Search results for query: *

I found his post at the top of the page pretty informative actually and I'm curious as to how it's factually wrong or misleading. Ah I see you've edited, so if you fear that further discussion will end up in you getting banned I don't want to pressure you.

Society has the right, based on the common good, to impose standards of hygiene on communities whose self-regulated standards of hygiene are not up to the level necessary to curb the spread of disease. Is that an accurate description of the principle you're invoking?

Old school gays probably remember that exact same description being used on them.

Call it a human rights travesty: that way the initials still work.

If you have multiple unrelated reasons for "attacking" homosexuality, you can admit to being wrong about one of your reasons without admitting to being wrong about all your reasons. You are wrong about the fetish reason, because of what a fetish is. You can admit this and still be against...

The Supreme Court is different, though, in that there is no superior court. So it makes sense for precedent to be less binding on the one level that doesn't have any alternate route for people to take within the court system when a decision needs reversing.

So in other words (if I understand you correctly) yes, if science could give them the complete sexual organs of the reassigned sex (along with the rest) you'd accept the change. But it currently cannot and therefore you do not. Thanks for answering. However, I'm not sure I understand what you...

That's kind of a non sequitur to whether the mutilation is or is not a lie.

But (for example, and using your term) after a T who claims to be a woman sets about altering their physical form to be that of a woman—once that transformation is as complete as it's going to get, and certainly closer in shape to female than male, what's the basis for saying they are still a...

In their personal capacity, sure; in their professional capacity, what about when Zuckerberg is doing the discriminating? I don't get why you are treating "alter" as "lie". So it's just a matter of insufficient science/technology for you? If they could make the change more complete you'd be...

All right. So we have people who are approximately male or female, people who don't quite fit all the criteria but who come close enough that we consider them male or female. I certainly agree with the idea that people don't get to wake up and say "I'm feeling male today" and force everyone...

What standard do you apply to determine sex? Chromosomes or flesh or something else?

So essentially, where there is a lack of evidence-based consensus on religious questions, there is no justification for the state to pick winners and losers. If your religion was as (relatively) well-supported as you think then it would have won by now. I certainly agree that we have no choice...

It does not sum up to that if you can muster an argument based on reason and evidence and not faith for whatever you're advocating. If you cannot, why does your faith trump someone else's faith that opposes your proposal? Fun fact, it was only in 2018 that a federal law concerning commercial...

Generally speaking, a law that applies to all people must be justifiable on secular grounds because to justify it on religious grounds is to privilege such religion over religions that oppose the same law. The same restriction would apply to "pseudo-religious progressivism", I suppose. So it's...

Well, politically speaking maybe Trump had to let Pence do stuff because he needed Pence's expertise, or in order to present the appearance of a good working relationship, or because of tradition, or whatever. But what I was trying to get at was, what does Trump constitutionally have to let...

King Arts has a point about Pence, though: in terms of administrative power, he was completely at Trump's mercy the entire time he wasn't acting in his capacity as President of the Senate.

"The only way out is through" doesn't seem like the right metaphor for when you're concerned about heading into immorality. Think of a low traction environment like an icy road. You don't get out of that by acting as if you had the normal amount of control. You accept that inertia is taking you...

I feel like any attempt to question that claim would necessarily lead to a derail.

Studies aren't the only source of evidence. I want something that you think should be sufficient to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you. Please note that this would rule out arguments based on a religious faith that I do not share with you. Do you have anything that you think...