THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[seer]

Even the deist Jefferson saw nature as being a result of God creating it.

Just a side note Bill, Jefferson was not a deist if you define deism as God not interfering with human affairs. Jefferson most certainly believed that God acted in human events. And believed that God would judge our nation for the sin of slavery.

[Bill the Cat]

Just a side note Bill, Jefferson was not a deist if you define deism as God not interfering with human affairs. Jefferson most certainly believed that God acted in human events. And believed that God would judge our nation for the sin of slavery.

Yeah. It's a convenient way to describe him though. He seemed to believe in a personal God, but only one that agreed with him. He notoriously ripped out pages and crossed out texts he didn't like.

[seer]

Yeah. It's a convenient way to describe him though. He seemed to believe in a personal God, but only one that agreed with him. He notoriously ripped out pages and crossed out texts he didn't like.

Correct, he was a kind of generic theist.

[Tassman]

That is stupid - trans already had equal protection - they, like me, can use the bathroom or shower that corresponds to their sex, and still can. There is no discrimination.

Tass calling something universal does not make it so, nor does it have any moral weight. I mean really, how many countries have signed (48)? How many are there (about 190)? No where near universal.

48 of the 58 Member States of the United Nations as of December 1948 were signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 10 that declined were totalitarian dictatorships.

The Declaration represents what the majority of people instinctively believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled...as opposed to the values found in Evangelical Christianity which comprise a mere 4.1% of the total world population, (Pew Research) which is "no where near universal."

Newton was not an occultist, he was a Christian, though somewhat heretical. And it was YOUR previous LINK that brought up Newton, and Locke grounded our rights in the fact that we were the property of God. Do you even read what you link, from your last link:

Tass, why did you ignore completely the reference to the first congress populated by the Founders, the very men we are speaking of? Again:

Because the whole argument is undermined by Jefferson explicitly stating that and that government neutrality was required between religion and non-religion as well as between different religions. This view was reinforced by the justices in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. This is how the Constitution has been interpreted, like it or not.

The point is Tass, many Founders did not see a church tax as unconstitutional. Period

Maybe so, but it was ruled unconstitutional when put to the test.

[Tassman]

Sort of. But the context of the phrase is missed by you outsiders and revisionists. The admission to a Muslim nation was that our country had no official state-run religion, like England had at the time, so they had nothing to attack us for.

in any sense,

Never claimed it was. But many were the same.

Most saw no conflict in reason and religious virtue and understood the tenets of Christianity were great models to govern by. Arguing against that is the epitome of historical revisionism.

That's a load of revisionist horse pooey. Nearly all believed in a personal God, and that nature was merely a reflection of Him, not the other way around. Even the deist Jefferson saw nature as being a result of God creating it.

It acknowledged the Lord. It was not a "mere convention". And it was different than calling the days of the week by their accepted name.

[eider]

Twenty years ago my best friend (then, he has moved away) was a man who was raised by lesbians. He had nothing to say but bad things about how that had messed him up.

My best friend (teenage years) was a man who was raised by a heterosexual couple, a Catholic mother and a CofE Father. He had nothing to say but bad things about how their values and viewpoints messed him up.

Your example, and mine, are just one-liners....... they should be treated as individual cases and not evidence of how either type of family can raise a child.

[eider]

THIS is what we are warning you all about!!
Police: Man choked 8-year-old girl in South Loop store bathroom.

Let me get this right........
A heterosexual (?) man enters a unisex (?) store toilet and commits serious criminal offences upon an 8yr old girl, and this becomes reason enough for every store in America to either close it's single-toilet facilities or build separated gender toilets...... and to change a law about transgender people's needs?

Which part of 'bigoted hysteria' don't these people understand?

Have any of the screamers figured out that if a homosexual man had discovered that crimiinal he almost certainly would have identified himself, detained him, subdued him and called for store help?

Anybody would have to be a dim-wit to think that a homosexual would target a girl!!! THAT IS STUPID!!! Homosexuals don't pose a threat to girls as much as heterosexuals, and sadly our history (here) shows that some of the most dreadful sexual attacks upon children have been committed by both homosexual and heterosexual Priests, but don't worry, we won't be pushing to ban all priests and pastors from public toilets!

And so this thread, and how it has expanded from this report, just shows the level of bigoted ignorance that exists around the world about Gays. A child is as likely to be assaulted in a family friend's toilet than in a public toilet.......
Check kit out......

It's time to face the real statistics about child sexual abuse in the USA, and if you do then you won't be able to use Gays as scapegoats.

Facts and Statistics - National Sex Offender Public Website
https://www.nsopw.gov/en-GB/Education/FactsStatistics

[Cow Poke]

Let me get this right........

Well, it would be a first.

A heterosexual (?) man enters a unisex (?) store toilet and commits serious criminal offences upon an 8yr old girl, and this becomes reason enough for every store in America to either close it's single-toilet facilities or build separated gender toilets......

The vast majority of public venues already have 'separated gender toilets'. It's the liberal goofballs who want to blur that line.

[seer]

Sheesh! We are not talking about gay marriage we are talking about the public use of showers, bathroom and lockers. And with that, there is no discrimination. Any trans has the exact same right as me - to use a facility that corresponds to their anatomical make up.

48 of the 58 Member States of the United Nations as of December 1948 were signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 10 that declined were totalitarian dictatorships.

What is your point? Again 48 out of a 190 countries - that is not universal Tass, not even close.

The Declaration represents what the majority of people instinctively believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled...as opposed to the values found in Evangelical Christianity which comprise a mere 4.1% of the total world population, (Pew Research) which is "no where near universal."

But I'm not arguing that Christianity is universal, you are arguing that these rights are - and they are not. And you have never made an objective case for inherent rights, you just parrot what others say.


Are you being dishonest on purpose Tass? We are speaking of rights and where our Founders grounded them, where they came from. They, like Locke, grounded them in God.

Because the whole argument is undermined by Jefferson explicitly stating that and that government neutrality was required between religion and non-religion as well as between different religions. This view was reinforced by the justices in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. This is how the Constitution has been interpreted, like it or not.

The "wall of separation" is found nowhere in the Constitution and I have shown that the early congress was not only favorable to Christianity but prompted it with tax dollars, and held to Reformed Covenant Theology.

Maybe so, but it was ruled unconstitutional when put to the test.

It was never ruled unconstitutional, it died a natural death. It wasn't a good idea anyway. But this is the point Tass, Jefferson was not the only Founder, others had no problem going back to their home states and instituting tax supported state churches. Again, I'm not saying this is a good idea, but to suggest that Christianity did not have a profound effect on the founding of this nation (and its laws on the state level) is nonsensical.

[eider]

Well, it would be a first.

.........usual insulting rhetoric.........

The vast majority of public venues already have 'separated gender toilets'. It's the liberal goofballs who want to blur that line.

Silly reply!!! Silly!
44 pages of thread, in addition to other threads, plus the usual homophobic sludge, also ranting hysterically about nasty unisex toilets, and you contributing generously............. and then you point out that there aren't that many unisex toilets in America......

Thanks for that gift........ but seriously, take some advice, brush up on your debating skills. Most homophobics will be holding their heads and sighing...... I love it!

....but you're going to need 'em on this debate, because you did not have a clue on how to respond to my challenge that:
Gays don't go for girls.
Gays are just as likely to step right in and act if they should see a crime.
Gays are, on average, seriously tough folks, and have the guts to 'have-a-go' against criminals. (All their Gay lives they've had to defend themselves against phobic extremist nutters)
It was not a Gay (afaik) who committed that crime.

This thread would have been a total laugh, if it wasn't so dreadfully nasty and sad.

[Cow Poke]

44 pages of thread, in addition to other threads, plus the usual homophobic sludge, also ranting hysterically about nasty unisex toilets, and you contributing generously............. and then you point out that there aren't that many unisex toilets in America......

homophobic sludge?
ranting hysterically?

You are quite the drama queen, and not worthy of a serious response.

I shall leave you to your own 'hysterical rants'.

[eider]

Sheesh! We are not talking about gay marriage we are talking about the public use of showers, bathroom and lockers. And with that, there is no discrimination. Any trans has the exact same right as me - to use a facility that corresponds to their anatomical make up.

Please, excuse me hacking your post down, but this is what the thread is about, right?
Tell me, if a person has sex change operations, would you support them in using public toilets 'in-line' with their new sex change?
If not, why not? They are using the right toilet for their gender......
Please acknowledge that gays don't tend to assault girls as much as 'straights'?

I can acknowledge to you that a transvestite (many are heterosexuals) using the other gender's toilets is a difficulty.......... try and empathise yourself and me as transvestites (this is not intended as an insult, ok?)...... personally, if I was a trans, and dressed as a woman, I would make bloody sure that I didn't need to use a public toilet, but if I got caught out I would know every unisex toilet in town to head for, because then, at least I would not be breaking any social, cultural, local or federal legislation! Agreed? I acknowledge that some folks do seek to bring attention down on themselves by being t--ts, but the bigger picture has to count. The vast majority of transvestites are decent, humane, intelligent folks.

I will have known many more than you, is my guess, because here they are less at risk. Quite often, the only way that I would know who they were would be if they were pointed out to me. On the side, a big man, dressed as a woman, was walking through Canterbury one evening when he saw a group of • Edited by a Moderator • attacking a lady for her bag, ring, watch. He kicked out of his heels, waded in and dropped two of them clean, clutching another. He was a nightclub door-supervisor, and well used to trouble. You never know who you are talking to.....

Moderated By: Jedidiah

disguised profanity not acceptable

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[eider]

homophobic sludge?
ranting hysterically?

You are quite the drama queen, and not worthy of a serious response.

I shall leave you to your own 'hysterical rants'.

.... you couldn't find an answer......... as usual.

[Adam]

My best friend (teenage years) was a man who was raised by a heterosexual couple, a Catholic mother and a CofE Father. He had nothing to say but bad things about how their values and viewpoints messed him up.

Your example, and mine, are just one-liners....... they should be treated as individual cases and not evidence of how either type of family can raise a child.

But my case is 100% of the sample size--I never knew anyone else raised by lesbians.

[seer]

Please, excuse me hacking your post down, but this is what the thread is about, right?
Tell me, if a person has sex change operations, would you support them in using public toilets 'in-line' with their new sex change?

Yes, absolutely. As a matter fact in the North Carolina Bill if you have sex reassignment surgery you can then get your birth certificate changed to line up with your new anatomy.

I can acknowledge to you that a transvestite (many are heterosexuals) using the other gender's toilets is a difficulty.......... try and empathise yourself and me as transvestites (this is not intended as an insult, ok?)...... personally, if I was a trans, and dressed as a woman, I would make bloody sure that I didn't need to use a public toilet, but if I got caught out I would know every unisex toilet in town to head for, because then, at least I would not be breaking any social, cultural, local or federal legislation! Agreed? I acknowledge that some folks do seek to bring attention down on themselves by being t--ts, but the bigger picture has to count. The vast majority of transvestites are decent, humane, intelligent folks.

I will have known many more than you, is my guess, because here they are less at risk. Quite often, the only way that I would know who they were would be if they were pointed out to me. On the side, a big man, dressed as a woman, was walking through Canterbury one evening when he saw a group of b--t--ds attacking a lady for her bag, ring, watch. He kicked out of his heels, waded in and dropped two of them clean, clutching another. He was a nightclub door-supervisor, and well used to trouble. You never know who you are talking to.....

Listen, I said earlier that I want no, zero, harm to come to these folks. These feelings and desires must be difficult. And I also said that I don't have a big problem with the bathroom thing in adult situations. What I have a real problem with is the public shower and locker room issue, and the fact that the left is trying, once again, to force their moral sensibilities on the rest of us through the law.