Quotas for Transsexuals: What ENDA Portends

senate-enda-vote

A man dressed as a woman entered a women’s locker-room at a college in Washington State. This locker-room at Evergreen State College is used not just by co-eds but also by little girls who use the college for programs.

In a subsequent police report the transvestite was accused of “sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing.” Put aside the absurdity of a “her” having “male genitalia” and focus on the fact that what this man did was perfectly legal. Police and the school had to ignore the complaints because in Washington State “sexual orientation and gender identity” are protected categories of nondiscrimination. It seems a pre-op transsexual may sling his junk with impunity.

Then there’s the story of Brian Griggs who had charges brought against him by the Seattle Human Rights Commission. His crime? Playing a Christian radio station in the business he owned and also posting a letter from his Congresswoman questioning open gays in the military. According to Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, Griggs has to spend thousands of dollars to defend himself.

Washington State is not the only one. California has a similar law with similar results. Some employees of the city of Oakland started a gay and lesbian association. Two Christians started a Christian association and were ordered by their supervisor to cease and desist under threat of firing. Their efforts were called “homophobic” and contributing to the “harassment” of gay employees.

There is a small patchwork of states that have such laws that inevitably harm businesses and religious objectors to the dominant sexual ethos. But these are only states. However, the US Senate yesterday passed something called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that will enforce a similar law nationally.

ENDA says any organization with 15 or more employees may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment or the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

ENDA defines sexual orientation as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bi-sexuality” but, in the words of Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, “offers no definition of those terms or what principle limits its ‘orientation’ to those three.”

ENDA defines gender identity as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individuals designated sex at birth.” That means transsexuals.

Keep in mind that sexual orientation and gender identity have awfully slippery definitions. As Anderson says in his Heritage Backgrounder, “Sexual orientation and gender identity are commonly understood to be subjective, self-disclosed, and self-defined.” They are not like race, which is a properly protected category.

Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the giants of psychiatry, former head of that unit at Johns Hopkins University, filed an amicus brief in the DOMA case before the Supreme Court several months ago and addressed exactly this topic. “Social science research continues to show that sexual orientation, unlike race, color and ethnicity, is neither a clearly defined concept nor an immutable characteristic of human beings.“  He noted from his decades of experience that sexual orientation is completely fluid and changes dramatically over a lifetime.

McHugh wrote that gender identity “is even more fluid and erratic, so much so that in limited cases an individual could claim to ‘identify’ with a different gender of successive days at work.”

Besides the question of who is being protected here—a he-she on Monday could be a she-he on Tuesday—this new law exposes businesses to immense intrusion that could litigate them out of the marketplace.

What’s more, religious liberty would be further imperiled. Hobby Lobby, a business started by Christians and advanced along Christian lines, would be forced to hire transsexuals at their registers and as their sales force. And if they didn’t, they would be in violation of federal law. Your child’s grade-school Principal shows up one day in a dress and fake boobs. You don’t like it? Your child is scandalized? Too bad for you and your child.

And if ENDA passes you can say good-bye to all state laws banning gay marriage. The 36 states where it is not allowed would inevitably have to fall.

Race hustlers everywhere know exactly where this is headed, toward self-imposed quotas by businesses large and small. The only way a business can inoculate itself against charges of discriminatory hiring practices is to hire the aggrieved class no matter what. If pushed by the Justice Department, Hobby Lobby’s only line of defense would be to trot out the transsexuals. They don’t even have to know how to type as long as they have lopped off their penises or at least wear dresses.

One of the truly strange things about the gay-rights movement is how free they are with their strangest cousins. You would think that even gay men and lesbians might be rather embarrassed by the T in LGBT. But so bold are they, so fearless, that they now lead with the T. Most Americans are rightly put off by such displays of obvious psychological disturbances.

The bill that just passed the US Senate was met with no genuine objection even by conservative Senators, so cowed are they by the new totalitarians of the sexual left. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives where there are more spines, one hopes.

For a glimpse into your future, ponder the words of Colleen Francis, the transsexual who spread his/her legs for the little girls in the locker-room of Evergreen State College in Washington State. He/she said,  “This is not 1959 Alabama. We don’t call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.” No, but apparently we let a grown man show his genitals to little girls and call it progress.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Maria S

    I am sick and tired of LGBT disorders being the norm and having to pretend to support it at my place of work. It is a disgusting abomination and I and others who are constantly bombarded by this nonsense have had enough!!!!

    • Mike

      I’m sick and tired of ignorant, lowest-common-denomionator christians thinking that their idiotic beliefs are valid. You probably think you are a good person, don’t you Maria? You aren’t. You are a hateful bigot. If you don’t like your well-deserved title, stop being a bigot.

      • Pat Brown

        Ad hominem, yet again. Name-calling doesn’t change reality, Mike.

        • Mike

          You are like so many other ersatz online logicians who think they know what they are talking about but don’t. You see, an Ad Hominem is an informal logical fallacy where some quality of the arguer is used to refute the argument. That wasn’t what I did. Your argument is so far from valid it doesn’t need my refutation to go along with the vast number of them already out there. I was just telling you about some of your many flaws. See the difference?

          • Art Deco

            Whether her use of the term ‘ad hominem’ was correct or not, your contribution to this discussion thus far begins and ends with your upraised middle finger. We get it. Now buzz off.

    • Scott_W_gmail

      I don’t understand why some so-called Christians believe that their loving god — who accepts anyone who accepts Him and attempt good works — would create so-called ‘abominations’ and then approve of his followers’ prejudice against them.

  • Gail Finke

    Think it can’t happen? It already has — and about a religion teacher at a Catholic school, no less. Here is a story I wrote for Catholic Exchange about the religion teacher who “realized he was really a woman” and the resulting lawsuit: http://catholicexchange.com/religious-liberty-and-transgender-catholic-teachers

    • gramma_b

      He can have all the surgery in the world, and he still won’t be a woman — just a poor, deluded amputee.

      • Adam__Baum

        Committing the sin of mutilation.

        • Mike

          There is no such thing as sin. it is a crime against god and you silly idea iof a god is a myth. So, you really need to stop talking nonsense.

      • Mike

        Its good that we have an ignorant Christian layman with no training in science or medicine around to tell us all the things he “knows” that everyone else has to agree with.

        Oh, wait, you don’t know a damn thing,. You just hate people for no good reason.

        • Pat Brown

          The only hate here is from you….and we know it is really aimed at yourself.

  • Steven Jonathan

    Am I the only one with nausea? I literally feel sick to think what my daughters will have to endure in the coming years. This has gone below the lowest thresholds of manhood I could ever have imagined. “This is not 1959 Alabama. We don’t call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.” So now, drinking water is equivalent to exposing yourself to little girls. In a civilized society this man would get a beating for his offense to society, and especially to those innocent girls unfortunate to be in the same girls locker room with him. Such is our barbaric effeminacy that we tolerate such depravity and call it “rights.”
    Austin, you have made me sick today, I applaud you for your courage in putting this out there, thank you for your good work. Keep up the good fight.

    • JR

      Homeschool your daughter.

    • G

      Women and girls who feel uncomfortable with Colleen Francis in the locker room have been provided with a separate area where they can change. That seems to meet all needs for the present. While I applaud Washington State for extending civil rights to transgenders, I can see the issue with girls as young as six being uncomfortable around adult genitalia of the opposite sex. My concern is not related to bigotry but to the fact that naked male genitalia can be upsetting and triggering to some people, especially sex abuse victims (yes, I know male genitalia are not evil in and of themselves and that males can also be sex abuse victims of other males and thus similarly triggered). I find the suggestions of extra-governmental violence toward Colleen Francis in these comments involving “beating” and “decking” even more troubling. Such violence would be a form of terrorism. People who have lost the civil rights battle and the war on women are left to fight the war on GLBTs with all the accumulated rage of having lost on other civil rights fronts. They are making themselves less credible by suggesting violence rather than seeking to win through the accepted channels, viz., the ballot box and an understanding of entrenched human rights.

      • Steven Jonathan

        G- are you out of your mind. If a grown man exposes himself to my daughters I am going to punch him in the face if he is lucky- Are you really so far removed from reality that you would call that terrorism? Are you completely insane? male gentile triggering…..? What on earth is wrong with you? You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that such direct perversion be handled at the ballot box and not by a father protecting his daughter from filth.
        Your comments are asinine- and represent a war on fatherhood and manhood. You may be in one of the few places that does not accept your sexual leftist politics. Rights come with responsibilities, and just because your licentious majority wins at the ballot box, the right or wrong of this remains untouched. You ought to listen to yourself, a separate room for those who can’t handle male genitalia??? That is what the locker room was for in the first place. You are a spokesman for a lost generation steeped in smut. Your words are a violence to society multiple times over any rightfully earned decking. I reject your ridiculous words and pray that some moral sense can enter your head.

        • Art Deco

          Are you really so far removed from reality that you would call that terrorism?

          Or, perhaps, living in a mental world where they fancy they are entitled to everyone else’s deference.

        • John

          This is a chronically immature response. There is nothing “manly” about punching out someone in a situation like this. I would agree with the other poster that this sort of violence is, by definition, terrorism. It is a means of coercion for political purposes, and the main political purpose is to take away a person’s legal rights by force because you disagree with their agenda. I don’t agree with the way the transgender person is flaunting her rights, but I understand where she’s coming from. She’s an extreme minority. There are very few people struggling with similar issues, and she does have rights. If she uses the male locker room, she could run into a violent troglodyte. No civilized person would want that. She is legally entitled to use the women’s locker room and arrangements have been made for anyone uncomfortable with that. What could be more fair? I hope any self-righteous thug who gets violent will be fully prosecuted. We’re a nation of laws and nobody has the right to use violence.

        • Tim

          Remember, under the law, Colleen Francis has both the right to bear arms and the right to be in the women’s locker room. She has the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend herself if attacked. Given the violent tone of some of these comments, she would be wise to carry a concealed weapon. It’s called defending yourself from anti-GLBT bullying, which is, as G points out, a form of terrorism.

          • Art Deco

            It’s called defending yourself from anti-GLBT bullying, which is, as G points out, a form of terrorism.

            It is called ‘terrorism’ by self-dramatizing nitwits.

            • Larry

              Speaking of self-dramatizing nitwits:-O

              I would never encourage violence, but the segment of society that encourages beating Colleen Francis is inevitably the same segment that defended George Zimmerman. If she’s carrying, the same rules apply in terms of “standing her ground”.

              • Art Deco

                George Zimmerman was on his back being pummled by a perfect stranger who attacked him for no defensible reason. I think if you attempt to make use of deadly force on someone who shovels you out of the woman’s bathroom you will be facing an indictment for homicide, secured by a prosecutor a good deal more ethical and conscientious than Angela Corry.

                • Mike

                  Said George Zimmerman.

              • Mark

                LOL! You have hoisted the extremists with their own petard!

          • msmischief

            A reasonably prudent women would interpret this MAN’s acts as a threat of sexual assault. That he is in fact acting out his delusions does not change the fact.

        • KRobert

          Given that Colleen Francis was, at the time, in the sauna (a restricted area) with a friend of hers, and that the girls in question sneaked into that area, I’m not sure what your complaint is.

          If your daughter goes sneaking around in a college and sees someone naked, I hope you have the good sense to be a disciplinarian, not run to the police to protect your “poor wittle child” from herself.

          The state of child rearing these days is simply unbelievable.

        • Mike

          You will do nothing of the kind. The kind of person who goes on about how tough they are and how they would commit criminal assault are the cowards who run and cry to the law after they get their ass kicked like the whining coward they are.

        • Toni Coughlin

          I “expose” myself to “your daughters” all the time at my local gym. They’re usually not all that interested in my breasts or vagina, though. Try punching me in the face and see what my husband does to you :)

        • Scott_W_gmail

          @stevenjonathan:disqus Really? You would punch this person — who in every way identifies with being a woman, and not the man his genitals mistakenly make him appear to be — you would punch him in the face? You’re not exactly putting the ‘Christ’ in Christian. That’s not even remotely close to his teachings…

          • Steven Jonathan

            Scott-W- your compassion is admirable, I don’t know how to make you understand- if a man exposes himself to my daughters, it is my responsibility as a father to act, not as some ultra-tolerant sentimentalist, but as a father, this is not my choice, are you a father? and if a man exposed himself to your daughters you would be cool with that? How sad is that-
            If it were just me and some weirdo exposed himself to me, I would not punch him, I wouldn’t want to hurt anybody, but I have a duty to my daughters as a father that outweighs your pathological shaming ploy- I don’t have a choice in the matter. Though surely I am hardly Christ like, and even so not a good Christian, my attempt to protect my daughters from the filth in the world is a noble thing regardless of what you or any other sexually licentious person has to say. I would suffer all manner of scorn to do right by my daughters. I don’t know what else to tell you.

            • Sladman

              Your daughters don’t need to be protected from male nudity. The human form is natural, and normal, and beautiful. If the nudity is non-sexual, why should you be afraid of it? What specifically is it about nudity that you need to protect your daughters from?

              • Art Deco

                Your daughters don’t need to be protected from male nudity.

                When you state a need, you have an implicit purpose in mind, and what you are saying is that they do not need to be protected to serve Sladman’s ends. Who gives a c**p???

    • Mike

      Courage? This person is a bald-faced liar. There are not now and never will be “quotas” for hiring transgender people. He is a liar for saying it and you are a fool for believing it. He did not present the whole truth about the locker room situation… yet another lie and another testimony to your foolishness for accepting it.

      As to the “terrible” things you fear for your daughters, frankly, who cares about your maladjusted kids. Teach them real morals and principals or do us all a favor and hide them from decent society. Wer surely don’t need another generation of you around.

    • Toni Coughlin

      Yeah… Your daughters will have to “endure” my use of the locker rooms. Which shouldn’t be much of a problem, because no other woman has ever complained about me.

      By the way, you should fact-check the story :)

    • Scott_W_gmail

      It’s called ‘empathy’. You should try it some time.

      Neither you nor I can imagine how strange and terrible it must be to be born into a body which doesn’t match the gender you feel inside. But it is very human to try to understand that challenge faced by a surprisingly large number of people, and to act with empathy. Imagine if you had breasts and a vagina, yet clearly you are a man… wouldn’t you want to set that right, and to be treated like a human being while you were doing so…?

      • Steven Jonathan

        Scott, it seriously doesn’t matter how anyone feels inside when it comes to indecent exposure, you should try a little common sense some time. Come on now seriously, so you are saying that if someone with a tortured mind about gender is somehow entitled to expose themselves to children>??? Do you have any morality at all? or does everything really revolve around the feelings of a troubled soul? I have empathy and plenty of it, but how does having empathy equate with tolerating immorality, especially when it comes to committing sex crimes against children, for that is what it is when a grown man is exposing himself to children- And if I were troubled with such difficulty, do you really think I would want to expose myself to children to straighten it out? How about empathy for children? or does your empathy end with transsexuals? Can you even hear yourself?

        • Sladman

          Just noticed this reply.

          A child merely seeing an adult naked is hardly a sex crime — in the dictionary definition of the word — and if it is legally a sex crime, that is a huge problem. In many cultures and many situations, it is see as completely normal. Seeing the human body as a fundamentally nasty or dangerous thing that children must be kept away from even *seeing* is a a pathology of (some in) our society. Thank you, religion!

          There is a huge difference between being non-sexually nude in front of a child, and intentionally exposing oneself with an erection, etc, with the goal of impacting the child in some way. Apples and oranges.

  • Bob

    I can’t wait for my female coworkers to come out of the the ladies room at work in complete horror because squatting in the stall next to them was a pantyhose/heels/mini skirt wearing transsexual man who now has every legal right to use the bathroom of his/her choice.

    • Carl

      I’m inviting all my co-worker ladies and at my Fitness club to come join me in the men’s room to shower and change clothers—hey there’s an empty stall next to mine!

      Tongue in Cheek

    • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

      Imagine now little girls sharing the restroom with transsexual men… That’s ENDA for you.

      • msmischief

        Or men who CLAIM to be transsexual.

  • Guest

    Now wait for the propagandists top start attacking the article. It always happens.

    • Adam__Baum

      It’s not propaganda, designed to persuade or convince, it’s graffitti designed to deface and demoralize.
      But you are right.

      • msmischief

        Yeah, the attacks are indeed graffitti designed to deface and demoralize. I’m glad you admit it.

        • Adam__Baum

          I’m agreeing with Guest.
          I recognize that when ever anything related to the contemporary institution of sexual novelties come up, the” advocates” come in.
          The last one drew a thousand comments, some with profanity from the militants. I’m not one of them, so I have nothing to “admit”.

          • Art Deco

            One expects particular fora to have individuals who have discovered it at random and provide a dissenting voice but on these questions you get a scrum of people you’ve never seen before, do not see in any other circumstance, and provide dozens of comments. It is almost as if the gay press or lobby groups have people on staff to do this sort of work.

            • Adam__Baum

              Either that or some George Soros group. Remember the paid shills of “occupy”….all back to Mom’s basement, now that the election is over, and the are no longer “organized” into a “community”.

            • Mike

              What happens, AD, is that the ignorant lies here get wider release and the good people out there, angry at the constant barrage of lies and hate from the Christian right drop into let you know how wrong you are.

              There is no great conspiracy, as much as you want their to be. It is just your moral and intellectual superiors who are tired of your foul behavior.

          • Mike

            Are you afraid of words, Adam you little whiners. Anger and profanity is the only reasonable response to the evil, stubborn bigotry one finds from depraved minds like yours.

