US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The whitehouse needs to have a policy for LGBTQ??  Really?

What is the whithouse's  policy for members of the Moose Lodge?    You talk about LGBTQ likes it's members are a precious new species.

I know you don't care about the LGBTQ community, but they've been historically oppressed for several millennia, and there have been countless numbers of them who've been pressured into suicide by people like you.

So given their history, and how roughly 7% of the US population are LGBTQ, then yeah. The Whitehouse should definitely have a policy for the LGBTQ.

[Aquila King]

39 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

...I've read plenty of examples of former-LGBQT people...

There is no such thing as a former LGBTQ person.

Quote

Orientation change

If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.

On that, studies are clear. Gay conversion therapy is ineffective, several studies have found, and the American Psychological Association now says such treatment is harmful and can worsen feelings of self-hatred.

For men, studies suggest that orientation is fixed by the time the individual reaches puberty. Women show greater levels of "erotic plasticity," meaning their levels of attraction are more significantly shaped by culture, experience and love than is the case for men. However, even women who switch from gay to straight lifestyles don't stop being attracted to women, according to a 2012 study in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Those results suggest that while people can change their behavior, they aren't really changing their basic sexual attraction.

https://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

So yeah, you're speaking out of total ignorance.

Just because you don't personally understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true. And since you're clearly denying basic science, it pretty much renders the rest of your arguments null and void.

Although I think you said it best with this:

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

...I'd say I may be outdated...

Yeah, I'd say you are.

[+DieChecker]

41 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

There is no such thing as a former LGBTQ person.

So yeah, you're speaking out of total ignorance.

Just because you don't personally understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true. And since you're clearly denying basic science, it pretty much renders the rest of your arguments null and void.

Although I think you said it best with this:

Yeah, I'd say you are.

Well. I personally know some women who were lesbians for years... exclusively... got tired of it and married (to a men) and settled down, had kids. You are saying that did not happen?

So, from my direction, you are either ignorant, or purposefully unwilling to accept facts, or simply brainwashed.

"Just because you don't personally understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true" can be thrown right back at you. You seem more eager to call me a bigot, rather then actually consider what I wrote. If not true, then i appologize if saying so offends you.

The article quote it doesn't really refute my base statement. It says gay people "FEEL" it is a deep feeling. And that gay coversion therapy does not work, but does not address people who covert on their own. And I think I've read that 2012 study and it did not say all post-lesbians retain gay feelings. But it was like 33% that did. And the quote finishes with "Suggests...."

I suspect you'll simply say those women either never were "real" lesbians, or that they must be Bisexual. Well, perhaps you are right,  but then perhaps I am right.

Link

Here is some more science, from 2016.

Quote

Getting America to believe that people are born gay — that it’s not something that can be chosen or ever changed — has been central to the fight for gay rights. If someone can’t help being gay any more than they can help the color of their skin, the logic goes, denying them rights is wrong. But many members of the LGBTQ community reject this narrative, saying it only benefits people who feel their sexuality and gender are fixed rather than fluid, and questioning why the dignity of gay people should rest on the notion that they were gay from their very first breath. 

Quote

The story we've long been told is that a combination of genes (such as xx or xy chromosomes) and early exposure to sex hormones (such as testosterone or estrogen) make us who we are. They influence the formation of “male brains” and “female brains,” and that same process, it’s been said, also shapes “gay brains” and “straight brains.

Quote

But as the patchwork of studies that make up this story receive more and more scrutiny, holes appear.

Quote

Studies on identical twins show that while there is a genetic "contribution" to sexuality, there is not genetic "determination." Despite the fact that identical twins share 100% of their genes, research shows gay/gay twin pairs are less common than gay/straight twin pairs.

Quote

The "born this way" mantra of the gay rights movement is both simple and absolute, despite the science that shows human sexuality is complex and fluid. Transgender people, for example, do not believe their biology matches who they truly are. Bisexuals, some of whom identify their sexuality as fluid, make up the largest share of LGBT Americans, according to the Pew Research Center, even though they are a smaller part of the mainstream narrative. 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well. I personally know some women who were lesbians for years... exclusively... got tired of it and married (to a men) and settled down, had kids. You are saying that did not happen? So, from my direction, you are either ignorant, or purposefully unwilling to accept facts, or simply brainwashed.

Not at all, but Id be willing to bet their browser history isnt exactly full of strictly straight porn. Bisexual folks make commitments to one gender or the other all the time.

 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I know you don't care about the LGBTQ community, but they've been historically oppressed for several millennia, and there have been countless numbers of them who've been pressured into suicide by people like you.

So given their history, and how roughly 7% of the US population are LGBTQ, then yeah. The Whitehouse should definitely have a policy for the LGBTQ.

The white house already has a policy for *people*. It's called the constitution.

LBGTQ "people" are not entitled to any more or less than anyone else, including members of the Moose Lodge

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The white house already has a policy for *people*. It's called the constitution.

LBGTQ "people" are not entitled to any more or less than anyone else, including members of the Moose Lodge

Asking for legislation to specifically cover LGBTQ folks in the exact same  manner that it specifically covers everyone else isnt asking for extra or more than everyone else. Just to have the same legal protections.

Remember what @Aquila King was talking about isnt theoretical, the administration has already said they dont believe trans folks deserve protection.

Transgender workers not protected by civil rights law, DOJ tells Supreme Court

At the time this story broke we were told it wasnt anything against trans folks, just that the law didnt specifically mention them, meanwhile the GOP foot soldiers are spreading the mantra that they dont deserve "extra rights" thereby ensuring their base wont support the law ever specifically mentioning them.

Do you see the "trap" theyve built there?

Edited January 29, 2019 by Farmer77

[Aquila King]

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The white house already has a policy for *people*. It's called the constitution.

Given that black slaves were legally defined as 'property' and not 'people' by the constitution for years, I'd say that specifically addressing the rights of certain historically oppressed people groups is a perfectly reasonable venture.

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LBGTQ "people" are not entitled to any more or less than anyone else, including members of the Moose Lodge

I agree. Thats why I'd say they're entitled to serve in the military no more or less than anyone else.

[skliss]

2 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Thats why I'd say they're entitled to serve in the military no more or less than anyone else.

Except for those who can't serve because of extenuating circumstances...boom...full circle!

[Setton]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

Except for those who can't serve because of extenuating circumstances...boom...full circle!

Well I suppose a scientifically illiterate tangerine as head of state does qualify as an extenuating circumstance. 

[aztek]

it is a psychosexual condition, it was always a disqualifier. 

[Hankenhunter]

5 hours ago, aztek said:

it is a psychosexual condition, it was always a disqualifier. 

Links please.

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The white house already has a policy for *people*. It's called the constitution.

LBGTQ "people" are not entitled to any more or less than anyone else, including members of the Moose Lodge

I tend to agree. But only because how to you "prove" you are LBGQT? I  could claim I am, despite being married 15 years, with kids... And there is not a thing that could disprove me. I've known several men who have "come out" in their 50s, so history can't be a limited. Genetics isn't 100% accurate, and what do you tell a gay man without that gene... sorry, you aren't gay? So, then it is only on the word of the person. That, in my opinion, is not enough evidence to require protections. 

That said, a hate crime is still a hate crime. Can you not have a hate crime against a rich white old man? 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Asking for legislation to specifically cover LGBTQ folks in the exact same  manner that it specifically covers everyone else isnt asking for extra or more than everyone else. Just to have the same legal protections.

What legal protections are LGBTQ folks not getting, Farmer?   I find this hard to believe that they are LEGALLY targeted to having rights removed.  That's obscene. 

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Remember what @Aquila King was talking about isnt theoretical, the administration has already said they dont believe trans folks deserve protection.

Transgender workers not protected by civil rights law, DOJ tells Supreme Court

If the supreme court says that "special laws for special people" don't apply to LGBTQ, then I agree. They are not special and above the rest of us. 

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

At the time this story broke we were told it wasnt anything against trans folks, just that the law didnt specifically mention them, meanwhile the GOP foot soldiers are spreading the mantra that they dont deserve "extra rights" thereby ensuring their base wont support the law ever specifically mentioning them.

So far, so good.

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Do you see the "trap" theyve built there?

Nope.  I think all Americans are equal. Let them enjoy the same protections that we all have. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Given that black slaves were legally defined as 'property' and not 'people' by the constitution for years, I'd say that specifically addressing the rights of certain historically oppressed people groups is a perfectly reasonable venture.

I would never argue against that but you are doing the "apples and oranges" thing.

Quote

I agree. Thats why I'd say they're entitled to serve in the military no more or less than anyone else.

There are african americans that cannot serve in the military for a variety of reasons. all disabled people can not either.Do you hear disabled people complain about this and say "discrimination"?  you cannot say there is not reason to disallow LGBTQ people in the military because the SJC says there is.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

54 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I tend to agree. But only because how to you "prove" you are LBGQT?

