Home

Liberals Have it Easy
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 2:39 pm
saw50st8 wrote:
The answer to that question is that parents get to decide unless the decision is harmful to the child. FGM is very harmful to a child. Circumcision is a voluntary procedure that may harm a child for no reason. While circumcision will likely always be legal in the US, there is a case to be made for outlawing it.

Hormone blockers used for transgender children are used because the child themselves are expressing their own needs. It is in a totally different category.


Should children be allowed to consent to s*x? There is a movement to legalize Pedophilia
(democrats of course) by lowering the age of consent.

We made 18 the age of consent. But if you are allowing children under age 18 to use Hormone Blockers AGAINST THE CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS, should children under age 18 be allowed to consent to s*x with adults?
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 2:39 pm
Fox wrote:
So here are some questions to ponder:

Can I assume that all of you who agree with the concept of gay marriage (as opposed to civil unions of some sort) and agree with the transgender rights agenda also oppose laws that forbid gay adults from seeking conversion therapy? Shouldn't we be actively researching ways to help people who don't want to be gay -- just as we are always seeking new ways for people to overcome infertility?

What about the efforts of LGBT activists to prevent research into the causes of homosexuality and gender dysphoria?

How do you feel about the increasing gay involvement in the pro-life movement, which is largely motivated by the fear that, when the cause of homosexuality is eventually determined, parents will choose to abort children with such a predisposition.

What about the efforts of activists like Dan Savage to redefine traditional ideas about marriage, such as monogamy, to reflect differences in gay practices and attempt to preach those ideas to heterosexual couples. Slate

.....


I do oppose the laws forbidding adults from seeking conversion therapy. I think conversion therapy should be able to have a "warning label" of sorts.

I think research would be great. I suspect that there is something endocrine about being transgender. I believe people when they say that they feel like a different gender and I absolutely think that there is some sort of biological cause.

I think that the pro-life movement doesn't care one bit about the babies and cares about punishing women while hiding behind caring about babies. I actually think most of the pro-life people are extremely selfish. Gay people can definitely be included in that umbrella.

I think that there are definitely a lot of weird people out there preaching all sorts of things. I think that people who don't want to stay monogamous don't have to, though I don't understand that at all. People already view marriage very differently. If gay couples don't want to be monogamous, it doesn't affect me.
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 2:46 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Should children be allowed to consent to s*x? There is a movement to legalize Pedophilia
(democrats of course) by lowering the age of consent.

We made 18 the age of consent. But if you are allowing children under age 18 to use Hormone Blockers AGAINST THE CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS, should children under age 18 be allowed to consent to s*x with adults?


Age of consent is a big issue. Should a 17 year old be able to consent to have s-ex with her 18 year old boyfriend? Yes I do think so. Exactly where that line is, is heavily debated.

No one is looking to "legalize pedophelia" but should a 15 year old boy be prosecuted for having consensual s-ex with his 14 year old girlfriend? No way.

Should a teenager have access to birth control without her parents knowing? In my opinion, yes. If a teenager is going to be having s-ex, they should have access to birth control regardless of their parents feelings on the matter.

Given those, if the current medical practice allows for hormone blockers to keep gender dysphoria at bay, should those be allowed if the parents object? I don't know the answer because puberty is a lot younger than 16. Maybe yes with a medical ethics oversight based on what the child actually wants?

These questions are all complicated. None of them are easy.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 3:02 pm
saw50st8 wrote:
Age of consent is a big issue. Should a 17 year old be able to consent to have s-ex with her 18 year old boyfriend? Yes I do think so. Exactly where that line is, is heavily debated.

No one is looking to "legalize pedophelia" but should a 15 year old boy be prosecuted for having consensual s-ex with his 14 year old girlfriend? No way.

Should a teenager have access to birth control without her parents knowing? In my opinion, yes. If a teenager is going to be having s-ex, they should have access to birth control regardless of their parents feelings on the matter.

Given those, if the current medical practice allows for hormone blockers to keep gender dysphoria at bay, should those be allowed if the parents object? I don't know the answer because puberty is a lot younger than 16. Maybe yes with a medical ethics oversight based on what the child actually wants?

These questions are all complicated. None of them are easy.


This is exactly the problem. All these problems are way more complicated than the traditional liberal/conservative divide and MY RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED ON IF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAYS!!!

People have to be willing to keep quiet and listen to each other. Think about the people who are actually affected, not your stereotyped vision of what gayness is or transgender is. There are frum people affected. Maybe to some extent society is sending confusing messages. I'm not sure it was any better when society was sending very clear messages that worked for some people but were harmful to others. I don't know how we can live in a pluralistic society with many different people with different backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and desires and somehow share the same planet without killing each other. Maybe letting people make personal decisions for themselves would be a good start.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 3:11 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Should children be allowed to consent to s*x? There is a movement to legalize Pedophilia
(democrats of course) by lowering the age of consent.

We made 18 the age of consent. But if you are allowing children under age 18 to use Hormone Blockers AGAINST THE CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS, should children under age 18 be allowed to consent to s*x with adults?


Well, I have read about a prominent figure who published an op-ed suggesting that 15 should be the age of consent, no matter how old the other party is. I think that the item was entitled "Statutory Rape is an Outdated Concept."

Is that what you're referring to?

Hidden: 

Except that was Dershowitz.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 3:15 pm
Fox wrote:
The truth is that I see the government as only one part of the problem.

The bigger problem, IMHO, is that we have ceded our ability to define fairness to a slew of special interest groups that invent new problems to replace the legitimate problems they have solved. And LGBT activist organizations are among the worst, though certainly not the only ones.


I agree but it ties into an outlook of life. That you have a right to things that you don't have a right to.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 3:36 pm
Jeanette wrote:
As I understand it, s-xual attraction is a continuum, with most of us having mainly opposite relations attraction, but also having the capacity for a certain degree of SSA. At the most extreme, someone has zero opposite relations attraction and only SSA. They are incapable of engaging in normal intimacy with the opposite relations. Then there are people who have some opposite relations attraction but also some degree of SSA. Maybe they fantasize about being with the same relations, maybe they've even experimented with it at some point, but they are capable of going on to have a healthy normal opposite relations relationship.

So I can definitely hear the argument that in our society, where people are encourage to experiment with all flavors of s-xual attraction and activity, some people may come to identify as gay even though they do have the ability (with the right type of therapy) to have a healthy opposite relations relationship. Like someone who is married for 10 years and has 5 kids and suddenly comes out as gay. Maybe there was some underlying SSA all along or maybe there were issues in the marriage or maybe lots of other things were going on. But I don't see it as a big celebration that suddenly they are in tune with something that they were suppressing before. Part of being human is that we have a whole continuum of desires and we suppress most of them and only act on those that contribute most to our health and functioning.

That's not saying that I think homosexuals should be discriminated against in housing or employment or healthcare.

I don't understand exactly how people are born with an innate understanding of their maleness or femaleness, as that's something that develops at different stages in a person's life. Again, maybe there are some people at the extreme end of the continuum who persistently identify as the opposite relations and nothing will make them change. But we've also seen "epidemics" of psychological diagnoses once something comes into vogue. Definitely how a child comes to understand their gender identity can be affected by the messages they receive from their family and society.

I'm going to shock most of you nearly to death and not only agree with Jeanette but thank her for sharing this.

At least among people who seriously discuss the nature of homosexuality and follow what research exists, the working hypothesis is that there is some genetic (not necessarily heritable) predisposition, but that environmental factors activate that predisposition and may determine the strength of it.

Again, no one really knows; this is just a working hypothesis based on existing research.

However, it calls into question the degree of choice. The "born this way" movement originated in the 80s as a response to religious condemnation of homosexuality; it's more of a political argument than a scientific one. But even if there is a small minority of people whose homosexuality is extreme, there are many more for whom it is not. For them, choices do play a role to a certain extent.

So one of the conversersations I've listened in on extensively is the degree to which gay culture attracts young men who are experiencing some degree of SSA and whether it influences them to identify as gay. The common thread is some variation of this: "I liked guys and I liked the availability of easy, commitment-free s-x, so I just sort of stayed with it."

The moral question that always arises is the degree to which LGBT activists and secular culture make being gay seem like one big happy enterprise. The fact is that gay men, at least, are often deeply unhappy. And the more gay-centric and gay-friendly their environment, the more unhappy they are. The hoopla about gay marriage disguises the fact that a majority of gay marriages are not monogamous (to the point that when you meet a couple, they will often add, "and we're even monogamous" to make sure you know you're dealing with nice, conservative people) and that "monogamish" arrangements quite frequently are not entirely consensual on the part of both partners.

So it's not entirely crazy to say to a teenager, "Look, if your SSA is really strong, your options may be limited. But if you feel some attraction to guys and like the fact that you can have lots of s-x without commitment, be aware that identifying throughout life as gay may not be all that and a bag of chips."

That is a message that LGBT dogma will not allow, and only the bravest people are willing to state it.
Back to top

fleetwood




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 4:06 pm
What is a 5 scotus? Do you mean 5 justices on the Supreme Court? Who exactly is it that you keep referring to and calling Ayatollahs?
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 8:36 pm
Fox wrote:
and that "monogamish" arrangements quite frequently are not entirely consensual on the part of both partners.


I will probably regret asking, but can you explain please?
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
 
 

Post  Thu, Feb 13 2020, 8:44 pm
saw50st8 wrote:

No one is looking to "legalize pedophelia" but


Have you heard of Nambla?
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 6:33 am
Laiya wrote:
Have you heard of Nambla?


Yes and they are not really much of anything. They are so far extreme fringe and don't do anything.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 9:31 am
dancingqueen wrote:
Laws against incest protect innocent children from the worst kind of abuse. Plus marrying and having children with a close relative is genetically a terrible idea.

Do you really see incest and a committed gay couple as equivalent?

Im trying to understand what the difference is between a committed gay couple or a committed polygamous couple. Or a incestuous, gay couple.

Saying that laws against incest protects children from abuse is as valid as saying that laws against homosexuality protects children from abuse.
Regarding health concerns,first, is it really the state's job to say who can or cannot have children? Can they ban two deaf people from marrying if it means their children have higher chances of genetic health issues? Second, what about people who can't have children like same gender partners or older people? There are some states that allow cousins to marry as long as they won't have children. If you consider marriage to be a civil right, then why not make the same rule regarding siblings or parents. Will you withhold a civil right just because you happen to find something morally repugnant?

I'm just looking for ideological consistency here.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 10:01 am
saw50st8 wrote:


I think that the pro-life movement doesn't care one bit about the babies and cares about punishing women while hiding behind caring about babies. I actually think most of the pro-life people are extremely selfish. Gay people can definitely be included in that umbrella.
.


Ah yes. The people who don't want healthy unborn babies to be killed unless there is a risk to the mother's life are the selfish ones. They so selfishly fight for the most vulnerable humans. What a disgusting group of people.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 10:28 am
sushilover wrote:
Im trying to understand what the difference is between a committed gay couple or a committed polygamous couple. Or a incestuous, gay couple.

Saying that laws against incest protects children from abuse is as valid as saying that laws against homosexuality protects children from abuse.
Regarding health concerns,first, is it really the state's job to say who can or cannot have children? Can they ban two deaf people from marrying if it means their children have higher chances of genetic health issues? Second, what about people who can't have children like same gender partners or older people? There are some states that allow cousins to marry as long as they won't have children. If you consider marriage to be a civil right, then why not make the same rule regarding siblings or parents. Will you withhold a civil right just because you happen to find something morally repugnant?

I'm just looking for ideological consistency here.


Lol this is the problem with replying pages later. IIRC you were asking if people who were ok with legalizing gay marriage would be ok with legalizing incest (within the nuclear family) and considered them morally equivalent as you do. I was replying that I do find incest more morally repugnant than homosexuality and more damaging. Most of the incest cases I know of involve abuse and molestation. But my personal feelings aside, I don’t really care what goes on in anyone’s bedroom as long as it’s 2 (or more lol) consenting adults.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 10:32 am
Fox wrote:
I'm going to shock most of you nearly to death and not only agree with Jeanette but thank her for sharing this.

At least among people who seriously discuss the nature of homosexuality and follow what research exists, the working hypothesis is that there is some genetic (not necessarily heritable) predisposition, but that environmental factors activate that predisposition and may determine the strength of it.

Again, no one really knows; this is just a working hypothesis based on existing research.

However, it calls into question the degree of choice. The "born this way" movement originated in the 80s as a response to religious condemnation of homosexuality; it's more of a political argument than a scientific one. But even if there is a small minority of people whose homosexuality is extreme, there are many more for whom it is not. For them, choices do play a role to a certain extent.

So one of the conversersations I've listened in on extensively is the degree to which gay culture attracts young men who are experiencing some degree of SSA and whether it influences them to identify as gay. The common thread is some variation of this: "I liked guys and I liked the availability of easy, commitment-free s-x, so I just sort of stayed with it."

The moral question that always arises is the degree to which LGBT activists and secular culture make being gay seem like one big happy enterprise. The fact is that gay men, at least, are often deeply unhappy. And the more gay-centric and gay-friendly their environment, the more unhappy they are. The hoopla about gay marriage disguises the fact that a majority of gay marriages are not monogamous (to the point that when you meet a couple, they will often add, "and we're even monogamous" to make sure you know you're dealing with nice, conservative people) and that "monogamish" arrangements quite frequently are not entirely consensual on the part of both partners.

So it's not entirely crazy to say to a teenager, "Look, if your SSA is really strong, your options may be limited. But if you feel some attraction to guys and like the fact that you can have lots of s-x without commitment, be aware that identifying throughout life as gay may not be all that and a bag of chips."

That is a message that LGBT dogma will not allow, and only the bravest people are willing to state it.


That messaging is already clearly out there. Isn’t that the point of the “it gets better” campaign? Everyone knows it’s harder to be gay than straight, that why they advocate so hard. And anyone who follows health research knows that the statistics for suicide and homicide in/against the trans community are terrible.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 10:54 am
dancingqueen wrote:
That messaging is already clearly out there. Isn’t that the point of the “it gets better” campaign? Everyone knows it’s harder to be gay than straight, that why they advocate so hard. And anyone who follows health research knows that the statistics for suicide and homicide in/against the trans community are terrible.


As I understand it, the argument is that in our society it's easier to be straight than gay, so nobody would willingly choose this lifestyle or just "fall into it." This is proof that homosexuality is inborn and innate and cannot be changed.

The problem with this argument is that people choose self-destructive behaviors all the time. People do have innate drives for all sorts of unhealthy things. Even if you don't think there's anything wrong or unhealthy about being gay, that still doesn't mean it's a fixed or immutable condition.
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 11:23 am
sushilover wrote:
Ah yes. The people who don't want healthy unborn babies to be killed unless there is a risk to the mother's life are the selfish ones. They so selfishly fight for the most vulnerable humans. What a disgusting group of people.


If pro-life people were actually pro-life, they would legislate to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with and pass legislation that supports women who keep their babies and make their lives livable. Until the pro-life movement moves towards that, it is a little hard to take them seriously. The pro-life movement cared about the fetus but not about the actual people (including children) who are living.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 11:31 am
saw50st8 wrote:
If pro-life people were actually pro-life, they would legislate to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with and pass legislation that supports women who keep their babies and make their lives livable. Until the pro-life movement moves towards that, it is a little hard to take them seriously. The pro-life movement cared about the fetus but not about the actual people (including children) who are living.


Except they do. Not only di they support financially women who keep their babies. They provide all different kind of care. When was the last time you sat down with the people from live action? One of the biggest pro life groups in America.

Im going to guess never. Well if you care about babies and want to volunteer, I can set you up.
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 11:55 am
small bean wrote:
Except they do. Not only di they support financially women who keep their babies. They provide all different kind of care. When was the last time you sat down with the people from live action? One of the biggest pro life groups in America.

Im going to guess never. Well if you care about babies and want to volunteer, I can set you up.


I'll be honest, I never looked into them. So I went to their website which amounts to "we investigate the abortion industry" but doesn't explain how they actually help women and children. Here is where I saw their information: https://www.liveaction.org/what-we-do/our-work/


Do they make birth control freely available to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Do they provide child care to women after birth so that they can return to work?

Do they provide extra food or shelter when states are trying to cut off poor people who are often young women with babies?

I am trying to figure out how they actually help women.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Fri, Feb 14 2020, 12:14 pm
saw50st8 wrote:
I'll be honest, I never looked into them. So I went to their website which amounts to "we investigate the abortion industry" but doesn't explain how they actually help women and children. Here is where I saw their information: https://www.liveaction.org/what-we-do/our-work/


Do they make birth control freely available to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

Do they provide child care to women after birth so that they can return to work?

Do they provide extra food or shelter when states are trying to cut off poor people who are often young women with babies?

I am trying to figure out how they actually help women.


The person who started the organization, started while she was in college. She saw that no one on campus was pregnant. And she was like thatbis so weird because many were s-xually active obviously. So she decided to go to the nursing care and say she was pregnant and see what happens. And she was basically encouraged to have an abortion. Being told she will never make it on campus etc. She was told to go to planned parenthood. She spwnt her college years investigating the abortion movement from within. That was the original and sole mission of thr organization while she was in college.

Since then they have branched out. They now provide all different services, some on their own and some together with other groups. They provide a tremendous amount of emotional support for people going through diffuclt circumstances. They provide financial assistance. They hold her your hand through doctor appointments. They help you with necessities that you will need after the baby. Many people who get to know them end up becoming volunteers and passing on what they received to more people.

I've written here before but about 2 years ago I felt similar to you. I accidentally watched a horrible video on youtube made by an abortion doctor that really scarred me. So I started looking into the prolife movement.

I learned that there is so much propoganda on the other side, that most people are not familiar with the other side. With people who really care and I started to reach out to live action. Becaue they are my age. We have similar values from growing up at a similar time period. And I don't volunteer on the ground but I give money, so women can continue college and get an education even though they had an unwanted pregnancy. I donate my used items that are in good condition. You don't need a bouncer after 4 months, somone else can use it.

I feel my world has been enrinched this way. I get to see amazing people, amazing stories, people who were going to kill their beautiful baby becausw it wasn't a good time and now have a blessing in their life. I get to see sad stories, people who go through the prgnancy and give the baby up. But they don't kill the life because they can't take care of it.

I'm part of the prolife movement because I care about life. I care about those living and the unborn. I want to see people experience the blessing of superwoman and motherhood.

It is rare to regret having a baby, they are a blessing. It is not rare to regret killing a baby.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 20 of 23 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
How easy is it to learn PHP if you already know ASP?
by amother
15 Mon, Feb 17 2020, 2:46 pm View last post
Easy Purim craft
by amother
5 Tue, Feb 11 2020, 3:58 pm View last post
Thank you liberals- global entry rights denied 53 Fri, Feb 07 2020, 3:59 pm View last post
Easy non- perishable MM
by LO
7 Wed, Feb 05 2020, 11:57 pm View last post
How To Be A Perfect Parent - easy (Mishpacha)
by mirror
262 Sat, Feb 01 2020, 8:57 pm View last post

Jump to: