Where you are on the issues vs how you vote

[wdefromtx 3,159]

29 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

My point clearly eluded you.

For once I agree with you! 🤣

[TexasTiger 12,835]

2 hours ago, cbo said:

It's not a serious issue. There have been some female-to male transgender people who have had babies. It is very rare and they were adults. I find it hard to believe that anyone truly cares. Usually it is used as an attempt to make the transgender community look silly. Or as a pointless distraction. 

This is the lead lawyer on transgender issues for the ACLU. It’s very much an issue for many in the current transgender community— even 5 years ago, not so much.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

This is the lead lawyer on transgender issues for the ACLU. It’s very much an issue for many in the current transgender community— even 5 years ago, not so much.

This manipulative language drives me crazy. No one is saying you “don’t exist.”  What people are saying is that you and they have a fundamental disagreement on this subject, including how to properly describe or call someone who is biologically born a certain sex but claims to feel they they are really the opposite.

We are are arguing over concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary. No one is denying you exist as a human person. We quite literally are talking to you about it. We know you are real. So this way of framing the conversation is question begging, not to mention disingenuous and manipulative. 

Look, the world is made up of a lot of different people. Some of them will disagree with you on things that are of central importance to you. They’ll even have deep disagreement with you on things that are foundational to your way of understanding the world and reality. In doing so, they aren’t denying you exist. Pull up your grown up pants and deal with it without resorting this emotional blackmail. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This manipulative language drives me crazy. No one is saying you “don’t exist.”  What people are saying is that you and they have a fundamental disagreement on this subject, including how to properly describe or call someone who is biologically born a certain sex but claims to feel they they are really the opposite.

We are are arguing over concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary. No one is denying you exist as a human person. We quite literally are talking to you about it. We know you are real. So this way of framing the conversation is question begging, not to mention disingenuous and manipulative. 

Look, the world is made up of a lot of different people. Some of them will disagree with you on things that are of central importance to you. They’ll even have deep disagreement with you on things that are foundational to your way of understanding the world and reality. In doing so, they aren’t denying you exist. Pull up your grown up pants and deal with it without resorting this emotional blackmail. 

The level of narcissism is stunning. How dare anyone focus on women as if abortion is women’s issue.

[cbo 7,839]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

My point clearly eluded you.

We've already discussed that you think gender transitioning is bad. Your only new point was about the money. So I addressed that. 

[cbo 7,839]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

This is the lead lawyer on transgender issues for the ACLU. It’s very much an issue for many in the current transgender community— even 5 years ago, not so much.

This is one tweet from an activist. Not representative of the major issues at hand. Or of the transgender community, in my experience. 

[cbo 7,839]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This manipulative language drives me crazy. No one is saying you “don’t exist.”  What people are saying is that you and they have a fundamental disagreement on this subject, including how to properly describe or call someone who is biologically born a certain sex but claims to feel they they are really the opposite.

We are are arguing over concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary. No one is denying you exist as a human person. We quite literally are talking to you about it. We know you are real. So this way of framing the conversation is question begging, not to mention disingenuous and manipulative. 

Look, the world is made up of a lot of different people. Some of them will disagree with you on things that are of central importance to you. They’ll even have deep disagreement with you on things that are foundational to your way of understanding the world and reality. In doing so, they aren’t denying you exist. Pull up your grown up pants and deal with it without resorting this emotional blackmail. 

I don't care for this tweet either. It makes zero important points. But why does it bother you so much?

We are not arguing over "concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary." Maybe that is what you are arguing about. But there are actual laws being passed that make life more difficult for transgender people, in real, practical ways. Laws that have no real benefit to society or need to exist. I've referenced some already. I truly believe you are intelligent and spend time researching these topics, so you can look up many others. 

I get that we aren't going to agree on this. No one can predict the future or how this will all play out.

But I ask you to think of it this way. One side is defending a marginalized group of people with insanely high suicide rates. People who are frequently the victims of discrimination and verbal and physical abuse. The other side is defending against ... being annoyed by emojis? Or tweets?

Finally, saying "pull up your grown up pants and deal with it" to a group of people who clearly have struggles beyond your understanding is baffling to me, when you have just said how a tweet drives you crazy. A tweet. The first three sentences of your last paragraph would make more sense if you looked in the mirror and said them to yourself. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

57 minutes ago, cbo said:

We've already discussed that you think gender transitioning is bad. Your only new point was about the money. So I addressed that. 

We’ve never discussed that because I’ve never said that. I have no problem with healthy adults making that informed choice in accordance with WPATH guidelines.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

38 minutes ago, cbo said:

This is one tweet from an activist. Not representative of the major issues at hand. Or of the transgender community, in my experience. 

Hardly. He’s perhaps the foremost voice amongst trans rights activists and a leader in the organization leading legal challenges on the issue. He’s hardly random or inconsequential and he tweeted that today because it’s representative of his consistent messaging.
 

https://www.aclu.org/bio/chase-strangio

[cbo 7,839]

23 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

We’ve never discussed that because I’ve never said that. I have no problem with healthy adults making that choice in accordance with WPATH guidelines.

You are correct. You have only spoken about teens transitioning. My mistake, sincerely. Did not mean to mischaracterize your point. 

[cbo 7,839]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hardly. He’s perhaps the foremost voice amongst trans rights activists and a leader in the organization leading legal challenges on the issue. He’s hardly random or inconsequential and he tweeted that today because it’s representative of his consistent messaging.
 

https://www.aclu.org/bio/chase-strangio

I know who he is and I never said he was inconsequential. I also know how activism works and that one person cannot speak for an entire group. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

 

20 minutes ago, cbo said:

You are correct. You have only spoken about teens transitioning. My mistake, sincerely. Did not mean to mischaracterize your point. 

One thing we have known for years, but have largely disregarded in recent years on this subject, is that the development of the teen brain does not support making decisions with life-long impact:

”In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.“

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

We’re seeing an increasing  number of folks getting to the point at which their pre-frontal cortex kicks in and they are deeply regretting long term medical decisions made during this developmental period.

Ignoring what we know about adolescent brain development isn’t providing responsible care.

[cbo 7,839]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

One thing we have known for years, but have largely disregarded in recent years on this subject, is that the development of the teen brain does not support making decisions with life-long impact:

”In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.“

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

We’re seeing an increasing of folks getting to the point at which their pre-frontal cortex kicks in and they are deeply regretting long term medical decisions made during this developmental period.

Ignoring what we know about adolescent brain development isn’t providing responsible care.

I completely get what you are saying about the teenage brain. That is an established fact and one where we all have some experience. 

I do not believe this falls into that category. I honestly think transgender people will be viewed exactly like gay people in about 25 years. Some will still be opposed, some won't care, most will be fine with it. And just like being gay, it is something you know from an early age. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

15 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This manipulative language drives me crazy.

This is pretty hilarious given that meme you posted claiming that you're not allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

This is pretty hilarious given that meme you posted claiming that you're not allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

Well, one was kind of a joke. The other is a serious attempt at confining the terms of language and debate. Not to mention, I’ve literally and repeatedly seen the argument of “no uterus, no opinion” many times over the years - sometimes said a little more eloquently and other times literally said just as I quoted. So I thought it was a funny jab in that so many that do believe that are in the same camp telling us men can be pregnant. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, one was kind of a joke. The other is a serious attempt at confining the terms of language and debate. Not to mention, I’ve literally and repeatedly seen the argument of “no uterus, no opinion” many times over the years - sometimes said a little more eloquently and other times literally said just as I quoted. So I thought it was a funny jab in that so many that do believe that are in the same camp telling us men can be pregnant. 

They're not so different at all.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

They're not so different at all.

Ok.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 hours ago, cbo said:

I don't care for this tweet either. It makes zero important points. But why does it bother you so much?

We are not arguing over "concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary."

We are arguing over these things. It’s not all we’re arguing, but it is a key part because concepts, paradigms, worldviews and vocabulary steer the debate.  And by appealing to emotion in this way, he's trying to avoid having to actually defend and explain the central issues and instead using a subtle form of "attack the messenger."  If you can get people debating over whether your opponent is a good person or is being mean or some sort, you don't have to spend nearly as much time discussing the actual subject.

 

10 hours ago, cbo said:

But there are actual laws being passed that make life more difficult for transgender people, in real, practical ways. Laws that have no real benefit to society or need to exist. I've referenced some already. I truly believe you are intelligent and spend time researching these topics, so you can look up many others.

I’ve seen laws regarding the limits of what we can do to children and minors with regard to transgender treatment options. These are completely appropriate. As Tex and I have pointed out, these decisions have lasting, even lifelong, consequences that children and teens are not emotionally nor mentally developed enough to be making. 

I’ve also seen laws regarding the extent to which the rest of society had to be compelled to participate and believe in someone’s self-identification. Some of them have to do with basic fairness such as barring trans women from competing against biological women in women’s and girls sports. I don’t know how that one is even up for debate.

And then there are issues of privacy and safety for biological women such as keeping spaces such as locker rooms, women’s shelters, restrooms and other areas where privacy and safety is paramount. I’ve seen laws regarding these matters and again, I believe these concerns to be reasonable. Whatever concerns we have for the mental health and safety of trans people, it shouldn’t come at the expense of biological girls and women, expecting them to just shut up and deal with it. 

I’m happy to discuss other laws on an individual basis and I’m sure in many if not most cases we’ll end up on the same side or close to it. I’m not out here defending the denial of a right to employment, housing, who you live with, what clothes you wear, what you change your name to, simply being left alone, and so on to trans people for instance. I’m rather “live and let live” on the matter to a great extent. But when you wish to compel me or others to indulge your self conceptualization through forced verbiage and other compulsory acts and practices, we’re going to being to depart ways. 

 

10 hours ago, cbo said:

But I ask you to think of it this way. One side is defending a marginalized group of people with insanely high suicide rates. People who are frequently the victims of discrimination and verbal and physical abuse. The other side is defending against ... being annoyed by emojis? Or tweets?

As I said above, it’s far more than minor annoyance. Words, ideas and the parameters of acceptable debate matter. As does performative virtue signaling and propaganda.  
 

10 hours ago, cbo said:

Finally, saying "pull up your grown up pants and deal with it" to a group of people who clearly have struggles beyond your understanding is baffling to me, when you have just said how a tweet drives you crazy. A tweet. The first three sentences of your last paragraph would make more sense if you looked in the mirror and said them to yourself. 

Yes, act like an adult who is capable of living with the fact that other people don’t share your concept of reality, and that doing so is not a de facto indicator of hatred, “denying existence”, or anything of the sort.  Being suicidal because you’re suffering actual abuse, violence and so forth is one thing. Being suicidal because all of society will not join you and bend to your concept of self identification, and dares disagree with you is an entirely different matter. And it’s not on those members of society give in to your sensitivities.  

Look at this another way. I’m a Christian. I believe in a supernatural, all powerful being who created everything that exists. I believe that His commands for us are good and should be followed. I believe that He sacrificed himself because of our sins and to reconcile us to himself. I draw my understanding of life’s meaning and purpose, the place of human beings in the universe, the entire concept of existence and so on from this belief. I could go on but you get the point. This isn’t ancillary for me. It’s who I am. It’s the crux of my identity and understanding of who I am and why I’m here. 

At the same time there are tons of people around the world, in places of great influence and power in this country, and even on this message board that wholly disagree with me. They don’t believe in the supernatural at all. They don’t believe in any of the reasons and purposes I ascribe to. They have an entirely different concept of human existence - how we got here, and why we are here (if they subscribe to a “why” at all). I know they feel this way about it because I’ve read their writings on it and/or debated with them many times about it. They reject my self concept altogether, even if they agree with some aspects of it such as The Golden Rule.

What am I to do with this knowledge?  If a prominent political figure, influencer, filmmaker, writer, academic or all of the above and then some argue that they disagree entirely with my belief system and concept of self identity, is this violence?  Are they denying my existence?  Should this refusal to acknowledge my concept of the universe, human existence and reality be seen as a reason to shut down their speech and drive them from the public arena to protect my mental health?  Or should I just learn to process major disagreements, even on things that are of utmost importance to me and absolutely critical to my concept of self identity like a mature adult?

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn’t ancillary for me. It’s who I am. It’s the crux of my identity and understanding of who I am and why I’m here. 

This is wildly incorrect. You would have absolutely no concept of Christianity if it hadn't been taught to you. 

Now, many and maybe most humans do have a biological need to have answers for certain questions and to have meaning ascribed to their existence. That's the only possible explanation for religion being so prevalent throughout history, and also for the rich diversity of religions. How do people keep coming up with all these different gods to worship? Why do they all think they're right when it's clear that the vast majority of them aren't? (Which of course points to the extreme likelihood that they're *all* wrong, except *possibly* the general spiritualists who allow for the possibility of some supernatural force or power guiding existence. "This all couldn't have happened by chance", etc.) People just aren't comfortable with the idea that we're not special and that we're not going anywhere after this. So they look at the stars and make pictures.

But you were not born a Christian any more than you were born an Auburn fan or a soccer antagonist. You learned those things from other people. That is not even remotely the same as being born with divergent chemical balances in your brain that lead to alternate gender identities. You might as well try to compare taste in music to eye color. And, on a level of presumption and self-delusion, you sound like one of those dog owners trying to claim it's the same as having a child. 

[AUcivE09 582]

I rarely wade into this place anymore, but Ill give a minute of my time. Titan - I'm just going to rearrange a little of your post as it is crazy how close we are on this.

 

Voting Record
99% Republican.  I can probably count on one hand how many times I've voted for a Democrat in anything outside a local election.  I would like to have someone with Trump's mentality to stand up to and call out the media and other politicians without being a complete you-know-what. Nonscripted speeches and question sessions are great if someone could be coherent. 

 

The Issues

Conservative
Abortion - I hope to see a day where this is viewed as barbaric. I would not mind seeing OTC birth control as part of a compromise. I really wish adoptions were easier and cheaper. Much rather see those funded by the government. I could live with exceptions during the first trimester.
2nd Amendment issues - I'm far from a gun nut but I'll support those yahoos too.
Parental rights re: their children's education


Lean Conservative
Free Trade Agree
Marriage and sexuality issues - I don't care who wants to marry who or what. Go get your state license. Just don't force churches to marry you or private businesses to support you. 

Healthcare - open it up across state lines. Having only a place in Alabama to pick from is insane. I think this should be done before we discuss universal care and let more competition take its course. If that fails - I'm likely to change my mind a little. 

Mixed (by this I mean, I cherry pick good points I think either side makes to form a new position)
Immigration Agree
Energy policy Agree
Environmental issues Agree
Unions - there is a place for unions, but they fight too hard to stay relevant where they are not needed.


Lean Progressive/Liberal
Legalize marijuana (but not in favor of decriminalizing other harder drugs) Agree

Progressive/Liberal
Paid parental leave after having a baby (3 months minimum, 6 months preferable) Agree
No death penalty - if prison systems were run correctly and we could get minor drug offenders out then you would have room to house those that actually belong. I do not believe in taking a life unless it is in defense of mine or my family where someone has made a choice that they are willing to risk their life. 


Other/Neither
Free speech - it's perhaps our most precious right.  People do not have a constitutional right to not be offended or to not have to encounter ideas they don't like or challenge their own.  Neither side is really getting it right on this. Agree

[TitanTiger 20,472]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

This is wildly incorrect. You would have absolutely no concept of Christianity if it hadn't been taught to you. 

Now, many and maybe most humans do have a biological need to have answers for certain questions and to have meaning ascribed to their existence. That's the only possible explanation for religion being so prevalent throughout history, and also for the rich diversity of religions. How do people keep coming up with all these different gods to worship? Why do they all think they're right when it's clear that the vast majority of them aren't? (Which of course points to the extreme likelihood that they're *all* wrong, except *possibly* the general spiritualists who allow for the possibility of some supernatural force or power guiding existence. "This all couldn't have happened by chance", etc.) People just aren't comfortable with the idea that we're not special and that we're not going anywhere after this. So they look at the stars and make pictures.

But you were not born a Christian any more than you were born an Auburn fan or a soccer antagonist. You learned those things from other people. That is not even remotely the same as being born with divergent chemical balances in your brain that lead to alternate gender identities. You might as well try to compare taste in music to eye color. And, on a level of presumption and self-delusion, you sound like one of those dog owners trying to claim it's the same as having a child. 

What concept would someone have of being a different gender if the concept of gender identity or gender as distinct from sex had never been taught to them?  This isn't some understanding human beings have been born with since the dawn of time here.

And I'm not debating with you over why religion is prevalent, which ones make sense to you, or how we decide which one is correct.  I'm telling you that being a theist and being a Christian specifically is central to who I am, my concept of existence, my reason for being here, my understanding of how the world works or should work.  This is true whether you like it, want to believe it, or not.

But we could name any number of other things that various people see as central to their existence and identity.  We all have them even if we don't bother to think them through or analyze them to such a degree.  The point is, there are billions of people on this planet and massive segments of them are going to reject your concept of identity and reality.  They will hold to an entirely different understanding of reality, identity and existence.  Some of them will argue vehemently for their understanding over yours.  They will not only exalt their understanding but denigrate yours.

What are we to do with that?  One group today seems to think that the way to combat it is to shift the terms of acceptable debate such that even debating it in the first place is off limits.  To question or debate their self-conception is to do violence and inflict mental anguish on others.  All I'm arguing is that this way of dealing with it is bull****.  We can discuss this like adults, have major disagreements, but also hopefully find some areas of common ground to respect the privacy and autonomy of individuals.  But this thing where any time someone calls your beliefs and concepts into question, or suggests there are limits to what your self-conception can compel everyone else to do or say or allow in society they are "denying your existence" or sending people like you careening toward suicide needs to stop.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What concept would someone have of being a different gender if the concept of gender identity or gender as distinct from sex had never been taught to them?  This isn't some understanding human beings have been born with since the dawn of time here.

Holy s***, pun intended. You're literally going to argue sex as nurture over nature. Unreal.

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

One group today seems to think that the way to combat it is to shift the terms of acceptable debate such that even debating it in the first place is off limits.

One group? Would that be the one trying to legislate the conversation away?

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But this thing where any time someone calls your beliefs and concepts into question, or suggests there are limits to what your self-conception can compel everyone else to do or say or allow in society they are "denying your existence" or sending people like you careening toward suicide needs to stop.  

It's always those who have never been victimized by bigotry saying things like this. Also, look who's trying to tell others how they can think and speak now. 

Check your blind spots. You're far better than most around here but for some reason you go completely off the rails on issues of gender and sexuality. I'll never know why but maybe one day you will.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The political "Christian" is inherently hypocritical. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

30 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Holy s***, pun intended. You're literally going to argue sex as nurture over nature. Unreal.

No, and I'm not sure how you made that leap from what I said.  Sex is nature.  But this notion of gender as a distinct thing from sex, and the notion that one can mentally be a gender that differs from sex is a very recent concept.  And the notion that somehow what one thinks about their gender should be given priority over biology is extremely new.  If someone hadn't taught such a thing to someone, how would they come to this conclusion that they are "really" a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa?  Or would it just be seen as them being, for instance, a man who has some personality traits, likes, interests and such that are typically things we see women having and that would be the end of it?

 

30 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

One group? Would that be the one trying to legislate the conversation away?

No, the group that thinks that because they believe when a biological man says he believes he's a woman, that all of society should be forced under threat of loss of job and other legal repercussions to use certain pronouns even if they see it as forcing them to lie, refer to them by their chosen gender rather than their biological sex, allow men who still have fully intact male genitalia who claim to be trans open access to girls or women's spaces, allow men who've gained all the advantages of going through puberty as a male to compete in sports that were specifically set aside and created due to obvious inherent biological advantages males have over females, and declare that any time someone dares to questions any of this they are committing violence or driving people to suicide.  The group that has decided that all of that talk of tolerance and live and let live was just for when they felt like they didn't have the numbers in public opinion to press for more, but now demand active affirmation.  

That group.

 

30 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It's always those who have never been victimized by bigotry saying things like this. Also, look who's trying to tell others how they can think and speak now. 

Check your blind spots. You're far better than most around here but for some reason you go completely off the rails on issues of gender and sexuality. I'll never know why but maybe one day you will.

Being victimized by bigotry doesn't make one exempt from criticism or disagreement.  It's not a free pass to force everyone to bend to your terms, nor to resort to emotional manipulation to shut down debate.  

I'm not off the rails about gender or sexuality simply because I refuse to shift with the culture over it every time the wind changes direction.  I don't come to the conclusions and beliefs I have on the subjects lightly or without much thought, consideration, reading and studying.  

That my beliefs differ from yours, or the culture at large since the Sexual Revolution is not an indicator that I'm the one who's gone off the rails.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But this notion of gender as a distinct thing from sex, and the notion that one can mentally be a gender that differs from sex is a very recent concept.

Oh my goodness, no it's not. It's only that it's recently become a topic about which people feel safe advocating for themselves and others.

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, the group that thinks that because they believe when a biological man says he believes he's a woman, that all of society should be forced under threat of loss of job and other legal repercussions to use certain pronouns even if they see it as forcing them to lie, refer to them by their chosen gender rather than their biological sex, allow men who still have fully intact male genitalia who claim to be trans open access to girls or women's spaces, allow men who've gained all the advantages of going through puberty as a male to compete in sports that were specifically set aside and created due to obvious inherent biological advantages males have over females, and declare that any time someone dares to questions any of this they are committing violence or driving people to suicide.  The group that has decided that all of that Italk of tolerance and live and let live was just for when they felt like they didn't have the numbers in public opinion to press for more, but now demand active affirmation.  

That group.

So you're sticking with just the one group. Huh.

Also, man, it's really bubbling up now, isn't it? I mean, you actually make some good points, but the problem is that you still can't recognize your hypocrisy regarding how the conversation is conducted.

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Being victimized by bigotry doesn't make one exempt from criticism or disagreement.  It's not a free pass to force everyone to bend to your terms, nor to resort to emotional manipulation to shut down debate.  

That's not what I claimed, so I'm not sure why you typed any of this. What I (quite plainly) said is that *not* being victimized by bigotry throws up some blinders in the more fortunate among us. 

Quote

I'm not off the rails about gender or sexuality simply because I refuse to shift with the culture over it every time the wind changes direction.  I don't come to the conclusions and beliefs I have on the subjects lightly or without much thought, consideration, reading and studying.  

No, you're off the rails about it because you spent that much time obsessing over something that doesn't affect you. And make no mistake, you are obsessed with these issues. I've shared this space with you long enough that I have a very informed opinion on that. And you just acknowledged that you spend a lot of time with it away from here.

Quote

That my beliefs differ from yours, or the culture at large since the Sexual Revolution is not an indicator that I'm the one who's gone off the rails.

Again, not the issue here and I never said it was. So your response kind of proves the point I made when I brought up that meme you posted.

Like I said, believe what you want, but do check those blind spots in terms of how you approach the conversation.