Bob Lee said:

---

Do you acknowledge that no fault divorce is a contravention of natural law, or not? At some point rejection of natural law is a "nuh uh" refutation. Do you agree that we can rely on our sense experiences for accurate true information?

---

I see marriage and divorce as man made social inventions. There is a social and survival benefit to the way in which human families arrange themselves and you could suggest a natural explanation for how that came to be. But, I don't think I understand natural laws the same way you do. I certainly don't believe that moral philosophy can be understood through natural laws in the same manner.

Quote:

---

I agree that if we can't agree on some universal truth, then we'll not get anywhere. What I'm saying is that you can then point to nothing objective that would justify your faith in a canon or system of laws and rules to live by of any sort. Because they could not be applied consistently over time. Anything you could come up with is rooted in nothing that could hold up to any scrutiny at all.

---

Yes, and as I've said before, you are in a very similar boat. The foundations of my views are built on a base of sand. And yours are built on a base of sand, but you close your eyes and pretend there is a concrete slab there. A concrete slab that cannot be seen, touched, tasted, tested, or examined. And its a concrete slab that is, by the very way you would define it, beyond our comprehension to begin with. And your religion is broken into tens of thousands of groups all claiming to understand the concrete slab just a little bit differently. And a world full of thousands of other groups of people claiming to have foundations for their view built on sound material that doesn't even resemble your concrete. At what point in all of this absurdity do we succumb to humility and admit that 'we don't know'.

edit: The thing that I would like to agree on with you is that morality is a difficult topic. And if we can agree on moral and legal goals that broadly promote human well being, I think there is room for different ideas to coexist and have some level of mutual respect for one another.

I don't know if you have children. If you do. . . We both love our children. We both want our children to grow up happy, well adjusted, and prepared for life. Neither of us wants to harm the other. This is our common ground. We do not need to share all of the same universal truths to get to this point. But, there has to be a level of mutual respect. If you do not respect my views or believe I should be permitted to live according to them insomuch as it does not affect you. . . . then there is no common ground. I can only meet you half way.

Quote:

---

we're to the point where doctors are telling children and their parents that they can pause their natural development without any negative consequences despite all evidence to the contrary. You're saying there's no value in the truth unless I can convince everyone of it. I say that's preposterous. So now what?

---

I don't know what you are specifically talking about here, but I would guess that I likely would agree with your position. . . . . though I may take a different route to get there.

Quote:

---

Edit: do you take issue with the catechism, or its content? Just curious.

---

I take issue with at as justification for law in a system of government that is not supposed to show preference to one religion or another.

As far as the content of the catechism is concerned? Divorce is often very difficult for spouses and for children. It can cause anxiety, grief, trauma, all sorts of pain. With children involved, I do not see divorce as something light. There are real consequences. But, the same can be said for lots of different parenting decisions. Parenting decisions should still be the right of the parents and not the government.

nortex97 said:

---

---

Oh you poor benighted person. Unable to discriminate against others.

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Oh you poor benighted person. Unable to discriminate against others.

---

Sapper in 10 years: "if you don't want a child bride don't marry one"

I'll take the under on that.

Silian Rail said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Oh you poor benighted person. Unable to discriminate against others.

---

Sapper in 10 years: "if you don't want a child bride don't marry one"

---

Consent in relationships seems like a hard concept for people like you to wrap your head around.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Oh you poor benighted person. Unable to discriminate against others.

---

Sapper in 10 years: "if you don't want a child bride don't marry one"

---

Consent in relationships seems like a hard concept for people like you to wrap your head around.

---

You managed to inadvertently highlight the issue in this whole thread; consent.

Young kids/tweens/even kids who are in their mid-teens have no real ability to consent to the permanent/surgical/chemical abuse they are pushed towards, today. Pedophiles/pederasts also depend on the consent of a minor to an act which they minor has no legal capacity (for now) to agree to. Such consent has generally only been allowed in primitive, poorly educated, abusive places like Afghanistan, or third world countries in Africa etc.

I am wholly unsurprised you are a supporter of such abuse/standards. Thanks, this made me grab a napkin to clean up the coffee I spit out laughing at you. Seriously.

nortex97 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

Oh you poor benighted person. Unable to discriminate against others.

---

Sapper in 10 years: "if you don't want a child bride don't marry one"

---

Consent in relationships seems like a hard concept for people like you to wrap your head around.

