LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[carpedm9587]

It's not an opinion, a man can not be a woman, vice versa, period. Who would want this muddled nonsense taught to children?

No - it's an opinion. But if you want to see it as fact and insist you're right... "shrug."

For the record, my position is also an opinion. But it is an opinion that respects the facts across the board - not just the facts I want to pay attention to.

[seer]

Nobody's perfect. Even the founders can make bad decisions.

The rightness/wrongness of a proposition is not established by its age.

What makes the Founders wrong and you right?

No. The DOE and Constitution do indeed define human rights as "god given." They were wrong, of course, since there is no god to grant such rights. That means human rights are established by the consent/desire of the governed. They did get THAT part right, only they applied it to the power of governments instead of the rights of humans. Again, nobody's perfect.

Then humans rights are a legal fiction, nothing more

Look, Seer, Christians have been the dominant power in the U.S. pretty much since its inception. As a consequence, "Christian principles" have permeated a good part of our laws, government, and institutions. That was probably inevitable. Now, a lot of us are tired of being dictated to by Christians. We believe the Constitution should be applied as stated, even if that statement is not completely inline with what the "Christian founders" intended. They got a piece of it (e.g., 1st amendment), but they were so immersed in their own religions they failed to see they were perpetuating the exact thing they were trying to take a stand against: government-sanctioned religious imposition. So it's time to adjust.

Except those principles were key in creating the most powerful, richest, technologically advanced country on earth. And you will replace that with what - DEI? Have you looked at the education system since you leftists took over? You got nothing Carp...

As secularism continues to grow, we will be more and more successful in establishing a country where EVERY religion can worship as it sees fit, but religious principles are not shoved down the throats of the rest of us. In that process, Christians will lose power and influence. ANY group that has held power/influence for a long period of time will see the loss of that power as a "reduction of their rights." It's not. It's an assertion of an imbalance and an attempt to balance ALL rights, for ALL people - whatever religion, whatever gender, whatever sex, whatever race, whatever sexual orientation, etc.

No you will continue to undermine social cohesion sow the seeds of chaos and violence...

As I noted before - you have every right to exercise YOUR religious beliefs. You do not have the right to impose them on me or anyone else that does not want to follow them, or sees them as unjust or prejudicial.

I have very right to try and influence the laws of the land according to my beliefs...Period.

[seer]

No - it's an opinion. But if you want to see it as fact and insist you're right... "shrug."

For the record, my position is also an opinion. But it is an opinion that respects the facts across the board - not just the facts I want to pay attention to.

Wait, so you believe that a biological man can became a woman? Really?

[carpedm9587]

That would be, I suppose, because you buy into "the wall of separation" error, and prefer emphasizing the first phrase (the establishment clause) over the second (the prohibition clause). It's not so much "government over here - religion over there" as it is "government just stay out of it". It is clearly a case for CONGRESS - not to establish or prohibit.

It never says "Churches shall make no entry into the political realm" or anything like that at all.

I actually said nothing about churches entering the political realm. I have no problem with that. If they do, however, I think they should be recognized as political organization and become subject to all of the restrictions political organizations are subject to.

I don't see the separation as absolute, CP, because that is flatly impossible. Our population is made up of people and some of them will be religious. Our representatives are people and some of them will be religious. Their religion will inform their choices as they argue and vote. The 1st amendment literally says that Congress shall not establish a religion or inhibit the free exercise thereof. I take "establish a religion" by its wider meaning: establish OR align with any particular religion. As for "free exercise thereof," every right has limits. There are SOME things even churches cannot do (e.g., decide that human sacrifice is their core sacrament, etc.). So we will always have a debate/discussion about where that line is: when has the state gone too far in prohibiting certain actions.

But there is a "spirit" to this amendment as well. I believe it prohibits the government from allowing ANY religion to use the government to limit (or force) the expression of a particular religion by the population.

