|
On July 31 2013 01:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Like, seriously, to me it makes sense that even a *SINGLE* wrong thing in the Bible should automatically discredit it to any rational human being. Why? Because it's claiming to be a word of God, who is *supposed* to be infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all-understanding and benevolent. He cannot suddenly change his mind. If this God appears to be parallel in his moral stances to the human beings who lived during that period of time, what's more likely, that it was actually God or that people wrote it? Pretty big strawman. Most mainline Christian denominations aren't literal inerrantists. They tend to believe that the message of the Bible is infallible, but that it was written by human beings who weren't infallible (I don't think anyone thinks that the Bible was literally written by God).
So, that's an easy way out for people? Any part in which Bible claims to be a word of God, but doesn't "seem socially acceptable" can simply be deemed to be "written by humans without divine inspiration", while other parts "were surely divinely inspired and carry a great message". I'm not claiming amazing knowledge of the Bible, but aren't all the commandment-style passages written in this kind of "Hello, this is God speaking, these are the rules I want you guys to enforce" form? The couple examples I gave fall into that category, no?
How does one know if it's literally supposed to be God speaking or if it's just some random guy writing his own ideas then? Which parts are this "message" you speak of then?
Is there a certain way text has to be structured which makes it clear when it's supposed to be literally God expressing his ideas, for example? I'm seriously curious because I'm quite ignorant in the matter. I didn't think that everything written there is God literally speaking through the people, as a lot of it are various stories, events and so on, but I was under the assumption that any part structured in "if X happens, thou shalt..." fashion is literally God giving commands to people on how to behave.
So if some people truly believe that taking this kind of stance (Bible is a word of God, but since it was written by fallible humans, it may have misrepresentations of God's ideas or stances) is a reasonable thing to do (I think it's ridiculous myself), there's actually no way for them to evaluate Bible from logical perspective, right? There's no way to ask a fairly logical question like "Would it make sense that a being who is supposed to be infinitely more advanced than us would say/condone/command/be ok with this", right?
There's also passages like this one "2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
|
United States41961 Posts
No, the gospels were literally people's accounts, third hand, written down. Nothing to do with God. Likewise Paul's letters were just what Paul thought about stuff. The only bits of the New Testament which can be argued to be directly from Jesus are the bits where multiple gospels quote Jesus as having said the same thing.
|
Fuck off with your bullshit kwark.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 30 2013 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 06:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 30 2013 06:22 Klondikebar wrote:On July 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 30 2013 04:01 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2013 03:59 radscorpion9 wrote:I'm really curious as to whether the church will ever fully support gays in spite of what is written in the bible. Will they eventually just gloss over what was written and focus more heavily on what Jesus said in context "X"? They already seem to be ignoring the old testament, but it would be interesting to see them take it a step further. It will be funny then to inquire what their religion really is, except a string of their own personal interpretations and not the word of God  . I don't want to start a religious debate, but I think the future of the church in the light of progressive secular humanist values is really fascinating. Jesus never condemned gays, he was actually pretty good about not condemning people. No further steps are needed for Catholics to stop hating gays, in fact, not hating people is pretty much the core message of Jesus. Jesus did say that homosexual sex is a sin. This is inarguable. Now, believing that homosexual sex is a sin and that homosexual marriage is a sinful practice is not "hating" gays. The Catholic Church does not teach that gays should be hated. In fact, they teach the opposite. Homosexuals should be loved just like any other sinner (we are all sinners). Also, Catholics don't ignore the Old Testament. They interpret it. Where exactly did Jesus say that homosexual sex is a sin? Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and then says that all sex outside of marriage is sinful (adultery). On July 30 2013 06:22 Shiragaku wrote:On July 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 30 2013 04:01 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2013 03:59 radscorpion9 wrote:I'm really curious as to whether the church will ever fully support gays in spite of what is written in the bible. Will they eventually just gloss over what was written and focus more heavily on what Jesus said in context "X"? They already seem to be ignoring the old testament, but it would be interesting to see them take it a step further. It will be funny then to inquire what their religion really is, except a string of their own personal interpretations and not the word of God . I don't want to start a religious debate, but I think the future of the church in the light of progressive secular humanist values is really fascinating. Jesus never condemned gays, he was actually pretty good about not condemning people. No further steps are needed for Catholics to stop hating gays, in fact, not hating people is pretty much the core message of Jesus. Jesus did say that homosexual sex is a sin. This is inarguable. Now, believing that homosexual sex is a sin and that homosexual marriage is a sinful practice is not "hating" gays. The Catholic Church does not teach that gays should be hated. In fact, they teach the opposite. Homosexuals should be loved just like any other sinner (we are all sinners). Also, Catholics don't ignore the Old