# Gender Ideology Harms Children?



## Shine

"The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts â not ideology â determine reality."

Who'da thunk.

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


----------



## SLFarmMI

Not surprising at all that this statement came from them since the American College of Pediatricians is nothing more than a conservative organization that attempts to masquerade as a medical organization. Their mission is to promote, not child health, as their name implies but is, in reality, to promote their political/social/religious views.


----------



## Shine

SLFarmMI said:


> Not surprising at all that this statement came from them since the American College of Pediatricians is nothing more than a conservative organization that attempts to masquerade as a medical organization. Their mission is to promote, not child health, as their name implies but is, in reality, to promote their political/social/religious views.


lol - um... OK

So they're not Doctors?

"The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances."


----------



## SLFarmMI

Read a little further in their website and you'll see that 99% of their "position statements" are social issues and not medical issues. Compare that with the website of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Then tell me which organization is really a medical organization and which is attempting to masquerade as one.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I'm generally pretty accepting of others' views on sexuality- to whit, I don't give a crap. 

With about 10 second's consideration of the matter, I decided that homosexuality, bisexuality, trisexuality, gay-marriage, and polygamy don't affect me in the slightest, were none of my business, and haven't given them another thought since. 

But something confuses me about this trans-gender and gender-neutrality business. It seems like a paradox to me. 

To be "enlightened", we're all supposed to embrace gender-neutrality. You know, stop dressing our boys in overalls and letting them play with toy soldiers (even when that is what they want to do), and stop dressing our little girls in dresses and buying them dolls (again, even when that is what they want). We're supposed to ignore the gender differences, accept that genitalia do not define a person's sex, ditch the terms "he" and "she" and start referring to everyone as "zee". 

....that is...until a REALLY "enlightened" person decides the God screwed up when He designed their naughty bits and, to set everything "right", starts dressing and acting like a caricature of the opposite sex, and even has a surgeon rebuild their genetalia so that they can "define" themselves properly. 

What gives?
Do traditional paradigms about sex matter or don't they?

Are the accepted sexual conventions only supposed to not matter to those of us who are heterosexuals who God didn't "screw up on", but it's ok if them still matter to "enlightened" folks who now get to tell us how we're supposed to view sex?

Is this one of those things like where only statistical-minorities are allowed to identify racism, and get extra points of "rightness" when they start their analysis with something like "The REAL problem with white people is..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> lol - um... OK
> 
> So they're not Doctors?
> 
> "The Mission of the *American College of Pediatricians* is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances."


They are *biased* Dr's with an agenda
They also push for gun control



> The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a *socially conservative association* of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2]
> 
> The group's membership has been estimated at *between 60 and 200 members*.[1][3]


----------



## SLFarmMI

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm generally pretty accepting of others' views on sexuality- to whit, I don't give a crap.
> 
> With about 10 second's consideration of the matter, I decided that homosexuality, bisexuality, trisexuality, gay-marriage, and polygamy don't affect me in the slightest, were none of my business, and haven't given them another thought since.
> 
> But something confuses me about this trans-gender and gender-neutrality business. It seems like a paradox to me.
> 
> *To be "enlightened", we're all supposed to embrace gender-neutrality. You know, stop dressing our boys in overalls and letting them play with toy soldiers (even when that is what they want to do), and stop dressing our little girls in dresses and buying them dolls (again, even when that is what they want). We're supposed to ignore the gender differences, accept that genitalia do not define a person's sex, ditch the terms "he" and "she" and start referring to everyone as "zee". *
> 
> ....that is...until a REALLY "enlightened" person decides the God screwed up when He designed their naughty bits and, to set everything "right", starts dressing and acting like a caricature of the opposite sex, and even has a surgeon rebuild their genetalia so that they can "define" themselves properly.
> 
> What gives?
> Do traditional paradigms about sex matter or don't they?
> 
> Are the accepted sexual conventions only supposed to not matter to those of us who are heterosexuals who God didn't "screw up on", but it's ok if them still matter to "enlightened" folks who now get to tell us how we're supposed to view sex?
> 
> Is this one of those things like where only statistical-minorities are allowed to identify racism, and get extra points of "rightness" when they start their analysis with something like "The REAL problem with white people is..."


Regarding the section in bold type. Gender neutrality doesn't mean that you don't allow boys to wear overalls and play with soldiers nor does it mean that girls aren't allowed to wear dresses or play with dolls if that is what they want to do. It means that you don't tell your girls that they have to wear dresses because they are girls. Boys don't have to play with trucks or soldiers because they are boys. It means that you don't lose your mind if your son wants to play make believe in the toy kitchen or your daughter wants to get out the Hot Wheels cars and play demolition derby. It means that you let them explore their interests regardless if those interests are "traditional" for their particular gender.


----------



## Heritagefarm




----------



## doozie

I can't say I disagree with any of the points in the article. Especially agree with number 8.
I didn't even know there were puberty blockers, and can't understand how any parent, let alone a Dr. could go along with giving them to a child.


----------



## Shine

doozie said:


> I can't say I disagree with any of the points in the article. Especially agree with number 8.
> I didn't even know there were puberty blockers, and can't understand how any parent, let alone a Dr. could go along with giving them to a child.


It's the new "in" thing. Wow, for a person to do this to their child, it is worse than killing them. It is the child that now has to live a lie because someone had an agenda. 

And as far as them or their numbers, just because they are conservative, that makes them kooks?

OK which opinion really matters?

I think that article supports what I call common sense.


----------



## Shine

SLFarmMI said:


> Regarding the section in bold type. Gender neutrality doesn't mean that you don't allow boys to wear overalls and play with soldiers nor does it mean that girls aren't allowed to wear dresses or play with dolls if that is what they want to do. It means that you don't tell your girls that they have to wear dresses because they are girls. Boys don't have to play with trucks or soldiers because they are boys. It means that you don't lose your mind if your son wants to play make believe in the toy kitchen or your daughter wants to get out the Hot Wheels cars and play demolition derby. It means that you let them explore their interests regardless if those interests are "traditional" for their particular gender.


How do you explain their genitalia to them? Do you tell them that nature made a mistake? And that you can help them to get it fixed?


----------



## FarmerKat

SLFarmMI said:


> Regarding the section in bold type. Gender neutrality doesn't mean that you don't allow boys to wear overalls and play with soldiers nor does it mean that girls aren't allowed to wear dresses or play with dolls if that is what they want to do. *It means that you don't tell your girls that they have to wear dresses because they are girls. Boys don't have to play with trucks or soldiers because they are boys. It means that you don't lose your mind if your son wants to play make believe in the toy kitchen or your daughter wants to get out the Hot Wheels cars and play demolition derby. It means that you let them explore their interests regardless if those interests are "traditional" for their particular gender.*


I know from your posts here that you work with children and I imagine that you have met families of many different parenting styles but what you describe is definitely not gender neutral parenting. IMO, that is "normal" parenting.

The parents that I know who practice gender neutral parenting follow very different principals. They give children neutral names that are not associated specifically with male or female (e.g. Hunter), they never use the pronouns "he" or "she", they do not allow any gender specific toys in their house (e.g. Legos in primary colors are okay but a pink Lego set with female characters is not), their children only wear colors that are not associated with a gender (i.e. no blue, no pink). When I knew these people, they had very young kids (babies & toddlers) and we are no longer in touch. So I have no idea how they guide their kids in school whether they are allowed in girls/boys bathrooms, etc. They were not raising their children to be the opposite sex, they just believed that their children should have not be influenced one way or another. Now that you got me thinking about this family, I wonder how they are doing today. I wonder if at some point they would allow their girl to wear a pink dress and put a flower in her hair. It is one thing making a 1 year old wear what you want them to wear, 8 year old ... not so much.

I also know someone who flipped out every time her son picked up one of her daughter's toys to play with. I think that is another extreme.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It's the new "in" thing. Wow, for a person to do this to their child, it is worse than killing them. *It is the child that now has to live a lie because someone had an agenda. *
> 
> And as far as them or their numbers, just because they are conservative, that makes them kooks?
> 
> OK which opinion really matters?
> 
> I think that article supports what I call common sense.


You don't seem to have any problem making them "live a lie" if it fits *your* agenda.

Maybe you should stop worrying about what others do and just concentrate on your own business.

It really makes no difference what some *small* group of Dr's think.
It's not the number that makes them "kooks".
It's their delusions of superiority


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> How do you explain their genitalia to them? Do you tell them that nature made a mistake? And that you can help them to get it fixed?


None of that is any of *your* business, and it's also no business of any of these people:
College Board of Directors


----------



## DisasterCupcake

I'm just curious. Why isn't it our business?

I don't have kids. Well I have baby goats but. Why shouldn't I care about the welfare of my community? Why shouldn't I be concerned if people, as parents, are making decisions for their children based on one sided information?

I don't get the don't ask, not my business mentality. I'm not neutral. I don't live my life only caring about certain aspects of health- only those that are socially acceptable to worry about.

But, that's just me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DisasterCupcake said:


> I'm just curious. *Why isn't it our business?*
> 
> I don't have kids. Well I have baby goats but. Why shouldn't I care about the welfare of my community? Why shouldn't I be concerned if people, as parents, are making decisions for their children *based on one sided information*?
> 
> I don't get the don't ask, not my business mentality. I'm not neutral. I don't live my life only caring about certain aspects of health- only those that are socially acceptable to worry about.
> 
> But, that's just me.


"Welfare of the community" is meaningless rhetoric.

It doesn't hurt "the community" to let people handle their own issues without others trying to force their views on them.

You don't really know what information the parents base their decisions on, and the "religious" only want to present one side of most issues, and declare theirs to be the only "correct" side.

It used to be "socially acceptable" to mind your own business rather than to expect everyone to conform to your personal standard.


This group is at most a couple of hundred people in a country of 350 million.
Their opinions are no more informed than anyone else.


----------



## MO_cows

The arrogance of the whole concept kinda jumps out at me. Whether a kid is male, female, gay or gender confused, I don't care how you raise them or try to steer them a certain way, it's gonna come out. They are who they are, and at some point they will express themselves. 

Sometimes they "explore" the other gender roles as they play, shoot I remember playing with a friend's brother's GI Joes, race tracks, etc. as a kid, but soon went back to Barbie, model horses, etc. And boys will play will dolls, makeup, etc., it's just part of the learning process. Walking in the shoes of the other gender for awhile probably helps cement their own gender identity, because then they know for sure which role fits them after they "try on" the other one. 

Making mountains out of molehills.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

Bearfootfarm said:


> "*Welfare of the community" is meaningless rhetoric.*
> 
> *It doesn't hurt "the community" to let people handle their own issues without others trying to force their views on them.*
> 
> You don't really know what information the parents base their decisions on, and the "religious" only want to present one side of most issues, and declare theirs to be the only "correct" side.
> 
> It used to be "socially acceptable" to mind your own business rather than to expect everyone to conform to your personal standard.
> 
> 
> This group is at most a couple of hundred people in a country of 350 million.
> Their opinions are no more informed than anyone else.


Why is it meaningless rhetoric? It is only very recently that social paradigms have changed so dramatically as to allow family units and even individuals to exist outside of a close knit community. Lots of cultures are still very much deeply invested in the health and welfare of their community. The Amish communities are an example of that. Is it beneficial, moral, or sustainable? Idk. We are programmed to care about those around us, as social creatures.

If we are part of that community, yes individuals within it and their choices do affect me and everyone else within that community. 

To say that it doesn't hurt the community to let others work out their own issues, is not a statement of accuracy but rather something we wish were true. I can ignore and otherwise turn a blind eye to the way my neighbors treat their kids, or yell at one another or even hit each other in front of them. But their kids will grow up to hit their spouses or abuse their own chilren, thereby inflicting pain on many more poeple. 

We live in a free country. It's much less free today than it has been, but it still is. I'm not saying we should intervene in family matters or even say exactly what is right or wrong. 

But it is not wrong to care about other people and what they choose to do with their lives.


----------



## Heritagefarm

MO_cows said:


> The arrogance of the whole concept kinda jumps out at me. Whether a kid is male, female, gay or gender confused, I don't care how you raise them or try to steer them a certain way, it's gonna come out. They are who they are, and at some point they will express themselves.
> 
> Sometimes they "explore" the other gender roles as they play, shoot I remember playing with a friend's brother's GI Joes, race tracks, etc. as a kid, but soon went back to Barbie, model horses, etc. And boys will play will dolls, makeup, etc., it's just part of the learning process. Walking in the shoes of the other gender for awhile probably helps cement their own gender identity, because then they know for sure which role fits them after they "try on" the other one.
> 
> Making mountains out of molehills.


Very good point. Like you, I also had a few dolls I could play with, but always went back to dumptrucks and legos. And mud. And pretend guns.


----------



## Farmerga

With the exception of abuse, parents should be left to raise their children as they see fit. Is not acknowledging a child's biological gender abuse? IDK. I believe that, many times, parents with good intent, don't guide children towards what they are meant to be, but, rather push them into what the parents believe they should be. This is true for a great many things. 

"Welfare of the community" has been the excuse for much government over-reach and loss of freedom, so, I am cautious about invoking it here.


----------



## Mish

Heritagefarm said:


> Very good point. Like you, I also had a few dolls I could play with, but always went back to dumptrucks and legos. And mud. And pretend guns.


Anyone who has had children of different sexes and close enough in age to share toys has seen this. Mine had access to both Barbie and Power Rangers (the millenial GI Joe I guess, heh). It never failed that the boys would play with the Power Rangers and the girl would play with Barbie (or sometimes the Pink Power Ranger, but usually Barbie) - together, but those were the toys they chose. Usually it was Barbie bossing the Power Rangers around while the Power Rangers performed tasks for Barbie, but whatever, everyone was happy and had fun.

I guess the point is, kids really just don't care what "experts" think they should be doing. Neither do I.


----------



## DisasterCupcake

Totally agree.
I'm all for freedom. But there is a difference between being consciously part of a community and expecting government to take care of you.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Welfare of the community" is meaningless rhetoric.
> 
> It doesn't hurt "the community" to let people handle their own issues without others trying to force their views on them.
> 
> You don't really know what information the parents base their decisions on, and the "religious" only want to present one side of most issues, and declare theirs to be the only "correct" side.
> 
> It used to be "socially acceptable" to mind your own business rather than to expect everyone to conform to your personal standard.
> 
> 
> This group is at most a couple of hundred people in a country of 350 million.
> Their opinions are no more informed than anyone else.


So, we just stand by when a parent influences their child to surgically destroy as chance at the life as they were born? I really do not care what an adult does with their body, like I have stated over and over, but you get another involved then you're out of bounds. 

Stop parents from destroying their children. A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. Anything different than that is some abnormal thinking.

This is a fad that will destroy more than it frees. Wow, socially acceptable to coach a malleable child to think that there is something wrong because, hey, look at that, you got the wrong genitalia... 

you're not a girl, you're really a boy! 

or you're not a boy... you're a girl!


Up is down, black is white and yes is no. Go figure. Have most of the adults left the planet?


----------



## Shine

McHugh points to a Swedish study tracking "transgenders" &#8212; some for nearly three decades &#8212; stressing how the decision often celebrated in the media to go through sex changes often proves fatal because of the mental toll it takes on indivuals.


"*eginning about ten years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties," McHugh wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the research. "Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population."


http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...d-gender-confusion-a-fleeting-mental-disorder*


----------



## Shine

"A center in the Netherlands reported the co-occurence of gender identify disorder and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in a study of children and adolescents (115 boys and 89 girls, mean age.10.8) The incidence of ASD was 7.8%. The authors recommended a greater awareness finding and the challenges it generates in clinical management. (de Vries, AL, et. al. 2010. Autism spectrum disorders in gender dysphoric children and adolescents. _ J Autism Dev Disord_, 40: 930-6.)"

http://www.childhealing.com/articles/genderidentitydisorder.php


----------



## Shine

*Is this a new phenomenon, the finding of pharmaceuticals in public water supplies?*

No. Low levels of pharmaceuticals in the water supply have been a concern for a decade or longer, says Sarah Janssen, MD, PHD, MPH, a science fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental action group.
"Ever since the late 1990s, the science community has recognized that pharmaceuticals, especially oral contraceptives, are found in sewage water and are potentially contaminating drinking water," Janssen tells WebMD.
Concern among scientists increased when fish in the Potomac River and elsewhere were found to have both male and female characteristics when exposed to estrogen-like substances, she says. For instance, some fish had both testes and an ovary, she says.
Scientists starting looking at the effects of oral contraceptives first, she says. "Now analyses have expanded to look at other drugs," Janssen says.


http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/drugs-in-our-drinking-water




Wonder if this has something to do with the issue?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *So, we just stand by when a parent influences their child to surgically destroy as chance at the life as they were born?* I really do not care what an adult does with their body, like I have stated over and over, but you get another involved then you're out of bounds.
> 
> Stop parents from destroying their children. A boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. Anything different than that is some abnormal thinking.
> 
> This is a fad that will destroy more than it frees. Wow, socially acceptable to coach a malleable child to think that there is something wrong because, hey, look at that, you got the wrong genitalia...
> 
> you're not a girl, you're really a boy!
> 
> or you're not a boy... you're a girl!
> 
> 
> Up is down, black is white and yes is no. Go figure. Have most of the adults left the planet?


What part of "*NONE of your business*" confuses you?



> Stop parents from destroying their children.


Some would say brainwashing them in religious cults "destroys" them too.
How about we worry about our own and let other families do what they think is right for them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> McHugh points to a Swedish study tracking "transgenders" â some for nearly three decades â stressing how the decision often celebrated in the media to go through sex changes often proves fatal because of the mental toll it takes on indivuals.
> 
> 
> "*eginning about ten years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties," McHugh wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the research. "Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population."
> 
> 
> http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...d-gender-confusion-a-fleeting-mental-disorder*


*

Maybe the mental stress came from others trying to tell them how to live, and telling them they are "perverts", "heathens" and "sick"*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> McHugh points to a Swedish study tracking "transgenders" â some for nearly three decades â stressing how the decision often celebrated in the media to go through sex changes often proves fatal because of the mental toll it takes on indivuals.
> 
> 
> "*eginning about ten years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties," McHugh wrote in the Wall Street Journal about the research. "Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population."
> 
> 
> http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...d-gender-confusion-a-fleeting-mental-disorder*


*

Maybe the mental stress came from others trying to tell them how to live, and telling them they are "perverts", "heathens" and "sick"

Your other link ( as always) comes from a biased source with an anti-gay agenda. 

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...d-gender-confusion-a-fleeting-mental-disorder



Throwing another monkey wrench in homosexual activists' claim that there is a "gay" gene â that homosexual behavior manifests from a biological condition rather than from a choice â a prominent psychiatrist argues that gender confusion is a temporary mental disorder that leads to suicidal tendencies, if nurtured.

Click to expand...

The third one is also a highly biased source

http://www.maritalhealing.com/

They amount to little more than propaganda, trying to force their beliefs on others*


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> What part of "*NONE of your business*" confuses you?
> 
> 
> Some would say brainwashing them in religious cults "destroys" them too.
> How about we worry about our own and let other families do what they think is right for them?


Be good if you minded your own business. What business do you have trying to control what I think is right?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe the mental stress came from others trying to tell them how to live, and telling them they are "perverts", "heathens" and "sick"


Yeah, maybe. I would bet that there are other issues at play.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe the mental stress came from others trying to tell them how to live, and telling them they are "perverts", "heathens" and "sick"
> 
> Your other link ( as always) comes from a biased source with an anti-gay agenda.
> 
> http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...d-gender-confusion-a-fleeting-mental-disorder
> 
> 
> The third one is also a highly biased source
> 
> http://www.maritalhealing.com/
> 
> They amount to little more than propaganda, trying to force their beliefs on others


Oh, I get it, the old "attack the messenger" ploy... Carry on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Oh, I get it, the old "attack the messenger" ploy... Carry on.


It's the simple truth.
All your sources are biased and religion based



> Be good if you minded your own business. What business do you have trying to control what I think is right?


I don't care what you think is right.

I'm just pointing out you don't get to make those decisions for anyone other than yourself

In this context, if it's not your child, it's not your business, and searching out minorities that support your view won't change that reality.

You seem to spend a lot of time worrying over the sex lives of others.
You should concentrate more on your own


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yeah, maybe. I would bet that there are other issues at play.


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/



> STUDY: Discrimination May Be A Risk Factor For Transgender Suicide Attempts





> The National Transgender Discrimination Survey, the largest study of transgender peopleâs experiences, found that 41 percent of transgender and gender non-conforming people have attempted suicide, a rate far higher than the national average of 4.6 percent. Now, an in-depth study of that result reveals how *various aspects of anti-trans discrimination and stigma might be contributing to that high rate*.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the simple truth. [a "truth" that you seem to want to force on others.]
> All your sources are biased and religion based [This is not a true statement]
> 
> 
> I don't care what you think is right. [It seems to me that you don't care what anyone thinks is right if they don't march to the beat of your drum]
> 
> I'm just pointing out you don't get to make those decisions for anyone other than yourself [neither do you]
> 
> In this context, if it's not your child, it's not your business, and searching out minorities that support your view won't change that reality. [you dismiss the societal tendencies of the human race? You are far more wrong here than in other instances]
> 
> You seem to spend a lot of time worrying over the sex lives of others.
> You should concentrate more on your own [you seem to make up your statements for impact, that impact is now impotent]


There is more bellicosity and pomp in your replies and accusations than I find in Trump. You should run for president, then you can really force people to cow-tow to you and your preferences.


----------



## Shine

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/0...cide-attempts/

Quote:
STUDY: Discrimination *May Be* A Risk Factor For Transgender Suicide Attempts 
Quote:
The National Transgender Discrimination Survey, the largest study of transgender people&#8217;s experiences, found that 41 percent of transgender and gender non-conforming people have attempted suicide, a rate far higher than the national average of 4.6 percent. Now, an in-depth study of that result reveals how *various aspects of anti-trans discrimination and stigma might be contributing to that high rate*. 


lol... Think Progress...

Get back to me on that when you have something more concrete.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> There is more bellicosity and pomp in your replies and accusations than I find in Trump. You should run for president, then you can really force people to cow-tow to you and your preferences.


You can't just stick to the topic, can you?
You just dodge the issue by trying to make it about me, as I said earlier, and you continue to verify.




> Get back to me on that when you have something more concrete.


Now who's "attacking the messenger"?

That's why you have no credibility.

You will complain about someone doing something, then turn around and do it yourself, but pretend you didn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> It's the simple truth. [a "truth" that you seem to want to force on others.]
> All your sources are biased and religion based [This is not a true statement]


It's not only true, but I posted the links that prove it.

You just have to actually read beyond the headlines, which appears to be something you seldom bother to do.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't just stick to the topic, can you?
> You just dodge the issue by trying to make it about me, as I said earlier, and you continue to verify.
> 
> Now who's "attacking the messenger"?
> 
> That's why you have no credibility.
> 
> You will complain about someone doing something, then turn around and do it yourself, but pretend you didn't.


All over the radar... lol Attacking the messenger? - The Messenger said MAY BE and MIGHT BE - you are going to use that to try to prove something? The last sentence makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not only true, but I posted the links that prove it.
> 
> You just have to actually read beyond the headlines, which appears to be something you seldom bother to do.


Your truth came from Think Progress - gee, wonder to which side they are biased? Yup - Your "truths" - not "THE TRUTH". Who gets to hold "THE TRUTH" in their hands and tell everyone else what it is? 

It is certainly not you nor is it me. 

We only get to share what we think is the truth found from our life experiences. 

So get off of this kick that you hold the "TRUTH" in your hands, you don't.

Get off of your high horse and start sharing your opinions rather than trying to quote "THE TRUTH".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Your truth came from Think Progress - gee, wonder to which side they are biased? Yup - Your "truths" - not "THE TRUTH". Who gets to hold "THE TRUTH" in their hands and tell everyone else what it is?
> 
> It is certainly not you nor is it me.
> 
> We only get to share what we think is the truth found from our life experiences.
> 
> So get off of this kick that you hold the "TRUTH" in your hands, you don't.
> 
> Get off of your high horse and start sharing your opinions rather than trying to quote "THE TRUTH".


It's not my "opinion" your sources were all biased.
That's simply the truth that you don't want to admit

They push the same rhetoric as you

American College of Pediatricians:
http://www.acpeds.org/About-Us


> The American College of Pediatricians promotes a society where all children, from the moment of their conception, are valued unselfishly. We encourage mothers, fathers and families to advance the needs of their children above their own. We expect societal forces to support the two-parent, father-mother family unit and provide for children role models of ethical character and responsible behavior.


They are also hypocrites since they only want the parents to teach things with which they agree:



> To affirm that parents have the inalienable right and responsibility to educate and rear their children;


This link is from your second source, another anti-gay anti-abortion religion oriented group:
http://marriagepolicy.org/


> *The Center for Marriage Policy* president David Usher says the promotion of the transgender movement is strategically riding on the wave of same-sex "marriage" sweeping the nation.





> CFMP engages in the creation of sound socioeconomic reconstruction policy rising from well-founded objective footings of history, peer-reviewed science, and constructionist Constitutional principles of law consistent with Judeo-Christian principles that have proven to work across all civilizations for thousands of years. Our policies address the needs and rights of Americans by addressing problems at their source.


At least they admit they want to force their views on everyone

Your third link is pretty open about their motivations also:



> The mission of the Institute for Marital Healing is to strengthen *Catholic* marriages and families by educating spouses, marital therapists and clergy about common causes of conflicts in marital self-giving and effective approaches to alleviating such conflicts. Through a combination of online resources, educational programs and publications, the Institute employs a time-tested approach to marital therapy that recognizes the importance of both science and faith in the process of marital healing.


Just more groups wanting to push their views on others instead of minding their own business


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

....buuuuuuut....all the organizations pushing us to eliminate gender from our child-rearing, as we've done for thousands of years, based on biological metrics that have been in place for millions of years, in order to satisfy an ideology born out of radical thinking developed over that past couple decades couldn't possibly be agenda-driven.

Could it?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just more groups wanting to push their views on others instead of minding their own business


You mean like places that say forcing children to take hormone treatment and deliberately giving them gender dysphoria is OK?


----------



## doozie

I've Google a few articles on puberty blockers, and also a few sites that address the issue.
I now see that there are therapists involved, and their livelihood depends on these clients. Doctors involved too, most treatment not covered by insurance, but still, the money flowing into their pockets.
I see it as a new industry, and there is an agenda in that too.


----------



## Shine

BFF, you say my intent is to drive an agenda, I too, say that your intent is to fall inline with a agenda. You say I use biased sites, I say that you use biased sites.

There are often two or more sides to every story. Why is it that you are so forceful in pushing your side of the story on people? I certainly would like to discuss both sides but cannot even get started if the other side is a person that behaves such as yourself.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

doozie said:


> I've Google a few articles on puberty blockers, and also a few sites that address the issue.
> I now see that there are therapists involved, and their livelihood depends on these clients. Doctors involved too, most treatment not covered by insurance, but still, the money flowing into their pockets.
> I see it as a new industry, and there is an agenda in that too.


Because the root of ALL Evil is the LOVE of money........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ....buuuuuuut....*all the organizations pushing us to eliminate gender from our child-rearing*, as we've done for thousands of years, based on biological metrics that have been in place for millions of years, in order to satisfy an ideology born out of radical thinking developed over that past couple decades couldn't possibly be agenda-driven.
> 
> Could it?


No they aren't.

That's just the alarmist hype from groups who want you to raise them to *their* religious and moral standards.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> You mean like places that say *forcing children to take hormone treatment* and deliberately giving them gender dysphoria is OK?


*Show *your examples of anyone really doing that


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> BFF, you say my intent is to drive an agenda, I too, say that your intent is to fall inline with a agenda. You say I use biased sites, I say that you use biased sites.
> 
> There are often two or more sides to every story. Why is it that you are so forceful in pushing your side of the story on people? * I certainly would like to discuss both sides* but cannot even get started if the other side is a person that behaves such as yourself.


You could be "discussing both sides" but you choose to whine about what I say instead of sticking to the real topic, and showing documented facts.



> Why is it that you are so forceful in pushing your side of the story on people?


I'm saying everyone should mind their own business.
Your side wants to force others to conform to your standards.

Until you can admit that reality, there is no real "discussion of both sides"
There's just you saying your side is the only correct view, and everyone else is a "sinner".


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Show *your examples of anyone really doing that



Why?
So you can either say "that's not a reliable source" or with hands on hips you stomp around and say "nuhhhh uhhhhh".

I cannot ever recall a time where you have said "huh, i may not agree with you, but I see why you think the way you do, good link, good source".


----------



## Shine

BFF said: There's just you saying your side is the only correct view, and everyone else is a "sinner".


I have never said that my side is the only view, I've also changed when I've been shown a better path. I've also strongly resisted people shoving s path down my throat just because of the way that I am. 

With that being said, will you still try to shove your ways down people's throats or will you act in a manner that properly befits one who teaches others.

Hey, we might both learn something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Why?
> So you can either say "that's not a reliable source" or with hands on hips you stomp around and say "nuhhhh uhhhhh".
> 
> I cannot ever recall a time where you have said "huh, i may not agree with you, but I see why you think the way you do, good link, good source".


So you have nothing to show either?
You just want to rant


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you have nothing to show either?
> You just want to rant


No rant here ma'am.
Just pointing out the game.

You ask for 'facts, links, proof'.
It's provided
You denounce it as 'unreliable, false, etc"
Rinse, repeat.

Time for a new game......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> BFF said: There's just you saying your side is the only correct view, and everyone else is a "sinner".
> 
> 
> *I have never said that my side is the only view*, I've also changed when I've been shown a better path. I've also strongly resisted people shoving s path down my throat just because of the way that I am.
> 
> With that being said, will you still try to shove your ways down people's throats or will you act in a manner that properly befits one who teaches others.
> 
> Hey, we might both learn something.


Yes you have, many times.

"A better path" would be to let people make their own decisions, but you say they should do it your way.

I don't know why you try to deny that when the words are still there for everyone to see


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> No rant here ma'am.
> Just pointing out the game.
> 
> You ask for 'facts, links, proof'.
> It's provided
> You denounce it as 'unreliable, false, etc"
> Rinse, repeat.
> 
> Time for a new game......


Still no examples to show?


----------



## doozie

Perhaps the word "forcing" was too strong. Driving a child or teen to an appointment and paying for a "treatment" that will cause unknown future complications. I am reading possible sterility in some cases. 
Not my business, but not what I would ever consider an option for my child. I can not link the sites, but a search will bring up negative consequences.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> Silly pictures don't really help your make arguments more credible


Predictable games are no fun to play.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Predictable games are no fun to play.


Then stop playing games and show your topical facts


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Stop discrediting every single fact you are given. Always.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Stop discrediting every single fact you are given. Always.


*Show *one that *can't* be discredited.
All you've shown so far is a silly picture.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bwaaaaa ha ha h ah ahahahhahahahh ha ha ha ha ha

Show one.....
Yeah, ok doll. You have 30K + posts and in all those, you have discredited every single link, news article, etc given.
Me showing one or 100 will not change your pattern of behavior......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Bwaaaaa ha ha h ah ahahahhahahahh ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> Show one.....
> Yeah, ok doll. You have 10K + posts and in all those, *you have discredited every single link, news article, etc given.*
> Me showing one or 100 will not change your pattern of behavior......


That's simply not true, but it shows you have no real interest in anything other than an argument.

All talk, no substance


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes you have, many times.
> 
> "A better path" would be to let people make their own decisions, but you say they should do it your way.
> 
> I don't know why you try to deny that when the words are still there for everyone to see


What if that "better path" causes harm to others? Harm that you are unwilling to acknowledge. Harm that you say is of the sort to the point where it is None of my business.

You know, if everyone in the country, or in this world only looked out only for themselves then this would be quite the barbaric world. You see, it is in our nature to build societies. Within those societies someone cannot say that "We will follow this Law until the End of Time." because times change. It is to the collective will of the people to set those Laws in place so that one person cannot "Force" themselves upon others unless that behavior is set forth in Law. So, people that believe "X" will work to gather a larger portion of people to understand as they do. You have been greatly instrumental in giving me that soapbox to speak from and I thank you. You see, I am not avidly arguing "against" you [even though it is quite entertaining] I am countering your points for others to read the words that I write. Maybe a portion of those people might consider the premise using your viewpoint vs my viewpoint. Some will side with you, some will side with me. All in all, those that read these posts are almost "Forced" to consider both sides. It is my hope that people will find themselves in a position to consider the points from both sides. 

That is my desire, and in that, I win every day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What if that "better path" causes harm to others?


There you go again, thinking *you* get to make that decision for someone else when it's still none of your business.


----------



## mnn2501

Can't help it, its appropriate here:


> Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Isaiah 5:20


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> Can't help it, *its appropriate here*:
> Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Isaiah 5:20


You don't get to define "good and evil" for anyone other than yourself.

If you want "appropriate": Matt. 7:1


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to define "good and evil" for anyone other than yourself.
> 
> If you want "appropriate": Matt. 7:1


You are ignorant of the meaning of this verse and show your gross ignorance by posting this retort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are ignorant of *the meaning* of this verse and show your gross ignorance by posting this retort.


It means exactly what it says.


----------



## mnn2501

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you want "appropriate": Matt. 7:1



I find people always forget verse 2 clarifies the statement in verse 1


I am certainly willing to be judged in the same way I judge others



> Verse 2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mnn2501 said:


> *I find *people always forget verse 2 clarifies the statement in verse 1
> I am certainly willing to be judged in the same way I judge others


I find people forget to *follow* the rule instead of just referring to it and other verses with some air of superiority.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

And the word Judge means "to condemn".

Over and Over we are told to make "right judgements" (discern)

Matthew 7 is saying NO ONE but Christ has the right to 'condemn' a man's soul.
We have NO right to say "yes, he's going to heaven or heck no, he's not going to heaven".

However, we are told to 'judge' (discern) the tree by it's fruit.

Doing extensive study in the Hebrew and Greek languages, help make His Word, understandable.


----------



## City Bound

I agree with the link in the op. people need to let nature take it's course. If the person still feels they are a different sex after they are 18 and legal then I think they should have the right to pursue their choice. 

Along the same lines, I have come to consider circumcision as child abuse. For jewish families it is a different story, but for the rest of us we really do no need to do such and awful thing to our children. 

Contrary though, there are some people who are intersexed and it is genetic. What do you do then? The line in the sand is not so clear in that instance. 

This is further complicated by how over simplistic people make gender identity sometimes. Things have improved but back in the day if a boy couldn't throw a baseball right he was treated like a girl or if a girl was a tom boy she was considered less of a woman. Simple stereotypes damage people's thinking and some children become very confused because they do not fit the very narrow box that each gender is stuffed into and that creates confusion in their minds that maybe they are the opposite gender. 

Most people IMO are somewhere midrange on the gender scale and are somewhat of a healthy mix of what makes up both genders. Rarely though, you come across people who are at the far end of the spectrum. A man and a woman on the far end of that scale come across as very macho for the men and very fertile and feminine for the females. Those people are not as common. The average everyday people are somewhere in the middle and it makes sense that the majority of humans would be like that because those abilities help humans survive better.


----------



## City Bound

Religion aside, changing ones gender in appearance and biochemistry through drugs and surgery is a very serious decision that greatly effect the individuals life and health and such a decision should not be decided by parents, government, or a minor. 

When the individual grows up they can make their choice and live with the consequences be they good or bad.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Your truth came from Think Progress - gee, wonder to which side they are biased? Yup - Your "truths" - not "THE TRUTH". Who gets to hold "THE TRUTH" in their hands and tell everyone else what it is?
> 
> It is certainly not you nor is it me.
> 
> We only get to share what we think is the truth found from our life experiences.
> 
> So get off of this kick that you hold the "TRUTH" in your hands, you don't.
> 
> Get off of your high horse and start sharing your opinions rather than trying to quote "THE TRUTH".


I'd much rather hear about your life experiences with trans kids than biased articles so why not use that as your starting point?


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> I agree with the link in the op. people need to let nature take it's course. If the person still feels they are a different sex after they are 18 and legal then I think they should have the right to pursue their choice.
> 
> Along the same lines, I have come to consider circumcision as child abuse. For jewish families it is a different story, but for the rest of us we really do no need to do such and awful thing to our children.
> 
> Contrary though, there are some people who are intersexed and it is genetic. What do you do then? The line in the sand is not so clear in that instance.
> 
> This is further complicated by how over simplistic people make gender identity sometimes. Things have improved but back in the day if a boy couldn't throw a baseball right he was treated like a girl or if a girl was a tom boy she was considered less of a woman. Simple stereotypes damage people's thinking and some children become very confused because they do not fit the very narrow box that each gender is stuffed into and that creates confusion in their minds that maybe they are the opposite gender.
> 
> Most people IMO are somewhere midrange on the gender scale and are somewhat of a healthy mix of what makes up both genders. Rarely though, you come across people who are at the far end of the spectrum. A man and a woman on the far end of that scale come across as very macho for the men and very fertile and feminine for the females. Those people are not as common. The average everyday people are somewhere in the middle and it makes sense that the majority of humans would be like that because those abilities help humans survive better.


I'm curious, why is circumcision abuse? From what I've read, there may or may not be health benefits.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

It's cool to see that WR is back deleting posts from only one side, while weighing in on favor of the other.

That didn't last long.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe you should stop worrying about what others do and just concentrate on your own business.


I really have to wonder, since that seems to be your standard response/attitude pertaining to these sort of issues, would/do you turn a blind eye to other forms of child abuse/neglect/murder?

It's creepy.....bordering on sick.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I'd much rather hear about your life experiences with trans kids than biased articles so why not use that as your starting point?


I am being asked this by a Moderator? My citations are biased but the citations of others do not carry the same or similar bias? Wow. Go figure. I thought that Moderators were supposed to be unbiased. Would it not serve a better purpose for you to have come on here and clarified that some proof requires information coming from a non-biased citation which linked to several actual studies rather than the singling out of one specific poster?

*References:*
1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, âClinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.â Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.
2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. âGender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.â _FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry_. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).
3. Whitehead, Neil W. âIs Transsexuality biologically determined?â _Triple Helix_ (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. âTwin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]â accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.
4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).
5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.
6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. _J Clin Endocrinol Metab_. 2009;94:3132-3154.
7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. âOverview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.â UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.
8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. âEndocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.â _The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism_, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.
9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety...ormationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.
10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.
11. Dhejne, C, et.al. âLong-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.â PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.


You are telling me that all of these references are biased, please show me how.


I need to find another forum, this is going downhill rapidly...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> I really have to wonder, since that seems to be your standard response/attitude pertaining to these sort of issues, would/do you turn a blind eye to other forms of child abuse/neglect/murder?
> 
> It's creepy.....bordering on sick.


Stating that someone might turn a blind eye to child abuse/neglect and murder because they don't agree with your opinion is creepy and bordering on sick, in my opinion.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> I am being asked this by a Moderator? My citations are biased but the citations of others do not carry the same or similar bias? Wow. Go figure. I thought that Moderators were supposed to be unbiased. Would it not serve a better purpose for you to have come on here and clarified that some proof requires information coming from a non-biased citation which linked to several actual studies rather than the singling out of one specific poster?
> 
> *References:*
> 1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, âClinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.â Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.
> 2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. âGender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.â _FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry_. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).
> 3. Whitehead, Neil W. âIs Transsexuality biologically determined?â _Triple Helix_ (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. âTwin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]â accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.
> 4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).
> 5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.
> 6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. _J Clin Endocrinol Metab_. 2009;94:3132-3154.
> 7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. âOverview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.â UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.
> 8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. âEndocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.â _The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism_, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.
> 9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety...ormationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.
> 10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.
> 11. Dhejne, C, et.al. âLong-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.â PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.
> 
> 
> You are telling me that all of these references are biased, please show me how.
> 
> 
> I need to find another forum, this is going downhill rapidly...


I couldn't care less what sources you cite. You had commented that you base your opinions on your experience and since I have no experience with trans kids, I simply welcomed the opportunity to learn from someone who had more knowledge than I did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> I really have to wonder, since that seems to be your standard response/attitude pertaining to these sort of issues, would/do you turn a blind eye to other forms of child abuse/neglect/murder?
> 
> It's creepy.....bordering on sick.


It's a standard (lame) argument to start bringing up* illegal acts* and pretend I would support them just because I suggest folks should mind their own business about most things.

I think wanting to *control* everyone's personal lives is "sick"


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I couldn't care less what sources you cite. You had commented that you base your opinions on your experience and since I have no experience with trans kids, I simply welcomed the opportunity to learn from someone who had more knowledge than I did.


