Bathroom Battles: All part of the war on breeders

a reply to: LordSnow21

well said

Republicans: All part of the war on breeders

there fixed if for ya!!! yous pretend to cherish the kids, but then, most of those who are living in poverty in the country, who are the food stamp recipients, are those families that have children. you value the 10% in the upper incomes that you are willing to starve the kids in that lower 90% so that the 10% can have bigger and better mansions. you value your wars and the right to bomb kids in third world countries on trumped up charges more than those children... you portray the stay at home moms as lazy welfare queens, whine about the pittance they get in welfare benefits, and try to protect those poor victimized fathers who have the small pittance of child support taken from their paychecks! sending their daddies good paying jobs overseas and turning our economy into a "service economy" with servant wages was such a great idea to yas!!!


but ya, it's the bathroom bills that are sending women to the abortion clinics instead of the maternity ward of hospitals!
make motherhood a honored occupation, one that doesn't condemn a person to years of poverty, and maybe, just maybe more women will want to be mothers. make it so it doesn't condemn fathers to having to work 80 hours a day to support that family, then maybe more men will want to be daddies.

a reply to: LordSnow21

Exactly. These anti-discrimination laws have been in place in other states for a while with no ill effects. The states that are fighting them are the same states that were fighting marriage equality (and civil rights for blacks back in the day).

These states want to be mini-theocracies, and they don't want the Federal government telling them they can't.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

The fact that you think giving someone equal rights is a notion of privileged shows everything that's wrong with you and your kind.

Gay marriage was legal in precisely ZERO nations 35 years ago. And the preceding 5,000 years for that matter. Some of the Greek city-states even had special forces composed entirely of homosexual couples (google "the sacred company"). But not a one of them ever contemplated homosexual marriage. A society that cannot point to the procreation of future generations as normative, cannot sustain itself.

The previous system, in which every single adult had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, was an equal right.

So this isn't about "rights," this is about re-definition of the institutes of civil society.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers that every right carries with it a corresponding obligation. So the right to a trial by jury carries to obligation that one willingly serve on a jury when called to do so. What would be the corresponding obligation that goes with the "right" to a gay marriage????

This directly suggests that you think you are in a position of authority over others, that your status in society is more valued than anyone else's, that you think you "deserve" privilege yourself because you're straight, or conservative, or Christian.

A whole boat-load of assumptions, because I dared to question the prevailing opinion.

Lets' get something right here, you are not more deserving of rights than anyone else in your nation.

That's right. Neither more nor less

None of this has any impact on you as an individual, affording someone else basic rights has no impact at all on your existence, you are not superior to anyone else and you do not get to afford yourself some imagined authority enabling you to deny others their rights.

But it DOES impact me, and all of society. Because it isn't simply rewriting the definition of marriage; it is also rewriting the norms of ALL of society. There are multiple lawsuits in several states against people and companies who refuse to call gay weddings "normal." Merely pointing out that homosexuality was diagnosed as a neurosis by American Psychological Association until they were forced to remove it from the DSM, has been classified as hate speech.

I don't magically lose my free speech rights, just because someone somewhere is offended. But I can lose them legally. So it does affect me and everyone else, and "your kind," as you so eloquently put it, trying to to deny the free speech rights of others is part and parcel of a battle against normalcy.

a reply to: redempsh

Gay marriage was legal in precisely ZERO nations 35 years ago. And the preceding 5,000 years for that matter.

that isn't true.. if you go back through the history of North American, you will find that if was much friendlier to the homosexual community much earlier that 5,000 years ago. Matter of fact, in some place they were actually considered to be very special.

a reply to: redempsh

Please be aware that a lot can be said about what you type in your posts. They say a lot about you, a lot that you probably aren't even aware of.

originally posted by: redempsh
A society that cannot point to the procreation of future generations as normative, cannot sustain itself.

Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of man and they will be here til man is gone. Societies continue to exist. I don't see the problem.

The previous system, in which every single adult had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, was an equal right.

Wrong - the previous system allowed every adult - except for gay people - to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers that every right carries with it a corresponding obligation. So the right to a trial by jury carries to obligation that one willingly serve on a jury when called to do so. What would be the corresponding obligation that goes with the "right" to a gay marriage????

What is the corresponding obligation that goes with the right to a heterosexual marriage? It's not procreating, because that is not required by law for any marriage.

But it DOES impact me, and all of society. Because it isn't simply rewriting the definition of marriage; it is also rewriting the norms of ALL of society. There are multiple lawsuits in several states against people and companies who refuse to call gay weddings "normal." Merely pointing out that homosexuality was diagnosed as a neurosis by American Psychological Association until they were forced to remove it from the DSM, has been classified as hate speech.

BUNK.

I don't magically lose my free speech rights, just because someone somewhere is offended. But I can lose them legally. So it does affect me and everyone else, and "your kind," as you so eloquently put it, trying to to deny the free speech rights of others is part and parcel of a battle against normalcy.

MORE BUNK.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

BUNK.

MORE BUNK.

Dismissive of the viewpoints not aligned with your own.
. It's a moral outrage when conservatives do that....

a reply to: redempsh

Gay marriage was legal in precisely ZERO nations 35 years ago. And the preceding 5,000 years for that matter.

The first state law against same sex marriage in the US was passed in 1973. That means that, until then, it was legal.

Until this year there were no laws about who could use which bathroom. That means that, until now, it was legal for anyone to use any bathroom.

a reply to: Alien Abduct
Why would I care about American kids any more than kids from a third world nation? Little greedy bastards I'm not American.

a reply to: redempsh

There are zero lawsuits against people who refuse to call gay marriage normal. No court in the land would agree to hear such a case. You can call same sex marriage whatever you want, but if you are running a public accommodation, like a business, you are not allowed to discriminate against a group by refusing services to that group, which you provide to everyone else.

No one has ever legally lost their free speech rights for voicing their opinion that homosexuality is wrong. No one has been arrested, detained, or jailed.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: redempshno one is stopping you having more kids so get on with it and stop blaming others. You want to win this war have more kids, that'll show em

Having more kids is a trap now. You are what you eat remember. No choice but to fight.

a reply to: redempsh

The long-term goal is to destroy the family (a goal for every totalitarian movement) by destroying the definitions of fatherhood/motherhood man/woman, etc., and by sexualizing children as well as teens and adults.

I am not sure that that is the goal of these people, but that is certainly the result.

a reply to: Metallicus

that is most certainly NOT the result

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: redempsh

The long-term goal is to destroy the family (a goal for every totalitarian movement) by destroying the definitions of fatherhood/motherhood man/woman, etc., and by sexualizing children as well as teens and adults.

I am not sure that that is the goal of these people, but that is certainly the result.

That's not the result. Proof, uh...my family is still together. Not destroyed. We're good.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Have you ever experienced a community in a place that those though?

That is more the type of self-reliance that has been destroyed in larger urban centers. When a small town in Kansas gets wiped out by a tornado? Odds are that the families of the local community all know each other and are mostly together. They pull together, bring their stuff and start cleaning up and getting stuff organized and put people back on their feet as well as they can.

It's a cohesive unit comprised of family, neighborhood, and faith communities all interlocked and working as one to go what FEMA takes much longer to get off its @ss and get around to. And that's why it has to get destroyed. People like that know inherently that they don't NEED government to do things for them ... like tell them where the should pee or what pronouns to use.

What has destroyed the family, is more likely to do with the influence of choice in our society. Menand women always feel that in such a society we can all choose a different partner, and if things aren't going well we can choose another or upgrade for a better choice.

So let's stop blaming transgendered folk and take a closer look in the mirror and realise none of us are perfect, and all susceptible of going off the rails when temptation is presented?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: redempshno one is stopping you having more kids so get on with it and stop blaming others. You want to win this war have more kids, that'll show em

The price of housing? In the UK, this is £100,000/bedroom.

a reply to: stormcell
Get a second job if you want more useless eaters

a reply to: redempsh

The war on families is economic, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Want to preserve families? Pay decent wages to parents. Allow family leave. Fund decent schools and college that wont make you a debter for half your life. Subsidize child care, child nutrition, and prenatal care. Of course a lot of the same people who are always talking about a "war on the family" are the same ones against any talk of making life easier on families. Kind of ironic.