Disney

[CatOfDaVille]

Uh it's pretty clear in the actual bible..Bible... thanks

It's not clear though when you interpret the text properly considering context and culture. There was not even the concept of sexual preference when the Bible was written. Yes, it condemns acts of sexual immorality, but just like condemning adultery does not condemn heterosexuality in totality, condemning immoral homosexual acts such as pederasty and Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't condemn homosexuality in its entirety.

Furthermore, unless you believe that homosexuality is a choice or mental illness, then a loving God would not create beings without the ability to love another human of their choosing.

Respectfully, I understand why you have this view as I was taught the same things growing up. I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[American Dragon]

The Bible is very clear, homosexual acts are a sin. We aren't to hate homosexuals, nor mistreat them. A sin though? It is biblically speaking. That has nothing to do with culture. It's still a sin. As is adultery and other forms of sexual immorality.

And that's your interpretation, which many Biblical scholars will disagree with.

 

[Beatle Bum]

No it's not clear based on many interpretations from Biblical scholars that have much more experience with hermeneutics than you or I.

And, yet, it is clear based upon the readings of many Biblical scholars that have much more experience with hermeneutics that you or I. In fact, the theological interpretation that you suggest is a relatively new exposition. You may want to consider why that is.

That all said, there is not one who posts here who does not have sexual sin in their life history. Not one. Sin that is promoted and accepted, in many cases, by culture. And, the idea that one sin is somehow more notorious than others is not Biblical, but rather is corruptive.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Furthermore, unless you believe that homosexuality is a choice or mental illness, then a loving God would not create beings without the ability to love another human of their choosing.

A lot of people want to declare what a loving God would or would not do. This hubris is foundational to our sin. “A loving God would never put a tree in the middle of the garden whose fruit would instigate separation and death.”

“A loving God would not create me to have a lustful eye if lusting is sinful.”

“A loving God would not have created sex to be so enjoyable if He did not want us to be the promiscuous seed spreaders we clearly are.”

“A loving God would never let sin hang His son on a cross.”

The idea that we get to apply our rationale to the God who knows how we are biologically and chemically knit together and who knows everything about everything is obviously absurd. If you look at culture, it is clear we do not understand love, let alone it’s depth or the one who created it, without whom it would not exist. So, the idea that we get to condemn God if our desired interpretation of His word is wrong is not an argument I can accept

 

[Laparkafan]

This thread should be renamed - stopped talking about Disney 5 pages ago and the off topic discourse continues

 

[ukalum1988]

 

[Beatle Bum]

This thread should be renamed - stopped talking about Disney 5 pages ago and the off topic discourse continues

You are describing most threads.

 

[PhDcat2018]

It's not clear though when you interpret the text properly considering context and culture. There was not even the concept of sexual preference when the Bible was written. Yes, it condemns acts of sexual immorality, but just like condemning adultery does not condemn heterosexuality in totality, condemning immoral homosexual acts such as pederasty and Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't condemn homosexuality in its entirety.

Furthermore, unless you believe that homosexuality is a choice or mental illness, then a loving God would not create beings without the ability to love another human of their choosing.

Respectfully, I understand why you have this view as I was taught the same things growing up. I don't want to turn this thread into a theological debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's cultural revisionist history that says it didn't mention homosexuality. Why do you think we have the crime of sodomy?? In Sodom and Gomorrah anal sex was prevalent. It was destroyed and we still aren't certain where it is.

 

[P19978]

Sold my Disney stock on Friday... let others support those groomers... cause I'm not

 

[SDC888]

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

How do you feel about alcohol?

Marijuana legalization is not a liberal issue. It has overwhelming bipartisan support.

Alcohol? I used to consume quite a bit of it. Don't need it anymore.
I'm OK with marijuana for medicinal purposes. But, still don't want it legalized for recreational uses. The reasons I've already stated previously.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences would disagree with you: "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." There is a correlation between marijuana use and other drug use, but study after study show no causation. Alcohol and nicotine show similar correlations to hard drug use as marijuana does, and yet they're both legal.

