dermdoc said:
The difference is that becoming a Christian or a Hindu does not require surgery and hormone treatment. And also does not require denying a biological reality which I think is a mental illness.
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
The difference is that becoming a Christian or a Hindu does not require surgery and hormone treatment. And also does not require denying a biological reality which I think is a mental illness.
Correct, becoming Hindu does not require hormones or surgery. It only requires the denial and rejection of Jesus Christ and God Almighty and then the active worshipping of false demon gods. You know. . . . no biggie. 4 of the 10 Commandments are about worshipping the proper God in the proper way. How many of those commandments are dedicated to transgender people?
And, I don't get furries either. Seems strange to me. But also, who the **** am I to tell a grown ass adult what they can and cannot do with their body?
Grown adults can do whatever they want to their bodies, so by all means, if you want a set of hooters, go for it.kurt vonnegut said:But also, who the **** am I to tell a grown ass adult what they can and cannot do with their body?dermdoc said:
The difference is that becoming a Christian or a Hindu does not require surgery and hormone treatment. And also does not require denying a biological reality which I think is a mental illness.
Of course, which is why I've said I'm not in favor of transitioning children. The example in the OP was an adult.dermdoc said:
A lot of these are not adults.
Sure, no objections here.10andBOUNCE said:
Grown adults can do whatever they want to their bodies, so by all means, if you want a set of hooters, go for it.
Only other caveat would be that in no way shape or form should the tax payer be subsidizing these operations.
Quote:
When you tell a Christian God isn't real, how do they respond? Do they say you're a bigot that hates them, or do they attempt to engage in an intellectual battle to change your mind?
Depends on their attitude. If a Christian is genuinely interested in what I believe, then I am always happy to engage. If the Christian wishes to 'own the atheist' in a debate to make me feel lesser, then I'm going to brush them off and move on with my life.Quote:
When a Christian tells you you're wrong for being an atheist, do you feel personally attacked, or do you engage them in an intellectual exercise to get to the truth?
Open discussion about the merits of different values, philosophies, and religions is always good. At a minimum, it is useful for each party to understand the other. But in my opinion, the real value of these exchanges occur when each party makes serious effort to consider opposing ideas. And to do this, requires participants to each consider the possibility of their ideology being false. And this is where I think most religious people stumble. If one party is not willing to consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, then they aren't discussing - they are lecturing. And the best the other party can do is use that lecture to understand what the first person believes. But, its always going to be, at best, a one sided exchange.Quote:
If I tell a Hindu that they need to follow Jesus, a conversation around the merits of both religions comes next.
If a Hindu tells a Christian that Jesus was not God, most (most) Christians will recognize this as an attack on God, not themselves, and attempt to convert them.
I don't think I've accused you of bigotry. . . . . Once again, I think its all in the delivery. When someone takes the position "LGBTQ people are not born that way, its a learned behavior, I know this for a fact, and my infallible grasp of the will of God supports all of this.", then no room has been left for disagreement. We can't have a discussion at this point. Only a lecture. You have to be open to the other side. I think you need to be open to the testimony of millions of LGBTQ persons who overwhelmingly describe it otherwise. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But if their experience can be discarded out of hand because it does not reinforce your presuppositions about the nature of sex and gender, then there is no where to go. What kind of discussion options are we left with? Taking this stance isn't automatically bigotry, but bigotry is easier when you can simply discount millions of people as simply wrong because 'my belief says so'.Quote:
If one were to tell an LGBTQ person that they aren't born that way…. Totally different. There is no intellectual discourse after that. There is no scientific debate. There is no agreeing to disagree. It is completely feelings based from that point forward. Most of what I've typed here is taken as bigotry from the jump.
If Christian evangelical politicians were to engage in a culture war which opposed Hindu marriage, opposed Hindus from adopting children, complained about Hindu symbolism in public, banned books from libraries with Hindu characters, and described their value system in terms of dumpster fires, perversion, and poisonous, then lets see how quickly that discourse between American Christians and Hindus turns sour. I feel that the reason that Christians generally do not support these measures against Hindus is that there is some level of mutual respect. While you do not necessarily need to respect their religion, there is at least a respect toward their sincerity and good intentions.Quote:
I know you disagree with which category they fall into, which is why I think you see it the way you do. You see Hindus as getting a pass, where we would see them as someone we can discourse with. You see LGBTQ people as being singled out, where we find a topic that is utterly off limits for discussion.
PabloSerna said:
"So I'll ask you this: if they made a pill tomorrow (which I know they won't because I don't think it has a biological cause, but is instead experiential) that would erase all LGBTQ thoughts your loved one(s) have, would you be excited at the thought, or dismayed?"
When I read this I couldn't help but think about Peter's words to Christ about his impending crucifixion and the immediate rebuke by Jesus, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."
As I have come to understand it, we are made this way. Not because of some trauma or past sin, but as a means to glorify God.
ETA: Very familiar with the Courage ministry.
PabloSerna said:
Allow me to clear up the rebuke from Jesus to Peter- it was not directed at you, but rather that Jesus was pointing out the importance of suffering. You had posed the question about taking a pill to avoid being gay, I was responding more to the symmetry in those two scenarios than taking a swipe at you. Apologies.
ETA: I will respond to the second part of your question in a bit. I'm at the San Jacinto Historic Site today. Kick off for a massive restoration and capital improvements.
Agree fully with you on this one.Zobel said:
Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.
It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.
I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standardsThe Banned said:
Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.
) and respond to just a couple items.kurt vonnegut said:I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standardsThe Banned said:
Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.
Up until the last decade or so, virtually everyone who came out as gay or tans did so in opposition to every social, family, religious, political, or economic pressure imaginable. The idea that these things are nurture only and that nature plays no part seems absurd to me. Why would these people have sabotaged their entire lives and every relationship or opportunity to live this way? Historically, LGBTQ ideology has been as far from 'nurture' as possible, and yet, there has always been a record of people like this.
That said, it kinda doesn't matter to me if its nature or nurture. Until someone can explain to me why its my business to tell others who they are allowed to love or what they can do with their body, then its not my business. I don't need to understand it. I don't need to like it. I don't need to be able to tie it to some scientific / biological proof. All I need to do is be able to treat others the way I want to be treated. And I don't want to be told who I can love or what I can do with my body. Why would I not extend the same to others. If their actions are an offense to God, that is between them and God. Not me.
There are of course arguments that homosexuality and transgenderism does affect me. There are those that will argue that even if I am not directly affected, there are a million ways I am affected indirectly. If I can steal a line from someone else in another thread, there might be an argument that there is no such thing as 'private sin'. But, to that argument, I would say 'be careful what you wish for'. Because if who I sleep with is your business, then your religion is now my business. If what I do with my body is your business, then what you teach your children is mine.
kurt vonnegut said:I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standardsThe Banned said:
Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.
Up until the last decade or so, virtually everyone who came out as gay or tans did so in opposition to every social, family, religious, political, or economic pressure imaginable. The idea that these things are nurture only and that nature plays no part seems absurd to me. Why would these people have sabotaged their entire lives and every relationship or opportunity to live this way? Historically, LGBTQ ideology has been as far from 'nurture' as possible, and yet, there has always been a record of people like this.
That said, it kinda doesn't matter to me if its nature or nurture. Until someone can explain to me why its my business to tell others who they are allowed to love or what they can do with their body, then its not my business. I don't need to understand it. I don't need to like it. I don't need to be able to tie it to some scientific / biological proof. All I need to do is be able to treat others the way I want to be treated. And I don't want to be told who I can love or what I can do with my body. Why would I not extend the same to others. If their actions are an offense to God, that is between them and God. Not me.
There are of course arguments that homosexuality and transgenderism does affect me. There are those that will argue that even if I am not directly affected, there are a million ways I am affected indirectly. If I can steal a line from someone else in another thread, there might be an argument that there is no such thing as 'private sin'. But, to that argument, I would say 'be careful what you wish for'. Because if who I sleep with is your business, then your religion is now my business. If what I do with my body is your business, then what you teach your children is mine.
dermdoc said:
Fair enough. But if you believe trans is a mental disease as I do, shouldn't they be under psychiatric care? Are we doing them a service enabling a delusion?
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Fair enough. But if you believe trans is a mental disease as I do, shouldn't they be under psychiatric care? Are we doing them a service enabling a delusion?
Mental disease, mental condition, mental disorder . . . I don't know the right term. What I do know is that we don't put every person with an atypical mental condition into psychiatric care. People with a condition that makes them unable to function on their own or those with conditions that make them a danger to themselves or others - sure.
My position is that we do people the most service by helping them find a mental state that allows them to be happy and productive rather than calling them delusional for experiencing life differently.
AGC said:
Be careful what we wish for? Society is already ordered like that: religion, or its relegation, has been societal business for a hundred years. You're not threatening us with anything new but seem to be pushing back on us having an even playing field.
AGC said:
What? What makes someone's happiness healthy? What makes their productivity healthy? Why are these standards and what are their boundaries? Every single person experiences life differently, yet we have a shared reality. Surely there's more here than simply that.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
What? What makes someone's happiness healthy? What makes their productivity healthy? Why are these standards and what are their boundaries? Every single person experiences life differently, yet we have a shared reality. Surely there's more here than simply that.
Its not my job to tell someone else how to be happy or demand that their happiness follow my prescripted definition of a healthy version of happy. The boundary starts roughly where their happiness infringes on my ability to be happy or where said happiness poses a danger to someone's health and safety.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Be careful what we wish for? Society is already ordered like that: religion, or its relegation, has been societal business for a hundred years. You're not threatening us with anything new but seem to be pushing back on us having an even playing field.
I thought you decided it was not worth engaging with me?
AGC said:
You misinterpreted the post. My point stands: rational materialists have been meddling in Christianity for well over a century via education and government. Your threat is empty.
AGC said:
Of course it is, and as a parent you should know this is patently false. If you let children chart a path to happiness it leads to heartache. You'd be a **** parent to simply allow them to pursue it without shaping their vision with some idea of what is good, true, and beautiful.
And this goes for your friends, neighborhood, coworkers, etc. Who wants a friend that wouldn't look out for their best interest, even if it meant no happiness in the near future, such as delayed gratification?
No one lives this way because no one actually believes it, or they recognize it for what it is: a patronizing platitude that denies the reality of the world. Look how much time you spend on here debating with us instead of letting us be happy in an echo chamber. Why can't we have happiness?
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
You misinterpreted the post. My point stands: rational materialists have been meddling in Christianity for well over a century via education and government. Your threat is empty.
I'm not sure I understand. In what manner have rational materialists been meddling in Christianity?
Quote:
But how to catechize democratic citizens, with their chaotic willfulness and nettlesome individuality, into a secularized kingdom wherein alone they could find their true freedom? The obvious answer was state-mandated and -controlled educational apparatuses. Dewey was long enamored of 19th-century America's greatest effort at socialist catechesis: Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, which Dewey ranked only behind Das Kapital as the most important book of the previous century. In April of 1934, as the Great Depression descended on America, Dewey wrote an appreciation for Bellamy's bloodless revolution, where human activity was directed toward a common good and all wealth was held in common. Dewey saw Bellamy as the great defender and prophet of American democracy. Perhaps the most important educational idea that Dewey got from Bellamy was that the traditional systems of education were predicated on and perpetuated an unjust class system. Dewey, like Bellamy, vehemently opposed any vestiges of hierarchy and old class structures in education. The democratic purpose was to facilitate communication and to involve everyone in a great society founded on mutual sharing and responsibility, while also identifying the tasks for which each person was uniquely fitted.
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Of course it is, and as a parent you should know this is patently false. If you let children chart a path to happiness it leads to heartache. You'd be a **** parent to simply allow them to pursue it without shaping their vision with some idea of what is good, true, and beautiful.
And this goes for your friends, neighborhood, coworkers, etc. Who wants a friend that wouldn't look out for their best interest, even if it meant no happiness in the near future, such as delayed gratification?
No one lives this way because no one actually believes it, or they recognize it for what it is: a patronizing platitude that denies the reality of the world. Look how much time you spend on here debating with us instead of letting us be happy in an echo chamber. Why can't we have happiness?
You can also be a **** parent, friend, neighbor, and coworker by not allowing them a say in what their best interests are.
AGC said:So what? You're not really making a case for what you posted. The point is that you cannot simply be hands off entirely, so the argument is moot. Individuals must make continual choices that impact others, whether to help or not, and cannot say it's none of their business.kurt vonnegut said:
You can also be a **** parent, friend, neighbor, and coworker by not allowing them a say in what their best interests are.
nortex97 said:Agree fully with you on this one.Zobel said:
Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.
It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.
PabloSerna said:nortex97 said:Agree fully with you on this one.Zobel said:
Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.
It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.
Mozart need not apply.
Einstein need not apply.
Tesla, Steve Jobs, etc.
The list of people dealing with various types of mental illness is long and distinguished.
