Category: Let's talk
If you were a nursery school teacher, little Johnny tells you that he has to go to the bathroom, you see that he's headed straight for the LITTLE GIRLS' ROOM, instead of the LITTLE BOYS', you GENTLY ATTEMPT to RE-DIRECT him, SURPRISINGLY, he SUDDENLY BURSTS into UNCONTROLLABLE CRYING, threatening to tell his MOMMY and DADDY (MOMMY and MOMMY/DADDY and DADDY) on you, and when you ask WHY, he tells YOU that you're (he might not have THIS FAR of an ADVANCED VOCABULARY for his AGE, of course, ALTHOUGH SUCH is CERTAINLY SUBJECT to EXCEPTION) "VIOLATING HIS RIGHT" to "FEEL LIKE a GIRL," what would you say/do next, if ANYTHING, or would/wouldn't you be SHOCKED in any way? If ANY/ALL/NEITHER/NONE of the above phases you, why?
I would apologize and lead him to the girl's room. That's where he needs to
go if his genetic make up and biochemistry have made him so.
And before the apologists wake up and cry, there is neuroscience now to back up what Cody just said. Brain scans between males and females are typically different. Sorry Gender nurture people, this is coming out now.
And what this means, is, lots of these kids who say they 'feel like they are in the wrong body,' it is more than a feeling. It's exactly what they're feeling: their brain is in fact functioning like the other gender.
I've seen a lot of cases of this out here now. I mean even on mainstream news.
I feel very justifiably ashamed when I see it, because of how we acted towards trans people in the 1980s. And you know what? We *did* know better: humans have inborn empathy, it's how we have survived as a social species. Some of us just chose to overlook it when we were young, dumb, and full of cum.
And before people start in on damaging the kids, the puberty blockers they now issue in cases like this are reversible. All the kid has to do is stop taking them and they would go through the puberty of their biological sex. Is biological sex even the right word anymore? Considering the brain scan technology proving their brain biology is different from their genital biology?
i'll leave it to university students and activists to tackle that one.
To post 1, yes I would do as Cody said in Post 2. The brain science behind it is growing quickly, despite efforts by either the religious or the womyn-born-womyn movements.
I'd also do as Cody and leo. no being scared, shocked, ETC, as post one asks if we would be, in such a situation.
Completely agreed with leo and cody here.
WELL, THAT would be the VERY SAME as if either HE, or ANY OTHER CHILD, during SCHOOL LUNCH, regardless the GENDER, or even any ADULT, in ANY OTHER CAPACITY, for this same matter, but in THIS case, let's just keep it HERE with the CHILDREN, seated at a table, with any/all of the plastic/silverware available, had a plate of food placed in front of them, and SUDDENLY, there's an OUTBURST of HYSTERICAL BAWLING, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE/SHE felt like he/she was a DOG, and should've been given a DOG'S BOWL of DOG FOOD, placed on the floor, for him/her to position him/herself the way that REAL DOGS would, with their faces in the bowl, eating to their HEART'S CONTENT, so THEREFORE, would you ALSO agree that an appology from the teacher is owed in THIS case, as WELL? If SO, or if NOT, why? What makes it DIFFERENT, if there's even ANY DIFFERENCE, WHATSOEVER, between the TWO SCENARIOES, since BOTH have to do with a SOLID NON-CHANGEABLE (DNA), which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, to do with what's SUPPOSED to be any SCIENTIFICLY-DIAGNOSED NEUROSCIENCE claim could ever make?
Except that trans-speciesism, as you are referring to here with the dog situation, is a figment of the imagination of some young hipsters on Tumblr. Damn I hope someone on here is into neirology and can explain this, I have only seen articles. But anyway there is no evidence for a human having a cat or dog's brain. But in the cases where people are born the wrong gender, there's apparently some brain chemistry that makes their brain consign itself to the gender that they identify with.
You explained it pretty well Leo. Humans can't be dogs. A guy can be a girl.
Or, to put it more politely, what appears to be a guy can actually be a girl, or
vice versa.
So OP, your example just doesn't wash. Your attempt at a slippery slope
argument is as ignorant of reality as all the other sudo-intellectual christians
with access to keyboards. Slippery slopes don't exist. That's why they're a
logical fallacy.
I have to agree. Saying that you're a cat or a dog is very different from saying that you're a different gender. Those who are honestly trans gendered aren't doing it to be freaks, perverts, funny, cool, or different. They honestly feel this way. It's like forcing someone who is left-handed to write with his right hand, or forcing someone who is homosexual to have a relationship and/or sex with the opposite sex. Can they do it? Yes. Should they? Not unless they truly wish to do so.
Having said all of that, children do go through phases, and sometimes, they do things for attention. I'm honestly not sure what the best route is here. They're young enough that puberty hasn't hit, so nothing would happen if a boy went into the girls room, either by him seeing things that he shouldn't, or say, inappropriate things between students. But it may be best to let him talk with an understanding psychologist, counselor, etc. to see whether he really is transgendered or whether he's seeking attention or going through a phase. To be safe, I would probably tell him to use the boy's room for now, and promise to talk about it later with him.
Tiffanitsa, taking the OP-with-the-longest-screen-name-in-the-world seriously is an exercise in futility. I'm leaving your points alone because I refuse to engage the OP.
That makes almost no sense. You refuse to debate, just because you don't agree with or like the author of the post, but then, you come here specifically to state that you don't wish to debate? Why?
I'd do as cody and others would. Regarding your second situation it doesn't
seem likely or real, so...
From www.gotquestions.org: "Question: "What does the Bible say about transsexualism / transgenderism? Is gender identity disorder / gender dysphoria the result of sin?"
Answer: Transsexualism, also known as transgenderism, Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, is a desire to change one’s sex or to fulfill the role of the opposite gender. Transsexuals / transgenders usually describe themselves as “trapped” in a body that does not match their gender. They will probably practice transvestism / transvestitism and may also seek hormone therapy and/or surgery to bring their bodies into conformity with their perceived gender.
The Bible has plenty to say about human sexuality. Most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). All the modern-day speculation about numerous genders—or even a gender “continuum” with unlimited genders—is unbiblical.
In Psalm 139, we learn that God fashions each one of us. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. . . . your eyes saw my unformed body” (verses 13-16). God’s creation of each individual must surely include His designation of gender/sex. His wonderful work leaves no room for mistakes; no one is born with the “wrong body.”
After the fall of man, it did not take long for gender issues to become confused. In Abraham’s day, homosexuality was widespread in some cities (Genesis 19:1-7; Jude 7). The Bible is unmistakably clear that homosexuality is a sinful perversion of God’s gift of sexuality (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
In the Law, transvestism / transvestitism was specifically forbidden: “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
Another possible reference to transsexualism is 1 Corinthians 6:9, where “male prostitutes” is listed as a separate category from “homosexual offenders.” The King James Version uses the word “effeminate” here; that is to say, the “male prostitutes” might be transsexual men who act as women.
No matter if the gender distortion has a genetic, hormonal, physiological, or psychological cause, the Bible clearly and consistently labels any sexual activity outside of marriage or not between a man and a woman as sin, rebellion against God’s plan. But following this realization is good news: sin can be forgiven and lives can be changed through faith in Christ. The Corinthian believers are an example of such a change: “And [homosexuals] is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). There is hope for any sinner, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites included, because of God’s forgiveness available in Jesus Christ.
Recommended Resources: Coming out of Homosexuality by Bob Davies and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley and Logos Bible Software.
While he is not the author of every article on GotQuestions.org, for citation purposes, you may reference our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann."
Ok, so the bible says something about it. Who cares? Your stupid little book
has no baring on reality. In fact, it flatly defies reality in several places. So your
religious rhetoric isn't going to work here. You can't justify bigotry by saying
that your book says something about it. None of us, or at least not me, give two
tiny little rabbit shits about your pathetic little pimple of a god, so if you're
going to start making this a religious debate, I can already tell you that you're
going to lose.
Post 13 was brought to you by the very wealthy, wordsmithy industry known as Christian
apologetics, paid for by the American public, reminding you to vote Republican, and not
independent or libertarian, this November.
What is faith without financiers? What is creed without a Political Action Committee?
What is God without an army of apologists?
Terrance I have read a lot more from your apologists than you have, the blogosphere
notwithstanding.
I think the world is still too confused about transsexuality. It's still, to the general public, too new a concept. I mean, the worry is that boys and girls may do inappropriate things. We want the genders to feel comfortable with one another. Lezbians and gays room with women and men respectively in college dorms. it's not like we're segregating by sexual preference, so I'd say if Johnny feels like she's a girl, then she should be allowed into the girls' bathroom yeah.
My hangup is that kids may be confused about what they're actually feeling, or may downright lie for the spite of it. what do you do about that? Hahah I'm gonna say I'm a girl so I can go in the girls' bathroom. This becomes more of an issue in middle and high school.
Just throw the genders together and put urinals and toilets alike in their own stalls. Problem solved. I don't know what a solution would be.
How about the unisex bathrooms? Something like what I saw in Japan in the early 90s.
To post 13. That's fine for those who are Christian. But not everyone is, and even among those who are, not everyone follows The Bible literally. Even most ultraconservatives don't follow it exactly as it's written, especially if they're using translations which are confused from the original Greek. Even in those editions, text has either been purposefully modified over the centuries, or is corrupted by time and has been made illedgible.
Most people have grown out of the idea of only having sex after marriage. It doesn't logically make sense to marry someone without living with him/her, and without having an idea of what you're getting into sexually. You could love someone all you want, but ssometimes, even little habits can really get on your nerves. Had you lived with him, you would have known whether or not you could ignore these things in favour of your love, or whether they will drive you to distraction.
As for homosexuals, my parents are both women and have been together for 24 years. Neither has ever felt the desire to go with a man, and they have never cheated on each other. They had a civil union a few years ago, and were finally able to get legally married on 18 September, 2013. I was thrilled for them, and as a sidenote, I have never felt the desire to go with a woman, nor was I ever encouraged to do so, simply because of the sexual orientation of my parents.
Tiff, your example is beautiful.
Actually, the Bible doesn't say lots about this, the preachers find passages to support there ideas.
I agree with what needs doing about the bathroom here, and the dog thing just doesn't happen.
People who seek medical ways to change themselves harm themselves worse than if they simply live life and be happy.
Lets go back to Tiff. She was brought up in a female female relationship, but decided what she'd be.
I must correct you on something. No one "decides" what they will be. You either are or you're not. I didn't make a conscious decision to be straight, just as they didn't make one to be gay. I know you didn't mean it in any negative way, but I wanted to clarify.
As for changing the body, some transpeople can handle being in the body into which they were born. There are also others who are transvestites, meaning that they just crossdress, but may not necessarily be gay or trans. I personally don't wear dresses, skirts, heels, or makeup, and have no issues with pants and suits, be they made for men or women. But I don't consider myself a crossdresser. I'm just not into feminine things, despite Mom's early attempts to make me wear dresses. hahaha
No, I don't mean you decided. I mean your situation didn't change you so you had to think about what you'd be. You decided on being as you were.
I'm sure you've thought about it some?
What it might be like to be with another woman, since you've seen it in a positive light?
Also as to dress, lots of women wear suits, and many are made for women, and they look like suits for women, not men.
Women lack things that I like and have some that I don't. So I really couldn't imagine myself being with one. I think a good friendship is as close as I could get.
I'm really not sure of the differences in men's and women's suits. I own both, but I hardly ever get to wear them. Still, I feel comfortable in a suit and tie when it comes to formal events.
That is, they have some things that I don't like. The sentence looked strange.
Lots of differents. Smile.
You shouldn't wear a men's suit. The cut isn't right, especially if you have breast, or breast of size.
I'll tell you privately, so I don't mess up this topic.
Thankfully, my breasts are very small. *smile* But I agree. It's better not to get off-topic.
Wayne, your statement about people medically changing their body to fit the sex they feel most like is beyond ignorant.
I'm sure you cannot even begin to imagine the hell transgendered people go through, just based on the fact society makes things so problematic for them, over all.
if they're able to truly become comfortable in a new body, if that's what it takes to help them feel like productive, worthy members of society, no one has the right to make them feel less than human, for any reason.
also, your statement about someone considering what it would be like to be with someone of the same gender, just cause their parents are gay, is nonsensical.
I'm not attracted to people on the whole cause I was raised around people who felt that sort of thing was acceptable. quite the contrary, actually. simply put, I'm attracted to people as a whole cause that's my makeup.
I think that was kind of his point Chelsea. I might be wrong, but I think he
was using a form of reducto ad absurdium to make his argument.
What's CERTAINLY CERTAIN is that the BELIEF that HOMOSEXUALITY/TRANSGENDERALITY (in case there MIGHT be such word as "TRANSGENDERALITY") is what one IS could NEVER be ANY FURTHER from the VERY ABSOLUTE TRUTH as such could EVER GET than if one were to claim that they were a HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE, JUST BECAUSE they have the AMAZING SKILL to ACTUALLY SOUND like one, would be. HOMOSEXUALITY/TRANSGERALITY IS, ALWAYS HAS BEEN, and ALWAYS WILL BE, a BEHAVIOR, SIMPLY BECAUSE it takes DECISION, and DECISION, ONLY, to PROMPT YOU AND I to ENGAGE EACH OTHER in SUCH-LIKE ACTIVITY.
Taken from www.liveprayer.com: "Date: 05/13/14 - 11 days ago.
Category: UNITED STATES
The United States is a Modern Day Sodom and Gomorrah
(Romans 1:25; Romans 1:18-32; Deuteronomy 28:7; 1 Timothy 1:18, 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:4; Ephesians 6:12)
***ASK BILL: With each day's current events now, it seams to me God's judgment on this nation has already begun and is picking up speed quickly. Am I right
ANSWER: 100%! I warned people in late 2007, that 2008 would begin the very clear and visible judgment of God on this nation. In the early months we had the housing bubble burst costing people trillions of dollars of equity in their homes. Late in the year, the nation elected a true enemy of God to be our President. With each passing year, the signs have continued, and the fragile state of this nation becomes more evident. However, these is one answer, one hope, and that is to have a "Nineveh moment" by repenting, turning back to God and His Truth, and stay His hand of judgment of a season while seeing a great harvest of souls!
The United States is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, and if God doesn't judge this nation for embracing the perversion of homosexuality, even to the point we have legally re-defined God's Holy Institution of Marriage and the Family, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology!!! The pro-homosexual lobby has successfully forced society to validate legally and ethically their choice of perverted sexual behavior and relationships, and to enact laws that allow them to promote this sinful choice even to children as normal, even desirable behavior!!!
Let me say right up front, sin is sin in God's eyes. No sin is greater than another. The sin of homosexuality is no more, or no less a sin than murder, adultery, stealing, lying, gossiping, or gluttony. THE REASON THIS SIN IS BEING SINGLED OUT AND ADDRESSED IS BECAUSE THOSE WHO COMMIT IT, ARE PROUD OF THEIR SIN AND PROMOTE IT AS AN ACCEPTABLE LIFESTYLE! People who commit adultery do NOT have parades to celebrate their sin. People who commit murder do NOT have political action committees to make murder legal and socially acceptable. People who steal do not have high school clubs and try to teach children that stealing is acceptable behavior. Homosexuality is a SIN in the eyes of God and is something to be ashamed of, NOT proud of!!!
Look at what has happened in this nation in just the past week! HGTV, owned by Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. that also owns The Food Network, The Cooking Channel, The Travel Channel, and Great American Country, cancelled a new real estate program scheduled to start airing this fall hosted by real estate entrepreneurs the Benham Brothers, who are also committed Christians and take a Biblical stand on the sin of homosexuality and gay marriage. The pressure began with a small homosexual advocacy group and the executives at HGTV didn't even blink before quickly announcing the new program was going to be cancelled!
As amazing as God's timing always is, within 24 hours the NBC Network, one of the four major TV networks that is owned by broadcasting/cable giant Comcast, announced they would airing a program this fall created by gay activist Ellen Degeneres with all of the main characters portraying lesbians. This simply continues the "mainstreaming" of this choice of sexual perversion with people of the same sex that less than 2% of the population engages in. A small cable network in apx. 50 million homes cancels a program that was going to have NOTHING to do with Christianity other than the brothers who host the program are followers of Jesus Christ, while the NBC Network in 90 million homes gives gay activist Ellen DeGeneres a huge platform in prime time to promote perverted sexuality to the entire nation!!!
A Florida man has filed suit to legally marry his computer! I told you years ago, once they began to re-define marriage, where do you stop? His justification is that if gays are allowed to marry then so should other sexual minorities! I remember people telling me I was crazy 8 or 9 years ago when I stated on the Liveprayer TV program I was going to marry a duck. Simply take all of the same arguments people of the same sex make to justify their getting married to someone of the same sex and now that it is legal in 25% of the states who can argue? Men marrying men, women marrying women, is just as sick and perverted as a man marrying his computer or his duck!!!
Lastly, I am about done with the one thing in life I have loved since my childhood and that is sports. ESPN had to show over and over and over this confused football player Michael Sam who played at Missouri, kissing his "boyfriend" on the lips after being drafted in the last round of the NFL draft by the St. Louis Rams. Don Jones, a player on the Miami Dolphins sent a "tweet" that it was "horrible" and was fined, suspended, and ordered to take "sensitivity classes!" So in the year 2014, you can speak openly and publicly about any kind of sin or rebellious conduct you can dream up, but if you speak up for Biblical Truth you are shunned, ostracized, and treated like you have leprosy!!!
I love you and care about you so much. THE GREATEST PROBLEM IN OUR NATION TODAY IS THE DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY. Marriage ordained by God always will be one man, one woman, for one lifetime no matter how man tries to re-define it! God's definition of family is a man and woman that are married and the children that are born into that Godly union. We have literally watched marriage and the family become perverted and destroyed over the past 40 years. The destruction of marriage and the family will be the ultimate destruction of our society. THAT is why this issue is so critical, because it destroys the union of a man and woman and their children as God intended it to be...THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR SOCIETY!!
The church better wake up and realize that while they have been building great buildings and getting fat, satan has been busy using the sin of homosexuality to destroy marriage and the family. We live in a free society. If people who have chosen to engage in homosexual activity want to have their own schools, their own churches, their own television network, they have every right to. It is about time the church wakes up and realizes that those who promote this sin are bold and are stopping at NOTHING to get their message out to the masses.
THAT is why I am always talking about how the church, those who know Christ as their Savior, have got to quit preaching to the choir and start taking the hope and love of Christ to the world at large. As those who follow Christ, we also have a responsibility to pray for those who are in this bondage, for God to open their hearts to the truth of His Word, and to turn from their sin. Only God can change hearts, and for those who are in bondage to the sin of homosexuality, we must pray for them to open their hearts and turn from their sin.
Until Jesus returns, we will always have those who choose a perverted form of sex with those of their own gender, just like we will always have those who choose to pervert sex by having it outside of the bonds of marriage. While we can never accept their choice since it is clearly against God's Word, we must pray for them, just like we must pray for everyone who is battling sin in their life. We also must pray for this nation to turn back to God and His Truth be-
fore His wrath and judgment is unleashed and we end up like Sodom and Gomorrah!
In His love and service, Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller"
JUST AS I'VE SAID in PRIOR POSTS, all I'M doing is sharing what ABSOLUTE TRUTH says. MY OPINION, just as BILL KELLER'S, BILLY GRAHAM, JAMES DOBBSON, YOURS, ETC., which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what ABSOLUTE TRUTH MANDATES, REGARDLESS of what SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS, UNIVERSITIES, "LOGIC LOCK-DOWNS," if you will, or ANY OTHER of SUCH LIKE, SAYS, is COMPLETELY/ETERNALLY NULL AND VOID, as such has ALWAYS been, EVEN BEFORE TIME EVER BEGAN, and will ALWAYS be, for ALL of ETERNITY!
Again, you are looking at things from a religious rather than a scientific angle. You may "decide" to enter into a relationship, but you cannot decide when or whom you love. That's why they say "love is blind" and write songs about not wishing to love someone, or on the flip side, of being so surprised about falling in love with someone and having it turn out happily. There have also been scientifically recorded cases of homosexuality among animals besides humans. They cannot decide things in the same way as we do. I'm not saying they can't love, feel emotions, learn, etc. But in choosing mates, they usually go on instinct and biology.
So, where does the bible refer to the whole Sausage Sundae thing, or humping some fat woman's leg while she's pissing or taking a shit? Hopefully, you will be forgiven as well. I'm praying for you.
The way that I'M looking at it is from neither a RELIGIOUS nor SCIENTIFIC ANGLE, but DIRECTLY from GOD'S WORD, ALONE. As I ALWAYS SAY: science, with ALL of its INTELLIGENCE, that chooses to leave GOD out, either PARTIALLY or ENTIRELY, is EQUIVALENT to a body, functioning without a head.
You can't help being aroused by some fat woman shitting, so you have to hump the poor bitch's leg and hope she smothers you with her big boobs. That's a choice for you though, right? Ever thought about how much simpler life would be if you made normal sexual turn-ons a choice? just curious.
Wow... it took less than 14 posts for this to degenerate back into a Science-
vs-Religion argument again... I must say that I'm shocked that it took that
many posts... I'm surprised that OP didn't just start off quoting the Bible in his
OP... would have saved a bunch of us a good deal of time spent reading his
drivel that we'll never get back.
Any time you bring a deity and/or sacred text into a discussion, and attempt to base your argument on the above, it has become theological in nature. In your case, you're using Christianity as your base, which is clearly a religion. So I hold to my previous statement. You are using neither science nor logic to make your statements. Furthermore, you are imposing your religious views on others, without realising that not everyone is Christian. If you were merely stating "this is what I believe" or "this is what we believe in my faith", that would be fine. But that's a very different approach from trying to use the sacred text of your faith, in your case, The Bible, to dictate what others should and should not do.
Devilish Anthony, you're completely confusing me with your imagery. Regardless, I'm trying very hard to not find your comments extraordinarily distasteful and disrespectful. Just because we don't follow her religion, we don't need to be rude about it.
On reflection, I do see the correlation. I had forgotten that the original topic was boys using the girls room. But goodness!
Tif, in his old profile, he explained that in his world, women had Sundaes, and men had sausages. He outlined these sexual turn-ons. In this board, he seems to be indicating that homosexuality and gransgendorism is a choice, so I'm simply asking him if he consciously chose what he's in to or not. see it for whatever you want to see it as.
For the benefit of eleni, and anyone else who might be wondering what I've been referring to, here's his explanation. I could go back and find even more, but I think this will be sufficient, taken from the sex addicts graffiti board. Since it was not posted annonymously, there's no reason why it can't be pasted here. I've combined severl posts, just to make it easier to read.
ANYWAY, in the following, here are defined sexual expressions of "SUNDAY." Of course, I MIGHT'VE already posted this ELSEWHERE, but MALES have "SAUSAGES," and FEMALES have "SUNDAYS," which is OBVIOUSLY self-explanatory.
When a woman's menstrual cycle's in progress, she's having "SUNDAY ISSUES." A gynecologist is a "SUNDAY DOCTOR." Menstrual pads are called "SUNDAY PADS (no "SUNDAY" expression for TAMPONS, at THIS time)."
OBVIOUSLY, the LADIES' room is the "SUNDAY ROOM," and for the GUYS, the "SAUSAGE ROOM." Breasts and nipples are "SUNDAY BREASTS/SUNDAY NIPPLES." Female underwear would be called "SUNDAYWEAR." A bra would be a "SUNDAY BRA."
THIS JUST IN: The brand-new addition to the "SUNDAY EXPRESSIONS" list is "SUNDAY-LICIOUS." For example, in referring to INTIMACY, I would tell whoever my intended spouse would be that it's "SUNDAY-LICIOUS."
HONESTLY, I'd rather write it as: "SUNDAYLICIOUS."
NOW THAT I'VE GIVEN YOU INGRADES (I'm ONLY referring to those that are in opposition to my posts) MORE TOTALK ABOUT, the drooling scavengers that YOU are ...
Posted by
mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally
So, since he said, "What's CERTAINLY CERTAIN is that the BELIEF that HOMOSEXUALITY/TRANSGENDERALITY (in case there MIGHT be such word as "TRANSGENDERALITY") is what one IS could NEVER be ANY FURTHER from the VERY ABSOLUTE TRUTH as such could EVER GET than if one were to claim that they were a HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE, JUST BECAUSE they have
the AMAZING SKILL to ACTUALLY SOUND like one, would be. HOMOSEXUALITY/TRANSGERALITY IS, ALWAYS HAS BEEN, and ALWAYS WILL BE, a BEHAVIOR, SIMPLY BECAUSE it takes DECISION, and DECISION, ONLY, to PROMPT YOU AND I to ENGAGE EACH OTHER in SUCH-LIKE ACTIVITY," I wanna know if it is a conscious choice to be aroused by such things. He's telling us that things like homosexuality is a choice, so why is it disrespectful to put the same questions back to him?
Thanks Cody.
Wonder if he enjoys Sunday.
Smile.
good on you, Anthony, for telling the OP like it is. unfortunately, I'm sure it'll go in one ear and out the other, but it needed to be said, nonetheless.
anthony, the OP doesn't have the guts to answer you. He's a coward. He's a
hypocrite as well, because he excuses his sexual perversions while looking down
on others. Yet this cunt thinks he's got the right to speak the word of god.
honestly. This guy talking about god makes about as much sense as a serial
children's rapist talking about the sanctity of children', and their right not to be
sexually abused.
the OP is way to old not to know better.
QUESTION: I dare ANY OF YOU that's reading THIS TOPIC, as well as having read any of my PAST TOPICS, that can ACTUALLY PROOVE ANYTHING that I was SUPPOSED to have said in the form of "LOOKING DOWN" on anyone that chooses SAME-SEX BEHAVIORS? All I'VE said, if THIS was supposed to have been EXPECTEDLY MISCONSTRUED as my having "JUDGED" ANYONE, is that the SAME-SEX LIFE, which ONLY HAPPENS as a result of one's DECISION, and DECISION, ONLY, ISN'T ONE'S IDENTITY. A rapist is ONLY SUCH when one DECIDES to SEXUALLY VIOLATE ANOTHER, which SUCH ACTIVITY is a BEHAVIOR, NOT the person's IDENTITY. NOW, one CAN CHOOSE to IDENTIFY WITH, but NEVER IDENTIFY AS, whatever/whoever. EXAMPLE: I choose to IDENTIFY WITH the friends that I'm CLOSELY ASSOCIATED, but I could NEVER IDENTIFY AS any of them. IDENTIFYING WITH equals BLENDING IN with. IDENTIFYING AS equals BEING.
As far as my SEXUAL TURN-ONS, which DEVILISH ANTHONY is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT, who decides what the SUPPOSED "UNIVERSAL NORM" is for what should sexually turn ANYONE/EVERYONE on? To answer your question, JUST AS IT'S the VERY EXACT SAME for one who's SEXUALLY AROUSED by ANOTHER of the SAME sex, BEING AROUSED equals TEMPTATION; TEMPTATION, ONLY, ISN'T a BEHAVIOR. ENGAGING in the ACTIVITY of the temptation IS. OBVIOUSLY, MY DECISION to ENGAGE with women as above-described makes me ABSOLUTELY NO BETTER or LESSER than anyone who chooses to engage in SAME-SEX ACTIVITY.
I wonder if Nicole Kidman will have any problems with Sunday Issues when
talking to and teaching her daughter Sunday about Sunday Issues when
Sunday is old enough to actually have Sunday Issues when she's older?
* Nicole Kidman's middle daughter is named Sunday Rose Kidman Urban,
who was born in 2008.
WELL, we'll just have to wait until THEN to FIND OUT, wouldn't we?
I can prove you look down on them. You posted an article which
demonstrated that your bible says that homosexuality is a sin and is deserving
of death. Because you posted this article without any context of why, I have to
assume that you agree with this article. Judging by your other posts, I'm willing
to work with this assumption. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, and that
they are deserving of death, you are looking down on the lifestyle and those
who live it.
Also, you keep calling it a choice, which is incorrect. You're calling it a choice
so you don't have to admit you're a bigot. If its a choice, you can condemn it as
a choice, like you can condemn people who smoke or take drugs. But if its
genetic, you're a bigot. So you're desperate for it to be a choice, so that you
don't have to face the fact that you're bigoted and your religion is hateful.
Anyone who is that desperate to justify hatred and evil beliefs such as yours
must be looking down on the subject of their bigotry. So, I think I've proven it.
YES, I DEFINITELY ACCEPT ALL that the BIBLE SAYS that's the ABSOLUTE, INERRENT WORD of GOD, and what HE says about SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR. I ALSO ACCEPT the VERY FACT that ALTHOUGH GOD NEVER CONDONES the SIN of SAME-SEX BEHAVING, neither does HE CONDEMN the SINNER of SUCH BEHAVIOR. JESUS, who took on the FULL FORM of HUMANITY, who was JUST AS %100-PLUS MAN as HE'S %100-PLUS GOD, DIDN'T COME into the WORLD to bring CONDEMNATION FOR SIN, but SALVATION (COMPLETE FREEDOM) FROM it. NO SIN, WHATSOEVER, is GENETIC; I DARE SAY, which I HOPE that I'm not BIBLICALLY-INCORRECT, that ALL SIN is HABITUAL--yes, this DOES include SAME-SEX BEHAVING, JUST as it ALSO INCLUDES OPPOSITESEX BEHAVING, ONLY when it's OUTSIDE the bonds of HOLY MATRIMONY. YES, the BIBLE DOES say, and I DEFINITELY DO ACCEPT the VERY ABSOLUTE, NEVER-CHANGING FACT, that the WAGES of sin IS DEATH, which JESUS, HIMSELF, already CANCELED that debt on the VERY CROSS that ALL OF US SINNERS DESERVE to have DIED ON for our OWN SINS, INSTEAD--because of THIS, we can CHOOSE to, NOT IDENTIFY AS, but IDENTIFY WITH, HIM, JUST as we can choose to IDENTIFY WITH, NOT AS, whatever the sin is. REMEMBER: the BIBLE is what calls SIN "SIN," ABSOLUTELY REGARDLESS of whether I choose to ACCEPT what the BIBLE calls it or NOT, so EVEN THOUGH I, MYSELF, am NO MORE ABOVE CONDONING SAME-SEX BEHAVING, MURDER, LYING, STEALING, ETC., than ANYONE ELSE is, ONLY BECAUSE I, MYSELF, am JUST AS DESERVING of DEATH and HELL, like ALL of the REST of MANKIND is, I'VE CHOSEN to CALL SIN EXACTLY what the BIBLE, ITSELF, calls it, NEVER BECAUSE I'm SUPPOSED to have "ARRIVED" and NOONE ELSE, not only HAS, but COULD NEVER, but ONLY BECAUSE GOD, HIMSELF, SAYS SO, NEVER BECAUSE HE HATES SINNERS, but ONLY BECAUSE HE HATES SIN, and SIN, ONLY, so since SAME-SEX BEHAVING IS SIN, GOD HATES IT, but ALWAYS will LOVE the SINNER of SAME-SEX BEHAVING.
That would be nice if your bible mattered. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought he said sex with the same sex was a temptation?
Now, don’t happen to believe this is a sin, but I'm also not tempted either.
I could argue Jesus was actually extremely sexual open and accepting of others sexual habits.
Look at all the guys he hung out with, prostitutes and such?
I could argue also that all, and I mean all, of the saints in the Bible were some sexual people.
Most have more than 1 wife, plus all the concubines, and such.
These dudes were not restrained at all. See it, want it, have it, seemed to be the motto.
Sunday!
Food for thought.
While I don't disagree with you Wayne, I would caution away from that line of
argumentation. As I've now said twice, the bible doesn't matter. Trying to argue
that the bible actually supports your side and not theirs doesn't make your
argument better, it makes you more wrong. The sooner we can get all the
religious rhetoric out of this discussion, the sooner we can reach the truth.
Religion, beliefs, holy books, deities, myths, fables and fairy tales have
absolutely nothing to do with this issue. So we should discard them entirely.
Think of it this way. If you were debating the war in Iraq, and someone came
in and started quoting the Iliad, you'd ask them what the hell that has to do
with the war in Iraq. What, cuz it has a war in it its germane to the
conversation? Absolutely not, I think we'd all agree on that. So why would we
allow another fictional book that is only still published because of religious ties
to be used as an argument in a discussion that has nothing to do with religion?
We need to keep the facts with the facts, and let religion play with its toys in
another room while the adults talk about reality. Religion doesn't deal with
reality, so lets keep it out of discussions about it.
Ah, but I didn't start it. Just felt like being silly and tossing some bullshit on the fire!
This discussion started out decent, but the poster decided to be "right" so I got silly. Sorry.
No worries, I do it too. I just wanted to point out the weakness in arguing that
way. You're not the only one who does it.
Jesus, the OPS walls of text have just as many contradictions in them as the
bible.
Well, OBVIOUSLY, JUST BECAUSE, which you have ABSOLUTELY EVERY RIGHT NOT to, YOU CHOOSE to NOT ACCEPT GOD'S WORD as being the FINAL AUTHORITY of ALL ABSOLUTE TRUTH, NEVER MEANS that HIS WORD NEVER MATTERS, because if THAT was ACTUALLY TRUE, NOTHING/NOONE would EXIST, POINT-BLANK. REGARDLESS of whatever ATHEISTIC/AGNOSTIC/SCIENTIFIC/CHRISTIAN-SCIENTIFIC/DARWINISTIC/SOCRATESTIC/BUDHIST/WHATEVER-ELSE type of BABBLE, IF ANY/ALL/NONE of the ABOVE, AT ALL, that you'll "DRIBBLE (YOUR word)" back in RESPONSE, GOD'S WORD will STILL MATTER. I, BY ALL RIGHTS that I have to do so, could SUDDENLY walk/run away from the TRUTH to become ANY/ALL ABOVE-MENTIONED, AS WELL, choosing to either PARTIALLY or TOTALLY REJECT GOD'S WORD as being the FINAL AUTHORITY for MY life. HIS WORD would STILL MATTER--as you're CONSTANTLY DRONING "RELIGION THIS," "RELIGIOUS THAT," "BELIEFS," ANY/ALL OTHER ELSE," the ONLY TRUE MEANING of "RELIGION" is MAN'S ETERNALLY-UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS to ACTUALLY REACH GOD, which DEFINITELY FOREVER CONCLUDES GOD'S ALL-AUTHORITY WORD has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, to do with "RELIGION" at ABSOLUTELY NO TIME, EVER. How can ANY/ALL OF US EVER "ESCAPE" the ABSOLUTELY/ETERNALLY INESCAPABLE?
ANOTHER FACT: although JESUS HUNG OUT with SINNERS, CLOSELY/CONSTANTLY, NEVER MEANT that HE IDENTIFIED WITH, which CERTAINLY equals BLENDED IN with THEM, but ONLY that THEY would CHOOSE, which there were THOSE that HAVE, to IDENTIFY/BLEND with HIM. ONE SUCH PERFECT EXAMPLE, in addition to OTHER PERFECT EXAMPLES of the BIBLE, as having shown the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT UNCONDITIONALITY of who JESUS ACTUALLY IS, is the SCRIPTURE of the WOMAN at the WELL.
If you want to claim the bible matters, you'll have to prove it. Can you prove
that the bible actually has anything demonstrably substantive on the subject, or
should we just listen to it cuz it gives you a chubby and your petty little
fuckstick of a god will get his panties in a wad if we don't? Should we listen to
you because you have something worthy of saying, or because you can't be
bothered with picking the underwear out of your pathetic little god's ass crack?
Which is it?
You ALWAYS have this ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS DELUSION that I'M the one that needs LISTENING TO, JUST AS you're even MORE DELUSIONAL, BEYOND ALL LIMITS, to believe that even GOD, HIMSELF, needs US to LISTEN to HIM. GOD doesn't NEED ME, ANY MORE than HE NEEDS YOU! WE--THAT'S RIGHT--YOU AND I, WE--NEED HIM! WE ALL (the ENTIRE WORLD of ALL) NEED HIM, EVEN IF NOT ALL OF US WANT HIM, and EVEN WORSE, if ABSOLUTELY NONE OF US WANT HIM. THIS is the ABSOLUTE FACT that's ETERNALLY INESCAPABLE. LISTENING to HIM, ONLY, NEVER to ME, is for OUR OWN GOOD, NOT HIS. PERFECT EXAMPLE: if YOU were to tell ME that YOU GOT A CALL from WHATEVER HIGH OFFICIAL with the WARNING for US to IMMEDIATELY PACK UP and FLEE to where we'd be guaranteed ABSOLUTE SAFETY from an ONCOMING NATURAL DISASTER that GUARANTEES SUDDEN DEATH to ANYONE, HUMAN/OTHERWISE, that REMAINS, and I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to LISTEN to the WARNING, THINKING that by NOT heeding the WARNING, even though YOU DO, and JUST AS the WARNING SAID, the ABSOLUTELY INCURABLE RAGE of the STORM, and ALL OF ITS FURY, SUDDENLY STRIKES, I'M KILLED, but YOU'RE NOT, because YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE within ANY COUNTLESS MILES of the CATASTROPHY, I'D be SPITING, not only YOU, but that old RAGING MONSTER of the IDIOT OFFICIAL that so much as DARED to TELL YOU to BLATHER SUCH BABBLE to ALMIGHTY-SUPER-SCIENTIFICLY/HARVARD/NYU/FORDHAM-UNIVERSITY/PRINCETON-UNIVERSITY/UCLA/WHEREVER-ELSE-EDUCATED/INTELLECTUAL-DEAD ME, who'd REALLY be the loser between me and you?
Yeah, except that official would have also had to create the disaster for your
example to work. Plus, if I were to go and ask a member of every other religion,
they'd all say the same thing. So you're just one in a crowd of twelve thousand
or so at the current moment in time. So, as I said, if you want to be listened to,
you have to prove it. Your blind faith works for you, to me it makes you a
pathetic moron, and in no way does it give you the right to voice an opinion, let
alone the right to deny people their rights.
Thanks, Anthony, for the explanation. Now it makes a lot more sense. I certainly don't mind profanity, but usually, I try to keep things civil in a debate. He didn't attack anyone personally. So I was a bit shocked at the way in which you handled things. But apparently, you know him better than I do, having seen his other posts.
To mygodchosenbride&i4lifefinally, you managed, in post 45, to make a reasonable-sounding argument for your case. Having said that, look at it from this perspective. Most of us on here are blind or visually-impaired. That said, most of us don't say "Hi my name is... and I'm blind". At the same time, especially for us totals, we cannot hide our blindness or decide to be sighted. No matter what we do, we can't change the fact that we lack sight. So would writing in braille, using a talking computer, etc. be falling into temptation, or would it merely be something that we do because we have no other practical choice? Yes, I could try to write with a pen, not use computers, or even have someone sighted read the screen to me. But all would be awkward, and in some cases, almost impossible. It's the same for gays. Yes, they could date, and even marry, the opposite sex. But they would be living a lie and they would feel as awkward as me trying to write with a pen, having never seen. Also, they can't simply say "I identify with homosexuals" as a sibling of our's might say "I identify with blind people", in the sense that they know someone in the group. These people are homosexuals, so are not just identifying with them.
As for rapists, this is not the same thing. No matter the sex, gender, or orientation, rape is rape, and it comes about when someone forces someone else to engage in sexual acts. Note the word force here. It is against the other person's will. In the case of a normal relationship, be it heterosexual or homosexual, no one is being forced. Both arties are concenting adults.
While I believe that religion is a very personal thing, in the sense that no one can be forced to follow a given faith, I also believe that it's good to believe in something, even if it's just some kind of higher power. I was never a pure secularist, even before I found The Gods, in december of 2002, and even now, I'm not strict when it comes to my faith. That is, I don't follow our calendar, make offerings and sacrifices (all bloodless, of course) when I should, etc. But I still honour and respect The Gods, and I agree with you. They don't need us. We need Them, or at least, something in which to believe. Otherwise, the world is a horribly lonely, empty, and meaningless place, with no amazing things in it and no future.
Wow. I wish I could understand that point of view, but I just can't. for me the
world is so vibrantly alive and full of hope, and I know no god exists. I've seen
countless proofs of this. I think what it really comes down to is this.
Are you capable of inner strength, or do you need something/someone to
validate your actions?
Tiffanitsa, QUESTIONS: since it CERTAINLY IS YOUR RIGHT to serve the "gods" of your choice, how sure are you of THEM? Meaning: would they have SACRIFICIALLY, with their VERY LIVES, ATONED for you for ANY VIOLATION, WHATSOEVER, that you could've EVER COMMITED, ESPECIALLY AGAINST ANY/ALL OF THEM, ESPECIALLY if SUCH VIOLATIONS were BLATANT, instead of YOU, and YOU, ONLY, to DESERVINGLY PAY, IN FULL, for your OWN VIOLATION/VIOLATIONS with your OWN LIFE? Are you in an ETERNAL, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE RELATIONSHIP with any/all of these gods, which started with THEIR LOVE for you FIRST, as having DRAWN you to THEMSELVES, NOT BECAUSE of ANYTHING that YOU could've ever done for THEM, WHATSOEVER, but ONLY BECAUSE of what they WOULD'VE, or even MIGHT'VE ALREADY, done for YOU, instead? Whether you choose to believe in the AFTERLIFE or NOT, are these gods your ETERNAL CHOICE with whom you've chosen to be your FINAL AUTHORITY, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER the OUTCOME would be for your decision?
As far as the COMPARISON that you've made, the OBVIOUS FLAW is: although such COULD be the case of one who's same-sex-mislead to the point that they'd feel JUST AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED, when being involved with the OPPOSITE sex, the ISSUE, in THIS case, is PROBABLY/POSSIBLY/CERTAINLY DEEPER than just PSYCHOLOGICAL, but DEFINITELY SPIRITUAL, and IF LEAD to the APPROPRIATE SOURCE that's FULLY DEDICATED to being TOTALLY USED by the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD, CREATOR of the UNIVERSE, as well as of ALL of MANKIND, along with ALL OTHER SPECIES, HE, through THEM, would DEFINITELY be the COMPLETE CURE to the VERY LIE from the VERY ENEMY of our VERY SOUL, SATAN, the DEVIL, the VERY GOD of THIS FALLEN WORLD, who'll DEFINITELY be ETERNALLY DESTROYED in the VERY LAKE of FIRE and BRIMSTONE for ALL ETERNITY. As far as the fact of us as being TOTALLY BLIND, whether from BIRTH or NOT, along with the devices that we use to EQUALLY FUNCTION with the GENERAL PUBLIC, there's ABSOLUTELY NO EXISTING PHYSICAL/MENTAL/SPIRITUAL DELIMA to EVER be concerned about. To sum it ALL UP, REGARDLESS of the CONFUSION that one could be about his/her IRREVERSABLE GENDER-STATUS, he/she is STILL RESPONSIBLE forthe decision that he/she MAKES, because it's NOT what you/I FEEL, but WHETHER WE PROACT/REACT to such, WHATEVER SUCH could BE, that determines our outcome.
I don't understand people's need to believe in something, in combination with thinking that if others don't share that view, that somehow makes life absolutely meaningless.
the world is full of beautiful things and beautiful people, not to mention all sorts of worthwhile/enjoyable experiences, which make me grateful to be alive, eager to experience the world, excited about sharing myself and what I know with people, eager to learn from others, ETC.
It's really not possible to ask such a question in Hellenic Polytheism, as we don't believe in sin and attonement. It's also worth noting that we have no Satan or devil figure. We believe in hubris, which is overreaching pride (very simplified here), and in miasma, which is ritual impurification. But The Gods usually do not take our punishments for us. The only exception that comes to mind at the moment is Prometheus, who was a demigod, and who gave fire to man. He was punished for this. Otherwise, when we transgress, The Gods punish us as They will. As for loving us, again, this is a difference between the two faiths. We don't believe that The Gods made us special, or that They must love us, be merciful to us, etc. It's a very different kind of relationship. We believe in kharis, which is reciprocity. We give to Them and They give to us. But They do not need us.
As a sidenote, most of us don't capitalise Gods, They, Them, etc. This is just a personal thing that I do.
As for the afterlife, my own personal beliefs on it are not from Hellenic Polytheism, but from parapsychology. I fully believe in the realm of spirits, as I and several family members, have had various encounters with them. In this respect, I believe that I am truly blessed, and wouldn't have it any other way. That said, I don't know what their world is like, or if everyone goes to the same place, or whether or not we're all eventually reincarnated, or some may choose reincarnation and others remain as spirits. I never really thought about it to any great degree. I'm mostly focused on the world here. The actual religious views on the afterlife depend on the branch of our faith that's being followed. In the Homeric/Hesiodic view, there is The Underworld, with various sections for regular people, those who need to be punished, and true heroes who will be eternally honoured. Orphics, Neoplatonists, and newagers have their own ideas on things, and I have never explored those, as I don't follow their paths.
These two essays might help explain things a bit further. The first was written by me and the second is an excellent introduction to the religion, but the site itself is not strictly Hellenic (Greek).
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150227738637371&refid=21
http://neosalexandria.org/syncretism/a-neophytes-crash-course-in-hellenic-polytheism/
Thanks for explaining your opinions on homosexuality. I don't agree with any of them, as I see no harm in loving another person, especially when you're both mentally competent and concenting adults, but at least it helps me see your side of the issue more clearly.
/me wonders who is the person subscribed to this thread.....
Whether an adult is mentally competent or not doesn't take away his/her rite to be loved. That last statement is rather disheartening. But go on and carry on with the conversation. I couldn't let that go as I obviously strongly disagree with that belief.
Being loved is one thing. Being in a sexual relationship is another.
By the way, I'm the person who has subscribed to this thread. I do that with most of the threads in which I involve myself, just to be aware if new posts have been made to them.
For me, god concepts darken perspective, while a scientific, rational, and humanitarian
perspective offers me what spiritual people call light.
Gods have never given me purpose: purpose itself merely exists, like honor, fidelity and
empathy, as seeds to be cultivated, or muscles to be exercised. I make it my goal to
follow through with these. Unlike gods and their apologists, they do not violate my
conscience.
God some people are stupid.
To be honest, the thing that really gives me purpose is my patriotism. The only thing for which I am willing to die is my country, and my main goal in life is to learn about, to preserve, and to promote Hellenic language and culture. Closely related to that is my desire to move to Greece, to become a citizen, and to do something good for my country before I die.
Nothing would thrill me more greatly than to strangle that stupid bitch with my bare hands until she is forever still and silent, no longer able to drivel about Greek gods, Greek Goddesses, Greek toilet paper... Greek whatever.
Tiffanitsa, along with ANY/EVERYONE ELSE, go to: http://www.compellingtruth.org/polytheism.html, http://www.compellingtruth.org/truth_Bible.html, http://www.compellingtruth.org/homosexuality-sin.html, http://www.compellingtruth.org/gay-marriage.html, http://www.compellingtruth.org/gay-wedding-Christian-business.html, and FINALLY: http://www.compellingtruth.org/feminism-Christian-feminist.html.
I am les concerned about who I am willing to die for, and more concerned about those I am happy to live for.
I think we would all die in the act of protecting someone close to us. But unlike a religious person, my end purpose is not about dying or what I am dying for.
Most religions are in fact death cults.
well said, leo.
Why do I get the distinct feeling I'm bashing my head against a wall here?
But, oh well, here we go again folks, stop me if you've heard this one.
OP, your bible does not matter. It does not matter what it, nor any interpreter
of it has said, is saying or will say. It doesn't matter what it says jesus said on
any given subject because you can't prove its valid. You can't give any evidence
other than the bible for why we should read, let alone believe, the bible. Until
you prove that there is a scientific basis for the claims of the bible, and not just
the bigoted, ignorant and superstitious writings of a bygone iron age desert
tribe, you can't use it as evidence for your own bigotry and misguided beliefs
about gender. You're an idiot, we all know that, though some of us are loathe to
admit we know that. Just because you're too stupid to know any better, doesn't
mean you get to drag us down to your level and make us listen to your insane
ramblings about your imaginary friend. Get some actual evidence and then we'll
talk. Until then, stop proving you're a moron, we already know that.
Don't worry, Silver... I stopped paying attention to what Terrance has to say
WEEKS ago... I just made my inane comments to see if anyone was paying
attention to me.
At tifanitsa no where in my previous post did I mention anything about a sexual encounter between two people. I was specifically talking about a person who is in your opinion mentally incompetent, and their rite as a human being to be loved. I have no idea what your point is with that last post.
But the humanity of the transsexuals is getting lost in all the other talk on this thread. Typically, ideologues will do this, such as the original poster.
One in twelve transgendered people die, either by their own hand, or at the hands of terrorists, what people call transphobes. But this is no more a phobia than Bin Laden's so-called phobia of the West and the Twin Towers.
When they die at their own hand there are often two reasons for this: Terrorizing tactics is one very compelling reason, yet.
The second is they feel dysphoric, in the wrong body and identity. This is not something we most of us can imagine. I have been glad to see a more openness about this sort of thing, at least up here, most probably not in TexAs and Florida and similar. But even the other day, there was a story on the evening news about a girl who was born physically male and is now taking puberty blockers till she can mature enough to decide how to proceed.
The part about it that piqued my interest was that the story was not done up as a freak show, but as a normal response to a difficult situation.
Ideology - doesn't matter which one, - often takes apart and dehumanizes the participants, or superimposes real tragedies with anecdotes and stories that are supposed to either 'spreak to the issue', (whatever that means), or tell the victim how to proceed.
One thing we are clear on, these transgendered people are victims of domestic terrorism, and one in twelve ends up dead.
Gives Cody an asprin.
I'm a believer in God, I just don't agree with much of the nonsense surrounding this.
But I've stated this before, so.
Like I really don't see what Little Johnnie's needing to pee, and getting mixed up about the bathroom he should use has to do with God at all.
My point was that, when I was referring to mentally competence, I was talking about sexual and/or romantic relationships, not family, platonic friends, etc. It's one of the reasons why relationships with minors are not allowed. The truly young (let's say they just started puberty) don't have the mental capacity to understand such things and to make important decisions, such as the consequences of sex, using contraception, aborting, whether they want to start a serious relationship, get married, have joint bank accounts (not that children have these), etc. I'm not talking about the mildly retarded, but about those who honestly don't understand such things.
So you dont' think that people with downse syndrome should be able to marry? Because plenty of them do, and plenty of them are not self-sufficient enough to live alone--they live in group homes instead. who's to say that you're any more deserving or entitled to romantic love than someone with a lesser mental capacity then yourself. You're forgetting one subtle but important difference between a normal child and an intellectually disabled adult: children don't have the desire or the physical urge to have sex, to develop a romantic relationship, to have someone (or someone's) to spend their life with, etc. Even people with lower-functioning downes syndrome do, tif. Even people with autism, skitzophrenia, multiple personality disorders, etc. do have those desires. Why should they be denied?
Some may say that though in theory, you can understand the concept of a joint bank account, but you shouldn't have one because you cant' manage it without having the paperwork in accessible format. Should you, then, be excluded from being able to enjoy an adult relationship because you're viewed as less than competent?
Some would say taht blind people shouldnt' have kids. We were once perceived as mentally incompetent ourselves, and we were lumped into asylums, group homes, etc., left to languish, rock, poke our eyes and make wicker chairs...
Who's to say that, with some assistance and careful planning from loved ones, etc. an intellectually disabled individual can't enjoy the fruits of a loving adult relationship. Maybe, after all, that could be the only meaningful thing in their life. the one thing that they find purpose in.
Sorry to divert this topic again, but that just got to me.
Here we go with the views on rights shit again.
SilverLightning, TAKE IT EASY there, DUDE! There's ABSOLUTELY NO NEED, WHATSOEVER, for you to CONSTANTLY BASH YOUR HEAD; if you ABSOLUTELY DON'T WANT GOD'S INESCAPABLY-INERRENT TRUTH to EVER MATTER TO you, even though it'll ALWAYS MATTER FOR you, JUST AS IT DOES for ALL of the REST of us, just simply continue to REJECT HIM--AFTER ALL, it CERTAINLY IS your ETERNAL CHOICE, and YOURS, ONLY, NEVER GOD'S, MINE, or ANYONE ELSE'S, for you to be LOST for ALL ETERNITY, isn't it? BESIDES, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT--I CAN'T PROOVE that GOD'S WORD is what HE'S ALREADY DEMONSTRATIVELY PROOVEN (and STILL CONTINUES to) it to be, ANY MORE than YOU, I, and ALL of the ENTIRE WORLD of EVERYONE ELSE could EVER DEMONSTRATIVELY DISPROOVE it, REJECTIONABLY, so TAKE a CHILL-PILL, BILL!
No, it was my fault for diverting the attention to something else. I like you strongly disagreed with the statement, and wanted to argue it.
As for the topic itself, I honestly never thought of this scenario happening, so when I read it a few times in an attempt to comprehend what he was saying aside of all the rubbish I really didn't know how I would react. I never thought of something like this happening. The responses are sensible though, thank you to all who responded.
I can't, I just can't. The OP wouldn't know how to prove that the sky is blue if
he had written instructions in braille tattooed across his ass. I just don't have
the strength.
*hands Cody a Red Bull!
Those give you wings, not the superhuman ability to withstand the degrading
forces of unspeakable stupid on display here.
Wings? Guess I'd better stock up. Maybe if I sip enough I can get around the US without paying and being stripped searched.
Oh my god, lol! Just, wow! This is funny. Anthony great job. Cody, I absolutely love your posts. I agree with bernadetta. Explain why not, tif? I was almost in a relationship with someone with schizophrenia. Wonderful, smart young man. The memmory of him saddens me, but... I'm not judging you Tiff, I just want to understand why you hold that view?
SILVERLIGHTNING, the REAL ISSUE that DEFINITELY has you being driven PERHAPS COMPLETELY INSANE, if you're not ALREADY THERE, YET, is that you WHOLEHEARTEDLY WANT to DISPROOVE what YOU'RE FURIOUSLY DEMANDING of ME to PROOVE what ONLY GOD, HIMSELF, has ALREADY PROOVEN, DEMONSTRATIVELY, which ABSOLUTELY NOONE, BUT NOONE, BUT NOONE, BUT NOONE, BUT NOONE, including ME AND YOU, could EVER PROOVE/DISPROOVE, DEMONSTRATIVELY, DESPITE ALL of the SCIENTIFIC-GROVELING BABBLE, along with ALL of ITS ABSOLUTE INACCURACIES, BEFORE, NOW, or EVER, DESPITE OUR CONSTANT, TOTALLY-POWERLESS DENIAL of such. The ONLY TWO EXISTING CHOICES are: continue to allow your SELF-ABSORBED LIFE DECISION, which ONLY YOU can make, NOT GOD, ME, or ANYONE ELSE, FURTHER DESTROY you, or FINALLY, in ALL HUMILITY, NOT HUMILIATION, because JESUS, HIMSELF, didn't come to HUMILIATE ANYONE, AT ALL, although HE, HIMSELF was, and DEFINITELY EVEN WORSE, for OUR sake, make the CHRIST-ABSORBED DECISION, that AGAIN, ONLY YOU could make, NOT GOD, ME, or ANYONE ELSE, to ALLOW HIM to NOT JUST ONLY come into your LIFE, but to EVER SO LOVING/TENDERLY TRANSFORM your ENTIRE LIFE, in order to be COMPLETELY FULFILLED, for ALL ETERNITY of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but EVERLASTING PEACE. Which is worth it?
In order to be in a relationship, you must understand what it means. There are many complexities. It's not just I love you, you love me, and we'll live happily ever after. Relationships take work, understanding, and communication. If someone lacks the ability to do these things, how can anything meaningful exist between him and another person? If one is giving everything and the other is giving nothing, or hardly anything, whether purposefully or due to a serious mental block, how is that a relationship? This is different from a couple where one had an accident or developed some kind of disease. But even then, when it's severe enough, I would call it a caregiving situation, not a relationship. It's just that the one doing the caring has far more interest in the person because they were once a fully functioning couple.
I THINK, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK, mygodchosenbrideforlifefinally, IT IS YOU SIR, WHOM YOU ARE CONFUSING WITH SILVER LIGHTNING FOR SOME REASON THAT WILL FOREVER BE UNKNOWN TO ALL OF US INHABITANTS OF THE ZONE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE it is YOU, and ONLY YOU, who is ABSOLUTELY, UNDENIABLY, INSANE IN THE MOTHERFUCKING MEMBRANE, TO THE POINT OF NO RETURN AND/OR COMPREHENSION.
That's narrow-minded and inconsiderate to say, and that still doesn't justify why a mentally incompetent person can not have relationships with people, sexual or not. I'd just leave it at that if I were you.
It's neither of the above. Anyone who has ever been in a relationship understands that it's a two-way street, and if something goes wrong, you need to be able to communicate with your partner, which you should be doing anyway. Those who cannot understand what's going on can easily be taken advantage of, whether sexually, financially, or emotionally, and there are plenty of people who would do such an evil thing, just because they can.
How about you stop telling me things I all ready know, and explain to me why you have the nerve to say that a relationship with a person that is mentally incompetent is meaningless. Either that, or admit that your claim is unrealistic and insensitive. Unless you can do one of those things, I could care less what you have to say because it is nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I can see some of her point or reasoning.
I'd hope the family of such persons would take care to make sure the mentally able person in the relationship was truly in it for the other person, and not to abuse them due to them not knowing.
I could see a situation like this really hurting the mental disable person greatly.
Even in said relationships where people are said to be mentally sound, people get totally abused and harmed, and they know they are being abused and harmed, but for whatever reasons just don't get out.
I do feel it is wonderful for someone to accept the other person, and basicly care for them. Everyone, and I mean, everyone deserves love, physically, and emotionally.
If not love, then sexual pleasure and friendship.
I'm with Ryan here.
what I take from what he's saying, is that people can, and do get taken advantage of, whether they're mentally competent, or not. that's still no reason for them to be denied relationship experiences, though, period.
I think the disagreement here, the one with tif, is a matter of degrees. I think,
and I could easily be wrong, but I think she's talking about people who are
entirely mentally incapable. Vegetables if you will. This is not to say I agree with
her, but I think that's what she's saying. If she isn't saying that, fuck that
bigoted bitch sideways in the ass with a french tickler on a tuesday.
I don't know why everyone is making such a big issue over this, or what people aren't getting. I'm not talking about mild mental retardation, as in the film The Other Sister. That couple still understood love, and could still make decisions about their lives. I'm talking about those who really cannot understand anything, who are like little children, due to a mental disability, whether retardation, insanity, dementia, etc. Severe enough that they simply have no concept of a relationship, or the consequences of sex, etc. I'm not saying they can't be loved, cared for and/or about, have friends outside of their family and so on. But romantic and/or sexual relationships require mutual understanding and the ability to discuss both good and bad things, to make decisions, etc. If one person is doing all the work , with no input from the other, or if two people cannot properly express their thoughts to one another and constantly become frustrated and fight, that's not a relationship. If the woman becomes pregnant, and her mentally-able partner forces her to have the child, by either fear or because she has no idea what's going on, or if the woman is mentally able and plays a little game with the man so that she can learn his bank information and then steals from him because he doesn't understand what's happening, that's not a relationship. Both are abuse and taking advantage of the situation. Some might argue that sighted people can take advantage of us, but the difference is that we could choose to be aware and careful, and should such a thing happen, we could also report it.
I know a man with moderate to severe mental retardation. He can talk and understand things, and is in his 60s, but is like a child under ten, maybe even five or so. Every few minutes, he asks the same questions. He has no real comprehension of things, other than the basics. How can someone like him be expected to have a meaningful relationship, to have sex and to understand it, to raise a family? Can I be his friend, and laugh with him, and maybe go out to the park or for an iced cream with him? Sure. Can I marry him and expect for us to have a fulfilling life together? No.
so, Tiff, my friend who is similar to the guy you just mentioned, in that he's autistic, and he functions at the level of a three year old child, does not actually have meaningful relationships, since they aren't on a level that matches your standards, right?
if that's your view, then let me tell you just how wrong, heartless, and insensitive you are.
ACTUALLY, chelslicious DOES have a POINT. I, PERSONALLY, met MARRIED COUPLES, where either ONE, or even BOTH were "SPECIAL-NEEDS-FUNCTIONAL," raising FAMILIES, who are even GRANDPARENTS/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS, and have OBVIOUSLY MANAGED to RESPONSIBLY RUN SUCCESSFUL HOUSEHOLDS, either with ASSISTANCE from HOME ATTENDANTS, or WHOEVER, or TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN, JUST WITH EACH OTHER, and when their CHILDREN were OLD ENOUGH to learn how to be JUST AS RESPONSIBLE, OBVIOUSLY, THEY pitched in, as WELL. Even HERE, in the ADULT HOME where I live, there are men and women that are in a HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP, who are DEFINITELY FUNCTIONALLY-RESPONSIBLE, that are ACTUALLY LIVING in the VERY SAME ROOM TOGETHER, whether COMMONLAW or MARRIED--in FACT, since we don't have the PROPER ACCOMODATIONS that would be CONDUCIVE to CHILDREN, which is why they're not ALLOWED to live HERE, should there be, which DOES happen, REGULARLY, a situation that the girlfriend/fiance/wife's PREGNANT, the management will assist she and her man with re-locating them, either to a SUPPORTIVE-APARTMENT situation, or ONLY IF THEY WANT, public housing.
Okay, here’s the question for you that are defending or strongly disagreeing with Tiff.
How many of you would actually enjoy living with someone that wasn’t mental able?
How many would actually enjoy a sexual relationship, or a regular type relationship with a man or woman mentally on the level of a 3 year old?
Would a caretaker, other than a general mental equal relationship be enjoyable, and could you, and would you love that person totally?
Chelsea, is your friend attractive to you in anyway?
Again, I wouldn’t say people in these conditions don’t deserve love.
I do agree with Tiff you would just be using them if you were involved with them sexually and they don’t express the desire for sex.
In the woman’s case, a man would sort of have a live doll, but she’d not understand what he did to her.
If the mental able person was sure his/her attentions were giving the other person pleasure, and were totally willing to take care of them, I’m okay with it.
However, the person that got involved with such a person would also have to be willing to be there caretaker for their life, and you couldn’t get tired of that relationship and tell them why. They’d not understand at all.
There is a high abuse problem in these sorts of relationships, and I understand what she’s talking about.
No, I wouldn't enjoy it. But I also wouldn't enjoy being in a relationship with a
man, or with a whole host of other types of people, but that doesn't mean I
think those people aren't deserving of love. Just because I don't find a certain
person attractive doesn't mean anything. I don't find Tif attractive. I don't think
she's undeserving of a relationship.
Plus, you're forgetting that there are wholesome relationships without sex
involved. What if the person choosing to date the mentally handicapped person
is asexual? They'd never want sex. They would value that person for reasons
unfathomable to me, but easily discerned by themselves, and that is absolutely
their right.
Personally, I think we restrict our ideas of who is able to engage in a
relationship far too drastically. I have no problem with the vast majority of
minor/adult relationships, so long as the minor is old enough to know what it is
they're being asked to decide upon. If a sixteen-year-old wants to date a
nineteen year old, I have no problem with it. Yet its illegal. That's just stupid in
my opinion.
I urge you to resist the temptation of judging other people's relationships. You
should always use the cake rule in this instance. For those who don't know, the
cake rule is this. Always judge a situation as if you were cutting a cake and
didn't get to pick your piece. You'd want to make sure the pieces were as close
to even as you could, so that you got as much as you could when someone else
picked your piece. Judge all situations that way, and you will have an opinion
based on equality.
To relate that to the situation at hand, even though Tif won't read this, she
should not say someone else's relationship is unfounded, because someone else
might say her relationship with an old man is unfounded. If you aren't willing to
be bound by the rule, don't subject other people to it.
thank you, Cody.
Wayne, no, I'm not attracted to the friend I'm talking about, but that doesn't mean I also think he shouldn't be able to call girls his girlfriends, if he wants.
if that sort of thing contributes to his happiness, then, he has every right to do that.
for the record, though, I don't find the role of being a caretaker attractive, on the whole. therefore, it wouldn't matter whether someone was mentally disabled, or fully functional.
Were I do agree and posted, they deserve love affection, and I tried hard to add the non sexual part, I do understand where she's coming from in part.
Even non sexual relationships of this type could have some abuse.
A "sound mind and body" whatever that level means, can decide and some don't decide well.
Like in the minor situation, or older man with a younger woman, the userry could go both ways, but they aren't mentally disable.
I think as a society we have some responsibility to the mentally disable to protect them.
I don't have to 100% this rule will work solution, either, but feel perhaps a judge or some sort of review should be made when a abled mental person wishes to be with one that is medically proven not to be.
If two mentally challenged persons wish to engage, I feel they should be allowed with someone covering the safety side for them.
But, again, I see her point.
I do wonder if she'd be willing to post a reply?
If he wants to call someone his girlfriend, that's fine, and kind of cute, the way it would be if a three or six year old said it. But as with the child, he really wouldn't know what it means, and to take it any further, I believe, would be wrong. I have no issue with age gap relationships, provided that both parties are consenting adults. But there-in lies the point. If someone has sex with a child, we say it's rape, even if the child says that she wanted it, because she cannot actually consent to it on the same level as an adult. And I'm talking about one just entering puberty, not a 17-year-old about to turn 18. The fact is that children do not understand sex as soon as their bodies are physically able to have/desire it, and neither do the truly mentally retarded, despite what their biology is telling them. If it's so important for the latter to have their needs met, and if that's why everyone has a problem with this, then they should be taught masturbation by a medical professional. But that doesn't mean you can't act like a big brother/sister or be a platonic friend to that child or mentally disabled person.
nor does that mean, Tiff, that, as Cody, myself and others have pointed out, such people don't deserve to be loved.
Tiff, just as you have a problem with the thought of them having relationships you don't think they should, there are people in the world who would, and do, have just as much of an issue with age gap relationships.
so, just cause some of us don't have a problem with age, when it comes to relationships, doesn't mean everyone shares our view.
I'm surprised someone gets where you're coming from, Tiff, cause I sure as hell don't.
Maybe, I'm writing in Greek by mistake. I never said that these people don't deserve to be loved. I said that relationships take understanding on both sides, which is simply not possible when one person lacks the mental ability to do so. In an age gap relationship, with two mentally able people, both understand what's going on and can make informed decisions.
Now a question on the other side.
If the mentally disable person should be taught masturbation, why shouldn't that same person be allowed, or given a person that will also provide the human contact?
Not only would the human contact be more physically fulfilling, it could bring some emotional bonding as well.
This would be the non sexual side of this relationship, much like a playmate, or friend to have around.
Why do you feel the person could have sexual gradification, but not the emotional?
If we're talking about a friend, who does not expect to have the same kind of relationship and partnership as he/she would with a mentally able person, that's fine. The two could still form a bond. One could care for the other and both could make each other happy.
I'm curious what exactly Tif defines as a relationship if it isn't two people who
make each other happy. Cuz I always thought that's what it was. Guess I'm
wrong.
Here's what I take issue with. I said nothing about a relationship being sexual in nature, because that is not what your first statement was about Tif. Here, reread this.
"In order to be in a relationship, you must understand what it means. There are many complexities. It's not just I love you, you love me, and we'll live happily ever after. Relationships take work, understanding, and communication. If someone lacks the ability to do these things, how can anything meaningful exist between him and another person? If one is giving everything and the other is giving nothing, or hardly anything, whether purposefully or due to a serious mental block, how is that a relationship? This is different from a couple where one had an accident or developed some kind of disease. But even then, when it's severe enough, I would call it a caregiving situation, not a relationship. It's just that the one doing the caring has far more interest in the person because they were once a fully functioning couple.
You continue to surpass the statement that I take issue with, when you said that nothing meaningful can exist between one person and a mentally retarded person. But maybe that's because you have something against those sorts of people, because you don't give the the time of day. See, I can make stupid assumptions like that too, but it doesn't ake them right.
When talking about a "relationship" that's not merely a friendship, sex is always included, and romance would be most of the time as well. I figured that would be obvious by using the word relationship. But if not, then I apologise for the confusion.
THIS, of course, is DEFINITELY one of these NON-CUT-AND-DRY MATTERS. Other than THAT, I've YET to input my OWN specific feedback, but if MORE posts are added, and HOPEFULLY, I'll have ENOUGH JIST of it to ACCURATELY RESPOND as I DEFINITELY WANT to, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will I have something to say in response.