When will we put LGBTQ issues behind us.?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It would appear that you are stating an opinion and presenting it as factual which constitutes a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to lay out a legal theory and provide some documentation such as actual case law that supports what you are saying.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I said that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else. This is because to mandate otherwise would result in initiating force against a person, and I consider the initiation of force unjustified. Hence my stance on the NJ (and other state's) law. I consider it unjust.

If you oppose my opinion, then I must assume that you consider it ethically justified to initiate force against your neighbor. That's an opinion with which I simply can't agree.

Thank you for admitting that it is just an opinion. You say “ that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else” But, what does that mean exactly? You seem to be saying that your opposed to allowing anything that violates another’s rights but you have adopted a narrowly tailored definition of what might constitute a violation. If a person walks into a place of business and has every reason to be treated with as much professionalism and respect as the next person, and is, instead turned away, humiliated and inconvenienced -THAT is a violation! And I will add, that any violation of another will indeed justify the use of “force” against the perpetrator, be it my neighbor or anyone else.

It appears that you have not given your position much critical thought. Your mindset is geared towards defending someone who chooses not to serve someone who offends their sensibilities by invoking some bogus religious freedom claim-specifically LBGT people. But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It would appear that you are stating an opinion and presenting it as factual which constitutes a logical fallacy in the form of an appeal to ignorance. If you want to be taken seriously, you might want to lay out a legal theory and provide some documentation such as actual case law that supports what you are saying.

Of course I'm stating my opinion. I said that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else. This is because to mandate otherwise would result in initiating force against a person, and I consider the initiation of force unjustified. Hence my stance on the NJ (and other state's) law. I consider it unjust.

If you oppose my opinion, then I must assume that you consider it ethically justified to initiate force against your neighbor. That's an opinion with which I simply can't agree.

This is the path that you would lead us down!

Bryan Fischer: Gay Rights Activists 'Are Driven By Hate' Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 3/30/2016 4:05 pm

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer interviewed Mississippi state Sen. Chad McMahan about an upcoming vote on a bill that, according to the Human Rights Campaign, "would allow individuals, religious organizations and private associations to use religion to discriminate against LGBT Mississippians in some of the most important aspect of their lives, including at work, at schools, and more." After McMahan complained that many rallies had been held opposing the bill but no rallies had been organized to support it, Fischer went off on a long rant about how conservatives don't have time to participate in political rallies because they are too busy being decent, hard-working Americans, whereas gays channel their undying hatred of God and Christians into non-stop political activism. "Conservatives," Fischer stated, "we're busy working hard at our jobs, showing up to work on time, working late when we need to, then we want to spend time with our families, we want to take our kids to soccer practice, coach them in t-ball and Little League, we want to help them with their homework, we want to go to parent-teacher conferences, we want to be involved in our church so we go to home Bible studies or cell groups, we might be involved in the choir, we might want to be involved in a Sunday School class, and we would like to have a little recreational time for ourselves so we play a little bit of golf or we play a little church league softball or whatever. We just do not have the discretionary time to put into political rallies." Gays, on the other hand, Fischer said, have none of these sorts of obligations because they don't have children or families, which then sent him off on a tangent about how allowing gays to adopt children is "a form of child abuse" and is therefore something that "no loving, caring, rational society" should ever allow. - See more at: Bryan Fischer: Gay Rights Activists 'Are Driven By Hate'

 

[dblack]

Thank you for admitting that it is just an opinion. You say “ that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else” But, what does that mean exactly? You seem to be saying that your opposed to allowing anything that violates another’s rights but you have adopted a narrowly tailored definition of what might constitute a violation. If a person walks into a place of business and has every reason to be treated with as much professionalism and respect as the next person, and is, instead turned away, humiliated and inconvenienced -THAT is a violation! And I will add, that any violation of another will indeed justify the use of “force” against the perpetrator, be it my neighbor or anyone else.

Ahhh.. thank you for this post. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the real disagreement. I can't speak for Centinel, but I assume they see this as I do. None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else. To begin with, it doesn't even fit the definition an inalienable right. What you're describing is the power to force another person to serve you, not an innate liberty. You and I don't have the right to be treated equally to the person who walked in a store before us, and even civil rights laws don't pretend otherwise. They're not mandating that everyone be treated equally, they're simply banning certain kinds of unpopular biases. Anything else is fair game.

 

[Centinel]

Thank you for admitting that it is just an opinion. You say “ that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else” But, what does that mean exactly?

