Matt hits home run on Dr. Phil

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

 

jrs1024

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
10,042
15,608
1
West Palm Beach
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

Saw this and I commend matt for going into a hostile environment to call the BS. The trans issue is probably the best cultural issue for the right because it’s so blatantly wrong and insane by the left. Men don’t have periods. It’s that simple.

It’s also an issue the delegitimizes most of the left’s assertions. Why? Because they trot out “experts” to talk about how trans is a real thing and how a man can be a woman just by feeling so. It’s a sickness, reminiscent of most failed civilizations. But yeah, when “experts” so clearly and blatantly lie, lathering it in a sauce of fake studies, it calls into question what every “expert” is saying or what bullshit is behind their studies. Climate change that requires radical transformation of our society? That’s bullshit. Systemic racism is why violent crimes are committed and people are arrested and jailed? Bullshit. Peaceful protests involve arson, assault and murder? Bullshit. If you just wear your mask and get your nth booster Covid will go away? Bullshit.

The trans issue is just the easiest wedge issue to point out that everything they believe is fake because everyone knows it’s fake but 40% of the population is too concerned with social desirability to admit it.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
105,897
53,476
1
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

I haven't seen that show in years but happened to catch five minutes. His arguments were pretty hard to refute. They were trying to "define woman". And Matt simply said someone who was born with reproductive organs. That was pretty much fact.

I don't call them freaks or whatever. I am sympathetic. But I am NOT in favor of upsetting the entire apple cart. I can't wait until someone sues over title IX and see what happens. If you can be born male and compete in female sports, why is there provision for female sports and equity to men's sports? makes no sense whatsoever.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
17,151
19,372
1
I think he's kind of an attention whore but usually right. I saw that clip and shook my head at those weirdos. You can't define what a woman is but you call yourself one? Excuse me for thinking you're an idiot.
 

BW Lion

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
4,880
5,817
1
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

Aside from Matt, that was a F'in Freak Show.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
I haven't seen that show in years but happened to catch five minutes. His arguments were pretty hard to refute. They were trying to "define woman". And Matt simply said someone who was born with reproductive organs. That was pretty much fact.

I don't call them freaks or whatever. I am sympathetic. But I am NOT in favor of upsetting the entire apple cart. I can't wait until someone sues over title IX and see what happens. If you can be born male and compete in female sports, why is there provision for female sports and equity to men's sports? makes no sense whatsoever.

I would never call anyone a freak until or unless he got in my face and demanded that I affirm and applaud his delusions.

These people are doing that and they're doing it with the Powers of our society, culture, and government on their side demanding that we go along...or pretend to go along. And they want our children too.

This being the case, the gloves are off, and the ordinary rules of civility and restraint no longer apply. We're in a war here. If you go on national television and flaunt your freakiness, don't get offended if you get called a freak.
 

BW Lion

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
4,880
5,817
1
I would never call anyone a freak until or unless he got in my face and demanded that I affirm and applaud his delusions.

These people are doing that and they're doing it with the Powers of our society, culture, and government on their side demanding that we go along...or pretend to go along. And they want our children too.

This being the case, the gloves are off, and the ordinary rules of civility and restraint no longer apply. We're in a war here. If you go on national television and flaunt your freakiness, don't get offended if you get called a freak.
We’re at a fork in the road…..these freaks are either going to be mainstreamed or ridiculed into insignificance.

Unfortunately there are multitudes behind them thanks to our “public Marxist indoctrinating educators”
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
We’re at a fork in the road…..these freaks are either going to be mainstreamed or ridiculed into insignificance.

Unfortunately there are multitudes behind them thanks to our “public Marxist indoctrinating educators”

Agreed.

The average person on the street knows in his gut that all this is sick and wrong, but the problem is a culture that relativizes truth and therefore normalizes deviancy.

People are attracted to relativism because it tells them whatever they want to do is OK...it's their own personal truth after all.

But once you accept the notion that everyone gets to choose their own truth, the determinants of morality inevitably become self-interest and power.

When that happens, there is no logical moral argument against transgenderism and no defense against those with power who would impose its acceptance on the rest of us.

At the end of the day, this boils down to one question and always has: can human beings create their own moral "truth" or must they instead discern the Truth already created by a transcendent power.