OK, I see that you sidestepped those questions/observations that I posed. I just went back through the whole thread to try to find out where I indicated that I had been exposed to the situation of Gender Dysphoria with regards to minors. I found "We only get to share what we think is the truth found from our life experiences. " in post # 40 which is an overall statement by myself regarding the "whole" of my learning.

My exposure to Trans-Gendered persons is this, there are 2 TG persons that live in our community who, essentially, seem to be [from gauging the behaviors of others] "conversational pieces" in that people will talk to them during social events just so they can experience who/what they seem to be. One has a large Trannie Lives Matters poster in their front window, the other lives with another woman. They are quite blatant in their behavior and readily tell others that life was a mistake for them as a man. The only exposure that I have with minors of this sort is from the news and other information that I read.

I am really thinking that this is fairly new in that I do not see much historical information dating 30 years ago hence my post about the contaminated waters that we consume. They have numerous hormones and many other drugs in small quantities and this is a somewhat new development.

Now, I address you specifically. I have held out the olive branch [so to speak] to another person on this forum numerous times in an attempt to lessen the stress found within these portals only to have it snapped in half, thrown to the ground and ground to pulp. I think that it would be better if no one went into any thread with an "I know all the answers." type of demeanor, OK? Do you think that you might foster this type of an environment or will your deletion processes remain the same?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You are telling me that all of these references are biased, please *show me how*.


I already did that, and you keep pretending they aren't pushing an agenda.



> Now, I address you specifically. I have held out the olive branch [so to speak] to another person on this forum numerous times in an attempt to lessen the stress found within these portals only to have it snapped in half, thrown to the ground and ground to pulp. I think that it would be better if no one went into any thread with an "I know all the answers." type of demeanor, OK? Do you think that you might foster this type of an environment or will your deletion processes remain the same?


I was once told:


> Old 07/24/15, 09:52 PM
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/members/shine/
> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ifference-few-months-make-16.html#post7506317
> I think you should put me on ignore, and not PM me again._
> 
> I shall do as I see fit within the rules of this forum.
> *You want to dictate the rules - buy the forum.
> *
> Likekasilofhome, hippygirl, dlmcafee and 2 others like this.
> gibbsgirl, Sumatra



If you really *believed* all the things you say, you'd *act* that way instead of just paying lip service when you think it will be to your benefit.

If you don't like what I say, there is a convenient "ignore" feature that I've been urging you to use for at least a year now. 

If you *choose* to continue to read and respond, you should at least stop whining about it all the time.


----------



## Heritagefarm

This argument has essentially taken over three or more threads, and I, and probably many others, are sick of reading it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> This argument has essentially taken over three or more threads, and I, and probably many others, are *sick of reading it*.


When I get "sick of reading a thread", I stop clicking on it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> When I get "sick of reading a thread", I stop clicking on it.


It's like watching poltics - you just can't stop coming back and watching the awesome train wreck of ostensibly grown adults acting like children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> It's like watching poltics - *you just can't stop* coming back and watching the awesome train wreck of ostensibly grown adults acting like children.


Then you should work on *your* self control instead of complaining about what others do to pass the time.

Saying you don't like something then freely *choosing* to do it anyway makes one lose credibilty


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already did that, and you keep pretending they aren't pushing an agenda. You cited the websites, not the references so your answer herein is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> I was once told: [Something from 8 months ago, you certainly want to use other people's words to push your agenda. Are you trying to redefine what I said therein? I said what I meant when you did what you continue to do with your witty [lol] wordsmanship]
> 
> If you really *believed* all the things you say, you'd *act* that way instead of just paying lip service when you think it will be to your benefit. [whatever, while it hasn't paid off with regards to you, I have done my best to be civil]
> 
> If you don't like what I say, there is a convenient "ignore" feature that I've been urging you to use for at least a year now. [you should just have this reply in a notepad so that you can copy and paste it, you use it quite a bit]
> 
> If you *choose* to continue to read and respond, you should at least stop whining about it all the time.


It is my opinion that you have a nasty demeanor, much I've overlooked, much I have let pass by. Notice your replies to the posts above. It paints the picture that I have been offering for some time. You post what you say are your "truths" in a manner that is both disrespectful and caustic, your replies remain. I post what I post in an as respectful manner as I can and mine get deleted as "not nice" - lol - I can see what the standards are for participating...


And then you blame others for thread drift, what a joke.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you should work on *your* self control instead of complaining about what others do to pass the time.
> 
> Saying you don't like something then freely *choosing* to do it anyway makes one lose credibilty


By stating I'm "choosing to do it" you validate my original claim. Good one!


----------



## Shrek

Shine said:


> "The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts â not ideology â determine reality."
> 
> Who'da thunk.
> 
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


The argument of gender interpretation and what is normal or not has been going on for at least the last 50 years.

In the late 60s some presented the argument that because boys played with G.I. Joe 11 inch tall movable miniature mannequin dolls, uniforms, weapons , vehicles and tackle box sized foot lockers introduced by Hasbro in 1964 that boys were just as inclined to "play with dolls as girls".

Of course those who supported this perspective chose to overlook the fact that for centuries before the introduction of G.I. Joe, boys often had collections of miniature plastic , die cast metal or lead or wooden carved "army men" collections to stage imaginary battles in a child grade version of adult military strategists and statisticians using models on battle theatre maps or the civilian game of chess.

The G.I Joe action figure doll was simply the wealthier class version of the bag of plastic army men however that fact did not stop the effeminate male sector of society in the 1970s to include the occurrence in their mission of research and justification of effeminacy and homosexuality as a social factor despite the lack of data of many boys who played with G.I. Joe toys later coming out as homosexual.

After about 40 years of hypothesis on the sexuality aspect, imaging studies on occasion showed definable differences in brain development of homosexual individuals and the premise that the subjects "were actually born in the wrong body" was pressed for social acceptability while the genetic observation that all human zygotes begin as XX females and the inactivation gene alters one of the chromosomes to a Y during gestation.

A human being " born in the wrong body" is most likely nothing more than any other prenatal developmental birth defect, however current society chooses to accept it as a social normalcy except when treating it as a developmental error and resulting post birth disability, however even then while using the medical findings, sectors of society often use those findings to justify sex reassignment covered by medical insurance to correct a birth defect rather than simply treating it within minimally accepted steps as society treats many other birth defects.

How societies accept the situations of male effeminacy, female masculinity and defined homosexuality have been accepted or rejected in various ways during the time of mankind and as long as the condition and social structures exist so will the controversies and varied social stances regarding it.


----------



## Shine

Both sides of the same coin:

"For gender-variant children, critics often argue that the diagnosis is too broad. Research on children diagnosed with GD suggests that they will most likely grow up to be gay or bisexual. Critics suggest that GD treatments for children focus too much on boys, that treatment may damage self-esteem, and that the distress that GD children exhibit is not inherent to their gender nonconformity but rather is a reaction to being stigmatized. Mental health professionals who support the diagnosis and treat GD children counter that their treatments help GD children to have better peer relations and thus bolstered self-esteem and that research indicates that GD children do exhibit forms of distress associated directly with their gender variance."

http://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria


----------



## Shine

Even the members of the Health/Mental Profession seem to not be able to find a middle ground regarding this emotional trait so I am pretty sure that we as commoners will not be able to do so.

One of the most bandied about statement tossed around here is that it is none of our business when x or y. Yet this impacts upon us in that they are now wanting to share bathrooms, to have privileges that are historically new. They don't just want them, they demand them. So, yes, it is my business when your rights supersede mine or those of my children. 

As an adult, you do not have to ask me permission to cut off any part of your body or take any kinds of legal hormone. But as a concerned person, I wish to raise awareness that there are some who would push adolescents to make these decisions while still being underage and without a clear world view to back their decisions. 

As stated, if the medical community is still up in the air one this, I really do not think that this is the best path to offer to children.

So, no, I do not wish to "force" my views upon anyone, I do wish to bring this up for discussion though. And then as long as it is treated properly, if Society then decides that it is acceptable then so be it, if society decides that this is a dangerous route to take, then again, so be it.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Even the members of the Health/Mental Profession seem to not be able to find a middle ground regarding this emotional trait so I am pretty sure that we as commoners will not be able to do so.
> 
> One of the most bandied about statement tossed around here is that it is none of our business when x or y. Yet this impacts upon us in that they are now wanting to share bathrooms, to have privileges that are historically new. They don't just want them, they demand them. So, yes, it is my business when your rights supersede mine or those of my children.
> 
> As an adult, you do not have to ask me permission to cut off any part of your body or take any kinds of legal hormone. But as a concerned person, I wish to raise awareness that there are some who would push adolescents to make these decisions while still being underage and without a clear world view to back their decisions.
> 
> As stated, if the medical community is still up in the air one this, I really do not think that this is the best path to offer to children.
> 
> So, no, I do not wish to "force" my views upon anyone, I do wish to bring this up for discussion though. And then as long as it is treated properly, if Society then decides that it is acceptable then so be it, if society decides that this is a dangerous route to take, then again, so be it.


I'm not sure the medical community is as up in the air and gender reassignment has been an issue for a great number of years, although most had to leave the country for surgery. It does seem that it is being looked at in kids rather than waiting until someone reaches maturity and I'd rather see kids get some help and guidance rather than struggling with something that big alone. 

I don't agree that any surgery should occur before one reaches the age of consent but I am leery of the puberty blockers simply because it's an off label treatment and there does seem to be some side effects and would like to see that investigated further. 

The discussion will always be a hot topic because there will be those who believe that parents are trying to control the gender of their children and others who believe that a parent has greater knowledge of their kid's behaviors and desires than an outsider would.

In my opinion, the washroom issue has been way overblown and in countries that have washrooms accommodating all genders, I've seen no evidence of any problems nor do I feel it's a sufficient reason to force trans kids to conform to something they feel they aren't.


----------



## City Bound

Living in new York city I have come in contact with more then a few gays and transsexuals. I worked and went to school with these people and got to know some of them. A common theme I found was that some serious trauma of ether abuse or neglect had a major influence. Two of my childhood friends grew up to be gay. One was raped repeatedly as child by male family member. Another had a very stern punitive father that ground him and his brothers into the ground everyday with insults and punishments. 

One transgendered person I knew was brutally attacked and beaten by a male friend that he trusted. After the attack he started to cross dress and became confused about his sexuality. Eventually he got a sex change. Asking this person concrete questions about the attack and what their thought process was about considering themselves transsexual showed how disassociated the person had made their mind from very unpleasant memories and realities. Talking to this person and trying to explore their psychology gave me a very strong impression that this person had created a safe fantasy to escape into.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It is my opinion that you have a nasty demeanor, much I've overlooked, much I have let pass by. Notice your replies to the posts above. It paints the picture that I have been offering for some time. You post what you say are your "truths" in a manner that is both disrespectful and caustic, your replies remain. I post what I post in an as respectful manner as I can and mine get deleted as "not nice" - lol - I can see what the standards are for participating...
> 
> 
> And then you blame others for thread drift, what a joke.


You *are* to blame for continuing to talk about me instead of sticking to the topic

Your disjointed style of doing quotes in color makes it nearly impossible to reply. 

You claim I "lied" about your sources being religion based while ignoring their own words that prove they are



> [Something *from 8 months ago*, you certainly want to use other people's words to push your agenda. *Are you trying to redefine what I said therein?* I said what I meant when you did what you continue to do with your witty [lol] wordsmanship]


Yes, from 8 months ago, and here you are *still* complaining 
If I wanted to "redefine" anything, I certainly wouldn't quote it first.
You're rambling again.

I said what I meant too. 
Put me on ignore or stop complaining all the time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> By stating I'm "choosing to do it" you validate my original claim. Good one!


And your reply validates mine 
Don't you just love forums?

Some never figure them out


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Even the members of the Health/Mental Profession seem to not be able to find a middle ground regarding this emotional trait so I am pretty sure that we as commoners will not be able to do so.
> 
> One of the most bandied about statement tossed around here is that it is none of our business when x or y. *Yet this impacts upon us *in that they are now wanting to share bathrooms, to have privileges that are historically new. They don't just want them, they demand them. So, yes, it is my business when your rights supersede mine or those of my children.
> 
> As an adult, you do not have to ask me permission to cut off any part of your body or take any kinds of legal hormone. But as a concerned person, I wish to raise awareness that there are some who would push adolescents to make these decisions while still being underage and without a clear world view to back their decisions.
> 
> As stated, if the medical community is still up in the air one this, I really do not think that this is the best path to offer to children.
> 
> So, no, *I do not wish to "force" my views upon anyone*, I do wish to bring this up for discussion though. And then as long as it is treated properly, *if Society then decides that it is acceptable* then so be it, if society decides that *this is a dangerous route* to take, then again, so be it.


Society has already decided and you're kicking and screaming over it

It doesn't affect you in any way at all, any more than any other person using a public restroom

I don't know why you keep denying you want the *laws* to reflect your views, which by definition means "en*force*"

The only reason you want to "discuss" this is to tell everyone you think it's "wrong"

Keep your eyes to the front and don't open an occupied stall and you will never know the biological gender of the person using it


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Even the members of the Health/Mental Profession seem to not be able to find a middle ground regarding this emotional trait so I am pretty sure that we as commoners will not be able to do so.
> 
> One of the most bandied about statement tossed around here is that it is none of our business when x or y. Yet this impacts upon us in that they are now wanting to share bathrooms, to have privileges that are historically new. They don't just want them, they demand them. So, yes, it is my business when your rights supersede mine or those of my children.
> 
> As an adult, you do not have to ask me permission to cut off any part of your body or take any kinds of legal hormone. But as a concerned person, I wish to raise awareness that there are some who would push adolescents to make these decisions while still being underage and without a clear world view to back their decisions.
> 
> As stated, if the medical community is still up in the air one this, I really do not think that this is the best path to offer to children.
> 
> So, no, I do not wish to "force" my views upon anyone, I do wish to bring this up for discussion though. And then as long as it is treated properly, if Society then decides that it is acceptable then so be it, if society decides that this is a dangerous route to take, then again, so be it.


You do make gender reassignment surgery sound so very simple. 

My research indicates that in order for that to happen some pretty stringent criteria must be met.

They must be of legal age before surgery can be performed, must have one year of continuous hormone therapy, a minimum of a year real life experience living as the gender they desire, letters of recommendation from at least 2 mental health professionals (which I assume require more than one visit each) and must be able to prove an understanding of surgical & medical costs associated with reassignment. 

With such rigid requirements, I would think that it would be unlikely that too many kids are being coached and mutilated by well meaning parents.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You *are* to blame for continuing to talk about me instead of sticking to the topic
> 
> Your disjointed style of doing quotes in color makes it nearly impossible to reply.
> 
> You claim I "lied" about your sources being religion based while ignoring their own words that prove they are
> 
> 
> Yes, from 8 months ago, and here you are *still* complaining
> If I wanted to "redefine" anything, I certainly wouldn't quote it first.
> You're rambling again.
> 
> I said what I meant too.
> Put me on ignore or stop complaining all the time.


So, I should just leave the incorrect statements that you type out as if they are true? 

Yes, I said that you lied. Show me where you pointed out the biases of the Studies that were listed in References, reread my statement about that lie. You identified the websites as biased, I asked about the references, you said that you already pointed out their biases. I do not believe that you have...

So, as long as you type out incorrect statements, I will do what I can to correct them - OK?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, I should just leave the incorrect statements that you type out as if they are true?
> 
> Yes, I said that you lied. *Show me where you pointed out the biases of the Studies that were listed in References*, reread my statement about that lie. You identified the websites as biased, I asked about the references, you said that you already pointed out their biases. I do not believe that you have...
> 
> So, as long as you type out incorrect statements, I will do what I can to correct them - OK?


Go back and read it, since I'm not going to repeat it all simply because you pretend you can't see it.

There were no "lies"
There's just a lot of denial on your part about your sources and their agendas


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> You do make gender reassignment surgery sound so very simple.
> 
> My research indicates that in order for that to happen some pretty stringent criteria must be met.


No, it was not my intention to make the reassignment sound simple. That is a life changing event.

If there are people that would truly be helped by doing so then I have no problem with them doing so. I just have seen how persons act and would hope that anyone doing so would be doing so for genuine reasons.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> No, it was not my intention to make the reassignment sound simple. That is a life changing event.
> 
> If there are people that would truly be helped by doing so then I have no problem with them doing so. I just have seen how persons act and would hope that anyone doing so would be doing so for genuine reasons.


I would agree but based on your concerns that this issue affects your children by way of school washrooms, my belief is that those who want access to washrooms of the gender they identify with, will be those within those parameters that are known to school staff so it would be difficult for a randy young man to lay claim to being transgendered one afternoon.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> ...so it would be difficult for a randy young man to lay claim to being transgendered one afternoon.


If I ever suggested that this was what concerned me then it was said in jest. My concern was mostly directed at the premise of using the locker rooms which seems to be one of the focal points in the Illinois situation. Naked school girls should not HAVE to shower with a naked school boy.


----------



## City Bound

One day in high school a former senior came back for visit. Over the summer he changed a lot. He had breast and he was dressed as a woman. He went into the woman's toilet to use the facilities. Two minutes after he enter the bathroom we heard a clamor of screams and then five girls came running out of the bathroom terrified. The girls refused to go back in. The security guard had to block the bathroom door until the person came out. 

Just because some guy thinks he is a girl does not mean he is a girl.


----------



## City Bound

Shine said:


> If I ever suggested that this was what concerned me then it was said in jest. My concern was mostly directed at the premise of using the locker rooms which seems to be one of the focal points in the Illinois situation. Naked school girls should not HAVE to shower with a naked school boy.


Exactly. And people should not be forced or encouraged to believe the person is actually the opposite sex. Just because the person believes a lie does not mean we all have to. God bless them and let them live their life but the rest of society should not be scolded and harassed for refusing to believe in the emperors new clothes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Exactly. And people should not be forced or encouraged to believe the person is actually the opposite sex. Just because the person believes a lie does not mean we all have to. God bless them and let them live their life but the rest of society should not be scolded and harassed for refusing to believe in the emperors new clothes.


Just because you tell me that you're a man in NYC doesn't mean you really are, so I'm going to arbitrarily decide that you are a woman that lives in Alaska. After all, I know better than you what you are, right?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because you tell me that you're a man in NYC doesn't mean you really are, so I'm going to arbitrarily decide that you are a woman that lives in Alaska. After all, I know better than you what you are, right?


Baby, if some guy has jingle bells jingling and he is not genetically intersexed then he is a man regardless of what he thinks he is or what he masquerades as. Just like Cher's daughter, she is still a woman regardless of the appearance she pretenses. 

I don't care that they think they are the opposite sex or that they try to live as the opposite sex. I support their freedom to do that as long as it does not harm themselves or others. Now, trying to guilt or threaten the rest of us into believing their delusions are reality is where they cross the line into harming others.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> *Baby*, if some guy has jingle bells jingling and he is not genetically intersexed then he is a man regardless of what he thinks he is or what he masquerades as. Just like Cher's daughter, she is still a woman regardless of the appearance she pretenses.
> 
> I don't care that they think they are the opposite sex or that they try to live as the opposite sex. I support their freedom to do that as long as it does not harm themselves or others. Now, trying to guilt or threaten the rest of us into believing their delusions are reality is where they cross the line into harming others.


I'm not, nor ever will be, your baby. Not ever. I'm not your friend, or even an acquaintance. Please don't use any type of endearment when posting to me. You are trying to demean me and I don't like it. 

I see. You know better what a person feels, their inner most workings than they do. Isn't that the epitome of arrogance? You don't get to make that call for anyone but yourself. That is reality.


----------



## Txsteader

A penis is a MALE genital organ. A uterus is a FEMALE genital organ.

The definitions have not changed. Just saying.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> A penis is a MALE genital organ. A uterus is a FEMALE genital organ.
> 
> The definitions have not changed. Just saying.


You (collective you) don't have the right to tell someone else who they are, not now not ever.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) don't have the right to tell someone else who they are, not now not ever.


Nope, we sure don't. And you (collective you) don't have the right to force anyone to accept others beliefs, facts that are contrary to reality. Not now, not ever.

But that's exactly what's happening.


----------



## Shine

This thread is now bordering on insanity. Maybe soon science will have a shot or a pill to fix this. This is too much.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Nope, we sure don't. And you (collective you) don't have the right to force anyone to accept others beliefs, facts that are contrary to reality. Not now, not ever.
> 
> But that's exactly what's happening.


Can you explain how I (or people like me) are forcing you (or anyone else) to do anything? Please? 

This _is_ getting ridiculous. No one has to the right to to tell another human being who they are. This is an intrinsic right. 

You (again collective you) can wail: penis! uterus! over and over but it will be in vain because you cannot tell another human being who they are. The end. 

Have the day you deserve.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> This thread is now bordering on insanity. Maybe soon science will have a shot or a pill to fix this. This is too much.


Um, you did start this thread...:help:



Txsteader said:


> Nope, we sure don't. And you (collective you) don't have the right to force anyone to accept others beliefs, facts that are contrary to reality. Not now, not ever.
> 
> But that's exactly what's happening.


No one has the right to force anyone else to accept their beliefs. And yet, given a chance, that's exactly what many religious people do when they go to the polls. Everyone wants their views represented, and everyone needs to feel they've been heard. So long as those beliefs do not harm anyone, I'm al right with it. I find the idea of swapping genders appalling, but I think the people who do it are extremely confused. Except Jenner. She's just a narcissist, IMO.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain how I (or people like me) are forcing you (or anyone else) to do anything? Please?


Gender identity laws.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Gender identity laws.


That's _our_ government, not individual citizens such as myself or people like me. You have as much control over it as I do.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Both sides of the same coin:
> 
> "For gender-variant children, critics often argue that the diagnosis is too broad. Research on children diagnosed with GD suggests that they will most likely grow up to be gay or bisexual. Critics suggest that GD treatments for children focus too much on boys, that treatment may damage self-esteem, and that the distress that GD children exhibit is not inherent to their gender nonconformity but rather is a reaction to being stigmatized. Mental health professionals who support the diagnosis and treat GD children counter that their treatments help GD children to have better peer relations and thus bolstered self-esteem and that research indicates that GD children do exhibit forms of distress associated directly with their gender variance."
> 
> http://www.britannica.com/science/gender-dysphoria


Gender reassignment is very expensive and not within reach of the average person so I would wonder if the diagnosis is as broad as suggested or people with insufficient resources are simply left to try and figure out some kind of solution.


----------



## Shine

wr - I cannot answer that. I would not think that this is something that insurance would cover. One of the two trans gendered people that I am aware of is in line for the surgery but I do not know of any of the details.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> wr - I cannot answer that. I would not think that this is something that insurance would cover. One of the two trans gendered people that I am aware of is in line for the surgery but I do not know of any of the details.


I really wasn't asking about cost but questioning the findings you cited. To conclude that trans kids ultimately identify as gay or bisexual without reassignment may be a bit of a reach. My concern would be that the study may be flawed in the sense that the outcome of their lives could be the result of not being able to afford reassignment and simply making do with the hand they've been dealt rather than an example of changing their minds as they mature.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> *That's our government*, not individual citizens such as myself or people like me. You have as much control over it as I do.


That's the whole point. It's being made into law, anti-discrimination law, forcing everyone to accept how a tiny minority choose to live their lives.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Gender identity laws.


Laws may force you to modify your behavior but if they change your beliefs maybe it isn't the law that was wrong.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Laws may force you to modify your behavior but if they change your beliefs maybe it isn't the law that was wrong.


Laws that change bedrock standings will always generate this type of conflict. Nowhere in time am I aware of non-related children of different genders having to shower together in a school setting.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Laws that change bedrock standings will always generate this type of conflict. Nowhere in time am I aware of non-related children of different genders having to shower together in a school setting.


There was a time, not that long ago, where people weren't aware that black kids and white kids could learn side by side. There are still some that believe it shouldn't happen. Times change, attitudes change. You can believe what you wish. No law can change that. The law can punish you for acting on your beliefs. Belief sometimes comes with a cost. The strength of the belief is sometimes measured by the cost one is willing to pay.


----------



## no really

Shine said:


> Laws that change bedrock standings will always generate this type of conflict. Nowhere in time am I aware of non-related children of different genders having to shower together in a school setting.


This to me is not in any way a religious problem. But it would be a big problem in my culture. I can't see Hispanics allowing there kids to shower with the opposite sex.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain how I (or people like me) are forcing you (or anyone else) to do anything? Please?
> 
> This _is_ getting ridiculous. No one has to the right to to tell another human being who they are. This is an intrinsic right.
> 
> You (again collective you) can wail: penis! uterus! over and over but it will be in vain because you cannot tell another human being who they are. The end.
> 
> Have the day you deserve.


Yes...reminds me of the show...Ridiculousness.
Imagine a man dropping his pants...then saying...I'm a girl!

Women call another woman a man.
Yes now Bruce is Caitlyn.
Time to go back when this nonsense was not broadcast.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> That's the whole point. It's being made into law, anti-discrimination law, forcing everyone to accept how a tiny minority choose to live their lives.


Do you think that this same argument was occurring during the 50s and 60s regarding segregation?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> That's the whole point. It's being made into law, anti-discrimination law, forcing everyone to accept how a tiny minority choose to live their lives.


People had the same complaints about blacks demanding their freedoms and rights.


----------



## painterswife

L


Txsteader said:


> That's the whole point. It's being made into law, anti-discrimination law, forcing everyone to accept how a tiny minority choose to live their lives.


I don't have to accept how people live their lives. I just don't get a say as long as they don't hurt others.I don't accept smokers. I just don't get a say as long as they don't smoke around me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> People had the same complaints about blacks demanding their freedoms and rights.


And women, gays, disability, some religions, age, etc. this isn't new. The ugly has just shifted to a new group.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> I don't have to accept how people live their lives. I just don't get a say as long as they don't hurt others.I don't accept smokers. I just don't get a say as long as they don't smoke around me.


...and, if I don't "accept transgenders", they DO get to shower next to me.

...wait a minute....


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> And women, gays, disability, some religions, age, etc. this isn't new. The ugly has just shifted to a new group.


Haters gonna hate. It really doesn't matter who it is; it's just a way for many people to transfer their frustration in their lives unto other topics. It their way out, their venting mechanism. Really, one has to feel sorry for them. However, this hate trickles around and can have deleterious effects on society.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...and, if I don't "accept transgenders", they DO get to shower next to me.
> 
> ...wait a minute....


You might have to shower next to a smoker as well. You afraid that transgender person is going to give you cooties?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

This smoker / transgender thing sums up the debate.

Just as the government picks winners and losers through subsidies and tax cuts- with the winners becoming losers, and the losers becoming winners everytime the political tide changes. Likewise, the social-more tides are shifting, and new winners and losers are being chosen. 

No doubt, there was a time when blacks and gays were both "losers" in the rights department. There was a time, for each, when non-blacks/gays had the right to step on the rights of blacks/gays. It was wrong, and demanded correction. 

The problem is, instead of balancing the scale, decisions were made that blacks/gays needed to be the new "winners". Affirmative action made the black "more right" than the non-black, and these LGBTYVQR laws are now making the gay "more right" than the religious-observer. 

The black is allowed to riot and call whites crackers, but conservative protesters are hate-groups- and don't think of mentioning the ugly-of-ugly-words. A gay can now demand that a religious person participate in their wedding, and call them looney for having Faith, but call an open gay anything short of a "hero", and you're somehow considered hateful. 

Smokers have been deemed losers in this tidal-shift. Heaven forbid a smoker light up within 50 yards of a Walmart entrance, lest a self-righteous doting mother hack and spit like she can't breath (yet have plenty of breath left to complain out loud), but it's perfectly fine for mommy to sit right out front, with her engine running for everyone to breathe, waiting for little Timmy to find and pay for his baseball cards. 

Winners and losers are being selected, like they always have, but, the difference this time, and why it's causing so much heartburn, is that minorities are being selected over majorities. 

The point of our republic SPECIFICALLY not being a democracy was to protect the minority from the whim of the majority. Our failing is that, when we encounter an injustice, we never seem to just balance the scale. Rather, we have to swing 180 degrees and make the old winners the new losers.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> This smoker / transgender thing sums up the debate.
> 
> Just as the government picks winners and losers through subsidies and tax cuts- with the winners becoming losers, and the losers becoming winners everytime the political tide changes. Likewise, the social-more tides are shifting, and new winners and losers are being chosen.
> 
> No doubt, there was a time when blacks and gays were both "losers" in the rights department. There was a time, for each, when non-blacks/gays had the right to step on the rights of blacks/gays. It was wrong, and demanded correction.
> 
> The problem is, instead of balancing the scale, decisions were made that blacks/gays needed to be the new "winners". Affirmative action made the black "more right" than the non-black, and these LGBTYVQR laws are now making the gay "more right" than the religious-observer.
> 
> The black is allowed to riot and call whites crackers, but conservative protesters are hate-groups- and don't think of mentioning the ugly-of-ugly-words. A gay can now demand that a religious person participate in their wedding, and call them looney for having Faith, but call an open gay anything short of a "hero", and you're somehow considered hateful.
> 
> Smokers have been deemed losers in this tidal-shift. Heaven forbid a smoker light up within 50 yards of a Walmart entrance, lest a self-righteous doting mother hack and spit like she can't breath (yet have plenty of breath left to complain out loud), but it's perfectly fine for mommy to sit right out front, with her engine running for everyone to breathe, waiting for little Timmy to find and pay for his baseball cards.
> 
> Winners and losers are being selected, like they always have, but, the difference this time, and why it's causing so much heartburn, is that minorities are being selected over majorities.
> 
> The point of our republic SPECIFICALLY not being a democracy was to protect the minority from the whim of the majority. Our failing is that, when we encounter an injustice, we never seem to just balance the scale. Rather, we have to swing 180 degrees and make the old winners the new losers.


What is a transgender person winning? That is a lot of pain and expense and ridicule to go though.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> You might have to shower next to a smoker as well.


And that, Mrs. Painter is exactly the point of equal-protection Liberty. 

What do you do if someone who stinks sits next to you on the bus?
You go to another seat. 

What do you do if everyone on the bus stinks?
You walk. 

What do you do if you don't like a vendor's policies or ideology?
You shop elsewhere. 

Sometimes, Liberty comes with having to do without something you want. In order to ensure the Liberty of all, you sometimes have to do without something provided by others. Liberty does not mean that you get whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. 

If you ever find Liberty that promises that, it's a sure thing that it's a false freedom that has come at the expense of someone else's Liberty.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Haters gonna hate. It really doesn't matter who it is; it's just a way for many people to transfer their frustration in their lives unto other topics. It their way out, their venting mechanism. Really, one has to feel sorry for them. However, this hate trickles around and can have deleterious effects on society.


No, people are going to push back when others push them into a corner... 

Oh, and nice way of saying that those that do not believe as you are "haters" - cute...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Yes...reminds me of the show...Ridiculousness.
> *Imagine a man dropping his pants*...then saying...I'm a girl!
> 
> Women call another woman a man.
> Yes now Bruce is Caitlyn.
> Time to go back when this nonsense was not broadcast.


No one is forcing you to look, or even think about it unless that's what you want to do


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, people are going to push back when others push them into a corner...
> 
> Oh, and nice way of saying that *those that do not believe as you are "haters"* - cute...


You say they are perverts, sinners, heathens and "sick"
Haters is a compliment by comparison


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And that, Mrs. Painter is exactly the point of equal-protection Liberty.
> 
> What do you do if someone who stinks sits next to you on the bus?
> You go to another seat.
> 
> What do you do if everyone on the bus stinks?
> You walk.
> 
> What do you do if you don't like a vendor's policies or ideology?
> You shop elsewhere.
> 
> Sometimes, Liberty comes with having to do without something you want. In order to ensure the Liberty of all, you sometimes have to do without something provided by others. Liberty does not mean that you get whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.
> 
> If you ever find Liberty that promises that, it's a sure thing that it's a false freedom that has come at the expense of someone else's Liberty.


You're right, liberty doesn't mean you'll get everything you want. But it does mean you'll have the same access to things as everyone else. Liberty doesn't mean everyone gets a Cadillac. It does mean everyone who can afford it has the same ability to buy one.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain how I (or people like me) are forcing you (or anyone else) to do anything? Please?
> 
> This _is_ getting ridiculous. No one has to the right to to tell another human being who they are. This is an intrinsic right.
> 
> You (again collective you) can wail: penis! uterus! over and over but it will be in vain because you cannot tell another human being who they are. The end.
> 
> Have the day you deserve.


 so, what would you do if people refuse to acknowledge such a person as their assumed gender, would you scold them and try to correct their behavior that you might not agree with? f you are anything in real life like you are here then I would say yes you would.

_people like you _are saying that they can be whoever they say they are and that they are really whatever fantasy they conjure up. People like me are saying that we respect that they have the freedom to pursue the life they want to live but we will never believe the lie that they are a woman or a man when they are not. I am saying that we can all live in peace but transgendered people cant expect me to believe the lie they live. Yes, it is a lie.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And that, Mrs. Painter is exactly the point of equal-protection Liberty.
> 
> What do you do if someone who stinks sits next to you on the bus?
> You go to another seat.
> 
> What do you do if everyone on the bus stinks?
> You walk.
> 
> What do you do if you don't like a vendor's policies or ideology?
> You shop elsewhere.
> 
> Sometimes, Liberty comes with having to do without something you want. In order to ensure the Liberty of all, you sometimes have to do without something provided by others. Liberty does not mean that you get whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.
> 
> If you ever find Liberty that promises that, it's a sure thing that it's a false freedom that has come at the expense of someone else's Liberty.


So, you don't want to shower next to someone who is transgender, using your example, move.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> so, what would you do if people refuse to acknowledge such a person as their assumed gender, would you scold them and try to correct their behavior that you might not agree with? f you are anything in real life like you are here then I would say yes you would.
> 
> _people like you _are saying that they can be whoever they say they are and that they are really whatever fantasy they conjure up. People like me are saying that we respect that they have the freedom to pursue the life they want to live but we will never believe the lie that they are a woman or a man when they are not. I am saying that we can all live in peace but transgendered people cant expect me to believe the lie they live. Yes, it is a lie.


Why do you feel that you know who they are, don't you think they know themselves? What makes your opinion of them more valuable than what they know to be true about themselves? Why do you feel you are more important than they are? 

We're back to the "you're a woman that lives in Alaska because I say you are."

Would I scold someone for not acknowledging a transgender person? I don't know, it would depend on the situation. But again, you're indicating you know better what I'd do than I do myself... SMH.


----------



## City Bound

I use to think I was a rock star when I was teenager. I dressed like one. I played the guitar. I was all ready for fame and fortune. In my mind this was all real and someday going to come true. Reality was a lot different. Maybe I should have demanded people consider me a rock star and treat me like one.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Why do you feel that you know who they are, don't you think they know themselves? What makes your opinion of them more valuable than what they know to be true about themselves? Why do you feel you are more important than they are?
> 
> We're back to the "you're a woman that lives in Alaska because I say you are."
> 
> Would I scold someone for not acknowledging a transgender person? I don't know, it would depend on the situation. But again, you're indicating you know better what I'd do than I do myself... SMH.



Are they genetically female or male? Are they genetically intersexed? If not, then they are not truly the opposite sex nor intersexed. That is reality, bottom line. Whatever nonsense people want to manufacture in their minds beyond that is all fiction. If you want t enable them go ahead, but the rest of us are not wrong for not going along with the farce.

With that said I am not indorsing harming them or treating them poorly. Just protecting my mental health from being deluded with nonsense.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Are they genetically female or male? Are they genetically intersexed? If not, then they are not truly the opposite sex nor intersexed. That is reality, bottom line. Whatever nonsense people want to manufacture in their minds beyond that is all fiction. If you want t enable them go ahead, but the rest of us are not wrong for not going along with the farce.


The bottom line is that it's not up to you (collective you) to determine the sex, sexuality, gender etc. of anyone but yourself. That is reality.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think that this same argument was occurring during the 50s and 60s regarding segregation?





Heritagefarm said:


> People had the same complaints about blacks demanding their freedoms and rights.


Were blacks insisting that they were actually white, that they be called white?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Were blacks insisting that they were actually white, that they be called white?


Just insisting they were people, thats all.


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is that it's not up to you (collective you) to determine the sex, sexuality, gender etc. of anyone but yourself. That is reality.


Most people do not care what they do, but since they are trying to force this garbage into kids heads at schools and force it on the general public with lawsuits they have dragged us and our opinions into the public debate. 

What parent would feel safe letting their small child go alone into a public bathroom that was being used by a cross dresser? Male family members who take out their daughters and nieces can not go into the woman's room with their relations when they have to go, they have to have some idea that the bathroom is safe for the children to go into alone. God only knows who is masquerading under that wig and make up and it is not safe.


----------



## City Bound

Txsteader said:


> Were blacks insisting that they were actually white, that they be called white?


 LOL that was funny.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Gender identity laws.





Txsteader said:


> That's the whole point. It's being made into law, anti-discrimination law, forcing everyone to accept how a tiny minority choose to live their lives.





Txsteader said:


> Were blacks insisting that they were actually white, that they be called white?


I think segregation works perfectly as we were discussing discrimination law...


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Just insisting they were people, thats all.


Exactly, which is why the segregation issue is nothing like the gender identity issue.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Exactly, which is why the segregation issue is nothing like the gender identity issue.
> 
> Apples and oranges.


Yes, I get your stance on the whole thing. I think it is exactly like it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> No, people are going to push back when others push them into a corner...
> 
> Oh, and nice way of saying that those that do not believe as you are "haters" - cute...


I was hoping to write something, but BFF, oddly enough, wrote something way better. At least, I think he's agreeing with me. Hard to tell sometimes.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You say they are perverts, sinners, heathens and "sick"
> Haters is a compliment by comparison





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And that, Mrs. Painter is exactly the point of equal-protection Liberty.
> 
> What do you do if someone who stinks sits next to you on the bus?
> You go to another seat.
> 
> What do you do if everyone on the bus stinks?
> You walk.
> 
> What do you do if you don't like a vendor's policies or ideology?
> You shop elsewhere.
> 
> Sometimes, Liberty comes with having to do without something you want. In order to ensure the Liberty of all, you sometimes have to do without something provided by others. Liberty does not mean that you get whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.
> 
> If you ever find Liberty that promises that, it's a sure thing that it's a false freedom that has come at the expense of someone else's Liberty.


So is the LGBT community unworthy of Liberty?



Txsteader said:


> Were blacks insisting that they were actually white, that they be called white?


They wanted they same rights as whites, to be treated as equals. I disagree with transgenders. I think it's rather dumb. But I'm not going to deny them their right to be themselves. Or what they think themselves are.


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> LOL that was funny.


Yes, denying people the right to live their own lives is frequently a funny issue.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Just insisting they were people, thats all.


Transgendered persons are people too, it is just if you have the hardware, you belong to the gender of that hardware.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, denying people the right to live their own lives is frequently a funny issue.


No, not at all, they get to do the same thing that I do, follow the guidelines for their gender, not some made up psychological mumbo jumbo person...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Transgendered persons are people too, it is just if you have the hardware, you belong to the gender of that hardware.


Gender is not tied to your sex organs.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> You're right, liberty doesn't mean you'll get everything you want. But it does mean you'll have the same access to things as everyone else. Liberty doesn't mean everyone gets a Cadillac. It does mean everyone who can afford it has the same ability to buy one.


That's the confusion in this thing: having access to something does not necessarily equate to getting it. 

I'm 100% in support of gays rights to marry (partly because I don't think the government has any say in the matter, for anyone, but that's a separate discussion). That means I also think that a gay couple has every right to have a cake. The government should not be able to step in, on my behalf or any one else's, and say that they can't have a cake or get married. 

BUT, there is no guarantee that they can have Joe's cake. If Joe would like to make it for them, then good on the lot of them. But, if Joe doesn't care to make their cake, then anyone forcing Joe to bake it is stepping on Joe's rights in favor of someone else's- picking a winner vs a loser. 

Stepping on the gay's right, limiting their access, would be barring them from having a cake at all, let alone one of Joe's, should he care to make it. If any level of government tried to pass a law that said that gays can't love each other, wrestle around in their own bed, call themselves man and man, or eat cake to commemorate the occasion, I would fight it as if it were my own liberties being infringed. 

But that's not what we're talking about. The issue at hand is the imposition on others' rights in order to somehow make up for the past injustices against another party. 

Sometimes live-and-let-live means going and doing your living elsewhere. 

Sometimes do-unto-others means doing to them as you would have them do unto you. 

...actually, pretty much all the time, it means doing that.


----------



## City Bound

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, denying people the right to live their own lives is frequently a funny issue.


No, it was funny because it was a very clarifying and lucid statement that was put in an interesting way. 

I really do not think many people want to deny this group their right to live. I have said many times in his thread that I support their right to walk their walk but that does not mean that I will warp my mind to ever believe that they are a woman or a man simply because they think they are. I support everyone's freedom to do their own thing as long as it does not harm others or themselves. I am pretty liberal when it comes to accepting people's freedom to harm themselves to a point because it is their body. I do not agree with s&m but if it floats someone's boat I wont try to stop them. I do not agree with suicide but there are times when I can sympathize with a person's reasons to make that choice. I think prostitution and performing in porno movies is self abuse and degradation of one's body and mind but the bottom line is that it is their body and life to degrade. If for some reason the person is in conflict about the right and wrong of their choice or option then that is a cross roads that I feel that I would step in to talk to the person and try to pursued them not to do such harmful things to themselves.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Gender is not tied to your sex organs.


Is this one of those new "gender" words? Because as far as I know, it most certainly is.

* Definition of gender *





 *:* the state of being male or female *:* sex

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

That's funny, I googled "how do you tell what gender you are" - guess what - it returned all kinds of ways to tell what gender a turtle is, a kitten, a parakeet, a snake but nothing for humans. I guess that it goes without saying. Innie - female, Outtie - Male.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's the confusion in this thing: having access to something does not necessarily equate to getting it.
> 
> I'm 100% in support of gays rights to marry (partly because I don't think the government has any say in the matter, for anyone, but that's a separate discussion). That means I also think that a gay couple has every right to have a cake. The government should not be able to step in, on my behalf or any one else's, and say that they can't have a cake or get married.
> 
> BUT, there is no guarantee that they can have Joe's cake. If Joe would like to make it for them, then good on the lot of them. But, if Joe doesn't care to make their cake, then anyone forcing Joe to bake it is stepping on Joe's rights in favor of someone else's- picking a winner vs a loser.
> 
> Stepping on the gay's right, limiting their access, would be barring them from having a cake at all, let alone one of Joe's, should he care to make it. If any level of government tried to pass a law that said that gays can't love each other, wrestle around in their own bed, call themselves man and man, or eat cake to commemorate the occasion, I would fight it as if it were my own liberties being infringed.
> 
> But that's not what we're talking about. The issue at hand is the imposition on others' rights in order to somehow make up for the past injustices against another party.
> 
> Sometimes live-and-let-live means going and doing your living elsewhere.
> 
> Sometimes do-unto-others means doing to them as you would have them do unto you.
> 
> ...actually, pretty much all the time, it means doing that.


Then joe shouldn't put a sign in his window offering cakes for sale and inviting everyone in. It's pretty simple. When you invite the public in to buy your goods or services you must serve all the public. That's liberty. Joe's free to open an establishment that only serves those he wishes to serve. That's also liberty. It's not really complicated. I don't care who Joe invites in, but if he invites me I'm just liable to accept it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Gender is definitely not tied to sex organs. 

https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender is definitely not tied to sex organs.
> 
> https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/


Argue with Merriam-Webster
*Simple Definition of sex*




 : the state of being male or female 
 : men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group
 1 *Female*

_adjective_ feÂ·male \&#712;f&#275;-&#716;m&#257;l\ 

Popularity: Top 40% of words
*Simple Definition of female*





 : of or relating to the sex that can produce young or lay eggs 
 : characteristic of girls or women


*Simple Definition of male*




 : a man or a boy : a male person 
 : a male animal 
 : a plant that does not produce seed or fruit : a male plant


----------



## Shine

genderspectrum.org - they don't have an agenda, do they?

Wonder what agenda Merriam-Webster has.....


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> No, not at all, they get to do the same thing that I do, follow the guidelines for their gender, not some made up psychological mumbo jumbo person...


So instead we should probably follow Gods advice... Which is quite different.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> So, you don't want to shower next to someone who is transgender, using your example, move.


It would seem, but only if you forget that the line between Liberty and anarchy is sometimes a subtle one. 

What if I "identify" as someone who prefers to shower with women? I'm as hetero as Ron Jeremy. I just like to get nekkid with strange women. 
Who are you to tell me "who I am"?

What if I "identify" as someone who prefers to pee in doorways?...poop on others' meal tables while they're eating?

The distinction between Liberty and anarchy lies in how one accommodates the liberty of others. 

Anarchy is easy. One only has to consider one's own freedom. True Liberty can only be achieved when one considers others' freedoms as weighty as their own. 

If Joe wants to make cakes, let him. It's no concern of mine. 
If Joe wants to put in a unisex bathroom with multiple, clear-walled stalls; go to it Joe. 
If Joe wants to only sell cakes to people willing to pray to Betty Crocker on the blended knee at the doormat; well, you're a weird guy, Joe, but good on ye. 

If Joe wants to make me come into his store, pray to his god, and pee with women, or make me do those things in my store, well, then we have a breakdown of Liberty.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> genderspectrum.org - they don't have an agenda, do they?
> 
> Wonder what agenda Merriam-Webster has.....


Don't you think there is more to a topic than what a dictionary entry has to say about it? Dig deeper.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It would seem, but only if you forget that the line between Liberty and anarchy is sometimes a subtle one.
> 
> What if I "identify" as someone who prefers to shower with women? I'm as hetero as Ron Jeremy. I just like to get nekkid with strange women.
> Who are you to tell me "who I am"?
> 
> What if I "identify" as someone who prefers to pee in doorways?...poop on others' meal tables while they're eating?
> 
> The distinction between Liberty and anarchy lies in how one accommodates the liberty of others.
> 
> Anarchy is easy. One only has to consider one's own freedom. True Liberty can only be achieved when one considers others' freedoms as weighty as their own.
> 
> If Joe wants to make cakes, let him. It's no concern of mine.
> If Joe wants to put in a unisex bathroom with multiple, clear-walled stalls; go to it Joe.
> If Joe wants to only sell cakes to people willing to pray to Betty Crocker on the blended knee at the doormat; well, you're a weird guy, Joe, but good on ye.
> 
> If Joe wants to make me come into his store, pray to his god, and pee with women, or make me do those things in my store, well, then we have a breakdown of Liberty.


See, we agree again. I also don't care if Joe only wants to sell his cakes to a select few of his choosing. Neither does the law. I do care that if Joe invites me in to his establishment with the promise that he will sell his cakes to all comers that when I hand him my money he hands me a cake. So does the law in many cases. It protects white, male Christians. Why not the gay or transgendered?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't you think there is more to a topic than what a dictionary entry has to say about it? Dig deeper.


For my entire life I have been seeking out the definitions in the dictionary, I've never had to look deeper. I turn to the page, find the word, read the definition, boom, I am good. Why now? Must I add to what the dictionary provides to make you happy?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

mmoetc said:


> See, we agree again. I also don't care if Joe only wants to sell his cakes to a select few of his choosing. Neither does the law. I do care that if Joe invites me in to his establishment with the promise that he will sell his cakes to all comers that when I hand him my money he hands me a cake. So does the law in many cases. It protects white, male Christians. Why not the gay or transgendered?


It almost sounds like we agree, but it does seem like the law is trying to prevent Joe from selling his cake to only who he cares to. 

When there was a law against gays marrying each other, I was against that law. I don't think the state should have any say in who is married, and there shouldn't be any public sanctions for or against it. 

Where a similarly restrictive law can be pointed out, then I'll talk against it as well. But, I don't support laws that try to compensate for the minority's (real or perceived) past hardships by stepping on the liberty of another. 

If you want a unisex bathroom, then I don't have an opinion on it until I decide to use your bathroom. If I don't agree with the provisions you've chosen for said bathroom, then I'll go elsewhere. But, for moral integrity, I also have to speak out against any attempt to dictate how you provision your facilities.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> Most people do not care what they do, but since they are trying to force this garbage into kids heads at schools and force it on the general public with lawsuits they have dragged us and our opinions into the public debate.
> 
> What parent would feel safe letting their small child go alone into a public bathroom that was being used by a cross dresser? Male family members who take out their daughters and nieces can not go into the woman's room with their relations when they have to go, they have to have some idea that the bathroom is safe for the children to go into alone. God only knows who is masquerading under that wig and make up and it is not safe.


Most parents I know don't allow their small children to go to any public restroom unaccompanied. I've taken my young daughter into men's rooms. My grandson has been in more than one women's room. With the advent of family restrooms this will become a moot point soon anyway. 

If you send your young son into a public restroom unattended today what assurance do you have that he won't be approached or assaulted by a pedophile? I've never seen a sign outside a public restroom that says no pedophiles allowed. Have you. I'd say there's a bit more to worry about than a transgendered woman using a urinal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> For my entire life I have been seeking out the definitions in the dictionary, I've never had to look deeper. I turn to the page, find the word, read the definition, boom, I am good. Why now? Must I add to what the dictionary provides to make you happy?


You don't have to do anything, it was a suggestion. You don't think there is more to a topic than a dictionary definition? If so, you're missing a lot of pertinent information.


----------



## mmoetc

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It almost sounds like we agree, but it does seem like the law is trying to prevent Joe from selling his cake to only who he cares to.
> 
> When there was a law against gays marrying each other, I was against that law. I don't think the state should have any say in who is married, and there shouldn't be any public sanctions for or against it.
> 
> Where a similarly restrictive law can be pointed out, then I'll talk against it as well. But, I don't support laws that try to compensate for the minority's (real or perceived) past hardships by stepping on the liberty of another.
> 
> If you want a unisex bathroom, then I don't have an opinion on it until I decide to use your bathroom. If I don't agree with the provisions you've chosen for said bathroom, then I'll go elsewhere. But, for moral integrity, I also have to speak out against any attempt to dictate how you provision your facilities.


Keep trying to wiggle but the law does allow joe to sell only to those he wishes. Legal discrimination is practiced in countless businesses across our great land. And I don't care. People have the right to discriminate for any cockamamie reason they wish. At the same time federal law also protects your rights as a white, as a male and as a Christian to walk into any public accomodation and be served. It doesn't protect gays or the transgendered. What makes you so special to be singled out for special treatment.


But the law doesn't require unisex bathrooms. It says nothing about how one provisions ones bathrooms. It does say that one gets to use the bathroom of the gender they are legally identified with. The same choice you get to make as a legally identified male. Morally everyone gets the same choice. What could be simpler and more fair?


----------



## Heritagefarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It almost sounds like we agree, but it does seem like the law is trying to prevent Joe from selling his cake to only who he cares to.
> 
> When there was a law against gays marrying each other, I was against that law. I don't think the state should have any say in who is married, and there shouldn't be any public sanctions for or against it.
> 
> Where a similarly restrictive law can be pointed out, then I'll talk against it as well. But, I don't support laws that try to compensate for the minority's (real or perceived) past hardships by stepping on the liberty of another.
> 
> If you want a unisex bathroom, then I don't have an opinion on it until I decide to use your bathroom. If I don't agree with the provisions you've chosen for said bathroom, then I'll go elsewhere. But, for moral integrity, I also have to speak out against any attempt to dictate how you provision your facilities.


I think I can agree with this to an extent. Sometimes, it takes a little Liberty stepping to raise a downtrodden group up. We had pro-black laws in effect for decades, but it wasn't until the 1960s that they were actually enforced and added to. I too am against restrictive laws. Bash the marijuana group? No. I don't care if they kill their brain cells. Cigarette group? No, but I don't want to smell it, but let places make their own rules. So many compromises, so many solutions, and so many people. But when we try to make rules that are helpful and beneficial for all, we can move forward.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Keep trying to wiggle but the law does allow joe to sell only to those he wishes. Legal discrimination is practiced in countless businesses across our great land. And I don't care. People have the right to discriminate for any cockamamie reason they wish. At the same time federal law also protects your rights as a white, as a male and as a Christian to walk into any public accomodation and be served. It doesn't protect gays or the transgendered. What makes you so special to be singled out for special treatment.


I thought he was right on that point. The cake baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and got drug all over the legal rack, as if to make an example for everyone. If someone comes onto my property and wants to buy an animal, and they don't seem like they can take care of it, I'm going to tell them to leave - and I don't want to have legal ramifications for that. They could, however, construe that as discrimination - especially if they're a minority.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> I thought he was right on that point. The cake baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and got drug all over the legal rack, as if to make an example for everyone. If someone comes onto my property and wants to buy an animal, and they don't seem like they can take care of it, I'm going to tell them to leave - and I don't want to have legal ramifications for that. They could, however, construe that as discrimination - especially if they're a minority.


The difference is that you would make that same value judgement about anyone, regardless of their sex, skin color, gender or sexual orientation. It's the same as requiring everyone to wear a shirt and shoes in your restaurant. That's not the situation with the bakers. They operated a bakery open to the public. They advertised wedding cakes for sale to that public. The couple was part of that public. When everyone who objects to a gay couple walking into a place that advertises wedding cakes for sale expecting to be able to buy a wedding cake steps forward and advocates for doing away with the laws that provide specific protections to them rather than trying to deny those same protections to others I'll get off my soap box.


----------



## City Bound

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Where a similarly restrictive law can be pointed out, then I'll talk against it as well. But, I don't support laws that try to compensate for the minority's (real or perceived) past hardships by stepping on the liberty of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would not really be justice, that would be revenge. A lot of people seem to be hung up on revenge these days but instead of revenge they call it social justice.
Click to expand...


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Keep trying to wiggle but the law does allow joe to sell only to those he wishes. Legal discrimination is practiced in countless businesses across our great land. And I don't care. People have the right to discriminate for any cockamamie reason they wish. At the same time federal law also protects your rights as a white, as a male and as a Christian to walk into any public accomodation and be served. It doesn't protect gays or the transgendered. What makes you so special to be singled out for special treatment.
> 
> 
> But the law doesn't require unisex bathrooms. It says nothing about how one provisions ones bathrooms. It does say that one gets to use the bathroom of the gender they are legally identified with. The same choice you get to make as a legally identified male. Morally everyone gets the same choice. What could be simpler and more fair?


 What is all this male white Christian garbage? Do you really think that has as much weight as it did 100 years ago. What special treatment are they being given?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> At the same time federal law also protects your rights as a white, as a male and as a Christian to walk into any public accomodation and be served. It doesn't protect gays or the transgendered.


I'd like to call foul here. They have the same protection as you or I. If there is a legitimate reason to turn them away then fine, but if they are being turned away for an illegitimate reason then they have recourse in the Civil Realm, the same as I do. 

Do they need a special law?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> The difference is that you would make that same value judgement about anyone, regardless of their sex, skin color, gender or sexual orientation. It's the same as requiring everyone to wear a shirt and shoes in your restaurant. That's not the situation with the bakers. They operated a bakery open to the public. They advertised wedding cakes for sale to that public. The couple was part of that public. When everyone who objects to a gay couple walking into a place that advertises wedding cakes for sale expecting to be able to buy a wedding cake steps forward and advocates for doing away with the laws that provide specific protections to them rather than trying to deny those same protections to others I'll get off my soap box.


Therein lies the problem. You had reasons to deny the sale, they had a protected status so as to allow them to skew the playing field and then to require that you present yourself to a Court of Law to prove that you did what you did with justification... How much have you saved for court costs?


----------



## City Bound

Heritagefarm said:


> So many compromises, so many solutions, and so many people. But when we try to make rules that are helpful and beneficial for all, we can move forward.


 
Right there is the heart of almost all the social conflicts in a very complex multicultural society like ours. It is almost impossible to make laws that are helpful and beneficial to all. That is why so many people reach out for a universalist approach to solve these irreconcilable differences. The problem with that though is that universalist oversimplify and in that oversimplification a great deal of substance is lost. Substance is what we live for. Substance gives us character and quality. All are not one and one is not all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> For my entire life I have been seeking out the definitions in the dictionary, I've never had to look deeper. I turn to the page, find the word, *read the definition, boom, I am good*. Why now? Must I add to what the dictionary provides to make you happy?


You argue about meanings when I show you definitions from the dictionary.

A statement was made:


> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
> *Gender *is definitely not tied to sex organs.


Then you posted definitions for:
"Sex"
"Female"
"Male"

But you *didn't* look up the definition of "*gender*":

1 a : SEX 
1 b : the *behavioral, cultural, or emotional traits* typically associated with one sex

2 : any of two or more classes of words (as nouns or pronouns) or of forms of words (as adjectives) that are partly based on sex and that determine agreement with other words or grammatical forms 



> Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics *may include biological sex* (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> What is all this male white Christian garbage? Do you really think that has as much weight as it did 100 years ago. What special treatment are they being given?


Look up the federal anti discrimination laws. They protect people based on on race. If you're white you are protected. They protect people based on sex. If you're male you are protected. They protect people based on religion. If you're Christian you are protected. They do not offer protection based on sexual orientation. If you are gay or transgendered you are not protected. Those laws are far less than 100 years old. So, what makes you so special that you are protected from discrimination when other citizens aren't?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> I'd like to call foul here. They have the same protection as you or I. If there is a legitimate reason to turn them away then fine, but if they are being turned away for an illegitimate reason then they have recourse in the Civil Realm, the same as I do.
> 
> Do they need a special law?


See my answer above. You already have a special law protecting you. Why are you so special to deserve such a law?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Therein lies the problem. You had reasons to deny the sale, they had a protected status so as to allow them to skew the playing field and then to require that you present yourself to a Court of Law to prove that you did what you did with justification... How much have you saved for court costs?


What reason? The couple was gay? The baker wouldn't have denied them anything else in the store on that basis. There was no conduct the couple engaged in in the store that the couple before them or the couple behind them who wouldn't be denied engaged in. They walked into a store offering cakes for sale to the public and attempted to buy one. They were offered protected status by a local law which offered the same protected status to you based on your life choices. Why are you protected and they shouldn't be?

See, I don't think anyone deserves special status. I think the law should be simple. Everyone should be protected from discrimination equally. Engage in misconduct and you can be asked to leave. Asking to buy a product offered for sale can in no way be construed as misconduct.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> So is the LGBT community unworthy of Liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> They wanted they same rights as whites, to be treated as equals. I disagree with transgenders. I think it's rather dumb. But I'm not going to deny them their right to be themselves. Or what they think themselves are.


Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ transgender.

Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ what they _think_ they are. 

What most are opposed to is that everyone else must acknowledge and accept, under penalty of law, what clearly only exists in the trans-gender person's head. 

That 'right', by force of law, could also be taken to the extreme. In fact, I think I shall start dreaming up a list of MY 'rights' that I can impose on others. These rights will be based merely on what >I< feel or on what >I< think in my own head. 

Perhaps we should all do it. The world would be a much better place. /sarc


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> Then joe shouldn't put a sign in his window offering cakes for sale and inviting everyone in. It's pretty simple. When you invite the public in to buy your goods or services you must serve all the public. That's liberty. Joe's free to open an establishment that only serves those he wishes to serve. That's also liberty. It's not really complicated. I don't care who Joe invites in, but if he invites me I'm just liable to accept it.


Does Joe have the right to put a sign indicating that he reserves the right to not sell to ___fill in the blank___ ?


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ transgender.
> 
> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ what they _think_ they are.
> 
> What most are opposed to is that everyone else must acknowledge and accept, under penalty of law, what clearly only exists in the trans-gender person's head.
> 
> That 'right', by force of law, could also be taken to the extreme. In fact, I think I shall start dreaming up a list of MY 'rights' that I can impose on others. These rights will be based merely on what >I< feel or on what >I< think in my own head.
> 
> Perhaps we should all do it. The world would be a much better place. /sarc


And your religous beliefs only exist in your head yet you are protected from discrimination based on that. If you misbehave in a public restroom and act in a lewd or sexual manner you, or anyone else, should be arrested and punished. Whether one stands or sits when they urinate shouldn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Does Joe have the right to put a sign indicating that he reserves the right to not sell to ___fill in the blank___ ?


Sure. But he must do it each and every time. There are golf courses I can't walk on because of my lack of being the proper religion. There are dining establishments my wife cannot eat at alone because she is a woman. There are establishments you cannot enter because you are a man. Legal discrimination is allowed. It is largely not allowed if one invites the public in. It's definitely not allowed in public accomodations if one is white, male and Christian.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ transgender.
> 
> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ what they _think_ they are.
> 
> What most are opposed to is that everyone else must acknowledge and accept, under penalty of law, what clearly only exists in the trans-gender person's head.
> 
> That 'right', by force of law, could also be taken to the extreme. In fact, I think I shall start dreaming up a list of MY 'rights' that I can impose on others. These rights will be based merely on what >I< feel or on what >I< think in my own head.
> 
> Perhaps we should all do it. The world would be a much better place. /sarc


Go ahead, dream big. It's still only a wish in your head unless the government enacts it into law, right? Well, I guess you could tell people who you are but there are many so arrogant that they think they know more about who you are than you do yourself.

LGBT will be included into the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 simply because some people have to be forced to treat others as equal. Sad, but true.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> See my answer above. You already have a special law protecting you. Why are you so special to deserve such a law?


The Constitution provides for it. Same as it does for everyone else.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You argue about meanings when I show you definitions from the dictionary.
> 
> A statement was made:
> 
> 
> Then you posted definitions for:
> "Sex"
> "Female"
> "Male"
> 
> But you *didn't* look up the definition of "*gender*":
> 
> 1 a : SEX
> 1 b : the *behavioral, cultural, or emotional traits* typically associated with one sex
> 
> 2 : any of two or more classes of words (as nouns or pronouns) or of forms of words (as adjectives) that are partly based on sex and that determine agreement with other words or grammatical forms


Um, in your definition that you provided, #1. a: offers a link to the definition of "Sex", why would they list that first? It must have some significance, right?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> The Constitution provides for it. Same as it does for everyone else.


Wrong. Show me in the Constitution where you are protected from discrimination based on your sex, religion, national origin or race. I can point to federal law based on the constitution that offers you such protections in public accomodations and employment. The federal laws offer no such protections to gays or transgenders though cases are working their way through the courts. So, everyone else is not equally protected by federal law, though the constitution should guarantee they are. You are. Why are you so special?


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> Look up the federal anti discrimination laws. They protect people based on on race. If you're white you are protected. They protect people based on sex. If you're male you are protected. They protect people based on religion. If you're Christian you are protected. They do not offer protection based on sexual orientation. If you are gay or transgendered you are not protected. Those laws are far less than 100 years old. So, what makes you so special that you are protected from discrimination when other citizens aren't?


 
You have repeatedly singled out white male Christians in your posts. Why not black male Christians, or female Arab Christians, or white male jews? I know because white male Christians are the current whipping boy for the left. The white man is the devil who made this world the ugly place it is right?

I am sorry but is treating a transgendered person with the same respect that I try to treat all people considered discrimination simply because I refuse to believe that they are a woman or man when they not? I will play along and respect their right to believe what they want but if they want to cross the line and insist that myself and others believe they are who they dream they are then we have a problem.

Religion may just be in most people's minds but there is no law demanding that I believe what they believe. There are no laws that make me believe it. having a law that forces people to address and treat a man like a woman is a lot different then having a law to protect men who want to threat themselves like a woman.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Wrong. Show me in the Constitution where you are protected from discrimination based on your sex, religion, national origin or race. I can point to federal law based on the constitution that offers you such protections in public accomodations and employment. The federal laws offer no such protections to gays or transgenders though cases are working their way through the courts. So, everyone else is not equally protected by federal law, though the constitution should guarantee they are. You are. Why are you so special?


So, you seek extra-constitutional protections for gays or transgendered people? If it is your contention that I am not protected by the constitution, then please identify what provisions guarantee such protection.

Federal Law finds it's locus from the Constitution, it is the reason that fairly much everything looks back to the Constitution. With the activist judges on the USSC perceiving more than what is there and ruling in such a fashion then the whole world is going to be asking for some special treatment.

If I dress in women's clothes for a year or two, act like a woman for the same period - get a note from my neighbors indicating such, can I go work out at the YWCA and then shower at will with whomever might have chosen to use the shower at the same time? I need a Federal Law to protect that?

It seems to me that you are trying to get this right for others, why can't I?

We do want to be fair - right? Why should I be discriminated against?


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> You have repeatedly singled out white male Christians in your posts. Why not black male Christians, or female Arab Christians, or white male jews? I know because white male Christians are the current whipping boy for the left. The white man is the devil who made this world the ugly place it is right?
> 
> I am sorry but is treating a transgendered person with the same respect that I try to treat all people considered discrimination simply because I refuse to believe that they are a woman or man when they not? I will play along and respect their right to believe what they want but if they want to cross the line and insist that myself and others believe they are who they dream they are then we have a problem.
> 
> Religion may just be in most people's minds but there is no law demanding that I believe what they believe. There are no laws that make me believe it. having a law that forces people to address and treat a man like a woman is a lot different then having a law to protect men who want to threat themselves like a woman.


No, I was addressing a white, male Christian so I simply pointed out that they are offered protection from discrimination by federal law. If I had been addressing someone of different demographics I would have addressed them as such. The question still stands unanswered. Why aren't gays and transgenders offered the same protections? Why is any group offered special protection? Why are other groups excluded from those protections?

I don't care whether you or anyone else believes that what another believes about themselves is true or not. It doesn't really matter. I don't have to believe you're a good Christian, or even a bad Christian, for the law to force me not to discriminate against Christians in my public establishment. Why are your beliefs about your religion protected from my beliefs about you? Why should your beliefs about others beliefs about themselves have primacy. What makes you so special?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> So, you seek extra-constitutional protections for gays or transgendered people? If it is your contention that I am not protected by the constitution, then please identify what provisions guarantee such protection.
> 
> Federal Law finds it's locus from the Constitution, it is the reason that fairly much everything looks back to the Constitution. With the activist judges on the USSC perceiving more than what is there and ruling in such a fashion then the whole world is going to be asking for some special treatment.
> 
> If I dress in women's clothes for a year or two, act like a woman for the same period - get a note from my neighbors indicating such, can I go work out at the YWCA and then shower at will with whomever might have chosen to use the shower at the same time? I need a Federal Law to protect that?
> 
> It seems to me that you are trying to get this right for others, why can't I?
> 
> We do want to be fair - right? Why should I be discriminated against?


You still haven't answered my questions. Where in the constitution are you as a white, as a male, as a Christian guaranteed the protections you have federal laws granting you? You said they exist in the constitution. Offer your proof they do. The laws grant you protected status and special privilege gays and transgenders don't have. They ask only for the same thing you already have. Nothing more. They certainly have less.

Go for it. Go through the medical and psychological process and I'll fight for your right to call yourself whatever you wish and shower where you will. You'll likely find it isn't that easy and there are much simpler avenues to access naked women. But hey, to each their own as long as you don't try to put your own on others without their consent.


----------



## Heritagefarm

City Bound said:


> You have repeatedly singled out white male Christians in your posts. Why not black male Christians, or female Arab Christians, or white male jews? I know because white male Christians are the current whipping boy for the left. The white man is the devil who made this world the ugly place it is right?
> 
> I am sorry but is treating a transgendered person with the same respect that I try to treat all people considered discrimination simply because I *refuse to believe* that they are a woman or man when they not? I will play along and respect their right to believe what they want but if they want to cross the line and insist that myself and others believe they are who they dream they are then we have a problem.
> 
> Religion may just be in most people's minds but there is no law demanding that I believe what they believe. There are no laws that make me believe it. having a law that forces people to address and treat a man like a woman is a lot different then having a law to protect men who want to threat themselves like a woman.


No one is going to change your beliefs. They will, however, attempt to enact laws that force you to behave in a certain way. Your free speech is still protected, as long as it is not hate speech. But then, look at how effective Westboro's hate speech is. Trump's entire campaign is arguably hate speech.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> You still haven't answered my questions. Where in the constitution are you as a white, as a male, as a Christian guaranteed the protections you have federal laws granting you? You said they exist in the constitution. Offer your proof they do. The laws grant you protected status and special privilege gays and transgenders don't have. They ask only for the same thing you already have. Nothing more. They certainly have less.
> 
> Go for it. Go through the medical and psychological process and I'll fight for your right to call yourself whatever you wish and shower where you will. You'll likely find it isn't that easy and there are much simpler avenues to access naked women. But hey, to each their own as long as you don't try to put your own on others without their consent.


Let's go a different route for a moment. Can the rights of one supersede the rights of another? 

An English professor at the University of North Carolina illegally subjected a student to âintentional discrimination and harassmentâ because he was âa white, heterosexual Christian maleâ who expressed disapproval of homosexuality, the U.S. Education Departmentâs Office of Civil Rights has ruled. 
Professor Elyse Crystall violated student Timothy R. Mertesâ civil rights, the agency said, by improperly accusing him of âhate speechâ in an e-mail sent to students after a class discussion in which Mr. Mertes said he was a Christian and felt âdisgusted, not threatenedâ by homosexual behavior. 



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/24/20040924-120619-1344r/?page=all


The gentleman did not insult people that were gay, he expressed his feelings. Funny...


Back to the original question: Where in the Constitution is a White, Christian Male protected? OK, let's remove the Constitution. No more Constitution. Where does any federal law gather it's strength from? Without the Constitution, there is no playing field for any federal law to be entertained. So, where in the Constitution are the protections established? Via it's enabling clauses. Is there a specific law that protects White, Male Christians? No, not specifically, the constitution protects the right to practice one's religion, the freedom of speech [as noted above], the right to own weapons, and other rights. From there, federal laws further clarify those rights so as to add specificity. 



Now, as noted above, a man states that he finds something disgusting, thanks to hate laws, he is discriminating and harassing. His right to free speech has been diminished.


Here we have something that is ongoing, ergo, some people get their "rights" [the right to not have people speak freely in their presence] enforced by diminishing the rights of others.


You say that they want "equal" rights? ...or special rights?


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> No one is going to change your beliefs. They will, however, attempt to enact laws that force you to behave in a certain way. Your free speech is still protected, as long as it is not hate speech. But then, look at how effective Westboro's hate speech is. Trump's entire campaign is arguably hate speech.


I have a problem with the term hate speech, it is kinda like a child fingers in ears yelling la-la-la when they don't want to hear something, it cures nothing, the child learns nothing.

Who decides hate speech? If it's the government than it can swing from one side to the other depending on who's in charge. I prefer public reaction to help others learn what is or isn't proper.

With laws against uncomfortable speech the feelings are still there left to grow and fester. It basically accomplishes very little. Remember those feelings will come out eventually in very ugly ways.


----------



## Heritagefarm

no really said:


> I have a problem with the term hate speech, it is kinda like a child fingers in ears yelling la-la-la when they don't want to hear something, it cures nothing, the child learns nothing.
> 
> Who decides hate speech? If it's the government than it can swing from one side to the other depending on who's in charge. I prefer public reaction to help others learn what is or isn't proper.
> 
> With laws against uncomfortable speech the feelings are still there left to grow and fester. It basically accomplishes very little. Remember those feelings will come out eventually in very ugly ways.


It's all right if you have a problem with the term "hate speech," but it's legally recognized. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech



> In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.


In other words, hate speech is one of the few types of speech that can be regulated, since doing it can, in and of itself, incite violence. 

Hate speech - Supreme Court


----------



## no really

Yeah, I understand all the legalities involved with the rulings. My question is and has been how does it change minds? How do the laws help enlighten or educate? There have been many nations that regulated speech with the intention to regulate or force regulating thoughts. Do you feel it could accomplish that? Or simply alienate.


----------



## Heritagefarm

People will think whatever they want to, even under the most oppressive government or church. However, thoughts often become actions. Regulating those actions can be beneficial for society in general. The thoughts still do not change, a physical impossibility, but the consequences can be buffered, which is possible.


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> People will think whatever they want to, even under the most oppressive government or church. However, thoughts often become actions. Regulating those actions can be beneficial for society in general. The thoughts still do not change, a physical impossibility, but the consequences can be buffered, which is possible.


I hope you are right. But I just don't see it happening nor do I see the benefits involved. Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it, it tends to grow.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Txsteader said:


> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ transgender.
> 
> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ what they _think_ they are.
> 
> What most are opposed to is that everyone else must acknowledge and accept, under penalty of law, what clearly only exists in the trans-gender person's head.
> 
> That 'right', by force of law, could also be taken to the extreme. In fact, I think I shall start dreaming up a list of MY 'rights' that I can impose on others. These rights will be based merely on what >I< feel or on what >I< think in my own head.
> 
> Perhaps we should all do it. The world would be a much better place. /sarc


The fact of the matter is this is a mental illness and nothing else.
Any claim or demands of any rights are the same for any mental illness.


----------



## Heritagefarm

no really said:


> I hope you are right. But I just don't see it happening nor do I see the benefits involved. Ignoring a problem doesn't solve it, it tends to grow.


ATtempting to rectify the many problems with individualistic thinking is a huge challenge for courts and governments throughout our history. The best we can do is try to achieve the best solutions possible. Arguably, allowing hate speech is less than helpful. On the flip side, banning certain hate speech can reinforce people's ideas they're right.



elevenpoint said:


> The fact of the matter is this is a mental illness and nothing else.
> Any claim or demands of any rights are the same for any mental illness.


Your line of thinking is what is so wrong in many parts of the country. Intolerance never solved anything.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Um, you did start this thread...:help:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has the right to force anyone else to accept their beliefs. And yet, given a chance, that's exactly what many religious people do when they go to the polls. Everyone wants their views represented, and everyone needs to feel they've been heard. So long as those beliefs do not harm anyone, I'm al right with it. *I find the idea of swapping genders appalling, but I think the people who do it are extremely confused.* Except Jenner. She's just a narcissist, IMO.





Heritagefarm said:


> ATtempting to rectify the many problems with individualistic thinking is a huge challenge for courts and governments throughout our history. The best we can do is try to achieve the best solutions possible. Arguably, allowing hate speech is less than helpful. On the flip side, banning certain hate speech can reinforce people's ideas they're right.
> 
> 
> 
> *Your line of thinking is what is so wrong in many parts of the country. Intolerance never solved anything.*


You think they're 'confused' but that someone who sees the issue as mental illness is intolerant? 

How is saying they're confused not hate speech as well?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> ATtempting to rectify the many problems with individualistic thinking is a huge challenge for courts and governments throughout our history. The best we can do is try to achieve the best solutions possible. Arguably, allowing hate speech is less than helpful. On the flip side, banning certain hate speech can reinforce people's ideas they're right.
> 
> 
> 
> Your line of thinking is what is so wrong in many parts of the country. Intolerance never solved anything.


My line of thinking is called the truth. Dr. Paul McHugh the former psychiatrist in chief for John Hopkins Hospital and it's current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry wrote an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal. 
But I'm sure he has no idea what he is talking about.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> You think they're 'confused' but that someone who sees the issue as mental illness is intolerant?
> 
> How is saying they're confused not hate speech as well?


That would be your problem with "confused." My comment wasn't hate speech, nor was eleven's.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Let's go a different route for a moment. Can the rights of one supersede the rights of another?
> 
> An English professor at the University of North Carolina illegally subjected a student to &#8220;intentional discrimination and harassment&#8221; because he was &#8220;a white, heterosexual Christian male&#8221; who expressed disapproval of homosexuality, the U.S. Education Department&#8217;s Office of Civil Rights has ruled.
> Professor Elyse Crystall violated student Timothy R. Mertes&#8217; civil rights, the agency said, by improperly accusing him of &#8220;hate speech&#8221; in an e-mail sent to students after a class discussion in which Mr. Mertes said he was a Christian and felt &#8220;disgusted, not threatened&#8221; by homosexual behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/24/20040924-120619-1344r/?page=all
> 
> 
> The gentleman did not insult people that were gay, he expressed his feelings. Funny...
> 
> 
> Back to the original question: Where in the Constitution is a White, Christian Male protected? OK, let's remove the Constitution. No more Constitution. Where does any federal law gather it's strength from? Without the Constitution, there is no playing field for any federal law to be entertained. So, where in the Constitution are the protections established? Via it's enabling clauses. Is there a specific law that protects White, Male Christians? No, not specifically, the constitution protects the right to practice one's religion, the freedom of speech [as noted above], the right to own weapons, and other rights. From there, federal laws further clarify those rights so as to add specificity.
> 
> 
> I
> Now, as noted above, a man states that he finds something disgusting, thanks to hate laws, he is discriminating and harassing. His right to free speech has been diminished.
> 
> 
> Here we have something that is ongoing, ergo, some people get their "rights" [the right to not have people speak freely in their presence] enforced by diminishing the rights of others.
> 
> 
> You say that they want "equal" rights? ...or special rights?


I can see why you want to remove the constitution from your argument. Its because you are wrong that it protects me from you or vice versa. It protects us from government overreach. When written it was discriminatory in and of itself. See how it treats women, persons of color and others. It took a lot to change those basic injustices.

The constitution doesn't say I have to respect, admit , acknowledge or in any way honor any of your religous beliefs. It doesn't say I have to honor your right to speak freely. It can't force me to allow you to carry a gun on my property. The constitution governs government, not me or you. Laws such as the 1964 civil rights act do govern me. I can choose to live by them and allow men to come into my public accomadation. I can allow all whites in. I can allow all Christians in. Or I can discriminate and not do those things and face the consequences of breaking the law. But I haven't defied the constitution.

Those extra- constitutional rights as you called them are given to you but not everyone. It is illegal, but not unconstitutional, to break the laws guaranteeing you access but according to federal law I can deny others. Again, what makes you, and me by the way, so special that we get treated better than others.

I'm not sure why you brought up the case you did but simply the answers is that sometimes one right will supercede others. Your right to free speech doesn't protect you from punishment if you use it to harm me. That isn't an endorsement of hate speech laws. I find them odious. But slander and libel laws are quite constitutional.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> That would be your problem with "confused." *My comment wasn't hate speech*, nor was eleven's.


I'll concede that 'hate speech' wasn't the correct choice of words. Can we say that you've displayed intolerance by saying that they're 'confused'?


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> It's all right if you have a problem with the term "hate speech," but it's legally recognized.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, hate speech is one of the few types of speech that can be regulated, since doing it can, in and of itself, incite violence.
> 
> Hate speech - Supreme Court


And your link provided the very specific terms of that regulation. I would encourage people to read it.

The "legal" definition you provided "may" be correct.........


> hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it *may incite violence*


 .......... but the SCOTUS was very clear about the difference regarding its restriction.




> In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote *imminent violence.*


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> No, I was addressing a white, male Christian so I simply pointed out that they are offered protection from discrimination by federal law. If I had been addressing someone of different demographics I would have addressed them as such. The question still stands unanswered. Why aren't gays and transgenders offered the same protections? Why is any group offered special protection? Why are other groups excluded from those protections?
> 
> I don't care whether you or anyone else believes that what another believes about themselves is true or not. It doesn't really matter. I don't have to believe you're a good Christian, or even a bad Christian, for the law to force me not to discriminate against Christians in my public establishment. Why are your beliefs about your religion protected from my beliefs about you? Why should your beliefs about others beliefs about themselves have primacy. What makes you so special?


 I am white and male but I am not Christian. 
I do not have any special rights protecting me of giving me favor. I just have the same rights under the bill of rights that all citizens have... even gay and transgendered citizens.


----------



## City Bound

Heritagefarm said:


> Your line of thinking is what is so wrong in many parts of the country. Intolerance never solved anything.


 Your very response is intolerance.


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> I am white and male but I am not Christian.
> I do not have any special rights protecting me of giving me favor. I just have the same rights under the bill of rights that all citizens have... even gay and transgendered citizens.


You'll note that I didn't say you had more rights or special rights. I said you have more legal protection and and privilege than they. Since I don't believe you're not a Christian, and what I believe about you is all that really matters, right, you do have protections and privileges not offered gay and transgendered people by federal law. And again, the bill of rights offers you protection from the government, not me or any other private citizen. Laws do offer protection but they should protect everyone not just a select few.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ transgender.
> 
> Nobody is saying that they can't _be_ what they _think_ they are.
> 
> What most are opposed to is that everyone else must acknowledge and accept, under penalty of law, *what clearly only exists in the trans-gender person's head. *
> 
> That 'right', by force of law, could also be taken to the extreme. In fact, I think I shall start dreaming up a list of MY 'rights' that I can impose on others. These rights will be based merely on what >I< feel or on what >I< think in my own head.
> 
> Perhaps we should all do it. The world would be a much better place. /sarc


You'd rather have the laws enforce the religious views, when religion only exists in people's heads


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> I can see why you want to remove the constitution from your argument. Its because you are wrong that it protects me from you or vice versa. It protects us from government overreach. When written it was discriminatory in and of itself. See how it treats women, persons of color and others. It took a lot to change those basic injustices.
> .


Injustice? Good god. Go back in time and everyone, male, female, and whatever color, was ether a slave, a surf, or a subject to a monarch or church. No one was as free as we are now and there were no rights. It was a social revolution to even insist that men had the right to liberty. So what if it took time for the initial seed planted by the constitution and the bill of rights to grow and nurture the freedom and rights of women, children, and slaves, but it did and without the constitution and the bill of rights no one else would have had he chance to be free ether. 

How free do you think women, children, slaves, and gays would be if men did not first fight to get the strangling boot of oppression off their necks? Everyone was oppressed.


----------



## City Bound

mmoetc said:


> You'll note that I didn't say you had more rights or special rights. I said you have more legal protection and and privilege than they. Since I don't believe you're not a Christian, and what I believe about you is all that really matters, right, you do have protections and privileges not offered gay and transgendered people by federal law. And again, the bill of rights offers you protection from the government, not me or any other private citizen. Laws do offer protection but they should protect everyone not just a select few.


 I d not have more legal protection or privileges then them. What makes you think that?

why are you not offered protection from the government? Why do I have special protection but, as you say, nether you or any other private citizen do?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd rather have the laws enforce the religious views, when religion only exists in people's heads


Post of the day! :sing:


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> I can see why you want to remove the constitution from your argument. Its because you are wrong that it protects me from you or vice versa. It protects us from government overreach. When written it was discriminatory in and of itself. See how it treats women, persons of color and others. It took a lot to change those basic injustices.
> 
> The constitution doesn't say I have to respect, admit , acknowledge or in any way honor any of your religous beliefs. It doesn't say I have to honor your right to speak freely. It can't force me to allow you to carry a gun on my property. The constitution governs government, not me or you. Laws such as the 1964 civil rights act do govern me. I can choose to live by them and allow men to come into my public accomadation. I can allow all whites in. I can allow all Christians in. Or I can discriminate and not do those things and face the consequences of breaking the law. But I haven't defied the constitution.
> 
> Those extra- constitutional rights as you called them are given to you but not everyone. It is illegal, but not unconstitutional, to break the laws guaranteeing you access but according to federal law I can deny others. Again, what makes you, and me by the way, so special that we get treated better than others.
> 
> I'm not sure why you brought up the case you did but simply the answers is that sometimes one right will supercede others. Your right to free speech doesn't protect you from punishment if you use it to harm me. That isn't an endorsement of hate speech laws. I find them odious. But slander and libel laws are quite constitutional.



I guess I should not have wasted my time. Without the Constitution, there would be no civil rights laws.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> You'll note that I didn't say you had more rights or special rights. I said you have more legal protection and and privilege than they. Since I don't believe you're not a Christian, and what I believe about you is all that really matters, right, *you do have protections and privileges not offered gay and transgendered people by federal law*. And again, the bill of rights offers you protection from the government, not me or any other private citizen. Laws do offer protection but they should protect everyone not just a select few.


What protections and priviledges are offered to me that are not offered to gays and transgendered people?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> I'll concede that 'hate speech' wasn't the correct choice of words. Can we say that you've displayed intolerance by saying that they're 'confused'?


Sure, I love word games. Am I intolerant when I express intolerance of intolerance? Generally, a double negative makes a positive - unless it's addition, in which case it makes a bigger negative. So, the system by which we judge the intolerance just changed. Which system of judgement are we using? Now let's ask why we're even judging in the first place. Ah, yes: We are judging those different than ourselves - that is the foundation of this discussion. So, the very nature of this conversation is to bash those who are different. Therefore, I have not used hate speech or intolerance. 



farmrbrown said:


> And your link provided the very specific terms of that regulation. I would encourage people to read it.
> 
> The "legal" definition you provided "may" be correct......... .......... but the SCOTUS was very clear about the difference regarding its restriction.


I don't understand - both things you bolder contribute to supporting my argument. The legal definition of hate speech is that which can incite violence. Westboro walks the line. They're idiots, but generally the stay within legal limits.



City Bound said:


> Your very response is intolerance.


Should we take that to the Supreme Court?


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand - both things you bolder contribute to supporting my argument. The legal definition of hate speech is that which can incite violence. Westboro walks the line. They're idiots, but generally the stay within legal limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Should we take that to the Supreme Court?


Then let me help you understand.
Look up the definition of the word "imminent", the word the SCOTUS has used in its rulings.
Then look up the word "may".

Hopefully you will conclude that the two words are NOT synonyms.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Then let me help you understand.
> Look up the definition of the word "imminent", the word the SCOTUS has used in its rulings.
> Then look up the word "may".
> 
> Hopefully you will conclude that the two words are NOT synonyms.


Most likely unlike you, I've actually taken Constitutional Law classes. As long as free speech doesn't incite imminent violence, it can't be classified as hate speech. What's your point? Are you trying to defend Westboro? Odds are, plenty here agree with their message.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> What protections and priviledges are offered to me that are not offered to gays and transgendered people?


That question was answered in the statement you quoted.
It requires you to understand what he said

In the previous discussion about the meaning of "gender", did you happen to read *your own source* past the headlines?

This is in the second paragraph:



> No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex.
> *Gender is a psychological concept, not an objective biological one*


That pretty much shoots your definitions in the foot, so to speak


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That question was answered in the statement you quoted.
> It requires you to understand what he said
> 
> In the previous discussion about the meaning of "gender", did you happen to read *your own source* past the headlines?
> 
> This is in the second paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much shoots your definitions in the foot, so to speak


I stand where I stand. Just out of curiosity, when they do the gender swap surgery, does the patient have their DNA replenished with the properly coded DNA sequences? Or does the new "woman" still carry male DNA?


----------



## greg273

The title of this thread makes very little sense. What in the world is 'Gender IDEOLOGY'? Did you mean 'Gender IDENTITY'?


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> The title of this thread makes very little sense. What in the world is 'Gender IDEOLOGY'? Did you mean 'Gender IDENTITY'?


I'd say it's very revealing of ignorance.



Shine said:


> I stand where I stand. Just out of curiosity, when they do the gender swap surgery, does the patient have their DNA replenished with the properly coded DNA sequences? Or does the new "woman" still carry male DNA?


To the best of my knowledge, It's not possible to permanently alter an existing organism's genome.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd rather have the laws enforce the religious views, when religion only exists in people's heads


So, since we mustn't have laws that enforce religious views (that exist in peoples' heads), why is it acceptable to have laws that enforce gender identity views (that exist in peoples' heads)?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I stand where I stand. Just out of curiosity, when they do the gender swap surgery, does the patient have their DNA replenished with the properly coded DNA sequences? Or does the new "woman" still carry male DNA?


DNA isn't "gender"
There is no "gender swap surgery"
You really don't read your sources, do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> So,* since we mustn't have laws* that enforce religious views (that exist in peoples' heads), why is it acceptable to have laws that enforce gender identity views (that exist in peoples' heads)?


I didn't say "we mustn't"
I said you want to do exactly what it is you're complaining about.

There were no hidden meanings in what I said


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> So, since we mustn't have laws that enforce religious views (that exist in peoples' heads), why is it acceptable to have laws that enforce gender identity views (that exist in peoples' heads)?


People aren't abstract, they are very real and can articulate feelings. There is proof that they are real, sentient, and intelligent. There is no law (yet) that forces gender identity discrimination. There will be (in my opinion) because we're discussing human beings and not an imaginary figure. 

There is no law that requires religious views because there is no proof that a higher power exists.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> People aren't abstract, they are very real and can articulate feelings. There is proof that they are real, sentient, and intelligent. There is no law (yet) that forces gender identity discrimination. There will be (in my opinion) because we're discussing human beings and not an imaginary figure.
> 
> There is no law that requires religious views because there is no proof that a higher power exists.


Well, there are in other countries. America is one of the great bastions of Liberty. It's what made us great; tolerance (to a great extent) to make different people. Sure, we've had lots of failings. But we've made great progress. It seems some want to reverse that progress.


----------



## Shine

Look at them run...


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd say it's very revealing of ignorance.
> 
> On this we agree, just differently.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, It's not possible to permanently alter an existing organism's genome.
> 
> So a male genome remains a male genome and visa versa?


Thanks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Look at them run...


Explain please?


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Haters gonna hate. It really doesn't matter who it is; it's just a way for many people to transfer their frustration in their lives unto other topics. It their way out, their venting mechanism. Really, one has to feel sorry for them. However, this hate trickles around and can have deleterious effects on society.


I'm curious. If your child displays behavior that you disapprove of or disagree with, does that mean you hate your child?

That sure seems to be the context for labeling hate these days; one merely has to disagree or disapprove.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Thanks.


Yes to the second question, but keep in mind some people are born with extra sex chromosomes. This typically causes complications.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> I'm curious. If your child displays behavior that you disapprove of or disagree with, does that mean you hate your child?
> 
> That sure seems to be the context for labeling hate these days; one merely has to disagree or disapprove.


Your question is partially designed to warrant an answer you seek. I will respond differently therefore. Further, I notice your icon never lights up, even if your post appears a minute after I'm on. Paranoid much?
Anyways, some people may want to force you to think a certain way. That's absurd and will never happen. That is, they may try, and laws may try, but no one, no force in the universe except brain damage, can make you change your mind against your mind. I've already stated I disagree with changing genders. But I will support their freedom to do so. I see no reason to not grant them accommodations. The cries for unisex bathrooms is annoying, I'll admit, but it's a helpful solution. Another thing I'll dislike is men trying to use the women's restroom, as this is most likely for prurient interests.


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Your question is partially designed to warrant an answer you seek. I will respond differently therefore. Further, I notice your icon never lights up, even if your post appears a minute after I'm on. Paranoid much?


 LOL, I'm not the only one. Not sure why it matters to you. But in most cases, I leave the site after posting. In the case of my last post, it came to my mind while I was washing dishes. I posted, closed my browser and finished doing the dishes. 


> Anyways, some people may want to force you to think a certain way. That's absurd and will never happen. That is, they may try, and laws may try, but no one, no force in the universe except brain damage, can make you change your mind against your mind. I've already stated I disagree with changing genders. But I will support their freedom to do so. I see no reason to not grant them accommodations. The cries for unisex bathrooms is annoying, I'll admit, but it's a helpful solution. Another thing I'll dislike is men trying to use the women's restroom, as this is most likely for prurient interests.


I'm not sure how that relates to or answers my very simple question but OK......I think? :stars:


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> LOL, I'm not the only one. Not sure why it matters to you. But in most cases, I leave the site after posting. In the case of my last post, it came to my mind while I was washing dishes. I posted, closed my browser and finished doing the dishes. I'm not sure how that relates to or answers my very simple question but OK......I think? :stars:


Perhaps that was unfair of me. I agree with you on this, I beleive - it's all right, and perfectly possible, to disagree with someone and even not hate them!:knitting:


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Perhaps that was unfair of me. I agree with you on this, I beleive - it's all right, and perfectly possible, to disagree with someone and even not hate them!:knitting:


Thank you. And yes, disagreeing or disapproving of someone's behavior does NOT mean that you hate them.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Most likely unlike you, I've actually taken Constitutional Law classes. As long as free speech doesn't incite imminent violence, it can't be classified as hate speech. What's your point? Are you trying to defend Westboro? Odds are, plenty here agree with their message.


Well, you struck out there all 3 times, lol.

The definition of hate speech you provided, and I agree with, is that it MAY provoke violence.
The SCOTUS rulings use the imminent threat of violence definition to determine *which* hate speech can be restricted.
Some can, some cannot.

I doubt that you would find more than half a dozen members in the entire forum that would agree with Westboro Baptist's message, maybe less.

And the Black's Law dictionary on our bookshelf is there because you need one when you take a class on constitutional law.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> I guess I should not have wasted my time. Without the Constitution, there would be no civil rights laws.


I'd say if the constitution were written differently there'd be no need for the laws that have been written because the protections you said exist in that document would. They don't, so you really shouldn't try to argue semantics to prove they do. ( sorry for channelling my inner BFF but your initial statement was wrong).


----------



## mmoetc

City Bound said:


> Injustice? Good god. Go back in time and everyone, male, female, and whatever color, was ether a slave, a surf, or a subject to a monarch or church. No one was as free as we are now and there were no rights. It was a social revolution to even insist that men had the right to liberty. So what if it took time for the initial seed planted by the constitution and the bill of rights to grow and nurture the freedom and rights of women, children, and slaves, but it did and without the constitution and the bill of rights no one else would have had he chance to be free ether.
> 
> How free do you think women, children, slaves, and gays would be if men did not first fight to get the strangling boot of oppression off their necks? Everyone was oppressed.


And isn't it time to remove another vestige of that boot from the necks of gays and the transgendered and make them full citizens rather than passing more laws that specifically allow discrimination in public establishments against them? Progress or regress? Your choice.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> What protections and priviledges are offered to me that are not offered to gays and transgendered people?


How about the privilege of walking into any bakery, florist , or pizza shop in the country with the guarantee you will be served? How about the protection of knowing you won't lose your job because the Bobbie you fall in live with has a beard rather than breasts? How about the privilege of not having law makers writing and passing legislation to codify and legalize further discrimination against you? Are you willing to give up those protections and level the playing field?


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> So, since we mustn't have laws that enforce religious views (that exist in peoples' heads), why is it acceptable to have laws that enforce gender identity views (that exist in peoples' heads)?


Actually laws enforcing religous views are exactly what the laws that seek to exempt businesses from antidiscrimination laws are. They give legal power to those views. Why not a law that allows the non religous to discriminate against the religous by not selling to them in their public establishment or hiring them in their business?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Your question is partially designed to warrant an answer you seek. I will respond differently therefore. Further, I notice your icon never lights up, even if your post appears a minute after I'm on. Paranoid much?


You can make it so your icon never lights up by going to User CP, edit options, and checking invisibility mode. No dishes involved. 

It's like a cloaking device on a Klingon Bird-of-Prey, or Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. Science _or_ magic.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> Actually laws enforcing religous views are exactly what the laws that seek to exempt businesses from antidiscrimination laws are. They give legal power to those views. Why not a law that allows the non religous to discriminate against the religous by not selling to them in their public establishment or hiring them in their business?


Anti-discrimination laws can (are and will) be taken to the extreme, to the point of being dictatorial.

If you owned/ran a retail establishment and a customer came in who was belligerent, loud, disruptive & vulgar, should you have the right to not only refuse service but also make them leave your store?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Anti-discrimination laws can (are and will) be taken to the extreme, to the point of being dictatorial.
> 
> If you owned/ran a retail establishment and a customer came in who was belligerent, loud, disruptive & vulgar, should you have the right to not only refuse service but also make them leave your store?


A customers bad behaviour has nothing to do with discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Anti-discrimination laws can (are and will) be taken to the extreme, to the point of being dictatorial.
> 
> If you owned/ran a retail establishment and a customer came in who was belligerent, loud, disruptive & vulgar, should you have the right to not only refuse service but also make them leave your store?


Of course you can ask someone to leave your store if they're belligerent, loud, disruptive, and/or vulgar. What you can't do is discriminate against someone if you have a public business. 

This isn't difficult:

disÂ·crimÂ·iÂ·nate

make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

The reason we have anti discrimination law is that some people must be legally regulated to be decent human beings. It's sad but true.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Anti-discrimination laws can (are and will) be taken to the extreme, to the point of being dictatorial.
> 
> If you owned/ran a retail establishment and a customer came in who was belligerent, loud, disruptive & vulgar, should you have the right to not only refuse service but also make them leave your store?


Sure I should. That's never been the question. People who disrupt can be asked to leave. But how does someone walking up to counter wishing to make a purchase disrupt my business? Isn't that what I'm there for- to sell people things and take their money? It seems a pretty poor business model to ask them to leave.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Sure I should. That's never been the question. People who disrupt can be asked to leave. But how does someone walking up to counter wishing to make a purchase disrupt my business? Isn't that what I'm there for- to sell people things and take their money? *It seems a pretty poor business model to ask them to leave*.


Yes, it would be a poor business model, but, they should have the freedom to do just that. I have said it many times. Any private business owner should have the right to refuse service for any reason. If that means that some will refuse to serve me, so be it. I fail to understand why people want to force others to take my money. If they don't want my business for any reason, why would I want to support their business?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Yes, it would be a poor business model, but, they should have the freedom to do just that. I have said it many times. Any private business owner should have the right to refuse service for any reason. If that means that some will refuse to serve me, so be it. I fail to understand why people want to force others to take my money. If they don't want my business for any reason, why would I want to support their business?


And I've pointed out many times that private businesses do have the right to do just that. What they cannot do is pretend to be open to all when they're not. Don't wish to serve a certain group of people don't invite them in with that "public welcome" sign.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> And I've pointed out many times that private businesses do have the right to do just that. * What they cannot do is pretend to be open to all when they're not. Don't wish to serve a certain group of people don't invite them in with that "public welcome" sign.*


I agree with that. And it's apparently easily remedied with modified signage. 

What I'm not confident about is that even _that _would not be tolerated.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And I've pointed out many times that private businesses do have the right to do just that. What they cannot do is pretend to be open to all when they're not. Don't wish to serve a certain group of people don't invite them in with that "public welcome" sign.


They have to jump through many hoops in order to do what you say. The laws, that force them to serve anyone who darkens their door, should not exist. Laws, such as these, shouldn't apply to the private sector, just the public. 

An example, If today a tall blonde man comes into a store and is rude and angers the owner, not only should he be allowed to throw that man out of the store, he should be allowed to ban all blonde men, from his store, unless and until he gets over his anger. It may be stupid for him to do such a thing, but, he should be allowed to do it.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> I agree with that. And it's apparently easily remedied with modified signage.
> 
> What I'm not confident about is that even _that _would not be tolerated.


It is tolerated every day. It is those that want to not have to be open and up front with it that won't be tolerated.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> They have to jump through many hoops in order to do what you say. The laws, that force them to serve anyone who darkens their door, should not exist. Laws, such as these, shouldn't apply to the private sector, just the public.
> 
> An example, If today a tall blonde man comes into a store and is rude and angers the owner, not only should he be allowed to throw that man out of the store, he should be allowed to ban all blonde men, from his store, unless and until he gets over his anger. It may be stupid for him to do such a thing, but, he should be allowed to do it.


Hoops must be jumped through to open any business. It's quite simple. If you promise to serve the public you must uphold that promise. Anything less is misrepresentation, bait and switch and fraud. Anti discrimination laws are nothing more than another regulatory tool. If the businesses owner doesn't wish to serve the next blond man that walks in he likely has every right not to as long as the exclusion is simply for being blond. As far as I know being blond isn't a protected class. He cannot exclude him for being a man, though. Some do have more privilege and protection than others.

Now modify your argument or come up with another scenario. It's what you do. I'll poke the ho&#322;es and shoot them down just I've done in the past until I bore of the tactic once more. It's what I do.


----------



## Elevenpoint

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
Regardless of how many laws are enacted there is a legal reason to not serve a person.
People of all races..religion..or any group will be discriminated against today.
It will never be completely eliminated.
Life is not always fair and just.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Well, you struck out there all 3 times, lol.
> 
> The definition of hate speech you provided, and I agree with, is that it MAY provoke violence.
> The SCOTUS rulings use the imminent threat of violence definition to determine *which* hate speech can be restricted.
> Some can, some cannot.
> 
> I doubt that you would find more than half a dozen members in the entire forum that would agree with Westboro Baptist's message, maybe less.
> 
> And the Black's Law dictionary on our bookshelf is there because you need one when you take a class on constitutional law.


What are you even getting at? Are you just trying to prolong with discussion, or are you trying to redefine legal terms?



Irish Pixie said:


> You can make it so your icon never lights up by going to User CP, edit options, and checking invisibility mode. No dishes involved.
> 
> It's like a cloaking device on a Klingon Bird-of-Prey, or Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. Science _or_ magic.


LOL. Yeah, I forgot about that.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
> Regardless of how many laws are enacted there is a legal reason to not serve a person.
> People of all races..religion..or any group will be discriminated against today.
> It will never be completely eliminated.
> Life is not always fair and just.


It's not an enforceable dictum. It's a sign put up to intimidate people but study a bit of business law and you'll find its largely toothless and meaningless. To refuse service without incurring penalty you must have a valid and legal reason.

Eta- just because something is happening and can't be eliminated doesn't make it acceptable or desirable.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Hoops must be jumped through to open any business. It's quite simple. If you promise to serve the public you must uphold that promise. Anything less is misrepresentation, bait and switch and fraud. Anti discrimination laws are nothing more than another regulatory tool. If the businesses owner doesn't wish to serve the next blond man that walks in he likely has every right not to as long as the exclusion is simply for being blond. As far as I know being blond isn't a protected class. He cannot exclude him for being a man, though. Some do have more privilege and protection than others.
> 
> Now modify your argument or come up with another scenario. It's what you do. I'll poke the ho&#322;es and shoot them down just I've done in the past until I bore of the tactic once more. It's what I do.


My argument has never changed. It is immoral to force one to serve another. You wish to force people to serve others, I do not. It is simple. 

And BTW, I said "blonde men" I assume that in your immoral "protected classes" men would be included. (Can't understand how that jives with the equal protection clause, but, hey, I bet you can twist some words to make it fit, that is what you do.)

The argument is very simple and clear. I do not wish to force people to do things which they may find objectionable, and I am aware that attitudes and situations change over time and what may not have been an issue when the business was opened, may be an issue now. You still wish to force people to bend to your morality. Just admit it and don't use condescending language to try and hide it, K?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> My argument has never changed. It is immoral to force one to serve another. You wish to force people to serve others, I do not. It is simple.
> 
> And BTW, I said "blonde men" I assume that in your immoral "protected classes" men would be included. (Can't understand how that jives with the equal protection clause, but, hey, I bet you can twist some words to make it fit, that is what you do.)
> 
> The argument is very simple and clear. I do not wish to force people to do things which they may find objectionable, and I am aware that attitudes and situations change over time and what may not have been an issue when the business was opened, may be an issue now. You still wish to force people to bend to your morality. Just admit it and don't use condescending language to try and hide it, K?


It is immoral to discriminate for bigoted reasons. We legislate based on our individual morality every day.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> It is immoral to discriminate for bigoted reasons.


That would be your opinion. Others may have a different view.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> It's not an enforceable dictum. It's a sign put up to intimidate people but study a bit of business law and you'll find its largely toothless and meaningless. To refuse service without incurring penalty you must have a valid and legal reason.
> 
> Eta- just because something is happening and can't be eliminated doesn't make it acceptable or desirable.


I never said it was ok...it's the reality of discrimination and it will continue in certain arenas.
A business can refuse service for many reasons and not incur a penalty...regardless if it is discrimination...and it happens every day...


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That would be your opinion. Others may have a different view.


Well that was obvious.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Well that was obvious.


Let me ask you these questions.

In this day and age, what difference does it make if business owner X wants to deny service to people who exhibit characteristic Y? Why would people, with Characteristic Y, want to support he business of owner X so much as to use force of law to compel him to do business with them? It makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> It is tolerated every day. It is those that want to not have to be open and up front with it that won't be tolerated.


Really? Can you point me to an example of a private business that has a sign indicating that they refuse to serve a particular portion of the public? Thanks.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Let me ask you these questions.
> 
> In this day and age, what difference does it make if business owner X wants to deny service to people who exhibit characteristic Y? Why would people, with Characteristic Y, want to support he business of owner X so much as to use force of law to compel him to do business with them? It makes absolutely no sense.


It makes a big difference. We should be able to tell before we walk in a door if they will serve us. That is integrity and morality.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> As far as I know being blond isn't a *protected class*.


And there's the point of contention, the act of discrimination under the guise of anti-discrimination.

How can everyone possibly be equal when the government has created protected classes of people?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> My argument has never changed. It is immoral to force one to serve another. You wish to force people to serve others, I do not. It is simple.
> 
> And BTW, I said "blonde men" I assume that in your immoral "protected classes" men would be included. (Can't understand how that jives with the equal protection clause, but, hey, I bet you can twist some words to make it fit, that is what you do.)
> 
> The argument is very simple and clear. I do not wish to force people to do things which they may find objectionable, and I am aware that attitudes and situations change over time and what may not have been an issue when the business was opened, may be an issue now. You still wish to force people to bend to your morality. Just admit it and don't use condescending language to try and hide it, K?


My argument hasn't changed either. No force is involved. You're free to open your business under any model you wish you just can't change it in mid stream. If you promise to serve the public you must uphold your promise.

My argument also hasn't changed as it pertains to protected classes. I don't think there should be any. I've repeatedly asked others to give up their protected status instead of opposing laws that would extend those same protections to others. It would be the simplest solution. Everyone would be the public. There would be no special people who gain advantage through accident of birth or choice of lifestyle. It is a case of equal protection and currently the law fall short. You might wish to read and try to understand my responses sometime.

I have no desire to force my morality on you or any one else. I don't care who you allow or don't allow into your establishment. I do care that you don't invite me in with the promise of being able to avail myself of your goods and services and then have you enforce your morality on me and break that promise. Don't invite me in and I'll walk away. Invite me in and I'll demand you live up to your word. 

If it's condescending to criticize your repetitive and infantile style of arguing by posting endless questions and ignoring the answers so you can ask the next question I plead guilty as charged. I won't force you to listen to any more condescension on my part. You're free to choose whether to walk into my posts or not. That's what you advocate, right, walking away from those who reject you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Let me ask you these questions.
> 
> In this day and age, what difference does it make if business owner X wants to deny service to people who exhibit characteristic Y? Why would people, with Characteristic Y, want to support he business of owner X so much as to use force of law to compel him to do business with them? It makes absolutely no sense.


People Y (all people) just want to be equal with the rest of the alphabet. Why did blacks, women, the disabled, etc. want to be considered equal? A citizen of the US should be equal to any other citizen of the US. 

Why isn't this obvious to all people? It's no different than blacks wanting to use all water fountains, sit all all lunch counters, anywhere on the bus, etc. Why is this this so hard for some to accept?


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> And there's the point of contention, the act of discrimination under the guise of anti-discrimination.
> 
> How can everyone possibly be equal when the government has created protected classes of people?


Then give up your protected status. Deny others what you have seems a backward way of achieving equality.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> And there's the point of contention, the act of discrimination under the guise of anti-discrimination.
> 
> How can everyone possibly be equal when the government has created protected classes of people?


Bottom line? Many people had to be forced by law to be decent human beings and to treat people of a different color, sex, and abilities (among other things) as equals. They couldn't or wouldn't do it without being forced by law.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Really? Can you point me to an example of a private business that has a sign indicating that they refuse to serve a particular portion of the public? Thanks.


Here are four that don't allow women. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html

I can find examples that don't allow Christians also. Or Jews. There's a pizza place in Indiana that openly states it won't sell pizza for a wedding ceremony between same sex couples. All perfectly legal.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> My argument hasn't changed either. No force is involved. You're free to open your business under any model you wish you just can't change it in mid stream. If you promise to serve the public you must uphold your promise.
> 
> My argument also hasn't changed as it pertains to protected classes. I don't think there should be any. I've repeatedly asked others to give up their protected status instead of opposing laws that would extend those same protections to others. It would be the simplest solution. Everyone would be the public. There would be no special people who gain advantage through accident of birth or choice of lifestyle. It is a case of equal protection and currently the law fall short. You might wish to read and try to understand my responses sometime.
> 
> I have no desire to force my morality on you or any one else. I don't care who you allow or don't allow into your establishment. I do care that you don't invite me in with the promise of being able to avail myself of your goods and services and then have you enforce your morality on me and break that promise. Don't invite me in and I'll walk away. Invite me in and I'll demand you live up to your word.
> 
> If it's condescending to criticize your repetitive and infantile style of arguing by posting endless questions and ignoring the answers so you can ask the next question I plead guilty as charged. I won't force you to listen to any more condescension on my part. You're free to choose whether to walk into my posts or not. That's what you advocate, right, walking away from those who reject you?


That is were we differ. All should be able, in a private business, to invite, or, dis-invite anyone at any time, for any reason.

I am aware of your claim to want to end the so-called "protected classes" but, you sure do throw them out there when they are needed for your arguments.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Let me ask you these questions.
> 
> In this day and age, what difference does it make if business owner X wants to deny service to people who exhibit characteristic Y? Why would people, with Characteristic Y, want to support he business of owner X so much as to use force of law to compel him to do business with them? It makes absolutely no sense.


They likely wouldn't. But they should know that information before they've decided to enter, make a decision on a product and attempt to give the owner money for it.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Bottom line? Many people had to be forced by law to be decent human beings and to treat people of a different color, sex, and abilities (among other things) as equals. They couldn't or wouldn't do it without being forced by law.


And why should they? As long as it is a private citizen and he does no physical harm to the people in question, why should the government step in an force him to "play nice"?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> People Y (all people) just want to be equal with the rest of the alphabet. Why did blacks, women, the disabled, etc. want to be considered equal? A citizen of the US should be equal to any other citizen of the US.
> 
> Why isn't this obvious to all people? It's no different than blacks wanting to use all water fountains, sit all all lunch counters, anywhere on the bus, etc. Why is this this so hard for some to accept?


When it comes to government, you are 100% correct. Everyone, regardless of race, religion, etc. should be treated equal. My rub is when the government steps in to force the private sector to "play nice".


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> That is were we differ. All should be able, in a private business, to invite, or, dis-invite anyone at any time, for any reason.
> 
> I am aware of your claim to want to end the so-called "protected classes" but, you sure do throw them out there when they are needed for your arguments.
> 
> As many, on the Left, you think too highly of yourself. I have no more use for you.


So business owners should be able to deceive and lie to the public. We're not talking about a business owner who makes a split second decision about a sale. Were talking about business owners who have no intention of doing business with a certain group of people putting sign in their window inviting those very people in. 

If I've thrown protected classes around its been to show how those specifically protected, such as white male Christians, are loathe to give up their own status.

Too highly is so subjective.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And why should they? As long as it is a private citizen and he does no physical harm to the people in question, why should the government step in an force him to "play nice"?


The Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't say "white heterosexual able-bodied men" does it? It states all.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> It doesn't say "white heterosexual able-bodied men" does it? It states all.


What, exactly, does that have to do with the question of forcing private citizens to play nice?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> So business owners should be able to deceive and lie to the public. We're not talking about a business owner who makes a split second decision about a sale. Were talking about business owners who have no intention of doing business with a certain group of people putting sign in their window inviting those very people in.
> 
> If I've thrown protected classes around its been to show how those specifically protected, such as white male Christians, are loathe to give up their own status.
> 
> Too highly is so subjective.


 I actually edited the last line out of my post. It was a little crass. 

If it only took a sign in the window that reads " we do not serve X" we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I actually edited the last line out of my post. It was a little crass.
> 
> If it only took a sign in the window that reads " we do not serve X" we wouldn't be having this conversation.


In many places that sign still exists. There are those who have posted proudly here of the truck repair shop in Michigan that openly proclaims it won't repair the truck of a gay driver. I mentioned the Indiana pizza shop earlier. Many applaud those signs. Of course, those who most loudly applaud have no fear those signs will ever appear barring them. It does make the decision to support discrimination much easier.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> In many places that sign still exists. There are those who have posted proudly here of the truck repair shop in Michigan that openly proclaims it won't repair the truck of a gay driver. I mentioned the Indiana pizza shop earlier. Many applaud those signs. Of course, those who most loudly applaud have no fear those signs will ever appear barring them. It does make the decision to support discrimination much easier.


How does one determine if the driver is "gay" without asking? 

Personally, I would love to know if someone didn't want to serve me because of some silly reason. I would simply bow to the fact that their business is theirs and go spend some money with their competitors.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> What, exactly, does that have to do with the question of forcing private citizens to play nice?


The government shouldn't have to force equality, but not everyone is a decent human being. Thus, the "treating people equal" part must be forced.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> How does one determine if the driver is "gay" without asking?
> 
> Personally, I would love to know if someone didn't want to serve me because of some silly reason. I would simply bow to the fact that their business is theirs and go spend some money with their competitors.


Don't ask me? 

The problem doesn't come when it's an inconvience but what happens when you pull of the highway late some night in the middle of nowhere , low on fuel and the gas station attendent doesn't authorize the pump to fill your tank because he "thinks" you're whatever. I'd guess you wouldn't be so complacent.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Don't ask me?
> 
> The problem doesn't come when it's an inconvience but what happens when you pull of the highway late some night in the middle of nowhere , low on fuel and the gas station attendent doesn't authorize the pump to fill your tank because he "thinks" you're whatever. I'd guess you wouldn't be so complacent.


 No, I would keep walking/driving until I found someone who would serve me. Then I would find the nearest computer and do my best to let the world know what happened.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The government shouldn't have to force equality, but not everyone is a decent human being. Thus, the "treating people equal" part must be forced.


 It is not the place of government to force private citizens to treat people equally. It is the governments place to treat everyone as equal, but, their real authority ends there. 

Define "decent human being" please.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It is not the place of government to force private citizens to treat people equally. It is the governments place to treat everyone as equal, but, their real authority ends there.
> 
> Define "decent human being" please.


If I have to define "decent human being" it doesn't matter. 

ETA. You may not think it's the government's place but obviously it is as there is anti-discrimination law.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> If I have to define "decent human being" it doesn't matter.
> 
> ETA. You may not think it's the government's place but obviously it is as there is anti-discrimination law.


You cannot define it as it is subjective. It is OK to say that. 

Just because the government has taken a power unto itself doesn't mean that it is their place to do so.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> You cannot define it as it is subjective. It is OK to say that.
> 
> Just because the government has taken a power unto itself doesn't mean that it is their place to do so.


Nope. I _can_ define it, but if I have to it doesn't matter. 

Sigh. Are we back to "the government/Constitution according to Farmerga's opinion" again? I found it annoying the first thousand times so I'll sit this round out.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I _can_ define it, but if I have to it doesn't matter.
> 
> Sigh. Are we back to "the government/Constitution according to Farmerga's opinion" again? I found it annoying the first thousand times so I'll sit this round out.


So, you are trying to say that the definition of a "decent human being" is not subjective, largely relying on the person doing the defining? 

No, I can simply read the English language and happen to know that the government has, on many occasions, taken power not given to them. That is not my opinion, that is fact.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The government shouldn't have to force equality, but not everyone is a decent human being. Thus, the "treating people equal" part must be forced.


Using the retail example, the fight for those rights came about because nobody would allow blacks, for example, to be served. 

Today, not all bakeries, for example, refuse to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals. There are plenty of bakery owners who don't have those religious convictions, that would be more than happy to make the sale. 

But that's not good enough. You (collective) are saying that everyone should be forced to provide their goods/services, in spite of religious/moral convictions. 

As you like to say, this isn't hard to understand. By designating protected classes of people, others' rights are being denied.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Using the retail example, the fight for those rights came about because nobody would allow blacks, for example, to be served.
> 
> Today, not all bakeries, for example, refuse to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals. There are plenty of bakery owners who don't have those religious convictions, that would be more than happy to make the sale.
> 
> But that's not good enough. You (collective) are saying that everyone should be forced to provide their goods/services, in spite of religious/moral convictions.
> 
> As you like to say, this isn't hard to understand. By designating protected classes of people, others' rights are being denied.


If a person has a _public_ business and doesn't sell to the _public_ (all of the _public_) that person runs the risk of having a discrimination lawsuit filed against them. There is a high probability (based on recent lawsuit decisions) that the business owner will lose. 

You (collective religious people) don't get it both ways- you have the freedom of your religion and you can't be discriminated against because of your religion, but you cannot use that religion to discriminate against anyone else. 

The protected classes- 

"In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

Race â Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color â Civil Rights Act of 1964
*Religion*â Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin â Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) â Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex â Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy â Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship â Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status â Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status â Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status â Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information â Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's law.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> If a person has a _public_ business and doesn't sell to the _public_ (all of the _public_) that person runs the risk of having a discrimination lawsuit filed against them. There is a high probability (based on recent lawsuit decisions) that the business owner will lose.
> 
> You (collective religious people) don't get it both ways- you have the freedom of your religion and you can't be discriminated against because of your religion, but you cannot use that religion to discriminate against anyone else.
> 
> The protected classes-
> 
> "In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:
> 
> Race &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
> Color &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
> *Religion*&#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
> National origin &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1964
> Age (40 and over) &#8211; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
> Sex &#8211; Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
> Pregnancy &#8211; Pregnancy Discrimination Act
> Citizenship &#8211; Immigration Reform and Control Act
> Familial status &#8211; Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
> Disability status &#8211; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
> Veteran status &#8211; Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
> Genetic information &#8211; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
> Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's law.
> 
> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class


Thank you, but the First Amendment of the US Constitution already protected my rights of religious freedom against the government 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. 

By that right, we shouldn't even be having this debate. And yet, here we are.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Thank you, but the First Amendment of the US Constitution already protected my rights of religious freedom against the government 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.
> 
> By that right, we shouldn't even be having this debate. And yet, here we are.


It's right there in bolded black that you are part of a protected class. You can't have it both ways- you can't be discriminated against AND discriminate against others because of your religion. It simply doesn't matter if you don't like it, want it, understand it, or whatever. It's a right given to you as a citizen of the United States.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

All this talk about legality and the constitution. The original 13 states outlawed homosexuality. It was punishable by death. Thomas Jefferson authored a bill to have those found guilty to suffer dismemberment. So I highly doubt they had anything in there or in their mind to protect said individuals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> All this talk about legality and the constitution. The original 13 states outlawed homosexuality. It was punishable by death. Thomas Jefferson authored a bill to have those found guilty to suffer dismemberment. So I highly doubt they had anything in there or in their mind to protect said individuals.


Show us those statutes please


----------



## coolrunnin

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show us those statutes please


Its actually true. I had to look it up....


----------



## Vahomesteaders

In 1779,-Thomas Jefferson-wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment ofcastration-for men who engage in-sodomy.[2]Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy.-...wiki

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_founders_would_view_same_sex_marriage.html

States laws about sodomy aka homosexuality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> In 1779,-Thomas Jefferson-wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment ofcastration-for men who engage in-sodomy.[2]Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy.-...wiki
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_founders_would_view_same_sex_marriage.html
> 
> States laws about *sodomy aka homosexuality*.


Sodomy is not synonymous with homosexual behavior.



> Sodomy is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.


----------



## greg273

Vahomesteaders said:


> All this talk about legality and the constitution. The original 13 states outlawed homosexuality. It was punishable by death. .


 So what? It was also legal to own ****** as property back then. Times change. Sometimes for the better.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sodomy is not synonymous with homosexual behavior.


In their day it was. Many references to it between two men were made as the destable act. Including George Washington when he court marshaled one of his generals for even trying it with a soilder. It disgusted him. So or founding fathers were not found of it. They held English law in the original colonies and it was considered a capital crime of the worst kind.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> In 1779,-Thomas Jefferson-wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment ofcastration-for men who engage in-sodomy.[2]Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy.-...wiki
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_founders_would_view_same_sex_marriage.html
> 
> States laws about sodomy aka homosexuality.


Sodomy includes bestialiyy as well. It's important to distinguish.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Heritagefarm said:


> Sodomy includes bestialiyy as well. It's important to distinguish.


Your right. But It's clear what the Early fathers were referring to.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> No, I would keep walking/driving until I found someone who would serve me. Then I would find the nearest computer and do my best to let the world know what happened.


In your world you wouldn't have any other choice or recourse. And what would you tell people on the internet had happened? That the attendant did just as you said was perfectly legal. There could be no bad or unacceptable reason for turning you away so you surely could have no complaint with another citizen exercising their god given right. Judging by reactions to the stories of discrimination posted here the attendant is likely to garner as much support as derision from any judgement he made about you. Hope you enjoy your walk and don't miss anything important from the delay.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Using the retail example, the fight for those rights came about because nobody would allow blacks, for example, to be served.
> 
> Today, not all bakeries, for example, refuse to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals. There are plenty of bakery owners who don't have those religious convictions, that would be more than happy to make the sale.
> 
> But that's not good enough. You (collective) are saying that everyone should be forced to provide their goods/services, in spite of religious/moral convictions.
> 
> As you like to say, this isn't hard to understand. By designating protected classes of people, others' rights are being denied.


It wasn't that goods and services weren't available to blacks. They could sleep in the black hotel, eat at the black restaurant or even sometimes get food out the back door. They could go to the black hospital . There was a thriving business community serving blacks. Of course laws and mores of the time allowed whites to avail themselves of black businesses without punishment. 

The idea that all men are created equal and that everyone should have access to public accommodations helps reinforce that shouldn't be anything anyone fights against. I'll agree that protected classes make winners and losers and should be done away with. That is what you're saying, right? That you shouldn't in any way be protected from discrimination against you because you're in an assortment of protected classes.


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> All this talk about legality and the constitution. The original 13 states outlawed homosexuality. It was punishable by death. Thomas Jefferson authored a bill to have those found guilty to suffer dismemberment. So I highly doubt they had anything in there or in their mind to protect said individuals.


Just goes to prove that as with many things, slavery and treatment of women for examples, the founders were fallible humans capable of making mistakes and influenced by their times and environment not the infallible omniscient beings some would like to paint them as.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> In their day it was. Many references to it between two men were made as the destable act. Including George Washington when he court marshaled one of his generals for even trying it with a soilder. It disgusted him. So or founding fathers were not found of it. They held English law in the original colonies and it was considered a capital crime of the worst kind.


No, it still had the same meaning then
One of the "laws" your source quoted mentioned women too

It really makes little difference what they thought over 200 years ago when discussing current law


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> In your world you wouldn't have any other choice or recourse. And what would you tell people on the internet had happened? That the attendant did just as you said was perfectly legal. There could be no bad or unacceptable reason for turning you away so you surely could have no complaint with another citizen exercising their god given right. Judging by reactions to the stories of discrimination posted here the attendant is likely to garner as much support as derision from any judgement he made about you. Hope you enjoy your walk and don't miss anything important from the delay.


 
You seem to equate legal/illegal with moral/immoral, they are not the same thing. 

I believe that taking currently illegal drugs is immoral, but, I believe that most currently illegal drugs should be made legal. Does that suddenly make the choice to take these damaging drugs a moral one? Of course not. 

Our society has largely grown up. If all of these silly anti-discrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, cases of rank discrimination would be relatively rare. Those cases can and should be hashed out in the court of public opinion.

I am sure that your parents had many rules for you when you were a child. As you grew, did they keep the same rules, or, did some of those rules fall by the way side? Did you still occasionally do stupid things? Likely.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You seem to equate legal/illegal with moral/immoral, they are not the same thing.
> 
> I believe that taking currently illegal drugs is immoral, but, I believe that most currently illegal drugs should be made legal. Does that suddenly make the choice to take these damaging drugs a moral one? Of course not.
> 
> Our society has largely grown up. If all of these silly anti-discrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, cases of rank discrimination would be relatively rare. Those cases can and should be hashed out in the court of public opinion.
> 
> I am sure that your parents had many rules for you when you were a child. As you grew, did they keep the same rules, or, did some of those rules fall by the way side? Did you still occasionally do stupid things? Likely.


So you would try to use the court of public opinion to force your morality on others? Some would say forcing others to bow to your morals is wrong. 

Our society has largley grown up because laws like the 1964 civil rights act have dragged it kicking and screaming forward. Judging from the comments I see here, the examples of discrimination that still exist and many of the laws proposed and passed recently I don't think things would be quite as bucolic as you. 

I still occasionally do stupid things. I've been known to try to change peop&#322;e's attitudes towards people different from them and get to see those different people as humans with all the same rights and privileges they, themselves, enjoy. I stupidly think I can have some influence on them. And no, I don't include you among those. I think we both would like to see all people treated equally by the law. We just differ on what those laws should be and how to get there. I think we both realize discrimination will always exist. I think we differ on what we think the consequences of freeing it and further codifying it in law will be.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it still had the same meaning then
> One of the "laws" your source quoted mentioned women too
> 
> It really makes little difference what they thought over 200 years ago when discussing current law


Finally. Someone admits it. Who cares what the founding fathers who shaped this great nation and wrote is most sacred laws thought. We don't care what they had in mind when writing our Constitution. We know better than them. Hence the decline of our once great nation both domestically and abroad.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Finally. Someone admits it. Who cares what the founding fathers who shaped this great nation and wrote is most sacred laws thought. We don't care what they had in mind when writing our Constitution. We know better than them. Hence the decline of our once great nation both domestically and abroad.


The founders were not perfect. They knew they were not perfect. Hence the need for amendments to the constitution.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> So you would try to use the court of public opinion to force your morality on others? Some would say forcing others to bow to your morals is wrong.
> 
> Our society has largley grown up because laws like the 1964 civil rights act have dragged it kicking and screaming forward. Judging from the comments I see here, the examples of discrimination that still exist and many of the laws proposed and passed recently I don't think things would be quite as bucolic as you.
> 
> I still occasionally do stupid things. I've been known to try to change peop&#322;e's attitudes towards people different from them and get to see those different people as humans with all the same rights and privileges they, themselves, enjoy. I stupidly think I can have some influence on them. And no, I don't include you among those. I think we both would like to see all people treated equally by the law. We just differ on what those laws should be and how to get there. I think we both realize discrimination will always exist. I think we differ on what we think the consequences of freeing it and further codifying it in law will be.


I would use the free market. I look at it much like freedom of speech. To me, you can say pretty much anything you wish, without fear of reprisal from government. That doesn't mean that you are free from consequences for what you have said, just that the government has no power over it. 

I see the civil rights act as feel good legislation, created by a society that was maturing. I believe that most of what the Civil Rights Act did would have happened naturally in short order. 

You are correct. I do wish to see all people treated equally under the law. I also want freedom of speech and association to be protected, under the law. To me, the Civil Rights Act, and other "anti-discrimination" laws set up conflicts when it comes to free speech and association. 

Don't get me wrong, in my business, I have sold my goods to every shade, culture, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, you name it. If all of these "anti-discrimination" laws were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my business in the least. I still would like to see them gone, simply because I see no real need for our society to have a "curfew" anymore.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I would use the free market. I look at it much like freedom of speech. To me, you can say pretty much anything you wish, without fear of reprisal from government. That doesn't mean that you are free from consequences for what you have said, just that the government has no power over it.
> 
> I see the civil rights act as feel good legislation, created by a society that was maturing. I believe that most of what the Civil Rights Act did would have happened naturally in short order.
> 
> You are correct. I do wish to see all people treated equally under the law. I also want freedom of speech and association to be protected, under the law. To me, the Civil Rights Act, and other "anti-discrimination" laws set up conflicts when it comes to free speech and association.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, in my business, I have sold my goods to every shade, culture, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, you name it. If all of these "anti-discrimination" laws were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my business in the least. I still would like to see them gone, simply because I see no real need for our society to have a "curfew" anymore.


And I'd say just because you act differently and don't see the need doesn't mean the need still doesn't exist. The need doesn't exist for the protected classes because the law doesn't allow it to. For those not so fortunate to be protected the need exists. It's always fun to opine that things would disappear eventually with out government intervention and that free markets work towards our betterment but I have seen few examples of this in history or my lifetime. Slavery has never disappeared naturally. It has been legislated out of existance in many places but it still occurs. Dumping toxic waste in rivers and streams doesn't just stop because consumers demand it. It just move to where those voices can't see it. And eventually is great as long as you aren't affected. Eventually can seem a long ways off when you're the one suffering.

The government can punish you for your speech. Slander and libel laws enforce that control. Incite a riot. Conspire against the government. As much as we'd like to think no right is absolute and must be balanced against other's rights. Remove protected classes and open public accomodations to everyone and all arguments become moot. You can still close your business to those you don't like. You just can't be open to everyone and closed to some at the same time.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> The founders were not perfect. They knew they were not perfect. Hence the need for amendments to the constitution.


I agree. But do you honestly believe that they had any positive thoughts at all to the universally accepted idea that homosexuality was wrong, when writing the constitution? I don't believe, and history backs up the idea, they ever fathomed it's acceptance in society. Therfore wrote no laws to protect said individuals.


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> I agree. But do you honestly believe that they had any positive thoughts at all to the universally accepted idea that homosexuality was wrong, when writing the constitution? I don't believe, and history backs up the idea, they ever fathomed it's acceptance in society. Therfore wrote no laws to protect said individuals.


I don't really care what they thought about that. They did not allow women to vote.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it still had the same meaning then
> One of the "laws" your source quoted mentioned women too
> 
> It really makes little difference what they thought over 200 years ago when discussing current law


No difference, or just no difference with regard to current situations?



Farmerga said:


> You seem to equate legal/illegal with moral/immoral, they are not the same thing.
> 
> I believe that taking currently illegal drugs is immoral, but, I believe that most currently illegal drugs should be made legal. Does that suddenly make the choice to take these damaging drugs a moral one? Of course not.
> 
> Our society has largely grown up. If all of these silly anti-discrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, cases of rank discrimination would be relatively rare. Those cases can and should be hashed out in the court of public opinion.
> 
> I am sure that your parents had many rules for you when you were a child. As you grew, did they keep the same rules, or, did some of those rules fall by the way side? Did you still occasionally do stupid things? Likely.


I don't even get the last analogy. The third one I disagree with - we wouldn't have all these avid Trump supporters and white supremacist hate groups if that were true.



painterswife said:


> I don't really care what they thought about that. They did not allow women to vote.


Well, you know, women aren't as smart as men. Blacks aren't as smart as whites. Gays are inferior, too. Honestly, where do we obtain all these prejudices? Society is not as advanced as many would like to think. For many of us, our evolutionary survival traits simply do not allow us to make "whole-world" decisions. Most of us can only make "sphere-centric" decisions; these decisions affect only the bubble immediately around us.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And I'd say just because you act differently and don't see the need doesn't mean the need still doesn't exist. The need doesn't exist for the protected classes because the law doesn't allow it to. For those not so fortunate to be protected the need exists. It's always fun to opine that things would disappear eventually with out government intervention and that free markets work towards our betterment but I have seen few examples of this in history or my lifetime. Slavery has never disappeared naturally. It has been legislated out of existance in many places but it still occurs. Dumping toxic waste in rivers and streams doesn't just stop because consumers demand it. It just move to where those voices can't see it. And eventually is great as long as you aren't affected. Eventually can seem a long ways off when you're the one suffering.
> 
> The government can punish you for your speech. Slander and libel laws enforce that control. Incite a riot. Conspire against the government. As much as we'd like to think no right is absolute and must be balanced against other's rights. Remove protected classes and open public accomodations to everyone and all arguments become moot. You can still close your business to those you don't like. You just can't be open to everyone and closed to some at the same time.


 Government tends to jump on trends, then take credit for the trend. Child labor is a good example. The trend was away from the practice, in the U.S., as we became more affluent and the need for child workers diminished. It is easy for politicians to jump on the band wagon, create a law and then take credit for what was already happening naturally.

Worker safety is the same way. OSHA will brag about how much safer the worker is now than he was when the agency was created, what they don't generally show is that worker injuries were on a steep decline prior to the advent of OSHA.

Yet another example is poverty. Poverty was on a steep decline, in the U.S.. since the end of the Depression. LBJ, as we all know, enacted the "War on Poverty" and, it can be argued, stopped the downward trend in its tracks. 

In the U.S.. Slavery's days were numbered. Even without the 13th amendment (I still believe that it was needed to weed out every vestige of that shameful practice), slavery would have largely died a natural death in a few years as technology and changing morals made it obsolete. 


You see, the government would have you believe that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Government tends to jump on trends, then take credit for the trend. Child labor is a good example. The trend was away from the practice, in the U.S., as we became more affluent and the need for child workers diminished. It is easy for politicians to jump on the band wagon, create a law and then take credit for what was already happening naturally.
> 
> Worker safety is the same way. OSHA will brag about how much safer the worker is now than he was when the agency was created, what they don't generally show is that worker injuries were on a steep decline prior to the advent of OSHA.
> 
> Yet another example is poverty. Poverty was on a steep decline, in the U.S.. since the end of the Depression. LBJ, as we all know, enacted the "War on Poverty" and, it can be argued, stopped the downward trend in its tracks.
> 
> In the U.S.. Slavery's days were numbered. Even without the 13th amendment (I still believe that it was needed to weed out every vestige of that shameful practice), slavery would have largely died a natural death in a few years as technology and changing morals made it obsolete.
> 
> 
> You see, the government would have you believe that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.


By that logic(?), anarchy should work just fine.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't even get the last analogy. The third one I disagree with - we wouldn't have all these avid Trump supporters and white supremacist hate groups if that were true.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are one of those who believe that all, or, most Trump supporters are racists? White supremacists are very few, very vocal group of holdouts.
> 
> The word "racist" has lost most of its meaning. It has been overused to silence debate and belittle people with differing views.
> 
> I am no Trump supporter, but, I do see that his haters, in and out of the media, have largely mischaracterized him and his supporters.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> By that logic(?), anarchy should work just fine.


Not anarchy, but, smaller less intrusive government would be better. The Federal government needs to stay within the confines of the Constitution. 

Leave the day to day rules of life to State and Local governments.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Government tends to jump on trends, then take credit for the trend. Child labor is a good example. The trend was away from the practice, in the U.S., as we became more affluent and the need for child workers diminished. It is easy for politicians to jump on the band wagon, create a law and then take credit for what was already happening naturally.
> 
> Worker safety is the same way. OSHA will brag about how much safer the worker is now than he was when the agency was created, what they don't generally show is that worker injuries were on a steep decline prior to the advent of OSHA.
> 
> Yet another example is poverty. Poverty was on a steep decline, in the U.S.. since the end of the Depression. LBJ, as we all know, enacted the "War on Poverty" and, it can be argued, stopped the downward trend in its tracks.
> 
> In the U.S.. Slavery's days were numbered. Even without the 13th amendment (I still believe that it was needed to weed out every vestige of that shameful practice), slavery would have largely died a natural death in a few years as technology and changing morals made it obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, the government would have you believe that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.


You have an interesting view of history.

It was early union and social organizers who pushed for laws which ended the most onerous child labor practices. It wasn't factory owners waking up one day feeling magnanimous and willing to lose a largely compliant and powerless work force. The landmark federal child labor law was passed in 1936, hardly the height of economic prosperity and rising wealth.

Workplace safety was also the focus early union organizers who fought not only for better conditions in union controlled workplaces but for laws that expanded those protections to all other workers. Even with those protections things like underground mining accidents and deaths happen too often because management and ownership ignore and circumvent laws. Without those laws how much more abuse would happen.

The war on poverty is debatable. We've largely redefined poverty so far upward so as to make any comparison between what is considered poverty today and the living conditions in Appalachia and areas that were the focus of LBJ's ideal meaningless. That kind of poverty has largely disappeared.

Again, eventually is a fine timetable for those not suffering. Eventually has an entirely different meaning to the slave under the lash, the young girl locked in the garment factory, the mine worker suffering from lack of proper ventilation, or the gay man in fear of losing his job because of who he loves.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You have an interesting view of history.
> 
> It was early union and social organizers who pushed for laws which ended the most onerous child labor practices. It wasn't factory owners waking up one day feeling magnanimous and willing to lose a largely compliant and powerless work force. The landmark federal child labor law was passed in 1936, hardly the height of economic prosperity and rising wealth.
> 
> Workplace safety was also the focus early union organizers who fought not only for better conditions in union controlled workplaces but for laws that expanded those protections to all other workers. Even with those protections things like underground mining accidents and deaths happen too often because management and ownership ignore and circumvent laws. Without those laws how much more abuse would happen.
> 
> The war in poverty is debatable. We've largely redefined poverty so far upward so as to make any comparison between what is considered poverty today had no relation to the living conditions in Appalachia and areas that were the focus of LBJ's ideal.
> 
> Again, eventually is a fine timetable for those not suffering. Eventually has an entirely different meaning to the slave under the lash, the young girl locked in the garment factory, the mine worker suffering from lack of proper ventilation, or the gay man in fear of losing his job because of who he loves.


You misunderstand. I never said it was magnanimous factory owners. It was the rising middle class and industrialization that did away with the need for child labor. When parents can make enough without sending their children into dangerous situations, they tend not to send their children into dangerous situations. 

So you are saying that when people refused to work in unsafe conditions, the owners of said companies had to shape up or ship out, as it were? 

Eventually wasn't what I said, I said that the changes, most of these laws were meant to start, were already in progress and the law did little to quicken the action.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You misunderstand. I never said it was magnanimous factory owners. It was the rising middle class and industrialization that did away with the need for child labor. When parents can make enough without sending their children into dangerous situations, they tend not to send their children into dangerous situations.
> 
> So you are saying that when people refused to work in unsafe conditions, the owners of said companies had to shape up or ship out, as it were?
> 
> Eventually wasn't what I said, I said that the changes, most of these laws were meant to start, were already in progress and the law did little to quicken the action.


And I'd say you were wrong. As I pointed out, the landmark child labor law was passed in 1936. A rising middle class? You must have read different history books than I did. Or maybe it was my father's stories of growing up during the depression that colors my views. Laws and government actions did and do hasten change. You say things were already in progress but progress can sometimes happen slowly without a push from powerful forces. Progress might eventually happen but laws ensure it does.


----------



## mmoetc

Eventually gays may not suffer from discrimination in access to good and services or employment. A law could be passed tomorrow which outlaws such things. I'd say that would hasten the eventual outcome.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And I'd say you were wrong. As I pointed out, the landmark child labor law was passed in 1936. A rising middle class? You must have read different history books than I did. Or maybe it was my father's stories of growing up during the depression that colors my views. Laws and government actions did and do hasten change. You say things were already in progress but progress can sometimes happen slowly without a push from powerful forces. Progress might eventually happen but laws ensure it does.


Yes, after child labor had declined during the first decades of the 20th century.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Eventually gays may not suffer from discrimination in access to good and services or employment. A law could be passed tomorrow which outlaws such things. I'd say that would hasten the eventual outcome.


 That outcome has already happened for the most part. Gays are largely accepted in business dealings.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> That outcome has already happened for the most part. Gays are largely accepted in business dealings.


But white male Christians are universally accepted because the law requires it. It might have eventually happened anyway, but we'll never really know, will we?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But white male Christians are universally accepted because the law requires it. It might have eventually happened anyway, but we'll never really know, will we?


And I am all for the repeal of that law.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> And I am all for the repeal of that law.


It's not a law - it's just the many other laws that made it difficult for anyone not a white male to function.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> It's not a law - it's just the many other laws that made it difficult for anyone not a white male to function.


 I do believe that the civil rights act of 1964 is a law. You know, the one that states that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion etc..? 

And again, I am fine with that restriction on government, but, against it on the general population.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> I do believe that the civil rights act of 1964 is a law. You know, the one that states that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion etc..?
> 
> And again, I am fine with that restriction on government, but, against it on the general population.


Well, now that it's settled, whatever set of colors your exhibit, I'm going to deny you all of my services - oh, and for the heck of it, I run a hospital. So, now you can't use my hospital because my prejudices don't like you. Maybe I've banned farmers and homesteaders - yep, that's it.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, now that it's settled, whatever set of colors your exhibit, I'm going to deny you all of my services - oh, and for the heck of it, I run a hospital. So, now you can't use my hospital because my prejudices don't like you. Maybe I've banned farmers and homesteaders - yep, that's it.


 That would be fine with me, as long as you own the hospital, it should be your right. I kind of doubt you own it though, perhaps if you could convince the board of directors, then you could.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *That would be fine with me*, as long as you own the hospital, it should be your right. I kind of doubt you own it though, perhaps if you could convince the board of directors, then you could.


It wouldn't be "fine" if you heard that at the door of the ER while you were bleeding to death and the next hospital was 100 miles away.

Everything is "fine" when it's not *real*


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wouldn't be "fine" if you heard that at the door of the ER while you were bleeding to death and the next hospital was 100 miles away.
> 
> Everything is "fine" when it's not *real*


Just like that statement.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

The poor white male. Ever been to ky or the appalachias where I'm from? Lots of poor white males living in poverty with nobody reaching out because they are white makes. Heck minorities get taken over white males more qualified everyday because of the way business is set up to cater to minorities. Every single person in this country had the world at their hands. They have the choice to better themselves or stay where they are. And govt handouts to 20 something mom's with 7 kids by 7 dad's keeps them where they are and voting in their favor. It's political slavery.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> That would be fine with me, as long as you own the hospital, it should be your right. I kind of doubt you own it though, perhaps if you could convince the board of directors, then you could.


Of course I don't own it, as I specified. Apparently I wasn't blunt enough. Then again, you don't really know either way. 



Vahomesteaders said:


> The poor white male. Ever been to ky or the appalachias where I'm from? Lots of poor white males living in poverty with nobody reaching out because they are white makes. Heck minorities get taken over white males more qualified everyday because of the way business is set up to cater to minorities. Every single person in this country had the world at their hands. They have the choice to better themselves or stay where they are. And govt handouts to 20 something mom's with 7 kids by 7 dad's keeps them where they are and voting in their favor. It's political slavery.


Yep, white males are being overlooked. We need to undo all discrimination. Leveling the playing field has its problems. So does just leaving it alone. For now, just stop reading John Birch Society, that will make everyone happier.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Yes, after child labor had declined during the first decades of the 20th century.


In part due to the 28 states which had already passed their own child labor laws prior to 1900. In part due to mandatory education laws which required Johnny and Jenny to March through the schoolhouse door rather than the factory gate. In part due to the depression and the pressure it brought to give those jobs to adults. Contrary to your claim that it was industrialization that drive child labor rates down it was the fact that jobs were industrialized and no longer skilled labor that opened the doors to child labor. Jobs that used to take skilled labor could now be done by almost anyone. Small nimble hands and children used to taking orders without question and who were not seen as people perfectly filled factory owners needs for cheap, compliant labor. Contrary to a rising middle class being its death knell it was economic collapse that allowed an environment were federal laws could finally be passed. 

I'm sure you'll jump on that last statement as proof you were right and markets work ignoring your own wrong rationales. So be it. If markets worked to eliminate such things no law would ever be neccessary to enforce their ban. It wouldn't matter when the rooster crowed. But is does matter. Sometimes the market is wrong. That is the entire basis of our system of law. It exists to protect those who the market won't just as freely as it does those the markets favor. Sometimes it takes a while to eventually work but that's little solace to those who suffer while waiting for eventually to get here.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> And I am all for the repeal of that law.


Good for you. That has nothing to do with the consequences of what happens afterward. I know, you wouldn't care and you'd just walk down the street. Enjoy your walk.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Good for you. That has nothing to do with the consequences of what happens afterward. I know, you wouldn't care and you'd just walk down the street. Enjoy your walk.


The fact of the matter is that, except for the very rare case, nothing would happen.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wouldn't be "fine" if you heard that at the door of the ER while you were bleeding to death and the next hospital was 100 miles away.
> 
> Everything is "fine" when it's not *real*


 That wouldn't happen either. Your fears of evil people letting people die is unfounded in the 21st century. For one, a sizable chunk of hospitals are government owned (a little more than 20% nation wide) and would be required to serve anyone. The rest, I dare to say, wouldn't discriminate either because there aren't enough evil people who would, and, if they did, their facilities would soon find themselves short on customers and flush with protestors. 

It is time to let go of the fear of the past and enter the 21st century.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The fact of the matter is that, except for the very rare case, nothing would happen.


The fact of the matter is we don't really know and based on history there would be more incidents of discrimination, not less. Based on the fact that more than one state has passed or is working to pass laws allowing discrimination to think that without laws specifically protecting people more will simply be targeted. People who wouldn't discriminate anyway wouldn't without law. People who's actions are only being held in check because of antidiscrimination laws would be free to act on those feelings. The market says there support for it. I've pointed to establishments in states where it is legal. Those businesses seem to have suffered no ill consequence from their open discrimination. In fact, some even here have expressed their support and desire to spend money at such businesses. You likely belong to a big enough group you wouldn't be affected so much of your lassaize fair attitude is meaningless. I won't worry about you. I'm not even worried about me. But based on history and current events to think there would be less discrimination and more equality without laws seem to me to be quite foolish. The sun is up and there's work to do. Enjoy your day.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> In part due to the 28 states which had already passed their own child labor laws prior to 1900. In part due to mandatory education laws which required Johnny and Jenny to March through the schoolhouse door rather than the factory gate. In part due to the depression and the pressure it brought to give those jobs to adults. Contrary to your claim that it was industrialization that drive child labor rates down it was the fact that jobs were industrialized and no longer skilled labor that opened the doors to child labor. Jobs that used to take skilled labor could now be done by almost anyone. Small nimble hands and children used to taking orders without question and who were not seen as people perfectly filled factory owners needs for cheap, compliant labor. Contrary to a rising middle class being its death knell it was economic collapse that allowed an environment were federal laws could finally be passed.
> 
> I'm sure you'll jump on that last statement as proof you were right and markets work ignoring your own wrong rationales. So be it. If markets worked to eliminate such things no law would ever be neccessary to enforce their ban. It wouldn't matter when the rooster crowed. But is does matter. Sometimes the market is wrong. That is the entire basis of our system of law. It exists to protect those who the market won't just as freely as it does those the markets favor. Sometimes it takes a while to eventually work but that's little solace to those who suffer while waiting for eventually to get here.


 Not so much industrialization itself, but, rather the growth in wealth that resulted from industrialization. As wealth grew, there was less need for children to work to support the family. Most families would rather have their children trying to improve themselves than toiling away in a factory. 

As you have stated, that trend was well underway when the Feds, wrongly, inserted themselves in the issue. 

Child labor is a natural part of the progression from 3rd world, to 1st world economies. The Federal government simply got in on the trend away from it, in its death throws, and then took credit for its demise. The suckers believe them and will gladly give up their freedom in order to gain their "protection". I am not one of those fools.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The fact of the matter is we don't really know and based on history there would be more incidents of discrimination, not less. Based on the fact that more than one state has passed or is working to pass laws allowing discrimination to think that without laws specifically protecting people more will simply be targeted. People who wouldn't discriminate anyway wouldn't without law. *People who's actions are only being held in check because of antidiscrimination laws would be free to act on those feelings.* The market says there support for it. I've pointed to establishments in states where it is legal. Those businesses seem to have suffered no ill consequence from their open discrimination. In fact, some even here have expressed their support and desire to spend money at such businesses. You likely belong to a big enough group you wouldn't be affected so much of your lassaize fair attitude is meaningless. I won't worry about you. I'm not even worried about me. But based on history and current events to think there would be less discrimination and more equality without laws seem to me to be quite foolish. The sun is up and there's work to do. Enjoy your day.


 And my question is, as long as no physical harm comes from that action, why shouldn't they not be free to act upon those feelings?

You bring up current events such as states passing allegedly discriminatory laws. Have you not seen the public outcry? Have you not seen results of that outcry? The law in Georgia has been vetoed. The law in NC will not be defended by the AG. 

Until the 70's most people, in the U.S. were inoculated against Polio. No longer is that true. I have never been inoculated. Looking at history, there should be thousands of crippled people suffering from Polio, but, there is not. The inoculations worked and we are no longer in need of them. Anti-discrimination laws are the same way. We have inoculated our culture and have largely stamped out real discrimination. (private citizens not wanting to bake a cake does not rise to the level of allowing one to bleed to death on the sidewalk)


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> And my question is, as long as no physical harm comes from that action, why shouldn't they not be free to act upon those feelings?
> 
> You bring up current events such as states passing allegedly discriminatory laws. Have you not seen the public outcry? Have you not seen results of that outcry? The law in Georgia has been vetoed. The law in NC will not be defended by the AG.
> 
> Until the 70's most people, in the U.S. were inoculated against Polio. No longer is that true. I have never been inoculated. Looking at history, there should be thousands of crippled people suffering from Polio, but, there is not. The inoculations worked and we are no longer in need of them. Anti-discrimination laws are the same way. We have inoculated our culture and have largely stamped out real discrimination. (private citizens not wanting to bake a cake does not rise to the level of allowing one to bleed to death on the sidewalk)


It's raining. I've got time to respond. 

I'm not sure why you bring up recent events in GA and NC to support your market based arguments. They are just the opposite. They are examples of groups advocating for and keeping in place the very legal protections you say shouldn't exist and are unneccessary. If the market had worked in GA the law would have been signed and the protestors and opponents would have boycotted and spoken against businesses in a effort to change their behaviors. In your world, which I think is fantasy, these actions would be few and far between. Reality says they would be more frequent else why a law allowing them? Instead laws remain in place requiring businesses to comply. You should be among the loudest critics of the governor who refused to sign the bill.

North Carolina is an even more egregious example of pending federal overreach. You say there is no constitutional basis for anti discrimination laws affecting private businesses so the AG must be blatantly wrong in his assessment that this law is unconstitutional. Again, it's not the market working freely to stop discrimination but federal authority. I doesn't seem it could get more wrong or opposite from free market controls than this.

As for polio. I grew up playing with a friend who wore leg braces. You didn't want to get kicked. Look up the history of the vaccine. Free markets supported iron lungs and leg braces, not eradication of a money maker. 99% of polio had been eradicated around the world, not through markets but through concerted government actions. People who wish to discriminate exist at a much higher rate. Be careful where you travel or herd immunity might not protect. That goes for disease and prejudice.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> And my question is, as long as no physical harm comes from that action, why shouldn't they not be free to act upon those feelings?
> 
> You bring up current events such as states passing allegedly discriminatory laws. Have you not seen the public outcry? Have you not seen results of that outcry? The law in Georgia has been vetoed. The law in NC will not be defended by the AG.
> 
> Until the 70's most people, in the U.S. were inoculated against Polio. No longer is that true. I have never been inoculated. Looking at history, there should be thousands of crippled people suffering from Polio, but, there is not. The inoculations worked and we are no longer in need of them. Anti-discrimination laws are the same way. We have inoculated our culture and have largely stamped out real discrimination. (private citizens not wanting to bake a cake does not rise to the level of allowing one to bleed to death on the sidewalk)


On the other hand, perhaps those law are dampeners that would to coerce proper behavior on a constant basis. Most of this is just conjecture, because there's very little data to back this up. My point is that, once we removed the laws, the people may just slide back into their old habits. Old habits die hard - black discrimination was supposed to die long before 1960.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It's raining. I've got time to respond.
> 
> I'm not sure why you bring up recent events in GA and NC to support your market based arguments. They are just the opposite. They are examples of groups advocating for and keeping in place the very legal protections you say shouldn't exist and are unneccessary. If the market had worked in GA the law would have been signed and the protestors and opponents would have boycotted and spoken against businesses in a effort to change their behaviors. In your world, which I think is fantasy, these actions would be few and far between. Reality says they would be more frequent else why a law allowing them? Instead laws remain in place requiring businesses to comply. You should be among the loudest critics of the governor who refused to sign the bill.
> 
> North Carolina is an even more egregious example of pending federal overreach. You say there is no constitutional basis for anti discrimination laws affecting private businesses so the AG must be blatantly wrong in his assessment that this law is unconstitutional. Again, it's not the market working freely to stop discrimination but federal authority. I doesn't seem it could get more wrong or opposite from free market controls than this.
> 
> As for polio. I grew up playing with a friend who wore leg braces. You didn't want to get kicked. Look up the history of the vaccine. Free markets supported iron lungs and leg braces, not eradication of a money maker. 99% of polio had been eradicated around the world, not through markets but through concerted government actions. People who wish to discriminate exist at a much higher rate. Be careful where you travel or herd immunity might not protect. That goes for disease and prejudice.


It was precisely market based concerns that caused Gov. Deal to veto the bill. As I believe you have stated, the bill was unnecessary as the 1st amendment already provides the protection that the bill was supposed to provide. 

As to polio, you made my point. There may have been a reason for the vaccine, in the U.S.. in the past, but, today, with the disease largely gone, inoculation of American children is obsolete and therefore, no longer done. 

I will admit that I am not as well versed on the dust up in NC as I am with the dust up in GA. The AG is wrong in his pledge not to defend a law that was passed by the NC legislature and signed by the Governor of that state. Smacks of someone who doesn't want to do his job and should be removed from office. 

Again, why must people use force of government to force private citizens to go against their beliefs, no matter how backwards and stupid those beliefs seem to be? Is it really a big deal to go to the next gas station, baker, restaurant, clothing store, mechanic, etc.? (as rare as that really would be)


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> On the other hand, perhaps those law are dampeners that would to coerce proper behavior on a constant basis. Most of this is just conjecture, because there's very little data to back this up. My point is that, once we removed the laws, the people may just slide back into their old habits. Old habits die hard - black discrimination was supposed to die long before 1960.


 
Or, perhaps these laws foster divisive feelings in the population, thereby making the problem worse.


----------



## MO_cows

Heritagefarm said:


> On the other hand, perhaps those law are dampeners that would to coerce proper behavior on a constant basis. Most of this is just conjecture, because there's very little data to back this up. My point is that, once we removed the laws, the people may just slide back into their old habits. Old habits die hard - black discrimination was supposed to die long before 1960.


Because the living generations today for the most part don't have those "old habits". Those generations are already dead or so old as to be irrelevant. 

Most adults today only know a segregated world. They listen to black artists' music, watch black movie stars on the big screen, cheer for superstar black athletes, etc. They won't "revert back" to the old ways, they can't - because they never knew them. 

Sure there is a "lunatic fringe" of skinheads or whatever. But they are by far a minority and the general public holds them in very low regard.


----------



## Heritagefarm

MO_cows said:


> Because the living generations today for the most part don't have those "old habits". Those generations are already dead or so old as to be irrelevant.
> 
> Most adults today only know a segregated world. They listen to black artists' music, watch black movie stars on the big screen, cheer for superstar black athletes, etc. They won't "revert back" to the old ways, they can't - because they never knew them.
> 
> Sure there is a "lunatic fringe" of skinheads or whatever. But they are by far a minority and the general public holds them in very low regard.


I've been for the repeal of racial anti-discrimination laws for a while now. Anti-discrimination is inherently discrimination in another direction. I have friends and have known other people who got scholarships simply because they were black, hispanic, etc. Even though I'm white, I no longer check my race on paperwork. It just shouldn't be a question anymore.

ETA: That generation is not entirely gone. Several from that generation are currently running for president.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> It was precisely market based concerns that caused Gov. Deal to veto the bill. As I believe you have stated, the bill was unnecessary as the 1st amendment already provides the protection that the bill was supposed to provide.
> 
> As to polio, you made my point. There may have been a reason for the vaccine, in the U.S.. in the past, but, today, with the disease largely gone, inoculation of American children is obsolete and therefore, no longer done.
> 
> I will admit that I am not as well versed on the dust up in NC as I am with the dust up in GA. The AG is wrong in his pledge not to defend a law that was passed by the NC legislature and signed by the Governor of that state. Smacks of someone who doesn't want to do his job and should be removed from office.
> 
> Again, why must people use force of government to force private citizens to go against their beliefs, no matter how backwards and stupid those beliefs seem to be? Is it really a big deal to go to the next gas station, baker, restaurant, clothing store, mechanic, etc.? (as rare as that really would be)


Again you defend government over markets. You seem to support him hiding behind laws you say are unneccessary because the prevent almost nothing. Wouldn't it have been better proof that antidiscrimination laws are unneccesary to remove such laws and protections and show that cases of discrimination would be so rare as to be inconsiquential and to let the market work in suppressing them? Or maybe he knows, as many of us do, that those cases wouldn't be quite so rare and inconsequential and without law to discourage them would cause the economic cost to the state he feared. If there was no fear of discrimination happening why veto the law. Why seem to support a veto that does the opposite of that you wish?

Which leads us back to polio. It wasn't markets that has largely eradicated polio here and around the world and the effort hasn't stopped. It continues largely funded by a variety of governments, including ours, and it is that continuing effort that makes you safer from it. Polio still exists in the wild. Without continued effort it could rear its ugly head again. So do prejudices and the actions based on them. Without continued effort they could also.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Or, perhaps these laws foster divisive feelings in the population, thereby making the problem worse.


Those feelings were probably already there, which supports my dampening effect hypothesis.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Again you defend government over markets. You seem to support him hiding behind laws you say are unneccessary because the prevent almost nothing. Wouldn't it have been better proof that antidiscrimination laws are unneccesary to remove such laws and protections and show that cases of discrimination would be so rare as to be inconsiquential and to let the market work in suppressing them? Or maybe he knows, as many of us do, that those cases wouldn't be quite so rare and inconsequential and without law to discourage them would cause the economic cost to the state he feared. If there was no fear of discrimination happening why veto the law. Why seem to support a veto that does the opposite of that you wish?
> 
> Which leads us back to polio. It wasn't markets that has largely eradicated polio here and around the world and the effort hasn't stopped. It continues largely funded by a variety of governments, including ours, and it is that continuing effort that makes you safer from it. Polio still exists in the wild. Without continued effort it could rear its ugly head again. So do prejudices and the actions based on them. Without continued effort they could also.


Which law did I claim he was hiding behind? 

As to the economic reasons behind the veto, the movie industry had threatened a mass exodus if the law was inacted. Several large meetings had already been cancelled because of the bill. 

So, like most "Liberals" you are for government control over the very thoughts of people?


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Those feelings were probably already there, which supports my dampening effect hypothesis.


Yeah, because adults just love to be told how to think and feel by government. It gives us all warm fuzzy feelings. :bash:


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> I've been for the repeal of racial anti-discrimination laws for a while now. Anti-discrimination is inherently discrimination in another direction. I have friends and have known other people who got scholarships simply because they were black, hispanic, etc. Even though I'm white, I no longer check my race on paperwork. It just shouldn't be a question anymore.
> 
> ETA: That generation is not entirely gone. Several from that generation are currently running for president.


If racial anti-discrimination laws are discrimination in another direction, are not all anti-discrimination laws simply discrimination as well? 

And you are correct, but, Perhaps Hillary will be fitted for her orange pant suit, for her stay at club Fed, soon.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Which law did I claim he was hiding behind?
> 
> As to the economic reasons behind the veto, the movie industry had threatened a mass exodus if the law was inacted. Several large meetings had already been cancelled because of the bill.
> 
> So, like most "Liberals" you are for government control over the very thoughts of people?


Good, we've resorted to labeling and gross overgeneralizations.

He's hiding behind the very laws that you say are unneccesary. Laws that you say force people to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise. You say that incidents of discrimination would be so rare as to affect almost no one and that markets would correct them without government intervention. So why did the governor intervene to prevent that which wouldn't happen and why do you support that action. If the actions would be rare and self correcting wouldn't the movie industry look foolish indeed. But maybe ,to some, money is more important than rights?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Good, we've resorted to labeling and gross overgeneralizations.
> 
> He's hiding behind the very laws that you say are unneccesary. Laws that you say force people to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise. You say that incidents of discrimination would be so rare as to affect almost no one and that markets would correct them without government intervention. So why did the governor intervene to prevent that which wouldn't happen and why do you support that action. If the actions would be rare and self correcting wouldn't the movie industry look foolish indeed. But maybe ,to some, money is more important than rights?


I would actually say that for most, money is more important than rights. The movie industry knew that what was written in the bill was already protected by the 1st. They decided to bully the Gov. in order to get their way. It worked. I support it because it was a redundant law that would offer no more freedom than already exists. In our messed up system, the unconstitutional Federal law trumps a Constitutional state law every time. 

Logic and the fact that it would likely not make any difference one way or the other, didn't enter into the conversation. It was all about appearances.

And BTW, the term Liberal was a label Heritage farm gave himself and his affinity for laws meant to control thoughts and feelings is self evident.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> If racial anti-discrimination laws are discrimination in another direction, are not all anti-discrimination laws simply discrimination as well?
> 
> And you are correct, but, Perhaps Hillary will be fitted for her orange pant suit, for her stay at club Fed, soon.


To a certain extent I think, but I agree with mmoet that it's necessary to level the playing field sometimes. It's unlikely blacks would be anywhere different today without intervention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That wouldn't happen either. Your fears of evil people letting people die is unfounded in the 21st century. For one, a sizable chunk of hospitals are government owned (a little more than 20% nation wide) and would be required to serve anyone. The rest, I dare to say, wouldn't discriminate either because there aren't enough evil people who would, and, if they did, their facilities would soon find themselves short on customers and flush with protestors.
> 
> It is time to let go of the fear of the past and enter the 21st century.


So now you want to inject reality to argue against what was a fantasy scenario from the beginning, but you're using speculation to do so.

Again, I think the only reason you say you would be "fine" with discrimination is because you know it's really not going to happen to you as it *is *happening to others


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I would actually say that for most, money is more important than rights. The movie industry knew that what was written in the bill was already protected by the 1st. They decided to bully the Gov. in order to get their way. It worked. I support it because it was a redundant law that would offer no more freedom than already exists. In our messed up system, the unconstitutional Federal law trumps a Constitutional state law every time.
> 
> Logic and the fact that it would likely not make any difference one way or the other, didn't enter into the conversation. It was all about appearances.
> 
> And BTW, the term Liberal was a label Heritage farm gave himself and his affinity for laws meant to control thoughts and feelings is self evident.


Then you should have criticized the action of vetoing the law rather than wrongly praising it as an example of the market working. Unless you wish to now argue that part of that market working includes the market forcing government to pass and enforce laws taking away the very freedoms you say exist. But that undermines most of your previous arguments. You can hardly criticize laws brought about by the very markets you say should drive such things and argue that the market keeping those laws in place is an example of how well those markets work to control behavior as you wish them to. Unless, of course, it's all only about appearances.

And if you're going to use labels and overgeneralizations you should direct them at those they apply to.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Then you should have criticized the action of vetoing the law rather than wrongly praising it as an example of the market working. Unless you wish to now argue that part of that market working includes the market forcing government to pass and enforce laws taking away the very freedoms you say exist. But that undermines most of your previous arguments. You can hardly criticize laws brought about by the very markets you say should drive such things and argue that the market keeping those laws in place is an example of how well those markets work to control behavior as you wish them to. Unless, of course, it's all only about appearances.
> 
> And if you're going to use labels and overgeneralizations you should direct them at those they apply to.


So, let me see if I have this correct. I was wrong to praise the veto of a redundant law that, if enacted, would cost my state billions and would do nothing to expand freedom and was written simply as red meat for the religious right? Ok. If you say so. 

I don't understand these "laws brought about by the market" in this example, enacting the law was stopped by the market.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> So, let me see if I have this correct. I was wrong to praise the veto of a redundant law that, if enacted, would cost my state billions and would do nothing to expand freedom and was written simply as red meat for the religious right? Ok. If you say so.
> 
> I don't understand these "laws brought about by the market" in this example, enacting the law was stopped by the market.


But the anti discrimination laws were brought about by the same market. They were brought about by the market demanding that everyone( well almost everyone) have the same access to goods and services in the marketplace. You say those laws are bad and should be done away with. Yet here you say the market worked as it should in influencing the governor to veto a law that would ostensibly roll back some of those protections. A law I believe you originally spoke in favor of but which you now say is of no importance. Is the governors veto an appropiate and proper use of the market influencing behavior in support of laws which remove rights or should the market never be used to remove the rights you say exist from others? In this case the very markets you praise as what should control behaviors exerted enough pressure to allow the government to keep its controls in place. Government controls you say shouldn't exist in the first place. Should the market be followed or ignored? It probably depends, right?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> So, let me see if I have this correct. I was wrong to praise the veto of a redundant law that, if enacted, would cost my state billions and would do nothing to expand freedom and was written simply as red meat for the religious right? Ok. If you say so.
> 
> I don't understand these "laws brought about by the market" in this example, enacting the law was stopped by the market.


Simply, yes you were wrong if you truly believe that people have the right to discriminate against any one at any time in business dealings to put financial interests ahead of those rights. Rights shouldn't exist at the whim of whether you or your state will make an extra dollar or two. Rights, and personal principles, shouldn't be for sale.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But the anti discrimination laws were brought about by the same market. They were brought about by the market demanding that everyone( well almost everyone) have the same access to goods and services in the marketplace. You say those laws are bad and should be done away with. Yet here you say the market worked as it should in influencing the governor to veto a law that would ostensibly roll back some of those protections. A law I believe you originally spoke in favor of but which you now say is of no importance. Is the governors veto an appropiate and proper use of the market influencing behavior in support of laws which remove rights or should the market never be used to remove the rights you say exist from others? In this case the very markets you praise as what should control behaviors exerted enough pressure to allow the government to keep its controls in place. Government controls you say shouldn't exist in the first place. Should the market be followed or ignored? It probably depends, right?


The market shouldn't use government force to change behavior. The law in question would do nothing that the 1st amendment wouldn't do. The market voiced its displeasure with the appearance of this redundant law, and the Governor acted accordingly and tried to kill this unnecessary and ineffectual law. Basically, in this case it was a draw. If the law were enacted, no new freedoms would have been protected, no freedoms would have been lost, but, there was a real chance of losing some economic activity in my state because of the "appearance" of the law. 

And as for my alleged support for the law, I stated that I understood, in this day and age, why this law would be written, even though the 1st amendment already offers the same protections as this law was purported to offer. That is not a glowing endorsement.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The market shouldn't use government force to change behavior. The law in question would do nothing that the 1st amendment wouldn't do. The market voiced its displeasure with the appearance of this redundant law, and the Governor acted accordingly and tried to kill this unnecessary and ineffectual law. Basically, in this case it was a draw. If the law were enacted, no new freedoms would have been protected, no freedoms would have been lost, but, there was a real chance of losing some economic activity in my state because of the "appearance" of the law.
> 
> And as for my alleged support for the law, I stated that I understood, in this day and age, why this law would be written, even though the 1st amendment already offers the same protections as this law was purported to offer. That is not a glowing endorsement.


If you say so.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Simply, yes you were wrong if you truly believe that people have the right to discriminate against any one at any time in business dealings to put financial interests ahead of those rights. Rights shouldn't exist at the whim of whether you or your state will make an extra dollar or two. Rights, and personal principles, shouldn't be for sale.


What are you talking about? I do believe that people have the right to do legal business, or, not do legal business with any one, for any reason. That is clear. I never said that was a whim dependent on financial concerns. 

You seem to be trying to complicate a very simple concept. My, or, your goods and services do not belong to the Local, State, or, Federal Government, they belong to you, or, me. With whom I choose to enter into a financial arrangement with is absolutely none of the government's business (beyond what I am selling in certain instances, and a few age requirements). I don't know how to make it any more clear.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> What are you talking about? I do believe that people have the right to do legal business, or, not do legal business with any one, for any reason. That is clear. I never said that was a whim dependent on financial concerns.
> 
> You seem to be trying to complicate a very simple concept. My, or, your goods and services do not belong to the Local, State, or, Federal Government, they belong to you, or, me. With whom I choose to enter into a financial arrangement with is absolutely none of the government's business (beyond what I am selling in certain instances, and a few age requirements). I don't know how to make it any more clear.


And yet, the governor vetoed a law that would allow more people to act as you say free from adverse action by the state of Georgia because it would cost the state money to enact such a law. You can have the money. Or you can protect the rights. The governor, and you, seemed to choose the money. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Your words speak for themselves.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And yet, the governor vetoed a law that would allow more people to act as you say free from adverse action by the state of Georgia because it would cost the state money to enact such a law. You can have the money. Or you can protect the rights. The governor, and you, seemed to choose the money. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Your words speak for themselves.


 As I have said, over and over and over again, the bill in question, would NOT do what you say. The 1st amendment already does what this law intended. The law was REDUNDANT and unnecessary.

Let me repeat because you are obviously being obtuse to try to make it sound like I said something that I didn't. You said:*And yet, the governor vetoed a law that would allow more people to act as you say free from adverse action by the state of Georgia because it would cost the state money to enact such a law. *

As I have said over and over, the law wouldn't do that. The law would really do nothing that the 1st amendment doesn't already do. It is a redundant law that has no teeth.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> As I have said, over and over and over again, the bill in question, would NOT do what you say. The 1st amendment already does what this law intended. The law was REDUNDANT and unnecessary.
> 
> Let me repeat because you are obviously being obtuse to try to make it sound like I said something that I didn't. You said:*And yet, the governor vetoed a law that would allow more people to act as you say free from adverse action by the state of Georgia because it would cost the state money to enact such a law. *
> 
> As I have said over and over, the law wouldn't do that. The law would really do nothing that the 1st amendment doesn't already do. It is a redundant law that has no teeth.


If the first amendment provides such protections to private businesses and citizens how have laws been enacted that provide antidiscrimination priviliges to so many groups. The law says that no individual will be punished by any law enacted in the state for discriminating based on a sincerely held religous belief. This would seem to make all state and local antidiscrimination ordinances in the state of Georgia, especially those regarding protecting the LGBT community from discrimination, unenforcable. It would specifically roll back some protections and provide those who choose to act as you say they have the right to more protection. The first amendment does provide protections but, as we know, rights aren't absolute and it is laws, or the lack thereof, which enforce those rights. The governor chose money over expanding protections of the right to discriminate you say exists. You seem to agree that that money is more important than those rights.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> If the first amendment provides such protections to private businesses and citizens how have laws been enacted that provide antidiscrimination priviliges to so many groups. The law says that no individual will be punished by any law enacted in the state for discriminating based on a sincerely held religous belief. This would seem to make all state and local antidiscrimination ordinances in the state of Georgia, especially those regarding protecting the LGBT community from discrimination, unenforcable. It would specifically roll back some protections and provide those who choose to act as you say they have the right to more protection. The first amendment does provide protections but, as we know, rights aren't absolute and it is laws, or the lack thereof, which enforce those rights. The governor chose money over expanding protections of the right to discriminate you say exists. You seem to agree that that money is more important than those rights.


 Whatever. I will be the first to admit that our justice system from the top down has been turned on its head and is almost impossible to follow. Laws and the very Constitution has been twisted to mean what they don't and it is highly irrelevant at this point in our history. 

I will keep trying to repeal what I see as unconstitutional laws. I don't hold out much hope of success because a slight, or, near majority are too ignorant to know any better, or, too willing to use force of government to enact their version of what they believe is correct. 

You have won, freedom has lost. congratulations.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Whatever. I will be the first to admit that our justice system from the top down has been turned on its head and is almost impossible to follow. Laws and the very Constitution has been twisted to mean what they don't and it is highly irrelevant at this point in our history.
> 
> I will keep trying to repeal what I see as unconstitutional laws. I don't hold out much hope of success because a slight, or, near majority are too ignorant to know any better, or, too willing to use force of government to enact their version of what they believe is correct.
> 
> You have won, freedom has lost. congratulations.


Everyone having the same freedoms should always be the goal. Being free to walk into any establishment that invites you in and being treated equally isn't a bad thing. Being free to open an establishment that doesn't invite everyone in isn't a bad thing. You're free to do both. So should everyone else be.

Then speak out against the governor and those who pressured him with the very market forces you worship so that they got their will.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Everyone having the same freedoms should always be the goal. Being free to walk into any establishment that invites you in and being treated equally isn't a bad thing. Being free to open an establishment that doesn't invite everyone in isn't a bad thing. You're free to do both. So should everyone else be.
> 
> Then speak out against the governor and those who pressured him with the very market forces you worship so that they got their will.


 Being free from government over-reach should be the goal.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Being free from government over-reach should be the goal.


And allowing people to open their establishment to only they choose frees them from government overreach. Requiring the to follow laws they agreed to when they opened their business to allow all in isn't overreach. It's how civilized societies work. By enforcing laws equally.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> *And allowing people to open their establishment to only they choose frees them from government overreach.* Requiring the to follow laws they agreed to when they opened their business to allow all in isn't overreach. It's how civilized societies work. By enforcing laws equally.


You keep saying that, but, reality of the law doesn't seem to agree with you. You can have a private club, but, it can be deemed "Private in name only" and be subject to the law if the government so chooses. Here is an explanation of the Pennsylvania law which is based on the Federal law:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/busine...-laws-applicable-to-private-clubs-or-not.html

I would dare say that a black restaurant owner, who doesn't want to serve whites, but, does serve everyone else, would soon find his "club" deemed "Private in name only" and be forced to serve white people or face fines and lawsuits.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> You keep saying that, but, reality of the law doesn't seem to agree with you. You can have a private club, but, it can be deemed "Private in name only" and be subject to the law if the government so chooses. Here is an explanation of the Pennsylvania law which is based on the Federal law:
> 
> http://corporate.findlaw.com/busine...-laws-applicable-to-private-clubs-or-not.html
> 
> I would dare say that a black restaurant owner, who doesn't want to serve whites, but, does serve everyone else, would soon find his "club" deemed "Private in name only" and be forced to serve white people or face fines and lawsuits.


This is not about "equal rights," and never has, this is and always has been about extortion.
Who wants to give money to people who hate them? 
This is pure politics, they shopped around for someone to shakedown. The amount of stress this must have put this man under is immeasurable, and now he's been hit with an obscenely large bill for the "crime" of wishing to use his own property as he sees fit.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> You keep saying that, but, reality of the law doesn't seem to agree with you. You can have a private club, but, it can be deemed "Private in name only" and be subject to the law if the government so chooses. Here is an explanation of the Pennsylvania law which is based on the Federal law:
> 
> http://corporate.findlaw.com/busine...-laws-applicable-to-private-clubs-or-not.html
> 
> I would dare say that a black restaurant owner, who doesn't want to serve whites, but, does serve everyone else, would soon find his "club" deemed "Private in name only" and be forced to serve white people or face fines and lawsuits.


So your "proof" that my statement is somehow wrong is a link to a case involving a private club. Seems to prove they exist legally. I have always asserted that such establishments must operate legally and consistently. That they can't be one thing one minute and another the next. The "in name only" law requires them to do just that. They can't pretend to be private when they are, in fact, primarily open to the public. The case in question wasn't brought by a government agency. It was a private citizen who felt the club was operating improperly. There's no evidence that I saw in the article that government enforcement was involved. The settlement was private between the two parties and no mention of government sanctions or demand the club changed its behavior were mentioned. 

You're free to surmise any outcomes you wish. I tend to think a private restaurant barring blacks would find itself under pressure from the very markets you love and would be short lived. I might be wrong and there might just be enough support to make it viable. But, unless they violated the law in some way no government action could force their closure. 

You, and others, have stated as one of your rationales that the antidiscrimination laws are no longer neccessary because discriminatory acts would now be so rare. That presupposes that these laws were neccessary and appropriate at one time. It brings up a question. If the right to discriminate exists isn't any law prohibiting it always wrong? What level of discrimination, and against what groups, is enough to make such laws prohibiting the free exercise of such rights appropriate and neccessary?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You're free to surmise any outcomes you wish. *I tend to think a private restaurant barring blacks would find itself under pressure from the very markets you love and would be short lived.* I might be wrong and there might just be enough support to make it viable. But, unless they violated the law in some way no government action could force their closure.
> 
> You, and others, have stated as one of your rationales that the antidiscrimination laws are no longer neccessary because discriminatory acts would now be so rare. That presupposes that these laws were neccessary and appropriate at one time. It brings up a question. If the right to discriminate exists isn't any law prohibiting it always wrong? What level of discrimination, and against what groups, is enough to make such laws prohibiting the free exercise of such rights appropriate and neccessary?


I almost guarantee that such an establishment would be short lived in todays world. That is the point I have been trying to make for this entire conversation. 

I have never said that the anti-discrimination laws were ever the correct course of action for private individuals. (By that I mean non-governmental)


----------



## Heritagefarm

You're both right. 
The government reacts to a certain extent to the wants and needs of those governed. Similarly, the people react to the laws the government lays forth. Ergo, there are a great many factors that go into how the change to give blacks equal rights came about, and therefore you can both be correct. The belief that mmoetc is putting forth that government is necessary to induce change works or fails just as well as farmerga's postulate that people change on their own. Hence, it is likely your conversation devolves into chicken versus egg.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I almost guarantee that such an establishment would be short lived in todays world. That is the point I have been trying to make for this entire conversation.
> 
> 
> I have never said that the anti-discrimination laws were ever the correct course of action for private individuals. (By that I mean non-governmental)


But what if it barred gays? Or Muslims? Still think public outcry would close it? I can surmise that many who post here would support them both. It's their right.

You did state that they were wrong as long as they caused no physical harm. A rather broad exemption. You also stated others should come into the twenty firsts century where such laws aren't neccessary, implying they may have been in the past. Others were more clear in that being the reason laws aren't needed today. I don't expect answers from them or you to answer for them. What we have today isn't roll back of those laws which you advocate or expansion to everyone which I do, but laws by state legislatures targeting one group for more discrimination by another narrowly defined group.

So my question to you, which you've mostly answered, and others is how much discrimination triggers protections and against who is it appropriate?


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> You're both right.
> The government reacts to a certain extent to the wants and needs of those governed. Similarly, the people react to the laws the government lays forth. Ergo, there are a great many factors that go into how the change to give blacks equal rights came about, and therefore you can both be correct. The belief that mmoetc is putting forth that government is necessary to induce change works or fails just as well as farmerga's postulate that people change on their own. Hence, it is likely your conversation devolves into chicken versus egg.


Don't go trying to ruin our fun. It's not so much the chicken and egg as how long before the egg hatches and is it a chicken or a dragon.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> So my question to you, which you've mostly answered, and others is how much discrimination triggers protections and against who is it appropriate?


The government stepping in is only appropriate when there would likely be physical harm from the discrimination. If a person is bleeding to death and the hospital is ethnic group X only, they should be forced to stabilize anyone. 

Not catering the Christian meeting or not baking a wedding cake does not rise to that level.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Don't go trying to ruin our fun. It's not so much the chicken and egg as how long before the egg hatches and is it a chicken or a dragon.


I'm going with dragons, but that's just because I have How to Train Your Dragon on the brain.


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm going with dragons, but that's just because I have How to Train Your Dragon on the brain.


How strange, listening to Imagine Dragons when I read this. So I am voting for dragons too.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But what if it barred gays? Or Muslims? Still think public outcry would close it? I can surmise that many who post here would support them both. It's their right.


 We here at HT are not a representative sample of the population at large. Most, who own businesses, wouldn't care what color they are, to which god they pray, to whom they are married, etc. All they would care about is how can I get them to buy my products. I dare say that, for the vast majority, that would be true. 

What difference does it make if a few want to not serve this person, or, that person because they are this or that?


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> We here at HT are not a representative sample of the population at large. Most, who own businesses, wouldn't care what color they are, to which god they pray, to whom they are married, etc. All they would care about is how can I get them to buy my products. I dare say that, for the vast majority, that would be true.
> 
> What difference does it make if a few want to not serve this person, or, that person because they are this or that?


Quite a few of our members do own businesses and an example you asked for would be our own company. 

We are the only company providing a very specific service within a fairly wide area.

If we were to decline a customer for any reason, they would be forced to hire someone from roughly 3 hours away, which would cause problems for their schedules and increase costs significantly (6 additional hours on each invoice).


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> Quite a few of our members do own businesses and an example you asked for would be our own company.
> 
> We are the only company providing a very specific service within a fairly wide area.
> 
> If we were to decline a customer for any reason, they would be forced to hire someone from roughly 3 hours away, which would cause problems for their schedules and increase costs significantly (6 additional hours on each invoice).


 And I would suggest that even the most blusterous posters on HT wouldn't make a habit of turning away a customer with money in hand. 

Would it cause physical harm to the people you are refusing to serve? If not, the government has no place in forcing people to "play nice". 

Oh, the government will deem it their place and force people to "play nice" but, that doesn't make it a valid function of government. 

Also, if you alienate enough of your potential customers, I have a feeling that you would not be the only company, providing that service, for long.


----------



## coolrunnin

wr said:


> Quite a few of our members do own businesses and an example you asked for would be our own company.
> 
> We are the only company providing a very specific service within a fairly wide area.
> 
> If we were to decline a customer for any reason, they would be forced to hire someone from roughly 3 hours away, which would cause problems for their schedules and increase costs significantly (6 additional hours on each invoice).


Or someone else will step in to fill the need, same as you apparently stepped in to fill a need.

That's what happens when a company starts thinking they can be picky...lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What difference does it make *if a few want to* not serve this person, or, that person because they are this or that?


It makes no difference at all what a few of them *want*.
If they are open to the "public" they still have to treat *everyone* the same


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> We here at HT are not a representative sample of the population at large. Most, who own businesses, wouldn't care what color they are, to which god they pray, to whom they are married, etc. All they would care about is how can I get them to buy my products. I dare say that, for the vast majority, that would be true.
> 
> What difference does it make if a few want to not serve this person, or, that person because they are this or that?


Maybe not representative but we have legislatures passing laws making it easier to discriminate against this or that, we have leading presidential candidates running on policies of banning this or that from even entering the country and policing neighborhoods with greater force and more and more people willing to speak out against this or that. It likely doesn't make a difference if a few don't want to serve someone, unless you're that someone. But when does a few become too many? A question no one has stepped up to answer . Even you. The answer likely is when it adversly affects you? When you're this it that. (And that's the general you, not you specifically. We know you're above it all and would just walk away.). As long as you're protected who cares about this or that?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> And I would suggest that even the most blusterous posters on HT wouldn't make a habit of turning away a customer with money in hand.
> 
> Would it cause physical harm to the people you are refusing to serve? If not, the government has no place in forcing people to "play nice".
> 
> Oh, the government will deem it their place and force people to "play nice" but, that doesn't make it a valid function of government.
> 
> Also, if you alienate enough of your potential customers, I have a feeling that you would not be the only company, providing that service, for long.


Define harm. Walking down the road to find gas on a balmy spring night in Georgia might not cause any. It might be a different story on a January evening in Wisconsin with temperatures around zero and snow blowing. Is discrimination weather dependent?

Turning away a few customers for the "right" reasons might not be that costly. It might even be beneficial to your business and attract more like minded folks to support you. It takes more than a few people who are easy to identify and deny to support most businesses. I'm not likely to open a second grocery in my small town if the small number of Muslims in the area were denied service tomorrow. The numbers wouldn't work. And most others wouldn't care as long as they could get their bread, milk and brandy. Some would even approve. The question, again, is when does a few become too many?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Define harm. Walking down the road to find gas on a balmy spring night in Georgia might not cause any. It might be a different story on a January evening in Wisconsin with temperatures around zero and snow blowing. Is discrimination weather dependent?
> 
> Turning away a few customers for the "right" reasons might not be that costly. It might even be beneficial to your business and attract more like minded folks to support you. It takes more than a few people who are easy to identify and deny to support most businesses. I'm not likely to open a second grocery in my small town if the small number of Muslims in the area were denied service tomorrow. The numbers wouldn't work. And most others wouldn't care as long as they could get their bread, milk and brandy. Some would even approve. *The question, again, is when does a few become too many?*


And the answer again is, as long as there is not likely to be physical harm, there never is "too many". You could throw all of the "well if the weather did this, it could be harmful" True, but, that is true of anything. What happens when activists succeed in having government close down that gas station because they get their "feels" hurt and some old man freezes to death because that station is no longer open and he had to walk an extra mile in a blizzard?

It is more likely, in this day and age, that there would be people, from far and wide, making a scene in front of the store protesting the discriminatory practices of the owner. As long as government is not involved, that is great.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> And the answer again is, as long as there is not likely to be physical harm, there never is "too many". You could throw all of the "well if the weather did this, it could be harmful" True, but, that is true of anything. What happens when activists succeed in having government close down that gas station because they get their "feels" hurt and some old man freezes to death because that station is no longer open and he had to walk an extra mile in a blizzard?
> 
> It is more likely, in this day and age, that there would be people, from far and wide, making a scene in front of the store protesting the discriminatory practices of the owner. As long as government is not involved, that is great.


And there would be people from the other side counter protesting and supporting the station. Even a certain county official in Kentucky had wide spread support when she sought to deny government services to some. It wasn't public opinion that changed her actions, it was the law that did so. Obviously someone would step in to reopen the station and serve the old man's needs. Isn't that your claim about all such cases? Aren't the protestors doing exactly as you say they should? But why would you be concerned even if it didn't reopen? Isn't that the market working as you wish? And the easiest difference to point out is that it's fairly easy to plan a trip around a gas station that isn't open. It's much harder to plan a trip when every station on your route may or may not serve you because of this or that depending on their whims. I have no expectation of getting fuel from that darkened station. I do expect to gas up at the open one. 

So, what is harm? How imminent must the physical threat be?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And there would be people from the other side counter protesting and supporting the station. Even a certain county official in Kentucky had wide spread support when she sought to deny government services to some. It wasn't public opinion that changed her actions, it was the law that did so. Obviously someone would step in to reopen the station and serve the old man's needs. Isn't that your claim about all such cases? Aren't the protestors doing exactly as you say they should? But why would you be concerned even if it didn't reopen? Isn't that the market working as you wish? And the easiest difference to point out is that it's fairly easy to plan a trip around a gas station that isn't open. It's much harder to plan a trip when every station on your route may or may not serve you because of this or that depending on their whims. I have no expectation of getting fuel from that darkened station. I do expect to gas up at the open one.
> 
> So, what is harm? How imminent must the physical threat be?


The woman in Kentucky was, and should have been bound by the law as she was in Government. As I have said every time asked, everyone should be treated as equal by government. 

Yes, if the market wishes to punish or reward the actions of the business owner, that is fine. What is not fine is government having its fingers on the scales. 

The threat should be obvious to any reasonable person, it should be direct and imminent. The minuscule chance that someone might get hit by a bus crossing the street to go to another business, doesn't reach that level. A person bleeding heavily, in a hospital parking lot, does.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The woman in Kentucky was, and should have been bound by the law as she was in Government. As I have said every time asked, everyone should be treated as equal by government.
> 
> Yes, if the market wishes to punish or reward the actions of the business owner, that is fine. What is not fine is government having its fingers on the scales.
> 
> The threat should be obvious to any reasonable person, it should be direct and imminent. The minuscule chance that someone might get hit by a bus crossing the street to go to another business, doesn't reach that level. A person bleeding heavily, in a hospital parking lot, does.


But you miss the point about the woman in Kentucky. It's not that the law worked. It is about the support she had. Support you say should be largely nonexistent in "this day and age." If she could garner such support, the laws trying to expand discrimination can garner such support, and businesses such as the Indiana pizza place and Michigan garage suffer no ill consequence from their stands I'd posit we aren't so inclusive as you might think we are. 

But it doesn't just come down to organized discrimination against distinct groups. Who is going to come to your defense because the gas station owner in rural Wisconsin had a bad experience in Georgia and sees your out of state license plate? The locals won't care. A boycott by all Georgians won't affect his bottom line. Heck, even you shouldn't care as he's just exercising his right not to serve you for any reason. No harm, no foul, right?

And there are many degrees of harm between possibly being hit by a bus and bleeding out after that bus hits you. Where is the line?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But you miss the point about the woman in Kentucky. It's not that the law worked. It is about the support she had. Support you say should be largely nonexistent in "this day and age." If she could garner such support, the laws trying to expand discrimination can garner such support, and businesses such as the Indiana pizza place and Michigan garage suffer no ill consequence from their stands I'd posit we aren't so inclusive as you might think we are.
> 
> But it doesn't just come down to organized discrimination against distinct groups. Who is going to come to your defense because the gas station owner in rural Wisconsin had a bad experience in Georgia and sees your out of state license plate? The locals won't care. A boycott by all Georgians won't affect his bottom line. Heck, even you shouldn't care as he's just exercising his right not to serve you for any reason. No harm, no foul, right?
> 
> And there are many degrees of harm between possibly being hit by a bus and bleeding out after that bus hits you. Where is the line?


And there was much more pushback against her. There are going to be the loud activists on both sides of any issue. The common man simply won't get that worked up about it. 

Why would I want someone to defend me if the gas station owner doesn't want to serve me? To me, he just lost a sale and I will help out his competition. As it has been years since I actually interacted with a human to purchase gasoline, I doubt the scenario will be a common occurrence. 

The concept is simple. If the act of discrimination can be reasonably seen as to cause direct and immediate danger to the person. 

Freedom is dangerous. It is not for the faint of heart. It may be inconvenient, unfair, ugly, stupid, etc. As I am free to patronize or not patronize any business for any reason I see fit, without fear (so far) of reprisal from government, so to should that business owner have the same rights.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> The concept is simple. If the act of discrimination can be reasonably seen as to cause direct and immediate danger to the person.
> 
> Freedom is dangerous. It is not for the faint of heart. It may be inconvenient, unfair, ugly, stupid, etc. As I am free to patronize or not patronize any business for any reason I see fit, without fear (so far) of reprisal from government, so to should that business owner have the same rights.


That's not the attitude you had when I gave you the example of the discriminatory hospital that refused to cater to you based on the fact that you were a farmer. They thought you smelled bad, perhaps, or your truck wasn't pretty enough, or perhaps no reason was given at all, and they kept you out of their ER. Let's pretend this is a perfectly legal situation, no law protecting you from discrimination by the hospital, and the next hospital is clear on the other side of town. I realize I wasn't that elaborate in my previous example, but you were still willing to support their right to discriminate.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> That's not the attitude you had when I gave you the example of the discriminatory hospital that refused to cater to you based on the fact that you were a farmer. They thought you smelled bad, perhaps, or your truck wasn't pretty enough, or perhaps no reason was given at all, and they kept you out of their ER. Let's pretend this is a perfectly legal situation, no law protecting you from discrimination by the hospital, and the next hospital is clear on the other side of town. I realize I wasn't that elaborate in my previous example, but you were still willing to support their right to discriminate.


 
If I came in to have a broken arm set, or, a boil lanced, or minor surgery, etc., sure, I have no problem with a private hospital picking and choosing whom they serve. If I were bleeding from a severed artery, or suffering a major heart attack, etc., things would be different, as the danger would be direct an immediate.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> If I came in to have a broken arm set, or, a boil lanced, or minor surgery, etc., sure, I have no problem with a private hospital picking and choosing whom they serve. If I were bleeding from a severed artery, or suffering a major heart attack, etc., things would be different, as the danger would be direct an immediate.


And do you think people cared about such categorizations in the salve era? Blacks were livestock. Sometimes, when an animal is too much headache, or injured itself too badly, it's simply put down. An advanced society like ours shouldn't even have reasons to discriminate. Further, it seems like you're unrealistically supporting your idea. I imagine your IRL reaction to someone not immediately treating your broken arm would be much different.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> And do you think people cared about such categorizations in the salve era? Blacks were livestock. Sometimes, when an animal is too much headache, or injured itself too badly, it's simply put down. An advanced society like ours shouldn't even have reasons to discriminate. Further, it seems like you're unrealistically supporting your idea. I imagine your IRL reaction to someone not immediately treating your broken arm would be much different.


We are not talking about he slave era, we are talking about the 21st century when slavery is unconstitutional. Our advanced society doesn't have much in the way of real discrimination on a wide spread basis. That is one of the reasons why these silly obsolete laws bother me so much. 

Your imagining of my reactions to certain situations are not at issue here. My reaction may be to cuss and fuss, take out a full page add in the local paper, expressing my disgust for all to see. What my reaction would NOT be would be to run to my local elected official and try to get him/her to force my views on the hospital.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> We are not talking about he slave era, we are talking about the 21st century when slavery is unconstitutional. Our advanced society doesn't have much in the way of real discrimination on a wide spread basis. That is one of the reasons why these silly obsolete laws bother me so much.
> 
> Your imagining of my reactions to certain situations are not at issue here. My reaction may be to cuss and fuss, take out a full page add in the local paper, expressing my disgust for all to see. What my reaction would NOT be would be to run to my local elected official and try to get him/her to force my views on the hospital.


Ultimately we're talking about freedom. Which freedom is more important - the freedom for our pretend hospital to discriminate, or your freedom to choose a business?


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> Ultimately we're talking about freedom. Which freedom is more important - the freedom for our pretend hospital to discriminate, or your freedom to choose a business?


Well, according to the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, I don't remember their being any caveats other than for lawfully convicted criminals. 

All contracts, both written and verbal, should be entered into by the voluntary action of BOTH parties.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Well, according to the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, I don't remember their being any caveats other than for lawfully convicted criminals.
> 
> All contracts, both written and verbal, should be entered into by the voluntary action of BOTH parties.


And do you think that freedom is more fairly represented by your right to choose any public business, or the business's right to choose any customer?


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> And do you think that freedom is more fairly represented by your right to choose any public business, or the business's right to choose any customer?


Both are people. The customer generally has more than one option, when it comes to where he spends his money. The business owner generally only has one option. What I am saying is that, it should be that both agree to enter into a business arrangement. If either side is forced into the arrangement, freedom is lost. 

We do not have the right to the goods and/or services of another anymore than they have the right to force you to purchase their goods and services.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We do not have the right to the goods and/or services of another anymore than they have the right to force you to purchase their goods and services.


You have every right to buy any and all products offered for sale to the general public.

You do not have a right to pick and choose your customers arbitrarily, no matter how hard you try to cover up blatant discrimination by calling it "freedom".


----------



## Farmerga

To end the discussion, freedom to associate, with whomever you wish, is a fundamental right. Conversely, the choice not to associate with someone should also be a right. You shouldn't have to give up that right of free association simply to try and make a living. Anti-discrimination laws, directed at the private sector, are a vast government over-reach and we should endeavor to have them repealed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You shouldn't have to give up that right of free association simply to try and make a living.


You don't have to give up any rights to make a living

You never had the right to discriminate if you run a business open to the general public.

You can't "give up" something you never had.

You're free to associate with anyone you like, on your own time.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Both are people. The customer generally has more than one option, when it comes to where he spends his money. The business owner generally only has one option. What I am saying is that, it should be that both agree to enter into a business arrangement. If either side is forced into the arrangement, freedom is lost.
> 
> We do not have the right to the goods and/or services of another anymore than they have the right to force you to purchase their goods and services.


And what is a right? It used to be a right, essentially, to own slaves. Was this right; a right right?
Especially today, with our massive selection of online options, shopping different places is a breeze. But in the past, this has not been the case. If the local blacksmith refused to serve a black person, as was frequently the case, they might have to walk ten, twenty miles to the next village. 
Keeping it modern, it's completely possible that, given the radical freedom you suggest, our hypothetical hospital would refuse you even with a life threatening emergency. You've said you want discrimination for any reason, for any service.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> And what is a right? It used to be a right, essentially, to own slaves. Was this right; a right right?
> Especially today, with our massive selection of online options, shopping different places is a breeze. But in the past, this has not been the case. If the local blacksmith refused to serve a black person, as was frequently the case, they might have to walk ten, twenty miles to the next village.
> Keeping it modern, it's completely possible that, given the radical freedom you suggest, our hypothetical hospital would refuse you even with a life threatening emergency. You've said you want discrimination for any reason, for any service.


Lets keep it accurate here, I didn't say, nor do I want discrimination. I simply do not believe that the government has the right, or, responsibility to govern those actions in others, except in the case where the discrimination will likely cause physical harm.

So-called rights, that infringe on the rights of others, are not valid rights. It is no more my right to force you to cater my event than it is for you to force me to pick your apples. It matters not if you cater for a living and I pick apples for a living. If we are not allowed to choose the jobs we do and for whom we do them, we are not truly free.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If we are not allowed to choose the jobs we do and for whom we do them, we are not truly free.


You're free to do what you want, but you also have to follow the established rules if you choose to run a business open to the public.

You can't pretend you don't want discrimination when that's exactly what you say you want. 

Calling it "freedom" doesn't change what it truly means.


----------



## Farmerga

Let me say this, because some don't seem to get it. I don't think taking drugs is cool, or, the right thing to do, but, I am against the Government telling adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies, as long as the action does no physical harm to others. You see? Just because I am against the prohibition of something, doesn't mean that I advocate for its use, or, application.

Freedom includes the freedom to choose with whom we associate. Call it discrimination if you want, that is accurate, but, we should be free to discriminate if we so desire. The fact that, in order to open a business we must apply for government permission and be bound to its rules, or, let our dreams die, should not be a choice forced upon us.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Let me say this, because some don't seem to get it. I don't think taking drugs is cool, or, the right thing to do, but, I am against the Government telling adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies, as long as the action does no physical harm to others. You see? Just because I am against the prohibition of something, doesn't mean that I advocate for its use, or, application.
> 
> Freedom includes the freedom to choose with whom we associate. Call it discrimination if you want, that is accurate, but, we should be free to discriminate if we so desire. The fact that, in order to open a business we must apply for government permission and be bound to its rules, or, let our dreams die, should not be a choice forced upon us.


I agree that it's too hard to open a business now days. However, some of those rules are in place for a reason. Other rules are nonsensical and should be repealed. 
To respond to your previous analysis, if I want to open a winery catering only to a few restaurants, that's discrimination, because I will not sell to the public. But no one else to be hurt by my "discrimination." 
Total freedom is an interesting concept. In order for everyone to be free, there cannot be laws. But then, it's whoever has the biggest gun and the most money. There is still no freedom. That's an extreme example.
Further, if I want to ensalve someone, and I think it's my right, it infringes on someone else. But it also then infringes on me because I think slavery is my right. This is why we have government.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> I agree that it's too hard to open a business now days. However, some of those rules are in place for a reason. Other rules are nonsensical and should be repealed.
> To respond to your previous analysis, if I want to open a winery catering only to a few restaurants, that's discrimination, because I will not sell to the public. But no one else to be hurt by my "discrimination."
> Total freedom is an interesting concept. In order for everyone to be free, there cannot be laws. But then, it's whoever has the biggest gun and the most money. There is still no freedom. That's an extreme example.
> Further, if I want to ensalve someone, and I think it's my right, it infringes on someone else. But it also then infringes on me because I think slavery is my right. This is why we have government.


The fact that we have government is not at issue. What is at issue is that government over stepping its bounds. I have said, repeatedly, that rights must be weighed against physical harm of others. Slavery physically harms others as involuntary servitude and imprisonment are assaults on another person. Not baking a cake, catering an event, or, selling them a pack of gum does not rise to the level of physical harm.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> The fact that we have government is not at issue. What is at issue is that government over stepping its bounds. I have said, repeatedly, that rights must be weighed against physical harm of others. Slavery physically harms others as involuntary servitude and imprisonment are assaults on another person. Not baking a cake, catering an event, or, selling them a pack of gum does not rise to the level of physical harm.


At this point we can agree. I still take leave to doubt whether certain entities such as hospitals should be allowed any discrimination at all. Oh, wait, they do - only people with money/insurance can use them.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> At this point we can agree. I still take leave to doubt whether certain entities such as hospitals should be allowed any discrimination at all. Oh, wait, they do - only people with money/insurance can use them.


Well, private hospitals are required to stabilize people, money or no money, before kicking them out. I can see the need for these laws for places like hospitals.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> Well, private hospitals are required to stabilize people, money or no money, before kicking them out. I can see the need for these laws for places like hospitals.


OK, but earlier you said my hypothetical hospital should have the right to discriminate. So, you only think they should treat people in imminent danger?


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> And what is a right?


And this is the crux of many, many issues we have today.

It USED to be that a "right" was 'endowed by our Creator.' In other words, a right was a universal truth that applied to everyone and upheld the dignity of mankind, and each and every man, woman, and child. These were things beyond government control, that transcended the human condition, and were intended to be protected (NOT imposed) by government for the uplifting of the dignity to all. ***

Since we have collectively, as a society, rejected the concept of a creator, from whom then do our right come? The government?? This is scary stuff - as governments change, our rights will certainly change, too. If there are no universal, fundamental rights, then "rights" will (and do!) differ as soon as you cross borders or elect someone else. And, all we need to do to change our rights is elect people who agree with us!

Don't you see the danger there? If enough people elect the right folks, then they can declare anything a right! Or, they can simply take away any right that doesn't fit into the narrative _du jour_.

This is an upside-down worldview that has led to millions of lives lost and millions more wrecked in the past century. Nazi Germany, the USSR, ISIS, Mao's China, and the African genocides are simply a few recent examples of what happens when governments impose "rights," rather than work to defend that which has been established through Natural Law.

This shrill screaming match (I can't even call it dialogue) over whose "rights" are more important than whose is missing the point. The freedom to mutilate oneself, force someone to violate their conscience at work, or violate someone else's restroom space is not a "right." It is a VERY recently- invented privilege that stems from the very recently invented "right" designed to protect people from being offended. As if being offended is the worst thing that can happen to a person.  It's not going to end well, and those pushing it will never be satisfied.

As to the OP - yes, that ideology does harm children. It takes a truth that children see very clearly - that there is a fundamental, scientific difference between the sexes - and obliterates it. It destroys the foundation of basic differentiation and categorization that children acquire as a needed skill in early childhood. If THAT isn't true, and people 'are' whatever they pretend to be instead of what they really are, a child grows up with the sense that NOTHING is true, NOTHING is stable, and everything is subject to emotional whims. 


*** Yes, some will decry that slavery existed as a 'right'. I contend that the invented 'right' to slavery in some of the early colonies and states was invented by men, and was NOT a right in the true sense of the word. The biblical basis some used to defend it is inherently flawed. Naturally, since that 'right' never actually existed (they all just pretended it was OK), the whole system came crashing down in 1865.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> OK, but earlier you said my hypothetical hospital should have the right to discriminate. So, you only think they should treat people in imminent danger?


 Yes, they should only be required to stabilize those in imminent danger. (private only, public should treat everyone equally)


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bubba1358 said:


> And this is the crux of many, many issues we have today.
> 
> It USED to be that a "right" was 'endowed by our Creator.' In other words, a right was a universal truth that applied to everyone and upheld the dignity of mankind, and each and every man, woman, and child. These were things beyond government control, that transcended the human condition, and were intended to be protected (NOT imposed) by government for the uplifting of the dignity to all. ***
> 
> Since we have collectively, as a society, rejected the concept of a creator, from whom then do our right come? The government?? This is scary stuff - as governments change, our rights will certainly change, too. If there are no universal, fundamental rights, then "rights" will (and do!) differ as soon as you cross borders or elect someone else. And, all we need to do to change our rights is elect people who agree with us!
> 
> Don't you see the danger there? If enough people elect the right folks, then they can declare anything a right! Or, they can simply take away any right that doesn't fit into the narrative _du jour_.
> 
> This is an upside-down worldview that has led to millions of lives lost and millions more wrecked in the past century. Nazi Germany, the USSR, ISIS, Mao's China, and the African genocides are simply a few recent examples of what happens when governments impose "rights," rather than work to defend that which has been established through Natural Law.
> 
> This shrill screaming match (I can't even call it dialogue) over whose "rights" are more important than whose is missing the point. The freedom to mutilate oneself, force someone to violate their conscience at work, or violate someone else's restroom space is not a "right." It is a VERY recently- invented privilege that stems from the very recently invented "right" designed to protect people from being offended. As if being offended is the worst thing that can happen to a person.  It's not going to end well, and those pushing it will never be satisfied.
> 
> As to the OP - yes, that ideology does harm children. It takes a truth that children see very clearly - that there is a fundamental, scientific difference between the sexes - and obliterates it. It destroys the foundation of basic differentiation and categorization that children acquire as a needed skill in early childhood. If THAT isn't true, and people 'are' whatever they pretend to be instead of what they really are, a child grows up with the sense that NOTHING is true, NOTHING is stable, and everything is subject to emotional whims.
> 
> 
> *** Yes, some will decry that slavery existed as a 'right'. I contend that the invented 'right' to slavery in some of the early colonies and states was invented by men, and was NOT a right in the true sense of the word. The biblical basis some used to defend it is inherently flawed. Naturally, since that 'right' never actually existed (they all just pretended it was OK), the whole system came crashing down in 1865.


Very thought-provoking read. Thanks.
It reminds me of me own intellectual challenges. Part of me wants to accept that there is God, and religion, and whathaveyou, but the reality is vastly more complex than that. The New Testament, for instance, is filled with conventional wisdom, and that is where much of my personal morality comes from. However, I recognize also that there exist many different ways of living ones life, and many different things to believe. Hence, morality in my opinion gets boiled down to the Freethinker's belief: the golden rule of kindness. When we are kind, and seek deliberately to be kind, all things fall into place.
When we remove God from the equation, things gets muddy. Yet this does not make it right to have religion simply because following a set of codes simplifies things. Take, for example, the definition of "evil." If you look to the Bible, the answer is obvious: all evil clearly stems from the devil. This is overly simplistic, and essentially uses an unknown, unseeable deity as a scapegoat for all the wrongs which we are ultimately responsible for. 
Anyways, I'm not sure if I agree with the reason for why those atrocities were committed. And the foundation for slavery was actually pretty solid; it existed for centuries before America used it. Also, Hitler was ostensibly a Christian, before replacing all Bibles with his own book. Obviously, he wasn't and set a new bar for the definition of evil.
Ultimately though, I think your argument hinges on that our declining morality is due to declining religion, which I do not agree with, for a mixture of my above opinions. I hope I didn't get too wordy.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> Very thought-provoking read. Thanks.
> ...
> Ultimately though, I think your argument hinges on that our declining morality is due to declining religion, which I do not agree with, for a mixture of my above opinions.


You're welcome!

It actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. My argument is that millenia-old thought, common sense applied to science and nature, and the human quest for Truth has been replaced by the intellectual experiments and opinions of a minority. THAT is the slippery slope, when what is right and true (i.e., that can be determined by use of reason and natural law) gets tossed out with the bathwater. Religion really has nothing to do with it. Case in point, Aristotle first advanced these principles, and he sure as heck wasn't Christian. 

Also, on your point regarding evil in the Bible. It doesn't come from the devil, per se. Evil stems from disobedience to the natural order. The devil is a figure in the OT and NT, for sure, but ultimately it is the will acting on its own accord, out of step with the natural order, that is the source of evil.


----------



## Txsteader

Bubba1358 said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> It actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. My argument is that millenia-old thought, common sense applied to science and nature, and the human quest for Truth has been replaced by the intellectual experiments and opinions of a minority. THAT is the slippery slope, when what is right and true (i.e., that can be determined by use of reason and natural law) gets tossed out with the bathwater. Religion really has nothing to do with it. Case in point, Aristotle first advanced these principles, and he sure as heck wasn't Christian.
> 
> Also, on your point regarding evil in the Bible. It doesn't come from the devil, per se. Evil stems from disobedience to the natural order. The devil is a figure in the OT and NT, for sure, but ultimately it is the will acting on its own accord, out of step with the natural order, that is the source of evil.


Well said!! Excellent post. :thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> THAT is the slippery slope, when what is *right and true* (i.e., that can be determined by use of *reason and natural law*) gets tossed out with the bathwater.


Those are both pretty subjective terms.
All human behavior is "natural".

Some just don't like what others do and feel a need to say they are "wrong" when a more correct term would be "different"


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are both pretty subjective terms.
> All human behavior is "natural".
> 
> Some just don't like what others do and feel a need to say they are "wrong" when a more correct term would be "different"


They feel a need to judge others too. I didn't think they were supposed to do that?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Well, private hospitals are required to stabilize people, money or no money, before kicking them out. I can see the need for these laws for places like hospitals.


Only if they accept Medicaid or operate as a not for profit, and have emergency facilities. Otherwise youre out of luck. No doctor who doesn't have a prior relationship treating you has to lift a finger, either. Neither do I. Good luck.


----------



## mmoetc

Bubba1358 said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> It actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. My argument is that millenia-old thought, common sense applied to science and nature, and the human quest for Truth has been replaced by the intellectual experiments and opinions of a minority. THAT is the slippery slope, when what is right and true (i.e., that can be determined by use of reason and natural law) gets tossed out with the bathwater. Religion really has nothing to do with it. Case in point, Aristotle first advanced these principles, and he sure as heck wasn't Christian.
> 
> Also, on your point regarding evil in the Bible. It doesn't come from the devil, per se. Evil stems from disobedience to the natural order. The devil is a figure in the OT and NT, for sure, but ultimately it is the will acting on its own accord, out of step with the natural order, that is the source of evil.


Reason and natural law tell me that all men are created equal and should be treated as such and that man's laws should apply to all equally.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are both pretty subjective terms.
> All human behavior is "natural".
> 
> Some just don't like what others do and feel a need to say they are "wrong" when a more correct term would be "different"


Natural is a relative term.



Bubba1358 said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> It actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. My argument is that millenia-old thought, common sense applied to science and nature, and the human quest for Truth has been replaced by the intellectual experiments and opinions of a minority. THAT is the slippery slope, when what is right and true (i.e., that can be determined by use of reason and natural law) gets tossed out with the bathwater. Religion really has nothing to do with it. Case in point, Aristotle first advanced these principles, and he sure as heck wasn't Christian.
> 
> Also, on your point regarding evil in the Bible. It doesn't come from the devil, per se. Evil stems from disobedience to the natural order. The devil is a figure in the OT and NT, for sure, but ultimately it is the will acting on its own accord, out of step with the natural order, that is the source of evil.


Well, when we seek for morality in the form of intellectual experiments, I think this is ultimately just philosophy. And of course, we all agree on the golden rule. It's the specifics that divide different peoples. So, ultimately, I think our declining morality stems from an entitlement culture. Entitlement explains the yelling from the minorities, and many other things.

I agree with your interpretation of evil. What is interesting is some believe nature to be inherently evil in itself. I personally believe evil is be the embodiment of anything that presents harm from one person to another person.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Only if they accept Medicaid or operate as a not for profit, and have emergency facilities. Otherwise youre out of luck. No doctor who doesn't have a prior relationship treating you has to lift a finger, either. Neither do I. Good luck.


Well, we are not entitled to the goods and services of others. That is a good thing. 

BTW, other than Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children, and Government run hospitals such as the VA and Indian Health Services, there are really no hospitals that do not accept Medicare. 

You seem to believe that if these hospitals are not required to offer care, they wouldn't. That is a very pessimistic view of humanity. One that I do not share. Sure, you may come across a doctor who wouldn't, but, a hospital? not likely.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> They feel a need to judge others too. I didn't think they were supposed to do that?


Matthew 7:5......
_You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and *then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.*_

2 Timothy 4:2....
_Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; *reprove, rebuke*, *and exhort*, with complete patience and teaching. 

_


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Matthew 7:5......
> _You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and *then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.*_
> 
> 2 Timothy 4:2....
> _Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; *reprove, rebuke*, *and exhort*, with complete patience and teaching.
> 
> _


*Justification* for judging other people... One of the reasons I don't believe in the BS of religion.

ETA: The "golden rule" should include: Mind your own business.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Well, we are not entitled to the goods and services of others. That is a good thing.
> 
> BTW, other than Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children, and Government run hospitals such as the VA and Indian Health Services, there are really no hospitals that do not accept Medicare.
> 
> You seem to believe that if these hospitals are not required to offer care, they wouldn't. That is a very pessimistic view of humanity. One that I do not share. Sure, you may come across a doctor who wouldn't, but, a hospital? not likely.


And again, rather than simply saying you were wrong you spin. You now say something you spoke against, something you seemed to use to make your argument more palatable, is a good thing. Rather than sticking by your argument that hospitals should be required to treat everyone you fall back on on what you have consistently cited, the unlikelyhood of being turned away. The broader point is that despite all of your protestations to the contrary, laws like this show that people, businesses and even hospitals are free to operate according to their beliefs. Every time you say they can't another example pops up showing they can. Examples you now wish to spin saying you supported them all along.


Actually I think most hospitals, doctors and even civilians would offer such aid as they could regardless of law. I also don't think most businesses would lie, cheat and steal yet we have laws against all of those. But when I see three states pass laws specifically allowing discrimination, largely focused at a single group, and I read of eight more states contemplating 100+ more versions of such laws my optimism in individuals is tempered a bit by the reality I see around me. Laws should protect people from harm, not encourage others to harm them.

Im going to step away from this discussion for now. I might come back if you can show the basis for your argument that discrimination must be allowed as long as it causes no physical harm. If indeed you still stand behind that. If you define what physical harm or any of the other ever shifting euphemisms you used as an exception really mean. What probability or possibility or other circumstance triggers the exception. Or maybe, even, what probability of it happening to anyone, not just you because you pay at the pump so presuming you might be denied at the gas station is unrealistic, would trigger laws providing equal protection to all. I'm tired of arguing in circles, chasing definitions, and having questions go unanswered. Spring calls and I have customers to serve. And Ill serve all of them equally.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> *Justification* for judging other people... *One of the reasons I don't believe in the BS of religion.*


Then why do you use religious tenets as the basis for your argument? That would be defined as mockery....and you can keep that to yourself.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Then why do you use religious tenets as the basis for your argument? That would be defined as mockery....and you can keep that to yourself.


You can keep your christian dogma to yourself as well. I will keep my opinion of religion to myself, as long as you will keep your religion to yourself. Deal?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And again, rather than simply saying you were wrong you spin. You now say something you spoke against, something you seemed to use to make your argument more palatable, is a good thing. Rather than sticking by your argument that hospitals should be required to treat everyone you fall back on on what you have consistently cited, the unlikelyhood of being turned away. The broader point is that despite all of your protestations to the contrary, laws like this show that people, businesses and even hospitals are free to operate according to their beliefs. Every time you say they can't another example pops up showing they can. Examples you now wish to spin saying you supported them all along.
> 
> 
> Actually I think most hospitals, doctors and even civilians would offer such aid as they could regardless of law. I also don't think most businesses would lie, cheat and steal yet we have laws against all of those. But when I see three states pass laws specifically allowing discrimination, largely focused at a single group, and I read of eight more states contemplating 100+ more versions of such laws my optimism in individuals is tempered a bit by the reality I see around me. Laws should protect people from harm, not encourage others to harm them.
> 
> Im going to step away from this discussion for now. I might come back if you can show the basis for your argument that discrimination must be allowed as long as it causes no physical harm. If indeed you still stand behind that. If you define what physical harm or any of the other ever shifting euphemisms you used as an exception really mean. What probability or possibility or other circumstance triggers the exception. Or maybe, even, what probability of it happening to anyone, not just you because you pay at the pump so presuming you might be denied at the gas station is unrealistic, would trigger laws providing equal protection to all. I'm tired of arguing in circles, chasing definitions, and having questions go unanswered. Spring calls and I have customers to serve. And Ill serve all of them equally.


Freedom seems to frighten/anger you. What real difference does it make if a baker doesn't bake a specific cake or, a caterer refuses to cater a specific event? 

There are going to be exceptions to every rule. I wish to live in a world where people are not forced to do things that they don't want to do. You seem to want to live in an opposite world. 

It is silly to argue about exceptions to the rules. The simple fact is that government shouldn't force anyone to do business with anyone, or, interact with them in any way. I have rethought my original caveat about physical harm. I wish to clarify it to as long as ones actions do not directly result in the physical harm of another, they should be free to do as they will. To clarify, if a doctor doesn't want to treat an injured person, fine. If he wants to inflict harm himself, not fine. How is that for black and white? 

It is about force. You wish to have the option to force others to bend to your will. I wish for freedom. That is the difference between you and me.

BTW, these laws, that you find so offensive, would be non existence without the perpetual government interference in the private and business lives of citizens.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> And of course, we all agree on the golden rule.


Just imagine if everyone stopped AGREEING with it and started LIVING it.

Truly, stopping-to-think, neighbor comes first before myself, how would feel if this was reversed, L-I-V-I-N-G.

What a world...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Freedom seems to frighten/anger you. What real difference does it make if a baker doesn't bake a specific cake or, a caterer refuses to cater a specific event?
> 
> There are going to be exceptions to every rule. I wish to live in a world where people are not forced to do things that they don't want to do. You seem to want to live in an opposite world.
> 
> It is silly to argue about exceptions to the rules. The simple fact is that government shouldn't force anyone to do business with anyone, or, interact with them in any way. I have rethought my original caveat about physical harm. I wish to clarify it to as long as ones actions do not directly result in the physical harm of another, they should be free to do as they will. To clarify, if a doctor doesn't want to treat an injured person, fine. If he wants to inflict harm himself, not fine. How is that for black and white?
> 
> It is about force. You wish to have the option to force others to bend to your will. I wish for freedom. That is the difference between you and me.
> 
> BTW, these laws, that you find so offensive, would be non existence without the perpetual government interference in the private and business lives of citizens.


Back at you- what real difference is it if a woman has an abortion or uses certain types of birth control? None, to you.

Why is government intervention AOK if it's doing something _you_ support?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Well, we are not entitled to the goods and services of others. That is a good thing.
> 
> BTW, other than Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children, and Government run hospitals such as the VA and Indian Health Services, there are really no hospitals that do not accept Medicare.
> 
> You seem to believe that if these hospitals are not required to offer care, they wouldn't. *That is a very pessimistic view of humanity.* One that I do not share. Sure, you may come across a doctor who wouldn't, but, a hospital? not likely.


It's hard not to be pessimistic when one constantly sees folks asking for their
"right" to discriminate based on their prejudices


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's hard not to be pessimistic when one constantly sees folks asking for their
> "right" to discriminate based on their prejudices


 You see a very small, very loud minority that can be placated with the threat of loss of revenue. 

As long as it is not government doing the discrimination, why should they not have that right?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Back at you- what real difference is it if a woman has an abortion or uses certain types of birth control? None, to you.
> 
> Why is government intervention AOK if it's doing something _you_ support?


 You see, that is a case where the action does physical harm to another (the unborn baby).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You see *a very small, very loud minority* that can be placated with the threat of loss of revenue.
> 
> As long as it is not government doing the discrimination, why should they not have that right?


I'm talking about your side, and your question has been asked and answered repeatedly


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's hard not to be pessimistic when one constantly sees folks asking for their
> "right" to discriminate based on their prejudices


Yep.



Farmerga said:


> You see a very small, very loud minority that can be placated with the threat of loss of revenue.
> 
> As long as it is not government doing the discrimination, why should they not have that right?


Yep, again.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm talking about your side, and your question has been asked and answered repeatedly


I'll take a guess at what this "answer" is..........because it's the "law"?

The decisions made by both private and government entities to refuse to do business in states where these laws were passed, is that not the exact same right being exercised and at the same time denied to others living in those states?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> You see, that is a case where the action does physical harm to another (the unborn baby).


Your opinion, others may not think that way. I don't. 

So, again why is government involvement OK if it is interfering in something _you_ support?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Just imagine if everyone stopped AGREEING with it and started LIVING it.
> 
> Truly, stopping-to-think, neighbor comes first before myself, how would feel if this was reversed, L-I-V-I-N-G.
> 
> What a world...


Indeed. The world would be a better place.



Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, others may not think that way, I don't.
> 
> So, again why is government involvement OK if it is interfering in something _you_ support?


technically farmerga may be correct on this one: abortion does present a clear and present danger to a living entity.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, others may not think that way, I don't.
> 
> So, again why is government involvement OK if it is interfering in something _you_ support?


Good question.

My answer is "the selfish nature of mankind."
What's yours?


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Indeed. The world would be a better place.
> 
> 
> 
> technically farmerga may be correct on this one: *abortion does present a clear and present danger to a living entity*.


Precisely, as does imposing this new gender ideology on impressionable children.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> You can keep your christian dogma to yourself as well. *I will keep my opinion of religion to myself, as long as you will keep your religion to yourself.* Deal?


But you didn't keep it to yourself. 

And the scriptures I posted in response to your claim are to show that your 'interpretation' neglects the rest of the message; the standards that Christians must use before judging one another.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> Precisely, as does imposing this new gender ideology on impressionable children.


Why would this ideology create a similar danger? It might make some people confused, it is a tad ludicrous in some ways, but I wouldn't call it dangerous.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm talking about your side, and your question has been asked and answered repeatedly


 Your usual dodge and weave I see.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Your opinion, others may not think that way, I don't.
> 
> So, again why is government involvement OK if it is interfering in something _you_ support?


 If your belief is that the unborn baby is not destroyed by abortion, what do you think happens to it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> If your belief is that the unborn baby is not destroyed by abortion, what do you think happens to it?


A pregnancy is terminated by abortion. My belief is that it's not a "baby" until it's viable- but you already knew that. 

Why spin your "anti-government unless it suits your agenda" belief? Own it.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> A pregnancy is terminated by abortion. My belief is that it's not a "baby" until it's viable- but you already knew that.
> 
> Why spin your "anti-government unless it suits your agenda" belief? Own it.


NO spin, I have said, at every occasion, that the ONLY time that government interference is warranted is when there is a real threat of physical harm to another. Abortion certainly does result in the physical harm to another, no matter what gentle euphemisms you ascribe to it. 

Sounds familiar, by your reasoning, in order to do physical harm to another, all one need do is to deny the humanity of their target. I learned about that sort of thing in history class, didn't turn out well.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> But you didn't keep it to yourself.
> 
> And the scriptures I posted in response to your claim are to show that your 'interpretation' neglects the rest of the message; the standards that Christians must use before judging one another.


Nope, I used it as rebuttal to the ever present christian rhetoric. You can choose to disregard it, right? 

You can use your interpretation of judgmental christians and fictional books, and I can use mine. We can both state it publicly as well. Ain't it great?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> NO spin, I have said, at every occasion, that the ONLY time that government interference is warranted is when there is a real threat of physical harm to another. Abortion certainly does result in the physical harm to another, no matter what gentle euphemisms you ascribe to it.
> 
> Sounds familiar, by your reasoning, in order to do physical harm to another, all one need do is to deny the humanity of their target. I learned about that sort of thing in history class, didn't turn out well.


Don't go there, it makes no sense and is beneath you to insinuate it. 

No access to a safe legal abortion puts millions of women at risk. Isn't that real threat of physical harm? Not to mention that pesky governmental right that _every_ American citizen has control their own body... 

I'm not having the go around where you state you (collective anti abortionists) have the right to control my reproductive bits. You don't, end of discussion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Precisely, as does imposing this new gender ideology on impressionable children.


Can you detail how explaining gender (trans or otherwise) is a "clear and present danger" on impressionable children? That's a hoot. :hysterical:


----------



## Txsteader

Heritagefarm said:


> Why would this ideology create a similar danger? It might make some people confused, it is a tad ludicrous in some ways, but I wouldn't call it dangerous.


Granted, there may not be an immediate threat to their physical existence, but don't you think screwing up a kid's head about their sexuality might cause mental or emotional problems for them later in life? Is that acceptable, as long as it's not a threat to their physical existence?


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you detail how explaining gender (trans or otherwise) is a "clear and present danger" on impressionable children? That's a hoot. :hysterical:



Yeah, everything is funny........until someone gets hurt, then it ain't that funny anymore.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Granted, there may not be an immediate threat to their physical existence, but don't you think screwing up a kid's head about their sexuality might cause mental or emotional problems for them later in life? Is that acceptable, as long as it's not a threat to their physical existence?


And telling a kid that knows they were born in the wrong body that "it's all in their head" is a _true_ threat to their well being in every case.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> Granted, there may not be an immediate threat to their physical existence, but don't you think screwing up a kid's head about their sexuality might cause mental or emotional problems for them later in life? Is that acceptable, as long as it's not a threat to their physical existence?


What IP said. Personally, I think just telling the kids to be true to themselves is the best option. Not selfish. Look up centering on the self without being selfish - it's one of the Seven Habits. 



Farmerga said:


> NO spin, I have said, at every occasion, that the ONLY time that government interference is warranted is when there is a real threat of physical harm to another. Abortion certainly does result in the physical harm to another, no matter what gentle euphemisms you ascribe to it.
> 
> Sounds familiar, by your reasoning, in order to do physical harm to another, all one need do is to deny the humanity of their target. I learned about that sort of thing in history class, didn't turn out well.


So, you want freedom to do anything until suddenly you don't agree with some thing. Congratulations, you're exactly like everyone else.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> And telling a kid that knows they were born in the wrong body that "it's all in their head" is a _true_ threat to their well being in every case.


"Wrong body" -> ??? If they look, they can tell what gender they are. It seems that their elevators are not making it all the way up to the top if they look, see one thing and then want to say "someone made a mistake, I gots the wrong body parts". To me, any psychologist or psychiatrist that examines this person should easily find out where the issue is. Any doctor that tells someone that - "Oh, hey... you're right, you did get the wrong body parts!" deserves a room right next to the person that is gender confused.

But of course, in this touchy-feely world, you can encourage this behavior in a child, dose them up with hormones and other puberty delaying drugs, teach them that what you feel is reality rather than reality is fairly much a hard and fast rule that does not slow down or stop because of what one "feels" or "thinks" that reality is. Go ahead, destroy that person. Screw their mind up so bad that they want to end their lives, I mean, at least they got to live their dream [that's right - "dream"]. It does not matter that transgender people kill themselves at 20 times the normal rate, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their thinking process...

Just keep on encouraging these people to destroy their lives, that'll solve the problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> "Wrong body" -> ??? If they look, they can tell what gender they are. It seems that their elevators are not making it all the way up to the top if they look, see one thing and then want to say "someone made a mistake, I gots the wrong body parts". To me, any psychologist or psychiatrist that examines this person should easily find out where the issue is. Any doctor that tells someone that - "Oh, hey... you're right, you did get the wrong body parts!" deserves a room right next to the person that is gender confused.
> 
> But of course, in this touchy-feely world, you can encourage this behavior in a child, dose them up with hormones and other puberty delaying drugs, teach them that what you feel is reality rather than reality is fairly much a hard and fast rule that does not slow down or stop because of what one "feels" or "thinks" that reality is. Go ahead, destroy that person. Screw their mind up so bad that they want to end their lives, I mean, at least they got to live their dream [that's right - "dream"]. It does not matter that transgender people kill themselves at 20 times the normal rate, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their thinking process...
> 
> Just keep on encouraging these people to destroy their lives, that'll solve the problem.


You (collective you) and your ilk are the reason why gay and transgender suicide is so high.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) and your ilk are the reason why gay and transgender suicide is so high.


There ya go... keep looking for someone else to blame. Keep that finger a pointin'!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> There ya go... keep looking for someone else to blame. Keep that finger a pointin'!


Who is pointing the finger? 

"But of course, in this touchy-feely world, you can encourage this behavior in a child, dose them up with hormones and other puberty delaying drugs, teach them that what you feel is reality rather than reality is fairly much a hard and fast rule that does not slow down or stop because of what one "feels" or "thinks" that reality is. Go ahead, destroy that person. Screw their mind up so bad that they want to end their lives, I mean, at least they got to live their dream [that's right - "dream"]. It does not matter that transgender people kill themselves at 20 times the normal rate, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their thinking process..."

Your entire rant was that the feelings of the person who absolutely knows who they are is wrong. And *I'm* the problem? That's rich, thoroughly disgusting, but rich. Thankfully you (collective you) and your ilk don't have a say in it.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Who is pointing the finger?
> 
> "But of course, in this touchy-feely world, you can encourage this behavior in a child, dose them up with hormones and other puberty delaying drugs, teach them that what you feel is reality rather than reality is fairly much a hard and fast rule that does not slow down or stop because of what one "feels" or "thinks" that reality is. Go ahead, destroy that person. Screw their mind up so bad that they want to end their lives, I mean, at least they got to live their dream [that's right - "dream"]. It does not matter that transgender people kill themselves at 20 times the normal rate, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their thinking process..."
> 
> Your entire rant was that the feelings of the person who absolutely knows who they are is wrong. And *I'm* the problem? That's rich, thoroughly disgusting, but rich. Thankfully you (collective you) and your ilk don't have a say in it.


Yup, the rest of the world is wrong, I hear ya. "Absolutely knows" - yeah, right. Next thing will be us having to accept when people think that they are a cat or a dog or invisible or possibly un-gendered, that'll be a new one...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...s-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringe/comments/1dplj8/a_documentary_about_people_who_think_they_re/

Whatever is in their mind must be the truth, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Yup, the rest of the world is wrong, I hear ya. "Absolutely knows" - yeah, right. Next thing will be us having to accept when people think that they are a cat or a dog or invisible or possibly un-gendered, that'll be a new one...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...s-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html
> 
> Whatever is in their mind must be the truth, right?


Are you saying that all people that are transgender (gay too?) are mentally ill? The example you are using indicates that is what you believe.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that all people that are transgender (gay too?) are mentally ill? The example you are using indicates that is what you believe.


You picked up on that real quick. So, what about the people that think that they are animal? Are they crazy or is Trans-Species a legitimate ideology? If not, then why?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't go there, it makes no sense and is beneath you to insinuate it.
> 
> No access to a safe legal abortion puts millions of women at risk. Isn't that real threat of physical harm? Not to mention that pesky governmental right that _every_ American citizen has control their own body...
> 
> I'm not having the go around where you state you (collective anti abortionists) have the right to control my reproductive bits. You don't, end of discussion.


 
Appears I have struck a nerve. Come on, you know that Abortion kills millions of humans. I know it is in inconvenient truth, but, you know it is true.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) and your ilk are the reason why gay and transgender suicide is so high.


Actually many Transgender who have sex changes later in life have regretted it and thus killed themselves. It's not the bullying that's killing these people. There is more acceptence of them today than ever. They have many friends. It's their own issues that cause it. They thought sex change would make them complete. It did not. They think being open and proud would fix things. It did not. It the rebellion against their own nature that causes the problems and depression. Now I know they get bullied which is wrong and those responsible should be punished. But many of them just can't find happiness because their problem is going undiagnosed and they are told they are fine when they aren't. They head of Johns Hopkins psychiatric department said it was Infact a disease in which he studied greatly. He said the acceptence of it is what's harming so many.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Appears I have struck a nerve. Come on, you know that Abortion kills millions of humans. I know it is in inconvenient truth, but, you know it is true.


Nope. I'm appalled that you could read my posts and still insinuate that I could be tolerant of irrational hatred such as the "history" of genocide of the American Indian, the Jews in the Holocaust, slaves in the American South, etc. I'm assuming your insinuation was intended as an insult, which is beneath you. 

Abortion may terminate millions of pregnancies, but abortions after viability (21-23 weeks) aren't common, and nowhere near millions. The inconvenient truth (for you) is that there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You picked up on that real quick. So, what about the people that think that they are animal? Are they crazy or is Trans-Species a legitimate ideology? If not, then why?


We aren't discussing people that think they are animals, if you'd like to I suggest you start a thread with that subject. 

Can you answer my question- Are you saying that all people that are transgender (gay too?) are mentally ill?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually many Transgender who have sex changes later in life have regretted it and thus killed themselves. It's not the bullying that's killing these people. There is more acceptence of them today than ever. They have many friends. It's their own issues that cause it. They thought sex change would make them complete. It did not. They think being open and proud would fix things. It did not. It the rebellion against their own nature that causes the problems and depression. Now I know they get bullied which is wrong and those responsible should be punished. But many of them just can't find happiness because their problem is going undiagnosed and they are told they are fine when they aren't. They head of Johns Hopkins psychiatric department said it was Infact a disease in which he studied greatly. He said the acceptence of it is what's harming so many.


Do you have links that support what you've stated, or is it your opinion?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mic...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change


This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken â it does not correspond with physical reality,â McHugh wrote. âThe second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.â

The transgendered personâs disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the personâs âassumptionâ that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a âdangerously thinâ person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are âoverweight,â said McHugh.

This assumption, that oneâs gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective âpersonal truth,â said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states â California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts â have passed laws barring psychiatrists, âeven with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,â he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings âspontaneously lose those feelingsâ over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were âsatisfiedâ with the operation âbut their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didnât have the surgery.â

âAnd so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a âsatisfiedâ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,â said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people âsusceptible to suggestion from âeverything is normalâ sex education,â and the schoolsâ âdiversity counselorsâ who, like âcult leaders,â may âencourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.â

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are âmisguided doctorsâ who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer âpuberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous â even though the drugs stunt the childrenâs growth and risk causing sterility.â

Such action comes âclose to child abuse,â said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will âabandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated â¦.â


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> We aren't discussing people that think they are animals, if you'd like to I suggest you start a thread with that subject.
> 
> Can you answer my question- Are you saying that all people that are transgender (gay too?) are mentally ill?


As to your question, I do not think that there is a single person on this whole planet that is devoid of some sort of mental issues, you, me, them, all of us. Where to and how far do you want me to run with this?

No, this is a new but similar angle about a person who is physically female/male that thinks that they are not a female/male as compared to a person who is physically human that thinks that they are a cat. 

So, is the cat person crazy? [come on, I did my best to answer your question]


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> As to your question, I do not think that there is a single person on this whole planet that is devoid of some sort of mental issues, you, me, them, all of us. Where to and how far do you want me to run with this?
> 
> No, this is a new but similar angle about a person who is physically female/male that thinks that they are not a female/male as compared to a person who is physically human that thinks that they are a cat.
> 
> So, is the cat person crazy? [come on, I did my best to answer your question]


Can't or won't answer... typical. 

I already answered your question and I don't feel like repeating myself.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mic...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
> 
> 
> This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken &#8211; it does not correspond with physical reality,&#8221; McHugh wrote. &#8220;The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.&#8221;
> 
> The transgendered person&#8217;s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person&#8217;s &#8220;assumption&#8221; that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a &#8220;dangerously thin&#8221; person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are &#8220;overweight,&#8221; said McHugh.
> 
> This assumption, that one&#8217;s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective &#8220;personal truth,&#8221; said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states &#8211; California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts &#8211; have passed laws barring psychiatrists, &#8220;even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,&#8221; he said.
> 
> The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings &#8220;spontaneously lose those feelings&#8221; over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were &#8220;satisfied&#8221; with the operation &#8220;but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn&#8217;t have the surgery.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a &#8216;satisfied&#8217; but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,&#8221; said Dr. McHugh.
> 
> The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people &#8220;susceptible to suggestion from &#8216;everything is normal&#8217; sex education,&#8221; and the schools&#8217; &#8220;diversity counselors&#8221; who, like &#8220;cult leaders,&#8221; may &#8220;encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.&#8221;
> 
> Dr. McHugh also reported that there are &#8220;misguided doctors&#8221; who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer &#8220;puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous &#8211; even though the drugs stunt the children&#8217;s growth and risk causing sterility.&#8221;
> 
> Such action comes &#8220;close to child abuse,&#8221; said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will &#8220;abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated &#8230;.&#8221;


Nope. Your link is so biased that it cannot be considered credible. It's tag line is "The Right news. Right now" :hysterical:

Here's an equally biased link except that it actually has some science behind it. It also shreds your link. 

"Unfortunately, it appears that McHugh has decided to ignore the growing body of neurological and genetic research providing evidence of a biological basis for gender dysphoria. A 2009 study found a correlation between an increased number of a certain kind of sequence repeat in the Androgen Receptor gene and gender dysphoria. Another study in 2009 identified significant differences in cerebral grey matter structure in trans women who had yet to start hormone therapy when compared to cis men. In 2011, researchers noted that the structure of a sexually-dimorphic region of the brain, known as the intermediate nucleus, of trans women fell somewhere between cis men and cis women, while a similar difference was not noted castrated cis men. A 2013 functional brain imaging study of adolescents with gender dysphoria demonstrated a tendency for trans teens to perform more similarly to their identified sex (as opposed to their assigned sex) in a verbal fluency assessment, with similar correlation in brain activity during the assessment. Lastly, in 2013, a large study of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins where at least one twin was transgender showed a far higher concordance of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria among monozygotic than dizygotic twins (33% vs 2.6%), which is strong indicator the existence of a biological factor in a trait. While much of the research into the biological aspects of trans people is still very new, Dr McHugh&#8217;s assertion that no evidence for a biological basis for trans identities demonstrates a deplorable ignorance of current medical research."


http://www.transadvocate.com/clingi...of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm The words in blue in the link go to actual studies and further information.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Your link is so biased that it cannot be considered credible. It's tag line is "The Right news. Right now" :hysterical:
> 
> Here's an equally biased link except that it actually has some science behind it. It also shreds your link.
> 
> "Unfortunately, it appears that McHugh has decided to ignore the growing body of neurological and genetic research providing evidence of a biological basis for gender dysphoria. A 2009 study found a correlation between an increased number of a certain kind of sequence repeat in the Androgen Receptor gene and gender dysphoria. Another study in 2009 identified significant differences in cerebral grey matter structure in trans women who had yet to start hormone therapy when compared to cis men. In 2011, researchers noted that the structure of a sexually-dimorphic region of the brain, known as the intermediate nucleus, of trans women fell somewhere between cis men and cis women, while a similar difference was not noted castrated cis men. A 2013 functional brain imaging study of adolescents with gender dysphoria demonstrated a tendency for trans teens to perform more similarly to their identified sex (as opposed to their assigned sex) in a verbal fluency assessment, with similar correlation in brain activity during the assessment. Lastly, in 2013, a large study of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins where at least one twin was transgender showed a far higher concordance of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria among monozygotic than dizygotic twins (33% vs 2.6%), which is strong indicator the existence of a biological factor in a trait. While much of the research into the biological aspects of trans people is still very new, Dr McHughâs assertion that no evidence for a biological basis for trans identities demonstrates a deplorable ignorance of current medical research."
> 
> 
> http://www.transadvocate.com/clingi...of-transgender-medical-literature_n_13842.htm The words in blue in the link go to actual studies and further information.


Only in a delusional world would a man with as much accomplishments as him leading one of the greatest hospitals in the world not be considered relevant. Lol


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Only in a delusional world would a man with as much accomplishments as him leading one of the greatest hospitals in the world not be considered relevant. Lol


You don't believe any other "leading Drs" but this one is spot on, right? Why is that? LOL

Don't bother to answer, it's a rhetorical question.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't believe any other "leading Drs" but this one is spot on, right? Why is that? LOL
> 
> Don't bother to answer, it's a rhetorical question.


They're making pretty good cherry pickers these days. I hear they reach even the tallest tree now. Even if they're not cherry trees. :hysterical:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Can't or won't answer... typical.
> 
> I already answered your question and I don't feel like repeating myself.



Please see post #472 - the answer to your question is there but I think that you know that. Please tell me what the post number of your answer is, I didn't see it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Please see post #472 - the answer to your question is there but I think that you know that. Please tell me what the post number of your answer is, I didn't see it.


The cat person can't do anything about their problem.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't believe any other "leading Drs" but this one is spot on, right? Why is that? LOL
> 
> Don't bother to answer, it's a rhetorical question.


Because he has first hand experience in this area...he is an expert in his field...recognized by his peers. You are welcome to promote mental illness...but that is all.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> Because he has first hand experience in this area...he is an expert in his field...recognized by his peers. You are welcome to promote mental illness...but that is all.


No one can "promote" mental illness. But some of us are more understanding of those who have it. We used to throw the mental in deep, dark pits and feed them scraps. Some of us have also evolved past that.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> No one can "promote" mental illness. But some of us are more understanding of those who have it. We used to throw the mental in deep, dark pits and feed them scraps. Some of us have also evolved past that.


More understanding? Such as?
You would be hard pressed to find another that has more empathy for a fellow human being.
I would not want to be in this situation.
But the fact is the suicide rate is 20 times higher than normal.
This is not the answer.
You have to face facts.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> More understanding? Such as?
> You would be hard pressed to find another that has more empathy for a fellow human being.
> I would not want to be in this situation.
> But the fact is the suicide rate is 20 times higher than normal.
> This is not the answer.
> You have to face facts.


Yes, their suicide rate is higher. Perhaps this is due to puritanical society constantly decrying them as products of demoralization and devil worshipping.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Yep, again.
> *I'll take a guess *at what this "answer" is..........because it's the "law"?
> 
> The decisions made by both private and government entities to refuse to do business in states where these laws were passed, is that not the exact same right being exercised and at the same time denied to others living in those states?


There's no need to guess.
Just read what was already stated

The answer to your question is: "no"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Your usual dodge and weave I see.


I thought you didn't want to hear my comments.
Evidently you care enough to critique them


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, their suicide rate is higher. Perhaps this is due to puritanical society constantly decrying them as products of demoralization and devil worshipping.


But not really?
Being mentally I'll and devil worshipping are not close.
Changing genders is not the answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Precisely, as does imposing this new gender *ideology* on impressionable children.


No one is "imposing gender ideology", but I see many pushing religious ideology


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Granted, there may not be an immediate threat to their physical existence, but don't you think screwing up a kid's head about their sexuality might cause mental or emotional problems for them later in life? Is that acceptable, as long as it's not a threat to their physical existence?


Don't you think telling them they are "perverts" and "sick" might cause mental and emotional problems?

Why not just *not *worry about other people's business?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You picked up on that real quick. So, what about the people that think that they are animal? *Are they crazy* or is Trans-Species a legitimate ideology? If not, then why?





> Whatever is* in their mind* must be the truth, right?


What about people that claim some supernatural being shows them visions and signs, or talks to them?
Isn't that just "in their mind"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Only in a delusional world would a man with as much accomplishments as him leading one of the greatest hospitals in the world not be considered relevant. Lol


Credentials don't make one less biased or opinionated


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> But not really?
> Being *mentally I'll *and devil worshipping are not close.
> Changing genders is not the answer.


Freudian slip?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Freudian slip?


Yes sir.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> What about people that claim some supernatural being shows them visions and signs, or talks to them?
> Isn't that just "in their mind"?


Have I stated that any of the above has happened to me or someone that I know? Reaching for something that is not there?

It is an uphill battle trying to show someone something that is not true by saying that "Oh, they just "know" that they were given the wrong body." and "We'll fix it with drugs and surgery." 

There is something that does not seem to be on the up and up there. 

What makes them any different than the people that say they are truly animals in a human body? The mimic the mannerisms of their chosen animals, they should have the right, right? 

Soon they too will be included on the "Do not Offend" list.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> What about people that claim some supernatural being shows them visions and signs, or talks to them?
> Isn't that just "in their mind"?


Spot on.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, their suicide rate is higher. Perhaps this is due to puritanical society constantly decrying them as products of demoralization and devil worshipping.


Absolutely. Being told, "You're an animal. You're unnatural. You're sick and dirty. Your god doesn't love you." Having your family and/or friends turn their backs on you. All of that diminishes self worth. 

Those that hate homosexuality and transgender are responsible for the high rate of suicide.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "imposing gender ideology", but I see many pushing religious ideology


You don't think that a child that 'identifies' as the opposite sex as early as age 3 is being influenced by their parents in some way?


Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't you think telling them they are "perverts" and "sick" might cause mental and emotional problems?
> 
> Why not just *not *worry about other people's business?


How is society supposed to ignore the issue and stay out of other peoples' business when society is being forced to recognize and accommodate the needs of everyone who _feels_ different?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Those that hate homosexuality and transgender are responsible for the high rate of suicide.





> 7. *Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT â affirming countries.*11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?


Even in Sweden. Can you explain that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You don't think that a child that 'identifies' as the opposite sex as early as age 3 is being influenced by their parents in some way?
> 
> 
> How is society supposed to ignore the issue and stay out of other peoples' business when society is being forced to recognize and accommodate the needs of everyone who _feels_ different?


Because they are people with feelings, hopes, dreams, and just want to live their life without hate. If you don't understand that isn't their problem, it's yours. The bottom line is that it's no own else's business. 

I don't think any parent wakes up in the morning and decides, "Hey, my son should be a girl" and then sets out to force him to be a girl. Do you? Really?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Even in Sweden. Can you explain that?


No. Can you?  Even in enlightened countries there are people that will not accept the transgender.

Where's the link so I can read what the article instead of your cherry picked quote?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> No. Can you?  Even in enlightened countries there are people that will not accept the transgender.
> 
> Where's the link so I can read what the article instead of your cherry picked quote?


In post #1.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> In post #1.


Thanks for the early morning laugh. :hysterical:

That's a LGBT hate site. Says a lot about you that you actually think it's legitimate.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks for the early morning laugh. :hysterical:
> 
> That's a LGBT hate site. Says a lot about you that you actually think it's legitimate.


Look at the footnotes.

You're welcome.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Look at the *footnotes*.
> 
> You're welcome.


The "footnotes" don't change the fact the article is from a small group with an agenda. 

They cherry-picked some things that fit the agenda

I can find an equal number of sources saying "religion" can be linked to mental disorders, but I imagine you'd say they are false.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/religion-spirituality-and-mental-health


> ...patients with psychiatric disorders frequently use religion to cope with their distress.


http://www.brainphysics.com/lifestyle/mental-health/is-religious-belief-a-mental-disorder



> It is possible to define religious belief as a mental disorder due to the similarities between their individual definitions





> With regards to religion itself, it is possible for religious belief to become a mental illness. Many OCD manifestations, for example, are religious in nature. Some religious practices, when taken to extremes, can be physically harmful or even deadly &#8211; for example, self-flagellation.
> 
> On the other hand, while Americans might find religious rituals involving tattoos, intentional scarring, genital mutilation, etc., to be horrifying, in the cultures they're practiced in, these are likely considered very normal, and those who find them disgusting may be the ones with a problem.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

I can find studies showing those who constantly post studies have a mental illness. Point is everyone has an agenda. If their position has medical professionals with distinguished credentials that back it vs some hack doctor with only a piece of paper saying they are a doctor vs years of peer reviewed publications, I'm going with the guy with the background. Waste matter is riddled with bacteria. Anyone willing to touch it with any part of their body has issues.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> I can find studies showing those who constantly post studies have a mental illness. Point is everyone has an agenda. If their position has medical professionals with distinguished credentials that back it vs some hack doctor with only a piece of paper saying they are a doctor vs years of peer reviewed publications, I'm going with the guy with the background. *Waste matter is riddled with bacteria. Anyone willing to touch it with any part of their body has issues.*


I don't understand, can you explain? Please.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> I can find studies showing those who constantly post studies have a mental illness. Point is everyone has an agenda. If their position has medical professionals with distinguished credentials that back it vs some hack doctor with only a piece of paper saying they are a doctor vs years of peer reviewed publications, I'm going with the guy with the background. Waste matter is riddled with bacteria. Anyone willing to touch it with any part of their body has issues.


*Without *bacteria you would die, and you're "touching waste matter with a part of your body" right now.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely. Being told, "You're an animal. You're unnatural. You're sick and dirty. Your god doesn't love you." Having your family and/or friends turn their backs on you. All of that diminishes self worth.
> 
> *Those that hate homosexuality and transgender are responsible for the high rate of suicide.*


While your first paragraph is quite true, your second statement appears to be an assumption. Can you back that assumption up or is it just that - an assumption?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> While your first paragraph is quite true, your second statement appears to be an assumption. Can you back that assumption up or is it just that - an assumption?


Having said all those things, I knew you would think they were true.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Having said all those things, I knew you would think they were true.


I saw your post earlier and withheld comment.
But now you've made an accusation I would like to see documented.

Can you find a post from a forum member stating that God doesn't love His children, including the transgender ones?




Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely. Being told, "You're an animal. You're unnatural. You're sick and dirty. *Your god doesn't love you.*" Having your family and/or friends turn their backs on you. All of that diminishes self worth.
> 
> Those that hate homosexuality and transgender are responsible for the high rate of suicide.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely. Being told, "You're an animal. You're unnatural. You're sick and dirty. Your god doesn't love you." Having your family and/or friends turn their backs on you. All of that diminishes self worth.
> 
> Those that hate homosexuality and transgender are responsible for the high rate of suicide.


Almost certainly to a large degree. Around here, I can't even tell people I'm "spiritual" because it translates into "pagan," which basically means "any religion not Christian."



Txsteader said:


> You don't think that a child that 'identifies' as the opposite sex as early as age 3 is being influenced by their parents in some way?
> 
> 
> How is society supposed to ignore the issue and stay out of other peoples' business when society is being forced to recognize and accommodate the needs of everyone who _feels_ different?


Is it really that hard to be accommodating? To be honest, I typically ignore people who ask for extra attention, but I do that with anyone. I try to treat everyone equally. Sometimes that means an equal amount of indifference.:cowboy:


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> Almost certainly to a large degree. Around here, I can't even tell people I'm "spiritual" because it translates into "pagan," which basically means "any religion not Christian."
> 
> 
> 
> Is it really that hard to be accommodating? To be honest, I typically ignore people who ask for extra attention, but I do that with anyone. I try to treat everyone equally. Sometimes that means an equal amount of indifference.:cowboy:


I guess I've had a different experience with talking about my religious path, I have had no problem with admitting I am Heathen/Asatru.

Now I will see who has a problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> While your first paragraph is quite true, your second statement appears to be an assumption. Can you back that assumption up or is it just that - an assumption?


You've asked that before, but didn't like the study I posted that suggested that was a factor.

Why must everything be repeated for you?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/



> A new study finds that *discrimination is a significant risk factor* that may be contributing to the high suicide attempt rates among transgender people.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Having said all those things, I knew you would think they were true.


Can you point out where I have done so? What you are accusing me of is quite hateful in it's own right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I saw your post earlier and withheld comment.
> 
> *But now you've made an accusation I would like to see documented.
> *
> 
> Can you find a post from a forum member stating that God doesn't love His children, including the transgender ones?


We see lots of quotes from the Bible talking about how God condemns gays.
You don't do that to those you "love".

Check out the thread in "Countryside Families" to see the "love" being spread.

I'd like to see you "document" all of the accusations you make, but it's not the usual pattern


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Vahomesteaders View Post
> I can find studies showing those who constantly post studies have a mental illness.


Can you show a few of those?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've asked that before, but didn't like the study I posted that suggested that was a factor.
> 
> Why must everything be repeated for you?
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/


Yes you have provided that to back up your assumption but as I did before, I would ask you to notice the words "may be" in your post. It's not that I don't like the study, it's just that I cannot see how you can use it as proof of this or that when it says "may be".


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've asked that before, but didn't like the study I posted that suggested that was a factor.
> 
> Why must everything be repeated for you?
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/


Think progress is a liberal bias based opinion source. Based on your own criteria their findings are void. 

http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/n...l-site-think-progress-caught-unethical-pants/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Can you point out where I have done so? What you are accusing me of is *quite hateful *in it's own right.


Yes, calling people perverts, sick and "sinners" is quite hateful.
So is telling them they will be "punished" if they don't follow your rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Think progress is a liberal bias based opinion source. Based on your own criteria their findings are void.
> 
> http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/n...l-site-think-progress-caught-unethical-pants/


I knew the first whine would be about the source.
I just thought it would come from someone else

It's all too predictable.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, calling people perverts, sick and "sinners" is quite hateful.
> So is telling them they will be "punished" if they don't follow your rules.


Yup, the going to hell part is particularly hateful especially if you believe that stuff. Calling people "perverts" and "sick" for being gay/transgender is just being ugly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yes you have provided that to back up* your assumption* but as I did before, I would ask you to notice the words "may be" in your post. It's not that I don't like the study, it's just that I cannot see how you can use it as proof of this or that when it says "may be".


You expect everyone to believe your religion based on "may be".
You just want to play the same old *silly word games* when confronted with evidence

So let's play with words from the OP:



> 8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.
> 
> Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to âgender clinicsâ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, *virtually* ensures that they will âchooseâ a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and *likely* consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.


They seem to be indefinite also, but you don't discount their view because you happen to agree.

With you it's always round and round, never going forward


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> We see lots of quotes from the Bible talking about how God condemns gays.
> You don't do that to those you "love".
> 
> Check out the thread in "Countryside Families" to see the "love" being spread.
> 
> I'd like to see you "document" all of the accusations you make, but it's not the usual pattern





Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, calling people perverts, sick and "sinners" is quite hateful.
> So is telling them they will be "punished" if they don't follow your rules.


Really?
So, you never corrected your children?
Is that your definition of "love"?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew the first whine would be about the source.
> I just thought it would come from someone else
> 
> It's all too predictable.


That's been your call this entire thread. Any link posted that goes against your belief is not reliable source because it's biased. You and a few others use that line all the time. That's why I pointed it out.


----------



## Heritagefarm

no really said:


> I guess I've had a different experience with talking about my religious path, I have had no problem with admitting I am Heathen/Asatru.
> 
> Now I will see who has a problem.


Interesting. I'll have to look into that. It looks intriguing enough for me to gain inspiration for religions in my novel.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew the first whine would be about the source.
> I just thought it would come from someone else
> 
> It's all too predictable.


You're both posting from biased sources. That's partially because this decision is inherently philosophical and cannot be separated from bias. Therefore, the best solution is to engage with the argument and avoid the tiresome "your piece is biased" line.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You expect everyone to believe your religion based on "may be".
> You just want to play the same old *silly word games* when confronted with evidence
> 
> So let's play with words from the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to be indefinite also, but you don't discount their view because you happen to agree.
> 
> With you it's always round and round, never going forward


Well then, thank you for playing your part. 

Now that you've taken your opportunity to insult someone are you good for now? 

It's funny how you always like to get a dig in on people that do not agree with you. Are you that way in your face to face communications with other people?

ETA: Going forward from here I really do not think that it is a real good answer for people to try to find happiness through drugs and surgery, be it a woman trying to be more beautiful than she thinks she currently is, a man bulking up on steroids, any person that wants to file their teeth or get nubs that resemble horns, including those that wish to cut their genitals off or move them around and such.

Sure, you'll tell me not to do it and then you expect me just to stand by and watch as people destroy their lives. I for one wish to discuss all sides of this issue, including the possibility that this "might" be a natural occurrence, but to get there some good hard evidence will be needed. Not some psychiatrist's or a psychologist's opinions, hard science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Really?
> So, you never corrected your children?
> Is that your definition of "love"?


Abandonment isn't "correction", nor is damnation.
Neither of those are "love"

Telling someone who doesn't believe in *your *religion that they will one day "be judged by god" is ridiculous


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's been your call this entire thread. Any link posted that goes against your belief is not reliable source because it's biased. *You and a few others use that line all the time*. That's why I pointed it out.


You seem to be one of the "few others", huh? 
You should point it out whenever it's done by *either* side.

I'm still waiting for the links you said you could show.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It's funny how you always like to get a dig in on people that do not agree with you. Are you that way in your face to face communications with other people?


Don't start your victim game again
It's boring, and leads to threads being locked



> I for one wish to discuss all sides of this issue, including the possibility that this "might" be a natural occurrence, but to get there *some good hard evidence will be needed*. *Not some psychiatrist's or a psychologist's opinions*, hard science.


Then why did you post the OP article when opinion is exactly what it was?
Why do you require "hard evidence" for everything other than your side?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't start your victim game again
> It's boring, and leads to threads being locked
> 
> 
> Then why did you post the OP article when opinion is exactly what it was?
> Why do you require "hard evidence" for everything other than your side?


"Don't start your victim game again It's boring, and leads to threads being locked"

No victim here, just cannot understand where all your anger is originating from, you do seem to be continually angry at some on here, me included.

I would like "evidence" that is sufficient enough to understand the situation here. I posted what I found because it is in line with what I understand. So far, no one has sufficiently refuted the original post enough for me to agree that people should be taking drugs and cutting up their body as a solution to their perception of what happiness is and how to get there...

Sure, there have been people that publish this or that study but in reality, all of it is just dancing around this important doctor's or that important doctor's opinions. Nothing that you can hold up to the light and say - "well... there you have it..."

It seems to be some "new" science.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't start your victim game again
> It's boring, and leads to threads being locked
> 
> 
> Then why did you post the OP article when opinion is exactly what it was?
> Why do you require "hard evidence" for everything other than your side?


Exactly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> "Don't start your victim game again It's boring, and leads to threads being locked"
> 
> No victim here, just cannot understand where all your anger is originating from, *you do seem to be continually angry* at some on here, me included.
> 
> I would like "evidence" that is sufficient enough to understand the situation here.
> 
> *I posted what I found because it is in line with what I understand*.
> 
> So far, no one has sufficiently refuted the original post* enough for me to agree *that people should be taking drugs and cutting up their body as a solution to their perception of what happiness is and how to get there...
> 
> Sure, there have been people that publish this or that study but in reality, all of it is just dancing around this important doctor's or that important doctor's opinions. Nothing that you can hold up to the light and say - "well... there you have it..."
> 
> It seems to be some "new" science.


Again, you're mistaken.
I have no reason to be angry.

I'm simply "discussing the issues" which is what you claim you want, right up until anyone disagrees with you, then you complain about being "attacked"

I've pointed out this pattern numerous times, and here we are yet again at the same point.

You don't seem to get* no one cares if you "agree"*, since it's none of your business what others do.

It's up to the families involved, and them alone.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, you're mistaken.
> I have no reason to be angry.
> 
> I'm simply "discussing the issues" which is what you claim you want, right up until anyone disagrees with you, then you complain about being "attacked"
> 
> I've pointed out this pattern numerous times, and here we are yet again at the same point.
> 
> You don't seem to get* no one cares if you "agree"*, since it's none of your business what others do.
> 
> It's up to the families involved, and them alone.



We'll just have to agree that we see it differently then.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, you're mistaken.
> I have no reason to be angry.
> 
> I'm simply "discussing the issues" which is what you claim you want, right up until anyone disagrees with you, then you complain about being "attacked"
> 
> I've pointed out this pattern numerous times, and here we are yet again at the same point.
> 
> You don't seem to get* no one cares if you "agree"*, since it's none of your business what others do.
> 
> It's up to the families involved, and them alone.


Will you afford those who choose what health suggestions they follow in their own home the same right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Will you afford those who choose what health suggestions they follow in their own home the same right?


I've never tried to tell anyone what they could or couldn't do.

I *will* tell them if it's something *silly and proven not to work*, like sticking candles in your ear to remove wax, but I never said they *can't* do it.

I know that's where you wanted this to go


----------



## 1948CaseVAI

Shine said:


> "The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts â not ideology â determine reality."
> 
> Who'da thunk.
> 
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


We need to resist this perversion of gender identity at all costs and by all means. If we cannot win in court, and we do not win with the ballot box, this is an important issue worthy of going to the cartridge box.


----------



## Heritagefarm




----------



## painterswife

1948CaseVAI said:


> We need to resist this perversion of gender identity at all costs and by all means. If we cannot win in court, and we do not win with the ballot box, this is an important issue worthy of going to the cartridge box.


An opinion that luckily is embraced by only a few.


----------



## coolrunnin

1948CaseVAI said:


> We need to resist this perversion of gender identity at all costs and by all means. If we cannot win in court, and we do not win with the ballot box, this is an important issue worthy of going to the cartridge box.


Your willing to go to war over .001% of the population?


----------



## Shine

coolrunnin said:


> Your willing to go to war over .001% of the population?


Well, it seems that they have found the power to dictate to the 99.999%. Funny that...


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought you didn't want to hear my comments.
> Evidently you care enough to critique them


I tend to give even the most egregious of posters a second, third, fourth.... chance to be civil.


----------



## Farmerga

The conversation has made an interesting turn. You all do know that the term "mental illness" is a largely subjective term that is subject to the whims of the dominate opinion of "professional groups" correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


>


Yup. A former cop is threatening to kill the transgendered if future law doesn't support his view. :flame:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The conversation has made an interesting turn. You all do know that the term "mental illness" is a largely subjective term that is subject to the whims of the dominate opinion of "professional groups" correct?


Ever heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? Yes, it's updated but certainly not on a whim.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Well, it seems that they have found the power to dictate to the 99.999%. Funny that...


Was it funny when other minorities (blacks, women, the disabled) were made equal?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

1948CaseVAI said:


> We need to resist this *perversion* of gender identity at all costs and by all means. If we cannot win in court, and we do not win with the ballot box, this is an important issue worthy of going to the cartridge box.


Yeah, if you can't legislate those perverts away, just shoot them, says the LEO


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Ever heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? Yes, it's updated but certainly not on a whim.


It is largely updated on the current "norms' of society.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It is largely updated on the current "norms' of society.


No, it isn't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I tend to give even the most egregious of posters a second, third, fourth.... chance to be civil.


Or it could be you just don't mean what you say.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or it could be you just don't mean what you say.


 
Even a 5th or 6th. I have faith that even you can get over your deep seated hatred, of those with whom you disagree, and can learn to debate in a civil manner. To paraphrase an often used quote, I may not care for what you have to say, but, I will play along like I do. :thumb:


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it isn't.


Yes, it is. :thumb: What was once considered mental illness is now considered "mainstream". I don't mean the concrete chemical imbalance illnesses, of course.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Yes, it is. :thumb: What was once considered mental illness is now considered "mainstream". I don't mean the concrete chemical imbalance illnesses, of course.


I find your lack of how mental illness is documented and classified disturbing... It's not instantaneous, it's not a whim, it is carefully considered by case study and peer review. Now you can spin and backpedal (as you've done since I called you on the original post). I'm done.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I find your lack of how mental illness is documented and classified disturbing... It's not instantaneous, it's not a whim, it is carefully considered by case study and peer review. Now you can spin and backpedal (as you've done since I called you on the original post). I'm done.


Yes, it does seem to ebb and flow, but always there seems to be somewhat of a disagreement as to what is a mental disorder and what is not. Go figure.

If you ask me, I can see no way that a person that was born one gender or the other can convince someone else that - "Oh, I am not that person, I am someone else." is not delusional at best and quite profitable to those that "study" and "treat" these types of things.

I can see why they play along with the treatment of the symptoms rather than seeking to help these people find an even keel with the therapy that is actually needed. 

If the suicide rates are actually what they are then it would seem cruel to keep them on that path rather than recommending another path.


----------



## Shine

Deleted -


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I find your lack of how mental illness is documented and classified disturbing... It's not instantaneous, it's not a whim, it is carefully considered by case study and peer review. Now you can spin and backpedal (as you've done since I called you on the original post). I'm done.


 Be done, You are correct, for real mental illness, it is a process of study review, and consideration. That is why, in my OP, I used the word "largely". Other issues are more political/social and less scientific, and are deemed, or, deemed not a mental illness base on societal norms.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Yes, it does seem to ebb and flow, but always there seems to be somewhat of a disagreement as to what is a mental disorder and what is not. Go figure.
> 
> If you ask me, I can see no way that a person that was born one gender or the other can convince someone else that - "Oh, I am not that person, I am someone else." is not delusional at best and quite profitable to those that "study" and "treat" these types of things.
> 
> I can see why they play along with the treatment of the symptoms rather than seeking to help these people find an even keel with the therapy that is actually needed.
> 
> If the suicide rates are actually what they are then it would seem cruel to keep them on that path rather than recommending another path.


Are you really saying that you know better than the person experiencing the feelings? 

Thankfully it's not up to you and your ilk if the transgendered can transition, and it never will be. The transgendered and their physicians (of any variety) don't need your approval either.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Yes, it does seem to ebb and flow, but always there seems to be somewhat of a disagreement as to what is a mental disorder and what is not. Go figure.
> 
> If you ask me, I can see no way that a person that was born one gender or the other can convince someone else that - "Oh, I am not that person, I am someone else." is not delusional at best and quite profitable to those that "study" and "treat" these types of things.
> 
> I can see why they play along with the treatment of the symptoms rather than seeking to help these people find an even keel with the therapy that is actually needed.
> 
> If the suicide rates are actually what they are then it would seem cruel to keep them on that path rather than recommending another path.


But you really miss the point. They aren't trying to convince others that they are someone else. Many have lived lives where they did just that for a long time. They are trying to convince others to accept them for who they truly are, not some socially acceptable construct which others wish them to be.

I'm sure there are some who are misdiagnosed and whose treatment is innappropriate. I'm also sure there are some who don't recieve the proper recognition of their situation and are treated improperly because of that. Like most things, as long as it doesn't harm another, such decisions should be left to patients and professionals. What's your solution to something you see as such a problem?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> But you really miss the point. They aren't trying to convince others that they are someone else. Many have lived lives where they did just that for a long time. They are trying to convince others to accept them for who they truly are, not some socially acceptable construct which others wish them to be.
> 
> I'm sure there are some who are misdiagnosed and whose treatment is innappropriate. I'm also sure there are some who don't recieve the proper recognition of their situation and are treated improperly because of that. Like most things, as long as it doesn't harm another, such decisions should be left to patients and professionals. What's your solution to something you see as such a problem?


Well, truthfully? If it were my son who was gender confused, and I did the research that I have done so far to find out that most children grow out of this phase if not channeled into that mindset then there is no way in heaven or earth that I would sign him up for any treatment that supports such an idea.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Well, truthfully? If it were my son who was gender confused, and I did the research that I have done so far to find out that most children grow out of this phase if not channeled into that mindset then there is no way in heaven or earth that I would sign him up for any treatment that supports such an idea.


And I'll do nothing to get in the way of your choice.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Well, it seems that they have found the power to dictate to the 99.999%. Funny that...


They just want to be acknowledged and left alone. Some of the more shrill ones will demand more attention and rights, probably, but I read a lot of that on right-wing websites, too. It's hardly unusual.
I still think changing genders would be completely bizarre and against the natural order. But I'm not going to shoot them for it. 
Gosh, now I feel like a Saint.



Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. A former cop is threatening to kill the transgendered if future law doesn't support his view. :flame:


:flame:


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> They just want to be acknowledged and left alone. Some of the more shrill ones will demand more attention and rights, probably, but I read a lot of that on right-wing websites, too. It's hardly unusual.
> I still think changing genders would be completely bizarre and against the natural order. But I'm not going to shoot them for it.
> Gosh, now I feel like a Saint.
> 
> 
> 
> :flame:


I am on board with your thinking here, I'll let them be as long as they do not require anything of me or as long as they cause no harm to others. 

Once they overstep that boundary then you can bet that I will take notice and say something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Even a 5th or 6th. I have faith that even you can get over your deep seated hatred, of those with whom you disagree, and can learn to debate in a civil manner. To paraphrase an often used quote, I may not care for what you have to say, but, I will play along like I do. :thumb:


You're mistaken if you think I hate anyone just because I point out the things I observe. 

You say it's not "civil" only because we often disagree, and not because I'm less "civil" than many others you never complain about.



> I will play along *like I do*


So you really *don't* mean what you say, but got upset because I mentioned it. :shrug:

Some just hate to hear the truth


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you ask me, I can see no way that a person that was* born one gender* or the other can convince someone else that - "Oh, I am not that person, I am someone else." is not delusional at best and quite profitable to those that "study" and "treat" these types of things.


You still don't seem to know what "gender" means even after definitions have been shown.

You're still hung up on the biology, when "gender" is largely mental


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still don't seem to know what "gender" means even after definitions have been shown.
> 
> You're still hung up on the biology, when "gender" is largely mental


...and you want to define the "state of being" on some pseudo science.

What medical test defines this condition? It does not include the words "may be" and "might" does it?

If anyone told me that as a male, that they were really a female, I'd just say "Nice" and walk away... 

There is just so many things wrong with that it baffles the mind.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Ever heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)? Yes, it's updated but certainly not on a whim.


You scoffed when I told you to look @ the footnotes of the article in the OP (although I see you edited your post to say only 'nope'). Guess who's listed as #5 on that list.

I guess the original article wasn't just using "hate sites" for reference and carries some credence after all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You scoffed when I told you to look @ the footnotes of the article in the OP (although I see you edited your post to say only 'nope'). Guess who's listed as #5 on that list.
> 
> Guess the original article wasn't just using "hate sites" for reference after all.


Nope.  What exactly did I say, Txsteader? Was I referring to the footnotes as hate sites, or The American College of Pediatricians?

The American College of Pediatricians is a hate group, in my opinion. There is nothing credible about it.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still hung up on the biology, when "gender" is largely mental


So wait a second now. You're saying that a man, born with Y chromosomes and beefy biceps and all that testosterone and whatnot, who truly believes in his mind that he is a woman, can just go on living his life as a her.

How is this substantially different than, say, the anorexic, who weighs 75 lbs. but truly believes (s)he's overweight?

How can we sit in judgement of the anorexic but not the gender crossed? It seems clear to me that the gender crossed and the anorexic suffer from the same disorder - failure to see the reality of their physical condition.

If gender really is all in one's head, and that's totally OK now and stuff to be whoever we truly believe we are inside...
and even be sanctioned to permanently surgically alter healthy functioning parts of our children's biology that don't conform to their mental image of themselves...
and take medications as adolescents to introduce non-innate characteristics...
with no proof or formal, scientific testing...

... how are we NOT harming children?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> So wait a second now. You're saying that a man, born with Y chromosomes and beefy biceps and all that testosterone and whatnot, who truly believes in his mind that he is a woman, can just go on living his life as a her.
> 
> How is this substantially different than, say, the anorexic, who weighs 75 lbs. but truly believes (s)he's overweight?
> 
> How can we sit in judgement of the anorexic but not the gender crossed? It seems clear to me that the gender crossed and the anorexic suffer from the same disorder - failure to see the reality of their physical condition.
> 
> If gender really is all in one's head, and that's totally OK now and stuff to be whoever we truly believe we are inside...
> and even be sanctioned to permanently surgically alter healthy functioning parts of our children's biology that don't conform to their mental image of themselves...
> and take medications as adolescents to introduce non-innate characteristics...
> with no proof or formal, scientific testing...
> 
> ... how are we NOT harming children?


Gender reassignment surgery is not done on a whim. Lots of psychological testing, and many transgender never have the surgery, plus it would never be done on a minor. Hormonal changes are done via medication but it is reversible. 

Your links to Medscape don't work.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> The American College of Pediatricians is a hate group, in my opinion.


I hear the word "hate" being used so much these days....

What is "hate" in our society today? What are the characteristics of a hate group?

I'm curious because I think it means to most what it doesn't really mean to me anymore....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> I hear the word "hate" being used so much these days....
> 
> What is "hate" in our society today? What are the characteristics of a hate group?
> 
> I'm curious because I think it means to most what it doesn't really mean to me anymore....


Hate means the same thing it always has:

1
a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or antipathy

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender reassignment surgery is not done on a whim. Lots of psychological testing, and many transgender never have the surgery, plus it would never be done on a minor. Hormonal changes are done via medication but it is reversible.
> 
> Your links to Medscape don't work.


D'oh. Link #1 (references to minors in bold added by me):



> Title: Care of the *Child* with the Desire to Change Genders &#8211; Part II: Female-to-Male Transition
> 
> Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS)
> 
> For *adolescents and young adults* diagnosed with transsexualism or profound gender identity disorder (GID), sex reassignment surgery, in addition to cross-sex hormone treatment and the real life experience (RLE), has been found to be a medically indicated treatment (Meyer et al., 2006). Sex reassignment surgery involves surgical procedures to change an individual's genitals and/or secondary sexual characteristics. SRS is considered to be an irreversible treatment that requires careful evaluation of the patient, especially an *adolescent*. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has published both eligibility and readiness standards of care for an individual to begin these surgeries (Meyer et al., 2006). Eligibility for SRS requires that the *teen* must have:
> 
> Reached legal age of adulthood in patient's country (*16 years old in many countries, but 18 years of age in the U.S.*).
> 
> Had one year of continuous cross-sex hormonal treatment.
> 
> Had one year of successful continuous RLE in the other gender.
> 
> Provide two letters of recommendation by mental health professionals.
> 
> Have the ability to demonstrate knowledge of the cost, required surgeries, lengths of hospitalizations, likely complications, and post-surgical rehabilitation requirements of various surgical approaches.
> 
> Readiness for the surgeries is different from eligibility. Readiness requires that patients demonstrate:
> 
> Gains in consolidating their gender identity.
> 
> The ability to deal with familial, occupational, and interpersonal issues in a manner that results in a better mental health state.
> 
> Control of previously identified problems, such as substance abuse or suicidal ideation (Meyer et al., 2006).
> 
> WPATH standards of care state that these are not rigid rules, but a set of guidelines that may be adjusted in individual cases due to a patient's "unique anatomical, social, or psychological situation, an experienced professional's evolving method of handling a common situation or a research protocol."
> 
> Finding the right physicians is essential. Surgeons, who may include gynecologists, urologists, plastic surgeons, or general surgeons, should be board certified by nationally known associations, in addition to being experienced and competent at genital reconstruction techniques. It is best that surgeons are knowledgeable in more than one technique so consultation with the patient allows for a choice of the best possible technique for the individual. Surgeons should have an interactive relationship with the patient's mental health provider and the physician prescribing and overseeing hormone therapy. *Surgeons must be advocates for the treatment plans and consult with the transsexual adolescent at length so that they personally understand the benefits of surgical treatment to the patient* (Meyer et al., 2006).
> 
> A recent meta-analysis, performed by Sutcliffe and colleagues (2007) of the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons, searched six electronic databases in an attempt to retrieve the available literature published since 1980 concerning the surgical treatment for persons undergoing gender reassignment surgery. This analysis provides all levels of evidence available (which was limited) and covers the "core" surgical procedures for both male-to-female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) individuals, but did not include any research on clients below the age of 18 years. The "core" surgical procedures identified for MTF transsexuals are clitoroplasty, labiaplasty, orchidectomy, penectomy, and vaginoplasty (Sutcliffe et al., 2007). The "core" surgical procedures outlined for FTM transsexuals include hysterectomy, mastectomy, metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, salpingo-oophrectomy, scrotoplasty/placement of testicular prostheses, urethroplasty, and vaginectomy (Sutcliffe et al., 2007). It is noted by Sutcliffe and colleagues (2007) that very little randomized, controlled evidence exists, and there is a need for greater control group comparison; blinding; consistent referral, diagnosis, assessment, and selection processes; consistent and validated outcome measures; and long-term follow up in future studies of reassignment procedures.
> 
> According to Bowman and Goldberg (2006), cross-sex hormone treatment must be discontinued two to four weeks prior to any surgical intervention to reduce the risk of thromboembolism during the period of relative immobility following surgical procedures. Additionally, drugs that interfere with clotting should be discontinued seven to 10 days prior to surgery. Patients should be advised to stop smoking, if applicable, as it negatively affects skin quality, wound healing, and vascularity; in the case of free flap phalloplasty, this is an absolute requirement (Bowman & Goldberg, 2006)


----------



## Bubba1358

Link #2:



> Cross-sex Hormone Therapy
> 
> The next action for gender transitioning is the second goal of hormonal therapy â induction of the secondary sex characteristics of the desired gender. The physical changes to one's outward gender expression necessitates that the RLE begins at this stage, if the *adolescent client* has not already begun living full time in his or her desired gender. This second stage of physical intervention, cross-sex hormone administration (estrogen or testosterone) induces those masculinizing or feminizing characteristics, and the treatment is considered to be partially reversible (Delemarre-van de Waal & Cohen-Kettenis, 2006; Meyer et al., 2006). The HBIGDA Standards of Care's eligibility requirements include one letter from a mental health professional (who has been treating the client for at least six months) to the physician overseeing medical treatment, signifying that 1) the mental health clinician will work closely with the adolescent throughout hormone therapy and the RLE, 2) that *the teen has reached a minimum age of 16 years*, and 3) the teen preferably has consent by the parent or legal guardian, although it is not required (Meyer et al., 2006). The physician administering hormonal treatment and follow-up monitoring is not required to be an endocrinologist, but should be educated in the medical and psychological aspects of treating individuals with GID. The patient must have the "capacity to understand the risks and benefits of treatment, have his or her questions answered, and agree to medical monitoring of treatment" (Meyer et al., 2006, p. 17). A written informed consent document is mandatory. It is also recommended that the physician provides the patient with a written document stating the individual is under medical supervision, including hormone therapy, which the patient can carry at all times to prevent difficulties with the police or other authorities (Meyer et al., 2006).
> 
> A study by Cohen-Kettenis and colleagues (2008) found that adolescents selected using HBIGDA eligibility requirements and beginning cross-sex hormone therapy between *16 to 18 years of age* were no longer suffering from gender dysphoria and were both psychologically and socially "not very different" from their peers 1 to 5 years after sex reassignment surgery. Use of either sex steroid in high doses is contraindicated with serious liver disease, poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, serious cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, thromboembolic disease, and marked obesity (Gooren, 1999). The presence of a prolactin-producing pituitary tumor or a strong family history of breast cancer is a contraindication to beginning estrogen administration. Severe lipid disorders with cardiovascular complications are contraindicated to beginning testosterone administration (Gooren, 1999). Given that immobilization poses serious risks for deep vein thrombosis and that sex steroids increase that risk, hormone therapy should be discontinued 3 to 4 weeks prior to any elective surgical procedures. Treatment may resume once patients are fully mobile again (Gooren, 1999). It should be noted that suppression of the natal sex hormones combined with cross-hormone therapy will alter reproductive capacity in patients, so sperm storage for genetic males and cryopreservation of eggs for genetic females might be presented as an option to maintain the possibility of having their own biologic offspring later in life (Jain & Bradbeer, 2007).Continue Reading


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope.  What exactly did I say, Txsteader? Was I referring to the footnotes as hate sites, or The American College of Pediatricians?
> 
> The American College of Pediatricians is a hate group, in my opinion. There is nothing credible about it.


I don't know exactly what you said, Pixie, because you've since edited your comment, but IIRC, it was something along the lines of the footnotes not being credible because they were being used by the ACP.

Regardless of how you perceive the ACP, the footnotes & sources they used for their article are obviously credible, since you have since referred to one of them as such. So, it makes no sense when you scoff at the article based merely on who authored it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> I don't know exactly what you said, Pixie, because you've since edited your comment, but IIRC, it was something along the lines of the footnotes not being credible because they were being used by the ACP.
> 
> Regardless of how you perceive the ACP, the footnotes & sources they used for their article are obviously credible, since you have since referred to one of them as such. So, it makes no sense when you scoff at the article based merely on who authored it.


If indeed they used the DSM-IV as a cite then one of their footnotes is credible... The site itself is not credible, and is considered by many (including me) to be a hate site. It is definitely anti-LGBT, and biased.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...and you want to define the "state of being" on *some pseudo science*.
> 
> What medical test defines this condition?
> 
> *It does not include the words "may be" and "might" does it?*
> 
> If anyone told me that as a male, that they were really a female, I'd just say "Nice" and walk away...
> 
> There is just so many things *wrong *with that it baffles the mind.


I showed the sources, so again I ask why does everything have to be repeated with you?

It's no more "pseudo" than the sources you cited.

We also played the silly word game, and you saw similar words in your article

Round and round.........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Gender is not tied to your sex organs.


Shine's own source said that in the third paragraph, but he doesn't seem to really read them past the hype and headlines:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children



> 2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're mistaken if you think I hate anyone just because I point out the things I observe.
> 
> You say it's not "civil" only because we often disagree, and not because I'm less "civil" than many others you never complain about.
> 
> 
> So you really *don't* mean what you say, but got upset because I mentioned it. :shrug:
> 
> Some just hate to hear the truth


 No, as is your way, you twisted what I said to meet your needs. I am honest about not giving a crap about what you say. I stand by those words. I don't believe that I have ever said that I would ignore what you say. I "play along" so that everyone else can see they type of poster you are. I have noticed, as of late, that more and more have you pegged.

My ignore list is very short, in fact, it cannot be shorter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> So wait a second now. You're saying that a man, born with Y chromosomes and beefy biceps and all that testosterone and whatnot, who truly believes in his mind that he is a woman, can just go on living his life as a her.
> 
> How is this substantially different than, say, the anorexic, who weighs 75 lbs. but truly believes (s)he's overweight?
> 
> *How can we sit in judgement of the anorexic but not the gender crossed?* It seems clear to me that the gender crossed and the anorexic suffer from the same disorder - failure to see the reality of their physical condition.
> 
> If gender really is all in one's head, and that's totally OK now and stuff to be whoever we truly believe we are inside...
> and even be sanctioned to permanently surgically alter healthy functioning parts of our children's biology that don't conform to their mental image of themselves...
> and take medications as adolescents to introduce non-innate characteristics...
> with no proof or formal, scientific testing...
> 
> ... how are we NOT harming children?


Ask Shine.
*His *source clearly stated "gender" wasn't about "biology":



> 2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a childâs subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward.


No one is telling *you* to alter anything at all, and if they aren't your kids, it's not your concern.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> No, as is your way, *you twisted what I said* to meet your needs. I am honest about not giving a crap about what you say. I stand by those words.* I don't believe that I have ever said that I would ignore what you say*. I "play along" so that everyone else can see they type of poster you are. I have noticed, as of late, that more and more have you pegged.
> 
> My ignore list is very short, in fact, it cannot be shorter.


I don't need to "twist" anything.
I quoted what you actually said.

You once said "I don't want to hear from you......be gone"
That was obviously false, since here you are *eliciting* a response.
Spin it however makes you happy



> I "play along" so that everyone else can see they type of poster you are


So you're just trolling


----------



## mmoetc

Bubba1358 said:


> Link #2:


It's interesting that you didn't highlight the part that said teens who had been properly evaluated and treated showed no further signs of gender disphoria and were, in fact, socially no different than their peers. Seems like treatment might be a good thing when it's deemed appropriate by professionals.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't need to "twist" anything.
> I quoted what you actually said.
> 
> You once said "I don't want to hear from you......be gone"
> That was obviously false, since here you are *eliciting* a response.
> Spin it however makes you happy
> 
> 
> So you're just trolling


 The quote was accurate, your analysis is what was faulty. 

Of course, that was in a particular conversation where you had inserted yourself, and I wasn't in the mood for your shenanigans. 

Nope, not trolling, I almost never initiate conversations with you (can't remember the last time, if there was one), I am, almost exclusively, responding to your response to one of my posts.


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> It's interesting that you didn't highlight the part that said teens who had been properly evaluated and treated showed no further signs of gender disphoria and were, in fact, socially no different than their peers. Seems like treatment might be a good thing when it's deemed appropriate by professionals.


I also didn't highlight the part about how ...



> It is noted by Sutcliffe and colleagues (2007) that *very little randomized, controlled evidence exists*, and there is a need for greater control group comparison; blinding; consistent referral, diagnosis, assessment, and selection processes; consistent and validated outcome measures; and long-term follow up in future studies of reassignment procedures.


My point was to highlight how yes, indeed, this does affect children. Folks seem to be jumping on this as fast as they can, when the science of it is far from settled or complete.

I believe that experimental, elective treatments with potentially severe risks and little long-term analysis or follow up should NOT be used on teenagers, and DO put children in harm's way.


----------



## mmoetc

Bubba1358 said:


> I also didn't highlight the part about how ...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to highlight how yes, indeed, this does affect children. Folks seem to be jumping on this as fast as they can, when the science of it is far from settled or complete.
> 
> I believe that experimental, elective treatments with potentially severe risks and little long-term analysis or follow up should NOT be used on teenagers, and DO put children in harm's way.


But your own evidence shows that when applied properly under appropriate circumstances the therapies can have a positive affect. I'll agree it isn't appropriate in all cases but I'll recognize it is for some. I'll leave such decisions up to patients, parents and professionals who know the details of each case rather than making blanket statements about what is appropriate for all. One cannot know the dangers of any treatment without testing that treatment on the target population.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *The quote was accurate*, your analysis is what was faulty.
> 
> Of course, that was in a particular conversation where you had inserted yourself, and I wasn't in the mood for your shenanigans.
> 
> Nope, not trolling, I almost never initiate conversations with you (can't remember the last time, if there was one), *I am, almost exclusively, responding to your response to one of my posts.*


Like I said, you say one thing then do another.
What you said obviously wasn't true, as you *continue* to verify


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like I said, you say one thing then do another.
> What you said obviously wasn't true, as you *continue* to verify


I gave the opinion that I care not for what you say. I never once said that I wouldn't respond to you, did I? You are taking my words and wrongly interpreting/adding to them to meet your agenda. That is why I respond to you, so that others may see you for what you are.


----------

