Who are you voting for?

[HeyYou]

What I find most interesting here is, your arguments for the LBGT community, parallel quite closely with arguments for gun control. Punish the majority for the infractions of a minority. In both cases, an insignificant percentage of the minority.

 

And THAT is my chief complaint against the democratic party. Gun Control. The whole LBGT thing IS an issue, but, it's WAY down on the list of things that are important to me.

 

Another major issue I have, is their plan to 'halt climate change'. Which in and of itself flies in the face of reality. The climate changes, that is a FACT. To think they can stop it, is blatantly stupid. The measures they want to implement, would have horribly bad effects on our economy, our quality of life, and the cost of EVERYTHING. Sure, going to some variety of renewable energy is all well and good, however, calling things like 'wind energy', and solar "green", is a major misconception. The path from minerals buried in the ground required for the construction, to the completed generator on its tower is absolutely terrible for the environment. But, that's all happening in China, so, as far as american politicians are concerned, it's "Green"..... Same for solar panels. I hear rumors of solar panels made from more common materials now though, so, maybe that is a possibility.

 

Around here, where they installed windmills...... they ALSO installed "auxiliary generators", for when the wind isn't blowing..... Powered by.... Diesel fuel. In all reality, if they had installed another gas-fired generation station, they would have less of an environmental impact......

 

Humans are ostensibly thinking creatures. We have the ability to see a threat, and take steps to mediate said threat. However, what we don't seem to be able to figure out is: Some things are beyond our control, and while we may delay the inevitable, it is STILL gonna happen. We have a choice, we can adapt, or, we can die. I will grant you that adapting will be expensive, and will make lots of folks rather unhappy. Unhappy is better than dead. (for the record, I was AGAINST rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, after all, with sea levels rising, and predictions of more, and more powerful storms ((which we still haven't seen, by the way)), rebuilding a place that was just wiped out by something you expect to see more often, is pretty farking stupid. No, I wasn't surprised at all when they rebuilt, in the same spot......)

 

Do I expect anything to really change on that front? Nope. Not really. :D

 

I am pleased you have a sense of humor. :) Some folks take themselves FAR to seriously, and wouldn't recognize a joke if it jumped up and bit them.

Edited May 7, 2016 by HeyYou

[Ashenfire]

Religion should never be used in arguments to pass a law.

There is no 'infraction' of the minority. They have not committed a crime or injustice that preyed on innocent people.

Hate or fear should never be used to single out religion, a group of people, or both, just to pass laws for someone's party because it is convenient.

 

My agruments do not parallel anti gun rights. You are not being punished. My gun permit is the second amendment. I want anyone that ABUSES the right

to be held accountable. For instance, robbing a bank with a gun is abusing the right. Using church referendums in PUBLIC law to tell me how

to live my life is also abusing the rights granted to the church and abusing my rights.

 

The problem with the left on gun rights, is that if a person is even LINKED to the crime committed by a gun or a drunken driver, they want to sue every body

in the chain. This is NOT holding the the person who actually committed the crime, responsible. It is causing a drag net to catch everyone and make them

criminals. That is the same argument with the bathroom bill. People who have not committed crimes will have to be branded, live in fear and shame, not from

predators but from a dragnet. That is an unfair burden just to catch a phantom.

 

The rights of a minority are just as important. It is a distinction about the protection of the minority from the the majority that separates the U.S.

from other countries. The will of the majority can be 'just' as long as it does not single out a group of people based on religion, sex, ethnicity, etc.

The people in a 'majority' can decide the fate of the country but not infringe on the minority in their eagerness to get their goals. It must still

pass the muster of the Constitution. People used the very same argument that slaves are a minority, have no 'property value' and have no

rights. It was lumped in with 'STATES RIGHTS' and now the same arguments are barfed up for the next generations to feed on.

 

Other countries that do not make this distinction, use reiligion as a reason to force a woman to sew her genitals shut because she caused them

to feel inpropriety. The rights of religion are vast. Once the rights are abused, they need to be dealt with by all the people, regardless of

party affiliation or religious affiliation.

 

Satanism is a recognized religion. I am not joking. I am okay with some idiot talking about sacrificing virgins, going through some sort of ritual.

The minute he cries freedom of religion when we the people put him in jail for murdering a person, I will laugh my head off. He abused the religion.

These arguments must be separated and more well defined. No one is holding the religious folk hostage because of a PUBLIC right to be treated

equally in the law.

