# Thoughts???



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 21, 2016)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...georgia-dumps-doctor-over-church-sermons.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 21, 2016)

Heck hath no fury like a LGBTQLMNOPABCXYZ scorned.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 21, 2016)

Obviously having 1 job serving the public sector and having beliefs that would exclude part of that public sector is a conundrum.
Power shifts are, right or wrong, always going to end up with someone getting the short end of the stick.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 21, 2016)

centerpin fan said:


> Heck hath no fury like a LGBTQLMNOPABCXYZ scorned.


And they have been scorned a long time and have alot of fury saved up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 21, 2016)

It's very disturbing how easily we, as a nation, have abandoned the concepts of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the value of competing ideas in the public sphere.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's very disturbing how easily we, as a nation, have abandoned the concepts of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the value of competing ideas in the public sphere.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DdvRuD-fkOY/UZQfTiRt8wI/AAAAAAAAGq8/6WSye6EFJAs/s1600/Oppression+(1).jpg


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 24, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...georgia-dumps-doctor-over-church-sermons.html



What did he say?  I didn't see a quote in the article.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 24, 2016)

bullethead said:


> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DdvRuD-fkOY/UZQfTiRt8wI/AAAAAAAAGq8/6WSye6EFJAs/s1600/Oppression+(1).jpg



Christians are the best at playing the victim.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 24, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Obviously having 1 job serving the public sector and having beliefs that would exclude part of that public sector is a conundrum.
> Power shifts are, right or wrong, always going to end up with someone getting the short end of the stick.



Who does not?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 24, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> Who does not?


Irrelevant


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 24, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> Irrelevant



I disagree Walt.  You are absolutely correct in that noting that pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and yes, it happens.  Here's what concerns me.  With the precedents that are being set silencing dissent, we, as a nation, are beginning to favor Germany in the mid to late 30s with regards to our collective mentality.  That is relevant regardless of your beliefs


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 24, 2016)

I'd like to find out why he was fired first. Maybe it was because he's black or because he's a 7th Day Adventist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree Walt.  You are absolutely correct in that noting that pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and yes, it happens.  Here's what concerns me.  With the precedents that are being set silencing dissent, we, as a nation, are beginning to favor Germany in the mid to late 30s with regards to our collective mentality.  That is relevant regardless of your beliefs


I meant irrelevant  in this particular case.
The relevant part is his public service job and the fact that his believes  may be perceived to exclude part of that public. But note that I said perceived. It's certainly not a guarantee that his religious beliefs would conflict with his public service.
But perception is often all it takes.
And I just don't see this big silencing of dissent. Sometimes people have to be dragged forward. Sometimes they have to be left behind. Sometimes what they believe just doesn't line up with the direction society is going. Sometimes they just have to accept what they believe isn't top dog anymore.
And the world goes round and round.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 25, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I meant irrelevant  in this particular case.
> The relevant part is his public service job and the fact that his believes  may be perceived to exclude part of that public. But note that I said perceived. It's certainly not a guarantee that his religious beliefs would conflict with his public service.
> But perception is often all it takes.
> And I just don't see this big silencing of dissent. Sometimes people have to be dragged forward. Sometimes they have to be left behind. Sometimes what they believe just doesn't line up with the direction society is going. Sometimes they just have to accept what they believe isn't top dog anymore.
> And the world goes round and round.



I agree. While I do not like the lifestyle choices of many, I do recognize it is not my place to tell them what they can or can't do. 

More to the point, this public servant was expousing publicly his opinion on others lifestyles. Seems like that is grounds enough to dismiss him.


----------



## hummerpoo (Apr 25, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I meant irrelevant  in this particular case.
> The relevant part is his public service job and the fact that his believes  may be perceived to exclude part of that public. But note that I said perceived. It's certainly not a guarantee that his religious beliefs would conflict with his public service.
> But perception is often all it takes.
> And I just don't see this big silencing of dissent. Sometimes people have to be dragged forward. Sometimes they have to be left behind. Sometimes what they believe just doesn't line up with the direction society is going. Sometimes they just have to accept what they believe isn't top dog anymore.
> And the world goes round and round.



It sounds as though you recognize a possible parallelism between being a believer in the 2050's and being black in the 1950's, with the distinction being that belief is more easily hidden from view; which is, of coarse, the "keep it at home and in the church" that many advocate.

Or could it be that the possible parallelism is believer and (pick your lifestyle euphemism).  For the "eye for an eye" believer that could be seen as justice through retrobution — for faithful believers ,of both eras, it all rests on guilt by co-opted association.

1 Cor. 5:

9  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
10  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 
11  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 
12  For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 
13  God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." 

Of coarse, that teaching does not address what must be done when the world, through government, forces itself into the Church.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 25, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I agree. While I do not like the lifestyle choices of many, I do recognize it is not my place to tell them what they can or can't do.
> 
> More to the point, this public servant was expousing publicly his opinion on others lifestyles. Seems like that is grounds enough to dismiss him.



Most Christians recognize that too.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 25, 2016)

I am neither gay nor a Christian, but I think discrimination is discrimination in either direction. If a guy was fired for practicing his religion, that is no different than firing someone for being gay. I daresay that a gay person in a public sector job would not be fired for publicly disagreeing with Christianity. Nowadays, you will be made to agree with and support gay folks, regardless of your opinion. Yours does not matter. Only the gay folks' opinion matters, and they are allowed to disagree with anybody and call them names. You are not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2016)

hummerpoo said:


> It sounds as though you recognize a possible parallelism between being a believer in the 2050's and being black in the 1950's, with the distinction being that belief is more easily hidden from view; which is, of coarse, the "keep it at home and in the church" that many advocate.
> 
> Or could it be that the possible parallelism is believer and (pick your lifestyle euphemism).  For the "eye for an eye" believer that could be seen as justice through retrobution — for faithful believers ,of both eras, it all rests on guilt by co-opted association.
> 
> ...


No. I don't see any possible parallel between being black in the 1950s and being a Christian in 2050.  
None whatsoever.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> I am neither gay nor a Christian, but I think discrimination is discrimination in either direction. If a guy was fired for practicing his religion, that is no different than firing someone for being gay. I daresay that a gay person in a public sector job would not be fired for publicly disagreeing with Christianity. Nowadays, you will be made to agree with and support gay folks, regardless of your opinion. Yours does not matter. Only the gay folks' opinion matters, and they are allowed to disagree with anybody and call them names. You are not.


I think you give gays too much power. They are accomplishing nothing on their own. It is society that is changing their thought process, laws, attitudes etc.
Gays have always been. If society wasn't changing its attitudes etc, nothing would be changing.


----------



## Israel (Apr 25, 2016)

If just telling someone they are evil is grounds for umbrage, well, why don't we just go out and hang God in the public square. 

Oh, wait...

The reproaches of those that reproached thee, fell on me.
Fell is past tense...right?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you give gays too much power. They are accomplishing nothing on their own. It is society that is changing their thought process, laws, attitudes etc.
> Gays have always been. If society wasn't changing its attitudes etc, nothing would be changing.




That's a very astute observation.  It has always been the collision with modernity and secularism that has socially reformed religions.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 25, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you give gays too much power. They are accomplishing nothing on their own. It is society that is changing their thought process, laws, attitudes etc.
> Gays have always been. If society wasn't changing its attitudes etc, nothing would be changing.



Because of very outspoken, loud activism by the gay lobby, famous actors, gay activist federal judges, etc. using political correctness run amok to further their goals. How am I giving them too much power? They just struck down parts of the constitutions of several states, and are right now attacking NC over the men in ladies' locker rooms bill. And they will win. Whatever they want, they get. Always.

If it was society changing , a majority of states, including California even, would not have had gay marriage bans that were voted in by an overwhelming majority again and again, only to be struck down by federal judges, thwarting the will of the people. The agenda of these folks is that you will be forced to agree with them, or else.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 25, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Most Christians recognize that too.


Not this Christian.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> Because of very outspoken, loud activism by the gay lobby, famous actors, gay activist federal judges, etc. using political correctness run amok to further their goals. How am I giving them too much power? They just struck down parts of the constitutions of several states, and are right now attacking NC over the men in ladies' locker rooms bill. And they will win. Whatever they want, they get. Always.
> 
> If it was society changing , a majority of states, including California even, would not have had gay marriage bans that were voted in by an overwhelming majority again and again, only to be struck down by federal judges, thwarting the will of the people. The agenda of these folks is that you will be forced to agree with them, or else.



So what is it that you're against?  The fact (which is the way it has always been) that those with the most influence shape the laws or that those with influence are on opposition to your sense of what's right and wrong?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> Because of very outspoken, loud activism by the gay lobby, famous actors, gay activist federal judges, etc. using political correctness run amok to further their goals. How am I giving them too much power? They just struck down parts of the constitutions of several states, and are right now attacking NC over the men in ladies' locker rooms bill. And they will win. Whatever they want, they get. Always.
> 
> If it was society changing , a majority of states, including California even, would not have had gay marriage bans that were voted in by an overwhelming majority again and again, only to be struck down by federal judges, thwarting the will of the people. The agenda of these folks is that you will be forced to agree with them, or else.


In 2007 only 1.7% of the US population identified as gay or lesbian.
1.7%.     They aren't doing it alone.
And society changing doesn't mean there is 100% change overnight.
This discussion is taking place as a result of change in society.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> In 2007 only 1.7% of the US population identified as gay or lesbian.
> 1.7%.     They aren't doing it alone.
> And society changing doesn't mean there is 100% change overnight.
> This discussion is taking place as a result of change in society.



Again, right on the money, and by money, I mean MONEY.  The gay lobby is fueled by strong corporate entities, mostly in the media and Hollywood.  They've always been champions of progressive ideas and social justice.  

Just imagine where we would be without them.  That's actually a good discussion.  What would society be like now without the progressives' politicizing?  In your ideal world, who should be in charge of shaping the moral landscape.   As it turns out for most people, they prefer that the people of influence share their values.  I have come to realize that my values are sometimes uninformed or misinformed.  I also recognize that I'm influenced strongly by my biases, often to the wrong, practical position.   I find that I should listen more and picket less.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 25, 2016)

What is a common sense, practical solution to dealing with the Trans-configured-gendered-self imaged-sexually misaligned?

Public shunning?  Marginalization?  Making it illegal?  Imprisoning?  Institutionalizing?

I'm not judging.  I just want to hear some practical solutions.  If your argument is sound I will helplessly agree.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 25, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> So what is it that you're against?  The fact (which is the way it has always been) that those with the most influence shape the laws or that those with influence are on opposition to your sense of what's right and wrong?



The fact that a small minority of folks for the last few years have been overriding the opinions of a vast, vast majority of American citizens. I guess I'm basically just sick and tired of the overwhelming wave of political correctness that dictates everything that happens in this country, and the fact that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being called names and ostracized. I do not want your new Amerika.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 25, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> Not this Christian.



I only repeat what God says. If he says it's wrong, then so do I. That's what I meant, though I should have left less room for inference.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 25, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that a small minority of folks for the last few years have been overriding the opinions of a vast, vast majority of American citizens. I guess I'm basically just sick and tired of the overwhelming wave of political correctness that dictates everything that happens in this country, and the fact that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being called names and ostracized. I do not want your new Amerika.


I'm not sure you are being accurate.
Vast, vast majority of folks being overriden?
2014 Gallup Poll shows 54% of folks approving gay marriage. Other polls reflect the same.
If gays comprise we'll say 2% of the population, who is the other 52% ?
And I would assume it's adults taking the polls. Throw in the younger generation and watch that 54% go up.
Are some gay organizations riding that wave of change to seemingly ridiculous extremes? Yes.
On the flip side if you gained new found power are you going for the big win or settle for a tie?
As far as political correctness and being called names/being ostricized, it's all connected.
What do you suppose the reaction now would be to Germans speaking against Jews?
This isn't a new Amerika.
It's the same process of change that's been going on forever.... just a new subject.


----------



## Israel (Apr 25, 2016)

It's odd.
When a man wants to vilify God...or the notion...he will drag out his judgments and say "this thing that happens is bad, it is irremediably bad without contradiction or need of further persuasion...it's just bad, evil, without any possibility of good in it whatever, and therefore a _good_ God is a fallacy"

Yet...other feet where shoes of relativism.


----------



## JimD (Apr 25, 2016)

Walt,

One problem is things like we are discussing, among others, dont happen by chance. They are being driven and supported for a reason. Please read The Tavistock Institute on Human Relations, it explains a lot.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 25, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that a small minority of folks for the last few years have been overriding the opinions of a vast, vast majority of American citizens. I guess I'm basically just sick and tired of the overwhelming wave of political correctness that dictates everything that happens in this country, and the fact that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being called names and ostracized. I do not want your new Amerika.



