Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:47:00 AM
In short, Laura, your are saying everyone should have the Freedom of Discrimination.

Yes.

Otherwise known as Freedom of Conscious or Freedom period. Discrimination happens all the time and in thousands of contexts and most of them perfectly logical. For instance, I would never be hired as a waitress at Hooters. Is that discrimination? Yep.

But that's the owners of the stores free right. As it should be.

Now, that freedom, like all freedom, can be abused and needs policing but it's not a wrong in the abstract.

Quote
Your words amount to nothing more than "My church tells me I should hate you, so I do."

and this is the fundamental mistake that all non-believers insist on making about religious people.

How do you conclude that the only motivation is HATE? The Christian religions believe strongly against drunkeness  - does that mean they HATE alcoholics? The traditional Christian religion condemns adultery - does that mean they HATE ever person who cheats on their spouse?

"Ah," but you will say, "those are ACTIONS not identities" and this is true - but not from THEIR point of view. In THEIR worldview, homosexualism as an action, not an identity - so within the context of their belief system, it is EXACTLY the same as adultery or drunkeness or cheating or stealing.
Do they HATE thieves?

Or do they simply disapprove of the choices they make?

As long as you insist they are motivated by hatred for you, you can never hope to truly understand the nature of your opponent.

Quote
  Which is a step in the entirely oppsite direction society should be taking.  Your right, refusing someone services for whatever reason does no phsyical harm, but it does however provide psycological harm, which in many cases is worse.

No worse than the harm that would be done to the church if they were forced to bless that which they believe is wrong. Would you ask the church to give there blessing to intoxication by providing free pot every service? To give their blessing to Adultery by having "Swingers Night" on Saturdays?
I don't think a fair minded person would. so you do psychological harm to the people in the church when you require them to violate their sincerely held beliefs every bit as much as you might harm the applicant.

the difference is that if you require ALL churches to bless that which they disapprove of, then they have nowhere to turn to find what they seek. On the other hand, if the gay couple is turned away from an unaccepting church, there ARE accepting churches they can turn to. So who suffers the greater harm?

Quote
  Especially when speaking about LDS, the church wishes to keep following the religion in the family.  For many families it's not a choice, but rather a "duty".  If you are born into a Mormon family you are expected to be a mormon no if ands or buts.

Right.

Except of course that being gay, you have already rejected the authority of that church - so why then do you reverse course and seek the official blessing of a body who's official authority you have just rejected?

IF there authority is so important you need there blessing on your marriage, THEN there authority is so important that you do not WANT a gay marriage or even to exercise your homosexuality. IF on the other hand, their authority can be spurned because being gay, you know better, then their authority CAN'T (or shouldn't be) very important to you in other areas.

A personal example - i was raised as a Southern Baptist and doctrinally I'm more Baptist than I am anything else - BUT, it would never occur to me to present as female in any SBC church I've ever seen. Why? Because I KNOW they have it wrong when it comes to transsexualism...so why would i go to them demanding they bless what I KNOW they believe is sin?

It's entirely irrational to do so.

Quote
  Of course the church does have "outs" to make it seem less mind controlled, however I have never seen a mormon family who would allow their children to take this out.  You could argue that it's not the business of the church what parents force their children to do, but when it's the church that teaches them to do it through "doctrine" before they even have children then yes I do blame the church.

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.

I agree. I simply think that in this case the solution is worse than the problem. And so have many others far smarter than me over he last few centuries.

QuoteThis is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.

So....every U.S. state that has voted on it has voted anywhere from 60% to almost 90% against Gay Marriage.

therefore Gay marriage is wrong - correct?

The wonders of democracy and all that, ya know.

Quote
  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!

The majority rules and the minority can deal, is that your position?

That's a VERY dark place for a homosexual or a transsexual to be. All of us in the U.S. might as well just resign ourselves to transsexual enjoying no protected status then, since the majority have spoken. legal challenges to anti-gay marriage referendums are clearly out of place since the majority has spoken.

right?

See, it's EASY to say "you folks in the minority can suck it!" when the folks in the minority are....someone else.

We call it evil and wrong when American Christians tell the gays "Tough!" and well we should, but when Canadians tell the church "Tough!" that's not only ok, but a GOOD thing?

That's an interesting thought process.

Quote
  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.

I think we have a pretty fundamental difference of opinion about what the government's job is.

Nevertheless, what makes you think the church memebers will feel "safe and secure" when the government dictates there theology and practice?

QuoteIf a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community. 

Is that the only good a church does for a community - to make people feel good about themselves?

Quote
Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

but religion isn't trying to run the country - just their own religion.

As for "STFU or get out" - what would you think of me if I said "Gays in America need to STFU or get out" - or insert the word "blacks" or "Hispanics" or "transsexuals" for gay.

It seems to me that if I applied your reasoning to your comments, I'd have to conclude you HATE the Christians. if you don't, then your attribution of hatred to them is logically inconsistent. If you do, then you can't judge others for hatred if you are a hater too.

Either way, your argument isn't logically tenable.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 29, 2009, 05:39:27 PM"Ah," but you will say, "those are ACTIONS not identities" and this is true - but not from THEIR point of view. In THEIR worldview, homosexualism as an action, not an identity - so within the context of their belief system, it is EXACTLY the same as adultery or drunkeness or cheating or stealing.
Do they HATE thieves?

Wrong. The LDS church has recognized homosexuality as a born identity, not an act. They are now sympathetic and understand it is something is born with, however they think that homosexual sex is the sin. So they are acknowledging that it is not a choice to be made who you are attracted to sexually, but the act of sex is a choice... as is the same choice that heterosexual couples make.

Also, it is apart of the Mormon belief to abide by the LAWS OF THE LAND. Which means the laws of where they live are also their own laws. This does not tread on them, this is what they are taught to obey. So if such a rule were to be made (And Adrianna is wrong, Churches are not allowed to be forced to practise marriage here if they do not want to.) then they would have no choice but to abide because of their own rules.

Of course I realize not every church follows the same train of thought, but not every church is against same-sex marriage or the LGBT either.

But like mentioned before, when Canada redefined marriage, they also stated that religious groups are not obliged to do so if it went against their beliefs.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:47:00 AM

If you are forced to follow doctrine, that states you are less of a person then anyone else, and your family threatens to disown you, then YES that causes a great LOT of harm to someone.  This is why the Human Rights act is in place.  The wonders of democracy allow the people of a country to vote on what they think is right.  So if everyone believed the Human Rights Act as correct, then what does even a church have to complain about.  Obviously many people even within that church also agree with the Human Rights Act, if a select few disagree TOUGH!  It is human nature to wish to feel safe and secure within one's community, including within their religious practices.  It's the governments job to make sure the community runs smoothly, and to make sure people feel safe and secure.  If a "religion" wishes to contradict this, and force people to feel bad about themsleves, then obviously the religion is not doing any good for the community.  Therefore, it IS the governments job to make sure said religion either adheres to laws in place to help people, or STFU and get out of their country.  Government runs the country, not religion.

This is perhaps the most convoluted statement I have see in a long time.  You don't want people forced to follow a doctrine, but on the other hand you want people to be forced to follow your own doctrine.  You cannot have it both ways.  Further, you want people to be forced into your definition of "good" for the community.  Almost no two people agree on precisely what that would be.  What you appear to be advocating is a system of tyranny where a few are able to force their beliefs on all organizations in the country, precisely what you seem to be accusing the church of trying to do.   No religion I know now wants to take over governmental functions,  most are too busy doing things for society the government has neither the funds or the ability to do.  Your statements show a complete ignorance of what the church is all about and what it does in society.  Are you familiar at all with how much charitable work Christians do in the world?  No, I am not saying you should join in, because the faith motivation is something you obviously do not understand.  But before you go telling us to STFU at least put together some kind of rational basis for conversation.  For now, thanks for showing us all you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Kristi

because some people, especially those who think they know what is "good for all" or read it in some doctrine, cannot comprehend any other good better than theirs. The world they envision would be perfect if only they could get all these damned non-believers to comply. Some try this with gentle persuasion, others use more desperate means.

No religion I know now wants to take over governmental functions

Must have missed that whole Holy Roman Empire deal eh?  (it was neither Holy, nor Roman, but hey, one out of three ain't bad, it was an empire, pretty much presided over by the Pope.  Look up, 'two swords doctrine' for some fun reading.)  Islamic Republics?  Lots of religions have sought, very successfully in many cases to control the government.  I believe there are people here, specifically those in the dominionist movement, that would seek a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

So, such people exist, and history shows they could be successful, I doubt here in the current climate, but things change.

To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole. If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say.

That's a misreading of the reason, the purpose and the intent of the whole separation of church and state deal.  Churches are required to obey some laws, like building and fire codes, but the general idea was the government stayed away from religion, and religion stayed away from government.

Churches, many of them at least, feel their reason for existence is to stay to the right path, even when popular opinion disagrees with them.  If you don't like it, don't go.  Easy enough.  But in thinking that your way is 'better than everyone else' then who exactly is the pompous ass then?  Especially when what you are suggesting is compliance by force.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole. If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

Generally speaking, they are not forcing people to bow to their beliefs who do not believe in them, they are a collective of people with the same or similar beliefs. This is not any different than being apart of a political party where people have the same or similar views.

As far as listening to the law is concerned, the law protects such religions. Like I've said before, the charter of rights says that religions are not obliged to perform gay marriage if they so choose not to offer it. What we are now discussing is highly theoretical unless you are able to provide a country that actually does force churches against their own will to perform gay marriage.

Discrimination can be good or bad, and while it's unfortunate that some religions may snub you for not being a particular race or orientation, it is still just a belief. Unless they are outright advocating the killing and harm of said people, there's not much action that can be taken.

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."  It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?  Sure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but atleast it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

I have no idea what you have been a part of, but it is nothing like the faith I adhere to, I assure you of that.  Nor is it like any church I have ever been part of, and I am certain I have had experience with more than you might ever meet.   I would never be a part of anything that teaches what you describe.  Jesus never taught anything close to that either.  And if you really believe that "discrimination is paramount is all churches" you prove your ignorance here.   However, in order to show you how wrong you are you would have to let me show you, which I am sure you will not be ready for, though I think it would amaze you.   Sure, there are problems with any organization, but you paint everyone with a broad brush and your logic is seriously flawed.

Where did MLK's support come from?  Read about the struggle in Birmingham.  Without the tension and dialog between Christian leaders, his work would never have happened.  I could go on, but I just could not disagree with you more.

Yes, Tekla, I missed the Holy Roman Empire.  I am a bit too young to remember.  Perhaps someone of your maturity could give us some of your memories. 

Actually, and Nichole was right, I had in mind present day Christian denominations, and I should have been clearer about that.  Historically, there have been some very bad attempts.  Geneva was another.   It does not work and never really has IMHO.   Now if we are expanding this discussion to Islam, you are certainly right about the fact that theocracies are out there.  They are as near to us as Dearborn, MI.  That is one place that has some truly unconstitutional things going on.

But I will say again that all groups wish to influence their communities.  That is not only true of religious groups, but many kinds of social groups as well.  It is certainly true of the GLBT movement.   You will not agree with all of the viewpoints out there.  Support what you believe in and just leave the others alone.

Kristi

I don't think that theocracy is limited in our time to Islam.  Israel struggles with it, and Salt Lake City and a whole lot of Utah, if not governed directly by the precepts of the LDS, the laws are surely strongly informed by them.  And the dominion movement is very real, very strong - see all that stuff with the C Street Fellowship, and I think that Sara Palin and quite a few of her followers by into it - and quite determined. 

I think in general, Western religions in particular, most religious people feel deep in their heart that the world would be a better place if everyone believed as they do, and followed their rules.

Quote from: FairyGirl on July 29, 2009, 06:59:28 PM
because some people, especially those who think they know what is "good for all" . . . cannot comprehend any other good better than theirs. The world they envision would be perfect if only they could get all these damned non-believers to comply. Some try this with gentle persuasion, others use more desperate means.

an attitude which is not REMOTELY confined to religiously motivated folks, by the way.

Heh...you should try living with Adrianna and trying to agrue religion. It doesnt work to well.

I know that the bible is flawed. I will admit that. Men are flawed and as such wrote things wrong. I cant count the number of contradictions in Genisis alone...but anywho. I belive there is a God and I belive in Jesus. I've chruch hopped and ended up even joining the LDS chruch. I've since not returned because of the strong emphesis on Thithing. I dont have enough money to buy grocieries and there telling me no matter what give what i have to god and i will be blessed..but anyway not my point.

I'd love to find the all excepting chruch in my dreams. It just doesnt seem to igisit. and if it does please point me in that direction. For now i'll belive in god. And live my life.

heh..thats all. btw really if you know where the accepting chruch is let me know!

Yes Israel does struggle with it.  Most of the people I have met there, interestingly enough, have been cultural Jews, but not religious ones.  This is their description.  You just have to realize that there is a cultural identity that is like no other.  It often has nothing to do with religious belief.

Kristi

Quote from: Adrianna on July 29, 2009, 09:26:18 PM
To Laura.  I do not "Hate Christians"  I disapprove of religious ORGANIZATIONS as a whole.

Exactly my point. you disapprove - nothing more.

Yet when Christians disapprove of homosexuals, you ascribe that view to HATE.

Why?

Quote
If you are christian, or whatever, and you wish to believe in things, even hate related things, in your own time, then please go ahead.  However when you group together, call your self a "Holy Church" and demand that others bow to your beliefs (Which is exactly what any orgasnization is doing when they ask to be legally allowed to discriminate against people for whatever reason) then THAT is wrong.

but as others - people who carry no brief for defending Christianity - have pointed out, private organizations discriminate all the time. I'm never going to be allowed to join the Girl Scouts, for instance.

that does NOT mean they "hate" me.

And no one here is talking about them demanding anything of those outside the church - when they do that I oppose them. but when you choose to join the group, you choose to join on there terms. That's a perfectly normal thing to expect.

Quote
If you wish to organize and display your right to freedom of assembly be my guest.  However, by becoming a so called "organization" or cult (which all organized religions are), and you demand that the government not Tax you just because your a "church", then you damn well better listen to what the government has to say. 

The government doesn't tax churches because the government deems it a social good to have churches. No more or less than a city choosing to waive taxes on the new factory they are trying to get to come to town - or like the U.S. Federal government giving exemptions for home mortgages in order to encourage home ownership.

Tax exemption is not something churches "demanded" (though like any other human being, they protest if their exemption is threatened to be taken away) - personally, I'd rather they were taxed so that particular red herring was taken away.

In any case, my debate with you is NOT "Should the church obey the government?" Rather, my debate with you is "Should the government meddle in religious practice?"

Your remarks about being tax exempt pretain to the former question, but not to the latter one.

Quote
To Kristi, I do know what I'm talking about.  I've been a member of quite a few churches before to see what they are all about.  They appear on the outside with motivations of good and charity.  Yes they do adhere to this.  Yes, in general churches ARE a good thing.  However discrimination is paramount in all churches.  "This person is bad because they are black, This person is bad because they are gay, this person is bad..ect...ect."

There's some of that, but even in the most Fundie churches I know, it's the ACTIONS that are considered "bad" - even when the wording is sloppy, only the very fringe would say "Gays are bad people" and mean just that - usually what they mean is "gays are doing a bad thing"

that said, YES, religions are often plagued with the very human trait of looking down on others and thinking you are better than them. Which I'd be more worried about if there were not so VERY many non0religious folks so very prone to look down on the religious people and consider them intellectual inferiors.

Which is to say you are complaining about a trait of human nature, not a trait of religion.

Quote
  You cannot honestly expect the government to try to abolish such things by making laws that ALL in their country must follow, yet say "But your a church, so it's ok for you to hate."

AGAIN you charge hate cavalierly, with no effort to support the clain and entierly ignoring the fact that the illogic and intellectual inconsistancy of it has been pointed out to you.

Quote
It just shouldn't happen.  It is not tyranny that I am speaking of.  If the majority of people believe that discrimination should not be accepted, and show this through democractic voting, then who is the church to argue?

Here's another point in my previous reply you ignored - are you willing to accept ALL the results of a majority vote as legitimate? Or only the ones you agree with?

Quote
  No one likes a pompus jerk who thinks they are better then everyone else, why is the church an exception?

It's not. Have you never ever met an un-believer who pompously believed they were better and smarter than religious people?

i daresay I've seen it on this very board.

Have you ever called such people out and ask them why they were "hateful"?

QuoteSure democractic government isn't perfect, and it never claims to be, but at least it's trying to make life better for everyone.  I still do not see the point in saying your god is all loving, but then say certain people are better than everyone else... it completely contradicts its self.

that's an interesting take since the foundational doctrine which underlies all Christianity is this:

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and "There is none righteous, no not one" and "Every thought of man is only wickedness continually" and "The heart of man is desperately wicked"

the very existence of Christianity is predicated on the proposition that not one single person who ever lived (save Christ himself) could ever possibly be good enough to win the favor of God - that is precisely why we needed a Savior.

Further, the heart of the Christian faith is that the ONLY people who ever gain the favor of God are those who have looked at THEMSELVES  and seen a person so very sinful that the ONLY option was to confess that reality and beg God's forgiveness.

Understand that? In a theologically sound Christian church, every single member has had to first find THEMSELVES to be shamefully wicked before they can even consider anyone else.

Yet these are the people you assume think they are better than everyone else?

Sadly, yes, some of them still manage to do that - but at least if they are REAL Christians they HAVE had that moment when they judge themselves as harshly as they ever judge anyone else. I daresay you can't make that claim for all unbelievers.

Quote
I'm not perfect, and my views are just that, My views.  Clearly though, there is something seriously wrong with an organization that wishes to punish people for things beyond thier control.

I would suggest that refusing to compromise your sincerely held beliefs is not "punishing people"

Most of the people I have met there, interestingly enough, have been cultural Jews, but not religious ones.

True that, and that is a unique situation to be sure.  Most of the Jewish people I know eat ham and cheese sandwichs, drive cars on Saturday and all like that, still, they consider themselves no less Jewish then those that observe those laws.  Yet, in Israel most of the laws that would or would not be in accord are controlled by a very small minority of very conservative believers. Like I said, they struggle with it.


P.S. The leader in 'accepting' churches is the MCC,
MCC of Toronto
115 Simpson Ave.
Toronto, ON M4K 1A1
Telephone:  416-406-6228
Fax:  416-466-5207
Website: www.mcctoronto.com
Senior Pastor: Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes
Email:  pastor@mcctoronto.com
Director, Congregational Life: Rev. Jo Bell
Email:  jbell@mcctoronto.com
Director, Finance, Revenue & Administration:  Russell Vert
Email:  rvert@mcctoronto.com
(Please visit webpage for our full staff and leadership directory)
Lay Delegates: Jennifer Alexander, Marilyn Byers, Richard Firth,
Sandra Millar, Dawn Sinclair
Worship times: Sundays: 9 a.m. and 11 a.m.

The government doesn't tax churches because the government deems it a social good to have churches.
In fact, the reason was to keep government out of religion (the power to tax is the power to destroy) and in the devil's own bargain hoped for the reverse to work also.  It was nothing about churches being a positive social force, and quite the contrary, several are not.  Still, it was considered to be in harmony with the First Amendment. 


And, at least in the Catholic Church there is nothing wrong with being gay, its gay sex that is wrong.  You are free to love whoever you want, it just limits the kind of love you can have.  Which by the way, in the RC church, is not limited to gay sex, but all sorts of sexual practices are forbidden.

wow, what a thread!

It doesn't matter what your world view is as long as you don't try to impose it on others. If a particular church, sect, cult or secular group decide on a collective stance, well they can fill their boots and practice it to their hearts content.  My only issue would be when they try and foist their rules on how to live onto others.

Same applies to the non-religious like me.  I have no right to tell them what to believe. Actually, I couldn't care less when it's entirely their own business.

The time to actively resist is when any group seeks to exert influence beyond the "event horizon" of its membership.  The Westboro Baptists, for example, need a good hefty kick in the groin (preferably several) because while disapproving of homosexuality is their prerogative, taunting and hurling abuse at the funeral of some poor sod who died of AIDS is completely beyond the pale.

I have this subject, therefore, put in the forum because it makes me mad which power is given to the churches VOLUNTARILY. Churches are like own state with own rules within a state. Churches are protected, although they don't keep to laws. If a country, e.g., Germany, created laws of the protection of transsexual people(TS mayn't be fired), no church can go, and turn itself against it..
Some said here that nobody is made be with the Mormons. This is right only partially. Certainly nobody stands with a gun behind one, but the doctrines of the LDS and family boundaries, bind very strongly to this sect. And this is why many rather undertake them procedures of a "healing" degrade by Evergreen international, than to live openly. Since what happens, if to recognize itself as transsexual a Mormon gives in own family?
He or she will offend. He or she is put under pressure to be "normal" again. Help and support is to be expected in mormon families rather seldom.
But it is not only with the LDS in such a way!
In many other churches and sects transsexual people are also excluded or excommunicated.
So, it is not only a LDS problem.

Quote from: tekla on July 29, 2009, 11:29:08 PMmost religious people feel deep in their heart that the world would be a better place if everyone believed as they do, and followed their rules.

so do Republicans.

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 29, 2009, 11:32:27 PM
an attitude which is not REMOTELY confined to religiously motivated folks, by the way.

My point exactly, Laura

Heck Fairy Girl, so do the Democrats and the Greens really do.

We forget our (American) history, and how profoundly radical it was when we set out to separate the Church from the State and create a new order for the world. Pretty much we were the first to try that whole deal out.

Quote from: tekla on July 30, 2009, 09:31:46 AM
Heck Fairy Girl, so do the Democrats and the Greens really do.

yeah but I couldn't find any nifty religious icons with donkeys in them lol