I don't want this to devolve into religious/atheist debate but whether your morals reside within religious framework or not, you have your own set of moral framework/belief systems that you created or inherited from your parents.
Can't believe how quickly you want to take away someone else's belief system that differs from your own. He's not telling anyone they can't do something. He is not saying LGBTQ can't live their lives. But to feel like he has to openly support it is ridiculous. Who are you to decide what another person supports?
It was a tongue in cheek response to my sincere frustration about people relying on religion to do thinking for them. I am not in favor of actually abolishing religion, but I am sincerely frustrated by the low level of critical thinking people put into very complex societal topics by just saying "my book said it, therefore I believe it."
It's a real issue with genuine sociological and psychological consequence on LGBTQ people, and it deserves a deeper thought than relying on dogma to justify your position.
To be clear, I want to get rid of people using dogma to justify anything, not religion per se. They just seem to go together A LOT, but I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation.
Happy?
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Why is this a pressing matter for a very unique subsection of the forum?
It shouldn't be moved. This is directly relating to the game of hockey. These are hockey players that are refusing to wear a team organized piece of clothing, and it is causing controversy.
If you don't want to engage with it, don't click on the thread. But it's in the right spot.
Perhaps you should analyze what makes this an uncomfortable subject to discuss.
This is exactly why I dont engage in these..."Perhaps I should analyze what makes this an uncomfortable subject" How many assumptions are in there? You have no idea why I asked the question. People have their assumptive truths on things like this and its not talking the Calgary Flames. Trust me I wont click on it anymore.
It was a tongue in cheek response to my sincere frustration about people relying on religion to do thinking for them. I am not in favor of actually abolishing religion, but I am sincerely frustrated by the low level of critical thinking people put into very complex societal topics by just saying "my book said it, therefore I believe it."
It's a real issue with genuine sociological and psychological consequence on LGBTQ people, and it deserves a deeper thought than relying on dogma to justify your position.
To be clear, I want to get rid of people using dogma to justify anything, not religion per se. They just seem to go together A LOT, but I understand that correlation isn't necessarily causation.
Happy?
Yeah, I think we're clear. But I think others have argued that you can't fight religious dogma with non-religious dogma. I presume you agree?
The Following User Says Thank You to cannon7 For This Useful Post:
Would you be offended if someone called it a heterosexual lifestyle (assuming you are heterosexual - if not my apologies)? Lifestyle does not imply choice, look up the definition. It is simply the way in which someone lives their life.
Oh, so when you referred to lifestyle in the context the LBGTQ2 community you meant this definition from the Cambridge Dictionary
Quote:
someone's way of living; the things that a person or particular group of people usually do:
You did not mean this definition from the Cambridge Dictionary when you were referring to the definition of lifestyle for the homosexual/cis gender (LBGTQ2) community
Quote:
offensive old-fashioned
the fact of not being heterosexual (= sexually or romantically attracted to women if you are a man, and men if you are a woman) or cisgender (= having a gender that matches the body you were born with):
Some folks probably thought you were referring to lifestyle as it is used all the time in a derogatory way in the LBGTQ2 context and not the way it is used to describe a women who likes buying expensive clothing
What are you talking about? So we should give up all of our freedoms then?
A hockey player is mandated to wear all kinds of equipment they may or may not like. Acting like wearing some shirt meant to signify inclusiveness is not some giant infringement on their freedoms anymore than wearing a helmet or a visor is.
If you’re going to say stuff like the below you should probably try to keep the charge up a little more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon7
I also try to put myself in other's shoes and see things from their vantage point. I try to be both respectful and forgiving. And when I make mistakes, I apologize.
Apparently it’s just for guys like Reimer, though, who think your (very real) trans kid is living a sinful lifestyle. You sure make yourself comfortable wearing those shoes but struggle to offer respect to posters that actually love and support people like your kid. Strange how that works.
Funny you can’t show where Reimer has been persecuted or murdered though. You don’t have to admit you were whining about nothing if it makes you feel embarrassed.
So all these persecuted Reimer supporters must also be disgusted with the Don’t Say Gay and anti-WOKE legislation. Those are some real freedom of speech issues. I hope they are also out there supporting drag story times that are getting shut down as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bonded For This Useful Post:
So all these persecuted Reimer supporters must also be disgusted with the Don’t Say Gay and anti-WOKE legislation. Those are some real freedom of speech issues. I hope they are also out there supporting drag story times that are getting shut down as well.
FREEDOM! But only if it's upholding the status quo and stopping change that I'm uncomfortable with.
The Following User Says Thank You to Torture For This Useful Post:
If you’re going to say stuff like the below you should probably try to keep the charge up a little more.
I actually tried to find common ground with you early in the thread before you went full rage and started attacking me as a parent. That's on me for trying to engage you in good faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Apparently it’s just for guys like Reimer, though, who think your (very real) trans kid is living a sinful lifestyle. You sure make yourself comfortable wearing those shoes but struggle to offer respect to posters that actually love and support people like your kid. Strange how that works.
Funny you can’t show where Reimer has been persecuted or murdered though. You don’t have to admit you were whining about nothing if it makes you feel embarrassed.
Case in point. You're not looking for civil discourse with me. You're just lashing out against someone you don't even know. For your sake, I hope someday you will be able to figure out why you are this angry.
Last edited by cannon7; 03-20-2023 at 01:01 PM.
Reason: Thanks CorsiHockeyLeague.
Case and point. You're not looking for civil discourse with me. You're just lashing out against someone you don't even know. For your sake, I hope someday you will be able to figure out why you are this angry.
Case in point. Not case and point.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
A hockey player is mandated to wear all kinds of equipment they may or may not like. Acting like wearing some shirt meant to signify inclusiveness is not some giant infringement on their freedoms anymore than wearing a helmet or a visor is.
You call it inclusiveness, while from another perspective it's focused on "sexual orientation" and goes against foundational belief systems of large number of people.
What if society of tomorrow believed "pedophilia" was "ok" in society? Would it be bigoted if a subset of people didn't agree with that or chose not to actively support that group of people?
The point is that these are areas of belief or moral standards that people carry, and this player is not forcing his belief on you. But to say it shouldn't matter, when you surely have your own moral standards that you wouldn't cross if you felt you were asked to support something that crossed a line.
And what if tomorrow Society said right handed people were bad? Or what if tomorrow Society came to my home and forced me to have kinky, kinky sex with a llama and that I had to love it? All manner of disingenuous straw men can be built and boy are we making hay.
Edit: am I being ridiculous? Of course. Because what they’re doing is the classically disgusting filthy trick of trying to draw a line from homosexuality to pedophilia and it’s garbage.
Last edited by ResAlien; 03-20-2023 at 01:10 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
I actually tried to find common ground with you early in the thread before you went full rage and started attacking me as a parent. That's on me for trying to engage you in good faith.
Case and point. You're not looking for civil discourse with me. You're just lashing out agains someone you don't even know. For your sake, I hope someday you will be able to figure out why you are this angry.
I’m too tired from actually dealing with this stuff in life to be angry with some nobody on the internet. But, when I think about people that pretend to be allies, that use people in this community like props or shields to hide their views behind, or use religion as an excuse to declare some inherent “wrongness” with being gay, or things like that… I do get upset.
So you can mock me and insult me all you want. You can write it all off as unearned anger as you show zero respect for myself and others in this conversation. I’m fine dishing it right back whether you want to play the victim or not, but that’s all you’re doing: playing. If you had any of the empathy, respect, or forgiveness for people like your son that you pretend to have, you wouldn’t act the way you do and say the things you say. You can make any excuse you’d like, but you’ve spent the entire thread insisting that we must be tolerant of Reimer and views like him, and when faced with the definition you posted, you can’t give any example of him being anything less than tolerated.
You’ve admitted to trolling and coming here for a laugh. That’s not consistent with the person you say you are. You are right that I don’t know you, but I know the person you’ve presented yourself to be for the last several years. That’s enough.
And what if tomorrow Society said right handed people were bad? Or what if tomorrow Society came to my home and forced me to have kinky, kinky sex with a llama and that I had to love it? All manner of disingenuous straw men can be built and boy are we making hay.
Aye, but let’s be really honest here. Our definitions of pedophilia, and our whole view in consensual relationships, is really quite modern and very limited in global society. It wasn’t all that long ago 14 would have been a pretty normal age for full-grown adults, and child brides are tragically still common enough to not be hidden in the shadows in certain parts of the world.
His example illustrates a very real and pretty recent change in societal norms, whereas your ridiculousness serves to debase. Further demonstrating that these types of conversations are not changing anyone’s mind.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Oh, so when you referred to lifestyle in the context the LBGTQ2 community you meant this definition from the Cambridge Dictionary
You did not mean this definition from the Cambridge Dictionary when you were referring to the definition of lifestyle for the homosexual/cis gender (LBGTQ2) community
Some folks probably thought you were referring to lifestyle as it is used all the time in a derogatory way in the LBGTQ2 context and not the way it is used to describe a women who likes buying expensive clothing
You call it inclusiveness, while from another perspective it's focused on "sexual orientation" and goes against foundational belief systems of large number of people.
What if society of tomorrow believed "pedophilia" was "ok" in society? Would it be bigoted if a subset of people didn't agree with that or chose not to actively support that group of people?
The point is that these are areas of belief or moral standards that people carry, and this player is not forcing his belief on you. But to say it shouldn't matter, when you surely have your own moral standards that you wouldn't cross if you felt you were asked to support something that crossed a line.
Is there a Godwin's law equivalent for people equating pedophilia with initiatives that support LGTBQ+. No the point is that you can publicly announce that you won't support pride night and get bashed for it, just like if someone supports pedophilia they will also get bashed for it. Reimer can say what he wants and he can get judged for it.
And what if tomorrow Society said right handed people were bad? Or what if tomorrow Society came to my home and forced me to have kinky, kinky sex with a llama and that I had to love it? All manner of disingenuous straw men can be built and boy are we making hay.
Edit: am I being ridiculous? Of course. Because what they’re doing is the classically disgusting filthy trick of trying to draw a line from homosexuality to pedophilia and it’s garbage.
You missed the point and you drew that conclusion yourself. I don't equate pedophilia to homosexuality, but you have seen society change rapidly in terms of what they call acceptable behavior over time. And you can shout all day that your opinion matters more than another, but as long as that person isn't trying to prevent you from living your truth, just move on.
It's stupid to expect everyone to agree and support everything you believe. What makes you the arbiter? Just as it would be dumb for a Christian, Muslim, etc... to force you to support something you don't align with.
The exact same can be said for Christian's or other religions that condemn Drag Shows with children. Not something I would have my child do but not going to tell someone else they can't. Try living that way, you will be more happy leaving others to decide their fate.
