Susan's Place Transgender Resources

"In contrast to this divinely ordered vision for human gender and sexual expression, today we in the West are confronted by a spirit of "transgender" activism – flowing out of the gay rights movement – that says gender no longer matters, that the distinctives of male and female are merely social constructs and that the sexes are interchangeable. Ironically, while these activists argue that a homosexual orientation is fixed and immutable, they incoherently claim that gender is "fluid" and changeable."

Focus on the Family - ->-bleeped-<- (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexual_identity/-%3E-bleeped-%3C-.aspx)

This is the kind of crap these people are spewing out that help make our lives miserable. If you don't understand it, condemn it, just like God and Jesus would have wanted.  ::)

I don't know about them, but my gender has always been female.

Julie

A friend of mine and I may be sending letters and other materials in response to some of the rhetoric being spewed by such organizations and individuals. One of things I have done is to relate my life journey to the way God has moved in my life. Being transgender has made me study scripture with  thoroughness and clarity.

It the attitude of some of these people that is appalling. I could write a whole essay about this but that's another story for another post.

Gennee

Near as I can figure when you claim to be a preacher and don't have a clue as what to preach the easiest thing to do is keep coming up with a new line of garbage every now and then for gullible people to buy.

I don't mind so much that the oppose it...people can and do over-apply what they think they get from the Bible.

What bugs me - and it bugs me most because contrary to the prevailing wisdom in our community I DO have a lot of respect for FotF in general terms - is that they have it wrong in terms of what they THINK they are opposing.

While there is an (I think valid) argument that a lot of gender expression is cultural, and thus somewhat fluid (i.e. the length and style of hair, or who gets to wear pants, for a couple of obvious examples) that is not the same as gender identity and I would suggest that the vast majority of the TG/TS community doesn't argue anything even similar to the idea that gender is fluid.

When you base your position on a totally flawed understanding of what it is you are opposing you can't help but surrender a massive amount of credibility and that hurts everything you do, even in places where you are doing some good.

The older I get the more I get disappointed in everything and everybody *sigh* - I'm way more a cynic than I used to be.

Gender identity is immutable. And it is enitrely possible to change body anatomically correspond the identity that is based on neurological backround.

You know what FoF really prays for - more tax free money.

They are all butthurt because they are slipping more and more into irrelevance - if not outright absurdity.  (Witness the mental gymnastics last week as what's left of the Religious Right - and FoF are huge standard bearers for the movement - tried really, really hard to redefine the word 'quit' which, up until last week, was defined as walking away before you finished a job you said you would do.)

I really don't think they matter much anymore, and with luck they are going to destroy the Republican Party before they are done.  Perhaps there is a god after all.

Quote from: gennee on July 14, 2009, 10:52:51 AM
I could write a whole essay about this but that's another story for another post.

Gennee

DO it....... :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly:

Quote from: daisybelle on July 14, 2009, 01:41:00 PM
DO it....... :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly: :icon_userfriendly:

I already have. The Natural Order of Creation (http://www.whosoever.org/v9i3/order.shtml)

Quote from: Julie Marie on July 14, 2009, 10:41:48 AM
"In contrast to this divinely ordered vision for human gender and sexual expression,

Do they mean this divinely ordered vision? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

It is articles like this that generates bigotry and hatred.

Quote from: focus on the Family: Our Position (->-bleeped-<-)While God's intent for sexuality and gender is being turned upside down, we must remember that those who struggle with their gender identity have lived lives of great pain, confusion and rejection. And, just as Jesus went out of his way to reach the outcasts of society, we're called to humbly share His love embodied in the Gospel, to lift them up in prayer and to allow the Holy Spirit to bring about conviction, healing and transformation.

As long as we do it they way.  What happened to the teachings of Christ: To love thy neighbor as you love yourselves (TLB, Luke 10:25-37).  And they wonder why some Muslims think that Christians, and their great Devil, The United States, is out to crush their beliefs.   

Quote from: focus on the Family: Our Position (->-bleeped-<-)We call upon all parents to take a proactive role in their children's development by providing them with a strong, Christian example of what it means to be male and female. Many of the problems associated with ->-bleeped-<-, like confusion and pain, stem from a lack of parental involvement and guidance. Children must be taught that, just as each individual life has inestimable worth, so too each gender brings its own unique characteristics of inestimable worth to relationships, family and society.

Such as "beating the girl out of the boy".  Violence breeds violence.  Just what we need more hatred and violence.

Did they forget this?

Quote from: (NIV, John 13:34-35)"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

How dare they call themselves Christians.  They don't even follow a commandment from Christ himself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate all Christians.  Just those, like this article, that preaches hatred, bigot and violence.

Janet

Janet hun, I love you but I have to quibble...

Quote
And they wonder why some Muslims think that Christians, and their great Devil, The United States, is out to crush their beliefs.

I sure hope you are aware that orthodox Muslims hold in the highest regard the theology that says that all other faiths should be eliminated and all converted to Islam.

whatever Muslims think about Christianity, it is the Muslim faith around the world that is converting Christians and others to Islam at the point of a sword or a torch...not the other way round.

Quote
Such as "beating the girl out of the boy".  Violence breeds violence.  Just what we need more hatred and violence.

It's comments like this that draw me into these unwinnable religious debates.

YEs there are misguided and frankly I think twisted people who do that...and some (definitely not ALL) of them do so (falsely) under the banner of religion

BUT

There is no way in HELL the FoF or any other Evangelical Christian organization advocates "beatings" of ANY sort as a remedy for psychological conditions (which is what they would say we have)

I challange you or anyone to find me one quote anywhere from James Dobson or any other recognized evangelical leader who says ANYTHING that can REMOTELY be construed as advocating violence against trans people, or gays for that matter, and most especially as it pertains to children.

Again, YES some twisted people will say "Dobson said it was sin so I'm gonna beat the sin out of this boy" but that is NOT what Dobson and his people would want to happen and NOT what any of their material says.

In fact, they specifically say at every turn that people like us (that they DO disapprove of admittedly) should be dealt with in compassion and love, not hatred and violence.

I'm sorry to be so confrontational about this but I believe if you are going to oppose someone, oppose them for what they really are, not for the positions you falsely attribute to them.

what you did here, with all due respect, is EXACTLY the sort of thing some foolish religious folks do when they claim we "chose" to be trans or that we are all sexual perverts.

We can disagree without making villains of each other.

Quote
Just those, like this article, that preaches hatred, bigot and violence.

there is not one word in that article that supports hatred or violence.

Bigotry I'd give you - though I'd call it bad theology and ignorance - but nothing - NOTHING - in that quote suggested we should be hated or the victims of violence.

   Dr. James Dobson, is a child psychologist and founder of the fundamentalist Christian agency, Focus on the Family. In his Reference Guide, he recommended that babies younger than 15 months should not be spanked. He wrote:
   "There is no excuse for spanking babies or children younger than 15 to 18 months of age. But midway through the second year (18 months) boys and girls become capable of knowing what your telling them to do or not do."
   "If children cry for longer than five minutes, "the child is merely complaining...I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."

That was the first hit when I googled "Dobson James corporal punishment" - there were over 6000 hits, read them at your leisure.

Oh goodie!  Another Let's Hate The Christians thread.  We sure need some more of those.

Just to be clear about one thing here:  James Dobson is not, and never has claimed to be, an ordained minister.  As Tekla pointed out, he is a psychologist.

I do disagree with him on a number of things.  What is worse, though, is those who take what he says to its extreme.  Yes, he certainly advocates corporal punishment.  And yes, he certainly believes that we, the TG crowd, are wrong.    I think he truly does not understand the issues here. 

No, I do not give money to his organization or support him in any way.  But I find it interesting that this whole issue is a minuscule part of what he is saying and doing.  There is a lot more that FoF does.  I have met Dobson twice and interviewed him once.  Whatever else you say about him, I have to give him credit where it is due.  I personally found him to be a very kind and caring individual.   Of course it is much easier and more fun to just demonize someone, so I have no delusions that anyone is interested in getting the whole story.

