Video removed

[Pommer]

Is Ken Ham a citizen of the United States?

 

[Servus]

Is Ken Ham a citizen of the United States?

Does he need to be? Half of the people who post to News & Current Events regarding US news aren't citizens of the US.

 

[Pommer]

Does he need to be? Half of the people who post to News & Current Events regarding US news aren't citizens of the US.

It’s nice to know that people are free here to offer their opinions as to what state legislators are doing (wrong), whether they be concerned citizens or just expatriates from other lands.

 

[Servus]

It’s nice to know that people are free here to offer their opinions as to what state legislators are doing (wrong), whether they be concerned citizens or just expatriates from other lands.

It would be the same issue no matter where it was taking place. And rather than it being an isolated issue, it's part of the overall LGBTQQIP2SA+ changing things to facilitate the PRIDE movement agenda that liberals are supposed to pretend doesn't exist.

 

[Pommer]

It would be the same issue no matter where it was taking place. And rather than it being an isolated issue, it's part of the overall LGBTQQIP2SA+ changing things to facilitate the PRIDE movement agenda that liberals are supposed to pretend doesn't exist.

Is it?
Huh, we should maybe look at the legislative history, rather than jump straight into the why’s and wherefores of these changes.

 

[Servus]

Is it?
Huh, we should maybe look at the legislative history, rather than jump straight into the why’s and wherefores of these changes.

The intended goal of gender neutrality is obvious. The elimination of father, mother, man, woman, boy, girl. To be replaced with multigender multiorentaton hodgepoge people.

 

[Tuur]

No, tying a lagnuage change to the destruction of American culture (which, as a Christian, why would he even care?) is not "the standard Christian view." It might be the standard view amongst a reactionary part of conservative American evangelicalism, but it is not "the standard Christian view." Christianity is quite a bit bigger than that.

Whether or not objections to tinkering with language is a Christian standard, note that George Orwell addressed it with his fictional Newspeak. In his fiction, by tinkering with terms, in his case removing them, certain concepts become inexpressible. Sounding like Beldar of the Coneheads is humorous in its stupidity but also is indicative of the mental hoops we are expected to jump through. In this case it's predicated by the conceit that gender isn't biological and is whatever it's wished to be. If anyone wants to scream about that observation, the Conehead admonition "Maintain low tone" applies. If the ones behind this bill didn't view gender in that way, there would be no reason to divide "parental units" into "gestating" and "non-gestating" when the biological definition "male" and "female" serves the same purpose, with "hermaphrodite" added for the "what about" pedantic.

Really, this whole thing sounds like dialog from a sketch of the Coneheads teaching Lamaze class.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Whether or not objections to tinkering with language is a Christian standard, note that George Orwell addressed it with his fictional Newspeak. In his fiction, by tinkering with terms, in his case removing them, certain concepts become inexpressible. Sounding like Beldar of the Coneheads is humorous in its stupidity but also is indicative of the mental hoops we are expected to jump through. In this case it's predicated by the conceit that gender isn't biological and is whatever it's wished to be. If anyone wants to scream about that observation, the Conehead admonition "Maintain low tone" applies. If the ones behind this bill didn't view gender in that way, there would be no reason to divide "parental units" into "gestating" and "non-gestating" when the biological definition "male" and "female" serves the same purpose, with "hermaphrodite" added for the "what about" pedantic.

Even though I don't understand the need for dividing parents in gestating or non-gestating (NY law doesn't interest me in general), I don't think your proposal does the exact same since children can have two male (both non-gestating) or two female parents (both non-gestating or one non-gestating and one gestating). Parenthood is not only a biological affair, it is a legal one as well.

So if there is some parts of law that applies only to the gestating parent, this must be clarified in the appropriate language.

Really, this whole thing sounds like dialog from a sketch of the Coneheads teaching Lamaze class.

ETA:

Another benefit of the gestating-terminology, is if there are or perhaps will be laws regarding the rights of surrogate parents where a differentiator is who has been gestating.

 

[DaisyDay]

You're pretty much just heckling.

Accusation in a mirror, dear. Pointing out that someone is crying about the importance of certain pronouns while clearly demonstrating near total ignorance of what pronouns actually are is not just heckling; it is pointing out basic facts. Same with pointing out that wanting "mama" and "dada" to be used in legal and medical documents is...inappropriate and really silly. Finally, attacking me rather than addressing the very valid and legitimate points of my post is not only against the rules but a concession.

 

[DaisyDay]

It’s nice to know that people are free here to offer their opinions as to what state legislators are doing (wrong), whether they be concerned citizens or just expatriates from other lands.

Look up "Hamm and Aigs" for an interesting take by Paul Ens.

 

[Servus]

Accusation in a mirror, dear. Pointing out that someone is crying about the importance of certain pronouns while clearly demonstrating near total ignorance of what pronouns actually are is not just heckling; it is pointing out basic facts.

The person I was replying to used the term pronouns. I decided to run with it.

Same with pointing out that wanting "mama" and "dada" to be used in legal and medical documents is...inappropriate and really silly.

That's not what I said. You're making stuff up to mock me with.

Finally, attacking me rather than addressing the very valid and legitimate points of my post is not only against the rules but a concession.

You're the one who did the attacking. Your routine seems to be making snarky jabs and then playing victim when you're called out on it.