The LGBTIQQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer, and Questioning) agenda rolls on.
And no, I did not make that acronym up. LGBT has been around for a few years, and I coined the term LGBTX (the “X” being the variable for whatever they might add next). I predicted it would be polygamy in 2008, but I was wrong. They added three more in that time!
1, Christian photographer hauled before Human Rights Commission for refusing same-sex job. I wish it would have been a Muslim photographer. That would have made it more interesting.
2. Judges: ‘Gay’ exposure OK for kindergarteners
As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
3. You’re transphobic if you oppose letting people go in the bathroom of their choosing. If your young daughter wonders why the bearded guy in the dress is in the women’s room, accuse her of hate speech.
To show how far removed from reality these folks are, consider this bit of etiquette that they propose (emphasis added):
A person’s external appearance may not match their internal gender identity. You cannot know the gender or sex of someone by their physical body, voice, appearance or mannerisms. Pay attention to a person’s purposeful gender expression. We consider it polite to ask: “What pronoun do you prefer?” or “How do you identify?” before using pronouns or gendered words for anyone.
Yeah, that’ll work well in the real world. Hey kids, go up to your teachers and ask them that. Hey adults, try it on your bosses and customers. They’ll be thrilled that you didn’t jump to conclusions about what sex they “really” are. Once they answer, be sure to ask, “Are you sure?”
4. Apparently churches shouldn’t be able to discipline according to the Bible
A gay Christian who won a claim against the Church of England has been awarded more than £47,000 in compensation. John Reaney took the Hereford diocesan board of finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment as a youth worker was blocked.
5. Lots more examples here.
Political perspective: These folks have successfully infiltrated churches, the education establishment and government. It is only going to get worse if “civil unions” are approved more broadly, because they establish a precedent for sexual preferences being civil rights.
Religious perspective: Those are just examples outside the church! To make things worse we have false teachers in the church causing unnecessary division and promoting the political side as well. I’m glad for groups like GCM Watch that help address those areas.
Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Filed under: Christian worldview, Politics, Sexuality | Tagged: christianity, education, gay, God, homosexual, Jesus, Politics, Pro-family, religion
WTF?
Sorry to use such language, but what?!?!
I’ll about as crazy libertarian as they come, but WTF?
Same restroom? No. I don’t want unisex restrooms. I’m sorry, I do NOT want my little sister being mauled by some jerk if she’s in there without parental supervision. I don’t want every bloody paedophile in the country all of a sudden thinking, “I’ll go into the ladies’ room, wait for the little girls, and then molest them there!” I don’t want rapists in the women’s rest rooms. In fact, I want someone to call mall security or the police if they see a man heading into a women’s rest room.
If you are truly “intersex,” you should understand how uncomfortable women are with this idea and BACK OFF.
No, their obligation is to teach children how to read, write, do math and science, and be civically involved. Considering how badly public schools do that (although, in fairness, Lexington MA has a very good system), I don’t think we should be moving them on to other topics.
Parents have an obligation to teach their children about morality. Whether that morality is pro or against gay activity, it is not the job of the school system. Need we play “reverse the plaintiff”? If this were a gay parent suing a school in Mississippi for teaching children that homosexuality is wrong and leads to a life of pain, sickness, and suffering, would these moonbats feel the same way? What if the MS judge said, “It is the obligation of schools to promote a healthy and moral lifestyle, and that includes condemning homosexuality.” Oh, yeah, THAT would really fly.
Pardon me, but where is there “teach homosexuality” in the public school charter? Anyone? Bueller?
Is this a new school subject? Hopefully there won’t be in-class presentations…..
3. You’re transphobic if you oppose letting people go in the bathroom of their choosing. If your young daughter wonders why the bearded guy in the dress is in the women’s room, accuse her of hate speech.
Not only is this is unbelievable, it is unlivable too.
All these liberals should buy an island and move there. See how their experiment goes… we’ll watch from here.
When i read the article about the photographer being sued for refusing to shoot a homo-sexual “commitment” ceremony, I expected to see that it was in Europe somewhere. Imagine my surprise to see that it was in NM, one of the 50 states. I didn’t think we had gotten that far yet.
Thanks for the news. I’ll make sure this gets some attention.
Society has gotten too permissive and tolerant of the “unbelievable.” It’s sickening. As paranoid as it sounds, I shudder to think of the day when pedophilia becomes an accepted form of sexual attraction. Is it coming? The slippery slope is real.
There is a war over the minds of our children in this country. It is being fought over the following:
Moraility is relative and not absolute. The end point is nothing is morally unacceptable.
Right and wrong are not based upon clearly defined actions but upon someone’s perception of how they feel in response to something you do. End point is bullies are empowered and the rest of society submits to them rather then speaks up about injustice, especially being committed against a stranger, in order to avoid giving offense.
Children’s right’s are not as important as adult’s rights. End point is adults no longer sacrifice for children but expect children to sacrifice for adults.
As a Christian, I can either mourn for the future ahead or do my part to shine the light and love Christ. I don’t thank Christ asks us to mourn the future but to challenge it.
I went to Ash Wednesday early service and wore the ashes to work. I want my life to be an example of the power of Christ visible to others. I pray daily. I believe that all Christians in the days ahead will begin to face a world that demands either compromise or sacrifice. To be a Christian will mean you might not be as successful in business (like the photographer) or face difficulty financial decisions (like home schooling if the public education system insists on teaching homosexuality. I believe the day of lukewarm Christians will begin to fade. I think we need to reach out to them and help them understand that being a Christian will not just mean saying iyou follow Jesus but being willing to sacrifice for Him.
Cheers,
LoneStarJeffe
LorMarie, you are so right. I know many try to mock the slippery slope argument but it is so true.
LoneStarJeffe – well said! I say this only sort of tongue-in-cheek, but the Western church could use a dose of persecution to weed it out a bit.
Unfortunately, I had times in my adolescence when the way I looked made tons of toddlers and preschoolers ask me aloud if I was a male or female. Apparently, I guess most androgynous folk get antsy about it — I laughed it off, because the kids DIDN’T KNOW ANY BETTER — how can I accuse them of hate speech? Apparently, any transgendered or transsexual person who accuses a young kid that age of hate speech needs a reality check. These kids don’t know “hate speech” at all yet. Suck it up and get a reality check. Geez Louise.
It’s unfortunate that your religion is getting in way of loving others for being themselves. There’s nothing wrong with any of these people except that they want to the same sexual rights as everyone else with as little harm done to them as possible.
In most South American countries, religion aside, the LGBT community gets the governmental support it needs and thousands of times less of the social stigma as it does in the states. And they’re more “Christian” than America.
Go figure.
“It’s unfortunate that your religion is getting in way of loving others for being themselves. There’s nothing wrong with any of these people except that they want to the same sexual rights as everyone else with as little harm done to them as possible.
In most South American countries, religion aside, the LGBT community gets the governmental support it needs and thousands of times less of the social stigma as it does in the states. And they’re more “Christian” than America.
Go figure.”
I’m sorry, but as a Christian I can say that it is not the people, but the acts they commit that are offensive(although I’ll allow that certain Christians take it beyond a biblical disapproval). If I were to tell you that you should let a teacher “be themselves” when they are teaching racism or sexism to your child, would you feel the same? My point is that I may not approve of a homosexuals actions and I certainly should not have this forced upon my children in schools…and certainly not in the restroom
. Unfortunately, homosexuals (not all, but many as a political grouping…I’m trying not to generalize) do not simply want equal rights, they want special consideration. They don’t force acceptance of any sexual behavior (heterosexual or otherwise) in early education, why should this change? I would also point to the definition of “Christian” when making corrolations to government or national behavior. There are many non-Christians that fall under the Christian banner in census polls and the like. I’m sure I could find about another several paragraphs of ranting about the “gender-confused bathroom use,” but just the thought wears me out. For any person to make a statement trying to refute physical characteristics being an indicator of gender, I would strongly recommend heading back to school and taking a science course or two. I’m starting to spool…Good day!
PJ-
“I’m sorry, but as a Christian I can say that it is not the people, but the acts they commit that are offensive”
Are you saying it is offensive to be homosexual, or to commit homosexual acts? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
These news stories I am afraid, are a sign of the times to come.
Presently, my pastor has already made a list on what he is prepared to go to jail for.
It’s sad.
[...] could use a healthy debate. Issues like should a Church be allowed to practice discrimination? (4Simpsons): 4. Apparently churches shouldn’t be able to discipline according to the Bible A gay Christian [...]
“It’s unfortunate that your religion is getting in way of loving others for being themselves. There’s nothing wrong with any of these people except that they want to the same sexual rights as everyone else with as little harm done to them as possible.
[...] And they’re more “Christian” than America.”
Personally, I don’t think the Christian thing to do is to force people to do things against their conscience. I know I disagree with a few conservatives on this issue, but I don’t think homosexuality should be outlawed. For the most part, people should be free to do as they please. However, when people force others to approve of their lifestyle, that is infringing on others’ freedoms.
How about this. People can be gay and I won’t interfere, and I do my job as I please and you don’t interfere. This seems to be a consistent ideal of freedom.
What if the photographer was asked to photograph a Klan rally? What? Is that different? Or you only thing a photographer should be forced to photograph things you personally agree with?
The linking blog entry by Dan (Fitness) must be seen to believed.
Neil, I hate to tell you, but your positions and conclusions reek of “Christianist hysteria” and it’s obvious that you’re calling for the death of people with whom you disagree.
Thankfully, Dan there was able to introduce the calm civility that’s necessary for a healthy debate.
Chance, that is a false dichotomy. The photographer made the determination based on the client’s sexuality. Should other professionals be allowed to deny services based on sexuality? How about race?
Are you really unable to see the difference between a klan rally promoting hate, and a marriage, an expression of love?
Bubba,
Ooops, my bad.
Clearly, by citing Matthew 18:6, Neil was calling for those defending gay rights in schools to be given cupcakes and hallmark greeting cards.
Dan:
Should other professionals be allowed to deny services based on sexuality? How about race?
Allowed by whom, exactly? And why? Why should the government have the power to tell me how I can run my business?
We’re all adults here. I’m sure you would agree that adults have the right to have consensual sexual relationships with whomever they please. Well, if I have the right to consummate — or refuse to consummate — a conjugal relationship in the bedroom, why don’t I have the right to consummate — or refuse to consummate — an economic relationship in the marketplace?
If freedom is the issue here, then a gay couple should be free to celebrate their relationship and the photographers should be free to withhold their services.
Dan, it’s possible that Neil wasn’t calling for any action of any kind. After all, few argue that the man Neil was quoting was calling for anyone’s death when that man first made that comment, and historically the comment isn’t invoked to urge a person’s death. If you are truly interested in a healthy debate free of hysterics, I would ask you to consider the possibility that you’re being presumptuous.
Dan,
“Chance, that is a false dichotomy. The photographer made the determination based on the client’s sexuality. Should other professionals be allowed to deny services based on sexuality? How about race?”
If one wanted to, a distinction could be easily made between an establishment such as a restaurant, which serves people as they come in, vs. someone who chooses to accept and reject jobs, such as a photographer, a wedding planner, etc…
I think you make a good point, in that if I follow something to it’s logical conclusion, I see the problem with my point. However, I’m going the opposite route. Because I don’t believe a wedding photographer should be forced to do something that goes against their conscience, I would be willing to say a restaurant or any other business should choose who they serve. Not because I believe in racism or any type of discrimination, but because people cannot make the distinction between a restaurant refusing to serve black people vs. a photographer not being forced to work for a gay wedding. Besides, how long do you think a restaurant would stay in business if they didn’t allow black people?
“If freedom is the issue here, then a gay couple should be free to celebrate their relationship and the photographers should be free to withhold their services.”
Good point Bubba, but freedom obviously isn’t the issue. Obviously “I want to live my life the way I want to, and it’s not enough for people to accept it, they must support it.”
Common carriers are held to different standards, historically and Constitutionally, than are other professionals.
Lawyers are free to reject clients for any reason or no reason. Restaurants are not free to do the same.
A photographer will forever have his name and reputation associated with the event. He cannot limit the association; his photos are his copyright, and, often, will have his company’s logo on them. That is hardly the same thing as owning a restaurant, where one is merely feeding the disfavoured group.
“Same restroom? No. I don’t want unisex restrooms. I’m sorry, I do NOT want my little sister being mauled by some jerk if she’s in there without parental supervision. I don’t want every bloody paedophile in the country all of a sudden thinking, “I’ll go into the ladies’ room, wait for the little girls, and then molest them there!” I don’t want rapists in the women’s rest rooms. In fact, I want someone to call mall security or the police if they see a man heading into a women’s rest room.”
There is that risk regardless of the policy regarding transgender and intersexual people. Surprisingly enough, some heterosexual women are also child predators and a man can easily sneak into a restroom without much trouble. I think you are making a false analogy here. Allowing transgender people to use the facilities of their choice will not endanger children more than they already are.
A MUCH better solution to this would be to do what many public libraries are doing already. Many public libraries have separate bathrooms for adults and children. An adult, regardless of gender identify, cannot use the children’s restroom and vice versa. This is THE most effective way to eliminate sex crimes against children in a public restroom.
Ultimately, no child should be allowed to use a public restroom unsupervised unless that restroom is reserved exclusively for non-adult use.
Bubba,
Well you know what? Its different. Discrimination is vile, no matter where it rears its head. It isn’t right for people to be denied services or employment on the basis of skin color, sexuality, religion, gender, or disability.
I would question what the man who wrote those words was saying. The Bible does contain references to killing people on the basis of percieved sin. That quote essentially says “people who cause Christian children to do anything their religion forbids, are better off executed”. I think that speaks pretty clearly (and loudly) for itself.
Chance,
That shouldn’t be the measure by which society makes laws. I do think in certain towns in America, they’d do just fine. Jena, for instance.
Exactly. Fundamentalists need others to accept their views on marriage and sexuality. Why can’t they just let Gay people marry and live their lives in peace?
theobromophile,
Hallo theo, long time.
Surely a photographer need not put his company’s logo on photos he finds so distasteful? If he wishes to not be listed, that’s his issue (and his ensuing lack of future business). His reputation isn’t really at risk. But for him to discriminate based on sexuality or race is vile nonetheless.
And that gets back to a rather important point. Was the photographer’s decision a moral one?
Dan, if you want to argue that Jesus was calling for people’s execution in that passage, you’re free to do so, but you’re in the extreme minority in doing so. If you’re sincere in your professed commitment to civil, healthy debate, you should give Neil the benefit of the doubt.
Now, about discrimination…
First, do you think all instances of discrimination are vile, or is it okay for a city government to decide that maybe blind paraplegics don’t make the best firefighters?
Second, why should an act be illegal just because you think it’s vile? There are lots of people who think sodomy is vile, but I’m guessing you think that adults should be free to conduct their sex lives as they wish even if others disapprove. If adults should be free in sexual matters, why should they be coerced in economic matters?
To put it another way, you seem to need others to accept your views on marriage and sexuality. Why can’t you just let photographers run their businesses and live their lives in peace?
Bubba,
That passage doesn’t call for people’s execution. It says the targeted people are worthless, that they would be better of killed than do what they do. That is classic eliminationist rhetoric, and while it does not explicitly say “kill these people”, it establishes their lives as worth less than the perceived worthies.
I enjoy debating with Neil a great deal, hence I was disappointed to see him resort to that language.
I don’t think all instances of discrimination are vile. That is a very good point. At the same time, there is no practical point of public safety at issue here.
The difference between sexual matters, and economic matters, is an important one to understand. If we allow businesses to shut people out as clients and employees on the basis of race, sexuality, or other such superficial differences, we allow the possibility of individuals being entirely shut out of the communities in which they live.
I don’t need others to accept my view on marriage and sexuality. What I do want, is for fundamentalists to stop shoving their religion down the publics throat. If a church wants to preach homosexuality is a sin, fine, keep the bigotry behind church doors, and the hell away from schools and courthouses.
Dan,
I think you could also distinguish discrimination based on the people involved vs. discrimination based on the job itself. One could reasonably argue that a photographer in a studio couldn’t deny photos to a couple of people who want their picture taken together, whether they be gay or straight or whatever. That discrimination would be based solely on the identity of the person. Not photographing a gay wedding would be based upon the job itself.
Same way with serving people at a restaurant. If someone who was a white supremacist happened to come in to order food, they could not be kicked out, whereas if that restaurant was called upon to cater a white supremacist party, that would be a different thing altogether.
It’s a difference of discriminating based solely on who the people were, based on the actual job itself.
Back to the photography thing, in your ideal world, would someone be forced to photograph people having sex?
Dan
Would you force the photographer to photo the wedding of the middle aged man and his 11 year old bride? What about the Morman, spouses and his third wife? What about making the Jewish photographer photo my pig roast?
it’s precisely as Chance says. Discrimination should not be allowed on the basis of status(what you are), but must be on the basis of behavior. No one should be forced to endorse behavior that they don’t support. The Methodist church is open to homosexuals, alcoholics, shoplifters, wife-beaters, etc. once they acknowlege that their past actions were sinful and to try and abstain from their past sinful acts in future. I don’t even have a problem(nor does the United Methodist Church) with celibate homosexuals being ordained as pastors.
Dan, the passage in question teaches that a man is better off dead than committing a particular sin, but it doesn’t logically follow that it means the individual is worthless, particularly considering that the teaching is made in the context of a worldview where death is not the end of existence.
The difference between sexual matters, and economic matters, is an important one to understand. If we allow businesses to shut people out as clients and employees on the basis of race, sexuality, or other such superficial differences, we allow the possibility of individuals being entirely shut out of the communities in which they live. [emphasis in original]
While I agree that race, for instance, is superficial, I have to concede that people are free to disagree. I don’t think a church should emphasize race, but some do — include Barack Obama’s church — and they should be free to hire whoever they want in their administrative offices. You don’t like it, you can criticize in public, but you should have no legal recourse, and if you find that a private organization’s practices are too exclusionary, you can start your own organization or move to where you feel you’re more included.
I don’t need others to accept my view on marriage and sexuality. What I do want, is for fundamentalists to stop shoving their religion down the publics throat. If a church wants to preach homosexuality is a sin, fine, keep the bigotry behind church doors, and the hell away from schools and courthouses.
So, you don’t need others to accept your views, but opposing views are bigoted and must remain behind closed doors. (And even behind those doors, their hiring practices must stand up to your scrutiny.) Your view must predominate in courthouse, to hell with the will of the people, and your view must predominate in the schoolhouse, to hell with the will of the students or their parents.
Forgive me, then, for doubting your magnanimity.
Chance, I cannot believe you don’t see the difference between having sex, and a commitment ceremony.
Or that you, Ivan, honestly equate consensual marriage between adults and forced marriage with a child.
That you find assault belongs in the same sentence as homosexuality is sad, and perhaps unintentionally revealing.
Is Christianity really a religion that produces such blindness and bigotry?
Are any of you brave enough to bring this arguments from the echo chamber here, and present them on my posted response? You’ll find that there are plenty of people who disagree firmly and eloquently with your defense of religious bigotry’s place in society.
(sigh, “these” arguments. Darn typo)
Are you brave to invite them over here?
Ah Bubba, I needed a laugh.
Sure, I can invite my readers to drop by a comment here.
I find it hilarious that you extend that to my readers. It would have been even funnier if you had said “Well why don’t you commnet here then, mr big shot?”.
“Chance, I cannot believe you don’t see the difference between having sex, and a commitment ceremony.”
In this case, the difference is clear, but other times it is not. I want a free society where people can exercise their own judgment, not be forced to succumb to the popular judgment.
I would also like to add that one not need to be a Christian to hold my view on freedom here, Theobromophile being a shining example.
The Libertarian Party and small ‘l’ libertarians such as the Cato Institute, people who do not necessarily have religious convictions – most of them having no issues with homosexuality – believe in a free market and a view of freedom being that of “negative” rights.
The point is not that homosexuality == racism or that homosexuality == child abuse… the idea is that if one forces somebody to support that which is “good”, then forcing somebody to support that which is “bad” may not be far off. Power goes both ways, and I don’t believe those in charge will only yield it in ways I find suitable.
“Are you saying it is offensive to be homosexual, or to commit homosexual acts? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.”
What I was saying is that the acts involved in homosexual behavior are offensive from a Christian perspective because it is sinful. (I understand that many Christians, including some that frequent this site, don’t view it as sinful…but that’s another debate entirely). I’m not advocating for legal action AGAINST homosexuals, but I certainly don’t think I should be forced to find it acceptable.
Hi all – thanks for the discussion. Here are comments I left at Dan’s site. I think they cover much of what was addressed here as well.
Homophobia is a foolish pejorative designed to put anyone who dares question the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender lobby on the defensive. It is a transparently childish put-down, but it actually works to silence many people.
Ironically, the real homophobes are those who fear the GLBT lobby so much that they cater to all the movement’s demands. They are the ones with the irrational, paralyzing fear of doing or saying something politically incorrect. You see it in political, educational, media and church leaders who will do and say almost anything to appease. It is really quite pathetic.
Those of us who are comfortable discussing the relative merits of secular and Biblical arguments on GLBT issues aren’t afraid. I get along fine with straights and gays.
More here: http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/heterophobia/
I think your misinterpretation of the verse I noted was ironed out over at my place, but just for the record, it was not calling for anyone to be killed or saying they are worthless. It was a clear warning from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords that sin has consequences, and the sin He noted has very serious consequences.
You all are welcome at my place, of course, with the usual caveats – i.e., no personal attacks (and I won’t let anyone attack you), stay on topic, watch the straw-men, etc.
I have no fear of this site, of course, and appreciate the link, but I prefer to just debate in one place at a time.
Most of your arguments self-destruct when you realize that race is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not.
You really should study the links, especially my last one. I have no issue if people had rational discussions of gays at age appropriate levels. There is much people could learn about the diseases, rectal problems, etc. from that lifestyle.
I just think that forcing the normalization of the lifestyle on kindergarteners is twisted. Why should schools be teaching that at all?
Re. the church – we aren’t obsessed with homosexuality. If you want to consider how I spend my time, for example, you’d have to say I was obsessed with mission trips, giving, evangelism, helping the poor, helping women in crisis pregnancies, etc. before you got to my alleged obsession with homosexuality. If the gay lobby weren’t pushing this on kindergarteners we wouldn’t be having this conversation. So who has the obsession?
“You’ll find that there are plenty of people who disagree firmly and eloquently with your defense of religious bigotry’s place in society.”
I couldn’t resist. Your commenters may disagree firmly, but at least you didn’t say they did it clearly. And to top it off, you had to beg the question and say we defend religious bigotry. Come on, Dan, at least pretend to be interested in a real discussion!
Neil,
Your entire blog is devoted largely to three issues:
1. Homosexuality (a VERY common subject among conservatives).
2. Abortion.
3. Liberal Christianity.
I suppose I could go through your site and find all the bigoted posts you have made about Liberal Christians. You have called them “false teachers”, “apostates”, and “heretics”. You stand opposed to the extension of civil union rights to LGBT couples but then claim you respect the division between church and state. You seem to not only want it BOTH ways but ALL ways.
If you want to not be called a bigot, try not posting hateful statements about other groups who do not share your religious ideology.
Thanks!!
Neil said: Hi Sarah – I have a total of 33 posts in the sexuality category out of 580 total posts, and not all of those were about homosexuality. That seems to be far less of an obsession than your concerns about what I post about
.
And if you can convince the LGBTIQQ lobby to stop forcing their beliefs on us, I’ll be glad to stop writing about the erosion of our free speech and the damage they are doing to children.
Yes, I post a lot about abortion. 4,000 innocent human beings were crushed and dismembered today, and I think that is a bad thing. It is the #1 moral issue of our time. I’ll say it often, so visitors shouldn’t be surprised if they see more of that.
I am very specific with my claims of apostacy and heresy and stand behind them 100%. These people could be good neighbors and all but false teaching is poison and needs to be labeled as such.
I can and do argue against civil unions and abortion on secular grounds. Even so, I think it is absurd for people to imply that my religious views shouldn’t inform my political views. If you want me to vote the opposite of my religious views, then I’d say to stop helping the poor, make it legal to imprison or kill atheists and steal their things, etc. It is amazing how many people misunderstand the 1st Amendment. It restricts government, not people.
Your bigotry against religious people shines through very clearly, BTW. I can really feel the love and tolerance from you and Dan.
Seriously, you seem to equate disagreement with hate/bigotry but don’t catch the irony.
Neil,
I guess I never figured you for a bigoted homophobe. But for what it’s worth, I’m proud to call you my brother anytime, anyplace & be counted with you regardless of the cost.
As for opposing civil unions for LGBT folks based on religious grounds, heck, I’m against it based on natural grounds. Also, I do like the way the word “hateful” was worked into the remarks.
Keep up the excellent work Neil. As soon as folks like you, Bubba, Theo, and a few others are silenced – they’ve won.
Wow. Things are hopping around here. Not to throw more gasoline onto the fire, but I have to disagree for the most part with Neil’s assertion that “these people” have successfully “infiltrated” our churches, education, government, or society in general. Creating more awareness regarding a sector of the population isn’t infiltration but rather communication.
Now, you certainly may disagree with what the communicants are saying, but from what I’ve seen and heard, with each step forward there are several steps backward within the GLBT community. The idea of a monolithic gay political movement with a secret agenda does not reflect the true reality of the situation. Are there loud voices? Sure, but for every loud voice on the side of GLBT, there is an equally loud (and much better funded) voice of opposition. And both sides always seem to scream “free speech.”
My experience with those who seek full inclusion within the church or society (I recognize there are plenty of folk here who will dispute the usage of “inclusion”) quite simply want to lead productive lives, find a partner, buy a house, etc., and are very frustrated with the politicalization of all things gay. They do also have genuine fears of not being able to share health insurance, or transfer of wealth in case of death, or being able to find a faith community where they can experience God’s love. Unfortunately, such groups as Human Rights Watch bilk millions of dollars from the unsuspecting without having actually produced anything substantial. I mean, don’t we still have “don’t ask, don’t tell” as well as DOMA (both made policy under uncle Bill’s watch). In other words, they want to simply live there lives without fear (and most of the time without being tied to a particular political group, party, or church).
Now, if you disagree with my ramblings, I really don’t mind. That doesn’t make you a “homophobe” (unless, of course, you advocate the use of violence against GLBTs). As a Christian I value the experience and expressions of all my brothers and sisters (that darn Golden Rule), and I find the majority of Christians to be loving and caring persons simply trying to the best they can for God and neighbor, even when the disagree with my views. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to, but like everyone else here I pray I can be a true vessel of God’s love.
So, what was the point of all this? I guess A: I disagree with Neil. B: I disagree with those loud voices who claim to speak for everyone when they really are edifying themselves. C: I disagree with those who use scare words to squelch an argument. D: I disagree with those who dismiss Christianity as an ideology. Marxism was an ideology, Christianity is a way of life. E: I hope we can continue having the conversation because I find actual talk to be more beneficial than screaming out talking points. Make sense?
Enough for now. It’s late and should sleep (and remind myself not to produced half-baked, incoherent rumblings when sleepy).
Blessings,
Jeff
Bad logic.
There are two activities, A and B. You say that B comes with its own risks, therefore, A is no more riskier than B.
I think we can all see the little problem with logic you are having here. Just because B is not completely risk-free does not mean that it is equally risky to something else.
Sorry, hon – additional risks when you allow men in women’s restrooms without anyone questioning it.
theobromophile,
I actually agree with you, that there is an issue of risk that comes along with transgendered bathrooms, that needs to be addressed. But you really didn’t make your point with your A/B argument (also, the condescending “hon” was unneeded).
Moving on,
There is a lot to digest here.
I find it darkly amusing that Neil complains about GLBT folks “forcing” their beliefs on him, when he’s the one getting in the way of their rights and happiness with his religion.
I am certainly not seeking to silence anyone WOZ, but I will call it what it is: hatred and bigotry. There is nothing “holy” about the religious right’s ranting about gay people. And in 20 years, we’ll look back on it with the same eyes we currently view the Churches that advocated racism.
Very Interesting statement.
“And in 20 years, we’ll look back on it with the same eyes we currently view the Churches that advocated racism.”
It’s funny, but it seems I’ve been hearing that line for twenty years. But if such should indeed occur, 20 years hence we will have truly fallen as a culture (as if we haven’t already). There’s nothing hateful or bigoted about pointing out bad behavior, even if the practitioners of that behavior see no harm in it. It was bad behavior when the hippies of the 60’s spread their nonsense about free love and that low point in our cultural history was what brought this debate out in the open. Yet, it is improper form so many angles.
However, I think I can speak for my compatriots here that the bashing, harrassing and attacking physically of GLBT folk or their property is reprehensible as it would be were they not of their particular persuasion. But as far as I’m concerned, if they wish to go on pretending their lifestyle is no different from what God and nature intended, they’re free to do so and so condemn their own souls. But their insistence has put a strain on the other 98% of the population that includes the stifling of free speech and the incredibly pathetic excuse for intelligence we like to call, “hate crimes”.
But to get to the actual post, I originally read it the day it was posted. Such tales enrage me to no end, so I didn’t comment. There is nothing more heinous than the indoctrination of our young by those who think they have the right to “teach” our kids about their version of morality, which means in no uncertain terms, that there is nothing wrong with GLBT behavior and that it is wrong to think so. What unmittigated hubris!! And any judge who agrees that parents are not allowed to protest such things should be impeached immediately.
I recall a teacher (from an article I was reading) saying that she would not tolerate the use of the word “gay” as in “that’s so gay”(for example) because it was just so hurtful to GLBT kids in the school. Boo-freakin’-hoo! Kids are hurtful. It’s part of their job description and is right their on their business cards. Kids say all sorts of things to each other with the expressed desire to hurt. But is this kind of language any worse or more hurtful than to look to the overweight kid and call him “lardass”? or the near-sighted kid and call him “four eyes”? or the academically gifted and call him a “nerd” or “geek”? or about a gazillion other things? This teacher has bought into the rhetoric and the moral lessons of the GLBT community, lessons that conflict with the standards of conduct and self-discipline that serves humanity well.
Just think about it. What this community is attempting to do, is to change our laws, our beliefs, our values and hundreds of years of tradition and teachings…because of how they want to do the nasty. That alone should deprive them of the time of day as far as I’m concerned. Anyone want to pretend that’s hateful? Fine with me. I can take such baseless charges and you can feel noble. But considering the damage they do to themselves, enabling them isn’t doing them any favors. Who’s the really hateful ones here?
As usual, modern society has taken open-mindedness to the point of letting their brains fall on to the floor. Then again, who can blame them. There is no more standard for what is acceptable and what is not.
And Neil, you were right, polygamy will be next. It just needs a vocal enough minority to demand its acceptance. After all, if any relationship between consenting adults must be condoned (and recognized) by the state, why is one adding partners any greater of an addition than allowing same sex partnerships?
Indeed some polygamous families are very nice people who raise well-adjusted children. That is the standard by which we decide what is permissible right?
Guess I could never understand polygamy. Who in their right mind wants to take orders from more than one wife?????? :>)
“I find it darkly amusing that Neil complains about GLBT folks “forcing” their beliefs on him, when he’s the one getting in the way of their rights and happiness with his religion.”
Neil said: Oooooh . . . “darkly amusing.” How sinister. And baseless.
Again, sexual preferences do not infer special rights. Race is morally neutral but sexual preferences are not.
And don’t come back with the “anything consenting adults do is ok” argument unless you are ready to defend adultery, incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. as being morally neutral AND deserving of special rights AND having a requirement to be taught as normative to kindergarteners.
If you want to keep shouting “hatred and bigotry,” go look in the mirror. They are just your typical straw-man ad hominem attacks – full of name calling but lacking content. I love debating the five examples above with a middle-ground audience.
Jeff, I am really surprised that you support what happened in those examples above. If someone observed how you and intereact with gays in public I doubt they’d be able to tell us apart.
But if you think that treating them kindly, etc. means you have to poison the mind of children with their perversities I think you are so, so, wrong.
“Now, you certainly may disagree with what the communicants are saying, but from what I’ve seen and heard, with each step forward there are several steps backward within the GLBT community.”
You are kidding, right? How do you think they got from G to GL to GLB to GLBT to GLBTIQQ to transgender bathrooms to teaching kindergarteners how normal and good gay relationships are to . . . . ?
Dan,
I can distinguish. However, the point was that there are people who think a 40 year old marrying an 11 year old is perfectly alright. Under your logic, a photographer who disagreed with that behavior would be forced to photo that wedding.
Sorry, but both assault and homosexual acts are both sins. Scripture is clear beyond all doubt on this. Neil has posted on this question many times so I won’t rehash those arguements here [unless you want me to]. However, both violent people and homosexuals who acknowledge the wrongness of their former actions and pledge not to transgress again are welcome in the church.
Well, no, I’m not kidding. Here’s just one example. My older brother teaches high school. He recently broke up a fight because one student was being singled out for being gay (whether or not the student was gay is another matter). The rational for the fight from the instigating students was because their health teacher had said that he hoped “gayness” would be eradicated in their lifetimes. Also, when I worked for a big corporation I experienced on several occassions when workers were singled out for being suspected of being gay and the animosity that brought on. Does that mean there needs to be “special protections” for GLBT? That certainly is debatable. However, whenever I do read about any sort of curriculum designed to promote inclusion (yes, i recognize all the baggage associated with the terminology) I end up reading or hearing about ten or twenty more articles in an uproar over it. I do know that my friends who are gay, are, well, normal folk just trying to make ends meet, wanting to find a good faith community, etc. and frankly really don’t have time to think about sex. Also, could you clarify by what you mean when you write “I support what happened in those examples above?” so that I can respond more succintly, or at least with less clutter?
Neil–
My apologies. I was more commenting on the comments without taking a closer look at the actual post. In brief, I affirm your discouragement with examples 1, 2, and 3, but probably for different reasons. 4. demonstrates why a church should not be governed by the state, as it is in England, or vice versa (That is a extremely simplistic response to what happened in England, but does demonstrate some overall issues with how the CoE functions in its country). 5. I have briefly visit the website in the past and while very appreciative of links to actual court documents (which is refreshing compared to other sites) I am not always convinced of its reliabilty because of its sometimes shaky analysis of said court documents (we all have bad days, I suppose, but then again, I have a different viewpoint on the matter, so of course would disagree). Again, my apologies and let’s keep the conversation going (on this and other matters).
blessings,
Jeff
I thought you’d be interested to know that I took the story on the photographer and same sex wedding into my photography forum here » http://www.uniqueexposures.com/forum/index.php?topic=654
Barbara – thx for sharing your link!
Jeff – thanks for the clarification. Yes, let’s keep the conversation going.
BTW, in the fight example you gave, the teacher was wrong for the eradication comment and of course the attack was wrong.
I am against bullying in all forms and think that broader anti-bullying guidelines work much better. Special considerations aren’t necessary. As I’ve said before, I don’t care if people bully because they think someone is too fat/thin/gay/straight/tall/short/smart/stupid/etc., it is all wrong.
Verbal and physical bullying should be stopped immediately. I think the GLBT activities in schools are just Trojan Horses to get their agenda in, and that the bullying could be dealth with much more effectively than it has been. If I saw someone bullying a gay person I would protect the gay person every time. But the GLBT movement deftly conflates issues and implies that if you don’t completely endorse and affirm their lifestyles then you are a bigoted homophobe. Clever marketing, I suppose, but very dishonest.
Dan, I see that Neil offered a direct and explicit refutation of your presumption that he was calling for people’s death or suggesting that certain people are worthless. To that you responded, “You’ve just supported my interpretation.” If even an explicit refutation supports your interpretation, just what in the world would cause you to rethink your interpretation?
–
Out of curiosity I wonder, under what circumstances would you think that a photographer is in his legal rights to refuse a clientele?
You clearly think that a photographer should be legally required to accept as clients a couple who wants photos taken of their commitment ceremony because employers and businesses should be legally prohibited from discriminating “on the basis of skin color, sexuality, religion, gender, or disability.”
I note that you say sexuality and not just sexual orientation, and you now argue that “Sexual Behavior between consenting adults is morally neutral.”
(”And it is only people who force their religion on society who say otherwise,” you continue. It takes all of two minutes to demonstrate the utter implausibility of this claim.)
Okay, then.
A woman calls a photographer to ask him to photograph her commitment ceremony.
Situation A: The woman explains that everyone will be wearing Star Trek costumes (or, alternatively, at a baseball park or on a roller coaster), and the photographer believes that such things trivialize what ought to be a solemn occasion.
Situation B: The woman explains that the ceremony is with a man and two other women, and the photographer believes that only monogamy is moral.
Situation C: The woman explains that the ceremony involves dog collars, leather, and assorted whips and clamps, and the photographer believes that sado-masochism is a perversion that should not be celebrated.
Situation D: The woman explains that her beloved has reached the next plane of existence. That is to say, the man’s a corpse. Now, before he died, the man clearly gave his consent for this ceremony, so the ceremony would be conducted with the consent of both parties. The photographer thinks that, consensual or not, necrophilia is disgusting.
Under which of these circumstances should the photographer have the legal right to deny the client? And what justification can you give to explain the line between legal and illegal?
There is a fundamental difference between government discrimination and individual discrimination.
When a 11-year-old girl only invites other girls to her sleepover, that’s okay. It is not okay for the government, via the public school system, to not allow boys into class one day.
Colleges discriminate on the basis of sex all the time. At many schools, boys are given a leg up in admissions. That’s okay. Schools like Wellesley and Smith bar men from attending. Hampden Syndey (in Virginia) bars women. That’s okay – and that is a great part of our society. We recognise that some people choose to do certain things without others, and we allow that.
The Knights of Columbus discriminates based on sex. So does the Society of Women Engineers. Neither political side really has a lock on it; in fact, it isn’t hard to find cases of private discirmination that the Left wholeheartedly endorses.
To analogise in a way to get the Left to understand: lawyers serve clients, much in the same way that a photographer has customers. They are not obligated to take anyone who comes through the door, may, if they choose, take only sweet customers, or clients whose cases are winners.
What do you think about a lawyer who conscientiously objects to representing the government in a policy matter which he finds to be morally abhorrent? Would you think that any lawyer ought to be commandeered to defend the legitimacy of Gitmo? What about, in the private context, the defence of a polluting chemical plant? a student charged with hate speech?
Hum….? Can we start to understand how our fundamental freedoms are always NEGATIVE – we cannot force someone to do something, but we do have the freedom to exist and to go about our lives without interference. The gay couple who sued the photographer are trying to negate his fundamental right to live his life without being compelled to act by his fellow citizens. He need not be a part of that ceremony.
Thank you, Theo. I agree completely. What is truly ironic about this scenario is that it IS the liberal position to advocate that business owners are able to select their customers. Remember, the root of “liberal” is “liberty”.
Thank you, Sarah.
Classical liberalism is different from the modern version.
Of the many abuses of the English language in the last century, two stand out to me as the most egregious: the left has been able to portray as opposites the two very similar totalitarian ideologies of communism and fascism, and the left has distorted the word “liberalism” to a statism that is almost the exact opposite of its original meaning.
For what it’s worth, I will note that Dan hasn’t gotten around to answering my fairly simple questions. Instead, he’s still continuing to insult us at his blog:
“Its really funny that folks here are brave enough to post in the presence of wingnuts, but aside from Neil, they prefer an echo chamber for their thoughts.”
I for one don’t understand his hang-up about where we discuss this particular subject: since civil voices with opposing points of view are welcome here, to the point that many here take great pains to address those other views, this blog is hardly an “echo chamber”. And, frankly, the discussion is more substantive.
But even if cross-blog participation is some sort of indication of courage — and it isn’t, and it’s foolish to act like it is — just what is Dan crowing about? The only other person from his blog who has commented here is Sarah.
Good points, Bubba. I’ve heard the “echo chamber” type of comments before but never quite understood them. We must have had around 1,000 comments from the Dawkins’ crowd the last few month (one commenter had over 200 alone).
It was interesting that he challenged the courage of commenters and referred to them as wingnuts in the same sentence. I could be mistaken but I haven’t noticed any personal attacks going the other direction.
I had a similar experience with someone who took exception to my piece on pro-abortion macro-evolutionists. No big deal, but they just paraded a stream of logical fallacies and fact-free personal attacks. One of the downsides of blogging, I suppose.
“Bad logic.
There are two activities, A and B. You say that B comes with its own risks, therefore, A is no more riskier than B.
I think we can all see the little problem with logic you are having here. Just because B is not completely risk-free does not mean that it is equally risky to something else.
Sorry, hon – additional risks when you allow men in women’s restrooms without anyone questioning it.”
I don’t agree. You will first have to prove that transgender people abuse children at rates comparable to men. We can assume that given that estrogen is given to some incarcerated pedophiles to reduce their criminality that the same would be true for non-criminals who are taking female hormones for medical reasons (to treat transgenderism or intersexuality).
It makes far more sense to prevent both adult men and women (in essence, ALL adults) from being with children in private spaces unsupervised. If we are truly concerned about children’s welfare, then parents should accompany their young children into public restrooms or direct them to use bathrooms which are not open to adults.
Sigh. I was merely pointing out that if a transgendered man can use a women’s restroom, so can a non-transgendered man.
I don’t need to “prove” anything beyond that point.
P.S. Explain, please, how I am to accompany my little brother into the restroom when a) I am female and b) my little sister waits outside.
“Sigh. I was merely pointing out that if a transgendered man can use a women’s restroom, so can a non-transgendered man.”
I guess I’m not following your thinking here. How would allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice infer that those who identify as men will be able to use the opposite sex’s restroom? Are you talking about FtM transgendered people using the men’s room? I don’t see the connection.
Regarding your little brother, if the public restroom permits adult men to use the same facilities as children then your brother is at risk. His risk of being the victim of a pedophile would be lower if the bathroom did not allow adults, or someone supervised him while in there.
Sarah,
If someone who looks like a man can walk into a woman’s restroom without questioning, then I think there is a big problem.
I see no reason why we should have four sets of bathrooms because transgendered people want to “fit in” in society. Guess what – that still doesn’t solve the problem of not wanting pre-op transgendereds in the ladies’ room.
Let’s focus on the issue. You have every right to get someone to perform radical operations on you that altern your anatomy. What you don’t have the right to do is to violate laws in pursuit of that.
Neil,
Here is a link to an awesome sermon about Marriage: The Image of God
To the right of the sermon notes, you can click on either the mp3 or video version of the sermon.
It is one of the best I’ve heard regarding the real issues of what is at stake in this battle to force same-sex marriage upon America.
If you think it is worthy to be shared, please send the link to as many people as possible. I would also love to read your opinion about it, too.
“I see no reason why we should have four sets of bathrooms because transgendered people want to “fit in” in society. Guess what – that still doesn’t solve the problem of not wanting pre-op transgendereds in the ladies’ room.”
That’s a strawman argument. No one is proposing four bathrooms. In fact, the whole problem is that not everyone fits neatly into the culturally created categories for gender. There are a large number of intersexuals in our communities that are often invisible to us. Likewise, a relatively large number of people are born with gender identity issues that are treatable with counseling, hormonal therapy, and/or gender re-assignment surgery.
Er… men’s, women’s, boy, and girl. Did I miss anyone?
Sarah, sex and gender are different. Almost everyone fits within a category of sex, and, frankly, that is the relevant part for bathrooms – which part of your body do you use to urinate?
Sarah,
I don’t think asking somebody with a male body part to use a male restroom is that demanding. Likewise with female body parts.
Yes, somebody may feel like a woman trapped in a man’s body, but either they have to deal with the more abstract emotional discomfort of continuing to use a man’s restroom, rather than me experiencing the very real and physical discomfort of using the restroom with a bunch of women. Yes, the former is much more politically lucrative, but still, this is not an unreasonable request.
Well, Chance, as someone who is dear friends with a person who was born intersexual I have to strongly disagree. My friend has struggled throughout his life to try to fit into society’s neatly defined categories but to no avail. He has changed his gender on his driver’s license twice, nearly been arrested in a public restroom, and has largely been ostracized by his family because of his ambiguous genitalia. He now lives in the Pacific Northwest and identifies as neither male nor female. Apparently, according to your logic, because his clitoris is abnormally large he shouldn’t be allowed to use the women’s room, but because he also has a vagina he shouldn’t use the women’s either. I hope you realize that your irrational reaction to this affects real people very directly. My friend poses no risk to society, children, or anyone else. He just wants to be able to piss in a bathroom without harassment.
Sarah, you write, “the whole problem is that not everyone fits neatly into the culturally created categories for gender.”
No, the problem is that some people think everything is culturally created and therefore open to discussion and amendment.
It’s not. With the exception of very, very rare genetic deviations all humans have one of two combinations of sex chromosomes: XY or XX, male or female.
All of us should come to grips with the chromosomal package that we’ve been given. If some want to but have trouble doing so, we should provide as much help as we can in terms of therapy and the like, but we shouldn’t contort our society for their sake: it doesn’t help their stated goal of normalcy, and it certainly doesn’t make the rest of our lives any easier.
And if some don’t want to accept the chromosomes they have, they are and should be free to pursue their own happiness, but they shouldn’t expect and should hardly even ask for the rest of us to embrace their literal perversion.
They’re free to let their freak flag fly, but the rest of us are under no moral obligation to salute.
Well, Bubba, it is my sincere hope you never have an intersexual child.
Ah, yes, a variation of the retort of “I hope/don’t hope your kid is gay.”
I didn’t see your last comment when I was typing mine, but let me be clear that your friend has my sympathies.
But let me say, if I had a child who was suffering from sexual confusion, I would love that child dearly, no less than if he or she didn’t. By my approach with this dilemma would be no different than if my child suffered from kleptomania.
If my child grew to be a kleptomaniac but truly wanted help, I would provide whatever assistance I could. If my child insisted that kleptomania defined him and insisted that his resulting larcenous behavior was a thing to be embraced and celebrated, I would still love him, but I would disagree and could not support this decision.
Either way, I certainly wouldn’t ask society to change on my child’s behalf: I wouldn’t ask society to remove laws forbidding theft. If he wanted help, such changes would not be conducive to his therapy; if he didn’t want help, whatever accomadations that were provided wouldn’t be enough, and society would be worse off for its misguided compassion.
You have to think through the consequences of what you’re suggesting, and making this society embrace gender-bending does society no favors.
You are seriously comparing genetic problems with kleptomania? I think you may be seriously not understanding the issues involved here.
“”You are seriously comparing genetic problems with kleptomania? I think you may be seriously not understandng the issues involved here.”
If anyone is not understanding the issues here Sarah, I would say it’s you. To put it buntly the issue is simply this: unless I’m painfully mistaken, public restrooms are provided for one purpose. Elimination of bodily waste. If you have a penis, use the men’s room; if not, use the ladies room. If you’re confused about which to use, see a doctor. But please spare me the arguments about rights along with the rest of this nonsense.
My apologies folks, but sometimes enough is enough.
The problem is that Sarah is deliberately conflating several different problems.
Some people are “transsexual”; they feel as if their gender does not conform with their sex (i.e. chromosomes).
There are people who are literally born with both male and female parts. They are often assigned a sex at birth. Often, doctors are incorrect. I imagine that, as technology improves, we will get better at determining which way to assign children, if we continue along that path.
There are people, different from both groups above, who have Klinefelter’s Syndrome (I believe it is) wherein they have three chromosomes (XXY). They are men.
While I understand that those people are in a tremendously difficult situation (well, the latter two), I – and many others – rationally do not think that we ought to rework our entire society to accomodate rare individuals. Born with both parts? Choose one when you are an adult and use the associated restroom. Extra chromosomes?
Fact is, sex is a biological issue, not a societal one. When dealing with biological issues, such as elimination of waste via either male or female parts, it is sensible to make distinctions based on sex. Gender has nothing to do with it.
ROFL. I love it.
“There are people who are literally born with both male and female parts. They are often assigned a sex at birth. Often, doctors are incorrect. I imagine that, as technology improves, we will get better at determining which way to assign children, if we continue along that path.”
As a libertarian, I am shocked that you are taking this position. You honestly believe it should be entirely up to doctors to “assign” a sex to those infants that are ambiguous. I think it is far better to listen to intersexual adults and allow them to determine how they want to body to be “assigned”. There are a large number of intersexual people who feel very victimized in that they had no input on the surgical procedures done on their genitalia.
“If you have a penis, use the men’s room; if not, use the ladies room.”
I’m glad you are conceding my point. If you are intersexual, and have both, then you can use both. If you are a post-op transsexual you should use the one which matches your current gender. I guess this only leaves the pre-op transsexuals out.
Sarah, if a person’s DNA has either XY sex chromosomes or XX chromosomes, it would be more accurate to say that the doctor isn’t “assigning” sex: he’s ascertaining the already existing sex of that person.
It is only in chromosomal deviations (e.g., XXY) that there can be said to be a genuine ambiguity.
“It is only in chromosomal deviations (e.g., XXY) that there can be said to be a genuine ambiguity.”
This is not true and really gets to the root of this issue. There are a variety of genetic conditions where a person would have “normal” sex chromosomes (XY/XX) and still be intersexual. There are people who are XY who appear to be entirely female and vice versa.
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is “intersexual”. The terms get confusing. Transgender, transsexual, those are ones that feel they are male in a female body (or vice versa), right?
How many different variations are there? Male, female, ttranssexual (2 of those I guess). Are there others?
I’m a science fiction fan. There are always talks of races with more genders than just 2. I guess we’ve crossed into the twilight zone…
Sarah,
Read what I wrote, and then get off your high horse. Take your “I can’t believe you call yourself liberatarian!” hysteria elsewhere.
I have no idea – not in this world, at least – you got the idea that I approve of that procedure. Would a dry recitation of the methodology of waterboarding tell you that I believe in it?
What do you think, “If we continue along that path” means? Here’s a clue: Maybe we shouldn’t continue to do that.
I frankly saw no reason to go into a digression about my own beliefs in assigning sex to those born intersex. The fact that you then take this to get into a huff-fest is your own problem, NOT MINE.
Clear?
Morning folks,
I reread all the posts & I gotta be honest, I lost count. How many new restrooms do we have to build????
Have a great day.
17.
White men only get to use one or two of them.
Thanks Theo.
Now the the only thing I have to work on is the 23 different languages on the sign by the door :>).
BTW – Good luck with the last 3 months of law school.
I would like to invite readers at this blog to please watch the message at the following link. I also hope that you will be motivated to share your comments!
Marriage: The Image of God.
Go to the site and click on the arrow on the right of that particular message.
When you view this video, you will see what the illicit sexual battles being faced by the church today are really all about. The fact is, it is not really only a physical battle, but more importantly, a spiritual battle that is transpiring.
Sincerely,
Christine W.