Now I know what is coming.  I am wearing my asbestos bra. 

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc05.deviantart.com%2Ffs13%2Ff%2F2007%2F110%2Ff%2F6%2F_flame__by_trojanwolf.gif&hash=bde81250ae093314d77091f81452ea0482e040e3)(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

As one of the major players in what has now become known as 'the culture war' he may well be free to preach what he chooses, but he did America no favors and like others in that band, I think when all is said and done, he did great harm to this nation.

Read this, very interesting. 

http://www.alternet.org/politics/141248/provocative_new_book_challenges_us_to_really_ask_%22why%22/ (http://www.alternet.org/politics/141248/provocative_new_book_challenges_us_to_really_ask_%22why%22/)

Bishop argues that our country has become increasingly segregated by ideology. Americans are moving to towns and cities to live with people like themselves, who believe similar things. We are clustering "in communities of sameness, among people with similar ways of life, beliefs, and, in the end, politics." One way to see this trend in action is to look at our elections.

The increasing incidence of "landslide counties" (counties in which a candidate wins by 20 percentage points or more) exemplifies how Americans are becoming more homogeneous on a community level. Between 1976 and 2004, the number of counties in which the presidential election was a landslide doubled, from a quarter of the population to half. It is conventional wisdom, for example, that the 2004 presidential election was one of the closest presidential campaigns in history. Yet, as Bishop points out, nearly half of American voters lived in places where a single candidate won definitively. On a macro level, America is closely divided. But these elections aren't close calls in our communities, because we've moved to places with neighbors who believe what we believe and vote the same way.

Our changing demography isn't the result of mass migratory patterns such as those we have seen in our nation's history, but of people who are sorting themselves one by one. We are concentrating ourselves by belief, and the result is localities that are becoming "politically monogamous." Bishop calls this phenomenon the Big Sort.

Quote from: tekla on July 15, 2009, 09:28:44 PM
   Dr. James Dobson, is a child psychologist and founder of the fundamentalist Christian agency, Focus on the Family. In his Reference Guide, he recommended that babies younger than 15 months should not be spanked. He wrote:
   "There is no excuse for spanking babies or children younger than 15 to 18 months of age. But midway through the second year (18 months) boys and girls become capable of knowing what your telling them to do or not do."
   "If children cry for longer than five minutes, "the child is merely complaining...I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears."

That was the first hit when I googled "Dobson James corporal punishment" - there were over 6000 hits, read them at your leisure.

of course he advocates corporal punishment.

so do I for that matter.

But being for corporal punishment is NOT being for corporal punishment for EVERYTHING.

Spanking a kid for gender issues is akin to spanking a kid for being depressed or shy.

It's not the same as spanking them for throwing a football in the house or whatever.

If I may Laura and respond to your post....

That is the estimation that I get from what I have read or heard from the radical factions of the faith.  I don't think that most of our Muslim brothers and sisters think that.  I think many have a deep respect for the United States.  As I have for their beliefs.

I so agree, but I have read that from somewhere, I don't remember.  If fact I do believe that it was said on a radio station, not long ago.  Or at least words similar.


Exactly my point.  There are nuts out there that would use their words to justify their actions of violence.
BUT

They also don't preach violence against Abortion doctors or clinics ether, but some of their followers will take it as a call to arms like some have done against law abiding doctors.

I base my opinions on some personal facts.  If I may, let me tell you all a story.  I was a Christian at one time.  When I asked my pastor for some guidance regarding my GID.  He began screaming at me, quoting scripture and he physically stuck me with his Bible. several times, calling the demon out of me. After I was attacked by this respect member of the clergy, I asked God 'Why'.  And I received no answer.  That was when I realized that this person of God was so filled with hate for me that he would have killed me if I let him.  So when I say the things I have said it is just because these are similar words this pastor preach at church on Sunday.  It scares the h**I out of me to hear it all again.  If they believe in love why don't they preach that acceptance is love.  It may be hate the sin, but love the sinner.  But I have not sinned.  I am just a woman who was cursed at birth.
Many of our brothers and sisters here are of many faiths.  I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but after being violently attacked by a man of God, maybe you can understand why I don't trust people who preach these kinds of things. And yes not all pastors are like that person, but I fear for our safety from the extremist factions that will use it for violence and hatred.

Kristi,
No, I don't think it is a "Let's hate the Christians" thread as why do they wish for everyone to believe as they do.

Sorry to offend.

Janet

Quote from: Kristi on July 15, 2009, 09:49:49 PM
Of course it is much easier and more fun to just demonize someone, so I have no delusions that anyone is interested in getting the whole story.

Isn't the irony fascinating? That is very true AND it is EXACTLY the mentality that the mean ol' christians are supposed to be guilty of which makes them so hateful.

---

Post Merge: July 15, 2009, 10:30:57 PM

---

QuoteI don't think that most of our Muslim brothers and sisters think that.  I think many have a deep respect for the United States.  As I have for their beliefs.

Indeed.

but which are we talking about her - the doctrines of the faith, or the views of the faithful?

In BOTH religion MOST of the faithful have a "live and let live" attitude towards the other faith.

In BOTH religions, the doctrines of the faith suggest that only their religion is right and everyone should belong to it BUT in Islam, the doctrines of the faith not only permit but encourage forced conversions - In Christian doctrine there is NO place for forced conversions (even though history has examples)

Quote
I have read that from somewhere, I don't remember.  If fact I do believe that it was said on a radio station, not long ago.  Or at least words similar.

And we just assume the remark was derivitive of Christian teaching? the last place I heard it was from those radio hosts in Sacramento who never invoke christian morality to support the position and, when confronted, listened and learned and changed thier views.

Quote
There are nuts out there that would use their words to justify their actions of violence.
...
They also don't preach violence against Abortion doctors or clinics ether, but some of their followers will take it as a call to arms like some have done against law abiding doctors.

But that is faulty reasoning my dear. If I say to you that the taking of innocent life is wrong and you go out and take a life because of it, how is it my fault? If a policeman tells you smoking pot is wrong do you go out and kill a drug dealer? And if you do is it the policeman's fault?

Just because a violent nutter twists something as an excuse to be violent doesn't make the original speaker a villain.

That's the same logic that suggests that if a kid hears about sex in rock music it makes it the music's fault if he has sex. don't we laugh at fundies for that kind of logic?

Quote
If I may, let me tell you all a story.

I dispiar that there are so-called Christians like that as much as you do. There is NO Biblical excuse for that stupidity.

And I make no excuse for that behavior. In a just world you could have called him out before the church and he would have lost his job.

Nevertheless, you CANNOT logically suggest that when a person says "LOVE" a nutter hears that word and hates anyway and it's still the fault of the person who said love.

A thousand things are believed by all of us to be wrong and none of us go out and attack the person doing it (dealing drugs, cheating on taxes, whatever)

just because you say "X is wrong" (even though you are wrong to say it) is NEVER a reason to blame you if a nutter gets violent in response.

Quote
I am sorry if I have offended anyone[.quote]
i can't speak for others but I'm not offended - certainly not as a matter of faith issues in conflict.

my argument here is not in defense of Christianity or any Christian, it's in defense of actual facts and sound reasoning as opposed to emotional straw men and red herrings and other assorted illlogic.

I totally understand WHY you feel these emotions and I feel them for you, what happened to you is indefensible.

but that doesn't make your claims more sound logically.

Do you think if Dobson had caught his 14 year old son in full drag that he wouldn't spank them?  I kinda doubt it.

And I raised two kids, nether of which were ever given corporal punishment of any sort what so ever by either their mom or me (unless you count shoveling snow or cutting the grass, which they would have done at any rate) and both graduated from good universities on the honor roll, and have done well for themselves, so violence is not the only way to go.  Damn liberal parents setting their kids up for failure and all.

