Subject: Then what assumption did you mean?
Author:
Posted on: 2011-05-23 04:49:00 UTC
The assumption that you chose to be heterosexual? See above.
The assumption that homosexuality isn't actually a choice? See above as well.
What assumption are you talking about? Because I can see no other assumption.
Petition is at http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6535/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6811
It's Texas Senate Bill 723.
I took a look at the bill and specifically what it’s doing is it’s removing the Court Ordered Gender Change document as a document that can be used to get a marriage license, meaning that Trans individuals would have to use other forms of identification which may cause more problems that I will leave to people much better vetted in law to explain.
If there is any doubt about what this bill is trying to accomplish, all one has to do is visit the website of one of it’s supporters: http://texaslegislativeupdate.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/support-sb-723-support-traditional-marriage-make-your-call-today/
**Looks down, sees a massive discussion centering on trying to convince Jacer**
**Sees Jacer's reply**
**Realizes he has nothing to add >.>**
I do have something to add!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhl9MLno424
I'm not going to change your minds, and you're not going to change mine.
I'm not signing it.
Seeing as the rest of the thread has mostly given explanations as to their position, can you debate us on a level plane, given reasons and valid arguments?
Because around most places, dropping into a thread to say "I disagree with all of you" for no particular reason is generally Not On.
To put it simply, I'm Catholic. I firmly believe that male is male and female is female, and what we are born is what we're meant to be. I'm also a staunch supporter of traditional marriage. I don't believe gender identity or homosexuality is something we're born with, I believe they're disorders. And I find sex change operations disgusting.
I'm well aware that people on here probably won't consider my religious beliefs as a valid argument, and might even say it's offensive to state them. But you did ask.
*I* consider my beliefs to affect my political choices, and religion *should* affect the laws. Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. And this country was founded by Christians.
I'm going to follow the Catechism and Pope on what they teach about homosexuality etc.
Marriage is not a right. It never has been. And it is between one man and one woman.
Also, don't kill me, please.
Where is your source that separation of church and state was meant to keep State out of Church. BESIDES opinion pieces on the matter on conservative websites. Give me historical basis. The politics of the 1770s hardly suggest that protecting ANYTHING from the church in America was any sort of concern of the time. And if you don't believe me, I have textual proof. Check out the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
If you don't believe this, have a link to an image of the document
And the British American colonies were primarily protestants fleeing Catholic-controlled Britain. You know? the ones who REJECT the Pope? This country was not founded by 'Christians' as you claim. Most of the founding fathers were Freemasons and followers of deism.
I'm not trying to change your opinion, make you question your faith, or attack you. I just want to... make you aware that some of what you are saying is factually wrong. That's not subjective, faith-based, or a matter of opinion. That's very dangerous. You are not preserving the true history of the United States of America. You are being as uncanon as a slash-fic writer who thinks that men can become pregnant and deliver a baby to term in two weeks time is.
It's ok to like slash, a pairing, or some other fandom subset. Nobody should stone you to death for what you believe.
Just please. Do NOT mess up US historical canon.
DO NOT DO IT. You look as bad as somebody who thinks that Superman and Lex Luthor are canonical butt buddies when you do it. You are being fundamentally incorrect.
So don't get mad when other people jump down your throat. Here at the PPC we get mad at people who think fundamentally wrong things about canons.
Why shouldn't other people be allowed get mad at those who believe wrong things about other canons... specifically the canon of the real world?
Your religious beliefs and opinions aren't wrong or worthy of attack. But the facts you put up to back them up are. In the same way somebody who claims the moon landing never happened, they're just... wrong. :|
Thomas Jefferson spoke of a "wall of separation" between church and state. There is no such thing as a one-way wall. (Well, okay, in HQ there might be, but I'm talking Euclidean geometry here. ;P) Religion's chocolate is meant to stay out of the state's peanut butter and the state must in turn keep its peanut butter out of religion's chocolate.
Also, the Founding Fathers were mainly deists.
The United States has absolutely no language in its founding documents that explicitly states that it is a Christian nation. Ergo, any faith-based argument for laws in the United States is inherently unconstitutional, as stated in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis mine.]
The words "an establishment of religion" do not just mean "am institution of faith", they mean "establishing a state religion". To quote Barry Goldwater (four words I thought I would never type, by the by), "You can't legislate morality."
While I am not QUILTBAG myself, I'm certainly QUILTBAG-friendly, and I feel that I must defend the honor of Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams et al. wherever possible.
Speaking of whom, a little food for thought:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov't. land for churches
Oh, oh, and my personal favorite:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
The same thing could apply to QUILTBAG rights. Unless you are in the affected group, the existence or lack thereof of marriage rights for people who aren't "insert-tab-A-into-slot-B" neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
One more thing as well - the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate by John Adams and ratified in 1797, contains this interesting clause:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen, — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - right there in writing.
As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But if you are going to construct an argument on why you believe that your beliefs should be injected into the political discourse of the United States, kindly refrain from building your arguments on a foundation of false data.
Also, genuinely curious - what passages are you using to justify homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God, and why do you believe religion ought to affect the laws? Would you feel the same way if the Founders were, say, Druids?
Speaking as someone who was bullied into silence by people who used the same reasoning as you, because I admitted feelings to my best friend (who happened to be female like myself), I have to honestly say it hurts.
It hurts to know that it wasn't just some group of overzealous teenagers, telling me I wasn't right in the head or not human or any number of names that I won't list here, but to know it's someone within a community I frequent and have ties to?
Why should marriage between two happy people who wish to be together be exclusive? Why should it be okay for people like say, Newt Gingrich or Britney Spears be allowed to have shotgun marriages and divorces, but Joe and Steve who have been faithful to each other for 20+ years, and have been living together can't. As such, they are denied rights married couples have, such as hospital visitation, and so on.
Call me a socialist, but to deny equal rights to everyone just because some of the population happens to love someone with the same junk in their pants (or to just not care if the junk is similar or not, or so on), seems messed up to me.
And, if you try and argue that homosexuality doesn't happen in other species, I ask you to please google 'Whiptail Lizards'- They're a species of lizard which only has female lizards, as they are asexual. Even though the female lizards have the ability to self fertilize their eggs, they must still have 'intercourse' to do so. Heck, I suggest you look up damn near any species, and lo and behold, you'll find homosexuality.
...celebrities' stupidity doesn't change the value of marriage.
So love doesn't factor in?
I'm going to marry who I want to marry. I'm going to not marry if I don't want to. I will marry or live with as many people as I love. I will have whatever operations that I decide will make me happy, and my sex change is not something you can police, and not some reason for you to look down on me. You don't get to cite a book and say that I, as a human being, am wrong, and therefore don't need rights. Marriage is my /right/, to do or not do.
None of this is something /you/ actually get to tell me I can't have. Thanks.
But marriage isn't a right, and I have every right to say you're wrong. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant.
And I never said I looked down on the *people*. Just the acts.
I have the right to say that too, imagine.
It is not an act, it is part of who I am. I am gay, I am trans*, if you look down on those aspects of me, you are looking down on me as a person.
I hope some day you change, and you remember what you've said before, and you feel terrible for how you have treated people. Because what you're insisting is love and compassion is just hate pretending to be something else.
It's time to explain why you're wrong. Ready? Ok, here we go!
First, if religion should affect laws, you're not the one to say that yours is the right one. Why shouldn't it follow Jewish law? Or Muslim? Those people exist in America, too. What a shock!
And Separation of Church and State was done to keep them out of each other, not really one moreso than the other.
Also, the country was founded on the right to freely worship, and by forcing your doctrine on everyone, you're wrong again!
And if two people, whether they be man or woman, or man or man, or woman or woman, or Pre-op trans and man, or whatever combination you can think of, are truly happy together and want to forge a relationship that lasts a lifetime build on mutual love and respect, why shouldn't they?
Also, in regard to your last post, saying that being gay is a disorder, well, that just wrong to say. It's really not a choice, and telling someone "You are not a proper person, your brain is defunct and you're not as good" because they like a certain gender is absolutely terrible.
"Those people exist in America, too."
Yes. They immigrated.
"why shouldn't they?"
Because it's intrinsically disordered.
"It's really not a choice"
You'd be surprised.
Cheyenne? Cayuse? Salish? No?
We're all immigrants. One generation ago or ten, we came to the new world looking for the freedom to be ourselves, and have fought for that freedom repeatedly.
If you'll remember, the people who moved to America to gain religious freedom? Immigrants. You point is now invalid there.
And being gay isn't intrinsically disordered. You might think it is, because it clashes with what you think is right, but your opinion isn't fact. You're wrong again.
And lastly, I never picked to go "I'm only gonna go with ladies." I didn't just decide to be straight. I'm straight because women appeal to me and men don't. You're not gonna tell people who like a different flavor of person than you that they're bad, sick, twisted people, are you? If you are, then you're certainly not loving your neighbor. And that's why everything you have said, are saying, and will continue to say is amazing, astoundingly wrong. Your incorrectness burns like the very Fires of Sinai themselves.
As a Christian, I don't want people like you, who treat people who are different like scum, in my religion. You make us look like intolerant, cruel people who lash out at anything we don't deem right or good.
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
So if you're a homosexual, bisexual, or what have you, do you believe you "chose" to be that way?
Usually, speaking only for myself and from personal experience, attraction to the opposite sex is dealt with the same way you'd deal with a constant urge to kill someone. By burying it, trying to ignore or stamp it out, and refusing to give in to the feelings because you believe they're sinful. It's incredibly painful.
And it comes down to another sin/sinner thing. You didn't choose to have the feelings, but you would be choosing to fulfill them, so you "choose" to remain "innocent." Or sinless. Or whatever synonym you can think of. My issue with that is that it results in unhappiness, and pain, and trauma. Why would a loving God give people feelings of romantic love only to deal punishment for acting on them? It's the act of a sadist, not the act of any God I believe in. And so, the choices come down to this for me: did God create QUILTBAG people only to force them into either lives of unhappiness and shame or Hell? Or have we just been mistaken about the nature of God for a long time?
As a Christian, I believe it's far more likely that humanity has erred than that God has.
*facepalm* And by "attraction to the opposite sex," I mean "attraction to the same sex." Don't mind me, just getting the crux of the entire argument backwards...
The only reason I didn't add trans nature is because that's out of my own personal experience-- but I think the point in the latter part of the post stands.
If you get to make the assumption that homosexuality is a choice, then we get to make the assumption that heterosexuality must also therefore be a choice.
It's the only logical conclusion we can draw from such assumptions.
The assumption that you chose to be heterosexual? See above.
The assumption that homosexuality isn't actually a choice? See above as well.
What assumption are you talking about? Because I can see no other assumption.
"Also, don't kill me, please."
Don't try to play the victim card. As odious as your stance is, you have the right to hold it. And many, many people in the US are actively exercising this right, and doing their part in regressing the country back to the dark ages.
Take, for instance, the Texas school board's decision to excise Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum, instead adding Thomas Aquinas. Jefferson was merely the author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States, and one of its foremost statesmen. Of course, he also authored the Jefferson Bible - a Bible keeping the messages of benevolence and mercy intact, but removing the supernatural elements of the Logos, in an effort to salvage the heart of Christian compassion from the justified critiques of reason.
My friend, an educated theologian with a Master's in Divinity, put it best: besides all other commandments and rules, the most important one is the Golden Rule. But a disturbing number of Christians, especially in the US, are doing their best ignoring it. I'm an atheist, but I appreciate the teachings of Jesus, and it pains me to see them ignored so flagrantly: attacking instead of defending the disadvantaged, the poor, the ostracized; hoarding wealth, when in the New Testament, the one offence that would get you struck right down into Hell was not helping your fellow man.
And frankly, anyone who tries to remove the supernatural elements from the Bible misses the whole point of it.
So treat everyone the same, even if what some do is wrong. Sorry, I can't do that.
But I shouldn't be surprised - I can't find the link but people who are not religious seem to have a better grasp of the Bible than Christians.
Are you saying the point of the Bible is not showing compassion and love to your fellow man, but parlour tricks with wine, fish and bread?
You seem to have also misread the Golden Rule. It's not "treaty everyone the same" - it's "treat others like you'd want them to treat yourself". I mean it's only in the Sermon on the Mount - another part of the Bible that many Christians seem to ignore, even though it's supposed to be the basis of His teachings.
And what of "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's"?
"Are you saying the point of the Bible is not showing compassion and love to your fellow man, but parlour tricks with wine, fish and bread?"
Actually, and not speaking for Jacer, yes, compassion and love to our fellow men is secondary. The entirety of the Holy Word lead up to one event, and that was the redemption of man through Christ's death and resurrection. He didn't come to bring peace, harmony, and zen to your inner chakra or those around you; he came to save you from yourself. That's it. If, through your salvation, you are a better person for it, great! As it should be. But it's not a giant Holy Book of daily etiquitte. Never mistake it for that, regardless of what you believe about its veracity.
On a side note, everything in scripture has its meaning, including those 'parlour tricks', all point back to Christ and his salvation. If they didn't, they (and through association, scripture in itself) would be meaningless.
That should read:
"On a side note, everything in scripture, including those 'parlour tricks', all point back to Christ and his salvation. If they didn't, they (and through association, scripture in itself) would be meaningless."
Apologies.
My gosh. YES, the miracles are important.
The message IS love and compassion. Homosexual acts are morally wrong, and give a risk of going to Hell. (notice how I said *risk*, not "they will go to Hell") So if I want them to stop sinning so they *don't* go to Hell, how is that not love and compassion?
It's not the people I dislike, you know. It's the sin.
You see, THIS is why I haven't willingly gone to a mass in YEARS.
Thanks to whatever warped definition of the word of God we've got here, we've get miscreants like Jacer here who twist the word of God to whatever they want it to mean.
The miracles are important, how exactly? All they did was prove that Jesus was the son of God. How exactly is that important to his teachings, other than to make sure he couldn't possibly be discredited and to give him followers?
"So if I want them to stop sinning so they *don't* go to Hell, how is that not love and compassion?"
Because using words and acts of hatred to try to get them to stop sinning is not love.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no hater of Christianity. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and I played at a Methodist Church Orchestra for YEARS.
But it's people like you that piss me off and reaffirm my stance of not wanting to have ANYTHING to do with ignorant religious nuts like you.
Show me where in the Bible God approves of homosexual acts.
I'm not going to pander to someone who gets hung up on a tiny little detail from Deuteronomy and uses a small handful of verses to justify legislating hatred against something he can't understand because he doesn't want to understand it while also missing the larger message of 'love' by trying to force a way of living onto them with the consideration of a brute.
No. YOU will do the following:
-Show me the passages in the Bible where Jesus got sinners to repent their sins by saying they were beyond forgiveness and deserved to be punished by the law of the land for their sins.
-Show me the passages in the Bible where Jesus actively tried to punish those who sinned against him with words of hatred and anger.
Oh wait.
As closing, I will give you this passage from the Bible about hypocrisy, which is the sin you are guilty of in this case for clearly ignoring the love part of the bible:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Luke: Chapter 6, Verses 41-42)
This ain't the Old Testament anymore, boy. This is the New Testament.
I'm a Christian, but I disagree with the way Jacer's handled this.
I personally do not support the proposed Texas bill (pertaining as it does to marriage as a civil institution rather than a religious institution. There's a whole lot of heterosexual couples who don't meet the definition of a "Christian" marriage with their divorcin' and sleeping around. Hence there's a distinction between the "civil" definition marriage and the "Christian" definition, and I see no problem with the "civil" definition being open for gay, trans, whoever being married. As VM has said, America is an officially secular country, not a theocracy. I only wish they didn't share the same word, to avoid confusion, but that's a whole different discussion.
That said, just putting it out there: the New Testament also speaks on the subject of homosexuality (amidst a myriad of other sins), so it's not just an Old Testament thing. As a non-exhaustive list:
Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
But... Christianity and the Bible teach that everyone is sinful and has fallen short of God's standard. Gay, straight, trans, you, me, the Pope; you name it. So it's not a matter of singling out any particular group or person or sin from hatred. I think the church gets hung up on issues of sexuality perhaps a bit much, seeing as Jesus preached on love of money and selfishness more than He preached on sexual sin. But neither does He condone it when he comes across it - John 8:7-11 is a good example of "love the sinner, hate the sin":
"“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Jesus does not condemn her, he acts out of love, but He does call for her to leave her life of sin.
I guess my point is that loving someone doesn't have to mean approving or condoning their actions, but equally that you don't have to abandon your sense of right and wrong to be loving as Jesus commanded, and nor should you.
Elcalion
About halfway through a heavy-duty analysis of those three passages last night. I'll post it when I've got it done, but it basically boiled down to "context, context, context." Romans was talking about the consequences of being an idolator or false prophet - in which your life will basically fall apart in a hurry. Corinthians was Corinthians - written to the Vegas of the ancient world, it was a "Hey! You're supposed to be living differently!", and the original text was condemning things to the tune of mass orgies, frequenting child prostitues, and so on. Timothy was similarly advice to a young man, basically a reminder that he couldn't let anything distract him from his mission.
It's all about the context. Seriously. Never, in the New Testament, that I've been able to find, does it straight-up say that homosexuality, actualized or hypothetical, is a sin.
And, by extension, the rest of that passage of Leviticus.
I'm sure Matthew Shepard's family finds this argument consoling.
Even if you're such a virtuous angel that you can separate your mind so that you can avoid all prejudice and discrimination towards people based on an integral component of their personal identity, scores of others are not. If mainstream Christian churches (esp. in the US) truly only disliked the sin, they'd be doing everything in their power to help LGBT people since that's where the help is needed.
And by help I mean support, love and charity, not re-education camps and torture disguised as 'therapy'.
..."acceptance of lifestyle," then no, they shouldn't be "helping."
However, I hope that you respect my wish for your opinion to eventually change and that you acknowledge the complex intricacies and differences of the various Founding Fathers' faiths, such as Quaker, Protestant, and especially Unitarian.
I don't want to kill you. I'm just curious.
"Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around."
Speaking as an atheist, I take issue with this. This country is a secular nation, regardless of who "founded" it. Many of the founding fathers were actually deists, having no religious affiliation whatsoever. Only three were Roman Catholic.
Religious affiliations aside, I would like to draw your attention to Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This article was signed into action by John Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate. Pay particular attention to the very first sentence.
This is not a Christian nation. It is not a Muslim nation. It is not an atheist nation. It is a secular nation. The State must take a neutral stance on all matters of religion.
"I'm going to follow the Catechism and Pope on what they teach about homosexuality etc."
Then you may by all means do that. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. However, that does not allow you to dictate the rights of those around you.
"Marriage is not a right. It never has been. And it is between one man and one woman."
Then why is there a legal definition of it?
"Also, don't kill me, please."
Don't worry. I only eat babies.
No one here is the type to post on a controversial topic and then run away with our hands over our ears. That said--
It disturbs me greatly that you believe that everyone in the United States of America should abide by the rules of your personal religion. Are you sure you've thought your position through?
So. Let me see if I'm getting this right.
You are a Christian.
The majority of America is Christian, of one kind or another.
Therefore, your religion's rules should be enforced on everyone else.
Tell me, exactly how does this equal that fabled "Freedom of Religion" guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and boasted of so oft abroad?
...why everyone is perfectly happy to accommodate minorities all the freaking time, but the Christians always get bashed?
And I'm not saying "my religion's rules" should be enforced on everyone. I'm saying *the right thing* should be enforced. Whether you agree with me on it, now that's different.
You are saying that your religion's rules should be enforced. You are saying that the 'right thing' should be enforced, but from your previous statements, I can only come to the conclusion that this 'right thing' is determined by your religion's rules, and so, you are stating that we should enforce your religion's rules. As an agnostic, this sort of statement really gets on my nerves. I don't want to be forced to live by the rules of some religion I don't follow.
Christians are the ones that get bashed? I suppose you've had death threats due to your religion or sexual orientation, then? Or maybe as a child you had friends whose parents told you that you couldn't play with their children because your religion was wrong? Oh, or maybe you've been beat up repeatedly because you worshiped a different god from the other kids, while the teacher just watched? No? Then it's pretty hard for me to have any kind of sympathy for you, when this shit has happened to me just because I happen to like people of any gender, and because I'm not Christian. Apparently following the goddess of luck and fate is enough reason for some people to hate you.
I use the "Syncretistic Abomination" label in jest, because of beliefs I hold similar to my ancestors and those of C. S. Lewis. I was raised Fundamental Baptist, Southern in everything but geographical region. Up until I was about fifteen, I believed exactly as you appear to in this thread. Even when I got a crush on one of my best [female] friends, it was "Love the sinner, hate the sin," except it's really easy to hate the sinner when the sinner is yourself.
Your beliefs-- your version of what's right-- is causing kids all over the world to hate themselves. That? Is not right.
*the right thing* Is only the right thing if you're in a specific subsect of Christianity. The rest of the world has different opinions.
Again: this. is. not. a. theocracy.
Your religion doesn't pick what the right thing is.
YOU don't decide what the right thing is.
Someone like you has no right to claim what the right thing is, or should be.
Also, you're not the only Christian here. You're the only hateful, spite filled one here, but not the only Christian. Don't try playing the victim.
And it's pretty amusing how you thing "The right thing" and "What I believe from my religion's rules" seem to line up for you so much.
All in all, you're wrong. You're like the Pillar of Wrong Smoke and Wrong Fire taking the Iswrongilites into the Promised Wrong.
"...why everyone is perfectly happy to accommodate minorities all the freaking time, but the Christians always get bashed?"
You.
Are.
Kidding me.
Christians are the ones getting bashed?
Recently in Bastrop, Louisiana, a teenage boy in the Senior class called out his high school for organizing a school lead prayer. Legally, he is in the right. A school cannot organize a prayer for any religion as that violates the Separation of Church and State.
Guess what happened? He got death threats. His parents disowned him and threw him out of the house.
On billboard signs I see 'atheists' pointing guns at cameras with the words "If God doesn't matter to him, why would you?" On other billboards I see "Don't believe in God? You're not alone!"
Take a wild guess at which billboards get vandalized.
Do not play the victim card. It does not work. Your beliefs do not dictate what is right.
I mean it's not like Western society has been built for over 1500 years around the belief and cultural systems borne out of the Christian faith. It's not like state churches still exist. It's not like churches receive enormous tax credits. It's not like being anything but Christian is a roadblock for anyone seeking elected office in the US.
Well, July stole everything I was going to say, and said it better than I would've. (Also she's actually Catholic, which makes it better.)
I would, however, like to add that there's a difference between stating your opinion and stating your opinion in such a manner that makes this forum an unsafe/uncomfortable place for our QUILTBAG* members, and I don't appreciate that. Being cisgendered myself, it can be easy to forget how our words effect someone who is discriminated against and marginalized every day-- I'd appreciate choosing your words with a little more care. Telling someone their operation is disgusting, their identity is a disorder-- not cool. To say the least.
Also-- your points on religion don't address the fact that this is not a theocracy. The United States is entirely unaffiliated with Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Satanism, Paganism, Islam, Episcopalianism, and/or any other religions you care to name. The laws that say who can and cannot get married, have operations, or whatever else-- they don't have anything to do with your religious beliefs, or mine. They have only to do with the rights of their citizens. "Not being offended" is not on the same level, as a human right, as "Being allowed to get married."
*term picked up from various folks on Slacktivist, a liberal evangelical blog: Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
As an American, you're supposed to be free to believe what pleases you and live your life according to your beliefs. This bill is attempting to strip that right from the people of Texas. Whether you personally believe that being transgender is okay or not, if you value your own right to live the life that's right for you regardless of whether other people agree, then opposing this bill is the right thing to do. That's really all there is to it.
~Neshomeh
I'm Catholic too. And I don't agree in the least.
Let's begin with what you've listed here.
"I firmly believe that male is male and female is female, and what we are born is what we're meant to be."
Gender and sex are different items; gender refers to one's mental state, and sex refers to one's physical and genetic standpoint. It's been proven scientifically that gender is entirely an item of the brain, and that in people who are transgendered, their brains match that of their claimed gender.
"I'm also a staunch supporter of traditional marriage."
I am too. A traditional marriage is comprised of two people who are in love with each other and, according to our religion, undertaking a covenant under God to be together and that they love each other and that this is important enough to them that they want to spend their lives together and be bonded together as one.
What makes a marriage strong, healthy, and long lasting? Love, or the fact that it's a man and a woman? What is more pleasing to God? Two people who love each other deeply, forever, or Britney Spears's 55-hour marriage?
"I don't believe gender identity or homosexuality is something we're born with, I believe they're disorders."
Funny. Left handedness is actually linked to many disorders, but we don't call them sinful or unnatural.
Oh wait, we did.
Left handed people used to be beaten or hurt and generally victimized if they showed themselves to favor their left hand. Godless, sinful, unnatural, and all that.
"And I find sex change operations disgusting."
That is completely a personal matter of opinion and has nothing to do with your statement as it involves religion or people's rights. I too find operations and surgery disgusting in general, but they're a part of life, and that is important for many people and ensure they are able to have the quality of life they deserve as fellow human beings.
"I'm well aware that people on here probably won't consider my religious beliefs as a valid argument, and might even say it's offensive to state them. But you did ask."
No, you did not use your religious beliefs as a valid argument or as a good reason at all; all your reasons had NOTHING to do with being Roman Catholic or any sort of Christian at all. An atheist or agnostic could have easily stated the same reasons as you.
If you're going to claim the religion card, particularly Catholicism or any branch of Christianity, remember first and foremost that we're part of a religion where we chose to follow someone who STATED to us, who TOLD us that we should give to the needy, feed the poor, tend to the ill, and that we should treat everyone well, no matter what, and that everyone is loved, no matter what.
Look at the tale of the Good Samaritan. Or failing that, go read your Bible again. New Testament, to be precise. Failing that, go talk to your priest and ask him the importance of loving everyone no matter what and being good to others.
Because? We're all sinners, regardless of what we do or who we are, and we're all equal in the eyes of God, theologically. He who has not sinned should toss the first stone, and all that. Trying to tell someone that they're unnatural and doomed to go to hell because they're trying to be who they are falls against that, and is denying our basic nature.
Closemindedness is not following our faith, and is actively turning away from the guiding principles that are the basis of our faith.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." -Matthew 7.1-3
America, for the love of God, can we please, PLEASE, stop taking the Bible so seriously in matters where the Bible has absolutely no say in human life? It's a freakin' book!
Seriously, it's when idiots in places like this do something incredibly close-minded and bigoted like this that keeps on distancing me from the church: I haven't willingly gone to a mass in YEARS. And what's more, is that people pull stunts like this, and then we as a nation wonder how we're falling behind everybody else so damn quickly.
I'm almost tempted to burn all the Bibles in America. Almost.
Anyway, that's enough ranting from me. I signed the petition, so...
First off, for the record, the Bible has nothing to say about transgender people. (Er. I'm 98% sure.) So any bigotry and "It's against God!" crying here is entirely the thoughts of mankind.
Second off, the problem lies not with the religion itself (in my opinion) - and even if it did, bigots are entitled to their opinions, and churches who will not sanction transgender marriages are entitled to that right. The problem comes when people try to force their religion into law - this is not a theocracy. The cry generally goes "Secularism!" in about the same tone as you'd shout "Baby-eating!" But honestly, if this is not a secular country, the only other option is a country of one particular religion, because I doubt that the answer to keeping the "Secularism!"-criers happy is to adopt Wicca as the national religion, or Islam. And I mean, Heaven forbid we actually have FREEDOM of religion...
*cough*
Anyway, my point is that the entire religion isn't to blame, just those voices who appear to think that the Founders put the 'freedom of religion' thing into the Bill of Rights because they were complete idiots who thought that the entire world and all immigrants would always believe exactly as they did which actually isn't even the same sect as most of Christianity - even the Constitutional 'literalists' - for the record. I prefer to think that our Founders were not stupid, and put the 'freedom of religion' thing in because... they believed in freedom of, and necessarily therefore, freedom from religion.
...*climbs off the soapbox*
Anyway! Thanks for the link, DS!
The long and short of it is, people are using the Bible to say things they want it to say, when it doesn't actually say anything of the sort. I can only assume they do this because they think that claiming the Bible says something makes their argument immune to logic or something...
I have a history with Christian fundamentalism myself, and I saw the way they treated anybody who didn't act the way they wanted them to. I nearly lost my faith over that. But they made one mistake... they forced me to read the Bible. All the way through, and multiple times. And I realized something: They weren't actually preaching the Bible at all. They were preaching their own subculture. They were making claims that had little to do with the Bible at all.
So yeah. When you see this stuff--it's not representative of Christianity, any more than suicide bombers are representative of Islam or the Soviet prison camps were representative of atheism. People will take an ideology and pervert it, take little bits out of context, then claim that it says whatever they want it to say. Don't believe them--check it out for yourself.
Even if an internet petition signed by people out of state winds up having no legal effect, it's worth it just to raise awareness.
