OK, I'll clarify my argument for those of you who'd like to respond.
Here is my thesis: "But gay and lesbians are a gateway and stepping stone towards other groups which I do not accept."
Meaning to say that laws accepting gays and lesbians cases, will be a gateway to accepting transsexual cases.
I have no idea what you mean by "accepting transsexual cases."
Yes, I meant "conservatives" as in the Republican party (the term is almost interchangeable, here in Canada the Conservative party IS the homologue to the GOP). The Republican politicians, representing the Republican party, do base many of their stances from a biblical view. My point is that this is alienating the rest of the republicans that aren't christian. So instead of approaching things from a Christian Republican standpoint, they should approach things as from a Republican standpoint instead. In other words, they represent the Republican party not the christian Republican party.
As I said before, those on the right who are promoting Christian values are themselves Christian. If you want conservatives in office who aren't on the religious right, then elect more moderate conservatives.
Read explanation of thesis. And yes, some distorted form of homosexuality is a requirement of transsexualism, because homosexuality deals with sex and gender, what exactly are you if you are a transwoman? You're a man by sex, woman by gender.
Once again, you are incorrect. Transsexuals do not have to be gay.
Not every statement has to contain a point (this is evident from the majority of your posts). But it may lead up to a point. So quoting a few statements and then asking "Whats your point?" is really hilarious and ignorant on your part.
But even taking your post as a whole, there seems to be no point other than to express your disgust at transsexuals, particularly the process by which they become the other sex. You've made claims about perversions of humanity, and straw man arguments about gender reassignment in the womb, but you haven't made any legitimate claims or supported them with credible arguments. So, again: What's your point?
If a person cannot help how they identify racially (asian man feels like black man) or how they identify taxonomically (human feels like monkey), is reassignment surgery a CORRECTION of the original mistake? This is not a correction, because it is an error to identify the original status as a mistake. Because there is nothing wrong with being an asian man. Or being a black man. But there is something inherently wrong with being an asian man trying to become a black man. Refer to the end of my first post to why you should care or be concerned.
Straw man. I specifically said your examples of racial reassignment (and even species reassignment) were arguments ad absurdem, and therefore logical fallacies. So I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with being born Asian, just as there's nothing wrong with being born a woman. The "mistake" is in the transsexual being born, essentially, into the wrong body. The surgery corrects that mistake.
You can call it a strawman, I don't consider it such because its a slippery slope. Lets use the homosexuality movement as an example (although I am not opposed it, its a good example of how one landmark case FOR something leads to another). Proponents wanted gays and lesbians to be treated as normal human beings. (But people argued that they'll receive the same rights as people in such areas as this this and this, no no, that is a stawman). Gays and lesbians wanted equal rights in terms of marriage (But people argued that they'll receive the same rights as parents such as this, this and this, no no, that is a strawman). Now just last week, supreme court ruled that a lesbian non-biological mother has the same rights as the biological mother of the children. So yes, in line with being progressive and moving forward, one will lead to another until conservatives draw a line with liberals.
Would transsexual people want their children as transsexuals, would homosexual people want their children as homosexuals, would heterosexual people want their children as heterosexual? The argument is not so far reaching.
In the case of gay rights, the "slippery slope" could be argued because those were a logical progression of rights. In the case of transsexuals, you offer an absurd and incomprehensible example as the end of the slope. And I've already explained to you that there's no way to identify transsexualism in the womb, so the point is absolutely moot. You're just trying to conjure shocking imagery. That's been your play from the start.
I'm not apologizing for anything. Eg. You're a white male human. To think you're a female, is as perverse as thinking you're asian, is as perverse as thinking you're any other animal other than a human being.
You keep saying it's perverse, but you don't explain how. I'm left to assume you don't have a valid argument.
You don't treat a disorder by entertaining it. You don't tell schizophrenics that their imaginary friends are real. So by the same token that you shouldn't give surgical procedures to people with gender identity disorder, you don't give gifts to the imaginary friends of schizophrenia patients. This is promoting it.
Homosexuality used to be listed as a disorder, but was removed. Transsexualism is in the process of being removed from the list, as well, so your point is moot. But let's put that aside for now, and just say it is a disorder. You've avoided my question of what your alternative treatment is, so I'll pose it again: What is your alternative? Pretend they don't exist, and allow people to suffer because the surgery makes you uncomfortable?
And you still haven't explained why it shouldn't be treated exactly how it is currently treated, except to say it's perverse. You're going to have to do better than that.
Because the female bear isn't taping an artificial penis to herself to act like a male bear.....
A couple of problems here: First, the absence of strap-ons in the animal kingdom is not evidence against the existence of transsexualism in the animal kingdom, and the suggestion that it
is only shows the low level of intellect I'm having the severe displeasure of debating with here. Secondly, strap-ons are not indicative of transsexualism even in humans. Seriously, you want people to take you seriously, then you say stupid shit like this.
I can't tell what animals are thinking, but they're definitely not as screwed up as humans.
No, by all means, provide more unsubstantiated claims. There weren't enough of them in your first post.
No, my line of reasoning doesn't follow that surgery of any kind is a perversion of humanity. Repairing limbs, transplanting vital organs, this is an advocation of humanity and life.
So is transsexualism. Despite your efforts to paint it as an abomination, all that's being done is the addition of one sexual organ and the removal of another. Nobody's adding extra legs or anything of the sort (not that you've explained why that would be so bad, of course; you haven't explained
anything, just repeated your same condemnations over and over, like an angry old person shouting at the neighborhood kids from their porch) they're just trying to make themselves feel whole. That's kind of a beautiful thing.
Amputating your arms and replacing it with legs instead, that would be a perversion of humanity.
You're not even clever enough to realize what kind of a hole you've dug for yourself with comments such as that. What about the guy who loses a thumb and replaces it with a toe? By your own logic, that's a perversion of humanity.
We can disagree on what would constitutes a perversion of humanity, but take your 4 legged humans with you.
Another straw man/appeal to the absurd. Is there something wrong with you that you can't argue on the level, or is it just a total lack of ethics?
As for your last argument, it really is a strawman. I said that gender identity disorder was an abnormal mental behavior, which it is. But I didn't say that everything abnormal or non-natural was bad. I didn't say people with IQ of 200, or people with synesthesia, or that medicine or television was bad (lol!). But you should not promote abnormal mental behavior like gender identity disorder
What you don't understand is that your only reasoning for the condemnation of this "abnormal" behavior is that it's abnormal, that logically leads to the conclusion that all things abnormal are worthy of condemnation.
And lastly, this actually has everything to do with what is natural and what isn't. When I say perversion of humanity, I'd like to think that there is some natural sanctity to humanity, that is why we must respect each others rights as human beings. All our inherent rights and laws are made with regards to "humans" (All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.). Once you start to defile what is human, then you start to break that respect and sanctity.
Nobody's defiling anything. A transsexual isn't any less human than you are me.
Just because people have an opposing belief, doesn't make them bigots.
Another straw man. Are you incapable of anything else? I never said that having an opposing belief makes you a bigot. What makes you a bigot are your specific beliefs. You know, such as the claim that transsexuals aren't really human?
What constitutes a bigot is someone who has complete disregard for other's beliefs and vehemently opposes anything other than his own opinion; and it is apparent throughout the forum quarrels that you are the epitome of such.
If you want to peg me as being intolerant of people who say stupid and hateful things about others based on their gender identity issues--or, a bigot of bigots--then I'll accept that.