Regarding the body of someone else, which I think you're asking about, I means to physically violate the body of someone else. Think assault, battery, rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.

You seem to be saying that your opposed to allowing anything that violates another’s rights but you have adopted a narrowly tailored definition of what might constitute a violation.

No, I'm not saying that I oppose acts that violate the body or property of others. In short, I'm saying that violence I consider violence to be unjustfied, except only in response to violence.

If a person walks into a place of business and has every reason to be treated with as much professionalism and respect as the next person, and is, instead turned away, humiliated and inconvenienced -THAT is a violation!

It's not a violation of his body.

And I will add, that any violation of another will indeed justify the use of “force” against the perpetrator, be it my neighbor or anyone else.

We have different opinions here. I consider violence only to be justified when it is in response to violence.

It appears that you have not given your position much critical thought. Your mindset is geared towards defending someone who chooses not to serve someone who offends their sensibilities by invoking some bogus religious freedom claim-specifically LBGT people. But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

Nothing. It's their property and their body, and they can do anything they want with them, as long as they don't violate the body or property of others.

 

[dblack]

It appears that you have not given your position much critical thought. Your mindset is geared towards defending someone who chooses not to serve someone who offends their sensibilities by invoking some bogus religious freedom claim-specifically LBGT people. But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

Again, not to speak for Centinel, but I don't see that attitude in any of his/her posts. And it's certainly not my position. Standing up for freedom and equal rights often means "defending" people you disagree with, even people you find repugnant. In a democracy, in fact, it's usually the case. The majority rarely votes to squelch it's own rights; the minorities are usually the first to take the hit.

But if we allow that, what is to stop anyone from using the same tactic to refuse to serve anyone else that they disapprove of, whether it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims, blacks – and the list goes on. Your "opinion” does not make sense.

Nothing is to stop them from doing that. That's the point. They should be allowed to do that.

Let me ask you this - do you think we should be allowed to express our political opinions via our economic decisions? Should we be allowed to boycott businesses, or services, or individuals we disapprove of? Should I be allowed to refuse to shop at, or refuse a job offer from, Chic-fil-a because I disagree with their public position on homosexuality?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ahhh.. thank you for this post. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the real disagreement. I can't speak for Centinel, but I assume they see this as I do. None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else. To begin with, it doesn't even fit the definition an inalienable right. What you're describing is the power to force another person to serve you, not an innate liberty. You and I don't have the right to be treated equally to the person who walked in a store before us, and even civil rights laws don't pretend otherwise. They're not mandating that everyone be treated equally, they're simply banning certain kinds of unpopular biases. Anything else is fair game.

It is interesting that to wrong-wing ideology, liberty and freedom are defined, not by the ability to act freely according to one's own will, but by the power to force someone else to act against his.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you for admitting that it is just an opinion. You say “ that a person OUGHT TO have the right to do or not do anything he chooses as long as he doesn't violate the property or body of someone else” But, what does that mean exactly? You seem to be saying that your opposed to allowing anything that violates another’s rights but you have adopted a narrowly tailored definition of what might constitute a violation. If a person walks into a place of business and has every reason to be treated with as much professionalism and respect as the next person, and is, instead turned away, humiliated and inconvenienced -THAT is a violation! And I will add, that any violation of another will indeed justify the use of “force” against the perpetrator, be it my neighbor or anyone else.

Ahhh.. thank you for this post. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, the real disagreement. I can't speak for Centinel, but I assume they see this as I do. None of us has a right to be treated in any particular way by anyone else. To begin with, it doesn't even fit the definition an inalienable right. What you're describing is the power to force another person to serve you, not an innate liberty. You and I don't have the right to be treated equally to the person who walked in a store before us, and even civil rights laws don't pretend otherwise. They're not mandating that everyone be treated equally, they're simply banning certain kinds of unpopular biases. Anything else is fair game.

Have you seen what he wrote in this thread?

When you understand that he truly seems to believe that he seems to think that what he described is a positive thing—a homogenized totalitarian utopia enforced by extraterrestrials via drug-based brainwashing and violence—then you'll begin to understand how he comes to the positions he takes in this thread, and in nearly every other thread in which he's participated.

 

[TNHarley]

lgbtQ wtf is that?

 

[Katzndogz]

lgbtQ wtf is that?

Technically it's LGBTQIF. Some people are lazy.

Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual. Transgendered. Queer. Intersexed and Fluid.

Intersexed is really a medical condition usually requiring surgery. Gender fluid is the most dangerous of all the sexual deviancies.

 

[TNHarley]

lgbtQ wtf is that?

Technically it's LGBTQIF. Some people are lazy.

Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual. Transgendered. Queer. Intersexed and Fluid.

Intersexed is really a medical condition usually requiring surgery. Gender fluid is the most dangerous of all the sexual deviancies.

That's the stupidest fuckin thing I have ever heard of.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

lgbtQ wtf is that?

Technically it's LGBTQIF. Some people are lazy.

Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual. Transgendered. Queer. Intersexed and Fluid.

Intersexed is really a medical condition usually requiring surgery. Gender fluid is the most dangerous of all the sexual deviancies.

Stupidity is dangerous and therefor YOU are dangerous.

 

[Iceweasel]

Jesus. We're going to have the whole alphabet before long. Let's just go back to queer, it covered a lot of turf.

 

[rcfieldz]

Sin is now manifesting itself into human monsters with the help of doctors.

 

[rcfieldz]

when will we the MAJORITY stop being browbeaten over such a SMALL minority of people in this country? it's gotten ridiculous when we have to vote on gawddam bathrooms and they are suing for someone not baking them a freaking cake. the majority better WAKE UP and speak up

It's coming. For a long time, we've put up with the antics of the pervert-rights movement, because foolishly, we were led to believe that all they wanted was to peacefully practice their sick perversions in the privacy of their own bedrooms. We thought that we could allow that, and not be affected by it. Then they started coming after businesses and business owners who didn't want to cater to their perversions,and now they are coming after our wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters, by insisting that we allow creepy male perverts to violate their safety and privacy in women-only dressing and restroom facilities.

I remember when the cry of the wicked was “Don't force your morality on me!” Now, they brazenly force their immorality on us. Surely there is going to be a huge backlash, now that decent people can no longer pretend that we can allow this crap and be unaffected by it.

Again, given the above quoted ignorance, fear, hatred, stupidity, and bigotry, the bane of unwarranted, un-Constitutional hostility toward gay and transgender Americans will be with us for quite some time.

And the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards the protected liberties of gay and transgender Americans is needed as much today as any time in our Nation’s history, if not more so.

Unless science can prove that the brain in some men is a woman's brain then I might believe it. but for now I believe there are outside influences be it media or Satanic.

So you want science to prove it is not a demon? lmao!

I fail to see anything funny here.

 

[ChrisL]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

People you may know, or should....

Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 3/8/2016 10:16 am On Saturday retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, addressed the Awakening conference, an annual event sponsored by Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation. Boykin, known for his anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric, dedicated his remarks in the plenary session to denouncing Bernie Sanders supporters for wanting free things, and to calling on Christians to do more to stand up for religious freedom and against LGBT equality. Boykin quoted socialist Norman Thomas saying in 1927, “America will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” Boykin asked, “Is that where we are today?” He declared that support for Sanders is “an indication of the sad state of affairs in this country.” - See more at: Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric

Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/11/2016 11:50 am Earlier this week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage asked listeners what they think would happen to the country after three years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Savage predicted that a President Clinton would “seize guns” in order to stop an “armed rebellion.” “She is an absolute dictator,” he said. “She will seize guns and make them illegal in any way necessary.” (We can’t help but point out that Savage has frequently predicted that President Obama will seize guns, and he now only has less than a year to do it.) Savage also claimed that Clinton would usher in a societal “meltdown” and “a social nightmare”: “There will be a transgender in your soup.” - See more at: Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup'

Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/12/2016 12:37 pm Franklin Graham is visiting every state in the country this year as part of his “Decision America” tour, in which he is offering technically nonpartisan encouragement to his followers to “live out their faith” in the upcoming elections. At a stop in Atlanta this week, Graham spoke about the need for conservative Christians to not only vote, but to run for office, saying that if every city in America had a Christian mayor, we wouldn’t have “evil” and “wicked” policies like LGBT nondiscrimination measures. Better Georgia first brought the remarks to our attention. - See more at: Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights

There is plenty more where this came from but you get the idea. They all reflect the same mentality.....as do you

A lot of "older" people are very frightened of change and of that which they do not understand, and that manifests itself as hatred. They are very ignorant and they don't even realize it (mainly because they are ignorant).