Our civilization rose on the strength of one answer to that question...and is now falling on the weakness of the other answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monlion

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,313
20,485
1
Saw this and I commend matt for going into a hostile environment to call the BS. The trans issue is probably the best cultural issue for the right because it’s so blatantly wrong and insane by the left. Men don’t have periods. It’s that simple.

It’s also an issue the delegitimizes most of the left’s assertions. Why? Because they trot out “experts” to talk about how trans is a real thing and how a man can be a woman just by feeling so. It’s a sickness, reminiscent of most failed civilizations. But yeah, when “experts” so clearly and blatantly lie, lathering it in a sauce of fake studies, it calls into question what every “expert” is saying or what bullshit is behind their studies. Climate change that requires radical transformation of our society? That’s bullshit. Systemic racism is why violent crimes are committed and people are arrested and jailed? Bullshit. Peaceful protests involve arson, assault and murder? Bullshit. If you just wear your mask and get your nth booster Covid will go away? Bullshit.

The trans issue is just the easiest wedge issue to point out that everything they believe is fake because everyone knows it’s fake but 40% of the population is too concerned with social desirability to admit it.
So JRS: Are gays sick, too?

Just asking for a friend … who lives in a small hovel with an unpaved driveway in the middle of nowhere, with tomatoes and other gay dudes as his only friends.
 
Last edited:

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,313
20,485
1
Agreed.

The average person on the street knows in his gut that all this is sick and wrong, but the problem is a culture that relativizes truth and therefore normalizes deviancy.

People are attracted to relativism because it tells them whatever they want to do is OK...it's their own personal truth after all.

But once you accept the notion that everyone gets to choose their own truth, the determinants of morality inevitably become self-interest and power.

When that happens, there is no logical moral argument against transgenderism and no defense against those with power who would impose its acceptance on the rest of us.

At the end of the day, this boils down to one question and always has: can human beings create their own moral "truth" or must they instead discern the Truth already created by a transcendent power.

Our civilization rose on the strength of one answer to that question...and is now falling on the weakness of the other answer.
Oh noes! Cats and dogs sleeping together. Mass hysteria!
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,973
7,228
1
Agreed.

The average person on the street knows in his gut that all this is sick and wrong, but the problem is a culture that relativizes truth and therefore normalizes deviancy.

People are attracted to relativism because it tells them whatever they want to do is OK...it's their own personal truth after all.

But once you accept the notion that everyone gets to choose their own truth, the determinants of morality inevitably become self-interest and power.

When that happens, there is no logical moral argument against transgenderism and no defense against those with power who would impose its acceptance on the rest of us.

At the end of the day, this boils down to one question and always has: can human beings create their own moral "truth" or must they instead discern the Truth already created by a transcendent power.

Our civilization rose on the strength of one answer to that question...and is now falling on the weakness of the other answer.

Jerry, we often think alike, but this is one where we are probably going to differ.

Transgenderism is an issue, among many, where both sides (in my view) are wrong. It is a real phenomenon (for a very small minority). At the same time there is the "power of suggestion" at work, making transgenderism appear larger than reality, even to the point of making some people think that they are transgender when in fact they are not transgender. Some "adults" on The Left are even exasperating this problem through the power of suggestion with children. It is sickening.

In terms of probability and representation in society, think of it along the lines of hermaphroditism. It isn't hermaphroditism, but hermaphrodites do in fact become born. We cannot simply dismiss that it happens, nor should we have disdain for people who are born this way.

Like homosexuality, transgenderism is an issue with the mind. Such people do not choose to become born this way. (Nor are they necessarily homosexual.) It simply happens, like a mutation. We know about it in modern times because we have a better mechanism for communication, i.e., the media and internet.

As is becoming ever more common, the Left is blowing up a small issue into a gigantic smokescreen to deflect from their real agenda while growing their base of support. Transgenderism is one of their tools.

The Right, on the other hand, seeks to disregard or marginalize something that is real (sometimes on the grounds of morality). Transgenderism is nothing like homosexuality, but I think most conservatives have come around to understand that homosexuality is what it is: A person who is biologically attracted to the same sex. This is ingrained in a brain. It isn't (usually) a choice made after birth. It's like many other things that we might consider to be a "mutation" from the mean. Early environment probably plays a role, but I doubt that it is the only role. We cannot simply dismiss the possibility of either, or both effects -- genetic and environment.

So, like so many of our problems, the truth and real solutions are muddled within the middle. We make no progress because our society has migrated into tribes. You are either with us or against us. You are either Right or Left. You either let males in the women's room, or you're insensitive. It is madness.

The disturbing thing to me is that The Left is forcing a lot of difficult subjects onto our children. Many subjects are age-appropriate. We have a movie-rating system for a reason. Break that down (as we have) and bad things start to occur.

Transgenderism is something that most adults are not prepared to understand, just like homosexuality not too long ago.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
19,646
26,954
1
At the same time there is the "power of suggestion" at work, making transgenderism appear larger than reality, even to the point of making some people think that they are transgender when in fact they are not transgender. Some "adults" on The Left are even exasperating this problem through the power of suggestion with children. It is sickening

This is actually a really big problem. Adults convincing the kids with self image/self esteem/popularity issues that it's their gender that's the issue. I've watched a buddy's daughter be pushed into the trans arena for that reason
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
2,540
2,105
1
I couldn’t care less whether a person is Transgendered. In fact, my wife who works as a child psychologist is familiar with a male student who received hormonal therapy to change gender to become a girl. The parents were very supportive of their child’s wishes and it has worked out for the better in this instance. The kid is much happier. Unfortunately, most children who are uncomfortable with their biological sex suffer from anxiety, depression and suicide at higher rates than the kids who do not have gender identity issues. This is still true even when a person has fully transitioned to the other sex. Mental health struggles continues to haunt these individuals.

A problem that arises is when these gender identity issues are normalized into society. Instead of recognizing these issues as rare and understanding them on a case by case basis, it is being integrated into pop culture as the norm instead of the statistical outlier. The left wants to turn this into activism in our schools where children who cannot fully grasp the concepts of these identity issues are being expected to champion the cause.

In the last 3 years, my wife has experienced young children (7,8,9,10 yrs old) talking about how they want to be the opposite sex. These kids are picking up on these issues from television, internet and adults that are influential in their lives. Some kids are now perceiving it as the popular way to think about gender.
 
Last edited:

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
44,015
17,283
1
DFW, TX
Transgenderism is nothing like homosexuality, but I think most conservatives have come around to understand that homosexuality is what it is: A person who is biologically attracted to the same sex. This is ingrained in a brain. It isn't (usually) a choice made after birth.


I have watched a lot of videos on this topic and read a lot of research. There is very little evidence that this is biological. Some biological traits can make it more likely, but that isn't the same as it being biological.

This doesn't make it wrong. But I tend to believe the vast majority of homosexuals are so because of nurture not nature.

For example, there is some very high ratio of being a homosexual male based on birth order. Also, many families have (as an example) 3 heterosexual children and one homosexual child.

Despite the rhetoric from the LGBTQ community I'd strongly suggest it is nurture based on actual research.

Again, this doesn't make it wrong. Seems to be a natural part of being human and humanity. And I don't believe you can switch someone 'back'.

Also, I see that you never definitively said it's biological. But you implied it's from birth. Although I agree 100% it isn't a 'choice'.

LdN
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,973
7,228
1
I have watched a lot of videos on this topic and read a lot of research. There is very little evidence that this is biological. Some biological traits can make it more likely, but that isn't the same as it being biological.

This doesn't make it wrong. But I tend to believe the vast majority of homosexuals are so because of nurture not nature.

For example, there is some very high ratio of being a homosexual male based on birth order. Also, many families have (as an example) 3 heterosexual children and one homosexual child.

Despite the rhetoric from the LGBTQ community I'd strongly suggest it is nurture based on actual research.

Again, this doesn't make it wrong. Seems to be a natural part of being human and humanity. And I don't believe you can switch someone 'back'.

Also, I see that you never definitively said it's biological. But you implied it's from birth. Although I agree 100% it isn't a 'choice'.

LdN

Don't understand your argument. It seems contradictory. You say you believe it is nurture and not nature but then seem to cite otherwise.

We should all agree that nurture should not be the source of mutation. This is what today's leftwing extremists seem to be creating. I think they do not even know what they are creating. Useful idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,973
7,228
1

This is why some of us in red states see no alternative but to secede, or at the very least, get the federal government completely out of the way of the states. If you want your child to be exposed like this you can move to Oregon.

It's really too bad that the best climate states have all turned woke. I lived in California long ago before it got ruined. Best years of my life. Visited a few years ago -- before it got even worse -- and could see that what once was is now far gone.

