All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[MT15]

On grooming:

 

[Farb]

I mean, if we're talking about Catholic Priest, of course. There should be a lot more scrutiny of Catholic and religious schools (and laws enacted) to prevent grooming and sexual predation at religious schools. I'm sure you agree given recent history.

ZING! Very childish deflection but I will play along.
You would be correct. I do agree with that 100%. Grooming children is bad, no matter if it is done by a priest, preacher, teacher, councilor, principle or parents. Surely you not implying that only a specific religion groom kids, right?

So, back to my question, what happens more in this country, grooming kids or lynchings?

 

[Farb]

why, yes, I can absolutely tell you why this is an LBGTQ issue, thanks for asking.

It’s because that’s the only thing the bill addresses. You’d think that if Rs actually cared about discussing sexual activity in general, they would have addressed it. But they didn’t. Nothing in the bill prohibits talking about heterosexual sexual preferences. In fact, I read that a D lawmaker proposed widening the bill to include all sexual talk, and the author didn’t want to include that. He said if would detract from the purpose of the bill. So that’s why this is an LBGTQ issue.

Of course, this doesn’t really match up with your narrative. But that’s what I read.

So you did not read the bill, just an article about the bill?

As far as I am aware, it doesn't mention any sexual affiliation much less 'gay'. It just says you can't have gender or sexual affiliation instruction in the classroom. Can you show me in the bill where I am wrong and it states specifically LGTB?

 

[Farb]

Yes, if you call something racist when it isn’t, that’s offensive. The problem is that according to people like you NOTHING is racist. Hence you refuse to see it even when it’s obvious to everyone else.

What your side is doing is a bit different, in that you are taking words that have meanings, and twisting them to mean something else. They did it for CRT and now doing it for grooming.

A teacher acknowledging that a student is gay or trans, or that one or both of their parents are gay or trans, isn’t “grooming”. Having a discussion with a student about any of this isn’t “grooming”.

It’s QAnon bleeding into the far right. That’s what it is.

You mean like taking the meaning of the word 'woman' and taking away its meaning all together? What about 'mothers' or should I say 'birthing people'. How about 'masters suite'? What about 'breast milk' to 'chest milk'? How about 'Latinx'? I could go on but I won't.

The fact you think a kindergartner can be acknowledged as gay or especially trans in the main problem.

 

[Farb]

Farb in two acts:

Act 1:

Farb parrots right wing propaganda;
Farb gets presented with facts that disprove something in his rhetoric.

Act 2:

Farb deflects, dodges, and ignores facts
Farb commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy
Farb repeats disproven rhetoric in different room

Act 3 is when it really comes together, stick around, I think you might like it.

 

[Farb]

On grooming:

Thanks God they caught him. Should have been sooner and death is the answer for these people.

Now, do Democrats

 

[coldseat]

ZING! Very childish deflection but I will play along.
You would be correct. I do agree with that 100%. Grooming children is bad, no matter if it is done by a priest, preacher, teacher, councilor, principle or parents. Surely you not implying that only a specific religion groom kids, right?

All religions groom kids in different ways. It's the secrecy in religious communities that make them especially advantageous for degenerates looking to groom kids sexually. And why you often see more scandal's than say public schools, which tend to be more transparent. But you're correct, no specific religion has a lock on that. Although the Catholic Church Child Predator scandal was quite unique in it's size, coverup and duration.

 

[SFIDC3]

ZING! Very childish deflection but I will play along.
You would be correct. I do agree with that 100%. Grooming children is bad, no matter if it is done by a priest, preacher, teacher, councilor, principle or parents. Surely you not implying that only a specific religion groom kids, right?

So, back to my question, what happens more in this country, grooming kids or lynchings?

The Catholic Church is the absolute expert in the ways of not only child pedophilia but also in denying it’s existence, covering it up and constantly moving their precious precious priests around until the legal ramifications finally come (if they ever do)….ruining 1000’s of kids lives in the process….where is your fabled “outrage” over that undeniable fact?

PS that’s not to say there aren’t good Catholic folk trying to change that but the church as a whole is guilty or the worst of sins….

 

[MT15]

You mean like taking the meaning of the word 'woman' and taking away its meaning all together? What about 'mothers' or should I say 'birthing people'. How about 'masters suite'? What about 'breast milk' to 'chest milk'? How about 'Latinx'? I could go on but I won't.

The fact you think a kindergartner can be acknowledged as gay or especially trans in the main problem.

I did not say any of that. But if people want to use those terms, I’m not going to care - nor am I going to call them “groomers” or try to erase their existence. Why do you get so upset about the way people use words?

What if a kindergartner has a gay or trans parent? Are they not allowed to speak of them in school? It would seem that they are not in your world.

 

[MT15]

I hadn’t read this before tonight - but it appears I am on to something by connecting the “groomer” panic to Q. At least according to this Duke professor:

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

There’s a lot more if anyone cares to read it. It’s a disturbing thing that the right wing is doing here. It will end up justifying all sorts of atrocities if allowed to continue to its natural end. Anyone who doesn’t go along with their delusional labeling will be labeled themselves.

 

[Farb]

All religions groom kids in different ways. It's the secrecy in religious communities that make them especially advantageous for degenerates looking to groom kids sexually. And why you often see more scandal's than say public schools, which tend to be more transparent. But you're correct, no specific religion has a lock on that. Although the Catholic Church Child Predator scandal was quite unique in it's size, coverup and duration.

Very true. And the church is still feeling the aftermath and I don't think it is done as far as removing groomers and predators from the church and I hope we (the catholic church) never stop. If you wanted to make the case that a priest or what not receive the death penalty for child crimes, I think you ad I would be in total agreement.

Why was that scandal more public than than a lot of the other grooming cases? Not sure, but I would think a major part of that coverage and the depth of the coverage would attribute to the fact that it was the catholic church and there is a dislike of the church especially in the corporate media, which at that time, had a strangle hold on the news the consumer ingested.

Also, I don't think we are done in regards to the government schools scandal, in fact, and I have said it before, I think the cover up by the news media and school boards across the nation are just beginning. I think when it is done, if ever, it will trump the catholic church scandal. I hope not, because that would mean more innocent kids' lives would be ruin.

I also wouldn't exactly call the public schools transparent, but I guess compared to the church, that would make sense.

 

[Farb]

The Catholic Church is the absolute expert in the ways of not only child pedophilia but also in denying it’s existence, covering it up and constantly moving their precious precious priests around until the legal ramifications finally come (if they ever do)….ruining 1000’s of kids lives in the process….where is your fabled “outrage” over that undeniable fact?

PS that’s not to say there aren’t good Catholic folk trying to change that but the church as a whole is guilty or the worst of sins….

Yep, you are correct. I agree with you 100%.

 

[Farb]

I did not say any of that. But if people want to use those terms, I’m not going to care - nor am I going to call them “groomers” or try to erase their existence. Why do you get so upset about the way people use words?

What if a kindergartner has a gay or trans parent? Are they not allowed to speak of them in school? It would seem that they are not in your world.

Words are how human express reality. That is why they are important.

When I was in kindergarten, I can't remember having discussions with other kids about their parents sexual preferences or to be honest, about their parents at all. Let them be kids. I don't know why this is so controversial. Let them enjoy being a kid, hopefully, like we all did. Why use them as pawns for you political ideology?

 

[Farb]

There’s a lot more if anyone cares to read it. It’s a disturbing thing that the right wing is doing here. It will end up justifying all sorts of atrocities if allowed to continue to its natural end. Anyone who doesn’t go along with their delusional labeling will be labeled themselves.

Are pedophiles now the new 'marginalized' group? Good luck having your politicians run that platform. You guys might not ever win an election again.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Words are how human express reality. That is why they are important.

When I was in kindergarten, I can't remember having discussions with other kids about their parents sexual preferences or to be honest, about their parents at all. Let them be kids. I don't know why this is so controversial. Let them enjoy being a kid, hopefully, like we all did. Why use them as pawns for you political ideology?

Do you think that a child saying "my mom and dad took me to the park" is a discussion of mom and dad's sexual preferences?