            Why do you think you get to insult people yet they must respond calmly and in some way you approve of? You actually think you deserve that kind of reverence, don’t you? You actually think that you are a good person standing up for what’s right, don’t you? You are wrong, wrong, wrong. You are a low, vicious person of no redeeming quality.

            It’s also funny that you think that long, loud, angry replies to your venom are anything other then the proper reaction of your moral and intellectual betters to your deliberate lies and misinformation.

    • Mike

      No, actually, this is when your moral and intellectual betters try futilely to show you the error of your vile ways.

  • gramma_b

    When Congress passed the first civil rights acts, it made extensive findings of fact to justify interfering with rights of free association in the workplace and elsewhere. Those findings included that racial minorities had lower incomes, and had less desirable housing. No such findings have been or could be made about the homosexual “community.” This is all about forcing people into unwilling associations with, and acceptance of, sexual deviants. But, that is not the worst part. This is also all about forcing people who believe in traditional morals and normal sexual behavior into abject silence. Along with the statute will come the court-created prohibitions on “hostile work environments” and “harassment.” That means that any homosexual or transsexual employee will be free to proselyte and flaunt his/her/its behavior and be as “in your face” as he/she/it pleases. But, if anyone dares to voice any opposition or disapproval, he/she/it can claim to have been “harassed.”

    • Scott_W_gmail

      Intolerance of homosexuality has severely harmed countless homosexuals, living and dead. The man who was responsible for cracking the Enigma code in WWII and saving many allied lives was himself harassed by his state for being gay — to the point of suicide. The suicide rate among gay teens is orders of magnitude higher than teens on average. There is a reason for the “It Gets Better” campaign which started here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4

      Is it any wonder that after such anti-gay harassment throughout their early years that gay activists flaunt their sexuality to make up for it?

  • John O’Neill

    We who follow the ethos of traditional Christianity must be prepared to build an underground church in order to survive. In communist dominated Eastern Europe the Marxist government sought to take control of the Church by infiltrating into its ministry; they appointed what they called “peace priests” who were recruited by the government to run the surviving Catholic churches and undermine all traditional morality and belief. The Americans and their government are determined to do the same thing; it is very evident with this latest senate bill. Prepare to suffer for the Faith; the Americans are and will be as vicious as the Stasi and the KGB in their pursuit of political correctness. The good news is that in spite of massive persecution Christianity survived, Alexander Solzhenitsyn a man who was educated and raised in the communist world of the State managed to find his religion in the concentrations camps of Siberia; and John Paul II managed to survive under the boot of both the Nazi and Communist dictatorships. But please wake up, the American State is our enemy and we should not try to be part of it; take note American bishops and stop trying to wrap yourselves in the red white and blue flag and pretend that this persecution is not going on. Good men like Solzhenitsyn and John Paul II should be our guides and not some prattling theologians from Notre Dame or Georgetown who have made themselves the “peace priests” of the American State.

    • Watosh

      Amen

      • JR

        “…build an underground Church to survive …”
        Been thinking this for a long time and hoped it wouldn’t come.

        The militant angry freaks are running the entire parade. What’s going to happen when they become legislators?

        Decent men and women will become the freaks … are becoming the freaks.

        • Scott_W_gmail

          “Angry, intolerant bigots will become the freaks … are becoming the freaks.” — Fixed that for you. And indeed.

    • Louise Riccobene

      Ironically, the only place left to be safe from homosexual aggression towards Christians may be Russia.

      • Mike

        Please, all of you angry, ignorant, hateful rightwing “christian” zealots, pick up and move. You don’t deserve to be Americans.

      • Scott_W_gmail

        The aggression appears to be entirely in the other direction. We hear often about homosexuals being assaulted by intolerant heterosexuals; when was the last time you heard of the reverse happening? I never have.

    • Mike

      It is amusing watching ignorant christians who think that the right wing zealot demagogues are real sources of information. You theist asshats think that because you don’t get to control the law and other people so that you can maintain your social dominance means that you are being infringed upon.

      It is also amusing to listen to the poor, put upon liars (i.e. christians) talking about how they are so badly treated in a nation where their is a church on every corner and merely putting up a sign saying it’s OK not to be a christian gets the sign vandalized. How can any fool actually think that because people who they don’t like and who are of superior moral character (homosexuals, atheists, etc.) is a burden that they should not have to bear?

      There are good christians. You are not one of them. You are the problem, scum.

    • Scott_W_gmail

      Didn’t Christ have something to say about not judging others, and about caring for those less fortunate than them? (And surely, being born with a mental gender which doesn’t match your body’s gender qualifies as being unfortunate!)

  • Adam__Baum

    The next step: Transpecies.

    • tamsin

      My cat identifies as a dog.

      • Slainte

        What a coincidence my dog identifies as a cat, they should meet. :)

      • Bob

        My wife has decided to identify as an elm tree. Me, I’m a 1976 Cadillac Coup de Ville. I challenge anyone to discriminate against us. We are what we are.

    • Pat Brown

      …..and those saying “impossible exaggeration” should look back 25 years and see how TODAY looks from then…..equally as impossible. I hate the world I am leaving my grandchildren.

      • Mike

        As intolerant and terrible a person as you sound to be, the world can only profit from your absence. Keep in mind that as a liberal and atheist I am possesed of real morals (not what passes for the christian right) I hope you live a long and happy life, I truly do but that will not change the fact that the world will be a better place without you in it.

  • msmischief

    One wonders what the reaction would have been if a woman feared rape and shot him to death.

  • http://www.last.fm/user/genx-ed Robert Dobbs

    You should probably quit blaming your bisexual urges on imaginary skygods. It won’t get you anywhere Mr. Ruse.

    • Reasonable_Opinion

      Ah yes, the “skygods” approach (apologies to George Carlin). This dovetails nicely with the “I know what you are, but what am I?” infantile circular schoolyard argument. I’d say…about 2nd grade level.

      • http://www.last.fm/user/genx-ed Robert Dobbs

        What was your Confirmation name? Mine was Francis, after Saint Francis. He was my favorite.

        • Austin Ruse

          BTW…cissupremecy is the belief that you have not chosen your gender, that you just “are”. This is deeply offensive to many in teh trans community.

      • ysthi

        You’re complaining about 2nd-grade schoolyard arguments while defending an article in which the author describes transexuals as “he-shes”?

        • Art Deco

          What other pronoun is appropriate?

        • Austin Ruse

          There are many terms to describe the condition and that transexuals use to refer themselves, that “he-she” is perfectly acceptable. Anyway, based on your ideology that we are free to name…i can certainly use that term…

          • Art Deco

            You’re one of the benighted, Mr. Ruse. The terminology you are permitted to use is defined by the anointed.

    • Art Deco

      You should probably stop making it bloody plain that you’re an arrested development case.

    • Austin Ruse

      Does anyone even understand what Kermit means?

      • http://www.last.fm/user/genx-ed Robert Dobbs

        I mean that anyone who views homosexuality as a choice does so because they themselves have made a conscious choice to ignore their homosexual urges. They mistakenly believe that everyone else faces this dilemma as well.

        Clear enough?

        • Austin Ruse

          Who says I believe same-sex desire is a choice?

          • http://www.last.fm/user/genx-ed Robert Dobbs

            Yeah, yeah, I know. Only acting out on the desire is the problem. Yadda yadda.

            I hope you come to grips with your inner turmoil someday.

            • Austin Ruse

              That is a separate matter. Where did i say it was a choice?

        • Art Deco

          I mean that anyone who views homosexuality as a choice does so because they themselves have made a conscious choice to ignore their homosexual urges.

          ???

          • musicacre

            Which makes everyone …homosexual!

            • musicacre

              Just following his logic.

        • musicacre

          I t seems that you are saying it is wrong and unhealthy for anyone to not act on urges. How cave-man! So if one feels like stealing a car or bumping off a bad neighbor, it would be bad to not act on these suppressed “urges”. Since when are urges the highest form of discernment?

    • Adam__Baum

      If you hear a rumbling tonight, it’s Jim Henson turning over in his grave.

  • Marita

    The fact that Austin quotes Paul McHugh shows how much of a farce this entire article is.

    Paul McHugh’s “research” has been discredited as religious activism with the purpose of academic pathologization of sex and gender minorities.

    The studies he used to shut down John Hopkins didn’t use individuals with Gender Dysphoria as its subjects. His subjects were either people born with ambiguous genitalia who’s sex was reassigned by the choice of a doctor at birth as well as gay men who thought transition was a way to gain cultural acceptance for their sexual orientation.

    • Art Deco

      Dr. McHugh was the chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Hardly a marginal figure in the world of psychiatry.

      Gender reassignment surgery is monstrous. Dr. McHugh merely communicated that in the idiom favored by psychiatrists (“we do not give liposuction to anorectics”).

      • Marita

        His research has been discredited regardless of what his position was. Read his research on success rates versus more recent ones done using purely individuals who were treated based on the Standards of Care laid out by the APA and the WPATH. Success rate for treatment is over 99%. Think about that number for a second. That’s as close to perfect a treatment as there is!

        Comparing people with Eating Disorders to people with Gender Dysphoria is like comparing Apples to Oranges. There are documented cases of Anorexic people receiving liposuction and yet it does not resolve the psychological distress caused by their Disorder. And yet, as I mentioned before, transition for individuals with Gender Dysphoria is over 99% effective in resolving the psychological distress from said Dysphoria.

        You can’t really argue with scientific evidence.

        • Adam__Baum

          You can’t really argue with scientific evidence.
          But you can argue with it’s misuse. Mutilating the body to conform to disphoria isn’t medicine. The proper treatment for anxiety is therapy and if need be, psychotropic agents, not butchery.

          • Marita

            Gender Dypshoria is a medical condition that may require medical intervention to resolve. It’s no different than doing bypass surgery for a cardiac condition or performing a c-section when a woman has difficulty delivering a child. You can’t cure Cancer or Diabetes with Therapy just the same way that Conversion Therapy can’t cure Gender Dysphoria.

            • Adam__Baum

              Your analogies are just incredibly bizarre.

              A bypass restores normal blood flow. A C-Section mitigates risk associated with vaginal delivery, when there’s an issue-such as elderly primigravida. Cancer and diabetes exist or don’t exist, they are physical facts.

              The better analogy is when when someone vehemently insists that they have cancer when they exhibit no evidence of that disease, you don’t attempt to alter their body to give the appearance of cancer, you treat them for hypochondria.

              You also don’t “cure” gender dysphoria, no matter what you do. Chastity (aka Chaz) Bono is not a man, and quite frankly doesn’t even provide a convincing mirage of one.

            • Art Deco

              Gender Dypshoria is a medical condition that may require surgical intervention to resolve.

              Stop making things up. There is no such medical condition. Psychiatrists do not have patients with medical conditions other than species of dementia.

            • Carlos_Perera

              Surgical intervention, to mutilate a physically healthy body because of a (quite possibly transient) psychological state, is altogether different from such intervention to cure a physical malady, like occluded cardiac arteries or dystocia.

              As to your assertion that, since you can’t cure cancer or diabetes with [psycho]therapy, it follows that you cannot cure gender dysphoria with conversion therapy, you are mixing logical categories and planting an axiom (a demonstrably false one at that, that gender dysphoria is inborn and immutable), all in one sentence.

              Conversion therapy works for many; I have witnessed its results. For that matter, many who have been diagnosed as having gender dysphoria have spontaneously overcome it, and many who have gone on to get “cured” by “sex-reassignment” surgery, have bitterly regretted doing so.

        • Art Deco

          What research was discredited?

          Research does not discredit a normative argument. That aside, Dr. McHugh did demonstrate that clinical assessments of transsexual subjects were unaffected by the process of surgery and hormonal. They were troubled people before and troubled people after and in between was a mess of expense and injury. That does not change because you pull the word ‘discredited’ out of your rear end.

        • Austin Ruse

          Discredited? Nonsense. He is an honored member of the psychiatric world and still holds title at Johns Hopkins. This is the kind of slur that is typical of the left. Of course you can find those who disagree with his research and conclusions but that is far from “discredited.” Discredited implies dishonesty of some sort that someone has been caught at with regard to the research. This is typical smearing…

          • Art Deco

            They cannot cope with the give and take of academic research.

            You have an extant body of literature, design and conduct your study having reviewed it, and get it published and it is then part of the literature other people read, take account of in pursuing their own work, and reply to.

            In Marita-world, every inconvenient piece of literature (and there are likely to be many unless research in a field is closed off by professional intimidation) has to be ‘discredited’ and its producer subject to campaigns of defamation and professional discipline. (See Dr. Mark Regnerus, as well as the crew at Baylor working on esoteric questions of information science, and Paul Cameron many years ago).

          • Marita

            Considering McHugh entered John Hopkins Gender Clinic with the specific intent of closing it, and mis-characterized the subjects of the research he used to accomplish his goal; I’d say yes, he was wholeheartedly dishonest.

            Have you even read his research? If not, Transgender Christians do an amazing job of explaining it in very simple terms:

            “There are glaring scientific problems with Surgical Sex as well. Obvious even to amateurs is that McHugh equates the SRS of transexuals with the SRS of intersex infant males with ambiguous genitals. He specifically used a study by Dr. William Reiner on infants with cloacal exstrophy where the gender identity was estimated to be male That is, previous infants with cloacal exstrophy always grew up to identify as male. Assigning these infants into a girls-assigned life, the clients soon revolted as children and insisted they were boys. Needless to say, these were extremely bad outcomes and the children should have been raised as boys even with abnormal genitalia. McHugh throws the baby out with the bathwater, concluding that because SRS was bad for this one group, SRS is bad for all groups. However, the study, as the David Reimer qualitative study before it, only further demonstrates that gender identity is primarily, if not exclusively, Nature and not Nurture. Reiner, who performed the original study, concluded, “The sense of who one is–[boy or girl]–is powerful and inborn.” How does that square with the pro-binary belief of reparative therapy that trans people can and should convert their gender identity into their assigned gender? It doesn’t.”

            • Art Deco

              He was the chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and persuaded the institution to close a dodgy subunit of the institute. That’s what responsible institutional stewards do madam.

              • Marita

                So “responsible” people use dishonest means to accomplish their own self-serving goals?

                You have a warped sense of responsibility. Machiavelli would be proud.

                • Art Deco

                  He did nothing dishonest. Stop making stuff up.

            • Austin Ruse

              Boy are you behind the revolution! The transcommunity would consider your comments nothing less than cissupremacy…to them gender is a choice and sometimes an ongoing even a daily choice. You poor sap…you are even behind the curve on your own folks!

              • Austin Ruse

                And by the way, nothing in your response shows any kind of discrediting of McHugh..

                • Marita

                  You didn’t even bother reading it, did you?

              • Marita

                Maybe if you bothered actually talking to Transgender people rather than insulting them, you would know that Gender Identity is NOT a choice. It is established before birth and has a physical component in brain structure.

                Don’t believe me? Science and medicine backs this up: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094885

                • Austin Ruse

                  So, a single paper establishes taht “science and medicine back this up.” Right. Typical extravagant claims of teh sexual left.

                  You should talk to the transgendered….the younger ones wholly believe it is a choice and one that they can make and remake and remake. To say otherwise is cissupremacy. Did you look that one up?

                  • Marita

                    Single paper? Lord no, there are dozens of studies over the last few decades to back this up.

                    Here a good writeup on 3 more studies: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

                    The article referenced 2 studies from the Journal of Psychiatric Research:

                    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006
                    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007

                    And here’s one study from the Journal of Neuroscience:
                    http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2106-10.2011

                    Care to cite your own references?

                    • Art Deco

                      New Scientist is a popular science magazine produced in Britain. It is not now nor has it ever been a scientific journal. It also has a very definite editorial line. Caveat lector.

                    • Marita

                      Did you miss the part where I referenced two major scientific journals cited in the article?

                      New Scientist is a magazine that explains in simpler terms scientific research for the general population. It’s not a scientific journal, but it uses data from scientific journals to inform people who would otherwise be unable to read or interpret a scientific journal.

                    • Art Deco

                      I know all about New Scientist, Marita. It’s an opinion magazine. It’s like the New Statesman, just with different subject matter (but with impulses similar to people in that subculture). They might compare unfavorably to Sharon Begley.

                    • Marita

                      Even if you consider New Scientist to be biased, how do you respond to the results of the studies I referenced from the Journal of Psychiatric Research and the Journal of Neuroscience?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I clicked on the first study and it’s brain scans on a couple dozen transsexuals. And you suggest that this is conclusive. I’m not even going to check the rest. All of this is non-science. Science is a hypothesis that is tested and tested and tested again. There’s not even any scientific evidence that homosexuality is inborn let alone transsexualism.

                • Art Deco

                  Your sex is not a choice. People are disordered in their thinking in all manner of ways and for all kinds of reasons. Turning them over to creatures like John Money is not the was to address such problems.

        • Carlos_Perera

          Of course you can argue with scientific evidence. Real scientific evidence is always open to review and falsification. One of the signs that “scientific” claims are spurious is the insistence that they must be treated dogmatically. Unfortunately, psychology lends itself to ready manipulation by the unscrupulous, as mental states cannot be directly observed and thus psychological “experiments” can be almost impossible to falsify.

  • ysthi

    “Sling his junk?” A “he-she”? Is this really how Austin Ruse writes about other people? It’s not exactly beneficial to the image of Catholics everywhere that a man who describes himself as the “president” of a “Catholic research institute” suddenly reverts to the vocabulary of a playground bully when discussing transexual people.

    • Marita

      You can’t really argue logic with someone who’s main point is “I think it’s icky”.

      • Bob

        Got to admit: the whole LGB ( and especially the “T”) is really, really icky…..and I’ll throw in there unnatural, perverse, weird……

        • Marita

          And believing in god is akin to schizophrenia. It makes you wonder who the sick people really are.

          • Art Deco

            This is a Catholic blog. Discussion occurs here withing a certain circle of ideas. Respect that or be gone.

          • Adam__Baum

            And believing in god is akin to schizophrenia.
            In the background, “Trrue Colors” plays.

            • Bob

              And Sinatra’s “My Way.”

        • ysthi

          What’s weird is a grown man who talks to an imaginary friend.

          • Bob

            Nice! The atheists are finally here!! What took you so long?

            People are sick and tired of the LGBT’s (boy….you guys keep adding letters!) disordered narcissistic sexual perversion, and trying to get some type of moral approval or legitimacy for your perverted lifestyle. An adult man trying to make his way in to a woman’s or high school girl’s locker room because he says he’s a “right” because he’s actually a “she” is disgusting. It’s sick. Perverted. You need a psychiatrist, not a surgeon. Good luck to the sicko male that walks in to my daughter’s locker room claiming he has a right to.

          • Art Deco

            1. He does not.

            2. The mitre looks like a penis to a child with a gross sense of humor.

            • Bob

              Agreed. The pure of thought, normal person sees the mitre as theologically symbolic. The sick of mind pervert sees a penis.

            • ysthi

              Most children have a gross sense of humor.

              Fun fact about the mitre, though: Search Wikipedia for “phallic hat” and see what comes up.

              For that matter, try searching TheFreeDictionary.com.

              • Bob

                Try searching the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think you’ll find peace and answers to your perversions: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

              • Art Deco

                Most children have a gross sense of humor.

                This is your excuse for yourself?

                • ysthi

                  No; my excuse was that, if you type “phallic hat” into either of those resources, they take you directly to the Pope’s mitre. Because it is a phallus-shaped hat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallic_hat

                  • Art Deco

                    So that is your excuse.

      • Art Deco

        And we are arguing with someone who confounds empirical research with wordplay and reframing.

      • Adam__Baum

        “icky” is a useful visceral reaction. Among other things, it protrects us from ingesting posion, spreading disease, and being unhygenic long before we understand it.

        You also can’t argue with someone who insists reality is defined by delusion.

    • Bob

      Jamming….

    • Art Deco

      The fact that you can’t understand this should send up red flags,
      alerting you to the fact that you’re failing to grasp something
      important here. But, of course… it doesn’t.

      We understand precisely what is going on. Perverted physicians and troubled people are engaging in experiments against reality.

      • Adam__Baum

        Dr. Mengele and Dr. Moreau come to mind.

    • Art Deco

      The fact that you can’t understand this should send up red flags,
      alerting you to the fact that you’re failing to grasp something
      important here. But, of course… it doesn’t.

      We understand precisely what is going on. Perverted physicians and troubled people are engaging in experiments against reality.

    • Austin Ruse

      No, it is what passes for writing in this magazine, and darned good writing too boot! And I do not “imagine” myself, “fondly” or otherwise, as president of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. I am simply am.

      • ysthi

        1. “To” boot.
        2. I didn’t say you imagined yourself the president of the Catholic Family Human Rights Institute. I said you imagined yourself the president of a “research institute”, as opposed to merely that of a group of people who hate on total strangers for a living.

        • Austin Ruse

          I am not sure what it means to “hate on” other people…

          • Art Deco

            You issue public statements which fail to express due deference to his preferred mascot groups.

          • ysthi

            I mean you and your organization exist, as far as I can tell, for little reason except to disparage other people’s relationships and their families.

            • Art Deco

              1. How do you know he knows nothing about them? If he can know nothing but his own household, how can you know something?

              2. The purpose of the Institute has been more than anything else to monitor UN agencies e.g. the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. (And you apparently know nothing about that).

              • ysthi

                Is that what you call it when he writes articles opposing UN resolutions to condemn the summary execution of gay people around the world?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Again…going on the attack so as not to talk about the issue at hand. Jamming pure ans simple. Ignore it gents.

                  • ysthi

                    “Then came further debates about the death penalty, specifically the summary execution and extra judicial killing resolution in the General Assembly. Here advocates tried to get language into the resolution that would include homosexuals in the category. This was defeated and then in an unusual move was reopened and agreed to. [...] We expect homosexual advocates will try something more in the coming General Assembly. Delegates should begin talking right now on strategies to stop this assault.” -Austin Ruse, 23 August 2012.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Now, how do you interpret this?

                    • ysthi

                      It speaks for itself, and you don’t need a link. Anyone can find it.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Do you interpret it that I favor killing homosexuals?

                    • ysthi

                      I don’t interpret. You opposed the UN condemning the extrajudicial (illegal) killing of homosexuals – fact. What you truly believe, I have no idea.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      But that’s what you want people to believe. Typical of the lack of argumentation of the highly emotional sexual left. Smear. Smear. Smear. That’s pretty much the extent of your arguments. Jamming won’t work with me.

                    • ysthi

                      If I’ve smeared you, it’s only by repeating plainly what you’ve said. No one can tell what you actually believe, Austin. Considering that you’ve also said homosexuality should be illegal in every country, one could interpret in the worst way your opposition to the extrajudicial killing resolution. I’ve said the truth, which is that I don’t have any idea and never will.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      You’re just not serious as a person. If you we’re you would engage the arguments. Alas, you won’t likely because you can’t.

                      Now where did I say “homosexuality should be illegal in every country”?

                    • ysthi

                      “Up to ninety countries, however, have laws against homosexual behavior, a group that included the United States until a few years ago, because a sufficient case can be made that homosexual behavior is harmful to the individual and also to the common good. The penalties for homosexual behavior should not be jail time, but having some laws on the books, even if unenforced, would help society to teach what is good, and also would prevent such truly harmful practices as homosexual marriage and adoption.”

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Yes. And?

                    • ysthi

                      Are you saying that wasn’t an endorsement of a legal ban on homosexuality in the up-to-90 countries whose laws you were favorably citing?

                    • Art Deco

                      Arguing that it is a legitimate exercise of discretion to proscribe consensual sodomy (a class b misdemeanor back in the day) is rather short of advocating ‘summary execution and extrajudicial killing’.

                    • ysthi

                      Of course, but it’s also a major step toward that goal. You’ve heard of the Overton window, I’m sure. Anyone who wanted eventually to see the death penalty for same-sex relationships would advocate for criminalization as the first step. And making all gay couples in the US into legal criminals, whether you’re talking misdemeanors or felonies, is not exactly minor.

                    • Art Deco

                      Of course, but it’s also a major step toward that goal.

                      I think you need to take a major step toward precise and meticulous use of language and mental clarity.

                      Unless of course you enjoy being a drama queen.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Well, first there are 192 countries in the world so you accusation that I favor making “homosexuality” illegal in all the countries of the world is not supported by your quote.

                      Second, do you understand the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior? You have not found any quote of mine that favors making “homosexuality” illegal in any country of the world, let alone all of them.

                      You will also note I remark favorably on such laws that ARE NOT ENFORCED. Did you miss that?

                      Did you also notice that any such laws are to be used not to punish homosexual behavior but to block gay marriage?

                      I know you are playing gotcha but the reasons people have for holding the views they hold are usually more interesting than the cartoonish way others describe them.

                      Now to extra judicial killing.

                      My organization opposes the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation and gender identity in any UN document for any reason. Read that again….any UN document for any reason.

                      Why is this?

                      Because homosexuals are already protected by all UN treaties including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the implementing treaties on 1966 along with the the treaty against genocide adn the one agianst torture etc etc.

                      The reason advocates are trying to get this term in any UN documents, even non-binding ones, is they want to begin teh process of making SOGI into a new category of nondiscrimination in international law.

                      Now, I make this abundantly clear in all my written work on this topic. I make it clear that we deplore all forms of violence against homosexuals. That you choose not to quote that shows you are not really interested in engaging the arguments, only to cause trouble.

                      I suspect none of thsi will interest you but what the heck.

                    • ysthi

                      You said, “even if not enforced”. “Even if”. That phrase doesn’t suggest you wouldn’t want such laws to be enforced. Only that you considered that one possibility. The question of how much you felt such laws should be enforced and what the penalties should be was left totally unaddressed. But you did support the criminalization of homosexuality (or homosexual relationships, if you want to be pedantic about it). You didn’t say “all countries”, so I take that part back with an apology, but criminalization is criminalization and you did say it should be illegal.

                      And no, I don’t see a difference between the two in this context. When I say homosexuality, I mean the act of being in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Laws, even one unenforced are a great teacher. But I would not favor making sodomy illegal in this country. No. Also, you are still vague on the difference between homosexuality and now homosexual relationships and homosexual acts.

                    • ysthi

                      What you wrote was that homosexual behavior was illegal in the US until recently, “because a sufficient case can be made that homosexual behavior is harmful to the individual and also to the common good.” I don’t know how that can be read except as an endorsement of the sodomy laws that used to exist in the US, under which consensual same-sex relationships were illegal. But if you say that’s not what you meant, I’ll believe you.

                    • ysthi

                      Actually, I’ve changed my mind. Because I read this page, where you apparently said some rather ugly things about danah gaz and transgendered people in general and then erased all your comments after the fact: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/23/meet-breitbartcoms-go-to-anti-gay-extremist-aus/196033

                      It seems you erased your comments because you didn’t want anyone to know what you’d said. Maybe because it would hurt your image? So, no. Now that I know you go back and try to change things like that, I’m no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You clearly endorsed laws banning homosexuality in that article, no matter what you say now.

                    • Art Deco

                      where you trashed danah gaz

                      Danah Gaz is rather self-trashing, and with an energy few of us can muster.

                      (And her last set of activities here was to mount a venomous and incoherent attack on Dr. Paul McHugh. Why not speak to her about that?).

                    • ysthi

                      Because it’s not about her. I’m only saying that since he went back and erased his comments there, presumably because he was ashamed of them or he thought they’d reflect poorly on him, I’m not going to believe it if he denies he was endorsing criminalization in the column we’ve been talking about.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Forgive me if this posts twice..but I thought I had posted on the following…
                      I believe the point i was making of which you quoted only a part (I publish quite a bit and do not have my stuff at my fingertips as you do) was that there is widespread global opposition to your agenda. And also that the law is a great teacher, even ones not enforced. I would point out that even the Russian law does not make homosexuality illegal or even homosexual acts (there is a huge difference between the attraction and the act).

                      We have defended laws like these, in Belize for instance, for reasons of international law. We view ourselves as protectors of a proper understanding of international law and when it is misused in our topic area, we step in….

                    • Austin Ruse

                      There’s a glitch in th system. I’ve responded twice to this and it does not stick.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      And please provide a link.

                • Bob

                  Stick to the article: should an adult male that claims to be actually a woman trapped in a man’s body be legally allowed to sit naked in a women’s locker room? Especially where young girls are undressing?

                  • ysthi

                    Short answer no, it shouldn’t be allowed, long answer it depends, but ultimately, it wasn’t a situation that would have anything to do with ENDA.

            • Austin Ruse

              See, this person cannot make arguments so he/she tries to go on teh attack and make me defend myself…let’s not fall for it gang…let her or him play…

              • ysthi

                *I’m* on the attack? Have I created an organization devoted to destroying your family? Have I said it would be good to make it illegal for you to speak your opinions to minors? What I’ve done is criticize the way you wrote this article and your actions to others, which is a world apart from attacking your relationship with your spouse and children, which is what you do to others on a daily basis. My apologies, Austin, truly.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Ignore him, friends…this is classic jamming..

                  • ysthi

                    Keep telling yourself that, 20 years from now.

                • Art Deco

                  Have I created an organization devoted to destroying your family?

                  Poor little diddums.

                  No one has compelled you to conduct yourself like a self-dramatizing jackwagon.

                  There are people in this world who are critical of you, who exercise their prerogative to pay little attention to your claims about yourself or your demands on the public weal and some of them also spend their time monitoring the UN Fund for Population Activities. Get over it.

                  • ysthi

                    Seems you’ve lost the plot here – it was Mr. Ruse who complained about being attacked. The same Mr. Ruse who has said that homosexuality itself should be illegal in the United States, has supported laws making it illegal for gay people to adopt and has even complained about UN referendums to condemn the summary execution of gay people in other countries. I’m sorry if it sounds “self-dramatizing” to you, but I just find it absurd that someone like that should complain about me attacking him. He’s been attacking me professionally for many years now.

                    • Art Deco

                      You are welcome to review his commentary on this site. You will not find any complaint (much less ‘whining’) that he was being ‘attacked’. He did remark about your mode of argumentation as making liberal use of smears. There are at least five people who came on to this board to complain and they all smeared someone (most prominently Dr. Paul McHugh). Your reflexes. Own ‘em.

                    • ysthi

                      “You are welcome to review his commentary on this site. You will not find any complaint (much less ‘whining’) that he was being ‘attacked’.”

                      Y’mean except for:

                      “See, this person cannot make arguments so he/she tries to go on teh attack and make me defend myself…

                    • Art Deco

                      1. That’s what you did (the rest of your number had other targets).
                      2. He is pointing out what you did.

  • Elat

    this is simply getting more bizarre by the minute. I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone.. I PRAY this will not pass. And what gets me is the time and space the LBGT agenda takes up every single day in media. we are literally bombarded by it. There are so many insanely serious issues that gets NO facetime, like the environment, child trafficking and hunger, yet propaganda to normalize this does; every day. Day in and day out. And it makes me think of how they lie about Russia’s, what they call, anti-gay laws. They only forbid to prosetylize the gay agenda to kids. Which is about as decent and minimally ok as it could be. I am disgusted.

    • Pat Brown

      Thanks….same weird feeling here that I am living in a parallel universe, where up is down, day is night, and right is wrong. It seems that there are a remanent of us standing and pointing out that the Emperor is totally naked, while the rest of the crowd throws rotten apples at us and calls us awful names!! I am a fairly bright and educated woman, but the magnitude of this depravity and reversal of natural law, as well as the speed at which it has hit our society, leaves me totally clueless and confused. Satan must be thrilled that not only is evil spreading like wildfire, but that it is being “celebrated” and normalized!!!

      • Elat

        couldn’t agree more. And yes, it’s the speed that is extremely frightening. I just take comfort in the fact that this has been predicted to happen.

      • msmischief

        “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness to light, and light into darkness, who change bitter to sweet, and sweet into bitter!”

      • Mike

        You are neither bright nor educated, as is made plain by your comments. You apparently believe in the Christian myth, which makes you a childish fool.

        • Pat Brown

          Mike, you are entitled to your opinion….but do you lurk on Catholic sites expecting affirmation for your illness??? Truth has not changed over the millenia, however much you wish to redefine the world to suit your pleasures and worldview. It is amazing how many intelligent yet “childish and uneducated” people with multiple degrees have believed in the incarnate God over the last 2000 years or so. Your ad-hominem attacks only show your pain and confusion…and fear.

      • Scott_W_gmail

        I read an interesting scientific study which showed that the main difference between conservatives (like you?) and liberals, is that conservatives prefer things to stay the same and liberals prefer things to change, and that the two groups are represented in roughly equal numbers.

        It makes a lot of sense that both perspectives might be needed in a society in order to make the best decision: sometimes the right decision is to stay the course, and sometimes the right decision is to change course. Perhaps this perspective will help you see that while your feelings are genuine and valuable, the feelings of others who disagree with you may also be genuine and valuable. As someone with a very conservative response, your gut feeling (wanting things to stay the same) is sometimes the correct one, but probably half the time it is not and things should indeed change.

        And since the weight of public opinion has tipped against your gut feelings on this issue, it would appear you are on the wrong side of history on this issue.

    • Mike

      You are completely ignorant of what the Russian laws are. Read a littel before you sound off.

  • Elat

    one more thing; we need to pray for all the LGBT because my God, they NEED God.

  • poetcomic1

    in truth few “average” transvestites are gay or engage in same-sex sex acts. In fact, most transvestites are heterosexual while only a small minority are bi-sexual or exclusively homosexual. This latter statement is supported by the results of a study done by Dr. Wardell Pomeroy which found that 3/4 of crossdressing males are exclusively heterosexual . Male transvestites (those who like to dress in women’s clothes) have been confused with the whole ‘born in the wrong body’ delusion crowd. The point is that women’s locker rooms will become a heterosexual transvestite heaven of voyeurism and drag.

    • Marita

      There’s no proof to support that. Gender Identity is protected in about a dozen states and we have seen absolutely zero cases of such incidents occurring. Keep in mind that these laws don’t make actual harassment, loitering or any sort sexual activity legal in restrooms. People can still be arrested regardless of their physical sex or gender identity for performing illicit activity in bathrooms.

      • Tony

        It is shameful and disgraceful and hurtful just for them to BE there. I don’t want some naked woman walking around in the locker room, period. She doesn’t belong there. If she thinks she’s really a man, which makes no sense at all, that is her problem and not mine. But I suppose that most of the locker-room crashers will be men who insist that they are “women,” and unfortunately the women in the locker room may be too intimidated to do anything about it. Perverts.

