Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 06, 2025

The blanket ban, expanding on a similar policy Trump proposed in his first term, has been blocked nationwide by lower courts.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

BREAKING: The Supreme Court halts a district court injunction that had blocked Trump's ban on transgender military service. SCOTUS is clearing the way for Trump to enforce his purge of transgender troops. All three liberals dissent. www.documentcloud.org/documents/25 ... [image or embed]

" Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) May 6, 2025 at 11:02 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Hmmm .. the liberal justices appointed by Dems dissented? And the justices appointed by the GOP were in favor of the ban?

I guess this means only one course is available to correct this ruling:
Jill Stein 2028!

#1 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-06 03:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Absolutely despicable to call into question the honor and honesty of people sacrificing their lives for our country

VILE

Despicable

You think Hegseth would square off against Kristin Beck?
Bronze star, purple heart recipient, Navy Seal, Kristin Beck?

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 04:01 PM | Reply

www.mentalhealth.va.gov

These are the people drunk rapist hegseth say have no honor

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 04:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

glaad.org

Commander Emily Shilling, a U.S. Naval aviator who is also an out transgender woman, is already serving in the military, already making our country safer and stronger, already well qualified.

"I have dedicated about 19.5 years of service. It was my dream to join and fly for the Navy since I was little," Commander Shilling told CNN's Kaitlan Collins last night.

"I did two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. 60 combat missions. Later, I went on to be a test pilot, and then the meritorious promotions. I have been at the pinnacle of naval aviation. I think I am proof that we are qualified to serve."

Real ------- people are being disgraced by a vile despicable inhuman administration.

"I'm one of the first naval aviators to regain my flight clearance post-transition. And what that means is the Navy was rightfully medically conservative. I'm going to go fly a $100 million aircraft, the f-18, like you saw in Top Gun Two. So they ran me through every psychological evaluation, every physical evaluation they could think of. And at the end of the day, there was no reason to keep me out of the cockpit," Shilling explained.

---- you --------

Thanks magat scum

#4 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 04:06 PM | Reply

Next up: Getting Gays out of the military.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 04:07 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Next up: Getting Gays out of the military."

You're wrong.

That's won't happen.

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 04:40 PM | Reply

But what's the difference?

What's the benefit of getting trans people out of the military?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 04:44 PM | Reply

cruelty

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 04:45 PM | Reply

Snoofy,
"Next up: Getting Gays out of the military."
You're wrong.
That's won't happen.

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson

---- you magat scum

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 04:46 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

My opinion...

If you understood the rationale behind banning tran individuals from the military such as medical complications, combat readiness, or unit cohesion, then it should be clear why gays aren't a comparable concern.

Frankly, if there's any group that poses a risk to military effectiveness, it's not based on identity. It's ideology.

If we're throwing around bans, maybe start with the ones who undermine discipline, hate the country, or would rather protest the flag than defend it.

You know...liberals.

#10 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 04:54 PM | Reply

#7: There is ZERO benefit by ridding themselves of these Servicemembers. This cruel move by the Trumpf junta is to placate the intolerant Christian Taliban sector of the GOP.

#11 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-06 04:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you understood the rationale behind banning tran individuals from the military such as medical complications, combat readiness, or unit cohesion, then it should be clear why gays aren't a comparable concern.
Frankly, if there's any group that poses a risk to military effectiveness, it's not based on identity. It's ideology.
If we're throwing around bans, maybe start with the ones who undermine discipline, hate the country, or would rather protest the flag than defend it.
You know...liberals.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 04:54 PM | Reply

GFY BILLJOHNSON

#12 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 04:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

GFY BILLJOHNSON
#12 | Posted by LauraMohr

Jill Stein 2028?

#13 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-06 05:02 PM | Reply

GFY BILLJOHNSON
#12 | Posted by LauraMohr
Jill Stein 2028?

Posted by censored at 2025-05-06 05:02 PM | Reply

As if my vote counts for anything. My county went for Trump overwhelmingly.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 05:14 PM | Reply

Bill Johnson is exemplar of the casual cruelty that is the magat scum

People who have dedicated their lives to serving our country are humiliated

because of ignorant bigotry

It is beyond disgusting.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 05:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My county went for Trump overwhelmingly.

Then why are you living there?

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2025-05-06 05:23 PM | Reply

A friend of mine has a son who graduated high school and tried to join the service.

He was turned down due to gastrointestinal problems.

Since most transgender individuals require ongoing hormone therapy, wouldn't that also raise medical eligibility issues for military service out in the field?

#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 05:33 PM | Reply

Then why are you living there?

Posted by boaz at 2025-05-06 05:23 PM | Reply

Unlike you. I have no problems living with people not like myself. Just sayin

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 05:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He was turned down due to gastrointestinal problems.
Since most transgender individuals require ongoing hormone therapy, wouldn't that also raise medical eligibility issues for military service out in the field?

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 05:33 PM | Reply

Ummmmmmmmmm no. Not at all.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 05:37 PM | Reply

When I was deployed to a hostile area about 10-15% of troops were on some sort of maintenance medications, including injectable testosterone and depo-provera.

#20 | Posted by mattm at 2025-05-06 06:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Laura,

Diabetics who require insulin are usually denied.

Considering both have ongoing medical needs, insulin or hormone therapy, does it raise a question about consistency in medical eligibility standards?

Try to resist the urge to deflect if you can and answer my question and explain your answer.

#21 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:06 PM | Reply

As if my vote counts for anything. My county went for Trump overwhelmingly.
#14 | Posted by LauraMohr

And that's how Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984. Because that could never happen in reverse, for some reason.

Give up all hope and throw away your vote while claiming that the Dems are just as bad as the GOP, even though they're the only ones who come close to giving two sheets about you and a plethora of other vulnerable groups.

It's difficult for me to figure out who is doing better in the FAAFO Olympics, Muslims who helped Trump win, or is it the trans.

#22 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-06 06:08 PM | Reply

Diabetics who require insulin are usually denied.
Considering both have ongoing medical needs, insulin or hormone therapy, does it raise a question about consistency in medical eligibility standards?
Try to resist the urge to deflect if you can and answer my question and explain your answer.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:06 PM | Reply

WOW How desperate are you to justify the unjustifiable BillJohnson. That's crazy. Full stop

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 06:13 PM | Reply

Matt,

That's a fair question.

I don't know the exact rationale behind their decision, but I'd guess your point shows there's more to it than just medical needs.

#24 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:14 PM | Reply

That's a fair question.
I don't know the exact rationale behind their decision, but I'd guess your point shows there's more to it than just medical needs.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:14 PM | Reply

It's just bigotry. Pure and simple.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 06:21 PM | Reply

Since most transgender individuals require ongoing hormone therapy, wouldn't that also raise medical eligibility issues for military service out in the field?
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson

Since most women require ongoing hormone therapy called The Pill, wouldn't that also raise medical eligibility issues for military service out in the field?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 06:25 PM | Reply

Laura,

From what I understand, there's a considerable possibility that it will be overturned in the future.

