How The Trans Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everybody
"It’s ironic that those leading the charge for the transgender revolution would claim there is only *one* right side to history."
"Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda."
"Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda."
Its not like an actor on a TV show or some same-sex couple is gonna make me go out, take those male enhancing drugs I keep getting spam over, and try to grow a dingus and a beard. (OK, at my age, most women in my family get facial hair... damn)
What someone does with regards to this stuff - whether I know them or not (and I don't know these folk) don't make one whit to me. Are they a straight shooter? Can I trust them? Will they rip me off? Can they work their ass off for an honest paycheck? If they say something can I take it to the bank?
Strangey enough, THAT'S what's important to me - not whether they married or live with someone who's the same sex, not whether they went through some psych wringer to try to straighten out whatever's making their mind all fubar, but if they're someone who I can trust, and like, and maybe even stand back-to-back with during a shootout.
Those are my values. People that degrade others on shit those others can't control - I just can't understand them.
Like I said before - if your marriage or life is so fragile that someone who's gay or lesbian or transwhatever is gonna cause you to get divorced or go off the deep end... it's not on that person, it's on you.
(Frigging hornets!)
I also (highly) disagree with the Gub'mint forcing their socialist-agenda crap down our throats. I don't want to hire someone because they're a transgender, I want to hire them because they're the best damn employee I can hire... I don't give a d@^^n if they're a lesbian, or gender-questionable, or even married to Curly, their pet Sheep (tho thinking about it, there seem to be a plethora of married (and single) sheep in this country)... Can they do the job, do it well, for what I'm paying them? THAT is the bottom line...
I *do* know there's a lot of discrimination out there - from the highway superintendent that wants to fire a frigging dynamo worker because he brought his boyfriend by when he picked up his check, to the person who talks crap behind someone's back to discredit him to his boss because they heard a rumor (unfounded, BTW) he was once a dike named Sheila (seen both firsthand), to the person who wouldn't hire someone because their name was Abdul (even tho they had more mechanics certs than I thought possible, and stood up to the certs, and undercut his competition on wage-expectations by 15%)...
Yeah, there're problems out there. But what it will take to straighten this mess out - other than some people growing up mentally - is NOT the nannystate telling us who we must and must not hire, but all of us employers taking a stand, and telling these people who practice this (dare I say the word?? --giggles--) bigotry and discrimination against people they should be damned glad to have on their team.
It's like the whole Minimum wage bullc*@p... As a good employer, I'll pay someone what they're worth, but if they're doing $5 an hour work, I'll be damned if I'll willingly pay them $11.73 (or whatever they say I pay them). And forcing a floor (minimum) wage and then jacking it up over and over - does NOTHING but accelerate inflation.
And THAT gets me more pissed than my former rant... because it affects ALL of us.
(So, what IS this creepy popcorn smiley thingy? Damnit, now I want to know...)
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2...
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/up...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DDCe7b-0reg/UM...
What makes me uncomfortable is how groups seeking approval for incest and pedophelia are trying to tie their tail to the kite of homosexual rights. Membership in the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) should be a criminal offense, in my opinion.
The goal of NAMBLA is broader than just for males having sex with minor males. They want to eliminate ALL age of consent laws, which, I suspect is to gain support from other pedophiles of the lesbian and heterosexual stripe.
I haven't seen an organized group promoting incest (but then I haven't spent much time looking), but an Australian judge recently made headlines by saying that with the existence of many methods of contraception, incest shouldn't be a crime (since the common argument against family sex was to prevent genetic birth disorders). I suppose one could argue that incest between adults shouldn't be a big deal, but I'll leave that up to individual opinion.
There's an incest case going on now in Germany, where the brother-sister pair married and had children. In their defense, they had been separated and placed in foster care at about one and two years old, and their sibling status wasn't discovered until they had been living as a family for several years. There's a law against incest, under any conditions, in Germany, and their children were taken from them and they were sent to prison. An appeals court reversed the prison sentence, but under the condition they remain separate and can't see their children. Thanks to public outrage, they remain a couple and free, and are seeking the return of their children. The tax man, however, insists their marriage is still not legal.
It doesn't sound like those are your values. It sounds to me like you have no values...
Since my Maurice Moss popcorn gif creeps you out, here's my cute fluffy bunny popcorn gif.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/uhbErqE2UXAZooDqMeK...
Minorities of every persuasion often seem to want more than equality. They want special consideration... government intervention. I would not ask for government intervention to stop them. It is none of my business.
Personally I have no problem with people being who they are as long as they do not shove it in my face. If I see a hetero couple engaging in public acts that are none of my business, I mind my own business, but I want to say "get a room." If I see lewd behavior the source is irrelevant. If you want to be an exhibitionist Mardi Gras is the place you ought to be. :) Strangers ought to have warning and a choice. Parents should not have to explain to their children things they are not yet old enough for. I sound like an old fuddy-duddy. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49CJ4h02...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVuEC3r7...
I personally think that LGBT is wrong from a perpetuation of the species perspective. On an individual basis, I don't give a rip what one, two, or more people want to do in their bedroom - so long as they are of legal age, competent to understand what they are doing, and consent to what they are doing. What I do object to, is being told that I MUST not only tolerate what they do, but that I must, as you identify, give them SPECIAL consideration. That is where their rights overlap my rights. And when they want to bring in the force of government to do so, that's where/when I become militant about it.
I don't shove my sexual perspectives in the faces of others and only ask that they not do so to me either. If a certain provider of goods/services doesn't want to serve you (other than if you are a legally protected class) that is their right - move on and find another. It is not your right to force them to violate their own beliefs so that you might enable your own. And if there is no other provider out there, then start your own service/company if you think there is a demand for such.
Maph is a one-note band on this board. He insists that everyone accept his point of view, and refuses to allow that others might have a different point of view. There are a couple others on certain topics as well, but he is certainly the most pronounced and prolific.
Let's all just melt into one big blob of nothing for the purpose of the greater good and fairness for ALL.
Here's a link to a video - http://www.auee.org/sexuality-standards....
Not safe to watch at work, with children, with anyone you don't consider a close friend. Very disturbing.
Let's take a look the accuracy of the quoted statement itself : We have known since around 2000 that it is hypothetically possible for a man to have a baby. What happened to illuminate us on this was that a woman who had had a total hysterectomy was delivered of a child by c-section: (She had an ectopic pregnancy and the placenta had formed on the outside of her colon.) So - given modern techniques - it is not really necessary for the genetic or physical parents to be a man and a woman. Two women are possible; two men are plausible given a female egg-donor (enucleated - so not nuclear genetic component from the woman) to provide mitochondrial DNA.
We can go a step further. You can have a single parent child - we call it a clone, but it is really just a twin with an age offset. You could have your clone-child implanted and deliver it. We may soon be able to have an external gestational device that allows the embryo/fetus to be nurtured independent of a biological host altogether. None of these things mean that a child is less of a child or that that their parents are less parents.
None of these things imperil the existence of the family or the tendency of the human species to form male-female pairings. This will probably remain the norm.
Insofar as 'calling' people different things, I will point out that Tagalog does not have personal pronouns that distinguish gender. This does not seem to inconvenience the people of the Philippines (any more than English speakers are inconvenienced by not having a 'chair' be 'female' as it is in Romance languages).
Get the government out of our personal lives, and let the gay and trans people have their own fine families (which they do) and work and play with people who accept them. As I do: I have a number of friends in that community and I qualify them for 'people I want to hang around with' (or hire) the same way I do everyone else.
Jan
(Incidentally, about one in 13K births is an XY female - the person does not even know that she has a Y chromosome but thinks she is a normal woman. If you add up all the possible syndromes, the number of babies whose genitalia or sex chromosomes are 'different than normal' are about one percent.)
As I was driving in to work today, I moved over a lane so that some bicyclists would have more room. I thought to myself how I really like there being bicycle lanes going everywhere...but that I would NOT like the government to make me ride a bicycle when I wanted to be driving a car. And then I thought of this discussion...
It adds a whole different flavor 'to make' rather than 'to let'.
Jan
Changing language to control thought.
An example of progressive attempts to change or re-define language and therefor thought is your second sentence in which you attempt to combine and conflate three separate identities. By doing so you have generated a nonsense statement
"Cultural evolution is an inherent part of language" Culture does not experience evolution. It is not genetically inheritable. It's development depends upon a 'building block' mechanism from generation to generation and group taste.
The dictionary definition of culture: culture |ˈkəlCHər| noun
1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively:
The dictionary definition of evolution: evolution |ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən| noun
1 the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2 the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form:
The dictionary definition of language: language |ˈlaNGgwij| noun
1 the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way:
2 the system of communication used by a particular community or country:
3 the manner or style of a piece of writing or speech:
So what you as a progressive socialist have attempted to do with 'cultural evolution of language' is to imply that 'culture' is a part of the natural world effected and changed biologically, i.e. 'evolution' and insert that into the definition of language.
A is not B is not C.
Also, if you say that one variable cannot equal another variable, all math and deductive reasoning becomes impossible. Ayn Rand takes the axiom A is A (otherwise known as Law of Identity, or the Reflexive Property of Equality) from the writings of Aristotle, but Aristotle NEVER said that A cannot also be equal to B. That's not how the Law of Identity works. In fact, Aristotle said exactly the opposite. What the Law of Identity ACTUALLY means is simply that the variable A cannot hold more than one value at a time, but that in no way prevents it from being equivalent to another variable. Yes, it's true that Aristotle said A must be equal to itself, but he also said that if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must also equal C. For example, Socrates cannot be anyone else except Socrates, and if Socrates is a Greek, and all Greeks are men, then logically Socrates must be a man. That's called Syllogism, not Socialism.
And I'm not a Socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/propert...
The purposeful blurring or changing of language or purposely not defining one's terms is dishonest and the province of charlatans and despots.
If it taxes like a duck, redistributes like a duck, and agitates like a duck, it's a Socialist.
Yes, it's a mixed metaphor, but I like it.
And the only charlatans and despots who have ever made any deliberate attempts to change language are the fictional ones in the novels of George Orwell. As far as I'm aware, that's not really a tactic that real dictators have ever actually used in real life. But regardless, changing of language is something that's also done by scientists when the old vocabulary cannot sufficiently describe observed phenomena. Bill Nye came and gave a speech at my school back in 2011, and one of the things he talked about was how he himself had personally invented new words to describe phenomena which previously had no label attached to them. You can watch a video of that speech here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDyy4H4W...
You also refuse to accept simple definitions. Evolution is not change over time-it's development from simple to complex and it's identified in it's science.
You additionally attempt to conflate 'change' with 'added to' or 'expand' in the language of a science.
If you're just ignorant, I can excuse that. You can always learn more. But I think you're purposeful which pretty much defines you as a progressive socialist.
And progressivism isn't socialism. Socialism is the abolishment of private property, which is an idea that's not part of progressivism.
but dang it-I do not like to be railroaded!
This is tortured logical gymnastics trying to find a way denying people equal marriage rights paradoxically gives people more rights.
I would say this employment act isn't really doing transgendered people any favors. When people talk to transgender people, they will legitimately wonder if they're there on their merits or if someone was afraid of being accused of discrimination. I'm very happy to see traditional gender roles broken down. The authors grandkids will be embarrassed to be associated with this bigotry. If she wants to make things hard for minorities, though, she should support the gov't helping them with non-discrimination laws.
Ah, but right there you have fallen into their clever trap. Two people of the same gender hooking up does not equate to a marriage. You are buying into the notion that there is no such thing as gender at all and that society has no need for mothers and fathers - nor do children. That was the whole point of the article.
Sociologically and morally, how do you teach children how to be good parents and how to relate to others without role models of both sexes? Answer: you can't. It is impossible. All one has to do is look at the breakdown in the African-American community since the 1950's due to the explosion in unwed motherhood to see what happens when you eliminate the traditional core of father (male) and mother (female) from marriage. You get significantly higher crime rates, gang formation, lack of education, MORE unwed pregnancies, higher drug addiction rates, etc. You get a societal cancer.
I've already seen what happens when parents break up at a very personal level. I find it hard to believe that anyone would wish that upon an entire civilization - let alone a single family.
72.2% for blacks, 29.4% for whites. If I remember right that 29% is as high as it was for blacks in the 60s. The aggregate out of wedlock birthrate for all groups is 40.7%.
Think about that, just over 40% of ALL births are out of wedlock.
You can't call them children of "broken homes", we need a new term....
Children of "unformed homes" or can you even call half a home a home?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarrie...
Blaming religious intolerance for society's resistance to these disruptive behaviors is an act of misdirection. We are genetically geared to resist unconventional behavior. Homosexual proponents point to the occurrence of their kind of activity in primates like chimpanzees as being "normal", but they avoid discussion of what happens to the homosexual actors in primate culture, where most are brutally punished or banned.
If anything, humans are far more tolerant of dysfunctional behavior, and Christians are the one who espouse love of the misbehaving, while disavowing the negative behavior. For the record, I'm not a Christian, but I do contribute to Christian organizations like the Salvation Army, mainly because of their tolerance of "sinners".
In that case we need a system to determine which behaviors are indeed "disruptive" to the "social structure". Then we need a set of ways for gov't to make life difficult for people who exhibit the "dysfunctional" behaviors.
If we're modelling everything on other primates, we need to look at all behaviors they exhibit.
Maybe we should just abandon looking to primate for how to behave and leave one another alone.
Human social instinct is usually pretty good at determining what is positive and negative behavior, even though it takes some time to work things out. What gets in the way are religious and government interference.
In short, I don't. LGBT couples and now polyamorous people can come to Madison or either of the two UU congregations I go to get and positive welcome unbiased by their sexual orientation. I really wish the gov't would drop the whole thing.
---
ORLY? Got a source for that?
Just today I saw an article about one actor (name escapes me) that refused to take a role as a homosexual vampire and lost his job. I have no issue with his losing his job because of his decision. However I know from many authors whose books became films that directors have a lot of liberty with scripts. I does raise the minor question, if this guy was so popular why not adapt the script to accommodate him?
Its A Living was the first (TV show, 70s or 80s), to my knowledge, to use desensitization to force social acceptance.
Sack up and tell me...
It's probably the few troll-like (i.e. instigating arguments for mean-spirited reasons) people who did it.
This is a question of definition ,not something to prove or disprove. For the purposes of a discussion I could accept alternate definitions.
"You are buying into the notion that there is no such thing as gender at all and that society has no need for mothers and fathers - nor do children."
Of course gender exists. Gender are the cultural ideas we associated with the sexes. There is such thing as sex too. I also believe kids need parents.
"Sociologically and morally, how do you teach children how to be good parents and how to relate to others without role models of both sexes? Answer: you can't. It is impossible."
It's amazing what's possible with hard work. It happens every day. My wife is an estate planning and probate attorney who sees the cases on a daily basis.
I love the modern disconnect between actions and outcomes.
Most folks on here would agree that the U.S. is heading into the toilet. Yet, pretty much everyone also agrees that boy, single moms, homosexual "couples", everybody and anybody is a great parent (except someone who tries to instill some moral direction in their children).
It's like Nixon. He won in a landslide; yet a few years after Watergate, you couldn't find anyone who had voted for him. It was almost as hard to find someone who had not "known all along" what a bad person he was...
Sure, single moms, working moms, "alternative families"... all this raises kids who are emotionally stable, hyper-intelligent, morally upright and full of good character.
All the lowlife scumbags proliferating today are obviously shipped in from another planet.
Not as tortured as the logic that people with deviant sexual appetites are somehow being denied "marriage rights" simply because they can't marry a member of the same sex, or a dog, or a cucumber. People with deviant sexual appetites already have equal marriage rights.
"I'm very happy to see traditional gender roles broken down"
You're very sick, then.
"The authors grandkids will be embarrassed to be associated with this bigotry."
This is what the progressives call "progress". Over the past half-century and more, they have pushed the envelop bit by bit, destroying cultural norms based upon human nature, claiming moral righteousness in fighting for "fairness" where there is no unfairness "equality" where equality is an impossible measure. And painting anyone who refuses to conform to the new norm as stupid, primitive, backwards, bigoted, hateful.
First they hid in the civil rights movement, then in the feminist movement, now in the LBGT movement. And any time someone predicted that we'd be right here someday, they were pooh-poohed in the media and by all "right-thinking" people as being alarmist.
I remember Geraldine Ferraro, back in 84, laughing at the idea that we'd ever have unisex bathrooms or put women in combat. Lessee...30 years later, we've had both for awhile now.
What you mean when you say, "the author's grandkids will be embarrassed" is "in another 20 years, we'll have managed to brainwash the young enough to think such deviancy is normal, and they'll have nothing to compare it to."
That's why the overwhelming population of the gulch is old, and why the focus in elections is the young people, because the old folks still remember way back in their hindbrains what the world was like before we started listening to the terminally insane.
It turns out it was coincidental, I think, it says "The Certified Professional Guardianship Board is establishing a new communication process to facilitate increased involvement in developing standards, rules and regulations to guide the guardianship profession. Refer to the link below for explanation of the process. The process is evolving and will likely change as we move through the development phase. We’ll keep you informed about changes as they occur. The linked document also requests comments on the issue of guardianship agency ownership, revisions to two regulations and a proposed new Standard of Practice." Just more bureaucracy to keep us confused and in line.
Part of a profession is pay after all.
Lectern + Constitution + over inverted flag (signifying danger)
Devil would be - donkey + presidential seal
Devil's advocate would be - donkey + presidential seal + press card (over justice dept seal)
I admit I don't really know much about the problems surrounding that particular issue, since I'm not personally involved with it, but I would definitely support any changes in regulation and/or legislation which alleviated you of that hassle and expense.
However part of the problem is the legal recognition of marriage and gender. If we didn't have obamacare and unnecessary special tax treatment for married couples, a lot of the distinction these weirdos want to draw out and blatantly buck would be uninteresting personal choices that affect no one else.
Why it is so difficult for the equality-obsessed crowd to figure out that we are a species with two sexes for a reason, and that all marriage really is is a formalized recognition of a man and woman engaging in their natural roles in the reproductive cycle of homo sapiens?
The err. person decided to have a baby, done if I remember by insemination. Enough.
Well I am not really against any of that as long as my money is not in it. Was the child breast fed? Anyway, what should be the role of the state, if any? Is there any obligation to provide for the child? To provide welfare for the (pardon the expression) mother? Does the child have a recorded mother and father?
The study of ancient churches in Iraq is easier.
And no I am not making that up
So, the source of the dog's testosterone is removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles
I've also wondered why, if this is such an effective birth control method, more parents aren't encouraged to use it on their teenage children...
Oh, no, don't bother addressing the question; if mutilation is a good way to prevent unwanted canine pregnancies, why not practice it on your sons and daughters?
No, just downcheck and move on... whoever did it... coward :)
But wait - isn't that what women want? To be treated equally (except when it doesn't suit their purpose)? Two examples leap to mind:
1) Welfare support systems that are for WOMEN AND CHILDREN ONLY, and,
2) Dual standards for fitness in the military.
In the former, it's just plain, flat gender-based theft. In the latter, why have fitness standards at all, if not everyone is going to meet them? So why would it be okay for a 19-year-old woman to run 30 seconds slower over 2 miles than a 55-year-old man? Is it because women will never have to be as strong or fast because (even though we're led to believe women are equal and will be assigned the same tasks as men) women don't need to be as capable to do the same job?
law historically contained advantages for women to offset the fact that they couldn't vote, engage in contracts, etc. Women want to get rid of the limitations, but still want to keep the preferential treatment. Until recently, 90% of all custody of young children went to the divorcing female. More recently, that percentage is down to anpit 83% - but it's still the men who are getting shafted by a system that until recently deferred almost exclusively to women. I could go on - but you either get it or you don't.
Pretty much the same think happens when you point out that the coming economic destruction of America is due primarily to female voting patterns.
I'm not gay but I've met MANY gay and lesbian people through work and friendship relationships, and TO A PERSON, not ONE of them has ever shown any behaviors which would evoke or provoke the kind of hatred and anger expressed here.
Yes, the SAME "they're going to destroy society" arguments came out when blacks DARED to hold hands with, LET ALONE MARRY whites. OMFG... how horrible!
Visible damage? Only in or to the minds of the bigots. And the illogic of the alleged 'arguments against everything from polygamy to incest to 'marrying your pet' is astounding. Two infertile people, even if brother and sister from the same parent, have NO logical 'reason' to be refused 'the right to marry.' Neither one is going to get pregnant, and if they were to adopt a child or a hundred children, there is no fucking way that anyone could accurately predict the 'damage to' or outcome for the children which might result.
Then someone tosses in the concept of 'sin,' as if there were a legal definition which somehow sprang into being without being sourced from some religious holy book or fire-breathing preacher.
All I am seeing here is just too many examples of pseudo-libertarians who are really right-wing conservative bigots under the skin.
If any of them (you) think you've offered any rational reasons for your opinions, you are sorely mistaken. If you had any self-awareness, you'd be taking a good, hard look at who or what or when those ideas infiltrated your minds and took root.
I only hope that society outlives your bigotry much as it's come SO far in battling racial prejudice (and still has a long way to go, too.)
If you have those horrible beliefs about gays, I'm pretty sure you haven't socialized with any of 'them' or known them or their families or who they are as people or citizens.
Friday night, my wife (female) and I are going to see one of the kids of such a FAMILY perform in Seussical... a lovely, beautiful girl with perfect pitch and bubbly personality, who calls one of her parents Mom and the other Mommy. Nor is her fraternal twin brother confused, either.
Just you.
Your attitudes (other than Susanne's) may drive me out of this group if the hypocrisy and bigotry continues.
"Yes, the SAME "they're going to destroy society" arguments came out when blacks DARED to hold hands with, LET ALONE MARRY whites. OMFG... how horrible! "
There is no comparison; a sexual appetite is not a race... but hold on to that thought.
"I'm not racist, but I've known MANY racist people through work and relationships (some of them even homosexual), and TO A PERSON, not ONE of them has ever shown any behaviors which would evoke or provoke the kind of hatred and anger expressed here. "
See, I'd be willing to bet you weren't old enough to have lived in such a era, and are parroting what you were taught. But, I am old enough to have lived through it.
What "horrible beliefs"? That their sexual appetites are not normal and healthy? That they already enjoy the same rights as healthy people? You've led a sheltered life indeed if that rises to the level of "horrible" to you.
"If any of them (you) think you've offered any rational reasons for your opinions, you are sorely mistaken."
How would you know? I've used nothing but rational reasoning to explain the obvious, which is why you mistake it for hatred; your "reasoning" is not reason, but emotion.
"I only hope that society outlives your bigotry much as it's come SO far in battling racial prejudice (and still has a long way to go, too.) "
Well, with bigotry society has gotten at least as far as it did in the 1950s... the anti-bigotry society you postulate has at least 6,000 years to go to match its track record.
I'll tell you one thing... if the "horrible beliefs" of the bad old days had held sway back then... we wouldn't have Obama in the White House today. His mother wouldn't have let his father touch her, or gotten herself into a position where he could, and her parents would not have raised her grandkid for her; they'd have shipped him off to a Kenyan orphanage.
But, we would have been spared the anguish of this pretender in the White House. The hundreds of thousands of lives already lost and destroyed probably would have been saved. What price tolerance?
I like irony.
"And the illogic of the alleged 'arguments against everything from polygamy to incest to 'marrying your pet' is astounding."
What illogic? Your problem is your narrow-mindedness. You, in your self-declared moral and mental superiority, cannot see views outside the narrow confines of your preconceptions, prejudices and indoctrination.
What is illogical is suggesting the appetite and romantic feelings for members of your own sex are somehow the same as the appetite and romantic feelings for members of the opposite sex, yet still different from the appetite and romantic feelings for groups, minors, family members, inanimate objects, animate objects, and so on.
If my little chihuahua had not gone and died on me, I'd have had fun challenging the legitimacy of the equal rights claims of the LGBT community. No, there was no sex or even sexual appetites involved in our relationship, but there was deep, strong, binding love.
When my father died, I developed panic attacks, for awhile. When my mother died, I cried for 3 days, so loudly I still wonder why the neighbors didn't call the cops.
But when my mom's chihuahua died... I learned what hell was. For I don't know how long, about every 15 minutes, I would flash back to the last moments of her life; the look of fear in her eyes, the sound of her strangled yelp as the heart attack hit her, the feeling of helpless impotence and anguish, as she died in the arms of a stranger, the vet technician who had begun to carry her back for observation and treatment. Who are you to judge that my feelings weren't real, or relevant, or "equal" to normal relationships, while out of the other side of your mouth you try to convince people that obviously abnormal relationships are equal to normal ones.
For decades, science fiction shows have shown sexual and romantic relationships between humans and space aliens, even humans and robots. Star Drek pioneered television by portraying the first inter-racial kiss (forget the fact that Spock's parents had to have somehow bred).
In "Galaxy Quest", they took it to the next logical extreme (can't push the envelop unless you're willing to push it...)
There is a romantic and sexual relationship between one of the human actors and a squid creature from another planet. But, as the movie was PC, the ending had to be PC and they were portrayed as a happy loving couple, even though they weren't just of diferent species, but different animal kingdoms!
We're not horrible people for our beliefs; we're "horrible people" because our beliefs don't agree with yours.
I can live with that.
"Nor is her fraternal twin brother confused, either. "
Ah, so he knows that they're both sick, and that one of them isn't his parent. I see.
http://humanachievementinitiative.wordpr...
Oh, and fyi... society cannot outlive bigotry. Bigotry is a survival mechanism. We lose that, and the species is toast.
So please don't think or generalize for me.
BTW, "What illogic? Your problem is your narrow-mindedness. You, in your self-declared moral and mental superiority, cannot see views outside the narrow confines of your preconceptions, prejudices and indoctrination.
What is illogical is suggesting the appetite and romantic feelings for members of your own sex are somehow the same as the appetite and romantic feelings for members of the opposite sex, yet still different from the appetite and romantic feelings for groups, minors, family members, inanimate objects, animate objects, and so on. "... cuts both ways. But if your mirror is stained, you won't see that, either.
And condolences on your loving dog's death. My wife and I have rescued, fostered and owned many dogs in our 24 years of marriage and I wailed in the vet's office after MY favorite golden had to be put to sleep after a hemangeosarcoma bled into her pericardium and I took her to the vet twice for it to be drained of about 100cc of blood, and even helped with the procedure the second time.
Vote me down all you want, but notice the changes in today's society as more and more anti-LGBT laws and even state constitutional amendments are being reversed or found to be unconstitutional.
'Bye
If I walked up to you with a 6 month old dog, and said "hey, how do you like my new leopard?" Would you be wrong to say "Dude, that's a dog, not a leopard"? Would you be doing me a favor by saying "wow dude, cool leopard you got there"?
No, you would be feeding my own mental disease if I truly believed I was walking around a Leopard (or my just plain weirdness for the sake of attention).
In the same way, if dude is born with XY chromosomes, I'm calling HIM a guy, even if he "identifies" as a woman. I don't freaking care what you "identify" with, you're a man. And you're going to freaking use the men's restroom because if I ever catch you going into or coming out of the woman's restroom where my wife and daughters go, I will have it in mind to pound you into the dirt you freaking pervert.
Same goes for a woman. If you're born with XX, you're a chick. Not a dude. You want to change your name to Butch, that's fine, depending how long I've known you, I may call you Mary, or I may call you Butch, but I'm not going to call you "Butch the man".
That 0.000000001% of the time is when someone's born with two distinct sets of chromosomes. It's so utterly rare in transgenders that it's basically statistically insignificant to the discussion.
barwick, I think this statement is rather ignorant. Trans is not synonymous with pedophilia. So your exclamation of use of force is outrageous. You are entitled to your opinion, but a trans female would only be comfortable going to a female restroom. I know I'm uncomfortable going into a men's room. I'd probably be fine with uni-sex bathrooms, if it wasn't for those nasty urinals...what's up with that? why don't men want to pee in private? ;)
This woman (customer) walks out, comments how *nice* these portapotties were, why, they even put this nice purse tray next to the seat...
We all looked at her purse, and of course, it was soaked on the bottom... and it took all we had not to burst out laughing.
At least she didn't ask why the "soap" in the "sink" smelled funny, and didn't lather up...
It's one of the PC things I haven't caught up to speed on yet. I know they use "actress" when it benefits them to display a veneer of femininity, but just when that is eludes me most of the time.
Otherwise they've adopted the term "actor".
Which I find really funny among people who would rather use the mouthful of "chairperson" or "Congresswoman" than be associated with Man. Seems feminazis never can tell when they want to distance themselves from Man and when they don't...
What does a Man do standing...
A woman do sitting...
And a dog do on 3 legs?
(Aw c'mon, you know...)
Shake hands.
Now go wash your mind out with soap! --giggles--
Ever since a certain road trip to CO in college, I've been sickened by the very mention of porta-pots (blerp...)
Guys peeing behind trees? At least they weren't peeing in the little flagged hole in the middle of that nicely-kept lawn...
"This is something a bricklayer can do that a barber can't".
"What's that?"
"piss on his work".
Almost EVERY surface was covered with, well, excretory material. Full to the brim and then some. The only (presumably) safe thing to touch was the vent pipe. As a lot of public outhouses are enclosed squat holes anyway (not much different than peeing behind a tree), I tried to use it as such - no WAY I was gonna sit my fanny down on *that*!!! Damn near killed myself in the process. (And I was in flats... the girl leaving was wearing heels. Must be an acquired skill or something!)
Anyway... It worked. Barely. Looked next to it, the guys (of course) had a trough to pee in. Mentioned it to one of my friends there, she looked at me like "What? You've never used a portapotty before?" But surviving that, the ones over here - even the "bad" ones - are stellar.
One for the men
One for the women
One for me.
Men do pee in private, in most bathrooms. Urinal stalls in stores and offices, unlike in sports stadiums, are individual affairs with small dividers between them. When urinating, men look directly ahead at the wall, even while talking. Looking at another man while peeing isn't forbidden, but it can get you a dirty look and make the other guy uncomfortable.
In his book "Caves of Steel" (which I highly recommend) Isaac Asimov painted a future Earth where cities were domed over artificial habitats. In the novel, it was rare to rate a private bathroom in your family's apartment.
So people used the public "freshers".
There was a cultural divergence in the bathrooms in the novel. While the women's "fresher" was a social place, with gossip and personal interaction, the men's 'fresher" was cloaked in silence. You kept your eyes forward and on your own business and... you... did... not... speak to anyone. The men donned a virtual "cloak of solitude".
Other than lovemaking, there are few situations where men are more vulnerable than when using the necessary... and, in spite of social engineering, men have evolved to be averse to vulnerability.
Its not that we don't like privacy,
They are there for efficiency more than anything else, that and tradition of course. Until unisex becomes the norm, mens rooms will always have urinals if it is designed for more than 2 at a time
And if those bother you don't go to Japan or a good bit of asia either.
I just worry that he shops at Wal-mart... because there have been nights when I've had to clean the women's bathrooms (you women are *nasty* in there, btw....)
Now, that's not to say they have to *act* like a man, but to expect people to CALL you a woman? No... that's just lunacy.
Now would I honestly pound someone into the dirt? No, but I certainly would not be ok with some random dude walking into the women's bathroom because he thinks he's a chick.
I wasn't going to reply to this nonsense, but I thought that was worth repeating.
This whole gay "marriage" thing (not civil unions, "marriage"), and the trans agenda encroaches on my life in forcing me to recognize and support it. And I hate that
I have a close friend who is a woman. She identifies as a woman. you know the phrase walks like a duck...well anyway-she walks like a man, has muscles like a man, talks with a deep voice, sized like a man (proportionately), is attracted to women...How is she to fit in? She tries hard to. It is a constant dissonance, and lots of ridicule, looks, and heartbreak. Luckily, she loves athletics and has made that her career...she hangs with the guys drinking beer watching the game while us "women" gossip and and nurture the little kids...which bathroom can she use? You might punch her before you realize she's not trans...
— Albert Einstein
as I understand it... you're a navy veteran... and female... nevermind, I know where you're coming from.
I'm no expert on genetics, either normal or with trans-people, but your figures come out to 7/100 of one person. For the entire planet.
I hate people who do that - pull a number out of thin air to make a point how "bad" or "right" they are, or to make some over-emphasized point.
Now... where's the popcorn?
Also, biological and/or genetic anomalies surrounding gender/sex occur in roughly 2% of the population, not 0.000000001%.
Biological anomalies where someone has both male AND female sets of chromosomes are not 2% of the population, seriously...
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)
Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS)
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Aphallia
Clitoromegaly
Gonadal Dysgenesis (partial & complete)
Hypospadias
Klinefelter Syndrome
Non-Klinefelter XXY
Micropenis
5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency
Genetic Mosaicism involving sex chromosomes
Ovo-testes (formerly called "true hermaphroditism")
Progestin-Induced Virilisation
Swyer syndrome
Turner syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
And yes, if we look at all of these conditions together, they do, in fact, affect approximately 2% of the entire human population. The total population of the United States is 318.5 million, which means that there are probably around 6.3 million people with some kind of transgender and/or intersex condition in the United States alone, and 140 million people world-wide.
The face at the forefront of the Tyrrany of the minority the founders of this country warned of.
:P
Doesn't work that way; you're mixing fractions. 2% of the WORLD population. And you extrapolate that to the U.S. population.
Doesn't work that way. Care to measure, for example, the percentage of the global population that has sickle cell anemia? So, logically, then, you'd apply that same percentage to the population of, say, Switzerland... even though sickle-cell anemia is an *African* disorder?
140 million out of almost 7 billion....
347 million people worldwide have diabetes. Let's force everyone else to change their diet to accommodate diabetics.
each year in the United States, about 2,650 babies are born with a cleft palate and 4,440 babies are born with a cleft lip with or without a cleft palate
70 million people worldwide have schizophrenia. Is that enough to consider them a special class, and for them to demand that we consider schizophrenia a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle?
That it affects 2% of the population doesn't mean it's normal, natural or healthy. MORE than 2/3 the population of Europe developed bubonic plague... I wouldnt' consider being plague-ridden a normal, healthy, alternate lifestyle.
The percentage of the population affected does not change it from being an illness.
You have created the label of "illness" and the like out of whole cloth. And you can't even recognize that, yet you label our comments "illogical."
Wow.
347 million people worldwide have diabetes. Should we force, or try to brainwash, everyone to change their diet to accommodate this fraction?
70 million worldwide are schizophrenic. Is that enough to declare schizophrenia "normal" and a "healthy alternative lifestyle"?
If you want to argue that people with confused sexual identities have something wrong with them, then you'll be arguing my position."
I expected better of you, khalling. I thought you were different. Guess I was wrong.
You'd be best served to read that Code of Conduct Maph (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1...). There are plenty of other forums online for you to push your agenda. You should reflect on whether or not you're in the right place. From what I've read of yours, it would appear not. This is not a forum to debate the merits of Objectivism. It's a forum to celebrate them.
Of course if you're willing to learn, there are plenty here willing to teach. However, your history here indicates that you are unwilling to accept the facts of Objectivism - preferring mostly to base your conclusions on misinformation spread by the enemies of Objectivism.
Reevaluate why you're here Maph. We are.
---
In my defense, the book I draw most of my criticisms from — "Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System," by John W. Robbins — was actually praised by Ron Paul himself, who even said it was a book which should be read by "everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted."
http://www.trinitylectures.org/without-p...
________________________________
"John Robbins is as stalwart a defender of a free society as I have known. His love of freedom — religious, political, and economic — motivated him to write 'Without a Prayer,' a brilliantly insightful analysis of Ayn Rand's influential philosophy. 'Without a Prayer' deserves to be read by everyone who loves freedom — everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted. Robbins furnishes the indispensable ideas — the intellectual ammunition — required to defend freedom successfully."
— Ron Paul (quote printed on the first page of the book)
________________________________
Isn't Ron Paul making a cameo appearance in the third film? If you've still got a way to contact him, you should ask him about John W. Robbins' book.
Let me make this very simple for you Maph - you do not belong here. This is not a forum for you to push your agenda. This is a forum for me to push my agenda - to celebrate the ideas of Ayn Rand.
Your account is currently under review. While you can continue to comment, your posting privileges have been suspended. You will no longer be permitted to hi-jack this board. Your time is up.
Sorry for swearing at you, by the way. I was just upset.
Please see this post:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/c3...
Here's a link to the article itself:
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/07/conserva...