The West Coast will soon be third world. Sane people from there are moving to where I live. I see no one moving west that is not being forced to do so by their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
Jerry, we often think alike, but this is one where we are probably going to differ.

Transgenderism is an issue, among many, where both sides (in my view) are wrong. It is a real phenomenon (for a very small minority). At the same time there is the "power of suggestion" at work, making transgenderism appear larger than reality, even to the point of making some people think that they are transgender when in fact they are not transgender. Some "adults" on The Left are even exasperating this problem through the power of suggestion with children. It is sickening.

In terms of probability and representation in society, think of it along the lines of hermaphroditism. It isn't hermaphroditism, but hermaphrodites do in fact become born. We cannot simply dismiss that it happens, nor should we have disdain for people who are born this way.

Like homosexuality, transgenderism is an issue with the mind. Such people do not choose to become born this way. (Nor are they necessarily homosexual.) It simply happens, like a mutation. We know about it in modern times because we have a better mechanism for communication, i.e., the media and internet.

As is becoming ever more common, the Left is blowing up a small issue into a gigantic smokescreen to deflect from their real agenda while growing their base of support. Transgenderism is one of their tools.

The Right, on the other hand, seeks to disregard or marginalize something that is real (sometimes on the grounds of morality). Transgenderism is nothing like homosexuality, but I think most conservatives have come around to understand that homosexuality is what it is: A person who is biologically attracted to the same sex. This is ingrained in a brain. It isn't (usually) a choice made after birth. It's like many other things that we might consider to be a "mutation" from the mean. Early environment probably plays a role, but I doubt that it is the only role. We cannot simply dismiss the possibility of either, or both effects -- genetic and environment.

So, like so many of our problems, the truth and real solutions are muddled within the middle. We make no progress because our society has migrated into tribes. You are either with us or against us. You are either Right or Left. You either let males in the women's room, or you're insensitive. It is madness.

The disturbing thing to me is that The Left is forcing a lot of difficult subjects onto our children. Many subjects are age-appropriate. We have a movie-rating system for a reason. Break that down (as we have) and bad things start to occur.

Transgenderism is something that most adults are not prepared to understand, just like homosexuality not too long ago.

Knight, well stated as usual and I actually agree with most of what you say above.

The thing is, none of it actually contradicts the post to which you responded. Which is not to say you agree with the point I made...just that your answering comment didn't refute it.

This discussion generally gets tied up in extremes and stereotypes deployed by both sides. One could cite the wisdom of the ages as set forth by some of the great minds of our race in their works of theology and philosophy, but really it can also be boiled down to one resounding line in Scripture: Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you and before you were born I set you apart...Jeremiah 1:5.

That is, all of us were made a certain way for a certain purpose. Our mission in life must be to discern the purpose and live it out. The notion that we can or should "improve" on God's design by literally re-creating ourselves is folly and leads to misery.

Regarding homosexuality, it comes down to the order of nature. God ordained the laws of nature. He made it a certain way to work a certain way. We can discern the order of things by observing and understanding the way they work. The body of theology governing this is called natural law and has a long history. Accordingly, it is against the natural order, hence disordered, for a male to have sexual relations with another male.

To be clear, I do NOT presume to condemn individual homosexuals or transgendered persons nor wish them to be persecuted or harassed. Being a sinner myself, I have no standing to do this. And besides, only God can judge a person's heart and soul.

In addition, for the most part, I don't believe people choose their sexual orientation. Rather, it's a complex product of nature and nurture. As for transgenders, I think most of them are tragically disturbed. In fact, what these people do in the privacy of their own homes, assuming it is not overtly against the law, is neither my business nor the state's.

That said, I also believe that both conditions are disordered and unhealthy both for the individuals in their grip and the societies that normalize them...let alone demand the rest of us approve or even celebrate them. But the expression of this view on my part has suddenly become intolerable...even possibly illegal as thousands of years worth of traditional wisdom and the moral principles that formed the basis of our civilization have suddenly been tossed overboard overnight.

Here's the thing: either I'm right in believing moral truth surrounding life, gender, and sexuality can not be invented or cancelled based on human whims...in which case it would seem our own nation and civilization have now put themselves on a path to ruin.

Or I'm wrong, and a New Moral Order has suddenly been discovered whereby people rightfully get to make up their own truths and their own reality, ushering in a new dawn of enlightenment and happiness. (Oddly, the New Moral Order doesn't appear to be producing a lot of happiness.)

Keep in mind, if we go with the latter scenario, there is literally nothing, no individual moral choice, that can not be justified. The moral walls come tumbling down with no logical defense left on even the most obvious and fundamental issues.

In any case, the stakes are high. But one thing for sure: I ain't changing my view regardless of how unpopular or unfashionable it may be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ram2020

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,313
20,485
1
Also, many families have (as an example) 3 heterosexual children and one homosexual child.

Despite the rhetoric from the LGBTQ community I'd strongly suggest it is nurture based on actual research.

LdN
LDN: I do not believe we have any conclusive evidence as to whether homsexuality is a consequence of nature or nurture. But the mere fact that, as you note above, many families have multiple hetero children and one gay child strongly suggests that it is nature. Unless, of course, your argument is that the parents somehow raised their straight children differently from their gay child.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
19,646
26,954
1
I grew up with a guy that we always suspected was gay. He tried so hard to not be gay, but finally came out after college.

From that point on I've always gone with nature over nurture for being gay. Being trans or any of the other 6 dozen invented genders is definitely more nurture than nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kts136

Lesgo_Brandon

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2021
169
292
1
St Louis
My recollection from growing up in the 90s at a small school was that some guys were feminine from elementary school on and some girls were butch. No real surprise when they came out of the closet years after graduating. It always seemed very genetic to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and psuted

jrs1024

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2005
10,042
15,608
1
West Palm Beach
This is why some of us in red states see no alternative but to secede, or at the very least, get the federal government completely out of the way of the states. If you want your child to be exposed like this you can move to Oregon.

It's really too bad that the best climate states have all turned woke. I lived in California long ago before it got ruined. Best years of my life. Visited a few years ago -- before it got even worse -- and could see that what once was is now far gone.

The West Coast will soon be third world. Sane people from there are moving to where I live. I see no one moving west that is not being forced to do so by their job.
We still have Florida!
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
I grew up with a guy that we always suspected was gay. He tried so hard to not be gay, but finally came out after college.

From that point on I've always gone with nature over nurture for being gay. Being trans or any of the other 6 dozen invented genders is definitely more nurture than nature.

I tend to think it's can be either nature or nurture but most often a combination of both.

I think disordered relationships with the mother or father, or between the mother and father, acting on the psyche from a very young age, even infancy, can influence the development of sexual orientation.

Also, with boys in particular, puberty can be a time of fragility and instability. The experiences and influences acting on a person's life during that transitional period from child to man or woman may play a big role.

One thing for sure: once sexual orientation is established, I don't think it can be "deprogrammed."

One case of "nature" that I personally observed as a kid was in the family that lived down the street from us. Six kids. The oldest boy was my best friend for a number of years.

There were four boys. The second of the four was always "different." Didn't play sports with us. Hung out with girls. Distinctly effeminate from an early age. To nobody's surprise, turned out gay. An apparent case of "nature."

But I think the large majority of boys who turn out gay show no obvious signs like that. Moreover, some polling data show some pretty shocking numbers in the Generation Z cohort with 20-plus percent of them claiming to be "bisexual."

That's orders of magnitude higher than any number measured either in previous polling or research on the subject. This would seem to point to external factors -- "nurture" if you will -- to include cultural indoctrination. It is not a positive indicator for a healthy society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ram2020

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
3,957
6,206
1
So JRS: Are gays sick, too?

Just asking for a friend … who lives in a small hovel with an unpaved driveway in the middle of nowhere, with tomatoes and other gay dudes as his only friends.
Gay people are suffering from a type of mental illness.

Evolutionary success has given people a strong drive to reproduce with members of the other sex.

Anything else is simply an error in either the mental makeup or genetic code (or some combination, I don't know).

Does that mean we should beat them? Of course not.

But there's nothing to celebrate. It's the same as any other defect - nothing good about it.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,182
39,040
1
Knight, well stated as usual and I actually agree with most of what you say above.

The thing is, none of it actually contradicts the post to which you responded. Which is not to say you agree with the point I made...just that your answering comment didn't refute it.