Really? Think they are incapable of seeing how sketchy folks declaring themselves "trans" would have legal access to your bathrooms? Incapable of calculating that polyamory is the NEXT letter in the LBGQPTY banner?

Have you EXAMINED the "change" and limits of it's reasonable and just scope?

I don't really know what you're asking here, TBH. I don't know what "polyamory" has to do with gay rights.

I don't really know which bathroom a transgendered person should use. They are such a tiny percentage of the population. I suppose if they look like a woman and have had the surgery, we may not even know that they aren't women?? I do still think that "transgender" is more of a mental disorder, but I think some of you insinuating that there is some "conspiracy" is just kind of silly.

pol·y·am·o·ry
ˌpälēˈamərē/
noun

1. the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

 

[rcfieldz]

The fact is that the legal issues are, for the most part the same and these bigoted state laws that seek to limit their rights and restrict their behavior do in lump them all together- except for perhaps these idiotic “bathroom” laws that target transgender people. And, it is the legal issues that I started this thread about.

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

People you may know, or should....

Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 3/8/2016 10:16 am On Saturday retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, addressed the Awakening conference, an annual event sponsored by Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation. Boykin, known for his anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric, dedicated his remarks in the plenary session to denouncing Bernie Sanders supporters for wanting free things, and to calling on Christians to do more to stand up for religious freedom and against LGBT equality. Boykin quoted socialist Norman Thomas saying in 1927, “America will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” Boykin asked, “Is that where we are today?” He declared that support for Sanders is “an indication of the sad state of affairs in this country.” - See more at: Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric

Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/11/2016 11:50 am Earlier this week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage asked listeners what they think would happen to the country after three years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Savage predicted that a President Clinton would “seize guns” in order to stop an “armed rebellion.” “She is an absolute dictator,” he said. “She will seize guns and make them illegal in any way necessary.” (We can’t help but point out that Savage has frequently predicted that President Obama will seize guns, and he now only has less than a year to do it.) Savage also claimed that Clinton would usher in a societal “meltdown” and “a social nightmare”: “There will be a transgender in your soup.” - See more at: Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup'

Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/12/2016 12:37 pm Franklin Graham is visiting every state in the country this year as part of his “Decision America” tour, in which he is offering technically nonpartisan encouragement to his followers to “live out their faith” in the upcoming elections. At a stop in Atlanta this week, Graham spoke about the need for conservative Christians to not only vote, but to run for office, saying that if every city in America had a Christian mayor, we wouldn’t have “evil” and “wicked” policies like LGBT nondiscrimination measures. Better Georgia first brought the remarks to our attention. - See more at: Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights

There is plenty more where this came from but you get the idea. They all reflect the same mentality.....as do you

A lot of "older" people are very frightened of change and of that which they do not understand, and that manifests itself as hatred. They are very ignorant and they don't even realize it (mainly because they are ignorant).

Really? Think they are incapable of seeing how sketchy folks declaring themselves "trans" would have legal access to your bathrooms? Incapable of calculating that polyamory is the NEXT letter in the LBGQPTY banner?

Have you EXAMINED the "change" and limits of it's reasonable and just scope?

I don't really know what you're asking here, TBH. I don't know what "polyamory" has to do with gay rights.

I don't really know which bathroom a transgendered person should use. They are such a tiny percentage of the population. I suppose if they look like a woman and have had the surgery, we may not even know that they aren't women?? I do still think that "transgender" is more of a mental disorder, but I think some of you insinuating that there is some "conspiracy" is just kind of silly.

pol·y·am·o·ry
ˌpälēˈamərē/
noun

1. the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

So ChrisL are you polyamorous? Are you involved in 3 somes?

 

[flacaltenn]

Bruce Caitlin Jenner could be mistaken for any ole "creepy male pervert" under the right circumstances.

He is a creepy male pervert. His fame doesn't make him any different or any better than any non-famous, otherwise similar degenerate.

That's probably where we disagree. I believe that there are legitimate biological/psychological transgenders. They are probably minority of the "self-declared" ones. And that's a MEDICAL issue -- not a political/religious/moral one.

So IF -- (BIG IF) -- the law figured out a way to RECOGNIZE the legitimate ones and recorded that -- I would all for some hate/access protections for that class.

 

[ChrisL]

You may think that it is “bigoted” and idiotic to protect women and girls from creepy, mentally-ill, male sexual perverts who want access to them in dressing and restroom facilities, and that is why your side is ultimately going to lose, in spite of any gains that you think the pervert-rights movement has made or will yet make. Those who think it's OK to subject girls and women to such abuse are always going to comprise a small, degenerate minority. You're free to proudly include yourself in that minority, if you wish, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that your side will ever be otherwise.

And feel free, as you continue to promote this attack on the safety, modesty, and virtue of women, to falsely accuse us on the right of waging a “war on women.” Your sick hypocrisy will continue to provide a source of amusement for sane people, and help to show the general public just how degenerate your side truly is.

People you may know, or should....

Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 3/8/2016 10:16 am On Saturday retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, addressed the Awakening conference, an annual event sponsored by Liberty Counsel and the Freedom Federation. Boykin, known for his anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric, dedicated his remarks in the plenary session to denouncing Bernie Sanders supporters for wanting free things, and to calling on Christians to do more to stand up for religious freedom and against LGBT equality. Boykin quoted socialist Norman Thomas saying in 1927, “America will never vote for socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” Boykin asked, “Is that where we are today?” He declared that support for Sanders is “an indication of the sad state of affairs in this country.” - See more at: Boykin's Defense of 'Religious Freedom' Includes Violent Anti-Trans Rhetoric

Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup' Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 3/11/2016 11:50 am Earlier this week on “The Savage Nation,” conservative radio host Michael Savage asked listeners what they think would happen to the country after three years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Savage predicted that a President Clinton would “seize guns” in order to stop an “armed rebellion.” “She is an absolute dictator,” he said. “She will seize guns and make them illegal in any way necessary.” (We can’t help but point out that Savage has frequently predicted that President Obama will seize guns, and he now only has less than a year to do it.) Savage also claimed that Clinton would usher in a societal “meltdown” and “a social nightmare”: “There will be a transgender in your soup.” - See more at: Michael Savage: Hillary Clinton Will Become A Dictator Who Will Put 'A Transgender In Your Soup'

Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 2/12/2016 12:37 pm Franklin Graham is visiting every state in the country this year as part of his “Decision America” tour, in which he is offering technically nonpartisan encouragement to his followers to “live out their faith” in the upcoming elections. At a stop in Atlanta this week, Graham spoke about the need for conservative Christians to not only vote, but to run for office, saying that if every city in America had a Christian mayor, we wouldn’t have “evil” and “wicked” policies like LGBT nondiscrimination measures. Better Georgia first brought the remarks to our attention. - See more at: Franklin Graham: Christians Must Take Over Every Mayorship In The Country To Stop 'Evil' LGBT Rights

There is plenty more where this came from but you get the idea. They all reflect the same mentality.....as do you

A lot of "older" people are very frightened of change and of that which they do not understand, and that manifests itself as hatred. They are very ignorant and they don't even realize it (mainly because they are ignorant).

Really? Think they are incapable of seeing how sketchy folks declaring themselves "trans" would have legal access to your bathrooms? Incapable of calculating that polyamory is the NEXT letter in the LBGQPTY banner?

Have you EXAMINED the "change" and limits of it's reasonable and just scope?

I don't really know what you're asking here, TBH. I don't know what "polyamory" has to do with gay rights.

I don't really know which bathroom a transgendered person should use. They are such a tiny percentage of the population. I suppose if they look like a woman and have had the surgery, we may not even know that they aren't women?? I do still think that "transgender" is more of a mental disorder, but I think some of you insinuating that there is some "conspiracy" is just kind of silly.

pol·y·am·o·ry
ˌpälēˈamərē/
noun

1. the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

So ChrisL are you polyamorous? Are you involved in 3 somes?

Even if I was, why would I tell you about it?

 

[jillian]

Bruce Caitlin Jenner could be mistaken for any ole "creepy male pervert" under the right circumstances.

He is a creepy male pervert. His fame doesn't make him any different or any better than any non-famous, otherwise similar degenerate.

That's probably where we disagree. I believe that there are legitimate biological/psychological transgenders. They are probably minority of the "self-declared" ones. And that's a MEDICAL issue -- not a political/religious/moral one.

So IF -- (BIG IF) -- the law figured out a way to RECOGNIZE the legitimate ones and recorded that -- I would all for some hate/access protections for that class.

no one pretends to be transgendered. you can choose to be a transvestite... there's a difference.

and ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think is "legitimate".

 

[ChrisL]

Everyone wants to be treated equally. Nobody is just going to lie down and "accept" being discriminated against.