Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

Which of the three was born a male?

 

Your claim to your "truth" and your need to express it is noted.

I don't obsess over the genitalia of others, and respect others for who they are, not insist they must be who I say.

If you like to self-identify as a "Christian" I have no need to contradict you.

 

That is all that is relevant here.

I don’t expect this, at all... I am an advocate to not harass people, if you are not doing that then you will receive no issues from me.

Your narrative that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles is still outright bigotry however.

 

I don’t believe bigots should he allowed to wed, who are you to question my religious beliefs? So you believe gay taxpayers around the nation should subsidize your union but you should be able to ban theirs?

How is it an economic one?
Same sex marriage has numerous benefits to the economy.
It increases homeownership which promotes increased spending and community involvement
It increases stability resulting in less substance abuse and mental illness
It reduces risky behavior and increases happiness
When a child is involved the above are amplified (much like a heterosexual union — yours for instance)

 

Rights are not given they are deserved. Only thing every citizen should have is responsibilities because rights can only truly exist if they are backed up by responsibilities. You are not granted to rights simply by existing.

Furthermore, individual rights are not supposed to be positive, they are supposed to be negative.

 

What "sinful behavior," from your perspective, causes you to judge and condemn others?

What evidence do you have of Jesus's sexual orientation?

He was, by all accounts, a righteous dude, regardless.

"Let him who is without sin
cast the first stone."​

 

On the one hand, they tell us we cannot discriminate against a person for what they do in their private life. Then out of the other side of their mouth, we are supposed to discriminate against a person for what they do in their private life.

Is it any wonder so many of us ignore the prattling and preaching by these people?

 

Homosexuality is divergent from the norm. 90 to 96 per cent of people are NOT homosexual. Homosexuality is atypical. It's untypical. It's nontypical. It's nonconformist. It's an exception to the norm. Homosexuals are deviants. Already living outside the normal excepted sexual behaviors.

I did not say that their behavior is not acceptable; I said it's deviant. It is. I don't care what they do in their bedrooms. Outside of their bedrooms, why would I ever know what they did in their bedrooms?

deviant
[ˈdēvēənt]
ADJECTIVE

1. departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.
   "deviant behavior" ·
   aberrant · deviating · divergent · abnormal · atypical · untypical · nontypical ·
   nonconformist · eccentric · maverick · individualist · exception · outsider ·
   NOUN
   1. a deviant person or thing.
      

 

I was not implying that I can't be tricked.

 

It isn’t a trick, each of the individuals suffered significant distress prior to their transitioning (they are all trans btw) and each have reported significant life improvement since their transition.

That is why all these bathroom bills and anti-trans bills are so absurd — each of the above would be forced to use the facilities of a gender they look nothing like and no longer have the physical attributes to match.

 

It is absolutely a trick, they were medically altered to the point of looking like something they aren't. I don't care much about the bathroom law rules. As long as you aren't hanging out in there, of course that goes for everyone...

 

As I said I could tell in person. Telling by pictures when you can’t see the person completely, they have flattering angles and photoshop makes it more difficult. In person it’s almost always easy to tell. Even with those three.

 

Loitering... yeh, doing that around public bathrooms typically equals pervert... regardless of orientation or gender identity...

 

So if I’m working in that nursing home speaking to a coworker, I don’t have to refer to the trans as her when he’s a male?

No it’s fact. Backed up by scientific data. Your mewling notwithstanding.

 

I doubt very seriously you could tell, the first one dated a famous athlete and no one knew (not even his teammates).
Also none of them allow photoshop because they are so proud of their outcome.

You do seem to believe you are superior so maybe you could.

 

I don’t care how far you take your bigotry. California might be interested though. If it makes you feel better about yourself... go for it.

Flat out lie

 

First of all I’m not married. So you’re not paying anything for me. Second of all, stating facts is not bigotry no matter how much you wish it would be.

Third, why do you think we provide marriage benefits? Do we do so because we just like giving away free money? Of course not, we do so because the benefit to society is greater than the amount being paid into the system for marriage benefits.

But there is only ONE legitimate benefit from marriage that justifies the absurd amount of money married people receive. I personally don’t believe ANYONE should receive marriage benefits, however if you’re going to steal my money to pay for them you better have a damn good reason for doing so.

The ONLY justifiable benefit is procreation. Let’s say we have two couples one heterosexual and one homosexual. Let’s assume both couples take $50,000 out of the system in the form of marriage benefits. Homo couple is incapable of procreation in and of themselves. So when they die their revenue stream (the taxes they pay INTO the system) dies with them. Whereas hetero couple has four children. Two of whom get married and two who do not. The two children that did not get married continue to pay into the system, making up for the loss from their parents. The other two children get married and have children of their own.

This benefit could, theoretically, last for hundreds of years (as their lineage continues) and be worth trillions of dollars over time. Homosexual couple is INCAPABLE of providing that benefit in and of themselves. As such they leech off of the marriage benefits system because they’re incapable of extending the revenue stream to society and should not receive marriage benefits.

 

Thus meaning the state of California is deciding to punish the expression of certain opinions on the basis that it does not agree with them.

It is also taking the position that the school of thought which holds gender is of a fluidic nature, is wrong and is easily dismissed, as it is holding that gender is something fixed that can never be changed.

 

Jesus spoke against homosexuality. I wouldn’t expect he would then engage in it.

And any sinful behavior. It just so happens that the ONLY sinful behavior people engage in and expect us to not only believe their behavior isn’t sinful and is actually of god is homosexuality. Rapists don’t expect us to validate their behavior as godly.

 

No i said what a PRESIDENT does in his private life is irrelevant insofar as picking the president.

I’d tell trump he was sinning too on a personal level if he engaged in sinful behavior.

 

Please direct quote where Jesus ever mentioned “homosexuality”.

You understand what the punishment of spreading false gospel is, yes?

 

yeah right. None of them use photoshop. Get outta here with that lol

 

I’ve provided a source. You provided nothing. I’ll let my source stand.

 

Sure. He referred to it when he was discussing the three different types of eunuchs. It starts in Matthew 19:12

 

Shocking, you seem like such a lovely person

Good to know

Using flawed or manipulated data and ignoring fact to push a narrative against a population group because of intolerance is... bigotry...

Marriage was originally instituted as a state institution to keep the negros from marrying the whites — you should know that with your “heritage”.

Ok, let’s switch your example to the gay couple having four children either through the adoption of unwanted offspring of heterosexuals or through previous relationships vs a heterosexual couple that is infertile. Your narrative dissolves.

Gay couples are capable of procreation and adoption. Fertility has never been a requirement of marriage. If you want to switch it to child care credits and remove all public subsidies to marriage I could support that — but that isn’t the goal is it?