If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Lootifer]

TLDR summary greekie:

- PS is ranting his usual rants
- He does have one small justified point: there does seem to be a subsection (much like militant fems) who want to swing it the other way, a couple of gay dudes wanting to be priests, a couple of silly politicians wanting to make priests marry gays or get locked up, etc. But as usual he's cherry picking.

[Phatscotty]

TLDR summary greekie:

- PS is ranting his usual rants
- He does have one small justified point: there does seem to be a subsection (much like militant fems) who want to swing it the other way, a couple of gay dudes wanting to be priests, a couple of silly politicians wanting to make priests marry gays or get locked up, etc. But as usual he's cherry picking.

Cherrypicking...I see what you mean, but I think there's a better word. But really it doesn't matter what it is I am doing when it turns out in fact this is being used to violate, sometimes severely, American's First Amendment rights.

Cherrypicking would be better used to describe fundamentally transforming an institution based on the stories of 1/20th of 1% of the population. And just to show the power of cherry picking, when you have national media and the President blowing the issue up to the point many I have asked (I ask everyone I can) say that between 30-50% of our population is gay.

[Phatscotty]

Here is a partial list of this year new gender options, and no pedophiles were not granted sexual orientations status despite a major boost in support based on 'being born this way' as well as many experts have 'progressed' and now agree pedophilia is in fact a sexual orientation. Better luck next year gang. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ngout.html

Better luck next year, PS. We're all rootin' for ya.


--Andy

It is cute watching PS realize that the world is not as simple as he once thought. Back in his day, of course, you were either a white straight male, or you were not even a person.

It is cute to remember that when I pull the string on the teddy bear, I still says only one thing. back in my day...like when I graduated college in 2002.

[Phatscotty]

Idd - especially from those that claim to value freedom above pretty much all else. (Freedom to live they way they approve of of course)

I support it fully, you give no credit here. this isn't about what other people do, or whether I approve of it or not. I have zero say in what others do sexually or who they love, I have zero interest in what others do sexually or who they love, and I am not on the panel of judges that approves what other people do sexually or who they love.

However, the consequences of redefining something that robs everyone else of their ability to define something society has always defined has led to something rather different that what people do sexually or who they love. The decision was, whether you realize it or not, 'gender doesn't matter'. And here's where we are with that.

Check #1 for TGD - relevance: I've long asked how you (people) would feel if a boy/man joined your daughters basketball team, or your daughters hockey team, or your daughters cheerleader squad, also, how you'd feel if your daughter's team had to play against another team with a boy/man on it. Mostly shrugged off. Even I admit I really didn't think it would go national like this, but really it hasn't made the news the way the 'gender doesn't matter' campaign did. so really you probably only know about this if you are a fan of the female MMA league, or else you study the issue in an effort to become knowledgeable and to share knowledge, perhaps even stoke a thread of wisdom. And it really doesn't matter if you heard about it or not, it only matters that it happened and this is the world we now live in.

UFC's Joe Rogan to Transgender MMA Fighter Fallon Fox: 'You're a F***ing Man'

Man Decides to Become Woman (Trans) Joins MMA, Fights Female Opponent, Gives her Concussion and Broken Eye Socket in first round TKO


....all in the name of a level playing field, equality...huh? Some saw it, some didn't. Oh well...

Transgender mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor Fallon Fox is facing new criticisms after breaking the eye socket of his last opponent.
On Saturday, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. In addition to the damaged orbital bone that required seven staples, Brents received a concussion. In a post-fight interview this week, she told Whoa TV that “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life.”
“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because [he] was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor,” she stated. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. ”
His “grip was different,” she added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against…females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”
Fox’s gender controversy is not new. In March 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about his sex-change operation, which took place in 2006. That bout was the fifth straight first-round victory for the then-37-year old Fox, including his three amateur bouts, and his second victory as a professional fighter.
A video of the Brents fight taken by a ringside fan shows Fox throwing several powerful knees to the face and torso of Brents at the start of the match, who pulled guard to protect herself. Soon, Brents turned her back to avoid damage, where she took approximately 45 seconds of elbow and fist strikes – many blocked by her hands and arms – before the referee stopped the fight.
Critics of Fox abound, especially in light of the Brents fight. Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) female champ Ronda Rousey told TMZ that while she would fight Fox, allowing transgender men to fight is “a case-by-case scenario.”
“I feel like, if you already go through puberty as a man, that’s something you can’t really reverse,” said Rousey, who said that it “would be fine” if a boy who was on hormone therapy to become a woman prior to puberty wanted to fight as a woman.
Because Fox had transgender surgery so late in life, however, Rousey said that he shouldn’t fight women.

- See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2014/09/man- ... Op6EP.dpuf

[crispybits]

However, the consequences of redefining something that robs everyone else of their ability to define something society has always defined has led to something rather different that what people do sexually or who they love. The decision was, whether you realize it or not, 'gender doesn't matter'. And here's where we are with that.

How cute. Thing is you can keep defining marriage for yourself as whatever you want, you just don't get to tell other people that your definition is the only acceptable one. Freedom yeah?

[thegreekdog]

A video of the Brents fight taken by a ringside fan shows Fox throwing several powerful knees to the face and torso of Brents at the start of the match, who pulled guard to protect herself. Soon, Brents turned her back to avoid damage, where she took approximately 45 seconds of elbow and fist strikes – many blocked by her hands and arms – before the referee stopped the fight.

I don't know much about MMA (I'm more of a fake fighting kind of guy, what with the WWE love and all), but I would imaging "several knees to the face and torso" and "45 seconds of elbows and fist strikes" would be painful if Brents was hitting me with it.

Is there a rule in the MMA that post-op transgender folks (sorry if I'm not using those terms correctly; I've not studied up on these things) cannot fight?

Check #1 for TGD - relevance: I've long asked how you (people) would feel if a boy/man joined your daughters basketball team, or your daughters hockey team, or your daughters cheerleader squad, also, how you'd feel if your daughter's team had to play against another team with a boy/man on it.

I would not be happy about it and, if I was feeling less lazy than usual, would say something to get the situation changed. Ultimately, if there is a male option for the particular sport (e.g. basketball or hockey), then I would imagine I'd have an excellent case. On the cheerleader issue, there are actually male cheerleaders.

However, the consequences of redefining something that robs everyone else of their ability to define something society has always defined has led to something rather different that what people do sexually or who they love. The decision was, whether you realize it or not, 'gender doesn't matter'. And here's where we are with that.

How cute. Thing is you can keep defining marriage for yourself as whatever you want, you just don't get to tell other people that your definition is the only acceptable one. Freedom yeah?

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

[Metsfanmax]

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

Does that mean you don't have a problem with someone identifying as a woman being permitted in the male locker room?

[thegreekdog]

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

Does that mean you don't have a problem with someone identifying as a woman being permitted in the male locker room?

Probably need separate locker rooms: men identifying as women, women, women identifying as men, and men.

[Metsfanmax]

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

Does that mean you don't have a problem with someone identifying as a woman being permitted in the male locker room?

Probably need separate locker rooms: men identifying as women, women, women identifying as men, and men.

You're gonna need a bigger set of locker rooms.

[Phatscotty]

However, the consequences of redefining something that robs everyone else of their ability to define something society has always defined has led to something rather different that what people do sexually or who they love. The decision was, whether you realize it or not, 'gender doesn't matter'. And here's where we are with that.

How cute. Thing is you can keep defining marriage for yourself as whatever you want, you just don't get to tell other people that your definition is the only acceptable one. Freedom yeah?

Thing is, the ability to keep redefining something literally means that thing has no definition. And I don't tell people at all my definition is the only acceptable definition. I merely stated at the time there was a definition, and more specifically that gender does matter. But in your context, why is it others have the power to define/redefine something, but I don't have the power to simply state the definition of something which always has been?

Marriage was the ecclesiastical tradition of celebrating the duality of masculine and feminine conjoining into one entity, bigger than themselves and recognizing and respecting the process of creating a new life. I don't get and never have gotten how stating what something is and always has been means one is dictating to others what is acceptable and what is not.

The same 'Freedom' as others dictating to me their definition is now law and if I don't accept it I will be fined, put out of business, even jaile..... a definition which has never existed before and has never before been advocated by any country, religion, philosopher or historian now must be accepted and supported by me and that my religious beliefs which have been accepted as religious beliefs for thousands of years (not just come up in the past 7 years) and protected by the First Amendment for centuries are not acceptable.

Freedom?

