Correct. You must follow the teachings of Christ to be his disciple.

The day of visibility is diametrically opposed to Christ teachings.

Rocag said:

---

Jill and I send our warmest wishes to Christians around the world celebrating the power of hope and the promise of Christ’s Resurrection this Easter Sunday. pic.twitter.com/xzgjtcTwQy

— President Biden (@POTUS) March 31, 2024

Very low effort comment there. Guess who else had an Easter post?

---

I do feel a little duped. Politicians gonna pander, that's all any of this was.

That being said, Halloween would be a more appropriate day to recognize transgenders.

No matter what you do to this building, everyone knows it used to be a Pizza Hut.

This is what the trans community fails to understand.

Happy Trans Visibility Day pic.twitter.com/uoktrRdHfV

— Isabella Maria DeLuca (@IsabellaMDeLuca) March 31, 2024

PabloSerna said:

---

Throw that stone!!!

---

Gladly, as goes the decisions of my govt so does the Gods judgement upon the nation.

Some people are marginalized for a reason. We need to be actively pushing this sort of behavior to the margins of society, and get it out of the main square. The worst thing possible would be for people to think this is normal, healthy, and valid. That it's being promoted is the reason trans identification is absolutely exploding amongst the youth population.

You cannot minister to those on the margins, if they're not on the margins.

AG @ HEART said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Throw that stone!!!

---

Gladly, as goes the decisions of my govt so does the Gods judgement upon the nation.

---

"Sorry, gotta destroy you. You weren't cruel enough to these people."

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

Exactly.....

If a person goes to a doctor and says, I believe that I should have been born blind, the Dr. won't take their eyes out. Instead, they'll try to treat the mental illness.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

That's right, gotta beat it out of them and treat them as subhuman to save them.

We should do whatever it takes to keep them from destroying their lives with sin. However at the end of the day they have to make their own mind up.

It would be better the fewer people were in this position. It should not be mainstreamed as if its ok in any way.

I've talked about the subject of family members who are trans with my circle of Catholic men's group. We have decided that we would rather have a trans kid than a kid who committed suicide, however we would also rather have no dad than a trans dad.

I cannot imagine the amount of damage a parent turning "trans" after years of living as their biological sex does to the children.

This is a very real and very dangerous charade being promoted by the ill intentioned. It needs to be stomped out so it doesn't spread. It is already spreading through the kids like a virus

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

That's right, gotta beat it out of them and treat them as subhuman to save them.

---

Is there possibly something between letting them grind on children and declaring the holiest day of the year their day of visibility and beating them to death?

For a guy who wants so hard to be thought smart, this is an argument from a girl in 8th grade. Trust me I know

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

That's right, gotta beat it out of them and treat them as subhuman to save them.

---

Is there possibly something between letting them grind on children and declaring the holiest day of the year their day of visibility and beating them to death?

For a guy who wants so hard to be thought smart, this is an argument from a girl in 8th grade. Trust me I know

---

You're an 8th grade girl?

As has been said repeatedly, March 31 is the Trans Day of Visibility. And has been for 15 years. You're basically saying the time between March and May is forbidden for anything not perfectly approved of by the most conservative Christians. Doesn't work that way. And "grind on children" is idiotic. A Catholic has zero room to make claims like that.

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

That's right, gotta beat it out of them and treat them as subhuman to save them.

---

Is there possibly something between letting them grind on children and declaring the holiest day of the year their day of visibility and beating them to death?

For a guy who wants so hard to be thought smart, this is an argument from a girl in 8th grade. Trust me I know

---

You're an 8th grade girl?

As has been said repeatedly, March 31 is the Trans Day of Visibility. And has been for 15 years. You're basically saying the time between March and May is forbidden for anything not perfectly approved of by the most conservative Christians. Doesn't work that way. And "grind on children" is idiotic. A Catholic has zero room to make claims like that.

---

As had been said even more repeatedly, there are something like 150 lgbtq days of recognition in the calendar already; each pandering to whatever niche of queerness they have to give a pinch of incense to.