Just as we don't feel the same way about Blacks as our parents and/or grandparents did, young people don't feel the same way we did about women's rights or inter-racial couples. 
The younger generation feels it's OK to worship with girls wearing pants, drinking coffee, and playing rock praise music. 
They don't view much of anything the way we do as we didn't our parents.  It's not just a small section of society getting over on us. It's a large percentage of society that is changing. 
Like it or not "times, they are a changing." Now when they get older and start making money, the young people won't like it when they have to support the Gays because they won't work and are all on welfare. When the Gays will want free AIDs treatment with their tax money.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 25, 2016)

JimD said:


> Walt,
> 
> One problem is things like we are discussing, among others, dont happen by chance. They are being driven and supported for a reason. Please read The Tavistock Institute on Human Relations, it explains a lot.



I haven't read the book but does movies, books, and music shape people or mirror the change that is currently happening?
Take praise worship music. Was it invented by the music industry as a way to get young people to buy their music or were young people already ready for a change and the music industry saw this change and reacted on it?

Which comes first social change and then Hollywood or Hollywood and then social change? People started having adultery and cursing in movies. Married couples started sleeping in the same bed on TV shows. Then people started committing adultery, cursing and sleeping in the same bed as their wives. People started mocking Hollywood and society changed.


----------



## JimD (Apr 26, 2016)

That book would be called by many "conspiracy theory" mumbo jumbo. All of the media is owned by a couple groups. There are groups of people who control the world and the media is used to shape people's thinking and actions, for "their" benefit, ie money and power. That book and the Creature of Jekyll Island should be on everyone's reding list. They have done a great job over the last 100 odd years.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> The fact that a small minority of folks for the last few years have been overriding the opinions of a vast, vast majority of American citizens. I guess I'm basically just sick and tired of the overwhelming wave of political correctness that dictates everything that happens in this country, and the fact that no one is allowed to disagree with it without being called names and ostracized. I do not want your new Amerika.




Do you have a hope that one day this ^ doesn't happen to anyone anymore?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 26, 2016)

I'm not stepping in that trap, because I disagree with you on this issue. Which is ok. I don't think it should happen in either direction. But, if you are a man and you go around in women's clothing and pretending to be a woman, that is your own choice and behavior that you are doing. If you want to do that, don't expect everybody to support you or think you're mentally stable. You can put on a furry suit with a tail and ears,; and go around on all fours rooting at the ground and pretending to be a pig-but you are not a pig. You are just a confused human. I feel much the same about transgendered people. And doubt if I'll change my opinion. The difference is, at one time, both similar behaviors would have gotten you locked up in the nervous hospital. Now one still would, but the other is applauded and supported; even though they are basically the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> I'm not stepping in that trap, because I disagree with you on this issue. Which is ok. I don't think it should happen in either direction. But, if you are a man and you go around in women's clothing and pretending to be a woman, that is your own choice and behavior that you are doing. If you want to do that, don't expect everybody to support you or think you're mentally stable. You can put on a furry suit with a tail and ears,; and go around on all fours rooting at the ground and pretending to be a pig-but you are not a pig. You are just a confused human. I feel much the same about transgendered people. And doubt if I'll change my opinion. The difference is, at one time, both similar behaviors would have gotten you locked up in the nervous hospital. Now one still would, but the other is applauded and supported; even though they are basically the same.



Great now I'm going to have nightmares about dudes in furry suits.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 26, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you give gays too much power. They are accomplishing nothing on their own. It is society that is changing their thought process, laws, attitudes etc.
> Gays have always been. If society wasn't changing its attitudes etc, nothing would be changing.



Again I agree, but feel you are missing the bigger point he made:  Discrimination is discrimination.  We haven't gotten rid of it; only swapped the ones being discriminated against.  You may not have a problem with that, but let's not make the mistake of pretending that we have rid ourselves of it and social justice (if you will) works.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I haven't read the book but does movies, books, and music shape people or mirror the change that is currently happening?
> Take praise worship music. Was it invented by the music industry as a way to get young people to buy their music or were young people already ready for a change and the music industry saw this change and reacted on it?
> 
> Which comes first social change and then Hollywood or Hollywood and then social change? People started having adultery and cursing in movies. Married couples started sleeping in the same bed on TV shows. Then people started committing adultery, cursing and sleeping in the same bed as their wives. People started mocking Hollywood and society changed.


Do you honestly believe this did not happen  before Hollywood?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again I agree, but feel you are missing the bigger point he made:  Discrimination is discrimination.  We haven't gotten rid of it; only swapped the ones being discriminated against.  You may not have a problem with that, but let's not make the mistake of pretending that we have rid ourselves of it and social justice (if you will) works.


I think we have very different views of what discrimination actually is.
Give me some current examples of swapping one group for another.
For example - Do you view the legalization of gay marriage to be discriminatory to you as a Christian?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> I'm not stepping in that trap, because I disagree with you on this issue. Which is ok. I don't think it should happen in either direction. But, if you are a man and you go around in women's clothing and pretending to be a woman, that is your own choice and behavior that you are doing. If you want to do that, don't expect everybody to support you or think you're mentally stable. You can put on a furry suit with a tail and ears,; and go around on all fours rooting at the ground and pretending to be a pig-but you are not a pig. You are just a confused human. I feel much the same about transgendered people. And doubt if I'll change my opinion. The difference is, at one time, both similar behaviors would have gotten you locked up in the nervous hospital. Now one still would, but the other is applauded and supported; even though they are basically the same.




I took the thought experiment a step further and imagined a person that self identified as a baby wanting to nurse (from his/her consensual 'mother') on the train or at Taco Bell.   I couldn't, from a health or safety standpoint, find an issue with it.  Some people think that it should be illegal for real mothers with real babies to nurse in public.  It seems to me that the issue is one of Decency.  Bizarre behaviours, especially those linked to sexuality, seem to be more controversial.  

Taboos are interesting.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Apr 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> It's odd.
> When a man wants to vilify God...or the notion...he will drag out his judgments and say "this thing that happens is bad, it is irremediably bad without contradiction or need of further persuasion...it's just bad, evil, without any possibility of good in it whatever, and therefore a _good_ God is a fallacy"
> 
> Yet...other feet where shoes of relativism.



^This... all day long, and twice on Sunday.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> .... and are right now attacking NC over the men in ladies' locker rooms bill. And they will win. Whatever they want, they get. Always.



This is where I get lost in all of it.  I am for equal treatment, and freedom, and all that.  But, I do not see how anybody can think such is a good idea.  I have a 7 year old daughter.........if I am traveling somewhere with her, I sure as heck am not going to let her go into any restroom without me any more if such a restroom is "gender neutral."  It's just dangerous.   That is where we are headed.....can't be having "discriminatory restrooms."

Can't folks at least have some common sense to go along with all the equality they seek?  I am opposed to state sanctioning any marriage.  I am opposed to laws banning or prohibiting an individual from engaging in activities and relationships they so choose (assuming there is no victim created by the activity or relationship).  I think an individual's morality is only accomplished when chosen, not forced.  But, what in the world is this restroom non-sense about?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> It's odd.
> When a man wants to vilify God...or the notion...he will drag out his judgments and say "this thing that happens is bad, it is irremediably bad without contradiction or need of further persuasion...it's just bad, evil, without any possibility of good in it whatever, and therefore a _good_ God is a fallacy"
> 
> Yet...other feet where shoes of relativism.


When a man wants to glorify god... or the notion... he will drag out his judgements and say "this thing that happens is good, it is irremediably good without contradiction or need of further persuasion... it's just good, righteous, without any possibility of bad in it whatever, and therefore a bad God is a fallicy.
Yet other feet wear shoes of relativism.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> This is where I get lost in all of it.  I am for equal treatment, and freedom, and all that.  But, I do not see how anybody can think such is a good idea.  I have a 7 year old daughter.........if I am traveling somewhere with her, I sure as heck am not going to let her go into any restroom without me any more if such a restroom is "gender neutral."  It's just dangerous.   That is where we are headed.....can't be having "discriminatory restrooms."
> 
> Can't folks at least have some common sense to go along with all the equality they seek?  I am opposed to state sanctioning any marriage.  I am opposed to laws banning or prohibiting an individual from engaging in activities and relationships they so choose (assuming there is no victim created by the activity or relationship).  I think an individual's morality is only accomplished when chosen, not forced.  But, what in the world is this restroom non-sense about?


Common sense? You can't be serious
Here's my question -
A man that feels like a woman still in fact knows he's a man. So why not accept that and use the men's room? You can feel however you choose to as you hike up your dress and use the urinal.
As an adult I've used unisex bathrooms in clubs etc. and it was perfectly acceptable to everyone.
But the presence of kids changes the whole ball game to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> This is where I get lost in all of it.  I am for equal treatment, and freedom, and all that.  But, I do not see how anybody can think such is a good idea.  I have a 7 year old daughter.........if I am traveling somewhere with her, I sure as heck am not going to let her go into any restroom without me any more if such a restroom is "gender neutral."  It's just dangerous.   That is where we are headed.....can't be having "discriminatory restrooms."
> 
> Can't folks at least have some common sense to go along with all the equality they seek?  I am opposed to state sanctioning any marriage.  I am opposed to laws banning or prohibiting an individual from engaging in activities and relationships they so choose (assuming there is no victim created by the activity or relationship).  I think an individual's morality is only accomplished when chosen, not forced.  But, what in the world is this restroom non-sense about?





WaltL1 said:


> Common sense? You can't be serious
> Here's my question -
> A man that feels like a woman still in fact knows he's a man. So why not accept that and use the men's room? You can feel however you choose to as you hike up your dress and use the urinal.
> As an adult I've used unisex bathrooms in clubs etc. and it was perfectly acceptable to everyone.
> But the presence of kids changes the whole ball game to me.



My neighbors have a daughter who grew up with a boy who we ALL knew was gonna be gay.  I met him when he was around 7.  His dad is a regular guy, maybe even bordering on macho.  He has a bald head, muscular build, tattoos, a goatee and he likes to shoot guns.  I saw this boy go through childhood, adolescence and puberty and there was never a doubt in anybody's mind that he was gay.  Last year, when he turned 18 he decided to be a woman.  He makes a really pretty woman.  I mean, no joke.  Anyone here would take a second look if he walked into whatever bar you were in. 

Honest to God, I would actually prefer that he change in the women's locker room even with my 7 year old daughter in there than change with me in the men's room.  If we were in a sketchy place I might even ask that he accompany my daughter into the restroom.  I would rather he go into a stall in the ladies room to use the bathroom than for him to come into the men's room, pull down his pantyhose, hike up his mini skirt and pee in the urinal next to me.  It wouldn't _really_ bother me since I know him and like him but I would probably tell him "Dude, go use the girl's room".  

There was a tranny that worked at the Home Depot that I got to know pretty well.  He seemed to like that I spoke to him like anybody else.  He didn't look so pretty.  He just didn't have the makeup and hair skills.  He looked like he put on his lipstick with crayon and he was tall and muscular and he had bad, thin hair.  If I saw him go into the women's bathroom and I didn't know him I would be suspicious of his motives; again, just because he didn't look so pretty.  But knowing him as I did I would prefer that he use the ladies room...even with my wife and my daughter in there.  

What would you like to do with those guys?  Shock therapy?  Institutionalization?


----------



## Israel (Apr 26, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> When a man wants to glorify god... or the notion... he will drag out his judgements and say "this thing that happens is good, it is irremediably good without contradiction or need of further persuasion... it's just good, righteous, without any possibility of bad in it whatever, and therefore a bad God is a fallicy.
> Yet other feet wear shoes of relativism.


I have never heard the argument from any of the "bad" God.
What I have consistently heard is the God and Father of Jesus Christ is not good enough to be my God.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> What would you like to do with those guys?  Shock therapy?  Institutionalization?



Neither Ambush.   Folks need to be who they are.  But, the reality is the world is full of bad people.  Men in bathrooms with little girls is a bad idea.  There are lots of things in life that aren't exactly fair, I can't dunk for instance, did not inherit any land, nor could I ever run a 4.4 - 40.    Just gotta pick up the pieces n move on I reckon.

Fwiw, I was always very cautious with my son going in a public restroom as well.  But, with my daughter I can't, or won't, go into a ladies room to make sure there ain't no pervy dudes in there.  It's just a bad idea man.  Opens up too many problems to solve one.  This is one of those things where they really are asking everybody else to put themselves out to accommodate them.  And, I am a "live n let live" kind-a dude, but that is a 2-way street.

And, even now I make my daughter look in the restroom and report back that there isn't anybody in there before she can use it........but, we are increasing the risk factor exponentially by making every restroom "gender neutral."


----------



## bullethead (Apr 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> I have never heard the argument from any of the "bad" God.
> What I have consistently heard is the God and Father of Jesus Christ is not good enough to be my God.


What I have consistently heard, when people say what you heard, was always because someone was referring to the concept of the God that according to stories written by anonymous men over thousands of years is not good enough to be my/their god. Main reason being is that we have the stories, we have the characters but none of it is God-like and in every single case an actual god is missing.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> Neither Ambush.   Folks need to be who they are.  But, the reality is the world is full of bad people.  Men in bathrooms with little girls is a bad idea.  There are lots of things in life that aren't exactly fair, I can't dunk for instance, did not inherit any land, nor could I ever run a 4.4 - 40.    Just gotta pick up the pieces n move on I reckon.
> 
> Fwiw, I was always very cautious with my son going in a public restroom as well.  But, with my daughter I can't, or won't, go into a ladies room to make sure there ain't no pervy dudes in there.  It's just a bad idea man.  Opens up too many problems to solve one.  This is one of those things where they really are asking everybody else to put themselves out to accommodate them.  And, I am a "live n let live" kind-a dude, but that is a 2-way street.
> 
> And, even now I make my daughter look in the restroom and report back that there isn't anybody in there before she can use it........but, we are increasing the risk factor exponentially by making every restroom "gender neutral."




I would have no problem with V. (the neighborhood kid) going in the bathroom with my daughter.  I just absolutely wouldn't.  As I said before, in a certain situation, I would feel better if he accompanied my daughter.  

I think what he does is weird, the dressing up and all that.  I think gayness is weird, too but it's here to stay.  I might even be convinced that he has mental or emotional disorder but it would be hard to prove to me.  He's a good person and he's had it rough in ways that I don't think he should have.  It's complicated but I prefer to err on the side of kindness.

Maybe you should meet him.  I'll find out if he likes to fish.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 26, 2016)

I'd go fishin' with him Ambush, no problem there.  I know a trout hole that needs a visit shortly   And there's been a striper trip talked about a long time that needs to become a reality (I take full responsibility for that not happenning, life's been very crazy).  Let's set it up.  I'm serious.

I am not concerned about V.  I'm concerned about 'ol chester using the rules we put in place to accommodate V.  Where I am going with this is I think the best case scenario is V just dealing with things as they are because of the insane amount of bad guys in this world.  It's just better that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> I'd go fishin' with him Ambush, no problem there.  I know a trout hole that needs a visit shortly   And there's been a striper trip talked about a long time that needs to become a reality (I take full responsibility for that not happenning, life's been very crazy).  Let's set it up.  I'm serious.
> 
> I am not concerned about V.  I'm concerned about 'ol chester using the rules we put in place to accommodate V.  Where I am going with this is I think the best case scenario is V just dealing with things as they are because of the insane amount of bad guys in this world.  It's just better that way.



Trust me.  You don't want V. walking into the men's room.  That would be worse than awkward.

Chester has been doing his nasty business for a long time.  I'll hold judgement on whether it makes it easier for him to operate.  If V. is in there, Chester is gonna get a beating.

Maybe we should look into night trip rates.  For fishing, I mean.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Do you honestly believe this did not happen  before Hollywood?



That was my point. It did happen before Hollywood. Does the Federal Reserve control society  by manipulating us or does Hollywood just show what is already happening?

Homosexuality was already happening way before Hollywood started putting gay characters in movies and on TV shows. Now there is one in almost every movie and on almost every TV show. 
Hollywood didn't make society gay. They are actually depicting it to be way more gay than it is. They also make it way more Black than it is and way  more female than it is.

I'm not sure much of it has anything to do with the Gay agenda, the Liberal agenda, or the Federal Reserve.
It's just a business trying to make money off of us. 
We expect every show to have a black guy, a gay guy, and a female no matter what the situation. 
This goes way back to old war and cowboy movies. They put pretty women in full makeup in the middle of a desert and war zones. In the Seventies they started putting black people in more places/jobs than was normal for black people to be in.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 26, 2016)

I've been hearing more about Chester gaining access to the women's room as a reason to not let trans into the women's room. Is this warranted? Not that every trans is a Chester, but now Chesters can pose as trans to gain access. 
Why couldn't Chester have done this before the rules changed? Doesn't Chester prey more on friends and relatives then total strangers?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've been hearing more about Chester gaining access to the women's room as a reason to not let trans into the women's room. Is this warranted? Not that every trans is a Chester, but now Chesters can pose as trans to gain access.
> Why couldn't Chester have done this before the rules changed? Doesn't Chester prey more on friends and relatives then total strangers?



Go preach this in the PF.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2016)

bullethead said:


> What I have consistently heard, when people say what you heard, was always because someone was referring to the concept of the God that according to stories written by anonymous men over thousands of years is not good enough to be my/their god. Main reason being is that we have the stories, we have the characters but none of it is God-like and in every single case an actual god is missing.


I hear that a lot, too...anonymous men.
Paul and several others are careful in their attributions.
And he reminds us, as to the accusation of "none of it is God -like" when a man cannot bear what he considers inconsitencies:


"Behold then the kindness and severity of God".


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> My neighbors have a daughter who grew up with a boy who we ALL knew was gonna be gay.  I met him when he was around 7.  His dad is a regular guy, maybe even bordering on macho.  He has a bald head, muscular build, tattoos, a goatee and he likes to shoot guns.  I saw this boy go through childhood, adolescence and puberty and there was never a doubt in anybody's mind that he was gay.  Last year, when he turned 18 he decided to be a woman.  He makes a really pretty woman.  I mean, no joke.  Anyone here would take a second look if he walked into whatever bar you were in.
> 
> Honest to God, I would actually prefer that he change in the women's locker room even with my 7 year old daughter in there than change with me in the men's room.  If we were in a sketchy place I might even ask that he accompany my daughter into the restroom.  I would rather he go into a stall in the ladies room to use the bathroom than for him to come into the men's room, pull down his pantyhose, hike up his mini skirt and pee in the urinal next to me.  It wouldn't _really_ bother me since I know him and like him but I would probably tell him "Dude, go use the girl's room".
> 
> ...


No shock treatment or institutionalization necessary.
However I do think there are legitimate questions to be worked out such as -
Just how far should society be expected to go because "inside I feel like a ...." ?
There are legitimate cases of adults who feel like a baby. They literally live their life as a child. Their partner treats theme as such.
Should Walmart be expected to provide 7 foot long changing tables in rest rooms?
And does, and I'm not sure what to call it so I'll use "personal responsibility" enter the picture at any time? Meaning I feel like a woman but i KNOW I'm a man therefor I should use the men's rest room?