This discussion generally gets tied up in extremes and stereotypes deployed by both sides. One could cite the wisdom of the ages as set forth by some of the great minds of our race in their works of theology and philosophy, but really it can also be boiled down to one resounding line in Scripture: Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you and before you were born I set you apart...Jeremiah 1:5.

That is, all of us were made a certain way for a certain purpose. Our mission in life must be to discern the purpose and live it out. The notion that we can or should "improve" on God's design by literally re-creating ourselves is folly and leads to misery.

Regarding homosexuality, it comes down to the order of nature. God ordained the laws of nature. He made it a certain way to work a certain way. We can discern the order of things by observing and understanding the way they work. The body of theology governing this is called natural law and has a long history. Accordingly, it is against the natural order, hence disordered, for a male to have sexual relations with another male.

To be clear, I do NOT presume to condemn individual homosexuals or transgendered persons nor wish them to be persecuted or harassed. Being a sinner myself, I have no standing to do this. And besides, only God can judge a person's heart and soul.

In addition, for the most part, I don't believe people choose their sexual orientation. Rather, it's a complex product of nature and nurture. As for transgenders, I think most of them are tragically disturbed. In fact, what these people do in the privacy of their own homes, assuming it is not overtly against the law, is neither my business nor the state's.

That said, I also believe that both conditions are disordered and unhealthy both for the individuals in their grip and the societies that normalize them...let alone demand the rest of us approve or even celebrate them. But the expression of this view on my part has suddenly become intolerable...even possibly illegal as thousands of years worth of traditional wisdom and the moral principles that formed the basis of our civilization have suddenly been tossed overboard overnight.

Here's the thing: either I'm right in believing moral truth surrounding life, gender, and sexuality can not be invented or cancelled based on human whims...in which case it would seem our own nation and civilization have now put themselves on a path to ruin.

Or I'm wrong, and a New Moral Order has suddenly been discovered whereby people rightfully get to make up their own truths and their own reality, ushering in a new dawn of enlightenment and happiness. (Oddly, the New Moral Order doesn't appear to be producing a lot of happiness.)

Keep in mind, if we go with the latter scenario, there is literally nothing, no individual moral choice, that can not be justified. The moral walls come tumbling down with no logical defense left on even the most obvious and fundamental issues.

In any case, the stakes are high. But one thing for sure: I ain't changing my view regardless of how unpopular or unfashionable it may be.
I would disagree with your take on Natural Law. I would also disagree with your, either or statement. Religion certainly has no ground to stand on when it comes to Natural Law or the order and flow of the world. Religion has always done what is best for itself.

Remember, millions have been murdered in the name of God and Religion. Theological governance has also deemed women to be the unequal of men as well as Africans. It's not just Christianity which has done this, but other religions as well.

As for me, I need no God to tell me about Natural Law. From Aristotle to John Locke, no one has agreed on Natural Law. That includes long before the first known belief in God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165 and Ski

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
I would disagree with your take on Natural Law. I would also disagree with your, either or statement. Religion certainly has no ground to stand on when it comes to Natural Law or the order and flow of the world. Religion has always done what is best for itself.

Remember, millions have been murdered in the name of God and Religion. Theological governance has also deemed women to be the unequal of men as well as Africans. It's not just Christianity which has done this, but other religions as well.

As for me, I need no God to tell me about Natural Law. From Aristotle to John Locke, no one has agreed on Natural Law. That includes long before the first known belief in God.

OK, we'll agree to disagree, Shoe.

The classical teaching on this subject has its roots in the pre-Christian philosophy of Aristotle which was "Christianized" by Thomas Aquinas and remains to this day a bulwark of Catholic theology.

Boiled down to its essence, it holds that nature was created by God and is governed by laws that are universal and knowable through human reason.

Yes, history shows that terrible abuses have been committed in the name of religion and sanctioned by religion. But to therefore jettison religion entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The sins of Christianity were committed not by people following the teaching of Christ but rather by those violating it.

That aside, the story of Western civilization, warts and all, is the story of Christendom. There is no Western civilization without Christianity.

As I stated in my post, without reference to God, the determinants of morality become self-interest and power. Period. Every time. If I'm wrong, point me to an example.

In fact, the 20th century showed vivid and horrific examples of what happens when systems of government, such as Hitler's Germany and the Communist totalitarian states, are ruled by an ideology aggressively hostile toward religion.