        • Adam__Baum

          I actually had to tell a female fitness club staffer once that announcing the “two minute warning” wasn’t sufficient justification to look inside the men’s locker room. Her response was “I wasn’t looking”, my response was “we made eye contact, get a good look?”. Confronted, that was her last day there.

          As far as I know, she was merely a voyeur, and not one of the highly organized a politically organized types.

      • slainte

        But it is acceptable for a self identified trans-gendered adult male to expose his genitals to children and teenagers?
        Do you also advocate for the de-criminalization of pedophilia?

        • Marita

          I will never understand why when LGBT comes up, religious nuts immediately go to pedophilia.

          Pedophilia is wrong for more than a couple reasons, the major being that children are unable to give consent. Plain and simple.

          Nevermind that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. If you bother doing research on the subject, you’d know that pedophilia isn’t about a sexual desire, rather a need for control over another person. Similar to rape.

          • Art Deco

            Last I checked, about a third of all criminal complaints re adult-child sex concerned male to male contacts. The male homosexual population clocks in there at around 3% of the adult male population.

            • Marita

              An adult male pedophile does not molest a male child because they have same-sex attractions; they do it to assert a sense of control over the child. The vast majority of them will tell you that they aren’t gay and have never had any desire in grown men.

              • Art Deco

                An adult male pedophile does not molest a male child because they have
                same-sex attractions; they do it to assert a sense of control over the
                child.

                Years ago, a woman of my acquaintance who had imbibed newspaper feminist tropes informed a good friend that ‘rape is not a sex crime’. The friend was an old stalwart of the American Labor Party whose world view was formed a good while ago. She was poleaxed when he looked at her and told her she was talking rot.

                Here it is: people molest other people to get their rocks off. There may be ancillary benefits, but the primary benefit is what it is, even if it violates your social ideology.

              • Bob

                That’s the biggest bunch of hooey I’ve heard in a long time. Pedophiles that molest young boys (which are the vast majority of pedophiles) are 100% homosexuals.
                Seriously, Marita, your rubbish is really piling high.

          • justamom

            Marta, I will never understand why when the Catholic Church comes up, anti-religious nuts immediately go to pedophilia. Sorry, that was what your comment reminds me of.

            I’m beginning to think this is a new talking point of the Sexual Left- “Sexual deviance/rape is not about sexual desire, it is about power and the need for control”? Where on earth did they come up with that? It is always possible for sex to be used for power, but people don’t have sex with people they do not desire in some way. Why do you need to differentiate the need to have sex with a certain person/thing and the need for control? Maybe it is so you can justify and accept sexual deviance if it is purely a matter of desire and it is only wrong when you determine that it is purely a “need to control the other”. But how do you determine these things?

            And I am sure that someday, even pedophiliac will be an acceptable “sexual orientation”. Minors can give consent in many important cases. It is funny, my minor daughter can have sex, get contraception, and have an abortion without my consent, all with the approval of those having a sexually liberal viewpoint, but yet you use the “lack of consent” to say pedophilia is wrong? Your argument won’t hold up much longer, unfortunately. And then Collene Francis will have free reign over our children.

            • Steve Frank

              “It is always possible for sex to be used for power, but people don’t have sex with people they do not desire in some way”

              I’d take this even further and point out that with males at least, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to have sex unless there is sexual arousal. And where there is arousal, there must be desire. The idea that a male can engage in sex without sexual desire is absurd on it’s face. But Marta and the “experts” she appeals to must argue for such absurdities for one very simply reason: They don’t want to hurt the SSM cause by allowing any parallels to be drawn between homosexuality and pedophelia, which would happen if both of them were to be dumped under the heading of “sexual orientations”. So they must find some way of denying that pedophelia is a sexual orientation, and so they resort to this foolish idea that pedophelia is all about power, not sexual desire. (As I said in my other post, the fact that pedophiles are frequently drawn to child porn refutes the idea that it’s ALL about power and control).

              I do agree that within another decade or two, people like Marta will be on forums like this defending pedophelia. But that is tomorrow’s battle. The water that the frog is sitting in right now is not quite hot enough yet to mainstream pedophelia. Right now SSM is where the battle is, and as long as that’s the case, most SSM apologists will want to distance themselves from any effort to normalize pedophelia lest it damage public support for SSM.

            • Pat Brown

              Ask the nuts at NAMBLA….they already think that sex between adults and children is a beautiful alternative to sex between adults. I give it 15 years before it is another “protected” orientation.

              • Art Deco

                My guess is 23 years, give or take.

                However, I doubt the gay lobby cares much about the trench-coat crew; those chaps are lone wolves or found in rancid little internet fora; they aren’t the fab-u-lous. The aim will be to get their hands on teen-age boys. Recall Kevin Jennings.

                How they will effect this is a stepwise campaign in mass entertainment to normalize pederasty, starting with stage plays functionally similar to the La Cage aux Folles and then moving to the screen, television films, &c.

                Thence to the mental health trade. The campaign will proceed in pseudo-professional guilds like the National Association of Social Workers and the National Council on Teacher Education; the work in the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association will commence in offbeat roundtables before moving to key committees and then the general executive.

                Parallel to that, the public interest bar will produce its straw plaintiffs and poster children, but those coming down the pike will not be drawn from the white trash strata; Katelyn Hunt generated too many embarrassments.

                Eventually, the judiciary will simply inhibit any prosecution of violations of age-of-consent laws even if prosecutors are inclined to bring such cases.

                The trick will be to retain the threat of prosecution for sexual abuse as a wedge against fathers in divorce cases and men employed in the school system while at the same time allowing homosexual men to get their hands on the jewels. The law professoriate is nothing if not adept at forensic legerdemain, so they will work that out.

          • Slainte

            Don’t let the facts get in the way of your defending the indefensible. When an adult male cross dresser intentionally enters a college locker room routinely occupied by co-eds and “little girls” and proceeds to sit in a manner which actually exposes his male genitalia so that it is visible to children, one might reasonably conclude that he is a pedophile or a pederast. Which of the little girls had the capacity to legally consent to this act of debauchery perpetrated against their innocence?

            Perhaps you should reconsider your conclusions and maybe re-read the article.

          • Steve Frank

            It’s not about sexual desire? Then why are pedophiles always getting busted for possession of child porn? There is no power trip going on when a man views child porn. It’s about perverse sexual desire, pure and simple.

            • Art Deco

              Good point.

          • Carlos_Perera

            “Religious nuts,” as anti-religious bigots like to call them, have witnessed the progressive de-moralization of Western societies, a process pushed by people who insisted that surrendering this or that “minor” moral stricture would never lead to having to surrender any others. That kind of thinking, they were assured, was nothing more than slippery-slope paranoia.

            “Progressives” are already hard at work undermining the principle that children are unable to give consent. They are also hard at work hacking away at the age of consent. And these progressives include top-rank psychologists and psychiatrists, from prestigious universities. You might profit from browsing the website of the B4U-ACT organization (b4uact.org).

            As to the bald–and baldly ridiculous–trope that pedophilia (and adult rape, for that matter) is unrelated to sexual desire, it is totally untestable, objectively, except by reading the minds of pedophiles. The objective fact is that pedophiles act out their pedophilia by sexual contact with pre-pubescent children (just as the objective fact is that those who rape adults force them to submit to sexual acts). That some psychologists and psychiatrists have written arrant nonsense about the mental state of pedophiles does not make it so.

          • gayhedonist

            The reason they do it is to try to punish gay people for not being in the closet, as they would like us to be. They probably think that spreading lies is a good thing, because it might make that marginal weak character who is gay turn back into the closet rather than face their hate.

            Not only are the vast majority of pedophiles heterosexual, but the proportionality of pedophiles across gay and straight populations does not suggest a relationship between being gay and being a pedophile.

            Maybe they think it will make us “decide” to be straight, because we wouldn’t want to be associated with pedophiles.

  • Tony

    We should have a response similar to that of the British general when he was dealing with the practicers of Thugee in the Punjab. “We have a custom,” they said, “of burning widows on the pyres of their husbands.” “That is fine,” said the general. “Understand, though, that we have a tradition of hanging men who burn widows.”

    We ordinary people need to take these matters into our own hands. If you see somebody like the filthy idiot in the locker room, the appropriate response — whether you like it or not, and you likely will not — is immediate aggressive condemnation and shaming. It has to be done to protect the innocent. We cannot let them get away with it. There are not enough prisons in the whole universe to contain us all. This does not rise to the level of the law. Nobody in this country is free by law from being subjected to ridicule and scorn. It has to be done.

    • Marita

      So you’re advocating violence? How Christian of you.

      • Bob

        Jamming.

      • Tony

        Violence? I didn’t recommend violence. But you don’t really know anything much about Christian doctrine, do you? If I see a man exposing himself to a bunch of kids, the appropriate (and, for the children and for the common good, the charitable) response is to deck him and kick him out. The uncharitable thing is to let it continue.

        • musicacre

          I remember being at some 4-H event in the early 70′s when I was a kid, and in a room off to the side one of the mothers discovered a hot and heavy scene being played out by a girl on a guy’s lap…a few of us kids who followed the mother into the room waited for the predictable explosion; she dispatched those two with the holy wrath of God in seconds! That was normal back then; she didn’t want us little kids scandalized and she was protecting us. I’m a mother of 6 (mostly grown) children now, but I’ll never forget that moment when that mother used her judgement and didn’t wait for someone else to correct what was obviously an inappropriate display in front of children. For my part, homeschooling helped us to keep our children’s minds pure while they could focus on the important job of learning. They see lots now, out in the world, but they can voluntarily avoid alot of junk and it’s good to know they weren’t exposed at a tender age.

      • Art Deco

        Since it was your contention above that belief in God is a form of schizophrenia, why is it of interest to you whether it be Christian or not?

      • Bob

        The pervert that claims that he has a right to be in the same locker room as my daughter as she’s undressing will quickly receive a sound, strong and clearly therapeutic sinus mucosal evacuation (I’ll kick the snot out of him.)

      • Austin Ruse

        Christianity does not teach non-violence. The Church teaches that violence is called for in certain circumstances.

    • ysthi

      The thing about public aggression towards others is, (1) it’s a crime, (2) it tends to backfire badly when everyone else in the room starts clapping at your rude ass being shown the door.

      • Tony

        There is not a policeman in this country who would want any part of prosecuting somebody who hounded a naked man out of a girls’ locker room. And if you think for a moment that the other women in the locker room would be cheering the naked man, you must live in a very strange place. That is not so even here in deep blue Rhode Island.

        • ysthi

          Francis’s case was unusual for a number of reasons, the apparent full nudity being one, and also that she says she has no intention of ever undergoing SRS. But in a more general case, if you’re just chasing transexual people out of locker rooms and restrooms with verbal abuse, then yes, as a form of shaming, I expect it would backfire badly.

          • Pat Brown

            There is no “she” in this story, except the women and girls exposed to this pervert. “She” does not exhibit male genitalia.

            • Mike

              It is nice that we have an ignorant, hateful person around with vast ignorance of science, medicine, or psychology to tell as all about everything she knows.

              • Art Deco

                ‘Everything she knows’ in this circumstance would be who is male, who is female, and who is damaged goods upstairs. What she knows is common knowledge.

                Somehow, Mike, I think a non-ignorant and non-hateful individual (whether the subject be ‘science’, medicine, or psychology) might be able to bring more to the table in this discussion than you have. Just a surmise.

        • ysthi

          Francis’s case was unusual for a number of reasons, the apparent full nudity being one, and also that she says she has no intention of ever undergoing SRS. But in a more general case, if you’re just chasing transexual people out of locker rooms and restrooms with verbal abuse, then yes, as a form of shaming, I expect it would backfire badly.

        • Adam__Baum

          Yeah, let’s see the DA that runs on that record.

        • Mike

          You are wrong and ignorant. It is pathetic that you think you are the one in the right.

      • John200

        Of course, urge restraint when the good people propose a successful technique. It might will backfire in a homo”sex”ual bar, but not in a ladies’ locker room.

        Indeed, one needs to try it in the homo”sex”ual barroom.

    • tamsin

      Perhaps the next time I see a transgender who is sporting the same gender identification as myself, I can suggest he’s doing it all wrong? That would not be discriminatory or harassing, correct? Just gentle correction from a fellow female.

      I will tell him his slacks are too tight and they make his butt look fat. His heels are too high and he would actually look taller with lower heels. I may be rude, but I am acknowledging and, er, celebrating his gender identification the way girls really get it done. Right? Tearing each other apart in an effort to “help”.

      How can the law prevent me?

      • John200

        Ha, ha, ha, you go, girl.

        I’d pay to see the next incident.

      • Mike

        You can certainly say anything you want. In spite of the desires of the Christian right and their vast misunderstanding of the principles involved, you have your rights.

        That person would also be completely within their rights to remind you that you are a hideous c$%^, inside and out.

    • Mike

      The fact that you equate a homosexual person living in America with forced burning of a human being shows exactly how lost you are. You have no morals and no standards.

      It’s also funny that you advocate aggressive shaming when you are to arrogant and ignorant to accept it in response to your evil.

  • Tony

    Anybody notice that the “T” in LGBT is in flagrant contradiction to the whole feminist “gender” nonsense? On Monday, the feminists tell us that “sex” means nothing, it’s all “gender,” all a bundle of arbitrary social expectations; and then on Tuesday, the T’s tell us that they are “really” men even though they are women or really women even though they are men; which is like saying that you are really and truly A, instead of being really and truly A — since A and B are just the same! How can you “trans” from one sex to another, if there are no differences between the sexes?

    Another thing: why should there be any B’s at all? If you are indeed attracted to members of the opposite sex, why not just marry one after the normal way of nature, instead of pushing your peculiarities upon the rest of us?

    If there is anybody here who actually would allow his or her daughter to be in a locker room with a naked man, then that alone proves that you are sick or depraved. And you are “justifying” this all to shore up your own sexual deviance.

    • Art Deco

      The chief hag-feminist (b. 1931) at the academic institution which used to employ me was a great one for letters to the editor denouncing other parties for ‘stereotyping’ when they called attention to abiding differences between men and women. She and her whipped clergyman husband were also inveterate advocates for the homosexual population (who are evidently not stereotyping when they insist on sexual contact with other men rather than women).

      • Scott_W_gmail

        I agree that feminists over-reach when they claim no fundamental differences between men and women, or indeed between the masculine and the feminine. Science does not back them up.

        There was recently an interesting scientific study in that regard. It would seem that the more masculine members of our society are best at reading maps, and the most feminine members of our society are worst at reading maps. The reverse was true for some other ability (I forget which).

        Best map readers: Heterosexual men (most masculine, least feminine)
        2nd best map readers: Bisexual men
        3rd best map readers: Homosexual men
        4th best map readers: Homosexual women
        5th best map readers: Bisexual women
        Worst map readers: Heterosexual women (least masculine most, feminine)

        So you see, the abiding differences are actually more accurately described as being between the masculine and the feminine. Interesting, hey?

        On another note, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘stereotyping’.

    • tamsin

      Sometimes they’ll say gender is a construct and sometimes they’ll say it’s biological. Depends on the minute of the hour of the day, I guess.

      • John200

        Depends on how badly they are losing the argument. Which does change from minute to minute, sometimes.

      • Scott_W_gmail

        You speak as if ‘they’ are all one body, and act with one mind. ‘They’ are not. Tony is right to see a logical problem there, which is one reason I completely discount the belief of some feminists that gender is a construct. Transgender clearly shows is that idea is rubbish.

    • ysthi

      “Another thing: why should there be any B’s at all? If you are indeed
      attracted to members of the opposite sex, why not just marry one after
      the normal way of nature, instead of pushing your peculiarities upon the
      rest of us?”

      You’re asking why we don’t dump our current partners and find someone else just to make you happy?

    • Scott_W_gmail

      Bisexuality might be seen as being a little bit like craving both sweet and savoury foods. If you want both and could only eat one or the other until the end of your days, you wouldn’t feel satisfied with that state of things, would you?

      • Tony

        Bad analogy. The body requires various kinds of food for health. It craves sugars and starches because it needs the quick energy; it craves foods with other tastes and other components because it needs the fats or the proteins. These needs are physiological and natural.

        Nobody “needs” to pretend to have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. You won’t die without it. You won’t get sick without it. In fact, nobody “needs” to have sexual intercourse at all. The race needs for people to have sexual intercourse, for children; otherwise no need is involved at all, but merely desire.
        Your analogy trivializes sex; you have equated it with a banal hankering for something for the stomach. So much for serious consideration of moral philosophy and the common good.

        • Scott_W_gmail

          People don’t need sex, I agree. People don’t need intimacy, either. But we crave intimacy. We crave sex. It is a rare person who doesn’t (they do exist, though: about 1% of people are truly asexual).

          We don’t need food with any taste to it, either. The blandest possible foods with the right nutrients in it are all we need. But it is a rare person would be content with that diet. That is the analogy with bisexuality. Bisexuals often only find part of their sexual (and intimacy) ‘appetite’ satisfied by either gender, and therefore seek out both genders in order to fully satisfy their human drives.

          Don’t like the analogy? Fine. It is merely a statement of fact that some bisexuals are not completely sexually satisfied with either gender, and so seek out both. It is how they were made. Why should you care what they do consensually with another person? It’s their life, not yours.

  • Ruth Rocker

    If the “man” did this without wearing a dress he would be classified as a pedophile and arrested. Talk about double standards!!

    If the loons have rights, what about the majority of the women in the locker room who might object to a “man” being in there?? Don’t their rights matter?? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that this is part of the homomafia’s agenda to completely get rid of normalcy in daily life.

    • Mike

      No, Ruth, you moron… the majority does not get to dictate what rights the minority is allowed to enjoy. No one is telling you that you don’t get to be a disgusting, ignorant bigot, for instance.

      • Ruth Rocker

        First of all, if it is so proud of it junk then why does it think it’s a woman? And if this was anything but a loony “transgender” male exposing his junk to anyone, especially a young child, would get him locked up!! And you did not address the issue of the rest of the women in the room who might object to it being in there with them. Those women have the right to their privacy. It is perfectly welcome to enjoy its rights, but not when they step on someone else’s rights. It needs to learn some common courtesy before it goes among the public.

    • Scott_W_gmail

      No he wouldn’t, he would be classified as a indecently exposing himself. The presence or absence of children in the change room doesn’t make him a pedophile. That’s a very casual relationship you have with being accurate.

  • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

    Last night I had dinner with a friend who told me about having to go to sensitivity training at college or risk being kicked out of the program. His offense? When one of the faculty publicly announced he was transgendering my friend (and a few others) remained silent in their seats while everyone else gave a standing ovation. Get that? Remaining silent is an offense. Is there a libertarian bone left in the Left or is it all argumentum ad baculum? Aren’t these guys the ones sporting “COEXIST” bumper stickers on their cars?

    • Adam__Baum

      Wow, the effects of Salinas v Texas are apparently viral.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf

    • Mike

      This is a bald faced lie. It simply never happened. Either you made it up from whole cloth, which is likely since the stock-in-trade of the christian right is lying, or your friend lied to you and you were stupid enough to believe it.

      Now, if you present some evidence (I know that such an idea is foreign to a right-wing christian but you might want to look into the concept) then we might consider your claims but until then you are either and idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

    • Scott_W_gmail

      If it happened the way your friend did, then I agree with you.

      But I suspect your friend is misrepresenting the situation, and that in fact, he did significantly more than just remain silent… eyes rolling, groaning at the ceiling, gaffaws and groans, etcetera, which indeed would be extremely offensive and insensitive.

      • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

        There is no reason to suspect that as I know him reasonably well and he is not prone to misrepresentation or exaggeration. Also, I’ve been in situations where everyone else gave a standing ovation and I remained seated. The natural instinct is to not call attention to yourself anymore than already have by remaining seated and stare ahead with a poker face and wait for the madness of the crowd to return to sobriety. Granted, that’s just anecdotal, but see no reason to hedge or modify what I said.

  • Jamie

    Oh Lord am I glad to be homeschooling today. The scariest thing my kids face is the prospect of walking in the bathroom and discovering a six-year-old sibling on the potty.

    • Mike

      Yes, it’s good that you are raising another generation of ignorant, uneducated children for all us hardworking liberals to support. We always need more hateful bigots with no connection to the real world.

  • slainte

    Men in women’s locker rooms and vice versa is a logical next step toward negating all differences between men and women; a progression toward a utopian equality that affirms the primacy of subjective truth while denying, and making criminal, objective truth.
    Of course, God is Objective Truth. Denying Him is victory for the proponents of this movement.

    • Adam__Baum

      I have always thought the goal was to make us alone and naked before the state, I had used the term “naked” figuratively, but perhaps that’s literally the objective.

      Then we will cower and hide like Adam and Eve.

      • slainte

        Nature deplores a vacuum.
        Who or what replaces God and His Word, revealed in the Bible, which will be viewed as hate speech for daring to supercede subjectivity?

      • Slainte

        Better keep working out then. :) Cool video you presented yesterday in support of that point.

        • Adam__Baum

          The entire “Twilight Zone” series is on DVD. Serling was a genius.

          There’s a couple of episodes that featured a young Captain Kirk.

          That episode is “Obsolete Man”, originally broadcast June 1961.

          Before I was around, but I saw it in syndication.

          • slainte

            I remember the “Twilight Zone”; it scared the creepers out of me. It used to play at night on television about the same time as Chiller Theater, the Alfred Hitchcock Show, the Late Show (Movie), and The Late, Late Show. “Night of the Living Dead” was the only movie that scared me more than the “Twilight Zone” plots.
            Times have definitely changed….now we don’t even have to turn on the television because we are living the Twilight Zone.

            • Adam__Baum

              I saw “The Birds” and “Psycho” and “Rear Window” and my absolute favorite “North by Northwest” in the early 1980′s when Reagan put some restraints on the gravy train that allowed PBS to keep showing “Upstairs, Downstairs:” and other stuffy BBC stuff and telling us they were providing an essential public service.

              • slainte

                I think my dad and President Reagan were the only ones watching Upstairs Downstairs. It was on TV in the 70s originally and may have repeated in the 80s with an introduction by Alistair Cooke on Masterpiece Theater.
                Did you ever see the PBS television series, “The World At War”? It was hosted by Lawrence Olivier and told the story of World War II in graphic detail utilizing authentic filmed footage of the battles, the soldiers on the fronts in both the European and the Pacific theatres, and the horror of discovering the concentration campsl, including the allies arrival at the camps, the emaciated survivors, the bodies of the dead being hoisted into mass burials. The most horrendous thing to see.

                The series was a testament to what an unrestrained socialist state (Nazis) is capable of. Highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it; also available in DVD,

                • Adam__Baum

                  “Did you ever see the PBS television series, “The World At War”?”

                  Own it on DVD. The thing that sticks out for me is the burning introduction and the interviews with Hitler’s secretary, for some odd reason.

                  Ironic we’re discussing this on the 75th anniversary of Krystallnact..

                  • slainte

                    Sounds interesting regarding the B17s. If you have not already done, you should consider touring the WW II aircraft carrier USS Intrepid docked in the Hudson River (west side of Manhattan); there are all manner of aircraft on its deck. It is an amazing testament to American ingenuity and excellence. IIRC, it served missions in the Pacific theatre (WWII) and in Vietnam.

                    One of the most profound sites, though, is the American Cemetery in Luxembourg where General Patton and his troops are buried in descending order based on rank with Patton at the head as if in line for battle. They were the greatest generation and they protected the world from tyranny. They would not recognize what has come to pass in our country today; most particularly the sort of events described in Mr. Ruse’s article.

                    • Adam__Baum

                      “WW II aircraft carrier USS Intrepid ”

                      Did that in 1997 and found it as you described. Of course I think it was rehabbed since then.

                      I am in complete agreement with the rest of this post.

  • Tony

    What is the difference, in terms of harm to the child or to innocent women simply trying to mind their own business with decency and modesty, between the exhibitionist in the locker room and the male “transsexual”? None at all. What are we supposed to do, ask for a bar-coded ID as a transsexual? And when we see it, we say, “Oh, well that’s all right then”?

    • Scott_W_gmail

      One clear difference is that person’s *intent*.

  • Austin Ruse

    Want to know how totally crazy the trans world is? Have any idea what this is: “non-op, non-binary, intersex, trans man.”?

    Here is a column i wrote some time back at CatholicThing about poor Chaz Bono coming under attack from “Stephen Ira”, who is Warren Beatty and Annette Benning’s daughter who is now a guy. Enjoy…

    http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/binary-cissexists-unite.html

    • Art Deco

      Newt Gingrich’s nuisance sister worked for UPS.

      Does anyone know what Chastity Sun Bono (age 44) ever did for a living? Does the lack of an answer for that question perhaps suggest what might be part of her problem?

    • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

      Hey I remember you. You were that cretin that was insulting people and making ridiculous assertions who later edited over every single one of his comments, replacing it with “;o) ” after repeatedly showing his arse to God and everyone.

      Coward.

      • Art Deco

        Another one. Soros is sloshing the cash around.

        • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

          Yes, because nobody could possibly disagree with a cretin like Austin unless they were getting paid for it.

          Far be it from me to talk you out of your cute little Soros conspiracy theories. I have my investment in aluminum futures to think about.

          • Art Deco

            Darth Soros does not hire people with a sense of humor.

        • gayhedonist

          You have a gay crush on George Soros, don’t you? C’mon just admit to it. We all know your outward virulent hatred of gays is actually just denial and self-hatred.

      • Bob

        Boy…..you’re just a mean little name calling person, ain’t ya danah?

      • Bob

        “Creep”….. “Creepy” are people that support a man to legally be allowed to sit naked in a girl’s locker room.

        Personally, I’m glad this law has passed. Things can get boring at work. It will be good to have a belly aching laugh in a corporate meeting looking at the guy across the table from me sitting there in pumps, lipstick, and a clutch that matches his neatly dry cleaned skirt.

      • ysthi

        Thank you for pointing me to that comment thread (guest / danah gaz). And Austin, that was truly pathetic.

  • CharlesOConnell

    “Many of these men-who-claimed-to-be-women reported that they found women sexually attractive and that they saw themselves as ‘lesbians’.”

    Former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Paul McHugh, MD,http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/surgical-sex–35
    Article | First Things

    • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

      Oh, you mean the hospital who’s gender identity practice was shut down because of the massive liability that Dr. John Money exposed them to by sexually assaulting and mutliating David Reimer, who later committed suicide as a result?

      That hospital? Yeah Charles. Go right on ahead and cite from that cesspit. If the world was actually just, every single person involved in that would have died in prison,.

      • Art Deco

        “That hospital” is just about the leading medical center in the United States and Dr. McHugh was the official responsible for shutting Money’s practice down. If you examine the postings of the other soros troll above, you see she is attacking Dr. McHugh for his work ending the practice of sex-reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins.

        The mother ship appears to be sending out conflicting talking points to you all.

        • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

          That sex reassignment practice was shuttered, along with the rest of their gender identity practice, to protect them from the huge legal liability they had exposed themselves to.

          • Art Deco

            He argued the point on principle and has continued to do so publicly since. That’s what’s upsetting the other soros troll in this thread.

            • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

              McHugh is quack who is lucky his ass wasn’t caught in the same ringer that Money’s was. That doesn’t stop the rest of the field from ignoring him, however. He’s a lone idiot, screaming in the breeze.

              People like him are the reason that argument to authority requires a demonstration of expert consensus

              • Art Deco

                Danah, I suggest you examine ‘Marita’s posts above for a demonstration of more sophisticated argumentation. The man you are calling a ‘quack’ (presumably on your own fund of knowledge) was

                1. The chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital; and
                2. Opposed to John Money’s work.

                Try to make sense in the future, pumpkin.

                • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

                  >1. The chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital;

                  Exactly

                  > 2. Opposed to John Money’s work.

                  Right, because saying he was pro-child-rape would be about as smart as the RCC saying it is as well. The fact is he covered for Johns Hopkins, just like the RCC covers for child rapists.

                  • Art Deco

                    I have no clue why you appeared here to compose deranged falsehoods against an honest institutional steward, but you should stop it.

                    (Or at least co-ordinate with Marita. This is getting tiresome).

                • Pat Brown

                  Is this the same Johns Hopkins where a OB/GYN was photographing the women he “cared” for…….who committed suicide when he was finally caught??? Just checking….

                  • Art Deco

                    The Johns Hopkins Medical Institute is an enormous institution and no doubt they have some rogues therein. That’s the hazard of employing large numbers.

    • Adam__Baum

  • CharlesOConnell

    Herbert Marcuse: “Repressive Tolerance” (Hate Crime Legislation, Back Door to Censorship, http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/hate_crime_legislation_back_do.html )

  • a friend

    Marita and ysthi –
    who pays you to comment on articles that have any mention of LGBTQIAXYZ etc. in them? Because it must take an awful lot of your time to post all that rubbish and spread discord and I would hate to see you guys uncompensated.

    • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

      I’m not sure what you expect when you invite public commentary on an article that shamelessly smears an entire class of people.

      • Art Deco

        We usually get Soros first string, who do a better job than you do.

        • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

          Why don’t you just type the name “Soros” a hundred times or so and get it out of your system?

        • Marita

          I’ll call your Soros and raise you a Koch brother.

          • https://www.facebook.com/danah.gaz danah gaz

            I’ll throw in 3 rapey priests, one Ratzinger, and call.

            • Carlos_Perera

              The “rapey priests”–overwhelmingly homosexual seducers of pubescent and adolescent boys–belong to the “entire class of people” that the rest of us shall be forced to accept, per government ukase, if ENDA becomes law. Scratch a homosexual, find a pederast: it would be instructive to ask the late Galen McKinley (one of Harvey Milk’s “protégés.”

              • Mike

                You are ignorant. Homosexuals are attracted to adult members of their own gender. Pedophiles are attracted to children of either gender and invariably self-describe as heterosexual. You hate homosexual people yet are too damn dumb to actually find out what the word means.

            • Bob

              The “Rapey priests” belong to the LGBT’s community, not to the Catholic Church.

          • Adam__Baum

            Hey dope. The Koch bros are with you on this stuff.

      • Carlos_Perera

        No, the article simply objects to the enforced acceptance–through the use of the police powers of the state, no less–of persons who choose to transgress at least 3,300 years of Judeo-Christian mores. The shamelessness is shown by those who _favor_ so using the police powers of the state, all the while proclaiming that they are promoting “liberation.”

        • gayhedonist

          I think you should stop whatever you’re doing and write “ukase” 100 times on a sheet of paper. You love the word, so just use it and use it. It really is amusing to see such a limited vocabulary get all fired up :-) ukase on, brother.

          • Carlos_Perera

            Oh, I know, I know! You’re using rule five of Alinsky’s _Rules for Radicals_ (which I have shamelessly cut-and-pasted from the web):

            “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

            I don’t blame you: making a sound argument for forcing others, against their consciences, religious beliefs, and just plain common sense to knuckle under to the homosexualist/cultural Marxist project has got to be damned hard. It’s much easier to resort to cheap psychological ploys of the sort Alinsky systematized for those too dull to figure them out on their own.

            Incidentally, how often do you use the word _bizarre_ in a typical blog comment?

            • Mike

              The funny part about your paranoid rant is that you think that not getting to control the law so that you can force your standards onto others means that you are being infringed upon.

              You take the valid criticisms that you are richly deserving of, the moral and intellectual correction you are so desperately in need of, and put a label on it as if that changes how wrong you are.

              You are pathetic and ignorant.

        • Mike

          This is where you ignorant right wing christians fall into idiocy. “Forced Acceptance”? Wrong. You get to go right on hating people as you like and gathering in your dark, dirty corners for you mental masturbation about how great you are and you awful homosexuals are. You just don’t get to enforce your vile beliefs through the law. When will you idiots see that?

  • Clinton Batterton

    Non-discrimination laws or policies protecting gay people exist in 21 states, 88% of all Fortune 500 corporations, over 100 municipalities, the military, any number of colleges and universities, and so on, and in some cases have been in place for 30 years, with little or no problems, as a recent GAO report has found. Corporate America would not have adopted these policies voluntarily for themselves if they resulted in any of the burdens described. As much as our friends on the right enjoy their horror stories, three or four incidents do not a parade of horribles make. There is no epidemic of hiring unqualified trans-sexuals as a result of civil rights laws, anywhere. This is one of those silly undocumented apocalyptic prophecies by the usual false prophets. In fact, our civil rights laws embody the Golden Rule and simply ask that we treat each other with the same human dignity we expect, and that equal performance should result in equal pay. Anyone can still carry a Bible to work as long as they don’t hit their co-workers over the head with it, creating a hostile working environment. The locker room story is particularly inappropriate, if predictable. The problem was solved by putting up shower curtains. Moreover, desegregation of the military was opposed because white southern soldiers wouldn’t want to shower with black ones. Desegregation in the 60′s was opposed because southern whites wouldn’t want to share toilet facilities with whites. Eliminating don’t ask, don’t tell was opposed because straight soldiers wouldn’t want to shower with gays (even though they unknowingly were already). And so on, but it worked out. And the locker room story here is completely irrelevant, anyway, because ENDA applies only to EMPLOYMENT, not public accommodations. So, no, it would not even apply to locker rooms.

    • Art Deco

      as a recent GAO report has found.

      Why would the GAO, whose book is financial and performance audits of public agencies, be doing an assessment of corporate personnel offices?

      And, no, you are not going to sell the idea that employment discrimination laws do anything but impose costs on companies by limiting their discretion. (In particular making it nearly impossible to administer standardized tests to prospective employees and forcing the emasculation of civil service test).

      • Clinton Batterton

        Because the Senate asked the GAO whether non-discrimination laws protecting gay people have led to any of the horrible business burdens claimed by the GOP, and the answer was a simple “no.” Look it up, it’s in the news.

        • Art Deco

          Likely as reliable as CBO scoring requested by the Democratic Party.

          Look to Spain and France if you wish to see what heavy regulation of the labor markets does to the circulation of said markets.

          • Clinton Batterton

            You were kind enough to warn us in advance that you will never move off your position that civil rights laws hurt businesses, regardless of the facts. So I understand why you rejected the GAO report as unreliable or biased without looking it up. It is based on statistics concerning the number of workers covered by civil rights laws covering sexual orientation, complaints filed, damage awards, etc. – all objective facts. Moreover, the business community does not agree with you – 88% of the Fortune 500 voluntarily adopted non-discrimination policies of their own covering LGBT Americans, and the US Chamber of Commerce does not oppose ENDA. The Senate vote was 64 in favor, so GOP Senators supported it. I guess if you ran the zoo, the South would never have been desegregated, in order to spare businesses the expense of complying with the civil rights laws. The civil rights laws have made our country better and probably contributed to our economy. Equality works. Adding sexual orientation to our existing non-discrimination policies is at most a marginal additional expense.

            • Art Deco

              The business community adopts policies to keep lawyers off their back. Its a protection racket.

              Why not formulate a theoretical construction which would express your thesis? It would have to start with the notion that the granular knowledge possessed by employers of what will work in their organization is so useless that the dead weight losses of guarding against lawsuits causes them no net injury and that attorneys working for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can write rules dictating recruitment and retention policies which also cause them no net injury. You are saying that business owners would be worse off on average if they just used their own hiring criteria. Non ci credo.

              Of course, I could just surmise that you misinterpreted the study, that the GAO used a misspecified model (because social researchers do from time to time) or that the study was bollocks because it was supposed to be. Seems rather more plausible than the notion that lawyers for the EEOC know my business better than I do. However, la gauche is shot through with people who fancy they know your business better than you do and that the distributed knowledge of the ordinary man cannot stand up to that of Harvard educated lawyers (like the Presidents insurance exchange maven, Nancy-Ann deParle).

            • Art Deco

              As noted in our exchange above. I’ve shuffled through a list of 350 odd GAO reports on ‘equal opportunity’ issued since November of 1992 and can find nothing on this topic and precious little on the activities of private employers. I think you have conflated the issues of the GAO with some other agency, public or private.

              • Clinton Batterton

                The GAO report is discussed in a Reuters wire story entitled “Legal record clashes with warning on U.S. gay job-discrimination ban,” Nov. 6, 2013. You can also consult the Chicago Tribune of that date. This is only the latest GAO report on ENDA. See also GAO-10-135R and GAO-02-878R. For a complete discussion of the alleged costs and benefits to businesses, see equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201307110002.

                • Art Deco

                  The two reports in question are as follows:

                  Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Employment Discrimination: Overview of State Statutes and Complaint Data

                  Sexual Orientation-Based Employment Discrimination: States’ Experience with Statutory Prohibitions

                  The former was issued in 2009 and the latter in 2002 (which is an expansive definition of ‘recent’). Neither one is an economic analysis of dead weight loss due to employment discrimination law.

                  • Clinton Batterton

                    Progress has been made. First you doubted that the GAO could ever write such reports. Then you suggested that the reports don’t exist because you couldn’t find them. Then I directed you to THREE GAO reports – the one described in the Reuters wire story was issued in July 2013, which is “recent.” If it didn’t include a “dead weight loss” figure it didn’t seem to matter either to the business community or to the 64 Senators who voted for ENDA. It is clear that adding LGBT Americans to existing policies does NOT lead to a flood of litigation, much less to hiring quotas for unqualified transsexuals. I also directed you to a comprehensive analysis of the potential economic effects of ENDA put out by equalitymatters.org. Some corporations support it because it will create a uniform national standard. Moreover, if it encourages corporate nondiscrimination policies it should reduce litigation by offering alternative dispute resolution procedures in house. But I get it – as you said, you won’t be changing your mind anyway, because, in your mind, the civil rights laws and equality, “equal pay for equal work,” can only impose costs without any benefits. So we can agree to disagree.

                    • Art Deco

                      Mr. Text wall,

                      Neither of the reports you named attempted to ask or provide an answer to the question at hand. You asserted that there were no economic costs to instituting employment discrimination laws. Neither report modeled that question or attempted an analysis. These reports are a discussion of some state statutes and some descriptive statistics compiled by various agencies.

                      Nor would you expect them to. That sort of analytical work is outside of the GAO’s institutional mission.

                    • Clinton Batterton

                      OK, so you are going to continue to pretend that I just referred you to two GAO reports. As the Reuters wire story explains, Boehner claims that ENDA will cost businesses a flood of new lawsuits. The July 2013 GAO report, which is an update to the 2009 report, shows that adding LGBT Americans to existing non-discrimination statutes causes no such thing. The business community itself apparently isn’t afraid of the economic costs of ENDA, either, perhaps because over 88% of the Fortune 500 already have antidiscrimination policies of their own, which will require little or no changes. You offer no evidence to the contrary. Where are your studies of “deadweight loss” from the civil rights laws? Some say that a conservative is someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. You obviously see no value in equality in the workplace and aren’t interested in the actual evidence I have offered, so I won’t bother responding again. Stay safe and snug in your own universe.

                    • Art Deco

                      Those reports contained no economic modeling or analysis. They cannot by their very nature support or refute the assertions you are making.

        • Adam__Baum

          If the Senate wanted a legal analysis, the GAO is the wrong agency to conduct such an analysis.

        • Art Deco

          Because the Senate asked the GAO whether non-discrimination laws
          protecting gay people have led to any of the horrible business burdens
          claimed by the GOP, and the answer was a simple “no.” Look it up, it’s
          in the news.

          Well, the GAO site has some handy filters, including one that allows one to scrounge for reports on the topic of ‘equal opportunity’. I’ve a list of around about 350 reports under that heading issued since November of 1992. The only report on a homosexual population concerned the military. There were two reports of note on the practices of private employers. One was issued in 1995 and one in 1997 and both concerned the use of alternative dispute resolution.

    • Guest

      Making criminal and immoral behavior equal to morally neutral behavior is demonic. Unequals must be treated unequally as a matter of justice.

    • Tim

      Thank you for the much-needed dose of sanity, Clinton.

      • Art Deco

        Whether he is sane or not, he does not understand that the reports in question do not pose the salient questions much less attempt to answer them.

  • Pingback: 19 Shockingly Simple Ways to Live Your Catholic Life - BigPulpit.com

  • hombre111

    I think the best article on this was a wonderful, cautionary editorial in Commonweal. We have plunged into a huge social experiment, with who knows what results. The last such experiment, the so-called sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies, was a disaster that afflicts us still. But along with all the lamentation, the Church needs to understand what is happening and try to find effective ways to get her own message across.

  • Eamonn McKeown

    The quota thing would be nigh impossible. I jest a little, but are there that many t’s out there? Would I go to work one day and have the owner hand me a dress and a wig and say “it’s your turn today”. It would almost be like something from one of the old British tv ‘Carry On’ sketches.

  • AcceptingReality

    In the 80′s and 90′s, the soccer mom phenomenon was prominent. During that time children were elevated in the social consciousness so much so that spanking became a criminal offense. Now, we’ve advanced so much that I can’t spank my child but some other dude can expose himself to my child so long as he is wearing a dress? Can you say, “Going to hell in a hand basket”?

  • Bob

    To all members of the LGBT community posting here:

    What I find is that the main goal of most of your efforts are to somehow get moral justification for your disordered, perverted sexual acts. The original definition of GAY was “Good As You” in an attempt to morally justify their perversions.

    It ain’t gonna happen. No one needs a bible, catechism, Talmud, Qu’ran to tell them that your sexual acts of sodomy, etc. are perversions against what nature itself intended.

    So give it up. You’ll never get moral air cover for your perversions, no matter how many unjust laws you try to pass. Homosexual acts by their very nature are disordered, immoral, and yes…a sin.

    And why do you spend so much time on Catholic websites? Why don’t you go on Muslim/Islamic websites and attack them, they’re even more vocal about sodomy and homosexual acts being immoral and sinful. So let’s see how brave you are…..go attack Muslims on Al Qaeda websites.

    • Guest

      They want affirmation above all else. They think if all opposition is silenced their pain will stop. It does not and never will. They want to cover up and drown out truth. They can not. False affirmation only suppresses what is true.

  • guest

    You see, god hates fags, and so Christians should reserve the right to discriminate against them. Such is the logic of these theocratic bullies who want the government to ratify their religion.

    • Caritas06

      No Christian believes this and no one wants a theocracy. God loves everyone, but we are all sinners, all of us, and God does not love all of our choices and deeds. That is the critical distinction.

    • Art Deco

      The ‘theocratic bullies’ did not seek to make it a cause of action to refuse to bake a cake for someone or take picture at their wedding. You shnooks did that, and your cat’s paws in the legal profession.

    • Carlos_Perera

      No, God does not hate fags, else He would want them to stew in their sin (and its horrible temporal consequences . . . visit the CDC website and peruse the “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” section). God wants all men to be saved, including homosexuals; so much so that he sent His only-begotten Son to be born, live as a man of lowly station, and die a horrific, sacrificial death on a cross for us, that we, all of us sinners, might be saved. He does not, however, force us to accept salvation; one of the ways we can repudiate His saving grace is by persisting, obdurately and unrepentantly, in mortal sin, like homosexual sodomy. Christians, therefore, are enjoined not to cooperate–even by giving them tacit approval–in the commission of such sins, and to avoid the near-occasion of such sins. This applies to a multitude of sins, not just to homosexual sodomy.

      All human beings must be able to discriminate–a term that is in itself neutral, depending on the object and circumstances of said discrimination– on the basis of moral judgments if they are to be free. That is why freedom of association is a fundamental human right. What you want is to use the police powers of the state to force Christians (and all others, for that matter) to coerce them to associate, against their moral and religious principles, with those who flaunt their immorality. The bullying is all on your side, as you would be using force–albeit vicariously, and in a cowardly fashion, by letting the government do it for you–to coerce association with those who unabashedly practice homosexuality. You want the government to enforce your (im)moral viewpoint, trampling on the free exercise of religion rights (the first one recognized by the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. I think that you are displaying more than a dollop of projection in your statement.

    • Tim

      guest, I’m sorry to say it, but as a Christian I have to admit you are right. Please do not judge all of us based on the behavior of a few.

      • Art Deco

        I’m sorry to say it, but as a Christian I have to admit you are right

        Right about what?

      • Bob

        Why do I get the feeling you’re lieing as far as being a “Christian?”

  • guest

    But, Christians belief in superstitious nonsense should entitle them to discriminate against the gays who participate in dirty, filthy sin. Is that your position?

    • Art Deco

      Whether or not I believe superstitious nonsense, ‘guest’, in a free society I am properly at liberty to earn a living and engage in trade at my discretion, form voluntary associations at my discretion, and advocate public policies at my discretion.

      Advocate for the homosexual population are all for laws which compel people to associate with other people on terms said advocates define, laws which subject everyone’s business to the vetting of lawyers. Why do they do this? Perhaps because they are children and think and act in ways normal for children.

      • guest

        What you say above is not true. You are properly at liberty to earn a living, etc. but within the bounds of the law. At present we have several protected classes and you may not use your religion as a pretext for discriminating against those groups. LGBT people will soon be added to the list of groups that you will not be legally allowed to hate against. Period. Grow up and get used to it.

        • Art Deco

          In other words, you fancy you merit privileges to compel other people to do business with you. You do not have such privileges in any just society, snowflake.

          You’re not special. Get over it.

          • guest

            Not at all. Evidently you think that your religion should grant you special privileges to discriminate against people that your religion deems as inappropriate.

            • Art Deco

              It is not a ‘special privilege’ to extend the custom I prefer to the clients I prefer, to hire the workers I prefer, to rent to the tenants I prefer, and, with the concordance of my fellows, set the membership criteria for the clubs to which I belong. These are liberties properly enjoyed by civilized men. Who you associate with is your choice; it is not vetted by attorneys.

              Your worldview is dominated by the notion that you are entitled to service and to the deference of others. You are not.

              • guest

                So in your worldview it is more civilized to discriminate? Why would you want to discriminate against LGBT people?

                • Art Deco

                  1. I am not in the business of providing apartments for rent that people may use them to engage in disgusting sexual practices.

                  2. In my workshop, manners are respected. That means, you do not make a public point of obscene personal shortcomings. You put a pic of your butt-buddy on your desk or show up in drag and you get one warning. I do not give out many warnings before the axe falls.

                  3. In my business, I do not participate in gross parodies of the sacrament of marriage, nor do I rent my facilities to people who wish to do so.

                  4. In my club, fraternity is honored. None of our number behave like teen-age girls.

                  In my life, I use my discretion to set the terms of exchange with the world according to my discretion. People who violate those terms are asked to depart.

                  • gayhedonist

                    1.) Being gay is about who you love. My partner of 12 years and I are deeply in love. But if it’s gay sex you’re talking about, well, that’s not disgusting either. Gay sex is something you should either be indifferent about, or enthusiastic about.

                    2.) The hideously immoral employment discrimination you describe will become illegal upon the passage of ENDA. You’ll have to find another outlet for your hatred than to practice financial terrorism on your gay employees.

                    3.) Legal marriage is not a parody. It’s the real thing. Grow up and get used to it.

                    4.) Is it a neo-nazi club, or some other organized hate group? In your club, it sounds like you should all just go and settle the matter of who has the highest level of testosterone using a blood screen. Objective phallic measurements could also help to draw a line between who is a real man, and who is a teenage girl in your club. Maybe you should use a blood screen to admit new members. I would also recommend a thorough background investigation of new members with a special look into the possible past homosexual activities of prospective members. You might avoid having gay infiltrators that way.

                    • Carlos_Perera

                      1. No, being a homosexual is about wanting to commit sodomy with someone of the same sex. Love ≠ sex.

                      2. No, what is immoral is using the police powers of the state to force others to associate against their will with persons who espouse or openly practice acts which violate their moral principles. Not hiring someone is not an act of terrorism . . . but you know that; slinging such words around is just more Alinskyite garbage.

                      3. Marriage, as a social institution, only makes sense in the context of a male-female union, which can, in principle, produce offspring.

                      4. Ah yes, Alinsky’s rule 13.

  • guest

    According to the toys we’ve chosen to play with (Christianity), you gays aren’t allowed to play with your toys. So stop it or we’ll use our beliefs in an afterlife to make sure you gays endure secular suffering in the here and now. Is that your position?

    • Art Deco

      Yes, we catch the playground metaphor, and what it says about you.

      • guest

        Here we go again. A conservative hate machine such as “AD” tries to insinuate that gay people are pedophiles. This has been very thoroughly debunked. Yet the hate machine continues to try to perpetrate this lie to destroy the lives of LGBT people who it hates.

        • Art Deco

          1. It has not been debunked.

          2. Actually, acidulous starboard types such as myself notice that homosexual men commonly behave like teenage girls and commonly maintain an outlook on life that is indicative of arrested development, hence playground metaphors.

          • guest

            Lol. It has been debunked.

            Acidulous? Maybe acrid?

          • guest

            1.) Let me debunk it for you: I’m gay and have no sexual interest in children whatsoever. Your insinuation to the contrary is baseless, wrong, and hateful.

            2.) It’s clear that you have a delusional sense of self-importance and the “commonly behave” comment is as ridiculous as your entire position. The playground metaphors are a dog whistle for other readers at a similar level of ignorance and stupidity on the topic who might believe the lie that gay people are pedophiles.

            • Art Deco

              Let me debunk it for you: I’m gay and have no sexual interest in
              children whatsoever.

              You are the world? Solipsism too. I love it.

              It’s clear that you have a delusional sense of self-importance

              Well, we don’t always see ourselves as others do.

              • gayhedonist

                It’s solipsism to be a member of a class of people that you are spreading lies about?

    • Guest

      Your position is that you demand to act immorally, call it luuuuv, and demand all worship your nonsense as truth. No rational person buys it.

      • guest

        Of course, your belief in superstitious nonsense entitles you to declare whose love is genuine and whose love is not. Obviously, I don’t demand anyone worship anything. No rational person buys your religious nonsense. The metaphysical claims of your religion are untrue.

        • Art Deco

          Strange as it may seem to you, ‘guest’, everyone critically evaluates the world around them.

          • guest

            Well certainly you do not critically evaluate the world around you. Anyone who believes in superstitious nonsense without any proof, and who uses it as justification for hateful acts in the secular world has missed the boat when it comes to common sense.

            • Art Deco

              Waal, you might turn your atrophied powers of critical evaluation to the phenomenon of large numbers of so-called adults who cannot distinguish between ‘hate’ and any other expression of alienation, criticism, or disgust (and who fancy they take up a great deal more rent-free space in the heads of others than in fact they do).

      • Art Deco

        My position is that in a free society, I should be able to go about my business without legal harassment from juveniles such as yourself.

      • gayhedonist

        No rational person would buy your religious bag of goods.

  • guest

    The Bible is a man made book. It’s entire contents, cover-to-cover, are written by man. The Bible is therefore subject to the same criticisms as any other man-made writing. Your fetishization of it is stupid.

    • Art Deco

      This is a Catholic blog. Matters will be discussed in those terms. If you do not wish to do that, go elsewhere, kid.

      • guest

        I will not go elsewhere. The rhetoric you are posting in here is dangerous to the survival of our civilization. It cannot go unchallenged. You and the other theocratic bullies need to be confronted and fought against every step of the way.

        • Art Deco

          The rhetoric you are posting in here is dangerous to the survival of our civilization.

          Uh, no. It just induces displays of your hypertrophied sense of grievance.

          • ysthi

            your hypertrophied sense of grievance

            You’re saying that on a website where right-wing Christians regularly call themselves “persecuted” because a cake shop is asked to sell a cake.

            • Art Deco

              No, they feel aggrieved at having papers served on them, having to hire attorneys, and having judges talk down to them.

              • ysthi

                No, actually – there’s a current article where it’s cited as “persecution” just that people chose to boycott a cake shop on Facebook.

                • Art Deco

                  It was actually an orchestrated campaign against the suppliers of said bakery. Quite a bit simpler just to patronize a different bakery.

                  • ysthi

                    No papers were served, no attorneys were hired, and no judges talked down to them. The law is not even involved.

                    • Art Deco

                      Still, no papers were served, no attorneys were hired, no judges talked down to them. It was an entirely private boycott.

                      People who run protection rackets also go after your suppliers. Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Boise does not. He patronizes a different bakery.

                      As for the New Mexico case, they were hauled into court.

                      Your whole shtick here is that it has been outrageous that people do business in a legal regime where they are not threatened by the gay lobby’s legal counsel, so I cannot figure what your point is bringing up malicious boycotts organized by people like you who fancy they are due deferential treatment from everyone else. Different methods, same mentality, I suppose, but an indicator that people like you should have as few tools as possible to disrupt the lives of others.

                    • ysthi

                      “People who run protection rackets also go after your suppliers.”

                      Yeah, but aren’t you overlooking a few key differences there? Such as, a protection racket involves going after suppliers with violence, not with, I don’t know, a boycott on Facebook?

                      The reason that shop closed was because no one wanted to shop there or do business with them, which is exactly the same as would have happened if they’d refused to sell cakes to Jews or Asians. It’s what’s supposed to happen to businesses that fail to suit themselves to their intended customers in a competitive marketplace. Sucks for them but there was no big gay mafia to blame. It was their own stupid decision to alienate and refuse to cater to customers and the result is what happens when you do that in business.

                    • Art Deco

                      The reason that shop closed was because no one wanted to give them their money,

                      No one? You’ve gotten this far with innumeracy, I guess.

                      No, the shop closed because a critical mass of their suppliers cut them off.

                      Retail trade commonly operates on small margins, so you do not need much loss of business to cause trouble. However, in the case of this firm, it was trouble with their suppliers that was salient.

                    • gayhedonist

                      Well, it sure is a good thing that suppliers have some morals and some common sense. Or, is your allegation that the suppliers were forced to cut them off? For their bakery needs, they could supply themselves at a grocery store or at a warehouse store. This supplier whine just doesn’t add up.

                    • gayhedonist

                      Where’s the financial support from the legions of anti-gay Christian do-good haters? Why don’t they step in and help out some of the other “faithful” in their crusade? Let’s see some commitment here.

  • guest

    Exposure was the accusation made in this story. Of course, it is unproven and it is probably imaginary. The writers know their readers will get fired up by such a story because their readers are already leaning towards a self-righteous, hate-mongering, anti-LGBT position. It reinforces the readership’s misinformation about LGBT people as being more likely to engage in sexual behavior on the outer fringe. It also leverages the readership’s ignorance and gullibility to believe the widely-circulated lie that LGBT people are pedophiles.

    • Guest

      Lgbt is simply a political ideology. It is not based in anything other than propaganda.

      • Marita

        In that same vein you could also say that “Religious Rights” are simply a political ideology based solely in propaganda.

  • guest

    I don’t want to be saved by your religious crapola. You cannot force me to play with your toys. Keep your religion to yourself.

    • Art Deco

      Then stay out of my bakery and stay out of my studio and do not go siccing your asinine lawyers on me.

      • guest

        We don’t have to stay our of your studio or out of your bakery, and if you refuse to serve us then you deserve to be put out of business for discrimination offenses.

        • Art Deco

          You mean I cannot earn a living unless I do so in accord with your comfort and convenience.

          And I’m a ‘bully’. Stop the h8!

          • gaymetro

            Well, you couldn’t refuse to serve any other protected class of people as it is already.

            • Art Deco

              All such legislation is dubious.

              That aside, sexual deviants do not merit the status of ‘protected class’.

              While we are at it, none of the businesses under discussion are ‘public accommodations’.

    • Carlos_Perera

      You seem to have a loose grasp on the concepts of free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. “Freedom for me, but not for thee,” appears to be your motto.

      • guest

        How do you go from my expressing disinterest in being “saved” by your cult-like nonsense, all the way to having a loose grasp on concepts of free exercise of religion? You are free to follow a religion. Go ahead. Do not, however, try to get the government to ratify your bizzare beliefs, so that, for example, discrimination against LGBT people is institutionalized.

        • Carlos_Perera

          You have inverted the who-whom in this situation. A free person does not need or seek the government’s “ratification” of his choices privately to associate or not with anyone else, including in the matter of whom he will hire or fire; to _discriminate_ (a word whose meaning you do not seem to, or perhaps simply pretend not to understand). You are the one who thinks that the government should have the power to ratify the nature of the private individual’s association, which would indeed go a long way to institutionalizing totalitarian control over individuals.

          Incidentally, since you do not seem to understand the concept well, freedom of religion is much more than the right to light candles or chant ritually in a darkened church. It entails the freedom to act politically–for example, by objecting to government ukases as to whom a private employer may hire or fire–based on one’s religious beliefs. If you deem the ones held by the editors and writers of _Crisis_ bizarre, well, that is your problem, perhaps based on a lack of cultural and historical understanding.

          • gayhedonist

            “ratify the nature of the private individual’s association…” This is crap. The problem is when you try to assert your religion into the sphere of damaging people’s economic livelihood. The government has a greater interest in securing our economic stability than in making sure that you are able to engage in religious-based discrimination.

            How about this: Your religion is against my religion, and you practicing your religion is a threat to my religious freedom. Tell us how anyone who is not compliant with your religion is a threat to your religious freedom.

            Yes, your beliefs are bizzare. Consider the catholic belief in trans-substantiation and the cannibalistic implications it has.

            • Carlos_Perera

              A government has no business, in a free society, telling employers whom they may or may not hire. And, yes, the free exercise of religion, a fundamental freedom, trumps your non-right to be a pervert _and_ force those who do not want to hire you on that account to do so against their consciences. By the way, don’t you think it’s kind of gay to resort to the police powers of the state in order to bully people who don’t want to associate with you?

              Hey, you have a right to be a congregant of the Church of Perversion and live out its immoral precepts. Exercise your religion to your heart’s content. Hire only other perverts for your place of business, if that is what you want. I certainly won’t run whining to the state if you refuse to hire me for not joining the Uranian Brotherhood. You are the one who wants to force others to act against their moral beliefs, not I.

              As to my beliefs being bizarre, with apologies to Iñigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Religious beliefs professed by over a billion people around the world are not bizarre, the basic meaning of which is “very strange or unusual.” But, hey, believe what you will. I did find your use of transubstantiation and its supposedly cannibalistic implications to demonstrate your point interesting, as Roman pagans accused the early Church of cannibalism using a similar line of reasoning. Plus ça change . . . Justin Martyr refuted the accusation ably, in two apologies, in the second century; look him up if you are actually interested in the matter.

              • gayhedonist

                We already have laws on the books that do just that; tell employers they can’t fire people because of membership in a protected class. You began these paragraphs with a false statement, so I will admit, I didn’t read on. Save your breath, windbag.

                • Carlos_Perera

                  Aw, I doubt your reading comprehension is as bad as all that, but, just in case, I shall attempt to clarify:

                  We certainly have a plethora of such laws, and, to that extent, we are not a free people. We’ll be even less free if their number is increased, in the cause of homosexualist totalitarianism.

                  Regarding your parting gibe, isn’t the anonymity of a pseudonymous blog comment a wonderful device for cowards to hurl insults?

                  • gaymetro

                    No, I have no interest in reading your drivel when you start out with a false statement. I’d say windbag to your face if you were in front of me. I might also add in that your writing is not impactful; it’s boring. You should try to start your rants off with something that makes sense, that way you don’t lose your audience so early.

                    • Art Deco

                      If you ‘have no interest reading’ it, what are you doing here?

                    • gaymetro

                      It’s fun to spar with you folks, and many of you are so indoctrinated to your religious views that what I have to say yields surprising reactions. Carlos merely rants on and on about unrelated material…the one reply he gave started out with a blatantly false statement, so I couldn’t stand to read his post any further. That’s just one post out of many, many posts on here that are worth reading and some merit a response. In the marketplace of ideas, Calos’s are just low rent. Sorry, that’s just how it is.

                    • Art Deco

                      It’s fun to spar with you folks,

                      Oh, your deft wit just leaps off the pixels.

    • Bob

      Then what are you doing spending so much time on a Catholic website? I could care less about atheists and their “crapola”, but I wouldn’t waste one second of my time on their sites. So why are you here? And I won’t take a “I’m here to set you people straight (no pun intended)” reasoning. You’re a person that cares so little about religion spending a lot of your time on a religious website!

      • gayhedonist

        That’s an easy one. Your religious nonsense is evil and you people are conspiring to destroy the lives of LGBT people, and feeling self-righteous all the while. You need to be confronted at every level possible. Taking abuse from religious people has been a regular thing for me, so it’s perfectly natural for me to want to bring these views right to you.

        I spend my time, I spend my money on this crap. I’m sick of subsidizing Christianity through taxes, only to have it constantly trying to destroy my life. Churches get out of paying taxes to the tune of about $71BB annually, so that they can work to destroy the lives of LGBT people. It’s time to de-fund hate. I’m sick of paying for “Birthright” through my taxes so that it can talk women out of exercising their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies and to attempt to proselytize anybody who walks through the door. I’m sick of financing “pray the gay away” b.s. like the Bachmann clinic in Minnesota. The church is a malignancy that we need to excise from society. I’m here to spread that “good news” to you people.

        BTW, if you could care less about something, then you are at a level of caring that is reducible. That is, it is possible for you to care less. I think the expression you intended is “I couldn’t care less.” Is that what you really meant to say? Also, it comes as no surprise that you don’t spend your time studying the arguments of the other side.

        • Bob

          Your sins can be forgiven , GH. You can repent and live at a higher level of love that God intends for all of us.

          • hardmate

            But there is no god. It’s a bunch of superstitious nonsense. I have no reason to want to be in the good graces of your imaginary deity.

            • Art Deco

              This is a Catholic blog and issues are discussed in those terms. Take it to the JREF forums.

              • hardmate

                Religion does not deserve respect. The secular viewpoint needs to have a presence in this forum.

                • Art Deco

                  1. You’re in someone else’s house. You’d best show respect.

                  2. What ‘secular viewpoint’? You’re mode of argumentation consists of variations on a theme of ‘screw you’. That’s of no value to anyone.

                  Soros is now sending us the third string.

          • hardmate

            I’m not going to repent to your imaginary deity, what a fatuous suggestion.

        • Bob

          How are Catholics destroying the lives of LGBTs? I work at a Catholic HIV/AIDS hospice, where many of the dieing are members of the LGBT community. In 17 years, I’ve never seen one member of your community come to volunteer, lend financial or material support, or help out in any way.

          Like in my other post, Catholics love all people, gay or not gay. We know of the destructive nature of sin, and can not condone any group or person’s sinful lifestyle.

          If anything Catholics have considerable love and compassion for the LGBT community. Many of our members are homosexuals that have found a higher peace and love in Jesus Christ, rather than living out the gay lifestyle, where they did not find peace. There are many homosexuals that have turned from the gay lifestyle and found greater fulfillment in the Catholic Church.

          • hardmate

            If you’ve never seen one member of “my” community come to volunteer, it’s probably because none of them would want to contribute to an organization that is so anti-gay. Is this really unclear to you? Would you, as a catholic, volunteer at a satanist worship center?

            The only thing I would have in common with other members of “my” community is an attraction to the same sex. There isn’t as much of a community as you would think–we’re just people and we don’t all get along, just like any other group. Your willingness to put all of us into the same bucket is indicative of your fundamental misunderstanding of these issues.

        • Art Deco

          I’m sick of subsidizing Christianity through taxes,

          You are only doing that in your imagination.

          • gaymetro

            No, the tax exemption that churches get is not only in my imagination.

            • Art Deco

              All philanthropic corporations are tax-exempt as regards their retained income and most are as regards any real property they own. As a rule, contributions to philanthropies are also deductible. To insist on levies on the retained income or real property of religious congregations (or to declare contributions to non-religious bodies deductible but contributions to religious bodes not) would be viewpoint discrimination, which is a constructive violation of extant (and antique) constitutional provisions. Several such provisions in fact (not to mention protections incorporated into state constitutions).

  • guest

    I’d love to stay on and keep confronting you religious bullies, but I’m going to go off and live the gay lifestyle by doing some shopping at Costco. Have fun haters!

    • Art Deco

      Irony is dead.

  • John Albertson

    Believe It or Not:

    The official registration form for Google+ now asks to check under Gender:

    Male
    Female
    Other

  • Paul McGuire

    All the anti-transgender rhetoric in here is offensive. While I support the right of the transgender woman to use the woman’s locker room I do agree that she should have been more considerate to her surroundings. It is offensive though to suggest that somehow people are going to pretend to be transgender when they are not simply to expose themselves to others in the locker room. Gender Dysphoria can be verified by a doctor and transitioning is not a step people take lightly.

    I have a close friend who is transitioning to female right now and after she is done with her hormone treatment you wouldn’t even know she had transitioned. She has been working at a grocery store for some time now and hasn’t had a single problem with customers. For every alarmist story there are hundreds of people transitioning that you wouldn’t even know had done so if you met them on the street.

    Most recently there was a story of two teens in Oklahoma who both transitioned, one from male to female and one from female to male. You wouldn’t know from looking at them though. (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/transgender-teens-find-happiness-article-1.1410225)

    The benefit of all this coverage is that eventually transgender children will be able to develop as their true gender instead of transitioning in adulthood. We are already seeing this happen around the country. With proper hormone treatment at an early age, the transgender youth can go through puberty of their true gender. It isn’t perfect but much better than the alternative.

    • John200

      Dear Paul, ”Thank you for:

      “The benefit…is that eventually transgender children will be able to develop as their true gender instead of transitioning in adulthood….With proper hormone treatment at an early age, the transgender youth can go through puberty of their true gender. It isn’t perfect but much better than the alternative.”

      Sadistic, utterly depraved conduct. Check.

      Subhuman, unnatural, below animal-level mentality. Check.

      You have outdone yourself this time.

      Pitiful.

      Now I shall go in the other room and throw up. And pray for you.

    • Art Deco

      The benefit of all this coverage is that eventually transgender children will be able to develop as their true gender

      They do not need to ‘develop their true gender’. Their true gender is manifest every time they take off their pants.

      • ysthi

        Their true gender is manifest every time they take off their pants.

        Up to 1 in 1000 humans are born intersexed and are neither male nor female in genitalia, hormones and other sexual characteristics. Of course if you’re intolerant, you don’t need to know things like this and can make stupid assumptions about others all day long.

        • Art Deco

          Non sequitur.

        • John200

          Unserious, but then your whole pattern is unserious. Just here to turn the thread into a trollerama. Leave that for the nonce. Let’s go to a theme song you will understand.

          Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,

          Lefty trolls are trollin’,

          Keep them kookoos trollin’,…

          Rawhide!

          Sing it with me, ysh!thi, ya schlemeil, here it comes on the guitar, fill your lungs and let it fly,…

          Rawhide!

          I hardly need to add the conclusion:

          You quack.

    • Bob

      And God did not make a mistake in the body He gave us.

      • Marita

        So… a baby born with a heart defect should just be allowed to die rather than allow surgical intervention to save his life because “God did not make a mistake in the body He gave this child”.

        • Bob

          “Male and female, He made them.”

          Do realy equate a surgical cure with gender change?

          • Marita

            Quite frankly yes, because there’s scientific proof that there is a physiological component to Gender Dysphoria the same way there is a physiological component to heart failure. Just because you can’t see either from an outside perspective doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

            And you don’t need to take my word for it. Here’s a handful of published studies on the subject:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094885

            http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006

            http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.007

            http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2106-10.2011

            • Bob

              Nope. Not even a close analogy. A heart ailment is a physical, anatomical defect that is life threatening. When a guy claiming he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, there is no physical problems with his current body or man parts that are threatening his health or life.

              • Marita

                Tell that to the 41% of Trans people who have attempted suicide due to the extreme mental anguish they feel as a result of Gender Dysphoria.

                Actually, tell that to those who’s statistics we don’t actually have because their suicide attempt succeeded.

                • Bob

                  False.

                  Read the conclusion to the following study (interestingly, it has a very good Hazard Ratio, a well done clinical) how suicidal tendencies are higher post surgical for transgenders:

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939

                • Bob

                  Why are you so averse to treating these trans with psychological therapy (which many studies and members of the psychiatric community say is effective), and so quick to send them off to be mutilated in surgery? The very well put together study I reference in my other posting says the suicidal tendencies and depression after transgender surgery is GREATER than before surgery. Shouldn’t that send up red flags that maybe there should be greater evaluation before committing someone to mutilation and a life time of hormonal therapy? And the real possibility that you did not help this person with surgery…..and only made things far worse?

            • Bob

              Good article below refuting the studies you mentioned concerning brain/sex transsexualism. Apparently many of the control groups in these studies had undergone years of transgender hormonal therapy, making these subjects incompatible with the studies end points. Good article:

              http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/brain-sex_critique.html

            • Bob
          • ysthi

            “Male and female, He made them.”

            Except he didn’t. Many people are intersex from birth and are not altogether male or female, physically or otherwise, without sex reassignment surgery. Not everyone even has male or female genitalia. Admitting it’s possible for someone with female genitalia to have a man’s brain should not be difficult for anyone.

            • Bob
              • ysthi

                That’s really your answer?

                • Bob

                  You paint with broad stroke verbiage such ad “many” “plenty”, etc…..tough to take you serious when it sounds like your tossing around facts you got from “The View.”

                  It seems there are a lot of transgender that find out after their surgery that they are even more unhappy than before. It certainly calls into question whether there might be a psychological answer than a surgical one. Another good article:

                  http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Warning.html

                • Bob

                  Are you a transsexual? Have you undergone transgender surgery?

                  • Art Deco

                    As noted above, he is a homosexual beating his spoon on his high chair.

                  • Marita

                    I personally know several dozen Trans people who’s lives have been saved and enriched thanks to transition. I have yet to meet a single person who underwent surgery and regretted it.

                    • Bob

                      Zero…..so what?

                      “Lives that have been saved”….a top psychiatrist (McHugh) at arguably the greatest greatest academic/clinical hospital in the world (Johns Hopkins) shuts down their transgender surgery department because he says the surgery does far more harm than good. Do you say he’s wrong?

                      I’m going to guess you’re not a top physician at any academic hospital, are you Marita? So I guess you really can’t make any professional opinion on the subject except making a biased, possibly untrue, dramatic, LGBT statement such as “trans lives who have been saved.”

                      So I’ll look to an expert such as McHugh whose whole career reputation is on the line as possibly a little more educated on the subject than you.

                      And what if he’s right, and psychological help is what transsexual patients need more than surgery? It delivers a serious blow to the LGBT’S philosophy of “I was born this way”, doesn’t it?

                    • Marita

                      I think enough has been said about the bias McHugh held in regards to this issue. Just some quick notes:

                      #1 – His study was conducted in the 70′s. Treatments change. Science and Medicine advance. Would you like your damaged veins be treated medically as a fully certified and accredited professional doctor would in the 19th century? (bloodletting via leeches). Or even Tuberculosis treated as they did up until the 50′s?

                      #2 – His study wasn’t conducted on Transgender individuals as you claim. His study mainly included children who were born with born with ambiguous genitalia who were subjected to reassignment surgery without their consent and subsequently suffered immensely due to that. How do you think you’d feel if when you were a baby reassignment surgery was performed on you?

                      And yes, the fact that you don’t know any Trans people makes a HUGE difference. To you Trans people aren’t human, they’re boogeymen out there that you need to be protected from. If someone in your family who you were close to suddenly came out, I bet you would feel incredibly different because you’d all of a sudden have to think of the big bad LGBT agenda as an actual human being with real human emotions. This exact same thing happened to Rob Portman. Honestly, I think had his son not come out as gay, he wouldn’t have voted for ENDA, but he did because LGBT people turned human when it was someone he cared about.

                    • Bob

                      Incorrect on McHugh. Here’s an article below written by Dr. McHugh himself. In fact, making a wild reference to leeches with the head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins is insulting to the physician. Once again, you are not an expert with vast experience on the subject, Dr. McHugh is.

                      “To you Trans people aren’t human”…..please, be graciious enough not to put words in my mouth or what my thoughts are, that’s insulting. Quite frankly,I have great compassion to think that there is more of a psychiatric solution and not one where the transgendered person needs to be butchered and mutilated in surgery.

                      But once again, if there is a socio/psychological solution to most transgenderism, than that means the person was not born that way. And that does undermine the LGBT’S argument that homosexual traits are biological.

                      Read the article. You’ll find it educational.

                    • Bob
                    • Marita

                      Yep, that’s exactly one of the articles I referenced in regards to the problems with McHugh’s research. The man held a deep bias and did whatever he could (Be it ethical or not) to accomplish his goal.

                      I’m not going to keep talking about him because he’s a single voice amidst thousands who consistently prove him wrong.

                      Show me conclusive scientific evidence NOT doctored by a biased religious activist (Which is EXACTLY what McHugh is).

                    • Bob

                      “Biased religious activist”……really??? I’m guessing every piece of valid science that disagrees with you is some type of religious conspiracy? Do you understand that most transgender surgical programs in the country dropped transgender surgery because of McHugh’s work? I guess you either think those programs are run by religious nuts also? Copernicus, Marie Curie, etc. we’re all devout Catholics….I guess you refute all of their science because they were ( in your world) “religious.”

                      Here’s a study done showing decreased quality of life 15 years after transgender surgery. Once again, I find it far more compassionate to help transsexual patients psychologically than butchering them with surgery that leaves them even more unhappy:

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990387

                    • John200

                      “…several dozen Trans people whose lives have been saved and enriched thanks to transition.”

                      Did they think they were going to die? No wonder they are so out of it. Self-dramatization ‘R’ Us, eh?

                      The claim that you have not met one who regretted it is silly. Given your trail on this thread, one can fairly infer that you have not tried very hard.

                      People do regret getting a doctor to mutilate them… keep searching, and pay attention to what you find, you’ll see.

            • Art Deco

              That there is a small population with birth defects is irrelevant to this discussion.

            • Tim

              I agree. That some people are born intersex is simply a fact.

          • John200

            Some of these unfortunates do indeed equate surgical mutilation (that’s not a cure) with sex change.

            There is always a small proportion of the population that is willing to self-mutilate, or persuade a doctor to do it. Call them masochists; the dictionary meaning is enough for anyone to see what is going on here.

            Then they find out what they have done. They really did it this time.

        • Tim

          Pretty much takes care of that “argument”, Marita.

    • Bob

      And I find your claiming to be Catholic yet constantly spitting on Catholic teaching offensive too, Paul.

  • Alecto

    Good! Yeah! If I could, I’d CRAM these PERVERTS UP YOUR ARSES you disgusting Catholic TRAITORS!!!!!!!

  • Bob

    Nice little article on Catholic teaching and transgender ism. Before the atheist LGBT’S trolling on this site attack it, please read it, it’s actually pretty good:

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2527/the_transgender_culture_wars.aspx#.Un_7r8u9KK0

  • Bob

    From the article I referenced:

    Catholic teachings on transgender issues

    “Catholics are called to treat all—including all within the LGBT community—with compassion. Yet the Church maintains that people may not change what Pope Benedict XVI has called “their very essence.” In a speech at the Vatican last December, Pope Benedict directly addressed transgender issues by cautioning Catholics about “destroying the very essence of the human creature through manipulating their God-given gender to suit their sexual choices.” Pope Benedict warned that “when freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God.”

    Certainly, Church teaching allows for the acknowledgment that there can be a biological reason for gender-identity disorder. But it also allows for the possibility of other dimensions to this disorder—a sociological dimension and a psychological dimension—that can never be addressed through cross-dressing or surgical intervention. “

  • Bob

    Those in the posting from the LGBT community posting on this site have attacked Dr. McHugh, but really……are any of you top level, world renowned psychiatrists from Johns Hopkins?:
    “far more complicated than the ‘trapped in the wrong body’ summary would suggest. For some patients seeking sex-reassignment surgery, the wish to live as a member of the opposite sex is itself a sexual desire. Ray Blanchard, a psychologist at the University of Toronto’s Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, studied more than 200 men who were evaluated for sex-reassignment surgery.

    According to Elliot, Blanchard found

    an intriguing difference between two groups: men who were homosexual and men who were heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual. The women trapped in a man’s body tag fit the homosexual group relatively well. As a rule, these men had no sexual fantasies about being a woman; only 15 percent said they were sexually excited by cross-dressing, for example. Their main sexual attraction was to other men.

    Not so for the men in the other group—almost all were excited by fantasies of being a woman… But here sexual desire is all about sexual identity—the sexual fantasy is not about someone or something else but about yourself. Anne Lawrence, a transsexual physician and champion of Blanchard’s work, calls this group “men trapped in men’s bodies.”

    Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was so concerned about the psychological origins of gender-identity disorder that he halted the practice of sex-reassignment surgery at his institution. He wrote about this decision in the November 2004 issue of First Things and concluded that the research demonstrated that Johns Hopkins should no longer participate in what he called “unusual and radical treatment” for “mental disorders.” McHugh, like Blanchard, identified two different groups seeking sex-reassignment:

    One group consisted of guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw a sex change as a way to resolve their conflicts over homosexuality by allowing them to behave sexually as females with men. The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual and some bisexual males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females.

    McHugh began to realize that continuing sex-reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins was “fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness,” concluding that “as psychiatrists, I thought, we would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

  • gayhedonist

    So disturbing to see people speak of gay sex as being disgusting. No, your bigotry is disgusting. Gay sex is something to either be indifferent or enthusiastic about. Your righteous indignation will do nothing to stop it, but rather encourages us, for the laughs, to put it right in your self-righteous face. Your objections to gay sex are all based on supernatural stupidity.

    • John200

      Homo”sex”ual activity isn’t sex, as you know from experience. It is masturbation, sometimes mutual, other times forced. It cannot unite the participants. It is not ordered to producing life.

      It is harmful to the homo”sex”ual, to the man he is destroying, to others who might have had better lives if the homo”sex”ual knew what sex is, to the population in terms of impaired physical and mental health, and expenses attached to the hijinks of these unfortunates. These expenses are paid by all, not just by those who caused the damage.

      No doubt you know all that. Troll on, troll on, there are more discussions going on somewhere and you need to inject some idiocy into it. So get a move on.

      • gayhedonist

        Gay sex sure is sex. If masturbation were forced, then it would be a sexual assault, which it is not.

        Gay sex isn’t harmful to anyone. What’s being destroyed here? Others might have had better lives…you don’t make any sense. What kind of expenses are you talking about? Let’s talk about the real expenses caused by the mental anguish caused by religious “do-gooders” who abuse gay children mentally by telling them they are sick and immoral. Everyone has to pay the price for religious bigotry and superstitious lunacy.

        No doubt I know all what? I think you’re the most compelling conversationalist in the world, so I’m going to stay put and on the edge of my seat with you right wing christian haters.

        • Bob

          Google “gay bowel syndrome.”

          • SantorumStinks

            I did and I came up with Rick Santorum.

            • Bob

              Ha! Funny……by the way, congrats on the promotion to the drive thru window at Mickey D’s, Mom and Dad will be proud. Quite an accomplishment…it only took you till age 36 to get such a vaunted promotion. Now hustle upstairs out of your basement bedroom….Mom’s made your favorite dinner to celebrate!

              • gayhedonist

                lol, yeah, and I’ll be sure I study the Mickey D’s menu for my actuarial exam once I get back home from my business trip.

                • slainte

                  Please consider reading the Holy Bible on your trip. The following is just a small, albeit beautiful, introduction of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings.

                  Matthew 5: 1-12
                  Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, 2 and He began to teach them, saying:

                  3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

                  4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

                  5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

                  6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,

                  for they will be filled.

                  7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

                  8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

                  9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

                  10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

                  11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
                  12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

                  • gayhedonist

                    Blah Blah Blah…I’d use the bible in my hotel room only if I ran out of TP.

                    • John200

                      From your comments I am not surprised that you read toilet paper. But I am surprised that you admit it and seem to think it normal.

                      Go back to Bob’s note, you have no enemies here. You are pitifully silly and ignorant, but human. That means you need not remain in this pitiful state.

                    • Bob

                      You are better and greater than your sins, gayhedonist.

                • Bob

                  Look, bottom line. No joking, no sarcasm:

                  I love you, and all people with homosexual tendencies. You are a fellow child of God, made in His likeness and being, unconditionally loved by Him. No better, no worse, than myself or anyone. Do you understand how mind blowingly great that is?!

                  But we all have our tendencies and temptations, and fall short of the love and will of God. When I sin, I have by my own free will pushed myself away from that love, and it ain’t a pleasant place to be.

                  And like all sins, homosexual acts go against God’s will for us, and pushes you further from His love. You don’t have to be mad or upset by this statement, in fact you don’t have to feel anything about it. It is what it is: sin and a walking away from God’s love.

                  You have voluntarily decided to “play” and participate on a Catholic website. And you will get Catholicism while you are here. If you don’t like that, you may leave at any time. But I believe the Holy Spirit has lead you here for a reason.

                  You are loved by all of us, who are fellow sinners. And if you are willing to listen you might step away with the Truths and peace of Jesus Christ.

                  Pax.

                  • slainte

                    Very well said Bob. I second you on these important points.
                    Et cum spiritu tuo.

              • gayhedonist

                Why would you presume that I’m in a living situation with my parents? I’d like you to elucidate on that a bit. You’re assertion seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is a low class person and that they have a low economic status? Evidently, Bob, you fancy yourself as being better than fast food employees. What a snob you must be. And a stupid snob at that to make such ridiculous presumptions about people who you do not know. How proud Jesus would be of you!

                • Bob

                  Lighten up….it wasn’t to you, it was to “Santorumstinks.”

                  And you are jamming…..

                  • gayhedonist

                    Santorumstinks is one of my buddies.

                    • Bob

                      Seems like a real nice fellow! And thanks for calling me a stupid snob…very nice!

                      Why don’t you go bother and attack the Muslims on Islamic websites? Boy….do they reeeeallly hate gays and your sexual perversions! Have you ever read on their websites their strict observances to the Qu’ran and sharia law on what to do with sodomites? It even made me shudder!

                      So if your such a zeolot about your gay cause, why don’t you go ridicule Muslims by posting on their websites? Better yet, why don’t you find a Mosque and scream and protest sharia law as they come out from prayer. That should be fun to watch.

                      So what d’ya say?? Go get them Muslims…..they really hate gays!

                    • Bob

                      Here’s a great Islamic website attacking gays and the sin of sodomy. So get busy and get on this site and start defending your gay cause…..you have a lot of work to do:

                      http://muslim-responses.com/Incest_and_Sodomy/Incest_and_Sodomy_

                    • Bob

                      Here’s a quote from book 033 of the Hadith (Islamic teaching):

                      “The Prophet (pbuh) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did (sodomy) , kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

                      If I was you….I’d be defending my gay lifestyle by going after these Muslims instead of Catholics, who say “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

                      Good luck!

                    • gayhedonist

                      Well, the suicide bomber community is entirely religious conservatives; Muslim and Christian. Fortunately, I don’t have to choose either of these forms of stupidity.

                    • Bob

                      Very weak, non response.

                      Show me proof of a Christian suicide bomber, who in the name of Christ’s teachings blew up himself and others.

                      But you feel inclined to attack Catholic teaching on homosexuality on a Catholic website, but not to attack very severe Islamic teaching on homosexuality on a Muslim site. Why?

        • Art Deco

          Gay sex isn’t harmful to anyone.

          I’ll remember that during the next public health catastrophe

    • Bob

      “Gay sex” is not sex, let alone intercourse. It’s one guy helping another guy to masterbate.

    • Art Deco

      Another one.

      How many people does Soros have on the payroll doing this?

  • Patrick

    Wait, the Heritage Foundation?

    Is that the *same* Heritage Foundation that issued a report saying white people are inherently smarter than other races or a different group with the same name?

    Judging by how the author goes off on a tangent about quotas and “race hustlers” I’m guessing the former, but it’s a pretty generic name so I thought I’d ask.

    • Art Deco

      No, the Heritage Foundation issued no such report. They did issue a report critiquing proposed immigration policy, but it did not incorporate any such observation.

      One of their statistical analysts composed a dissertation a number of years ago attempting to assess the impact of between-group differences in IQ scores on economic metrics. That was not a Heritage publication and your statement is not a proper characterization of his dissertation, either.

  • Pingback: Promoting Gender Confusion in Youth | Crisis Magazine

  • cestusdei

    This is how democracy dies and persecutions begin.

  • a2audrey

    This is the most disgusting, bigoted piece of nonsense I’ve read in, well years. A grown man that shows his genitals to children is a pedophile and much more likely to be identified as a priest than a transgender person. Rounded to the nearest whole number, there are zero real examples of a transgender man or woman doing this. Can the same be said of priests?

    The writer knows absolutely nothing about them and the intense level of discrimination they experience in almost every aspect of their lives. There are hundreds of cities and entire states that already offer this minimal level of non-discrimination protection already and there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that this scenario actually has happened.

    He does know how to scare people into piling more bigotry on top of it though. You’ve become too familiar with gays to be scared of them now, so now it’s time to move on to transgender people now.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid!

  • Pingback: “promoting gender confusion in the young” | sparrows and sandcastles

  • tatoo

    Why are christians so obsessed with sex? And why are there so many priests who like little boys? Is there a correlation? And, if you are so against gay sex, why did the church not expel homosexual priests rather than just push them around to different diocese? I never understood this.

    • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

      Christians are not obsessed with sex. The simple truth is that sex is morally correct in one place and one place alone–between a man and a women married to each other. The obsession is on the part of people who think it is something else. Here’s how the typical conversation about sex goes:

      Billy the Fornicator: “Is it ok if me and my girlfriend do [insert perverted sex act]?”

      Christian: “No.”

      Billy: “What!? Why are you guys so obsessed with sex!?”

      Also, you are misinformed on “so many priests who like little boys”. There has been no study or statistic showing that priests are more likely to be pedophiles than anyone in other professions. They just get more media coverage.

      As far as pushing around homosexual priests, I’ve been trying to tell people that homosexuality does in fact have something to the the abuse crises. Thanks for confirming it. To the question however, it is case of weak bishops refusing to use their authority to do the right thing. The offending priests should be removed and turned over to the authorities and any bishops covering it should at the very least lose their diocese.

  • Scott_W_gmail

    I never understand the intense feelings many religious people seems to have around nudity. In Japan, both genders, young and old, are all together in saunas, steam rooms, and hot baths. Because they are all used to seeing both genders from a young age, it is quite simply no big deal. The same is true for families of nudists. What is the big deal about nudity, and about some a child somehow being ‘harmed’ by seeing an nude adult of the opposite gender?!

MENU