- Discussion:
-Following are a series of excerpts with responses to them from a debate with Dan Trabue that veered far from the original topic of the article in which they were published. Some points may prove to be useful in discussing the normalization of homosexual behaviors with other people:
"Ah, but WHO is it that is plotting even now to deny the right to marry and other basic rights to LGBTQ people?"
That is not happening anywhere except in the Middle East. No reasonable person has any plans whatsoever to deprive the group of people that you mention of any basic human rights. They are being treated just like everybody else.
"It's conservatives and the religious right. LGBTQ folks are NOT trying to tell straight people who they can and can't marry."
We do not really see heterosexual people parading around the streets of cities in ridiculous and ugly attire exclaiming what they do behind closed doors. We do not see heterosexual people putting symbols of their sexuality on children's cereal boxes during a specific month of each year. Where has your sense of decency and honor gone?
"Who is it who's telling transgender folks which bathrooms they must use? It's conservatives. LGBTQ folks aren't telling conservatives which bathrooms to use."
There are only two genders which are determined by genetics. That people want to be called by something other than what they really are, is no one else's problem but their own. There is no obligation on my part to affirm a man to be a woman or visa versa when all of human history up to this point did not do so.
If this matter is really all that important, then businesses should create unisex, single person restrooms. Problem solved.
"Who is it who's telling gay or lesbian couples that they can't adopt children? It's conservatives. LGBTQ people aren't trying to say that "Southern Baptists can't adopt children!"
Adoption is not a gay rights issue. It is a children's issue.
"LGBTQ people HAVE been oppressed for centuries/throughout history in nations around the world and in the US."
Even if that is true, they are not being persecuted in the West right now. This leads up to a bigger point, namely, the utter futility of trying to negotiate with people who have a victim mentality. They are never happy no matter what you do for them, always demanding more.
"They just want to live their lives in peace and without oppression."
Dissidents just want to live their lives in peace and without fear of their children being sexualized by predators.
"Would you return to the days of criminalized homosexuality if you could?"
This question is a meaningless hypothetical.
"Would you deny the right of gay guys/lesbian women to marry who they want?"
Do people really have the right to marry whoever or whatever they want without exception? Can adults marry children or relatives if they so desire? Can adults marry plants, animals, or rocks if they so choose? Is desire the only factor used in considering a potential spouse?
"It's conservatives and the religious right. LGBTQ folks are NOT trying to tell straight people who they can and can't marry."
We do not really see heterosexual people parading around the streets of cities in ridiculous and ugly attire exclaiming what they do behind closed doors. We do not see heterosexual people putting symbols of their sexuality on children's cereal boxes during a specific month of each year. Where has your sense of decency and honor gone?
"Who is it who's telling transgender folks which bathrooms they must use? It's conservatives. LGBTQ folks aren't telling conservatives which bathrooms to use."
There are only two genders which are determined by genetics. That people want to be called by something other than what they really are, is no one else's problem but their own. There is no obligation on my part to affirm a man to be a woman or visa versa when all of human history up to this point did not do so.
If this matter is really all that important, then businesses should create unisex, single person restrooms. Problem solved.
"Who is it who's telling gay or lesbian couples that they can't adopt children? It's conservatives. LGBTQ people aren't trying to say that "Southern Baptists can't adopt children!"
Adoption is not a gay rights issue. It is a children's issue.
"LGBTQ people HAVE been oppressed for centuries/throughout history in nations around the world and in the US."
Even if that is true, they are not being persecuted in the West right now. This leads up to a bigger point, namely, the utter futility of trying to negotiate with people who have a victim mentality. They are never happy no matter what you do for them, always demanding more.
"They just want to live their lives in peace and without oppression."
Dissidents just want to live their lives in peace and without fear of their children being sexualized by predators.
"Would you return to the days of criminalized homosexuality if you could?"
This question is a meaningless hypothetical.
"Would you deny the right of gay guys/lesbian women to marry who they want?"
Do people really have the right to marry whoever or whatever they want without exception? Can adults marry children or relatives if they so desire? Can adults marry plants, animals, or rocks if they so choose? Is desire the only factor used in considering a potential spouse?
"The Supreme Court conservatives may do so."
Homosexuals already had "rights" long before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015. So, it is not likely that anything will change in the foreseeable future.
"Conservative" ideas are what built up Western civilization. They have withstood the test of time. So it would not be either fair or accurate to say that conservatives in this regard have "lost the argument." Moreover, bad ideas do not improve just because more people embrace them. Wrong is still wrong even if everyone believes it.
"That's illegal discrimination and rightfully so. So, too, for gay customers. You don't have to like it, but discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation is illegal in our nation."
You are making an invalid comparison. Skin color and gender are not behavioral characteristics as is homosexuality and lesbianism. They have nothing to do with each other. It is ironic that these people demand acceptance and toleration, while at the same time not extending the same treatment toward those who disagree with them.
It is not a false claim when children's libraries contain books with pornographic content. It is not a false claim when there are outraged parents engaging in protests about the existence of such.
"Are you saying that people who take the time to teach children are "targeting them" for propaganda?"
Not exactly. It depends on the content and quality of instruction.
"Or, when conservatives do it, they're just being helpful, but when liberals do it they're targeting and grooming children?? You see the problem with that, don't you?"
The problem is that children are basically being taught how to have sex. They should be being taught things like mathematics, grammar, and science. Children should not be being sexualized. That is what pedophiles do. Children have no real understanding of how the world works. Moreover, people have grown up to have sex for thousands of years without any instruction as to how it is done. They just procreated.
"And if you find my positions weird And tomorrow, perhaps you can understand how I also find your positions weird and immoral. As well as unbiblical, ungodly and irrational."
Why would you defend exposing children to drag queen story hour? Even their attire is a symbol of sexuality. Why cannot people be dressed in normal, modest clothing and read stories that are actually wholesome and educational?
"After all I'm not trying to be objective, I'm saying that gay folks committing to one another in a loving respectful marriage is obviously, on the face of it, a good thing. How's that bad?"
That is not how God designed things to be. There does not have to be some other reason than that He has given us a moral standard to abide by.
6 comments:
I would say that there is no natural right for homosexuals to marry same sex. Such a “right” by leftists has to redefine what marriage is, and therefore any sane person should deny such a false right. It’s called BIOLOGY.
“Transgender” is another fake idea. No one can change what they were born as; you are male or female and can never change that. Therefore, no man pretending to be a women should be allow to be in women’s restrooms or other private places. It’s called “BIOLOGY.’
People should be of sound mind before adopting children. Children have a right to a mother and a father, not two “mothers” or two “fathers.” Homosexual adoptive “parents” lead children into a false understanding of marriage and family.
Those who practice homosexuality have been “oppressed” only when they let it know about their perversions. The “oppression” is to stop them from promoting perversions. All sexual deviants have been “oppressed.” If you don’t want to be oppressed, then keep your perversion to yourself. It’s called BIOLOGY.
"They just want to live their lives in peace and without oppression.”
No they don’t. They want to force people to sanction them or they will ruin their livelihoods. Homosexuals refuse to tolerate disagreement.
I would deny homosexuals a right to marry because that perverts what marriage is. It’s called BIOLOGY.
The author of those quotes is easily recognized. He is an anti-God faux Christian who denies biology to support what God calls abominable and worth of the death penalty.
Golly. I can't imagine who said those foolish things. I'd like to add to your fine responses if I may. I'll just number each response according to the order of the nonsense.
1. Homosexuals and lesbians have never been denied the right and ability to marry. They simply wanted their same-sex unions recognized in law as marriages. They demanded...and were appeased...that marriage should be redefined to include that which was never...ever...in all of human history, and certainly not in American history, a union regarded as marriage because of what marriage has always meant to all peoples of the world: the union of one man with one woman. That definition not only denied same sex couples, but unions of more than two people, unions of people with animals, unions of adults and underage children. They were not "oppressed" because what they wanted did not fit the criteria for what a marriage had always been. Now, thanks to morally bankrupt courts, the new corrupt definition has been forced upon the nation without its consent. The certainly have a better argument about other presumed rights, some of which are actually common to all, such as the right to life (which the same guy who presented those statements and question won't allow for the most oppressed people of all).
2. This is absurd, as if it reflects the reality. There are all sorts of situations where one is denied the ability to "love" and/or marry the person of their desires. The issue revolves around what "marriage" is and whether or not there's just cause to demand that the institution should be redefined to include same-sex couples. No just cause has ever been offered, but fantasies ruled in courts as reality has forced this abomination on the nation.
3. Conservatives don't have any confusion about which sex they are. The people Dan (oops!) defends are confused. They have no right to demand that they be allowed in the restrooms and private spaces of the opposite sex, no matter how badly they want to pretend they're one of them. The very notion is laughable, and in many cases criminal. On the other hand, if a dude can pass for the woman and not molest little girls, then most people wouldn't notice. But for those who are obviously not who they pretend to be, it is right and just to deny them entry. The rights of the women and girls (and men, as regards the disturbed women who think they're dudes) are far more important than enabling and appeasing mental cases.
4. As Jesse rights states, this is a child rights issue about which LGBT people don't give a flying rat's patoot. They're just being selfish, trying hard to act as if theirs is a normal relationship capable of providing for a child what a mother and father household would can. But it's ultimately about them, not the child.
