assuming you don't so how do you decide? The sin is not the marriage but the sexual intercourse so again how does it support them?

I can go through and cherry pick the bible. Let me explain it to you. A southern Baptist church will let gays attend church, but they cannot have a position in the church. Got it know. Tell me you think you should be able to make a Muslim cater a wedding, having them cooking and serving pork?

Really? Your religion offers you the option to cherry pick what you find important? How does that selection work? And how can you then honestly claim your following god's word if you feel free to ignore those pieces you don't agree with? And what's more, what reasoning is there to legislate or discriminate on the basis from it? As to your question. Pretty smart one actually, I could be dishonest and say "sure", or deflect and say something like they wouldn't be good at cooking something they never can taste, but since I'm an honest man I concede the point, no I wouldn't force them to do something that's against their religion. Having said that it still hinges on your ability to prove that making a wedding cake is against your religious beliefs. So point me to the relevant passage in the bible that prohibits the making of wedding cakes for gay couples. As you stated hate the sin not the sinner. It looks something like this.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah.”

[Al-Qur’an 5:3]

There are references in Matthew, Luke, and John. I used the New testament because it's written after jesus died on the cross. The baker said it is against his religion. You Nick pick a couple of verses to fit your agenda. Ever read about Sodom and Gomorrah? The further we support perverse things, the more we are looking like that city.

I'm pretty sure all the references you refer too is against being gay. Not against them getting cake. And I freely admit that I pick my verses to fit my agenda, my point is so do you. I don't claim that I'm religious, you are. Furthermore you are claiming that love can be perverse between 2 consenting adults, because that's what your INTERPRETATION of the bible says. I also want to know how supporting, even if you could make a case that's what baking a wedding cake is ( Something you haven't done) makes us look like Sodom and Gomorrah? A gay person is gay not because of a choice he makes. It's HIS or HERS sexual orientation. It's not contagious. My daughter is best friends with a daughter of a lesbian couple. I have no fear that she will turn out that way. Like I said it's not contagious and I'm not afraid because I don't judge people by who they have sex with. I want my daughter to be happy so why would I be afraid because she finds someone she could love?Compassion and love are central in the New Testament, but since you feel being gay is perverse and some book that claims its alright to stone people for adultery confirms that viewpoint, you feel you can forego these values.

there are so many ways to go with this. What you are getting confused with is that we are against you pushing your agenda into someone else's life that want no part of. Period. I don't believe in chicken fighting, I don't participate in it, I call it cruel, anyone wants me to do anything regarding chicken fighting I would tell to leave me alone. Why do you want to make me participate in it? You're fked up.

 

[bodecea]

So your stance is as long as your sexual preference is a secret I have no problem? To 2 and 3 you didn't answer at all. How do you reconcile Jesus teachings concerning forgiveness with refusing to hire gay people? That was the question.

Simple, the Bible is bigger than Jesus

That opens a whole other can of worms. If you say I'm allowed to ignore those teachings that don't fit your political narrative you just admitted to use religion as a cover for them. Kind of the point of the question but glad to have it confirmed.

The Bible is the Bible . It contains many passages. Read it

There are several versions of the bible...which one are you referring to?

well you referenced Jesus, so which book were you referring to?

As I said twice already, which version of the bible are you referring to? There are several versions.....List of English Bible translations - Wikipedia

 

[jc456]

Simple, the Bible is bigger than Jesus

That opens a whole other can of worms. If you say I'm allowed to ignore those teachings that don't fit your political narrative you just admitted to use religion as a cover for them. Kind of the point of the question but glad to have it confirmed.

The Bible is the Bible . It contains many passages. Read it

There are several versions of the bible...which one are you referring to?

well you referenced Jesus, so which book were you referring to?

As I said twice already, which version of the bible are you referring to? There are several versions.....

it was your reference originally concerning Jesus, you give me the one you were referencing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

 

[jc456]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

so you have evidence that women have balls and that men have vaginas?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

so you have evidence that women have balls and that men have vaginas?

I have evidence that there are human beings around here that have the brain of a snail.

 

[jc456]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

so you have evidence that women have balls and that men have vaginas?

I have evidence that there are human beings around here that have the brain of a snail.

but you have no evidence that men have vaginas and women have balls. thanks. so much for your evidence then.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are becoming tedious! I said that gender was not related to sex. ? What does that even mean? I said that what a person appears to be on the outside is not always what they feel like they are on the inside and I provided some possible reasons for that. Did that get by you?

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

I also made it clear that I was not trying to prove anything but you, here once again accuse me of doing that. I presented EVIDENCE- strong evidence- that there are underlying biological factors that are related to being transgender which you have chosen to dismiss.

You provided 0 proof.

