Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see if anyone on dc moms and dads wants to speak up for transgendered in the primary schools....

I support it and, in fact, it already happens in DC.

You want your daughter to go to a transman for help - good for you. Not in my house.

It may happen in a public school- no private school would do this.

Christian men need to stand up.

I'd feel more comfortable with my daughter going to a trans-man for help with English than my son going to a priest for private lessons. You really want to open up the Christian Men/Child Endangerment can of worms?

Anonymous wrote:My "end game" is simple : Equal Protection Under the Law. I want LGBTQ people to have exactly the same rights and privileges as I do as a straight person in every State in the Country.

I agree. I honestly do not understand why people find this so threatening.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see if anyone on dc moms and dads wants to speak up for transgendered in the primary schools....

I support it and, in fact, it already happens in DC.

You want your daughter to go to a transman for help - good for you. Not in my house.

It may happen in a public school- no private school would do this.

Christian men need to stand up.

So you can happily pay to send your kids to private school! My public schoolteacher father (straight/not gay/not transgendered) will be happy he won't have to teach your sheltered kids who are being raised in fear.

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

lol!

just wanted to try to fix the quotes from my post

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

Why should churches get a tax deduction anyway?

So it starts- my point exactly. This can only end in a frontal assualt on Christianity.

Isn't it more like a rear assault on Christianity?

Bad jokes aside, PP, do you have an answer for the question?

There is no special tax deduction for churches- they have to quality as a 501 c 3 like any other non profit.

But the definition of 501(c) includes organizations organized for religious purposes. My point is...why? Why is the state subsidizing religion in this way by giving up tax revenue? I don't appreciate it. OP, it has nothing to do with my stance on gay marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see if anyone on dc moms and dads wants to speak up for transgendered in the primary schools....

I've got no problem with it. If the teacher is qualified and treats my kids well, I really don't care what's going on in the teacher's pants.

You would not necessarily know whether or not a teacher was a transgender person. ("Transgendered" is incorrect, btw). Many pass very easily. However, I would have absolutely no issue at all with a transgender person, regardless of appearance, as a classroom teacher. Assuming of course they were qualified and could teach.

Being transgender is totally different from being gay. They are not related.

I think OP is trolling.

Signed,
Cisgender Christian and staunch LGBT ally

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

Okay let's get started shall we?
This class is a wonderful example of the first tactic on the list of Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems.

In 1831 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) published a book entitled The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument . It is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise in which Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. As I referenced earlier, the argument by the PP is a beautiful example of the number one tactic on Schopenhauer's list...

1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.

Wonderful example PP.
Not sure if you were being stubborn and obtuse in that statement or just plain paranoid and have a habit of outrageous hyperbolism.
In any case, again...great example PP.

Nice citation - thanks but Insofar as a bunch of folks have endorsed this very scenario in response to my post, I would say the example has actually been helpful to show just how far the gay "marriage" crowd is ready to roll with this.

Indiana is roughly 80% Christian, so whom exactly is this law protecting? What religion is being “restored”? Practitioners of Christianity in Indiana are not in jeopardy of losing their right to worship or practice their faith which means the only reason to pass such a law is to allow people to extend the practice of their faith to include discriminating against those who don’t share their values. That’s the kind of thinking that drove Christians out of Europe to found this country in the first place.

Couple questions for you...
Just how far are you ready to roll in response to the gay marriage crowd OP? To what extent are you and all those who oppose gay marriage willing to go to ensure that your religious beliefs are not infringed upon by them? What other laws are you prepared to put in place to protect yourself from them? Lastly, are you seeking any therapy for your obvious paranoia issues concerning them?

Anonymous wrote:

The bible is my source-text for how to live a Christian life. Basically what you are saying is, someone who truly believes in God, takes Jesus' words at face value, is a bigot and a homophobe.

Excellent. I hate to get all President Bartlett on you (that's actually not true - best show ever!), but I have some questions.

Exodus 35:2 says people who work in the Sabbath should be put to death. What about all those people who work at the grocery store? Or play in the NFL?

Should people still be burned for wearing garments made of two different threads? What is a good price if I want to sell my 6 yo as a slave? The Bible says I can. Speaking of slavery, the Bible is OK with it - are you?

What's that, you say? Those are anachronistic beliefs that have no place in modern society, even though they appear in the Bible? Interesting.

Hey, OP - how about an answer here? If the Bible truly is your source text, you're OK with all of these things, right?

Anonymous wrote:Is it the shutdown of the churches? The imprisonment of people who don't endorse your lifestyle? Christians and Jews fearful for their personal safety?

Please be honest.

Is this a serious question? Why would allowing two people of the same sex who love each other infringe on anything you reference above? Churches can still dictate who they will marry (hell, most heterosexual catholics I know aren't permitted to get married in the catholic church for several reasons), and no one's personal safety is at risk. This is a humanitarian issue, not a catalyst for war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

Okay let's get started shall we?
This class is a wonderful example of the first tactic on the list of Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems.

In 1831 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) published a book entitled The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument . It is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise in which Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. As I referenced earlier, the argument by the PP is a beautiful example of the number one tactic on Schopenhauer's list...

1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.

Wonderful example PP.
Not sure if you were being stubborn and obtuse in that statement or just plain paranoid and have a habit of outrageous hyperbolism.
In any case, again...great example PP.

Nice citation - thanks but Insofar as a bunch of folks have endorsed this very scenario in response to my post, I would say the example has actually been helpful to show just how far the gay "marriage" crowd is ready to roll with this.

Anonymous wrote:I've read through this whole thread and I just can't stop feeling disbelief that there are still people out there like OP. I know there are, but it's just crazy. It's 2015. What a truly pitiful life you must lead, OP.

Why can't you just live your own life without concerning yourself with how others choose to live theirs? Honestly, how does gay marriage directly impact you? I just don't understand.

I agree. I do take solace in the fact that it is extremely unlikely that OP lives in DC or the close-in suburbs, and I'm unlikely to encounter her on any given day.

I've read through this whole thread and I just can't stop feeling disbelief that there are still people out there like OP. I know there are, but it's just crazy. It's 2015. What a truly pitiful life you must lead, OP.

Why can't you just live your own life without concerning yourself with how others choose to live theirs? Honestly, how does gay marriage directly impact you? I just don't understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

Okay let's get started shall we?
This class is a wonderful example of the first tactic on the list of Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems.

In 1831 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) published a book entitled The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument . It is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise in which Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. As I referenced earlier, the argument by the PP is a beautiful example of the number one tactic on Schopenhauer's list...

1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.

Wonderful example PP.
Not sure if you were being stubborn and obtuse in that statement or just plain paranoid and have a habit of outrageous hyperbolism.
In any case, again...great example PP.

Anonymous wrote:Let's see if anyone on dc moms and dads wants to speak up for transgendered in the primary schools....

I've got no problem with it. If the teacher is qualified and treats my kids well, I really don't care what's going on in the teacher's pants.