The ban isn't set in stone.

#27 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:26 PM | Reply

If you understood the rationale behind banning tran individuals from the military such as medical complications, combat readiness, or unit cohesion, then it should be clear why gays aren't a comparable concern.
#10 | Posted by BillJohnson

^
"Unit cohesion" is why gays were kept out of the military too. And why blacks couldn't serve alongside whites.
So, you need to understand that you saying It's okay to kick out the gays and blacks because of unit cohesion.

I want you to recognize that's what you are saying. But I don't think you can.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From what I understand, there's a considerable possibility that it will be overturned in the future.
The ban isn't set in stone.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:26 PM | Reply

There shouldn't be one now. There's no call for it. None whatsoever.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 06:34 PM | Reply

Laura,

While it might seem official, it's not a legal ruling.

#30 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:34 PM | Reply

A Supreme Court order isn't a legal ruling

And is allowed to vote

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 06:36 PM | Reply

And HE is allowed to vote

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 06:36 PM | Reply

Laura,

The military culture is totally different than civilian culture.

It demands conformity.

Decisions that might seem discriminatory on the outside are often rooted in concerns about readiness, cohesion, and minimizing distractions that could comprise mission success.

That doesn't mean every policy is right or built around fairness.

But it does mean they operate under a different set of expectations and priorities.

#33 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:53 PM | Reply

Compromise...I meant.

#34 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 06:55 PM | Reply

Yeah? ---- you ----.

Tell that to the Bronze star winning Navy Seal or the Top Gun fighter pilot you piece of human filth.

#35 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 06:58 PM | Reply

You're wrong.

That's won't happen.

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson

Yeah, and they're not gonna cut medicaid either...

Jesus H ya'll are f*&^ing dumb.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2025-05-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

His new policy, formally issued by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, does not bother with such niceties. It states that being transgender is inconsistent with "an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life," and that trans identity is a "falsehood" that "is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Authored by a drunk rapist

Magat scum are truly vile

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:01 PM | Reply

Laura,

Bottom line.

The fact that transgender service has become such a divisive topic is, ironically, hurting their chances of staying in the military.

It's a bit of a Catch-22.

Raising awareness brings visibility. But too much attention sparks controversy, which undermines the very case for inclusion and fitting in.

#38 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:05 PM | Reply

dworakpeck.usc.edu


Overall,66% of participants supported transgender service. This differed by sexual orientation with 82% of LGBand57%ofheterosexual/cisgender respondents who supported transgender military service

These are active service members

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:05 PM | Reply

Who would you rather share a foxhole with? A Bronze star navy seal transwoman OR a drunk rapist?

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:06 PM | Reply

The fact that transgender service has become such a divisive topic is, ironically, hurting their chances of staying in the military.

It has become an issue because vile despicable scum like you make it an issue.

NO ONE cared until --------- like the drunk rapist made it an issue. The drunk rapist impugns their honor.

---- drunk rapists and ---- magat scum!

You think Kristin Beck is dishonorable.

A Navy Seal who was awarded a bronze star and purple heart

---- you and everyone who thinks like you.

You are scum

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:08 PM | Reply

Jpw,

Medicaid?

Apples and oranges.

#42 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:09 PM | Reply

Who would you rather share a foxhole with? A Bronze star navy seal transwoman OR a drunk rapist?
#40 | Posted by truthhurts

Drunk, ----- seals are the worst!

Drunk-Seal

#43 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-06 07:13 PM | Reply

Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth

en.wikipedia.org

Vanity Fair reported that Hegseth had allegedly sexually assaulted a woman at the Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel and Spa on Del Monte Golf Course in Monterey, California, in October 2017,

The Washington Post reported that Hegseth had paid the accuser as part of a non-disclosure agreement after she threatened litigative action in 2020. In addition, the paper obtained a memorandum provided to Donald Trump's presidential transition team by an associate of the accuser, a 30-year-old conservative group staffer, that alleged that Hegseth was intoxicated and raped

Commander Emily Shilling

en.everybodywiki.com

Shilling has served in the U.S. Navy since 2005[2] As of 2024, she has accumulated over 1,700 flight hours, conducted 60 combat missions,[3] and has flown a multitude of aircraft.

In 2019, Emily Shilling came out as transgender, during which time there was a ban on transgender persons from serving in the military. This policy was established by President Donald Trump with the 2017 transgender military ban.[4] Due to this policy, she lost her flight status and the U.S. Navy started processing her out of the military.[5] However, with an executive order, President Biden reversed the ban on transgender military members in 2021.[5] This allowed her to stay in the military, and in 2023 she was cleared by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and granted a medical waiver by the Bureau of Naval Personnel for flying duty. This marked the first ever return to flight status of a transgender active-duty Naval officer, post-transition.[1]

---- magat scum

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:13 PM | Reply

These are similar arguments the racists used in 1947 to keep the military segregated: shepherdexpress.com

The late US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) used the argument against LGBTQs in the US military: "Now is not a good time."

So, when is a good time?

Drudgers should stop wasting time arguing the issue with obstinate dinosaurs who will only refute them with jejune or cliched talking points.

#45 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-06 07:18 PM | Reply

"The military culture is totally different than civilian culture.
It demands conformity."

BillJohnson, Didn't you Join the Navy knowing gays aren't allowed, lie that you were not gay, and then got kicked out for being gay?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BillJohnson, Didn't you Join the Navy knowing gays aren't allowed, lie that you were not gay, and then got kicked out for being gay?

#46 | Posted by snoofy

Touche!

#47 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2025-05-06 07:25 PM | Reply

Truth,

Who said anything about dishonorable?

When I was discharged I was given General under Honorable conditions. I could probably get mine upgraded now but there's no point.

Mid 70s there was still gays getting Dishonorable discharges.

Today that has all changed.

I don't believe trans people currently serving would be kicked out but anyone who identified as tran might be denied.

#48 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:26 PM | Reply

"The fact that transgender service has become such a divisive topic is, ironically, hurting their chances of staying in the military."

Ironic?

It's supposed to hurt their chances of staying in the military.

The only division is Republican Hate Mongers vs Normal People.

Nobody but Republicans cares about transgenders in the military.

It's a complete non-issue to anyone.

The only people who care are losers like you are okay with Republicans using it to deliberately end people's careers and deliberately weaken the United States Armed Forces.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 07:26 PM | Reply

"Who said anything about dishonorable?
When I was discharged I was given General under Honorable conditions. I could probably get mine upgraded now but there's no point."

You should be downgraded for knowingly lying when you signed up.

You wasted millions of taxpayer dollars because you are a liar both to yourself and to your country.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 07:29 PM | Reply

American,

I didnt go to gay bars until I was on a ship and would dock (no pun intended).

Then I found other men on my ship who were gay.