And I have no problem with Christianity, there are part of it I like even like the way that Catholic Gothic architecture seems to mirror the areas of light and darkness within all of us.  I can see where people find great comfort in it, and all other religions.  I don't believe in any of them, but that's beside the point.  However, when religion separates from the private lives of the believers and congregations and attempts to enter the public sphere, and promote its beliefs as law, then there are problems, not the least of which is that once you choose, as FotF did, as Pat Robertson did, as the Liberty Road Baptist Church did - then any, and all criticism is fair game, as that criticism is at the root of the democratic experience in America.  To say that you have the right to enter the public debate, but in doing so you are exempt from critique, is not just wrong, its un-American.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 15, 2009, 10:11:43 PM
In BOTH religions, the doctrines of the faith suggest that only their religion is right and everyone should belong to it BUT in Islam, the doctrines of the faith not only permit but encourage forced conversions

That is simply false. The Qur'an says "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and that principle has always been the norm. Christian lands in the Middle East like Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries after being conquered and continuously ruled by Muslims. Is that what you call forced conversion at the point of a sword? The Coptic Christians of Egypt preferred Muslim rule to Byzantine, because the Byzantine church oppressed the Coptic faithful--by the sword. While the Muslim rulers allowed the different Christian sects including the Copts to practice their religion in peace.

The practices of the first four caliphs are considered normative, and all these conquests took place during that early caliphal period. They not only did not force conversion, for a while in the conquered lands they actually tried to suppress conversion, because it was happening at an accelerated rate, because conversion to Islam was financially advantageous. It's really a mercantile civilization above all. You don't make good business relationships by brandishing swords at people. You negotiate deals to both parties' mutual economic satisfaction.

Having just made a protest concerning stereotyping of Christians--you don't want Christians to be defined by their most extreme adherents, right?--it would be intellectually inconsistent to turn around and stereotype Islam by its most extreme adherents. You don't know enough about Islam to be making wildly inaccurate claims about it like that.

QuoteDo you think if Dobson had caught his 14 year old son in full drag that he wouldn't spank them?

I'm 98% sure he wouldn't.

At the VERY outside, if he had repeatedly forbid it and the son had repeatedly did so....MAYBE there would be a spanking for disobediance...MAYBE...but even then I doubt it because what he WOULS have done, assuming the son copped to feeling TS, would be to have gotten him into some nice "Christian counseling" that would have tried to brainwash him out of it.

and chances are that would have led to the son repressing it until sometime in adulthood.

and NO, I do NOT agree with that "solution"...but the fact remains I do NOT believe Dobson would employ CP in this circumstance.


He's not a monster, despite the demonetization.

Quote
However, when religion separates from the private lives of the believers and congregations and attempts to enter the public sphere, and promote its beliefs as law, then there are problems

On this we do not disagree but...

Quote
then any, and all criticism is fair game

Full stop.

THAT is total BS, excuse me for being frank.

HONEST criticism is fair game. Making stuff up is not.

If it is fair game for you to say Dobson believe in violence to suppress ->-bleeped-<-, then it is also fair game for Dobson to say that you are a sex addicted whore spreading AIDS all over your city.

Or, ya know, you can both be honest and THAT will be fair.

Quote
That is simply false. The Qur'an says "Let there be no compulsion in religion" and that principle has always been the norm.

The prophet himself conquered in the name of Allah.

I have seen other quotes from that holy book which says things like the trees should cry out if a Jew is hiding behind them "come and kill this jew" and so forth.

i concede I don't know that book like I do the Bible but there are a lot of quotes that suggest it and a lot of behavior in this very hour that affirms it. and no, I don't mean isolated incidents I mean people being put to death for conversions and put to death for not converting in numerous places around the world.

BUT

let's say I'm wrong. let's say that it is NOT doctrine to do that and these are isolated cases.

The fact STILL remains that forced conversion is anathema in Christianity and there are virtually NO examples in the last couple of centuries of it happening and yet Janet implied the Muslims had reason to fear "Christian nations"

Quote
While the Muslim rulers allowed the different Christian sects including the Copts to practice their religion in peace.

while paying tribute?

Besides, I'll frankly admit that the official state church right through to the Reformations was a total piece of work and did so many unchristian things that volumes can't contain them.

I'm not defending Christians who let power corrupt and can't get it right, I'm discussing what actual biblical Christian doctrine is and how it is practiced by modern Christians.

Quote

Having just made a protest concerning stereotyping of Christians--you don't want Christians to be defined by their most extreme adherents, right?--it would be intellectually inconsistent to turn around and stereotype Islam by its most extreme adherents. You don't know enough about Islam to be making wildly inaccurate claims about it like that.

conceded for the sake of the larger point. Over the years I've read a lot of what I consider to be quality scholarship which disagrees with your view, but I am past the point of being a student of comparative religions and am not prepared to cite sources to refute you so I yield on the point.

But I think that the original point in regards to the idea that Islam has something to fear from Christians remains very valid.

There's a basic premise that tells me if someone is Christian or not.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  I'm not talking the Bible, I'm talking the way Christ lived and what he stood for.

When you say something that hurts one of God's creations, when that creation is doing no harm, you are not Christian and are not following God's will.  That's my belief.  But often I see those who claim to be Christian hurting others by condemning them, speaking poorly of them and encouraging others to ostracize them, and in general making the lives of innocent people miserable.  They are not Christians, they are working for the "other side".

Don't forget, "Beware of false gods".  Many of these fear and hate mongers preach their intolerance under the guise of being good Christians.  But they HURT PEOPLE!  Is that what Christians do?  Is that following what we understand God's will to be?  But if instead we take the will of  >:-) into account, isn't that more in accordance of what we'd expect out of that persona?

I'm not at all surprised so many people are down on Christian groups.  Look at what they preach.  Look at the intolerance.  Look at the condemnation that comes from their leaders.  They take their beliefs and present them as if they know God's will.  No one KNOWS God's will.  For those of us who think God represents good, we make assumptions that doing good is following God's will.  But to assume you have all the answers and spew out intolerance without even knowing the facts is irresponsible and certainly not what I think God's will to be. 

We hear that being gay is not natural but there are scientific studies that prove homosexual activities happen all the time in the animal world.  Yet these so called religious experts pound the drum loudly proclaiming homosexuality is unnatural.  The truth is they just can't tolerate it but rather than admit that they lie.

If these people end up on the hot seat because of the words they have spoken publicly, they deserve what they get.  They are nothing more than politicians trying to say whatever they feel they need to say to keep their jobs and force their lifestyle on others.

As far as advocating violence, anyone who incites a person or group into an emotional rage has to accept responsibility for that.  Preaching intolerance, trying to force others to change, comparing innocent acts to violent ones, and all the other falsehoods that result in people hating one another IS WRONG! And from this hatred these fear mongers stir up comes violence.

You don't have to tell someone to carry out acts of violence, all you have to do is play upon his or her fears and let them know if this "agenda" isn't stopped they will lose what they have.  Then watch the mob take to the streets with torches in hand.  It's been done thousands of times.

For those of you who speak so well of the James Dobson's of the world, I challenge you to present in your identified gender and approach him and say, "I am transgender and proud of it."  Then let us know who that goes.

Well I have to go now.  I'm late for my reparative therapy session.

Julie

Quote from: Julie Marie on July 16, 2009, 03:50:36 PM

Well I have to go now.  I'm late for my reparative therapy session.

:laugh:

I think you waited a bit too long for that, my dear! :laugh:

Quote
As far as advocating violence, anyone who incites a person or group into an emotional rage has to accept responsibility for that.  Preaching intolerance, trying to force others to change, comparing innocent acts to violent ones, and all the other falsehoods that result in people hating one another IS WRONG! And from this hatred these fear mongers stir up comes violence.

Nonsense.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says that underage drinking, and  drinking and driving are WRONG.

Has anyone ever gone out and killed a drunk because they are doing wrong?

Gay rights organization insist that intolerance is WRONG. Has any gay or trans person ever went out and killed a Christian or Muslim because they are intolerant?

In both cases and thousands more, the answer is no.

Heck, even if you confine it to religion - Orthodox Judaism and Islam both forbid the consumption of pork? has either teaching EVER incited someone to kill a man for the bacon on his sandwich?

Likewise, Christianity and Islam says drunkenness is wrong - please point to the long and sordid history of Christians shooting up bars and crack houses.

On and on and on the examples go.

And yet...YET...we are supposed to believe that in the ONE area of sexual behavior....in that and only that one area...perfectly normal people can be incited to violence by the realization that someone around them is doing "wrong" sexually?

Heck even THAT doesn't hold water - Scripture (of all there monotheistic religions) says that adultery is wrong - feel free to point out to be the last time a religious nut attacked a swingers club with violence.

Nope. Doesn't fly. Not at all. Nutters who do nutty things are responsible for their own actions. Period.

Just because a nutter can say this sermon or that book or that song or that game or that movie made me a nutter is, IMO, utter B.S.


Now, all that said, YES conservative Christianity has it wrong when it comes to homosexuality and ->-bleeped-<-. Utterly.

They are applying cultural (i.e. man-made" ideas and calling them God's ideas and they are doing harm (unintentionally) to the well being of the folks they are ostensibly trying to help.

But they are NOT directly in indirectly or accidentally inciting violence any more than a Democrat who says the Republicans are wrong would be responsible if some nut gunned down John McCain.

---

Post Merge: July 16, 2009, 04:23:49 PM

---

Quote
For those of you who speak so well of the James Dobson's of the world, I challenge you to present in your identified gender and approach him and say, "I am transgender and proud of it."  Then let us know who that goes.

I accept.

If we are EVER within a reasonable distance of each other I will do EXACTLY that.

I've already written an e-mail to the one Christian minister I think the most of (one whom I had exchanged several e-mails with in the past) and explained to him my position and my problem with Christian theology on ->-bleeped-<-  and while he did not say "Oh, I see - you have changed my mind" he was VERY gracious and kind to me.

And this is a man who describes himself by saying "politically I'm to the right of Attila the Hun"

I am not REMOTELY afraid to talk to Dobson, or Robertson, or any other Christian leader you care to name.

If you pay for my trip, I'll leave on Monday.

Well, I don't know about you but if I stood before a crowd and got them all worked up about something then one or more of them went out and hurt someone because they took what I said and went berserk, I'd feel pretty bad and partly responsible because I wasn't more careful with my words.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia can get the nutsos pretty irate and anyone who doesn't know that is an idiot.  And anyone who believes gays are pedophiles is really, really stupid or severely brainwashed. You have to be responsible about the messages you send and do your best not to hurt others when trying to convey your ideas.

When someone gets up on the podium they are trying to persuade people. And those who spend a lot of time there are usually pretty good at it. They know the power of their words.  They have to accept responsibility for the impact their words have, good or bad.

Julie

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 16, 2009, 04:15:11 PM
Nonsense.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says that underage drinking, and  drinking and driving are WRONG.

Has anyone ever gone out and killed a drunk because they are doing wrong?

Gay rights organization insist that intolerance is WRONG. Has any gay or trans person ever went out and killed a Christian or Muslim because they are intolerant?

In both cases and thousands more, the answer is no.

Heck, even if you confine it to religion - Orthodox Judaism and Islam both forbid the consumption of pork? has either teaching EVER incited someone to kill a man for the bacon on his sandwich?

Likewise, Christianity and Islam says drunkenness is wrong - please point to the long and sordid history of Christians shooting up bars and crack houses.

On and on and on the examples go.

And yet...YET...we are supposed to believe that in the ONE area of sexual behavior....in that and only that one area...perfectly normal people can be incited to violence by the realization that someone around them is doing "wrong" sexually?

Heck even THAT doesn't hold water - Scripture (of all there monotheistic religions) says that adultery is wrong - feel free to point out to be the last time a religious nut attacked a swingers club with violence.

Nope. Doesn't fly. Not at all. Nutters who do nutty things are responsible for their own actions. Period.

Just because a nutter can say this sermon or that book or that song or that game or that movie made me a nutter is, IMO, utter B.S.


Now, all that said, YES conservative Christianity has it wrong when it comes to homosexuality and ->-bleeped-<-. Utterly.

They are applying cultural (i.e. man-made" ideas and calling them God's ideas and they are doing harm (unintentionally) to the well being of the folks they are ostensibly trying to help.

But they are NOT directly in indirectly or accidentally inciting violence any more than a Democrat who says the Republicans are wrong would be responsible if some nut gunned down John McCain.

I believe what you're ignoring and that she's referring to is the incessant tirades that 1) God punishes sin by delivering the nation into tribulation. 2) Such tribulation particularly comes to a nation that was once "god-fearing" and has come to be somewhat more open to difference and acceptance of difference. 3) That one of the ways God does this is to cause such a nation to lose wars, have it's financial infrastructure collapse. 4) That the "homosexual agenda of which the transsexual/transgender agenda is part and parcel" is undermining the ability of Christians to worship freely and for pastors to condemn sin from the pulpit, possibly even to the closure of churches and a new "last-days" tribulation of Christians so that they are hounded, murdered and generally despised unto the death by that nation.

5) That babies are being slain, the children of the Republic are at-risk from the "evil pedophiles who are gay, lesbian and transsexual/transgender and need protection, whatever it takes ("wouldn't you want to protect your children from a pedophile? Your wife from a rapist?") from those heinously evil characters that push said agenda 6) That one should "take up the sword of righteousness against such behavior." 7) That the language is almost always a) apocalyptic b) fear-mongering with no basis in fact. 8 ) That where such messages are preached are also places that a) are more and more open to guns and those who use them, b) that have always relied on a certain Old Testament version of God demanding that the Amalekites or whomever be destroyed utterly, c) that almost none of those places have viable protective laws for those who are obviously different and precious little willingness among the enforcers to enforce any laws that are there when it comes to such people.

If it were a matter of simply saying "I think you are doing wrong" then perhaps your argument would have better legs on which to stand. But with many there is no stopping there. They try to inject fear and loathing into their campaigns and do so with a rather forceful message.

I am unaware that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people are calling for an "Army of God" to oppose those who hate us and revile us.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet that is where her post was heading. And I am also willing to bet that you are astute enough to know that and be aware that her points are pretty well-taken, no? You seem very astute and also learned in the art of forensics and rhetoric. Useful learning and you're quite good at them. :)

Quote from: Nichole on July 16, 2009, 04:40:16 PM
I believe what you're ignoring and that she's referring to is the incessant tirades that 1) God punishes sin by delivering the nation into tribulation. 2) Such tribulation particularly comes to a nation that was once "god-fearing" and has come to be somewhat more open to difference and acceptance of difference. 3) That one of the ways God does this is to cause such a nation to lose wars, have it's financial infrastructure collapse.

And even if this is true, it's also true of all sort of other sins which such churches also preach against including adultery, divorce, drunkenness, and even lying. - yet, I repeat, no nutters take up violence against any of THOSE sins.

Quote
4) That the "homosexual agenda of which the transsexual/transgender agenda is part and parcel" is undermining the ability of Christians to worship freely and for pastors to condemn sin from the pulpit, possibly even to the closure of churches and a new "last-days" tribulation of Christians so that they are hounded, murdered and generally despised unto the death by that nation.

And they advocate POLITICAL solutions to this "problem" - again, if John McCain says we need a political solution to the Democrats "bankrupting" America (and thus costing us all the privileges and freedoms we and out children enjoy) will he be to blame if some nutter assassinates Obama?

Quote
5) That babies are being slain,

We're not really talking about abortion which is a different kettle of fish. I can understand that if you convince someone that babies are being murdered that one in ten thousand would consider it ethical to kill the killer - just as many people would consider it ethical to kill a shooter who had broken into a kindergarten and started shooting it up.

And frankly, when you are talking about late term abortions - they might just have a point. The problem is the ethics of vigilantism.

But in any case, killing in the defense of what you precieve to be innocent life is something I could see a person being provoked to but it's not germane to the rest of this thread.

Quote
the children of the Republic are at-risk from the "evil pedophiles who are gay, lesbian and transsexual/transgender and need protection, whatever it takes ("wouldn't you want to protect your children from a pedophile? Your wife from a rapist?")

Except (a) no one says "whatever it takes" and (b) no one except the VERY extrem Phelps types says that GLBT "are pedophiles"

Quotefrom those heinously evil characters that push said agenda 6) That one should "take up the sword of righteousness against such behavior."

Which, according the the Bible, is the Word of God. Get back to me when someone kills a gay man with a sword.

Quote7) That the language is almost always a) apocalyptic b) fear-mongering with no basis in fact.

Whether or not a claim has a basis in fact is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make here.

I'm not saying ever claim they make is factual - I'm saying we lose the high moral ground if every claim WE make isn't either.

Quote8 ) That where such messages are preached are also places that a) are more and more open to guns and those who use them, b) that have always relied on a certain Old Testament version of God demanding that the Amalekites or whomever be destroyed utterly

You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there are American Evangelical Christians (outside Westerboro) who think that all gays should be "utterly destroyed" don't you?

How can there EVER be an understanding between two groups of people who so fundamentally don't have a proper understanding of each other? Yes, i am saying you fail to understand who these people are and what they actually think EVERY BIT as much as they fail to understand what it is to be transgendered.

Quote
c) that almost none of those places have viable protective laws for those who are obviously different and precious little willingness among the enforcers to enforce any laws that are there when it comes to such people.

If it were a matter of simply saying "I think you are doing wrong" then perhaps your argument would have better legs on which to stand. But with many there is no stopping there.

Many? I venture to say there are no more of them, as a percentage of the whole, than there are unbelievers who think that religion is a poison to mankind that should be wiped out.

Quote
They try to inject fear and loathing into their campaigns and do so with a rather forceful message.

I've been on both sides of the fence and I see EVERY BIT as much "fear and loathing" among unbelievers and particularly in the LGBT community towards Christianity as I see among Christians for the LGBT crowd.

Quote
I am unaware that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people are calling for an "Army of God" to oppose those who hate us and revile us.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet that is where her post was heading. And I am also willing to bet that you are astute enough to know that and be aware that her points are pretty well-taken, no? You seem very astute and also learned in the art of forensics and rhetoric. Useful learning and you're quite good at them. :)

Meh. I'm just entirely too pig-headed to quit lol. I did not and do not take issue with Janet's larger point - and I thought I was pretty clear in saying I was "quibbling" and isolating specific places where I thought she was supporting a good and valid position with weak arguments based on faulty information.

I'm on your/our side!

I just don't think that we'll ever GET any understanding FROM Christians unless we HAVE some understanding OF Christians. Both sides trying to magnify the villains on the other side is a road that leads to a destination none of us wants to arrive at.

still not convinced it was the wrong side

However, that does not prove it's the right side either.

i can't wait for the dobson sex scandal to come out.  please god let it be a threesome with a leather daddy and his old frat buddy.

Have to admit, Ms. Laura Hope, that that reply was one of the more confusing reads I have yet seen to one of my responses. Something about the layout just makes the eyes boggle. :)

Yeah, I know a bit about fundamentalist xtians in the South. I was born, raised and indoctrinated into it. Musta read the Bible half a dozen times by the age of 12 and got tested on what I read. And no, I don't think for a second that most fundamentalist xtians are out to slay gay people, to include transsexuals and transgender folk.

At least when my immediate family talks to me about having transitioned they allow that God will send me to Hell when I do die, but they evidence no desire to hasten the event themselves to help God out. Their immediate co-religionists have also not made moves to shoot me or lynch me either. In fact, I cannot think of one TS or TG in my area that has been murdered due to religious influences. They are generally slain because they are available targets: women on the streets (generally African-American and always poor, uneducated and for any number of reasons unemployed) plying their wares to the late-night cruisers who use them and then strangle, shoot, or knife them.

After sexual relations of some sort the cruisers then claim that they were frightened out of their wits and just couldn't stop stabbing, shooting or strangling until the monster was dead. At least one judge in Philly actually bought the story when faced with a man who had gunned down a sister by shooting her in the back as she fled from him. She was, no doubt a threat for simply being alive. But, no religious defense was placed forward.

But, with the possible exception of the Unibomber who managed to kill one I believe, I am having trouble recalling any incidences of Untarians, for instance, shooting up a Southern Baptist church on a Sunday morning. There may be one somewhere that failed to make the headlines though.

OTH, there are more than a few instances of crazies on the right and under the influence of right-wing, fundamentalist religious leaders doing exactly that sort of thing. Which seemed to be Julie Marie's point. And the reference to harming and killing children was to some of the wilder forecasts for what would occur if men and womenof transsexing histories were to be found to be using the bathrooms the most of us have been using for years. Not to abortion, although we could reference a few such wild and wooly slayings of "abortion doctors" by that same sort who have shot cops and Unitarians within the past year or so, couldn't we.

Should people get to know one another better and lose the fear and loathing? Why, of course. We could use a long dose of that amongst ourselves, in fact.

And the use of the "sword of righteousness" doesn't seem to require a sword when rifles and .44s are available, least in practice, no?

You use possibilities and what we see are real live events. Event that you declare are the works of lunatics, plain and simple. Perhaps, but the increase of lunatics on the fundie right in their religio-political views seems to be becoming a regular epidemic.

Tell ya what. When you decide to quote this post paragraph or sentence by sentence and reply to it. Paint my words and use the quote button to enclose the words you wish to question. Take the end quote that the system generates and place it after the first set of words you wish to reply to. That gives you all sorts of empty space to write your replies in and they don't wind up inside some longish quote box of their own. :)

I like your style, but don't have any desire to further pursue an argument. Like you said, we agree in a lot of areas.

I have to confess I abused my kids.  When I got my PhD I took them to the library with me.  I made them look up, find, and copy stuff that I, and only I needed for my dissertation.  Cruel.

They were very young when they figured out how to get some hotter than hot sorority girls to help them.  Shame on me.  Though it seemed to help them later on.  At the least they were not afraid of pretty girls.  Not too bad.

But they also went to college (really, universities) knowing their way around a major research library like the back of their hand.  And, they knew how to get really pretty girls to do the copy stuff for them too.  Tragic.

Damn their straight A average grades.  Stupid parents for sure.

Quote
And the use of the "sword of righteousness" doesn't seem to require a sword when rifles and .44s are available, least in practice, no?

Of course. Surely that wasn't worth pointing out when we all know I didnt think you meant someone was using a real sword. The point was -and I thought it was clear - that SINCE no one is using a literal sword it's not a huge leap to expect that indoctrinated fundies KNOW what the sword of righteousness actually is (and it ain't a .44 in anyone's view)

Even in your reply, you acknwoeldge that the VAST majority of people who suffer violence for being trans are living in a violent world where people die violently for a wide variety of reasons and further that the killings have no basis in religion and the "trans panic defense" is BS and everyone knows it.

That, IMO, further supports my position that very seldom does a trans person suffer violence because of the words of a religious leader.

Quote
Tell ya what. When you decide to quote this post paragraph or sentence by sentence and reply to it. Paint my words and use the quote button to enclose the words you wish to question.
Take the end quote that the system generates and place it after the first set of words you wish to reply to. That gives you all sorts of empty space to write your replies in and they don't wind up inside some longish quote box of their own.

I fixed that post by moving one misplaced "/" and correcting the spelling of the word "quote" in another place (double-stroked the "u") - I apologize for the confusion...but it was just a couple of typos.

I confess that my first instinct was to take offense that you would imply I don't know how to do this sort of thing.  But you followed it with a compliment so ...i'm unsure your intent in drawing me a picture so I'll assume the best.

Oh, and let me just also say that I do have great sympathy for the reaction of your loved ones (should I call them that?)

It constantly mystifies me that I see so many people describe such blatant ill-treatment at the nads of Christians. not that I don't believe it exists, I'm just amazed that the anecdotes are so pervasive. I know people like that.
The pastor who married me and my wife got judgmental that I was working in a temp job for the census and wearing shorts (as opposed to a suit and tie) that he complained to my team leader...
(who happened to be his daughter in law who happened to have only applied to the census in the first place because I made her aware of the opportunity)
...that I was dressing "indecently" and it almost got me fired (and would have if she hadn't been under pressure to meet her deadline).

When I asked him about it he was rather satisfied with himself...a man who I had considered my good friend for over 20 years. Any day now, maybe tomorrow (i'll be seeing him tomorrow for a reason that I won't get long winded about here), he will figure out or be told about my transition and he'll know doubt give me the fire & brimstone.

And I know worse fundies than him.

BUT they are the distinct minority of all the Christians I know.

I don't know if the internet is just a magnet for those who have been kicked around by Christians (so called) or whether I have just been exceedingly blessed not to have seen more of it around me. But in either case, it's not the sort of religion I was raised in and I can't wrap my head around people who read the same book I do acting like that.

Anyway, what you describe is certainly unacceptable and a stunningly poor reflection on the faith.

Of course they are loved ones. Not as well loved necessarily as my chosen family are loved. But loved they are. They just do not and will not totally accept that aspect of my life. Even though they do now refer to me in the third person as "she" not their historical "he." So, perhaps not as bad as you seem to imagine. :)

As for the directions, I just thought you had confused what you were trying to do. Thought I might help. Really, nothing else. Promise.

Hating xtians? No. Why bother? They, like me, live in Mother's Universe and many are surely otherwise likeable people, just a bit too set on a masculine deity who somehow managed to give birth. That's always been a puzzle to me. Even when I was a child. :) 

The religion itself and it's dogmas? Well, people have every right to believe as they wish, but xtianity seems to me to be the fountainhead of a lot of the problems we have in the world. TLBG being a rather minor one, imo. A sort of abhorance of body and matter being perhaps the worst. Makes it all too easy to destroy what gives life seems to me and that is very xtian. Not so much from its Jewish forebearers nor it's Muslim younger brother.

Just my opinion, but a religion that sets a particular sex over another as being inherently better and that manages to discount the value of body in comparison to soul is just trouble when it comes to human activity.   

But that's an argument I won't get into either.

I figure that will not be a point we agree on, but that's fine as well. My family and their immediate co-religionists are all good folks. They believe as they do and trust me, long before I transitioned they had already feared that my soul would be consigned to hell. :) O, but they do hug me and some even friend me on Facebook! :laugh: It's all good. Really. :)

Take a look at this religious backed group specifically formed to foster fear loathing and hatred towards transgender people so as to prevent a hate crime bill in Massachusetts.  Sure they can claim that they themselves don't advocate violence but as a parent if I was convinced that someone was going to harm my child, I am not sure that I wouldn't be prone to violent action to protect her.  It is a slick system, they preach that we are essentially satan's servants and yet we are to believe that they love us.  Right.  That love extends to neglecting us until we starve to death or are murdered. Heck, if we only repented, we would be saved...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/part1.html (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/part1.html)

My computer wants a rape shower now.  It is actively trying to erase the bits from the harddrive.  Poor thing.

The claim to hate the sin, but love the sinner has never really worked because by definition there is no room for discourse.  That which the "sinner" participates in is repugnant and cannot be argued any other way.

The only comforting thought to any of this is that these cretins are numerically low in number and have very little traction with others.  It doesn't mean that they should be ignored, but that others outside our community also see them as extremists.  I doubt that we could ever completely silence their voices any more than white supremacists can ever be utterly silenced.  But they are viewed by most as anachronisms at best and hatred mongers at worst.

-Sandy

QuoteJust my opinion, but a religion that sets a particular sex over another as being inherently better and that manages to discount the value of body in comparison to soul is just trouble when it comes to human activity.   

And you don't see that as a feature of Judaism and Islam?

Quote
But that's an argument I won't get into either.

I figure that will not be a point we agree on, but that's fine as well. My family and their immediate co-religionists are all good folks. They believe as they do and trust me, long before I transitioned they had already feared that my soul would be consigned to hell. :) O, but they do hug me and some even friend me on Facebook! :laugh: It's all good. Really.

I'm glad.
For clarity's sake, do the tell you you are going to hell specifically because you are TG, or more broadly because of your rejection of Christ as a savior?

Quote from: Sandy on July 17, 2009, 10:07:22 AM
My computer wants a rape shower now.  It is actively trying to erase the bits from the harddrive.  Poor thing.

That explains the trembling that my tower is doing.  Creatures like this are using lies and smoke screens to hide their true selves.


Janet

Quote from: Maggie Kay on July 17, 2009, 09:45:14 AM
Take a look at this religious backed group specifically formed to foster fear loathing and hatred towards transgender people so as to prevent a hate crime bill in Massachusetts.

It is logically possible to oppose hate crimes legislation and not have any issue with gays or transgenders.

I am a member of a general interest board and i know gays there who are politically conservative or libertarian and oppose the entire concept of hate crimes getting enhanced sentencing or special charges.

I know a great many there who were perfectly accepting of my status when I came out there, and who have never demonstrated ANY animosity towards gays in any sense, or any other "protected class", who simply disagree with the logic behind hate crime legislation.

Quote
  Sure they can claim that they themselves don't advocate violence but as a parent if I was convinced that someone was going to harm my child, I am not sure that I wouldn't be prone to violent action to protect her.  It is a slick system, they preach that we are essentially satan's servants

They really don't. Not the mainstream evangelicals.

Sure, there are fringe rabble rousers that show up at ANY protest and embarrass the reasonable folks. I'm sure there are folks who show up at the Pride Parade that mainstream gays are a bit embarrassed by.

But I've heard thousands of sermons in my life and never heard sinners referred to directly as "Satan's servants"

(I have heard it applied, rarely, to members of certain religions - not any of the big names - but it's very seldom an Evangelical pastor expresses a view on Wicca or whatever)

I don't know if the internet is just a magnet for those who have been kicked around by Christians (so called) or whether I have just been exceedingly blessed not to have seen more of it around me.

Oh, oh, me, me, I know the answer to that one.

In the beginning, long before it was even the net, or the WWW, back when we were using acoustic couplers and formatting everything we did in DOS, this was pretty much the sole domain of the least religious people on earth: scientists, engineers, DeadHeads, hackers, and phreaks.  One of the first public accesses was created in SF by one of the original hippies, PR person for the Human Be-In (a secular humanist event if there ever was one), and author of the Whole Earth Catalog. Matter of fact, it was even called that The WELL, or Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link.

Its not like a lot of secular humanists just showed up, we were here in the beginning.  And since the real beginning of this was so that the DoE/DoD could link computers to do calcs for nuclear weapons programs (a less Christlike occupation would be hard to find) it was pretty much devoid of religion, unless you count Grateful Dead set lists as some sort of spiritual document - Jerry is my Co-pilot stuff.

Those events were occurring at the same time as the rise of the religious right nationally (never did catch on here) and this was viewed as a means for human to human communication, a lot of which centered on increasing science and technical education and trying to stop the interjection of myth and superstition in its place in public schools by people who weren't even sending their kids to public schools anyway.

Back when I was involved in an 8 year fight over the teaching of myth and superstition in science classes at my kids school I'm sure the opposition was using the bulletin board at church, and we were using the bulletin board on the web courtesy of our local university of science and technology where most of us were employed.

It's not that its a magnet for us, its that it was invented by people like us in the first place. 

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 17, 2009, 10:23:46 AM
It is logically possible to oppose hate crimes legislation and not have any issue with gays or transgenders.

