Previous 21 - 30 Next
Does it not occur to you, that being taught to distrust and be hostile to gay people, who are NOT anti social, whose aspect is nothing but a GENDER based issue and all else is equal, is the mistake? That getting one's cues from primitive, barbaric and less educated people IS the error? Because the RESULTS of the 'error' of distrusting and being hostile to gay people and homosexuality, gets people KILLED? And accepting and inclusion in those things that are socially accepted does NOT? Is your moral compass SO out of whack, you can't make THAT simple and logical conclusion?
I didn't say it did, I said hetero men TRY to justify their lusts AND misogyny, with polygamy. Only they hide behind entitlement and religion to do it. At least gay people don't use THAT excuse, they don't have to. It's not a cultural ideology. Homosexuality is indigenous to ALL human life. Justification to covet as much as one wants, without accountability, is not. You can't understand plain English. Peu tetre tu prefere je parle en Francais?
HOW is it NOT a fact, that heterosexuals are presumed to be marrying? They'd be the only ones attracted to the op sex. So gay people are marrying someone who SHARES their SAME orientation, how is THAT not a fact? And gay people meet the same requirements and restrictions that heteros are required to, and agree to them. How is THAT not fact? And, there is no religious, skills, morals, fertility, health, endurance or economic requirement to marry. How is THAT not a fact? Marriage then, is not being redefined in ways it can't take it. It's been redefined before, and all the better for including people who ARE otherwise wanting to be RESPONSIBLE and care for each other's needs, legally and socially. How is THAT not a FACT? You never seem to come up with any logic or facts of your own. You just smear mine. It's long past time you own the FACT that what I just said is absolutely correct.
Considering how he's complaining, he's no lawyer anyone should consider credible, or one who could win cases in this regard. Yeah, so I'm calling him out on his lack of competence, and the way he places blame. That's no way for an ETHICAL lawyer to behave. And he's still bitter about his employer kicking him to the curb? No corporate culture is obligated to employ someone who demonstrates such serious bias. Those companies have gay customers and gay employees. Barber is calling for public servants to refuse to serve gay members of the public. Was his insurance company employer supposed to risk he'd refuse their gay customers or bad mouth the gay people who work there?
Leelah wasn't a toddler, and had it figured out years earlier than her late teens. She wasn't a stupid kid, and because there is more research and outreach a teen like her can do, she was more on the road to at least TRYING to figure it out, than her parents. But there have been incidences of very small children (all boys) being beaten to death, murdered by their own parents for having what the parents thought were the tendencies of being sissies. Victims as young as three years old, like little Ronnie Paris. Or children as young as ten, like Carl Walker Hoover, killing himself because of the anti gay assault and abuse he suffered at school. There is now, and always has been a special set aside, for humiliating children if they don't adhere to stereotypes of what it is and means to be whatever gender.
Christians who ACT in hostility and ignorance, expect to get accommodation for it? Why? When Christians act WRONGLY, and harm people and are destructive to compassion, social justice and education, why do you expect acceptance of that? I was RAISED Christian, so I'm not ignorant of what it is, or BEING Christian. There is considerable ignorance, coming FROM Christians, of what gender, sexual orientation, and it's impart is. And it's been horrifically destructive of real lives. Christian's lives aren't harmed by the existence of LGT. Only when they interfere with the needs and normal interactions of gay people is there going to be real conflict. So KEEPING Christians FROM abusive, hostile and uncivilized tactics, DOES help.
No STAN, there are NOT two sides. There is only ONE side: Leelah and other transgender youngsters are harmless and could otherwise be well adjusted, self reliant and productive individuals. It's anti transgender ignorance, contradictions in terms that said youth are confronted with. Leelah's own parents insist this kid was sweet and talented, does their birth gender matter in that? No. So there is only ONE side here, the side of the transgender kid who would be better off with informed, supportive and accepting parents. THAT is the side that works, and continues to. It's still a science and process in the adolescence of medical and psychiatric intervention, but all the positives point to general acceptance and education that has the best results. YOUR side, STAN, is why Leelah is dead, not the other way around.
Quite evidently, you don't know any transgender individuals. And you didn't read Leelah's posts. Abuse isn't love. Abusers like you to think it is, when it's not. Abusers exploit vulnerability and use passive aggressive tactics to bring their victims in line. Leelah's vulnerability was being transgender, and that's what her parents honed in on and used to THEIR purpose. Clearly, you couldn't care less about this kid, OR her parents. You are the ignorant one here, I am NOT. This wasn't 'any' suicide, but a specific one that's tied to anti transgender abuse. Abused children ARE more vulnerable to suicide. But if figures you'd call Leelah petulant and selfish, and the one rejecting her parents. Clearly, you've never been abused either or know anything about it. Lucky you. So don't even try to comment AT people who ARE far more experienced with this than YOU are.
It's not leftist ideology, it's sound empirical experience and information. I don't use religious references as an excuse to be ignorant, cruel and prejudiced against LGT people. If I have any ideology at all, it's treating people the way I"m treated and expect to be. When I see ignorance, prejudice and misinformed people, I use my empirical experience TO inform. Just as I have given professional expertise from working in crime sciences. I'm a REALIST. Just as I'm guessing you're not a black woman, nor lecture about gay people all the time, from abstraction and other ill informed people. But you wouldn't lecture on being a black woman, since you've never been that either. It's not leftist to examine the roots of ignorance and prejudice, I'm in science, not ideologies.
Actually Patrice, YOU are proof of people who don't know what anti social or pathological behavior is. Which are not now, nor ever were exclusive or presents more in those who are LGT. But the usual commenters here insist it is. We know this IS rejection and NOT a 'difference of opinion'. Leelah's parents didn't have a 'difference of opinion', they outright rejected their child, and subjected that youngsters to forms of abuse and fatal ignorance of Leelah's needs. When a gay customer is refused service from anyone from county clerks, to restaurants, or bakers, that's REJECTION, not a difference of opinion. As long as you're being intellectually and morally dishonest about the impart of what rejection really is, then it's YOU refusing to believe those of us actually EXPERIENCED with it. And the damage it does to the extent that it inflicts so much pain on a kid, they prefer a violent death than living with the REJECTION and ABUSE any longer.
You've got it backwards, and you're a LIAR. There are NO legit studies that show being transgender is destructive. It's anti transgender bigotry, prejudice and misinformation that is. Leelah's parents responded in an ignorant, controlling and abusive way. And nothing like THAT serves anything good. Not ever. Civil law and public policy requires businesses serving the public, to serve that public with REASONABLE accommodation, and no gay person has demanded unreasonable accommodation. No business gets to act UNREASONABLY and abusively against a paying customer, and expect the law to give THEM a pass. You've ALREADY shared locker rooms and bathrooms with transgender individuals. So have I. So what? You want your prejudice and bigotry to inform civil policy, so no you DON'T have a right to that.
Previous 21 - 30 Next