Bathroom dilemma for the wife or daughter.

[True Grit Farms]

For me it ain't about being angry or scared. It's about something called principle. Too many folks don't even know what principles are anymore.

Our principles don't mean a hill of beans to a liberal. Tolerance is what they preach now a days, live and let live. It won't be long before the weirdos will be dressing up dogs and sheep and marrying them.

 

[Ryder]

For me it ain't about being angry or scared. It's about something called principle. Too many folks don't even know what principles are anymore.

+1

 

[Nesikep]

Better not let your kids look in your barnyard and see two cows mounting each other!

CommercialFarmer, You put it very well, and I agree with all your points... I think we got plenty of bigger fish to fry than this stupid issue... As you said, if they posed a REAL threat to me or my own, I might not be able to keep my cool, but that would happen regardless of their gender, gender identity, or lack or confusion of either.
I'm also very much against being *forced* to interact with them. I'm against churches being forced to wed them against their teachings.
All that said, a couple months back I was at the bar having a beer and struck up a conversation with a guy who was gay.. He was a decent guy, We had a long talk about all sorts of stuff, and no he didn't hit on me!

 

[callmefence]

Better not let your kids look in your barnyard and see two cows mounting each other!

CommercialFarmer, You put it very well, and I agree with all your points... I think we got plenty of bigger fish to fry than this stupid issue... As you said, if they posed a REAL threat to me or my own, I might not be able to keep my cool, but that would happen regardless of their gender, gender identity, or lack or confusion of either.
I'm also very much against being *forced* to interact with them. I'm against churches being forced to wed them against their teachings.
All that said, a couple months back I was at the bar having a beer and struck up a conversation with a guy who was gay.. He was a decent guy, We had a long talk about all sorts of stuff, and no he didn't hit on me!

Two cows humping each other, and a man wanting to dress as a woman, piz with the women, and be ****ed by another man is in abousoultly no way even remotely the same thing.

 

[Bestoutwest]

To flip this on you Best, why does the PC crowd try to humiliate or harm someone that holds a different opinion on sexual deviance? Why did the court try to harm businesses for acting consistent with their beliefs?


What happened to freedom of opinion? Why is there such a push that we all should hold identical opions? Neither side is right in this manner.

In America, an adult man or woman should be able to freely decide their morality without threat of life or bodily harm as long as they are not imposing on other's rights, nor threat of governmental imprisonment, fine or taxation. Free market and community consequences of their actions is a different matter.

I think it's a pent up retribution, but I can't say with a certainty b/c I'm not part of that crowd. But I would imagine it's the years of abuse and humiliation from peers and parents who lack any compassion.

With freedom of opinion, you have a right to it, but when it impacts your ability to do you court ordered job (I'm looking at you Kim Davis), OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS then there's a problem. For example, before gay marriage, a dying person's partner was, in some instances, not even allowed in the room with them-even if they had been together for 30+ years b/c the parents had the RIGHT to keep them out b/c they weren't legally married. Isn't it their right to be with a loved one while they die?

I always hear people saying "They're infringing on my rights." Well, where do your rights and the rights of others end and begin? It becomes a slippery slope as to what is allowable under one's rights to refuse service. Will an MD be allowed to sit idly by and watch a person die b/c they're gay? Will the police be allowed to investigate b/c a person is gay? As far as churches go, I believe they should be able to deny a gay couple the ability to get married there AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX FREE STATUS.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I think we got plenty of bigger fish to fry than this stupid issue...
All that said, a couple months back I was at the bar having a beer and struck up a conversation with a guy who was gay.. He was a decent guy, We had a long talk about all sorts of stuff, and no he didn't hit on me!

I think it comes down to the fact that some people just need to be angry about something all the time.

I have friends from college that are gay. Wonderfully brilliant and insightful people. They've never once hit on me-and I'm not an ugly dude either, they just knew I wasn't into it. I have, however, been hit on by some young women before that would make your toes curl at how uncouth they were-real ladies if you catch my drift. Look, there's disgusting folks in all walks of life. To paint an entire society based on one interaction is never a good idea.

 

[D2Cat]

"I got to go with Best on this. Mountain out of a molehill and what are they doing to us while we are focusing on Bathrooms?"

The problem is, if we let this go by it becomes law and we have to live with it. Letting is slide by has happened so many times that is why we have other seemingly more important things to focus on!

If we can't whip it when it's small, we sure are not going to whip it when it grows!

 

[Bestoutwest]

The problem is, if we let this go by it becomes law and we have to live with it. Letting is slide by has happened so many times that is why we have other seemingly more important things to focus on!

If we can't whip it when it's small, we sure are not going to whip it when it grows!

Do you think that this is a new 'problem?' Or do you think that maybe, just maybe this has been going on for quite some time? As for schools, yes this is fairly new, but there have been transgendered people for a millennia. I'm afraid that this is a distraction. It makes me wonder what was passed when the gay marriage fight was going on last summer.

 

[OldCrow]

I'll agree with the first two, but I wonder why you condone violence against people who do the other things? If they don't involve you in their activities, why do you care so much?

Do you have any actual evidence of a person using their 'transgender' to attack a person or is this just Rush Limbaugh fear mongering? There are quite a few ACTUAL documented stories of teachers raping their students, yet did you accompany your daughter to every class she ever attended? How about when she goes to college will you chaperone every date or party she attends? Statistically, she has a greater probability of being raped by someone she knows and trusts.

I'm late to the Dance but couldn't help but get in on the topic.

In response to true grit I understand where he is coming from and have definitely felt like that at times to all of the ones listed. I agree with the first two and know they wouldn't get a chance to be tarred and feathered as they would be put down faster than fat kid could eat cake; however, when I have a clear mind not clouded with anger about the last two I will choose to ignore to an extent and shelter my children and teach them Godly values that I believe are right. If we have done our job when they leave home hopeful they will have the same spiritual guidance as us. I will not teach tolerance but taking a stand when something goes against your beliefs even when it isn't popular.

To the Disagreement; this starts with your second sentence, the problem is the last two (transgender/queers) won't leave us alone. It sounds like you sympathize with them and while I don't hate them at all I hope they choose to lead a different life in the future. I'm 100% against them pushing their agendas down our throats and trying to present themselves as role models for our children. You say "If they don't involve you in their activities" but they do. In my mind it all started with Ellen, I'm 30 so that is about as far back as my memory consciously goes, when she came out of the closet. Tell me how many shows out there don't have a homosexual in them. As a matter of fact if a network doesn't have 42% of their shows aired with a homosexual they get constantly harassed. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/tv-has-be-least-42-percent-gay. Please read the article. The percentage is small but their effect on our beliefs/culture is great https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/. The percentages haven't changed since the 2011 census but somehow the American people's perception has. Why is this? Liberal TV, people, and their agenda pushing ways. It has been happening for some time and people are slowly being desensitized to it. It didn't happen overnight and you can't eat an apple in one bite. It happens over a span one bite at a time. Americans need to wake up and realize God blessed this nation and can rightly so quit at any time.

Very Respectfully,

OldCrow

 

[Ouachita]

Old Crow, great post. You are describing the Normalization of Deviance that has increased exponentially in one generation. In all other areas of life, NoD is understood to be a negative action/trait with negative consequences.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I'm late to the Dance but couldn't help but get in on the topic.

however, when I have a clear mind not clouded with anger about the last two I will choose to ignore to an extent and shelter my children and teach them Godly values that I believe are right.
OldCrow

I won't disagree that our media is very polarized, and pushes its agenda. The difference that I see, though, is that it comes from both sides of the aisle.

As for response to everything else: You say they push their agenda on you. What if the same argument could be said for you? You personally believe that it's a sin (which I'm not saying is either right or wrong, we're all allowed our opinions as long as no one's rights are infringed upon). Does everyone else feel the same way as you do? It's obvious that they don't. However, if one that believes it's a sin is fighting to keep homosexuals from getting married, isn't that pushing the agenda of the religious on to those who feel homosexuals should be allowed to get married? I think the biggest thing here is perspective. It all depends on what side of the argument you're on.

And yes, it was respectfully from you, Old Crow. I appreciate the lack of name calling and insinuation of a lack of intelligence. I wish I could say the same for others, but even though you and I will not agree on this one, it will be respectfully so that we shall disagree. From all accounts, you are a gentleman.

 

[JMJ Farms]

As far as churches go, I believe they should be able to deny a gay couple the ability to get married there AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX FREE STATUS.

I'm not gonna start preaching and break the rules but if you want to talk about forcing something on someone...... How in the world can you rightly force a church to commit an act (gay marriage) goes against everything they believe, teach, stand for, etc.

IMO, tax free status doesn't give the government the right to run the churches. If the people want separation of church and state in the courtrooms, then there needs to be separation of church and state in the churches. Just my :2cents: :tiphat:

 

[Commercialfarmer]

To flip this on you Best, why does the PC crowd try to humiliate or harm someone that holds a different opinion on sexual deviance? Why did the court try to harm businesses for acting consistent with their beliefs?


What happened to freedom of opinion? Why is there such a push that we all should hold identical opions? Neither side is right in this manner.

In America, an adult man or woman should be able to freely decide their morality without threat of life or bodily harm as long as they are not imposing on other's rights, nor threat of governmental imprisonment, fine or taxation. Free market and community consequences of their actions is a different matter.

I think it's a pent up retribution, but I can't say with a certainty b/c I'm not part of that crowd. But I would imagine it's the years of abuse and humiliation from peers and parents who lack any compassion.

With freedom of opinion, you have a right to it, but when it impacts your ability to do you court ordered job (I'm looking at you Kim Davis), OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS then there's a problem. For example, before gay marriage, a dying person's partner was, in some instances, not even allowed in the room with them-even if they had been together for 30+ years b/c the parents had the RIGHT to keep them out b/c they weren't legally married. Isn't it their right to be with a loved one while they die?

I always hear people saying "They're infringing on my rights." Well, where do your rights and the rights of others end and begin? It becomes a slippery slope as to what is allowable under one's rights to refuse service. Will an MD be allowed to sit idly by and watch a person die b/c they're gay? Will the police be allowed to investigate b/c a person is gay? As far as churches go, I believe they should be able to deny a gay couple the ability to get married there AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX FREE STATUS.

Please explain to me what part of the marriage ceremony the MD seeing a gay person is involved in? And what part of the marriage ceremony a police officer is investigating? Being in the medical field, you should be aware of the particulars that an MD assumes care of a patient or can then fire a client. It's not willy nilly. You've jumped the shark Fonzy, or slipped off your slipper argument? Either way, there is no correlation. Under your utopia of big gov and inability to for people to freely exercise their moral beliefs, a preacher shouldn't have the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony correct?

Words have meaning and those meanings are important. Marriage was not created by government. I thought there was supposed to be separation of church and state? Seems like .gov sure doesn't want the church giving it any directives, but it sure doesn't mind sticking it's nose into the church's business. The state can make any and all decisions it wants to in regards to civil unions. Defining marriage is out of it's jurisdiction.

And yes, I've had a dentist that would choose to not take clients that he knew led a risky life style. He didn't care to expose himself, his staff or other patrons to unwarranted risk. If you notice, I didn't say gay. I said risky.... includes people of any persuasion, size, shape, color, or drug habit. Please tell me you think a dentist should not be allowed to withhold service to an individual that knowingly engages in risky behavior.... then tell me that you think an insurance company should not be allowed to withhold service (coverage) to a person that engages in risky behavior...

It becomes a slippery slope as to what is allowable under one's rights to refuse service.

Why do you hate freedom and free enterprise so much? Jealous of Venezuela having a 3 day work week and using tree leaves to wipe their butts or what?

And no, gay marriage was not the first legal option to recognize a living will or relationship... there has been something called unions and other legal relief, see a few paragraphs previous.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

As far as churches go, I believe they should be able to deny a gay couple the ability to get married there AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX FREE STATUS.

Why do you hate the poor and needy so much? You want to harm the recipients of charity because a church wants to uphold it's moral integrity?

Repeating popular phrases isn't always the smartest thing to do.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

As far as churches go, I believe they should be able to deny a gay couple the ability to get married there AS LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX FREE STATUS.

I'm not gonna start preaching and break the rules but if you want to talk about forcing something on someone...... How in the world can you rightly force a church to commit an act (gay marriage) goes against everything they believe, teach, stand for, etc.

IMO, tax free status doesn't give the government the right to run the churches. If the people want separation of church and state in the courtrooms, then there needs to be separation of church and state in the churches. Just my :2cents: :tiphat:

I hadn't read your post yet when I replied, I very much agree. Funny that "tolerant" people want to use taxes on donations (money that's already been taxed and is being freely given) to force their intolerance of views they don't agree with. The biggest charity organizations we have..... that's worth repeating.... CHARITY. I guess they'd rather the lady that I donated money to get some needed dental work done wouldn't of got the relief, but instead the government could of wasted it on studying the sexual habbits of ducks or lizards. I mean, changing the definition of marriage is important stuff. Giving someone equal rights under the law isn't equivalent to forcing people to act against their morals is it?

 

[Nesikep]

Please explain to me what part of the marriage ceremony the MD seeing a gay person is involved in? And what part of the marriage ceremony a police officer is investigating? Being in the medical field, you should be aware of the particulars that an MD assumes care of a patient or can then fire a client. It's not willy nilly. You've jumped the shark Fonzy, or slipped off your slipper argument? Either way, there is no correlation. Under your utopia of big gov and inability to for people to freely exercise their moral beliefs, a preacher shouldn't have the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony correct?
I believe a person should be free to accept or deny anyone,... If the church/minister finds that gay marriage is against their doctrine, I'm just fine with that

Words have meaning and those meanings are important. Marriage was not created by government. I thought there was supposed to be separation of church and state? Seems like .gov sure doesn't want the church giving it any directives, but it sure doesn't mind sticking it's nose into the church's business. The state can make any and all decisions it wants to in regards to civil unions. Defining marriage is out of it's jurisdiction.
Exactly, though I gotta say that the churches do stick their nose into government business

And yes, I've had a dentist that would choose to not take clients that he knew led a risky life style. He didn't care to expose himself, his staff or other patrons to unwarranted risk. If you notice, I didn't say gay. I said risky.... includes people of any persuasion, size, shape, color, or drug habit. Please tell me you think a dentist should not be allowed to withhold service to an individual that knowingly engages in risky behavior.... then tell me that you think an insurance company should not be allowed to withhold service (coverage) to a person that engages in risky behavior...
If they want to exclude risky behavior, then they better not hide the fine print in 50 pages of legalese... I'm wary of insurers, since they always seem to be more than willing to collect premiums and then find any out possible when it comes time to pay... For example, if being gay was 'risky', and the person suffered an illness which was not a result of this behavior, that should not void the entire insurance agreement

It becomes a slippery slope as to what is allowable under one's rights to refuse service.

Why do you hate freedom and free enterprise so much? Jealous of Venezuela having a 3 day work week and using tree leaves to wipe their butts or what?

And no, gay marriage was not the first legal option to recognize a living will or relationship... there has been something called unions and other legal relief, see a few paragraphs previous.

I think the quotes got a little mangled.. oops

I mean, changing the definition of marriage is important stuff. Giving someone equal rights under the law isn't equivalent to forcing people to act against their morals is it?

Agreed on both counts

 

[True Grit Farms]

Y'all have pretty much summed up how I feel. I quit before I'd screw up again.

 

[herofan]

Hate to stir up the crazies by admitting it online, but all of our bathrooms at home are unisex.
op:

So are mine, and since it is in my house, we get to set our own rules and customs. No bearded strangers have followed my daughter in, and if that did happen, a 911 call would be in order to remove the body. We use ours one at a time, especially if we have company, and the door locks behind us.