Neither will the kids.

But will only do so if we get the word to them what is going on.

Not technically CC, but a parallel set of human sexuality stds that are meant to dovetail with CC.

Unfortunately, the children don't have the choice to opt out.

It's worse than that. There's a particular book that is advocated to use - It's Perfectly Normal - that will amaze you.

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.

You sound like a reasonable and rational person.

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.

How is that passive aggressive?

By the way, the arguments that John W. Robbins presents in his book are what convinced me that it's not possible for a government to exist without periodically engaging in the initiation of force, which is why I've been critical of the Non-Agression Principle, and why I don't buy the argument that using force is automatically bad. Without force, there can be no law. And without law, there can be no government.

sdesapio: "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."
---
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.

>> As fringy as they may sound, injecting such lies into our language—“the pregnant man” and the push to separate the word “pregnancy” from the word “woman”—are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law.

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.

>> "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."

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'll continue this conversation via PM. Tired of everyone downvoting my posts every time I say anything.

Alright, now that really upsets me. Apparently we're only allowed to post topics about transgender issues if we're condemning the LGBT community. Whatever... -_-

Here's a link to the article itself:
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/07/conserva...

From what I understand, that guy quit. Not quite the same thing as being fired.

The special tax treatment is to reward married people for the positive contribution they make toward society. A contribution not made by a pair of homosexuals shacking up.

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?

" 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.