#51 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:34 PM | Reply

Truth,
Who said anything about dishonorable?
When I was discharged I was given General under Honorable conditions. I could probably get mine upgraded now but there's no point.
Mid 70s there was still gays getting Dishonorable discharges.
Today that has all changed.
I don't believe trans people currently serving would be kicked out but anyone who identified as tran might be denied.

#48 | Posted by BillJohnson

Ignorant ----

www.whitehouse.gov

"Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life. A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

Your ------- president called their very existence inconsistent with honor.

Magat scum can ---- right off

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:35 PM | Reply

Enough about that.

#53 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:35 PM | Reply

Just to be clear BillJohnson is a liar and that is dishonorable.

Commander Emily Shilling (a trans woman) is honest about who she is and that is honorable.

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:36 PM | Reply

Enough about that.

#53 | Posted by BillJohnson at

Why? Does your ass hurt, bitch?

#55 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:36 PM | Reply

Truth,

I've always been out.

Even today my friends all know my past.

After I was no longer on a ship and was stationed on land in a humongous barracks, the word got out about me.

For months when I would walk in the narrow halls and pass anyone, a lot of the time they'd say -- f...... under their breath.

Ironically, now the only people who say it is some liberals on this site.

I've never lied about who I am.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:53 PM | Reply

You lied when you applied to the navy knowing u are gay.

Sorry u don't have the integrity to admit that

But

Truth hurts

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 07:55 PM | Reply

'I've never lied about who I am."

You didn't know gays aren't allowed in the Navy?

You're lying about who you are right now, my dude.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 07:56 PM | Reply

Truth,

Your comment was just like the hateful homophobic comments I heard daily.

And the moderators here allow it.

#59 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 07:57 PM | Reply

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA

LOL

LMFAO

Loser

I made NO ------- homophobic slur

I called you out for the liar you are-truth
I called out the sec. of defense for being a drunken rapist-truth
I called out magat scum for being vile despicable human beings-truth

hateful homophobic?

NOPE

But there you go again, lying

#60 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 08:03 PM | Reply

Feel free to call me an -------, i own that.

But bigot? NOPE
Liar? NOPE

Magat scum truly are vile

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 08:04 PM | Reply

Oh and I have made it very clear why I hold magat scum in the contempt I do.
They chose a rapist over a normal human being and as such put my loved ones in danger

I will NEVER forgive, nor will I EVER forget

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 08:05 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

You must be really stupid to not realize that gays in those days all lied and covered up their identity.

Many still lie and who choose to keep it to themselves.

And you're too stupid to understand it's their choice.

#63 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 08:07 PM | Reply

Truth,

Destroy yourself with all that hate.

It will just ruin your life no one elses.

#64 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 08:09 PM | Reply

Adios amigos.

#65 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 08:10 PM | Reply

Yeah? ---- you ----

Abolitionists hated slavers for decades

the greatest generation hated fascists for years

My hate will see me through and save my loved ones

All you need do is repent, crawl across the floor and kiss my ass and I will accept you back into the flock

Until then I will laugh at every misery you suffer

#66 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 08:16 PM | Reply

www.npr.org

Read about these magat scum getting what they voted for and suffering for it.

EMMITSBURG, Md. " Frank Davis saw a lot of waste during his decades in the federal government. In November, he voted for Donald Trump to get rid of it. So far, Davis likes a lot of what he has seen.

"I'm probably gonna get shot for this, but he is doing what he said he was going to do," says Davis, who serves as mayor of this town of about 3,000 people in western Maryland, just south of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

In March, the Trump administration suddenly canceled in-person classes at the National Fire Academy here, which trains the United States' firefighters. Not only is the academy a big part of Emmitsburg's identity, but it also helps drive the local economy.

Davis says the administration is reviewing the academy's operations, and he is hopeful it will restore classes. If not, he says, he'll see the administration somewhat differently.

"It will change my outlook to say that they're not being fair," says Davis, who also serves as emergency medical services captain at the local firehouse, known as the Vigilant Hose Company. "They're just going in to cut and not caring what they cut."

He didnt care, in fact he celebrated the cuts to kids with cancer, the cuts that will kill thousands of children in Africa, he was happy when they decimated HHS

but when they came for his slice of the pie:

"..they're not being fair..."

This magat scum can't suffer enough in my book

#67 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-05-06 08:20 PM | Reply

"They're not being fair"

That's undeniably what he voted for.

Can somebody ask the Mayor if he thinks Kilmar should be returned to the United States and prove my point?

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 08:36 PM | Reply

"You must be really stupid to not realize that gays in those days all lied and covered up their identity."

Oh no you didn't.

You don't get to blame other gays for your lack of moral standing.

When I was getting recruited by the military, I straight up told them I was not okay with their policy on homosexuals.

You didn't do that. You chose to lie instead.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 08:43 PM | Reply

Your comment was just like the hateful homophobic comments I heard daily.
And the moderators here allow it.
#59 | Posted by BillJohnson

^
You're okay with those hateful comments being directed at trans people by our government.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 08:45 PM | Reply

Twoothy,

Please see a therapist before you trigger a brain aneurysm. This is bad for your health.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-05-06 09:53 PM | Reply

Twoothy,

Please see a therapist before you trigger a brain aneurysm. This is bad for your health.

#71 | Posted by BellRinger

hell no....don't listen truth.

keep going...more and more...louder and louder.

#72 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-05-06 11:08 PM | Reply

"I've always been out."
~BillJohnson

Not on the day of your wedding.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-06 11:11 PM | Reply

"You didn't do that. You chose to lie instead."
~Snoofy

(Unrecognized) Newsworthy Flag

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-06 11:17 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Next up: Getting Gays out of the military."

There's a reason I don't think the recent policy banning transgender individuals will affect gay service members.

They aren't creating a problem for themselves.

The way the transgender issue was handled by activists and policymakers was a critical misstep.

When the focus shifted from consenting adults to children and schools began implementing policies that kept parents in the dark and defied parental involvement, it crossed a cultural red line.

You don't screw around with people's kids.

That moment may have marked the beginning of the end for mainstream support of the transgender agenda.

Pushing transgender ideology onto children was a fatal mistake. It doomed the movement's long-term acceptance.

#75 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 11:28 PM | Reply

There's a reason I don't think the recent policy banning transgender individuals will affect gay service members.
They aren't creating a problem for themselves.
The way the transgender issue was handled by activists and policymakers was a critical misstep.
When the focus shifted from consenting adults to children and schools began implementing policies that kept parents in the dark and defied parental involvement, it crossed a cultural red line.
You don't screw around with people's kids.
That moment may have marked the beginning of the end for mainstream support of the transgender agenda.
Pushing transgender ideology onto children was a fatal mistake. It doomed the movement's long-term acceptance.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-06 11:28 PM | Reply

GFY BILLJOHNSON. You ignorant buffoon. Transgender people in the military isn't a problem. You're just showing your hiney is all. Just sayin

#76 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 11:35 PM | Reply

Nooooooo!!!!