One said ultimate authority lay in the Aryan race as ruled by the Nazis. The other said the Party ruled by a Marxist elite. Neither worked out too well. Indeed, speaking of "millions murdered," you might want to check out the casualty count run up by those two anti-religion ideologies.

The basic problem in your argument is this: if God is not the author of the moral (natural) law, then on what basis can anything be held immoral? Popular vote? Personal whim? Imposed power? I've been debating this question for decades and have yet to hear a coherent answer from the side rejecting God. Maybe you'll be the first.

Anyway, so here we are in Brave New Amerika whose culture and government are dominated by Wokeists with an antipathy toward traditional religion rivaling last century's Nazis and Communists. The ancient moral code has been tossed in the trash, but things don't seem to be working out too well.

Buckle your seatbelt because it's gonna get worse. A lot worse. Yet many conservatives cling to the idea that it will all be fixed by a favorable mid-term or presidential election. If only...
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,182
39,040
1
OK, we'll agree to disagree, Shoe.

The classical teaching on this subject has its roots in the pre-Christian philosophy of Aristotle which was "Christianized" by Thomas Aquinas and remains to this day a bulwark of Catholic theology.

Boiled down to its essence, it holds that nature was created by God and is governed by laws that are universal and knowable through human reason.

Yes, history shows that terrible abuses have been committed in the name of religion and sanctioned by religion. But to therefore jettison religion entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The sins of Christianity were committed not by people following the teaching of Christ but rather by those violating it.

That aside, the story of Western civilization, warts and all, is the story of Christendom. There is no Western civilization without Christianity.

As I stated in my post, without reference to God, the determinants of morality become self-interest and power. Period. Every time. If I'm wrong, point me to an example.

In fact, the 20th century showed vivid and horrific examples of what happens when systems of government, such as Hitler's Germany and the Communist totalitarian states, are ruled by an ideology aggressively hostile toward religion.

One said ultimate authority lay in the Aryan race as ruled by the Nazis. The other said the Party ruled by a Marxist elite. Neither worked out too well. Indeed, speaking of "millions murdered," you might want to check out the casualty count run up by those two anti-religion ideologies.

The basic problem in your argument is this: if God is not the author of the moral (natural) law, then on what basis can anything be held immoral? Popular vote? Personal whim? Imposed power? I've been debating this question for decades and have yet to hear a coherent answer from the side rejecting God. Maybe you'll be the first.

Anyway, so here we are in Brave New Amerika whose culture and government are dominated by Wokeists with an antipathy toward traditional religion rivaling last century's Nazis and Communists. The ancient moral code has been tossed in the trash, but things don't seem to be working out too well.

Buckle your seatbelt because it's gonna get worse. A lot worse. Yet many conservatives cling to the idea that it will all be fixed by a favorable mid-term or presidential election. If only...
No Western civilization without Christianity? I beg to differ. People fled here away from religious persecution.

"The sins of Christianity were committed not by people following the teaching of Christ but rather by those violating it."

Absolutely, those running the church, and those performing acts in the name of the church.

Study the Gospel of Wealth. Read, Religion in America by John Corrigan, my professor at Arizona State. Then, I would add his work, Business of the Heart. Religion has almost always been about money, particularly in Italy, France, England, and especially, America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,182
39,040
1
I'll also add, we, Western Civilization, annihilated peoples, stole their wealth, all in the name of God. From Montezuma to the Black Hills, Christianity did that.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,082
4,766
1
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

Boy Jerry, you must really be old to have a son that age
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jerry

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
1,836
1,903
1
Matt has gotten (and continues to get) a huge response, both positive and negative (but mostly positive), to his Wednesday appearance on Dr. Phil to take on the transgender issue and those who advocate for it.

Granted, it doesn't hurt when your opponents are freaks, kooks, and a psychologist chick oozing smugness and fake expertise.

Unfortunately, the freaks and kooks are now in charge of our institutions. You can't play patty-cake with these people. You have to look them in the eye and tell them they're full of shit. Why there aren't more people on "our side" willing to do that, I don't know. But the main threat to our country and everything we hold dear does not reside in Moscow...or Beijing...or Pyongyang...or Tehran. It's a lot closer to home than that.

Linked below is a brief (3-minute) sample of how the show went:

That gave me a headache. I liked the breaded lady haven’t seen that since I was a kid at the Jefferson county fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
No Western civilization without Christianity? I beg to differ. People fled here away from religious persecution.

"The sins of Christianity were committed not by people following the teaching of Christ but rather by those violating it."

Absolutely, those running the church, and those performing acts in the name of the church.

Study the Gospel of Wealth. Read, Religion in America by John Corrigan, my professor at Arizona State. Then, I would add his work, Business of the Heart. Religion has almost always been about money, particularly in Italy, France, England, and especially, America.

Right, Christians fled here and eventually wrote a document that starts like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...

So the Founders predicated their entire project on the foundational moral principle that the dignity and rights and liberty of men arise from their status as children of God, and the primary purpose of government is to protect that dignity and liberty.

Thus, the answer...the only coherent answer...to the question I posed above.

>>..if God is not the author of the moral (natural) law, then on what basis can anything be held immoral? Popular vote? Personal whim? Imposed power? I've been debating this question for decades and have yet to hear a coherent answer from the side rejecting God.<<

Again, if you have a different answer from mine...or the Founders of our nation...please offer it.

As for your catalogue of crimes committed by "Christianity," I addressed that in a post above. "Christianity" was not guilty of these things but rather people calling themselves Christians.

Indeed, if you look at history, it would appear that the only thing worse than rule by Christians was rule by non- or anti-Christians. The latter ran up a pretty impressive body count of their own with a bloody record of brutality and barbarism. That guy, Montezuma, for example, who you pointed to as a victim of Christians... he had a quaint habit of enslaving neighboring tribes and cutting the beating hearts out of the chests of his captives as a sacrifice to Aztec gods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TFBaum

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,182
39,040
1
Right, Christians fled here and eventually wrote a document that starts like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...

So the Founders predicated their entire project on the foundational moral principle that the dignity and rights and liberty of men arise from their status as children of God, and the primary purpose of government is to protect that dignity and liberty.

Thus, the answer...the only coherent answer...to the question I posed above.

>>..if God is not the author of the moral (natural) law, then on what basis can anything be held immoral? Popular vote? Personal whim? Imposed power? I've been debating this question for decades and have yet to hear a coherent answer from the side rejecting God.<<

Again, if you have a different answer from mine...or the Founders of our nation...please offer it.

As for your catalogue of crimes committed by "Christianity," I addressed that in a post above. "Christianity" was not guilty of these things but rather people calling themselves Christians.

Indeed, if you look at history, it would appear that the only thing worse than rule by Christians was rule by non- or anti-Christians. The latter ran up a pretty impressive body count of their own with a bloody record of brutality and barbarism. That guy, Montezuma, for example, who you pointed to as a victim of Christians... he had a quaint habit of enslaving neighboring tribes and cutting the beating hearts out of the chests of his captives as a sacrifice to Aztec gods.
But we weren't talking about non-Christians. That doesn't defend what people have done in the name of God, the church, or Christianity.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,241
8,969
1
But we weren't talking about non-Christians. That doesn't defend what people have done in the name of God, the church, or Christianity.

Your first post in the thread actually centered on "religions" to include Christians and otherwise.

By the way, we tend to get hung up on the word "religion." I think a more accurate term for purposes of discussions like this is "belief system."

For example, a favorite strawman bugaboo of libs is "imposing religion." As if they're not engaged in imposing their own brand of religion. Wokeism, for example, is a belief system precisely equivalent to religion.

You're a good guy, Shoe, and though we may not share the same philosophy, I think we agree that the first order of business is to somehow save our country from the corrupt forces and toxic pseudo-religion now in control of our government and culture.

I'm not optimistic about our odds, but if by the grace of God we somehow win, then we can argue about how best to balance the interests of individual liberty and societal good discussed in this thread.

Personally, first thing on my agenda would be to mandate church attendance on Sunday. Haha! I kid...I kid... ;)
 

Jason1743

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2006
19,729
13,485
1
Transgender has become another right wing culture war fought for the most part by people who are uneducated and ignorant on the issue.
Your sex is the biology you are born with. Your gender is how you feel about yourself. Usually the two mesh, but sometimes they don't. There is no biological test for gender/transgender just like there is no biologic test for gay or straight. Transgender phobia is very similar to homophobia of the recent past. In 2022 most people accept homosexuality. Transgender hormone treatments and surgical treatments are not entered into quickly or lightly. These people need our love and support not accusations that they are ruining our society.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hotshoe