You said "No one is saying that sexuality is not a complex issue"

Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

You are either deliberately misrepresenting me by claiming that I said that I stated that trans or gay is statistically normal, or your reading comprehension is abysmal. In addition, it continues to be clear that you do not understand that there are differing definitions of "normal"

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

You think that I'm being "smug"? Perhaps it's because I have no tolerance for the willful ignorance that you continue to display and the games that you play.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

Lastly, you continue to run away from the question of why you find it necessary to label homosexuality and transgender as "abnormal" as though those labels were in anyway useful to the understanding of those issues, while claiming that you are not threaten by them.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

so you have evidence that women have balls and that men have vaginas?

I have evidence that there are human beings around here that have the brain of a snail.

but you have no evidence that men have vaginas and women have balls. thanks. so much for your evidence then.

I would try to school you but I’m not certified in special education


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

Yeah it must become 'tedious' trying to keep up with your own lack of intellectual integrity.

You provided 0 proof.



Just who said sex was not a complex issue? I did not say that. Apparently that is your stereotypical opinion of me or maybe anyone who dares disagree with your 'horseshit.'

But you DID say that and I TOLD you that homosexuality is not statistically normal when considering a whole population. You just can't understand or accept facts I guess. I even gave you an example.

Yes you seem very smug and downright intolerant. Seems like your debating style is to try to insult people into going away....It didn't work this time and now you are more nasty than ever.

I TOLD you why because it IS abnormal and I gave you the reasons why, you just choose to ignore it, talk past me and hurl insults.

It warms my heart to see that you have been reduced to a blathering fool who has to continually misrepresent me by stating that I claimed to offer proof about why people are transgender when I did no such thing. At the same time you find it necessary to keep harping on "statistical normalcy " which has nothing to do with the issue.

For the record.....My argument is, and has been that transgenderism,( and homosexuality) and human sexuality in general are complex issues and that there is plausible EVIDENCE ( in both case0 that there is a biological/ genetic component. Along those same lines, I also presented EVIDENCE that external genitalia DOES not always give a complete picture of a persons gender or gender identity.

For YOUR PART, you have repeatedly whined about how genitals do in fact determine gender while offering NO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE OR THEORY Rather , you just repeat the same bullshit over and over again in your anti-intellectual, concreate think pattern of falling back on an appeal to ignorance.

You may be critical of my style of debating because I am short on patience with willful ignorance. However, YOU have no style, you do not debate at all. You just present opinions as fact and expect them to be swallowed whole. My work is done here.

so you have evidence that women have balls and that men have vaginas?

I have evidence that there are human beings around here that have the brain of a snail.

but you have no evidence that men have vaginas and women have balls. thanks. so much for your evidence then.

I would try to school you but I’m not certified in special education


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you have no special education. because you can't provide evidence that men have vaginas and women have balls. BTW, in your special education, does the egg enter the penis and the man sperms spawns a baby? I'm curious to your special ed.

 

[bodecea]

So....who can tell us what the purpose of marriage is?

 

[forkup]

That's the reason the left handed thing is so apt. You are defending the right of people to punish other people for things they have no control over. I'll give you another analogy. Do you think a person should have a RIGHT to bully someone else? People have been known to commit suicide because of it, is the bully legally culpable?

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

 

[forkup]

The reason why I expanded the discussion outside of the realm of religion is because your original comment seemed to include a broad acceptance of discrimination and I felt it made sense to give an actual non religious example of institutional discrimination . I do believe you have one thing wrong. Discrimination is not, not giving special privileges to certain groups. Discrimination is the refusal to give certain groups, the same rights as everybody else. A pretty important nuance. It's the level playing field and sadly enough the US is a country that does pretty bad in that respect to other Western Nations. That's why legislating against it seems like a good idea, every tool a government makes will be imperfect I grant you but I do believe that leaving peoples to their own prejudices without legal pressure to do otherwise is an even worse idea. Laws do guide social mores just as much as the other way around and I refuse to think you believe the mores of the Deep South during the pre civil rights era are exemplary.

I did state minorities "weren't allowed the same privileges" ... Not that anyone was granted special privileges particularly.
Then again ... I don't espouse to the idea that rights come from the government.

Where any number of people ... May not be able to do what is necessary to live a life that treats people equally ... I don't subjugate my responsibility to the government.
It isn't the government's job to mold society or morals ... I already stated the government nor society are my religion.
The tools you speak of are power I am not willing to grant a bunch of nit-wits in Washington DC.
I can do the right thing without legislation, regulations or the government breathing down my neck.

Plus ... You cannot legislate thought.
You can legislate punishment for people who don't think like the idiots in government want them to think ... But that's discrimination.
I am not willing to trade one discrimination for the other ... When the responsibility is mine to manage.
It isn't my responsibility to fix society ... It is my responsibility to live my life to the best of my abilities.
You will never find me suggesting that anyone (much less the government) should have the privilege of making my decisions.

If you cannot handle that kind of responsibility ...
If you aren't interested in expecting that same responsibility from the people you deal with ...
If you cannot do what you need to do without the government telling everyone they have to do things your way ...

... Then I have no use for you nor any government you can come up with.
I discriminate all the time (albeit not necessarily against who you want to describe as minorities).
I am not willing to make my criteria subject to your standards, government or discrimination.

.

You feel that people are capable of judging and taking responsibility for their own morals? Pretty sure that every murderer and rapist would love that idea. Government punishes and steers morals all the time. The whole point of the constitution is nothing but to give a framework of morality to society as it was understood at the time. They needed to do that because in any society their are always people who don't adhere to its norms and defining what is accepted is perfectly valid. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you have a perfect sense of right and wrong. Can you guarantee that of your neighbor?

 

[RodISHI]

If a business has all right handed tools should they be force to spend all the resources required to buy left-handed tools so they can give you a job and pay you?

Bullying is subjective so not a good way to try to ,make your case. I could call you a bully for attempting to force me via legislation to accept your deviance even if it went against my personal beliefs.

-No because then the employer would be asked to spend effort they shouldn't have to spend to hire someone. The question is can an employer refuse to hire because he doesn't like left handed people. That is what I question. Of course left handed isn't a decent analogy then since that's socially accepted. But refuse to hire gays, black people, or any other type of minority. The reason governments usually place special provisions on those types of things, is because not doing so creates a risk of placing certain groups outside society.
-Why is bullying a bad example? I was bullied almost throughout my entire scholastic career, I can promise their is nothing subjective about it. I was bullied for much the same reasons that you are now trying to defend as a right. Namely the fact that I didn't fit a norm. I was a good athlete but both a loner and studious, so I fit in no group. As a result I got teased every day for about 9 years. I survived it because eventually I realized they were covering for there own insecurities but I can promise you I very objectively can state, that it is very easy to let something like that kill you. So is a person who does it legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?

You cannot legislate common sense, morality, compassion, peoples own personal demons or love. I have no need to match you with personal experiences but I would venture to guess that incident for incident I had it much worse than even you can imagine starting at a much younger age.

Yes you can. It will be imperfect since its very unlikely that it will change the persons morals but putting legal repercussions on it, limits the ability of people to act on the lack of morality and as such protects the people from it to a degree.
You are right that we don't need to compare misery, I mentioned it because I didn't agree with the subjective comment. I do notice you still aren't answering the question. "So is a person who does bully legally responsible for the consequences of those actions?" I know it's a tricky question but it does go to the heart of your reply. Should and can you legislate morality?

We have laws on the books to deal with damages caused by bullies already if the powers in charge would do their jobs. Do I think that there should be specific classes listed and protected may be a more appropriate question for you to ask and I would say no to that as criminal acts are criminal acts no matter who or what the people are that are the victims of the crimes or what the motives of are of the perpetrators are. Where do you draw the lines on criminality would be another and different issues when it comes to bullying.

Verbal taunting as bullying? Legislate it? No, not in a private sector. Verbal abuse by government employees that have some kind of authority with their words would be a different issue and is already regulated.

Actual physical actions of bullying are already legislated.

My point was that morality is, can and should be legislated. Just like their are laws to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, sex, age and disabilities. Anti-discrimination Laws But for some reason the religious right wants an exemption when it comes to sexuality. You and black seem to want to make the case to forego it altogether stating that morality shouldn't be legislated while you at the same time see the sense to do it in certain cases. I understand that the questions of how far the government can go in criminalize human beliefs and behaviors is a hard one. But if you realize that there's something to be said for it in some cases, then you should also acknowledge that using religion as a justification for discrimination is just that a justification. A bully has his reasons to be a bully that doesn't mean he is justified. And yes the government, but that's my personal opinion should try to legislate it.

Well we disagree. You take a slippery slope the moment you attempt to try to legislate thoughts of another human being and I want no part of that agenda in creating a fascist state. As much as I hate what people do sometimes I know that they suffer themselves when they become hateful and their own misery falls back on them in ways perhaps you cannot see. I have been discriminated against for being non discriminatory and I believe that the purpose of discrimination and lies people push most generally derives from their own greed. The excuses that they come up with can come under the color of discrimination but that doesn't mean that is the truth behind their motivation.

 

[jc456]

So....who can tell us what the purpose of marriage is?

for what reason?

 

[deanrd]

Why would anyone mention their sexual preference to an employer?

They shouldn't have to. It has no bearing on how they do their work.

Yea, but once they figure it out, then what?