And as for all the hoopla about "them" being a danger to a child, I don't buy it. It's not "them" that's abducting etc children. It's the guy in a tie with a wife and kids at home that's doing it. (generalization)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> No shock treatment or institutionalization necessary.
> However I do think there are legitimate questions to be worked out such as -
> Just how far should society be expected to go because "inside I feel like a ...." ?
> There are legitimate cases of adults who feel like a baby. They literally live their life as a child. Their partner treats theme as such.
> ...




Most of the issues are about taboos which you know as well as I are culturally based.  They can change.  They're not set in stone.  I share the same taboos as you do because we grew up in a nation where Christianity (with some Greek philosophy thrown in) was the basis of most of our social and cultural norms.  In the Philippines, gays and trannies are fairly well accepted.  In other parts of Asia they're revered. 

I have less sympathy for people that feel like babies because the it's not supported by their physiology.  If one of them could be shown to have the actual mental capacity of a baby I could get behind that.  Science is spending alot of time to looking for a 'Gay Gene' as if somehow that would legitimize gayness.  We all recognize and accept certain people's inclinations towards math or sports even without the need for a "Math Gene" or a "Golf Gene" though there's much research being done in that field.  

One of these days we will understand how the brain works and how it forms tendencies in behavior.  We may even explain why some people want to be babies or dress up like animals or why someone gets so obsessed by fishing or chess.

I think your point about who 'Chester' is is right on the mark.  Guys that will dress up like women to get in the women's locker rooms are run of the mill dirtbags who lack sophistication and will quickly be weeded out.  What I anticipate initially, because of the new laws, is that a person who is against the laws, will attempt to expose the "dangers" of it by doing something ridiculous and making alot of noise and there will be 50 links to it in the PF saying "See? I told you so!!"


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

This may or may not help.  I was not entirely convinced but if this 'guy' walked into the men's room I was in, went into a stall, did her business and left I probably wouldn't even have noticed.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> And as for all the hoopla about "them" being a danger to a child, I don't buy it. It's not "them" that's abducting etc children. It's the guy in a tie with a wife and kids at home that's doing it. (generalization)



My general concern is the idea of a "gender neutral" bathroom (I think Target went this route)........giving "chester" all the license he needs to be in there with little girls.  Ambush seems convinced society will weed them out, but I don't see how they can if he doesn't break laws / rules.  It's just an uncomfortable situation for everybody and unfortunately in this particular case I think the ones who truly do have identity issues will just need to deal with it. 

Like you said, involving kids changes things.  I don't think the risk is people like "V," I also don't think we ought give "chester" additional resources to do what he does.  I just don't see the value in what is being accomplished here which outweighs the "risks."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I think we have very different views of what discrimination actually is.
> Give me some current examples of swapping one group for another.
> For example - Do you view the legalization of gay marriage to be discriminatory to you as a Christian?



No. I view the firing of a person for his personal beliefs discrimatory.  Like I said, you may not agree.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 27, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've been hearing more about Chester gaining access to the women's room as a reason to not let trans into the women's room. Is this warranted? Not that every trans is a Chester, but now Chesters can pose as trans to gain access.
> Why couldn't Chester have done this before the rules changed? Doesn't Chester prey more on friends and relatives then total strangers?



When I coached little league every year.........every year.......we would have at least one incident with a creepy dude in the bathroom.  There was a few things that caused this.  First, the presence of a lot of kids.  Second, people often let their kids roam somewhat free at the ballpark.  Third, a bathroom where lots of kids went.

None of these incidents ended with an abduction or an arrest.  Usually chester was gon before the dads got there to whoop him.  My issue is the idea of a "gender neutral" bathroom, where you don't know when your daughter walks into the women's room if there's a dude in there because there is no reason why he couldn't be.  Currently, if a little girl walks into a restroom and a dude is in there she immediately knows something is wrong.

There's some sick people in this world.  I'm all for limiting their access.  I am not on a mission against trans folks, I think some common sense really ought win the day here.  If you are a man (genetically speaking), use the men's room.  If you are a woman, use the women's room.  That way I don't have to walk into ladies rooms to make sure there ain't some dude in there taking a leak in front of little girls.........seems reasonable to me.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2016)

Israel said:


> I hear that a lot, too...anonymous men.
> Paul and several others are careful in their attributions.
> And he reminds us, as to the accusation of "none of it is God -like" when a man cannot bear what he considers inconsitencies:
> 
> ...


Who are these "several others"?
How many non anonymous authors are there?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> When I coached little league every year.........every year.......we would have at least one incident with a creepy dude in the bathroom.  There was a few things that caused this.  First, the presence of a lot of kids.  Second, people often let their kids roam somewhat free at the ballpark.  Third, a bathroom where lots of kids went.
> 
> None of these incidents ended with an abduction or an arrest.  Usually chester was gon before the dads got there to whoop him.  My issue is the idea of a "gender neutral" bathroom, where you don't know when your daughter walks into the women's room if there's a dude in there because there is no reason why he couldn't be.  Currently, if a little girl walks into a restroom and a dude is in there she immediately knows something is wrong.
> 
> There's some sick people in this world.  I'm all for limiting their access.  I am not on a mission against trans folks, I think some common sense really ought win the day here.  If you are a man (genetically speaking), use the men's room.  If you are a woman, use the women's room.  That way I don't have to walk into ladies rooms to make sure there ain't some dude in there taking a leak in front of little girls.........seems reasonable to me.



I'm guessing it was a man in the men's room.  

I don't know about gender neutral bathrooms but StriperrHunter made a post about how genderless showers in the UK military caused less problems than the gender specific ones the US military uses.  I don't know how to process that information.  I instinctively think of it as a bad idea but we all know that perceptions of nudity are cultural and can change.  Ever  been to a nude beach?  I have been to some in Spain (topless) and I have to tell you, yes, it seemed like Christmas morning.  But you can't creep out or you will get your head busted.  There are monsters that we pass every day that want to do unspeakable things to my child or my wife.  Until they act on it what am I to do.  Maybe burkas DO make sense.

When you meet V. you will know immediately why he should use the ladies room.  I'm certain of it and it will feel like common sense.  Same with that lady in the TED talk.  I would get more weirded out seeing her, looking like she does, entering the ladies room where my daughter is than for her to just quietly use the men's room stall and leave.

Notice I don't call him a her or her a him.  I think that's based on your chromosomes.  If I talk about how they behave in public I would use gender specific pronouns.  I did say "Him" in reference to V. when he first started all that mess.  After a while I realized that I was only doing it to be provocative and that calling him, her, made much more sense in public.  Besides, I like him.  Why would I want to make him uncomfortable?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

I did some work recently for a person who I'm 87% certain was trans gendered.  We all had some wise cracks and giggles behind her back.  We even anticipated how funny it would be when the plumber met her and it was funny.   We all joked about the Cosmopolitan magazine with Caitlin Jenner on the cover sitting on the counter.  I met her son, who owned the house, and his girlfriend and I sensed that he referred to "Mom" with just a little too much emphasis, I'm guessing to protect her.   A couple of days into the project it just didn't matter and it was kind of nice that she had done some house framing in the past.  She understood what we were doing.

When I was younger I remember mocking people with a humpback, missing a limb or with cerebral palsy, I'm sure everybody knows the palsy walk.  What we did with my client was the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No. I view the firing of a person for his personal beliefs discrimatory.  Like I said, you may not agree.


If you are talking about the doctor in the op you are reducing the big picture down to the little picture you want to see.
He was offered a PUBLIC RELATIONS job with the GOVERNMENT.
He PUBLICLY espoused his personal beliefs which happen to VIEW NEGATIVELY PART OF THE PUBLIC.
Some pertinent details there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2016)

JB0704 said:


> My general concern is the idea of a "gender neutral" bathroom (I think Target went this route)........giving "chester" all the license he needs to be in there with little girls.  Ambush seems convinced society will weed them out, but I don't see how they can if he doesn't break laws / rules.  It's just an uncomfortable situation for everybody and unfortunately in this particular case I think the ones who truly do have identity issues will just need to deal with it.
> 
> Like you said, involving kids changes things.  I don't think the risk is people like "V," I also don't think we ought give "chester" additional resources to do what he does.  I just don't see the value in what is being accomplished here which outweighs the "risks."


I don't think there can be an argument against that yes a gender neutral situation would make things "easier" for Chester.
The question is going to be how far do we take that. Girls can only have women guidance counselers? After all they would be alone with the guidance counselor in their office. What if the woman guidance counselor is a Chesterette?
 Maybe a bad example but you get my drift.
Gets complicated.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't think there can be an argument against that yes a gender neutral situation would make things "easier" for Chester.
> The question is going to be how far do we take that. Girls can only have women guidance counselers? After all they would be alone with the guidance counselor in their office. What if the woman guidance counselor is a Chesterette?
> Maybe a bad example but you get my drift.
> Gets complicated.



The Lady in the TED video wants a single, gender neutral stall/changing room.  That wouldn't allow for Chester to do anything.  I can't see why that would be so expensive. Lots of bars and restaurants already have either sex, single bathrooms with locking doors.  I think the real problem is cultural taboos.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> The Lady in the TED video wants a single, gender neutral stall/changing room.  That wouldn't allow for Chester to do anything.  I can't see why that would be so expensive. Lots of bars and restaurants already have either sex, single bathrooms with locking doors.  I think the real problem is cultural taboos.


I agree that cultural taboos play a role. 
However what may entice Chester into action - fat bald dudes at the urinal or cute little kids right there in front of him? And maybe its just him and the kid in the bathroom. 
Strictly from an odds standpoint one is more enticing to Chester than the other.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree that cultural taboos play a role.
> However what may entice Chester into action - fat bald dudes at the urinal or cute little kids right there in front of him? And maybe its just him and the kid in the bathroom.
> Strictly from an odds standpoint one is more enticing to Chester than the other.



I just don't see letting trannies use the ladies room or that woman from the TED talk using the men's room becoming a free for all molestation buffet.  I could absolutely be wrong.  So a creep is gonna dress up like a tranny to go hang out in the bathroom?  How long will that last before they get slammed?  You deal with them the same way that you deal with Chester who hangs out at the bathroom full of cute kids at the ball field.

I think V. should get changed for gym class in the boy's room.  
It's easier for me to digest the thought of him walking into the men's locker room with his 6 inch heels and make up, taking off his mini skirt and putting on a string bikini there.  I'd rather his junk fall out there than in front of a little girl in the women's locker room.  Remember, he's gay and he might like the looks of you.  There are male gays looking at naked men all the time in the change room, maybe even looking at kids.  What can you do until they act on it?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> I just don't see letting trannies use the ladies room or that woman from the TED talk using the men's room becoming a free for all molestation buffet.  I could absolutely be wrong.  So a creep is gonna dress up like a tranny to go hang out in the bathroom?  How long will that last before they get slammed?  You deal with them the same way that you deal with Chester who hangs out at the bathroom full of cute kids at the ball field.
> How long would that last before
> 
> I think V. should get changed for gym class in the boy's room.
> It's easier for me to digest the thought of him walking into the men's locker room with his 6 inch heels and make up, taking off his mini skirt and putting on a string bikini there.  I'd rather his junk fall out there than in front of a little girl in the women's locker room.  Remember, he's gay and he might like the looks of you.  There are male gays looking at naked men all the time in the change room, maybe even looking at kids.  What can you do until they act on it?


I was talking about Chester not trannies.
And I think absolutely some number of Chester will dress like a tranny. A man dressing as a woman is pretty common crime disguise.
How long would that last before he got slammed? I don't know. Is there an acceptable number?
I agree with many of your points - when it comes to adults.
But because this includes children, and a parents rights to protect them, it makes it much more complicated.
Let's not forget a child can be traumatized without ever being touched.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 27, 2016)

WaltL1 said:


> I was talking about Chester not trannies.
> And I think absolutely some number of Chester will dress like a tranny. A man dressing as a woman is pretty common crime disguise.
> How long would that last before he got slammed? I don't know. Is there an acceptable number?
> I agree with many of your points - when it comes to adults.
> ...


It doesn't matter how many women and children are victimized or traumatized. All that matters is that the transvestites are happy. Welcome to the new world order.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

NCHillbilly said:


> It doesn't matter how many women and children are victimized or traumatized. All that matters is that the transvestites are happy. Welcome to the new world order.



The goal is for the greatest number to be happy and to minimize suckiness.  That's the New World Order.  

Some people are unhappy about societal changes for irrational reasons.  (Not implying you).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

Now you can see why the Bible speaks against heterosexual males having gay sex with boys!

Seriously, how or what are we doing about heterosexual child molesters checking out boys in the Men's Room today? Shouldn't we have one bathroom for men and another for boys? 

I'm not too fond of gay men checking me out in the men's room either. I think all gay men should use the Women's room and all gay women should use the Men's room. Won't be no oogling & ogling that way.

There could already be gay Chesters in the men's room. Percentage wise there are probably already more heterosexual married men checking out boys in the men's room. 

Thank you God for your reasoning and  wisdom. 

Forget about the gay Chesters, it's the hetero Chesters I'm worried about. They are already in the Boy's room and we aren't doing anything about it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

If there is a New World Order, I wonder why the The House of Rothschild wants gender neutral bathrooms?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now you can see why the Bible speaks against heterosexual males having gay sex with boys!
> 
> Seriously, how or what are we doing about heterosexual child molesters checking out boys in the Men's Room today? Shouldn't we have one bathroom for men and another for boys?
> 
> I'm not too fond of gay men checking me out in the men's room. I think all gay men should use the Women's room and all gay women should use the Men's room. Won't be no oogling & ogling that way.



That's not a very good solution.  I can easily see drunk frat boys saying they're gay so that they can use the women's room. Also, some lesbians are mighty hot.





Artfuldodger said:


> There could already be gay Chesters in the men's room. Percentage wise there are probably already more heterosexual married men checking out boys in the men's room.
> 
> Thank you God for your reasoning and  wisdom.
> 
> Forget about the gay Chesters, it's the hetero Chesters I'm worried about. They are already in the Boy's room and we aren't doing anything about it.



Nothing you can do about that until they act on their thoughts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

We need to put a stop to Church youth groups. No way I'd let my child go to one of those events. At the very least get rid of all of the adult leaders and let the children step up into leadership roles.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

http://www.pikore.com/helena___banana


Do you really want her in the men's room (the blonde)?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That's not a very good solution.  I can easily see drunk frat boys saying they're gay so that they can use the women's room. Also, some lesbians are mighty hot.
> 
> 
> Nothing you can do about that until they act on their thoughts.



Sure we can, we can have smaller individual neutral gender bathrooms.  We can stop letting our children or wives go to bathrooms by themselves. 
Wait a minute, women don't go to the bathroom by themselves. 

All gynecologists should be hetero women or gay men.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> http://www.pikore.com/helena___banana
> 
> 
> Do you really want her in the men's room (the blonde)?



The black blonde or the white blonde?


I'm shy, I can't go with even my wife in the bathroom! That's why I want individual bathrooms, selfish reasons.

Oh wait, I just figured out what a Shmegulah Gurl is. I want her in the Ladies room. I know I couldn't go if she used the gender on her driver's license.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> We need to put a stop to Church youth groups. No way I'd let my child go to one of those events. At the very least get rid of all of the adult leaders and let the children step up into leadership roles.



AAAAAAAA-Freakin'-Men!!!!!!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Sure we can, we can have smaller individual neutral gender bathrooms.  We can stop letting our children or wives go to bathrooms by themselves.
> Wait a minute, women don't go to the bathroom by themselves.
> 
> All gynecologists should be hetero women or gay men.



You've got some kooky ideas bro.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 27, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> You've got some kooky ideas bro.



I agree. It makes life more interesting. I'm thinking of turning my Chevy Astro into a pick up truck. I made my own Boombox and belt sander. I'm a little bit Country and a little bit Rock & Roll. Marie was cute back in the day.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree. It makes life more interesting. I'm thinking of turning my Chevy Astro into a pick up truck. I made my own Boombox and belt sander. I'm a little bit Country and a little bit Rock & Roll. Marie was cute back in the day.



YOU are interesting.  

I just don't get sometimes why you cling to a belief system that you find so convoluted and full of problems; one that you have to do such crazy mental and logical loopdey loops to try to make sense of.  Are you familiar with Occams Razor?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now you can see why the Bible speaks against heterosexual males having gay sex with boys!
> 
> Seriously, how or what are we doing about heterosexual child molesters checking out boys in the Men's Room today? Shouldn't we have one bathroom for men and another for boys?
> 
> ...




....


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 28, 2016)

I never heard of Occams Razor. I guess I'm a Christian because my parents were.  I like the eternal life aspect of Christianity.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I never heard of Occams Razor. I guess I'm a Christian because my parents were.  I like the eternal life aspect of Christianity.



That's a fair answer.  Have you ever considered reincarnation?  I would guess you would get to move up.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

_The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .

"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."_



I've always paraphrased it as "The simplest explanation is usually the right one"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 28, 2016)

If my parents were Hindu, I'd believe in reincarnation. I guess I like going with the more complex explanations. 
I do wonder why my religion is right and the rest of the world's is wrong or my denomination is right and the rest is wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> If my parents were Hindu, I'd believe in reincarnation. I guess I like going with the more complex explanations.
> I do wonder why my religion is right and the rest of the world's is wrong or my denomination is right and the rest is wrong.



I'm about 2/3 through this:

http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

He gives some pretty compelling explanations (but it's Social Psychology so take it with a grain of salt).


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 29, 2016)

I just can't seem to get myself worked up over the bathroom thing. IT seems like a non issue.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I just can't seem to get myself worked up over the bathroom thing. IT seems like a non issue.




Exactly.

Pervs have been dressing up like women to perv in the bathroom before any kind of bill and trannies have been using the bathroom where they will draw the least amount of attention forever.

Who are the jack wagons that tried to make this an issue?  

"Oh...We will save your daughters from these terrible miscreants!!   Get on our side for the chirruns!!"

"But...but...the leftists are the ones who are all about creating victims and making controversy!!"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 29, 2016)

I think a lot of it has to do with ignorance. I remember years ago many people thought gay school teachers were gonna molest more children than hetero school teachers.

They see this neutral gender bathroom thing as a way for child molesters to gain access to children. I'm quite sure some will and we'll hear about it when they do but does it warrant shutting down Church youth programs?
What's keeping them out now under the old plan? What's keeping the trannies and the butches out now under the old plan?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think a lot of it has to do with ignorance. I remember years ago many people thought gay school teachers were gonna molest more children than hetero school teachers.
> 
> They see this neutral gender bathroom thing as a way for child molesters to gain access to children. I'm quite sure some will and we'll hear about it when they do but does it warrant shutting down Church youth programs?
> What's keeping them out now under the old plan? What's keeping the trannies and the butches out now under the old plan?




Nothing.  And it should upset you that you are being manipulated to paranoia by a duplicitous entity.


----------