[Phatscotty]

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

pretty accurate while still tip-toeing a bit. Overall the point is that our society is suddenly cementing into law and history that gender does not matter, an entirely new concept we are just beginning to realize how far it will reach and how deep the impact will be. Goes without saying this is way past simply supporting same sex marriage, but hey, who wanted to go through all the trouble of matching up tax benefits from civil unions to the tax benefits of marriage, right? Bottom line, the bathroom thing has already happened many places many times and will happen many more, and it's just bizarre that a teacher who for sure knows someone may be faking just to get in the girls locker room is powerless to say even a word about it, and they can be fired if they do.

And I think when 'it' happens to them at some point in the future, they are going to say "wtf? wait a second, what?" but at that point in time a smear campaign will already be underway against anyone who doesn't go along and one who tried to question will automatically be called a H8er and dismissed. I note in countries that paved the way on this kind of historically uncharted territory, you can be fined money and even charged with a hate crime if you call a certain group a certain word or even speak against what is politically correct, while anyone can sit and call you everything in the book all day long and their speech will be happily protected.

If you are a fan of South Park, they just did an episode exactly on this. Eric Cartman became Erica Cartman, doubted all the way of course, but Erica knew every word of the new laws and used it for special gains/advantages and caused a chain reaction of newly unintended consequences, all with some humor and even some shots back the other way in support of the worldwide inspiring lyrics a man creates when allowed to poop in the women's bathroom.

'oh, so hot, hot hot hot....'

btw, did you know that anyone who identifies with their birth gender, ie 99% of the population now has the PC term Ciss-gender' applied to them? Yup, cissy is a PC protected word now. Funny how things end up eh? Literally, 'gender doesn't matter' has paved the way for special protection for Eric Cartman's all over the country.

'suck my clit n balls' - Erica Cartman 2014

[PLAYER57832]

"If marriage is a "fundamental right" how can any state restriction exist?" - Sotomayore

I am actually in favor of keeping the state entirely out of this, just letting various churches determine their own rules. However, marriage has been a convenient means of codifying protection & care of children, inheritances.. and now retirement, medical benefits, etc. The more marriage is used as a convenient means of identifying qualifications for various types of things (hesitate to say assistance or benefits, because its much more broad reaching than any one category), the more states need to regulate for pure practical reasons. If you offer a tax deduction or social security payments, for example, then you need to have some way of distinguishing real claims from invalid ones.. aka some kind of required paperwork.

Other "restrictions" have to do with safety. I think tests for AIDs are good, for example, along with the standard test (which you may or may not be aware is basically to make sure that siblings don't accidentally marry).

In fact, as long as marriage is recognized, I would actually like to see MORE things required... things like counseling (non-sectarian or sectarian, whichever people choose), required financial disclosures, etc.

[thegreekdog]

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

pretty accurate while still tip-toeing a bit. Overall the point is that our society is suddenly cementing into law and history that gender does not matter, an entirely new concept we are just beginning to realize how far it will reach and how deep the impact will be. Goes without saying this is way past simply supporting same sex marriage, but hey, who wanted to go through all the trouble of matching up tax benefits from civil unions to the tax benefits of marriage, right? Bottom line, the bathroom thing has already happened many places many times and will happen many more, and it's just bizarre that a teacher who for sure knows someone may be faking just to get in the girls locker room is powerless to say even a word about it, and they can be fired if they do.

And I think when 'it' happens to them at some point in the future, they are going to say "wtf? wait a second, what?" but at that point in time a smear campaign will already be underway against anyone who doesn't go along and one who tried to question will automatically be called a H8er and dismissed. I note in countries that paved the way on this kind of historically uncharted territory, you can be fined money and even charged with a hate crime if you call a certain group a certain word or even speak against what is politically correct, while anyone can sit and call you everything in the book all day long and their speech will be happily protected.

If you are a fan of South Park, they just did an episode exactly on this. Eric Cartman became Erica Cartman, doubted all the way of course, but Erica knew every word of the new laws and used it for special gains/advantages and caused a chain reaction of newly unintended consequences, all with some humor and even some shots back the other way in support of the worldwide inspiring lyrics a man creates when allowed to poop in the women's bathroom.

'oh, so hot, hot hot hot....'

btw, did you know that anyone who identifies with their birth gender, ie 99% of the population now has the PC term Ciss-gender' applied to them? Yup, cissy is a PC protected word now. Funny how things end up eh? Literally, 'gender doesn't matter' has paved the way for special protection for Eric Cartman's all over the country.

