More Shame n' Judgement Please

a reply to: introvert

If you do not mind, and want me to mind my own business, why are you posting here? I have taken a stance that you can attempt to change through influencing it with your opinions. Telling me to mind my own business helps nobody, this is a debate.

Forcing children to be exposed to the other sex in the nude is wrong on multiple levels. You can tell your kid to mind their own business, but from what I would deem a responsible perspective, you are hurting your child.

a reply to: Klassified

You are right, calling her a shill is a form of ad-hominem. Considering she used ad-hominem in her very virst post to my thread, lets call it even.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Here is the question:

Do you advocate forcing the exposure of the opposite sex upon children via allowing a "transgender" to use the same facility (locker room) as non-trans children, or not? Keep in mind, the children will be exposed to one another in the nude.

a reply to: buster2010

No, it is not the only way to keep them from forced exposure to the opposite sex in the nude. I suppose if you are counting rape as the reason they are being forced into seeing the opposite sex nude, you have a valid point. In this instance children are being forced to exposure of the opposite sex in the nude by public schools that I pay for with my own tax money, which I have taken a stance against.

originally posted by: chadderson
You can tell your kid to mind their own business, but from what I would deem a responsible perspective, you are hurting your child.

How is it hurting a child to tell them to mind their own business?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Pay attention to the context, and previous posts. He is saying if he had a daughter that was forced into sharing a locker room with a boy that is claiming "transgenderism", he would tell his daughter to mind her own business. I think that choice would be detrimental to the child, because we all know the kid is not going to mind their own business at the sight of the opposite sex in the nude, or feel a type of way having that same boy see her nude.

His argument is putting responsibility into the hands of children. This is a poor decision. This is why i advocate 'parenting' whereby the adult takes matters into their own hands and influences how the public school operates. After all, our taxes pay for those institutions.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: buster2010
Society (PC) is trying to force us to view homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality, which is wrong.

How? Exactly. There is one way, and one way only, that homosexuality is different than heterosexuality, and that is in the ability to procreate purely within the homosexual relationship.

In no other way is homosexuality any different than heterosexuality.

Definition of homosexuality:

Sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.

Source

Definition of heterosexuality:

Sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex.

Source

Fairly cut and dried. Note that the definition of homosexuality does not contain any reference to molesting children or any other such behavior. As often happens in this kind of situation, there is substantial confusion between what a person is (straight, gay, transgender, left-handed, red-headed, black, Christian, Muslim, etc) and how they behave (honorable, compassionate, lying, stealing, healing, killing, etc).

And one final point for those who have never been a 12 year old biological boy. There is precious little connection between the state of such a boy's penis (erect or not) and any actual sexual arousal. At age 12, the body is mostly running diagnostics on the related hardware.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

PC is opening the door to society accepting homosexuality in the same way as heterosexuality, IE:marriage. This is the same door that while left open, will inevitably bring in the same people claiming "love" for a child is no different than "love" for an adult is no different than "love" for multiple partners is no different than "love" for an inanimate object.

The article is what you should take a look at, rather than attempting to put forth points attempting to refute individual posts and ignoring the context in which they reside. I appreciate your contribution but please read all of the posts, it is a debate, a conversation. Taking one of my posts out of context is again, the wrong way to debate.

a reply to: chadderson

I have taken a stance that you can attempt to change through influencing it with your opinions.

I don't want to change your mind. Believe what you want. I don't care and will not until you try to force something on me or any children I may have.

Telling me to mind my own business helps nobody, this is a debate.

I'm using "mind your own business" in regards to a solution to the issue.

You can tell your kid to mind their own business, but from what I would deem a responsible perspective, you are hurting your child.

I personally believe that there are some parents that expose their children to religious beliefs that are harmful. You don't see me telling people what they should teach their children in regards to religion.

While you are welcome to your opinion, as I have mine, it is not your place to tell people how they should prepare their children for the real world.

And in this real world......you're going to see naked people parts.

a reply to: chadderson

That question is totally loaded, so instead of answering it directly, I will tell you that I advocate for:

1. gender-neutral facilities.
2. people being permitted to use the restroom and locker room of the gender that they identify with.
3. private facilities for ANY child that doesn't feel comfortable showering in a room full of other kids, regardless of gender or gender identification.
4. the mental and emotional health of ALL children, not just the straight ones.

a reply to: introvert

The whole reason I created the thread, is because there are people that are attempting to force children into being exposed in the nude, to the opposite sex. This is happening in the tax funded public school system. If you do not want to change my mind, and you do not care, I look forward to not seeing another post from you, as it does nothing to contribute to the thread. Thank you for your opinion anyway, venting alleviates stress.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: introvert

The whole reason I created the thread, is because there are people that are attempting to force children into being exposed in the nude, to the opposite sex. This is happening in the tax funded public school system. If you do not want to change my mind, and you do not care, I look forward to not seeing another post from you, as it does nothing to contribute to the thread. Thank you for your opinion anyway, venting alleviates stress.

Good luck with your thread.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic
PC is opening the door to society accepting homosexuality in the same way as heterosexuality, IE:marriage. This is the same door that while left open, will inevitably bring in the same people claiming "love" for a child is no different than "love" for an adult is no different than "love" for multiple partners is no different than "love" for an inanimate object.

From your use of the word "love", it sounds like you equate "love" with "sexual behavior". And the two are VERY different. I have nieces that for example that I love every bit as much as I love my adult, mature wife. My love for my nieces is in fact no different than my love for my wife. My relationship with my wife also happens to include a sexual component, while my love for my nieces does not. Hopefully the difference is clear.

Regarding "love" for multiple partners. Again, you seem to be conflating "love" with "sex". The two are not the same.

I personally do not feel love for inanimate objects, so no comment there. But given the way "love" is used previously in the sentence, I assume you mean sex with inanimate objects. Which I also do not engage in. But that's my choice, I do not see any connection between that and the subject of this thread.

The article is what you should take a look at, rather than attempting to put forth points attempting to refute individual posts and ignoring the context in which they reside. I appreciate your contribution but please read all of the posts, it is a debate, a conversation. Taking one of my posts out of context is again, the wrong way to debate.

I did read the article, if you mean the one linked in the OP. Didn't take long to recognize it as tripe, though.

So in your two replies to me, the first one was nothing more than an attack on me personally, with no reference to anything I said, and in this reply you also suggest I am debating incorrectly. Are you uncomfortable with the points I am making? Why are you so interested in my debate style? Am I being politically incorrect?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The question is not loaded at all.

What is a gender neutral facility? Are you speaking of the term unisex? Can both sexes use the same bathroom or locker room?

If a young boy "feels like" a girl, do you then support him sharing a facility (locker room) with the girls? The problem with this issue is that many boys would love to see naked girls, and if they could gain access to that by pretending to feel like a girl, they would do it.

I agree with private facilities, but what type of facilities are you speaking of? Bathrooms or locker rooms? For a public school with hundreds/thousands of kids, tens to hundreds per gym class, it would be quite costly to create tens and tens of individual changing rooms. All for a percentage of kids below 1%? I cannot justify the increase in taxes to fund that, I would not be willing to support it. What other solutions might you have?

a reply to: chadderson

So, what if a child was born with a very obvious physical deformity - say, they were missing their bottom jaw. Would you tell your child not to stare or tease this other child? Or would you demand that this deformed child be removed from your child's sight so your child wouldn't have to "mind their own business"?

a reply to: kaylaluv

I would tell my child to treat them kindly, that they were born disfigured. I would tell my child a transgender was born disfigured(in the mind) in a similar fashion. Looking at a disfigured jaw is much different than looking at exposed genitals, would you agree?

Gender neutral is about as idiotic as it gets.

So now a person sex is an 'insult'.

Go ahead hang a sign on the door.

Go ahead take some big pharmaceuticals to make you feel 'special'.

Go ahead get a surgery and butcher yourself.

But you can NEVER change DNA.

XX, and XY.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
If a young boy "feels like" a girl, do you then support him sharing a facility (locker room) with the girls? The problem with this issue is that many boys would love to see naked girls, and if they could gain access to that by pretending to feel like a girl, they would do it.

And again the confusion. A young boy who pretends to feel like a girl is a young boy engaging in deception, lying and dishonorable behavior. A young boy who feels like a girl is a girl in a mis-matched biological body.

The former needs to be exposed (in the behavioral sense, not the physical) and dealt with appropriately, just like boys who don't pretend to feel like a girl and adopt other strategies for leering at girls in the locker room.

The latter is living in hell basically, and could probably use some compassion and support.

Two very different things here.

a reply to: chadderson

I can tell you that a transgender child is as embarrassed and ashamed of their "physical deformity" as a child without a lower jaw would be. I can tell you that a transgender child is not going to flaunt and show off their physical deformity. They will hide it as much as they can. All you would have to do is tell your child not to stare or tease or bully.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

I am associating love with marraige here, not sex. Heterosexual love, does relate to sex however.

Marriage exists to bring children into this world under the best conditions possible, a mother and a father that are in love. Along with that, it is a promise made 'under god', or for athiests, under the state.

Marriage between homosexuals is nothing more than a 'promise' to one another, there is no justification for 'marriage'.

I think homosexual couples should have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple when it comes to tax breaks, but it should not be called a marriage. A marriage, after all, is a foundation for bringing children into the world.

The article was indicated as satire from the get-go; even though it turns out to be a true story, my mistake.

The argument here is allowing PC to dictate homosexual marriage which opens the door to multiple partner marriage, inanimate object marriage, and pedophelic marriage.

I did not attack you in my first response to you. In fact you utilized an ad-hominem attack upon me by calling me a fear-mongerer and I refuted you. I take note of your debate style because it is not effective in furthering the discussion.