What keeping it illegal does do is direct those who use it to illegal dealers who will then push other substances. And keeping it illegal has been a massive failure in its own right, from a criminal justice point of view to it being a factor in the opioid epidemic.

If we set aside our puritanical beliefs and stop assuming drug use is a character flaw we might be surprised at the outcome of tightly regulated but legal or at least decriminalized drugs. Since Portugal has decriminalized drugs they've seen overdoses drop, HIV infections drop, and drug crime drop.

Do you think heroin or meth were the first drugs people tried? There is a progression to everything. You never hear of anyone who just started shooting up but have settled on smoking a little weed. That's not how it works in the real world.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

330+ million people live in the United States. If you want to pick and choose little pockets of society and claim they feel the same way you feel, that's fine I guess. Heck, sports gambling won't pass in KY because of a couple small town politicians, even though they seem to be okay with the lottery, horse racing, and March Madness brackets. I don't know what to say if you really believe that basically 166 million people in the US agree with you on homosexuality. National polling shows the opposite. Conversations "out in the wild" say the opposite. It just isn't an issue most are passionate about now days. I don't think you should be condemned for your opinion though.


Again, this seems like another outdated opinion/stance, but that's your right. One thing I noticed is you keep bringing up liberals. I haven't mentioned conservatives once during our conversation. You can accomplish more if you don't view things in the liberal/conservative spectrum.

I think you've seen that anti-weed commercial where the kids are high in the drive-thru and pull into the kid on the bicycle. That commercial isn't played anymore because it was mocked by the masses. That situation never happened. Making it legal doesn't give you the green light (so to speak) to be high and drive or to arrive at your job high or take a few tokes on your work break. If you treat it like alcohol (which is widely promoted and accepted) then most already know not to show up to work with alcohol on your breath or to use a forklift while drunk. How do you feel about pills? That's completely legal and has destroyed towns, many of which in this very state.

Anyway, at my job my boss is pretty straight laced. If weed became legal in KY, he'd probably laughingly make a remark to the company about not showing up high, and we'd all say "Yeah, I mean of course. That's a given." Your stances are just very Bill O'Reilly circa early 2000s when he was complaining for an hour every night about society.

You don't have to be a politician to see that liberals are the ones pushing the woke CRT, LGBTQ, trans, equity nonsense in the media, entertainment and in schools. It most certainly isn't conservatives. I'm just calling like I and most everyone else see's it. Liberals even like to call themselves "progressives" which is IMO a misuse of the word. There is nothing "progressive" about the notion that men can become women or give birth. That's the domain of liberal thinking and Disney is all aboard with that garbage.
And yes, the majority of Americans are not onboard with these far-left ideas. How do I know this? Look no further than the response that is brewing to Disney going full on wacko with their attempts to push the gay-trans agenda on children. It's perverse and immoral. People are turning their TV's off and in several cases, becoming active in their local schools to stop this stuff. It's sad it took so long because radical liberalism has a pretty solid hold on education. It's going to take a major effort to change things after all this time. But, hopefully it will happen.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

You're missing the point. It's that people are complaining about minorities of any sort being overrepresented, but those same people never say a peep when white people are overrepresented. I didn't hear them complaining when The Last Samurai was whitewashed with Tom Cruise as the lead, after all.

Why is it bad for minorities to be overrepresented when all was good for the complainers when it is/was white people being overrepresented? If overrepresentation of any one group is bad, then it should be bad for all, not just bad when it's minorities being overrepresented.

For the record, I don't really care about rather one group is overrepresented in tv shows or movies. I just want good content and for the actor representing the role to be be authentic for the role - like if the movie is a biopic of MLK Jr. or Jackie Robinson, the actor portraying them. better damn well be black. Or if it's a movie is about the first woman being the first one to do a certain thing, well then the main character better damn well be a woman.


So then I assume you support adding alcohol to the banned substance list?

I don't see how it is possible for anyone to make the argument that whites are being overrepresented when they make up 2/3rd's of the US population. But again those making that claim are the ones who sit around and count heads.
Are people complaining about whites being overrepresented in the NBA or NFL? Surely not. Both of those leagues are minority driven and a lot of whites watch pro sports.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Furthermore, unless you believe that homosexuality is a choice or mental illness...

