Politics On Politics.

[Fudge_Brownie]

14 minutes ago, mattsk8 said:

I'll bite... Obviously XX does NOT guarantee that a man is attracted to XY girl, your genetic code doesn't dictate your physical attractions (or more specifically, your lusts), at least not that anyone can find yet.

Sure, we agree that what we understand about genetics doesn't give us a way to determine sexual attraction. Some are born gay, and we don't know why, nor have a system to scientifically determine that. So why isn't it believable about transgender people? If a guy is attracted to other guys, it seems plausible to me that despite the physical attributes, he feels like a woman. Hence the attraction to men. The issue becomes blurry to me when one gay guy says he feels like a woman, another doesn't, and then one straight guy says he feels like a woman but is attracted to women. I don't know where to draw the line (nor do I really care) but I think there at least some of the group that fall under the category of transgender at birth.

[Rod'sT-5]

4 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

Sure, we agree that what we understand about genetics doesn't give us a way to determine sexual attraction. Some are born gay, and we don't know why, nor have a system to scientifically determine that. So why isn't it believable about transgender people? If a guy is attracted to other guys, it seems plausible to me that despite the physical attributes, he feels like a woman. Hence the attraction to men. The issue becomes blurry to me when one gay guy says he feels like a woman, another doesn't, and then one straight guy says he feels like a woman but is attracted to women. I don't know where to draw the line (nor do I really care) but I think there at least some of the group that fall under the category of transgender at birth.

I think the reason it seems blurry to you, is that some of your basic assumptions are wrong. You have bought into the idea that "Some are born gay", as everyone is taught in public schools today. I went thru public schools many years ago, it wasn't taught then, I wonder what changed in 20 years?  I believe that being gay is a choice that you make, the same with transgenders. I dont believe that you are an alcoholic because you have a disease, but because you choose to drink. I have friends that have a tendency towards addictive behaviors, but it is still their choice to abuse drugs or alcohol. Moral absolutes have been thrown out the window, so everyone can feel ok with what they choose to do.

[Fudge_Brownie]

25 minutes ago, Rod'sT-5 said:

I think the reason it seems blurry to you, is that some of your basic assumptions are wrong. You have bought into the idea that "Some are born gay", as everyone is taught in public schools today. I went thru public schools many years ago, it wasn't taught then, I wonder what changed in 20 years?  I believe that being gay is a choice that you make, the same with transgenders. I dont believe that you are an alcoholic because you have a disease, but because you choose to drink. I have friends that have a tendency towards addictive behaviors, but it is still their choice to abuse drugs or alcohol. Moral absolutes have been thrown out the window, so everyone can feel ok with what they choose to do.

I had a feeling it'd eventually go there. And there's really no where to go with this debate. My opinion isn't any more right or wrong than yours. I don't know that there's a whole lot of quality evidence to say otherwise. All I can say despite what the news says, society seems better than it was 20 years ago. Even if you can't believe 'better', morality certainly doesn't seem any worse. Last I checked, people have been drunk and gay for a long time.

Bought in to the idea? Taught? No. I'm sure the news told you those damn libtard schools were pumping me full of nonsense, but I used my brain and thunk real hard. Nobody taught me to like girls either, but I thought that sounded cool so I figured I'd give it a try. Or maybe that's just how I was the day I was born.

[Burn-E]

15 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

 

I find the video you posted way more fascinating than I expected. So many thoughts. Some of the responses might have to do with social etiquette; not being confrontational. Especially on camera. But I think the overarching issue is the end half talks about physically verifiable characteristics. And while sex is also physically verifiable, it also deals with a mental component. A similar issue that comes to mind is phantom limb syndrome. People who've lost a limb still perceive one to be there. I wonder how much of this "oh ok, good for you" stuff is a phase in life. These younger people, surrounded by a new world, try to test how open minded they can be.

What is truth?  I mean there are undeniable physical characteristics.  We're sliding rapidly down a slippery slope of moral relativism.  This is a generation who wasn't even born when the President of the United States debated the meaning of the word "is" and avoided prosecution for perjury.  But oh what a mess they've inherited as a result.  The truth is what you want to think it is.  That seems to be the message.

Slouching towards Gomorrah indeed.

[Kevin.]

oh come Alain, don't drop that Biblical apocalyptic reference on this

 

to Rod, you're right. 100 years ago we were taught that women couldn't vote and that black people had to be separated from white people and had less rights. Some people are born with attractions that differ than yours, so it's kind of irrelevant to say "well back in my day". Comparing alcoholics to gay people is a really bad comparison, it really is. You're comparing an addiction that destroys peoples lives to a lifestyle that seems to only threaten those that don't agree with it. 

 

 

back to the whole bathroom debacle....personally I think we should just use Europe's model: one bathroom for everyone. Seems to work fine for all of them.

[Fudge_Brownie]

4 hours ago, Burn-E said:

What is truth?  I mean there are undeniable physical characteristics.  We're sliding rapidly down a slippery slope of moral relativism.  This is a generation who wasn't even born when the President of the United States debated the meaning of the word "is" and avoided prosecution for perjury.  But oh what a mess they've inherited as a result.  The truth is what you want to think it is.  That seems to be the message.

Slouching towards Gomorrah indeed.

So we can't agree that one thing needs change/acceptance that 'we' were wrong, while something else remains debatable? Haven't you argued in the past that the 'slippery slope' argument is BS? I'm probably more socially conservative than I come off in this dialog because I don't need to bring up extraneous points to prove myself worthy. I rolled my eyes every time one of those interviewed college students said "like, oh, that's cool, you do you". It's almost like they're trying to prove how accepting they are. I think some feel at least a degree of pressure to do that because they know there's some overboard army of culture warriors who start to foam at the mouth ready for you to say the wrong thing.

If we hit peak genderqueer and everyone switches genders between 20 and 22, it'll be super dumb, but I don't see how it really harms society. If the real issue is that you care about what happens to people's souls for judgement, well.... that's quite a different debate.

[mattsk8]

40 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

So we can't agree that one thing needs change/acceptance that 'we' were wrong, while something else remains debatable? Haven't you argued in the past that the 'slippery slope' argument is BS? I'm probably more socially conservative than I come off in this dialog because I don't need to bring up extraneous points to prove myself worthy. I rolled my eyes every time one of those interviewed college students said "like, oh, that's cool, you do you". It's almost like they're trying to prove how accepting they are. I think some feel at least a degree of pressure to do that because they know there's some overboard army of culture warriors who start to foam at the mouth ready for you to say the wrong thing.

If we hit peak genderqueer and everyone switches genders between 20 and 22, it'll be super dumb, but I don't see how it really harms society. If the real issue is that you care about what happens to people's souls for judgement, well.... that's quite a different debate.

I mean this sincerely... you are actually fun to debate with because you do think it through. That said... it is a slippery slope. I believe homosexuality is a... wait for it... here it comes... sin. Now, I have no idea where you stand as far as your belief in God or gods or whether you're atheist, so you would need to clarify that before this conversation would go any further. If you claim to believe the bible, then this would be a different conversation if you still tried to maintain that homosexuality isn't a sin. If you don't believe the bible, then debating sin is a moot point. FTR, I can't explain how I feel any better than Francis Chan, I agree with him completely.

 

5 hours ago, Burn-E said:

What is truth?

I would also ask... what dictates morality? I do find it curious that "morality" is a still noun, not an adjective.

mo·ral·i·ty

məˈralədē/

noun

noun: morality

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

[Kevin.]

posting a sermon won't change anyone's viewpoints on the subject, and frankly he proves a pretty resounding point. No matter what the bible says, they will do it because God said so. What if the bible told you to kill people? (because it does)

 

Let's break this down. Who wrote the bible? Was it God? Jesus? A deity? No. The bible is a collection of stories, scriptures, psalms, and proverbs that were written based on or inspired by events. I'm playing the devil's advocate here for a bit since I was raised in a very, very religious household. Many times I would question the beliefs I was told to believe but I was never given concrete answers on why those beliefs were held, other than it was written in a book centuries ago. I do understand what the pastor is saying about divorce and homosexuality being treated differently, because it's morally monkeyed up to treat something with such a severity when you look over the other. One could look at things like slavery which are promoted in the Bible and use that to impose slavery on others (ring a bell?). The issue I have with religion (mainly the different sects of Christianity) is the ingrained bigotry on issues such as this. Look, I am 100% ok with people practicing their own religion I'm not a complete asshole. But when you go so far as to deny people happiness.....deny them equality.....deny them basic courtesies.....it's just wrong. It's even worse when you have politicians looking to BAN these people from having the same benefits as other married couples, all in the name of a book that is extremely old and one that not everyone believes in. Religion isn't under attack as many would claim, people are just thinking for themselves. I don't need an old book to know what morality is.

[mattsk8]

32 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

A. What if the bible told you to kill people? (because it does)

B. I don't need an old book to know what morality is.

A. Where does the bible tell me to kill people?

B. Then answer the question... what is morality and who defines / defined it?

Also, if you don't mind me asking... what religion were you raised?

Edited April 28, 2016 by mattsk8

[theForgottenone]

1 minute ago, mattsk8 said:

A. Where does the bible tell me to kill people?

B. Then answer the question... what is morality and who defines / defined it?

I will answer question B.

 

it is the mentality of the mainstream population that everyone entitle to have all the right they feel like it.  Well, I don't feel like being man today so I will use the women restroom. By golly, I have my right to do that.

oh, please call me kaitlynn because I don't go by Bruce anymore

[Burn-E]

On 4/28/2016 at 10:38 AM, Kevin. said:

oh come Alain, don't drop that Biblical apocalyptic reference on thi

 

Kevin here's some enlightenment for you. Search that phrase and you'll learn it refers to Robert Bork's (might want to look him up too - Supreme Court nominee) book.  His reference is to a very famous Yates poem which uses certain imagery allegorically to refer to post WW1 Europe.

Both Bork's book and Yate's poem are highly relevant to this discussion.  

Knowledge: go get some

[Kevin.]

1 hour ago, mattsk8 said:

A. Where does the bible tell me to kill people?

B. Then answer the question... what is morality and who defines / defined it?

Also, if you don't mind me asking... what religion were you raised?

Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Luke 19:27

Matthew 10:34

raised Christian, went to Four Square churches until I was 19

 

 

morality is defined differently by everyone, honestly. There is no absolute morality, at least I don't think there is. Now, obviously there are certain moral issues that we can agree on such as: killing people is bad, raping is bad, etc. It is interesting, however, to look at cultural taboos and relate them to morality. Japan is well known for it's extensive sexual presidence in it's culture and therefor has a different definition/idea of morality than we do

42 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

Kevin here's some enlightenment for you. Search that phrase and you'll learn it refers to Robert Bork's (might want to look him up too - Supreme Court nominee) book.  His reference is to a very famous Yates poem which uses certain imagery allegorically to refer to post WW1 Europe.

Both Bork's book and Yate's poem are highly relevant to this discussion.  

Knowldege: go get some

 

the argument of a slippery slope is being used by the religious to give more power to them and their idealisms. They aren't happy that we aren't a "christian nation" anymore, when we never were in the first place. Fear mongering is how I see it. Desperation comes when you lose power and influence 

[Burn-E]

Kevin you didn't look up any of that did you?  Do you even know who Bork was and why he was denied the nomination to the Court?  Might cause a lightbulb to go off in your head.

Some days I wonder why I even take you seriously.  

[ErikS]

 

[Fudge_Brownie]

6 hours ago, mattsk8 said:

I mean this sincerely... you are actually fun to debate with because you do think it through. That said... it is a slippery slope. I believe homosexuality is a... wait for it... here it comes... sin. Now, I have no idea where you stand as far as your belief in God or gods or whether you're atheist, so you would need to clarify that before this conversation would go any further. If you claim to believe the bible, then this would be a different conversation if you still tried to maintain that homosexuality isn't a sin. If you don't believe the bible, then debating sin is a moot point. FTR, I can't explain how I feel any better than Francis Chan, I agree with him completely.

I would also ask... what dictates morality? I do find it curious that "morality" is a still noun, not an adjective

noun: morality

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

I've used the slippery slope argument myself on other issues, but I'm just not convinced it applies here regarding morality. I also think trying to pull hard to keep conservative values just makes it easier for people to run the other direction. But I think we're getting to the real core issue of transgenders in bathrooms; whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin. At least I on the surface. I usually assume there's a good chance people who are upset by the transgender issue are in that category.

Interesting sermon. Happy to hear him briefly touch on how homosexuality shouldn't be such a priority for people. But I also wonder how much of it is a crutch. It's easy to say "well its a sin" when the real answer is that you don't like it personally. I'm not a believer, and get pretty annoyed when people are quick to take issue with homosexuality while wearing a polyester blend shirt, divorce papers in the filing cabinet, and they're on their fifth lie of the week. As for morality - the bible was a decent attempt as a moral guide book. Now it's interesting for historical purposes as far as I'm concerned. I don't see that it's needed to determine morality at all, but especially not using it so literally. If you condense the 10 commandments down to some more simple phrases, they pretty much sum up some decent moral benchmarks. I think we all socially agree with them. I think if religion never existed, we probably would have decided murder was wrong. Most of it makes sense because it causes some emotional or physical harm to another. Cheating, lying, stealing, etc. How does a transgender person cause some social damage?

3 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Both Bork's book and Yate's poem are highly relevant to this discussion. 

I'm not really seeing how. Well, I see how you think it's highly relevant. Wasn't familiar with him or the poem. But I think I've heard the term 'borked' used, might have even used it myself once. Never knew the history.