Did you read the stuff on the web page? They are referenced by other religious groups as a leader in the fight against us.  They have gone national to promote lots more than just opposition to hate crime legislation.

Honestly, I have been on their side a decade ago and I would have been one of the standard bearers. I understand them. They cannot come out and say what they really think but I have been in their midst and I can tell you that the fear that they have is palpable. 

As for mainstream religious leaders not inciting hatred against LBGT people, consider their comments that gays are the reason God sent Hurricane Katrina or that 9/11 happened as a punishment for the nation's pro LBGT policies.  This is the linkage that God will kill people over LBGT tolerance.  Now, how much of a mental leap does it take to the next step and have the saint's do it in his name? 

The discussion around Julie's point has gotten fairly deep and has strayed off point, I believe.

I think Julie is saying that these people and groups are affecting our lives in very hurtful ways. Here's what I mean:

1. They justify condemning us with a 2-3000 year old book of social mores and customs in place of the established medical and psychological studies.
2. There have been studies that point to a biological basis for GID and same sex attractions. The FoF writings never touch realities like AIS and people with different chromosomal makeups. Intersexed people are not mentioned. This allows them to develop the framework to judge us as being sinful, fallen or mentally weak or unstable.
3. Taken a step further, they can justify lumping us in with those bent on doing wrong to others like pedophiles. They also then can try and make the argument that we are out to recruit others to our "lifestyle" since this is all a choice on our parts.
4. There are other religious traditions which only believe that our bodies are only a spiritual vessel, and not that our soul, spirit and purpose in life is to be determined by the organ between our legs.

From a practical standpoint, they and there beliefs affect me as follows:

a. They create a poisoned environment for a meaningful debate either in the halls of Congress or with unaccepting family members. If their focus was truly on the family, they would be centering on ways to help bring us together and not apart. Fof's words have real meaning and consequences.
b. Their words drive petitions and referendums which seek to prohibit same sex marriage, domestic partnerships and all of the real tax benefits that would otherwise have been afforded me and my partner.
c. Their words and statements also help create the environment where employers don't wish to allow health care benefits for same sex partners or insurance coverage for transitional costs. These companies are afraid of a right wing backlash against them in the press and loss of sales and profits. Of course these companies need to have more backbone.
d. Fof's words do resonate within churches across the country. Many churches don't perform same sex unions and don't accept LGBTQ parishoners.
I won't step back in a Catholic Church because of the Vatican's very similiar positions as FoF. To do so even stealth would show my hypocricy. I will find a place of worship that is loving and accepting, thank you.
e. These postions, as stated by FoF and the Vatican ruin the relationship between parents and children and between brothers and sisters. I haven't spoken to most of my family now in two years. Sure, they are personally accountable for this, but these church's bigotry and ignorance of medical science do not help.

Let me give an example here. I have a family member who is epolectic. In former days, some zealots may have believed that the person was demon possesed. Or weak. Today, of course we know otherwise. We can help the person medically. Same goes for another family member of mine with depression. Can you imagine denying these people medicine or access to health care. Can you imagine denying them the right to marry or have children? Regretfully today, this is our reality as trans women and men, be we gay or straight.

These churches are taking a medival approach to a medical and psychological reality. All in the name of either ignorance, or the desire to have an opponent to which to rally their followers and collect more contributions.

As to James Dobson being sincere or nice, let me say this. I can only judge the man's actions. I'm not God, and can't judge his character or heart. I would say, however, that anyone with psychological training should be quite aware of the studies on both gays and transgender people. This is like giving a CPA a pass on knowing tax laws. Sorry. I believe him to be "sincerely ignorant".

In closing, I would say that any church group that wants to wade into the political lobbying business or who refuses to perform all marriages ought to lose their tax exempt status. Give them a choice. Stay in your church with your discriminatory views from the pulpit, and keep your tax exempt status. Or seek to take away my civil rights, and pay Uncle Sam. Let's see what choice they make, then!

Quote from: Maggie Kay on July 17, 2009, 10:44:16 AM
Did you read the stuff on the web page?

No, I had an appointment. No time. but I don't have to read it to be confident it features some very unchristian and likely illogical content.

It's not necessary for THAT site to be reasonable for my claim to stand.

(an aside - taking time to read it now, I think the most fun part is the bit about citing the DSM-IV in order to declar it's a "medically recognized disorder" when the same book considers homosexuality normal yet they oppose that as well. When the book is altered to "normalize" ->-bleeped-<- they will have to change that whole line of reasoning.)

Quote
They are referenced by other religious groups as a leader in the fight against us.

Leaders in the fight against the law, I'm sure. Leaders in opinion making regarding the "sinfulness" of ->-bleeped-<- or the theology on the subject...I tend to doubt.

Being a "leader" often just means you have the biggest mouth.

Quote
They have gone national to promote lots more than just opposition to hate crime legislation.

Again, I wasn't defending that group or it's rhetoric...i was speaking to a logical concept. Please don't think I carry any brief for EVERY person who stands against hate crimes bills.

Quote
Honestly, I have been on their side a decade ago and I would have been one of the standard bearers. I understand them. They cannot come out and say what they really think but I have been in their midst and I can tell you that the fear that they have is palpable. 

Fear? Yes, I have no doubt of that. People fear change in general terms and usually quite irrationally. Even more so they fear change they can't understand and I have no doubt that very few non-TG people can wrap their brain around what we are feeling.

And yes, there religious indoctrination only heightens that fear.

Quote
As for mainstream religious leaders not inciting hatred against LBGT people, consider their comments that gays are the reason God sent Hurricane Katrina or that 9/11 happened as a punishment for the nation's pro LBGT policies.  This is the linkage that God will kill people over LBGT tolerance.  Now, how much of a mental leap does it take to the next step and have the saint's do it in his name?

The sad part about those comments was there narrow focus. I understand where Falwell got that idea - albeit he had it wrong because that's the OLD Covenant in which God dealt with nations corporately which is not how he operates under the new covenant (again, within the context of Christian theology) - but even in that misapplication, God's displeasure would apply just as much to dishonesty, fraud, adultery, promiscuity, and all sorts of other sins committed by heterosexuals as well as anything that might have been done by an LGBT person. Even if you believe what Falwell did....to mention specific "sins" without referring broadly to all the rest is error (and he did apologize later and before he died he was having reconciliation meetings with at least one prominent gay activist - not that i would ever defend Falwell on the whole)

Still, I go back to the former point made a few posts ago - VERY LITTLE of the violence perpetrated on transpersons has been linked to religion or perpetrated by an overtly religious person. The VAST majority of it came in the context of sexual and recreational behavior that the people on that site you linked would condemn just as strongly.

And YET the mythology which persists is that if the Christians would just shut up we'd all be safe. That's simply not true.

And, while I'm knee deep I might as well get it out in the open - enhanced punishment under hate crime legislation has almost certainly never prevented a single attack on any protected class person from occurring. The sort of people who commit crimes motivated by hate are not worried about the provisions in hate crime bills.

And Christians, misguided as those folks who put that site up are, who block hate crimes legislation do not make it more dangerous for us because the bill didn't pass. Because the bill doesn't make you or me any safer.

The bill is, if you believe the logic behind hate crimes laws, a matter of justice. And yes yu can say those who oppose it deny us justice if that's what you want from the bill. but they are not, by killing the bill, denying you safety because that bill won't make us any safer.

All that said, YES the nasty rhetoric used by that group DOES potentially make us less safe. But I don't believe they reflect the views of any significant portion of Christians. As Sandy said, they are essentially the skinheads in the room.

---

Post Merge: July 17, 2009, 01:02:00 PM

---

QuoteIn closing, I would say that any church group that wants to wade into the political lobbying business or who refuses to perform all marriages ought to lose their tax exempt status. Give them a choice. Stay in your church with your discriminatory views from the pulpit, and keep your tax exempt status. Or seek to take away my civil rights, and pay Uncle Sam. Let's see what choice they make, then!

