Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This post here is a perfect example of why I have no respect at all for the far-right.
Good. I have no respect for reading comprehension impaired 'droids who hear what they want to hear regardless of what was said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
So, we have an "anti-liberal" who has no problem with the concept of treating people differently the same as others, but because "liberals" are pushing the idea, there must be "something wrong with it" and it must be "part of the re-education program," so he has to now oppose it.[
Your grammar is retarded but I'll push past it to the substance of your drivel. You just acknowledged that liberals are pushing an idea and then below you say "Groundless suspicions of a group - 'liberals' that doesn't even exist". Lol. Get it together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
It is completely irrational for a person to be opposed to an idea he would normally support based strictly upon assumptions about who else supports the idea.
This is a perfect example of a person who is easily led. As long as the indoctrination message aligns with your world view then you have no problem with the indoctrination. Dude if you don't get how rational it is to question who's selling you something and why even if the message sounds good then ... Wow. You are just about gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Who are these "liberals?" What proof do you have that they want anything other than to simply have people who are different treated the same as everyone else? You know, "liberals" support clean air and water - should we also oppose that, too, because it's part of the "re-education program?" Come on!
Implying that I or anyone who questions liberal PR tactics would side against clean air and water just to oppose them is sophomoric. This isn't the first lame-ass straw man argument I've seen you throw at people here. That is lazy and slovenly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Groundless suspicions of a group - "liberals" - that doesn't even exist in the form right-wingers claim, and it leads them to basically vote against what is proper and even their own self-interest because they don't want to "support the same thing liberals support." I swear, if "liberals" made a big show in the next election about how much they love voting, we could probably get a critical number of right-wingers to stay home on election day strictly because "they don't wanna do the same thing liberals do!" Foolish, and easily manipulated, as Trump demonstrated.
Now you're just streaming a canned speech that has NOTHING to do with what I said. Oh and that's the second pathetic straw man you've run at me ... The one where holding a different position than you is analogous to "right-wingers" refusing to vote because liberals like to vote. Bullsh!t. Do better. Up your game. If you were the least bit objective and honest you would never have called me a "right winger". My post was 100% about noticing the EXISTENCE of a message and not denigrating the points carried therein but the fact that I noted that in this case it's a liberal message set you off like I'd held an AR-15 to your head and made you French kiss Rush Limbaugh. Cocked and loaded much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Meanwhile, no mention at all is made of the glaring right-wing agenda to mix their warped religious interpretations into the law of the land in blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. For some reason that far more glaring form of "re-education" doesn't deserve mention. Talk about people being selectively blind!
Once again there's an under-current of agreement but you just torch it with your angry windmilling. Not that it will matter to you in the least but I am very much not a fan of the evangelical right and their mixing religion with politics. But who cares, right? Because in your world all I had to do was say something critical about the liberal PR message and I'm a right-winger who needs to be taken to task for the Christian right.
I am still trying to find out why this ever became an issue to begin with, I have yet to find any credible information that shows that there was an issue of men or women using restrooms not according to their gender to begin with. Me thinks this may be just another method of distracting the masses from looking at the more serious issues facing the Nation. The funny thing is who is going to enforce this silly law.
As for medical personnel not helping someone in an emergency, I believe that under the law they could be charged with a crime if someone died or was seriously injured due to their inactions.
"Hey gay people, we're not outright murdering you (yet), so you should be happy you ******* perverts!" Is that the argument you're going with?
Calm down, nobody's trying to throw you off a building...yet. Keep promoting the growth and acceptance of Islamic ideology in our society and that may change though. In the meantime keep your wang out of the girls locker room.
Do you shoot sperm in the men's room? Because I've been in a men's room once or twice and there was no sperm shooting going on. Just a couple of guys forgetting to wash their hands after using the urinals.
Unless the sinks are hands free it is often more sanitary to skip washing your hands when urinating in a public bathroom.
I lived through that one. Lost a friend in the Cypress collapse. God didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
God is not found in the natural disaster itself. God is found in the kindness, generosity and coming together of the community as it rebuilds itself in the disaster's aftermath. And I think we all know who is found in the condemnation or belittlement of those who suffered through the disaster due to their religious or political beliefs.
I am still trying to find out why this ever became an issue to begin with, I have yet to find any credible information that shows that there was an issue of men or women using restrooms not according to their gender to begin with. Me thinks this may be just another method of distracting the masses from looking at the more serious issues facing the Nation. The funny thing is who is going to enforce this silly law.
As for medical personnel not helping someone in an emergency, I believe that under the law they could be charged with a crime if someone died or was seriously injured due to their inactions.
The problem is much more likely to be in locker/shower rooms than restrooms, and there have been incidents in K-12 schools or colleges in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and in gyms/park districts in NYC and Washington state, just to name a few. It's almost always anatomical males in girls'/women's facilities, but the reverse has also happened.
Two examples:
Federal Court upheld Pitt's (state university) expulsion of a F to M but anatomically female transgender for using men's locker/shower rooms on campus after male students complained about her presence in their facilities:
Quote:
"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."
"Girls from a swim team in New York City's Upper West Side are too scared to use the women's locker room at a Parks Department swimming pool. In March, a sign appeared noting that everyone has the the right to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their "gender identity or gender expression." Around the same time, the girls, who range in age from about seven to 18, became concerned after they saw a "bearded individual" in the women's changing room.
They are now using the family changing room to change in and out of their swimsuits, but it is not big enough for all 18 girls...
An employee at the center who spoke on condition of anonymity says the individual using the locker room appears to present as a man—wearing swim shorts or trunks to swim, with sideburns going down into a beard—which is partly what alarms the girls and their parents. Staff members have also been warned that asking individuals to prove their gender identity would be discriminatory. "Our hands are tied," the worker said. "We can't say anything about it."
I took an interest in this issue because of one of the Illinois incidents. My kids went to school in that district, and we know many of the families involved. Additionally, it was that specific Illinois incident which prompted the Obama Admin's "Dear Colleague" letter sent to every school in the country, which reads in part...
Quote:
"Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.
...Under title IX, a school must treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex."
And the edict insisted the same be true for bathroom/locker/shower room use:
Quote:
"Restrooms and Locker Rooms... A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so."
Schools were threatened with the loss of federal funding if they didn't comply. Note that this edict requires no proof of transgender status whatsoever, and relies only on a student's "say so," and is all just based on "interpretation" which actually has no legal basis, either Constitutionally or according to Federal Law as the Federal Judge wrote, above.
My gay Texas son has every right that non gays enjoy. Republicans / Christians like myself are not Anti-Lgbt. Matter of fact many of us have been involved with PFLAG for many years. DFW / Houston / Austin has one of the largest gay communities in the US. They are accepted and loved. One of the largest Gay Christian churches is right here in Dallas.
My gay Texas son has every right that non gays enjoy. Republicans / Christians like myself are not Anti-Lgbt. Matter of fact many of us have been involved with PFLAG for many years. DFW / Houston / Austin has one of the largest gay communities in the US. They are accepted and loved. One of the largest Gay Christian churches is right here in Dallas.
Texas is not restricting the rights of gays.
Of course their not... and there would be an outrage from all sides if they were.
It's just like the 'race card' - in a lot of cases, it's only thrown because it can be, not because it should be.
Those that throw it, only do so to get attention and hope that someone won't look for real evidence that an injustice exists. They want whatever attention they can muster up with false claims.
My gay Texas son has every right that non gays enjoy. Republicans / Christians like myself are not Anti-Lgbt. Matter of fact many of us have been involved with PFLAG for many years. DFW / Houston / Austin has one of the largest gay communities in the US. They are accepted and loved. One of the largest Gay Christian churches is right here in Dallas.
Texas is not restricting the rights of gays.
So it sounds like it's true what they say about Texas being filled with steers and...uh...something else.
The only "movement" is that of far-right wing extremists to make the Bible - more specifically, their selective and warped interpretation of it - the law of the land. And the only people demanding special rights and attention are religious extremists who think that religion is an excuse that justifies their bigotry and hatred. They can hate anyone they want cuz "God said so!" Since nobody can argue with God - or even prove he exists - that somehow becomes a justification for every stupid thing the religious right does these days.
It is clear in the Bible, those who claim otherwise are manipulating the word to serve their sin. To claim hate is accepted, is to be ignorant, and one who is obviously in hate of the Bible and of God. The sin is not accepted, but like a teenager throwing a tantrum, people take the disapproval of the sin as a disapproval of the person. The sin is the problem and the promotion and acceptance of it is the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Gays and other minorities just want the same right as anybody else. There is nothing wrong with that. And for every person who thinks being gay, transgender, or whatever is a "sickness," there's a person who thinks basing one's whole life around selective quotes from a Bronze age storybook is also a sickness. There's more scientific proof that gays and transgender people have biological differences that explain their condition than there is for any religion, so who's the sick one in that group?
Actually, they have special rights above others. For instance, you can discriminate against a person with red hair, due to politics, due to their mannerism, etc... but you can't discriminate against a gay. That is a special right, a special clause that places them above others.
Homosexuality is a mental illness, like any other mental illness, be it a perversion, or a other oddity of behavior. Homosexuality used to be classified as such, but was changed via political pressure, not by any real means of process or legitimacy.
As for your claim of science, more ignorance, more claims of evidence that are not scientific. There is not any scientifically validated results to establish your claim. Your ignorance of science is akin to your ignorance of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
And who's to say what a sickness is? Is being gay "normal? No, it's not. But neither is being left-handed. Should they also be persecuted? Oh, yeah - the church also did that back in the day, too. Such a long history of tolerance! Too bad all that "love thy neighbor" stuff always gets forgotten.
It is a perversion, it is abnormal, it is not a biologically natural function of process. You may point to animals humping other animals, but then animals hump a lot of things regardless if they are living or not. The sexual perversions of a person who seeks such is not healthy or good, it is why homosexuals have a very high suicide rate as they constantly struggle with their perversion, similar to that of how a drug abuser struggles with the truth of their addiction.
As for the left handed claim, don't confuse mans abuse of the word with Gods word. Nowhere in the Bible is your argument supported. If you are to hold the Bible to every action a person commits in the name of it, even though it is not supported by the Bible, then your argument is invalid and your motives are devious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Throwing gays under the bus is just fine for people on the far-right, but I bet if some wedding cake company refused to make a cake for an overly Christian couple, they'd be screaming bloody murder. Two-faced hypocrisy, as usual. The far-right demands that their peculiarities not only be tolerated but made into the law of the land, but other minorities can be marginalized or eliminated.
Problem with your position is you are discussing with me and I say I would have no problems with someone refusing such service for ANY reason as I believe in true liberty, the respect of the individual to live as they choose without being forced by others.
You see, you keep lumping me in with this so called "far right" because you can't deal with my arguments as an individual. I support what the Bible teaches, and it says homosexuality is a sin. It also says you are free to choose to accept Christ or not, I am not to harm you or condemn you as I am a sinner as well. The difference between us is you accept sin, approve of it and continue to sin while I recognize I do sin, seek forgiveness and condemn the sin and attempt to avoid future sins of such.
The problem with people like you is you are not happy with me having my opinion, I must accept you or you will condemn me, attempt to admonish me to all, and spew hatred at me simply because I say it is a sin and a mental illness/perversion.
This is why you are so angry and accusatory. You hate me and my points because you know I am right and this infuriates you even more.
Last edited by NxtGen; 05-23-2017 at 07:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
