- Oct 19, 2004
- 13,626
- 6,971
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Like if a Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay-friendly cake because they take food stamps.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like if a Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay-friendly cake because they take food stamps.If they collect pubic funds with the expressed purpose of delivering universally accepted standard of care, yes, I would.
To sexualize a person is to see them in sexual terms or to make them sexually exciting.I'm not sure what that means. Children mature sexually just as they do in every other way. It happens gradually over a period of fifteen or so years and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Except maybe by giving puberty blockers, which I don't approve of either. But they do it themselves. All we can do is give (hopefully) useful guidance.
I figured that you wouldn't.I don’t think a teacher sharing what their sexuality is is a big deal, especially in the context of sex ed.
No, it is not at all. I never knew anything about my teacher's personal lives growing up.I think that is unrealistic and discriminatory.
Wanting to keep private things private is not pretending that private things do not exist.Deciding that the answer is pretending none of these things exist is willful ignorance and sets everybody up for failure.
History of all world religions should be taught in all public schools. They are a big deal.Christianity doesn’t need to be taught in a public school, actually, but I have no issue with a teacher identifying as a Christian.
It has. The one case I am referencing was a P.E. teacher and he got in big trouble - yet cases like this continue to happen and activists continue to support it.What on earth are you talking about? If you think that’s what’s going on in schools or in sex ed, you are grossly misinformed.
This is what I asked, "You think it is appropriate for schoolteachers to be discussing their sexuality with their students? Keeping secrets from their parents?"First off, that’s not what you asked.
There is a reason that the curriculum is posted publicly. Teachers are supposed to stick to the curriculum. The only topics they should be discussing with my children are subject listed on the curriculum.Secondly, your kids teachers are going to be talking about things with them about topics that won’t be shared with you.
Or teachers should just follow the posted curriculum?If that’s a problem for you, you need to homeschool.
That is not what a secret is. Stop being disingenuous.It is unrealistic to expect that every thought, idea, opinion, and conversation a teacher has with your kid will be shared with you.
Every parent or guardian bears 100% responsibility for their children - so they also hold 100% authority over them.It’s not, actually.
I think your responses are something that controlling and abusive person would say when the threat to their iron grip on their victims is threatened.
How many children do you have?I think people who can’t get abortions because they don’t have uteruses can’t weigh in on abortions.
If I can be punished for what my child decides to do - then I have all authority over them.I think people confuse parenting a child with owning a child and forget that the child’s needs are more important than the wants of their parents.
You need to mind your business and stop bringing your personal business into my life and the lives of my children.I think people who aren’t dealing with the issues related to gender ideology and their own children have no business telling me what I need to do.
I agree with this very vague and unhelpful statement.Children should be taught about life in an age appropriate manner. It really is as simple as that
Aw, the old - "It's not what you said, but how you said it" - defense.Maybe if you cut out using words like 'indoctrinate' you might get people paying more attention to any genuine grievances that you have.
It is a problem because it is not true.If it needs to be explained, in an age appropriate and manner, then it's not a problem.
My children are aware of the differences between the two sexes, and I never had to talk about transgenderism at all.My 10 year old grandson is aware of gender differences because we have a family member who transgendered.
That is horrifying.There was some initial surprise then an easy acceptance. It really was no big deal.
The more you speak the less convinced I am of that.I really think you should stop jumping to conclusions.
I have been information that I already know - and even if I didn't - I would know that it was bogus simply based on the fact that it includes adults in a stat about children.You've been given a lot of information. Maybe it came as a surprise to you. It might be a good idea to deal with it rather than looking for escape clauses.
Delivering a child is not an abortion.You do realise that even in places like Texas abortions are allowed when it's absolutely necessary?
'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed, state lawmakers have affirmed protections for medical professionals who exercise “reasonable judgment” to treat ectopic pregnancies and when a patient’s water breaks too early for the fetus to survive outside of the womb.' How new regulations impact abortion and birth control access in Texas
Indeed. I never met a gay person either when I was growing up. But I met plenty of people who used the most derogatory language about them. Do you think those two facts are connected?As a matter of fact - I've read a number of old books - and it seems like all people everywhere since the beginning of people have always been aware of the differences between the sexes - without meeting any transgender people!
I'd be worried if he thought gender was a delusion.You don't think it is a big deal that your grandson easily accepted delusion?
How did you miss the very first sentence? I even bolded it so it would be easy to see: 'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed...'Delivering a child is not an abortion.
Then informing them in an age-appropriate way about human sexuality is not sexualizing them.To sexualize a person is to see them in sexual terms or to make them sexually exciting.
I am claiming that it is never okay to apply any sexual quality to children.
From this outsider's POV, it would seem that part of the problem here is having religious hospitals (is that the right way to say it? Religiously affiliated?), because hospitals don't have beliefs, people have beliefs. In the UK, hospitals are a national service, and staff members can choose not to be involved in medical procedures that they feel are against their morals or beliefs.Exactly. Catholicism is an easy target. I don't see anyone advocating a Muslim to go against their faith. Catholic hospitals should not have to have anything to do with birth control.
Your claim is still false.Maybe look things up before declaring them false. They provide the data. Have fun.
And you are?You are not a medical doctor, so maybe stay in your lane.
How about you start by trying to explain why you consider it to be asinine.I don't even know how to respond to such an asinine comment.
I speak out against the State replacing the father in the home - which has led to more gang-violence - and I also encourage that people with mental health issues get the necessary help they need - including transgender people.Given the above, apparently not.
You are just trying to distract from the actual issues while pushing that we politicize and sexualize more and more children.I know you likely won't bother to read any of the links because you don't care about facts or expert opinion, but if anyone else is interested there ya go.
You and others have been erecting the same strawman over and over.Then informing them in an age-appropriate way about human sexuality is not sexualizing them.
Maybe you've been reading too narrow a range. Transgender people have always been around (as have people on the LGBTQ+ spectra in general); different cultures have treated them in different ways, some being more accepting, sometimes giving them distinct cultural roles, and some being less accepting, sometimes to the extent of suppressing their public expression through intimidation & violence.As a matter of fact - I've read a number of old books - and it seems like all people everywhere since the beginning of people have always been aware of the differences between the sexes - without meeting any transgender people!
Then the only way I could accurately represent your position would be to say it was a self-serving fantasyYou and others have been erecting the same strawman over and over.
I have been saying that gender activists pushing their agenda onto children by encouraging them to engage in LGBT politics and activities is not appropriate.
Teachers should not be revealing private sexual information about themselves or soliciting discussions about student's private sexual information.
Teachers should only be teaching what is outlined in the curriculum - not teaching falsehoods about biological sex - and especially not keeping secrets with students that parents are unaware of.
I keep focusing this discussion on all these inappropriate behaviors that we keep seeing across the country - while you and others keep trying to claim that I am advocating no sex-ed at all.
It is a strawman. It is purposefully misrepresenting my position.
I know homosexuals when I was growing up.Indeed. I never met a gay person either when I was growing up.
Sure - and whether or not that is appropriate is a different discussion - completely unrelated to the one we were having.But I met plenty of people who used the most derogatory language about them.
I don't know. I knew homosexuals while growing up and I also knew a lot of people that used derogatory language about them - including many of the homosexuals.Do you think those two facts are connected?
He accepted the delusion that a person could change their "gender" or sex.I'd be worried if he thought gender was a delusion.
The term "abortion" has changed and refers to the intentional killing of the not-yet-born.How did you miss the very first sentence? I even bolded it so it would be easy to see: 'Following many reports of patients facing denials or delays for medical emergencies in which an abortion is needed...'
So you say, but laws are being written and enforced as if it were. Never mind, it's just virtue signalling. The destruction of a viable fetus was already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics in all of them--a situation the courts found to be consistent with Roe v. Wade.I know homosexuals when I was growing up.
You realize that sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion, right?
We were just discussing the difference in "gender" - not in sexual attraction.
Well - you used the word "gender" while I used the appropriate term "sex"
Sure - and whether or not that is appropriate is a different discussion - completely unrelated to the one we were having.
Although I do feel the need to point out that homosexuality is sinful and should be avoided.
I don't know. I knew homosexuals while growing up and I also knew a lot of people that used derogatory language about them - including many of the homosexuals.
I tend to only make friends with people who have a sense of humor and know how to take a joke - so that is how those two facts were connected.
He accepted the delusion that a person could change their "gender" or sex.
And the concept of "gender" does not exist in reality.
There are only two sexes - zero genders - and infinite personalities.
The term "abortion" has changed and refers to the intentional killing of the not-yet-born.
Removing an unviable pregnancy or any unborn child (without the intent to murder) is not an abortion.
No - this is revisionist nonsense.Maybe you've been reading too narrow a range. Transgender people have always been around (as have people on the LGBTQ+ spectra in general); different cultures have treated them in different ways, some being more accepting, sometimes giving them distinct cultural roles, and some being less accepting, sometimes to the extent of suppressing their public expression through intimidation & violence.
Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation and I never understood why anyone would want to lump it in as such.A relatively small proportion of the population worldwide (around 9%) admits having LGBTQ+ orientations, and of those, only a minority are prepared to seek public acknowledgement, especially in less accepting cultures. Many Western cultures have, until relatively recently, been loathe to allow public acknowledgement of such orientations, while treating its private expression as immoral but often letting it pass as relatively harmless peccadillos or eccentricity among the elite.
Who would have guessed that going to university would have indoctrinated you so?I was raised and educated Catholic and indoctrinated to think of such people as transgressive, immoral, and (sometimes) unfortunate. It wasn't until I went to university and had my eyes opened to the wonderful diversity of human cultures and views, that I realised they were just people who felt differently about that part of their lives - and also realised that some of the people I'd grown up with were probably LGBTQ, particularly the monks in my abbey school (some of whom, it later emerged, had sexually abused pupils).
You deny that these things are happening?Then the only way I could accurately represent your position would be to say it was a self-serving fantasy
What?So you say, but laws are being written and enforced as if it were. Never mind, it's just virtue signalling. The destruction of a viable fetus was already illegal in 42 states and against medical ethics in all of them--a situation the courts found to be consistent with Roe v. Wade.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?