So would the people in schmendler's post.

Beer Baron said:

---

So basically, you just want to scream at them no matter what they do then. I mean, I know you personally want to do much more than scream at them, but the collective "you" want to scream at them no matter what.

---

A ton of projection there. I just want my family to have their rights. And I do not want schools teaching sex education of any sort until they are more mature. I do not want to protest, or harm or anything like that.

So I am still working so I can send my grand kids to private Christian schools. Because my tax dollars are being used to do things I disagree with.

And I am the bigot and intolerant one?

Bizarro world.

My comment wasn't replying to yours so I don't know how I'm projecting anything on you. That said, by the very rules you're establishing here, people who look like the ones Schmendler posted would be in your wife's bathroom even though neither of them would want that to happen and no one in the men's room would even bat an eye if they were in there.

Beer Baron said:

---

So basically, you just want to scream at them no matter what they do then. I mean, I know you personally want to do much more than scream at them, but the collective "you" want to scream at them no matter what.

---

The only thing scarier than a man in the bathroom is a mentally ill woman hopped up on testesterone and other hormones to mimic something they're not. Stranger danger, and there is nothing stranger than that.

But you're right. My answer to the question "where do you want trans people to use the bathroom" is "in the mental hospital". My second choice is to have them use the one of their biological sex, the more uncomfortable we can make everyone with this fetish, the sooner it will end

TxAgPreacher said:

---

How many pages are you going to attack our faith, and then pretend its not under attack?

---

I'm going to differ from MacArthur here and say that your religion is absolutely being attacked in this thread. I think a line ought to be drawn at personal attacks, but ideas should absolutely be on the table for criticism and attack. Unless you think we should not be permitted to speak out against Christianity? Should it be made illegal to criticize Christianity?

I mean, you are pretty openly attacking ideologies that support transgenderism, right? And thats totally fine - you should be free to attack ideologies you disagree with.

But! What is funny here is the openness with which you all attack our ideology and all of the pearl clutching that occurs when we attack yours.

We aren't going to agree on this issue. I'm willing to agree to disagree. And as part of this agreement, I would state very clearly that I respect your right to practice your faith as you see fit. I don't think you extend the same toward people who practice ideology you disagree with. . . . and that is where the conflict is.

Hopefully this thread is just about done - so I'll say one last thing:

If you only believe in freedom to practice your own religion, then you don't believe in freedom of religion. And if you only believe in freedom to say things you agree with, then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Either you are willing to allow people their own values and beliefs or you aren't.

Engage in the argument. You have no right to harm.

Explain why traditional families are bad/do harm, and how queer theory is good/does not harm.

This isnt a free speech issue. You can say what you want. I'm agaisnt the practice of harm. I'm attacking the ideology because its harmful, when put into practice. Words are words, but we are butchering a generation of young people and I'm against the cruel barbaric practices. Believe what you want but leave the innocent alone.

Defend queer theory.

The hyperbole is incredible here.

Macarthur said:

---

The hyperbole is incredible here.

---

What did John Money, big queer theory guy , do to the Reimer boys?

What are they doing to young people today based on the sick experiment?



Watch and see the mockery and deflection when he shows the link between pedophilia in queer theory. You'll see why they have not engaged in the argument in this thread, but only mocked. You cannot defend queer theory.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Engage in the argument. You have no right to harm.

Explain why traditional families are bad/do harm, and how queer theory is good/does not harm.

This isnt a free speech issue. You can say what you want. I'm agaisnt the practice of harm. I'm attacking the ideology because its harmful, when put into practice. Words are words, but we are butchering a generation of young people and I'm against the cruel barbaric practices. Believe what you want but leave the innocent alone.

Defend queer theory.

---

hahaha. . .

I'm not saying traditional families are bad and that they do harm. I don't think anyone has made that argument. And I'm not saying queer theory is good or that it could never do harm. What is important to me is that the freedom exists for people to choose either option up to the point where making those chooses affects someone else's freedom.

You think certain ideologies are harmful. Fine. Maybe someone else thinks that Christianity is harmful. Now explain to me why your opinion of what is harmful is more important than someone else's.

Understand that we are talking in generalities. I oppose sex change operations being performed on children. But, if you are an adult, do whatever you want. I don't think its my job to inflict my value system on the world the same way you do. All laws come down to an infliction of some value system, I recognize. But, I think that the less infliction we do, the better.

