Authentic Dialogue with a “Transgirl”?
Early on in the now infamous “Can’t Even Go to the Park” fiasco, a very polite young adult, anonymously referred to as “A”, wrote to me to apologize for the nature of some of the responses and to explain why it drew such a response. I post this knowing full well that it is controversial, but controversy is the process by which things can improve – if it is ordered, which the word “process” certainly implies. Disordered controversy creates conflict and nothing improves. There’s plenty of conflict already.
So I want to start an orderly conversation about how we show Christian love to a person, while rejecting sin, not condoning sin, not leading anyone into sin. Personally, I admit that sometimes I focus too much on hating the sin, and not enough on loving the sinner. So imagine pouring a cup of coffee and pulling up a chair with “A”. “A” is trying to communicate so hear “A” out. Since “A” welcomes thoughts, please offer them in the spirit of friendship.
I do want to say to “A” that as a parent of young adults myself, I extend the benefit of the doubt to your parents. Sometimes what parents intend is not what is perceived, and I know the frustration of being misunderstood in that regard. I pray that your relationship with your parents is reconciled. Usually when a parent disagrees with a young adult’s choices, it is because they love their child and are concerned.
“A” it is hard for me to read your story because triggers go off in my “no-that’s-not-right” mind, but you had the tenacity to share it when similar triggers where probably going off in your mind about me, and I’m hopeful that we can begin an authentic public dialogue between people who are interested in doing so. You are a person, I am a person, and anyone who joins us is a person. None of us is perfect. We are still all in this together. Can we at least just talk? Even as I publish this, I’m hesitant, but hopeful.
“Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity.” CARITAS IN VERITATE
Mrs. Trasancos,
First of all, with all the sturm und drang over your recent post “Can’t Even Go to the Park”, I would like to offer my personal apologies for the conduct/language of my compatriots in both the LGBT and freethinker/atheist communities. Obviously I cannot speak in any official capacity, but I feel that several lines were crossed. That being said, I would like to offer a different perspective on why your blog entry drew such a response, partially from my own experience, partially from the stories of many of those I know.
Just to give you some context and background, I was raised a Roman Catholic, and my parents would fall onto the “conservative” side, both politically and ideologically/morally. I went to a Catholic grade school, and was home schooled for three years, from 7.5th grade to my sophomore year in high school, with the curriculum being based mostly on Catholic and/or Christian teaching. While it’s been a while since I studied my Catechism, I’m still the source many of my friends turn to when discussing Catholicism. Also, for just to help establish a timeline if I mention dates, I’m 24.
I’d been struggling with a number of issues since I was very little, but chief among them was the fact that I identified very strongly as a girl, despite being assigned male at birth. For many years I struggled with what’s known as gender dysphoria, which led to depression, anxiety, social awkwardness, among other things. The best way to describe my life was that I was constantly wearing a Halloween costume and mask, one that I was unable to take off, and people related to me as though I WAS the costume. I’m sure you can imagine the distress not being seen for who they truly are would induce in someone. Eventually, it got bad enough that I attempted suicide. At the last second, I put the gun down, because I didn’t want to die, and because I loved my parents and family too much.
At that point I was 19 years old, and just entering college. I came out to my parents, shaking with fear as I did, since they were against anything LGBT related. I knew that Catholic doctrine was to “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, but my parents seem to have missed that message…they hated the sinner, AND the sin. For the next year, I was treated like a prisoner.
My internet and phone access were monitored, my room and mail were searched for “suspect articles and clothing”, and I was sent to Christian psychiatrists in hope of “curing” me. I was reminded that I was a “disgrace”, and was “disgusting”. I apologize for the gratuitous quotes, but I’m quoting my parents directly. All I had done to earn their ire was to be honest with them, and attempt to get help and live my life to the fullest. After a year of this, they finally threw me out of the house.
I landed (metaphorically) in the home of a family friend, and my parents made a concession that since I was not earning enough money to pay rent, they would pay rent for me. They then proceeded to use that as leverage in every discussion we would have, be it me asking for my legal name (which had been changed by court order) to be respected, or them demanding that I not come wearing such horrid things as jeans that were a little tighter than I used to. They would also remind me that I was an abomination to God. While I’ll admit freely that I was a little intemperate during some of those discussions, on the whole, I feel that I was much more respectful to my parents and their wishes than they were of me or mine. Even when I was covering all my expenses, they still insisted on treating me like a second class citizen, and it got to the point that I cut off all contact for a year, since every interaction I had with them ended in me ending the interaction in tears.
On top of all that, Mrs. Trasancos, I was transitioning to being my true self, that of a happy, healthy, social young woman. Even though I have the benefit of both starting young and not looking as masculine as some transgirls, I would inevitably be “read”, and suffered harassment on more than one occasion. The one that will forever stick in my mind, however, was based on religion. My partner and I were having lunch at the local mall, minding our own business, when we were approached by someone giving out religious literature. He offered us some, and we both politely declined, as we’re both non-religious, but he insisted on giving us one and preaching about how we needed to go to church. We asked him to leave, that we had no interest in his church, and while we respected his beliefs, we would like to finish our lunch and get home. At that point, he must have noticed that I was still visibly male in some places, and started loudly proclaiming that he had “found a tranny” and that he was going to “drive the demons” from me, and started asking if anyone had a pair of scissors to cut my hair. While I started to pack up our things, my partner asked him to be quiet, and she told him that he was causing a scene. When my partner put her arms around me as we left because I was close to crying, he realized that we’re a same-sex couple, and he just shouted louder, that we shouldn’t be allowed in public spaces, and that gay people were damned to hell. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but transgendered people are at an extremely high risk for violence and murder.
This is getting a bit rambley, but that, in essence, is why your article was so controversial. So many LGBT people have stories like this, where religion has been used to belittle them, to hurt them, to rationalize violence against them.
I believe a few commenters on both your original article, and it’s follow-up posited that people disagreeing with your opinion are afraid. We are. We’re afraid of children being raised to believe that we’re dangerous, that we’re not worthy of basic human rights. We’re afraid that we’ll have to continue looking over our shoulders when we show affection that heterosexual people take for granted. We’re afraid that one wrong word in the wrong place could cause us physical harm. We’re afraid that families will be destroyed, and that children and young adults will be killed simply for having the courage, and it is courage, to admit who they are. Case in point, it destroyed my relationship with my parents. Even though we’ve begun to slowly reconcile, they still base all their objections on religion.
I’d welcome your thoughts,
-A
(shared with permission)
Ground rules for discussion:
1) Please address comments to “A” directly unless commenting to each other.
2) If commenting to each other about “A” remember that “A” is a real person who is reading.
3) This is an opportunity to have a conversation, no therapy offers.
4) If at any time “A” says to take down the post, that request will be honored immediately.
5) If inclined, take Marc Barnes‘ advice and offer a “Hail Mary” with each comment.
Here are some resources:
Catholic Education Resource Center
The Pastoral Response to Homosexuality by Melinda Selmys
H/T to Anna Williams for the resources.
Related: Hatred of homosexuals betrays Christ by Anthony S. Layne
Thank you Elizabeth Scalia for the inspiration in Echoes, Ghettos & the Chasm of Unknowing.
Category: Marriage, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
A: Thank you for your candor with Stacy T.; I do have a question at this point: do you attend Liturgy at your parish or any parish?
Yes, daily if possible.
Stacy,
I doubt any kind of proper exchange between you and A can commence until you begin to think more critically about your beliefs. I honestly cannot respect the notion of “hate the sin, love the sinner” because it fails to ask, “Why is it a sin?”
You can say things like this all you want: “None of us is perfect. We are still all in this together. Can we at least just talk?”
It just reminds me of the words of Lord Polonius from “Hamlet”:
“We are oft to blame in this–'tis too much proved–that with devotion's visage and pious action, we do sugar o'er the devil himself.”
Rome,
I think about my beliefs all the time. I submit to the Magisterium and when I have not understood something I have learned to trust the teaching anyway because later on in life I have come to understand why it was the truth.
Sin is sin for a reason and it hurts the person and it hurts others. No one wants to be hurt.
Stacy Trasancos: My mistake; I thought I'd directed the question to A.
Ave Maria . . .
http://shirtofflame.blogspot.com/2011/09/am-i-my-gay-brothers-keeper.html
Heather King's piece is a good place to start.
SteveP, Haha. Oh no that was my mistake — I'm honestly holding my breath and I read that too fast. I'm not sure if this was a good idea, but I was really touched by “A's” candor too.
This is interesting. I've heard loud and clear the RCC's position on homosexuality, but not so much the issue of transgender.
I respect you a lot, Stacy. I do not agree with the sentiment of the original post, because it didn't seem like “loving the sinner” showed through very much, but I understand you were frustrated and went to your blog to vent. Sometimes, bloggers begin to feel like their blog is their “safe place”, but how much the opposite is true!
I didn't follow the comments on the original post. It was just too much too quickly for me (too much controversy can cause me to despair), but I will say the last jab at the end hurt a little. My husband is from another country and while he is not illegal, many of his friends are. The man did not kill someone because he was illegally in our country: he killed someone because he was driving drunk. The issue of his legality is a side-issue and irrelevant, so why bring it up like it was the cause of the misbehavior?
Anyways, keep up the conversation and keep up love!
Stacy–
You say you are thinking about your beliefs, but it really seems that you are abdicating your critical thought to another entity.
“I believe that this is the truth because the church tells me it is and the proof they offer for it being the truth is that they say it is.”
Sorry–but there are millions of interpretations of the Bible–and the NT was translated and assembled by men. Men–with all their human biases, self-interest, and political motivations.
Can you honestly look at the early and Renaissance history of the papacy and deny those motivations?
Look at holy texts for context–not for cherry picked lines. There is nothing that outright condemns anyone.
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” “
Matthew 22:36–40.
Does sin exist? Of course. It is what we do to really and truly harm our neighbor.
You don't have to protect your children from two people of any persuasion holding hands. You have to protect your children from the people telling you to fear that display of affection.
A,
The fear of violence is understandable and any violence directed your way for your lifestyle is absolutely wrong. But I think what we have seen with the reaction to our hostess' original blog post is that such violence is a two way street which stands to reason as we are all of a fallen nature. I'm all for stopping bullying of teens in your position as I am for stopping bullying of all teens and all people, but I think with the current trajectory we are on, we are going after people's personal beliefs in a very negative way that at the end will come back to bite everyone.
What is your belief regarding individual people being able to openly express their view the homosexuality is wrong?
Does sin exist? Of course. It is what we do to really and truly harm our neighbor.
——–
What do you base this teaching upon? What if someone disagrees with your personal belief in this regard?
eliz.erazo,
I know the original post wasn't very loving. Think — pressure cooker. However, for whatever reason it went mini-viral, I have read story after story similar to this and am now rethinking the source of my frustration. I blog to learn, not to show the world how wonderful I am.
The illegal immigrant thing was upsetting because I heard he had been arrested before and I can't imagine how someone can do what that man did. My husband's an immigrant and we have a child the age of that child, it just sort of hit too close to home. Literally.
Anonymous,
“You say you are thinking about your beliefs, but it really seems that you are abdicating your critical thought to another entity.”
There's nothing unreasonable about trusting the teaching of others who are wiser. Everyone has to do that.
Stu–
What do I base it on? The Matthew text immediately preceeding the remark.
A, I think you hit the nail on the head, so to speak, as to why the previous post elicited such strong response. Wouldn't it be a different world if all heterosexual teens feared coming out as hetero to their parents and faced possible consequences such as being kicked out of their childhood home?
I sincerely wish you the very best on your journey dealing with difficult family situations. Please know that you are an inspiration I'm sure to other people.
cheers,
gwen
*A* emailed from work and wanted everyone to know that responses will be made later from home. They don't allow comments on blogs at the workplace.
A–
Remember one thing–YOU are not the one at fault.
The hatred coming from the other side is their issue, born of them, not you.
You can't control their feelings. The thing you can control is YOUR REACTION.
If your family won't accept you–find one that will. Life is too short to spend it trying to teach others who refuse to learn.
Best of luck. Know there are lots of us out here that are pulling for you–just the way you are.
This isn't so much directed towards anyone, but it pulls at my heart so much… I have a friend who is transgender FTM, and all I want to do sometimes is hug her and tell her that she was created a beautiful woman of God. It would offend her, it wouldn't change how she thinks or sees herself (well, himself, now), and I would never put her in that situation. But it's with all the love in my heart for another human being that I would want them to see how beautifully they were made. The same is true for every person struggling with knowing their dignity and worth!
I'm 24 as well. I can look at my life and say many things about how I feel like I should be something that I'm not. I feel like I was born to be something that I'm not! I “feel” like I should be married, I should be a mother. I could convince you of all the reasons why THAT is how I am meant to be. But, in my singleness, it's my cross and calling to bear with patience who I am. What I feel is in my head, and what I am is my reality. It's hard. I know many of us feel like we were born into the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong family, the wrong situation… but we were created without mistake, to be exactly where we are. We can't see what will become of it, but there's beauty in the journey of offering it up and remembering that this life is always passing.
That's how I see and identify with this concern, and how my heart turns over reading about the struggles that A had and continues to have…
A, you deserve love and acceptance for who you are, wherever you are in life. Nature did not make a mistake in creating you, and you are deserving of respect as you make your way through the tangled world of figuring out how to be the person you are meant to be. Remember that your dignity as a human being can never be diminished, and those who confuse your journey and decisions with the very essence of who you are cannot say anything to take away your dignity. Sometimes religion seems to be the fuel behind the fire; all they want to do is judge the actions of others. But there are a great many people who just want to show why and how we have found purpose and freedom in knowing God's intent for creation and for our lives. I hate that some people's philosophies misunderstand religious attitudes and become a means to create and perpetuate hatred. That's not what it's about.
It's lack of compassion that creates so much hostility between us. That's something we can all work on.
What do I base it on? The Matthew text immediately preceeding the remark.
———-
The same Bible that you said this about:
“Sorry–but there are millions of interpretations of the Bible–and the NT was translated and assembled by men. Men–with all their human biases, self-interest, and political motivations.
Can you honestly look at the early and Renaissance history of the papacy and deny those motivations? “
You are trying to have it both ways.
Wouldn't it be a different world if all heterosexual teens feared coming out as hetero to their parents and faced possible consequences such as being kicked out of their childhood home?
———
It would be a bizarre world if heterosexual teens feared coming to their heterosexual parents whose union brought the teen into existence.
People often use the term “hate the sin but love the sinner.” The term is used to make a distinction between people and the sins that they commit. However, people often conflate two separate notions of sin.
Catholic doctrine acknowledges original sin and actual sin. Original sin is an in-born inclination toward committing actual sins. Actual sin is the act of committing the sin.
Additionally, there are two types of actual sins: venial and mortal. In order to commit a mortal sin the sinner must meet (1) Commit a serious sin, (2) Know that such a sin is serious, and (3) Have committed the sin with full consent. In legal terminology, there must be an actues reus, a mens rea, and attendant circumstances. All other sins are venial in nature.
Does an LGBT individual who has same sex attraction but remains celibate commit actual sin?
No. For the LGBT individual to commit an actual sin, the individual must actually commit a sinful act. That sinful act may be mortal or venial depending on the abovementioned criteria.
Does the term “hate the sin but love the sinner” apply to LGBT individuals who remain celibate?
Yes, but only in a narrow sense. We love the sinner, as word sinner applies to any potential homosexual acts, because each person is born with original sin. However, without having committed an actual sin, said individual is not an actual sinner in regards to the act of homosexuality.
I hope this analysis helps tease apart important distinctions that need to be made when using the term “hate the sin but love the sinner.” We need to make absolutely sure that any LGBT person reading this blog knows that their in-born sexual orientation does not make them an actual sinner. Rather, these people are inclined toward the temptation of a single sin like many of us have inclinations toward our own pet sins.
Stu–
Since the Matthew text is presented as a direct quotation, and the statements from Christ are direct quotations from the OT, the chances of mis-interpretation are much less than the manipulation of texts done at a later date.
For example, the texts that are relied upon to reverse dietary restrictions. Paul's statement in Romans is AN OPINION. The unclean food text in Matthew are a parable open to interpretation.
(It would also seem that Jesus specifally contradicting Hebrew law would have raised a controversy which would have been mentioned in the text–had it actually happened.)
Of course, the contradiction of dietary laws is, in itself contradicted by Christ's statement: “I come not to abolish the laws of Moses…..”
So–do you base your understanding on a direct quote or an opinion and a parable? Because the opinion and the parable are much more likely to be corrupted by interpretation.
And let's also remember that Paul never actually knew Christ.
Since the Matthew text is presented as a direct quotation, and the statements from Christ are direct quotations from the OT, the chances of mis-interpretation are much less than the manipulation of texts done at a later date.
———-
No. Given your overall beliefs about the Bible, these too could be fabricated. And even if your theory were true, how then are you able to determine what is legitimate and what isn't? Divine revelation.
You are doing exactly what you told our hostess not to do; cherry-picking. You either believe the Bible or you don't.
Stu–
Sorry–I'm not going to play word games with you.
As I stated–read the bible for context.
(And if you claim to believe the bible–tell me when your next animal sacrifice is. I'd like to notify PETA.)
(And if you claim to believe the bible–tell me when your next animal sacrifice is. I'd like to notify PETA.)
———
And you tell me to look for context.
Stu–
I never claimed to always follow it.
Stacy,
Merely thinking about something a lot does not mean you think about it critically. You just admitted to that by putting blind trust in church doctrine. After all, you can't even show how the lifestyles of the LGBT community hurt anyone, nor can the church. That shows that you haven't thought critically about what you call a sin.
@Stu
The problem in your reasoning is what is the alternative? Say we agree to your stipulation that the Church teaching is the product of flawed human construction. You would replace it with… A different belief system of flawed human construction?
What difference would it make at that point? Except that the secular society can change its norms to fit whatever the current trends are, thereby exclude no one?
A,
Please know that as a contemporary and a catholic I feel what your parents put you through was wrong. Transgenderism isn't handled especially clearly in the catechism, for one thing. For another, they way they acted wasn't doing you any favours, and certainly wasn't the charitable, Christian thing to do. I want you to know that I'll be praying for your emotional and spiritual well-being, as well.
I hope that these experiences haven't turned you off of your own faith. I find that it is important, even when our lives don't always fit the picture of the “perfect Christian”. It takes all kinds to make a village, after all, and God's hug is universal.
Yours,
-Z
Say we agree to your stipulation that the Church teaching is the product of flawed human construction.
———-
It's the product of God. He merely used the hands of flawed men to do His will. God writes straight with crooked lines.
What difference would it make at that point? Except that the secular society can change its norms to fit whatever the current trends are, thereby exclude no one?
———-
Secular society could then change it's norms to say almost anything to fit whatever the current trends are, which means even excluding people as well or worse. From what basis then do we judge these societies? Who are we to then tell another society that say sacrifices humans, that they are wrong? Appeals to another relative criteria don't cut it.
Here's a thought.
Why don't Catholics try not judging other people for a while?
And if you really feel like you must judge than understand that we secular humanists are going to judge right back.
Stacy–I've read some of the attachments at the top. I have to say Anthony Laynes article about not hating gays is the most hateful article about love I've ever seen.
@ Stacy, thank you for putting this on your blog. It took courage of you. I applaud you for it.
@A, you amaze me. You are much stronger than I am. I admit as a gay male I don't understand being trans, but I try hard not to judge that which I do not understand, and you are one of the reasons I try not to. You have a strength so many of us are missing.
@ Stu,
“What is your belief regarding individual people being able to openly express their view the homosexuality is wrong?”
I ask for what purpose do you do it. I don't want to argue, but I would like an answer. And although I do believe you have a right to express your views I do not believe you have the right to come up to me on the street and express them. There is no purpose for that. That is why there is much anger towards you. Please see that.
@ Rome
I, too, accept magisterial teachings. In order to get to this point, there are several levels of inference that take place. Note that Catholicism is highly deductive. Assuming that obedience, then, is blind would be too presumptuous.
Additionally, you have commented that the Church or others who oppose homosexual activity can convincingly prove that homosexuality is harmful. Assuming merely for the sake of argument that medical and/or other empirical evidence supports your position, you yourself have rested uncritically on a silent presupposition. Can you guess what that presupposition might be? I will give you time to think about it, critically.
Rome: Stacy T. wrote “There's nothing unreasonable about trusting the teaching of others who are wiser.”
You wrote: “[Stacy] just admitted to that by putting blind trust in church doctrine.”
Would you humor me with two things: 1) relay your critical thinking path that got you from Stacy’s comment to your comment; 2) show us that you have derived, from Kelper, eccentric elliptical orbit equations, by yourself rather than trusting that someone else has done so.
Thank you.
I was wondering whether to reply to that comment from Rome.
Rome, do you trust college professors who have the legitimate authority to teach a course? Or do you follow what they tell you blindly? Do you remember learning to read? Do math?
My strongest witness is that as I have trusted the truths of revelation and of doctrine reasoned from revelation, I have step by step 100% of the time found them to indeed be the way to live in peace and freedom. They work. They are true, good and beautiful, whole and universal.
And every time I learn something new I thirst to learn more. It's not just me, ask anyone who has done the same. It makes you unafraid to admit error because you learn to trust yourself to adjust and do the right thing, even if it's hard. It's a life that strives to grow in virtue, and it is a life committed to searching for truth built upon the search for truth of all those that came before you. It's a very exciting way to live.
That is orthodoxy.
Anonymous,
“Stacy–I've read some of the attachments at the top. I have to say Anthony Laynes article about not hating gays is the most hateful article about love I've ever seen.”
You should take it up with Tony on his blog, but be specific and take the time to consider what he says. I read his writing a lot and there's not a hateful thing about him. He's direct, reminds me of my husband. Something doesn't need to be sugar-coated to be loving.
I ask for what purpose do you do it. I don't want to argue, but I would like an answer. And although I do believe you have a right to express your views I do not believe you have the right to come up to me on the street and express them. There is no purpose for that. That is why there is much anger towards you. Please see that.
——-
Was the student in Texas that was suspended for expressing his viewpoint regarding homosexuality to his friend out of line? Was the cafe owner in London who as ordered by the police to take down Bible verses on video display because it offended some honosexual out of line? I'm not hell bent on going up to homosexuals to tell them that their lifestyle is wrong. However, the mere hint that someone disapproves seems to send them off into a nutty harping about discrimination, lawsuits and impending violence.
If we are in the big arena of ideas and homosexuals want to assert themselves with homosexual activity in public, then they should expect feedback, some of which won't be positive. Goes with swimming in the deep end of the pool.
Stu,
again I don't want to argue with you so I will re ask my question. For what purpose would you do it?
Now to answer your question. No the student should not have been suspended for expressing his viewpoint. However if the story goes deeper as some are suggesting then his “expressing his opinion” was bordering on harassing this teacher because he and some of his friends assumed the teacher was gay. The whole story has not played out yet so I am reserving judgment. The shop owner in London, no it is his business and bible verses are not offensive. See we are not all unreasonable or out to sue.
and if you think my holding hands warrants you harrassing me (and you expressing your opinion to me about your beliefs in public can constitute harrassing) then you are wrong. And of course we know you could care less what people say to you in public as you have stated before, but you are human so I really do find it hard to believe that nothing would offend you. It's easy to say but much harder to do.
So I have responded, do you think you can finally just answer the question?
@ Mary:
Please, believe me I mean no personal offense and if I somehow say something that offends you I apologize, but I'm about to go nuclear on you.
Who the Hell do you think you are?!
Have you ever stopped and considered how your friend must feel? Do you think it's an easy decisions, undergoing hormonal treatments and having corrective surgery, just so he can be who he feels he is? And do you really think your friend doesn't feel your only supporting him superficially but you don't really agree with the path he choose? Do you really think your face and bodylanguage don't tell your friend you are offended by him, by his very existence? So, you think to please you your friend should have stayed a woman although that would make him feel miserable for the rest of his life, just so you wouldn't be offended? How dare you call yourself a friend?!
And than, three paragraphs later, you are trying to “support” A, who's made the same very difficult decisions while she just read what you wrote about your feelings towards your friend! Oh, but wait. It becomes clear a couple of lines after that. Not God, nature or religion is wrong because there is a reason why A and your friend are the way they are. God makes no mistakes so A and your friend must be wrong! And not A's parents were spreading hatred and acting on it, clearly, but, how did you describe it, “some people's philosophies” did! And who do you want to blame for A being thrown out? Also “some people's philosophies”? Never seen a philosophy throw someone out of her house before!
If you truly want to do something about hostility between “us”, maybe it's a good start to think before you write!
A, I truly hope you'll find nothing but hapiness in your future and I hope you and your partner are heading for a long life of joy together.
But, if you'll excuse me, I need to get some air. Some of the “loving Christians” here disgust me.
Alan,
I have answered your question twice in two separate threads.
Again, I'n not hell bent on expressing my opinion to homosexuals. However, given the circumstances (such as it is clear that they are intentionally trying to make a scene, which I have witnessed), I reserve the right and people should understand it.
My whole point is that most homosexuals seem to want dissenting opinion outlawed or even met with violence. You do not and that I can respect.
@ Stu:
“Was the cafe owner in London who as ordered by the police to take down Bible verses on video display because it offended some honosexual out of line? I'm not hell bent on going up to homosexuals to tell them that their lifestyle is wrong.”
Well, you may not be hell bent on doing so but the London cafe owner certainly was, since he moved his business to Soho while knowing that district of London is mostly populated by gay men and women. He started his crusade on the very night he opened his bar, which was across a popular venue for gays. The people in the neighbourhood asked his several times to end his crusade and to stop provoking people but he refused. And in the UK the freedom of speech is not absolute. He's been asked nicely and refused. After that the police asked him not so nicely with a court order in their hands.
(full disclosure, I didnt read many of the other posts, so I have no idea of the content of this discourse)
A,
Im a Catholic mom raising adult children and I only want to tell you that I wish that you had been my daughter so I could love you.
You are a sick, sick, hatred-filled, brainwashed, judgemental woman. Not that it should be a shock that people like you exist, but it's disgusting and alarming that you perpetrate this hatred. I fully support free speech, and bless this country for giving people the right to say what they think, even when it is hate-filled and judgemental.
What God do you think would judge a human being based on a God-given quality? No God of mine. God would judge those who judge on his behalf, if anyone at all.
Open your mind to the fact that God wouldn't put gay people on this Earth if he didn't love and accept them just the same as you and your family.
Serious question, I am questioning it too and not totally decided on this matter: Did God put men who are sexually attracted to nine year old boys on this earth? Should their behavior and desires be loved and accepted? (Note that this is different from loving THEM).
This inquiring minds need to know?
] to the mall authorities?
1. A was born male but has transgendered to a female and is/was in a 'homosexual' relationship with another female?
2. A was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at what age and by whom?
3. What is a “Christian psychologist” and how does one locate a “Christian” psychologist?
4. When A attempted suicide – did A obtain a referral to a psychologist or meet with any social worker, psychiatrist or other professional?
5. When A came out to the [vile evil sounding] parents at age 19, did A not seek the opportunity to remove self from hostile living arrangement? Why or why not?
6. Did A report the [vile evil sounding] preacher [I know - protestants can be quite annoying
Thanks.
“A,
Im a Catholic mom raising adult children and I only want to tell you that I wish that you had been my daughter so I could love you.”
I hated that my post was labeled as “Anonymous” because other Anonymouses say mean things. My name is Tammy.
My sons have many gay friends and I was thinking about them and how to best set a good example and be a mom to them (the gay ones, straight ones, struggling ones, steady ones) and I started to cry because I realized that I loved than all so much.
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
Few of us middle agers got to where we are in life without some sexual sin affecting us somewhere…I dont understand why we need to focus on other peoples sin and struggles.
I am also a nurse in a newborn nursery and assure you that some babies are born with their external gender markers confused, if that happens physically, why do we think it impossible (or sinful) if peoples internal gender indicators are different than what we expect.
I agree that fear makes us mean. No one can or will MAKE our kids LGB or T , so what do we conservatives have to be afraid of? LGBT people have existed throughout history and dont tell me that they are going to ruin marriage…us heterosexuals have done a good enough job ruining marriage all our own, we didnt need any help.
@Anonymous 6:06 p.m.
The debate regarding Catholicism and homosexuality has already gone so far past your argument, or your accusations, er, I mean your slander. I do not have time right now to unpack your rhetoric. However, you could expand your horizon to understand where the real argument is and where it is not.
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/
http://www.stevegershom.com/
Hey all! My apologies for the belated answers, but work is work. Just a quick note about some of my answers/comments: If you press me for details regarding people, places, and associations, please do understand that I’ll be vague. I’ve been stalked a number of times for giving out seemingly innocuous information.
@stevep: In answer to your question, no, I do not. I count myself as an atheist.
@stu: I personally have no issue with it, as long as they are respectful of us as human beings, and they do not claim authority from a deity. Case in point, with the kerfluffle over Carrie Prejean, I had no issue beyond my differing viewpoint because she did not claim authority from a deity.
@anselm
] to the mall authorities?
This inquiring minds need to know?
1. A was born male but has transgendered to a female and is/was in a 'homosexual' relationship with another female?
Transgendered is not a verb, it’s an adjective. The proper phrasing would be “Transitioned to female”, but grammar police aside…I prefer to keep my love life private (As I imagine you do), but yes, I’m in a relationship with a woman, but a different one than in the story. My previous partner moved away distance-wise beyond our capacity to absorb.
2. A was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at what age and by whom?
I was diagnosed at age 20, and I’d like to keep by whom private, as it would narrow down my location to a very specific area. She is a PhD, and very well respected psychologist.
3. What is a “Christian psychologist” and how does one locate a “Christian” psychologist?
A “Christian psychologist” would be one that thinks that the answer to most, if not all, of life’s problems can be solved with prayer, penance, etc. In the popular parlance, one that believes that their client can “pray away the gay”. There are registries, trade organizations, and referral lists where one can be located.
4. When A attempted suicide – did A obtain a referral to a psychologist or meet with any social worker, psychiatrist or other professional?
I was not able to, as I was working full time, and did not have a reliable means of transportation to reach one. Shortly thereafter (a month or three, i’m a bit fuzzy on exact timelines) I called a suicide hotline, and talked through some things with them.
5. When A came out to the [vile evil sounding] parents at age 19, did A not seek the opportunity to remove self from hostile living arrangement? Why or why not?
At the time, I was in college, and was dependent on my parents for most, if not all, expenses. I had a job, but would not have been able to afford rent, food, medical +car insurance, train fare, etc. on my own. I sought the opportunity, but in the end was financially unavailable.
6. Did A report the [vile evil sounding] preacher [I know - protestants can be quite annoying
Yes, as soon as we’d gotten home and calmed down…
@tammy
Thank you so very kindly! You're awesome, so totally awesome. You sound a lot like my first girlfriend's mother…she essentially became my mother for a while, and I was welcomed in as part of their family. They did me a world of good.
Keep on doing what you're doing!
Keep up the questions/comments.
“There's nothing unreasonable about trusting the teaching of others who are wiser. Everyone has to do that.”
As Saint Thomas Aquinas notes, the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments when it comes from purely human authorities. It is the strongest when it comes from God, Who Is both all-knowing and all-good (meaning, among other things, “ever-truthful”). If the Church is guided by God, then the argument from the authority of the Church is a strong and not a weak argument. More to the point, it was Chesterton who wisely observed that all teachers must be at least a little dogmatic, since the truth itself is, well, true. “A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching.” I didn't come here to argue over epistemology or metaphysics, though.
Concerning *A*, I have little more to add to what others have said other than that I will say a prayer for her happiness. I do sincerely hope that she attains true and lasting happiness, which is no more than what I can hope for anyone, and no less than I should.
Well, you may not be hell bent on doing so but the London cafe owner certainly was, since he moved his business to Soho while knowing that district of London is mostly populated by gay men and women. He started his crusade on the very night he opened his bar, which was across a popular venue for gays.
———-
Doesn't matter. They don't have to go into his business. Freedom of speech goes two ways.
I personally have no issue with it, as long as they are respectful of us as human beings, and they do not claim authority from a deity. Case in point, with the kerfluffle over Carrie Prejean, I had no issue beyond my differing viewpoint because she did not claim authority from a deity.
——-
“Authority from a deity” being different than their viewpoint being derived from their belief. Yes?
@stu Yes and no. If they play the “It's my belief” card and it's their own opinion, then that's fine, that's something I can respect. If they play the “It's my belief” card and they're deriving it from the authority of a deity, then I have a problem, because there's no defense against that, logically. For example, a friend of mine doesn't eat pork products (Bacon, pork, ham, etc.). She finds the taste repulsive, and it's not the healthiest of meats. Mind you, we differ on that opinion (especially about bacon…), but she'll still eat with me, and accept my hospitality at my home. But another friend of mine follows Kosher, and will not accept my hospitality. She refuses to even come into my house, despite our being friends for over 7 years. I can reach a compromise with the first friend, but I can't reach one with the second, because they've played the “it's my belief derived from deity” card. Do you follow?
Stacy,
You cannot compare the clergy of your church to teachers and professors. They teach things that are verifiable. Most of their lessons include evidence and citations. The material they teach goes through a rigorous process of scrutiny and investigation and confirmation. There is no faith to it. They have proof. They teach facts. Priests preach dogma.
No advocate of any religion can rightly call homosexuality immoral because they have failed, time and time again, to show how it harms anyone. In your “Can't Even…” blog, your only reason for saying that you want to use your voting rights to oppress homosexuals was that it just bugged you. Nobody was doing anything to you. Nobody was interfering with your life. You should not even care if any couple, gay or straight, indulge in some PDAs. It's normal, harmless behavior. The same goes for same-sex marriage; it's harmless. Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt. It helps the couple and hurts no one.
There is just no reason to call it immoral. You do not lack the wisdom to see this. You do not need to defer to higher authority. You simply refuse to acknowledge an obvious fact: homosexuality is not harmful to anyone.
And that pretty much defeats your claims that your faith makes you unafraid to admit error and pushes you to grow in virtue. Rather contrarily, it compels you to stand by even the most obvious errors and stagnate in a lack of virtue. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, but it is completely immoral to try and oppress those who engage in it.
The mere fact that you happily admit that you go on faith and not fact proves my earlier point that you do not think critically. A critical thinker would realize that just because some book says homosexuality is wrong, that does not mean it is wrong. Your faith gives no justification for the condemnation of homosexuals.
You can say that it is harmful, and you have done that many times, but not once have you substantiated and legitimized those claims with an explanation of why it is harmful, an obligation you give yourself when you assert power over others.
I follow you, but I think people are still entitled to their beliefs regardless of how they found them. As you are probably aware, Catholic teaching is that Faith and Reason cannot diverge since ultimately all truth comes from God. Accordingly, I do believe God has revealed some truths to us but I also believe that all truth can be rationally surmised through study and reasoning. At the end of the day, where I got the belief is irrelevant. It's still my belief though I usually don't appeal to faith for non-believers even if I touch on it during discussion.
Tolerance has to be a two way street, even in strong disagreement.
Rome,
You seem to have made the error right off the bat that all knowledge much be empirical and that faith is some sort of blind acceptance. From there everything else is built upon faulty reasoning on your part.
Best for you to start off on why everything we take as true must be so scientific in it's origin.
BTW, if you think philosophy, doctrine and dogma doesn't go through a rigorous process of scrutiny and investigation and confirmation then you aren't exactly up to speed on such things. Catholics aren't fundamentalists. We don't base our beliefs on the Bible. We base it on Christ and His Church. Big difference.
Unfortunately, it seems as though non-believers and fundamentalists all approach faith in the same manner (which is really no surprise because both belief systems are actually step-brothers)
Alright folks, I've got an early morning, so I'm headed to bed. I'll be looking at comments at work, and will respond when I get home. Have a good day, all of you!
Stu,
“You seem to have made the error right off the bat that all knowledge much be empirical and that faith is some sort of blind acceptance.”
Actually, knowledge must be empirical. Faith is blind acceptance. This is not an error. It's a statement consistent with the definition of both words. We cannot know anything unless it is demonstrated to us, and religious dogma is far from being demonstrated. Newtonian laws and mathematical functions are regularly demonstrated in classrooms and the real word.
Even if Catholics base their beliefs on “Christ and His Church,” that's still not grounds for credibility. Appeal to authority means nothing, especially since it just shifts the burden of proof to your authority, proof that your authority cannot supply. Your beliefs are no more than beliefs until proof emerges, and many of the beliefs Catholics hold, particularly those (in the context of this blog) regarding homosexuality, are outright refuted. It is not harmful, as Stacy claims from a Catholic standpoint.
Huh. Seems I can respond from my iPhone. Looks like I'll be responding to things tomorrow!
@Rome – You are just substituting one “religion” for another. Science is a way of thinking and testing observation, it isn't all there is to life.
It just goes round and round, religious people believve what they believe, you believe what you believe, you can't just reason away the differences.
People who believe in God have obviously already stipulated that they are not going to be constrained by the scientific method.
Rome, you must consider what it means to base beliefs on “Christ and His Church”. That means 2,000 years worth of philosophy and theology from some of the finest minds in Western civilization including Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Their writings, of course, were not whole cloth but the synthesis of scripture, apostolic and historic documents, Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Then there are the persistent and verifiable miracles, such as Lanciano, Guadalupe, and incorruptible corpses, just to name a few. This along side countless episodic miracles through history.
Far from being blind faith, the Catholic Church is the most thought out, most documented, and longest lasting intellectual institution in the world. And it all started because of the historical fact that a man who claimed to be God died on a Friday afternoon and returned himself to life on a Sunday morning.
And that does not count the millennia before that constituted the history of Israel.
Stu – and others
Of course the kid in Fort Worth and the cafe owners in London and Carrie Prejean and the Westboro Baptist Church and all the others, have the right to speak…but so do we. We have to a right to protest the speech when it puts us at risk and sidelines us and makes us lesser. Just like y'all.
Freedom to speak isn't the same as freedom from consequences or freedom from dissenting speech.
Also, when queers protest speech, 9-times-out-of-10, we are protesting speech that puts us at risk. There are ten times, twenty times, thirty times more of y'all than there are of us. One person saying queers are going to hell has the weight of a hundred opinions. One queer saying we deserve to be equal is often a lone voice in the woods by comparison.
@ Stu
“Well, you may not be hell bent on doing so but the London cafe owner certainly was, since he moved his business to Soho while knowing that district of London is mostly populated by gay men and women. He started his crusade on the very night he opened his bar, which was across a popular venue for gays.
———-
Doesn't matter. They don't have to go into his business. Freedom of speech goes two ways.”
“Again, I'n not hell bent on expressing my opinion to homosexuals. However, given the circumstances (such as it is clear that they are intentionally trying to make a scene, which I have witnessed), I reserve the right and people should understand it. “
Do you not think that the store owner opened his business where he did to “make a scene”? Was is just happenstance that is where he could find to open his store? If it was intentional then I may agree the gays had the right to get angry. They were just doing what was within their rights. Just like you commenting to the gays making a scene would be within your rights. Stores are open to public, so by very definitions public places, just like parks and public streets. It also appears that you knew this piece of information and chose not to divulge it when asking the question. Interesting.
Nicholas,
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge. The only true knowledge is verified by science. No knowledge comes from religion. It must be verified by science.
Baron,
The Catholic Church has been around a long time. I got it. It looks at ancient philosophers and their writings. I got it. My question is this? So what if it does?
Lanciano cannot be repeated and has no corroborating accounts. It is a claim made by one within the Church. It has no air of impartiality or honesty. It also does not point to a god. Neither does Guadelupe. The same goes for all other miracles.
It is not a fact that such a man died on those specific days. The only texts to claim that are the Bible, rather contradictorily, and the Bible can't prove itself. That's circular logic. Catholicism is a blind leap of faith, not matter how much you try to weasel out of it, and its claims against homosexuality are, equally baseless. Even if you prove that a god does exist, that does not prove that homosexuality is bad.
Show me any other entity that can claim similar longevity and consistency. This achievement is central to what the Church claims to be. Nor, as can be seen by the work of the intellectual giants, is it a faith that is unquestioned or unexamined.
Your knowledge of these miracles is about a shaky as your assertions about the Catholic Faith. The flesh from Lanciano was proven by the WHO to be a piece of human myocardia with part of the vagus nerve. There is no discernible preservative nor any presence of rot. It is blood type AB, a type most common in the middle east, and the type found in all other Eucharistic miracles and the Shroud of Turin. So it is not solely an internal claim.
The tilma of Guadalupe has likewise been examined by outside sources who could give no rational explanation for its existence or behavior.
The fact that both of these events, and others, have confounded scientists while explicitly promoting the Catholic Church should at least give pause to anyone with intellectual honesty.
The texts of the Bible are not the only written sources that speak of the death of Jesus and his follower's attesting to his resurrection. Jewish and Roman sources do as well. Most interestingly you have his followers spreading this story with no possible gain beyond that they themselves must have believed it. In fact, all but one died a violent death, most far from home.
Lastly, the Church is not baseless in its condemnation of homosexuality and other perversions. However, the base of this condemnation is an understanding of what Mankind is. By knowing Man's beginning, purpose, and ultimate end, you may speak to what is beneficial and what is harmful. Without that keystone, the whole thing falls apart. You, personally, may reject this axiom, and by that the whole argument. However you cannot propose anything with greater credibility that cannot likewise be rejected by the Church. Indeed you have at best, and I am being immensely charitable here, an even argument of ipse dixit in opposition to us. That is if you consider yourself a match for our greatest philosophers and theologians.
Of course the kid in Fort Worth and the cafe owners in London and Carrie Prejean and the Westboro Baptist Church and all the others, have the right to speak…but so do we. We have to a right to protest the speech when it puts us at risk and sidelines us and makes us lesser. Just like y'all.
Freedom to speak isn't the same as freedom from consequences or freedom from dissenting speech.
———
No one here is advocating stopping you with the force of the law. Some of your cohorts here have advocated police, lawsuits and violence to stop people from saying anything negative about homosexuality.
Do you not think that the store owner opened his business where he did to “make a scene”? Was is just happenstance that is where he could find to open his store? If it was intentional then I may agree the gays had the right to get angry. They were just doing what was within their rights. Just like you commenting to the gays making a scene would be within your rights. Stores are open to public, so by very definitions public places, just like parks and public streets.
——–
If they want to make comments, fine. If they want to boycott, fine. But it's a whole different thing to use the law to enforce “correct thought.” Public to me would be like, say the Folsom Street Fair where all manner of indecency occurs but the answer in these forums from the homosexuals is to simply “not go there if you don't like it.”
It also appears that you knew this piece of information and chose not to divulge it when asking the question. Interesting.Alan,
——–
It's not quite clear what you are implying here, but if you want to call me a liar, then have the courage to do so. I have no problem being open and blunt about all situations and don't need to resort to trickery to make my point I'll leave such tactics up to others.
No one had to go into to his store.
Rome,
Every belief system starts with a core belief or dogma to include your empiricism (e.g., truth exists, man can know the truth and such knowledge comes through observation and testing). So to say you don't have dogmas or appeal to knowledge outside of philosophy is simply not true.
Empirical data is great and useful for many things, but it is only one piece of the puzzle.
The people in the neighbourhood asked his several times to end his crusade and to stop provoking people but he refused. And in the UK the freedom of speech is not absolute. He's been asked nicely and refused. After that the police asked him not so nicely with a court order in their hands.
———–
It now appears that the police have admitted that they overstepped their bounds on this issue and the store owner can once again display Bible verses inside of his business. Customers remain free to enter his establishment or not as they see fit. I'm quite confident they can even voice their opinion to him as well.
Stacy,
This subject gets so much traffic that you cannot get a word in edgewise, and I really want a question answered. I hear this often: “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”
However, it is the “sinner” we judge. Why is homosexuality wrong? Do you think your son will be corrupt if my son is a homosexual?
What if the Bible did not imply that it was wrong? What if the Bible made no mention of homosexual acts? Would you still think it it wrong?
An excellent discussion that might save everyone a lot of time. If it has been posted before apologies in advance.
How to think about personal experience and the authority of our Biblical tradition.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-1
A biblical scholar with a same sex attracted son. Luke Timothy Johnson
A Jewish convert to Catholicism and same sex attracted female. Eve Tushnet
@Rome – Why even have the word “knowledge” then if everything is science. Science consists of techniques and methods.
Literature is not science, neither is poetry. Not every person is a scientist. When I look around my room I can observe the color of the wall. I know what color it is. That isn't “science.”
Science is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Right then folks, I'm awake, have had my coffee, and am ready to go!
Allons-y!
Baron,
Longevity and consistency are a sign of power, not of truth. Keep in mind that many of the ancients the Church drew upon and many of the doctrines of the Church HAVE BEEN proved blatantly false. Aristotle and Ptolemy were used by the Church to justify the geocentric model of the universe. Merely having been around a long time and pointing to ancient philosophers.
I doubt an honest understanding of the miracles because you said: who could give no rational explanation for its existence or behavior.”
If no explanation exists, then how does that mean God? That's the thing about so-called miracles. They are strange things because they cannot be explained. Nobody knows why they happened. Confounding scientists does not promote the Catholic Church. Keep in mind that there are other miracles that “promote” other religions. Catholic miracles are no more effective or credible than Muslim or Hindu miracles.
Sorry, took a history course that discussed this matter. Historians have no documents other than the Bible that specifically point out Jesus Christ. There were many other Jesus', as it was a common name, and there were three people preaching in Israel at the time in a manner similar to Jesus. That's the best that non-biblical sources have to tell us.
If having many followers proves Jesus, then all the jihads that have been fought since Muhammad began to preach are equally proof of Islam. Your line of thinking proves other views, so it ultimately proves none.
The claim is that homosexuality is a sin because it is harmful. No one here, speaking for the Church, has explained why it is harmful. They have just said it without explanation. That doesn't work. Until I actually get a decent explanation, the claim is baseless.
And yes, I think I am a match, intellectually, for people who lived in a time in which the world was not nearly as well understood as it is today. I mean, are you kidding me? We're both more capable than Aristotle.
Stu,
I don't have a clue of what you are talking about. I base my views on what can be demonstrated to me. There's no dogma to it.
Nicholas,
It's because the word knowledge existed before the scientific method was really developed. Also, science is the means to achieving knowledge.
Literature and poetry are also not necessarily knowledge. What is your point?
Observing your wall is an empirical test of its color. You can repeat this test. Others are able to perform the test. That's science right there.
Firstly, thank you to A and Stacy for trying this: a welcome change to the shouting matches you often find on the subject.
Life often involves a dialogue between how I feel and outside voices. Sometimes, after reflection, I think I’m right, and sometimes I think other people are right. On many issues, it’s only years afterwards that I’ve found I was wrong.
For a Catholic, you have, amongst all the other voices you could listen to, one voice that is (to put it at its weakest) extremely important and authoritative: the voice of the Church and its Tradition.
So the first thing I’d say to A is that, by excluding the ‘”it's my belief derived from deity” card’ you’re not really grappling with the full Catholic position: my first suggestion –before I’d say anything about transgender and same sex attraction- is that it’s the ‘deity card’ and opening yourself up to the possibility of divine teaching (and how it’s mediated through the Church) that is the key thing to do.
Putting that aside, in essence this is about your experience: what you feel, how you understand those feelings, and what you do about them. Now in principle, we can go wrong at any of these stages and there’s nothing we can do to exclude that possibility. So how do we explore those stages? Here, I think the Church and the secular world might share one point in common: that teasing out where our sensibilities and our conceptualization of those sensibilities have (or might have) gone wrong is both open ended and private: a matter for the therapist’s couch, or the close friend’s sofa or the spiritual director’s chapel rather than public discussion or the universalized language of moral rules. Which you choose is going to be important in what you get, but surely, even on the purely human level, engaging with an institution and tradition that has 2000+ years of experience behind it is worth doing?
A, you’re young and you’ve made some big decisions about what you feel, who you are and what you should do. I’d say that none of us can be sure those sorts of decision are the right ones, unless we think we live in a space –the Church- where there is an authority which sees further than we do.
@Stu
Stu I don't hold back, should I want to call you a liar I will. I don't think the implication was that you are a liar at all. If you knew that the store was in a predominantly gay area that is pertinent to the story. If the store owner specifically opened his store there to “make a scene” then you should be against him as you are against homosexuals that “make a scene”. I just think that if you had the knowledge about where the store was it was pertinent information, and you did not present it.
You are correct about not going to his store, and you are correct about his right to post bible verses in his store. But if he is doing it to “make a scene” then I think he is in the wrong.
As stated in other postings (but I guess you don't read everything I have written, and if you had answered my question about your purpose for pointing out gays sins for public displays, I don't recall seeing an answer from you, which would be why I asked again, sorry hard to see all responses or even remember them) I don't agree with the Folsom Street Fair shenanigans. I don't agree with public sex or nudity. The catholic bashing, well no one has really told me yet (or I have not seen) a response to that.
A,
I agree with what Asterix said about the open-ended part of discussion. I'd just like to hear more about your thoughts, even if we don't agree.
Thinking last night about your parents and my own children, I really had a hard time thinking about my baby boy growing up and changing his body like that. I gave birth to him, I've held him, cared for him, watched him grow. I *know* him at a level no one else does. He will grow to be a man someday, and I won't know him in the same way – but there will still be that deepest connection because he is my baby always. I am his mother.
I'd still love him if he changed his body the way you have, but it would, honestly, hurt me to the core. Who you are is not just skin deep, and my concern for him would be that he thinks it is and that his soul was in pain.
I do have a young adult child that got tattoos and that hurt for sort of the same reason. I'm concerned someday there will be regret. I also, on a lesser level, was a little perturbed when this child got expensive tattoos while supposedly not having enough money to provide shelter and food independently.
Just trying to give a mother's perspective. Does any of that resonate, or am I just being an overly sentimental and ridiculous ol' mom?
**Anonymous, I read that link about scripture and homosexuality. I'm still taking in information but it's useful to read different perspectives.
**John Myste, About “Hate the sin, not the sinner” did you see what an anonymous commenter said above about original sin and actual sin? I put it in the context of being a parent. Because I love my child, I hate the choices and actions that will hurt him/her. Every parent has to do this. Or think of the loved one of an alcoholic.
My struggle is mainly what to do when it's a complete stranger or even a friend. It seems hating the sin shouldn't over power the friendship because that would be hating the sinner too. I'm a convert and I didn't convert because someone pounded me over the head daily with my sins and drug me to the River Jordon to dunk me by force. I realized I was love in spite of my sins.
“Do you think your son will be corrupt if my son is a homosexual?”
No, but the people who promote the homosexual lifestyle don't leave people alone. They want to force acceptance.
“What if the Bible made no mention of homosexual acts? Would you still think it it wrong?”
As far as I know (remember I'm a student and a convert) the Bible doesn't say much about it directly. There's a passage in Romans in the link up there from Melinda Selmys. But yes, I would still think it is wrong because it is harmful. For males, that act is, frankly gross. It is unnatural to introduce the reproductive organs to the tail end of the digestive organs – and not healthy. If my son thought he needed that to be happy, I'd think something wasn't right and that he needed help with those tendencies. (Just being frank, maybe I could hav said that better.) Did you read the Courage link up there too by any chance?
@Rome – My point is there is more to life than science. Science cannot define right and wrong.
There is nothing scientific in the determination that murder is wrong.
There are a lot of things in the world that are not scientific.
You are constantly appealing to science in discussions of religion and philosophy.
Stacy,
First time posting (great blog and so sad of what you had to go through with the “can't even go to the park” post).
In any case, I really would like to understand the scenario you presented on your last comment.
What would be the reaction and actions of any orthodox catholic mom be if one of their children turned out to be gay or gender dysphoria as A pointed it?
I certainly hope they never do what A's parents did.
Maybe those are grounds for another post, but I'm curious.
RosieB
Alan,
Forgive me is I don't know all of the homosexual regions of London. Nothing I have seen in any of the reporting, including the notoriously liberal Brit sources, mentions anything to this effect.
If the man is trying to intentionally cause trouble, then I wouldn't support it. I'm not a fan of the overly confrontational street preacher type. However, I don't seen having Bible verses in your personal business as confrontational or causing a scene.
Let me use another example and from this I think we agree. I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public. It's completely natural. Biology has provided the mother with the way to both feed and bond with her child. Some here in the states throw a nutty whenever they see a woman nursing in public even in the most discrete manner. So while I support the woman being able to nurse wherever she needs to feed her child, I don't support some women who make an effort to draw attention themselves with all manner of exposure to just cause a scene. I reserve the right to comment on the latter in public.
@Nicholas: The photoreceptors in your eyes are absorbing reflected light energy of specific wavelengths (the study of sensation). Your brain combines the firing of those neurons into specific colors (trichromatic theory and opponent processes). The shared experience is assigned an arbitrary but commonly agreed upon label “blue” -and even if you cross linguistic barriers, color perception remains similar: even if we don't share a label we can compare discrimination tests scores and thus assign categorical differences between color. What you see as faith, I see as science. I can test it. Give me a strong enough microscope and I'll show you your rods and cones in the eye-how light enters the neural system. Further testing can show you how 3 types of cones (Red, Green, and Blue) with the rod receptor cells (black and white) can account for all the spectrum of color perception we have. Further, it explains why 4% of men (roughly) are colorblind-it's an observable difference in cones carried by genses and observed in both behavior and cell structure.
Thanks Rosie! That question gets asked a lot and now that I have one young adult and one teen, I can better address it. I'm under no delusion that all my children will never surprise me.
All I know is that it is never as simple as you'd like it to be, but as a mother I've learned to stand firm on what is true and good for the young adult child, like a rock, and to say a lot of “I love you's.” Then get the child help.
If my son told me he felt same-sex attraction, I'd first reassure him that the one thing in the world he can count on is my unconditional love. Then I'd probably contact http://couragerc.net/.
He may not want to get help, and he may want to go live a certain lifestyle. As long as there are minor children in the house I also have an obligation to them so certain things would not be tolerated in our home. That's how life works and there's nothing wrong with teaching a young adult that choices have consequences.
Sorry so long. This is a good topic and I could write a book. I've lived with this kind of thing for a long time now (other issues besides SSA) and I was a lost young adult whose parents never stopped loving and praying. There are no simple answers except to keep a foundation of love and stand firm on the truth. Other than that you can't force a young adult to do anything.
Rosie, one other thing. I have found that telling my older children that if they ever want to know the truth, they can ask me and I'll do my best to tell them, really helps a lot. They know I'm here if life gets too confusing and they need help finding answers. It builds trust. But believe me, I learned that one the H-A-R-D way. I used to cram advice on them so much they shut down whenever my mouth opened.
Blah, blah, blah…oh mom's talking again.
Thanks for answering Stacy!
I admire the way you've handled all of the traffic to your blog and I applaud you for this post in particular.
Also, thanks “A” for putting your story here.
I absolutely agree about the choices and consequences part of your comment. That is what I am trying to instill on my children so they understand that we(mom, dad, family, the church,etc) will show them the way but it is up to them to make the choices and understand the consequences. We'll love them no matter what!
Thanks for your thoughts and keep on writing!!
-RosieB
@Rome Wow, just wow. Arrogance and ignorance combined with bad teaching is a deadly combo. I don't even know where to begin. I think the spelling is what you got right there, but everything else, well, but for the grace of God go I.
Rome, I'll stop trying to use history, logic, and science to convince you, being a match for Aristotle as you are. It is obvious that 23 centuries from now we will be studying you, your writings, your schools of thought, your insights, and your exceptional impact on humanity.
@Stacy and RosieB
I would not put all the onus on the parents. I would hope the children would act also with love and humility towards their parents and not reject them for who they are and their core beliefs.
@Anonymous – I know all that. Perhaps it was a poor example, but what I am trying to say is that I can look at the color of my wall without making it a science experiment.
And by the way, it turns out that the perception of color has cultural parts as well as the stuff you can find by dissecting an eyeball.
I found this io9 blog post kind of cool http://io9.com/5814096/what-color-are-the-sash-and-bonnet-in-this-painting–wrong
But the point I was trying to make is that you cannot just say “Science!” for everything.
Nicholas,
Science is necessary in the determination of right and wrong. Ultimately, our moral reasoning is just a matter of personal preference, but much of what we consider right or wrong is often based on incorrect assumptions. To say that homosexuality is wrong on the grounds that it causes harm demands that you prove the existence of harm, and no such proof exists. In this way, science is essential to improving our moral understandings.
Baron,
You defied logic and science. You made the appeal to authority fallacy again and again and made a contradictory claim since something is unexplainable, then it can be explained. It's foolish in every sense.
Saying “Aristotle” does not make your argument better.
Roma Locuta Est
@Rome – Actually I don't say that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it causes harm.
To be quite honest, I am quite conflicted on the issue.
But for sake of the discussion, if I am defending the Church position here, any “harm” being referred to is spiritual, involving the soul, God's divine will and plan, etc. So, essentially supernatural. Which is why I would say it is beyond the bounds of conventional scientific analysis.
It seems to me that what this boils down to, is that unless one has a scientifically verifiable rationale for a social objection, you don't want the objection made.
No one that I have seen here is suggesting anything be /done/ just that there is a set of moral values being promoted.
Christians must remember to “kill the error, love the one who errs” – St. Augustine. Paul Melanson, citing his mentor Hildebrand, explains:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/09/would-diocese-of-bathurst-new-brunswick.html
Stu,
Thanks for the clarification about not knowing.
If you read A's letter pay particular attention to the mall comment, and to later comments and the actual fear she lives in when she goes out in public. Now I realize all the catholics are saying catholics would never do that, but in reality those who call themselves catholic do indeed do it.
We have so few places where we can go and actually feel safe, and the gay neighborhoods are actually one of them. So if this store owner intentionally opened his store in a gay hood, and intentionally put up bible verses to offend then he is wrong. I am sorry but that is just how I see it.
I am lucky that I am not immediately identified as gay (heck a women even checked me out today) but my husband is very identifiable. In the town we just moved to we have been called gay twice so far because we were together in his car. I am tough, I can handle it but words hurt. They do. I know you don't condone the violent behavior, and while we appreciate that I would hope that through A's story, and I think Edward (the man who had rotten eggs thrown at him and his daughter) you can understand our intolerance at even those remarks that are intended with love.
We are not victims, but society seems to think it acceptable to say what they want to us, including that our actions are evil, call us sodomites and yes wish we would just go away. When you live like that everyday (which as much catholic bashing goes on here I wonder when is the last time you left a church and horrible things were said to you) you get a little edge to you.
I hope this makes sense. It is not meant to be argumentative, but maybe just to make you understand how some of us homosexuals think.
@Nicholas: Labels for objects in the world change all the time in systematic and scientific ways. That is the study if psycholinguistics. Your article does not disprove that, just that language evolves and that different cultures have different category criteria for color labels. That was mentioned in my original post. It says nothing about the overall science of sensation and perception.
You hand wave away science as an explanation for something well described by science. To make a claim that you can't use science for everything would have to be defended with an argument based on something unexplained by science.
Using your same tactic: God made gay people gay for a reason, and there is no evidence he wants them to change. After all, gay animals are common and found in nature. Further, God made transgendered people that way so that they can revel in the beauty of god's gift to us to see beyond the physical exterior. Afterall God is incapable of making mistakes.
A –
Many straight people (me) have no experience with the kind of real difficulty and fear it is to be trans. As you said, it's not just risking the judgment of family and friends; it's also the very real fear that someone you don't know will attack you verbally or physically in your everyday life.
I am a Christian, though not Catholic, but a member of a denomination that a touch more conservative in many things. (I'm also a parent, and if my husband and I had a trans or intersex child, we would support that child's being whatever gender they felt closest resembled who s/he is.)
In my denomination, we say a prayer every Sunday in which we declare that we are the first among sinners. We also say the Lord's Prayer, in which we are reminded that we can only have our debts forgiven by God if we forgive the (relatively small) debts of others.
I think one of the more beautiful aspects of Christianity is the belief that all people are created in the image and likeness of God. From that stems many good things: a belief in human dignity, love for one's neighbor, hospitality for the stranger, etc. In Catholicism in particular, this has inspired folks like Peter Maurin, Dorothy Day, and Fr. Charles Dismas Clark.
As I said, I'm pretty conservative in my personal religious beliefs. But I know that I cannot impose those beliefs on others. I also do not believe that God would ever judge us for showing 'too much' love and compassion towards someone, especially someone who has lost the
support of her parents.
I think some folks worry that God will judge them harshly if they don't stand up against sin, especially their own 'pet' sins. I personally worry that God will judge me for not doing more to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and love my neighbor. I prefer to believe in a God that cares more about the latter than whether I called someone out for being gay, or a single mother, or whatever else might rile me up.
The original post (about the park) bothered me for a lot of reasons. One of those is that I have gay and lesbian family members, and I have trans coworkers. (In fact, I have a friend who is likely gay but I don't discuss that with him because the country he lives in would kill him — literally — if he came out.) It makes me incredibly sad to know that people I love could be judged as they sit on a park bench, just doing their thing. Whatever my religious beliefs about their 'lifestyles', I know that both in my past and in my day-to-day life I do (and have done) more to warrant people's disgust. As my religion teaches, I truly am the greatest sinner of them all, so I continue to try to focus on myself.
A, I will pray for you. And I don't mean that in a “I'll pray that you see the light of my religious beliefs” way. I pray that peace comes out of your path in life. I pray that you surround yourself with people who love you and support you.
You may not always believe it, but you've been given a great gift. Folks who are 'different' (in one way or other) are given a great opportunity to see the world from the other side and to cultivate a great compassion for others. It's not an easy path, but I hope you have the strength and support to continue on your way.
-Nicole
@stacy: Obviously, I can’t answer any questions from the perspective of a mother…but I think I can shed some light on some things. What I’ve done isn’t so much changing my body, as bringing it into line with what should have been in the beginning. I’m not changing WHO I am, so much as I’m changing my accident, to take a phrase from Catholic theology. I’m still (more or less) the same person I was before. I still love riding my bike, reading, hanging out with my friends, going shopping, building models, getting involved with running music events. The only real difference is that now, I don’t have that constant yearning, that constant dull, throbbing ache in my soul that comes from having a mismatched body.
As a hypothetical question…What if your child grew up and came out to you as being trans? You say you’d love him, but be hurt to the core, which I can’t completely grok, not being a parent. What if you could see the pain in his eyes at having to go through life living a lie, and constantly being reminded of what he is not? What if your child then transitioned, and blossomed into an outgoing, engaged happy young woman? To quote a friend of mine, would you rather show photos of your son with sadness in your voice, or show photos of your daughter with pride at what she’s accomplished?
@A
What your friend neglects is the parents have to then reject what they are and what they believe in order to do that.
Alan,
Here's something I'm afraid to ask, but really does seem kind of weird in my mind.
I write an uncharitable rant on a personal and little known blog, and it goes viral on three continents.
A group of Christians throws raw eggs on a little girl out for a stroll with her two fathers, and no one says a word in the media.
Can someone explain that? I'm not saying I don't believe Edward, I do, but you'd think that something like that would have been all over the main stream media. The same goes for A in the mall. If this stuff happens all the time, why don't we hear about it more? Or do I not read the places that report it?
I'm appalled that people are treated that way and I would hope that it is reported. I can't even repeat what my husband said when I told him about Fred Phelps.
A,
“What if your child grew up and came out to you as being trans?”
I don't really understand gender dysphoria, so thanks for explaining it. In answer to your question, I'd pray and love him, but I can't really say what exactly I'd do or how I'd feel, but I'd try really hard to do the right thing and if I messed up and didn't, I'd try again the next day. I probably wouldn't do everything right the first time.
That's my honest answer, I know it's not very good. (Seven kids have beat the pretense out of me when it comes to thinking I know everything about parenting.)
@Anonymous – You seem to think that I am either interested in, or can be swayed by a logical debate.
You would be correct on many subjects, but not on religion. I forfeit all such debates.
As far as the way God made people, sure. I have no problem with that. I have no problem agreeing that God made gay people gay, and that he doesn't want them to change.
The trick is, according to Church doctrine, only married people are supposed to have sex, and only such that allows for procreation :-p
I am not going to defend the logic of that, it is what it is. As far as WHY God would ever care about that? Again, no clue. God is something that really isn't fully understandable to me.
I am not really the most devout person there is, I have a lot of failings on my own. So, please don't take my beliefs as indicative of any kind of mainstream position. But to me, God is alien in a way. Our logic and language is ill-equipped to really describe him. To use a potentially sacrilegious analogy, to me, God is more like Cthulhu than Charlton Heston with a flowing white beard :-p He's like the Cthulhu of Love.
God loves everyone. God loves pedophiles and rapists. I can't even comprehend that.
Nicholas said “There is nothing scientific in the determination that murder is wrong.”
Except the fact that the person who was murdered has ceased to live. That can be determined by science. Also one can observe that the person had family ties and friends who are now without that friend who has ceased to live.
Nicholas,
You'll like this:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
@MaiZeke And that is wrong why?
@MaiZeke – Agreed. Now turn those observations into a moral judgment using science?
His friends are sad? A lot of things cause sadness. Animals kill and eat each other a lot.
Science is a great tool! But science is not a tool for morality or philosophy.
Science allows us to see the world, categorize it, understand it. But we still need to use other faculties to interpret it and order it.
Nicholas,
Supernatural claims should not be taken seriously. It's wrong even to promote it as a moral standard because it is dishonest. The fact that people teach their children things like homophobia AS FACT that they cannot even prove is reprehensible. It is mental sabotage and unparent-ly.
@stacy: With regards to why you don’t see events like the eggs and Edward, or the mall and me, It’s for a number of reasons. But I’d have to say the most universal reason is that we (the LGBT community) have become numb to it. It still hurts, to be sure, but many of us have had slurs tossed at us, or had someone make a scene over us in public. Eventually, you just learn to shut it out, to ignore it, since it’ll just happen again. For me, the most prominent reason is that I CAN’T report it widely. Being trans is still a major impediment to life if that knowledge got out. One need only look at the page for the Transgender Day of Remembrance to see the peril that trans people live in. If I were to make a big stink, I’d most likely be outed to the public, and any vestiage of dignity I had left would be stripped. My past name would be bandied about (despite it not being relevant to the issue), I’d be referred to as male (which I’m not), my personal life would be dissected, perhaps my address would be published…basically, it would destroy the quiet little existence I’ve cobbled together over all these years.
@Baron Korf: im not sure I exactly follow…why would they have to reject what they are and what they believe in order to love and be proud of their child?
If you read A's letter pay particular attention to the mall comment, and to later comments and the actual fear she lives in when she goes out in public. Now I realize all the catholics are saying catholics would never do that, but in reality those who call themselves catholic do indeed do it.
———
And people who call themselves homosexual perpetrate violence and all manner of bad things as well. It's the fallen nature of man. Now while I am sensitive that people expressing their opinion on homosexuality in public may raise some concern by a person like “A,” they are still only words. Outlawing such expressions is simply wrong. Prosecute the violence and prosecute it strongly.
We have so few places where we can go and actually feel safe, and the gay neighborhoods are actually one of them. So if this store owner intentionally opened his store in a gay hood, and intentionally put up bible verses to offend then he is wrong. I am sorry but that is just how I see it.
———
Alternatively he could be putting up Bible verses on the interior of his store as a means of sharing what he sees as the truth in a non-confrontational manner. Further, he is still a business man. Even if it is a homosexual district, he's not going to set up business and get very confrontational with the majority of his customers.
I know you don't condone the violent behavior, and while we appreciate that I would hope that through A's story, and I think Edward (the man who had rotten eggs thrown at him and his daughter) you can understand our intolerance at even those remarks that are intended with love.
———–
Again tolerance goes both ways. And while I personally would take “hands-on” action against any violence I encountered against a homosexual simply because of their lifestyle, I will never support making certain segments of society protected to such an extent that expressing disapproval for their action becomes illegal. Let's go after the actual violence.
We are not victims, but society seems to think it acceptable to say what they want to us, including that our actions are evil, call us sodomites and yes wish we would just go away. When you live like that everyday (which as much catholic bashing goes on here I wonder when is the last time you left a church and horrible things were said to you) you get a little edge to you.
————
As a Catholic, I've been told all manner of nasty things to include definitive statements that I am going to Hell for “worshiping the Whore of Babylon.” As a man with many children, I have had many comments directed my way concerning the size of my family. So what. I either ignore them or simply outwit them. I also use my judgment to determine those who mean ill and those who simply are a bit “off” in their presentation.
I hope this makes sense. It is not meant to be argumentative, but maybe just to make you understand how some of us homosexuals think.
———–
I understand it completely. I just disagree to some extent with your general reaction.
@A Don't change words on me. You said daughter, not child. The Catholic understanding of the person is each is a body and a soul forever. As such that their sex is intrinsic and permanent. These are basic facts of the faith.
So from the Catholic worldview, they have a son who has altered his body via chemicals and/or surgery to imitate that of a woman's body in order to match a mental state.
To accept your claims of becoming a woman, they have to reject these beliefs about the human person and, by that, the authority that teaches them.
@Rome – The Church doesn't teach homophobia as a “fact” or otherwise. It teaches that people shouldn't have sex outside of a sacramental framework.
People who hate, fear, or abuse gay people are wrong, and any excuse they have related to religion is hollow.
I am sure “scientifically” many people have come to the conclusion that the easiest solution is simply eliminate religion.
But I am cynical enough to believe that even if you did that, people would find something else to hate each other for.
@Baron Korf: My apologies, I meant child in the universal sense of one’s offspring. I wasn’t just referring to me, I was referring to all children who have faced difficulties with their parents. To answer your claim that one’s sex is intrinsic and permanent, how would you answer the few cases of spontaneous biological sex changes (i’ll link the main one that I know below), or how would you designate intersex people who may have organs of both genders? If a person is assigned male at birth, but due to an intersex condition begins to menstruate and develop female secondary sex characteristics, would they still be male? How would the Catholic worldview view them?
@Baron Korf: The main spontaneous biological sex change that I know of: http://aebrain.blogspot.com/
Stu,
I understand and appreciate your response. The only thing I can say is although they are just words they can still hurt. Especially children who don't fully understand why they are different.
I am not sure where I stand on hate crimes. I think most crimes are hate crimes, but then again I think if one is targeted for a specific trait is can be a little more horrible because the intent of the crime is now different.
Alan,
We can't make it illegal for someone to have their feelings hurt. It's just not practical.
Two mothers lose a child to violence. One child was targeted for assault because he was fat. The other child was targeted because he simply was in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.
Are we to tell one mother that her loss is greater because of the intent of the perpetrator? Will no that “hurt” her?
Let's just go after actual acts of violence and treat any assault on any person equally.
Stacy
It is a valid question and I think A gives a very good description from her life. For me it is different, I can be open and it is not the same as what she will go through.
What I will say in addition to learning to ignore, often times we are ignored when we report it. Or are told it was not about our sexual orientation. As for your blog, well the wrong (or right depending on which side of the discussion you are on) gay or atheist saw it, was offended and shared it with friends. Who share it with friends, who put it on facebook and viola you get all these people coming here and being horrible to you. Plus you put it in print. We could go and look. We could see. We could react. And finally why is it not a bigger deal? Because for the most part people don't care. It happens every day. But the majority don't care.
But look at the blessing of it. You got to hear from A. And maybe A will help all of us to understand that regardless of our differences, humanity calls for us to be good to our neighbors. I think although we all say we are we all fall short on far to many occasions. Hopefully A will make me aware I should have more patience for you and your opinions.
I have never heard of an intersex situation where there is an perfect 50/50 split, there is always one sex that is favored. Then it is usually a matter of a deformity that causes other sexual characteristics to manifest. As to spontaneous changes, without reviewing the whole medical history, it would be hard to say off hand. Most likely it is one sex that was either masked before by an abnormality or is now being altered by an abnormality. It is unheard of to go from one healthy state to another (XY to XX or vice versa. The TL:DR of that is a person has a sex, if other characteristics manifest it is usually due to something that has gone wrong with their normal development. The task of determining where sex ends and malady begins is for medical professionals.
So the Catholic worldview would see them as a man with female characteristics or a woman with male characteristics.
@Stu
And people who call themselves homosexual perpetrate violence and all manner of bad things as well. It's the fallen nature of man. Now while I am sensitive that people expressing their opinion on homosexuality in public may raise some concern by a person like “A,” they are still only words. Outlawing such expressions is simply wrong. Prosecute the violence and prosecute it strongly.
———————————–
But while they’re “only words”, words have more power than anything else. Words shape what people think, and feel, and even how they act. Take for instance Glenn Beck and The Tides Center. After preaching against it for quite a while, should we be surprised that a fellow (Byron Williams, if you’d like to look it up) took his rhetoric to heart and headed there to cause mass damage and murder? Words have power. In my case, I’m glad that I was in a more liberal area…if I hadn’t been, I could have been severely injured, or possibly even killed had someone taken this preacher up on his preachings.
As a Catholic, I've been told all manner of nasty things to include definitive statements that I am going to Hell for “worshiping the Whore of Babylon.” As a man with many children, I have had many comments directed my way concerning the size of my family. So what. I either ignore them or simply outwit them. I also use my judgment to determine those who mean ill and those who simply are a bit “off” in their presentation.
————————————
While I’m certainly sorry that you’ve had foul language directed at you, when was the last time that it carried with it the threat of physical harm? When was the last time that a Catholic in the US (I agree that there are cases overseas, but lets confine this to the US) was beaten or killed solely for “Looking at me in a funny way”, or “I thought he was trying to convert me, and I panicked”? In my case, if someone shouts “Hey, it’s a tranny!” that statement carries with it the possibility of physical harm. Not only that, but if I were to press charges should such harm occur, I would have a very small legal leg to stand on…in the state where I live, there is no protection for gender identity in either employment, or from harassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_bashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia
stu I do not think it should be illegal. I am asking you to think of your actions before you do them just like you ask me to. And that goes back to the for what purpose question. What would you say to me if you saw me holding my husbands hand? Or even giving him a quick kiss? Would you tell me I was a sinner, that homosexuality was wrong? That I should not show love in public? And what would you gain? I assure you that I would not necessarily just walk away and laugh, I am quite quick with a response. And that response would respond perfectly to the tone and words of your comment to me. Or that might lead me to full on make out with him. And what would that mean? Would you feel better about yourself?
So what I am asking is that we all think before speaking. Do you think I care if you think I am a sinner? Are you trying to convert me? I just truly dont understand what the purpose of your commenting would be.
And no two parents of the dead child would have the same sorrow and pain.
“Using your same tactic: God made gay people gay for a reason, and there is no evidence he wants them to change. After all, gay animals are common and found in nature. Further, God made transgendered people that way so that they can revel in the beauty of god's gift to us to see beyond the physical exterior. Afterall God is incapable of making mistakes.”
Anonymous,
Catholic doctrine would say that we were all born with original sin, that is, the inclination to sin. Not one of us is made perfect, in the sense that we understand perfection. But even though we are all indeed born with the inclination to sin, and our root sins (those we are most inclined toward committing) differ from one another, we should strive to overcome by the grace of God…strive for more…for God.
A,
Threats of physical harm actually can actually result in assault charges. Big difference than simply stating an opinion. While I understand your concern, someone yellling, “Hey, its a tranny” isn't assault and isn't criminal in of itself though there is a line where it become harassment. We can't make it so that everyone has to walk on eggshells around homosexuals and such and dare not speak any negative word towards the behavior. We can however, prosecute those who threaten or use violence against all people.
Alan,
In most situations I would say nothing to the homosexuals unless I thought they were being confrontational. But I have been known to say things to teenage heterosexuals as well who aren't showing discretion with their affections. But if my child asks publicly about what is going on there, I would tell him honestly how I feel about it and I'm not concerned if someone overhears me or is offended.
My whole point in bringing up this scenario was really directed at Edward and his talk of lawsuits against our hostess, discrimination laws being broken and possibility of violence by homosexuals for people expressing sentiments similar to hers. That is simply unsatisfactory. Tolerance goes both ways. I'm happy to live and let live but will always assert my right to speak my mind in public.
One of my teachers long ago in college was a lesbian. She used to give me a ride out to my car, way out in student parking, after class. We used to have all manner of very blunt discussions regarding our viewpoints on such matters and I still got a very good grade in her class. Honesty in communication must be the start of understanding even in vehement disagreement. I see no reason to change that approach.
@Stu
Actually, I can see no justification for anyone to ever yell out “Hey it's a tranny!” – ever. I don't care if you are Catholic, Christian, or Martian. It is rude, uncivilized, and uncalled for.
I cannot even conceive of the need to say anything negative about them or their behavior beyond whether or not you approve, if you even have to say that much.
Nicholas,
It might rude and all of the other things you assert, which I agree, but it shouldn't be illegal.
As to passing comment, see my remarks to Alan above. We aren't talking about making remarks simply to make a statement. Situations do come up.
Anon said…After all, gay animals are common and found in nature.
————-
This sort of talk, in my mind, is much more destructive and should be hurtful to homosexuals as it essentially denies their humanity and equates them with animals.
Yet, I see and hear homosexuals make this claim all the time.
@Stu
Threats of physical harm actually can actually result in assault charges. Big difference than simply stating an opinion. While I understand your concern, someone yellling, “Hey, its a tranny” isn't assault and isn't criminal in of itself though there is a line where it become harassment. We can't make it so that everyone has to walk on eggshells around homosexuals and such and dare not speak any negative word towards the behavior. We can however, prosecute those who threaten or use violence against all people.
—————————————–
You’re correct, it’s not assault. And to me, there are many variables, but the prime one is the volume of said person. If they just were surprised, and said “Hey it’s a tranny”, I’d still facepalm due to that word being used to demean transpeople for many years, but I’d probably just lets it flow off my back. However, if he yells it? To me, that’s not just a surprised reaction, that’s a call to the greater community. The fact that he continued with his diatribe loudly means that he was obviously trying to get a reaction of some kind, I can only guess what kind. Though I think he definitley fell into the “Harassment” category, as he forced my then-girlfriend and I to leave a public facility in fear of possible harm. The majority of us aren’t seeking to make people “walk on eggshells”, we’re just looking to be treated with the same respect as any other human being.
Nicholas,
And forbidding same-sex marriage is a form of abuse.
I am not sure why you are talking about eliminating religion. Was that ever part of the discussion at hand?
A,
That was a scary encounter in the mall with that person yelling and wanting scissors to cut your hair.
It's must be very difficult to not feel comfortable your own body and in your own family.
@Baron Korf
Since we both agree that there are intersex individuals, perhaps we can go a different route and posit that the BRAIN is the intersexed organ? There is plenty of research to back up that supposition, as many studies have shown that even before hormone replacement therapy, brains of male-to-female transpeople more closely align with cisgendered (non-trans) women, and that the brains of female-to-male transpeople align more closely to cisgendered males. So in that case, wouldn’t you merely be fixing a deformity caused by overexposure to a certain hormone in the womb?
As to XX and XY chromosome sets, it’s a common fallacy that they dictate physical sex absolutely. There are many issues where people with XY have developed as normal girls, and people with XX that developed as males. I addition, there are a whole host of chromosomal syndromes that can cause combinations such as Kleinfelters syndrome.
I'm curious 'A' – the American Psychiatric Association recognizes Gender Identity Disorder as a mental illness, do you consider your fate as a form of mental illness?
Also, you now consider yourself a “happy, healthy young women,” – does mean that you no longer have a penis and testes?
And, being that you stated that you are a women, why are you also a lesbian considering that you identified very strongly as a girl?
It's funny how one group of 'persons'[atheists LGBT] don't like religion being taught in class but insist through law to force their 'worldview' to children from kindergarten to grade three. Stunning.
Review link – http://www.canadianvalues.ca/docs/Events.html
@Anselm
I'm curious 'A' – the American Psychiatric Association recognizes Gender Identity Disorder as a mental illness, do you consider your fate as a form of mental illness?
——————————————–
Not as such. I consider it more like one would consider a birth defect, that is, not something that could (or should) be classified as an illness, but that deviates from the greater sample of humanity as a whole. And if we’re being pedantic, up until recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness, electroshock therapy was considered a miracle cure, and AIDS was thought to be divine punishment for homosexuality. I believe that GID is on its way to being better understood not as a mental illness, but as a natural variant of humanity.
Also, you now consider yourself a “happy, healthy young women,” – does mean that you no longer have a penis and testes?
——————————————–
I’ll abstain from that one, if you don’t mind. I haven’t asked about your bits, have I?
And, being that you stated that you are a women, why are you also a lesbian considering that you identified very strongly as a girl?
——————————————–
Forgive my flippancy here, but…Girls can be lesbians too?
In all seriousness though: Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation. Again, if we’re being pedantic here, I technically fall into the category of pansexual, that is, I look beyond gender at the person themselves.
OK, I'm not sure to make of your response to whether you have male sex organs or not – and actually, it is a logical question considering your story. Also, if you were born with 'problematic' testes and penis, there is nothing to be ashamed of, is there? So, I ask again, if you, as a young healthy women have the parts of a women or the parts of a man?
Is pansexual the new Bi? Are you saying that you are bisexual?
BTW, “AIDS was thought to be divine punishment for homosexuality” is a limited belief by some but it may well be the result of violating natural law just as all STDs appear to be.
@anselm
Pansexual is not the new bi, as bisexuality limits one to the gender binary…that is, strictly male and female people. Pansexuality looks beyond gender and sex, and looks at the person themselves.
Also, STD's have been around pretty much since recorded history.
Again, I'm going to please insist that you allow me my dignity and privacy in that regard. I'll just clear up that I did not have “Problematic” genitals. I've not asked you any invasive questions, please respect my decision?
@ A, Considering your story I can't understand why asking the obvious could be deemed an invasive question. Why do you consider an obvious question about your genitalia a violation of privacy when no one knows your name? 'A' is hardly a traceable moniker. Also, are you aware of the suicide rates amongst transsexuals, especially the rates for those that go through the surgery to alter ones genitalia and who also 'appeared' to have had a large support network? Odd, no?
I would also like to know more about your mother and father. You said that you are attempting reconciliation? If they read your story on this post, how would they react to the facts presented? Will your mother and father support reconstructive surgery?
BTW, 25 per cent of the sexual active adult population in North America has genital herpes [yuck]. STDs are so bad that governments now demand by force of law that teenaged girls be inoculated against HPV. It's not a pretty picture out there. The fact that STDs existed in recorded history may wash away some of the grim reality but it does not explain the alarming rise in STD in our modern society which has preached safe sex for over two decades. The opposite stats exist in the monogamous heterosexual married community.
Have any of you interlocutors seen the Anthony Hopkins movie – The Rite? There is a very insightful scene in the middle of the movie that 'A' might relate to. Check it out.
Basically what this all boils down to is whether the Bible is “God's word” or “man's word”. The answer for some is found in their indoctrination, while for others the answer comes from critical thinking and education. As for my personal beliefs, I see the Bible as written by men at a time when all of its tales had long passed and, much like in the game “telephone”, had become altered and exaggerated. God Himself did not pen the work and therefore cannot be held accountable for its inaccuracies or its many misinterpretations.
God is love. God created each of us to be exactly as He intended, be that gay, straight, transgender, a follower, a leader, gullible, free-thinking, black, white, asian, tall, short, or any other imaginable trait. We must accept each other’s differences, respect what God created, and teach our children that being whoever you are is not only good and right, but beautiful and special. Teaching children to avoid those that are different from themselves only closes their mind and their world.
Misty,
Did God create some to be murderous? Do we have to accept each other's difference there?
Now before anyone goes off claiming that I am comparing murderers with any other group…I am not. I am simply taking Misty's point to it's next logical step.
@anselm Why is it an obvious question? I'll answer the question, but under extreme protest, as it's not any business of yours. I'm currently pre-op. And yes, I'm aware of the statistics. I'm also aware that due to there being no studies that have been peer-reviewed, most of those statistics are unverifiable at best, and downright made up at worst. Though one of the most common reasons I've heard for post-op suicide is unrealistic expectations. People go into it thinking that they'll be magically transformed, and that suddenly their lives will be rainbows and puppies and kittens, and when they get confronted with reality after surgery, get depressed.
With regards to my parents, I am attempting reconciliation. We've gotten to the point where our relationship is slowly approaching normal, for a given value of “normal”. We can spend time together, they're slowly starting to realize that this is not a bad thing. They'd most likely take issue with some things, but that's a result of the human condition: you can show ten people the same event, and you'll get 10 different stories afterwards. They're not ultra enthusiastic about surgery, but they're not boycotting it either, which I consider a good thing…they are my parents, and I love them more than life itself.
I'll take issue with your statistics on STD's. I feel that one of the reasons why STD's are on the rise is that despite advocacy for evidence-based factual sexual education, our government insists on going with an “Abstinence only” policy on sexual education. Teenagers are not being taught proper methods for safe sex, they're being given shoddy information that's based more on dogma than on fact. So yes, while there's been a societal push for “safe sex”, we're not equipping our young adults with the knowledge and materials needed to implement it. There has been no demand that young girls be innoculated against HPV…the only time that idea was floated was in Texas, and Rick Perry backed down from it due to backlash from conservatives.
Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X05004672
Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Education: Assessing the Impact: http://pol285.blog.gustavus.edu/files/2009/08/AfY_Abstinence-Only_Effect.pdf
Regarding STDs, see http://wonder.cdc.gov/std-v2009.html
A.: Thank you very much for answering my question above. If you do not mind there are two more questions: 1) did you participate in the Sacrament of Confirmation; 2) what did you find significant in atheism that prompted your conversion?
I do admire your honesty and candor.
@ 'A' – You need to expand your knowledge of HPV vaccinations – it's across North America. Also, safe sex education has been a failure – look inside your own community. I guess teaching safe fisting in Mass may be part of the problem -
* cough*
Do you tell all prospective partners that you are a transsexual?
When you complete the operation and have your male components removed, you will cease to be who you were. And that is why suicide rates skyrocket. Don't do it.
@Anselm – Show some basic human respect please. You're a cyber bully.
A,
I admire you greatly. Your ability to rise above your parent's intolerance and the ignorance of others astounds me. You are to be commended my friend. Don't ever allow the lack of thought in others to dissuade you from finding your happiness.
A
So sorry to hear how you were treated by both your parents and the so-called Christian who preached at you and your partner.
I am a Catholic, please don't look to these people who claim to live their religion -and then so obviously don't by spewing hatred-look to the Christians, Catholic or not, who try to treat you with respect and love. It's extremely unfortunate that you had to be exposed to that, just remember in your heart that God is a God of love and anyone who shows you different is not really a true Christian.
My husband used to be prejudiced against blacks because of the one bad encounter he had with a black guy that tried to hijack his car. It took him a really long time to see that not all black people are that way, and that there are a lot of good blacks as well as whites out there.
I don't know Stacy personally but I know enough about her from reading her comments on the Catholic Bubble and her own blog posts that she is a very caring person. I know that she is also strong in her faith and must stand up for it, but I hope you can see the distinction that she tries hard to make in “love the sinner, hate the sin”. There are just some people who read the blog who are having a hard time separating these two things.
To end with, I had a long time friend, who was very much like a sister to me who decided to experiment with women. We had a lot of talks about this, she knew how I felt about the matter, but regardless of how I felt, she also knew that I was her friend and continued to be, though I could not support her in her actions (which meant that no, I wasn't able to give her advice on how to have sex with other women or listen to those stories.) She asked me one day if I would attend a wedding with the women she chose to marry and I told her that I would not be able to do this. To make a long story short, she ended our friendship, saying that I really was not a real friend.
I was her friend and stuck by her side but could not condone the sin, even though we avoided talking about it as much as possible. Yet she felt that I didn't love her because I couldnt' ditch my morals on this and chose to end the friendship.
Love the sinner but hate the sin. See the distinction?
Becky
“I hope you can see the distinction that she tries hard to make in “love the sinner, hate the sin”. There are just some people who read the blog who are having a hard time separating these two things.”
When she says she's going to vote to oppress a group of people for the way they are, she stops loving the sinner. It's really she who has a hard time making the separation.
@ Stu:
What do you think would happen if the LGBT community started fighting back? If we just said: “This is the line! No further!”? What if we, to use a military term, performed some pre-emptive strikes against those who are potentially harmful to us? Do you think that would be enough to make people “walk on eggshells” when dealing with LGBT's?
We'd rather have tolerance and acceptance but most of us are willing to settle for fear if that keeps us and the ones we love safe. The LGBT community has lived in fear long enough and most of the LGBT community are ready to deal out what they had to accept over the past centuries.
@ Becky:
According to the COC, a Dutch gay rights organisation, LGBT's will encounter 4.4 religious people who are ready to hurt them mentally or even physically for everyone who manages to adhere to: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. According to American numbers 88% of the abuse cases against LGBT's are “inspired” by religion. So I don't think it's strange we have a distinct fear and distrust for everyone who claims to be religious, do you?
Hate to say it but I agree with your friend. You can't be a friend to 90% of her, especially when the part you can't accept is such an essential part of her. When I came out to my friends one of them was having a hard time with it and for a while it seemed our friendship wouldn't survive. In the end he turned around and we're back to where we were before I came out, simply because he realized I was still the same person I always was because the feelings for men I had always had been there. He just didn't know it back then. But if he hadn't come around and refused to accept me for who and what I am I would have told him to enjoy his life but I wouldn't be a part of it as well. Family and friends are supposed to support you and if they can't you're better of without them.
@ Stu:
“The people in the neighbourhood asked his several times to end his crusade and to stop provoking people but he refused. And in the UK the freedom of speech is not absolute. He's been asked nicely and refused. After that the police asked him not so nicely with a court order in their hands.
———–
It now appears that the police have admitted that they overstepped their bounds on this issue and the store owner can once again display Bible verses inside of his business. Customers remain free to enter his establishment or not as they see fit. I'm quite confident they can even voice their opinion to him as well.”
Knowing the British gays the way I do (dated one a long time ago) I would not advise him to do that. His neighbours will probably “voice” their opinions about him and his Bible verses alright. I just think that will be by using rocks and molotov cocktails and not so much with words. The gay community in Soho will not accept this man to tell them what to do in “their” district, trust me.
Knowing the British gays the way I do (dated one a long time ago) I would not advise him to do that. His neighbours will probably “voice” their opinions about him and his Bible verses alright. I just think that will be by using rocks and molotov cocktails and not so much with words. The gay community in Soho will not accept this man to tell them what to do in “their” district, trust me
———–
More tolerance.
What do you think would happen if the LGBT community started fighting back?
———-
I support anyone defending themselves when threatened with physical violence. Accordingly, I carry a concealed weapon for such reasons.
What if we, to use a military term, performed some pre-emptive strikes against those who are potentially harmful to us?
———-
You probably be arrested and carted off to jail and rightfully so.
Do you think that would be enough to make people “walk on eggshells” when dealing with LGBT's?
———
Are homosexuals in general so sensitive that this is a necessity or just you?
We'd rather have tolerance and acceptance but most of us are willing to settle for fear if that keeps us and the ones we love safe.
——–
Tolerance and respect…yes.
Acceptance…no.
Fear…careful what you ask for.
@ Stu:
We've been tolerant enough and got nowhere. And the British gays never accepted any BS from anyone anyway. In the US gay men and women started pushing back in the 1960's after they had enough of police harrassment and brutality. In the UK stopped accepting that in the 1500's. Gay protests in the UK were always a lot more explosive and most of them resulted in riots. No one in his right mind would cross British gays, unless you're a masochist.
Compared to most gay men in the Netherlands I'm not that sensitive. Most of us are a lot worse.
I don't think I would be arrested, especially not with my history of losing a loved one because of mental abuse and the attacks on both me, my husband and our daughter. I think a temporal insanity plea would fly, don't you?
Well, for a lot of us, especially those in particular areas in the world, it can't really get much worse. Wishing got us nowhere so I guess we'll have to try a new approach.
I think a temporal insanity plea would fly, don't you?
——–
You just get locked up in a different kind of place.
However, your continued advocacy of violence in the name of tolerance does come across as insane.
@Anselm
You sir, are a bully. When someone asks you to stop asking questions, the honorable and polite thing to do is to stop asking those questions. NOT to continue pressing the question, and making youself seem like nothing more than a schoolyard bully shaking someone down for their homework answers. Shame on you, sir. Shame on you.
You need to expand your knowledge of HPV vaccinations – it's across North America. Also, safe sex education has been a failure – look inside your own community. I guess teaching safe fisting in Mass may be part of the problem -
* cough*
———————————————-
Ok, first off, the workshop where the “fisting lesson” took place was voluntary. People were not compelled to attend. It was at a conference called “TeachOUT”. And secondly, from what I can see? The “Fisting lesson” was simply acknowledging that the practice existed, and providing safe-sex materials such as a glove, and condoms.
Regarding HPV vaccines, you need to cite your sources. Currently only 4 states have programs for vaccination, and even then, 2 of the programs are voluntary, and the other two have opt-out options. Yes, the vaccine is AVAILABLE all across the US, but that’s does not mean it’s mandatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#United_States_2
Do you tell all prospective partners that you are a transsexual?
———————————————–
By “partners”, do you mean my girlfriend, who I’m monogamous with? I don’t go around to nightclubs all the time trying to pick up partners or one-night stands.
When you complete the operation and have your male components removed, you will cease to be who you were. And that is why suicide rates skyrocket. Don't do it.
————————————-
Oh no! I hadn’t realized that I won’t be able to play Xbox, read books, that my hair will miraculously turn black, and that I’ll have to survive on soylent green! After SRS, I’ll still enjoy reading books. I’ll still enjoy gaming, and going to Renn Faires. I’ll still like pesto. I’ll still ride my bike to work. I’ll still help run music events. Really. Is your identity as a person so bound up with your genitalia? That you feel that if you were to loose your bits in a tragic accident, you would be an object of derision, that you would think of yourself as “Less of a man”? What about men who have bits removed due to cancer? Are they “Lesser men”? Have they “Ceased to be who they were”?
http://www.t-vox.org/index.php?title=Cisgender_privilege
Edward,
“I don't think I would be arrested, especially not with my history of losing a loved one because of mental abuse and the attacks on both me, my husband and our daughter. I think a temporal insanity plea would fly, don't you?”
Well…first, you'd get arrested. Then, you'd get charged. Next, you'd get a lawyer or be appointed one. Depending on what you did you might get bail. And at your trial you could try the temporary insanity plea but since you posted your plan to do so before the crime I somehow doubt it'd fly.
@ Manda:
Well, there have been cases where the lawyers made succesful claims the condition of temporary insanity existed for a prolonged period or time but that would get me a trip to the state funny farm, yes. Still, in most cases preferable to jailtime.
Although I hope you realise I was only playing “what if” here. I have no intention on using force or violence to anyone. Well, to protect my husband and daughter I'd probably would.
In order to make a case for temporary insanity, you can't have premeditation. I don't know you from Adam so, no, I didn't realize you were only playing “what if” here. It's rather disturbing.
Anselm,
“Why do you consider an obvious question about your genitalia a violation of privacy when no one knows your name?”
It's best to back off of that questioning if someone says they don't want to answer.
“A” I do sense in Anselm's comments a concern for your well-being though. You don't have to answer more general questions either, and I'm only asking because of the frankness of the conversation so far and because you seem articulate and willing to answer a lot of questions.
Just as I worried about one of my kids getting a tattoo at a young age and regretting it later, do you ever wonder if you may regret a permanent change like this later in life? I don't even know if it is reversible or not anyway. I'm just curious. Are there seniors who have had the surgery, and have had it for decades? Is it healthy in the long run, especially with all the hormone treatments (i.e. cancer risk)? Those are honest questions, but only answer if you want to. Is there even any data for this?
Edward, I have a friend in the UK who posted this today. Have you seen it? What are your thoughts?
“For the second year running, the Office for National Statistics has produced estimates putting the population of exclusively homosexual or lesbian people at one per cent, with a further half a per cent bisexual.”
The absurdity of statistical surveys: it's just a numbers game
A lot of people have told me that it's like 10-13% of the population that is LGBT, but this study says it a tenth of that.
Note: The article also acknowledges bullying, and calls it what it is, shameful.
@Stacy
Thank you. I’m more than happy to answer questions, as long as my personal boundaries are respected. I feel Anselm crossed that line. Thank you for the compliment, though. I like think that I’m articulate, or to quote Hawkeye Pierce “Yeah I talk real good, don’t I?”
I worry, sure, but generally about things like aesthetics, sensitivity, and things like that. I feel I have a very healthy attitude towards surgery…I’m not expecting people to suddenly start worshipping me like I’m Elizabeth Taylor or somesuch. I just expect it to change the contours of my body, and to help me in situations where my dysphoria is generally triggered, such as the bathroom, or the shower, etc. It’s not reversible as such…there are ways to rebuild a phallic substitute, but at our current level of medical technology, those efforts amount to little. Since most people who had the surgery in the 50’s (when it was pioneered) went “stealth”, as it’s called in the lgbt community. That means that they essentially denied ever being trans due to the massive bias against transpeople. That bias is lesser now, but it’s very hard to get statistical long-term data because people go stealth. There’s anecdotal evidence, and I believe one study from the Netherlands which I’m having a hard time digging up.
@Stacy – Statistics are useful tools, but only in the right context. One study, repeated twice, that shows on an anonymous, voluntary survey in the UK of a bit over 400k respondents, that about 1% self identify as gay.
What does that prove? At best, if we accept it as truly accurate, it suggests there are fewer gay people in the UK than the general population? Or if we approached it more cynically, that maybe it suggests that even on anonymous surveys people in the UK are less likely to “out” themselves as gay?
In my experience I've seen the figures vary between 3% and 10%. Obviously the LGBT community favors the higher end of the spectrum. What is new there? Statistics are often used as a political tool.
The APA holds that sexual orientation is most likely determined by the complex interaction of cognitive, biological and environmental factors. Environmental in this case, can include the hormonal balances in the womb. Last time I took a psych class they were presenting the figure closer to 3%.
But it could also vary by whether you consider sexual orientation different from sexual preference. Certainly there are many documented cases of men who lived a good portion of their lives as heterosexual, even having wives and children, and then not until later in life finally accept that they are actually gay. Quite a few preachers and televangelists in recent years have “come out” this way, voluntarily or involuntarily. How are these people represented on a survey that asks people to self-identify?
Or how about the case of former US Congressman Larry Craig who would certainly identify himself as straight, who was caught soliciting homosexual sex in an airport? Plead guilty, then attempted to recant the guilty plea? Is he gay or not?
We don't have a standard for identifying homosexual people aside from voluntary self-identification. In such a case, is it at all surprising that attempts to statistically profile the group find that a difficult proposition?
Stacy, the 10% figure is based on very outdated data from (I believe) Alfred Kinsey. In my experience, almost everybody who quotes it does so out of ignorance – they read it on the internet somewhere, or else heard someone else quote it as fact, and so they repeat it because they don't realise that it's been discredited for a long time. As far as I'm aware, very few (if any) reputable LGBT organisations now claim that 10% of the population is gay. The more common figure is 2-3%, depending on where exactly you're talking about.
@ Manda:
There are a lot of things that are even more disturbing. A 14 yo who's life is made so miserable the only way out he saw, was to commit suicide, for example. Or the fact he was outed by a teacher who gave the other kids in the class permission to ruin this young man's life. Or the fact that he was buried today and several classmates were shouting outside the cemetery gates, but well within hearing distance of the boy's parents, friends and family, they were glad with his death, meaning a job well done.
Those things are worse than me being a little disturbed. You'd get disturbed by less misery.
@ Stacy:
In order for a certain trait to survive in a population enough people should be carriers of that trait. Giving that trait to your children, especially when that trait is multofactorial (dependend on several individual genes on different chromosomes) is difficult enough. Most gay men and women won't procreate, as we already established, so they won't give the trait, their homosexuality, to their offspring. As a result new mutations need to appear all the time to keep the trait of homosexuality in the population. This is simply impossible if only 1% of the population is a carrier.
The trouble with statistics is the result depends on the population investigated. I take you know that as a former scientist. So if the Biritsh Office of National Statistics asks whether people are gay in London the percentage of gays will be higher than in a small village in the countryside.
Furthermore it's highly unlikely gay men and women will tell a perfect stranger, and a government official to boot, honestly they are gay. Not being to open to authority figures is something we learn pretty soon after our coming out. And people have the tendency to give the answers they think people want to hear.
So, basically, I would not believe this number too easily. Percentages by universities and gay rights movements are more reliable because the people are more inclined to believe their answer will truly be used for research purposes or to move the government to improve laws and stuff while they just don't trust the government.
@ Sean Wills:
First the numbers Alfred Kinsley used, were based to absolutely nothing. They were an estimation he just thought of in the middle of the night.
Most scientists are convinced Kinsley would have been more accurate if he would have said 5%, which is the percentage scientists use. However, that percentage was in the 1960's. It's widely accepted the percentage should be higher now, or at least the percentage of people admitting to be gay should be higher since the taboo is less nowadays.
In order for a certain trait to survive in a population enough people should be carriers of that trait.
———
That's assuming it's neither a defect or psychological or both.
The 1% number comes up in US studies as well. The 10% number is just ridiculous. All in all, it's more likely to be around 1-3%.
Nicholas: Also see http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-27/us/us_census-same-sex-couples_1_households-with-unmarried-partners-female-couples-american-community-survey?_s=PM:US
Nicholas and Edward,
Yeah I get that a single survey isn't always reality, but large differences in numbers can reveal something, sometimes. I don't usually put too much weight on statistical analyses if I don't know the methods, but two things interest me here.
1) The study was straightforward and sizable (248,000 respondents) and there's no rhetorical trickery in the questions asked. Are you heterosexual (94%), homosexual (1%), bisexual (0.5), other (0.4), don't know (3.6), no response (0.7)?
2) Even if you add up everybody not heterosexual that's way less than the 10-13% (what the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles claims (who only survey 12K).
So my question is, “Why does the LGBT community readily accept weaker data to promote their political agendas?”
I have a hard time believing that a 20X larger and more pervasive survey population by a non-biased entity is the weaker data. I don't know if I buy that people wouldn't tell a surveyor from the government on the phone they were homosexual if that person really wanted to see laws change in their favor. That doesn't make any sense.
*'scuse the typos.
@Stacy -
First, a lobbying organization has an interest in promoting a particular group or POV. Given a spread of data, a group is always going to use the data that is most generous to their cause. This is true whether you are estimating the size of the gay population or the Christian population.
In your tweet you put up the figure 69% for Christians. What was the objective measure there? People who were baptized? Or people actively participating?
I would also suggest that there may be some sort of confirmation bias at work. If you are part of a group, in this case gay people, and you are publicly “out” — you probably know a lot of other gay people. You frequent places where other gay people congregate. There are large gatherings of gay people – Pride parades, etc. As the social stigmas have lessened you see more gay people and characters in the media.
So you look around you and it doesn't make sense to you that only one or two out of a hundred people are gay.
This is not limited to any group. If you only associate with Christians, or white people, or whatever your group is, you would probably overestimate the size of your group.
But beyond that, your question is leading and presumes that this study is actually indicative of global populations. There may be other evidence out there that can debunk it.
The UK is a pretty tiny country. Maybe 1/5 the size of the US? Maybe there are just less gay people in the UK.
But let's say for sake of argument the LGBT lobby was artificially inflating numbers… Why would it be a surprise? Does the NRA religiously report, or even underreport their membership so as not to give any kind of false impression as to the number of voters they can muster? :-p Unlikely.
Oh and to answer your question about why at the very end, I will point back to my example of Larry Craig, and other people who vehemently insist they are heterosexual, and yet has same-sex sexual encounters. And not just that one time back in college when they were experimenting… There are people out there who are either in extreme denial, or willfully ignoring their sexual orientation and do not identify with it at all.
Sexuality is a weird thing. There are straight men who do gay porn for the money. There are a lot of reasons why this could be.
Nicholas,
“n your tweet you put up the figure 69% for Christians. What was the objective measure there?”
The objective measure in the method here is that people were asked and identified. That's all that can be said.
“But beyond that, your question is leading and presumes that this study is actually indicative of global populations.”
No, I'm aware that it is a British survey, by the government.
“Why would it be a surprise?”
Not a surprise, disturbing. In Britain there are efforts to restrict religious freedom and the LGBT community is involved.
@ Stu:
I'm not going to start either a “nature-nurture” or a “it's a defect / disease” discussion with you. Every non-biased scientific paper from unbiased institutes states it's biological, probably genetic and not a disease. That's enough for me.
@ Stacy:
Like I said, it depends on who you ask. You say 248.000 people participated but the UK counts 60 million people. I'm not a statitician so I'm not sure but 248.000 people out of 60 million seems a little small sample to me.
In the 1980's the Dutch Statistics Office wanted to know more about the Dutch demographics so they send out about 2 million questionaires to all 12 districts in our country. About half of them were returned and the statisticians were having a field day. Untill they completed the first analyses.
These analyses stated only 68% of the Dutch people was straight and less than 10% considered themselves Christian. Also, almost 75% claimed to have a higher educational level. Since this was a ridiculous outcome they started to investigate the sample they took and I think some people lost their jobs that day.
2 million questionnaires were sent to 2 million people. To makes sure non-native Dutch were also included approximately 200.000 questionnaires were sent to Maroccan and Turkish people living in the Netherlands. However, they never considered a language problem and sent the same Dutch questionnaires which the non-native Dutch were unable to read. So they got never returned.
When looking where the completed questionnaires were coming from they found the major cities were responsible for almost 80% of the completed questionnaires. Since Amsterdam was still considered to be the Gay Capitol of Europe back then and Rotterdam also had quite the gay community living in the city limits. Also, a lot of the former students from the 1960's had remained in the major cities, causing a strange outcome in the percentage of people who had a higher education. And since also the new students had been included in the questionnaires it was not strange to see a very low number of Christian. Both the former students from the 1960's and the current group of students were very much against any form of religion or authority.
They also took a closer look at the questionnaire itself. Before sending it the researchers decided it would be a bad thing to ask whether or not someone was gay. Homosexuality had just been removed from the psychiatric DSM-classification and was no longer punishable by law but people still linked being gay to AIDS and stuff. So they made some other questions to determine whether or not someone was gay:
1. Did you have a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex during the last year?
2. Did you have a sexual encounter with someone of the samee sex before this year?
If both questions were answered “yes” someone was considered to be non-heterosexual. However, they didn't specify the sexual encounter so a handjob with a friend while being drunk also counted.
So, in the end, the study was worthless and was removed from the archives. Nowadays it's only used in universities to illustrate how wrong a study can go if you haven't thought it through well enough.
If the British Office of National Statistics made a mistake by not including enough major cities or some parts of those cities (On Notting Hill you won't find gay men and women since it's mostly muslims who live there nowadays while in Soho you wll find only a small number of straight people) their attempt to determine the demographics of the population have failed miserably.
Edward,
I don't know about the integrity of the ONS, but any statistician worth his title knows that you don't sample from a biased or isolated population, and that the higher the sample size, the better the data.
~250K compared to 12K is a significant difference in sample size. This question was on the Integrated Household Survey, the largest social survey ever produced by the Office for National Statistics in your country.
I guess what bothers me about this is how hard it is for people to admit that homosexuality isn't as pervasive as the media makes it sound. I can't tell you how many comments I got saying, “Ooh-ooh you have 7 kids. 1 in 10 people are gay. Guess one of your kids is gay! Ahhh Gotcha!” Well, something to that effect.
I think anyone who believes Christians can dialogue with the homosexual movement is naive. They have the goal of destroying Christianity. Visit Mass Resistance if you doubt this. The two latest articles will open your eyes.
So will this:
http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/09/28/european-parliament-votes-overwhelmingly-on-human-rights-for-gays-and-transgender-people-worldwide/
@ Stacy:
I agree. All statisticians should know that. Even I know that and I work in an entirely different field. However, sometimes you don't know your population is biased like the survey done in the 1980's in my country.
Furthermore, there's always a lack of certainty in self-reporting situations. Whenever I get asked to fill out a questionnaire and they want to know what my family is like, I answer: “2 adults and 1 child” and that's it. I will not tell them anything more about my family. Questions about my sexuality get marked: “non of your business” and when asking my annual salary my reply is: “Not enough for the ammount of work I do”. A good friend of mine considers himself to be heterosexual while I know from personal experience he's at least bisexual and I even think he's leaning towards men.
So, self-reporting questionnaires must be looked at with caution. In (medical) science they are the lowest form of scientific evidence and most of the time they are being discarded as unbelievable.
@ Brian:
Well, the good news is we are just as convinced Christians are set to destroy us.
@ Nicholas – please explain how I'm being a bully? Is persistent questioning a form of bullying? Or is stating emphatically that a comment is nonsense, bullcrap or false an act of bullying? If so, you and I share opposite dialogue ideologies. I practice the art of having conversations unfettered by impolite falsities. Too often people spend way too much time practicing the art of saying nothing in large rambling paragraphs punctuated with drama. I blame it on TV and PC language. My inner peace *cough* is regulated by clarity of thought from thorough questioning and knowing. Obviously you wouldn't like my management style – it's knows as effective, optimistic and memorable.
@ 'A' – you posted what you believe is a story of your life and obviously it can't be challenged because to do so would be a form of bullying. I have asked very specific questions because your story is odd and the oddity of some of the facts required clarification. For example, you used language such as “assigned male at birth” like it was a random work order but also said you identified with being a girl. Naturally, any normal person might wonder if you had male 'junk'. The fact that you consider questions requiring clarification of your male assignment is instructive. I don't play games with people – ever.
I concluded my last comment with an instructive – don't do it because I believe that an attempt to cut away your birthright through surgery will harm you. It is obvious that you have adsorbed an entire new language and identify with a particular dogma which you currently believe will give you peace. It won't.
I'm being charitable. When you are 34, you may inch closer to knowing what I mean. In the meantime, don't expect people to break into tears because you are.
I'm not going to start either a “nature-nurture” or a “it's a defect / disease” discussion with you. Every non-biased scientific paper from unbiased institutes states it's biological, probably genetic and not a disease. That's enough for me.
——–
If you yourself are impartial (which you have admitted), then how do you determine is something is non-biased. I think you used circular reasoning in such things. I'm happy to admit that I am open to what causes such a predisposition but all such “proof” that it is outright genetic, have been lacking in my opinion. (I also think there is a possibility that psychological disorders can cause biological changes in the brain) But even if it is genetic, it is still to be considered a disorder.
Further, some seem to think that by finding some sort of genetic predisposition we can rule out natural law (and moral) pronouncements that it is wrong. Hardly. Engagement in such behavior, even with “genetic encouragement” can still be detrimental to society and against morality as set forth by God. Now people will then respond with a question of how could God will this on someone?
Well with our fallen nature, God can certainly allow it to afflict someone just as a man may have a proclivity to addiction. We all have a cross to bear, some certainly heavier than other I will freely admit yet He still gives us the Grace to overcome them. When I see I person who suffers from SSA but works hard to avoid engaging in homosexual sin, I am truly impressed. That person has my admiration.
I have to agree with Anselm. “A” came here to share a personal story as a means of giving everyone a better understanding of such a lifestyle. Given such, to not answer questions in such an anonymous format, I think, defeats the purpose.
BTW, from what I remember from statistics days, a 248,000 sample size with a population of 60 million would produce really good results.
@ Stu:
In most European universities it's not custom, if not compulsory, to leave your personal believes and religion at the front door. Even the Christian and Catholic universities have to abide that or otherwise lose their funding, both governmental as private. That in itself already protects researchers from being biased.
Furthermore, most scientific magazines will not publish potentially biased papers anymore. For example, the New-England Journal of Medicine no longer accepts papers from researchers being funded by either religious or conservative institutions or foundations since the impartiality of the researchers is no longer guaranteed.
Since I don't believe in a God your appeal to Christian moral does little to nothing for me.
Like I said, I'm not a statistician so I can't answer to that. However, I do know you can expect large differences between different streets in the same city in the UK, let alone between complete areas. I really don't think you can perform a survey in the UK at all and extrapolate the results to the entire country. Medical researchers in the UK already know that. For example: in Scotland the people drink more and start earlier in life than in Wales. So if your survey contains a question like: How many glasses of alcohol do you drink weekly? the answer could not be extrapolated to Wales. However, in this survey that seems to be exactly what they are doing.
@ Brian:
Just read a couple of the articles at mass resistance. I found most of them rather funny. Like the suggestion that “It gets better” refers to gay sex: “No matter how much you hate it now, gay sex will get better.” While two paragraphs later they claim gay sex is addictive. How can you get addicted to something that isn't feeling good to begin with?
I won't judge the website just yet because I'm not sure yet what they are: people with too much free time and a knack for conspiracy theories or some seriously disturbed people who need to have their heads examined ASAP. There is, however, one thing they are not: a reliable source.
Like I said, I'm not a statistician so I can't answer to that. However, I do know you can expect large differences between different streets in the same city in the UK, let alone between complete areas. I really don't think you can perform a survey in the UK at all and extrapolate the results to the entire country.
—–
It can be done and done very well. I do have some experience with this both as an engineer and from the graduate education. Statisticians take many variable into account to ensure a sample that represents the whole. They don't just go willy-nilly asking people on the street.
As to bias, the fact that researchers automatically exclude some that they don't agree with is by definition, drinking their own bath water. But why consider other opinions when you already know what you think the answer should be. I'm more of fan of let everyone input. I'm confident in the truth and know it will prevail. But my point remains, you by your own recognition are not impartial. Therefore, your judgment in such matter would be biased. As we all are. I just admit it.
“@ Manda:
There are a lot of things that are even more disturbing. A 14 yo who's life is made so miserable the only way out he saw, was to commit suicide, for example. Or the fact he was outed by a teacher who gave the other kids in the class permission to ruin this young man's life. Or the fact that he was buried today and several classmates were shouting outside the cemetery gates, but well within hearing distance of the boy's parents, friends and family, they were glad with his death, meaning a job well done.
Those things are worse than me being a little disturbed. You'd get disturbed by less misery.”
That doesn't excuse threats of violence along with a claim that a temporary insanity plea would get you out of it. I recently attended a Catholic funeral and the Westboro Baptist Church traveled to our church to protest as they believe Catholics are all going to hell. That doesn't give anyone else a reason or excuse to say crazy things.
This post has been removed by the author.
“A.”: Thank you for what answers you thought you could give. Of course I’ll continue to pray for you and your parents: praying seems to be in my nature.
Ave Maria . . .
@ Manda:
Well, I'm still flabergasted there are members of the Phelps family alive. One day they will attend the wrong funeral and they will be in trouble, or worse.
And, to be honest, I'm not really worried about what other people think of me. That too has been stripped away since my coming out.
@manda
I am confused about what doesn't give people the right to say crazy things. Are you referring to the Phelps family? To Edward's talk of preemptive violence? To Stu who can say what he wants to the gays if he decides that their motives are to make a scene? To Anslem who doesn't see the need to e at the very least polite? To Archbishop Dolan who essentially threatened the president?
I am not really sure where we are drawing the “say crazy things line”?
@ Stu and Amslem
A is sharing her story (Anslem do you think she is making it up?) so she does not have to respond to your questions whether this is an anonymous website or not. Her “junk” is not really important to what she is saying. I am not surprised you think it is, but whether she has had the corrective surgery is not important.
I understand where you are coming from due to your belief systems though.
Can you please explain why it is important to the story? I guess I am not a normal person if that question didn't enter my mind, but maybe it is because I know a little more about it than you do.
And Anslem, I understand your style, but one can still be concise and polite. My management style is also very effective and I assume it is nothing at all like yours.
Being polite is not PC. You have a tendency to go to name calling or insulting. That really is not necessary, and that is why some call you a bully.
and does the percent of the homosexual population really matter towards anything?
Fact is there will never be an exact count. Many as stated before will not identify as gay even though they are. Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is just a duck in denial. Or a duck that went to get cured.
also please explain how homosexuality is disordered again. I really would like to understand.
A disordered desire: wanting to attempt to ingest hot coffee through your eye.
A disordered action: attempting to imbibe hot coffee through your eye.
The final cause of the eye is, in layman’s terms, to see. Any desire or action involving the eye that does not align with its final cause is disordered.
Stacy,
I have a hard time believing that a 20X larger and more pervasive survey population by a non-biased entity is the weaker data. I don't know if I buy that people wouldn't tell a surveyor from the government on the phone they were homosexual if that person really wanted to see laws change in their favor. That doesn't make any sense.
With all due respect, that means that you don't understand how frightening it is to be gay in a potentially hostile society. Most gay people will have spent years denying their orientation even to themselves. It can be incredibly difficult for someone to admit to disclose to another person that they're gay, even if it's a complete stranger and even if they're doing so anonymously. If it 'doesn't make any sense', it's because you're not willing to, or capable of, putting yourself into a gay person's shoes.
Sean, well you sure got me.
No, I don't understand how frightening it is. The messages are confusing. The word “gay” alone seems to suggest a great deal of joy and pride. Nor do I get the impression that “gay marriage” is all about hiding. Before I converted I lived among people in this lifestyle daily. They weren't scared of anything.
I'm trying to understand, but yeah, I concede, I'm not able to put myself in a “gay” person's shoes. For that matter, I don't even understand now why anyone would wrap their entire identity in their private sexuality. Just being honest. I really don't get that. It's seems like selling yourself short.
alan said…also please explain how homosexuality is disordered again. I really would like to understand.
——–
Your question aside, which I may attempt to answer later, isn't that why people are asking “A” questions? This speaks to my overall point. Why does it become a taboo to ask questions of this nature to someone who has come here to ostensibly….answer questions? Maybe homosexuals are genetically inclined to be oversensitive. After all, if the inclination is such then we can certainly assume other traits are part of it as well.
Or is that different?
I am a Social Worker in the United Kingdom and have been following the discussions on here quite closely because aside from the hurt and anger that is expressed I am finding the posts fascinating.
I am a psychiatric social worker with older adults and I have been analysing my beliefs through the professional perspective of my career and cognitive and medical theories and legislation.
In the UK there is a piece of Legislation called the Mental Capacity Act and this is used to determine (via an assessment process) whether an individual has the mental capacity to make a decision. Crucial to this important process is a concept called the 'wall of reason'. A capacity assessment can only be completed if an individual demonstrates that they can impartially weigh up all information to make a decision. The wall of reason come into it when a person is not prepared to consider any other options in the decision making process.
One thing that has emerged from my conversations with peers, friends and colleagues is that people whether LGBT or catholic (or perhaps both) all possess this skill and many use it to make informed decisions. However there are some individuals both LGBT and religious who have a wall of reasoning that is so powerful they are unable to do this. I feel from reading posts on this blog that there are individuals from both perspectives. Some who are unable to make rational decisions because they are consumed with the bible so completely, to the extent that they are incapable of independent thought and similarly a few LGBT counterparts.
The issue I have is not primarily with a persons beliefs but why they have them and what is their scope for challenging their belief systems.
What does everyone else think?
I wouldn’t say that I’m oversensitive. Far from it, rather…instead of going off the handle at Anselm, I attempted to politely steer the conversation away from the matter by noting my discomfort. In fact, Anselm was the one who continually pressed me on a matter that I feel uncomfortable talking about, as opposed to looking up a phrase on a search engine. In fact, a quick search on Google for “Assigned male at birth” (the phrase that confused Anselm) results in the second result being an explanation. That explanation states “trans woman (adj + noun) : A person who was assigned male at birth but who lives as a woman and/or identifies as female.” Now granted, this is not a definition of precisely that phrase, but it does put it in a context that explains it. The phrase is used in the trans community to describe the circumstance of our birth. Since as infants we do not have agency over our bodies or identities, we use the phrase to describe that we may have been assigned a gender by the doctor and our parents, we do not identify as that gender.
I don’t consider it rude or against the spirit of this dialogue to decline to answer a question. Imagine asking a young lady that same question, only this time put yourself (royal you, not anyone in particular) and the young lady on a public bus at rush hour. If you asked her a question about what her genitals look like, would she be justified in either a:) refusing to answer, b:) saying that she’s not comfortable discussing that topic, c:) slapping you in the face and asking for you to be ejected from the bus? That’s essentially what you did when you asked me about the state of my bits. Even though it’s indeed on an anonymous forum, the bus is an anonymous forum as well.
……the bus is an anonymous forum as well.
———–
The analogy falls flat. Whether you like it or not, you are an oddity of sorts. If you want people to understand that, then you are going to get all manner of question especially when you initially start to offer such things regarding your lifestyle.
Anonymous social worker (ASW) in the UK, Stu and A — see this is where the issue gets so tough in my opinion. First, I have lived on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and I am using a lot more reason in forming my conscience now than I did before converting. I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but I've hung out with groups that had no problem pushing their sexuality in other people's faces “take-that-and-get-over-it” style. I remember prime time television having all kinds of family scenarios and still today on TV being “gay” is rather glamorized.
Then there's *A* who has genuinely suffered, and I'm willing to grant that I may never understand what it feels like. Ever. There's Edward who loves his family, and I have a hard time telling him how immoral his actions are when my own oldest daughter still suffers because of my immoral choices. I may now worry about Edward's daughter growing up with two men, but I'm pretty sure Edward might say he's worried about my children growing up with Catholic parents. How do people talk this out?
Then there's us orthodox Catholics who really and truly submit to Church teaching and explore these issues seeing so clearly the reasoning about immoral acts, but also (Stu I'm speaking for myself) sometimes aren't so sure how to speak the truth without being hurtful too. Proclaim it boldly! sounds fine until you do it and then realize you hurt someone because you were arrogant. After all, we all sin. But sin isn't some arbitrary designation to choices, it's sin because it is destructive, unhealthy and harmful to others, leads people away from what is good. The Christian life is a life directed towards virtue, we practice virtues (self-control, temperance, patience, charity) to better ourselves, and that leads to real freedom. What seems like arrogance is sometimes only meant as warning, pleading, hoping.
Anyway, {sigh}.
That article someone posted at the top of this thread, “Am I My Gay Brother's Keeper” resonated with me in many ways.
Did anyone look at the courage site, particularly this?
http://couragerc.net/FAQs.html
Anonymous Social Worker in UK: Would you expand “impartially weigh up all information to make a decision”? From where come the weights?
Stacy T.: You asked: “How do people talk this out?” To be honest with you I do not think they do; Frost’s “Mending Walls” is quite apt.
What was it that struck you about the Courage site?
@ 'A' – You were not assigned anything at birth other than a name. You also answered the question you've since been wailing about. I didn't ask about the state of your “bits”, I asked you if you were born with male genitalia and then asked if you had the “operation.” I didn't ask for further details.
Let me remind you that you are the one that said, is living as a healthy girl. I cannot accept that as a fact because girls don't have male junk. Sorry, but they don't. Whoever is feeding you lines of lies should seek a 'psychiatrist.' Perhaps the UK Social Worker might help crash your mental capacity.
To be truthful, I don't believe much of your tale of woe. I have clients that have suffered true hardships and I know most of them would laugh at the simplicity of your supposed difficulties. It appears to me that victimology is the rehearsed reaction to any “discussion” of the homosexual culture as 'A' has clearly demonstrated.
The “trans-community” appears to have all sorts of names in their never ending lexicon of gender identifiers – “transsexuals, cross-dressers, gender-queer people, intersex people, and other gender-variant individuals, and pan sexual.” And, it now appears, once again, that that every step of tolerance leads to more demands – “With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.”
Read more – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/
@ Anonymous UK Social Worker – I firmly believe that the UK has fallen so far under the nanny state-bus that any attempt for resurrection be best left to God. Here's why -
“Schools will be penalised if they fail to improve the progress of ‘vulnerable’ groups of pupils such as those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual.
New Ofsted guidelines reveal that heads of primary and secondary schools must show their education ‘meets the needs of the range of pupils’ in their classrooms, including gipsy and traveller children.
Schools could see their teaching being judged ‘inadequate’ if they do not reduce gaps in achievement between different groups who make up a significant proportion of their student population.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043567/Schools-judged-gay-gipsy-pupils-progress.html#ixzz1ZSzKYSmf
The world is awash in insanity diagnosed as normal. Teams of social workers, guidance counselors, therapists and wonder workers are making a living caring, codling and apologizing for harm. New laws, 'directive' courses and state coercion are being use to enforce a 'Tyranny of Nice'.
Many people have arrived at this blog with an intention to cause harm in reaction to an innocuous comment. Disprove the stigmata of Padre Pio and I will pay attention. Explain the incorruptible bodies listed here – http://www.marypages.com/IncorruptBodies.htm and I will say huh. Disprove Lourdes and Fatima and I will say oops. Disprove the Miracle of Lanciano and I will say gosh, you got me. Use science to verify if a human hand painted the Tilma of Guadalupe and I will surrender to your reason. In the meantime, I will assume that 'A' et al. are proof that evil is on the march and taking control of too many precious souls.
Watch 'The Rite' and get in on the know. Right Nick?
SteveP, Wow. Exactly. It's sad.
“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.”
What struck me a while ago about the Courage site is the part in the FAQ about why not to use the words “gay” or “lesbian.”
There is more to a person than one's sexual attractions.
“Disprove the stigmata of Padre Pio and I will pay attention.”
That miracle is awesome!
@ Stacy:
The “funny” thing is most of us have no intention of letting our sexuality become the most important aspect of our personality. I identify as gay because I'm married to a man but being gay is just a part of me, not my entire personality. I don't come out to people immediately. It's not like I introduce myself as: “Hi, I'm dr. Edward, married to a man and raising an adopted Chinese girl”. When I meet someone it can take months or sometimes even years before I trust someone enough to come out to them. Because, basically, my sexuality is no one's business except my own and some people standing close to me.
I have no problem shoving my sexuality down someone's throat if needed. If someone tries to push me back into the closet I will make sure they will never forget I'm gay ever again. I do have a mean streak, although I try to keep it under control
I already told you some time ago I'm worried about your children, although I don't think as harsh about you anymore. I still think you are misguided but I no longer think you are dangerous to your children. I do think you will raise your children with values and morals that will hold them back in life and I think they will not be happy with you when that happens.
We will never agree on most things and, with my history with religious people, there is no trust in me towards people who put their religion first. The strange thing is, what you see as the road to freedom I see as the road to hell, never being free ever again anymore.
Edward, I understand every word you wrote. I don't agree, but I understand at least about why you wrote it. I understand your frustrations better.
One thing I've learned about being a parent is that you never do it perfectly no matter how hard you try. And sometimes trying too hard is itself the problem.
@ Stacy:
I agree on that. To be honest I have no idea how I will deal with my daughter wanting something completely different than I had envisioned for her. I hope she will embrace every opportunity but if she decides to be a stay home mom would support her as well. And maybe, in 20 years time, she won't be happy with the way my husband and I raised her either. Only time will tell.
@ Stacy:
To illustrate my eralier comment, listen to Richard Land: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCI9lzoI9_c
He's spreading hatred and lies about gays and one could even state he's making death threats towards gays by stating that, even without AIDS they die earlier because of an unhealthy lifestyle. If the number of AIDS deaths in the 1970's and 1980's are not taken into account the only reason why gays die earlier is because the high number of suicides and homicides among gays.
That's why a lot of gays remain in the closet and will not admit in any governmental questionnaire they are gay. You never know when a nutjob like Richard Land will gets his hands on potential harmful information like that.
@Everyone. I sent Stacy a private E-mail Friday morning after reading her blog that went viral (sorry Stacy) and only reading A’s reply to it. She sent over this link of response to ‘A’ and without reading all of them, I sent her a continued history of my own life. I just spent 2 hours reading everyone’s response.
I will share some of what I wrote to her, and after this I respond to some of the posters.
I was raised and schooled (3rd through 12th grade) Catholic. Very devote Catholic parents. I am a Boy Scout Eagle Scout, and a member of a Knights of Columbus organization which I still help out once in awhile. I have been involved with local politics (thus the reason for not sharing my name). I am not twenty or thirty, I am now 47 years of age. I have never been married, nor do I have children of any sort. (Not that I did not want too — mind you). As an adult, I volunteered 7 years of my life with the Boy Scouts and was decorated with District Awards and Awards of Merits. I, myself was in the Military, as was my brother, my father and his fathers. I still believe in an omniscient creator. I studied the Bible in High School, and have read that book at least 3 times over. I can count 3 times in which I allowed a Christian Evangelical Church to “Save” me – so I can say I have been Saved three times. Which, I guess means you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. I already did that while going to Catholic School.
And…like ‘A’ I have also dealt with gender issues (my earliest memory) was well before 4 years of age. By age of 7, I was researching the topic to figure out why I am the way I am. I do not consider that I have ever had a true homosexual experience (that meaning no anal intercourse, kissing or fondling). I have never been out in public about being a homosexual or even transgender (until about 7 years ago) – that is age 40 if your not counting – when I had long conversation with my mother about my transgendeism and since then told a few close friends – but nothing further than this.
Yet, over my lifetime I have been called gay several times, I have been physically abused because someone thought I was gay. While growing up I was told by males and female peers – I throw like a girl, ran like a girl, wrote like a girl, talked like a girl, etc. It gets old after awhile. And yes I have dated women – hundreds of them – and in most cases I have been told several things over the years by various women “I feel like I am kissing my sister”, “Your too tender to be a guy”, “You think like my girlfriends”, etc.
People say in order to find a mate, you need to love yourself first. Well, the terms “Freak”, “Weird”, “Oddity” — are all terms that have been mentioned over the years toward GLBT people. With this kind of stigmatism, is it any wonder some people are scared as “crap” to come out and be honest with people about who they are? Is it any wonder so many can not find love and appreciation of who they are because of these attitudes? And because of these attitudes, I can easily imagine there is hostility within these groups for being treated as such.
I know this is a very difficult issue to grasp (homosexuality and transgenderism) for those that have not experienced it themselves. [I am trying to think of analogy, something you might be able to grasp and that will not be cynically punished – nothing coming to mind right now though.]
What a well-written post! Thanks for your story A. I don’t really know much about this but you might find some interesting things over at the blog of Melinda Selmys http://sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/. She is really a genius I think.
@A – Thank you for your story.
@Anselm – Bully? – No. In relation to what kind of groin parts that ‘A’ has – if your going have sex with the person, then it would be pertinent to know –otherwise – I agree with ‘A’ – it’s irrelevant. ‘A’ asked you to stop your inquiry, but you persisted – “Is persistent questioning a form of bullying?” No – it is a form of pestering.
The use of the term * cough* can be construed to be unfriendly sarcastic in nature. “My inner peace *cough* is regulated by clarity of thought from thorough questioning and knowing?.” LOL on this response. In other words, it’s BS.
“It is obvious that you have adsorbed an entire new language and identify with a particular dogma which you currently believe will give you peace. It won't.”
Tell me, how do you know? Have you changed your sex? Were you born a female?
“I'm being charitable. When you are 34, you may inch closer to knowing what I mean.”
I am 47, and I suspect I have read way more than you have on the subject matter, and I still do not know what you mean.
“Girls don't have male junk. Sorry, but they don't”
So you think. Then you never met a hermaphrodite then – a person who is born with both female and male parts. Or if you have, you never knew it. Sometimes they look very male, sometimes they look female. In any case they “have both testicular and ovarian tissue, and having both but ambiguously looking external genitalia.” The term hermaphrodite was replaced by the term “Intersex” because of the stigmatism associated with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
“And that is why suicide rates skyrocket [after the operation].”
This is where your lack of education shows. From my readings the suicide rates for transsexual people are higher before surgery – not after. Generally, for the most part, people who have had the surgery are living better lives than they had before (so they say).
Transgender describes a whole spectrum of individuals which includes Intersex, cross dressers, transvestite, drag queens, etc.
Oh, BTW, I have seen the “The Rite” and very much believe in omniscient creator, saints and miracles. What’s your point?
As I went through my Catholic upbringing, I remember them explaining the Trinity – The father, the son and the Holy Ghost (aka Spirit). The analogy that was used was the Trinity is like Water and it can have three states – Ice, Water and Gas. No disagreement with me on this.
The church refers to Christ as the light, or God as the light. If you look at a white light closely it is made up a spectrum of colors – reds, blues, yellows, greens, etc. The light could be called “God” – the creator of everything. People come in all heights, and sizes. They have all kinds of skin colors, hair color, etc. And, some people are born with deformities (Cleft Lips, six fingers and toes, Siamese twins/conjured twins, elephant heads [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merrick], dwarfism, etc.) all of them are slightly different than the norm. When I was a child, I instinctively thought this is weird or a fluke of nature. As I age, I think maybe it’s not. Maybe this is what the creator intended to do – too mix you up. Then again, maybe not. Maybe it was not the creators doing at all, simply nature doing its thing, which just happened to be created by the creator. And guess what? Homosexuals and transgender are part of this creation. Most people will try to fix their deformities because of the social stigmatism behind it – not because the deformity is bad in God’s eyes – but in people eyes.
Take your eyes off humans for a moment and take a look at nature itself. In various studies I have read (not quoting any studies right now) the % of animals that homosexuals is fairly close to humans – we really do not know if they are homosexuals -they could be transgender animals – and it would not surprise me if some are – you will find some male animals playing the role of the mother in some circumstances.
Yet are animals living in sin? Or just acting in their nature state?
Let’s talk about sin for a moment. Hear is one. Divorce. Right now the divorce rate in the United States is well over 50%, with average heterosexual relationship lasting a whole 8 years (Per a conversation I had with a Catholic Priest a few months back). How many of these people are Christians? Well, the United States is filled with 224,457,000 or roughly (85%) are Christians. http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm). I suspect some of these divorces are within the Catholic church. Yet if you read the New Testament, you will find Jesus talking specifically about Divorce.
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:32.
That means there is a whole bunch of heterosexual Catholics who are living in sin already. Don’t start sparking that homosexuals or transgender people are living sin, when you have sin already on you. How does that saying go – take the plank out of your eye first, before you take the splinter out of your neighbor. and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Matthew 19:19
Jesus also talked about Eunichs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch]
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
I hope this quote is correct – Albert Einstein once said: “Everyone is a Genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life thinking it’s stupid.” I think its funny – It can be applied to a lot of people and issues out there.
Bless you all.
@Stacy
I'm very much in agreement with Edward on the privacy matter. Nowadays, the only people who known I'm trans are those who either I've told, or because they were friends with me before I transitioned. Generally, members of the former group need to know me very well (just shy of intimately, actually) for me to mention my past. Partially, that's due to incidents like Amber Yust's, where just renewing (and changing the gender designation) on her licence resulted in the clerk using her personal information to send her a package with a letter damning her to hell, and calling her “An abomination”. Also, it's none of their business, or it's just not relevant…case in point, the only person at my office who knows is my HR rep, and only because I'm taking time off for surgery and they needed to know why for HR purposes. My friends who don't know just know me as A, the wonderful girl who brings awesome food to parties, and will drop everything to help out a friend in need, anywhere, anytime.
Reference for Amber Yust:
http://bit.ly/hj8ugg
A – you had asked before how people would react if their child had come to them confessing to be tran. I would seek help for the child, in the same way as if the child had any other disorder about their body. There are people who seek amputations because they believe their limbs are unnatural. Just because we feel something is true, doesn't make it true or right. I know you don't agree, and you think you've found a path to healing. I hope and pray you will reconsider, and seek help elsewhere.
I'm sorry your parents did not treat you with the charity and love you deserve. The 'doctor' your parents took you to sounds like a quack. While prayer is of course the primary response of Christians to the ways of the world counter to the faith, there is medical help for gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.
I am certainly no scientific expert on the subject, but Dale O'Leary spent 10 years gathering data on same-sex attraction and wrote a book to summarize the findings, including successes treating same-sex attraction on par with success in treating addiction. I recommend it highly.
http://www.amazon.com/One-Man-Woman-Catholics-Defending/dp/1933184299/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317583229&sr=1-1
This post has been removed by the author.
@ M:
Maybe a good idea to spend less time reading books by journalists who have absolutely no scientific background and read publications and reports by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association about topics that are clearly medical and scientific in nature. If you had done that you would have known there is no such thing as a cure for same-sex attraction, since being gay is not an ilnness. Without an illness there can be no cure since there is nothing to be cured. Furthermore, both the APA and AMA, together with the WHO, declared it to be unethical to even bring up repairative threapy, let alone perform it, and they joined ranks to make sure any and all medical professional who participates in these kinds of treatments will lose his or her license to practise medicine and, in states where people don't need approving by the AMA and/or APA they will make sure they lose all (federal) funding by MediCare, for example.
Another interesting aspect is a part in the “Editorial reviews” which are provided by the books publishers:
“religion is censored of its bigoted teachings”.
So, apparently, the publishers don't agree with the contents of the book either. Only thing that puzzles me is why publish it than?
@ Arjay:
Not really. We all are female in origin and the exposure to male hormones like testosteron in the womb is what makes a male foetus a boy at birth. However, there are medical conditions where the foetus is resistant to testosteron and that foetus, although being genetically male, will resemble a female. Other way around, if the mother uses hormones containing testosteron it's possible a genetically female foetus will turn out the have a male phenotype. And than there are several genetic conditions where the foetus is neither male noir female genetically or in appearance.
So even biologically it's not as black and white as you'd like us to believe. And it becomes just one big grey area if we start talking psychology as well.
If my memory serves me well (and it does because I just looked it up) a transgender person can change his or her sex legally in all 50 states. So I guess if A refers to herself as a woman she legally is. So could you be so kind to refer to her as a “she”? I don't think you'd like to be called by the wrong gender either.
Arjay: Of course you are correct—as humans reproduce sexually, the one producing ova is consider female and the one producing sperm is male. There is much confusion as males insist on attempting to inseminate other males and females attempt to be inseminated by another female.
@Steve – you failed to read my post I see.
Do you know what a Eunuch means?
Jesus also talked about Eunichs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch]
“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
Educate yourself.
I like Anselem. “Disprove things that happened for no clear reason, or else I'm right.”
Anonymous @ 10/2 8:55 PM: What are you talking about? “Educate yourself” implies the brief summary of gametogenesis was incorrect. Please, then, relay the correction.
@SteveP: Sure. You stated “as humans reproduce sexually, the one producing ova is consider female and the one producing sperm is male.”
Not everyone. In relation to Eunuch can they produce a ova or a sperm?
If i remember right there are people who appear to be females (genetically) but can not produce a ova, and there people who appear to be male (genetically) who can not produce sperm.
There is a group of Veitnam vets who were infected with Agent orange who's sperm count have diminished or are non-existent.
Are you saying that in order to be classified as a male or a female you must be able to be able to have a ova or produce sperm.
If I misunderstood – my apologies.
Anonymous @ 10/2 10:09 PM: I’m still not following; you seem to be pointing out that secondary sexual characteristics are still apparent if the primary sexual function is not. Is that an adequate paraphrase?
@ SteveP:
How about reading my comment from October 2, 2011 6:48 PM if you want to be educated? And if not, than don't. But please don't pretend you know what you're talking about if you don't.
and I REALLY wouldn't quote the United Kingdom as a shining example of how to run a society.
I live here, I work in the community with vulnerable people and alongside social workers, police, politicians etc.
This country is a cesspit. The individual right to do what you want with your own genitalia and then bastardise an ancient institution or use science to manipulate your life to suit your wishes seems to be more important than any other right or responsibility.
If I am polite, respectful and charitable to a LGBT person, but stick to my guns about my beliefs I could be interpreted as breaking the law and could receive a custodial sentence. If I commit an act of violence against someone while drunk though I'll most likely only receive a warning.
Ever heard of perspective? Of getting priorities right?
Edward: You seem to be a violent little charlatan who has no qualms using the living or the dead for your own purposes. What else do I need to know?
@ Anonymous (October 3, 2011 7:35 AM)
Of course you only get a warning when you do something when you're too drunk to even realize it. Ever seen the number of British who are like that on a weekly, or sometimes even daily, basis? Why do you think British tourists aren't welcome anymore in several places in the world?
I think the perspective and priorities are just right. This is what happens if you mistreat a large of a society for centuries. One day it will come to bite your somewhere where the sun doesn't get. People from several religions have treated the LGBT community like crap for as long as we can remember and apparently the only way to protect the LGBT community is restricting your personal right.
Karma's a bitch.
@ SteveP:
Hmm, what else do you need?
Well, some basic manners won't hurt and a little respect would be nice as well. A somewhat broader view than your own narrow church preachings will help you as well in your life.
So I have “no qualms using the living or the dead for my own purposes”? Could you clarify, please? For I have no idea what you're talking about.
@SteveP – About paraphrasing. Yes and No.
We see and treat people on how they represent or appear to us – not what is between their legs or if they have sperm or if they have ova functions. In most cases within society (schools, churches, etc) we are not out testing people and saying “Hey – you have no ova – so you can not be a girl”. Or “Hey – you have no sperm – so you can not be a boy”. It just does not happen.
While in the Military we had a fellow enlistee who appeared to be about 10 or 11 years of age. He was not. He was 18. The other enlistee treated him as though he as 10 or 11 – even though he was 18. The Military feed him Testosterone to bring about the male secondary attributes. I do not know if he developed any sperm count though. Is he male? It seems that way, even though he may not ever develop any sperm count.
Late 70's, early 80's. In my Catholic High School there was a female who hated feminine attire or long hair, she would cut her hair short like a male, and wear, (as much as possible), parts of the male uniform. Other classmates would pick on her consistently and call her a Lisbo or Butch, etc. She had very few friends. I felt sorry for her. Yet, she was a whiz at what is known as male skills and likes – auto mechanics, wood working, math and science. But was not good at what we think are feminine skills – (nurturing, linguistics, etc). Is she a girl or a boy simply because she had ova?
In both cases, I do not know, and I, for one, can not and will not make that judgement.
Anonymous @ 10/3 11:10 AM: Perhaps there is a confusion between accidents and essentials. Perhaps you might ponder why the squid described here is called “male:” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/science/21squid.html
Stacy,
Apart from A's points, which were good, I was personally shocked and appalled by the article when it first was published because it seemed that you had posted the comment that you used to cast lgbt folks in a negative light yourself, as shown in this screenshot, http://imgur.com/uTZci
You clearly noticed it at some point, as you removed the screenshot of the comment in question and replaced it with a mere text quote. If you'd care to explain that, I'd be happy to listen. I hope that you weren't so intent on casting yourself as a victim and the lgbt community as villains that you would actually fabricate evidence.
Love and tolerance,
smischmal
@SteveP.
This is Anonymous @ 10/3 11:10 AM.
Two things:
(1) What accidents and essentials are you referring too?
(2) What are you implying about the article?
That if you squirt sperm you must be a male, and if you do not, your not?
Or..by having untamed, orgy sex with anyone you must be a male and if you raise something with that is not sex related your a female?
And how does squids relate to humans?
As we are taught in the Catholic Church and in other religions, as humans, we have a spiritual aspect. No disagreement with me on this. This spiritual aspect might even be with other animals species (dogs and horses specifically) – I'm not sure on that.
I have seen dogs display what seems to be more compassion and protection than some humans have, so I question it.
A dog rescues another dog in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HJTG6RRN4E
A dog mothers a human baby in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rWP1O3HbAs
Dog comforts a human baby while its crying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLmOCojv-8g
Or are you referring to untamed sexual appetites is what defines a male?
I will disagree with that. I know of a human female – just happens to be a well respected Lutheran Christian Sunday School leader – she has a sexual appetite that blew me away when I knew her. Specifically in relation to Catholics, while going to Catholic High School, you knew which girls that “put out” – those that would have sex with practically anyone.
You need to be more specific in what your referring to.
Arjay, thanks for those sentiments. I share them.
smischmal, yes, it came from someone sent here by the atheist or LBGT community, and with little shock among your members until I called it out. It wasn't the only one. Someone on that thread posted my home address and phone number and said, “Atheists Unite!” We were harassed for weeks. Plenty of people have apologized for it. I'm good, we've moved on around here.
As to the explanation about Blogger, don't be ridiculous. You already have the answer since you commented using a Name and URL. This is what I hear you saying: “Oh who cares if children are threatened — just don't make us atheists look bad!” Sorry, some of your members do a good job of that for themselves. If you don't like it, you should talk to them, not me. Or maybe you should just tolerate and love them and get over it.
Anonymous: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
@SteveP. Thank you for sharing this, I will read it later. Little busy right now.
What conclusion are you trying to arrive at?
Because, quite frankly, I still do not know what you are trying to convey or say.
Would be so kind and spell it out, and try to relate this information in your own thoughts and words?
@SteveP. Briefly read it, will read it more in depth later.
It is analysis that is either written by a professor or a student about Aristotle's Metaphysics.
From my brief read it seems to define things as just what as they are. I have not read this critically yet.
Quickly, if we look at a butterfly it is initially a worm. And just a worm. Through a process of metamorphosis it changes to a butterfly, which is a butterfly. Two distinct forms, same entity though.
And this may premature, but you will save me a lot of time – what are you trying to convey?
@steveP.
Not worm. Caterpillar.
Sorry.
@Edward – “I'm worried about your children”
How dare you? What sheer arrogance! So you adopt a lifestyle that for thousands, no hundreds of thousands of years of human civilisation has been frowned upon, yet because it is now in vogue think that YOU have the right to judge as though Stacy is the one in the wrong.
I wasn't aware she required your judgement.
I'm confused, are you suggesting that society is better now than it's been for thousands of years? Really?
In the last 50 years (or certainly since the liberalisation of society in the 1960s) the ONLY good societal advancement that is occurred are civil rights, in its many forms and many of these have been usurped or perverted, such as the right to gay adoption or marriage (but I'll give you that this is subjective depending on your view)
My point is: Look around you. How exactly has society improved?
Okay, you can now have sex with whosoever you choose and can even have a union ceremony of varying types and adopt a child. So YOU benefit, but how has society benefited from a liberalised west?
Crime is out of control (that's not newspaper scaremongering as I don't read them), families are falling apart, people are promiscuous, drug use is rife, fashion and celebrity is lauded over integrity and honour, the whole cultural ethic has turned from duty to selfishness and dishonesty where the TRULY honest and dutiful are in a tiny minority.
So you can walk down the street (in most places) with your partner, hand in hand and with your child. Good for you. Screw the rest of us though, as long as you're happy eh?
Meanwhile a great many of us suffer because the State has decided that we can't punish or discipline our children yet we're still responsible for them. Police can't enforce laws as they either lack the will or the prosecutors won't follow through with the charges. If they're charged they get minimal punishment. Bankers and traders make ludicrous amounts of money and care not about the consequences. People are just climbing over one another to get to the good stuff in life. They'd sell their own parents for the next bit of fun.
Hedonists all and responsible for the breakdown of the family through the taking apart of natural laws, boundaries and institutions because it suits their own ends.
Racial and women's equality are the only good things to come out of liberalisation.
I can't speak for countries other than Britain or the US but if you think I'm exaggerating, then watch a film called “Harry Brown”. It shows the lifestyle on estates in Britain and it's not a dramatisation either, it's amazingly accurate. I should know, I live and work in a smaller scale community and the dishonesty and general lawlessness is bad even here.
Society is sick, dying even and a lot of you guys (I refer to liberalised folk, I'm not pointing the finger at homosexuals) think that society is BETTER?
I know that I'm going to get responses like “Oh my God, what are you talking about little man? Come out of your house and see the world and stop being so scared” or similar sentiments but the truth is that the vast majority of liberal “society changers” live in metaphorical ivory towers. They've not a clue about the damage they've done or what really goes on. One of my previous managers (I work in the community with the public sector) was like that, he was so liberalised that he thought my way of working was too conservative. He'd never lived amongst those areas of society where crime and family breakdown is rife. At 5.40 he went home and patted himself on the back thinking he'd done a good job.
Now, after a long winded response what I'm getting at is NOT that I'm blaming “the gays” for the problems in society but that you, as someone who practices, promotes and benefits from a liberalised society, how DARE you worry about the children of a decent, caring, dedicated, honest and pious woman just because she doesn't approve of your lifestyle and wants to shield her children from it.
I won't hide behind “anonymous” either, my name is James and I live and work in Norfolk in the UK. So feel free to drown me in abuse. I don't care, I KNOW I'm right. Don't think, or feel or even want to be right. I am. Only a fool couldn't see the mess societies in that can ONLY be cured by the application of old fashioned (and in some case religious) values.
Anonymous @ 10/4 2:51 PM: You seemed to balk at the idea that male and female are biologically verifiable. I’m unclear as to why you take that position.
Testing
Whoever just test posted, it went to my spam folder. That's strange.
@ Anonymous (October 5, 2011 1:23 PM):
You'd be surprised on the things I dare, trust me.
Let's set one thing straith to begin with: homosexuality wasn't frowned upon for hundreds of thousands of years. It's frowned upon for the past 2000 years, every since Christianity started rooting. In Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, Japan, Persia and all other ancient cultures homosexuality was accepted as just as normal as heterosexuality. In Rome being gay became outlawed after Constantine the Great was baptised on his death bed and control of the Roman Empire went to his Christian son. In Persia being gay was considered normal untill Islam took over. The Sjah of Persia was known to have quite the collection of gay men in his harem. In China gay men and women were considered equal to anyone else untill the communist revolution that ended the reign of the Chinese emporers. Did you know the revolution was supported by several Christian factions, including the Vatican, because Mao promised to end the ban of Christianity in China. Well, we know how well that went, right?
As for chosing my lifestyle, I didn't chose anything. I know I was born this way, even without all the scientific prove of the fact. Because, in the end, ask yourself this question: What kind of idiot would chose a lifetime of harrassement, prejudice, hatred, violence and discrimination if he could avoid it? No one would.
Well, as an example, science flourishes since the influence of religion decreases. Not only do we know more about human physiology and pathophysiology but also human life expectancy doubled over the past 50 years because of increased medical knowledge and possibilities. Interestingly enough, this is the same period of time in which people started to go to church. You'd almost suspect a connection there.
You say crime rates went up over the past 50 years. How do you know? 50 years ago crime rates weren't reported. For all you know crime may be lower now than 50 years ago (probably not but there's no way of knowing for sure).
Yes, families are falling apart. Thank God for that. In stead having to live the rest of your life in a situation that makes you miserable people get a second chance at happiness. Or do you actually believe children benefit from parents who basically hate each other?
Drug use is of all times. The only difference is people stopped hiding it during the last 50 years, again the same time frame in which the churches lost their say in society.
You say all bad things started to happen whan the churches lost their influence. I say the bad things were always there to begin with but were beter hidden. If anything society is more open and honest since religion started to deteriorate.
@ Anonymous (October 5, 2011 1:23 PM) (continuing):
Have you ever considered traditions and institutions are going down because they outlived their purpose and usefullness? That's the natural order of things: things that are outdated become obsolete and extinguish. Religion is a good example of that.
People started believing in Gods to explain phenomena they could not explain by the lack of knowledge. Later in history the existing Gods were replaced by organized religions in order to keep certain people or groups of people in power. But now the lack of knowledge is dealt with and respect and authority are no longer linked to a position or title but have to be earned. Christianity refuses to accept that and thus has not only outlived it's use but is also clinging to the way things were, trying to force people to a way of thinking that was declared obsolete by society. This creates feelings of animosity, causing both sides to alienate only faster. However, the group of religious people is shrinking while the group of liberals is only growing. In the end you're fighting a lost battle.
To be honest, I don't give a damn about the feelings of religious people since they didn't care for 2000 years about how people like me felt. There's a lot of anger and resentment towards religious people by non-religious ones. A huge debt needs to be settled and we haven't even scratched the surface yet.
I don't care what you want, think or believe as along as you don't interfere with me or my family. And if one does, well, let's just say I'd hate to be them when I'm done with them. And that's a promise.
Anon,
In Rome being gay became outlawed after Constantine the Great was baptised on his death bed and control of the Roman Empire went to his Christian son.
Do have documentation for this? I am not challenging it, but I am a little surprised by it and I would like to see the documentation. If you have it, it will modify my view a little bit.
@ Anonymous (October 5, 2011 1:23 PM)
Let me tell you a little story that has transpired here over the last couple of months.
My neighbours are God fearing Christians (he more than her) and go to Church every single time. As good Christians they have 7 children, ranging from 14 to 2 years of age.
However, they were able to produce 7 children but their house is too small for 7 children and 2 adults to live in. Furthermore, he forced her to be a stay home mom while she has a college degree while he barely finished high school. Result: his job doesn't pay enough to feed 7 children.
But, to make matters even worse, he's quite the agressive bully who uses his wife as a punching bag on a regular basis. She was too afraid to file charges but I'm not. So, a couple of months ago, when he was at it again, I called the police. Since the police came while he was still hiting her no charges had to be filed anymore. He was arrested and forced out of his home. Now she was finally free of him she decided she wanted a divorce which was finalized just last week. During the court hearing something interesting happened: his 14 year old son declared wanting nothing to do with his father anymore, which the judge allowed. His father received no visitation rights for the 14 yo. Two days later it was clear why the boy doesn't want his father in his life anymore: he's gay. His father almost suffered a stroke while his mother was quite calm about it. She asked me to talk to her son because she needs some time to adjust to this so last weekend I spent a couple of hours giving the boy some education about what it means to be gay and stuff. But I doubt his mother will get the time she needs because of what happened today.
I was treating one of my patients in the ER today when a nurse came for me. She said there was a young man at the front desk asking to see me. When I got to the front desk I realized “seeing” wasn't going to happen. My 14 year old neighbour stood there, both eyes almost completely swollen shut and half his face (and body, I found out later) was black and blue. Incredibly enough, no lasting damage, broken bones of vital organs hit but he was in some serious pain.
His two cousins, 11 and 12 years old, were waiting for him near school and attacked him. Because of the surprise he was on the ground before he knew it and they kept hiting and kicking him, telling him that's all a fag deserves. Both boys were arrested and will appear in family court soon. But the police already found out they were told to do this by their father and their uncle. Their uncle is my former neighbour. However, their testimonies are not admissable in court because of their age and, as a result, the grownups behind this crime will walk. Because of their age, no matter how heinous their handiwork, they can't be tried as adults, although they might have succeeded in destroying their cousin this afternoon.
These are your loving, charitable and morally highstanding Christians and you still dare to ask wehy society is beter of now you people are having less and less influence?
@ John Myste:
Only in the history books we used in high school, which are in Dutch. I think you should be able to find it online as well but a search at google gave me over 4 million hits.
There is some information on wikipedia about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Christianity.
Still, you can come to the conclusions yourself as well. Before Christianity became the official religion in Rome homosexuality was not a problem. After Constantine's son, who was a devoted Christian, took the Roman throne all laws were changed to adhere to the Christian point of view, including the laws on marriage and sexual conduct.
James from the UK,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'd like to know more about what it's like for you because I have a feeling the Northeast US is not far behind. I do see how terrible it is for children to grow up in a society that no longer really values the family.
“I know that I'm going to get responses like “Oh my God, what are you talking about little man?”
Not from me! The liberalisers don't understand that the things they hate about Christianity are not the fault of Christianity, but the result of people living as they promote — doing whatsoever they want with no concern for others. That is fundamentally, most fundamentally, opposed to Christianity.
Edward, what your neighbor did was not remotely anything Christianity stands for. Have a little intellectual integrity and stop lumping everyone who steps a foot into a church into one perceived doctrine. Or do you think I should say that all homosexual men want to rape and murder my children? The difference is, you will not find a single Christian document teaching the kind of behavior you saw in your neighbor. On the other hand there is nothing you can point to to say that violence against children is wrong. Heck you even promote violence.
@ Stacy:
My neighbour was a deacon in his church, as was his father and his brother (the father of the two boys who attacked my 14 yo neighbour). Is it strange I expect an even higher moral from them than from “normal” Christians?
For a couple of weeks now I told several stories that happened to me or people in my close surroundings and they all had one thing in common: the hurt was caused by people who call themselves Christian and who spend more time in church than with their families. Although they call themselves Christians they do everything I know Christianity is not about. So no matter the teachings, apparently people learn a lot of other things in their churches as well, things that are not only in violation of the law of the land but also in violation of God's laws. You keep saying most Christians are full of love but somehow i don't meet these. I only meet the violent and hatefull ones as do those I care about.
I wouldn't say I promote violence. Heck, I'm a lover, not a fighter. But I don't recommend anyone to try and hurt someone I care about. That will definately cause me to forget my pacifist nature.
Edward, did you read my conversion story? Do you realize there is a big difference in Protestants and Catholics? It is actually something that has angered me at times, I guess still does.
I don't know why you only seem to meet hateful people who call themselves Christian, but maybe it has something to do with how you choose to view things too. My experience has been totally different.
@ Stacy:
Like I said before, we have completely different references. You expect Christians to be nice and loving and I expect them to be nasty and hateful. Most of the time you see the thing you expect.
And I'm sure walking hand in hand with my husband while our daughter is in her stroller doesn't work in our advantage either. My experience is the thin layer of being nice and loving dissapears quickly after Christians meet an obstacle that refuses to go away. And guess what? I'm not going anywhere.
The encounters I've had with Christians ended up exactly the same: with hatred. And it didn't matter whether they were Catholic, baptists, metthodists, Jehova's or from any other faction of Christianity. It starts with disapproval, then preaching and as soon as that proves ineffective you either get the cold treatment or open warfare starts untill I've had enough and am forced to have my attorney draw up a letter in which they Christian is reminded of the first amendment of our constitution: discrimination on any level is forbidden by law. I'm so glad my attorney is an old friend of mine. Otherwise I would have needed a second mortgage purely for legal fees.
No, I didn't read that story, basically because I have little spare time as it is and I want to spend as much of it with my husband and daughter. And, like I said, I realize there is a difference since I was raised as a baptist while my mother was Catholic. But I have no interest in understanding any more differences since my understanding doesn't change the fact Christians as a group, no matter the factions, are condemning my lifestyle and pretend they are better than me. But guess what?
I never drove someone to suicide;
I never threw eggs at people who were walking by with a todler;
I never raped a child;
I never was proud to accomplish an entire coverup to prevent child molestors to avoid being caught;
I never used my husband as a human punching bag and I never convinced my nephews to send my son to the hospital for being gay.
So, I ask you again, who is worse? Me, for being in a monogamous relationship with someone who happens to be of the same sex; or those “Christians” who hurt people along the way but still consider themselves better people and good Christians?
Edward, are you “talking” to a nasty and hateful Christian now? Do you realize we sit next to homosexual couples even in Mass? Sometime I hope you read that story, it's not a flattering one and it has little to do with being Baptist.
And guess what I never did any of those things either as a Christian, but I did do some horrible things before that.
Who is worse? I don't know. No one is perfect, nor are they defined by any single moment in life. Are you trying to make things better, or worse? I don't see a lot of concern for anyone but yourself in the things you write. It's almost like you use the bad things that happen to other people to justify your anger against people you don't even really know.
Oh for goodness' sake Edward, you're quoting the old “molestation” thing again eh?
So, a TINY handful of priests abused children. Okay. They'll suffer for that in the next life if they haven't TRULY made amends.
You want to talk facts? Explain why it is that you are over 90 times more likely to be abused by a teacher than a priest, or over 60 times more likely to be abused by a close relative, or perhaps more worryingly, 40 times more by a police or government official.
Now, why isn't there the wholesale attack on schools or police? Why? Because The Church is a more convenient target and it serves a purpose for people.
… and as for crime levels not being able to be measured. You tell me WHEN, not with statistics or media stories but from good old fashioned local knowledge just WHEN, outside of the absolute roughest slums, children attacked and killed adults, on a regular basis? Come on, tell us.
Feral children they are called and they are direct result of family breakdown because in areas where there are strong communities made up of loving, stable families (one man, one woman etc.) it doesn't happen. You still get dysfunctional families, that'll always happen but not whole groups of kids terrorising people.
Society is NOT better, it's worse and you have just confirmed what kind of evil and despicable person you are, celebrating the breakdown of the family. That's all part of the militant gay agenda though isn't it? Turning ALL relationships into a designer and throw away process to be used until you're sick of them.
If you've loved someone enough to have married them and create life, then you can love them again.
… and what you feel isn't “true love”. Sorry if that offends you or you feel the need to ask “how the hell do you know what I feel?” Two men or two women's “love” isn't the same feeling as straight people falling in love, because falling in love, true love, is a transcendent experience which is NOT biological by any means. It's a mix of fraternal love, biological lust and companionship and it serves NO biological purpose regardless of whether it can be observed in the animal kingdom or not.
Homosexual “love” I'm referring to. Poor sentance structure there.
@ Stacy:
The jury is still out where you are concerned. You come across like a caring mother who wants nothing but the best for everyone but that just doesn't add up to your sometimes volatile blogs. So I don't know in which category you belong yet.
Why don't you take a look at James' comment from October 6, 2011 5:29 PM where he tells me my feelings towards my husband and my daughter are neither real nor relevant. Still want to ask why I feel so much anger and resentment towards Christians?
@ James:
Do you really want to know why the abuse by Catholic priests is so much worse? Because if you preach high morals you have to live by them! Lead by example, not by mere words! Not only did they prey on the weakest society had to offer but the broke their vows and violated everything they stood for. And by covering it all up the Catholic Church proved itself untrustworthy, evil and probably criminal. That's why!
Of course you will never agree with me society is better now. That would mean you also have to agree society is doing better now religion plays a smaller role in it, that society is thriving no religion no longer holds it back. That would mean you would be forced to consider religion is not as good for society and humanity as you were raised to belief. That would destroy the very foundation on which your life was built. So I never expect you to admit society now is better than society 50 years ago because, even if there was a tiny part of you that believed that, you wouldn't even be able to admit it to yourself.
This statement of yours is priceless!
“If you've loved someone enough to have married them and create life, then you can love them again.”
For one, feelings change. That's only natural so feelings you had for a person when you are 21 can be radically different by the time you reach 40. Some feelings just dissapear while others change into different ones. And sometimes what you have gained just doesn't make up for the things you lost.
Second, what makes you think they loved each other enough in the first place? Ever paid close attention to “Paradise by the Dashboard Lights” by Meatloaf and Ellen Foley? Listen to the end of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_YjM4V4fc
(Meatloaf lyrics)
I couldn't take it any longer
Lord I was crazed
And when the feeling came upon me
Like a tidal wave
I started swearing to my god and on my mother's grave
That I would love you to the end of time
I swore that I would love you to the end of time!
So now I'm praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don't think that I can really survive
I'll never break my promise or forget my vow
But God only knows what I can do right now
I'm praying for the end of time
It's all that I can do
Praying for the end of time, so I can end my time with you!!!
(end of song)
The difference is, nowadays people don't pray for the end of time anymore. They just get a divorce.
@ James:
I have no intention to ask you how you know what I'm feeling. I'm telling you you're right. You don't know what I'm feeling. If you never been in a same-sex relationship you can't know what I'm feeling. Hell, you can't even make an educated guess. And that's where you and I differ because I have been in heterosexual relationships. And you're right, it doesn't feel the same. My relationship to my husband is easily a thousand times stronger than any straight relationship I ever been in.
So don't presume you know what I feel, how strong I feel it and why I feel what I feel because you don't know shit!
I'm not in the least offended by what you said, by the way. To be offended by what someone says you have to care about that person's feelings and point of view towards you. And I don't.
Firstly Edward, I'm an atheist, but I believe in Catholic Morality. So your argument against me by religion – EPIC fail. When I was talking about religious acts such as praying for you, I was fighting the corner for the faithful.
Secondly, if you accept one form of consensual behaviour then you must accept ALL forms of consensual behaviour. A frisky dog can give consent, heck it'll make the first move. Is THAT acceptable? No, it isn't.
Thirdly, I love the way you talk with such machismo about how tough you are when it comes to protecting your “loved ones”. I though machismo was frowned upon by liberals? Besides, if YOU can act tough to protect the things you love why not others, such as church folk? Typical liberal double standards.
Fourthly, seriously – you'll get tough? Come on, we've all seen Modern Family, you'll squeal and flap your hands and send for a straight guy. I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks. As “warrior-esque” men I admire and respect them, but parents they're not. Seeing as you've taken on the role of a female then stick to it.
I'm off now because your stupidity is boring. If it had any sense, the RC church would back eugenics (which after all is only stopping people breeding, no one suffers) and breed out vile people such as you and let the decent people spread across the Earth.
Goodbye and two “fathers” or not I hope your child grows up happy, safe and without your attitude or twisted beliefs.
James, your comments intrigue me. Have you commented here before? I appreciate what you have to say about family and society.
No Stacy, long time reader first (few times) time commenter.
Edward, you are quite clearly mentally ill. First of all you keep posturing about how “I'll stand up for my family” etc. etc. blah blah.
Who are you trying to convince? Secondly this whole “gays won't be pushed around” – yes, they will. Same as any group. The only reason blacks won't get pushed around is because A: they have the support of most decent people of all colours, B: There are a lot of them.
And the other thing, stop talking about British gays being hard men. Have you ever been to Britain? Most working class males (NOT including gay men) are hard cases. Hand to hand fighting has been a staple of British lower class society for nearly 150 years. Like I said, watch “Harry Brown” – that film isn't worse case scenario, it's practically a documentary.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
No Stacy, long time reader first (few times) time commenter.
Edward, you are quite clearly mentally ill. First of all you keep posturing about how “I'll stand up for my family” etc. etc. blah blah.
Who are you trying to convince? Secondly this whole “gays won't be pushed around” – yes, they will. Same as any group. The only reason blacks won't get pushed around is because A: they have the support of most decent people of all colours, B: There are a lot of them.
And the other thing, stop talking about British gays being hard men. Have you ever been to Britain? Most working class males (NOT including gay men) are hard cases. Hand to hand fighting has been a staple of British lower class society for nearly 150 years. Like I said, watch “Harry Brown” – that film isn't worse case scenario, it's practically a documentary.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
No Stacy, long time reader first (few times) time commenter.
Edward, you are quite clearly mentally ill. First of all you keep posturing about how “I'll stand up for my family” etc. etc. blah blah.
Who are you trying to convince? Secondly this whole “gays won't be pushed around” – yes, they will. Same as any group. The only reason blacks won't get pushed around is because A: they have the support of most decent people of all colours, B: There are a lot of them.
And the other thing, stop talking about British gays being hard men. Have you ever been to Britain? Most working class males (NOT including gay men) are hard cases. Hand to hand fighting has been a staple of British lower class society for nearly 150 years. Like I said, watch “Harry Brown” – that film isn't worse case scenario, it's practically a documentary.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
James – UK
No Stacy, long time reader first (few times) time commenter.
Edward, you are quite clearly mentally ill. First of all you keep posturing about how “I'll stand up for my family” etc. etc. blah blah.
Who are you trying to convince? Secondly this whole “gays won't be pushed around” – yes, they will. Same as any group. The only reason blacks won't get pushed around is because A: they have the support of most decent people of all colours, B: There are a lot of them.
And the other thing, stop talking about British gays being hard men. Have you ever been to Britain? Most working class males (NOT including gay men) are hard cases. Hand to hand fighting has been a staple of British lower class society for nearly 150 years. Like I said, watch “Harry Brown” – that film isn't worse case scenario, it's practically a documentary.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
I know plenty of gay men in Britain, more than you will, in fact my brother in law – the useless waste of space (nothing to do with his sexuality, though a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians are on welfare – I should know, I work with them) – is gay, so are at least six of his closest friends, plus at least four work colleagues plus at least two people I work with professionally inter-agency … and not one of them is a “tough guy”, in fact hand-in-hand with the female characteristic of liking men, then are less aggressive and less assertive even though they are in better shape than many others. All the countless gay guys I've met up and down the country I've met no “hardmen” and I've met a good five hundred plus gay men due to work and social contacts. Only a few, maybe a dozen were reasonably “tough” and none were scary.
Please, stop rolling out your gay crusaders. The ONLY gay guy I know who was a genuine hard case was one of the Kray twins (1960s London gangsters) and even he was only a MFM as you call them. As for my previous post of “I've served with gay men who would rip peoples head off and spit down their necks.” I was talking in terms of as good soldiers, warrior NOT men who make a vocation out of being scary and tough.
Come out of fantasy land mate, you're embarrassing yourself.
James, I don't know why but your comments were going to “spam jail.” Sorry — I released them as soon as I noticed. Oh Blogger!
It's okay Stacy, I hit refresh and my browser went weird and reposted them about 12 times.
You can delete them all if you like. I apologise you messing up your blog with my browser!
Edward, to be honest I really couldn't care less who you love or think you love. You've got your freedom now, stop making it a revenge issue and just get on with raising your child. I've not a problem with anyone because of their sexuality. I've a problem with fascism – you forcing people to accept YOUR lifestyle or nothing.
You've admitted it's all about revenge, about getting back at the institutions who you feel have hurt gays over the centuries but why don't you go and pick a fight with muslims? There are 1.5 billion of them who need to hear your opinion.
Let's see how tolerant THEY are.
The Meatloaf song quote and related comment is priceless!
So if feelings change you should just act selfishly and destroy a marriage, a family, a society?
Congratulations on revealing just what kind of person you are. I invite everyone to read your celebration of the breaking down of the family and realise just how despicable you are. You have just laid bare your identity Satan.
I would've thought that such a “family” man would understand the virtue of “staying together for the kids”. If nothing else then if you can't put your duty to your children ahead, far ahead, of your transitory feelings then you are … well … filth. Human garbage. I'm sure that even you could be redeemed though Edward.
You clearly have no honour either as a promise is a promise, period. If you've promised to be married to someone, you stay, period. If they are sufficiently abusive to merit incarceration (and you have the good sense to seek help from the authorities), then the state takes them away, not your actions. I might loathe my wife in twenty years (unlikely as we've seen each other EVERY day but one for the last 14 years and are fine) but I'd still stay with her as some things are bigger than me, such as marriage and family. Plus, even if she were abusive, neglectful or even adulterous, things can still be fixed … with love. So no, the destruction of the family is not a good thing as humans should adapt to ideals NOT the other way around. I also hope that your “heart break” is not too painful when your partners feelings change, as you more-or-less predict they will.
Yes, the “family” of believers is shrinking; yes among those the righteous are shrinking even faster; yes the “liberals” are winning the battles; yes the human aspect of The Church has made some horrendous mistakes, committed crimes even but the concept and The Church itself is intact, pure, decent and will survive. Long after your destructive society has consumed itself and it will, mark my words, it will destroy itself as it's all about ME, and ME can't survive as ME climbs over its friends, family, children in order to survive yet arrives at its destination alone and mankind cannot go on alone.
Things might change in your favour a lot more, for a long time yet but ultimately you will lose, big. All you and your ilk do is tear down, destroy, corrupt. You create nothing. NOTHING. You are like parasites on societies backs. Change is good, but even change requires stability in many things. So some things must and will stay the same.
God keep you and protect you from your own harm.
@ Anonymous (October 7, 2011 3:45 PM):
Luckily British statistics don't affect me since I'm not in the UK. And here I thought recently the British government wanted to adjust the rules on welfare because a “disproportionate number” of people living on welfare the rest of their lives were (former) teenage mums since getting pregnant very early in life gets you housing, money and no responsibilities. Over here, by the way, a “disproportionate number of gays and lesbians” are highly educated and in high places in scientific programs, university boards and governmental agencies. Our government has one gay male minister and one lesbian vice-minister. Furthermore there are 11 openly gay men and women in our parliament.
However, a “disproportionate number” of straight religious women are sitting at home while their children are in school, doing nothing while being highly educated, effectively wasting a huge ammount of money that was invested in them.
@ Anonymous (October 8, 2011 7:15 AM):
Every couple that stays together for the children should be charged with the highest forms of child abuse possible. When people expose their children to their aversion for each other constantly those children will never learn to love. Their future relationships will be doomed just as their parent's was.
Your duty is to make sure your children grow up the best way possible. Chosing to leave your family might be better than staying in order to reach that purpose.
My husband are together for 5 years now, and married for 3. Our feelings towards each other have already changed over those 5 years. Neither of us has the intention to leave but I hope if the situation would ever occur one of us is no longer happy in our relationship and we prove unable to fix things we can look back at a wonderful time together but allow each other to move on while still being good parents for our daughter. Especially the fact you once loved each other makes it unthinkable to force my husband to stay if he no longer wants to be with me. That would be cruel towards my husband, my daughter and myself.
Right now the Catholic Church in the US is in huge financial trouble because the Vatican cut the American dioceses lose out of fear what the damages that will be ordered for the victims of sexual abuse will cost. In the US the Catholic Church will not survive the abuse scandal, not morally and not financially.
Chrsitianity is losing ground even in Latin-America and Africa. In Brasil, one of the largest Catholic countries in the world gays now have exactly the same rights as straights, including the right to marry and the Brasil government told the Vatican to back off and shut up about it. Catholics employed by the government who do not abide the law by discriminating gays are not only fired immediately but also sentenced to huge fines or even prison time.
You can keep telling yourself in the end you will win but that's just wishful thinking. Christianity led to 2000 years of war, poverty, illness, death, discrimination, hatred and violence. Maybe things will be a little chaotic for a couple of decades but I don't think it will be worse than the past 2000 years. After all, over those 2000 years the only moments humanity thrived were periods the church lost control of society.
@A – I love you, I love you, I love you. I wish I were your mother, your father. Please stay strong, and safe.
When dealing with haters, bigots, violent people, close-minded people, ignorant people… remember that you are more of a man and more of a woman than they will ever be.
Stacy,
As someone who has naturally felt attracted to the same sex for as long as I can remember and at the same time holds the Catholic faith very close to my heart, your “Can't Even Go to the Park” article was very hurtful and saddening. I, like the vast majority of homosexuals (seriously!) don't want children to be exposed in ANY way to my SEXUAL behavior, but the notion that very simple and subtle same-sex affection is an infringement upon your rights was disheartening. You may have addressed this in the comments section, but I have not yet read them.
Nonetheless, I want to thank you for the respectful way in which you have responded to respectful comments, and the compassionate way in which you have conveyed A's letter. You obviously have views opposing those of A, but you still attempt to facilitate a rational, civilized dialogue on the matter, and that is commendable.
What many on your side need to realize is if you are ever to convince those of us with these orientations (for they are far more than just simple desires for same-sex flesh) to be celibate, your approach of respect and compassion is the ONLY one that will work. Fear tactics and blunt claims of eternal damnation are not persuasive, they are offputting, and shut down rational conversation.
So please, continue to try and reach the hearts of people like me with this sympathetic approach and be an example to others.
Best,
Kyle
P.S. Your self-awareness (“Personally, I admit that sometimes I focus too much on hating the sin, and not enough on loving the sinner.”) and honesty is refreshing. Another offputting thing about arguments from your side is the EXCESSIVE levels of self-righteousness often placed within them.
Thanks Kyle! The part about my rights has to do with religious freedom. I think the marriage debate would calm down if religious people didn't feel like just practicing our religion was going to be called hate speech. It happens all the time.
And your point about “blunt claims of eternal damnation” is taken too. That is good advice.
I'm not worried about what my kids see so much as worried that if I still teach them that marriage is one man and one woman, the state will try to force me to teach them otherwise – and I can't do that. Many people in the “Can't Even Go to the Park” post said I should have my kids taken away from me! I got emails, tons of them to that nature. That's wrong.
I like you and I appreciate your openness too. I hope you stick around.
What a heartbreaking story!
The terrible cross of sexual disorientation must be easier to bear than the almost unimaginable one of gender disorientation.
But at the end of the day we are faced with a choice:
Either God made a mistake in constituting the being of A with a gender- the male gender- or A suffers from a very serious disorientation.
That one is easy.
A suffers from a terrible and serious mental disorientation; that is, his mental state is at war with a constitutive aspect of his being.
A is free to choose whether to fight this war on his grounds, or on God’s grounds.
A has chosen to fight this war on his grounds.
My heart breaks to read of A’s war with himself.
We all have similar wars going on within us.
A’s is devastatingly heartbreaking.
But civilization itself will certainly collapse- utterly certain- should civilization ever determine that mental disorientation trumps biological truth.
Alas, that is imprecisely what A insists we do.
The price of acceptance of A’s worldview, is collective civilizational suicide.
Too high a price.
Mr. DeLano, Thank you for acknowledging that my life, and the life of transpeople, isn’t easy. I’ll have to take issue with some of your assertions though. I wouldn’t say that I suffer from a mental disorientation…I’d rather refer to it more in the language of a birth defect. Or even better, consider it an intersex condition…that my brain is a girl’s brain, and due to circumstances, it was shelled in an XY body. I “choose to fight this war”, to use your term, because I wanted to finally be able to do things like take a shower with the lights on, and my eyes open, to swim (which I absolutely LOVE, my Mom described me as a mermaid when I was younger), to be able to look at myself in the mirror without crying. But I doubt that I’m causing civilization to crumble by transitioning. If anything, I’m making it stronger by staying alive. Think of it this way… since the ability to transition medically was first developed, suicide rates amongst transgender people have gone down. All the peer-reviewed studies and statistics of happiness and satisfaction amongst transfolk have shown that post-transition, happiness and satisfaction is exponentially greater. Now, those are just abstract facts and figures, but let’s translate them into something a little more concrete, and create a little hypothetical situation. Suppose you have a child, lets say, male-assigned-at-birth. And suppose you bring this person up to be male, and you take pride in them. You think you know them very well, but they always seem distracted, or not always there. Now let’s say that one day, you come home, and you find your child dead from suicide. In their suicide note, they tell the truth, which is that they always knew they were female, and couldn’t take another day of being male. You now have to deal with not only the heartbreak of the child’s death, but to know that the child lived with a suffering that cisgendered people have a hard time fathoming, and felt that death was the only way out. Let’s create another hypothetical situation then. You have the same child, male-assigned-at-birth. You raise them as male, and you take pride in them. Again, you think that you know them very well, but this time, instead of your child being distracted and distant, they come to you, and tell you that they’re transgendered, and identify as female. Your child lives, and you come to know them so much better because they aren’t walling off parts of themselves. Your child blossoms as a person, and you both grow to love each other more, since your child isn’t hiding anymore, and can be themself. Now admittedly, that’s a gross simplification, but that roughly defines my own journey in life, except that mine is a blending of the two. I was very close to suicide, but at the last moment, I stopped myself, because I wanted to LIVE. I wanted to experience life in the way that felt right to me. I’m not forcing anyone else to transition, or trying to destroy anyones life. I’m not forcing anyone to accept or do anything that would go against their own personal moral code. I’m just asking to be treated like any other person. And now I’m rambling, but I hope I’ve given you some things to think about!
Thank you for your reply, A.A: I wouldn’t say that I suffer from a mental disorientation…I’d rather refer to it more in the language of a birth defect.>> You were born perfectly normal, from the evidence available in your story. The defect emerged later on, when you found yourself at war with a constitutive aspect of your being.This is, therefore, not a birth defect. It is a psychological disorientation.A: Or even better, consider it an interest condition>> But it is not that either. You have both chromosomes. The disorder is not physical or genetic in nature. It is psychological in nature.A: that my brain is a girl’s brain, and due to circumstances, it was shelled in an XY body>> Your brain, I assume, is perfectly normal. It is your subjective identity which is disoriented. Your subjective identity is at war with your objective being. This is not a physical disorder, it is a psychological disorientation.I am again heartbroken to read your testimony of the terrible consequences of this condition, and I want to assure you that I believe every syllable that you write about them.A: But I doubt that I’m causing civilization to crumble by transitioning. >> Oh, certainly not. The problem on the civilizational level has nothing to do with your personal decision to resolve this by surgically retaliating against the source of your psychological symptoms.That is a most unfortunate thing, but it involves no danger to civilization.The danger to civilization consists exactly in the attempt to deny the objective reality of gender, and to replace it with a falsehood: that gender is a subjective matter of personal psychology.Such a disastrous falsehood would, for example, compel innocent children to be indoctrinated into the notion that objective reality is to be dispensed with in favor of subjective states of mind.That is what constitutes an existential threat to civilization itself.Please believe me when I tell you that your individual disorientation is not the sole, or even the primary, manifestation of this characteristic malady of our age.
Oh dear. The formatting has been changed. My apologies.
What changed? Someone said that yesterday too! My apologies, the learning curve of WordPress is leveling, but not fast enough.
A, thanks for coming back and responding.
Rick,
I am really not sure about how to think about this entire issue, but I will say that some people really do come into the world with “ambiguous” genital parts, and the science of how to approach this has progressed quite a bit. I can imagine that somewhere along the spectrum of what causes this sort of “hermaphrodism” (it is not true hermaphrodism) might lie the mechanisms that would cause someone to have strong gender disorientation. Therefore, it seems it might be a “real” medically caused issue.
Hello. I found this a little bit late, but I hope it’s alright for me to comment anyway.
First of all, Edward is being criticized for not promoting a “stay together for the kids” attitude. I believe that he wasn’t saying it was a good idea to create children without thought for raising them in a stable environment, just that sometimes it’s preferable for a child to be with two separated, but happy parents than two together, but miserable parents.
Let me tell you my personal values on this. I don’t have children, though I want to. I would not want to have any children before there was a stable situation for children. I love my partner very much and I can’t see myself seriously wanting to leave her. But if we had kids, and I wasn’t happy with her- not just “meh”, not just “I miss the thrill of when we were first dating,” not just “I don’t want to take out the garbage and she makes me”- seriously, deeply unhappy, then I would try my best to fix things. I would try counselling, I would try everything, I would throw myself into fixing the part of the problem I was causing… but if it didn’t work, and over time, it still didn’t work, and I felt sure in my heart that we wouldn’t be able to turn things around and my partner did too… then no, I wouldn’t want to stay together for the kids.
And it’s not because I’m selfish. I’m very uncomfortable with relationships ending; I don’t like to think I’m the kind of person who’d stay in a bad relationship, but being honest with myself, I probably would. But I’ve promised myself that I absolutely cannot “stay together for the kids”.
Would you like to know why? Because I don’t want to teach that to my children, when I have them. I don’t want my child to grow up believing that it’s better to sacrifice their own happiness and their partner’s happiness to somehow make things better for their own children. Most adults I know who were children of divorce look back on the divorce and realize that it was for the best. The vast majority of those people were also happier a little bit after the divorce, when at least there was peace. I don’t want my children to believe that relationships are cheap, and should be thrown away over a small disagreement or a rough patch, but I don’t want my child to think a relationship is worth the rest of their life spent in misery.
I wouldn’t want my children to think it’s not okay to leave. I wouldn’t want my daughter staying in a marriage where she was beaten and screamed at. I wouldn’t want my son thinking that someone he loved had no right to leave him, no matter what. And vice versa.
Now, am I saying that the commenters who would choose to stay together for the kids want their daughters to be abused and their sons to be controlling? Not at all! I know you don’t want that, nobody does! I guess the point that I’m trying to make is, that most people are coming from a place where they’re trying to be moral. If you disagree with the premises that someone’s starting from, that’s understandable and that’s always going to happen. I don’t think people disagree over whether they should try to be good, I think people disagree on what’s good and what’s the best way to go about it.
If I can, I’d like to ask you all something. Stacy asked you all to remember that A is a real person reading these replies. I read it wrong the first time: I thought that Stacy was telling us to “remember that A is a person”. It sounds like the same thing, but think about it. A is a person. She wakes up in the morning and puts on clothes. She talks to people, forms friendships, has good days and bad days. She probably has a favorite hobby. Look at some of the things she’s said about herself. She likes bacon. She reads a lot. It’s obvious that A is trying to be good. Does that sound like a person to you, or what?
And just as you’re having feelings about the issues at hand, she is, too. They’re probably not the same feelings, and they’re definitely coming from different places, and about different things. It’s probably very difficult to put yourself in A’s shoes. It’s probably very difficult to imagine why she’s feeling what she’s feeling. But A is a real person with feelings, feelings just as strong as yours. As she’s tried to say mulitple times, she is trans, but that does not make her “trans” instead of “a person”. While gay and/or trans people probably think more about being gay and/or trans than cis, straight people think about being cis and straight, that’s because society does cater to straight and cis people (whether you think that’s a good thing or not, you can’t deny that it does) and if you’re not that way, you kind of notice. And they’re not gay and/or trans instead of being people. There’s a whole lot more to them that’s just the people side of being people that everyone has, no matter their orientation or gender identity.. Or their religion.
You probably figured it out by me saying “partner”, but I am a lesbian. And it’s not my whole identity. I’m talking about that right now because it’s relevant to the subject, but aside from my relationship and the kinds of romance novels I prefer, it doesn’t even come up that much. It’s a natural state of being for me, like how you being straight is natural for you. I don’t go around deciding to have gay lunch at a gay restaurant in a gay outfit. If you saw me on the street, unless I was with my partner and holding her hand or something. I am not covered in rainbows 24/7.
And you know what? Sometimes it’s difficult for me to see religious people who are opposed to homosexuality as real people. I know you’re people intellectually, but sometimes you feel like just adversaries. And I can guess pretty well that some of you don’t see gay people as people, just hedonists who are destroying the moral fabric of society. But, we’re not. Those gay people at the park didn’t decide that they’d go and make a scene for attention or to disturb people, they just wanted to go to the park with their kid. I think maybe the problem with the original “Can’t Even Go To The Park” was that you forgot that the people at the park were just as human as you are.
And it’s wrong of me to see you as less than people, too. You’re people, and even though I disagree with you and probably always will, that doesn’t make you not people. I know you’ll probably never approve of what I believe either. But just please. We’re people. We can disagree, but everyone is still people. Even if you want to hate the sin and love the sinner, don’t forget about the second half of it.
Also, A, you are the bravest person I know of. Wishing you and your partner the best.
Mandy,
I can’t reply too much on weekends, but thank you for the thoughtful comment. I understand, on some things, where you are coming from. I didn’t stay together for the kids and I remember being young and saying much the same things you said. It’s just that when I got older and wiser I realized that nothing is more important for a child than to be raised by his parents. So much goes wrong, gets broken, when that very natural and right bond is severed.
I don’t orient my thinking about kids and family that way anymore. This is what I hear you saying, and I’m probably overlaying my own history too so tell me if it’s wrong.
1) Chose a relationship.
2) Wait and see if it works.
3) If it does, get kids.
4) If it stops working, try to fix it.
5) If you can’t, break up.
6) Tell yourself it’s better for the kids that way.
I can tell you from my own poor choices, that it’s not really better for the kids. They suffer in ways that don’t fully manifest until adulthood, and by then they don’t even know why they are suffering. This is how I orient my thinking about kids now that I’m wiser.
1) Children are gifts.
2) Chose a man who will be a good father.
3) Be read to sacrifice for the relationship.
4) Accept children if they are given.
5) Don’t let anything break up that family, even if you suffer doing it.
6) In the end, it’s worth it to have survived together.
My husband and I have been through hell at times because I had a lot of crap to sort out, but here we are. He sacrifices, I sacrifice. Sometimes the kids sacrifice when we argue. But no matter what, we do whatever it takes. The family is something that transcends us. Sometimes I’m a total failure as a wife and mother, but my husband and kids know that nothing in this world will break us up because I tell them that every day. And I mean it. There’s strength in that — and it takes the grace of God to do it.
I believe I haven’t said my age. What I said was that my partner and I are not ready for children. I don’t want to share a lot of details about my personal life, but there are other reasons why I am not ready for children. Please don’t use my assumed age to write me off as less credible, when 1) age can equal wisdom, but doesn’t always, and 2) you don’t know how old I am anyway.
Again, I am not an advocate of petty divorce. I think that people should consider the future before getting married, and do everything they possibly can to save a marriage once it’s there. But there are times when it isn’t worth saving. There are times when one partner refuses to stop cheating. There are times when one or both partners become abusive. There are even times where one or both partners become abusive to the children involved. I had a friend who was a single mother of two, that had been divorced. Her ex-husband had tried to choke one of their daughters to death and (in a different incident) held the mother at knifepoint. This is not just struggling. This is not just suffering. By divorcing her husband, taking the kids, and running, this woman probably saved her daughters’ lives. (And for what it’s worth, the kids definitely preferred not having a violent father in their lives and seemed okay with having just a mom.)
And where are you getting that children of divorce always suffer? Is there a study that shows that divorcing parents who don’t drag the kids in (custody battles, using kids as a weapon against the other partner, fighting in front of the kids) are more harmful to children than parents who hate each other but don’t divorce? My friends who had divorced parents are adults, and most of them still have no problems with it and are happy, healthy people. But I know a lot of people whose parents fought constantly but stayed together, and they’re STILL messed up from it.
If someone’s suffering and they don’t know the reason, why are you qualified to say what the reason is when they don’t know themselves and you don’t even know them? And why are you qualified to say that if there wasn’t a divorce, they wouldn’t be suffering?
The point of my post was not divorce at all, though. It was to say that your values are not my values, but I do indeed have values. The point was that it’s easier to see someone who, for example, does not have a problem with divorce, as someone who doesn’t respect families and children at all and just wants to take the easy way out of everything than as someone who does have moral principles. The point is that I am a human being, and when talking with conservative Christians, I often don’t feel like I’m being treated as a human being. I feel like I’m being treated as The Thing That Is Out To Get Us, and that only “their side” gets to count as real people to them. Many of the people here have been doing that to A all thread. If you view someone as a human being, you don’t ask intrusive questions about their genitalia when they’ve already told you to stop. Would you feel comfortable if I asked you about your genitalia? I’m not going to do that because it’s rude and invasive, but if it’s rude and invasive for you, it’s rude and invasive for her.
The point was that we are all people, and that even if you disagree with someone, that does not negate their essential humanity, and that people, especially people who are Christians, need to remember that the person on the other side of the internet is not just an object to hate, or an object at all. It’s the Golden Rule.
And if that sounds a little too new society for you? Open your Bible up to Mark 12:31. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Between that and the previous commandment to love God fully, there is no greater commandment. The Bible says so.
Again, you don’t have to agree with me on anything, from divorce to homosexuality to trans people. There is no way I am ever, ever going to bring you over to my side, just like there is no way you are ever going to bring me over to yours. But when you are treating people like objects, or condoning others doing the same on your website, you are breaking your own rules.
I appreciate your thoughts on divorce, and if the way you’re living works for you, then I wish you all the luck and happiness in the world. But if you are going to address anything I say here, please let’s talk about loving your neighbor and if you feel you’re really doing your best with that. The purpose of an open dialogue isn’t just to bring everyone together to tell A that she’s wrong about her gender. You need to be willing to examine yourself as well.
Mandy,
I didn’t get to this comment today, but I will do my best tomorrow. Thanks for your response!
Mandy,
I didn’t comment on your age, I told you about my experiences.
“But there are times when it isn’t worth saving.”
Not if it is real marriage. There may be times when it is excruciatingly hard, but it is always worth saving.
“And where are you getting that children of divorce always suffer?”
Because their family is broken. Let me ask you something. If you could make your parents, create them yourself before you even existed, how would you create them to be? Divorced?
“I feel like I’m being treated as The Thing That Is Out To Get Us, and that only “their side” gets to count as real people to them.”
I’m sorry you feel that way. FTR, I don’t think you are out to get me, and you are a real person.
“Would you feel comfortable if I asked you about your genitalia?”
No, and that’s why I don’t offer up any information about it. If someone asked me about something I didn’t want to discuss, I’d just say so and move on though. That happens all the time. I can’t tell you how many people ask me if (even hoped for!) one of my kids suffered from same-sex attraction, would I disown them. Of course not. But that’s all I really have to say because it’s no one else’s business how I raise my kids, and I’m comfortable with my own decisions and I’m responsible for the consequences.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
You have to love yourself to be able to really love your neighbor.
“The purpose of an open dialogue isn’t just to bring everyone together to tell A that she’s wrong about her gender. You need to be willing to examine yourself as well.”
I have. I’m a woman. There’s really not much more to say.
> “I didn’t comment on your age, I told you about my experiences.”
In the context that what I believe is what you believed when you were younger, and, in your words, incorrect. I felt that the implication was that I’m young and I’ll know better when I’m older. If that was not what you were trying to communicate, I apologize.
>”Not if it is real marriage. There may be times when it is excruciatingly hard, but it is always worth saving.”
How do you define “real marriage”? If it fits religious requirements?
Let me pose the question more directly, then. Two people who both believe in God fully, in the same way you do, get married and have a child. Let’s say a daughter. The husband is subject to violent rages. He beats his wife frequently, each time swearing after that he’ll never do it again. But he does. It goes on for years. One day, he threatens to kill the daughter, and beats her to the point where she has to be hospitalized. The wife has tried prayer, tried counseling, tried working on the relationship together, tried begging her husband to go to therapy and work on his anger problems. None of these things have changed how he treats her, and now their daughter is in the hospital with several broken bones, and the husband isn’t even pretending anymore that he’s never going to do it again. He says that the daughter deserved it. She didn’t finish her homework, after all.
Are you really saying that it’s better for the wife to stay and continue to pray and to beg her husband to get help than to take her kid and run? Are you saying that it’s better for the daughter?
>”Because their family is broken. Let me ask you something. If you
could make your parents, create them yourself before you even existed,
how would you create them to be? Divorced?”
If I could create my parents? Honestly? I would choose a gay or lesbian couple adopting, or using a sperm donor or surrogate. So no, I wouldn’t create my biological parents as a married couple. The parents raising me would be married to each other, though. I’m assuming if I get to decide who my parents are, I can legalize gay marriage in this hypothetical scenario, too.
And sometimes a family is already broken. There are some relationships that can’t be fixed. In a perfect world, everyone would pair up with someone they’re compatible with, and they’d be mature enough to fix their relationship problems while they were still manageable enough to be fixed. There wouldn’t need to be any divorce. But it’s not a perfect world. Sometimes people have ruined their relationship beyond repair, and sometimes two people make a mistake in getting married, or one was deceived into being with someone who would hurt them. It’s better to acknowledge that people are flawed and make mistakes so they can change their course and get onto one that works for them, instead of pretending that they couldn’t have set themselves on the wrong course in the first place.
If I can use a metaphor here: If I break my arm, and it’s set badly, then it heals crooked and warped. In order to fix my arm, the doctors have to break it again and set it right this time. Divorce is like that, I think.
>”I’m sorry you feel that way. FTR, I don’t think you are out to get me, and you are a real person.”
Thank you.
>”No, and that’s why I don’t offer up any information about it. If
someone asked me about something I didn’t want to discuss, I’d just say
so and move on though.”
And A tried to say that she didn’t want to discuss it and move on. And people kept badgering her about it.
>”That happens all the time. I can’t tell you how
many people ask me if (even hoped for!) one of my kids suffered from
same-sex attraction, would I disown them.”
Okay, I don’t “suffer” from same-sex attraction. I like being gay. If I had the chance to redo my life as a heterosexually-oriented person, or change who I’m attracted to right now, I wouldn’t. Not that there’s anything wrong with being straight, it’s just not any better and I don’t see why I would want to be that way.
There are many things I need to change about myself. I can be irritable and lazy. I need to have the last word. When my partner and I are going on a date, I take forever to get ready. So I’m not saying I’m perfect as I am, because just like everyone, I have room to grow. But as far as being gay goes? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that in the world.
Being together with the woman I love has brought me some of the happiest moments of my life. Suffering? Pshh. If being gay is what made me able to fall in love with this amazing person, then I’m thankful that God created me this way. I hope I don’t sound crazy, but being with her is what made me believe.
I’m sorry to go off on you. It just feels like when people call it that, then they’re saying my happiness isn’t real. I can’t stand the idea of people looking at us and feeling like it doesn’t count. If you’ve ever had something mean so much to you that you feel you have to defend it, then I hope you’ll understand.
>”Of course not. But that’s all I
really have to say because it’s no one else’s business how I raise my
kids, and I’m comfortable with my own decisions and I’m responsible for
the consequences.”
I won’t ask you any questions about that, then. But I hope that if your children are gay, then they find peace with their natural and God-given orientations instead of succumbing to prejudice and feeling the need to change who they are. And I hope that, if they find happiness with a partner of the same gender, that you’ll support them in this relationship and love them regardless of how you personally feel.
Is that an alright thing to hope for?
>”You have to love yourself to be able to really love your neighbor.”
Yes, but people need to work on both of those things together. It’s not alright to treat people rudely just because you’re working on your self respect. People need to try their absolute best to love each other, and if they fail (and they WILL fail), pick themselves up and keep trying- not because to fix what they did wrong, because it already happened, but because all they can do is continue to try. If you want to be a good person, there’s no excuse not to try. I think that’s a part of what love is.
>”I have. I’m a woman. There’s really not much more to say.”
What? Um… I’m a little bewildered by this. I’m not asking you to question your gender! I’m asking you to question how you treat people. The point was that I feel like you started an open dialogue to try to get A to listen to you, and to listen to the people who regularly comment here, without being willing to listen without defensiveness in return. The purpose of an open dialogue is for both sides to listen to each other, that’s all.
You’re awesome, I just have to say.
Rick, Mary, Mary and Mandy, I’m going to see if I can bring this post more to the front. I’m amazed you were even able to find the end of the comments section. Thank you for your thoughts. I’ll let A know too. Can’t comment more right now as I’m distracted with other things.
Rick, I like what you said about the civilizational level.
I’m not A, but I’m a little confused at your argument. There are a lot of things that currently exist in subjective reality and are socially acceptable. Most personal relationships of any nature exist in subjective reality. Most emotions do too. Religious experiences exist in subjective reality- I am not saying at all that they’re not real! But if you have a religious experience and I do not, or if you have a religious experience for one faith (say, Catholic) and I have a religious experience of another faith (say, Buddhist, although this is just an example), then there is no objective proof of who’s religious experience, if any, is right.
If you are religious, then you ARE using a subjective experience to determine your objective reality. It doesn’t mean that your beliefs are wrong, it only means that there is no objective way to measure if your beliefs are correct. You have no grounds to criticize A on that point.
It’s also true that subjective experiences can measure objective reality in some cases. Mental illnesses, for one thing. Doctors can pretty much only tell if you’re mentally ill based on your behavior and your reported symptoms- and when it comes to narrowing down WHICH mental illness you have for treatment, reported symptoms is one of the biggest way to tell. And then many of these people are prescribed medicine, and it does change the way their brain works. The fact is, our understanding of the brain is pretty limited and we’re still figuring a lot of this stuff out. We might not be able to scan someone’s brain and see if they have, for example, serious medical depression. But we can understand how depression works, and what medicines will help, and the fact is that for many people who have depression, medicine DOES make them able to function better. I think that as we reach a greater understanding of the brain, a lot of the things we know about mental illness based on behavior and reported symptoms will be corroborated with physical facts.
And as for gender and the brain: of course we don’t have a perfect understanding of it, but objective evidence IS piling up that trans people have brains that match their identified gender better than their assigned gender. A brought up a brain scan experiment. Even before medical treatment, a trans person does not have a brain that matches their assigned gender. She or he would start to come to that conclusion based on subjective experience, but more and more there’s objective evidence to back it up.
If A transitioning contributes to a society where people trust their subjective experiences enough to look into a possible objective explanation, how is that a bad thing, ever?
Mandy says: I’m not A, but I’m a little confused at your argument. There are a lot of things that currently exist in subjective reality and are socially acceptable.
>> Each and every one of them are falsehoods, as matters of “social acceptability”, unless they correlate to objective reality also.
It is, for example, “socially acceptable” in some circles, to advocate for the murderous and savage extermination of innocent unborn children, on subjective grounds that this represents a “woman’s right to choose”.
Since the objective reality is that no one has the right to choose to murder another, the entire subjective “reality” is shown to be, instead, a form of mental illness (or, at least, the effects of a mental disorientation, brought about by yielding to the subjective reality proposed by the mentally ill).
Any civilization preferring mental illness to objective reality, will find itself doomed, lawfully, and so will answer for its mass-scale, Hitlerian murder, of hundreds upon hundred of millions of innocent children.
Example: In Europe, a “woman’s right to choose” will, lawfully, proceed to its just reward: the daughters of those women walking dutifully, clad in chador, five feet behind their Muslim husbands.
Having rejected the Gospel, they will bear the yoke of sharia Law.
The matter is still in doubt in America, only because the young have begin to recognize the mental illness which underlies the notion that a woman has, somehow, a “right” to choose to murder a child.
******
Mandy: Most personal relationships of any nature exist in subjective reality.
>> All personal relationships of any nature exist in objective reality.
Mandy: Most emotions do too.
>> This is precisely why reason- that which is objectively true- must guide emotion- which may or may not be.
Once upon a time we understood this as the key distinction between the rational and the animal soul.
We will understand it again, in due course.
Mandy: Religious experiences exist in subjective reality-
>> Those experiences which correlate to what is objectively True, can be recognized as authentic and, hence, will be found to be socially acceptable in sane civilizations.
Dying civilizations; that is, those which deny the objective nature of Truth and replace it with subjective emotion and religious experience, will self-destruct, since they will very quickly find themselves unable to agree upon what is actually True, and hence unable to maintain the cohesion of worldview necessary for a civilization to endure.
Sort of like what is happening right now.
Mandy: I am not saying at all that they’re not real! But if you have a religious experience and I do not, or if you have a religious experience for one faith (say, Catholic) and I have a religious experience of another faith (say, Buddhist, although this is just an example), then there is no objective proof of who’s religious experience, if any, is right.
>> Oh, yes there is. The objective proof is to be found in whether the religious experience correlates to what is objectively True.
If I have a religious ecstasy wherein I am assured that my place in heaven is assured should I strap a bomb to my chest and blow up a bus full of schoolchildren, then it can be seen that my subjective religious experience proceeds from the devil.
Those who believe in objective Truth= whether that be Catholic, or Muslim, or pagan, or atheist- will unite together to restrain the subjectively religious mentally ill bomber.
Unless, of course, they themselves have lost the ability to distinguish between subjective error and objective Truth, in which case they shall wring their hands and fret while the bomb goes off.
Again: any civilization which substitutes subjective states of mind for objective truth, will lawfully break down and cease to cohere.
Sort of like what is happening now.
Mandy: If you are religious, then you ARE using a subjective experience to determine your objective reality.
>> Utterly false. Not everyone determines their religious affiliation based upon thrills running up their leg during the ecstasies of the ritual, or how charismatic is the preacher, or how comfortable the Creed.
Some determine their religious affiliation based solely upon the question:
Does this religion objectively provide us the motives of credibility, upon which to base a rational conclusion that it proceeds from God, or not?
Mandy: It doesn’t mean that your beliefs are wrong, it only means that there is no objective way to measure if your beliefs are correct. You have no grounds to criticize A on that point.
>> Quite to the contrary. I have provided unshakeable grounds upon which to criticize A, and you, on these points.
Under your tragic misguidance, we should have no basis upon which to distinguish between the terrorist bomber, and the worker of miracles.
Anyone unable to make such a distinction, has exchanged the objective for the subjective; that is, they have gone insane, to exactly the degree that they have subscribed to the exchange.
Mandy: It’s also true that subjective experiences can measure objective reality in some cases.
>> But of course. The sane person is characterized by such just a sensible correlation of their subjective mental states, to objective reality.
Mandy: Mental illnesses, for one thing. Doctors can pretty much only tell if you’re mentally ill based on your behavior and your reported symptoms- and when it comes to narrowing down WHICH mental illness you have for treatment, reported symptoms is one of the biggest way to tell. And then many of these people are prescribed medicine, and it does change the way their brain works.
>> Just so. In other words, the doctors assist the mentally ill person to exchange their insane subjective state of mind, for another one which better corresponds to objective reality.
Mandy: The fact is, our understanding of the brain is pretty limited
>> It most certainly is extremely limited. Therefore, we can conclude that subjective states are not, solely, determined by brain states. Not all the insane are physically impaired as a consequence of physical damage to the brain. Some are spiritually impaired. Some are psychologically impaired. Some are simply the victims of the characteristic swindle of our age: that subjective states of mind are to be upheld, even when they do not correspond to objective reality.
Mandy: and we’re still figuring a lot of this stuff out. We might not be able to scan someone’s brain and see if they have, for example, serious medical depression. But we can understand how depression works, and what medicines will help, and the fact is that for many people who have depression, medicine DOES make them able to function better. I think that as we reach a greater understanding of the brain, a lot of the things we know about mental illness based on behavior and reported symptoms will be corroborated with physical facts.
>> Perhaps your thesis will be borne out. It is not an unreasonable one. On the other hand, the attempt to reduce our consciousness to physical states of the brain will certain (has already) failed. But that’s another topic……
Mandy: And as for gender and the brain: of course we don’t have a perfect understanding of it, but objective evidence IS piling up that trans people have brains that match their identified gender better than their assigned gender.
>> I will withhold the comments which rush to mind until you have posted this “objective evidence”. I will tell you that I have had the benefit of very recent dialogue with several of the world’s leading neuroscientists, in the context of a conference examining other matters, and I will simply invite you to post your evidence, since I am fortunate to be in a position to have it assessed by world-class specialists in the field.
Mandy: A brought up a brain scan experiment. Even before medical treatment, a trans person does not have a brain that matches their assigned gender.
>> Until you post this evidence, may I say that your assertion strikes me as exceedingly likely to reduce to bunk.
Mandy: She or he would start to come to that conclusion based on subjective experience, but more and more there’s objective evidence to back it up.
>> You keep saying so. You have not yet demonstrated your assertion to correlate to objective reality.If A transitioning contributes to a society where people trust their subjective experiences enough to look into a possible objective explanation, how is that a bad thing, ever?
Mr. Delano With regards to peer-reviewed studies, I’ll post some at the end of this reply that I feel you may find interesting. I wouldn’t say I’ve retaliated against my objective being (as an aside, I’d greatly appreciate it if you referred to me using female pronouns, if nothing else out of courtesy), but brought my objective being into alignment with my subjective being. I recently had surgery, and when I woke up, for the first time in my life, my body felt…well…RIGHT. And even that simple word doesn’t describe the emotions and sensations I felt. And I wouldn’t say that there was any handwaving involved. I assume you’re using the definition of handwaving that means while someone believes a statement or assertion is true, they lack the evidence to prove it at that time, so I’ll use that. I was examined by two separate therapists, both diagnosing me with Gender Identity Disorder. And I don’t believe that there can be any selective interpretation for me crying when I had to shave what little facial hair I had for the first time, or being devastated to the point of incoherence upon finding out that I’d never be able to bring a child into the world as a mother when I was around 7 or so. Those are just a few examples, but I feel they can accurately convey both my point and intention. Some articles for you. These are just a few, and they are aggregated on http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/reference-works-on-transsexual-and.htmlMale–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identityhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961?dopt=AbstractWhite matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. – Rametti et al,J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562024Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation D.Swaab & A.Garcia-Fulgaras Functional Neurology, Jan-Mar 2009:One person we studied had untreated male gender dysphoria (S7), took no hormones and kept his transsexual feelings under wraps. He appeared to have a large INAH3 volume – in the male range – but a female INAH3 number of neurons (68) and a female BSTc somatostatin neuron number (95). Hence, this individual’s hypothalamic characteristics were mid-way between male and female valueshttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7542/is_200901/ai_n32334584/pg_7/?tag=content;col1
Ugh. That formatting looked SOOOO much better when I wrote it on google docs…
Mr. Delano With regards to peer-reviewed studies, I’ll post some at the end of this reply that I feel you may find interesting.
>> I will be responding in detail to your studies after seeking input from specialists. Thank you very much for providing them.
A: I wouldn’t say I’ve retaliated against my objective being (as an aside, I’d greatly appreciate it if you referred to me using female pronouns, if nothing else out of courtesy),
>> I understand you would not choose the terms I have employed. I will be happy to refer to you as “A”, in order not to gratuitously offend either your subjective identity, nor your objective one.
A: but brought my objective being into alignment with my subjective being.
>> Yes. Precisely. The basis of the larger issue involved is exactly this: civilizations which systematically embrace subjective states of mind, when these are in conflict with objective reality, are doomed.
A: I recently had surgery, and when I woke up, for the first time in my life, my body felt…well…RIGHT.
>> This is perfectly consistent with your described symptoms. The problem- it is a very common one- is, that how you feel may not accurately comport with what you are.
A: And even that simple word doesn’t describe the emotions and sensations I felt.
>>The report of wonderful feelings is, similarly, attributable to other situations in which a psychological or physical disorientation is medically addressed. Addicts who receive their fix, for example, certainly report similar relief. The mere report of such wonderful feelings, again, should never be confused with objective happiness, which can only result from that which is actually good for them.
A: And I wouldn’t say that there was any handwaving involved.
>> The handwaving referenced the claim made by Mandy, concerning alleged evidence justifying your surgical retaliation on medical grounds. As I said, I will be responding to these after consulting with specialists.
A: I assume you’re using the definition of handwaving that means while someone believes a statement or assertion is true, they lack the evidence to prove it at that time, so I’ll use that.
>> That would be exactly what I meant. I would include the specifically applicable subset of this class, where evidence is selectively employed to justify a pre-determined conclusion.
A: I was examined by two separate therapists, both diagnosing me with Gender Identity Disorder.
>> Remarkably, that is precisely the term I would have chosen to identify your malady, were I required to make one up
I note first that your therapists truthfully situate your problem where it truly resides: in the war between your subjective and objective genders.
A: And I don’t believe that there can be any selective interpretation for me crying when I had to shave what little facial hair I had for the first time, or being devastated to the point of incoherence upon finding out that I’d never be able to bring a child into the world as a mother when I was around 7 or so. Those are just a few examples, but I feel they can accurately convey both my point and intention.
>> I have previously sought to assure you that I find your testimony one hundred per cent credible in this regard. I completely believe you. You are certainly the victim of a terrible malady: you find yourself at war with a constitutive aspect of your being; that is, your gender.
Thank you again for your articles- I notice first off that Mandy’s assertion that you had personally undergone such scans is not represented among them. It strikes me that such information might not be something you would wish to share in a public forum, so I will focus instead upon an examination of the literature you have provided, in the context of the guidance I receive from specialists in the field.
Thank you so much again for providing it!
Sorry to double comment, but I had to mention something. Not all things that exist in subjective reality are falsehoods for the sake of “social acceptability”. Take marriage for example. There’s no objective difference biologically between a married couple, and two people who are not in a relationship, correct? When you are married, you have a subjective experience. There’s no objective way short of a wedding ring to look at a person strictly visually or biologically and proclaim that they are married. Their hearts beat the same way as an unmarried person, they inspire and expire the same way as an unmarried person…I could go on for hours. But the point is that we treat people who are married as if they are bonded together on a much deeper subjective level than can be observed objectively.
A: Not all things that exist in subjective reality are falsehoods for the sake of “social acceptability”.
>> Oh, certainly not. Merely all things that exist in subjective reality, while conflicting with objective reality, are falsehoods.
A: Take marriage for example. There’s no objective difference biologically between a married couple, and two people who are not in a relationship, correct?
>> Ahem. Once upon a time that assertion would have been self-falsifying, since sane civilizations took great care to preserve the virginity of young people prior to marriage.
In the future they will again, of course- once the disastrous consequences of adopting subjective notions of the purpose of the conjugal act over objective ones become sufficiently horrifying.
A: When you are married, you have a subjective experience.
>> You have that subjective experience within the objective state of being married.
A: There’s no objective way short of a wedding ring to look at a person strictly visually or biologically and proclaim that they are married.
>> The objective wedding ring is quite sufficient in this regard. It is an objective sign of an objective covenant objectively entered into by the subjects of the objective covenant; that is, by the husband and the wife.
A: Their hearts beat the same way as an unmarried person, they inspire and expire the same way as an unmarried person…I could go on for hours.
>> The objective state of being married involves the conditions of the covenant. Objectively, the husband and the wife pledge fidelity and chastity within the state, for example. These conditions are not assessed by means of measurements of respiration or heart rate (except, perhaps, on the honeymoon).
A: But the point is that we treat people who are married as if they are bonded together on a much deeper subjective level than can be observed objectively.
>> Quite to the contrary. We treat them as if they were bonded together because they objectively *are* bonded together. The objective bonding together includes objective evidence of the bond, in the form, as you said, of a wedding ring, but also in many other objective forms, e.g. marriage license, tax laws, etc.
Whilst yes, in Ye Olde Times, having an intact hymen (what most people assume to be indicative of”virginity”) was indeed seen as a mark of virginity, mostly it was to assure that if a child was born, that there was a clear bloodline, if you’ll forgive the pun, between father and son. In reality, a hymen has nothing to do with virginity. Some people are born without them, or some people loose them due to accidents (riding horses, falls, etc.). Also, again, since virginity was seen as a way to ensure that property, titles, assets, etc., could be passed down, I’d call that more of an underdeveloped civilization, since it bases that transfer of property on what they perceive to be a biological fact, when in reality it’s more of a biological possibility. I’d suggest reading “The Purity Myth” by Jessica Valenti for more details.
With regards to marriage being objectively observable, I’m going to have to disagree. Whilst yes, there’s things that can objectively be CREATED (wedding rings, marriage certificates, etc.), they describe a subjective reality, since again, there is no biological difference between a married and unmarried person. There’s a difference between a subjective reality such as marriage and say, a mental condition. In many cases (depression, Gender Identity Disorder, etc.) there is a demonstrated (or at least posited and observed) correlation between someone’s mental state and either brain chemistry, or brain structure. For instance, low levels of serotonin for some types of depression, or a difference in brain structure for GID. But if we look at a married person, there’s nothing objectively observable about their biology that makes them “married”. Again, we can enshrine in law protections and privileges for that subjective reality of being married, or create objects that signify it, but there’s no objectively observable change biologically once someone becomes “married”. This is similar to other subjective realities that can be demonstrated by objectively observable CREATIONS, such as religion, careers, hobbies, etc. You surely cannot make the claim that a Roman Catholic person is objectively biologically different from a person that is a librarian, can you? You can look at objects that man has created, and say “that person has a rosary, and is going into a Roman Catholic church. Ergo, odds are that they are a Roman Catholic.” You can look at someone and say “That person is working in a library. Ergo, odds are that they are a librarian.” But honestly, I feel that if you were presented with two people devoid of any identifying marks, environments, or suchlike, and asked to identify which was the Roman Catholic, and which was the librarian, you’d be reduced to blind guessing, since there is no objectively biological difference between the two.
A: Whilst yes, in Ye Olde Times, having an intact hymen (what most people assume to be indicative of”virginity”) was indeed seen as a mark of virginity, mostly it was to assure that if a child was born, that there was a clear bloodline, if you’ll forgive the pun, between father and son.
>> In other words, it was intended to assure that the objective purpose of the conjugal act had been respected before marriage. It was assumed, in Ye Olde Times, that demonstrated fidelity to objective truth was an important indication that such fidelity would continue, under the marriage covenant. This fidelity was, and is, foundational to the survival of civilization itself, since it is from within this covenant that children typically proceed, and within this covenant that they are best nurtured.
In these awful Nu Timez, all such foundational elements of an enduring civilization have been first called into question, and now placed under implacable, savage attack, on the part of Nu Barbarianz who are so blind that they literally cannot see the catastrophe now descending upon us.
But, even they will see it.
Sooner or later.
A: In reality, a hymen has nothing to do with virginity.
>> In reality, a hymen is a very reliable indicator of virginity.
A: Some people are born without them, or some people loose them due to accidents (riding horses, falls, etc.).
>> Since we proceed, at the societal level, on fostering the common good, we recognize that those exceptional cases where what is uncommon, or evil, occurs ( such as a ruptured hymen from horse riding, or pre-marital sex on the part of a purported virgin) ought never be advanced as if the mere existence of the exception, falsifies the rule.
This, by the way, is precisely the tactic, and the error, of the same-sex pseudo-marriage movement.
A: Also, again, since virginity was seen as a way to ensure that property, titles, assets, etc., could be passed down,
>> Not to mention a way to assist the objective discernment of the moral character of the prospective spouse; for example, whether the prospective bride was someone demonstrably likely to remain faithful to her marriage vows……
A: I’d call that more of an underdeveloped civilization, since it bases that transfer of property on what they perceive to be a biological fact,
>> It is a supremely well-developed civilization, since it bases the transfer of property upon the objective foundation of the family. Underdeveloped (or, more accurately, decaying and dying) civilizations substitute for this, the transfer of property to corporations, individuals, and the State, none of which can provide in return the basic good upon which all of civilization depends: the next generation, properly nurtured.
A:when in reality it’s more of a biological possibility. I’d suggest reading “The Purity Myth” by Jessica Valenti for more details.
>> I will certainly put it on my list. But again, your error here is to propose that even though the overwhelming reliability of the objective status of “virgo intacto” is quite sufficient to establish legitimate grounds upon which to secure society’s interest in marriage, the fact there might be *uncommon* cases where this sign could be invalid, should therefore result in its being tossed overboard.
Precisely wrong.
A: With regards to marriage being objectively observable, I’m going to have to disagree.
>> You can, if you wish, choose to assert your subjective insistence that it is impossible to objectively discern that a given couple is married. This is irrelevant, since objective reality contradicts your subjective assertion in this regard.
A: Whilst yes, there’s things that can objectively be CREATED (wedding rings, marriage certificates, etc.),
>> Or, of course, the *objective* marriage ceremony itself…….
A: they describe a subjective reality, since again, there is no biological difference between a married and unmarried person.
>> The logical fallacy here is to assert that only biological states are real. It would be as if you were to say that no one can be objectively rich, since the dollars in their bank account cannot be biologically detected.
A: There’s a difference between a subjective reality such as marriage
>> Marriage is an objective reality.
A: and say, a mental condition.
>> A mental condition (understood as a state of mind, as opposed to a physical defect in the brain) is a subjective state.
A: In many cases (depression, Gender Identity Disorder, etc.) there is a demonstrated (or at least posited and observed) correlation between someone’s mental state and either brain chemistry, or brain structure.
>> Brain chemistry would be perfectly consistent with a mental disorder- in fact it would be quite surprising if a given mental condition could *not* be in some way correlated to brain chemistry.
Brain *structure*, on the other hand, is a different matter. Many perfectly brains with perfectly normal structure, process the thoughts of severely mentally ill persons.
A: For instance, low levels of serotonin for some types of depression,
>> That is a chemical state.
or a difference in brain structure for GID.
>> I have briefly glanced at your first link- it says nothing I can see about a difference in brain structure for victims of GID. Perhaps the other ones do. In any event, I will address them all in detail shortly.
A: But if we look at a married person, there’s nothing objectively observable about their biology that makes them “married”.
>> Just as if we look at rich people, their is nothing objectively observable about their biology that makes them “rich”.
Same error as above.
A: Again, we can enshrine in law protections and privileges for that subjective reality of being married,
>> It is only the objective reality of marriage which is susceptible of recognition by the law.
A: or create objects that signify it,
>> Such as, for example, “weddings”…….
A: but there’s no objectively observable change biologically once someone becomes “married”.
>> Unless the bride is a virgin……
A: This is similar to other subjective realities that can be demonstrated by objectively observable CREATIONS, such as religion, careers, hobbies, etc. You surely cannot make the claim that a Roman Catholic person is objectively biologically different from a person that is a librarian, can you?
>> Same error. No one’s biology changes, whether they become Catholic, librarian, or rich. But all of these are objective states of being.
A: You can look at objects that man has created, and say “that person has a rosary, and is going into a Roman Catholic church. Ergo, odds are that they are a Roman Catholic.”
>> Exactly. In precisely the same way, we could look at a wedding ring, or examine the balance of a bank account, and conclude that the person was likely married, or rich.
I suppose the Tl;dr version of my second point is “there’s a difference between a subjective reality backed up by human-created objects and conventions, and a subjective reality that is based on biologically observable objective data”
A: Your first link: http://aebrain.blogspot.com/p/reference-works-on-transsexual-and.htmlMale–to–female
returns: the page you were looking for does not exist on weblog
Your second link: http://jcem.endojournals.org/lookup/resid/85/5/2034A?view=full&uritype=cgi
returns: Not Found
Your third link: www.ncbi.nlm.ni
returns: website does not exist
Your fourth link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20562024Sexual
returns: the requested page does not exist
Your final link: http://findarticles.com/…
Is not a complete link.
Please advise.
Second request:
A, please see above. None of your links work. I would appreciate it very much if you could correct them, since this is the only remaining means by which I might be able to assess the credibility of your claims.
How disappointing it would be to have to conclude that you hadn’t any!
My apologies for the tardiness, I’m trying to catch up on some work and due to my month off, I’ve got the Mount Everest of paperwork to finish…
Ok, I’m going to post the details on a pastebin site to try and avoid the problems with formatting here, since I can’t edit posts. Just go to the link I’m going to post, and all the details will be there, properly formatted.
The pastebin is at http://pastebin.com/Qb8czTD9
My apologies, the first and last links appear to be dead, though if you check the aggregation site, you’ll find plenty more!
A — sorry about that. Try the edit function. Yeah, copy/paste has html issues. Again, sorry!!!
Oh, no worries about the formatting. I’m unable to use the edit function since I’m commenting anonymously. I’ll just have to write them up in a basic text editor next time.
I’m working on a full response to Rick’s response to my post about objective/subjective truth. I was a little unclear and I’d like to better defend my position. But first I’d like to put in my two cents about marriage.
A pointed out that a lack of a hymen isn’t proof of a lack of virginity. This is true, and I’d like to add that I never had one. I’d also like to add that chastity and virginity aren’t the same. There’s no objective difference between a woman who lost her virginity consensually and a woman who lost her virginity through no choice of her own. I’m not the kind of person who would penalize a woman for being raped. (I’m not the kind of person who would penalize a woman for choosing to have sex, either, but even if you disagree, rape is not the same thing.) A widow remarrying also wouldn’t have a hymen, even if she only had sex with her late husband. Why should she be considered unchaste? I’m not sure what your exact beliefs are, but there’s tons of Biblical examples of widows remarrying, and I don’t remember one instance where it’s seen as a bad thing for them to do.
Not only that, but having a hymen doesn’t mean that a woman is chaste, either. It probably means that no penetrative sex occurred unless that woman has one of those really weird hymens, but oral sex on either partner could still happen, hand jobs could still happen, even anal sex could still happen. Those things still count as sexual acts. A lot of young people, especially those poorly educated about sex, believe that those things don’t count as anything because it wouldn’t involve “losing their virginity”. In fact, back in Ye Good Old Days when it was important to have an intact hymen, people got around it in the exact same way. Or, if they were men and they weren’t looking to that particular woman for marriage, chose someone who wouldn’t be trusted about it and made sure to leave no evidence behind.
You also claim that it’s objective for two people to, based on their personal feelings about each other, make a promise, wear specific jewelry, get a piece of paper that says they have these feelings and made this promise, put their money in the same place, etc. If changing things in the physical world prove something is objective, then why are you saying that A’s gender is subjective? She’s gotten medical treatment. If a doctor were to examine her, they would know how she identifies. She may have gotten legal documents changed as well. And, though her links do not currently work, I’ve seen decent enough evidence for me to believe that her gender is hard coded into her brain the same way as anyone else’s. Nothing against marriage, I look forward to mine. But there’s a much better case for A’s gender existing in objective reality than anyone’s marriage.
Rick, you are defining what’s objective and what’s true based on what you WANT to be objective and on what you WANT to be true. It’s making me very unenthusiastic about continuing to talk to you.
((A: I’m glad that you were able to get your surgery and that you’re feeling better! Congrats.))