5. This lame argument implies that whatever oppression these people suffered throughout history means honorable and honest people of character must ignore the immorality and unhealthiness of their behavior and the disorder of their desire to engage in it. They aren't the only sinful people who have been oppressed and harassed because of their sinful behavior, but the sexual sins are OK with Dan (oops again!).
6. This argument resulted in the Lawrence v Texas ruling...another really bad ruling based on nothing in the constitution....but was and is a lie. They want to be recognized as no less moral than the rest of society, and they're willing to force that notion upon the rest of society by whatever means necessary. They do this rather than strive to overcome their immoral passions, like actual people of character do all the time...some with that very passion. This is common to most on the left, as they believe whatever they want to do is or should be permissible simply because they want.
7. Yes I would. Dan likes to think that's a horror, as if other forms of sexual behavior aren't still regulated or prohibited. But the activists and enablers engage in all manner of mental gymnastics to argue they're just like everybody else, BUT....unfortunately, that "but" is a very significant difference, and appeasing these people has led to a greater decay of our culture and continues to do so today.
8. I would deny that their unholy unions do not qualify for the legal recognition of "marriage". If they wish to live as "man and wife", that's their sick business. But to force the nation to regard them as normal people and their unions as beneficial to society in some way, as if those unions are like normal marriages, has no basis.
9. If the Constitutionally solid conservatives on the Supreme Court find previous rulings redefining marriage were as Constitutionally unsound as was Roe v Wade, they they would simply be saying the Court had no authority to redefine "marriage" without the consent of the people and the matter would return to the individual states who were denied their rights to decide such matters after so many who had the question on their ballots rejected the notion by an average of over 65%. That's as it should be, and I would not be surprised that some states...like the morons of California...would continue to support immorality and disorder, while conservative states would defend real marriage...because that's what's best for civilization.
Gotta go. More later.
10. This implies that there was ever truly a discussion, and an honest one at that. There wasn't. There was only the claim and then petulance when the claim was met with logic, reason, science and truth.
11. It was never just and truthful to add a behavior to a list of protected classes.
12. Those like Dan aren't fighting for justice as regards this issue. They're fighting to corrupt the culture into accepting immorality as moral. These sad people aren't running into rejections because of their disordered imaginings, but because they insist on appease them and forcing others to accept what is clearly wrong. Indeed, it's a case of saying evil is good and good is evil which Dan's kind are defending.
Gotta go. More later.
13. The problem here is Dan's use of one of his favorite tactics, known to those who see the obvious as "another lie", which is to ascribe his corruption of reality as evidence of bigotry. To Dan, and those like him, "bigotry" means "disagreement". If one disagrees with anything related to the agenda, one is a bigot. Here, he asserts that pointing out the realities of immorality and disorder inherent in the LGBT community is "making them monstrous" as if it isn't their behavior which distinguishes them from moral people. True bigots might indeed invent untrue characteristics they'll attribute to the object of their bigotry, but the irony is that this is what Dan does here. We're simply stating reality.
14. "Propaganda", though usually intended to suggest the conveyance of false info, is really just info conveyed regardless if it is true or false. The word has simply come to used only to imply something negative, so Dan's question misleads or intends to. It could be said that preaching the Word is indoctrinating Christian propaganda, but that's a good thing. Grooming kids to buy into the LGBT agenda is decidedly a bad thing. It's evil. Dan's good with that and seeks to equate that with teaching kids anything as if it's all the same morally.
15. This is an extension of the previous point and it tries to pretend there's really no difference in teaching kids conservative values or Christian values vs teaching them about leftist ideology, especially as it concerns LGBT ideology. The difference is stark, most importantly as it concerns the general and lasting welfare of the kids. Christian and/or conservative values enhances their lives. LGBT ideology does not.
16. I have no illusions about how morally corrupt people regard those who strive to live moral lives and care about the great harm people like him inflict upon innocent children with their nonsense. I don't much care if such people regard the moral as immoral, or "unbiblical, ungodly or irrational". It's meaningless given his inability to back up such assertions with anything akin to evidence or data. He's never done it yet, so it's all worthless drivel.
17. This is like two different things: On the one hand, is he saying homosexuals getting married is a bad thing, or that saying it's good is a bad thing? The correct answer is, both are bad.
The first is bad because of the abject and obvious abomination of the concept, as well as the plain disorder of it. The second because it's a lie without Scriptural basis to support it. None.
Dan's main line of "reasoning" is no more than attacks on the character of better people who aren't willing to displease God in order to gain kudos from immoral people and others who aren't properly schooled on the issue in any way.
Another thing is that the LGBT community says is that love is love but what LGBT members practice is not love it's lust there is a difference. You can lust or be physically attracted to someone and still not have their best interest at heart.
Post a Comment