 

My chief complaint is that the issue is clearer and society as a whole should be seeing eye to eye.

It gets 'muddied' with religion and rabble rousers who water down the issue and get air time doing it.

 

Breakdown:

You are upset because you believe that the far left are infringing on the rights of religious establishments by dictating how the religions should be taught.

I agree.

 

You are upset that a small section of people(GLBT) are being represented by the far left yet; people in the GLBT don't neccessarily believe in the political parties either.

They don't want their genitals and sex postitions being dictated by religion or government. They are not holding you hostage.

 

Example: You and I petition the government to stop a farm owner from getting unfair treatment from a 'pork' bill.

The local government listens and throws in their agenda. By the time someone reads the bill, it has so much more 'trash' in it, the title of the bill doesn't represent

what the bill is about. GLBT community as a whole, suffers this fate. They don't argue loudly that their human rights is the only issue and the political parties

throw their agenda on top. GLBT does not equate to the entire party.

 

I am upset with the GLBT because having basic rights doesn't mean selling out my Constitution to get them. They for the longest time DID NOT want trans folk attached

to their cause, by the way.

 

So I believe these very separate issues should never be lumped into one category.

You still have not explained, in your opening thesis how predators will camouflage themselves as 'trans' just to prey on someone, and how that the burden of the law should

rest on law abiding citizens just because of an unfounded fear.

 

You can argue that without involving church or crazy lefties.

 

By the way, the solution you presented of having a third bathroom style is horrible. It does not solve your original assertion that your daughter will be safe by instituting

this prejudist law. The predator will just see 3 bathrooms and STILL target either the men's or women's room based on the predator's choice.

 

Solution.

The left should stop dictating how religion is practiced in the establishment that the religion is mainly practiced in. (Private establishment reserves this right).

The non believers of faith should get over their complaints that someone of faith expressed their love for God in a public area. How silly of them.

The sexual preference a person has is separate than gender rights, which this 'bathroom bill' is attacking. We have laws already in place to deal with

law breakers who violate public trust.

 

The religious folk, no matter their political affiliation should not dictate how people live their lives.

The religious folk should not pass religious laws unless the laws were created inside their PRIVATE dominion like a church/mosque and it affects their 'flock'; not the PUBLIC.

 

I just can't believe I was willing to fight in a fox hole foreign or domestic, for the rights of others to worship an entity I don't even believe in,

because I believe people can compromise, live in harmony with different ideas and faiths. In return I am told I am not worthy of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness

because I support a human cause separate from religion or even politics. I have been discriminated because of my hair, my skin pigmentation, my conservative values,

my empathy for others, my gender.

 

I absolutely fear if this is not understood, we will be having a conversation where two wolves and a sheep are debating whats for dinner and

the sheep is actually thinking he has a say in the matter. We witnessed in history how jewish folk were called 'separate but equal' and were told that they

had to be branded with a star and 'behave'. The same talk is now about forcing trans folk to wear 'triangles' and 'behave'. They must first

COMMIT A CRIME en MASS before that argument can even be brought up.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ashenfire

[HeyYou]

 

The religious folk, no matter their political affiliation should not dictate how people live their lives.

Nor should folks be able to dictate how folks practice their religion. Isn't that fair? How is forcing an institution to perform a religious ritual for a couple that violates the very tenets of said religion, in any way "the right thing to do"?

 

See, I think the basic disagreement we have here, at least, between you and I..... Is our views on gay/lesbian/bi/trans being anything other than a mental imbalance, for lack of a better term, you may call it 'gender identity', I call it gender confusion. Folks with their six year old kids that are male, thinking they want to be female, when they don't even the the slightest clue about 'gender identity', or even the whole gender thing entirely. Some folks want to call it 'genetics', I have yet to see any real proof of that. The LBGT community tries to convince us it is anything other than a choice. I don't see it that way. And this particular belief is going to be what prevents you and I from finding any common ground on this issue. Our core beliefs are just far to different.

 

Personally, what folks do in the privacy of their own homes, who they want to sleep with, etc, is none of my concern. I, quite frankly, don't care. It doesn't affect me. At all. When it comes out into public though, and it starts being forced on me, then, I have a problem with it. I don't hate anyone, don't hate the LBGT crowd either, I have friends that are gay. They just don't demand I change how I live my life, because they are gay.

 

And on that note, I am going to bow out of this particular discussion, cause I don't see it going anywhere I really wanna be. :) It's been interesting though. Thank you for that.

[Ashenfire]

There is proof by the way.

Most children actually do 'know' where they fit on the gender scale and are not allowed to express it.

Some children will be confused, thats also true.

 

Quote: "Nor should folks be able to dictate how folks practice their religion. Isn't that fair? How is forcing an institution to perform a religious ritual for a couple that violates the very tenets of said religion, in any way "the right thing to do"?"

 

According to religious institutions, the sacred tenate is not being violated. Its their faith, so I won't make arguments for them. They agree that their rights are not

violated as long as their right to practice their version of their faith is done in their 'PRIVATE establishment' a.k.a church. I stay away from those arguments for

not wanting to be dragged into whose faith is the 'real thing' and listen to them dismiss other religions. Its not my place.

 

You and I both agree on your point. I have stated that already.

We don't have to be fundamentaly different.

 

Sadly, the argument with gay marriage started out that the government should recognize marriage with the spirit that only participating churches would conduct the ceremonies.

The government would treat the people the same by the eyes of the law.

 

It was not meant to tell religious institutions to change their practice on their faith.

It turned into haters from the left pushing too far to dictate how religion should be enforced. Something in my previous posts, I strongly believe is wrong for them to do.

 

This still does not explain why a bathroom bill is part of the discussion.

 

I have not heard a single argument from a gay person or a trans person demanding others must be like them. It is blown out of proportion and gay marriage is not

related to trans folk who simply are by even scientific evidence, just men or women.

 

But oh well...

I tried to separate each value as its own argument because each have a different priority and should not be lumped together. I have articulated careful thought for both sides,

and agree that both sides shall not infringe on the other. My line of thinking is fair, focused, and tries not to infringe on either side for political convenience.

I said my peace.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Ashenfire

[sunshinenbrick]

That was an insightful discussion on a sensitive subject.

[TheBoogerMan]

Um, not to ignore the interesting debate goin' on above between Ashenfire and HeyYou, but...

 

Who am I voting for (in the United States)?

 

If it were between Trump and Sanders, that would be a hard choice for me cuz I like a lot of what ol' Bernie is sayin'.

 

If it's between Trump and Clinton... Trump all the way. I'm sick and tired of these dynastic presidents (no more Bushs, no more Clintons) and I can't stand Clinton. It's time for someone different. Not to mention, the far Left has finally gotten on my last nerve and I'm not even really a Conservative; granted, as I've gotten older I've become more conservative (lower case "c"), but I don't identify with any particular party.

 

And yeah, yeah, yeah - Trump said this and Trump said that, but that crap is just political theatre. When the rubber meets the road, he'll have to get down to the business of legitimately running the country - and I think he may do a good job. Anything is better than the entrenched, sorryass, career politicians that we have now.

[HeyYou]

Um, not to ignore the interesting debate goin' on above between Ashenfire and HeyYou, but...

 

Who am I voting for (in the United States)?

 

If it were between Trump and Sanders, that would be a hard choice for me cuz I like a lot of what ol' Bernie is sayin'.

 

If it's between Trump and Clinton... Trump all the way. I'm sick and tired of these dynastic presidents (no more Bushs, no more Clintons) and I can't stand Clinton. It's time for someone different. Not to mention, the far Left has finally gotten on my last nerve and I'm not even really a Conservative; granted, as I've gotten older I've become more conservative (lower case "c"), but I don't identify with any particular party.

 

And yeah, yeah, yeah - Trump said this and Trump said that, but that crap is just political theatre. When the rubber meets the road, he'll have to get down to the business of legitimately running the country - and I think he may do a good job. Anything is better than the entrenched, sorryass, career politicians that we have now.

There's a sentiment I can certainly agree with. :)

[UncleRoe]

it seems now that everytime a presidental election comes up i am put in a situation to vote between two people i know will only do harm to my country. However my parents raised me to vote regardless of how i feel for not voting in itself does harm to the country. So ..there is only one possible outcome .. I am announcing my run for presidency!

[Userper]

it seems now that everytime a presidental election comes up i am put in a situation to vote between two people i know will only do harm to my country. However my parents raised me to vote regardless of how i feel for not voting in itself does harm to the country. So ..there is only one possible outcome .. I am announcing my run for presidency!

... I'd vote for you :thumbsup: (if I lived in the US.)

[ElGreekoo]

I'm not an American Citizen. But if I was, I would definitely vote for Bernie Sanders. #FeelTheBern