Wynne wasting more time and money on ridiculous things.... | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Wynne wasting more time and money on ridiculous things....

Snobike Mike said:
<buncha gay conspiracy drivel>
Click to expand...

53260f28865d54903804dd9c9bfa801d.jpg
 
I'm sure the irony underlying this article will be missed by most but lets just talk about the surface issue - Transgender bathrooms are just another attack on the majority (yeah yeah, insert another tinfoil meme...)

State leader quits ACLU after daughters were ‘visibly frightened’ by men using women’s restroom

ATLANTA, May 31, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The African-American woman who leads a state chapter of the ACLU has resigned, citing her own daughters' “frightened” reaction to biological males using the women's restroom.

The organization's increasing focus on legislating the transgender lobby's concerns pushed Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, to tender her resignation.

“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered,” she wrote.

“My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer,” she continued.

In a statement, she said that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights.”

The “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore, she wrote, is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities." She did not elaborate on the group's funding.

Dillard Smith is no conservative. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a masters degree at Harvard, while working for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court.

She is a 2003 graduate of the program Emerge America, which states its “goal is clear: to increase the number of Democratic women in public office.”

But this self-described “progressive” who called herself “unapologetically black” cannot go along with the ACLU's transgender legal agenda.

Georgia was one of first 11 states suing the Obama administration over its controversial federal guidance requiring public schools and universities to allow transgender students to use the restrooms, showers, and overnight accommodations of the opposite biological sex.

The ACLU's North Carolina chapter is suing Gov. Pat McCrory for signing H.B. 2, which requires individuals use the restroom of the biological sex noted on their birth certificates in the lawsuit Carcano v. McCrory.
Click to expand...

And of course the Transgenders are enraged because their "rights" trump those of the rest of us (pay special attention to the part I bolded below)

Not surprisingly, transgender activists are not amused by Dillard Smith’s position.

“She did the right thing leaving the organization If she couldn’t defend our rights any better than that, she deserves to leave – she doesn’t need to be in that position,” Cheryl Courtney-Evans, of TILTT, told APN.

“I never went in a men’s room since I’ve been living my truth. What am I doing in a men’s room looking as luscious as I am, putting myself in danger?” she said.

http://thegavoice.com/georgia-aclu-l...bathroom-flap/
Click to expand...

But of course, nothing to worry about, the LGBTXYZ crew just wants to be left alone.....
 
FullMotoJacket said:
You seem to have trouble with logic, so memes it is.
Click to expand...

First it was a conspiracy problem, now its logic problems. Got it.

Since I'm so dense, please help me along. Why don't we start with the gender fluid movement. I'm assuming you subscribe to that as well and expect my unquestioning support thereof?
 
Dude, you can't catch the gay--either you are or you are not. Don't feel bad if you are, it is nature. Maybe you are feeling it a little bit and are bi, that is cool too. No need to overcompensate with the pretend hate, go with it.

If not, since you cannot catch it, why worry about it? Just tell your imaginary friend to get with the times, oppression is so outdated.

You better watch out, that gay Mafia is going to get you if you keep it up... BTW, Costco sells tinfoil in bulk, much cheaper that way--they even have the extra wide stuff.
 
Snobike Mike said:
Could you answer my questions tho? How does one "get" children if they don't adopt? (aside from the normal hetero way which of course doesn't apply to this special interest group....)
Click to expand...

Didn't you watch Loonie Toons? It's via stork.....duh....
 
Snobike Mike said:
Yes, that is the self-defeating irony of the "tolerance" bigotry argument. If one is truly tolerant they would welcome and accept dissension, but they aren't just "pointing it out". The gay movement has stubborn and complete intolerance of anybody that not only doesn't accept their lifestyle and law changing demands, and there is a strong undertone of needing to actively support their gay lifestyle to "prove" we're okay with their choices.

You are making an assertion that the gay rights movement is correct. Why is the gay movement infallibly correct and therefore not subjected to your posted definition of bigotry, but the anti-gay marriage/ gender fluid group is? Who is the arbiter of that?

And as you've noted, since gay marriage has been the law of the land for a decade, this lends further credence to my noting that they don't want equality but ultimately suppressive control. On the surface said special interest group at times will say all they want is to be equal and to be left alone. Well, they got their perverse gay marriage law, but they didn't stop there. We see continue changes or attempted changes to other laws such Justins latest gender fluid bills, Wynne's adoption law changes, Sex-Ed curriculum (glad to see Wynne is getting grief from a lot of parents on that one) etc.

There is no logical reason why 1.2% of the countries population should be given the grossly disproportionate amount of political or social "air time" they get. It's a political and control agenda and they will never stop. They are methodically advancing their agenda until people like me who oppose their agenda can and will be sanctioned severely.

And that's the thing about the "tolerant left", they are just as, or more intolerant than the "bigots" they label.
Click to expand...
I don't know where all these generalisations come from. I was pointing out the flaw in logic of calling backmarkerducati a bigot for pointing out bigotry, according to the definition of the word.

This may be about the "gay movement", suppression, control, rights, and all those broad brush notions for you, but it's not for me. Those types of arguments are impossible to discuss rationally because there is no explicit, definite, demonstrable arguments that can be attributed to the "movement". It's easy to label a box 'bad' and lump people into it who you disagree with but it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Understanding reality is usually hard. In fact our understanding is always imperfect. If your boxes filled with 'good' and 'bad' notions give you the impression of having a perfect conception of the world around you, you are deluding yourself.

So, to get back to my point. The 30% who voted to pursue restrictions against gay marriage are bigots, and pointing it out isn't bigotry. That is all.
 
fastar1 said:
So, to get back to my point. The 30% who voted to pursue restrictions against gay marriage are bigots, and pointing it out isn't bigotry. That is all.
Click to expand...

I try not to educate myself too much about official social issues because I'm all about "live and let live" and prefer to live with an unsullied mind so I probably need a tune up on this issue. What is it with these restrictions? These bigots don't want gays to marry or they want to restrict certain parts/privileges of the marriage contract? Are these bigots against gay unions? Can I marry a donkey?
 
fastar1 said:
I don't know where all these generalisations come from. I was pointing out the flaw in logic of calling backmarkerducati a bigot for pointing out bigotry, according to the definition of the word.

This may be about the "gay movement", suppression, control, rights, and all those broad brush notions for you, but it's not for me. Those types of arguments are impossible to discuss rationally because there is no explicit, definite, demonstrable arguments that can be attributed to the "movement". It's easy to label a box 'bad' and lump people into it who you disagree with but it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality. Understanding reality is usually hard. In fact our understanding is always imperfect. If your boxes filled with 'good' and 'bad' notions give you the impression of having a perfect conception of the world around you, you are deluding yourself.

So, to get back to my point. The 30% who voted to pursue restrictions against gay marriage are bigots, and pointing it out isn't bigotry. That is all.
Click to expand...

I disagree. His pointing out that 30% are bigots is based on 2 things, one is the notion that "they" are wrong (why do the progressives get to define right/wrong?), and the other is that "their" being wrong is 1950's which is being intolerant of their supposedly "1950's" views. But it didn't stop there, he then further indicated they shouldn't have voted that way and labeled them being oppressive. Put these all together and you have........bigotry.

Well they did vote that way and good for them, I support the 30% (and it's probably a lot more but they are just towing the party lines...)

In terms of the movement, why don't we trace just a few of the ever advancing steps they are taking:

1. Gay Marriage
2. Special Protection under Hate laws
3. New "identities" that somehow require definition and now further protections
4. Bathroom laws
5. Sex Ed curriculum
6. And on and on

The LGBT movement doesn't just want to live their lives and be left alone, they want to force the 98%+ majority to accept and celebrate it (as evidenced by the article I posted). If the "bigots" don't comply, they want severe sanctions.
 
inreb said:
Can I marry a donkey?
Click to expand...

First you have to be a gender fluid micro-minority, then you can marry whatever you want. And even better, you can force a Christian/Catholic/Muslim to perform the marriage ceremony, and if they refuse you can call them bigots and charge them with hate crimes!
 
There's so much questionable content in your reply, I really can't fathom the energy to try and seek clarification when you can't even concede your simplest misuse of the term 'bigot'. I can see such a discussion easily degrade into a series of dead-end biblical quotations. I'll just highlight the problems I have and why, and let you go on with your one-man rant about the people in your 'evil' box.

Snobike Mike said:
I disagree. His pointing out that 30% are bigots is based on 2 things, one is the notion that "they" are wrong (why do the progressives get to define right/wrong?) [No one does. Research 'culture'], and the other is that "their" being wrong is 1950's which is being intolerant [he's not trying to stop anything] of their supposedly "1950's" views [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBK2qGr9Eo]. But it didn't stop there, he then further indicated they shouldn't have voted that way and labeled them being oppressive [He clearly never said any such thing: http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?197138-Wynne-wasting-more-time-and-money-on-ridiculous-things&p=2416681&viewfull=1#post2416681 ]. Put these all together and you have........bigotry.

Well they did vote that way and good for them, I support the 30% (and it's probably a lot more but they are just towing the party lines...)

In terms of the movement, why don't we trace just a few of the ever advancing steps they are taking:

1. Gay Marriage
2. Special Protection under Hate laws
3. New "identities" that somehow require definition and now further protections
4. Bathroom laws
5. Sex Ed curriculum
6. And on and on
[... too much facepalm]

The LGBT movement doesn't just want to live their lives and be left alone [they do, as much as anyone else], they want to force the 98%+ majority to accept and celebrate it [yup, party or die...!] (as evidenced by the article I posted [broken link]). If the "bigots" don't comply, they want severe sanctions [as is standard for human rights violations].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I dont really understand why we care, who marries who. Maybe there is even a smaller percentage of divorce within the gay community.

@inreb, if you got caught having sex with a donkey in Indonesia you would indeed be forced to marry the donkey, then they would drown it in the ocean to purge the evil spirits. We can learn a lot from Indonesia and the village elders.
 
crankcall said:
I dont really understand why we care, who marries who. Maybe there is even a smaller percentage of divorce within the gay community.

@inreb, if you got caught having sex with a donkey in Indonesia you would indeed be forced to marry the donkey, then they would drown it in the ocean to purge the evil spirits. We can learn a lot from Indonesia and the village elders.
Click to expand...

If there is a separation of church and state then why is the government involved in marriage?
 
-D- said:
If there is a separation of church and state then why is the government involved in marriage?
Click to expand...

Marriage (or any form of civil union) has always been a legal contract. Way back in Mike's day it usually involved something to the effect of "I'll marry your daughter if you give me X number of goats."
 
fastar1 said:
There's so much questionable content in your reply, I really can't fathom the energy to try and seek clarification when you can't even concede your simplest misuse of the term 'bigot'. I can see such a discussion easily degrade into a series of dead-end biblical quotations. I'll just highlight the problems I have and why, and let you go on with your one-man rant about the people in your 'evil' box.
Click to expand...

We could start with just one issue then if there is so much wrong.

Why don't you pick one and we'll move through it.

If you don't want to, they why do we take a run at "gender fluid" and Justin's need to expand hate laws to "protect" them. Hmm, I guess I've noted more than one issue so lets start with one:

Do you believe that there is such a thing as "gender fluid" and why?
 
fastar1 said:
There's so much questionable content in your reply, I really can't fathom the energy to try and seek clarification when you can't even concede your simplest misuse of the term 'bigot'.
Click to expand...

big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Click to expand...

So it's bigotry to be against gay marriage, but it's not bigotry to be calling people names and be aghast at those who hold different and opposing opinions, such as marriage is between a man and a woman.

Put in another way, I must subscribe to the pro gay marriage position otherwise I'll be called names at best, or subject to potentially severe sanction at worst.

How tolerant of you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom