Susan's Place Transgender Resources

To be honest, I don't know if this belongs here, but I decided to post here anyway...

So today (technically yesterday since I can't sleep :)), I went to church (the youth group has Friday meetings along w/ Sunday service, FYI). Now, my pastor decided to have a "ask me anything" kind of thing (not sure what the reason is). One person asked, "Why is being gay a sin if people say it's natural and they can't just turn heterosexual?"

I just thought that this goes with trans*, so I decided to chime in also (without saying anything about me being trans*)

My pastor's answer kind of goes like this:
I don't get how homosexuality is natural, but let's go with it and say homosexuality is natural. Let's say that a person was born with a naturally high sex drive that God gave them. Just because God gave them this sex drive, does that mean this person should have sex outside of marriage? No, because it's a sin. So why is homosexuality is any different.

I decided to answer with the same kind of format as my pastor's: So let's say that homosexuality is a sin. How are people with homosexuality going to "not sin" (so to speak) and become heterosexual?

The pastor said that everyone sins. The question is how committed to God the sinner is. If they are very committed to God, they should be able to overcome the sin of homosexuality, even if they don't understand what's going on with their sexuality.

Well...I didn't really come up with a response, so the pastor moved on to other questions.

I am just wondering what other people here would argue, because I suck at arguments related to Christianity and their justification of being anti-LGBT.

I would ask the pastor why sex outside of marriage is a sin.  It's important to note that I'm not interested in why he may disapprove of it on a personal level, but rather why he believes it's a sin.  Then ask him how he knows that.  I think that will explain why he thinks the way he does.  Whether that mindset is right or accurate is another thing entirely. 

God made gay people capable of having loving, affirming, nurturing relationships with members of their own gender. People in those relationships not only strengthen each other but have the possibility of passing their strength onto children or into the community.

When God has bestowed this precious ability, would it not be an affront to God to decide they should be forbidden to enter into such relationships?

Quote from: lavini557 on December 07, 2013, 03:40:09 AM
Just because God gave them this sex drive, does that mean this person should have sex outside of marriage? No, because it's a sin. So why is homosexuality is any different..

*sigh* 'Beliefs' are a touchy subject around here. Why ask 'why' and let someone else do your thinking for you? Religion is 'anti-gay', 'anti-trans', anti 'outside-of-marriage' (etc etc) but God is NOT! To say 'all are sinners' and only 'Jesus saves' is COMPLETE BS but then again don't blame your 'pastor messenger', sounds like they (he/she?) means well and is only trying to help.

Point is "heterosexuality' is the product of sin as well and, with homosexuality not really being any different, the institution of MARRIAGE was created out of human necessity to curb the evil abuses that unbridled, rampart 'sexuality' otherwise entails. Indeed in the context of procreation (which is what 'nature' intended sex for?) and given the high incidence of divorce today couldn't one argue that 'trans' and homosexual expressions of love are the lessor 'sin' insofar as there are usually no affected offspring/children involved?

Not all intend to have children so why marry at all? For a start read Paul's 1 Corinthians 7 (http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/1%20Corinthians%2B7/) and see what 'pastor' thinks.

Quote from: Translation bias? More fair, non-gender specific reading:"It is good for a person not to have sexual relations with another. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality . . . '

I have always been against 'gay marriage' not because I feel it is 'MORALLY WRONG' but rather because the human institution of marriage itself has become totally corrupt via bad, one sided 'SOCIALLY DEVASTATING LAWS' that no longer serves GOD's natural purpose it was originally intended for.  ???

Well. You can't argue with your pastor here. If regardless of how natural or unnatural something is, to partake in it is a sin. Then the correct choice (From his point of view) is to simply resist regardless of the cards you are dealt.

I don't agree, but we have a definition disagreement (an impasse). Basically, what a sin is and how we should act in accordance to sin (As well as having religious faith to begin with). I doubt you'd get very far arguing with your pastor, but if you can convince him to change his definition of sin or how one acts in accordance to sin...Well, you'd get a hat tip from me.

Right the basis of biological difference is that we all carry different genes... beyond a certain point those differences qualify us as a different species - but up to a point we remain part of the same species but exhibiting different characteristics. That can be something like a red rose and a yellow rose.

Now undoubtedly the red rose thinks the yellow one is deviant - and if it had a voice would probably preach from the pulpit that being yellow is a sin and that if the yellow rose tried it could probably overcome its yellowness and become red - as indeed all good true roses should be...

Yeah ok there are people who still choose to live in the dark age where they believe that sexual orientation is a CHOICE - they just can't get to the point of realising that it is no more of a choice than a flower's colour is. You may question whether homosexuality has a genetic basis - as medical student I, and my professors, think it does, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if it doesn't because developing a homosexual orientation is still a biological developmental process and therefore not a matter of choice. You cant choose how tall you grow.

So his argument is clearly fallacious because it ascribes a choice to a quality which is biologically innate.

Now to be sinful in the proper sense there has to be choice involved... and as there isn't... Now - what IS true is that being gay is slightly damaging to the chances of that person managing to reproduce, and therefore one could legitimately say that the gay person is at an evolutionary or genetic disadvantage compared with their straight companions - but that is very different from saying that it is wrong for them to be that way.

The pastor should've specified in his answer if just simply being gay is a sin, or if acting on homosexual desires is a sin. Sex outside of marriage applies to everyone.

If he said that just simply being gay is a sin, well, I'd probably argue that's incorrect because as long as they don't do other sins (like masturbate which pertains to straight and gay people or whatever else is supposed to be sinful) they're following the Christian faith and keeping the word of God. If it's natural, they can't change to become straight, but they're able to still follow God's words by not acting on their desires. Lots of people have desires that would be sins if acted upon, but not everyone is deemed a sinner simply because of that.

I'd have trouble arguing against it if he said it's a sin to act upon homosexual desires, but I know there's plenty of Christian theologians who have been able to construe good arguments on this.  You may be interested in the Christianity section of the site: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/board,171.0.html where people have discussed this topic, and also have discussed how being trans is still compatible with the Biblical scriptures, including this post here (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,150877.0.html).

"You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It's part of nature too"   Love and Rockets

I like to think of the example of the cows in India being sacred.  It has been shown that by considering the cows sacred, it kept them from being slaughtered in times of famine.  If they had been slaughtered then, it would have been far worse as they would have nothing to plow the fields after that leading to a total disaster.  So what did they do?  They make the cows sacred so they wouldn't be killed.

In our culture, they make certain behaviors a "sin".  Usually because it is good for the culture in some way to avoid certain behaviors.  If you have unprotected sex, it often spreads diseases, so they make it a "sin" in order to discourage it.  My advice:  Don't worry about the cultural programming, just be smart and always practice safe sex.

We, like everything else, are an expression of God.  It's a play of consciousness.  Find enjoyment where you can.  Just be smart about it.   Your pastor doesn't have the answers.  Trying to convince him is futile.

to people like that i just smile and let them be. they tend to be the ones who seek out fellow men and pre ops on the down low anyways. i look at it as they want you to be like flanders on the Simpsons. not realistic. just because they dont understand things does not make them right.  but its fun to mess with them and ask them questions like that because they tend to get mad

Quote from: Etymology: Gk, eune, couch, echein, to guard
A male whose testicles have been destroyed or removed. If this occurs before puberty, secondary sex characteristics fail to develop, and symptoms such as a feminine voice and absence of facial hair can result from the reduced level of male hormones in the blood.

Given the similarity of definition, physical description of 'eunuchs' . . . who is to say exactly what form 'trans' has taken dating as far back as The Bible itself?

Quote from: Salvation for Foreigners
•Isaiah 56:
and let not the 'trans' say,
"Behold, I am a dry tree."
4 For thus says the Lord:
"To the 'trans' who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant,
5 I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off. ( lol no pun intended? )

By definition, a sin is an absolute dictum from God saying "though shalt not!".  When God says, "thou shalt not murder", it doesn't give me licence to kill folks just because I was born angry.  This is basically your Pastor's argument.  From a religious standpoint, it isn't an argument that can be countered.

What you can address is the underlying question about who gets to decide something is a sin in the first place.

Who decided which of the sins of Leviticus no longer apply so that it is OK for you to eat a lobster but not wear a bra or jockstrap if you aren't entitled to one?
Who decided it is still pardonable to kill witches and homosexuals but not to stone adulterers?

It isn't the Bible that decides.  Apart from the cherry-picking of Leviticus on what sins to enforce, there are a number of "interpreted" sins that are no longer even considered valid.  For example, Who decided that the "Curse of Ham" was a racial sin that made it OK to keep blacks in slavery... and how was that debunked.  (Or at least discredited to the point where the folks who still believe it can no longer declare their belief in public.)

In short, it is individual people and the consensus of the congregation who decide what they believe to be a sin.  After that, it's just a matter of finding a biblical justification.

You can try to argue with your pastor that the new covenant God established with mankind through Jesus means that it is no more sinful to be gay than it is to work on Sunday, but I doubt that will get you anywhere.  If this really bothers you, all I can say is... find a new church that affirms what you believe. Your interpretation of what God wants is just as valid as your pastor's.

I can't really talk about "sin" since I have just a little more than zero experience with religion. I was raised without it, but never told what to believe. My parents urged me to discover the answers for myself.

But the whole "unnatural" argument bugs me because it's so obviously an invalid argument.

If homosexuality is unnatural why is the clitoris on the outside and the prostate on the inside? :icon_confused2: Seems to me nature (God?) saw fit to give us the ability to orgasm with a same sex partner.

It's actually hard to argue that it's unnatural when our bodies are designed to make it a very natural thing to do. And considering that most people are least a little bit bisexual, and a pretty large chunk of the world's population is homosexual, the numbers tell a very different story. If it is in your nature to love someone of your same sex, isn't it unnatural to act against your nature to force yourself to fit in with the status quo?

(That would be true for trans people as well.)

Yeah, there are plenty of homosexual animals, even some transgender species.  All part of the plan.  An argument could be against using hormones or surgery, but no one makes that argument against anyone else using medical drugs or medical intervention(maybe a few religious groups like the Amish or something).  Not fair too apply an argument selectively. 

Quote from: lavini557 on December 07, 2013, 03:40:09 AM
My pastor's answer kind of goes like this:
I don't get how homosexuality is natural, but let's go with it and say homosexuality is natural. Let's say that a person was born with a naturally high sex drive that God gave them. Just because God gave them this sex drive, does that mean this person should have sex outside of marriage? No, because it's a sin. So why is homosexuality is any different.

OK, it's just me thinking here (and forgive me if I've missed something, but 7 finals in a week while trying to fix two computers... MAJOR brain drain atm).  So the Pastor is saying here that a high sex drive does not excuse sex outside of marriage. Then he asks why homosexuality is different from that.  In my little mind, I see that he's arguing for same-sex marriage, because by his logic, the homosexual person then wouldn't be sinning.  And if he is not sinning if he's married, then he CANNOT be arguing that homosexuality is a sin, since he himself has defined a case where it was not a sin.

Quote from: lavini557 on December 07, 2013, 03:40:09 AM
To be honest, I don't know if this belongs here, but I decided to post here anyway...

So today (technically yesterday since I can't sleep :)), I went to church (the youth group has Friday meetings along w/ Sunday service, FYI). Now, my pastor decided to have a "ask me anything" kind of thing (not sure what the reason is). One person asked, "Why is being gay a sin if people say it's natural and they can't just turn heterosexual?"

I just thought that this goes with trans*, so I decided to chime in also (without saying anything about me being trans*)

My pastor's answer kind of goes like this:
I don't get how homosexuality is natural, but let's go with it and say homosexuality is natural. Let's say that a person was born with a naturally high sex drive that God gave them. Just because God gave them this sex drive, does that mean this person should have sex outside of marriage? No, because it's a sin. So why is homosexuality is any different.

I decided to answer with the same kind of format as my pastor's: So let's say that homosexuality is a sin. How are people with homosexuality going to "not sin" (so to speak) and become heterosexual?

The pastor said that everyone sins. The question is how committed to God the sinner is. If they are very committed to God, they should be able to overcome the sin of homosexuality, even if they don't understand what's going on with their sexuality.

Well...I didn't really come up with a response, so the pastor moved on to other questions.

I am just wondering what other people here would argue, because I suck at arguments related to Christianity and their justification of being anti-LGBT.

Sounds like your pastor had no answer, so just made up some nonsense to try to justify his hatred and bigotry.
There is no response, because you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Maybe you can move to a different church that isn't bigoted, or leave religion all together.

Now, today I asked him what his definition of sin was. He defined it as "a twist of something good". For example, going along with his previous examples, sex is a good thing given from God. But, a person with a hyper sex drive can abuse sex and twist it into something bad. Same for homosexuality: sexuality is good, but people who think "Oh, I don't like God's plan, and I like being homosexual" twist sexuality into something bad.
Now, pastor was ranting about how Paul and other people mention in the bible how things like homosexuality, bestiality, etc. were sins. And then I was thinking. What if homosexuality was part of God's plan, yet the writers of the bible (such as Paul) did not know the entire plan? For example, there's microorganisms. The bible never mentioned those in Genesis. So I told this to my pastor.
He said that it's irrelevant because the bible is not a biology book. It's a book to show God's power (or something along those lines). So then I argue, "Why couldn't God have even mentioned it to some degree? I would think that people would be more awed by it." Pastor said that it's still irrelevant. It's like writing a philosophical paper and randomly putting math in there.

To me, this analogy...makes no sense.

Maybe I'll stop arguing with him (unless he brings it up again to me), because he has the right to think how he wants like how I have the right to think how I want. However, I might mention what SunKat said: who decides what a sin is in the first place. I'm very curious as to what his answer would be.

There's no arguing with his logic because it is self-servingly closed.

His argument is valid. It just isn't reasonable, compassionate, compelling, or interesting.

The assumption being made is that words written in a book are right and the final word on everything.  If you agree with that assumption, then there is not a great argument for homosexuality, other than maybe that Jesus never mentioned it, or that there is little (but some) mention in the new testament about it.  If you don't agree with his assumption, there many arguments you could make, but I don't think you will get anywhere with him because he isn't going to change his mind on the final authority or validity (however contradictory) of the words in the Bible.

There is very little mention of transness in the Bible though and the few places where it could be construed as talking about trans people, those things can be argued against while still holding the Bible as truth I believe.  So because of how specific the Bible is on homosexuality, it is actually easier to argue for being trans than gay with Christian types.  Of course, just realize you probably won't get anywhere on either topic with them though.

Oh and there is also this thing I saw the other day that I liked:

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/q71/1467430_10151853716981275_919028453_n.jpg)

Quote from: lavini557 on December 08, 2013, 04:25:50 PM
Now, today I asked him what his definition of sin was. He defined it as "a twist of something good". For example, going along with his previous examples, sex is a good thing given from God. But, a person with a hyper sex drive can abuse sex and twist it into something bad. Same for homosexuality: sexuality is good, but people who think "Oh, I don't like God's plan, and I like being homosexual" twist sexuality into something bad.
Now, pastor was ranting about how Paul and other people mention in the bible how things like homosexuality, bestiality, etc. were sins. And then I was thinking. What if homosexuality was part of God's plan, yet the writers of the bible (such as Paul) did not know the entire plan? For example, there's microorganisms. The bible never mentioned those in Genesis. So I told this to my pastor.
He said that it's irrelevant because the bible is not a biology book. It's a book to show God's power (or something along those lines). So then I argue, "Why couldn't God have even mentioned it to some degree? I would think that people would be more awed by it." Pastor said that it's still irrelevant. It's like writing a philosophical paper and randomly putting math in there.

To me, this analogy...makes no sense.

Maybe I'll stop arguing with him (unless he brings it up again to me), because he has the right to think how he wants like how I have the right to think how I want. However, I might mention what SunKat said: who decides what a sin is in the first place. I'm very curious as to what his answer would be.

Your pastor isn't an authority on anything. He's a person who is a prime example of what is called the Dunning Kruger effect; he is so incompetent that he is incapable of gauging his own level of (in)competence. He's just managed to con his way into a position of apparent authority because that's how faith systems work. No matter what question you ask, you're just going to get a response that isn't sufficient and won't stand up to scrutiny.

Quote from: Thylacin on December 08, 2013, 09:51:56 PM
Your pastor isn't an authority on anything. He's a person who is a prime example of what is called the Dunning Kruger effect; he is so incompetent that he is incapable of gauging his own level of (in)competence. He's just managed to con his way into a position of apparent authority because that's how faith systems work. No matter what question you ask, you're just going to get a response that isn't sufficient and won't stand up to scrutiny.

You seem to know a lot about a person you've never met before.  :)

His answers seem to be completely in line with that many Christian churches that aren't openly pro-LGBT teach. I don't have a problem with it at all, if that's what he believes the religion says and that's what other authorities in his denomination says, that's fine with me. Don't like it? Find another denomination. Just because you do not agree with someone doesn't make them completely incompetent.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree. The responses to the questions are fallacious arguments, and they're just ad hoc attempts to justify bigotry and ignorance.

This argument is one that's going to be a very, very, hard sell to the pastor. As a kid he was probably raised up in a fundamentalist family structure and then he went to seminary and had other things pounded into his head and now his beliefs are set in concrete. What he's saying and believing is right in line with many other mainline denominations, and it's a comfortable and well known position. There is safety in numbers and conventional thinking and beliefs, and there are dire circumstances for daring to think outside the box - for example, he could quickly be tossed out of the church for accepting LGBT people into his congregation. His position is set.

The solution is to find an enlightened church that will welcome you, and is not concerned about what you are wearing or who you are. I believe that churches like this are a lot closer to how Jesus would have us worship and serve then those other buttoned down churches. These churches are a little bit harder to find, but they are out there.

I found a MCC church in my area and went dressed en femme and was warmly welcomed by the people there. It was refreshing to simply focus on the message and not have to worry about what people were thinking about me.

Romans 3:23 tells us that:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

and Romans 10:13 tells us that:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Hmmm.... churches sure have made simple things complicated.

The way I see it with respect to trans is this:  God puts the soul into the body and Satan can do nothing to your soul without your consent. However, Satan can easily muck about with physical matter, including our bodies. If there is a discrepancy between the gender of the body and the gender of the soul we can say one thing; God doesn't make mistakes, so it must be the body that is out of order. By allowing a trans person to transition and be accepted within the community, we set things back into harmony with God's plan. By that argument, being anti-Trans can be considered a sin.

This can also be seen in many intersex people who have a particular gender identity but who may have ambiguous genetic characteristics. This could be argued to be proof of Satan mucking about with the person's genes to trick him/her into a path of sin.

If you are of the Christian systems that don't regard Satan as an actual entity, but as more of a metaphor, you can just point to our physical bodies as being imperfect forms made of crude matter that don't always correspond to our perfectly-born souls.

Of course, plenty of religious authorities would argue that I am just repeating lies whispered to me by the Ol' Deceiver. Funny thing about the Bible; you can use it to prove just about anything and someone else can use it to disprove everything you propose. Ultimately, you just have to go with whatever your heart says is the Godly answer.