JDL is letting his feelings be known....

[anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls]

Damn.....Is that something that you're asked a lot? I must not be sexy enough for transgender people. I've never been asked to get it on with one.

FWIW, nobody thinks that someone is a bigot for not being LGBT or if you aren't interested in having sex with them. What makes someone a bigot is if they are demented enough to say that they consider transgender people future pedophiles just because they are transgender. Hate speech and delusional belief systems are key giveaways that someone might be a bigot. Your post here is yet another sign that people have a pretty good reason to suspect that you just might be a bigot. If you feel insecure about the issue, looking in the mirror and re-evaluating your attitudes towards others is a good place to start.

You might not realize this, but most LGBT people just want to live their lives without being attacked or judged relentlessly. They don't conspire against straight people and aren't looking for ways to attack us.

Relax. I said existing transgender(not all, obviously) ARE pedophiles and they have already been caught trying to read to kids. DRAG QUEEN STORY TIME BABY WOOOOO.

The issue is taking advantage of the LGBQT cancel culture, can't stand that crap.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Personally, I base gender on biological sex. It doesn't bother me whatsoever how someone else chooses to identify, but I think it's ridiculous that public schools are investing so much time adjusting policy and curriculum to situations that affect such a fractionally small segment of society.

It's estimated that that roughly 4.5% of all Americans identify as LQBTQ, and 1 in 4 LGBTQ youth use non-binary pronouns. Are we justified in continuing efforts to open doors that make society more inclusive for everyone, including LGBTQ? Of course we should, but the long term solution to easing the social divide that we're all suffering with has to do with the messaging in our schools and workplaces.

We need to shift from specific campaigns of inclusivity (BLM, LGBTQ, etc.) to a more simple and standardized code of behavioral ethics and standards of respect. It doesn't matter whether a person is gay, straight, Male, Female, black, white, Christian, Muslim or Atheist. A person's only societal obligation is that they contribute productively to society, adhere to our laws, and pay their taxes; ie: contribute to the tribe. We're all going to have have opinions on how people should live, but kids are incredibly adaptable. Teach them to respect everyone and dedicate messaging that helps to overcome ALL stereotypes by showing that it's just as damaging to call someone a homophobic or racial slur as it is to label them a white supremacist because of their political leanings, call them "privileged" because of their skin color, or mock them for toxic masculinity.

Or we can continue to kick the can down the road and talk about how hate and bias is justified against people you disagree with.

I can agree as an aspirational goal to what you said. That was stipulated in our founding documents. Yet we have been trying for about 250 years to get there because of these type issues that present. With all due respect, you didn't answer my question at all. You answered me with an unquestionable "yes" to sexuality being binary. I gave you some real-world scenarios that don't fit nicely into what we had always assumed. What do you do with those outliers? Do you even recognize them as a real category?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Just like anything, there are extremely rare outliers. I guess implementing policies strictly for the fractional % of the population is the only right thing to do? Even if it significantly infringes upon the rights and civil liberties of the vast majority? According to leftists, not only should you let it happen, you should let educators indoctrinate your children on the subject matter too.

You seem to be assuming a lot in your response. Are you asking me if the rights of the few take precedent over the rights of the many? My answer would be no. But I think you are arguing from a premise that is different than mine. I'm not even discussing what to do or how to do it or whether MTF athletes should be allowed to compete in collegiate athletics against women. I'm not even speaking of whether it is moral or right to do medical procedures prior to a certain age. I'm strictly asking if you and others here even think this is a real biological/genetic issue that goes beyond psychology?

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

If you're going to look at the genetic level, the presence of a Y chromosome is indicative of a male. There's no such thing as an XY female. There's also no XXX males - genetically, a person cannot be male without a Y chromosome.

Kleinfelter's is when a boy has an extra X (XXY). Girls with an extra X (XXX) have Trisomy X, or Triple X syndrome. Both of those are by definition genetic anomalies and are a separate issue from the LGBTQ conversation.

It has been shown by research that there's no single genetic connection with homosexual tendencies, but there are a number of different genetic markers that are appear to occur more frequently in that population. My understanding is that most of these relate to how various processes in the body are regulated, not to production of any particular hormones, and that the likelihood of any one gene or combination of them is a truly reliable predictor of whether an individual will have same-sex tendencies. Seems like certain combinations increase the odds, but it remains a roll of the dice.

One could argue that these genetic markers constitute a "disorder," and that they can be engineered and "fixed." They probably could be engineered, but I would argue that in most cases, these aren't mutations or anomalies, they're uncommon but apparently natural outcomes. The idea of "fixing" them at the genetic level opens another social can of worms.

In the end, I agree with several things that have been said: trans athletes should compete against those of their biological sex, not those they pick. We should not rewrite every publication to sanitize every reference to gender, race, or ethnicity, or pull down statues of everyone who's every said anything offensive to anyone. We should not burden 95% of our society to make 5% more comfortable. We should stop practices that are clearly discriminatory, but also recognize that there's no way to make everything 100% fair to everyone. We should find ways to help people that are struggling (mentally, financially, etc.), but also recognize that they have to earn it. We should punish people who break the law, but also acknowledge that there may be extenuating circumstances. For a lot of us, we should recognize that if you look at the root of an awful lot of our social issues - white collar crime, suicides, mass shootings, sex offenses, the list goes on - the people that are the problem aren't dark faces, kids, foreigners, etc. They're white men between 30-50.

We should recognize that everyone around us is dealing with their own sh*t, and odds are that a lot of them have a bigger pile than we do. It might be a good idea if, instead of complaining about the smell, we grab a shovel.

You are wrong about the XY strictly being male. It is rare, but there are people walking around today that were identified and classified as female upon birth, who live their lives as a women, look like women and have no idea that they are XY. These things happen in utero where certain hormones (up to about 16 I think) do not get expressed due to the failure of either the genes or chromosomes to receive and react to them - in a nut shell.

My point in bringing that up and Kleinfelter (also there are intersex births) is that it isn't binary. It's bimodal. We're all on a spectrum of something. I suspect you'd probably agree with that. And, I agree with pretty much all the rest of your comment. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

We've gone from having to have tolerance to having to be affirmative to this demographic. As I've stated before, its not enough to not go to the gay pride parade and not protest (if that's your thing), we now have to go the the parade and cheer them on otherwise we are not "allies." Its no longer enough in this country to mind your own business, its each and every person's responsibility to make sure every societal wrong is righted, and while I do believe we are obligated to participate in a positive way in society to help our fellow man, asking every person to be an activist is simply absurd.

Okay, I think I know what you're trying to point out...but it is a bit of a straw man. No one is coming for you if you don't "stand with them". No one is knocking on your door. These are other people's causes. No one is making anyone join.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Many of my clients are gay. Maybe I don't have the militant gay group. But I will ask the same question I asked Bleed...how is your life impacted by not being a positive reinforcement of the gay agenda?

Right now its not, but my kids life might be affected. They have a very strong lobby, and its offensive to me and anyone else paying attention to suggest that my lack of action is actively harming these people (I use that term to cover all groups suggesting "silence is violence".) This idea is so far off base its not even remotely funny. I won't list examples because they would be too many, but just imagine that ideology used for any other social issue in our country. Its absurd.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Okay, I think I know what you're trying to point out...but it is a bit of a straw man. No one is coming for you if you don't "stand with them". No one is knocking on your door. These are other people's causes. No one is making anyone join.

You're not listening to the rhetoric. And it may be just rhetoric now, but rhetoric has a way of becoming policy in this nation.

The BLM 13 guiding principles use the word "affirming". If I don't participate in their principles, I am not friend to Blacks. According to them. I'd like to think that in this country I can still befriend a Black/gay/trans person without having to join their cause, but according to BLM the two are incongruent.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

If you're going to look at the genetic level, the presence of a Y chromosome is indicative of a male. There's no such thing as an XY female. There's also no XXX males - genetically, a person cannot be male without a Y chromosome.

Kleinfelter's is when a boy has an extra X (XXY). Girls with an extra X (XXX) have Trisomy X, or Triple X syndrome. Both of those are by definition genetic anomalies and are a separate issue from the LGBTQ conversation.

It has been shown by research that there's no single genetic connection with homosexual tendencies, but there are a number of different genetic markers that are appear to occur more frequently in that population. My understanding is that most of these relate to how various processes in the body are regulated, not to production of any particular hormones, and that the likelihood of any one gene or combination of them is a truly reliable predictor of whether an individual will have same-sex tendencies. Seems like certain combinations increase the odds, but it remains a roll of the dice.

One could argue that these genetic markers constitute a "disorder," and that they can be engineered and "fixed." They probably could be engineered, but I would argue that in most cases, these aren't mutations or anomalies, they're uncommon but apparently natural outcomes. The idea of "fixing" them at the genetic level opens another social can of worms.

In the end, I agree with several things that have been said: trans athletes should compete against those of their biological sex, not those they pick. We should not rewrite every publication to sanitize every reference to gender, race, or ethnicity, or pull down statues of everyone who's every said anything offensive to anyone. We should not burden 95% of our society to make 5% more comfortable. We should stop practices that are clearly discriminatory, but also recognize that there's no way to make everything 100% fair to everyone. We should find ways to help people that are struggling (mentally, financially, etc.), but also recognize that they have to earn it. We should punish people who break the law, but also acknowledge that there may be extenuating circumstances. For a lot of us, we should recognize that if you look at the root of an awful lot of our social issues - white collar crime, suicides, mass shootings, sex offenses, the list goes on - the people that are the problem aren't dark faces, kids, foreigners, etc. They're white men between 30-50.

We should recognize that everyone around us is dealing with their own sh*t, and odds are that a lot of them have a bigger pile than we do. It might be a good idea if, instead of complaining about the smell, we grab a shovel.

A lot of common sense goes out the window when we re-elect the same people for 10 terms and expect a positive outcome, despite obvious corruption and malfeasance.

Our government needs a HARD reset - like, pull the power cord and wait 5 minutes. We have legislators in Oregon now quitting because they say they don't paid enough for the workload they're expected to carry. Of course their answer is to get paid more, but how about we shrink the responsibilities down so they can do their job part time, as was always intended.

By the people and for the people is a bygone notion - everything our government does is to enrich themselves in one way or another, and I firmly believe that. Lobbies run amok on capital hill doling out cash lined handshakes like they're candy, further corrupting our government.

What brings this on, you ask? Your mention of mass shooters got me thinking. We still haven't addressed what is driving these people to do these public acts of violence. Of course politicians point at the guns and swear that the AR15 jumped into the persons hands and started pulling its own trigger, because its an easy political target - it can't fight back. It also provides easy political wins, what with >10 rd magazines being banned now. But what about the mental health or societal stressors that would make a child act this way? What about the system that doesn't afford inpatient treatment for a paranoid schizophrenic who won't take his meds?

 

[95coug]

You are wrong about the XY strictly being male. It is rare, but there are people walking around today that were identified and classified as female upon birth, who live their lives as a women, look like women and have no idea that they are XY. These things happen in utero where certain hormones (up to about 16 I think) do not get expressed due to the failure of either the genes or chromosomes to receive and react to them - in a nut shell.

My point in bringing that up and Kleinfelter (also there are intersex births) is that it isn't binary. It's bimodal. We're all on a spectrum of something. I suspect you'd probably agree with that. And, I agree with pretty much all the rest of your comment. Taihtsat

Did a little checking and found information on Swyer syndrome (XY with female genitalia) and de la Chappelle syndrome (XX with male genitalia). Hadn’t heard of either before. However, both of these are actual genetic disorders connected to mutations (in de la Chappelle, it’s apparently a mutation where an X chromosome includes part of a Y, which triggers developmental hormones that form male parts). Because they’re mutations, I’d say these are in the same category and Kleinfelter and Triploidy X. These are all cases where something developmentally went wrong. That’s not the case with individuals who are LGBTQ.

My opinion is that biologically, sex is intended to be binary. While you’ve pointed out some variability, these seem to be abnormalities. I think further evidence of that is that the Swyer and de la Chappelle patients are sterile (at least the majority, haven’t done enough research to see if that’s universal…but it would make sense). Masculinity/femininity and sexual orientation both lie on a more variable spectrum, each with an association to - but not predicted by - the presence of a P or V. Problem is that the collective mind has a hard time reconciling a spectrum on top of a binary.

In the end, I don’t know that it’s necessary. I don’t give a rats ass what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, hotel, or hot tub. I don’t care to see it, hear it, or really even know it’s happening, regardless of the particulars of who’s involved. It doesn’t impact me, so why should it bother me. That’s true even if I’m a holy roller (I’m not) who believes that they’re condemning their souls to hell. It’s their soul…not mine.

 

[95coug]

A lot of common sense goes out the window when we re-elect the same people for 10 terms and expect a positive outcome, despite obvious corruption and malfeasance.

Our government needs a HARD reset - like, pull the power cord and wait 5 minutes. We have legislators in Oregon now quitting because they say they don't paid enough for the workload they're expected to carry. Of course their answer is to get paid more, but how about we shrink the responsibilities down so they can do their job part time, as was always intended.

By the people and for the people is a bygone notion - everything our government does is to enrich themselves in one way or another, and I firmly believe that. Lobbies run amok on capital hill doling out cash lined handshakes like they're candy, further corrupting our government.

What brings this on, you ask? Your mention of mass shooters got me thinking. We still haven't addressed what is driving these people to do these public acts of violence. Of course politicians point at the guns and swear that the AR15 jumped into the persons hands and started pulling its own trigger, because its an easy political target - it can't fight back. It also provides easy political wins, what with >10 rd magazines being banned now. But what about the mental health or societal stressors that would make a child act this way? What about the system that doesn't afford inpatient treatment for a paranoid schizophrenic who won't take his meds?

100%.

I think we’d do just as well if we scrapped the election system and drew our representatives out of a hat. Might even be better.

There’s a clear mental health issue at the root of multiple problems, and I suspect that if you could chart the incidence of mass shootings, drug overdose, and suicides against mental health funding and available beds, you’d find linear relationships.

Focusing on guns ignores the real problem. But it’s cheaper, gives good headlines, and the people who agree with taking guns away are the same people who will cry about putting lunatics into an institution.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

100%.

I think we’d do just as well if we scrapped the election system and drew our representatives out of a hat. Might even be better.

There’s a clear mental health issue at the root of multiple problems, and I suspect that if you could chart the incidence of mass shootings, drug overdose, and suicides against mental health funding and available beds, you’d find linear relationships.

Focusing on guns ignores the real problem. But it’s cheaper, gives good headlines, and the people who agree with taking guns away are the same people who will cry about putting lunatics into an institution.

Yup.

What bugs me is that they won't even start the discussion. Do we want Frances Farmer type institutions? Of course not. And having a large institution with low wage employees acting as caregivers will always lead to a system of abuses - we are vile, savage species.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that ignoring the problem entirely is not the answer.

 

[FnuLnu]

I lived on Capitol Hill for a long time and found this to be true.

"Silence is violence"

Ever meet former Mayor Ed Murray?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

100%.

I think we’d do just as well if we scrapped the election system and drew our representatives out of a hat. Might even be better.

There’s a clear mental health issue at the root of multiple problems, and I suspect that if you could chart the incidence of mass shootings, drug overdose, and suicides against mental health funding and available beds, you’d find linear relationships.

