Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings

[aygart]

Do you belong to a cult? 

Freedom of choice describes an individual's opportunity and autonomy to perform an action selected from at least two available options, unconstrained by external parties.

But is that freedom protected?

[CountValentine]

But is that freedom protected?

To be part of a cult? Of course, it is. Why would you even ask such a question?

Recap: Most religions are a cult. Some more than others.
Is that a protected freedom, of course!!

[dm123]

Yup. Does some great work. Some bias, but usually pretty acurate

So far you've given me Matt Walsh and this Rufo fellow, who may be great, but what I'm looking for is a medical basis for the Idaho bill's claims.


Otherwise seems this thread has gone back to it's regularly scheduled program. Will we be serving pretzels or fish outta water this round?


ETA: changed "what the actual medical consensus is" to "is a medical basis for the Idaho bill's claims" (although seeing the medical consensus would be nice too).

[EliJelly]

I am one of very few here that can separate religion from these discussions.

I'm not at all clear of the Halachic approach towards TG, I didn't base my rejection to allow to conduct TG procedures on minors on my religion. This is all your preconceptions. It takes an ounce of sanity to understand that medically changing a minor's gender should be criminal. Obviously the woke creatures and their defenders (*you* people) won't comprehend this, just like they've lost their mind on;

https://twitter.com/RepErinHealy/status/1625219121687437312

[imayid2]

To be part of a cult? Of course, it is. Why would you even ask such a question?

Recap: Most religions are a cult. Some more than others.
Is that a protected freedom, of course!!

You can just admit you made a nonsensical comparison.

[CountValentine]

I'm not at all clear of the Halachic approach towards TG, I didn't base my rejection to allow to conduct TG procedures on minors on my religion. This is all your preconceptions.

You brought religion into this. I never said you based your opinion on religion. I stated a fact that I am one of very few that can separate religion from these types of discussions.

[EliJelly]

You brought religion into this.

Cool story, you suspect religion when it's aint there.

[drosenberg88429]

I am one of very few here that can separate religion from these discussions.

Hard part isn't separating religion from these discussions. Hard part is separating personal rights to rights regarding one's children (and by extension possibly abortion).

I don't pretend to have a clarity or even concrete opinion in this area either. Does a religious adherent of the of the religious groups that is against any medical intervention have the right to make that decision for their children? That is certainly a legitimate religion, and is also a pretty contentious topic. (This was also the discussion regarding a religious education that doesn't include a well rounded secular education, although statistics would show that to be a pretty weak comparison.)

[CountValentine]

You can just admit you made a nonsensical comparison.

You claim I did something over and over and it does not make it true.

I have shown over and over members either twisted my words or assumed without asking.

[CountValentine]

Hard part isn't separating religion from these discussions. Hard part is separating personal rights to rights regarding one's children (and by extension possibly abortion).

When we had the abortion discussion it was made perfectly clear to by many it was religious based. It is impossible to have an honest discussion when the opinions are driven by religion. It is at that point a religious discussion.

[drosenberg88429]

When we had the abortion discussion it was made perfectly clear to by many it was religious based. It is impossible to have an honest discussion when the opinions are driven by religion. It is at that point a religious discussion.

We had a hard time not letting our preconceptions, presuppositions, and beliefs not inform and impact our views on the beginning of life with independent rights.

Liberalism and atheism are belief systems too. Separating between religious and non religious belief systems is more semantical than substantive, in my personal opinion.

[CountValentine]

So, what does this bill accomplish besides red meat for "you" know who?

It seems these nutcases came to some common sense and removed trying to prosecute a parent for doing something legal in another state. What complete nutcase put that in there in the first place? Then all the nutcases that voted for it.

So, a parent can take a child to state and receive the treatment they feel is best for their child.

So, what did they accomplish besides using children as pawns?

[CountValentine]

We had a hard time not letting our preconceptions, presuppositions, and beliefs not inform and impact our views on the beginning of life with independent rights.

Liberalism and atheism are belief systems too. Separating between religious and non religious belief systems is more semantical than substantive, in my personal opinion.

Would it be fair to say that anybody who is committed 100% to any belief system would have a harder time to separate from that system when having these types of discussions?

[drosenberg88429]

So, a parent can take a child to state and receive the treatment they feel is best to their child.

So, what did they accomplish besides using children as pawns?

Speaking of using children as pawns... 😃🙃🤯

[drosenberg88429]

Would it be fair to say that anybody who is committed 100% to any belief system would have a harder time to separate from that system when having these types of discussions?

Committed 50% to each of two belief systems only makes one open minded in the sense that the brains fell out. Otherwise, it's not too substantially different than 1 belief system. There are some areas where it's almost impossible to have a clear right or wrong, or yes or no. Nobody knows exactly when life begins (or ends, for that matter) in an objective mannerism that cannot be argued by anyone else. It becomes a matter of opinion and philosophy and each one claiming the moral high ground. I certainly don't think liberals have any superior claims in this area. They're as clueless and blindly adamant as the rest of us.

[bochur22]

So, what does this bill accomplish besides red meat for "you" know who?
So, what did they accomplish besides using children as pawns?

Don't you find it odd that there's a pretty disproportionately big group of celebrities who have transgender or non-binary kids all of a sudden? Who else is using kids as pawns?

[CountValentine]

Don't you find it odd that there's a pretty disproportionately big group of celebrities who have transgender or non-binary kids all of a sudden?

Why would you say it is disproportioned? I would expect them to be more open, no? 

[bochur22]

Why would you say it is disproportioned? I would expect them to be more open, no?

So you're saying that if only everyone were more open, we would see more kids coming out as trans, because right now they exist, they're just afraid to come out due to the stigma. And I would assume the reason you say that kids are being affected is due to the mental health crisis caused by lack of affirmation?

[bochur22]

ETA: changed "what the actual medical consensus is" to "is a medical basis for the Idaho bill's claims" (although seeing the medical consensus would be nice too).

So here's a quote from a 2022 (pro trans) study: Purpose: There are no large-scale studies examining mental health among transgender and nonbinary youth who receive gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). The purpose of this study is to examine associations among access to GAHT with depression, thoughts of suicide, and attempted suicide among a large sample of transgender and nonbinary youth.
So basically, they themselves are saying there's no real large-scale evidence to what they're pushing. And definitely no long-term stuff.
The medical basis is that there's a 100% chance of loss of healthy body tissue following a GAC surgery, a major chance of many side effects with hormone therapy aside from sterility, and we don't have evidence that this works! So, to do this to children is mutilation

[bochur22]

So you're saying that if only everyone were more open, we would see more kids coming out as trans, because right now they exist, they're just afraid to come out due to the stigma. And I would assume the reason you say that kids are being affected is due to the mental health crisis caused by lack of affirmation?

So, once again, if there was stigma and non-acceptance until now, we should have seen kid suicide rates go down as we became more accepting. Instead, they're going up. Additionally, much of the teen suicide rate spike is happening in bluer, more accepting areas, which now have more trans kids then ever.