#77 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-06 11:40 PM | Reply

"When the focus shifted from consenting adults to children and schools began implementing policies that kept parents in the dark and defied parental involvement, it crossed a cultural red line."

What does this have to do with the military?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:12 AM | Reply

"You don't screw around with people's kids."

Telling trans kids they're mentally ill is the very definition of screwing around with people's kids.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:13 AM | Reply

"That moment may have marked the beginning of the end for mainstream support of the transgender agenda."

What is the "transgender agenda?"
How is it different from the gay agenda or the black agenda before gays and blacks were considered equals?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:14 AM | Reply

Well ... cutting your dick or ---- off falls into the realm of mentally ill Snoofy. Unfortunately Plastic Surgeons are all to happy to oblige so they can make a quick buck.

I ask this seriously ... Do you know of any other group of people where 2 in 5 have attempted suicide and 4 in 5 have thought about it?

Just pointing out facts: www.statista.com

#81 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 12:25 AM | Reply

They feel like committing suicide because of comments from deplorable people, like you.

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 12:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Well ... cutting your dick or ---- off falls into the realm of mentally ill Snoofy."

Lots of women cut their ---- off to save their own lives.

Bu---- not like you actually care about women.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:29 AM | Reply

Snoofy, you mean breast cancer. These people aren't suffering from Cancer ...

#84 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 12:35 AM | Reply

"Do you know of any other group of people where 2 in 5 have attempted suicide and 4 in 5 have thought about it?"

Is it surprising to you that a group of people millions of people want to die off and resuse to accept in society has a high suicide rate?

Can't you be happy about the high suicide rate since it's how you what the problem to solve itself?

Or is it not effective enough, and we need public executions, to protect the children.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:36 AM | Reply

"These people aren't suffering from Cancer"

What are they suffering from?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:36 AM | Reply

They're suffering from Mental Illness and instead of placating to it, perhaps and just hear me out on this ... You address the dysphoria directly through therapy and medication.

What's currently going on is no different then telling a Schizophrenic that the voices they're hearing are very real and we should affirm what the voices are telling the afflicted.

#87 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 12:41 AM | Reply

Is it mentally ill to take Viagra if you can't sustain an --------?

How about fake ----?

Just wondering when you draw the line between mental illness that should be treated with gender affirming care, like wanting bigger ---- or a hard ----, and mental illness that should not be treated with gender affirming care, like wanting bigger ---- and a hard ----.

You are just a prude looking for a dog to kick, and you've decided transgender is your target.

There's a reason transgender resonates with you, but you'll never talk about that part. Instead, you overcompensate with this part of you.

It's called Reaction Formation and it explains why so much of the irrational hatred in the world makes sense to you and appeals to you.

Because it's what you learned to do to cope.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:44 AM | Reply

They're suffering from Mental Illness and instead of placating to it, perhaps and just hear me out on this ... You address the dysphoria directly through therapy and medication.

So. Instead of accepting people for who they are. You'd prefer to force them to conform to your beliefs about who they should be.

Then you have the audacity to question their suicide rates.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 12:45 AM | Reply

They're suffering from Mental Illness and instead of placating to it, perhaps and just hear me out on this ... You address the dysphoria directly through therapy and medication.

So. Instead of accepting people for who they are. You'd prefer to force them to conform to your beliefs about who they should be.

Then you have the audacity to question their suicide rates.

#90 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 12:45 AM | Reply

"Veterans are at 58% higher risk of suicide than those who haven't served."

stopsoldiersuicide.org

End the military!

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 12:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They're suffering from Mental Illness"

No, that's not an answer.

You said "These people aren't suffering from Cancer"

I asked "What are they suffering from?"

You have to name the mental illness, just like you named the other illness called cancer.

You can't just say "Oh, they have mental illness."

Mental illness isn't a diagnosis anymore than physical illness is a diagnosis.

The problem you're encountering right now is you're smart enough to know there are facts you can't talk about in this discussion because you know the facts aren't on your side.

Name the illness when a girl with small ---- wants bigger ----.

Name the illness when a man cannot sustain an -------- but he thinks he should be able to take a pill which causes an --------.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:54 AM | Reply

The specific illness and clinical term is Gender Dysphoria Snoofy.

#93 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 12:59 AM | Reply

Name the illness when a man cannot sustain an -------- but he thinks he should be able to take a pill which causes an --------.
#92 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2025-05-07 12:54 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Ask the Democrats good friend Harvey Weinstein.

#94 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 01:00 AM | Reply

" The specific illness and clinical term is Gender Dysphoria Snoofy.

#93 | POSTED BY BLUEWAFFLES AT 2025-05-07 12:59 AM | REPLY"

Sort of. Some trans people suffer dysphoria but not all.

Problem with "gender affirming" care is that many trans people suffer one or more mental illnesses so those don't even get diagnosed because they are overshadowed by gender care.

#95 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-05-07 01:39 AM | Reply

"Problem with "gender affirming" care is that many trans people suffer one or more mental illnesses"

That's not limited to trans!

You never said what's the mental illness of a man who can't get an -------- but thinks he's entitled to one. What's it called?

You never said what's the mental illness of a woman who mistakenly believes her breasts are too small and her hair is the wrong color. What's that diagnosis?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 06:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The specific illness and clinical term is Gender Dysphoria Snoofy."

A man who can't get an -------- has a mental illness called gender dysphoria.

And you said "They're suffering from Mental Illness and instead of placating to it, perhaps and just hear me out on this ... You address the dysphoria directly through therapy and medication."

What therapy, what medications, for the man who is so confused he believes he is entitled to an --------, without placating his delusions?

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 06:46 AM | Reply

Snoofy, as stated previously if you want to know about ---------, mental illness and medication feel free to ask Democrat mega-donor and champion of Liberal values Mr. Harvey Weinstein. Something about a casting couch ...

#98 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 07:49 AM | Reply

Google Harvey Weinstein Donald Trump. I'll wait.

www.gettyimages.com

#99 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2025-05-07 09:28 AM | Reply

Wait for what Lee? What specifically are you waiting for?

#100 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2025-05-07 10:50 AM | Reply

"Harvey Weinstein."

^
You are forced to retreat to deflections, because you know this is a lost argument for you.
Here, allow me to make your argument for you, it's so easy!

Elon Musk has Gender Dysphoria because he is not happy with his small penis.
You say he's mentally ill and needs counseling.
Unfortunately he didn't listen to you and he went ahead with a botched penile enlargement surgery.

Now what? Should the doctors be thrown in jail? Should Elon be thrown in a mental ward?

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#101

Sound's like you personally inspected Elon's -------.

#102 | Posted by fortfisher at 2025-05-07 11:03 AM | Reply

You sound like you're in the market for penile enhancement surgery.

It's a common mental illness among men.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:04 AM | Reply

Can ---- still serv? They do pretty good at laundry and cleaning.

#104 | Posted by fortfisher at 2025-05-07 11:08 AM | Reply

"Can ---- still serv?"

It's good you're thinking of alternate career paths!

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:10 AM | Reply

Snoofy, mental illness is cutting your dick off. I don't know about you, but my dick is my best friend.

#106 | Posted by fortfisher at 2025-05-07 11:11 AM | Reply

"Snoofy, mental illness is cutting your dick off."

We already talked about Elon.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:12 AM | Reply

"I don't know about you, but my dick is my best friend."

Fifty years ago your penchant for chronic ------------ would have been called a mental illness!

These days, when your friend doesn't want to play with you any more, you to succumb to your mental illness and take the Little Blue Pill.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 11:15 AM | Reply

#108
Wrong when my little friend don't want to play I come.

#109 | Posted by fortfisher at 2025-05-07 11:25 AM | Reply

Sorry mentally ills, you are denied.

#110 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 11:41 AM | Reply

Sorry mentally ills, you are denied.

#110 | POSTED BY THEBULL

If all the mentally ill were "denied" there would be a lot of soldiers purged from the ranks.

For instance anyone like you would definitely be "denied".

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 11:57 AM | Reply

I wasn't denied, I'm not mentally ill. In fact back in my day if it was revealed you were gay, you were removed.

#112 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I wasn't denied"

Possibly. But who knows when you liars are lying or telling the truth?

But like I said. The military actually needs the mentally ill. Thats why they don't "purge" them.

The mentally ill (like you) are easier to manipulate and to convince to hate other humans enough to want to and allow themselves to be ordered to kill them.

And also YOU have be mentally ill to WANT to deny any Americans the opportunity to serve and possibly die for their own country.

#113 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not mentally ill.
#112 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Have you read your posts?

You really should seek therapy.

#114 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In fact back in my day if it was revealed you were gay, you were removed.

#112 | POSTED BY THEBULL

In YOUR DAY blacks had separate entrances drank and ate separately sat in the back of the bus and were denied basic civil rights.

Things were not "better" and definitely not great back in your "day".

#115 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 12:52 PM | Reply

If I had a dime for every thread BillJohnson checked himself out of and then returned . . .

#116 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-05-07 01:52 PM | Reply

:)

#117 | Posted by boaz at 2025-05-07 02:17 PM | Reply

As if my vote counts for anything. My county went for Trump overwhelmingly.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

Keep up the good work!

#118 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-07 03:07 PM | Reply

I was born in 80s. Nobody ever had separate anything. You keep harping on the problems of the past and blaming people that had nothing to do with it. It's really working out well for your side

#119 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 03:14 PM | Reply

I wasn't denied, I'm not mentally ill. In fact back in my day if it was revealed you were gay, you were removed.
#112 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:| Newsworthy 1

I was born in 80s. Nobody ever had separate anything. You keep harping on the problems of the past and blaming people that had nothing to do with it. It's really working out well for your side
#119 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 03:14 PM

Pick a theme, honey.

#120 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-07 04:15 PM | Reply

Pick a winning issue you ------- clowns. Nobody supports your LGBTard --------

#121 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 04:46 PM | Reply

The majority of Americans support the LGBTQ+ community.

Which is why Trump has to rule through use of executive orders.

#122 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 04:50 PM | Reply

Pick a winning issue you ------- clowns. Nobody supports your LGBTard --------
#121 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 04:46 PM

Stupidity is winning? You stated "nobody ever had separate nuthin", "unless yer gay".

This specific topic has to do with empowering bigotry, not military readiness or capabilities.

Shilling is a 19.5 year vet with multiple combat tours, commendations, successes.

What specifically about her person or her career is -------- to you?

#123 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-07 05:00 PM | Reply

"What specifically about her person or her career is -------- to you?"

She's got bigger balls than him and it makes him sad.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 05:02 PM | Reply

Nobody supports your LGBTard --------

#121 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Apparently when asked the majority had no problems working with or side by side with gay or lesbian soldiers. Apparently it's only you and your hateful maga moronic friends that are unable to work well with others.

In 2010, with the Obama administration pushing for repeal, the Pentagon launched a yearlong study on the consequences of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

The results, released in November 2010, set the stage for DADT's repeal.

Sixty-nine percent of troops polled said they were already working in a unit with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian. An astounding 92 percent of those individuals believed their unit's "ability to work together" was either "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor""this includes 89 percent of those in Army combat arms units and 84 percent of those in Marine combat arms units.<

GFY commie traitor.

#125 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 05:22 PM | Reply

Let me know when you don't need a court order to get your way when it comes to the LGBTard agenda.

Gay marriage exists only because of a court order, the majority of Americans including those out in nutjob California rejected it.

#126 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 05:41 PM | Reply

Gay marriage exists only because

States voted whether to legalize or not, and overwhelmingly, state after state, it became legal.

Must suck to be such a pathetic loser.

Trump isn't going to save you from your miserable life.

#127 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 05:46 PM | Reply

"Gay marriage exists only because of a court order, the majority of Americans including those out in nutjob California rejected it."

And Black equal rights exists only because of a war and after a court order ended Jim Crow, the majority of Americans including those in the North rejected it.

Am I smelling what you're stepping in, Child Of The 80s?

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 06:23 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I can see how gays need legal protection for their relationships protecting things like hospital rights, inheritance, and taxes.

Gay marriage makes sense.

But other than feelings, why do men who believe they are women need to use women's bathrooms or compete against women in sports?

Since when is society obligated to rearrange itself to accommodate someone's chosen identity or fulfill their fantasy?

There's a difference between tolerance and forced affirmation.

We are crossing that line.

We are confusing need with want.

#129 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-07 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's about acceptance, Bill.

They want to be looked at as a woman.

Men worship women. They worship the -----. Transgender gay men want that as well.

#130 | Posted by boaz at 2025-05-07 08:55 PM | Reply

What pray tell, are you saying gays had separate? Schools? Drinking fountains? restaurants? Nothing actually?

Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it

#131 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 09:26 PM | Reply

Oh and nobody voted for it, it was overwhelmingly rejected everywhere actually, even nutjob California rejected the idea of gay marriage.

#132 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 09:27 PM | Reply

Oh and nobody voted for it, it was overwhelmingly rejected everywhere actually, even nutjob California rejected the idea of gay marriage.
#132 | Posted by THEBULL

And then they changed their mind and overwhelmingly repealed the gay marriage ban:
"The vote to formally repeal Prop 8 was passed by nearly 63% of voters in the 2024 election."
en.wikipedia.org

Ten points more than by which the original ban passed.

#133 | Posted by censored at 2025-05-07 09:47 PM | Reply

"Men worship women. They worship the -----."

Wait. I thought YOU worshipped feet.

Are you really a man? You seem very confused about what to "worship".

#134 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 09:52 PM | Reply

I was there when Prop 8 happened. A lot of money from Utah was spent on that.

Their best results were in 2004, when Red states strategically put Gay Marriage on the ballot, knowing they could count on the haters who supported the pointless "Mission Accomplished" war in Iraq to vote against equal rights for gays.

Gay people are simply accepted in society now. But that could change. And they'll try to change it.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 09:55 PM | Reply

Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it

#131 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Yeah. We don't have to care what the courts say. (When we don't agree with them.)

And besides what the courts say don't matter anymore (or about to not matter).

Because if the President is above the law then there is no law.

#136 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 09:56 PM | Reply

Men worship women. They worship the -----. Transgender gay men want that as well.
#130 | Posted by boaz

Not to -----foot around the topic, but why not let the transgender gay men have that, if there are people willing to give it to them?

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 09:57 PM | Reply

"But other than feelings, why do men who believe they are women need to use women's bathrooms or compete against women in sports?"

What do you mean, other than feelings?
Let's say you're in the bathroom and a beautiful woman comes into the bathroom.
What happens next?

Isn't your entire premise that women's bathrooms aren't safe places for women because of trans men.
Trans women might be predators.

You've never once said men's bathrooms are safe spaces for trans women.
Why haven't you said that?
Because trans women are sneaky predators,
They're not welcome in any bathroom.

So What bathroom should trans women use, BillJohnson?
What you want is a world where trans people don't exist, and you can't ever have that, because trans people are a fact of life.

You can send them all to trans camps but they'll keep being born.
It's just the way people are.
You as a gay man should understand this
with every fiber of your being.

I'm not asking society to accommodate trans people any more than they accommodate any other person.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:05 PM | Reply

Transgender gay men

Homosexuals are homosexuals.

Transgenders are transgenders.

Think Caitlin Jenner, Trans women, into women.

Also. A lot of men who sleep with trans women consider themselves to be straight.

I personally consider them to be pansexual.

I don't expect people who are proud to be ignorant, like Boaz, to understand.

#139 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 10:09 PM | Reply

"I personally consider them to be pansexual."

Like when the Dish ran away with the Spoon!

#140 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Men worship women.
#130 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Domestic Abuse statistics and rape statistics tell a different story.

Stripping women of their rights tells a different story.

Basic male misogyny tells a different story.

Republicans hate women.

They're nothing more than possessions.

#141 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 10:13 PM | Reply

Men worship women.
#130 | POSTED BY BOAZ

What Boaz is trying to say in Biblical terms is:
Men covet women.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They are Prized Possesions.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:15 PM | Reply

Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it
#131 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Considering that marriage is a legal agreement between two people. You would be dead wrong about that one. Just sayin

#144 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-07 10:15 PM | Reply

Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it
#131 | POSTED BY THEBULL

^
He comes here to suck his thumb at us.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 10:16 PM | Reply

Bull,

Some say the government made a mistake by issuing marriage licenses mixing a religious sacrament with secular legal recognition. Like you, I don't believe gay marriages are sanctioned by the Bible.

That said, gay couples deserve the same legal protections as straight couples such as hospital visitation, inheritance, property rights, tax benefits, and so on. Don't get too excited about legal recognized "gay marriage" as if it's identical to the sacrament of marriage.

For what it's worth, I attended commitment ceremonies back when I was part of the gay lifestyle where two people pledged lifelong vows, and I have no issue with that. But from a religious standpoint, marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

Just my opinion.

#146 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-07 10:22 PM | Reply

"I don't believe gay marriages are sanctioned by the Bible."

It falls under the same condemnation as poly-cotton shirts, fresh haircuts, and shrimp cocktail.

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-07 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it"

Congress also said.

Just look at the 1040 for proof; it's the "Married, Filing Jointly" section.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-07 10:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Men worship women."

Only if they can control them.

" They worship the -----."

Only if they can control them.

#149 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-07 10:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#131 ... Marriage is still only between a man and a woman ...

What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"

Serious question.

#150 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 10:34 PM | Reply

"Like when the Dish ran away with the Spoon!"

Let's just say, they weren't Forkin' around!

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-07 10:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Marriage predates religion.

End of story.

#152 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 10:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#152 ... End of story. ...

Not really.

That was then, and this is now.

So I ask again ...

@#131 ... Marriage is still only between a man and a woman ...

What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"

Serious question.

#153 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 10:41 PM | Reply

"For what it's worth, I attended commitment ceremonies back when I was part of the gay lifestyle"

For what it's worth, what did you tell the attendees at YOUR commitment ceremony?

#154 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-07 10:56 PM | Reply

Lamp,

"What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"

Marriage is ordained by God and licensed by the state.

#155 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-07 11:06 PM | Reply

Lamp,

The God I believe in doesn't ordain same sex marriages.

From a biblical point of view, it's a sin.

So why would God bless or ordain something He calls sin?

#156 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-07 11:09 PM | Reply

So two straight heterosexual people that are wed aren't married according to BillJohnson.

#157 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-07 11:11 PM | Reply

What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"

A signed government contract?

#158 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 11:12 PM | Reply

So two straight heterosexual people that are atheist that are wed aren't married according to BillJohnson.

Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-07 11:11 PM | Reply

#159 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-07 11:13 PM | Reply

Marriage is ordained by God

And divorce?

#160 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 11:14 PM | Reply

@#155 ... Marriage is ordained by God and licensed by the state ...

Yeah, I disagree with the religious aspect of that.

Separation of Church and State, and all that.

For starters, "ordained by God."

What, or which, God do you speak of?


And if my religion does not believe in that particular God, does that make the marriage illegal?



#161 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 11:15 PM | Reply

@#156 ... The God I believe in doesn't ordain same sex marriages. ...

Yeah, maybe that's why the separation of Church and State is prominent in the Constitution.


#162 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 11:19 PM | Reply

@#156 ... So why would God bless or ordain something He calls sin? ...

OK, yeah, I have read in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22) here one should not sleep with another man.

But I also read in Leviticus 11:7 that I should not eat pork.

So, which is more important, Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 11:7?


And, why?

#163 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 11:23 PM | Reply

The God I believe in doesn't ordain same sex marriages.

You mean you don't ordain same sex marriages.

From a biblical point of view, it's a sin.

No it's not.

So why would God bless or ordain something He calls sin?
#156 | POSTED BY BULLJOHNSON

God doesn't call it sin.

Some close minded idiot conservative did and added it to the Bible.

#164 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-07 11:29 PM | Reply

Lamp,

You asked my opinion.

I gave it.

Read into it what you will.

But for the record, this has nothing to do with "separation of church and state."

The state isn't establishing religious doctrine and churches don't issue marriage licenses.

The two operate independently.

#165 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-07 11:42 PM | Reply

@#165 ... You asked my opinion.

I gave it. ...

And I thank you for that.

... But for the record, this has nothing to do with "separation of church and state." ...

Oh, it does.

Back in the day, I was a Justice of the Peace. And I performed marriage ceremonies.

I issued marriage licenses. And my issuance of those marriage licenses were based upon the Law, not religion.

