Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior.
LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior...LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
As I already pointed out, there is no universal agreement on other protected classes. Why should LGBTs be different? Hell, I've heard plenty of people say Catholics aren't Christians. Should Christianity no longer constitute a religion for purposes of constitutional protection?
Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior...LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
As I already pointed out, there is no universal agreement on other protected classes. Why should LGBTs be different? Hell, I've heard plenty of people say Catholics aren't Christians. Should Christianity no longer constitute a religion for purposes of constitutional protection?
Actually it's the opposite. All Christians who aren't catholice are the protestants....protesting the original faith. Perhaps you can start "the church of erasing Jude & Romans 1 from the Bible. Catholics will insist on following Jude & Romans 1 and I have a feeling that's why the Pope for the first time ever will address Congress this September.
Your group isn't race. So let's start with that distinction and make it plain and clear. Your group derives self-assigned "identity" from the random and varied sexual acts it likes to include under its fairly-wide umbrella. Forbidden for now is the "P" component (polygamy, polyamorous), for completely arbitrary...or rather....politically-expedient reasons. Now there's infighting about the "T" behaviors. Before you use behaviors to gain legal leverage, be sure everyone in your cult agrees. That's all I'm saying.
Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior...LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
As I already pointed out, there is no universal agreement on other protected classes. Why should LGBTs be different? Hell, I've heard plenty of people say Catholics aren't Christians. Should Christianity no longer constitute a religion for purposes of constitutional protection?
Actually it's the opposite. All Christians who aren't catholice are the protestants....protesting the original faith. Perhaps you can start "the church of erasing Jude & Romans 1 from the Bible. Catholics will insist on following Jude & Romans 1 and I have a feeling that's why the Pope for the first time ever will address Congress this September.
Your group isn't race. So let's start with that distinction and make it plain and clear. Your group derives self-assigned "identity" from the random and varied sexual acts it likes to include under its fairly-wide umbrella. Forbidden for now is the "P" component (polygamy, polyamorous), for completely arbitrary...or rather....politically-expedient reasons. Now there's infighting about the "T" behaviors. Before you use behaviors to gain legal leverage, be sure everyone in your cult agrees. That's all I'm saying.
First, LGBTs are not 'my' group. I don't own them, I didn't create them.
Second, you aren't the arbiter of who is or is not a Christian for anyone but yourself.
You made the argument that because people may disagree about gender reassignment surgery, LGBTs or gays cannot be a distinct group (despite the fact that I don't think you even know if those people disagreeing about the surgery are LGBT or not). I have pointed out that by following that line of reasoning, that any group must enjoy universal agreement on all standards and details, not only among members of the group but those who support them, that Christians are not Christians. There is no universal agreement among the various sects of Christianity, nor those of us who would support the rights of Christians, about the standards and details of the religion.
You like to make up rules and standards that you think people must follow under US law. None of your made up rules matter to anyone but yourself.
I don't think I've ever seen such extreme cases of fear as I have here! Holy homophobia!
I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.
I don't think I've ever seen such extreme cases of fear as I have here! Holy homophobia!
Kind of like this?......holy TRANSphobia! (from the OP)
I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.
"Some of the sickos" eh? Care to clarify that with respect to LGBT advocates?
Clarify what?
Clarify what?
Who you were calling "sickos" in your quote the OP? You said that people advocating or assiting minors getting sex-change operations were "sickos". Clarify if you mean people within the ranks of the LGBT community or not?
So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?....Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?
Are you trying to say that any group of people, based on a single characteristic, must agree on all issues? Do all Republicans agree on the proper way to deal with illegal immigration? Do all Christians agree on the importance of baptism? Do all economists agree on the right policies for government to implement?
Of course not.
OK, let's turn this around. Let's say that transgenders started saying that they think lesbians are a bunch of sickos because they're "really just men born in women's bodies (the bull dykes anyway) and "continuing in their lives in delusion, they refuse to do the right thing and get surgery"..? Or transgenders start talking out about how weird it is anyway that lipstick lesbians crave and desire all the trappings of a masculine person to be with and then start accusing lipstick lesbians of being closeted hetersexuals?
Yes, all black people should agree that having black ancestory that's evident upon one's person makes you black. LGBTs should all agree that transgender sugeries are appropriate at any age. Why not? If a child isn't the right gender, isn't it torturous to make them continue on in that "false gender"? Why suddenly are your ranks splitting with one faction saying children will be harmed by amputation and the other faction saying they'll be harmed without it? That's a pretty big rift especially when children's wellbeing hangs in the balance.
...maybe you folks should straighten out that dogma within your ranks before you sell it to the public eh?
Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.
You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.
LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.
Clarify what?
Who you were calling "sickos" in your quote the OP? You said that people advocating or assiting minors getting sex-change operations were "sickos". Clarify if you mean people within the ranks of the LGBT community or not?
Clarify what?
Who you were calling "sickos" in your quote the OP? You said that people advocating or assiting minors getting sex-change operations were "sickos". Clarify if you mean people within the ranks of the LGBT community or not?
Well, it's definitely you that qualifies now!
Anyway, yeah, I think that is not a good thing to do to a child. When they are of age, and that is what they still want, then whatever.
Clarify what?
Who you were calling "sickos" in your quote the OP? You said that people advocating or assiting minors getting sex-change operations were "sickos". Clarify if you mean people within the ranks of the LGBT community or not?
Well, it's definitely you that qualifies now!
Anyway, yeah, I think that is not a good thing to do to a child. When they are of age, and that is what they still want, then whatever.
Who are the "sickos" (plural) WHEN you said what you said in the OP quote? Who are they? Who were you referring to?
Who are the "sickos" (plural) WHEN you said what you said in the OP quote? Who are they? Who were you referring to?
People who want to look at children as if they are adults. People who want to take advantage of their naivety and impressionability.
