The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

aloyisious

I'm looking at Tonight with Alison O'Connor on TV3 speaking to Transgender people from TENI, plus the parent of one Trans person. Fantastic show.

lazybones32

And what's the connection to Christianity?

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

And what's the connection to Christianity?

They were likely baptised as baby's and likely only had the option of going to a catholic ethos school so they had to endure the church's shameful backwards views on them and feel ashamed when growing up?

:pac:

Absolam

Speculative then.
:pac:

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

And what's the connection to Christianity?

Would you prefer I only mention things that you think are specific to Christianity only on the Gay Megathread to the exclusion of mention of LGBT folk? Do you think that God only created Christians and not all the human race?

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you prefer I only mention things that you think are specific to Christianity only on the Gay Megathread to the exclusion of mention of LGBT folk? Do you think that God only created Christians and not all the human race?

Your post mentioned you had watched a show that spoke to transgender people. I've not seen the show. Is there something that was part of the show that you wish to discuss here?

solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you prefer I only mention things that you think are specific to Christianity only on the Gay Megathread to the exclusion of mention of LGBT folk? Do you think that God only created Christians and not all the human race?

Good afternoon!

We've got an LGBT forum. This thread is on the Christianity forum. Therefore logic would suggest that posts that are on the Christianity forum would relate to Christianity.

I'm always keen to discuss how these issues relate to the Gospel.

Cabaal's post is also disappointing and rude. We should aim to build one abother up rather than tear one another down and I genuinely aim to understand and empathise with others I disagree with on this forum. I hope the same for others.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

We've got an LGBT forum. This thread is on the Christianity forum. Therefore logic would suggest that posts that are on the Christianity forum would relate to Christianity.

To be fair marriage equality ref had little to do with christian people,

The state allowing gay couples to marry had 0 effect on religious groups but yet christian groups decided to make it a religious issue.

If the christian groups had just kept to their own religious marriages then we could have kept the topic out of this forum,

Cabaal's post is also disappointing and rude. We should aim to build one abother up rather than tear one another down and I genuinely aim to understand and empathise with others I disagree with on this forum.

Its unfortunate you found it rude etc,
Due to the lack of info I only took a stab in the dark in relation to why the issue might be religious related,

After all religion likely effected the persons life and how they were treated in a country that in the past was overly and obsessively religious.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

His post wasn't about the referendum. I've made my position on that clear in previous posts.

Why did you bring up the referendum here?

Mind you the link isn't about the intersection between transgender issues and Christianity which would have been truly interesting to discuss as it hasn't been considered at length in churches and it needs to be.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why did you bring up the referendum here?

His post wasn't about the ref,
But I merely used the ref as an example of a non religious issue that was made into a religious issues for no valid reason by religious groups. After all it had zero effect on them.

Must see if I can track down that TV3 show mentioned and see what was discussed, your point is valid. Just how do different church\'s approach transgender.

Many are fine with gay people as long as they never actually have sex, but they don't seem to be very forthcoming with how they view transgender. Certainly an interesting topic.

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you prefer I only mention things that you think are specific to Christianity only on the Gay Megathread to the exclusion of mention of LGBT folk? Do you think that God only created Christians and not all the human race?

If you could post things that have some relation to Christianity, that would be good. This being the Christianity sub-forum and all...

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

If you could post things that have some relation to Christianity, that would be good. This being the Christianity sub-forum and all...

How about the treatment of Transgender folk to date by the Roman Catholic Christian Church, personified by the recent statement of Pope Francis about transgender people at a meeting of bishops in Poland?

I'll leave you to check it out online yourself. That way whatever link you choose won't be one presented by me with bias.

lazybones32

Why didn't you lead with that topic instead? That has some relevance to Christianity unlike your earlier post.

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

Why didn't you lead with that topic instead? That has some relevance to Christianity unlike your earlier post.

Actually you're right. I have been thinking about what I posted earlier and realised it was more about bringing attention to the TV3 show item than raising an issue to debate here, after I read the Pro and Con input by other posters. I see that I didn't see the wood for the trees as I know some of the persons interviewed.

Cabaal

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/world/europe/pope-francis-remarks-disappoint-gay-and-transgender-groups.html?_r=0

Francis was meeting privately with bishops in Poland last week when he broached the matter. “Today, in schools they are teaching this to children — to children! — that everyone can choose their gender,” he said, according to a transcript released by the Vatican on Tuesday.

In his remarks, the pope said the idea of choosing gender was being taught with schoolbooks supplied by influential donors and countries. He did not identify which.

“This is terrible,” he said, according to the transcript.

Sounds like he's worried about the LGBTQ "Agenda"
:rolleyes:

I think once again this shows the Catholics church ignorance, do followers of the pope agree or disagree with him and why?

Cabaal

On the subject of gay people and Christians, this "ahem" idiot is doing a talk in Kilkenny

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-preacher-who-claims-prayer-can-change-a-persons-sexuality-to-speak-in-ireland-34961341.html

This is despite suggesting in a 2008 press conference that prayer could change a person's sexuality, when he said: “I love (homosexuals) though, but they need help. We have prayed for them and God has changed their hearts.”

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I think once again this shows the Catholics church ignorance, do followers of the pope agree or disagree with him and why?

Ignorance of what, as a matter of interest?

Giacomo McGubbin

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/world/europe/pope-francis-remarks-disappoint-gay-and-transgender-groups.html?_r=0

Sounds like he's worried about the LGBTQ "Agenda"
:rolleyes:

I think once again this shows the Catholics church ignorance, do followers of the pope agree or disagree with him and why?

Selective quoting aside, I thought the main point that transgender people are always at a pains to emphasise is that they are not actually choosing another gender, they are in fact the other gender and cannot help it ?

Just as we're told someone cannot choose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual, they merely are homosexual, and can't help it ?

Or are the above claims only true when it suits ?

Peregrinus

But, Giacomo, wouldn't that mean that, when the Pope says that people are being taught that they can choose their gender, he is wrong? Acknowledging the reality of gender dysphoria is not "teaching that everyone can choose their gender", and the pope is wrong to characterise it in this way.

So, no, claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not being treated as "true only when it suits"; they're being treated as true, and the objection is that the pope fails to recognise their truth.

You yourself may not agree that they're true - I'm not asking - but the people who believe they are true are not being inconsistent here.

aloyisious

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Selective quoting aside, I thought the main point that transgender people are always at a pains to emphasise is that they are not actually choosing another gender, they are in fact the other gender and cannot help it ?

Just as we're told someone cannot choose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual, they merely are homosexual, and can't help it ?

Or are the above claims only true when it suits ?

Re the question above, identifying & labelling a person with a specific gender suits record-keeping, with the practice staring at birth, so NO, for transgender people, it's not when it suits any more than it is with homosexuals. This also applies to a heterosexual person. Your sexual organ is NOT a guarantee of your true gender.

On the off-chance that you're straight, when was the last time some-one asked you when did you find out you are straight or choose to be straight? It's just an assumption that one is so, until the penny drops at a personal level & one realises who and what they are. I can't imagine that you (presuming you're straight) were treated with disrespect because you were so and identified naturally as such.

One other point about transgender people is that just because they are linked with gay people, due to the LGBT link people are familiar with, it doesn't automatically follow that they are homosexual. Transgender people can be heterosexual sexually and not homosexual.

Transgender people are not always one gender or the other. Some are non-binary, and don't see themselves as male or female, using THEY as self-descriptive rather than HE or SHE. Some see themselves as gender-fluid. For a better read on transgender people, T.E.N.I. would be a start-point.

Re LGBT, you might come across other versions of the LGBT synonym, like LGBTQ or LGBTQI, when searching. The Q is used by some people who don't like the word GAY, preferring instead the older title QUEER used to disparage homosexuals, akin to the way QUEER was turned on it's negative-head by us in the "we're HERE and we're QUEER" slogan. The I is for intersex.

Before it's asked, the link between this topic and the forum we're discussing this on, is that God's work is used by the Christian faith to define what a human (any human) is sexually, the belief God made you a man or a woman, accept that and be happy with it.

Giacomo McGubbin

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, Giacomo, wouldn't that mean that, when the Pope says that people are being taught that they can choose their gender, he is wrong? Acknowledging the reality of gender dysphoria is not "teaching that everyone can choose their gender", and the pope is wrong to characterise it in this way.

So, no, claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not being treated as "true only when it suits"; they're being treated as true, and the objection is that the pope fails to recognise their truth.

You yourself may not agree that they're true - I'm not asking - but the people who believe they are true are not being inconsistent here.

Well if the article is correct, and accurately reflects what he said and in it's proper context (which more often that not such articles don't) what he said, according to the article, was the people who do teach children that they can chose their gender are wrong. So presumably somewhere someone is being taught same and that is what he is referring to. Or are you claiming that no one anywhere is being taught this ? Because that I doubt that.

aloyisious

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Well if the article is correct, and accurately reflects what he said and in it's proper context (which more often that not such articles don't) what he said, according to the article, was the people who do teach children that they can chose their gender are wrong. So presumably somewhere someone is being taught same and that is what he is referring to. Or are you claiming that no one anywhere is being taught this ? Because that I doubt that.

If what's in your fist sentence re proper context is correct, so a 2 + 2 approach ala your second sentence is possibly not correct. It's also possible that what is being taught is respect for others of different or differing genders, and that that is what upsets people of settled religious belief, who see it as an interference with God's plan, and possibly described as filling a child's mind with nonsense.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Is there not an alternative to this?

The Catholic Church are entitled to their view. So are people who think gender is defined at birth. So are people who think gender is changeable. So are people who think changing is simply aligning with their true gender.

The socially liberal shrill way of shouting down people with whom they disagree is actually illiberal. Why not agree to disagree on this issue.

I'm not sure if I see a huge conflict with Christianity. It would be very difficult to tell someone who had surgery to repent because it is irreversible. Churches need to think more carefully about these issues.

However shouting down people and forcing them to agree with you is distasteful and rude. Shrill arguments of this nature are best ignored.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Is there not an alternative to this?

The Catholic Church are entitled to their view. So are people who think gender is defined at birth. So are people who think gender is changeable. So are people who think changing is simply aligning with their true gender.

The socially liberal shrill way of shouting down people with whom they disagree is actually illiberal. Why not agree to disagree on this issue.

I'm not sure if I see a huge conflict with Christianity. It would be very difficult to tell someone who had surgery to repent because it is irreversible. Churches need to think more carefully about these issues.

However shouting down people and forcing them to agree with you is distasteful and rude. Shrill arguments of this nature are best ignored.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Quite possibly true- there need not be a huge conflict between transgender people and other Christian people.

What is it you wish to know if there an alternative to? This question of mine is because I had a gut feeling about what you might mean in the question you posed, but I could be wrong on that, so I didn't follow up with a gut reaction to it. I find it peculiar that you use the word "repent" in reference to surgery, but I suppose you used it in a religious way, like seeking forgiveness of God for interfering with the genetic-plan created for humans.

Ref surgery and transgender people, there's also the example of Thomas Beatie in the UK which illuminates the choices open to people undergoing transgender operation. It certainly caused raised eyebrows when his choice became public, not least because he decided to go public. It show's the degree of choice when it comes to surgery. I'll leave it to you to follow (or not) his story online for more detail.

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!
The Catholic Church are entitled to their view. So are people who think gender is defined at birth. So are people who think gender is changeable. So are people who think changing is simply aligning with their true gender.

They are certainly entitled to their view, the same as some Christians think if they pray enough they can "pray the gay away". That, however doesn't mean people need to listen, respect or sit in silence when such views are expressed.

When it comes to sexuality the church's views are at odds with society, they are hateful. For example, referring to unmarried women as dirty (previously) or gay people as unnatural are not respectful way's to refer to any person and/or group.

The socially liberal shrill way of shouting down people with whom they disagree is actually illiberal. Why not agree to disagree on this issue.

Who's shouting?
Society is free to give an opposing argument to the church's outdated views, society is free not to accept or conform to the church's views as Ireland did in May 2015. Were we shouting when we did this too?

Why not agree to disagree on this issue.

Should we agree to disagree with people who think black people are inferior to white people? I think most people would certainly agree that we should never simply agree to disagree with others who express such views.

So why are you suggesting we agree to disagree with views expressed by a religious group, is it just because such views form part of that religion?

However shouting down people and forcing them to agree with you is distasteful and rude.

Again, who's shouting?
Saying the church holds hurtful and outdated and/or sexist views isn't shouting.

Its a viewpoint. You've called for the church's viewpoint to be respected but yet if people have an opposing viewpoint they are shouting? Should you not be respectful of the non church viewpoint that shows more acceptance and less hate towards fellow human's?

Nobody expects the church to change, it doesn't move that fast and will continue to preach against LGBT for sometime more.
But during that time nobody has to sit in silence and just accept it, those times are long gone, thankfully.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

The post wasn't about the referendum. I've made my view clear on that.

I think there's room for difference of opinion on both gender identity and sexual orientation in society.

I'm saying that irrespective.

The refusal to accept disagreement is what's wrong with socially liberal argumentation. True robust liberalism allows for freedom of opinion.

For the record I also haven't defended "the [Roman Catholic] church" on this issue. I'm not a Catholic and the use of "the church" isn't useful on a multi denominational Christian forum

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The post wasn't about the referendum. I've made my view clear on that.

I never said it was, I merely pointed this out as an example about how society has proven that it does not agree with the church's view.

I think there's room for difference of opinion on both gender identity and sexual orientation in society.

There's a difference of opinion and there's there outright preaching of hatred, the church calling people unnatural is language of hate.

The refusal to accept disagreement is what's wrong with socially liberal argumentation. True robust liberalism allows for freedom of opinion.

And they have that freedom, they preach it freely in the airwaves, newspapers and can do so at every religious event. But they cannot expect to go unchallenged much like a person who calls black people unnatural or lessor to white people wouldn't go unchallenged...and rightly so.

You have to remember that the LGBT community lived in a country where the catholic church lobbied to keep who they are illegal, given this level of hatred towards them the LGBT community it is being very reasonable and level headed doing with such a hate filled organisation over the years.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

To sum up what I actually said. The Catholic Church has a view about gender as do other groups in secular society. I don't see why they can't hold to it.

People can of course disagree and I think I do insofar as it doesn't respect the nuance and complexity in this issue.

I don't think it's "hateful" to disagree with someone. I think that's the shrill language I'm referring to.

I never said anything about the referendum.

If you don't like the Catholic Church you don't have to be a part of it. I'm not for various reasons. I think the church is entitled to its view and we're all clear that the Catholic Church shouldn't have authority on what laws get passed in the way that it used to.

Therefore what exactly are you objecting to in my post?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

marienbad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

To sum up what I actually said. The Catholic Church has a view about gender as do other groups in secular society. I don't see why they can't hold to it.

People can of course disagree and I think I do insofar as it doesn't respect the nuance and complexity in this issue.

I don't think it's "hateful" to disagree with someone. I think that's the shrill language I'm referring to.

I never said anything about the referendum.

If you don't like the Catholic Church you don't have to be a part of it. I'm not for various reasons. I think the church is entitled to its view and we're all clear that the Catholic Church shouldn't have authority on what laws get passed in the way that it used to.

Therefore what exactly are you objecting to in my post?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I think the basic point being made is that people of faith ( if I can use such a broad term ) have , in this country since independence spoken and acted in a much more intolerant and shrill manner towards those it deemed different or threatening to the status quo - be they LGBT , atheist , agnostic , women .

This is not to say you are such . but we do find some of the Christian community are still so unused or accepting of change they think any disagreement is 'shrill' 'militant' 'intolerant' .

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I think there's room for difference of opinion on both gender identity and sexual orientation in society.

The refusal to accept disagreement is what's wrong with socially liberal argumentation. True robust liberalism allows for freedom of opinion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In respect to your first, I would like to think it right but - given how some people currently express their opinions more than disrespectfully in respect of both LGBT gender identity and sexual orientation in society - contrarily I'd have to shout loudly a helluva big BUT, cos we know differences in opinion lead to forced re-education. I now tend to have more than a slight bias when it comes to disbelief in the honesty of statements and expressions from Corporate bodies.

In respect to your second, viewing the statements and policies of some branches of Christianity, plus other religions and beliefs which hold dogmatic views as part of their creed, would you agree that a socially liberal argumentation refusal to accept disagreement could also be said to apply to them, and that true robust liberalism are an unwelcome ism there-in?