This is, IMO, the real problem. LA-LA-LA it is not happening. 

Then it goes to; "Just based on the sheer number of schools that exist, there have probably been several drag days" (justifying it by the shear number of schools)

No. The entire state of New York says parents don't need to know. Don't try to deny or minimize. 

Lets just skip each other, I am not interested in fighting with you, there is obviously zero intent from you to have a debate or conversation as all you do is provoke and attack. Your FIRST inclination is to find a way to pounce, most every single time. 

 I am not fighting.  I like the discussion. You just get frustrated and do not like when you are called out for your double standard and people disagree with your points with facts.

You will notice I never am derisive or name calling -- when someone resorts to that or starts with that, it just means they have lost the debate already.

You need to quit being offended when someone disagrees with you.

Otherwise, you will be like the rest of the cheerleaders on here, that you called out, by simply not replying.

But you go ahead and carry on. 

Words can be tricky depending on how they are used , or on how they are interpreted……

Neither of you is wrong per se , but I believe that something is getting lost in translation , even though you are both speaking the same language ……

Also a bit of resentment is probably sneaking through in both of your writings to each other . Let’s curtail that and focus on the miscommunication that you two are having , because like I said , at no fault of your own , words can be deceptive and misleading even though your intentions are pure 

Lead by example , both of you , and show the forum how it’s done , a conversation that indeed may have a difference of opinion , but one that is lassoed together by respect and honor ……

good luck gentlemen , I know that you can both do it 

@Raiders22

 Great responses to Wall..  

And Wall, I have seen you post many things, and that might have been one of the darkest, cynical I have ever seen you write... in so many ways. just two examples..  

(1) It is human nature to divide, to segregate, to demean and put down, etc.. 

(2) ....hell if any political group deserves to be destroyed it is conservatives.

Your whole write-up is a tirade lacking any sense of direction. 

I don't think it's any coincidence that someone who talks so negatively about religion expresses so many cynical, negative thoughts.  

Please,...  Have a little faith..  

@Rush51

 Follow the sequence please, do not take liberties to pick a line or two and take it completely out of context...if you want to come at me then please do so in the context that I wrote my words. I was replying to a message someone else wrote it was not a singular thread or comment that came from a neutral environment.

Read what the other poster wrote, always writes and then read my reply and please keep my words as I wrote them do not exaggerate or form a narrative without context. I know that is tough for you, almost as tough as finding economic stats right? lol

Speaking of that, what happened to the CPI number yesterday? I guess consumer demand fell off a cliff to generate a multi standard deviation move in such a short time, its almost like demand does not have much to do with the situation and it is more about supply eh?

I stick with my comment, religion has killed a multiple more than any other cause and that of course includes several wars which had origins around and about religion. And yes I do 100% believe that our human nature is to divide and to separate and to wreck each other..luckily it is not the ONLY emotion or response or neural pathway we have, but for sure it is in our nature.

When folks say that -- they are nearly always using it to claim Christianity is the ideaology doing the most killing.  This is very easily proven to be false.  This is just one example of a refutation:

Which religion or ideology has killed more people?

I get tired of the atheist canard that religion has killed more people in history than any other ideology. First, they are willing to attribute wars to Christianity that were more political than religious, and second, they are unwilling to own the atrocities of atheistic communism.

But let’s be fair – if the Christians can be saddled with the Inquisition (a political power play by the King of Spain) or the Crusades (a justified defensive war after 400 years of Muslim conquest), then atheists should own the atrocities of the political movements of which atheism was a central tenet, particularly Communism.

But I have searched largely in vain for a list of atrocities associated with each ideology, so I built my own spreadsheet, largely from these sources:

• List of Genocides  by Death Toll (wikipedia)
• List of wars and antrhopogenic disasters by death toll (wikipedia)
• Islam Killings (markhumphrys.com)

I limited my spreadsheet to conflicts that killed more than 750,000 people (although not sure if the Islam Killings site did that, so their numbers might be slightly inflated).

As per my graph above, you can see:

1. Power hungry men bent on Empire. Especially in China.      414 Million 
2. Islam’s conquests.                                                           297 Million
3. People seeking freedom from Empire builders                    145 Million
4. Atheistic Communism                                                      128 Million
5. Racism (including eugenics and Nazism)                             48 Million
6. Chrisitanity                                                                      20 Million

1. Yes. When atheists claim that religion has killed millions, they are mostly referring to Islam.
2. But. They are not morally pure either, atheism does not scale up well at all.
3. Don’t Forget: Hidden in the ‘racism’ category is the Nazi genocide that can be somewhat blamed on social Darwinism, and Darwinism is a close fellow with atheism.
4. Christianity: Seems to be the lowest of the six categories.

Here’s a link to my DeathCount spreadsheet if you want to see how I broke it up.

@Raiders22

 Who said Christianity? In fact I would surmise that Christ was not intending to form a religion, nor was Buddha or Vishnu etc etc in fact Christ never said to do what men did after he died, he taught by example to love everyone to separate church and state, to lead by example and not judge, to live by being kind and respecting each other no matter what beliefs you have, what sins you have done, what wealth you have or what you do to make a living.

Christians only follow what they want, they are not disciples of Christ, human nature has warped and wrecked his teachings because that is our nature.

@wallstreetcappers

 That is the general theme from atheists and the implication.  But as the guy noted it can include all religions and the argument is still incorrect. 

Again you cannot generalize and include everyone in your assessment. Just because the Christians you may have known exhibited those traits, does not mean all or the majority do.

And again, you cannot judge any ideology by its abusers. 

Most true Christians do not follow what they want, etc.

not judge, to live by being kind and respecting each other no matter what beliefs you have, what sins you have done

I would look into this a bit more.  There are many examples where folks were judged and condemned for the way they lived and their sins.  Absolutely you can still love those folks -- but you judge their sins and point out they are wrong.

I never said Christians, only commenting based on what you said..that Christ did not want men to form a religion, and whatever religion was formed is for sure NOT what he taught and showed by example. Christians are much more Old Testament lead the people by their nose than Christ who lived the higher law and was not involved in politics or concerned with wealth or judging people different or sinners.

I would consider myself to be a very high level theologian, but my experience and life is for sure not going to be expounded on here of all places.

It is fine.  You can group all religions together.  As a whole the point is still invalid.

that Christ did not want men to form a religion

This is correct.

whatever religion was formed is for sure NOT what he taught and showed by example. Christians are much more Old Testament lead the people by their nose than Christ who lived the higher law and was not involved in politics or concerned with wealth or judging people different or sinners.

This is not totally correct.  Again, all Christians or OTHER religions are NOT this way.  You may have been exposed to some that were this way.  For that I am sorry, because this sort of thing does turn people away -- I get that.

I understand that you are not a high-level theologian.  But you do not even have to have a high-level understanding to know the ways in which Jesus judged and condemned sinners -- this is a basic part of the NEW testament.  He did this many times.  Absolutely he did not advocate hating the person or things of that nature.

Of course, a lot of folks do not practice as well as they should and could have a more Christian attitude -- there is no denying that.  But to imply that a Christian should just accept sinful behavior because Jesus did -- that is blatantly false;  Jesus did not just accept it, he preached directly against it.

THAT is the issue:  People do NOT want their children being raised to 'just accept' things that they believe are wrong.  This is not being a Christian at all.

Well I cant continue to debate this as we see Christ and his teachings very very very differently. I see his teachings as we are required to love everyone, do not judge anyone and the only judge is our creator, nobody else. We are all created from the same origin, we all are here to experience and learn and elevate ourselves and do good deeds, love those around us and strive to do our best. People should accept all those they come in contact with, that is what Christ did and taught. We are not to  judge, to condemn to rule over to differentiate. Our purpose is to love everyone, try to multiply our talents and do good works and edify our creator. If you research most belief structures, most have this as the core principals and we are to elevate ourselves with learning, growing, helping those who have less and to bring light to the world.

Christ accepted everyone and refused no one, he taught very very simple precepts and ideals, the complexities and excuses are made because few are able to keep the small and simple things he taught.

but my experience and life is for sure not going to be expounded on here of all places.

I am not so sure why if that is the case the very first thing you did when you had a chance was to do EXACTLY that and brought religion right into the discussion.  No one else had done that, yet.

Then when you are corrected you decide you do not want to discuss it now.  

At some point you can simply say you were wrong or misinformed on the issue.  Because you can never cite any sources for your stances and refuse to acknowledge any facts that oppose your view.

There are of course good examples of this and how Jesus handled the different situations:  the rich young ruler, the woman at the well, the money changers, the Pharisees, etc. 

This has been written on in-depth on the various levels.  Jesus first-coming and not to judge because the world was already in condemnation, Jesus second coming and the following judgment, How you are to discern the sin and judge it, not the sinner -- you are to love all folks.  But how you are to, with love, correct folks when they are wrong.  How you are to be careful correcting someone when you also have faults.

All of these things have been explained in great detail.

At no time is it expected for people to accept immoral behavior or sin; it is, in fact, your obligation to try to correct it in a loving way.

For sure, folks fail at lots of this.

But it is a completely wrong the way folks want to interpret the intent of this. 

If you do NOT point out to folks where they are wrong in society and how it will affect children because you think that you are not supposed to judge or condemn someone, or something wrong is incorrect.

I will post some simple explanations on this and if you are interested they will lead you to a more detailed explanation:

• John 5:22 - Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son
• John 9:39 - Then Jesus declared, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind.”
• 2 Tim 4:1 - I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of His appearing and His kingdom:
• Heb 10:30 - For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge His people.”
<

Didn't Jesus say somewhere that we shouldn't judge others?

You’re probably thinking of Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount, commanding us not to judge or condemn others—something only God has the right to do. He said, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned” (Luke 6:37).

This doesn’t mean, however, that we’re supposed to be indifferent to right or wrong, or be unaware of the dangers that come from immoral decisions or false beliefs. Nor does it mean we should overlook our own sins. In fact, later in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus urges us to judge between true and false ways of living (which we do by seeing their results). He also commands us to be judges of our own sins—which may be far greater than those we see in others.

I can’t help but wonder, however, why you don’t want anyone to challenge your beliefs or even talk with you about them. Only you can answer this, of course—but is it because deep down in your heart and mind you’re unsure of your beliefs and doubt if you’re actually right?

But you can be sure, by turning to Jesus Christ and committing your life to Him. He came into the world to give us the greatest gift of all—the gift of eternal life. Don’t let pride or anything else keep you from Christ. “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

“‘Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.’ (Matthew 7:1-2)

The first portion of these verses is one of those passages of Scripture that we must be careful not to strain beyond its proper meaning. It is frequently abused and misapplied by the enemies of true religion. It is possible to press the words of the Bible so far that they yield not medicine, but poison.

Our Lord does not mean that it is wrong, under any circumstances, to pass an unfavorable judgment on the conduct and opinions of others. We should have decided opinions. We are to ‘prove all things.’ We are to ‘try the spirits.’ Nor does He mean that it is wrong to reprove the sins and faults of others unless we are perfect and faultless ourselves. Such an interpretation would contradict other parts of Scripture. It would make it impossible to condemn error and false doctrine. It would bar anyone from attempting the office of a minister or a judge.

What our Lord means to condemn is a censorious and fault-finding spirit: a readiness to blame others for trifling offenses or matters of indifference—a habit of passing rash and hasty judgments—a disposition to magnify the errors and infirmities of our neighbors and make the worst of them. This is what our Lord forbids. It was common among the Pharisees. It has always been common from their day down to the present time. We must all watch against it. We should ‘believe all things’ and ‘hope all things’ about others and be very slow to find fault. This is Christian charity (1 Corinthians 13:7).”

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
—Matthew 7:1 niv 1984

It is a phrase that has been used countlesss times during contentious conversations or in defensive moments when someone is confronted about their behavior: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” These famous words from Jesus are recited by many but profoundly misunderstood. One could easily argue that Matthew 7:1 is by far the most frequently misapplied verse in the entire Bible, used and abused by both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Those who mishandle this verse often use it as a “shield for sin,” a barrier to keep others at bay, allowing them to justify living as they please without any regard for moral boundaries or accountability. Their objections sound like this: “Aren’t we all sinners? What gives us the right to make moral judgments about someone else? Isn’t that God’s job?”

However, when we take a closer look at the context of Matthew 7 and the teachings of the rest of Scripture, it is clear that this verse cannot be used to substantiate unrestrained moral freedom, autonomy, and independence. This was not Jesus’ intent. He was not advocating a hands-off approach to moral accountability, refusing to allow anyone to make moral judgments in any sense.

Quite the opposite, Jesus was explicitly rebuking the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who were quick to see the sins of others but were blind and unwilling to hold themselves accountable to the same standard they were imposing on everyone else. We’ll unpack this further in a moment.

What this means is that the greater judgment is reserved for the one who has purposefully overlooked his own mammoth sin while pointing out the smaller sins of others. Jesus emphatically says this must change, so he gives two commands: Stop judging others in a hypocritical fashion, and get the sin out of your own life.

Yet let’s be clear. Jesus is not suggesting that we have no right to make moral judgments about human behavior, and he is certainly not suggesting we have no right to hold others accountable. He doesn’t condemn mutual accountability and moral responsibility and the need to address sin in the church—he addresses hypocrisy.

The Bible makes it clear that it is our duty to spur one another on to live lives that please God. First, our lives should give evidence that we have truly repented of our sin and received Christ by faith. Then from time to time, as necessary, we are also called to mutually correct, rebuke, and encourage one another in love.

Again, no one will reach perfection in this life, but togetherwe are to wage war against and forsake the sin that results from living in our fallen flesh. We are to “take off the old life,” so to speak, and “put on the new,” growing in holiness out of reverence for God. But the reality is we can’t accomplish this without the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit and the mutual encouragement and accountability of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. We can’t do this alone; we need each other!

This then, is why the apostles called us to help one another in our struggle with sin. For example, James says:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20 niv 1984)

Paul said something similar in the book of Galatians:

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:1-2 niv 1984)

@wallstreetcappers

 But with all of that being said:  I am not sure how you tried to isolate Conservatives and religion (as a whole) to support your stance.

I do not think it is fair to let the Democrats and the non-religious folks off the hook here.

I know a lot of very good and religious Democrats.

I know a lot of non-religious good folks that are apolitical.

There are many, many folks of all walks of life and political parties that do NOT support allowing this.

Religion actually is not even my biggest consideration about this subject.  But since you were so quick to bring religion up -- that is a whole group that is against it as well -- and they vote both parties.

SCIENCE is the self-evident backer and the common-sense determining factor on this if you simply ignore the affect on the children themselves.

There is nothing wrong with the attitude of 'let folks live their lives and if it does not bother affect me, no problem.'

But on this issue it DOES affect someone else.  A young and very impressionable child.

Take religion out of it.  No other society in the world has thought this was a good plan before.

Some quotes from the news article about this that covers a whole slew of folks:

If a person is an adult and wants to transition, that is a personal decision that they make after much self-reflection. A child can't make a decision about whether they want dino nuggets or mac and cheese for dinner, let alone what gender they would like to be, and all of the life-changing, life-long ramifications that accompany such a decision. Kids are not competent to make a final determination about something with this many consequences. 

Lets call it what it is .. the mutilation of an entire generation in the name of mental illness . Treat the MIND not the BODY 

I just don't get it. we don't allow children to drive, vote, or serve in any service because they're too young to make competent decisions. Yet we tell these same children, as early as 2 or 3 years old, that they can make a decision about what gender they want to be. Whatever happened to "DO NO HARM"?

Children can request and receive so called “gender affirming care “ much of which is irreversible. 

 Here is a list of things that children the same age cannot do:

Get a tattoo 

Get pierced ears 

Sign a contract 

Take out a loan 

Enlist in the military 

Buy or consume alcohol 

Vote

Consent to any other type of surgery, dental work, etc.  

Buy or consume cigarettes 

And many more. 

These rules are correctly in place  primarily to protect the child from falling under the influence of someone who is not acting in their best interest 

It is really abuse. How a physician can perform these surgeries on minor aged children is very troubling. They can’t drive a car, join military, vote in an election purchase alcohol or cigarettes but they can be made sterile? They can suffer irreversible physical and emotional trauma and scars and that’s legal and downright fine? Bizarro world.

Notice none of them bring up religion or even parties that much. 

If I wanted to look up someone elses words I could do that myself, I am not interested in your cut and paste validation because what does that prove? You found someone elses words to support yours, that means nothing outside the fact anyone can find validation from a secondary source and it is not at all difficult to do so.

I would like to follow your last post but it is muddled and lacks direction, I have no clue what you were trying to conclude or where you are going with it and if you will reply make sure that your replies are just you and not some other source that I can find myself or find some counter to just as easily as you did for your cut and paste.

Conservatives do not make the foundation of their platform based on religion huh? That is an interesting perspective but not one I agree with.

@wallstreetcappers

 You should look up someone else's that is why I COPIED and pasted them.  

You cannot just keep spouting things off the top of your head when you are wrong.

Then when someone gives data or expert analysis on a researched topic you ignore it.  That is the very definition of staying ignorant.

I said what I said in my own words and THEN backed it up with examples and experts who have studiesd it.

You would do well to do that on things instead of always being wrong and hard-headed about it.

It is certainly not muddled.  Unlike your first post in here where you threw all sorts of things at the wall.

Just say you think it is okay to do this to the children and no amount of experts or common sense or science or religion will change you mind.

It is just odd to me how folks back up an issue like this.  Whether, by just ignoring it or outright being okay with it.

@wallstreetcappers

 Conservatives do not make the foundation of their platform based on religion huh? That is an interesting perspective but not one I agree with.

Not nearly as much as you would think and not even nearly as much as Democrats did years ago.

I would look up some of the great Democrats in your country that helped establish and set up the laws and see how religious they were and I am sure some still are.

No one can swerve that the laws of the West are Judaeo-Christian based.

But since you are not religious or not wanting to back your stance up with it; tell me EXACTLY how you support this issue?  Do it in your own words without religion -- I would like to see SCIENCE involved.  It does not even have to be ethics or morality or psychology.  Just back it up physiologically.