Testament. They interpret it. But I always hated that kind of interpretation. I have talked to many Christians who say they are fine with me being queer and they will pray for me, but it is so goddamn condescending and unpleasant and passive aggressive. And they say that we are all sinners and hate is bad, but you know damn well that they mean something different when addressing homosexuality. You have injected that hate into them for your own reasons. You can say all you want that you know they mean something different, but perhaps that isn't true. I know that there are many homosexuals who are far better people than me, in the grand scheme of things, and are far more worthy in God's eyes. I cannot hate them for sinning any more than I can hate a child for lying. A child sins when he/she lies, but they are just a child. A homosexual sins when they have sex outside of marriage (marriage as defined by Christ), but so does any heterosexual who has sex outside of marriage. It is the same sin: adultery. On July 30 2013 06:29 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 30 2013 04:01 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2013 03:59 radscorpion9 wrote:I'm really curious as to whether the church will ever fully support gays in spite of what is written in the bible. Will they eventually just gloss over what was written and focus more heavily on what Jesus said in context "X"? They already seem to be ignoring the old testament, but it would be interesting to see them take it a step further. It will be funny then to inquire what their religion really is, except a string of their own personal interpretations and not the word of God . I don't want to start a religious debate, but I think the future of the church in the light of progressive secular humanist values is really fascinating. Jesus never condemned gays, he was actually pretty good about not condemning people. No further steps are needed for Catholics to stop hating gays, in fact, not hating people is pretty much the core message of Jesus. Jesus did say that homosexual sex is a sin. This is inarguable. Now, believing that homosexual sex is a sin and that homosexual marriage is a sinful practice is not "hating" gays. The Catholic Church does not teach that gays should be hated. In fact, they teach the opposite. Homosexuals should be loved just like any other sinner (we are all sinners). Also, Catholics don't ignore the Old Testament. They interpret it. Yeah, well Protestants also interpret both Testaments and I don't agree that Jesus said homosexuality was a sin and neither does anyone in my church. I think some ass hole translated his teachings and added that line in because he was a bigot. After all, the church made a very good practice of "translating" the bible into modern text over the years and there is NO reason to believe Jesus's words came through unchanged. Also, the Catholics like to ingore the part of the old Testament that says we can't play football. And that makes slavery legal and allowable under god. Those parts they freely ignore. Or interpret as dumb. As a Catholic, I would hold that the Protestants interpret the Bible incorrectly, but that is another argument. Certainly there is no Protestant church that has the experience that the Catholic Church possesses, nor the resources. And there is no reason to believe that the Catholic Church would allow mistranslations to occur when the penalty for such an action is clearly written in Revelations. I am not familiar with any passage saying we can't play football, and no Catholics do not ignore or call dumb those passages outlining slavery. We interpret them. Leviticus 11:8, "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their(pigs) carcasses; they are unclean to you." -ie, we can't play football, or eat natural casing pork hotdogs. And interpret is a nice word for "ignore that which is politically unpopular at the time". And as no one in the Catholic Church is blessed with longer life than anyone else, so the of experience level for them is about the same as my small town church. Now, if you want to talk about the collective experience and history of the church, you could, but I don't think we really want to dive into the amazing history the Catholic Church.
Acts 10: 9-16
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
|
On July 31 2013 02:21 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 01:39 Shiori wrote:Like, seriously, to me it makes sense that even a *SINGLE* wrong thing in the Bible should automatically discredit it to any rational human being. Why? Because it's claiming to be a word of God, who is *supposed* to be infallible, perfect, all-knowing, all-understanding and benevolent. He cannot suddenly change his mind. If this God appears to be parallel in his moral stances to the human beings who lived during that period of time, what's more likely, that it was actually God or that people wrote it? Pretty big strawman. Most mainline Christian denominations aren't literal inerrantists. They tend to believe that the message of the Bible is infallible, but that it was written by human beings who weren't infallible (I don't think anyone thinks that the Bible was literally written by God). So, that's an easy way out for people? Any part in which Bible claims to be a word of God, but doesn't "seem socially acceptable" can simply be deemed to be "written by humans without divine inspiration", while other parts "were surely divinely inspired and carry a great message". I'm not claiming amazing knowledge of the Bible, but aren't all the commandment-style passages written in this kind of "Hello, this is God speaking, these are the rules I want you guys to enforce" form? The couple examples I gave fall into that category, no?
Not at all. It's not an easy way out by any means; if it were, we wouldn't have thousands and thousands of people studying biblical criticism and history in order to reconstruct what the authors were trying to say. It's not so much that one should claim "God said X" or "God said Y" so much as one should be trying to apprehend the essential themes, events, and teachings which underpin each particular book of the Bible (in particular, the Gospels).
How does one know if it's literally supposed to be God speaking or if it's just some random guy writing his own ideas then? Which parts are this "message" you speak of then?
At no point, aside from Jesus, depending on what you think of him, should one take the Bible to be literally God's voice itself.
Is there a certain way text has to be structured which makes it clear when it's supposed to be literally God expressing his ideas, for example? I'm seriously curious because I'm quite ignorant in the matter. I didn't think that everything written there is God literally speaking through the people, as a lot of it are various stories, events and so on, but I was under the assumption that any part structured in "if X happens, thou shalt..." fashion is literally God giving commands to people on how to behave.
It depends. One of the major problems I find a lot of people have when it comes to looking at the Bible is that they treat it as this big book and try to find some analytic format that encompasses all of it at the same time. That's just not possible. The Bible was written over a number of centuries by different authors from different places with different concerns. Broadly speaking, I think that the best way to look at the Bible is to consider the Old Testament a chronology of the Israelites' evolving understanding of God. At the start, they attribute every little success, every little pain, and anything in between to the will of God insofar as it punishes/rewards them for some deed. But if one keeps reading the OT, one can see that, over time, the Israelites pull back a bit and adopt a more nuanced understanding of God, who still has all the qualities that they previously thought, but who is also much more complex/ineffable than they initially may have believed.
As this gradual process continues, you eventually get to the New Testament. Now, the New Testament is an entirely different beast than the Old Testament, in that it is very narrative focused, and in that it contains a tonne of different genres all centering around the ministry of one man living in the first century. First off, each Gospel works a little differently, and it's important to realize that when reading them. Mark is the simplest, shortest, and portrays the most mortal-seeming Jesus. Matthew and Luke are similar, but have different audiences. Finally, John was the last to be written and is more occupied with theological questions than with a matter-of-fact narrative, per se.
Then we come to the letters. Okay, now, the thing about the letters is that they were written by [various followers of the early church]. They are not Jesus speaking. They are not God speaking. They are still taken to be divinely inspired, but that isn't the same thing as saying that each and every sentence that Paul writes should be lifted out of his letters and transplanted onto 21st century societies. Paul can best be seen as having essentially two roles, IMO: firstly, he was the first person to really make a rigorous, philosophical account of Christianity (in a Hellenistic sense) since he was educated; in this sense, he provided a groundwork of fundamental theological ideas (like who Jesus was, that the resurrection was important, etc.). His second role was in organizing the early Christian community into something resembling a structured, diffusive but essentially united, religious movement. I think that a great deal of his particular commands (wives obey husbands, slaves obey masters etc.) are in the latter category. Paul wasn't setting out to revolutionize first century politics; he was trying to organize the people involved into a cohesive unit. And he did that very well.
That said, what Paul wrote about Christ and what Paul wrote about what various regional churches should do are different things, and it is the former, IMO, that should be considered relevant in the context of his message. There are many things Paul says on a philosophical level that are not especially bound to the historical period he existed in; for example, Paul says "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." This is an example of something all Christians would consider to be a divinely inspired message, because it is obviously a universal claim, rather than some proscription about first century society (which isn't to say that all such proscriptions are useless, but that they must be understood relative to the period in which they existed).
So if some people truly believe that taking this kind of stance (Bible is a word of God, but since it was written by fallible humans, it may have misrepresentations of God's ideas or stances) is a reasonable thing to do (I think it's ridiculous myself), there's actually no way for them to evaluate Bible from logical perspective, right? There's no way to ask a fairly logical question like "Would it make sense that a being who is supposed to be infinitely more advanced than us would say/condone/command/be ok with this", right?
Well, as a Catholic, I don't think that the Bible should be used for making ethical decisions in a general sense. The reason for this isn't so much that the Bible is difficult to read as an ethical manual, but because the Bible isn't a book of analytic moral philosophy. That's just not the point of it. Jesus wasn't trying to be the next Plato, and it's silly to ask questions like "what would Jesus do" except in a very thought-experiment kind of way, because Jesus was not a human being in the 21st century. I think that, as a Christian, one should generally hold the following:
1) God is infinitely good and rational.
2) Morality is a matter of reason; that is, one does not deduce moral truths by faith (although perhaps this could be possible) but rather any moral truth must be accessible to reason such that any person can understand it by their mind alone.
If these things are both true, then asking whether God would permit something is the same as asking whether it's moral, which is the same as asking a moral question in general in that it requires one to adopt a system of moral philosophy. One can ask whether such a system is consistent with Christianity, but one cannot infer an entire moral system from the Bible alone.
There's also passages like this one "2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
That's true. Every book in the Bible is useful in some regard, and understanding all of the books as a continuum of an evolving understanding of God enhances one's understanding of the whole; in that respect, every book is very important.
|
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
|
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot 
|
On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot
Well, frankly, I don't think it's really bigoted to find gay sex rather disgusting. I find all kinds of different sexual preferences disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong or that they should be illegal.
Also, I'd say that the Family Guy episode was pretty accurate as to how a straight male would react, to be honest. I mean, there's nothing bigoted about wanting to sleep with cisgendered women. The reaction in the show was pretty over-the-top, but it's probably realistic.
As for the whole gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, yeah, that'd make you a bigot. And if you find gay people themselves to be disgusting, then that does make you bigoted.
|
On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot
how does that make one a bigot? It's normal for a heterosexual to find homosexuality unpleasant. its programmed into our genes to be attracted to exactly the opposite. I wouldnt expect a gay guy to enjoy the idea of being with a woman.
being a bigot implies intolerance whereas standing for equal rights is exactly the opposite. Tolerance has nothing at all to do with liking or enjoying something.
On July 31 2013 04:21 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot As for the whole gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, yeah, that'd make you a bigot.
If you can make a case for it which doesnt directly have to do with the parents being gay then i dont believe you are.
|
On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption
Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman.
|
On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman.
Yes, but a trans woman is not a cis woman, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to only sleep with cis women.
|
On July 31 2013 04:22 mustache wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot how does that make one a bigot? It's normal for a heterosexual to find homosexuality unpleasant. its programmed into our genes to be attracted to exactly the opposite. I wouldnt expect a gay guy to enjoy the idea of being with a woman. being a bigot implies intolerance whereas standing for equal rights is exactly the opposite. Tolerance has nothing at all to do with liking or enjoying something. Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:21 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot As for the whole gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, yeah, that'd make you a bigot. If you can make a case for it which doesnt directly have to do with the parents being gay then i dont believe you are.
He didn't say homosexuality, he said gays, as in the people. Saying an entire group of people disgusts you based on one cursory identifier is bigotry, plain and simple.
|
On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman.
Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X.
So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op.
These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter.
|
Why does religion always get brought into this? No one gives a shit which magic man you choose to worship. It doesn't apply to them, the government, or the law. It's your own belief that holds no bearing or sway on anyone else.
Don't know how LGBT rights is still an issue... you'd think we'd have learned from now with African American civil rights movement so recent.
|
On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman.
Assuming you are a hetero would you like to sleep with a trans woman before her operation? probably not, even though she is a woman as you say, so technically it should be fine.
On July 31 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:22 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot how does that make one a bigot? It's normal for a heterosexual to find homosexuality unpleasant. its programmed into our genes to be attracted to exactly the opposite. I wouldnt expect a gay guy to enjoy the idea of being with a woman. being a bigot implies intolerance whereas standing for equal rights is exactly the opposite. Tolerance has nothing at all to do with liking or enjoying something. On July 31 2013 04:21 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot As for the whole gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, yeah, that'd make you a bigot. If you can make a case for it which doesnt directly have to do with the parents being gay then i dont believe you are. He didn't say homosexuality, he said gays, as in the people. Saying an entire group of people disgusts you based on one cursory identifier is bigotry, plain and simple.
would you say coprophiles are disgusting?
|
On July 31 2013 04:29 Rhaegal wrote:
Why does religion always get brought into this? No one gives a shit which magic man you choose to worship. It doesn't apply to them, the government, or the law. It's your own belief that holds no bearing or sway on anyone else.
Don't know how LGBT rights is still an issue... you'd think we'd have learned from now with African American civil rights movement so recent.
Religion is one of the major impediments of LGBT rights, so it's natural for it to come up in conversation.
But I agree with you that who one chooses to worship should not affect the rights of other people to do what they want.
|
On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot
Why would that make me a bigot? Only because I don't like something? So I love yoghurt and can now call anyone who doesn't like it a bigot?
On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman.
That is wrong, chromosomes decide whether we are a boy or a girl, so a man who get's his sexual organ changed to that of a women, is indeed still a man, but with different sexual organs....
|
On July 31 2013 04:31 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:11 farvacola wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man.... You're correct, and that's also why it's our right to call you a bigot Why would that make me a bigot? Only because I don't like something? So I love yoghurt and can now call anyone who doesn't like it a bigot?
If you "find gays etc disgusting", then you are a bigot. If you find homosexuality disgusting and yet are able to forestall judging or labeling an entire group of people accordingly, then you are not. Your stance on yogurt is of no concern.
|
On July 31 2013 04:29 Rhaegal wrote:
Why does religion always get brought into this? No one gives a shit which magic man you choose to worship. It doesn't apply to them, the government, or the law. It's your own belief that holds no bearing or sway on anyone else.
Don't know how LGBT rights is still an issue... you'd think we'd have learned from now with African American civil rights movement so recent.
You're not any different from religious gay haters.
|
On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman. Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X. So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op. These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter.
No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with.
This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