I don't have a definition of queer theory. It strikes me as one of those terms like critical race theory where it means 100 different things to a 100 different people. Even if it was a clear cut definition, I no more see it as my position to define queer theory than I do to define Christianity. Christians get to define Christianity and queers can define queer theory as far as I'm concerned.

What's funny is that Derek Jensen is the furthest thing from a conservative there is. He's almost a bomb chucking anarchist.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Engage in the argument. You have no right to harm.

Explain why traditional families are bad/do harm, and how queer theory is good/does not harm.

This isnt a free speech issue. You can say what you want. I'm agaisnt the practice of harm. I'm attacking the ideology because its harmful, when put into practice. Words are words, but we are butchering a generation of young people and I'm against the cruel barbaric practices. Believe what you want but leave the innocent alone.

Defend queer theory.

---

hahaha. . .

I'm not saying traditional families are bad and that they do harm. Queer theory is fundamentally against it.

I don't have a definition of queer theory. It strikes me as one of those terms like critical race theory where it means 100 different things to a 100 different people. Even if it was a clear cut definition, I no more see it as my position to define queer theory than I do to define Christianity. Christians get to define Christianity and queers can define queer theory as far as I'm concerned.

---

Queer theory is against all that is normal. It is fundamentally subversive.

Dude did you major in queer theory or something? Best I can tell it's something only you and some college professors know anything about at all.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Queer theory is against all that is normal. It is fundamentally subversive.

---

Thats your opinion. What do you want me to do with that?

But he bolded it. Bolded it.

The ideology you've been espousing is rooted in the same postmodernism. Just like the transexual ideology. It doesn't matter if you don't realize that, it's still based on this school of thought.

Everything is ok!(except traditional Christian values you bigot!) You have to accept my ideology its just as good as yours! You cannot tell me what to do! You have to allow all subversive lifestyles no matter how harmful!

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Queer theory is against all that is normal. It is fundamentally subversive.

---

Thats your opinion. What do you want me to do with that?

---

Do your own research. Read the quotes I posted above from the founders of queer theory. Much like critical theory it exists to challenge established norms by viewing everything through the lens of power differentials, with sexual and racial issues and morality being artifacts of the white patriarchy.

That's what Jensen said at the end, it's necessarily transgressive so it HAS to buck established norms like heterosexuality and non-pedophilia

Oh, ***** You're right. That makes it true, doesn't it?

Lets try something. . . . The Christian God is almost certainly a fairytale!

DeProfundis said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Queer theory is against all that is normal. It is fundamentally subversive.

---

Thats your opinion. What do you want me to do with that?

---

Do your own research. Read the quotes I posted above from the founders of queer theory. Much like critical theory it exists to challenge established norms by viewing everything through the lens of power differentials, with sexual and racial issues and morality being artifacts of the white patriarchy.

---

Whats the point? If I do my own research and read your quotes and come to a different conclusion, will you accept that? Or will I still be wrong?

TxAgPreacher said:

---

They cannot argue the point, they can only mock.

---

Argue what point? At this stage in the discussion you are just yelling angrily that we disagree with you.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Queer theory is against all that is normal. It is fundamentally subversive.

---

Thats your opinion. What do you want me to do with that?

---

Do your own research. Read the quotes I posted above from the founders of queer theory. Much like critical theory it exists to challenge established norms by viewing everything through the lens of power differentials, with sexual and racial issues and morality being artifacts of the white patriarchy.

---

Whats the point? If I do my own research and read your quotes and come to a different conclusion, will you accept that? Or will I still be wrong?

---

You will probably still be wrong, but I hold out hope since incest apologia and infant sex is a bridge too far for almost everyone

Quote:

---

You have to accept my ideology its just as good as yours!

---

Never said that.

Quote:

---

You cannot tell me what to do!

---

I did say that. Does this upset you?

Quote:

---

You have to allow all subversive lifestyles no matter how harmful!

---

And never said that.



Good talk. Are there any other statements you want to assign to me that I never made?

TxAgPreacher said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

They cannot argue the point, they can only mock.

---

Argue what point? At this stage in the discussion you are just yelling angrily that we disagree with you.

---

Queer theory is harmful. Address a single point from the video.

---

The 23 minute video that was posted 30 minutes ago that I'm supposed to have watched already while trying to wrap up work?

TxAgPreacher said:

---

All I see is deliberate obfuscation. If someone wants to comment on the video, or discuss the ideology behind queer theory then I'll bite.

