Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

US SC Approves Ban on Trans in Military

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aquila King

To be fair, Trump's view on the LGBTQ community has been like most things, clear as mud.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

To be fair, Trump's view on the LGBTQ community has been like most things, clear as mud.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

No. Again, any mental condition she/he may have is a direct result of family and social constraints. They know in their minds what they want to be. It's people who mistakenly apply outmoded social mores causing the problems. Including you. Let them become who they want at an early age and by the time they are of age to join the Military, all the problems have vanished, leaving well adjusted adults. You way guarantees more kids will commit suicide. Not emotion but truth. Empathy is not in a Republicans lexicon. 

Yeah, I've heard that before. As someone who's known some LGBQT people, it seems obvious that a large percentage of them eventually "grow up", and settle down in traditional roles.

Sure, there are lots of people who honestly believe they were born that way, but belief is not fact.

I'd say I may be outdated, but those pushing young children are true monsters. I've read plenty of examples of former-LGBQT people saying their very liberal parents made their lives a living hell by pressing them to develop their sexuality while still a child. 

Let kids be kids.

Kids are not allowed to vote, or make major decisions for themselves... because they are children. They DON'T know what they actually think yet. They dont have the experience or knowledge to make good choices. And forcing them to decide on their sexuality while a child is monsterous and immoral.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Farmer77
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
5 hours ago, aztek said:

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

Links please.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

ecqkuo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.