Opinion: TG People the New Demon for the Right?

[Drea]

I think there is an effect of people being lower profile in highly conservative areas too. it's just not that cut and dried as an example Drea's rather dry forum profile keeps any hint of history at bay.

If you have questions about me Melissa, please ask. I do answer questions.

Aside from that, I don't entirely understand your point. What relevence woudl my profile/history have on things? You suggesting that only low prifile/stealth is the only way to survive in such area?

[Guest Melissa~]

No, rather that lack of stealth could get a person into trouble anywhere. The worlds worst bigot/murderer would not do a thing if they didn't recognize a person as their prey in the first place. Being in an overall highly accepting area may lead one to show extraordinary presentations, it's just a fact that some ladies as seen on Youtube, aren't there to be stealth. That combined with the probability that predators likely coalesce where they think they are most likely to find prey. That's plain ignoring the direct high risk behaviors taken for various reasons, like intoxication in unsafe areas, and prostitution(which is real hard to do out in the boondocks where my farm is located for example.)

[Guest LizMarie]

Kimberly, you're committing the exact fallacy I alluded to before - more churches in cities, more crime in cities, so churches must cause crime, right? That's a fallacy. There's a correlation but not causation. Both more crime and more churches are caused by higher populations and higher population densities. Criminals generally seek out higher population densities because it's easier to cover up their tracks and there are more victims from which to choose. And more and more large cities are turning Democratic because the extremists of the right frighten minorities, women, and GLBT people. Obama got 71% of Hispanic voters, 73% of Asian voters, 93% of black voters and 55% of female voters. Why such a skew? If you ask Bill O'Reilly, he publicly said all those people want "free stuff" and that they now outnumber the "white establishment". Yes, he actually said this on TV the night of the election while whining about Romney's loss. And why is this? Because the Republican party vehemently attacks Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, women, and GLBT persons with crazy laws intended to treat them as criminals. One Republican candidate urged requiring all Muslim citizens to have to be marked so we know they are citizens and "safe". Yes, you know where that came from and it was said in 2012 by Rick Santorum, who was considered a serious contender for president of the United States by the Republican Party!

Further, about GLBT hate crimes, the divisions of voters show that even in heavily Democratic areas there are 30-40% of the population who identify Republican and some of those who identify right wing. Do you want me to link the video from Lubbock, Texas of the Republican men trashing Obama yard signs and screaming "We're gonna get you, n***** b*****!"? So there are still plenty of right wing haters in such cities regardless of who their mayor is. Pointing at a mayor and saying that he and the voters that support him in that area are responsible for the actions of criminals is entirely fallacious thinking. But if you go case by case through GLBT targeted crimes you often find persons who hate GLBT people and most of those are right wingers, frequently religious zealots. Some even say they are doing "God's will" in killing GLBT persons!

And Drea, before LGBTs even were a political force, clear back into the 1960s and 1970s, the right wing was already demonizing us as mentally ill even as medical science was starting to understand us. There was no GLBT movement when Lynn Conway was forced to pay child support but denied any contact rights with her children. The Log Cabin Republicans were founded back in the 1970s to try to open the eyes of the Republican party that GLBT persons were normal, real citizens, not sexual predators but not one Republican GLBT member has ever been elected mayor of a large US city. The number of GLBT Republicans in Congress has been scant and is normally zero. Their party doesn't even support them when they run as Republicans.

Then I come back to state and federal legislatures, going back to the 1960s and 1970s before any GLBT people attacked Republicans, the Republicans were the ones introducing legislation against various parts of the GLBT community, including against transgenders. Who changed in that time? The Democrats. The Republicans still treat GLBT members like we are pariahs. Your assertion that trans people attacked right wing Republicans first does not appear true. In looking at history, they've been against us since before we even had a voice.

It's just like the Black vote. Republicans used to get a significant portion of the Black vote, clear up through Eisenhower. Then it suddenly went the other way. Why? Look up the term "Southern Strategy" and read about Kevin Philips, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove. Now Republicans get single digit percentages of the Black vote. The Republican Party has deliberately defined itself as the party of old, white men. They have no policies friendly to Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, or GLBT persons. This is why they get so few of those votes. They also keep trying to push political positions suited to a rural America when more people now live in urban areas than in rural areas. This is why so many major American cities end up with Democratic mayors. Since Nixon and Kevin Philips, the Republican Party has deliberately cultivated the votes of white male bigots.

And this all comes back to what I said before, your personal experience with conservatives may be fine, but overall the party that deliberately attacks us, the party that continually tries to legislate against us, the party that wants us to be non-persons politically, is the Republican Party. You might have Republican friends but that's not relevant to which party is out to get you. I do! Two of my brothers! Yet when I've discussed this with them since, I've explained the facts, pointed out that the party is deliberately attacking me and my rights and therefore I cannot vote for that party. And they admit this. My next younger brother is actually very disgusted that the party has been taken over by religious zealots and completely understands my positions now that I've come out to him. He's even said he wishes that I could vote Republican but sees no way for that to happen currently.

This is why I've stated that a TG person voting for a Republican candidate baffles me. There are rare candidates who are on our side and when a TG person votes for that candidate and shows me the public positions of that Republican, it makes sense for one candidate. But regardless of whether your friends are conservatives or liberals, at the political level, it seems self-defeating to me to support the Republican party. It's your right to vote how you like but voting Republican generally is like a Black person voting for George Wallace. It just makes no sense based on the historical record of the last 50 years. If Republicans want to win more elections, they should court our vote, not us begging for a place at their table. If they show me that they will protect me and support my civil liberties, I will support them. And so far, they've not shown me that support.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Kimberly, you're committing the exact fallacy I alluded to before - more churches in cities, more crime in cities, so churches must cause crime, right? That's a fallacy. There's a correlation but not causation. Both more crime and more churches are caused by higher populations and higher population densities. Criminals generally seek out higher population densities because it's easier to cover up their tracks and there are more victims from which to choose.

....

Pointing at a mayor and saying that he and the voters that support him in that area are responsible for the actions of criminals is entirely fallacious thinking

This is a strawman. As I pointed out to CM above. It is a claim I've never made. You can make posts as long as you want. Show me where I stated that Democratic mayors are responsible for the deaths of the people on the TDOR list. What your post has done instead is backed up the article a bit. The highlighted areas are pretty similar in my mind.

"Many people assume that because the South is the nation’s most evangelical and politically conservative region, it is probably also a hotbed for hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But while such crimes do occur, they are less common than in large urban centers, where the absence of a tight community and the abundance of strangers make it easier to target people for their differences."

Again, I've never stated that a Democratic mayor was responsible for a single death. But it is interesting that in areas where the majority of the country are conservative, the places where Romney carried, there was not a single death. Just so that I don't have slay another strawman, I'm am not stating that a Republican lawmaker is keeping people alive or giving rights to the LGBT. But, reading that paragraph from the link above again, it does back up that "Many people assume that because the South is the nation’s most evangelical and politically conservative region, it is probably also a hotbed for hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But while such crimes do occur, they are less common than in large urban centers."

So it isn't southern conservative areas that are the most dangerous for members of the LGBT to live in? Hmmmm....looking at the TDOR as one indicator, that seems spot on.

[Drea]

the right wing was already demonizing us as mentally ill even as medical science was starting to understand us.

Well it isn't exactly normal now is it? I have never had any objection to about it being a disorder. I've been ill plenty of times in my life and see no shame to it. I find it no more normal than someone with BID (Body Integrity Disorder) who feels their birth identity is to be a paraplegic would be viewed as normal.

Now in these days of lifestyle choices, "transition or not transition" dialog that there isn't a real medical need and it wouldn't be consered a disorder but a lifestyle choice. I for one never had any interest in living as a transgendered person.

And this all comes back to what I said before, your personal experience with conservatives may be fine, but overall the party that deliberately attacks us, the party that continually tries to legislate against us, the party that wants us to be non-persons politically, is the Republican Party.

You might have Republican friends but that's not relevant to which party is out to get you. I do! Two of my brothers! Yet when I've discussed this with them since, I've explained the facts, pointed out that the party is deliberately attacking me and my rights and therefore I cannot vote for that party.

I am glad that "transition" is not something that I am planning. From my point of view, it would be harder these days than a decade or two ago. At least for someone who does not wish to be identified/live as transgender but just live in their new gender role.

I am not a particularly political person nor religious person, but what does get to me is sort of bashing that gets directed at with broad brush strokes are, by the vast majority, are fundamentally decent people and the mis-characterization of such folks as evil is really unfair. I am also bothered by the presumption that anyone trans somehow agree with this bashing which motivates me on occasion to speak out.

It is pretty commonplace among trans folks when they are starting to deal with their issues to see society as the problem. To see widespread mis-understanding and non-acceptance. As such there tends to be strong motivations to try and fix that. To change society to solve their problem.

And I guess I wasn't so different at one time. I do tend to think these days that unless one wants to wait decades or lifetime to fix the world, that maybe one should worry about fixing themselves first before fixing the world. And just maybe, in the process, like many others, learn that these perceptions of widespread non-acceptance and supposed harm that low awareness causes are false.

Again as I said, I think it is sad that these sorts of fears tend to push people in the direction of breaking ties on assumptions and making things possibly much more difficult on themselves.

You might have Republican friends but that's not relevant to which party is out to get you.

Out to get me? So you know what party is out to get me? And I am guessisng you say it is the republicans? Like many who been there, been around awhile I don't fear such bogeymen. I don't see the world as some evil unaccepting place nor do I see more awareness as some sort of magical solution. What I see as a threat is the continued push for laws by trans activists that go far beyond addressing what is required for sensible medically indicated needs to pushing for legislation and policies that would that makes no distinction between MTF and any other female as an example regardless of surgery status and allow MTF with male anatomy to show it anyplace it would be permissible for a woman to be uncovered.

Call me old fashioned on this one. While I don't feel surgery should be required to get documents changed (don't want people having surgery just to get documents changed), I tend to feel there are some circumstances where that anatomical difference is relevent such as in locker rooms. Not to the extend of excluding those who haven't surgery, but descretion is important on one should be taking care to not to be exposing themselves rather then exploting the law in ways similar to the likes of what Colleen Francis did. I would have some big issues with that. The more the trans activists push for laws so broad that would protect such behavior and lumps my needs with that sort of behavior I would be strongly against.

[Guest LizMarie]

Every single piece of legislation aimed at harming those of us with gender dysphoria starts with a Republican, not a Democrat. I documented some of that legislative action in this thread.

There is no way to discount that basic fact. None. The conservative south can be a fine place to live. I live there too. But the real issue needs to be people like Paul Ryan who publicly stated “It makes it something you can’t vote for,” Ryan said. “I think ENDA’s the right thing to do,” but transgender language “changes the equation.” Ryan was saying equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals was ok but for transgenders was not. Men like the legislator from Tennessee who stated that he'd "stomp a mudhole" in any transperson he saw entering a women's restroom and who placed different bills before the TN state legislature aimed at stripping various rights we do have.

That's the thrust of my comment, not living in the south or the decent people in the south, but the party of bigotry, the Republican Party, which can be demonstrated by examination of the legislative record. That's my primary concern, that people be aware that the one party that has consistently supported legislation intended to make our lives more difficult is the Republican Party.

[Guest KimberlyF]

There is no way to discount that basic fact. None. The conservative south can be a fine place to live. I live there too. But the real issue needs to be people like Paul Ryan who publicly stated “It makes it something you can’t vote for,” Ryan said. “I think ENDA’s the right thing to do,” but transgender language “changes the equation.” Ryan was saying equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals was ok but for transgenders was not. Men like the legislator from Tennessee who stated that he'd "stomp a mudhole" in any transperson he saw entering a women's restroom and who placed different bills before the TN state legislature aimed at stripping various rights we do have.

In 2007, the Dems had 233 seats. They needed 218 to pass anything. There were at least 9 Republicans who were committed to support ENDA. The Dems needed 209 votes of 233. Many, like Paul Ryan, would not vote for the bill with TG inclusion. One of them included one of the orig bill's sponsors, gay congressman Barney Frank who made numerous statements on record in 2007 saying he would push a version through without TG inclusion. So there were two versions on the table in 2007. One with us, and one without us. The one without us was written by Dem Barney Frank.

If you ever read some of Frank's comments they are exactly like people on the right when discussing the issue then. He was talking about men with beards wearing dresses flashing their penises in the women's restroom. Then he received a bit of a slapdown and I'm sure he no longer thinks any of these thoughts. But ENDA without TG passed in 2007. So it appears that Paul Ryan had the same view as dozens of democrats.

Jan Pauls(D as in Democrat) authored Kansas's gay marriage ban.

Here she's talking about an LGBT issue.

People can and will believe what they want. Politicians see people as a number. If they had morals, they wouldn't worry about the next election. They would vote on what they felt was the right thing. That is why we put them there. But they vote on how the numbers in their district and in their future will see their move.

That's why they are all flip floppers. Running as a state rep in a small district you have to please a different constituency than running for a state office or running federally. You can tell when someone is eyeing bigger and better things when their positions start to alter a bit so they can establish their "history".

Bottom line for me is laws don't much matter. You can have job protections but you still have to prove it. Even today I'm sure there aren't a whole lot of people getting fired for being transsexual in states that its legal.

I look at it like one can wait for a politician to fix their problems if and when they get to it, or just work on ways to make their own lives better.

I have seen a few long time friendships end because of this last election cycle. That is the really sad thing. I think the majority of this country believe in most of the same things-they want to have a job and raise a family- but are being manipulated by the political process to think we need these people to solve our problems. Every election the rift seems to grow wider.

[KathrynJulia]

Folks:

Dirty no holds tricks to cause fear and discension in the publics mind are used by both the left and the right wings of both parties. The dirty tricks of both political parties makes me sick along with their most fervent supporters on the far left and the far right, have subverted our country and polarized us to fear the other. Washington D.C. is a broken cause these days because of partisan politics. A small group goes out there and smears a politician making him or her fearful of doing what is right while they try to appease everyone by talking out both sides of their mouth.

Their are liberals that don't like us just as much as transphobic conservatives do, while supporting The Gay and Lesbian community. People pick on us because we as a group are small in number and have no real political power. People are either live and let live or they are Transphobic especially among men of all political persuasions. Woman are more tolerant of us and accepting of us, but clearly society is slowly beginning to change and learning to be more accepting of us. Someday, we can hope to be as accepted as the GLB community. Keep working folks to change one person at a time. Kathryn

[Guest ~Brenda~]

After hearing the video in your post Kim, it is clear to me that this person has no idea what being transgendered really means. She tried valiantly to explain, but terribly missed the mark.

Sigh..... there is so much work to do.

Brenda

[Guest LizMarie]

Kimberly, Barney Frank withdrew the trans support after initially supporting it because of people like Paul Ryan. He took what he could get. That's different from outright opposing it and threatening to not let it pass at all if trans rights were included. Barney Frank tried and then backed off. Paul Ryan opposed from the first moment. If we can't recognize that sort of difference, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Guest KimberlyF]

From 2000:

"A little while later, I found Barney without a group of people around him, so I once again engaged him in conversation. "So," I said, "does your support of transgender inclusion in the VAWA mean that you might be changing your mind about inclusion of gender-variant people in ENDA?" An innocent enough question, but you would have thought that I was threatening him with a loaded weapon. He got red in the face and started shouting, "Never.""

http://www.genderadvocates.org/Miranda%20Writes/M0008Frankly.html

Written long before he turned his back on us (again) in 2007. He seems to have a history. This is not the only Trans advocate who has dealt with him who has a similar story. When a LGBT member of congress doesn't support the T, it gives every other congressman cover. And as I said before, the Democrats could have passed the bill in 2007 without a single republican vote. Yes? No?

I don't mind agreeing to disagree. You did state there wasn't a single law against us written by a Dem. Is that one of the things we're agreeing to disagree on, because your post doesn't mention the awesome House Democrat from Kansas Ms. Pauls?

[Guest LizMarie]

Kimberly, I stand corrected about an anti-GLBT law sponsored by a Democrat. Are you happy?

However, if you wish to continue to beat this horse go right ahead, but I will remind you that the Democratic party does not have platform planks aimed directly against the GLBT community whereas the Republicans do. I fully respect that individual members of either party might be transphobic. I do not deny that at all. What I am saying is that the Republican party as a party has chosen to take public anti-GLBT positions and enshrine them in the party platform both at the national and state levels. You will not find that in the Democratic party's national platform. Ergo, the Republican party is the largest single anti-GLBT organization in the United States today. Further, taking the position that you can be for GLBT rights yet support an organization that publicly espouses anti-GLBT positions is irrational.

So yes, I'm aware that there are transphobic Democrats. Those people will continue to meet with more and more resistance at the national party level. But those sorts of people are meeting acceptance at the Republican party national level. They get cheered on for threatening to beat you to a mudhole, Kimberly. Think about that. They get cheered on for threatening violence against you and then for supporting laws to strip you of your rights. The situation is still that most anti-GLBT laws are sponsored by Republicans with the direct support of the Republican party's own platform.

If the difference between those two situations is not comprehensible to you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I prefer to support a party that isn't openly taking positions against my rights. When I find Democrats who are bigots, I can bring the pressure of the rest of the party to bear. I can't do that in the Republican party, which is exactly why the Log Cabin Republicans have have zero impact on the Republican party over the last 30+ years.

One party is openly transphobic. The other party simply contains some transphobic members. That difference is key. So go ahead and vote for the party whose platform is openly out to restrict your rights as a transgender individual.

Finally, Kimberly, president Obama won 60% of the under 30 years of age voters. There is a political realignment occurring in this country and that segment of voters happens to be more supportive of transgenders (and all GLBT rights) than any other age group.

[Guest KimberlyF]

LM, A few quick points due to time.

-I've spoken many times about how the D&R parties are almost interchangeable in how they act regardless of what they say. I voted for more Ds than Rs this election, am a registered D and for president my beliefs are usually most in line with the Liberterian. Tell me again abou my Rebublican party?

-I don't need a partner to complete me nor do I need a politician to make me happy. I have a medical condition. I do not think it is in the best interest of people like me to turn my medical condition into a PAC for the Dems. I think happiness comes from within. Not from promises made on a stump.

-Are these under 30 people that are changing everything the same people in College that almost drove your straight hetrosexual to tears for wearing tights and a skirt in your link you posted today? As I've said before people are people. Some may become more aware and their 'acceptance' is lack of fear which is what a lot of the older generation's lack of acceptance came from. But 4 Charlie seemed to have a decent speech in front of a group of seniors.

[Guest LizMarie]

For those curious, the list below plus the link show what the Obama administration has done for the LGBT community over the last four years. Some of these things are directly transgender related. Some are not. Could more have been done? Yes, but I defy anyone to show me what the prior 8 years of GW Bush and the Republicans did for the LGBT community and particularly for transgenders. I stand by my statement that the Republican Party is the largest anti-LGBT organization in the United States today.

http://www.equalityg...n-LGBT-Equality

FEDERAL LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW

Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability -- the first positive federal LGBT legislation in the nation's history

Repealed Don't Ask/Don't Tell

Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act

POLICIES CHANGED

Reversed US refusal to sign the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and, further, in 2010

Lifted the HIV Entry Ban

Issued diplomatic passports, and provided other benefits, to the partners of same-sex foreign service employees

Committed to ensuring that federal housing programs are open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity

Conceived a National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Elders -- the nation's first ever -- funded by a three-year HHS grant to SAG

Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation's largest employer)

Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept our relationships from being counted, encouraging couples who consider themselves married to file that way, even if their state of residence does not yet permit legal marriage

Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights

Required all grant applicants seeking HUD funding to comply with state and local anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals

Adopted transgender recommendations on the issuance of gender-appropriate passports that will ease barriers to safe travel and that will provide government-issued ID that avoids involuntary "outing" in situations requiring ID, like hiring, where a gender-appropriate driver's license or birth certificate is not available

Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims

(full list at link)

This is an example of the Republican "logic" associated with transgender issues. Please note who said it.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) also said he would likely vote against the legislation with transgender protections, and he said he’s told Frank as much.

“It makes it something you can’t vote for,” Ryan said. “I think ENDA’s the right thing to do,” but transgender language “changes the equation.”

Ryan declined to detail his objections, saying he wanted to read the final package.

Again, I freely admit there are bigots on both sides of the political aisle. I freely admit there are friends on both sides of the political aisle. But only one party has taken official positions against the GLBT community and that party is the Republican party.

[Guest LizMarie]

And to Kimberly, here is the official list of transgender deaths for 2012. There are deaths there in places like Kansas City (Kansas), Dallas (Texas), and New Orleans (Louisiana) - all very red states. So your assertion is false that "But it is interesting that in areas where the majority of the country are conservative, the places where Romney carried, there was not a single death."

[Guest Jenni_S]

I think it's time I think about packing my anti-LGBT bags and moving on. It gets tiresome hearing how wrong you are all the time. But, hey, I'm sure I'm evil and hateful and don't care about anything but whacko right wing insanity and religious hysteria, so what would I know?

[Guest KimberlyF]

And to Kimberly, here is the official list of transgender deaths for 2012. There are deaths there in places like Kansas City (Kansas), Dallas (Texas), and New Orleans (Louisiana) - all very red states. So your assertion is false that "But it is interesting that in areas where the majority of the country are conservative, the places where Romney carried, there was not a single death."

Interestingly what I said, which is at the top of the page that this post is on the bottom was:

20 for 20 come from cities with Democratic mayors. And 17 of 20 came from places Obama won on Tues.

I was slightly off, but Dallas, NO, and KC were all cities won by Obama. Truthfully Only 2 o those 3 have Dem mayors. KC is an independent. But I did point out a few did take place in states (17 of 20) that went to Romney. I mentioned 17 of 20 were blue, so coincidentally that would be 3 states on my end too just like the example you used to prove me wrong.

And wrong it what way I wonder? My stats are not certified and can be off a few either way. I don't make the claim that it's an event that can only happen when the mayor is Dem and have stated such. It is just something I've noticed. The kinda thing that could make one think talk is cheap.

[Drea]

And to Kimberly, here is the official list of transgender deaths for 2012. There are deaths there in places like Kansas City (Kansas), Dallas (Texas), and New Orleans (Louisiana) - all very red states. So your assertion is false that "But it is interesting that in areas where the majority of the country are conservative, the places where Romney carried, there was not a single death."

I would normally associate Kansas City with Mossouri but I suppose it could be the little bit of the city actually in Kansas.

Now if you look by district, Kansas ahs two districts that were overwhelmingly liberal that went to Obama. Want to guess where one of them was? Missouri has four districts that went for Obama, want to guess where one of those is? On the Kansas side with 67% for Obama to 31% for Romney and on the Missouri side with 58% for Obama and 40% for Romney you guessed it the greater area known as Kansas City.

Oh and lets see, there is a lone blue district in the northwest quadrant of texas, what is it 57% for Obama and 42% for Romney, could it be, yes it is Dallas.

And lets see Orleans Parish went a whopping 80% for Obama compared to just 18% for Romney.

Now I don't know the exact locations relative to those cities, but it does seem awfully coincidental how those general areas of those three states seem to be the exception than the norm.

I really don't care for the broad brush painting conservatives as "bigots". Seems to me that will only polarize half the population against trans.

[Carolyn Marie]

I see little gained from either side of this debate picking nits. Why don't we just let this one go? It's been batted around long enough, don't you think?

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

I think it's time I think about packing my anti-LGBT bags and moving on. It gets tiresome hearing how wrong you are all the time. But, hey, I'm sure I'm evil and hateful and don't care about anything but whacko right wing insanity and religious hysteria, so what would I know?

I don't think you're evil. Just mildly annoying sometimes during trivia.

[VickySGV]

I see little gained from either side of this debate picking nits. Why don't we just let this one go? It's been batted around long enough, don't you think?

Carolyn Marie

Second the motion.

[Guest KimberlyF]

I see little gained from either side of this debate picking nits. Why don't we just let this one go? It's been batted around long enough, don't you think?

Carolyn Marie

Oh the whole political category is pointless as Laura kinda pointed out in the sticky indirectly. Nobody changes their minds. And if you don't fit in with what majority rule is you'll find your positions scorned. Many young people could find their political and/or religious beliefs reasons to never register here or to add more to their list of reasons to self-loath.

As I said on another thread here maybe yesterday, everyone deserves to be treated with human decency also not painted with a broad brush because of the actions of others.