Otherwise carry on mocking, and ad homing, without making any arguments.

---

We went through 10 pages of back and forth where I feel I engaged with your arguments. And at the 11th hour you've posted a video and your furious that no one has watched it and engaged with it yet?

There is no obfuscation or dodging. I just don't think there is any more point to this discussion.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Yes I'm the boogeyman.

Actually I just want to nudge people in the right direction. Show them a better way. Keep them from destroying themselves with sin. Save their soul.

You seem awfully judgmental, and uncharitable with your aspersions for someone who calls everyone else hateful.

---

This is why I'm a Christian Sympathizer.
And to get back to what set this off -
transing has become a fad that is hurting children.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

All I see is deliberate obfuscation. If someone wants to comment on the video, or discuss the ideology behind queer theory then I'll bite.

Otherwise carry on mocking, and ad homing, without making any arguments.

---

We went through 10 pages of back and forth where I feel I engaged with your arguments. And at the 11th hour you've posted a video and your furious that no one has watched it and engaged with it yet?

There is no obfuscation or dodging. I just don't think there is any more point to this discussion.

---

Serious question, what is your ideology?

Is moral relativism an ideology? I guess you can never be wrong with that. Or right.

Ok, spent my drive home listening to the video. The host appears to never have explicitly defined queer theory, but ascribed many things to it. Broadly, it sounded to me, like an ideology of rejection of norms. Perhaps starting with the rejection of norms about gender identity, but stretching into support of anarchy, pedophilia, and anything else considered to be a norm. He even lumped a rejection to pay the normal sales tax into the definition of queer theory. The host seemed almost clear that many queers reject 'queer theory' which makes me think that his definition on queer theory has very little to do with being queer and might simply be defined as indiscriminate rejection of social norms.

I also spent some time listening to a few different videos which were supposed to define queer theory for me. These definitions ascribed the idea specifically to the rejection of gender norms and said nothing about rejection of other norms.

. . . All of this to say that I don't know how to respond to your questions about queer theory, because I don't know how you define it. I have different reactions to the different definitions I gathered from the different videos.

Can you, in your own words, explain what queer theory is?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Ok, spent my drive home listening to the video. The host appears to never have explicitly defined queer theory, but ascribed many things to it. Broadly, it sounded to me, like an ideology of rejection of norms. Perhaps starting with the rejection of norms about gender identity, but stretching into support of anarchy, pedophilia, and anything else considered to be a norm. He even lumped a rejection to pay the normal sales tax into the definition of queer theory. The host seemed almost clear that many queers reject 'queer theory' which makes me think that his definition on queer theory has very little to do with being queer and might simply be defined as indiscriminate rejection of social norms.

I also spent some time listening to a few different videos which were supposed to define queer theory for me. These definitions ascribed the idea specifically to the rejection of gender norms and said nothing about rejection of other norms.

. . . All of this to say that I don't know how to respond to your questions about queer theory, because I don't know how you define it. I have different reactions to the different definitions I gathered from the different videos.

Can you, in your own words, explain what queer theory is?

---

A rejection of societal all norms.

Our society has always rejected transsexualism, and defined man and woman in biological terms. These norms are what keep society stable. The family. Blurring the lines is bad in this case.

Was the acceptance of miscegenation queer theory?

schmendeler said:

---

Was the acceptance of miscegenation queer theory?

---

It may have been the birth pangs of postmodernism in this country. Not all societal norms are good, and not all are bad, but the family, and gender roles are not to be tampered with. The traditional family is the backbone of civilization. Science has proven that the best outcomes come from the traditional family. It brings stability It has stood the test of time in the best way possible.

Transexual ideology is new and radical, and based on John Money's experiment. Look it up. The kid killed himself, and yet we subject our youth to it.

Whatever "queer theory" is, I think it's a great example of horseshoe theory because the only people who seem to know anything or care anything about it seem to be crazy Smith College liberal arts professors and crazy conservative Jesus loons.

OOOOOOR you just don't understand the fundamental presuppositions behind the ideology, and your take is trans good, Christian bad!

Follow the logic behind transsexualism to it's roots and you have to admit its scientifically worse for people than traditionalism. We have societal norms for a reason. Because they are stable. Because they work. They have stood the test of time. Societies that have deviated from these have collapsed rapidly.

In this case transgenderism is fundamentally opposed to a gender binary, and this is madness, and counterfactual. Its inherently harmful to society and the practicing individual.