---

You managed to inadvertently highlight the issue in this whole thread; consent.

Young kids/tweens/even kids who are in their mid-teens have no real ability to consent to the permanent/surgical/chemical abuse they are pushed towards, today. Pedophiles/pederasts also depend on the consent of a minor to an act which they minor has no legal capacity (for now) to agree to. Such consent has generally only been allowed in primitive, poorly educated, abusive places like Afghanistan, or third world countries in Africa etc.

I am wholly unsurprised you are a supporter of such abuse/standards. Thanks, this made me grab a napkin to clean up the coffee I spit out laughing at you. Seriously.

---

"Pushed to." That phrase alone illustrates how little you understand about how medical professionals approach gender dysphoria. I'm glad I spared your coffee the indignity of your GI system.

nortex97 said:

---

---

There are tons of problems with this angry, emotionally charged graphic. If this is meant to be an argument against SSM, it's a really poor one.

You are taking the absolute most extreme, unrealistic positions and making them out to be "mainstream" when they are not. At the end of the day, gay couples just wanted to marry and get the benefits everyone else was getting and they got that in 2015.

I personally don't think a baker can be forced to bake anything. I don't like the trend of lawsuits forcing them to do so. Some things you just can't force.

I've never heard of anyone actually advocating sending someone to jail for using the wrong pronouns. That's just obnoxious fearmongering. In the USA, that is literally, absolutely, 100% illegal. Yeah, people get mad when you intentionally use the wrong pronouns to people, because it's objectively rude. Just like you and many others were doing calling Brittney Griner a he/him like a bunch of middle schoolers in the back of the classroom. It's immature and stupid behavior.

The drag show stuff? Kids shouldn't go to drag shows. Fair enough. Thought the most recent drag show controversy was dishonestly shared as a "family friendly" event when the flyer clearly said it was meant for adults only.

"Mutilate their genitals" is yet again emotionally charged angry talk. I am reluctant to use the word NEVER because maybe somewhere out there a minor got an actual sex change operation. But it's rare and illegal in most places, and yes it shouldn't happen. People talk about it like it's happening everywhere. It's not. Hormonal drugs and puberty blockers? Yes that is happening. It's also an accepted practice in the medical community and often recommended by doctors who treat gender dysphoria. There are kids all over the place who have diagnosed gender dysphoria and are depressed and are killing themselves because they feel "wrong" for who they are. After studying this condition extensively, doctors started recommending that kids live their lives as the other sex and it's had positive results and these kids reported feeling happier. Then when they become adults they can decide if they want any further medical procedures.

Obviously you completely disagree with this approach. Fine. But all the political activity surrounding this is people who know less about this than doctors and experts in this field, trying to tell said doctors and experts what they can do, and in some instances, the cruel practice of taking kids away from families. That's wrong.

Looked up that law. It appears it only applies to residents of nursing homes. And the law was rightfully struck down as a free speech violation. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/07/20/calif-appellate-court-rules-trans-pronouns-law-violates-freedom-of-speech/

My positions aren't radical at all. They're pretty mainstream, actually. I am not a member of the far left who wants to imprison people for misgendering others. I just believe gay couples have a right to marry, and the government should stay out of personal decisions involving treatment of gender dysphoria, and that minors should not be allowed to undergo actual sex change surgeries. Nothing about this is radical, at all.

Quote:

---

Looked up that law. It appears it only applies to residents of nursing homes. And the law was rightfully struck down as a free speech violation. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/07/20/calif-appellate-court-rules-trans-pronouns-law-violates-freedom-of-speech/

---

You misspelled "oh sorry I didn't know."

Miles away from "I've never heard of anyone actually advocating sending someone to jail for using the wrong pronouns. That's just obnoxious fearmongering. In the USA, that is literally, absolutely, 100% illegal."

The image - 2016 say my pronouns or go to jail - is factually correct, and your take on it was incorrect. For 4 years that law was on the books in California. It doesn't matter whether it only applied to nursing home residents or not.

The problem is you take a moderate stance that is silent and tolerant to the actual radical stances. When you encounter the radical stances you either fall back to say "well *I* don't support that" or just pretend they don't exist as you did here.

The reality is there are people who want to fine or imprison people for misgendering others. There are people who think minors should undergo sex change surgeries or take hormone supplements that can sterilize them or ruin their bodies for life. At some point you need to be responsible enough to oppose these things instead of making long-winded apologies for them.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Looked up that law. It appears it only applies to residents of nursing homes. And the law was rightfully struck down as a free speech violation. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/07/20/calif-appellate-court-rules-trans-pronouns-law-violates-freedom-of-speech/

---

You misspelled "oh sorry I didn't know."

Miles away from "I've never heard of anyone actually advocating sending someone to jail for using the wrong pronouns. That's just obnoxious fearmongering. In the USA, that is literally, absolutely, 100% illegal."

The image - 2016 say my pronouns or go to jail - is factually correct, and your take on it was incorrect. For 4 years that law was on the books in California. It doesn't matter whether it only applied to nursing home residents or not.

The problem is you take a moderate stance that is silent and tolerant to the actual radical stances. When you encounter the radical stances you either fall back to say "well *I* don't support that" or just pretend they don't exist as you did here.

The reality is there are people who want to fine or imprison people for misgendering others. There are people who think minors should undergo sex change surgeries or take hormone supplements that can sterilize them or ruin their bodies for life. At some point you need to be responsible enough to oppose these things instead of making long-winded apologies for them.

---

Did anyone ever actually go to jail for it? Highly doubtful but if someone did, that's wrong. Point being, laws like that are totally unenforceable in America.

But I have to push back. You can't keep taking these nitpicked extreme positions and then assigning them to me and the entire left. And it's equally silly to attribute this as the result of a "slippery slope" that started with the gay rights movement.

Like I said I am reluctant to use the word "never" because you can always find someone who believes some crazy ***** Like it's dishonest to say the right wants to kill gays, but you could probably find one nutcase who believes that.

When it comes to hormonal drugs, my position is simply to defer to the medical community. Sometimes a doctor will recommend a minor not go through with them. Sometimes they do. I have big problems when politicians (who are just trying to push an agenda) get involved, and in some cases (Texas) want to be cruel and rip families apart. I see this as analogous to doctors prescribing drugs to patients for [insert condition] when more chemicals and drugs may not be the best or healthiest thing. But it's a decision between the patient and the doctor and the government shouldn't get involved. Maybe some antidepressants aren't good to put into your body but some people say they really helped them.

This isn't a nitpicked extreme position. It was a law passed by the legislature in California and signed by the governor.

It's ok to take a stance that isn't black and white. You can be in favor of gay marriage and against what is going on in our culture today with regards to some of the more progressive LGBTQ positions.

Quote:

---

I have big problems when politicians (who are just trying to push an agenda) get involved, and in some cases (Texas) want to be cruel and rip families apart.

---

Why don't you apply this same logic to a law that could send a healthcare worker to jail for refusing to call a woman "him/her"? That's 100% politicans pushing an agenda getting involved and writing a law that absolutely has the power to ruin someone's life.

Never mind the fact that your position is essentially neutral on a doctor prescribing / performing a sex change on a minor. You can't say that the government should stay out of it on the one hand and take a hard stance on shoulds and oughts on the other.

If a doctor should not perform sex change on minors, should that be illegal?

And if so, is there a material difference between a sex change operation and the administering of hormones that can prevent puberty or cause permanent sex related changes like sterilization?

Where do you draw the line, and why?

larry culpepper said:

---

Zobel said:

---

This isn't a nitpicked extreme position. It was a law passed by the legislature in California and signed by the governor.

It's ok to take a stance that isn't black and white. You can be in favor of gay marriage and against what is going on in our culture today with regards to some of the more progressive LGBTQ positions.

Quote:

---

I have big problems when politicians (who are just trying to push an agenda) get involved, and in some cases (Texas) want to be cruel and rip families apart.

---

Why don't you apply this same logic to a law that could send a healthcare worker to jail for refusing to call a woman "him/her"? That's 100% politicans pushing an agenda getting involved and writing a law that absolutely has the power to ruin someone's life.

Never mind the fact that your position is essentially neutral on a doctor prescribing / performing a sex change on a minor. You can't say that the government should stay out of it on the one hand and take a hard stance on shoulds and oughts on the other.

---

I think I was pretty clear that doctors should not perform sex change ops on minors. And i'm pretty sure it's illegal in most places. I was also clear that no one should go to jail for using the wrong pronouns. Immature and ****ty behavior does not warrant the force of the law. And I still believe that this position is the more mainstream one.

But I'll make this concession. Yes I support and have always supported SSM. But I do think some individuals in medical organizations, social work, and liberal circles do rush to judgment on transgender matters. Like sometimes a boy being interested in girl stuff or vice versa really is just a phase and they need to wait it out and see if the behavior continues into adolescence. It's not healthy to jump in and immediately assume this child is trans. They need to consult with a child psychiatrist and get an actual gender dysphoria diagnosis and a treatment recommendation before making any major moves. So there.

---

You just lamented in your previous post being lumped in with 'the entire left' and then come out and say you have always been further left than Barack Obama (who ran/won the presidency while opposing gay marriage). Kind of funny.

Whether it is under the color of law or not, people are being investigated, arrested, and harassed/fired for not participating in made up language/gender games.

This is also how the left works; they get legal approval for a narrow scope/application of a law restricting rights that previously had no such conditional limits, then a few years later, try to blow that right up all over other areas of life.

100% correct

I think the two worldviews are compatible if you agree with the principle that government should generally stay out of people's lives and not try to micromanage their decisions. Government is there to govern, not enforce a worldview. I should also note I frequently criticize conservatives for being "big government" because I often hear from them, and see elected leaders, trying to do exactly this.

I think it's rude and sometimes cruel to misgender and deadname people. Maybe you do it out of their presence, but doing it to their face is just ****ty bullying. Have your own opinions but stop trying to tell people who they are. Having said this, I would never in a million years say being rude like this should be criminally punishable. For the same reason I wouldn't want to arrest and prosecute someone because they adore people like Vladimir Putin.

The truth is, most trans people don't have a political agenda. You hit the nail on the head with your first conclusion. Some people are trans. Beyond debate. Lots of trans people have serious mental health issues and they have high rates of suicide. Beyond debate. This is often caused/exacerbated by non-acceptance by society. The medical community has studied gender dysphoria and has experimented with allowing trans youth to live as if they are their identified gender, and it has yielded positive results. So some decide to treat that way.

I'm just saying.... leave these people alone for God's sake.

So you're solidly in the first camp and can't imagine having the perspective of the second camp. People like Zobel are in the second camp are just as flabbergasted as you in regards to the other side.

You're last point is also a bit disingenuous. Both sides of this are evangelical, in that they seek to spread their view despite opposition to it. Drag shows in elementary schools and other countries are good examples.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So you're solidly in the first camp and can't imagine having the perspective of the second camp. People like Zobel are in the second camp are just as flabbergasted as you in regards to the other side.

You're last point is also a bit disingenuous. Both sides of this are evangelical, in that they seek to spread their view despite opposition to it. Drag shows in elementary schools and other countries are good examples.

---

Don't forget boys in girls locker rooms and restrooms about which there have already been court cases. It's not as simple as 'leave them alone.' This cannot be resolved with the live and let live mentality.

My daughters should be able to be free of a boy's eyes if they choose. They shouldn't be degraded or demeaned for not wanting to share a shower with biological males (since Larry is against transitioning children).

Larry has himself in a bit of a pickle wanting it both ways with no resolution in sight.

You might want to do some reading about the topic before posting about it.

Links that reference drag shows in elementary schools

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/drag-queen-shows-for-minors-common

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-exactly-did-drag-queens-in-schools-become-a-thing/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/eric-adams-throws-support-behind-drag-queen-story-/

Link regarding the State Department funding drag shows overseas

https://www.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/16/eric-adams-throws-support-behind-drag-queen-story-/newsweek.com/fact-check-biden-administration-funding-drag-shows-ecuador-1753649

There is no better word for this than evangelism. It's publicly promoting a strongly held belief in the face of fierce opposition. And again, it makes perfect sense if you think that society rejection of this is causing direct physical harm.

Quote:

---

rather it's me saying let the professionals/patients make this decision and keep the government out of it. Stop trying to make it illegal in a clear attempt to win a culture war.

---

Why can't the same doctors and patients make the same decision about sex change operations?

Your position is fundamentally inconsistent.

You're willing to override expert opinion arbitrarily based on your opinion (sex change for minors causes irreversible changes and is therefore bad and therefore should be illegal) but unwilling to even entertain the opinions of others (hormone therapy in minors causes irreversible changes and is therefore bad and therefore should be illegal).

Why do you get to look at my opinion and say "Stop trying to make it illegal in a clear attempt to win a culture war"? Someone to your left can say the exact same thing about your stance on sex change operations.

larry culpepper said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

---

There are tons of problems with this angry, emotionally charged graphic. If this is meant to be an argument against SSM, it's a really poor one.

1) You are taking the absolute most extreme, unrealistic positions and making them out to be "mainstream" when they are not. At the end of the day, gay couples just wanted to marry and get the benefits everyone else was getting and they got that in 2015.

2) I personally don't think a baker can be forced to bake anything. I don't like the trend of lawsuits forcing them to do so. Some things you just can't force.

3) I've never heard of anyone actually advocating sending someone to jail for using the wrong pronouns. That's just obnoxious fearmongering. In the USA, that is literally, absolutely, 100% illegal. Yeah, people get mad when you intentionally use the wrong pronouns to people, because it's objectively rude. Just like you and many others were doing calling Brittney Griner a he/him like a bunch of middle schoolers in the back of the classroom. It's immature and stupid behavior.

4) The drag show stuff? Kids shouldn't go to drag shows. Fair enough. Thought the most recent drag show controversy was dishonestly shared as a "family friendly" event when the flyer clearly said it was meant for adults only.

5) "Mutilate their genitals" is yet again emotionally charged angry talk. I am reluctant to use the word NEVER because maybe somewhere out there a minor got an actual sex change operation. But it's rare and illegal in most places, and yes it shouldn't happen. People talk about it like it's happening everywhere. It's not. Hormonal drugs and puberty blockers? Yes that is happening. It's also an accepted practice in the medical community and often recommended by doctors who treat gender dysphoria. There are kids all over the place who have diagnosed gender dysphoria and are depressed and are killing themselves because they feel "wrong" for who they are. After studying this condition extensively, doctors started recommending that kids live their lives as the other sex and it's had positive results and these kids reported feeling happier. Then when they become adults they can decide if they want any further medical procedures.

6) Obviously you completely disagree with this approach. Fine. But all the political activity surrounding this is people who know less about this than doctors and experts in this field, trying to tell said doctors and experts what they can do, and in some instances, the cruel practice of taking kids away from families. That's wrong.

---

Your post is factually incorrect in many places:

1) Yes, marriage is all gay couples wanted in 2015. Conservatives didn't want that, because we were afraid that much more extreme views would become acceptable to society. They have.

2) Skipping

3) In Canada, there have been arrests. I'm not sure about jail time, but I do know fines have been given out.

4) Adults should not be volunteering to do drag shows for kids. Showing up as a rainbow dildo butt monkey to read kids stories should not only be condemned, it should lead to jail time (google me, I'm real)

5) Chemical mutilation is a thing. Puberty blockers have irreversible consequences. Kids should not be making decisions that alter their bodies before they are adults. Kids can't choose to: smoke, drink alcohol, vote, have sex, drive a car, etc. Why? Because they are kids. We all knew the tom boy who grew up to be a very feminine bombshell. Your plea to authority here (Doctors, medical community) is weak sauce.

While I am not really all that comfortable with adults allowing their kids to cross dress growing up, I don't feel so adamantly against it that I think the state should step in and stop it. BUT, mutilating kids with surgery or any chemical treatments is absolutely unforgivable. I want the people that do this to be put into prison. I think that Matt Walsh's book Johnny the Walrus is absolutely the right viewpoint on this issue.

6) Again, a plea to experts. That's not an argument. Those doctors and experts are wrong, and there are plenty of doctors and experts that will tell them that. Kids are being used as a political pawn to try and prove the point that you were born gay, or trans, and it is a physical not emotional thing. Maybe so, maybe not. But we should not be changing the course of an 8 year old's life forever as part of this scientific / philosophical discussion.

Conservatives stand up and actively denounce racism in all its forms, and choose not to associate with flagrant racists. Responsible black fathers actively stand up and call out the thug lifestyle and the music that perpetuates that family wrecking culture. Christians stand up and denounce the sensational radicalism of churches like the Westboro Baptist Church.

If you want us to take you seriously that these are "extreme" positions, you should be actively standing up and denouncing them in all of their forms. Saying "we just wanted SSM" and then staying silent over doctors changing the bodies of 8 year olds for life doesn't square.