If there ever has been an example of the nanny state this is it.

---

If there ever has been an example of the nanny state this is it.

---

If there ever has been an example of the nanny state this is it.

My nanny never told me which bathroom to use. I was encouraged to figure that one out on my own.

---

You are honestly going this route? Unreal.

 

Sorry..  I tried that first sentence about four times before I gave up.

 

I got the part where he was trying to equate being LGBT to things we have wasted enough time on like pedophilia.

 

I am tired of arguing with people who refuse to challenge a single aspect of the biological explanation, but keep trying to link being gay or trans to psychiatric disorders like pedophilia without explaining what they reject about my explanation or providing any shred of evidence to support the connection they are trying to make between the two. 

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

My nanny never told me which bathroom to use. I was encouraged to figure that one out on my own.

Well we just can't have that kind of rebel thinking!

---

Soooooo, no answer then?

 

 

You're not surprised.

 I did answer.  You read it.  Quoted it. Couldn't actually do it. Still can't. 

 

Just because I have to leave this thread from time to time for, I don't know, work, life, sanity, etc. doesn't mean I back down from comments or questions.  I'm actually a bit surprised at your response.  Has my track record on this forum ever shown me to be a guy to leave a debate when there are still dumb words being thrown around?  You know me better than that.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

This will all be swept under the rug as another failed idea once a Caitlyn sexually attacks a young child in the bathroom.

 

The Comedy Zone does open mic nights on Tuesdays.  In case you want to meet other unfunny people who have a propensity for self-loathing.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

From a purely biological spectrum, red hair is neutral in a human beings ability to pass along their genetic material. Same sex attraction or ambiguation of gender does. Based on an evolutionary definition that would make it unhealthy.


Also, in the case of genetic deformity we know what a healthy physiology looks like and as much as possible we strive to help people become healthy. This idea of promoting and celebrating the deformation as something to be encouraged is sad.

 

So..  based on the evolutionary definition, being LGBT is unhealthy because same sex couples cannot procreate.    Technically they can, and I know a lot of them who tried to fit in that box people like you would prefer them to live in and had kids before making the self realization the reason they couldn't make their marriage work was because they were gay.  

 

So aside from the fact that they are attracted to sexual partners who cannot make babies with them, how else is a teenager who makes the self discovery that they are gay physically limited?

 

I'm not promoting being LGBT?  How could I?  "Hey!  Have you tried the gays?"  I am promoting the idea that they are born a certain way and that you might be able to grasp the concept as to why..  then you can be what they call "understanding" of their situation, much like you would be understanding of a person with a deformity (since you are conditioned to always align being LGBT with the most horrible thing imaginable).  I am promoting the concept of being accepting of what they are and go through and why.  

 

But your indoctrination at an early age has created a mental block.  You cannot accept a natural explanation which you might be sympathetic towards an LGBT person like you would be towards someone born with leukemia or cancer.  

 

Name me a single genetic anomaly you treat with the same level of disdain and disgust like you do this one?  You can't. And worse, you can't explain why.  

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Sorry..  I tried that first sentence about four times before I gave up.

 

I got the part where he was trying to equate being LGBT to things we have wasted enough time on like pedophilia.

 

I am tired of arguing with people who refuse to challenge a single aspect of the biological explanation, but keep trying to link being gay or trans to psychiatric disorders like pedophilia without explaining what they reject about my explanation or providing any shred of evidence to support the connection they are trying to make between the two.

There you go again. How dare you say pedos are mentally ill, you should be ashamed. Its not illness if it's a biologically ingrained preference. You're the one who keeps saying so.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-...sex-change

 

Really?  This guy?  Bryan Fischer wasn't available?  

 

Where is the line of reputable voices lining up to back the views of this Dr.? 

 

This article is evidence of your inability to grasp reality.  You want to believe every word of it and will convince yourself every word of it is true.  

 

But you know the rule..  if you get to cite from an extreme right source, I get to counter with a source from the left.

 

So are the 15 sources cited here wrong too? Or is it possible, this guy who has made plenty in appearances for conservative groups spouting this same tripe is very similar to you, allowing his strict religious indoctrination to override his brain's ability to accept things it doesn't like.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tann...16722.html

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

There you go again. How dare you say pedos are mentally ill, you should be ashamed. Its not illness if it's a biologically ingrained preference. You're the one who keeps saying so.

 

It isn't, but since you think so..  prove it.  Go ahead.  

 

If you can't..  what are you doing then?  Besides spouting your unfounded opinion and not challenging any of the dozen or two links I have provided.

 

..or trolling.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Is THIS what you were waiting for a reply on?


I can accept that in certain instances where male populations are low, female albatrosses mate with a male once, then form female/female relationships to care for an egg or small chick. I can accept that that is an environmental factor where there are not enough males to form the traditional male/female bond and due to that environment they adapted.


Let's apply this same environmental model to humans. It is estimated by 2020, there will be 30 million more men in China, then women. Is there even a minor spike in the number of male homosexuals reported there? Not that I have seen. Instead, the environmental factor means young men take more risks to try to achieve a higher status in life so they can attract a female (like breathing in that disgusting inner city air for starters). They also become more violent as their testosterone levels are heightened due to the constant competition for the attention and favor of females. And we are also seeing shocking copycat instances of single, young to middle-aged men senselessly attacking young children in schools as a way to exact revenge on an environment which they feel inadequate or incomplete living in as there are not nearly enough females to maintain a stable society.


I will not wholly reject the concept that a person could have some sort of environmental influences which may trigger homosexual behavior. But I do not find it as likely as the biological explanation I have repeatedly endorsed.

Ah welcome back.


I'm glad you agree. There are many instances of animals changing sexual behaviour,birthing patterns, and even gender based on outside factors. So using your example.


"But all animals (including humans) also have a small subset which is bisexual or exclusively homosexual. Can this not also be considered natural if it occurs so frequently across all manner of species? If not, why not? How do you explain it?"


So we can agree in animals,that not every animal is born homosexual,some change their sexuality/gender based on outside influence. Many animals (including humans) have small subsets of homosexuals,would it be realistic to say humans may be influenced by outside factors also?


Your really on your last legs when your comparing the birthing behaviour of albatross's to the Chinese. In every society in the world young men take risks to achieve a higher status in life,the Chinese are no different ,albeit with many people,also attracting a female has nothing to do with breathing in fumes in a city. What does anyone of this have to do with what we're talking about?


Interesting language,instead of saying you might accept,you said you will not wholly reject. You said earlier it was an "absolutely absurd" idea. I think when you consider the complex nature of sexaulity,human biology and society it would be far more likely to be a complex combination of factors rather than just one of them like you believe. Remember I'm not saying they choose this at all,I think that's one point we agree with.

---

Really? This guy? Bryan Fischer wasn't available?


Where is the line of reputable voices lining up to back the views of this Dr.?


This article is evidence of your inability to grasp reality. You want to believe every word of it and will convince yourself every word of it is true.


But you know the rule.. if you get to cite from an extreme right source, I get to counter with a source from the left.


So are the 15 sources cited here wrong too? Or is it possible, this guy who has made plenty in appearances for conservative groups spouting this same tripe is very similar to you, allowing his strict religious indoctrination to override his brain's ability to accept things it doesn't like.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/how-much-evidence-does-it_b_4616722.html'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/how-much-evidence-does-it_b_4616722.html</a>

Johnson Hopkins is far right? That's childish.

---

Sorry..  I tried that first sentence about four times before I gave up.

 

I got the part where he was trying to equate being LGBT to things we have wasted enough time on like pedophilia.

 

I am tired of arguing with people who refuse to challenge a single aspect of the biological explanation, but keep trying to link being gay or trans to psychiatric disorders like pedophilia without explaining what they reject about my explanation or providing any shred of evidence to support the connection they are trying to make between the two. 

 

Now we have degenerated into outright LYING.  

 

1.) You yourself intimated that that pedophilia was a derivative of brain malformation.  That means that you accept the disorder is based on a persons physiology and that the urges are intrinsic and sincere.  So why the double standard.  Technically speaking, by pure biology does it make it any less disgusting if a step father sleeps with his step daughter a week after her first ministration?  In the case of every other sexually reproducing species on the planet she would be fair game.  Why do you keep proliferating a fake societal moral concept on the Step father exercising his natural desires?

 

2.) To any SANE PERSON not obsessed with a radical left DO WHATEVER FEELS GOOD AGENDA we know that same sex attraction is a hell of a lot more comparable to other potentially inbred or ingrained sexual deviations that it is to HAIR COLOR!  Unbelievable.  

 

3.) I have said it before, I'll say it again.  I do not care if there is a genetic link to same sex attraction or transgenderism etc.  You are the one who has created a false moral equivalence to uplift any and all genetic abnormalities or ailments because they are BIOLOGICAL.  The inherent brain structure of people with bi-polar disorder is different, we treat them.  The inherent brain structure of people with psychopathy is different, Do we have a parade celebrating Serial killers.  Is there going to be a take your knife to school day?

 

If a physical or hormonal imbalance causes a behavior disorder or in this case a massive DELUSIONAL STATE then its not societies responsibility to play along or emotionally subsidize it.  

---

The Comedy Zone does open mic nights on Tuesdays.  In case you want to meet other unfunny people who have a propensity for self-loathing.

 

At this point, no one's laughing.  

---

There you go again. How dare you say pedos are mentally ill, you should be ashamed. Its not illness if it's a biologically ingrained preference. You're the one who keeps saying so.

 

It's like the late great Gregory Hines.  

---

Really?  This guy?  Bryan Fischer wasn't available?  

 

Where is the line of reputable voices lining up to back the views of this Dr.? 

 

This article is evidence of your inability to grasp reality.  You want to believe every word of it and will convince yourself every word of it is true.  

 

But you know the rule..  if you get to cite from an extreme right source, I get to counter with a source from the left.

 

So are the 15 sources cited here wrong too? Or is it possible, this guy who has made plenty in appearances for conservative groups spouting this same tripe is very similar to you, allowing his strict religious indoctrination to override his brain's ability to accept things it doesn't like.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tann...16722.html

 

They not only cited a study from a Dr. at Johns Hopkins, but they also cited studies in London and elsewhere that stated that between 70-80% of all children that express TRANS feelings will eventually discard them of their own volition.  THINK ABOUT THAT.  and here we are in this country rushing kids off to hormone therapy as a precursor to reassignment surgery when they are still in their teens?  This is just ridiculous.  It's one thing to tolerate what a grown fully developed man or woman does with their life but its an entirely different thing to universally mandate that we as a society uplift and encourage a delusion that we know may or may not persist over the life of the child as they reach maturity.  

 

Anyone who would seriously allow their two year old son saying they want a husband or walking around in their moms shoes from time to time actually create a sense of self based on a fundamental rejection of their biological sex is irresponsible to the point of negligence.  If that includes you then i feel sorry for you.  

---

Ah welcome back.


I'm glad you agree. There are many instances of animals changing sexual behaviour,birthing patterns, and even gender based on outside factors. So using your example.


"But all animals (including humans) also have a small subset which is bisexual or exclusively homosexual. Can this not also be considered natural if it occurs so frequently across all manner of species? If not, why not? How do you explain it?"


So we can agree in animals,that not every animal is born homosexual,some change their sexuality/gender based on outside influence. Many animals (including humans) have small subsets of homosexuals,would it be realistic to say humans may be influenced by outside factors also?


Your really on your last legs when your comparing the birthing behaviour of albatross's to the Chinese. In every society in the world young men take risks to achieve a higher status in life,the Chinese are no different ,albeit with many people,also attracting a female has nothing to do with breathing in fumes in a city. What does anyone of this have to do with what we're talking about?


Interesting language,instead of saying you might accept,you said you will not wholly reject. You said earlier it was an "absolutely absurd" idea. I think when you consider the complex nature of sexaulity,human biology and society it would be far more likely to be a complex combination of factors rather than just one of them like you believe. Remember I'm not saying they choose this at all,I think that's one point we agree with.

Wasn't comparing birds to the Chinese. I was applying the model of on one gender clearly outnumbering another to humans. China's cultural history provides a perfect example. Noticed you didn't disagree that there is not a spike in gay men there. While I can accept that some environmental factors can influence birds and possibly humans to blur the lines of heterosexuality, the example you provide and the comparison I made is not a "last legs" argument. The environmental model is quite similar. The environmental factors I describe are accurate. In humans, under similar conditions there is not a marked increase in homosexuality.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Wasn't comparing birds to the Chinese. I was applying the model of on one gender clearly outnumbering another to humans. China's cultural history provides a perfect example. Noticed you didn't disagree that there is not a spike in gay men there. While I can accept that some environmental factors can influence birds and possibly humans to blur the lines of heterosexuality, the example you provide and the comparison I made is not a "last legs" argument. The environmental model is quite similar. The environmental factors I describe are accurate. In humans, under similar conditions there is not a marked increase in homosexuality.

Of course I didn't disagree ,I havn't argued once that more men equals more homosexuality? This is a strawman argument. I was merely using the the animals changing sex and sexual preference based on environment to disqualify that they are born one way or another,and you are the one who made the comparison to animals first remember. For instance the leader of clownfish groups is always female. If the leader dies and there is no more females and male turns himself into a female. So you admit that environment/society/biology can influence sexuality/gender?

---

They not only cited a study from a Dr. at Johns Hopkins, but they also cited studies in London and elsewhere that stated that between 70-80% of all children that express TRANS feelings will eventually discard them of their own volition. THINK ABOUT THAT. and here we are in this country rushing kids off to hormone therapy as a precursor to reassignment surgery when they are still in their teens? This is just ridiculous. It's one thing to tolerate what a grown fully developed man or woman does with their life but its an entirely different thing to universally mandate that we as a society uplift and encourage a delusion that we know may or may not persist over the life of the child as they reach maturity.


Anyone who would seriously allow their two year old son saying they want a husband or walking around in their moms shoes from time to time actually create a sense of self based on a fundamental rejection of their biological sex is irresponsible to the point of negligence. If that includes you then i feel sorry for you.

For the last [BLEEP] time.. the kid STARTED showing signs at 2 and the parents spent years figuring it out and working with child psychologists before coming to the conclusion to love their child as she was.


Quoting a guy I have already told you whose beliefs are NOT accepted outside of social conservative circles does nothing to sway my opinion. Way to ignore the 15 studies that say this Dr. is off base. As I have said, you and this doctor share the same cognitive dissonance due to your inability to allow any facts permeate the cerebral cortex which may invalidate or contradict the concrete science of theological scripture. (If it was based on facts, it wouldn't be called faith).


I'm sorry that trans kids exist and that their existence has such a profound impact on you. Of course kids with a cleft pallet, cancer, red hair, etc. all also exist and you don't give them a second thought. You can call it irresponsible all you like. Given the choice between seeing her kid in severe depression or allowing her kid to wear the clothes she feels happy in, guess what, she made the same decision I and many other responsible parents would make. Is it what she wanted? Never. Getting evicted. Fired because her boss's wife had the same ignorant attitude you do. Is that what she would choose? No. It's what she and her family endured and hide from a kid too young to know she is the reason why the family has had a hard time because they would rather love their kid as she is than have her miserable. A responsible parent by your standard would do what exactly? You said no to conversion therapy. Would you take the kid to your new favorite Dr.? Maybe force the kid to take experimental drugs to suppress these natural feelings that she is a girl? Or would a responsible parent just stone their kid in the backyard for being different the same as any parent of an albino, cancerous or color blind kid would? Force the kid to wear boys clothes that make her about as comfortable as you'd be walking around in a dress? Tell me Wile. E. Coyote, super genius, what is the responsible thing you would do in that situation? Take her to church?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!