As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
No they aren't, the former is a policy that the latter adopted. I do know who's pulling the strings and it was Leftists that were sexual deviants and saw a way in. They pulled the same stunt with 4th amendment protections, racial anti-discrimination, free speech, opposition to conscription. That doesn't mean that we should simply destroy those things because of who first proposed it.
I'm not going to upturn the interstate system just because Eisenhower go the idea from Hitler.
Yes, I know, so was the Civil Rights movement:
I'm Julia Brown. For 9 years I was a member of the Communist Party, serving as an undercover agent for the FBI. During that time, I learned that the Communist conspiracy had been planning and working for years to bring violent revolution to America. It was to be a Communist revolution, but the great majority of the American people would not be allowed to realize that until it had already happened. If all goes according to the Communist blueprint, Americans will believe that the chaos and violence has something to do with Civil Rights. Our enemies were quick to find our weakest point of their attack. They knew that racial differences could provide them with an excellent wedge to divide our people. Their strategy, simply, has been to keep hammering on that wedge. To drive it deeper into our social structure. To open all wounds that have since healed, and deliberately to create new ones wherever they can.
...
Now this doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate need for the advancement of Civil Rights for many of our negro citizens. Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes. The aspirations for Negros for full equality were not created by Communists, but they are used by Communists in such a way that idealistic Americans of all races can be tricked into implementing the Communist blueprint for revolution.
Having been on the inside of the Communist Party, it's easy for me to recognize this revolutionary agitation in disguise. But, the average American finds it hard to believe that something as worthy and noble sounding as a Civil Rights movement could possibly be a Communist maneuver.
Keywords: "Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes
Civil Rights goes back to the Civil War, long before Russia became involved. The primary enemy of the civil rights movement were Democrat judges who upheld Jim Crow laws. The Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act, negating the power of these judges.
Of course Communists exploited the movement just like they exploit everything else, but that doesn’t mean the Civil Rights movement was Communist in origin or motivation.
Right, I didn't say that it was. Neither was gay marriage. It was a genuine cause that the state didn't need to regulate families to that degree. Gay marriages themselves have changed effectively nothing because the number of people it effected in reality was so small.
Yes, I know you believe that, and you’re wrong. Gay marriage was always a political ploy sold to people as a civil rights issue. Most gay people didn’t even care about marriage until they were told that denial of marriage was a denial of their identity. The desire for societal acceptance of homosexuality was a thing long before gay marriage ever became a thing. Gay marriage was a natural progression for the political machine that always needs a new cause to justify itself.
Even if I were wrong, it’s irrelevant because it ultimately became political the moment it entered mainstream conversation.
Then we'll have to disagree.