And I'm probably angrier at the Catholic issue than you are. Far too many gays in the priesthood, but even then they're mainly grinding on pubescent males, as gays like Harvey Milk, and Barney Frank, and Foucault are wont to do.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AG @ HEART said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Throw that stone!!!

---

Gladly, as goes the decisions of my govt so does the Gods judgement upon the nation.

---

"Sorry, gotta destroy you. You weren't cruel enough to these people."

---

It's always God isn't big enough to stop evil or too arbitrary when he does. I wish people could decide how they want to hate their creator because the polemics are tired.

Besides what was the cruel action of this God you don't believe in?

Macarthur said:

---

WTF does stomped out mean?

---

Smother it in its crib. Zero tolerance. Remove all promotional days, treat all normalization groups like NAMBLA and force them to close. Fire any teacher that hangs any lgbtq propaganda in their crib and defund any school that promotes lgtbq curriculum. Deny any parades or rallies that they try to hold. I can go on and on. Push them to the margins. You won't eradicate it completely but you'll get it out of the public eye where it can impact the mainstream

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

That's right, gotta beat it out of them and treat them as subhuman to save them.

---

Is there possibly something between letting them grind on children and declaring the holiest day of the year their day of visibility and beating them to death?

For a guy who wants so hard to be thought smart, this is an argument from a girl in 8th grade. Trust me I know

---

You're an 8th grade girl?

As has been said repeatedly, March 31 is the Trans Day of Visibility. And has been for 15 years. You're basically saying the time between March and May is forbidden for anything not perfectly approved of by the most conservative Christians. Doesn't work that way. And "grind on children" is idiotic. A Catholic has zero room to make claims like that.

---

Not a catholic, but I'm sure the lions share condemn and support the expulsion and imprisonment of said abusers.

More over I'd like to see some scripture as to which these "catholic men" were using as tenets espoused by the God of the Bible which is cause to condemn all Christians or Catholics as culpable.

Wow. I'm not sure what to say.

And nambla and gay/lesbian are NOT the same thing.

The ignorance displayed is pretty staggering. To say nothing else of the raging hypocrisy and blind eye to the VAST majority of those that abuse others sexually, esp children.

The thing is Biden has been portrayed as this "return to normalcy" President. The good family man who is a "devout Roman Catholic" that we as America can feel good about. I can remember him being called the "second most important Catholic in the world."

Instead what he's turned out to be is one of the most radical presidents who when given any chance to bring normalcy, chooses to go against that. So for Christians who thought maybe they were seeing some normalcy in the midst of this post-christian world, instead we see evil being celebrated.

Macarthur said:

---

Wow. I'm not sure what to say.

And nambla and gay/lesbian are NOT the same thing.

---

They were, likely in your lifetime. They were removed when they got politically inexpedient. All the founders of queer theory were unrepentant and unapologetic pedophiles; like
John Money, Foucault mentioned above and others

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Wow. I'm not sure what to say.

And nambla and gay/lesbian are NOT the same thing.

---

They were, likely in your lifetime. They were removed when they got politically inexpedient. All the founders of queer theory were unrepentant and unapologetic pedophiles; like
John Money, Foucault mentioned above and others

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Wow. I'm not sure what to say.

And nambla and gay/lesbian are NOT the same thing.

---

They were, likely in your lifetime. They were removed when they got politically inexpedient. All the founders of queer theory were unrepentant and unapologetic pedophiles; like
John Money, Foucault mentioned above and others

---

No they weren't and never have been. And Money and Foucault are not "founders of queer theory."

---

They were literally a member of the International Lesbian and Gay association until they were kicked out because they were going to be denied money.

Leaders of Queer Theory movement

John Foucault- argued for the eradication of age of consent laws to infancy saying "no one thinks about age before making love"


Gayle Rubin- "like communists and homosexuals in the 1950's, boy-lovers are so stigmatized it is difficult to find defenders of their civil liberties let alone their erotic preferences"

Judith Butler- argued that parents having sex with their children was not necessarily traumatic, and if it was so, was only due to societal stigma.

EDIT- and yeah the crops are Wikipedia, but the citations are from reputable sources like the Stanford Journal of Philosophy. Check them out

What's the point? Even granting that they were awful people with some awful ideas doesn't invalidate the gay rights movement any more than pointing out that there have been cruel and monsterous Christian leaders invalidates Christianity. Playing the guilt by association game isn't a good idea when your own belief system has so much dirty laundry to air. It's just pointless.

And even your own links point out that the mainstream movement rejected these ideas.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

Quote:

---

We should do whatever it takes to keep them from destroying their lives with sin. However at the end of the day they have to make their own mind up.

It would be better the fewer people were in this position. It should not be mainstreamed as if its ok in any way.

---

Quote:

---

If a person goes to a doctor and says, I believe that I should have been born blind, the Dr. won't take their eyes out. Instead, they'll try to treat the mental illness.

---

If you only support your own individual liberties and freedoms, then you don't support liberty and freedom. I think that is what these posts boil down to, right. People that YOU decide are living in sin should not be permitted to live as they see fit and should be treated as mentally ill. Worse yet, you get to choose which sinners are to be marginalized and which aren't. Nevermind the massive amounts of greed and hate and your own fine display on this thread of arrogance and pride, Christians are simply obsessed with sexual sins.

. . . . . then again, maybe you are on to something.

I've been thinking recently that there is something not quite right with these Christians. They hear voices in their head and claim they are from supernatural beings. They support cannibalism and believe that they consume flesh and blood of another human being during their rituals. They idolize a book that supports slavery and murder and rape and genocide. And they threaten everyone with eternal punishment for failure to comply with their made up rules. Their own arrogance and pride have allowed them to convince themselves that they are the sword of God and that they are endowed with the right to hand out their righteous condemnation of people as they see fit.

There is no doubt in my mind that Christianity is a mental illness. These people are delusional and for the sake of mankind, we must marginalize them and their continued poisoning of humanity.

You are destroying your own life through your blind adherence to these fables. And its my belief that I have the right to disallow you from continuing down your wicked path.

See!! Now we're samsies!

(Note: inevitably someone will misunderstand the blatant and intentional mockery that I just posted and think its genuine. Please don't be that someone.)

Rocag said:

---

What's the point? Even granting that they were awful people with some awful ideas doesn't invalidate the gay rights movement any more than pointing out that there have been cruel and monsterous Christian leaders invalidates Christianity. Playing the guilt by association game isn't a good idea when your own belief system has so much dirty laundry to air. It's just pointless.

And even your own links point out that the mainstream movement rejected these ideas.

---

Only when expedient, before their funding was threatened they were more than happy to let NAMBLA be in their group.

And my point is that both the pedophilia and gay acceptance movements have been bedfellows since the beginning with tons of overlap. We're not talking about random gay people doing bad stuff, we're talking about their thought leaders producing their key philosophical works. The idea that pedophilia is a Catholic issue misses the forest for the trees. The only reason there was an issue with abuse in the church was because we had gay clergy.

The same is true of any organization: Boy Scouts, teachers, etc. A DOJ study found that gay or bisexual teachers are something like 90x more likely to abuse a student than strictly heterosexual ones.

Its the same ideology behind both. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? It's not what I think, or what I want to be accepted.

I go with what God said in the bible.

I wasn't necessarily referring to pedophile priests when talking about the historical evils of Christianity. There's lots more than that. Wars, slavery, genocide, etc. There's a long list of such things being done by Christians in the name of Christianity. And just as you probably shrug that off as irrelevant and not truly representative of Christianity I do the same here.

These historical arguments of "Oh yeah well this person you've never actually heard of was an awful person therefore your point of view is wrong!" just fail for me. I do not care about those people or what they believed. It has no bearing on my personal point of view. I'm not going to hear that and suddenly decide we should discriminate against gay or trans people. The idea they should be is worthy of being fought against. I'd rather see a future where bigotry like yours is widely rejected.

Ok, well I'll judge a tree by its fruit. Warts and all the Catholic Church is the vehicle for the salvation of mankind and the largest and longest charitable organization in the world.

The LGBTQ agenda has pedophile apologists as its key theorists, and is trying to maim and neuter children, but sure you fight for that future and I'll fight for mine.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Cruel would be allowing them to live in their delusion until they go on to perdition.

---

Quote:

---

We should do whatever it takes to keep them from destroying their lives with sin. However at the end of the day they have to make their own mind up.

It would be better the fewer people were in this position. It should not be mainstreamed as if its ok in any way.

---

Quote:

---

If a person goes to a doctor and says, I believe that I should have been born blind, the Dr. won't take their eyes out. Instead, they'll try to treat the mental illness.

---

If you only support your own individual liberties and freedoms, then you don't support liberty and freedom. I think that is what these posts boil down to, right. People that YOU decide are living in sin should not be permitted to live as they see fit and should be treated as mentally ill. Worse yet, you get to choose which sinners are to be marginalized and which aren't. Nevermind the massive amounts of greed and hate and your own fine display on this thread of arrogance and pride, Christians are simply obsessed with sexual sins.

. . . . . then again, maybe you are on to something.

I've been thinking recently that there is something not quite right with these Christians. They hear voices in their head and claim they are from supernatural beings. They support cannibalism and believe that they consume flesh and blood of another human being during their rituals. They idolize a book that supports slavery and murder and rape and genocide. And they threaten everyone with eternal punishment for failure to comply with their made up rules. Their own arrogance and pride have allowed them to convince themselves that they are the sword of God and that they are endowed with the right to hand out their righteous condemnation of people as they see fit.

There is no doubt in my mind that Christianity is a mental illness. These people are delusional and for the sake of mankind, we must marginalize them and their continued poisoning of humanity.

You are destroying your own life through your blind adherence to these fables. And its my belief that I have the right to disallow you from continuing down your wicked path.

See!! Now we're samsies!

(Note: inevitably someone will misunderstand the blatant and intentional mockery that I just posted and think its genuine. Please don't be that someone.)

---

It really boils down to a wrong understanding of freedom. Here's how George Weigel explains Thomas Aquinas' view of freedom:

"Freedom is a means to human excellence, to human happiness, to the fulfillment of human destiny. Freedom is the capacity to choose wisely and to act well as a matter of habit-or, to use the old-fashioned term, as an outgrowth of virtue. Freedom is the means by which, exercising both our reason and our will, we act on the natural longing for truth, for goodness, and for happiness that is built into us as human beings. Freedom is something that grows in us, and the habit of living freedom wisely must be developed through education, which among other things involves the experience of emulating others who live wisely and well. Freedom is the great organizing principle of the moral life-and since the very possibility of a moral life (the capacity to think and choose) is what distinguishes the human person from the rest of the natural world, freedom is the great organizing principle of a life lived in a truly human way."

Eta: just to sum this up in a few words: the ability to choose is what makes it possible for us to act in a way that's not morally ambiguous. But it doesn't imply that we have the right to do whatever we want to do.

We don't think about lesser animals the same way. If a lion kills and eats a gazelle, he hasn't "murdered" it. If some animal forces copulation onto another animal, it hasn't "raped" it. We understand intuitively there's a dimension to human freedom that implies an obligation to choose the good that's not true of lesser animals.

You're using freedom and liberty as a kind of proxy for morality, but that's incoherent from your perspective. Because if exercising MY freedom, as you put it, is violative of YOUR freedom, then the same is true in reverse. Even if I just adopt your caricature of the Christian brand of freedom as raw coercion, tell me why that's bad in your view. Can it be that some people's freedom is better than others? Or maybe that some people have a distorted view of freedom and morals?