LOL bang on.   It might just be a gay guy that likes protests and parades  LOL

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would never argue against that but you are doing the "apples and oranges" thing.

There are african americans that cannot serve in the military for a variety of reasons. all disabled people can not either.Do you hear disabled people complain about this and say "discrimination"?  you cannot say there is not reason to disallow LGBTQ people in the military because the SJC says there is.

Please cite even a single scientific study that shows how trans people are incapable of carrying out their basic duties in the military.

I mean if you're going down the path of comparing trans people to the disabled, there must be at least some sort of scientific justification for banning them apart from empty political rhetoric.

[Setton]

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL bang on.   It might just be a gay guy that likes protests and parades  LOL

The **** do you think the G stands for? 

[+and-then]

On 1/25/2019 at 5:38 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The poster child in my opinion is Kristin Beck, the first openly transgender former US Navy SEAL.

Not that I believe one individual necessarily epitomises an entire group, but she is a good example of what transgenders can accomplish in the military.

I wasn't denoting members who exemplified service.  I realize that there are many of those.  I spoke specifically about the group that uses their gender politics for special consideration and in HIS case, to actually become spies.  He should have been shot.  Actually, I take that back.  He didn't deserve a soldier's death.  He should have been hung like a common criminal.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

14 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Please cite even a single scientific study that shows how trans people are incapable of carrying out their basic duties in the military.

I didn't say they were incapable. I said there were reasons - reasons that are different than the disabled, yes, but valid reasons none the less.

14 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I mean if you're going down the path of comparing trans people to the disabled,

I'm not. 

14 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

there must be at least some sort of scientific justification for banning them apart from empty political rhetoric.

There is. See SJC ruling.

[Aquila King]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I didn't say they were incapable. I said there were reasons - reasons that are different than the disabled, yes, but valid reasons none the less.

 

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

I wasn't denoting members who exemplified service.  I realize that there are many of those.  I spoke specifically about the group that uses their gender politics for special consideration and in HIS case, to actually become spies.  He should have been shot.  Actually, I take that back.  He didn't deserve a soldier's death.  He should have been hung like a common criminal.

You mean Bradley Manning, right? Not the former SEAL?

That's kind of important to your post.

[+DieChecker]

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

There is. See SJC ruling.

Here we go. People are going to start saying, "Not My Supreme Court"...

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You mean Bradley Manning, right? Not the former SEAL?

That's kind of important to your post.

Yes, sorry about the confusion.  ANY man or woman who is willing to live that life of excellence and extreme discipline in pursuit of a place among the SEALs or any other SOG unit has my undying appreciation.  I don't pretend to understand the whole transgender issue but I do understand the requirements for that kind of service and anyone who volunteers for it has my respect. Even those who wash out are better than most of us.  Manning is a special kind of whining snowflake, IMO.

[+DieChecker]

34 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Please cite even a single scientific study that shows how trans people are incapable of carrying out their basic duties in the military.

I don't think that is the issue. Even a casual reading of the "Ban" shows it should only affect those with diagnosed active mental health issues, and those who want to join to get free surgery. 

Those who have already had the surgery, or are willing to hold off while in the military, should be able to join and serve from what I've read.

You are pointing out a variable that's not even part of the equation. As much as you want it to be.....

[+and-then]

There's a scripture reference that always confused me in the past but has recently been explained. Christ told His disciples on the Mount of Olives that Nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom in the run-up to His return.  Those two groups always seemed redundant to me.  Apparently, the Greek for the word "nation" means "people groups or ethnicities"  This is a perfect description for what is happening today.  Americans, especially, have become a house deeply divided due to our ability to express hatred through anonymous means on social media.  We also have corporate entities that control the dissemination of public opinion and who no longer have any pretense toward honesty or equity.  They are controlled by a small, elite group and express a solid agenda.  Those who doubt or dispute this should explain how media coverage can be so uniform over 95+ percent of their coverage of Trump.  They don't even attempt to justify the one-sided coverage any longer.  Then we have Federal government agencies that use Sturm Truppen tactics - while tipping the media to time and place- to openly intimidate political adversaries.  Stone was stormed by 29 heavily armed and armored agents in a pre-dawn raid, only to be released in minutes on his own signature by a judge.  A phone call to his attorney would have accomplished the same thing.  Half the country seems okay with this.  The other half is taking notes and making plans.  Someone wants America at war with itself.  They'll soon accomplish that mission.

Edited January 30, 2019 by and then