Focusing on guns ignores the real problem. But it’s cheaper, gives good headlines, and the people who agree with taking guns away are the same people who will cry about putting lunatics into an institution.

The problem with guns is that, just like everything else, both sides take it to extremes. I find it absolutely moronic that the 2nd amendment crowd fights every single law and measure that might have the tiniest impact on the easy purchase and ownership of firearms.....even when those laws are obviously the most reasonable thing to do. Our country is a far more dangerous place with a bunch of untrained cowboys packing heat when they have little idea of how to safely handle them, let alone legally use them. It's absolutely stunning to hear people say, "it's the person....not the gun"....and then, without any hesitation, say, "we can't pass red flag laws because that might keep people from getting guns".

On the flip side, the extreme fringes of the anti-gun crowd has moronic fantasies of getting rid of all guns and they display an egregious lack of understanding of how fundamental the right to own a gun is to the American psyche. The more extreme members of that group refuse to understand that you can't unring the bell of gun ownership in America and that their idiotic ramblings fuel the fire for the pro gun crowd and they are part of the problem....not the solution.

 

[Observer11]

Me and God had a good chat this morning.

He said judge not lest ye be judged and quit trying to do His job.

 

[CougEd]

Right now its not, but my kids life might be affected. They have a very strong lobby, and its offensive to me and anyone else paying attention to suggest that my lack of action is actively harming these people (I use that term to cover all groups suggesting "silence is violence".) This idea is so far off base its not even remotely funny. I won't list examples because they would be too many, but just imagine that ideology used for any other social issue in our country. Its absurd.

Then next logical step is -what is it you believe the very strong lobby will affect your children?

You know that very strong lobby as you called it hasn't impacted my kids one bit. But I am curious how will it impact yours. And what happens if one of your kids is gay. Happened to a very close friend of mine. She is 23, she isn't spreading her gayness all over the place. She is not a moral degenerate. She never "asked" to to be gay. The dad is as "manly" as one can be. So what is it she or your kids are exposed to or potentially exposed to that scares you so much?

 

[CougEd]

A lot of common sense goes out the window when we re-elect the same people for 10 terms and expect a positive outcome, despite obvious corruption and malfeasance.

Our government needs a HARD reset - like, pull the power cord and wait 5 minutes. We have legislators in Oregon now quitting because they say they don't paid enough for the workload they're expected to carry. Of course their answer is to get paid more, but how about we shrink the responsibilities down so they can do their job part time, as was always intended.

By the people and for the people is a bygone notion - everything our government does is to enrich themselves in one way or another, and I firmly believe that. Lobbies run amok on capital hill doling out cash lined handshakes like they're candy, further corrupting our government.

What brings this on, you ask? Your mention of mass shooters got me thinking. We still haven't addressed what is driving these people to do these public acts of violence. Of course politicians point at the guns and swear that the AR15 jumped into the persons hands and started pulling its own trigger, because its an easy political target - it can't fight back. It also provides easy political wins, what with >10 rd magazines being banned now. But what about the mental health or societal stressors that would make a child act this way? What about the system that doesn't afford inpatient treatment for a paranoid schizophrenic who won't take his meds?

They all will fight hard for term limits. There is a reason after Roosevelt they brought in term limits for a President. Do you think these folks on both sides would act as they do if there were term limits?

 

[CougPatrol]

There is definitely a militant component to the LGBT agenda and f#ck those people. However, just like any other group, it's a loud vocal minority that doesn't necessarily reflect the majority's opinion. I work with a lesbian gal and she is completely low key and doesn't expect anything from anyone. We used to have a gay receptionist and although he was a walking stereotype, he was a great guy to hang out with.

They could be lowkey because they know that being militant in Kansas wouldn't work out for them. My experience with LGBT has always been pretty positive.

My focal point when it comes to social change and political debate is that the intolerants need to be shut down by their OWN party and by those who share some of their affiliations.

It's not that politicians overlook this, oh no, they encourage the hateful rhetoric.

I gave you some real-world scenarios that don't fit nicely into what we had always assumed. What do you do with those outliers? Do you even recognize them as a real category?

Apart from offering empathy and support, I wouldn't do anything with the outliers. Our shotgun approach of bringing awareness to countless social issues isn't working. We need to prioritize the issues that are bogging down our Nation the most (as in greatest number of people affected) and set goals to address them. When we get our arms around homelessness, healthcare, immigration, welfare, education, environment, etc. we can expand our reach.

 

[95coug]

The problem with guns is that, just like everything else, both sides take it to extremes. I find it absolutely moronic that the 2nd amendment crowd fights every single law and measure that might have the tiniest impact on the easy purchase and ownership of firearms.....even when those laws are obviously the most reasonable thing to do. Our country is a far more dangerous place with a bunch of untrained cowboys packing heat when they have little idea of how to safely handle them, let alone legally use them. It's absolutely stunning to hear people say, "it's the person....not the gun"....and then, without any hesitation, say, "we can't pass red flag laws because that might keep people from getting guns".

On the flip side, the extreme fringes of the anti-gun crowd has moronic fantasies of getting rid of all guns and they display an egregious lack of understanding of how fundamental the right to own a gun is to the American psyche. The more extreme members of that group refuse to understand that you can't unring the bell of gun ownership in America and that their idiotic ramblings fuel the fire for the pro gun crowd and they are part of the problem....not the solution.

Yes...and the extreme fringes are the ones who get the press and the attention. So it looks like the 10% on the right and the 10% on the left are the majority opinions, when in fact the 80% in the middle just want to see some common sense.

 

[95coug]

My focal point when it comes to social change and political debate is that the intolerants need to be shut down by their OWN party and by those who share some of their affiliations.

It's not that politicians overlook this, oh no, they encourage the hateful rhetoric.

Apart from offering empathy and support, I wouldn't do anything with the outliers. Our shotgun approach of bringing awareness to countless social issues isn't working. We need to prioritize the issues that are bogging down our Nation the most (as in greatest number of people affected) and set goals to address them. When we get our arms around homelessness, healthcare, immigration, welfare, education, environment, etc. we can expand our reach.

I think even more fundamental than that, we need to look at the issues and see which of them stem from the same place. I think we could solve big portions of homelessness, drugs, and violence (and maybe a piece of welfare) if we addressed mental health.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Then next logical step is -what is it you believe the very strong lobby will affect your children?

You know that very strong lobby as you called it hasn't impacted my kids one bit. But I am curious how will it impact yours. And what happens if one of your kids is gay. Happened to a very close friend of mine. She is 23, she isn't spreading her gayness all over the place. She is not a moral degenerate. She never "asked" to to be gay. The dad is as "manly" as one can be. So what is it she or your kids are exposed to or potentially exposed to that scares you so much?

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see him say one thing that equated being gay to being morally degenerate...and that is certainly not an argument I am making.

But again. those on the left will always paint republicans as homophobic, racist etc..especially in liberal cities like Seattle. How do I know? I lived there and was accused of being exactly that twice in my last 6 months there.

Another example just on my FB today...if you don't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete in womens sports, you hate trans people and are a bigot etc.

 

[95coug]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see him say one thing that equated being gay to being morally degenerate...and that is certainly not an argument I am making.

But again. those on the left will always paint republicans as homophobic, racist etc..especially in liberal cities like Seattle. How do I know? I lived there and was accused of being exactly that twice in my last 6 months there.

Another example just on my FB today...if you don't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete in womens sports, you hate trans people and are a bigot etc.

Or, maybe you just recognize the biological fact that a trans woman is not a woman, and therefore has different physical characteristics that are likely to provide a competitive advantage in most sports.

If Klay Thompson changed his name to Kelly, and said he feels like a woman, that doesn't mean they should let him play in the WNBA.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Or, maybe you just recognize the biological fact that a trans woman is not a woman, and therefore has different physical characteristics that are likely to provide a competitive advantage in most sports.

If Klay Thompson changed his name to Kelly, and said he feels like a woman, that doesn't mean they should let him play in the WNBA.

I agree

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Or, maybe you just recognize the biological fact that a trans woman is not a woman, and therefore has different physical characteristics that are likely to provide a competitive advantage in most sports.

If Klay Thompson changed his name to Kelly, and said he feels like a woman, that doesn't mean they should let him play in the WNBA.

But they will.

 

[CougPatrol]

I think even more fundamental than that, we need to look at the issues and see which of them stem from the same place. I think we could solve big portions of homelessness, drugs, and violence (and maybe a piece of welfare) if we addressed mental health.

Unless we identify a way to address the grim family statistics in America, where, for example, 70% of african-american children are born into single parent homes, we won't even begin to chip away at the burgeoning mental health crisis we're facing.

The underclass in America has grown too large now, and no amount of social/financial welfare can overcome the bad family, bad parenting epidemic.

 

[CougEd]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see him say one thing that equated being gay to being morally degenerate...and that is certainly not an argument I am making.

But again. those on the left will always paint republicans as homophobic, racist etc..especially in liberal cities like Seattle. How do I know? I lived there and was accused of being exactly that twice in my last 6 months there.

Another example just on my FB today...if you don't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete in womens sports, you hate trans people and are a bigot etc.

Bleed didn't. Interesting that is what you focused on and not that she is spreading her gayness. I am trying to figure out about this powerful gay lobby that took 11 years just to allow to be married. What is it gay men and woman are asking for that infringes on my rights, my kids rights, and somehow affetcs my way of life? That was the question, not that Bleed called anyone a degenerate or that gay people are spreading their gayness to unsuspecting people.

 

[CougEd]

But they will.

I have heard this before. I disagree for many reasons. But how prevalent is this phenomenon. I had kids who are fairly recent graduates and both played extensively in AAU sports, we didn't see it. I will say it was interesting, my daughters teammate back in the day, the teammate introduced this young lady as her girlfriend. I asked my daughter if she knew her teammate had a girlfriend, and she very a matter of fact said yes, and looked at me, what is the big deal. I had to tell her in my day no one came out in my day. This generation just doesn't care.

In terms of being born male and making a conversion, I think most liberals would agree that when it all comes out there will be a special place for those kids to play. Similar to provisions they make for the Special Olympics.

 

[CougEd]

Unless we identify a way to address the grim family statistics in America, where, for example, 70% of african-american children are born into single parent homes, we won't even begin to chip away at the burgeoning mental health crisis we're facing.

The underclass in America has grown too large now, and no amount of social/financial welfare can overcome the bad family, bad parenting epidemic.

I am sure single parenting is a problem, but the stats I looked at for 2020, the group with highest rate was white middle age men. White men in 2020 accounted for 69% of the suicides. Am I misreading the data?

 

[CougEd]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see him say one thing that equated being gay to being morally degenerate...and that is certainly not an argument I am making.

But again. those on the left will always paint republicans as homophobic, racist etc..especially in liberal cities like Seattle. How do I know? I lived there and was accused of being exactly that twice in my last 6 months there.

Another example just on my FB today...if you don't believe that trans women should be allowed to compete in womens sports, you hate trans people and are a bigot etc.

Sponge, I guess I hate trans people if trans people want to throw me into that bucket. Now what? I wont lose a wink of sleep if they say that to my face. I will simply respond that is a difficult issue, that I support your cause in so many ways, that you should have your rights, and in time there will be the appropriate provisions if you want to compete that you can.

Now if they still want to call me a bigot, that is on them, I know what and who I am. Calling me something doesn't make it true.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Bleed didn't. Interesting that is what you focused on and not that she is spreading her gayness. I am trying to figure out about this powerful gay lobby that took 11 years just to allow to be married. What is it gay men and woman are asking for that infringes on my rights, my kids rights, and somehow affetcs my way of life? That was the question, not that Bleed called anyone a degenerate or that gay people are spreading their gayness to unsuspecting people.

Ok...so I don't understand your comments about that. I focused on it because it seems like it came from out of left field.

 

[spongeandshoot]

Sponge, I guess I hate trans people if trans people want to throw me into that bucket. Now what? I wont lose a wink of sleep if they say that to my face. I will simply respond that is a difficult issue, that I support your cause in so many ways, that you should have your rights, and in time there will be the appropriate provisions if you want to compete that you can.

Now if they still want to call me a bigot, that is on them, I know what and who I am. Calling me something doesn't make it true.

It is not trans people that are throwing people in that bucket(or any one group)....it's the left(the same ones that took over the BLM marches) and their media..and so the problem is, that is what creates the divide.

 

[CougInSpain]

It is not trans people that are throwing people in that bucket(or any one group)....it's the left(the same ones that took over the BLM marches) and their media..and so the problem is, that is what creates the divide.

Corporate media is absolutely public enemy #1. Until they are held accountable, it will be more shade throwing for anyone with a D next to their name.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I have heard this before. I disagree for many reasons. But how prevalent is this phenomenon. I had kids who are fairly recent graduates and both played extensively in AAU sports, we didn't see it. I will say it was interesting, my daughters teammate back in the day, the teammate introduced this young lady as her girlfriend. I asked my daughter if she knew her teammate had a girlfriend, and she very a matter of fact said yes, and looked at me, what is the big deal. I had to tell her in my day no one came out in my day. This generation just doesn't care.

In terms of being born male and making a conversion, I think most liberals would agree that when it all comes out there will be a special place for those kids to play. Similar to provisions they make for the Special Olympics.

Maybe you've heard of Lia Thomas? She's in the news a bunch lately, might wanna look her up.

 

[FnuLnu]

Maybe you've heard of Lia Thomas? She's in the news a bunch lately, might wanna look her up.

Watch the pronouns; huminoid!

 

[CougEd]

Maybe you've heard of Lia Thomas? She's in the news a bunch lately, might wanna look her up.

Don’t need to … so your angst is over one person ? I see.

 

[95coug]

Unless we identify a way to address the grim family statistics in America, where, for example, 70% of african-american children are born into single parent homes, we won't even begin to chip away at the burgeoning mental health crisis we're facing.

The underclass in America has grown too large now, and no amount of social/financial welfare can overcome the bad family, bad parenting epidemic.

Chicken/egg, I think. But we’ve got to do something to break that cycle.

This is going to sound socialist (because it is), but the only place that gets fixed is if corporate America accepts that they have to pay everyone enough to support a family.

 

[CougEd]

Chicken/egg, I think. But we’ve got to do something to break that cycle.

This is going to sound socialist (because it is), but the only place that gets fixed is if corporate America accepts that they have to pay everyone enough to support a family.

Can’t cause that causes inflation . We need poor people .

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Me and God had a good chat this morning.

He said judge not lest ye be judged and quit trying to do His job.

And I thought this was going to be the last word in this thread. Taihtsat

 

[CougInSpain]

Chicken/egg, I think. But we’ve got to do something to break that cycle.

This is going to sound socialist (because it is), but the only place that gets fixed is if corporate America accepts that they have to pay everyone enough to support a family.

That's assuming people are willing to work to do so. As we've seen in Joe Biden's America, he feels good about the labor shortages causing wages to spike significantly in places where they shouldn't be spiking. $18/hr to work at Jack in the Box? Are you effing kidding me? Those jobs were never meant to support a family in the first place.

 

[Observer11]

And I thought this was going to be the last word in this thread. Taihtsat

Me and God chatted again this morning. He told me:

"I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious. Anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

 

[95coug]

Me and God chatted again this morning. He told me:

"I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious. Anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Wait....you think Quentin Tarantino is God?