So, yeah, I issued a marriage license for gay couples.

Those legal and state-ordained marriage licenses were not issued in sin, as your #156 coment seems to stae.

Those marriage licenses were accepted by the state, so quite legal.

But that begs me to ask, why do you think your religious beliefs seem to override the laws?




#166 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-08 12:03 AM | Reply

"The God I believe in doesn't ordain same sex marriages."

Why should anybody care?

Point is, other people have different beliefs.
And their marriage is none of your business anyway.
So stop trying to make it your business.

What am I missing, am I being unfair to you in any way?

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 12:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"From a biblical point of view, it's a sin."

From a Biblical point of view, sin is forgiven.

Still, you have chosen to be a victim.

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 12:38 AM | Reply

@#131 ... Marriage is still only between a man and a woman ...
What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"
Serious question.
#150 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-07 10:34 PM

Latin for "to marinade.":]

#169 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-08 02:25 AM | Reply

"I don't believe gay marriages are sanctioned by the Bible."

Neither does Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone which has the exact same amount of credibility.

#170 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-08 07:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lamp,

"Why do you think your religious beliefs seem to override the laws?"

I don't believe my religious beliefs override legal marriages.

They're separate, like you said.

Legally, same sex couples can marry under civil law. I'm not disputing that.

But that doesn't mean churches are required to host, bless, or acknowledge those marriages within their sanctuaries.

Religious freedom means churches can follow their own doctrines, just as the state follows its laws.

You bring up an interesting point.

Before gay marriage became law, I actually supported legally licensed Civil Unions with all rights and responsibilites as a marriage.

I thought it would provide fairness without confusion and protect gay couples' rights, while also preventing future lawsuits that could pressure churches to modify their doctrine.

#171 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 08:17 AM | Reply

Are atheist people that are heterosexual. Are their marriages ok with you BillJohnson??

#172 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-08 08:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Laura,

Actually, I thought some straight couples might have been interested in civil unions too.

For example, an atheist couple might prefer a civil union to avoid any appearance of deferring to a religious sacrament.

#173 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 09:17 AM | Reply

Laura,

The Bible actually addresses other controversial situations regarding marriage such as marrying someone who's been divorced under certain circumstances.

But it's up to each church to make that determination based on their doctrine.

Of course, people in those situations can still marry legally.

It's not just gay couples some churches may choose not to affirm.

There are other cases where religious standards differ from civil law.

#174 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 09:26 AM | Reply

"It's not just gay couples some churches may choose not to affirm."

Some churches?

Bigoted churches.

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 09:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy,

Different churches interpret the Bible in different ways.

But people of faith feel obligated to live by and support biblical standards even when those standards conflict with modern culture.

What you're really saying is that you believe the Bible itself teaches bigoted beliefs.

That's your right but don't expect believers to abandon their convictions just to avoid that label.

#176 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 09:42 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

Separation of Church and State works both ways.

Churches may not make laws and the state may not dictate church doctrine.

That is, if you believe the Constitution is the gold standard for America.

#177 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 09:48 AM | Reply

Snoofy,
Separation of Church and State works both ways.
Churches may not make laws and the state may not dictate church doctrine.
That is, if you believe the Constitution is the gold standard for America.
#177 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 09:48 AM

So, you're cool with turning Christians away from marriage because the church refuses to perform the ceremony?

The separation appears between church and God.

#178 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-08 10:08 AM | Reply

Red,

"So, you're cool with turning Christians away from marriage because the church refuses to perform the ceremony?"

That question doesn't really make sense.

Churches don't issue marriage licenses. The state does.

So no one's being "turned away" from marriage.

A church has the right to decline performing a ceremony if it conflicts with their beliefs.

And couples have the right to get married legally through the state.

That's how separation of church and state works. It protects both sides.

#179 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 11:09 AM | Reply

Separation of Church and State works both ways.
Churches may not make laws and the state may not dictate church doctrine.
That is, if you believe the Constitution is the gold standard for America.
#177 | Posted by BillJohnson

^
Separation of Church and State is why gay marriage has to be legal.

You can keep your religious superstitions to your sinning self.

Your hatred of gay marriage is your problem for you to reconcile.

Not something you need to share with anyone but your therapist.

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 11:29 AM | Reply

I don't think the government should be on the hook for a lifetime of transgender related medical treatments and complications, such as hormones, which are used solely for cosmetic purposes.

#181 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2025-05-08 11:43 AM | Reply

"I don't think the government should be on the hook for a lifetime of transgender related medical treatments and complications"

Okay, but unless you're in favor of applying that same standards to all gender related medical treatments and complications, you're just picking winners and losers.

Treating trans people differently than other people is a bigot play.

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 11:47 AM | Reply

"such as hormones, which are used solely for cosmetic purposes."

Lots of people who are not trans are on hormones.

Every woman on The Pill. Many women in menopause. Men with low testosterone.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 11:48 AM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Separation of Church and State is why gay marriage has to be legal."

Do you think Separation of Church and State means churches must adhere to what is the law?

That churches should be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

#184 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 11:57 AM | Reply

www.mnopedia.org

"Gay marriage exists only because of a court order, the majority of Americans including those out in nutjob California rejected it."
Not in Minnesota. We turned back an amendment banning gay marriage and shortly after enshrined gay marriage by legislation, not court fiat.

#185 | Posted by mattm at 2025-05-08 01:02 PM | Reply

Matt,

I don't believe anyone here is questioning the legality of Gay Marriage.

The conversation sort of drifted from transgender to religion to gay marriage (as is the typical path transgender threads seem to do)

#186 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 01:56 PM | Reply

"I don't believe anyone here is questioning the legality of Gay Marriage."

Well, you're wrong.
Clarence Thomas has already said he wants to repeal it, using the same arguments they repealed Roe with.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:06 PM | Reply

Do you think Separation of Church and State means churches must adhere to what is the law?
That churches should be required to perform gay marriage ceremonies?
#184 | Posted by BillJohnson

^
Churches aren't even required to perform straight marriages, so your question is nonsense.

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:07 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"anyone here"

as in people posting on this thread.

#189 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:07 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I think you've been smoking too much weed and you're wierder than usual.

I'm done talking to you.

#190 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:08 PM | Reply

Snoofy,
"anyone here"
as in people posting on this thread.

^
Nobody cares.
People on this thread are not capable of repealing gay marriage.
We are not on the Supreme Court.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:10 PM | Reply

"I think you've been smoking too much weed and you're wierder than usual."

You're a ------ if you think the State can compel a Church to perform a marriage.

That's never happened. You're a ------- -------- for even imagining being victimized by it.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:11 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

You did hit on an interesting point.

Some churches allow members or even non-members to use their sanctuary for weddings.

But they might not allow a same sex couple to do the same based on their beliefs.

Now I find myself wondering. If a court decided that was discriminatory, could it force the church to either allow same sex ceremonies or stop allowing anyone to use the space?

Could they essentially push the church to close its doors to non-members entirely just to avoid legal conflict?

That's where things get complicated and where "separation of church and state" should be protecting the church too.

#193 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:16 PM | Reply

"Now I find myself wondering. "

We get it.
You're always dreaming up new ways that you can become an even bigger Victim.
It's what you do.
It's probably why you joined the Navy.
So you could get kicked out, and be a Victim.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:18 PM | Reply

While some may be concerned that expelling qualified military members while every branch is already understaffed might be bad for national security, it's important to remember commander in chief trump will surrender when faced with an opponent.

#195 | Posted by northguy3 at 2025-05-08 02:19 PM | Reply

"If a court decided that was discriminatory, could it force the church to either allow same sex ceremonies or stop allowing anyone to use the space?"

So what if they did?
Are you saying the Church will be harmed if gay marriage happens inside it?

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:21 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Never say never.

Give it time. Mark my words.

Eventually some radical activist couple will try to use a church they know will say no, just to provoke a legal challenge and chip away at religious protections.

Honestly, I've believed for years that for some atheists and far-left ideologues, the ultimate goal isn't equality.

It's dismantling the Christian church and they are willing to push legal, cultural, and political boundaries to do it.

#197 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:22 PM | Reply

This is Populism; they find targets that the less educated can focus their hate on, Today it's transgender people, next it will probably be gay people. White Christian Nationalism marches on. As they go along other minorities will be targeted because populism needs enemies to justify their Fascism.

#198 | Posted by danni at 2025-05-08 02:23 PM | Reply

"It's dismantling the Christian church and they are willing to push legal, cultural, and political boundaries to do it."

How?
How does it dismantle the Christian church when some other people use the building for some other purpose?

#199 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:26 PM | Reply

"Eventually some radical activist couple will try to use a church they know will say no, just to provoke a legal challenge and chip away at religious protections."

Well, if the Church was really stupid, and said no, we aren't going to marry you because you're queers, that might be actionable.

But if the Church simply said, we only perform marriage ceremonies for people in our congregation and at the Priest's discretion, which is what anybody with half a brain would say to any marriage request, then they don't have a case. Because they weren't being discriminated on the basis of a protected class.

That being said, churches are free to discriminate.

Your question sort of belies the problem with School Vouchers. The religious school you want to send your kids to, doesn't have to accept anyone. Unlike public schools, who do have to accept anyone. So, it is the same way for marriage, and marriage isn't even paid for with State money, like a voucher is. So there's really no way to claim you're being discriminated against, since anti-discrimination laws only come into play in very narrow circumstances like employment or public accommodation. A church is not a public accommodation.

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:30 PM | Reply

"This is Populism; they find targets that the less educated can focus their hate on"

Correct.
BillJohnson hates trans people almost as much as he hates gay people.

#201 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 02:30 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Are you saying the Church will be harmed if gay marriage happens inside it?"

Yes.

Once a church is pressured to perform or affirm something it fundamentally rejects, it's not just that church that suffers. It's the principle of religious freedom itself.

What hurts one church today can be used to hurt any church tomorrow.

If the state can tell one faith how to function and what to believe, what's next. Who can hire? What they can preach?

This isn't just about one issue. It's about whether faith based convictions still have any protection at all.

And lately, let's be honest, many on the left have worked hard to tell others not just what to tolerate, but what to think and believe.

Under that scenario they would be trying to extend that to churches.

#202 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:43 PM | Reply

Danni,

"next it will probably be gay people"

You know... these days, I think conservatives are more concerned about liberals than they are about gays.

Nuf..for now...wife wants to run errands.

#203 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 02:53 PM | Reply

"Once a church is pressured to perform or affirm something it fundamentally rejects, it's not just that church that suffers. It's the principle of religious freedom itself."

^
Are you really this blissfully unaware of the Hobby Lobby decision?

Scalia (or was it Alito) wrote the Supreme Court opinion stating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives businesses an exemption from any Law that goes against a deeply held religious belief.

Start feeding your brain with knowledge instead of fear, BillJohnson.

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 03:01 PM | Reply

Danni,

"This is Populism; they find targets that the less educated can focus their hate on, Today it's transgender people"

You can't honestly claim that today's pushback on transgender issues is purely religious or driven by hate.

I spent years attending a conservative church, and not once did I hear a word about transgender people.

This isn't some campaign to harm transgenders. It's society waking up to the real world conflicts that some transgender "rights" are creating, especially for women.

The issue is where one group's wants start infringing on another group's rights.

#205 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 03:07 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Are you really this blissfully unaware of the Hobby Lobby decision?"

Hobby Lobby wasn't about discrimination.

It was about whether a private business could be forced to violate its religious beliefs under federal law.

#206 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 03:10 PM | Reply

"It was about whether a private business could be forced to violate its religious beliefs under federal law."

That's the same concern with churches being forced to have a gay marriage in their building!

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 03:10 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Discrimination vs religious freedom will be an interesting conflict.

It pits claims of discrimination against the right to practice one's faith.

This may end up being one of the defining legal and cultural battles of our time.

It'll be interesting to see which one the courts and society ultimately choose to protect.

#208 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 03:15 PM | Reply

The religious freedom to discriminate, just like Jesus wanted.

#209 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-08 03:23 PM | Reply

It was about whether a private business could be forced to violate its religious beliefs

Private businesses have religious beliefs?

Is that akin to, Corporations are people?

#210 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-08 03:26 PM | Reply

It was about whether a private business could be forced to violate its religious beliefs under federal law.
Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-05-08 03:10 PM | Reply

It's not a private business if it's open to the public. Nice try slick.

#211 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-08 03:29 PM | Reply

It's not a private business if it's open to the public.

#211 | Posted by LarryMohr

It's not a independent agency if it's funded by the public.

#212 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-08 03:42 PM | Reply

"It pits claims of discrimination"

Actual discrimination.
Not mere "claims."
Your position is you must be able to discriminate against gays or it harms the Church.

#213 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 03:46 PM | Reply

It's not a independent agency if it's funded by the public.
#212 | Posted by chiligordo

So the Judiciary isn't independent after all.
And Congress isn't independent either, I take it...

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-08 03:47 PM | Reply

If the thread has TRANS in the title, you know all the closet gays will be here participating, hoping that being mean enough to other gays will cure their own homosexual urges.

#215 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-08 05:11 PM | Reply

I spent years attending a conservative church, and not once did I hear a word about transgender people.

#205 | Posted by BillJohnson

That's because the christians hadn't yet joined forces with a fascist political movement that needed a new minority group to demonize.

#216 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-08 05:12 PM | Reply

I spent years attending a conservative church, and not once did I hear a word about transgender people.
#205 | Posted by BillJohnson

That's because they spent all of their time being at war against the gays and lesbians. Once they lost the war against the gays and lesbians they shifted their focus against transgender people. That's the crux of the whole thing.

#217 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-08 05:16 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort