Is Gender Ideology a RELIGION built like a house of cards?

[T master]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Moral relativism? That's what you are arguing here 

Yes, they set up a republic based, in large part, on majority rule. You win the election, you win. People trying to overturn the will of the people are anti-American. Like Trump and his gang that attacked our national legislature 

 

Not arguing anything that's my opinion as far as morals all across the board .

 

The bible was a basic set of rules to live by that they tried and succeeded in doing away with i believe first starting in the 60's by taking it out of schools Madelyn Murray O'hair which the story of her life & death is pretty much seems to be a charm type thing .

 

That action along with the change in parenting meaning discipline due to consequences for a action which in the bible states "spare the rod spoil the child" not meaning that you should beat your child everytime they do something wrong but the punishment should reflect on the action committed .

 

There are many that say any negative reinforcement such as saying no or telling a child to stop is a bad way to do things & live with the thought that taking away a toy or time out is discipline which in some respects can be helpful but in others is not .

 

The belief that every one gets a trophy is total BS that's not the way life works there are winners and losers in all walks of life & if taught that at a young age i feel it will motivate a child to do their very best to try & be a winner humility can be a great motivator ! 

 

It seems as if most every one today wants a no rules world just do what ever you want be who ever you think you are not what facts tell you that you are weather who you are at birth is one thing or another we as a a people just decide what or who we want to be facts DNA or rules be dammed . 

 

If you can't be a top competitor as a guy i'll say i'm a women and dominate & you have to change the rules because i feel this way not because of the fact that you are a male & made a decision to change for what ever the reason may be . If you want to change have at it but just because you want to be someone different than who you are at birth don't impose that on every one else to change the reality of your decision .  

 

And i suppose you will have a different opinion just because that is what you do & who you are as we know .

 

As far as the Trump thing we are all adults and can have opinions to what we think could have happened as far as the election & voice them because of our constitutional right but as adults, but knowing the difference between right & wrong if those people make a decision such as they did to storm the capital that's on them .

 

I can tell you all day that i have felt the presence of god in my life & actually felt the holy spirit at the time i was saved at a young age literally engulf my body but you being a individual have your own thoughts and will make a conscious decision weather it's can or can't be right for you which is good,  although my opinion might put a thought in your head you as a adult person has the final say & responsibility of the action you take not me for implementing my thoughts or opinion .

 

Which again i feel you will have a difference of opinion as stated previously .

 

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

1 hour ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Probably among the most salient sentences that have ever been written in this subforum, yet you chose video links from an obvious right-wing grifter like Matt Walsh over highly cited research from biologists who devote their lives to the study of gender science? Which side, exactly, is in a religious cult??

 

“What is a woman?” Is that your honest question? The answer is that gender identity is a bit more nuanced than chromosomes and reproductive systems. For whatever still undetermined reason or combination of reasons (genetics, prenatal development, etc.), the brain development of a small percentage of people does not match their visible outside markers of gender distinction. When I say “brain development,” I’m referring to the observable differences between a stereotypical male brain and female brain in terms of structural composition and neural activity. Early studies of transgender people are showing this discrepancy to be the case for them. Neuroscience is an extremely complex subject that you could say is very much still in its infancy, so that’s why the scientific community tends to prevaricate when asked about definitive gender identification protocols.

 

I suppose our society can eventually reach a point where we demand expensive brain scans and elaborate neuroimaging for every single person who wants to identify as a gender incongruous with their physical bodies, but in the meantime…it’s a lot easier to simply ask them. Whatever happened to “live and let live” from the political right, anyway? The lives of transgender people are already extremely difficult (especially throughout their adolescence), so why not just leave them alone instead of amplifying the hatred and discrimination and bullying?

 

EDIT: Note that competitive sports participation and hormone therapy for legal minors ARE legitimate debates to be had on the subject of transgenderism, but they can’t be had with a debate side that disregards these human beings as psychological “freaks” and “weirdos.” Go out and meet actual transgender people and ask them about their lifelong gender-based thoughts and experiences.

I appreciate your well thought out response...it is refreshing in this forum...But I have to respectfully disagree with your premise...

 

It seems to me that the biggest problem people are having, when debating this topic, is conflating biological sex with psychological gender/personality...I see it in every argument...and it appears you have done the same with this bolded section of your response...

 

It does not matter if people’s identities of themselves do not align to what they think it should be...Because the definition of “woman” is adult human female, all that matters is what the biology says...

 

This is why we are having so many self inflicted issues in sports with regards to this issue...Since as far back as I can remember, athletics have always been divided up by sex...Now people wanna start dividing sports up by what’s in people’s minds, and now we are starting to see problems...

 

When a person is an adult human male/female it has nothing to do do with what’s in that person’s mind...If a human identifies as a deer, does the rest of the human population have to now recognize that human as a deer? And does that now mean you can hunt that deer for dinner, and not be charged with a crime for murder?

 

Now, at first, that example might seem ridiculous, but there are people- such as in the documentary- who identify as animals...Are you starting to see just how far down the rabbit hole this thing could go? Do you start to see how you could have a complete collapse of society?

[ComradeKayAdams]

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

I appreciate your well thought out response...it is refreshing in this forum...But I have to respectfully disagree with your premise...

 

It seems to me that the biggest problem people are having, when debating this topic, is conflating biological sex with psychological gender/personality...I see it in every argument...and it appears you have done the same with this bolded section of your response...

 

It does not matter if people’s identities of themselves do not align to what they think it should be...Because the definition of “woman” is adult human female, all that matters is what the biology says...

 

This is why we are having so many self inflicted issues in sports with regards to this issue...Since as far back as I can remember, athletics have always been divided up by sex...Now people wanna start dividing sports up by what’s in people’s minds, and now we are starting to see problems...

 

When a person is an adult human male/female it has nothing to do do with what’s in that person’s mind...If a human identifies as a deer, does the rest of the human population have to now recognize that human as a deer? And does that now mean you can hunt that deer for dinner, and not be charged with a crime for murder?

 

Now, at first, that example might seem ridiculous, but there are people- such as in the documentary- who identify as animals...Are you starting to see just how far down the rabbit hole this thing could go? Do you start to see how you could have a complete collapse of society?

 

In all honesty, I think these “slippery slope” fears of species identification are non sequitur responses to gender identification. Rational people can all agree that the concept of gender is distinct from the concept of species. It’s as simple as saying “no” and drawing a red line for the VERY few number of people who, I suppose, genuinely want to identify as an animal. This similarly fallacious argument was used against gay people in the gay marriage debate: we can’t let them get married because then people might try to marry their pet cats or dogs.

 

I really don’t see a problem with conflating biological sex and “psychological sex,” for lack of a better term. In almost every situation that comes up in society, it’s no big deal to accommodate this slight increase in complexity. The vast majority of humans psychologically identify with the same sex as their biological sex, anyway. Civilization shouldn’t collapse because of this.

 

You did, however, bring up one of the very few societal situations where accommodation is not so easy: competitive athletics. I don’t have a solution that I can confidently recommend. Do we force people to compete only with peers of the same biological gender that they were assigned at birth? Do we assign athletic gender based on morphology or hormone levels? Do we increase the number of competitive categories? Do we let the competitors decide for themselves with whom they want to compete? I’ll let you guys debate this one. I’ll stay out of it and just read the responses.

[JaCrispy]

Just a heads up...I posted this video for the interview, not the commentary that follows...But this was the only way I could find this particular interview from the documentary...enjoy! 😉

 

 

Edited June 12, 2022 by JaCrispy

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Big Blitz]

This is what a soulless Godless society with no purpose except to dunk on the opposition becomes - its only going to get worse.  

 

I thought it was "mentally ill."

 

We're seeing the active promotion of a new culture that encourages this.  That's not mentally ill that's called something Dr. Malone was spot on about

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

On 6/6/2022 at 6:56 PM, JaCrispy said:

 

 

 

 

I think that doctor lady just likes to say "that little bitty penis".

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by reddogblitz

[LeGOATski]

On 6/8/2022 at 8:59 AM, Delete_Account said:

Do we force people to compete only with peers of the same biological gender that they were assigned at birth?

