Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I don't blame Trump for the fact that transgender activists are demanding that the military services (or for those in prison, the prison service agencies), pay for surgeries, since the activists were pushing for this way before Trump became President.

 

To me this is similar to illegal immigration where the left\Dems are misreading the tea-leaves in that one can support immigrants and isn't a racist, by default, because they are not pro-illegal-immigration. (just like one can support the transgender community but believe the government shouldn't have to pay for surgeries).

I never mentioned surgeries. I'm talking about how Trump wants to ban transgender people from serving in the military. This would be similar to Banning gay people from serving in the military-- which may be next on Trump's agenda.

 

 

I don't know what immigration has to do with this. But I absolutely agree that we need strict immigration laws and we need to address the issue of all people here illegally in a fair and Equitable manner. However, I don't believe those sentiments are racist, just realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned surgeries. I'm talking about how Trump wants to ban transgender people from serving in the military. This would be similar to Banning gay people from serving in the military-- which may be next on Trump's agenda.

 

 

I don't know what immigration has to do with this. But I absolutely agree that we need strict immigration laws and we need to address the issue of all people here illegally in a fair and Equitable manner. However, I don't believe those sentiments are racist, just realistic.

 

Well I believe Hibi was talking about the government having to pay for surgeries when she posted "Why cant there be a compromise reached where they can serve, but surgery is not the armed services responsibility?" and you replied to her post.

 

Anyhow,  I agree with Hibi;   Transgender people should be allowed to join the armed services,  just like they should be accepted in any job that they have the skills to perform,   but the government shouldn't have to pay for their surgeries.  

 

Immigration has to do with the Transgender surgical issue in that the activist for both movements have unreasonable expectations (demands),  and anyone that disagrees with them is a bigot  (because framing an issue within bigotry is a way to get good people to agree with unreasonable expectations since no one wishes to be on the side of the bigots).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, c'mon now people! "BIGOTED"?!

 

No way. Ya see, the people I'VE always found to be leery of gays and transsexuals are EITHER:

 

a-Bible Trumpers

 

OR

 

b-a little unsure of their OWN sexuality and/or sexual proclivities

 

But "bigoted"?

 

(...well, okay, MAYBE a little bit anyway, but haven't I just given at least TWO freakin' reasons for why they might BE?...yep, I sure did, now didn't I?!)

 

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, c'mon now people! "BIGOTED"?!

 

No way. Ya see, the people I'VE always found to be leery of gays and transsexuals are EITHER:

 

a-Bible Trumpers

 

OR

 

b-a little unsure of their OWN sexuality and/or sexual proclivities

 

But "bigoted"?

 

(...well, okay, MAYBE a little bit anyway, but haven't I just given at least TWO freakin' reasons for why they might BE?...yep, I sure did, now didn't I?!)

 

LOL

 

I don't lump together gays and lesbians with what I define as 'mental only' transsexuals.   By 'mental only' I mean someone that has none of the physical attributes of the sex they wish they were,  verses individuals that were born with both male and female sexual organs,  and typically have hormonal 'conflicts' especially during puberty (e.g. a man with estrogen levels commonly found only in women).  

 

Being an atheist my POV has nothing to do with religion but instead science;  I.e.  a 'mental only' transsexual women is only a women in their mind since they have no physical female traits \ hormonal levels.     

 

Gays says they are 'born this way' and only wish to be allowed to behave in a way that is consistent with how they were born.   I'm very happy that US law is now accepting this (E.g. SSM is legal).       Mental-only transsexuals instead are trying to distance themselves from how they were born and when their wishes conflict with the wishes of others,  I don't think they should be accommodated.   E.g. a mental-only female being able to use a women's restroom.   (not until she is physically female; I.e. once they have surgery and hormonal therapy).  

 

Therefore I support health-insurance plans having to pay for surgery and hormonal therapy for the 'true' transsexuals,  but not for the mental-only ones.

 

Note: I'm actually for gender neutral bathrooms but since most of the general public isn't,   I find it reasonable that gender specific bathrooms should be left to those that are physically of that gender.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this stinks.  Between the trans ban and the pardon of a clearly racist cop, Trump has made this one crummy day in America.

 

Yea,  those two things do stink,  but clearly not a surprise given Trump and his support for write Christian supremacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45]g4QmmkRQ_bigger.jpgThe HillVerified account @thehill

 

 

More

Trump Cabinet member's daughter calls Trump a "never-served piece of ****" over transgender ban http://hill.cm/O5JdoSK

DILr1bZUMAEKTGA.jpg

Trump official order to the Pentagon to ban transgender people from serving in the military came down last Friday.

 

Many people may have missed this important bulletin in light of all of the other Trump dump news -- in addition to the hurricane.

 

What this can mean for our national security and the morale of the military is absolutely big.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did this "problem" come from?

 

I believe it's estimated that less than one one-hundredth of one percent of people seek to become the opposite gender than the one they are. If I'm incorrect about that, I'll welcome correction from even a semi-authoritative source.

 

So, what is the percentage of these people in the armed forces?

 

Does the armed forces attract a much greater percentage of "transgenders" to it than is found in the general public?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Can a leopard change its spots?

 

The majority of the people in Mississippi want it that way.    Just like they want Confederate monuments,   racist and sexist policies etc.. 

 

They are getting what they deserve because that is what most want.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump and Sessions roll back LGBTQ protections, fulfilling promise to hate group Alliance Defending Freedom-

 

"...Sessions continued, “The guidance will also help agencies follow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Congress enacted RFRA so that, if the federal government imposes a burden on somebody’s religious practice, it had better have a compelling reason." NBC News spoke with numerous LGBTQ advocates who “suggested Sessions was more interested in protecting the right to discriminate than the freedom of religion.” BuzzFeed also reported that the Justice Department “consulted with religious and political groups with a history of opposing protections for LGBT people,” including ADF....the largest anti-LGBTQ hate group in the nation and has played an instrumental role in enacting other discriminatory anti-LGBTQ “religious freedom restoration” acts in states across the country,...........

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/10/06/trump-and-sessions-roll-back-lgbtq-protections-fulfilling-promise-hate-group-alliance-defending/218166

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Trump is to address the annual conference of an anti-LGBT group which has been classified as a hate group.

 

The US president will become the first sitting president to address social conservative activists and elected officials at the Value Voters Summit in Washington DC on Friday.

 

President Trump has addressed the event which is hosted by the Family Research Council three times in total and did so last year as the Republican presidential candidate.

 

The Family Research Council opposes and actively lobbies against equal rights for LGBT persons.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-anti-lgbt-address-hate-group-summit-meeting-first-president-us-homphobia-a7997401.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

This White House is no friend to the LGBT community and their allies.

 

Only if you're wealthy, white, male and straight. Everybody else can pretty much **** off.

 

And there's nothing new about that-- that's the way it's been most of my lifetime except maybe for the the last two Democratic Administrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clinton and Obama White Houses were just bursting with homosexuals, huh?

 

They were not "bursting with homosexuals" but Obama wasn't against LGBT, endorsed gays being able to serve in the military and came around to supporting the rights of gays to be married.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not "bursting with homosexuals" but Obama wasn't against LGBT, endorsed gays being able to serve in the military and came around to supporting the rights of gays to be married.  

 

Obama was against Same Sex Marriage.   When the anti-SSM bill,  Prop-8, was up for a vote here in CA I was part of a group that was against this bill.   We tried to get Obama to be against it because polling data showed that black Dem members were mostly for the bill (against SSM).    All the black churches were openly for the bill.     Obama came out in support of the bill;  against SSM.

 

Oh, he flipped once he became a lame duck,  but clearly Obama didn't show support OR leadership as it relates to SSM.   Instead he got bailed out by the courts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was against Same Sex Marriage.   When the anti-SSM bill,  Prop-8, was up for a vote here in CA I was part of a group that was against this bill.   We tried to get Obama to be against it because polling data showed that black Dem members were mostly for the bill (against SSM).    All the black churches were openly for the bill.     Obama came out in support of the bill;  against SSM.

 

Oh, he flipped once he became a lame duck,  but clearly Obama didn't show support OR leadership as it relates to SSM.   Instead he got bailed out by the courts!

 

I don't recall which term it was when Obama did finally endorse same sex marriage but I'll take your word for it and I wish he had taken a different stand on Prop. 8.  Whatever the reasoning or motive, he did flip and it was before the Supreme Court ruling.  I think Biden's opinions helped enlighten Obama.

 

And Obama was right on the gays in the military issue.  Even with his faults and the slow pace of justice, Obama is the most progressive president we've had when it comes to gay rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MY opinion on this matter was always that Obama knew taking a stand in favor SSM, and something of which I always felt he WAS actually in favor of, was a "losing political chip he dared not play" until the opinion polls showed a majority of Americans were in favor of it.

 

(...and you guys know I usually AM right about stuff like this, doncha?) ;)

 

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

MY opinion on this matter was always that Obama knew taking a stand in favor SSM, and something of which I always felt he WAS actually in favor of, was a "losing political chip he dared not play" until the opinion polls showed a majority of Americans were in favor of it.

 

(...and you guys know I usually AM right about stuff like this, doncha?) ;)

 

LOL

 

You know your stuff on this one.    Note that Obama did something similar with illegal immigration.    Known as the deported in Chief during his first term,  once he was a lame-duck he changed because he no longer needed votes.     I don't fault Obama,  or any politician for this because a politician is most effective when the WIN.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know your stuff on this one.    Note that Obama did something similar with illegal immigrations.    Known as the deported in Chief during his first term,  once he was a lame-duck he changed because he no longer needed votes. I don't fault Obama,  or any politician for this because a politician is most effective when the WIN.  

 

Effective at what? Making themselves more rich and privileged?

 

Or by making sure they reinforce the voters' knowledge that most politicians have no actual integrity (whatever lie gets them the job is fine to tell)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen on the net, while Obama was against same sex

marriage at the time of Prop 8, he didn't support the proposition itself.

The deporter in chief label is something of a misnomer. The method

for counting deportations changed. Immigrants who were caught and

sent back and who were not previously counted as deportees then

began to be counted as such at the end of Bush's term and continuing

into Obama's.

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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...