That is exactly what I believe. People that cheat on their wives make a conscious decision to do something they know is wrong. Same for those that make a career of selling drugs or stealing cars. All decisions made even though the person committing the act knows it isn't normal behavior.
Just because someone wants or enjoys stealing, are we now going to say that thievery is OK and we should all just accept and condone it?

 

[IdaCat]

Do you democrats really support this? Put your feelers aside and think about what this means.

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Do you democrats really support this? Put your feelers aside and think about what this means.

Ugh. That's child abuse and it's disgusting. But, the same group are OK killing unborn children so, it's hard to be surprised.
60 million since Roe v. Wade.
American holocaust.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

Do you democrats really support this? Put your feelers aside and think about what this means.

Absolutely, I support it 100%. Hormone treatment among minors is a completely reversible intervention that prevents the irreversible effects of puberty, until a person has reached an age at which they're able to make decisions on permanent things like surgery, or going off the hormone treatments to allow natural puberty to happen. These treatments are backed by medical science and the opposition to them is purely ideological.

I support it because I think. Because the evidence, the research, points to this being the most advantageous thing for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Most opposition to it is based on feelings, not facts, not logic. It's based on feeling that it's unnatural, feeling that it's icky, feeling that it's wrong, feeling that it's sinful. It's based on feelings like fear, like disgust.

 

[ukcatz12]

Do you think heroin or meth were the first drugs people tried? There is a progression to everything. You never hear of anyone who just started shooting up but have settled on smoking a little weed. That's not how it works in the real world.

So does "facts not feelings" apply here or no? Study after study show no causal link between marijuana and other drugs. There's a correlation because marijuana is the easiest to find and most accessible drug. The exact same correlation exists with alcohol and nicotine, but those are both legal. There's a correlation because all three are easy to find, but there's no causation that shows marijuana, alcohol, or nicotine causes other hard drug use.

 

[Beatle Bum]

The side effects and the safety of puberty blockers are not completely understood. There may be long- term risks that are not yet known. Science also informs that the great majority of kids suffering from gender dysphoria will identify with their biological sex as they go through puberty. So, halting puberty could actually prolong the hardships of gender dysphoria.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

The side effects and the safety of puberty blockers are not completely understood. There may be long- term risks that are not yet known. Science also informs that the great majority of kids suffering from gender dysphoria will identify with their biological sex as they go through puberty. So, halting puberty could actually prolong the hardships of gender dysphoria.

That is a decision that should be made by patients, their parents, and their doctors - not the government.

 

[phunterd]

8 year old wants to get a tattoo, a pack of cigarettes, or a bottle of bourbon? Nah, you’re not old enough

8 year old wants to mutilate their body and reprogram their endocrine system? Yes, by all means!

Certifiably insane at best. Nefarious at worst.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

8 year old wants to get a tattoo, a pack of cigarettes, or a bottle of bourbon? Nah, you’re not old enough

8 year old wants to mutilate their body and reprogram their endocrine system? Yes, by all means!

Certifiably insane at best. Nefarious at worst.

You are angry about a thing that doesn't exist. Surgery is rarely performed under age 18 and never under age 16, and transition hormones are not given before age 16. Fully reversible puberty blockers are the only thing given under age 16, and definitely aren't something 8 year olds are on.

 

[phunterd]

You are angry about a thing that doesn't exist. Surgery is rarely performed under age 18 and never under age 16, and transition hormones are not given before age 16. Fully reversible puberty blockers are the only thing given under age 16, and definitely aren't something 8 year olds are on.

So you would have no issue with legislation banning the practice of said procedures on children under 16? Since it never happens.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

So you would have no issue with legislation banning the practice of said procedures on children under 16? Since it never happens.

I wouldn't support it, as I don't want the government involved in such medical decision making and trust the doctors following medical science to make those decisions with their patients, but all the relevant laws we're talking about DO ban the puberty blockers. Your hypothetical is not relevant.

 

[phunterd]

I wouldn't support it,

That’s all you needed to say because that says enough.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

That’s all you needed to say because that says enough.

Well the important thing is you successfully deflected from being called on creating hysterical fictions to be outraged about, and from discussion of the actual legislation being debated and passed.

 

[SDC888]

Those medications are not without potential serious life altering side effects, and delayed puberty is not without its own consequences, never mind all the psychological trauma for people who simply changed their mind or regretted their decision.

Which is the (a) fundamental problem with this agenda that seeks to promote "transgender" (meaningless term, it's not possible to change your gender you are assigned born as), the more you glamorize and popularize it to children, the more ruined lives and suicides you are going to have for every successful, and highly profitable might I add, "treatment" of gender dysphoria mental disorder.

Children are dumb and impressionable, lacking foresight or full appreciation for consequences and the severity of their actions, especially at that formative age. You are promoting a psychological contagion that will hurt more people than it helps.

 

[80 Proof]

creating hysterical fictions to be outraged about

Like having a donger and thinking you're a girl?

 

[Ron Mehico]

. These treatments are backed by medical science and the opposition to them is purely ideological.

I dunno about that one. There’s no way they have long-term meta-analysis studies on these treatments yet. Completely blocking the brain and bodies hormone release during puberty seems like it could have some massive systemic side effects that are unforeseen or no known about yet. Seems kinda nuts to be a parent and want your kid to be one of the early test subjects of this treatment.

 

[Dig Dirkler]

Pedos support puberty blockers.

Can’t have their victims getting more mature

 

[PhDcat2018]

Do you democrats really support this? Put your feelers aside and think about what this means.

That's absolutely disgusting.

 

[PhDcat2018]

Pedos support puberty blockers.

Can’t have their victims getting more mature

Anything to normalize sexuality/gender dysphoria in children.

 

[Beatle Bum]

and trust the doctors following medical science to make those decisions with their patients

 

[jameslee32]

Sold my Disney stock on Friday... let others support those groomers... cause I'm not

The market was open on Good Friday? Good to know.

 

[jameslee32]

How do you know it's a majority?

Because 1964 was 58 years ago.

 

[jameslee32]

If only this had happened in Florida.

 

[PhDcat2018]

Because 1964 was 58 years ago.

Still not actual proof

 

[IdaCat]

Absolutely, I support it 100%. Hormone treatment among minors is a completely reversible intervention that prevents the irreversible effects of puberty, until a person has reached an age at which they're able to make decisions on permanent things like surgery, or going off the hormone treatments to allow natural puberty to happen. These treatments are backed by medical science and the opposition to them is purely ideological.

I support it because I think. Because the evidence, the research, points to this being the most advantageous thing for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Most opposition to it is based on feelings, not facts, not logic. It's based on feeling that it's unnatural, feeling that it's icky, feeling that it's wrong, feeling that it's sinful. It's based on feelings like fear, like disgust.

Halting puberty is not safely, completely reversible. It is an extremely radical intervention and can affect growth, bone density, fertility, and genital development to name a few documented warnings. I think most children who have what may be considered signs of gender dysphoria grow out of it.

To think you can turn off a child's natural development with drugs and then turn it back on years later without problems is naïve at best.

Gender dysphoria is rare, but it's currently all the rage among liberals. Yes, it is blind ideological enthusiasm to be all in on this without even considering what you are doing long term to a child.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

Halting puberty is not safely, completely reversible. It is an extremely radical intervention and can affect growth, bone density, fertility, and genital development to name a few documented warnings. I think most children who have what may be considered signs of gender dysphoria grow out of it.

To think you can turn off a child's natural development with drugs and then turn it back on years later without problems is naïve at best.

Gender dysphoria is rare, but it's currently all the rage among liberals. Yes, it is blind ideological enthusiasm to be all in on this without even considering what you are doing long term to a child.

It's fitting you use a phrase like "all the rage." All the rage is coming from conservatives making war on trans kids to score political points. I wouldn't think much at all about trans people except in response to all the rage coming from conservatives.