This seems like the super easy, cut-and-dry solution to me. If you end up changing sex and getting hormone therapy, that's on you. You still have to compete in the same group as before or don't compete at all.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                      

 

 

School district teaching elementary school students that heterosexual white colonizers created the gender binary

 

 

 

 

Much more at the link:

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/07/27/school-district-teaching-elementary-school-students-that-heterosexual-white-colonizers-created-the-gender-binary/

[aristocrat]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 6/8/2022 at 11:59 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

In all honesty, I think these “slippery slope” fears of species identification are non sequitur responses to gender identification. Rational people can all agree that the concept of gender is distinct from the concept of species. It’s as simple as saying “no” and drawing a red line for the VERY few number of people who, I suppose, genuinely want to identify as an animal. This similarly fallacious argument was used against gay people in the gay marriage debate: we can’t let them get married because then people might try to marry their pet cats or dogs.

 

I really don’t see a problem with conflating biological sex and “psychological sex,” for lack of a better term. In almost every situation that comes up in society, it’s no big deal to accommodate this slight increase in complexity. The vast majority of humans psychologically identify with the same sex as their biological sex, anyway. Civilization shouldn’t collapse because of this.

 

You did, however, bring up one of the very few societal situations where accommodation is not so easy: competitive athletics. I don’t have a solution that I can confidently recommend. Do we force people to compete only with peers of the same biological gender that they were assigned at birth? Do we assign athletic gender based on morphology or hormone levels? Do we increase the number of competitive categories? Do we let the competitors decide for themselves with whom they want to compete? I’ll let you guys debate this one. I’ll stay out of it and just read the responses.

I think you make a sound and reasonable argument.  Although my view is slightly different.  Biological "sex" is a fact of genetics and science.  You are what your genes say you are.  There is no choice or arbitrary distinction to make here.  No amount of debate or thinking is going to change that biological fact.

As for gender, I saw somewhere there are some 68 gender "types".  I'm of the opinion you can identify or believe you are what you want to identify or believe you are in regard to gender distinction.  As it's none of my business, you're not hurting or impacting me in any way.  And I'm reciprocating and have no intent to harm you.  If an individual wants to make a specific gender identification for themselves, then fine. 

But don't expect or demand that such identification bestows or grants or provides some special privileges or rights or designations to you in situations where biological sex is a higher priority attribute when making some distinction or choice.  I think that's the crux of the entire argument. 

In the case of women's sports if you're a biological male no type of gender identification nor any amount of debate and discussion on the "logic" and reasoning for that identification is going to change the fact you're not a biological female.  

 

What I also wonder about regarding this debate is why is sex/gender the only trait that can be identified with?  If I'm a 5-foot tall, white man, 45-year-old with brown eyes and brown hair why can't I choose to identify as a 7-foot-tall, 65-year-old, native American women with green eyes and blonde hair?  What's so special about gender rather than another trait?  And derive social benefits from that identification my biological traits do not provide.

Edited July 29, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think you make a sound and reasonable argument.  Although my view is slightly different.  Biological "sex" is a fact of genetics and science.  You are what your genes say you are.  There is no choice or arbitrary distinction to make here.  No amount of debate or thinking is going to change that biological fact.

As for gender, I saw somewhere there are some 68 gender "types".  I'm of the opinion you can identify or believe you are what you want to identify or believe you are in regard to gender distinction.  As it's none of my business, you're not hurting or impacting me in any way.  And I'm reciprocating and have no intent to harm you.  If an individual wants to make a specific gender identification for themselves, then fine. 

But don't expect or demand that such identification bestows or grants or provides some special privileges or rights or designations to you in situations where biological sex is a higher priority attribute when making some distinction or choice.  I think that's the crux of the entire argument. 

In the case of women's sports if you're a biological male no type of gender identification nor any amount of debate and discussion on the "logic" and reasoning for that identification is going to change the fact you're not a biological female.  

 

What I also wonder about regarding this debate is why is sex/gender the only trait that can be identified with?  If I'm a 5-foot tall, white man, 45-year-old with brown eyes and brown hair why can't I choose to identify as a 7-foot-tall, 65-year-old, native American women with green eyes and blonde hair?  What's so special about gender rather than another trait?  And derive social benefits from that identification my biological traits do not provide.

I’ll answer as best I can. This entire ‘identify’ premise is First World nonsense. Your last examples are physical traits, like height or skin color. Those traits you either have or don’t. However identifying as a ‘gender’ is completely different. Nobody knows how the opposite gender feels. That’s just what you make up in your own head from watching other people around you in the society that you live in. But your perception doesn’t make you a male or female. Put another way, I’m a man. I have absolutely no idea how a woman feels, no matter how much I convince myself that I do. Period. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll answer as best I can. This entire ‘identify’ premise is First World nonsense. Your last examples are physical traits, like height or skin color. Those traits you either have or don’t. However identifying as a ‘gender’ is completely different. Nobody knows how the opposite gender feels. That’s just what you make up in your own head from watching other people around you in the society that you live in. But your perception doesn’t make you a male or female. Put another way, I’m a man. I have absolutely no idea how a woman feels, no matter how much I convince myself that I do. Period. 

I hear what you're saying.  And while as a man I don't know how a woman feels, that doesn't stop my wife from trying to let me know at every opportunity!    

[Gene Frenkle]

Why not just let everyone else do what THEY want, while you do what YOU want? What's the problem? Why do you care?

 

Most secular people think religious people are nuts! Living their lives based on some dusty fairy tale.. You don't have to like that, but it's true. Do you know what secular people do about it? Nothing. So long as you're not hurting anybody or take away people's rights, everyone else just lets you be. It's hypocritical at best.

 

Stop trying to push your morals down everyone's throat and go about your lives. Try to be more like your boy JC and treat others as you wish to be treated.

[JDHillFan]

34 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Why not just let everyone else do what THEY want, while you do what YOU want? What's the problem? Why do you care?

 

Most secular people think religious people are nuts! Living their lives based on some dusty fairy tale.. You don't have to like that, but it's true. Do you know what secular people do about it? Nothing. So long as you're not hurting anybody or take away people's rights, everyone else just lets you be. It's hypocritical at best.

 

Stop trying to push your morals down everyone's throat and go about your lives. Try to be more like your boy JC and treat others as you wish to be treated.

You claim to speak for most secular people? Any basis for being their spokesman? 

[Gene Frenkle]

26 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

You claim to speak for most secular people? Any basis for being their spokesman? 

 

Do you see secular people infringing on the rights of religious people?

 

I know I've seen a lot of religious people infringing on the rights of everyone else.

 

I'm simply making conclusions based on observation. I'd love to hear your counter argument.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Why not just let everyone else do what THEY want, while you do what YOU want? What's the problem? Why do you care?

 

Most secular people think religious people are nuts! Living their lives based on some dusty fairy tale.. You don't have to like that, but it's true. Do you know what secular people do about it? Nothing. So long as you're not hurting anybody or take away people's rights, everyone else just lets you be. It's hypocritical at best.

 

Stop trying to push your morals down everyone's throat and go about your lives. Try to be more like your boy JC and treat others as you wish to be treated.

This is complete hogwash, though I completely agree that people should be left to live and let live.  The problem is, it's a fallacy.  Rules, tax policy, mandates, social security, regulations, guidance, cultural norms, arguments about 'fair share' etc...everybody has an opinion about what everyone should do, or how they should do it. 

 

Your go-to is mocking dusty fairy tales.  It's the lazy man's approach to "You'll burn in hell if you don't believe as I do".  #boring. 

 

 

[aristocrat]

26 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Do you see secular people infringing on the rights of religious people?

 

I know I've seen a lot of religious people infringing on the rights of everyone else.

 

I'm simply making conclusions based on observation. I'd love to hear your counter argument.

 

I think it would be fantastic if they just let people be themselves. Problem is go look at the libs of tiktok twitter and see all the teachers pushing this stuff down our kids throats. That's where people will start to have problems with this. Literally teachers will say they brought up being different genders and non binary and then claims half or even the entire class transgendered. Which is statistically impossible. These are like 5 year old kids.  So let's all step back and stop pushing it down everyone's throat and let the kids develop normally and naturally. 

[Gene Frenkle]

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

I think it would be fantastic if they just let people be themselves. Problem is go look at the libs of tiktok twitter and see all the teachers pushing this stuff down our kids throats. That's where people will start to have problems with this. Literally teachers will say they brought up being different genders and non binary and then claims half or even the entire class transgendered. Which is statistically impossible. These are like 5 year old kids.  So let's all step back and stop pushing it down everyone's throat and let the kids develop normally and naturally. 

 

"Naturally"

 

That sums up the whole thing in a nutshell. How about: keep your morals for you and yours. Stop telling other people that they must live by your code. In fact, if you started following your own book, the world would be a much better place for all of the people you now disparage.

 

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

You effers never practice what you preach. You use your religion, a-la-carte, cherry picking bits and pieces, seemingly to impose your will on others.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Why not just let everyone else do what THEY want, while you do what YOU want? What's the problem? Why do you care?

 

Most secular people think religious people are nuts! Living their lives based on some dusty fairy tale.. You don't have to like that, but it's true. Do you know what secular people do about it? Nothing. So long as you're not hurting anybody or take away people's rights, everyone else just lets you be. It's hypocritical at best.

 

Stop trying to push your morals down everyone's throat and go about your lives. Try to be more like your boy JC and treat others as you wish to be treated.

So in your world view men should be allowed in the womens’ restroom? Because that’s what they want to do? You see, the point is that nobody cares what you do in private, assuming you’re not hurting someone else, but the minute you start bringing your ‘secular’ fairly tale out into the public eye you’re going to rightfully get big time push back. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[aristocrat]

6 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

"Naturally"

 

That sums up the whole thing in a nutshell. How about: keep your morals for you and yours. Stop telling other people that they must live by your code. In fact, if you started following your own book, the world would be a much better place for all of the people you now disparage.

 

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 

You effers never practice what you preach. You use your religion, a-la-carte, cherry picking bits and pieces, seemingly to impose your will on others.

 

So I'm literally saying let the kids develop into whatever gender or be whatever sexuality and not force it on them and you have a problem with that?  Do you not see you are imposing your will on the kids?  I have zero issue with the community and have a very close family member who early on in high school that has gone from female to male. No drugs, no surgery until he's of age as he feels that's the safest way to do this. I will cover whatever cost of the surgery is necessary as I don't want him going to the cheapest doc on the block and gets a poor job done. 

[Gene Frenkle]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So in your world view men should be allowed in womens’ restroom? Because that’s what they want to do? You see, the point is that nobody cares what you do in private, assuming you’re not hurting someone else, but the minute you start bringing your ‘secular’ fairly take out into the public eye you’re going to rightfully get big time push back. 

 

Secular fairy tale. 😆

 

What great claims does lack of religion bring? That we hypothesize, observe, make conclusions and adjust our beliefs based on evidence? Better that than the unbending words written nearly 2000 years ago.

 

Why are you so focused on restrooms? I feel like we can navigate that one as a society. It's certain no argument for imposing "correct" morals on others.

 

Freedom ain't free!!! We may have to build some more Port-a-Potty's, but not with MUH tax dollars!!!  'Merica.

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

So I'm literally saying let the kids develop into whatever gender or be whatever sexuality and not force it on them and you have a problem with that?  Do you not see you are imposing your will on the kids?  I have zero issue with the community and have a very close family member who early on in high school that has gone from female to male. No drugs, no surgery until he's of age as he feels that's the safest way to do this. I will cover whatever cost of the surgery is necessary as I don't want him going to the cheapest doc on the block and gets a poor job done. 

 

Nobody's forcing anyone. They're just being exposed to the idea that people are different. They're being taught to be accepting of that. This is a good message and just because it wasn't the message when we were impressionable doesn't make it wrong. You have one view of things. Others don't. You don't need to tell them what to do.

 

Raise your kids as you like and let others do the same.

[Boatdrinks]

23 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Secular fairy tale. 😆

 

What great claims does lack of religion bring? That we hypothesize, observe, make conclusions and adjust our beliefs based on evidence? Better that than the unbending words written nearly 2000 years ago.

 

Why are you so focused on restrooms? I feel like we can navigate that one as a society. It's certain no argument for imposing "correct" morals on others.

 

Freedom ain't free!!! We may have to build some more Port-a-Potty's, but not with MUH tax dollars!!!  'Merica.

 

Nobody's forcing anyone. They're just being exposed to the idea that people are different. They're being taught to be accepting of that. This is a good message and just because it wasn't the message when we were impressionable doesn't make it wrong. You have one view of things. Others don't. You don't need to tell them what to do.

 

Raise your kids as you like and let others do the same.

Absolutely untrue. Simply accepting differences is not enough for Libs. You must celebrate and encourage alternative lifestyles ; otherwise you are being “phobic” or a “ hater”. Requiring a few basics for an orderly society -such as using the restroom appropriate for your genitalia - is not asking much. It’s still too much for the lefty loonies. No religion here- I’m an atheist - but common sense is uncommon with todays libs. 

[SoCal Deek]

30 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Secular fairy tale. 😆

 

What great claims does lack of religion bring? That we hypothesize, observe, make conclusions and adjust our beliefs based on evidence? Better that than the unbending words written nearly 2000 years ago.

 

Why are you so focused on restrooms? I feel like we can navigate that one as a society. It's certain no argument for imposing "correct" morals on others.

 

Freedom ain't free!!! We may have to build some more Port-a-Potty's, but not with MUH tax dollars!!!  'Merica.

 

Nobody's forcing anyone. They're just being exposed to the idea that people are different. They're being taught to be accepting of that. This is a good message and just because it wasn't the message when we were impressionable doesn't make it wrong. You have one view of things. Others don't. You don't need to tell them what to do.

 

Raise your kids as you like and let others do the same.

Gene…if I’m not asking you to go to church with me, why does the secular orthodoxy demand that I go to church with them? Like YOU said, raise your kids anyway you want, but leave mine out of it. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

23 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Absolutely untrue. Simply accepting differences is not enough for Libs. You must celebrate and encourage alternative lifestyles ; otherwise you are being “phobic” or a “ hater”. Requiring a few basics for an orderly society -such as using the restroom appropriate for your genitalia - is not asking much. It’s still too much for the lefty loonies. No religion here- I’m an atheist - but common sense is uncommon with todays libs. 

It’s not about common sense and it’s everything about forcing their views on you and if you don’t agree you’re the problem. It is 100% like a religious zealot forcing views on others.
 

It’s just a different religion called liberalism and just like many other religious disciples, they think their religion makes them better than you. 

[Gene Frenkle]

27 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Absolutely untrue. Simply accepting differences is not enough for Libs. You must celebrate and encourage alternative lifestyles ; otherwise you are being “phobic” or a “ hater”. Requiring a few basics for an orderly society -such as using the restroom appropriate for your genitalia - is not asking much. It’s still too much for the lefty loonies. No religion here- I’m an atheist - but common sense is uncommon with todays libs. 

 

Nobody's making you do *****.

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Gene…if I’m not asking you to go to church with me, why does the secular orthodoxy demand that I go to church with them? Like YOU said, raise your kids anyway you want, but leave mine out of it. 

 

You have options. Use them. Raise your kids as you see fit and allow others to do the same.

[Gene Frenkle]

 

What you don't understand or are unwilling to accept is that this is what future generations are choosing and this is how it will be. Old people don't get to choose this on their way out. They had their choices in their time and their generations made those choices. Those choices directly led us here. At some point you get a bit set in your ways and comfortable and now everything is just as it should be. But time doesn't stop for you. The zeitgeist moves forward with or without you until you die and even then it still keeps going. Dig your heels in to try to stop it or watch it evolve and try to understand it. The choice is yours, but the latter may lead to less grumpiness and frustration.

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Secular fairy tale. 😆

 

What great claims does lack of religion bring? That we hypothesize, observe, make conclusions and adjust our beliefs based on evidence? Better that than the unbending words written nearly 2000 years ago.

 

Why are you so focused on restrooms? I feel like we can navigate that one as a society. It's certain no argument for imposing "correct" morals on others.

 

Freedom ain't free!!! We may have to build some more Port-a-Potty's, but not with MUH tax dollars!!!  'Merica.

 

Nobody's forcing anyone. They're just being exposed to the idea that people are different. They're being taught to be accepting of that. This is a good message and just because it wasn't the message when we were impressionable doesn't make it wrong. You have one view of things. Others don't. You don't need to tell them what to do.

 

Raise your kids as you like and let others do the same.

 

[Gene Frenkle]

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

 

Yeah, I'm not letting my kids go to that if they're little. In my opinion, that would be bad parenting.

 

It's still not my place to tell others how to raise their children.

 

It's peak hypocrisy to ban abortions and then tell other people how to raise their children.

[wnyguy]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Yeah, I'm not letting my kids go to that if they're little. In my opinion, that would be bad parenting.

 

It's still not my place to tell others how to raise their children.

 

It's peak hypocrisy to ban abortions and then tell other people how to raise their children.

So you have no problem seeing small children, toddlers, being exposed to things like this. Whatever, right?

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, wnyguy said:

So you have no problem seeing small children, toddlers, being exposed to things like this. Whatever, right?

 

I don't like this example, but this example is shown because it is extreme and is meant to illicit a response.

 

IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL ANYONE HOW TO RAISE THEIR CHILD.

 

Now if a crime were being committed, that would be a different thing. Law vs. morals. Get it? Put your outrage into helping to pass a law if you care so much.

 

Nobody cares about your morals.

[wnyguy]

10 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I don't like this example, but this example is shown because it is extreme and is meant to illicit a response.

 

IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL ANYONE HOW TO RAISE THEIR CHILD.

 

Now if a crime were being committed, that would be a different thing. Law vs. morals. Get it? Put your outrage into helping to pass a law if you care so much.

 

Nobody cares about your morals.

At least I have morals and if I had seen what was shown here I would be compelled to react not just say, "Oh well, it's not my kid." 

[aristocrat]

16 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I don't like this example, but this example is shown because it is extreme and is meant to illicit a response.

 

IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL ANYONE HOW TO RAISE THEIR CHILD.

 

Now if a crime were being committed, that would be a different thing. Law vs. morals. Get it? Put your outrage into helping to pass a law if you care so much.

 

Nobody cares about your morals.

 

Nobody is forcing it on the kids!

 

https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/over-200k-being-spent-on-drag-queen-shows-at-nyc-schools/

 

New York is showering taxpayer funds on a group that sends drag queens into city schools — often without parental knowledge or consent — even as parents in other states protest increasingly aggressive efforts to expose kids to gender-bending performers.

Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC — a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3 — earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, city records show.

Since January, the group has organized 49 drag programs in 34 public elementary, middle, and high schools, it boasted on its website, with appearances in all five boroughs.

[Gene Frenkle]

14 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

At least I have morals and if I had seen what was shown here I would be compelled to react not just say, "Oh well, it's not my kid." 

 

The whole point is that morals are arbitrary at some point. Your morals are not the same as another person's morals. Yours are not objectively correct.

14 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Nobody is forcing it on the kids!

 

https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/over-200k-being-spent-on-drag-queen-shows-at-nyc-schools/

 

New York is showering taxpayer funds on a group that sends drag queens into city schools — often without parental knowledge or consent — even as parents in other states protest increasingly aggressive efforts to expose kids to gender-bending performers.

Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC — a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3 — earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, city records show.

Since January, the group has organized 49 drag programs in 34 public elementary, middle, and high schools, it boasted on its website, with appearances in all five boroughs.

 

Complain to your school board. Complain to your representatives. Vote them out.

[Gene Frenkle]

 

Why are you people so scared of Trannies? They're probably not into you or your kids anyway.

 

I wouldn't let Matt Gaetz near your kids if I were you tho! JMO

[wnyguy]

6 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

The whole point is that morals are arbitrary at some point. Your morals are not the same as another person's morals. Yours are not objectively correct.

 

 

I know what wrong looks like. That you have no problem with it is astounding. 

[Gene Frenkle]

1 minute ago, wnyguy said:

I know what wrong looks like. That you have no problem with it is astounding. 

 

Nope. You don't. The fact that you think you do, objectively, is the problem.

[aristocrat]

19 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Why are you people so scared of Trannies? They're probably not into you or your kids anyway.

 

I wouldn't let Matt Gaetz near your kids if I were you tho! JMO

nobody is scared of them. Just don’t want kids going to drag events.  Don’t you know the difference? 

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, aristocrat said:

nobody is scared of them. Just don’t want kids going to drag events.  Don’t you know the difference? 

 

Then don't send your kids to drag events.

 

You get some level of control over your own kids for about 18 years. That's it, nothing more. Deal with it.

[aristocrat]

23 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Then don't send your kids to drag events.

 

You get some level of control over your own kids for about 18 years. That's it, nothing more. Deal with it.

No kids at drag events. As in not just mine but not any kids. Let’s have some values