'suck my clit n balls' - Erica Cartman 2014

I've found that ignoring things that do not directly affect me has led me to be less angry. Assuming that these issues are not directly affecting you, perhaps you should do the same.

[AndyDufresne]

I've found that ignoring things that do not directly affect me has led me to be less angry. Assuming that these issues are not directly affecting you, perhaps you should do the same.

Sage and wise TGD, thou speakth words true and noble. Alas, but how can one PS knoweth that such matt'rs unaffect him truly?

Thy guidance is anticipated with great fervor.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I've found that ignoring things that do not directly affect me has led me to be less angry. Assuming that these issues are not directly affecting you, perhaps you should do the same.

Sage and wise TGD, thou speakth words true and noble. Alas, but how can one PS knoweth that such matt'rs unaffect him truly?

Thy guidance is anticipated with great fervor.


--Andy

I don't know PS... maybe he fights in the MMA and he lives in whatever town this mayor is the head of.

[Phatscotty]

I've found that ignoring things that do not directly affect me has led me to be less angry. Assuming that these issues are not directly affecting you, perhaps you should do the same.

Sage and wise TGD, thou speakth words true and noble. Alas, but how can one PS knoweth that such matt'rs unaffect him truly?

Thy guidance is anticipated with great fervor.


--Andy

So, basically, don't have an opinion on anything. I will believe you are serious about this when you start chiding the other 20% of the community concerning corporation that do not pay their fair share of taxes, or move overseas, or don't clean up an oil spill...'Does the oil spill affect you personally?' No, I do not live anywhere near the Gulf Coast' 'Then ignore it' Wow, you seriously call that wisdom? I think there is another term for it...and I look forward to using the same basic wisdom on numerous other topics!

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

A video of the Brents fight taken by a ringside fan shows Fox throwing several powerful knees to the face and torso of Brents at the start of the match, who pulled guard to protect herself. Soon, Brents turned her back to avoid damage, where she took approximately 45 seconds of elbow and fist strikes – many blocked by her hands and arms – before the referee stopped the fight.

I don't know much about MMA (I'm more of a fake fighting kind of guy, what with the WWE love and all), but I would imaging "several knees to the face and torso" and "45 seconds of elbows and fist strikes" would be painful if Brents was hitting me with it.

Is there a rule in the MMA that post-op transgender folks (sorry if I'm not using those terms correctly; I've not studied up on these things) cannot fight?

Check #1 for TGD - relevance: I've long asked how you (people) would feel if a boy/man joined your daughters basketball team, or your daughters hockey team, or your daughters cheerleader squad, also, how you'd feel if your daughter's team had to play against another team with a boy/man on it.

I would not be happy about it and, if I was feeling less lazy than usual, would say something to get the situation changed. Ultimately, if there is a male option for the particular sport (e.g. basketball or hockey), then I would imagine I'd have an excellent case. On the cheerleader issue, there are actually male cheerleaders.

However, the consequences of redefining something that robs everyone else of their ability to define something society has always defined has led to something rather different that what people do sexually or who they love. The decision was, whether you realize it or not, 'gender doesn't matter'. And here's where we are with that.

How cute. Thing is you can keep defining marriage for yourself as whatever you want, you just don't get to tell other people that your definition is the only acceptable one. Freedom yeah?

PS's point, I think, is that when the definitions result in absurd scenarios which are legally enforcible, it is problematic. For example, it's perfectly cool with me if a man identifies as a woman. However, if said man (i.e. someone with male parts) is permitted to use the female locker room because the male identifies as a female and is legally permitted to do so, I have a problem with that result.

Well, at least we agree on something here eh? Now we both have problems

per whoever wanted to see the twins study, I have the 2013 scientific peer reviewed results, still need to set aside some time and digthrough to find the 2014-2015 study.

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

http://blog.godreports.com/2013/05/iden ... t-genetic/

also, in yet another phatscotty follow-up, I narrowed down to who ridiculed yet another prediction I made concerning schools 'wanting to turn kids gay/teach them to be gay'. Our BIG winners are BigBallinStalin, AndyDufresne, RDS, and Metsfanmax. Interestingly, Lootifer, who has already been found sane and reasonable by valuing truth above agenda, remains innocent of trying to BS everyone with a bunch of BS.

University giving extra credit to students for being bi-sexual
http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/unive ... isexual-2/

[AndyDufresne]

per whoever...

--Andy