1 - 10 Next
Mike, I agree with you 100% The problem I the codifying acceptance by private citizens into law. What that codification amounts to, is one person using gov force to assert their individual morals over another. IT IS WRONG. In this case the moral statement is 'bigotry against transgendered is wrong, so I will use gov force to prevent it'. And I concur with you that such rules are a denial of basic freedoms to those who would treat transgendered differently. You should be free to treat them as you wish as long as you do not use force or fraud against them. But of course my point is we get to this point, because we allow the gov to enforce OTHER MORAL judgments on adults. and once a person is fine with the Gov using its power to enforce YOUR moral code, it is not hard to see, in a democrat Republic other people using the power to enforce THEIR moral code. That is why I reject ALL big Gov intrusion in a private business or personal decision except as it relates to the use of force or fraud. I agree with everything you wrote above, the problem is NOT their gender transformation surgery, it is the people who vote to FORCE you to accept and associate with them in your PRIVATE and non-governmental business life
Mud I agree of course. They are free to get their surgery and go about their business and you are free to dislike it all you want. Why is that a problem?
Mud, once again we are not communicating because I do not think you comprehend what I am saying. Where have I ever advocated for gov control over other peoples lives? In the very comment to which you responded I said gov should stay OUT of peoples lives. Surely you have enough reading comprehension to see that? I take my own advice on that topic and NEVER advocate Gov force to make individuals do something that they do not wish to do in their business dealings with others, except as it relates to preventing force or fraud
Your comment of course is foolish. It is much more then "feelings" it is deeply ingrained brain patterns and personal choices.
And? That effects your life how? I know a married couple that had a few kids and then he did that as much for her choice as his. It is nobody's business but theirs.
ZoeB2 Wrote: 4 hours ago (5:59 AM) You misunderstand. Perhaps this will explain: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35 The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. ................. That might help. Our societal interactions and identity are much more complex then a simple pairing of chromosomes.
I agree with you Mike. it is the problem of big gov interfering in peoples personal life choices. Quote "Under Oregon law, Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion,” the state said in a statement. “The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.” You ask how that can happen? it happens because people get the Government involved in limiting moral choices OTHER people can make. the people of that state felt it was IMMORAL to deny service based on Sexual orientation so they used GOV to attack that business. it is a perfect example of the topic of transgender surgery. Don't want to get one, and if you are a doc don't want to give one? Then Don't but keep your nose out of other peoples business as it does not hurt you. Once we start using Gov to enforce moral codes that do not directly harm another, then it leads to Government coercive force against bakers for not baking cakes.
In response to:

The Best Interest of the Dog

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 1 hour ago (10:08 AM)
I read these columns by Ms Schlafly just for the laughs. If the couple in the above case wants to share the dog they can. But saying a veterinarian may be a better caretaker for a dog then someone who tries to treat it like a baby does not take a leap of rocket science ability nor does it signal the courts destruction of the American family. Maybe the fault lies not with the court but with the actual divorcing couple that went to the court?
"Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bul.......g" I don't think that is an "either - or " proposition. I think the correct phrasing is "The president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting AND he’s bul......g"
Thank you for proving my point about you. You are unable to discuss anything I posted in a rational manner, as you have proven three times and I am sure you will continue to prove over and over
1 - 10 Next