I found this map, I don't live in NH (Florida but family might move), whats going on in New Hampshire regarding Transgender people (I'm trans)Wiked_Pissah t1_jdde4db wrote
Sadly, it is a horrifically bigoted state. Massachusetts is a far safer bet for someone moving from a hate state. There are too many idiots up here that think it is ok to push their belief on others. Spineless cowards, really. Instead of actually educating themselves, they just listen to the hate/fear echo chambers that tell them Democrats want to eat their babies and take their guns. Stupid is as stupid does.
vexingsilence t1_jde3gi8 wrote
>There are too many idiots up here that think it is ok to push their belief on others.
Isn't that what "Pride" did?
Wiked_Pissah t1_jde4hff wrote
Was anyone at a Pride rally saying "you shouldn't be straight. Straight people bad!" ?
Nope, they weren't. Because that is not something the LGBTQ community believes. However, the hate loving, fear mongering bigots on the other hand...
vexingsilence t1_jde6655 wrote
But the rainbow folks are forcing their beliefs. They demanded marriage rights, for example. The majority of the US did not share the belief that marriage was appropriate for same-sex individuals. Look at the former head of Mozilla/Firefox as an example. He was ousted from the company for having made a tiny donation to support "traditional marriage". You may not agree with others' interpretation of what marriage is, but they are entitled to have those beliefs.
Anyone being forced to take DEI training by their employers is experiencing the thrill of beliefs being pushed onto them. Who do you think pushed to make such training necessary?
I'm not even looking at this from a right/wrong perspective. I just think it's laughable to not be able to recognize what one side has done versus the other.
lellololes t1_jder6ly wrote
Same sex marriage is something between two people. Allowing them to get married does not affect anybody else in any way whatsoever. How is that "forcing their beliefs" on anyone else?
You may or may not have the same belief of what marriage is as another person, but you are also not being forced in to marrying anyone at all.
I do not understand how some people can claim this is a logical argument.
Person A says marriage is between a man and a woman
Person B says it is between two people
If person A doesn't regard person Bs marriage as valid, it does not affect them at all.
Well, I think that many people with religion are wrong. Now, forcing my belief (or lack thereof in this case) upon them would be to say that they can not practice any religion. But I believe in the freedom of religion, so while I may not agree with your personal beliefs, I am not imposing them on you.
Those are precisely the same argument.
If you're religious, your church can marry whoever it wants to and not be willing to marry whoever. I don't care about that. If you are a member of a church that only recognizes heterosexual marriages, that's fine. People that aren't can simply go somewhere else and get married.
vexingsilence t1_jdesnsy wrote
> How is that "forcing their beliefs" on anyone else?
I imagine many would see it as an erosion of the concept of marriage, since we're talking about beliefs. Next up, polygamy, incest, etc. At some point the word and the concept is meaningless. Personally, I think we should just get government out of it altogether. Document who you want to be able to visit you if you're in the hospital, who gets the kiddos, etc.
​
>Now, forcing my belief (or lack thereof in this case) upon them would be to say that they can not practice any religion.
Try having prayer time in a public school.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdeu8xm wrote
No, marriage is a state institution. If it had been separated and there were no sanctioned benefits from being legally married and it was exclusively a religious union it would be a different discussion.
vexingsilence t1_jdew558 wrote
Marriage isn't exclusively a state institution. I don't believe there's any law that says you can't call yourself married unless it was a state recognized marriage. Just because the state latched on, doesn't mean it's not a matter of belief for many people.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdeybe9 wrote
There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon, not to force the religious concept of marriage to include nontraditional concepts. Implied rights are easier given than relinquished, so we can't just remove all state sanctioned benefits of marriage to promote equality.
The Church is still able to deny facilitating the marriage in the eyes of God. It is worth noting that with the decreasing participation in organized religion, it has become increasingly tolerant (on the whole) of marginalized groups which is a trend I expect to continue.
vexingsilence t1_jdgooiu wrote
>There are benefits that come from being married in the eyes of the state which is what the issue of gay marriage is predicated upon
Right, which as I said elsewhere, could have been handed over to individuals to determine for themselves. Custody of children, medical proxy, inheritance, and so on. Would be a lot more flexible to not even have a concept of marriage and just let people determine these things as they wish. Maybe designate a default person if one doesn't want to spend time on it. But nah, lets double down on this concept of marriage so we can clog the courts with an ever increasing number of divorces and family squabbles.
But again, this was about pushing beliefs. If I remember right, NH had civil unions before marriages. But that wasn't enough, because.. it was a different term. The left wanted to enforce the belief by using the same term, there was no other reason to push at that point. It had the same legal recognition and rights.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdgy71g wrote
No, there were and are legal distinctions between civil union and marriage defined at the federal level
vexingsilence t1_jdi11tk wrote
This was many years ago, but as I recall, the feds were accommodating civil unions.
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdjq1ww wrote
Irrelevant as were are significant benefits granted by the state by marriage that are not extended to civil unions.
vexingsilence t1_jdlfsaj wrote
English not your first language?
FlyingLemurs76 t1_jdlue0h wrote
It is actually. Are you from NH originally? Our schools are usually pretty good about teaching critical thinking skills, but I suppose you could have been homeschooled or something.
lellololes t1_jdew1zh wrote
>I imagine many would see it as an erosion of the concept of marriage, since we're talking about beliefs. Next up, polygamy, incest, etc. At some point the word and the concept is meaningless. Personally, I think we should just get government out of it altogether. Document who you want to be able to visit you if you're in the hospital, who gets the kiddos, etc.
Slippery slope logical fallacy, irrelevant. Marriage the legal construct is basically a restricted version of your stated preference. The touchy Feely stuff about the "erosion" of marriage is the sort of argument used against allowing all adults to vote without restriction. Every time rights are expanded, some of the already privelidged class react against that expansion of rights.
Prayer in a public school also shouldn't be an issue. It shouldn't be happening except on an individual level. Separation of church and state and all that. For those parents who would prefer that there is prayer in school, how would they feel if the school forced their child to participate in a prayer from a different religion? Now, what accommodations should schools offer to students that have different religious beliefs - there is room for debate there.
If the parent wishes for their child to experience prayer in school they can send them to a private religious school. I understand that there have been gray areas on this topic - school is an entity that collides with the rest of the world at times after all, but the majority of cases of prayer in schools are very much a separation of church and state issue.
vexingsilence t1_jdgoaqf wrote
>The touchy Feely stuff about the "erosion" of marriage is the sort of argument used against allowing all adults to vote without restriction.
We shouldn't allow all adults to vote. It's the right of citizens, you're only allowed to vote in each election once, you have to be voting in the correct location, etc. Talk about a slippery slope, you built your argument on one apparently.
​
>Separation of church and state and all that.
No such thing. The state can't demand that you be religious, but it doesn't have to run screaming away from religion either. Christmas as a federal holiday, anyone? But this is just an example of the lack of awareness that beliefs are pushed from both sides, not from just one side as was alleged. Can't have God in school, that's offensive therefore my belief that there is no God is more important than other people's belief that there is or might be!
Wiked_Pissah t1_jde9yof wrote
The LGBTQ community are not "forcing" their views on anyone. They are simply asking for the respect to love who they want to love. As for the DEI training, sorry you have to be forced to respect other people by your employer. Most employers also have sexual harassment training. Do you spitefully hate women for them daring to ask to be respected in the workplace? I hope not. Why is it it different for someone that is Gay or Trans? They aren't forcing you to watch them make out with someone. They aren't forcing you to kiss another man. Does it really hurt your manhood to have to show respect to someone, regardless of their sexual orientation? Man, woman, gay, trans- everyone deserves to be respected and allowed to be who they want to be. But they don't get the right to tell someone else how they should live their life.
vexingsilence t1_jdecrqv wrote
>They are simply asking for the respect to love who they want to love.
No, they demanded marriage rights. Not the same thing. There was no ban on homosexuality.
>Why is it it different for someone that is Gay or Trans? They aren't forcing you to watch them make out with someone.
Then you'd have to ask why DEI training is even a thing. People shouldn't be displaying their sexuality in the workplace. Yet at many companies, that's actually a thing. They have "resource groups" or something similar. Baffles my mind to see how that's appropriate in a workplace. Love whoever you want (other than children, your own relatives, and a few other exceptions), but don't become a nuisance about it in the workplace.
>Does it really hurt your manhood to have to show respect to someone
Why can't you respect traditionalists? Even liberal Boston had a problem with this. This was battled for years with the St Patrick's Day parade. Why couldn't the pride folks respect the wishes of the parade organizers?
>Man, woman, gay, trans- everyone deserves to be respected and allowed to be who they want to be. But they don't get the right to tell someone else how they should live their life.
Again, this works both ways. This gets back to the situation with the baker that got sued for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The "customer" tried to force this on the baker and ultimately lost. This is the lack of self-awareness that I'm poking at here.
Wiked_Pissah t1_jdefpj1 wrote
It baffles me that you see someone wanting to have the right to marry whoever they want as somehow infringing on your life. Wow. Just wow.
As for DEI training, is your HR dept saying you have to watch gay porn in the workplace? I'm pretty sure it is more about respect. Just like sexual harassment training isn't to teach you how to hit on your co-workers better. Let me explain it to you this way. If I wear a Metallica T-shirt to work one day, and you see it, it does not mean you have to wear a Metallica t-shirt also, or even like their music. I'll wear whatever the fuck I want to wear, within the established workplace guidelines, and you wear whatever the fuck you want to wear. I promise you I will not lose sleep over whatever t-shirt you wear to work. Ever!
As for the baker, were they being asked to adorn a cake topper of the couple having sex? Dildos and rainbows all over the cake? Or was the baker just being spiteful to someone that didn't share their particular religious views? It's such a stupid argument, I don't know why they didn't just go to a baker that was less of a bigot.
vexingsilence t1_jdel73n wrote
>It baffles me that you see someone wanting to have the right to marry whoever they want as somehow infringing on your life
Did I say that? My point was about forcing beliefs on others.
>I'm pretty sure it is more about respect.
Pretty sure it's more than that. If you respect others, they'll tend to respect you. No training required.
​
>Or was the baker just being spiteful to someone that didn't share their particular religious views?
Or was the "customer" being spiteful to someone that didn't share their beliefs? It's the same damn question either way. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
Wiked_Pissah t1_jdf13ks wrote
You are the one that brought up marriage rights, are you not? Or did you forget that already. Because all the marriage rights act is about is letting a person marry another person. Period. You apparently are against that or you wouldn't have made it a point. Bottom. Line- people should be allowed to marry who they want, and YOU, or anyone else, shouldn't have the right to tell them they can't based on so.e archaic religious or whatever BS reason you have for being a bigot. If you want a different perspective, try focusing your attention span long enough and watch this. Afterwards, think about what it means to marginalize 20% of the population.
vexingsilence t1_jdgoz69 wrote
>people should be allowed to marry who they want
Including children, their sister, someone not mentally capable of making decisions, someone that's already married, a corpse..?
>Afterwards, think about what it means to marginalize 20% of the population.
Wasn't arguing the right and wrong of it, was arguing that Pride was pushing a belief onto others. You can't possibly think that the majority of the population went along willingly, because wow, would that be some revisionist history.
Wiked_Pissah t1_jdi9ume wrote
Wow, you're really reaching on this one. Yes, if a corpse wants to marry another corpse, then they should go for it. Dust to dust. Ashes to ashes. Like most bigots, you live to twist things to your narrative, so I will spell it out for you. If a man wants to marry another man, or a woman wants to marry another woman, let them! It's not going to hurt your manhood. If your sole reason for them to not be allowed to marry is their gender and they are legally allowed to do it, why do you fucking care if they do or not?
And I would love to hear how exactly a Pride event is forcing people to be gay. Is it that magical pixie dust? Lady Gaga oreos they throw out to the crowd? Oh, please share your theories. I can't wait to hear this. 🤣🤣🤣
vexingsilence t1_jdibm4l wrote
This was about forcing beliefs onto others, marriage is an example of that force coming from the left. Like I said elsewhere, I'm not interested in an argument over right and wrong, I'm just pointing out the fact that forcing beliefs is not unique to the right, it's probably more prevalent from the left.. even if they refuse to recognize it.
Wiked_Pissah t1_jdj44ag wrote
But I still don't see how they are forcing anything on you. If two people want to get married, who is saying you have to do the same? It makes absolutely no sense. All they are asking for is to be able to do what makes THEM happy. It literally has absolutely nothing to do with you. Even if you got I vited to the wedding ( however incredibly unlikely that would be) you could always say no. They wouldn't be forcing you at gun point to watch them get married.
vexingsilence t1_jdj99m4 wrote
They are forcing their beliefs to take priority of the beliefs of others, which is where I began. These is a cost to society, which we all bare. The courts are clogged with divorce cases and family bickering, child custody disputes and so on. Employers bear the costs of benefits, etc. Again, I don't care about the right vs wrong argument here, I was merely contradicting this warped view that only the right forces their beliefs on others. That's clearly not the case.
Wiked_Pissah t1_jdjb10b wrote
Yes. The left want to be happy as well. This is a pointless argument because you are clearly biased against anyone that is LGBTQ and wants to be happy. I am sorry if some mean gay biker gang abducted you earlier in life and forced you to watch gay porn ala Clockwork Orange style. Someday I hope you can heal and learn to live and let live.
vexingsilence t1_jdje4mk wrote
>This is a pointless argument because you are clearly biased against anyone that is LGBTQ and wants to be happy.
Pointing out that there are associated costs to society and the fact that people were not terribly eager to change their beliefs if not for efforts like Pride and activist judges forcing it.. that shows a bias?
>Someday I hope you can heal and learn to live and let live.
Dispassionate observation is not a bad thing and doesn't define a person.
tyler_durden187 t1_jdfk15m wrote
See the news about the hockey player ? “Wear the fucking rainbow flag jersey and celebrate the gayness or your off the team!!”
Even had democrats in congress telling the guy to move back to the county he came from.
Doesn’t sound to accepting of the alphabet people.
Inannazami OP t1_jdf0pm8 wrote
Nice projection attempt. Take your meds.
vexingsilence t1_jdgoqek wrote
Nice deflection. I doubt anyone noticed.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments