antiskeptic wrote: » Presumably your own belief system isn't offended by it's mainstreaming (which, given its former persecution, is a safe enough term to use) So far, so belief. You can't rest a whole lot on the fact you lie on the is or isn't side of the argument. It's just belief vs. belief Neither do I. You, but not I, might have lost track of the thread idea. The idea is that people can express according to belief. You are expressing acccording to belief in this thread. I think they are very brave too. A horrendously persecuted segment of the population have had the bravery to fight (and do a damn fine job) against their persecutors. The context is sin, repentance and damnation. The fact that sinners (the persecutors) are rightfully taking a bloody nose from other sinners (the persecuted) because of persecution (a sin: I mean some sinners persecuting other sinners because of the other sin) doesn't detract from the background issue.. HN Do you remember the bit where Jesus said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"? How could anyone persecute gays on this basis? What possible grounds could they have?
Pherekydes wrote: » Says it all, really. You're in Ken Ham territory. What's a squillion? There's only 2 billion or so Christians. Why can't you answer some straight questions without the childish evasions?
DubInMeath wrote: » So due to your religious and personal beliefs being offended your saying that it's mainstreaming.
But I don't have an issue with gay or transgender people
I think that their very brave to be true to themselves when their are people like yourself who have issues with their very existence.
antiskeptic wrote: » Suppose God exists for a moment (I mean, even the imbecilic R. Dawkins scores himself a 6.7 out of 7)
It's not like it just me. Whilst a go-to on this forum is the 67 squillion different Christian denominations, the reality is ever so different. There is nothing particularly unsettled about the idea of a Fall from God's intended order. Amongst which a whole host of human failings.
Maybe you should inform yourself as to the basics before coming on a thread such as this? You ought to know something of your presumed enemy rather than waste your and their time in Ladybird territory?
antiskeptic wrote: » Throughout history there was always childcare. There's a difference between that and mainstreaming it. "Open 7am to 7pm" on the side of an industrial childcare van seen recently. Timed to match the DART Suffer the little children.
Pherekydes wrote: » How can you write stuff like that in this forum?
What is god's original intent? How do you know?
How can you write this stuff with a straight face? What is a sin? How can one be born with sin? How can you be with sin if you didn't do anything as such to be one? How can a newborn baby commit a sin? How can anyone be condemned to hell on the basis of sin if one is born with sin?
King Mob wrote: » More waffle and dodging. Your hateful beliefs are on the pile with fiction and delusion. There is no rational fears to be had about people with non conforming genders. These fears only exist in the minds of the ignorant and hateful.
DubInMeath wrote: » Not really there are multiple examples through out history of people and groups who identified differently to the sex/gender that they were born with.
eagle eye wrote: » I've no problem with anybody who makes a decision as a 21 year old or older be but we have to protect kids from doing untold damage to themselves before they are ready.
stefanovich wrote: » When did gender and sex become different things?
DubInMeath wrote: Not really there are multiple examples through out history of people and groups who identified differently to the sex/gender that they were born with. Nowadays perhaps we see it being more acceptable apart from the usual type of dickheads who always have an issue with anyone different and believe everyone should conform to religious or private beliefs
antiskeptic wrote: » True. There are rational fears to be had about the current climate of sexual fluidity.
One hundred Irish children have been sent to England over the past three years to be assessed at a clinic caught in a controversy over fast-tracking gender transition. The Tavistock Clinic in London, the main gender clinic for children in Ireland and England, is under the spotlight after the resignation of whistle-blowing clinicians who claim children were being incorrectly diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
stefanovich wrote: » Gender was always tied to sex up until recently when people started trying (successfully) to change the definition.
Pherekydes wrote: » Sex has to do with biology, gender has to do with (self) identity. Until the mid 50s gender was usually used to refer to grammatical categories.
stefanovich wrote: » It's like pissing on a volcano.
Nobelium wrote: » They like to attempt to pretend what you are saying, and then attempt make it about you personally instead of what you actually posted, and then rinse and repeat. It's a combination of attempting straw man and ad hoimiem fallacies. It means they can't find an honest way to discuss the actual points you made.
stefanovich wrote: » I am not saying that. I am upset at being told what to think.
Pherekydes wrote: » He's not gendering it at all. He's (more likely she) sexing it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » That's a bit rich from a person who demands other people conform.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Gosh. How lucky I am to have Mr 55 Posts learn me how to be discussing tings on a discussion board. You're grand mate. I get it. You can't actually say why you thought it was relevant. It was just a thing you googled and thought you'd put it out there. You can move on to not discussing other things now.
stefanovich wrote: » The doctor lift the baby up high, eyes the genitalia and announces "It a ?". I suppose he's misgendering the poor thing? You are just pushing your cultural marxist agenda.
Nobelium wrote: » Where did I say I had an issue with it ? It's not about me or other posters who don't post what you like, not matter how hard to try to make it so. A real discussion is about the subject not a poster. If you're going to continue to attempt pretend what was posted in some juvenile avoidance attempt , I'm happy to remind you of it every time you do.
Bannasidhe wrote: » But surely since you introduced this law into the discussion you have already researched it? So no biggy to explain what your issue with it is. Which is what I asked you to do. But if you wish to be juvenile by calling me juvenile every time I ask a simple question like "what is your issue with the Canadian Law that makes you think it is relevant to this discussion?" go right ahead.
Nobelium wrote: » Given that you don't even know what the law consisted of, and expect me to do your research for you, after you've made false claims about what was actually posted, you've got what you always had, nothing but cheap juvenile attempts at deflecting and pretending what was posted.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Gotcha. You brought a Canadian law into the discussion but when asked to explain your issue with the Canadian law you introduced to the discussion can't/refuse to discuss the law you brought into the discussion so you are going to instead insist that you want a discussion just not about the thing that you introduced to the discussion. Glad we cleared that up.
Nobelium wrote: » Again, I'm interested in an actual discussion about what was actually posted, not cheap juvenile attempts at deflecting and pretending what was posted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
