jross

You understand the point. For clarity, I support same-sex marriage. My posts were to provide context as to why religious folks were and assumedly still might be against it.

100% This is a Tyranny of Words and framing exercise. Some religious folks felt that same-sex folks were imposing on the religious sanctimony of the word 'marriage.' Some same-sex folks felt that religious folks were against equal government rights by proposing alternative language, 'civil unions.' Some in this group didn't understand that 'civil union' was a replacement verbiage for all marriages. (similar to legislation that aims to replace 'illegal alien' with 'undocumented immigrant.') This misunderstanding likely contributes to the disconnect and 'separate but equal' statement from @ThreePointTakedown.

You asked how a same-sex marriage affects one's non-same-sex marriage. I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs. And I explained it from a religious perspective. Did I say that I am against people's rights? (no) More about religion in America. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx 72% of Americans believe religion is important. 70% of Americans are Christian. Christians use the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible has a clear judgment on same-sex coupling. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Leviticus 20:13 > If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Romans 1:26-27 > Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Note: A minority of Christians use biblical statements to support same-sex marriage. So if 70% of Americans are Christians, and most marriages occurred in a church, is it feasible to believe that most US population perceived the word marriage primarily in a religious context? Does it provide an understanding of how this population would be against updating the formal definition of marriage? Does this religious context imply that the religious group is against government rights afforded to a couple (same or not same)? (No!) How many thoughts/words are you going to keep projecting onto me?

What did I say that advocated for 'separate but equal?'

This is a tyranny of words conversation, not a racial or even a 'rights' conversation. Please say more on your stance.

The humor is the unintentional absurdity and irony of someone warning against a behavior that is already happening. (e.g. weaponized DOJ)

TPD asked and I answered. When I was a practicing Christian, including time as a youth group leader, I was one of many religious folk who understood the majority of marriages occurred in church. In the 1900s, 85% of marriages occurred in church. It was 50% not so long ago (and it is under 25% now). When I was a child, most girls dreamed of a big church wedding regardless of whether they practiced religion. To me, marriage involved god and my religion did not accept same-sex marriage. During that religious period, I had numerous conversations with religious folk about supporting civil unions while being against updating the definition of marriage. Now, I am not religious and I support same sex marriage. I got over the definition update to use the word 'marriage.'

No 'good' way? Sure the situation was complex and Biden was courageous. Still, how could the decision and execution have gone any worse? The deaths? Leaving the equipment? The intelligence failure? Abandoning citizens? Abandoning allies? Oof. I have an ex-military acquaintance who had to raise funds and arrange plans to evacuate his former translator and family. Between the US evacuation period and this one-off rescue plan, the translator's brother was beaten up and threatened with death if he didn't give up a named list of Afghans that were US friendly. I met three of the rescued and can confirm the success. General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr held a press conference in April 2021 and affirmed that the Afghan military would collapse in the absence of American troops. General Austin S. Miller made the recommendation to keep troops in January 2021. McKenize, Miller, and General Mark A. Milley all shared recommendations to President Biden, and President Biden made a decision that was against the recommendations of his military leaders. Who was held accountable for this? (Brandon Biden deflected) Links hearing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?514537-1/senate-armed-services-committee-hearing-afghanistan-withdrawal press release: https://www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=572

Of course. From now on, please refer to me by my preferred name, Mr. Awesome for subject pronoun and Mr. Awesome's for object/possessive pronoun. Same-sex marriages, in terms of civil unions, do not impact the rights of others. Same-sex marriages, in terms of religious context, can impact others. Many religious hetero couples regard marriage as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God—divinely ordained and a union of souls. The disclosure of a same-sex religious marriage could evoke similar reactions to the revelation of a pastor's infidelity. Emotional response like experiencing distress, lose trust, leave the church, lose their faith, lose their identity, etc. And these hetero couples are not going to want their young children to become curious and choose (which does happen) to explore their own sexuality because of exposure to same-sex coupling. I am not talking about the rights for same-sex couple to have a civil union. Updating the definiton of the word 'marriage' was a minority opinion before legislation. It is a moot point now. In my *personal experience, conservatives *never wanted to suppress the rights of same sex couples to have a civil union to express commitment, for tax breaks, to live together, to be family for emergencies, etc. I had only heard that same-sex marriage did not fit one's religious beliefs and that the definition of 'marriage' in the dictionary should remain hetero coupling. Nuance.

Accountability is coming.

I understand that sentiment... parent's have unique insights that non-parents do not. And so do teachers. Everyone's opinion matters and comes from life experience, minimally from the perspective of having once been a kid. Or being a member of society matters when these children's later life decision impact me and mine.

Are you a parent or a teacher? Did you suffer as a child because you didn't have access to books? What is your angle on the book ban conversation? Yes, I hold many libertarian views. Coexistance is one of the views I support...

100% wrong framing. Revised. People are better off when exposed to more information of other cultures and perspectives, at the appropriate time (age).

What if the works of literature happens to be "The Turner Diaries."

Babylon Bee post here somewhere... Parents sing the lyrics of Cardi B's 'Bongos' song while advocating to ban books for language that triggers generational trauma.

I got there because the emphasized was followed by the statement "For what it's worth, I am completely against book banning, period." This is why I stated what I thought you meant, and used the language "if so."

1. That comment disrespects parents whose nature-observed responsibility is to protect their child. 2. I agree with you that book bans come from fear. However, there are other emotions and motivations that drive support: protectiveness, community support, political ideology, cultural sensitivity, religious beliefs, moral outrage, educational standard, etc. The fear of 'uncomfortable' conversations is one of MANY concerns. 3. There is a balance between parents and educators, and the value of parental involvement should be recognized. Communication and collaboration are best here. 4. Please say more about which wrongs need to be righted, and which books are banned that prevent faster progress? 5. There is unnecessary risk (mentioned before) in educating children enough about topics for them to understand they are too young to learn more about it. The young'uns lack self-control as well... this gets better with age. Development stages is a studied topic and clear to parents/coaches with children experience from toddler through high school. Age appropriateness matters. 6. Books have had long-lasting effects on children. (both good and bad). Should the magazine "Inspire" be available to elementary children? 7. Golden rule. I have empathy and understanding for other parents who want to protect their children from sensitive book materials, as I would hope they would be considerate to mine. 8. Given the left-leaning parents are also successful in banning books, let's adjust your statement and look at it again. I'm probably wrong about a good number of parents. But if you let these parents be your voice and your leaders then those are your ideals. If you don't stand up and vocally admonish these parents then you give them power. They will not stop. You know that, because parents never do. Their grip is slipping and they are getting more and more desperate. Which has led to an increase in violence aimed at those opposed to parents views 9. Some people are nutty regardless of their views. Why did Susan Rosenberg, advocate for social justice, openly advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government through armed struggle and the use of violence... and then get charged for bombing the US Senate? Are all social justice warriors like Susan? Are all conservatives like the people that harassed reps about the speaker race? 10. Where is the sympathy and understanding for the parents that act according to nature, by doing what they believe protects their children? Balance... Extra. One of your central arguments is that banning books takes away informational access to kids so poor that they do not have access to books at school, public library, home, and acquaintances. Isn't the bigger problem that kids in poverty have limited access to books in general? It would seem the focus should be on books that helps kids learn to write their name and count to 20, rather than focus on the books that use racial language and have graphic visuals of sex that parents find age inappropriate. And what role does a teacher have, if not to educate? Surely, teaches can educate children to think critically without limiting their sources to a small number of school-banned materials.

To me, this implies that you feel the government has more responsibility than parents about children's upbringing. If so, okay, say more about it. What are your reasons? What is your role in relation to the debate (teacher of certain grades, parent, concerned citizen, etc)? This is not a gotcha question, it just gives more context.

The first sentence sums up TPT position well. I like it. It is correct. It is also said that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. It has been studied that exposure to information creates risk for psychological harm, radicalization, unethical behavior, bad health decisions, misinformed decisions, etc. While there is balance, it is Parents, rather than the government, that have the primary responsibility for children's upbringing. This statement seems like one of the debated points. What is the argument that says the government has primary responsibility? What do we learn from observing nature? (parental care is prevalent across the animal kingdom)

Do you support the left leaning parents that influenced banning books with racist words in them? The book ban supporters are not limited to 'conservative' politics.

The use of 'conservative' is tricky because @ThreePointTakedown has voiced anti-conservative ideology. I had to think about the word choice twice because of who the author is. However I understand 'conservative' in this sentence to imply it is good to question traditional/established beliefs, and to be willing to consider alternative viewpoints. And this is true for everyone as per your comments.

@ThreePointTakedown are you a parent? What grade level do you teach, if any? This is not a gotcha question.

Some non-conservatives scream out 'VIOLENCE' if they are 'misgendered.' Open minded is respecting the traditional word 'marriage' is religious and acknowledging a solution like 'civil union' rather than forcing dictionary updates on the conservative 'bad' people. But open minded is also accepting a new definition of marriage, against one's wishes, because it is what a minority wants. Open and Close minded people everywhere depending on which perspective you look from. Nutty people everywhere.

Will you better connect the dots between my statement and yours? I'm not able to make the connection, and am asking myself questions like below to try and compehend your jump-to assertion. Is it a privilege to hold conservative beliefs? Are some conservatives oppressed? Is it a privilege or a natural right to live life free of governement intervention? How do conservatives compare to other groups with respect to giving charity by their own free choice? (Hint: Conservatives give more. Why pick on the group that gives more to charity?)