"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That makes no sense to me.

Transgenderism does not involve a claim that a person is biologically the opposite sex - but that they identify as such.

My belief that biological terms should not be redefined to satisfy someone's subjective perspective of themselves is not anti-LGBTQ - but pro-science.

Sounds like you're confusing gender identity with biological sex. They aren't the same thing.

This is a useful resource that may help you understand: Genderbread Person v4.0 » The Genderbread Person

A woman (gender identity) whose biological sex is male (biological sex) is a trans woman. A man (gender identity) whose biological sex is female (biological sex) is a trans man.

Because you know what you said makes no sense.

... to you.

Agree to disagree.

You disagree because you failed to understand what I was saying.

First off - coffee is bad for people. It makes them dependent. I don't need coffee in order to be coherent.

I didn't ask for your advice.

If I was describing your position in this thread, "coherent" is not a term I would use.

Next - I would not consider a person who believes that a temple sealing is not a "real" marriage to be anti-LDS.

That would be asinine.

It's not about you. My perspective is valid, even if it's one you don't share.

If that person were picketing outside of General Conference and claiming that all members of the LDS Church were going to Hell simply for being LDS - then I may believe that they are anti-LDS.

No one is anti-LDS for disagreeing with LDS doctrine.

I believe that to label someone as "anti-anything" would require some sort of negative action on their part.

Like all the negative action you've argued for in this thread?

For this reason I don't believe that someone telling a joke at the expense of African-Americans would make them racist.

So acting in a racist way isn't enough for you to recognize someone as racist? Bizarre.

I don't believe that someone who is unwilling to date a transgender person is anti-trans.

It's not about who you're willing to date; it's about whose humanity, identity and rights you're willing to acknowledge.

I don't believe that someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin is anti-homosexual.

I do.

You should quit coffee entirely if the lack of it causes you to share such ridiculous examples.

You should maybe try drinking some yourself if you keep missing the point in the posts you reply to.

Aw - I see.

"How I come across" is rather subjective - don't you think?

Sort of a "within the eye of the beholder" thing to say.

Sure. I'm sure we could find sone Anti-LGBTQ bigots who would read your posts here and consider you a stand-up guy.

Absolutely.

Then I'd hate to see how you'd treat an enemy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am truly confused - and disturbed - by your comment.

You're ignoring science to further and validate your narrative and world view that is based on your religion. More anti-lgbt rhetoric on your part.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First off - coffee is bad for people

Actually there are health benefits to be had from drinking coffee.

Next - I would not consider a person who believes that a temple sealing is not a "real" marriage to be anti-LDS.

Most people don't give one damn about it because it's your beliefs. If that it is your approach to marriage, most prone don't care as long as it's consensual. You're the one opposed to marriages dying for your personal religious beliefs. No one who believes differently than you should be expected to be legally beholden to your religious dogma.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is our innate imperfection, ignorance and weakness - which we are all born with - that causes us to commit sin.

You may sin, I do not. Those chains I am no longer shackled in. That burden is no longer a ball and chain around my ankle. It's your thing, not mine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where have you been? Why haven't you responded to our discussion on systemic oppression and African-Americans?

Because I don't see any of your arguments as being in good faith, and I don't see the point in educating someone unwilling to listen.

You believe that something being legal makes it right or moral?

Or somebody who gloriously misses the point. Like the above.

The point is that if you truly cared about the meaning of words you shouldn't call abortion "murder", because - by doing so - you are doing the exact thing you are accusing other people of: you are redefining a term to make it fit with how YOU feel it should be used. Pointing out that abortion isn't murder by definition is not a moral argument - it's about the definition of "murder".

That's the point. You were making an argument about "redefining words" while simultaneously "redefining words" yourself to fit your particular agenda. You want to call abortion murder because, to you, "murder" means "any killing that is bad". But that's NOT what murder means, so your whole argument about calling abortion "murder" because you feel calling it anything else is "redefining abortion" falls completely flat. If you understand the definition of murder, then you understand that abortion is NOT murder.

Unless, of course, you admit that words have meanings and definitions beyond simply what's in the dictionary. But admitting that completely undermines your entire argument. You're redefining terms in order to justify your argument that redefining terms is bad.

Marriage - as defined by God - is integral to the core doctrines of salvation and exaltation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I consider the redefinition of marriage to be - quite literally - a sign of the times that herald the end of our world and the Second Coming of the Messiah.

I don't care what you believe.

What matters to me is that your beliefs cannot be used as justification for limiting the rights of other groups, and I don't give two hoots if the LDS defines marriage one way or another. What I care about is the truth of what marriage actually constitutes, and the morality of treating homosexual relationships as equal, which trumps you or your religion's rights to have exclusive ownership of a word.

You clearly don't care about the definitions of words, until it comes to those words being used by a secular society to grant rights to groups you don't believe should be considered equal to you. Well, too bad. Your morality is inferior.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I don't understand what you're not getting here. And I think it's because you are creating your own definitions.

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction to a person of the same gender as oneself. Homosexual people may or may not engage in what you consider "homosexual behaviors."
Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. Pedophiles may or may not engage in "pedophilic behavior" such as molesting children. Not all pedophiles rape children, but all pedophiles are attracted to children.


I've pointed this out several times. As I've also pointed out before, I've studied this stuff in an academic setting and I can tell you that these are the accepted definitions of the terms we are using.
Your definitions are your own creations.

Are you denying the fact that you repeatedly equated the word pedophilia with the action of raping children?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Because I don't see any of your arguments as being in good faith, and I don't see the point in educating someone unwilling to listen.

You and have disagree on the meaning of the term "good faith".

I responded to every one of your comments. I discussed the sources you provided and provided my own.

I offered up facts to support my conclusions.

Or somebody who gloriously misses the point. Like the above.

The point is that if you truly cared about the meaning of words you shouldn't call abortion "murder", because - by doing so - you are doing the exact thing you are accusing other people of: you are redefining a term to make it fit with how YOU feel it should be used. Pointing out that abortion isn't murder by definition is not a moral argument - it's about the definition of "murder".

That's the point. You were making an argument about "redefining words" while simultaneously "redefining words" yourself to fit your particular agenda. You want to call abortion murder because, to you, "murder" means "any killing that is bad". But that's NOT what murder means, so your whole argument about calling abortion "murder" because you feel calling it anything else is "redefining abortion" falls completely flat. If you understand the definition of murder, then you understand that abortion is NOT murder.

Unless, of course, you admit that words have meanings and definitions beyond simply what's in the dictionary. But admitting that completely undermines your entire argument. You're redefining terms in order to justify your argument that redefining terms is bad.

If you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder.

The fact is that killing the unborn has always been murder.

I am arguing against the redefining of murdering the unborn as "abortion".

My argument here is basically the same one I am making with the word marriage.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman - therefore - any lifelong contracts not involving a man and woman are not marriages.

Killing the unborn has always been murder - therefore - whether or not the mother wants the unborn child is irrelevant.

I don't care what you believe.

Now that is some "good faith" right there.

What matters to me is that your beliefs cannot be used as justification for limiting the rights of other groups, and I don't give two hoots if the LDS defines marriage one way or another.

I don't believe that anyone's rights should be limited.

What I care about is the truth of what marriage actually constitutes, and the morality of treating homosexual relationships as equal, which trumps you or your religion's rights to have exclusive ownership of a word.

What marriage "actually" constitutes - according to you. Right?

All throughout human history marriage has been between a man and a woman and it's chief purpose was for making children.

Homosexuals have every right to enter into a lifelong contract - but it cannot be a marriage.

It is not me or my religion that set that precedent - but all of human history.

You clearly don't care about the definitions of words, until it comes to those words being used by a secular society to grant rights to groups you don't believe should be considered equal to you. Well, too bad. Your morality is inferior.

This isn't even about morality at this point.

Marriage is between men and women.

Killing an unborn child is murder.

These are simply facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you denying the fact that you repeatedly equated the word pedophilia with the action of raping children?

I've clarified and explained this numerous times now.

It's quite simple:

Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children.
Some pedophiles rape children.
Some pedophiles do not rape children.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You and have disagree on the meaning of the term "good faith".

I responded to every one of your comments. I discussed the sources you provided and provided my own.

I offered up facts to support my conclusions.

If you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder.

The fact is that killing the unborn has always been murder.

I am arguing against the redefining of murdering the unborn as "abortion".

My argument here is basically the same one I am making with the word marriage.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman - therefore - any lifelong contracts not involving a man and woman are not marriages.

Killing the unborn has always been murder - therefore - whether or not the mother wants the unborn child is irrelevant.


Now that is some "good faith" right there.

I don't believe that anyone's rights should be limited.

What marriage "actually" constitutes - according to you. Right?

All throughout human history marriage has been between a man and a woman and it's chief purpose was for making children.

Homosexuals have every right to enter into a lifelong contract - but it cannot be a marriage.

It is not me or my religion that set that precedent - but all of human history.

This isn't even about morality at this point.

Marriage is between men and women.

Killing an unborn child is murder.

These are simply facts.

Except that it is.

So

 

[columbus]

This isn't even about morality at this point.

Marriage is between men and women.

Killing an unborn child is murder.

These are simply facts.

Those aren't even true statements, much less facts.

Both are your personal opinions about what should be. But it's not.
Tom

 

[metis]

The fact is that killing the unborn has always been murder.

"Murder" is a legal term, thus here in the States, since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as "murder". OTOH, killing an unborn child it is.

Also, in the OT, one causing a woman to miscarry is also not considered "murder" because the maximum penalty for causing a miscarriage is a heavy fine, not stoning.

Language is used to communicate, but it's hard to do that if everyone just invents their own language and word-meanings.

 

[Skwim]

"Murder" is a legal term, thus here in the States, since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as "murder". OTOH, killing an unborn child it is.

Agreed that murder is a legal term, but where is abortion legally defined as "killing an unborn child," and therefore considered to be an act of murder?

.

 

[columbus]

OTOH, killing an unborn child it is.

Agreed that murder is a legal term, but where is abortion legally defined as "killing an unborn child," and therefore considered to be an act of murder?

Metis, your grammar was unclear.
"OTOH, it is killing an unborn child" would have been better.

When you're dealing with feticide rights people you need to excruciatingly correct.
Tom

 

[metis]

Agreed that murder is a legal term, but where is abortion legally defined as "killing an unborn child," and therefore considered to be an act of murder?

.

Abortion is really not "legally" defined as such, so the answer has to be no.

 

[Skwim]

Abortion is really not "legally" defined as such, so the answer has to be no.

Then what does the "is" in "OTOH, killing an unborn child it is." refer to? Killing an unborn child it is what?

.

 

[columbus]

Killing an unborn child it is what?

Destroying a human being.
Tom

 

[metis]

Then what does the "is" in "OTOH, killing an unborn child it is." refer to? Killing an unborn child it is what?

.

... killing an unborn child.

However, that child does not have constitutional rights under the rule of law here in the States.

 

[Skwim]

... killing an unborn child.

So, "OTOH, killing an unborn child it is killing an unborn child." Nice tautology.

.

 

[columbus]

So, "OTOH, killing an unborn child it is killing an unborn child." Nice tautology.

.

You asked what a word in his sentence referred to. He told you.
The tautology is entirely between your ears.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

You asked what a word in his sentence referred to. He told you.
The tautology is entirely between your ears.
Tom

When someone says "killing an unborn child it is killing an unborn child," (X is X), it amounts to a tautology. But if this still confounds you let's take a look at what metis said.

SENTENCE 1

"'Murder' is a legal term, thus here in the States, since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as 'murder.'"

To paraphrase a bit

Part 1) Murder is a legal term. Okay

Part 2) Therefore, abortion cannot be classified as "murder" because it's legal. Okay. But just to note; while the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise.​

SENTENCE 2

"OTOH, killing an unborn child it is."

Inspection

1) "OTOH," acronym for "on the other hand."

"used when you are comparing two different facts or two opposite ways of thinking about a situation:"
Source: Cambridge Dictionary ​

So the question is; just what is killing an unborn child different from? It can't be murder because this was already made clear when Metis said "since abortion is legal, it simply cannot be classified as "murder". Hence my question, " Killing an unborn child it is what?" Murder was already been ruled out, and, as I've pointed out, killing an unborn child is an unborn child amounts to a tautology. So what else does metis have in mind?

From your post this is evidently quite apparent to you, so please share.

I await.

.