All Things LGBTQ+ (11 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.

 

[Snarky Sack]

My assumption would be that they would say their Christian beliefs would prevent them from using someone’s pronouns, but there’s no prohibition in the Bible to prevent someone from using someone’s preferred pronouns, as that concept obviously didn’t exist at the time.

True. But not every Christian, or any Christian that I know of, gets their beliefs out of the bible and nowhere else. Most rely on their religious leaders' interpretation of the bible. As far as I know the 1st allows them to do that.

As with Democrats not needing Snarky to tell them what Democratic candidate to pick, so Christians do not need Brandon to tell them how to understand Christianity.

It’s slightly a straw man to bring up the Deuteronomy verse, as no one is asking someone to dress in drag if they don’t want to. They’re asking them to use someone’s preferred pronouns, which is not explicitly prohibited.

I don't see anything in that verse about asking someone to dress in drag if they don't want to. But you're right, it doesn't address another person using or not using the pronouns associated with the drag or whatever dressing like a man is called.

But even if you do make the jump that the verse prohibiting wearing women’s clothing for men and vice versa means you can’t use someone’s preferred pronouns, then you have opened yourself up to all of the other criticisms for modern-day Old Testament “abominations.”

To wit:

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

True, but the 1st has no requirement that a person's religion be logical for them to exercise it.

I should also add that, if a teacher has no religious beliefs about pronouns, but just thinks that it doesn't make sense to call a female "he" I would not want them forced to do so. As I said, I would encourage them to do so, but never force them.

I guess my common theme here is respect for everyone's choice.

 

[brandon]

True. But not every Christian, or any Christian that I know of, gets their beliefs out of the bible and nowhere else. Most rely on their religious leaders' interpretation of the bible.

How does a religious leader interpret the Bible without the Bible?

As with Democrats not needing Snarky to tell them what Democratic candidate to pick, so Christians do not need Brandon to tell them how to understand Christianity.

Actually, you’ll find me in a Christian church every Sunday. So I do have a pretty good grasp on both sides of this conversation.

True, but the 1st has no requirement that a person's religion be logical for them to exercise it.

Absolutely. But the first also allows us to point out that those people are bigots.

I should also add that, if a teacher has no religious beliefs about pronouns, but just thinks that it doesn't make sense to call a female "he" I would not want them forced to do so. As I said, I would encourage them to do so, but never force them.

I guess my common theme here is respect for everyone's choice.

The only way for that to work is for Christians who hold those views to simply not interact with trans people.

Which, ironically, is surely what they’re all doing anyway.

 

[Snarky Sack]

How does a religious leader interpret the Bible without the Bible?

I never said that they did.

Actually, you’ll find me in a Christian church every Sunday. So I do have a pretty good grasp on both sides of this conversation.

Haven't been in years, other than funerals or weddings.

Absolutely. But the first also allows us to point out that those people are bigots.

Yes, of course. Exercise your rights, or we could lose them.

The only way for that to work is for Christians who hold those views to simply not interact with trans people.

Or, for trans people to treat Christians who hold those views, or anyone else, with the tolerance with which they want to be treated.

Which, ironically, is surely what they’re all doing anyway.

Sure. As I often see pointed out, there really are not that many transgenders for us to worry about. It is not like a Christian or anyone else who disagrees with non-biological pronouns, is beset on all sides with transgenders constantly demanding to be called by their preferred pronouns.

I don't think so anyway. But I call people by their preferred pronouns, or avoid pronouns at all if I'm not sure what their preferred pronoun is. Maybe a slip of the tongue or a misreading of a person's gender presentation would bring furious wrath upon me.

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, I guess.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It is a much less homogeneous board than this.

Homogeneous in what way? If you mean that there aren't many Trump die hard supporters here, that's because die hard Trump supporters keep getting themselves banned for how they talk to people. They don't get banned for disagreeing or having a different opinion. They get banned for being disrespectful and antagonistic.

That's what makes this board great. The owner and moderators are serious about enforcing their TOS to promote civil discussion. They are consistent, fair and very patient in how they enforce the TOS. They give everyone a multitude of chances to stop being disrespectful and antagonistic before banning anyone.

I think they use cat math, in that they give everyone 9 strikes before their out.

I know that your and BT15's...

Why do you keep referring to MT15 as BT15? I noticed that you started doing that in the past few days. What's up with that?

If it's a simple typo or misreading of her name on your part, please note that it's MT15 and not BT15.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Homogeneous in what way? If you mean that there aren't many Trump die hard supporters here, that's because die hard Trump supporters keep getting themselves banned for how they talk to people. They don't get banned for disagreeing or having a different opinion. They get banned for being disrespectful and antagonistic.

I'll keep that in mind, as I have said a few times.

That's what makes this board great. The owner and moderators are serious about enforcing their TOS to promote civil discussion. They are consistent, fair and very patient in how they enforce the TOS. They give everyone a multitude of chances to stop being disrespectful and antagonistic before banning anyone.

Glad to hear it

I think they use cat math, in that they give everyone 9 strikes before their out.

LoL!

Why do you keep referring to MT15 as BT15? I noticed that you started doing that in the past few days. What's up with that?

If it's a simple typo or misreading of her name on your part, please note that it's MT15 and not BT15.

Answer: I dont' know why. Probably, I did it once by mistake and then my fingers did it the next however many times. Thank you for your kind correction. I'll certainly stop, with apologies to MT15.

BTW, I wonder if this is good time for you to take care of this:

Banning books in schools

Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread =========================On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.Particularly books for children and teens.Why else would people like me spend so much...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

I may be mistaken...

You repeat that a lot in defense of things you have said, so it surprises me that you don't seem to be making any effort to stop being mistaken as often as you are.

 

[LA - L.A.]

BTW, I wonder if this is good time for you to take care of this:

Banning books in schools

Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread =========================On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.Particularly books for children and teens.Why else would people like me spend so much...

madaboutpolitics.com

I was wondering how long you'd be able to go without bringing that up. You lasted a day longer than I thought you would.

It will be clear to anyone else that reads, or has read, the entirety of our discussion in that thread, that there is nothing I need "to take care of" in that discussion. That's good enough for me.

Expanding on what @RobF previously told you, no one in the world has any obligation to do what you want, when you want it, and how you want it. If you want people to cooperate with you, then you need to sincerely cooperate with them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I was wondering how long you'd be able to go without bringing that up. You lasted a day longer than I thought you would.

It will be clear to anyone else that reads, or has read, the entirety of our discussion in that thread, that there is nothing I need "to take care of" in that discussion. That's good enough for me.

Expanding on what @RobF previously told you, no one in the world has any obligation to do what you want, when you want it, and how you want it. If you want people to cooperate with you, then you need to sincerely cooperate with them.

I was only wondering whether you would do what you agreed to do.

It's no big deal.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was wondering how long you'd be able to go without bringing that up. You lasted a day longer than I thought you would.

It will be clear to anyone else that reads, or has read, the entirety of our discussion in that thread, that there is nothing I need "to take care of" in that discussion. That's good enough for me.

Expanding on what @RobF previously told you, no one in the world has any obligation to do what you want, when you want it, and how you want it. If you want people to cooperate with you, then you need to sincerely cooperate with them.

I hope you don't mind if I piggyback on this. He's calling you out for not responding to something that doesn't even require one. At the same time, he's ignoring a thing he specifically asked me for. He's under no obligation to respond, but his hypocrisy is unsurprising.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I hope you don't mind if I piggyback on this. He's calling you out for not responding to something that doesn't even require one. At the same time, he's ignoring a thing he specifically asked me for. He's under no obligation to respond, but his hypocrisy is unsurprising.

If I ignored something I asked for, it was not on purpose.

It would only "require" that La La answer if the poster wanted to do what they agreed to do. Last word from me on that topic. The refusal was not unexpected in any way.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If I ignored something I asked for, it was not on purpose.

It would only "require" that La La answer if the poster wanted to do what they agreed to do. Last word from me on that topic. The refusal was not unexpected in any way.

Trump Indictment ( An ongoing discussion )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

I hope you don't mind if I piggyback on this. He's calling you out for not responding to something that doesn't even require one. At the same time, he's ignoring a thing he specifically asked me for. He's under no obligation to respond, but his hypocrisy is unsurprising.

I don't mind at all. I'm always open to discussing anything with people that are sincere and respectful.

What you mentioned above is exactly what that poster does. I gave the poster a set of conditions they had to meet if they wanted me to answer one of their questions they repeatedly asked me to answer. They failed to meet those conditions, but they aren't going to share that fact with everyone and they're going to insist they met might conditions. They don't think I have a right to determine that for myself and make a decision for myself.

We and this board are better off if we accept that poster for who they are and let go of expecting them to ever change how they engage us or to change their mind. I think they truly aren't capable of doing either of those, even if they wanted to. That's why I don't get mad at them personally. I've taken a "see something, say something" approach. If I see them say something that I think is questionable, then I say something.

What they do or do not think is not as important as what the people reading their disinformation thinks about their disinformation. That poster is not the audience. The audience is everyone else.

The less we collectively directly engage with them, the less inclined they are to keep coming around. Watch how that poster starts to escalate their personal swipes at me the more that I will not give them the reaction they want and the more that I will not engage with them solely on their terms.

They don't realize that no matter how good they might be at the "gotcha/owned you" games, they can't win squat if no one else plays along with them.

This is about a lot more than just that one poster to me. This is about learning and getting experience on how to deal with Trumpism and all authoritarianistic mindsets in a way that stands firm without unnecessarily escalating things myself. One of the things that helps me is to focus on criticizing what they do or say, instead of criticizing the person themselves. It's a distinction that me be lost on some people, but most will get it.

Just like the topic of this discussion, it's one thing to tell a trans person, "I don't agree with what you think or what you doing," but it's lot worse to tell them "You are not who you think and feel that you are, so I will refer to you however I damn well please."

 

[Snarky Sack]

If there is hope, it lies with the comedians.

Not the big time comedians of SNL, or those that have precious careers to protect. Small time club comics, who can parody the elite with nothing to lose. One such comic:



Listen to the laughter of the audience.

Dems, I have to think that you have finally gone too far.

 

[SystemShock]

My assumption would be that they would say their Christian beliefs would prevent them from using someone’s pronouns, but there’s no prohibition in the Bible to prevent someone from using someone’s preferred pronouns, as that concept obviously didn’t exist at the time.

It’s slightly a straw man to bring up the Deuteronomy verse, as no one is asking someone to dress in drag if they don’t want to. They’re asking them to use someone’s preferred pronouns, which is not explicitly prohibited.

But even if you do make the jump that the verse prohibiting wearing women’s clothing for men and vice versa means you can’t use someone’s preferred pronouns, then you have opened yourself up to all of the other criticisms for modern-day Old Testament “abominations.”

To wit:

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

You have to think in 3K-4K years ago terms. The Bible doesn't say "thou shalt only use these pronouns", but it is implicit in that it says Yahweh created man and woman, in the male and female of the species sense; those were the only 2 choices, there was no concept of "genders", and any deviation from it constituted an abomination. You have to think about how people back then would try to explain a male/female of the species acting/dressing as a female/male of the species. So Bible wise, it would be sinful to recognize a male/female of the species as a woman/man.

 

[Snarky Sack]

"Non-biological women, you are not . . . going to be the voice of biological women . . . "

 

[SystemShock]

But not every Christian, or any Christian that I know of, gets their beliefs out of the bible and nowhere else. Most rely on their religious leaders' interpretation of the bible.

Either on their own or through the interpretation of a religious leader, their beliefs are still coming out of the Bible.

As with Democrats not needing Snarky to tell them what Democratic candidate to pick, so Christians do not need Brandon to tell them how to understand Christianity.

But they do need SystemShock to do so

I am particularly fond of people telling me "after talking to you, my faith is stronger".

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here is why children cannot be "transgender:"

 

[SystemShock]

Here is why children cannot be "transgender:"

Who is that? That is a really, really bad argument. Sure, Santa Claus is not real, but for a 4 year old that has been told Santa Claus is real by the people (parents, relatives) that 4 year old trusts the most, and the idea of Santa Claus being staged every Christmas morning, of course Santa Claus is real. But then, around the age of 8-10 (if not earlier), after learning more about their world, they start questioning the idea of Santa Claus.

And, if no one tells a 4 year old that Santa Claus is real, they'd never even come up with a similar concept.

Gender, on the other hand, kids don't need to be told about them; they can observe gender and societal gender roles and appearance by themselves.

Now, I get that the right-wing preaches the idea of grooming, and believe Democrat parents push kids to be gay or transgender because is "trendy", in the same manner as parents push Santa Claus on their kids, but in my experience, that can't be farther from the truth. Surely there are some freaks out there that do so, but again, in my experience that's not the case, on the contrary, and not because it is a sin, but because they understand the traumatic trek their kids are about to embark.

We have dear friends back in NC who are dealing with it right now, who happen to be conservative church goers, so I guarantee you, they did not groom anyone or allowed anyone to groom their kid. We know their kids since they were babies, and their youngest is going through the transition. And they are currently considering leaving the U.S. because of it, not out of shame, but due to the hostile environment against people like their kid. They are actually looking into moving to my hometown of Merida, because my hometown (and really the State of Yucatan) is very tolerant and accepting of LGBTQ+. We even offered them to send their kid here with us.