[quote]sufiandy wrote:
If I have a son I’d like her to be able to use a public toilet without encountering a fucking drag queen taking his dick out.[/quote]
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Are you trying to be funny by mixing up the pronouns or was that a mistake?
[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
him
Copied too much of SMs post I forgot to replace that[/quote]
Ah ok, cool.
So, under the current law there is a chance your son or daughter (if young and needs you to escort her to the washroom) will see a drag queen at the urinal.
Under a law that allows the drag queen to use the women’s washroom, your daughter (or son, if young and escorted by your wife) will only encounter a drag queen entering or leaving or perhaps washing his hands.
I would think that if one sincerely wanted to eliminate the chance of their child seeing a drag queen urinate, they would be in favor of allowing said drag queen to use the women’s facilities.
Which doesn’t speak at all to the larger issues of whether or not a child would actually recognize a drag queen or whether or not that would be damaging to a child.
Only just finding this thread now but… couldn’t the same tactics be said to be employed by the bodybuilding community?
Or really… any group wanting to be accepted?
I don’t really see how attempts to desensitive are “brainwashing”. Am I being indoctrinated because I enjoy watching Modern Family? I must be a total victim because I find the gay couple cute together even if I share Mitch’s squeamishness about PDA with Cam for differing reasons?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The biological and social function of sex is procreation. Homosexuality subverts this function.
Natural law shows that men and women are biologically and psychologically different and that they are complimentary to each other. Homosexuality is neither biologically nor psychologically complimentary.
Natural law shows that a child is best reared by a mother and father. Homosexual adoption deprives children of either a mother or father.
Homosexual relationships subvert the existing mores and norms of society and devalue traditional marriage.
Homosexual unions preclude the possibility of procreation.
Homosexual unions are of no benefit to society. They harm society by subverting norms and mores, preventing procreation, devaluing traditional marriage and causing public health problems.
Homosexuality imposes acceptance and normalisation thus encouraging homosexual behaviour in others.
Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]
1: abortions, abstinence and condoms also subvert this function, do you oppose them?
2: differences are not always complimentary, many male-female bonds are not good matches. Furthermore you are dumbing down differences to sexual correlations and ignoring that people of the same gender can vary widely in personality and temperment. Any counterpoints?
allowing women to procreate without consent of a man who wants a kid in their life also deprives children of 2-sex parents, do you oppose this? If so, would you have women abstain or abort to prevent this? Since either of these approaches conflict with concern 1 (supporting procreation) do you propose that women who do not wish to procreate or pair-bond with males be raped and forced to?
Being that the mores and norms of societies fluctuate and are subjective, is there actually an impartial reason to support a norm? Surely we should support things that are virtues, not things that are norms. By norm-supporting logic, if 55% of people were engaging in homosexual pair-bonding, you would support that.
No they don’t. A pair of gay guys and a pair of lesbians could form an agreement to engage in mutual impregnation.
Unions that increase happiness and make members more functional members of society benefit society. The value of a person or pair is more than their measured normalcy (consider that being on welfare could be the norm for certain portions of society). Procreation is not prevented, rather accidental procreation is prevented. Procreation that occurs will tend to be of a more consensual nature, requiring parents with an active interest in parenting rather than those doing so reluctantly out of social obligations. Which parent will feel more responsbile? Who is more likely to love their kid? Who is more likely to detest them as an instrument of subjugation?
This is only conditionally wrong if there is actually something wrong with homosexual behaviour. Keep in mind that with bisexuality, these behaviours can coexist. Romans are a historical example of guys who could impregnate their wives one knight and go jizz all over some private’s thighs the next. If procreation is important it can simply be mandated.
It sounds like you are saying we should exclusively engage in a behaviour (heterosexuality) simply because it increases the likelihood of accidental procreation so that we will be forced to do it. If you can instead convince people of the importance of procreating then they would do it regardless of their sexual preferences. However repugnant a gay guy might find a vagina, he could probably bring himself to convey some of his sperm to her. However repugnant a lesbian might find sperm, she could probably bring herself to accept some within her if she desires a child. People overcome squeamishness if something is important to them.
It seems like you are relying on the hope that people will come to want to raise kids after having conceived them, rather than appealing to people to accept something before they are thrust into that role. I believe that forcing people to do something will feel oppressive, which is why many parents detest their position, because they were coerced into it, and why we have absent or negligent parents.
There’s enough risk of people changing their minds even if they initiate parenthood willingly, so why increase that risk of neglect by thrusting people initially unwilling into it?
I think god also finds condoms and atheists repugnant, please start a thread about those. Homosexuality hardly holds an exclusive disgust among all things that deny the demand to be fruitful and multiply, or other things that deviate from G-orders.
Also I hope you don’t fuck your pregnant wife because you’re wasting god’s precious seed.
To avoid wasting god’s precious seed you should also probably rape as many women as possible to create as many pregnancies as possible.
Only just finding this thread now but… couldn’t the same tactics be said to be employed by the bodybuilding community?
Or really… any group wanting to be accepted?
[/quote]
I see what you did there. Use the most innocuous quote, delete the rest and then try to minimise it.
Pretty much.
You find them “cute” because they’re portrayed that way.
I certainly oppose abortions.
A man’s temperament doesn’t change his biological makeup.
Single mothers are a huge problem. Especially in the black community.
Abstain yes. Abort no.
Am I insane? No.
Absolutely. I believe traditional family values are virtuous and the new values of fuck what you feel like and murder the foetus with forceps is not virtuous.
Ah no. If that became the norm I would not support it. Just like I oppose the new norms and mores like acceptance of sexual deviancy.
Yes they could. But it’s not very likely that many of them would. And they would still be raising those children in a dysfunctional environment.
Absolutely. That’s another reason to oppose homosexual unions which are rife with disease, suicide, mental illness and drug abuse.
Procreation is extremely unlikely to occur at all in a homosexual union. And if it does the child is going to be raised in a dysfunctional environment.
“…66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he â??was raised by two womenâ?? and that he â??suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.”
“As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,â?? he explained. It would be â??institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.” If the women who raised him had been married, â??I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."
That’s not an accurate description of Roman pederastic relationships. Romans also engaged in human sacrifice - eg buried people alive to placate the G-ds during the Second Punic War. They also made people fight to the death for sport. They crucified people. I wouldn’t take everything the Romans did as a model to emulate. Besides, as I pointed out in this thread, one of the reasons for the decline and fall of Rome was a plummeting fertility rate.
It only sounds like that if you ignore ninety percent of what I’ve said then wilfully misinterpret the remainder.
Sigh…
I’ve already said I don’t advocate forcing people to do anything.
I don’t.
[quote]
I think god also finds condoms and atheists repugnant, please start a thread about those. Homosexuality hardly holds an exclusive disgust among all things that deny the demand to be fruitful and multiply, or other things that deviate from G-orders.
Also I hope you don’t fuck your pregnant wife because you’re wasting god’s precious seed.
To avoid wasting god’s precious seed you should also probably rape as many women as possible to create as many pregnancies as possible.[/quote]
Sexy change operation? No, that didn’t occur and if it did at such a young age would be a brutally depraved act. Regardless, I’m very opposed to children being labeled this or that by their parents when they haven’t even gone through puberty yet.
Sexy change operation? No, that didn’t occur and if it did at such a young age would be a brutally depraved act. Regardless, I’m very opposed to children being labeled this or that by their parents when they haven’t even gone through puberty yet. [/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. It wasn’t an operation it was a “transition.” I’m sure this five-year-old whose parents encouraged her to be a transsexual won’t suffer any problems as a result of her “transition.” Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Last night, New York Times reporter Josh Barro tweeted out a disturbing message: ?Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.?
This is rather shocking. Barro is no angry blogger writing manifestos in his basement. He is a respected reporter from a prestigious newspaper that prides itself on equanimity in the face of heated debate. Yet he seems, by any reasonable measure, to be fomenting a campaign to rout out all dissenters from the sexual revolution. Erick Erickson wrote a brief response to Barro?s tweet, to which Barro replied that he thinks that ?we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation. Not saying we should off people.?
Barro?s sexual fundamentalism wants any dissent marginalized and he?s not reluctant to admit that. This attitude, which is emblematic of the increasing intolerance in many sectors of culture towards those with traditional beliefs about sexuality, penalizes citizens for their beliefs. What we see playing out, once more, is that for liberalism to take root, it must take root by authoritarian impulse where the lies of the sexual revolution, to be cemented, must be enforced through acts of social and legal coercion.
This sort of vitriol would spell disaster for a right-leaning journalist. But there?s been little outcry from Barro?s fellow liberals or, for that matter, his employer. Mr. Barro?s employer should take umbrage at his recklessness and hold him accountable for his irresponsible rhetoric.
We wonder if Mr. Barro is willing to consider what his words can portend.
Consider the real-world actions against the Family Research Council (FRC), when a shooter in 2012 broke into its building with the intent of murdering staffers. How did this come about? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled FRC a ?hate group.? The shooter, who wounded and would have killed a brave security guard, confessed that he was influenced by the materials posted on the SPLC?s website. Similarly, Barro?s words give license to those who would seek to disparage people with traditional beliefs about sexuality. Even if Barro doesn?t actually want violence to occur, his rhetoric could help incite it…