Yes and no. In the broader sense, I have NEVER supported tax exempt status because I think it is a bigger burden than it's worth. I do NOT think it's "wrong" - the state makes taxes allowances for all sorts of things that it thinks is good for the society in whole, such as home mortgages or education...or exempting business taxes to get the new factory to come to town. But it's just an idea who's time has passed.

That said, I ABSOLUTELY agree that if a church wants to be politically active they should not be tax exempt - but the flip side of that is once they are paying taxes those of us who disagree with them owe them a full seat at the table like any other political action group, no matter how much we disagree.

On the other hand - I absolutely do NOT think the state should have ANY say on who a church chooses to wed or not. THAT is a state dictating THEOLOGY and is a completely unconstitutional mixture of state and church. there's a wide multitude of ways to get married, and no church should ever be required to violate it's conscious to act as the state requires.

Whether they pay taxes or not.

It seems that the movement is gaining strength and even has ties to GOP leadership.

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/07/first_abortionists_now_homosexuals_the_call_declar.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2009/07/first_abortionists_now_homosexuals_the_call_declar.php)

http://www.interstateq.com/archives/3708/ (http://www.interstateq.com/archives/3708/)

So when I meet a Christian, how can I tell that if person is non violent or one that will gladly become a martyr by killing me?  It sounds outrageous but I fear that as we get more and more civil rights, it may become a reality. 

Maggie

I never thought of legal provisions as a means to protect, but rather to punish.  Obviously the law does not work in a lot of cases to deter behavior, like Prohibition (both the 1920s version, and the current version). It seeks only to criminalize certain kinds of behavior and punish it as a crime.

Does it make people safer?  I guess you could argue, as many do, that having such people in jail longer at least increases safety to the degree that there is one less violent person on the streets.

What kind of surprised me, to the degree that I can be surprised, is that some fool lawyer will still try a gay/trans panic defense, because that defense admits the hate crime part is true.  Hell if I were the lawyer I'd claim up and down that no hate was involved, it was just a robbery gone bad.

I don't have to read it to be confident...
Great, I'll just tell you what it says, and hey, would I lie to you, really, trust me.

One of the things they cite, if you follow the link says this, and it's what I find scary.  And yes, they use the incorrect form of 'women's rather than 'woman's' in their text.

We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 29-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.

The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

All?  Doen't that mean, even the people who don't want it, and don't believe it?  Is that not cohesion?

Quote from: Maggie Kay on July 17, 2009, 01:11:24 PM
It seems that the movement is gaining strength and even has ties to GOP leadership.

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/07/first_abortionists_now_homosexuals_the_call_declar.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2009/07/first_abortionists_now_homosexuals_the_call_declar.php)

http://www.interstateq.com/archives/3708/ (http://www.interstateq.com/archives/3708/)

So when I meet a Christian, how can I tell that if person is non violent or one that will gladly become a martyr by killing me?  It sounds outrageous but I fear that as we get more and more civil rights, it may become a reality. 

Maggie

How many have died in this manner in the last 100 years?

---

Post Merge: July 17, 2009, 01:33:46 PM

---

QuoteI don't have to read it to be confident...
Great, I'll just tell you what it says, and hey, would I lie to you, really, trust me.[/i]

That's simply me conceding the claim because the claim did not disprove my assertion.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 17, 2009, 12:48:37 PMStill, I go back to the former point made a few posts ago - VERY LITTLE of the violence perpetrated on transpersons has been linked to religion or perpetrated by an overtly religious person. The VAST majority of it came in the context of sexual and recreational behavior that the people on that site you linked would condemn just as strongly.

I've heard perpetrators of crimes against LGBT persons say the "Bible says......" in justifying why they carried out these crimes.  And I've heard the same justification for other crimes too.  The point is these people were brainwashed by so-called Christians that the Bible and God tell them they have the right to carry out retribution against the "sinners" and they define sinners according to the Bible and their specific religious education.  They are convinced they are judge, jury and executioners.

Groups like FotF act much in the same manner.  They make claims that are not supported by fact, stir up anger and fear in their followers and proclaim God will punish anyone who doesn't conform to their ideology.  They may not say "Go kill" but they do instill sufficient fear in some of their followers that they will go way beyond what they normally would to prevent people who are different from them from enjoying basic civil rights.  To me, that is a crime.

As for FotF not having much influence, they, along with the Mormons and the Catholic Church, were one of the three major contributors supporting Prop 8 in California. That's clout. 

(And I keep hearing these people say same sex marriages will deny them of their rights.  What's that all about?)

The FotF website condems ->-bleeped-<- by quickly equating it with homosexuality. If Dobson is a psychologist he should know being TG and being gay are not the same thing. But instead of taking the responsible approach, he makes the connection between TG and gay because he knows how effective that is in getting his followers to shun TGs (because they have demonized gays so effectively).

James Dobson may be a personable and likeable man when you meet him face to face but so was Ted Bundy. I'm not saying Dobson is a serial killer but he does things that hurt innocent people, just like Bundy did. Bundy killed maybe 35 people but Dobson's words hurt millions. Who is worse?

To me, both are evil.

Julie

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 17, 2009, 01:31:29 PM
How many have died in this manner in the last 100 years?

Why go back 100 years? Is that to avoid discussing the killing of witches in Salem Mass. or in Europe? Many were homosexuals.  These were church sanctioned mainstream killings based on biblical interpretations. These same verses are still in the bible today:

Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Now, given that fundamentalist Christians believe in the infallible word of God and reject modern science, don't these passages give them license to violence?  Is it not these very scriptures that are used by the church against our community as evidence that God hates us? 

Remember the pastor who was Alan Keyes running mate for President, Wiley Drake?
Wiley Drake, Alan Keyes' vice-presidential running mate, had declared that George Tiller's murder had been the answer to his "imprecatory" prayers.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/drake-tillers-murder-answer-prayer (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/drake-tillers-murder-answer-prayer)

Now he prays for Obama's death.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wiley-drake-prays-obamas-death (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wiley-drake-prays-obamas-death)

He says imprecatory prayers have always been part of the Christian faith.  These are prayers to God for an enemy's death.  So with this as a philosophy, isn't it fair to connect the dots and see who really is behind some of this violence?

He is asking for others to engage in it against those who oppose them
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/44143894.html (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/44143894.html)

Quote
Why go back 100 years? Is that to avoid discussing...

the same reason that I don't go back to 1860 when discussing the plight of African Americans in 2009.

I don't think I can expand on my views any more clearly, and I'm certain I fully understand the other views expressed in this thread.

There comes a time in ever discussion when people are talking past each other and I believe we have passed that point.

I hereby yield the floor in this thread (unless some completely different tangent arises).


Best wishes to all, no hard feelings,
~L

Quote from: Maggie Kay on July 17, 2009, 09:45:14 AM
Take a look at this
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/part1.html (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/part1.html)

Maggie, that is a despicable article, no doubt.  I am just curious what it has to do with Focus on the Family.  This is not from them.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on July 17, 2009, 07:02:09 PM
Maggie, that is a despicable article, no doubt.  I am just curious what it has to do with Focus on the Family.  This is not from them.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

FoF is aligned with similar smears against hate crimes legislation.  Dobson said today:"Because the liberals in Congress would not define sexual orientation, we have to assume that protection under the law will be extended to the 30 sexual disorders identified as such by the American Psychiatric Association. Let me read just a few of them: bisexuality, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, urophilia, voyeurism, and bestiality. Those are just a few. And I have to ask, have we gone completely mad?"

http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rww_in_focus_hate_crimes_claims (http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=rww_in_focus_hate_crimes_claims)

---

Post Merge: July 17, 2009, 10:59:43 PM

---

If you want to read more of FoF's hostility to transgendered people check this out:

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/hgeducation/A000010339.cfm (http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/hgeducation/A000010339.cfm)

It is from one of their so called experts, Jeff Johnston.

This is why I'll never eat at a Chick-fil-A...they give money to Dobson's organization.