My comment about the "in god we trust" on our money is a case in point. The history of it is not of concern to me. The fact is that this country has two bodies of citizens: atheists and theists. Theists worship a god and "in god they trust." Atheists do not. So imagine yourself living in a country where atheists dominated and the legend on the bill said, "There is no god in which to trust." What would you think of that turn of affairs? I think that the idea of god has nothing to do with money, and has no place on our money. If the bills and coins we use are silent on the notion of god - then you can tell anyone you want to, "I trust in god." I can hand money around without a slogan I find problematic. No one is being forced to represent a position they do not have.

But because this slogan has been on our money for so long, theists generally see themselves as entitled to it being there, and any suggestion that it be removed becomes an "attack on their religion." No one is saying you can or cannot believe X. All that is being said is "stop forcing me to say something I do not believe by putting it on a currency I have to use to function in this country." It is not theists whose rights are being violated here - it is athiests'.

That being said, as I have said before, I'm not going to battle to get the slogan off our money. I minimize use of hard currency as much as possible and just accept that this is something that is not going to go until theists lose a LOT more power - probably not in my lifetime. But it is an example of one of the many way where theists impose their beliefs on others, and think nothing of it - only to complain that their "rights are being violated" when someone objects.

[carpedm9587]

What makes the Founders wrong and you right?

I think I explained why I believe they were wrong, Seer.

Then humans rights are a legal fiction, nothing more

No. Apparently they are to you because you have arbitrarily decided that human rights are only meaningful if they come from a god. I don't have that constraint.

Except those principles were key in creating the most powerful, richest, technologically advanced country on earth. And you will replace that with what - DEI? Have you looked at the education system since you leftists took over? You got nothing Carp...

I don't care what those principles were "key in founding." If the principles force one group to profess a religion they do not actually subscribe to - they are wrong. No person should be forced to express a belief they do not possess. That is at the heart of "religious liberty."

No you will continue to undermine social cohesion sow the seeds of chaos and violence...

Seer, I realize this is your fear. What is amazing is that, domestically, terrorist acts are dominated by the far right 5/1 over the far left. The violence level, which has been ratcheting up steadily since Trump took office, is escalating. It is a little hard to take seriously the concern that these beliefs will lead to chaos/violence in the face of those facts.

I have very right to try and influence the laws of the land according to my beliefs...Period.

We all have that right, Seer. But no one has the right to impose their RELIGIOUS beliefs on other people. You believe homosexually is sinful? Go for it. Join a church that rejects homosexuals. Make sure you never lie with a man. Do your best to teach your children what you believe, as is every parent's right. But if you presume to think that you can embed those beliefs in law and force them on others, then you are not defending a country where religious liberty is the law of the land; you are defending a country where YOUR religion has priority. You might as well just acknowledge that you want a theocracy, which is NOT what the FFs were striving for. And even if the case could be made that they were - why should I be bound by the opinions of a group of men who lived 250 years ago, in another context, with another set of experiences? I look for what is best for THIS time - and I don't find religion to be it. Indeed, religions, in my lifetime have become increasingly more toxic. And now the advent of Mr. Trump and his widespread support among evangelicals has convinced me that the time for religions has passed and they are doing more harm than good.

[seer]

I think I explained why I believe they were wrong, Seer.

But that does not make you right, it's just your opinion. No more valid than theirs.

No. Apparently they are to you because you have arbitrarily decided that human rights are only meaningful if they come from a god. I don't have that constraint.

But human rights don't exist in nature, they are made up. Of course you are free to believe in a useful fiction.

I don't care what those principles were "key in founding." If the principles force one group to profess a religion they do not actually subscribe to - they are wrong. No person should be forced to express a belief they do not possess. That is at the heart of "religious liberty."

No one is saying that you have to believe in the God I do,

Seer, I realize this is your fear. What is amazing is that, domestically, terrorist acts are dominated by the far right 5/1 over the far left. The violence level, which has been ratcheting up steadily since Trump took office, is escalating. It is a little hard to take seriously the concern that these beliefs will lead to chaos/violence in the face of those facts.

That is bull. Are you including the all leftist riots from the 60s up until today?

We all have that right, Seer. But no one has the right to impose their RELIGIOUS beliefs on other people. You believe homosexually is sinful? Go for it. Join a church that rejects homosexuals. Make sure you never lie with a man. Do your best to teach your children what you believe, as is every parent's right. But if you presume to think that you can embed those beliefs in law and force them on others, then you are not defending a country where religious liberty is the law of the land; you are defending a country where YOUR religion has priority. You might as well just acknowledge that you want a theocracy, which is NOT what the FFs were striving for. And even if the case could be made that they were - why should I be bound by the opinions of a group of men who lived 250 years ago, in another context, with another set of experiences? I look for what is best for THIS time - and I don't find religion to be it. Indeed, religions, in my lifetime have become increasingly more toxic. And now the advent of Mr. Trump and his widespread support among evangelicals has convinced me that the time for religions has passed and they are doing more harm than good.

I absolutely have the right to try and make homosexual behavior illegal again, as it was for most of our history, whether you like it or not. Support for homosexual marriage has gone own in the last year - baby steps, baby steps...

Americans Are Becoming Less Accepting of Same-Sex Relationships, Poll Shows

The number of Americans supporting same-sex relationships has dropped from 71 to 64 percent compared to one year ago, with more people thinking it is not morally acceptable, according to a new Gallup poll—a change driven mostly by Republicans.

https://www.newsweek.com/americans-l...-shows-1807422

[carpedm9587]

But that does not make you right, it's just your opinion. No more valid than theirs.

Correct. They worked for the type of nation they wanted to live in; I work for the kind of nation I want to live in. They had a lot of good ideas, but implemented some of the key ones badly. I think those should be embraced more widely. I'm not sure why "validity" has anything to do with it.

But human rights don't exist in nature, they are made up. Of course you are free to believe in a useful fiction.

Since you believe in the useful fiction of "there is a god," why are you complaining?

This harkens back to so many of your positions, Seer: you arbitrarily decide that things are only meaningful if they are a) eternal and b) arise from a god, and then label everything else "meaningless" and "a fiction." You are entirely free to make those assumptions and claims. They don't convince. As you say, they are just your opinion.

No one is saying that you have to believe in the God I do,

Except in so far as I have to carry money that says I do, I am regularly fighting ethical/moral edicts that you claim arise from your god, and I'm struggling to keep your religion from permeating the schools where my children and grandchildren go. Other than that - of course not - I am perfectly free.

That is bull. Are you including the all leftist riots from the 60s up until today?

This is one source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9335287/

There are many, many others and they all pretty much align. The sea of threats of violence against election workers, judicial figures, officers of the court, and left-leaning political figures are not coming from the left, Seer. Don't get me wrong, there is also left-wing violence and ANY violence is unacceptable. But the claim that somehow left-leaning policies results in more violence is absurd in the face of the available evidence.

I absolutely have the right to try and make homosexual behavior illegal again, as it was for most of or history, whether you like it or not. Support for homosexual marriage has gone own in the last year - baby steps, baby steps...

You have the legal right to try to get ANY law on the books, Seer. Hopefully something that so violates the rights of an individual in their private life will never see the light of day because it not only infringes religious freedom, it infringes personal freedom and the basic right we all have to privacy in our own lives and homes.

And I am very aware of the actions taken by the right to push forward this odious agenda. I am aware of the success you have all had in countries like Uganda, where a gay person can be sentenced to death, and anyone even advocating for gay rights can be jailed for as much as 10 years. I am aware of the 2025 project, which calls for ALL civil rights for LGBTQ+ people fought for over the last decades to be rolled back. I find it sad that so many want to do so much harm to so many others.

But I don't know where you are getting your data. Even the Baptist Convention has acknowledged that support for same-sex unions has been steadily on the assent and now sits at 71% (https://baptistnews.com/article/amer...EaArUhEALw_wcB). After all of the chest beating about the end of society as we know it, Same sex couples have been marrying and raising families for a decade now and life did not come to an end. ETA: I just realized you said "last year," and this is a 2021 summary. I am not finding anything that suggests a drop from 71%. About half of Republicans now support it, and even evangelical leaders are acknowledging that the world did not come to an end (https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/...-changed-since).

So as you are fighting to impose your religious precepts on the rest of us, I will be standing against them as best I may, insisting that you have every right to follow your own principles, but not the right to impose them on me. It would seem that the weight of the country is mostly arrayed against what you are trying to do - fortunately.

And I do have to say, Seer, so much for the siren song of "freedom." You don't want freedom for all. You want freedom for yourself (and those like you) and the right to force others to do what you want. That's not freedom. It's some form of autocracy.

[Sparko]

Everything we believe is a “belief system,” Seer. So is it your position, “anything that any religion in America objects to should be eliminated from the school curriculum?” It’s a simple yes/no question.

So if schools taught that homosexuality was wrong and expected children to go along with that you would have no problems with it?

[carpedm9587]

Wait, so you believe that a biological man can became a woman? Really?

I believe that a biological man can, with today's technology, move very close to "female," using a combination of surgery and various hormone treatments. We currently lack the technology to change them at the genetic level. There is no reason why that is not possible, however. Hopefully, someday, it will become possible, and will render all of the arguments you are making here moot. Until then, we do the best we can do to give those who are struggling with this whatever comfort we can. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[seer]

Correct. They worked for the type of nation they wanted to live in; I work for the kind of nation I want to live in. They had a lot of good ideas, but implemented some of the key ones badly. I think those should be embraced more widely. I'm not sure why "validity" has anything to do with it.

Right and I'll do the same

Since you believe in the useful fiction of "there is a god," why are you complaining?

Glad you admit that human rights are a fiction.

This harkens back to so many of your positions, Seer: you arbitrarily decide that things are only meaningful if they are a) eternal and b) arise from a god, and then label everything else "meaningless" and "a fiction." You are entirely free to make those assumptions and claims. They don't convince. As you say, they are just your opinion.

Then show me human rights? How are they MORE than a useful fiction? Please explain.

Except in so far as I have to carry money that says I do,

That should tell you why you have such a great country...

This is one source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9335287/

Where does it refer to left wing riots from 1968 to preset day? They don't even include leftist riots.

You have the legal right to try to get ANY law on the books, Seer. Hopefully something that so violates the rights of an individual in their private life will never see the light of day because it not only infringes religious freedom, it infringes personal freedom and the basic right we all have to privacy in our own lives and homes.

So I have your permission? And I'm not speaking of going into homes. Just making it illegal.

And I am very aware of the actions taken by the right to push forward this odious agenda. I am aware of the success you have all had in countries like Uganda, where a gay person can be sentenced to death, and anyone even advocating for gay rights can be jailed for as much as 10 years. I am aware of the 2025 project, which calls for ALL civil rights for LGBTQ+ people fought for over the last decades to be rolled back.

Yes we have a sister church in Uganda, at least they are on the right track. And it is only the death penalty in certain cases: The law in question defines “aggravated homosexuality” as cases of homosexual relations involving a minor and other categories of vulnerable people, or when the perpetrator is infected with HIV. A suspect convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, and the offense of “attempted homosexuality” is punishable by up to 10 years.https://apnews.com/article/uganda-an...5080c7bda40a8b

But I don't know where you are getting your data. .

From the poll I linked: https://www.newsweek.com/americans-l...-shows-1807422

Here is another one: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-...port-heres-why

[carpedm9587]

Except you believe it is somehow illegitimate to use religious beliefs concerning morality to influence public schools.

Yes - I believe religiously motivated moral precepts that are NOT part of the common ethical norm have no place in public schools. That includes things like edicts to pray at certain times of the day, proscriptions against homosexuality, days of rest, religious mores about LGBTQ+ community, and so forth.

[seer]

I believe that a biological man can, with today's technology, move very close to "female," using a combination of surgery and various hormone treatments. We currently lack the technology to change them at the genetic level. There is no reason why that is not possible, however. Hopefully, someday, it will become possible, and will render all of the arguments you are making here moot. Until then, we do the best we can do to give those who are struggling with this whatever comfort we can. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What is close to a female? That is not actually a woman correct? Half a woman? BTW keep dreaming.

[Diogenes]

Correct - and I did not say they were. Intersex/Hermaphrodite are interchangeable words - the former being seen as more acceptable to day.

"Hermaphrodite" is also incorrect regarding humans. At best it would be pseudohermaphrodite.

You are again arguing against something I did not say. I repeat, HRT and SRS are used (in some cases) to deal with intersex situations, but also used to align the external sexual expression of a person with the interior gender identity. When gender identity and sexual expression are not aligned, you either align the interior with the exterior (counseling, psychotherapy, possibly drugs) or the exterior with the interior (HRT and SRS), assuming the individual wants the alignment.

HRT would also be used to align the interior sex identity with the genetic identity. Mastectomy would actually be appropriate for gynecomastia. Your phrasing was more in line for what's considered "transgendered". I have no issue with HRT and surgery that complements the genetics. If a male needs testosterone, fine. If a female needs estrogen, fine.

You call it "pedagogical activism" for reasons that are your own. I call it "teaching kids about the world."

It is fair to call the work of an activist "activism".

It isn't, but I used "do" instead of "am" and created confusion. Your statement: If you care familiar with critical theory, this is rhetorical." My response should have been, "I am, and it's not."

If the question was not rhetorical, then you don't understand critical pedagogy or you simply agree with it. One can ignorantly agree with something.

You appear to be making arguments out of isolated cases. If books are in schools that cannot be read at public meetings, either the meetings are being too narrowly constrained or the books don't belong in schools. If four year old kids are being given at home assignments about touching their bodies and masturbation, then the material needs to be re-evaluated and pulled. None of this has to do with moral issues schools should be concerned with. I have no ideas what the last item is about, but I have no problem with kids seeing "drag shows," any more than I have a problem with kids seeing "non-drag" shows. If the content of either type of show is sexually explicit beyond what is appropriate for the age, I will have a problem. Whether the clothes someone is wearing aligns with their external sexual expression is irrelevant to me.

You certainly seem quite ignorant of the breadth of it. Of course, you decry opposition and exposure as "polarized".

I have no problem with children learning to not only be racially accepting, but also "anti-racists" in an age when even the leadership of one of our political parties cannot bring themselves to decry racism and call it out when it is manifest. When we live in a world where a major political candidate for a major political party cannot say "slavery was the cause of the civil war and was wrong," for fear of losing the support of a segment of the electorate, we need to step up our game on teaching kids about racism.

I'll add "anti-racism" to list of things of which you're ignorant. Lincoln didn't care about the issue of slavery until after Antietam and other European developments. The North had slaves up until the 13 Amendment. Few know the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slaves in the North. Slavery was part of the broader North/South economic and federalism disputes. Calhoun almost set off the Civil War under Jackson with the Nullification Crisis. The Civil War was inevitable since the Northwest Ordinance.

As you wish, Dio. No one is requiring you to respond.

It's certainly interesting when people claim to know things and then profess ignorance about said topics.

[carpedm9587]

What is close to a female? That is not actually a woman correct? Half a woman? BTW keep dreaming.

As close as is possible, to the point of being their chosen sex by all outwards appearances and able to have and enjoy sex as their chosen sex. Percentages are meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

So if schools taught that homosexuality was wrong and expected children to go along with that you would have no problems with it?

Of course I would…on secular grounds. My response would be to try to convince society to be different so that those are no longer the mores of society, as we have been doing (successfully) for some time. If I could not, then I hope I would have the integrity to accept that, in a democracy, I will not always get my way. Until I can sway society, I would find another way to teach my children, or teach them that the school and society are wrong, or simply find a new society.