Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
By Amanda D.
A rant on sexual preference and transgenderedism:
Can someone rational please explain something to me, cause I just don't fricken get it. Why with everything that happens in the universe, planets being formed, suns going nova, huge black wholes, why God would give a rats ass who we find attractive? I mean it seems to me that he or she, if those words even apply, has way more important shit going on to care about something so silly. I have way less on my plate and I could give a shit who anyone else is attracted to, so why would the almighty?
Now I know every single bible on the planet says that homosexuality, transgenderedism and the like are sins. However those books were written thousands of years ago by people looking to control, in some measure, the populations they over saw. What better way than creating books written by men being told directly by God what to say? In these various books these men, cause you can be assured there isn't a single word in any of them penned by a woman, added every single prejudice they had, against any group they found to be distasteful.
If you find that offensive, just look for yourself. Forget the whole homosexual/transgendered thing, just read what they say about 51% of the population. That being women for those unaware of the way our planetary population numbers are divided. To say that these religious books treat the so called weaker sex as second class citizens would be a grave understatement!
The other thing that gets me, is that the bible state emphatically that God has a plan for each and everyone of us and has created all very carefully. Doesn't that lend you to believe that the almighty might just have a reason for creating people with homosexual or transgenderd leanings? I mean other than to tempt the so called moral? For my part I firmly believe I am exactly what god wants me to be. Any sexual tastes I may have that stray from the so-called norm have been with me since birth and I have had no more choice in these matters than anyone else does in what they like.
Why are homosexuals/ transgendereds considered more sinful for their tastes then someone that's into bondage or S&M for example? To me beating the crap out of your lover is a lot more of a sin then finding the same sex attractive or wanting to change your sexual identity. Once again it falls back to the prejudices of those that wrote these books and their obvious fear of anything different.
As I said in the beginning it just baffles me. Yet people from the Pope to the guy that owns the store around the corner from me spout this crap continually. Perhaps if they spent more time following the parts of the bible that tells them to respect others and do what you can to help your fellow citizens and less time worrying about weather two men or two women should be allowed to marry or that Joe or Jane down the street would be much happier if they were a member of the opposite sex, the world just might be a lot nicer place to live in.
For the record I consider myself a god loving person. I say a prayer every night and try to get to church on a regular basis. So any of you that read this and want to write it off as the rantings of an anti religious nut case will have to come up with another argument. Not that it means that you don't have the right to disagree, since in the end this is only my opinion and you know what they say about those.
Amen to that!
Hi, don't know you but have to love you. You are absolutely right, it's all about control and power. Carol Anne
Carol Anne
Rants
No comment on content, just some on media.
Rants in blogs or forums are okay here but the author will probably take the heat for it. :)
And don't expect me to leave an incendiary topic on the front page for days the way I have the discussions on writing.
An off topic post might have less of a half-life but controversy (and discussions of moral judgements are almost always controversial) is likely to remain center stage twelve hours or less.
Don't feel bad, Amanda, it's not you, it's me being concerned on keeping things friendly here.
Note that I frequently join controversial discussions in other forums, but usually not here or tuckerspawn where I am moderator.
Oh, and I've added a new forum, "Out of the Closet" for just such rants and digressions. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Response to a Rant
As best as I can reason from my personal studies on this subject. The reason that alternate sexuality is frowned upon is because it interferes with upward evolution. The Ten Commandments are mostly just common sense warnings of things which will ultimately hurt us. In other words the emphasis of religion and yes even nature and evolution is the greater good--that which will produce the most good for the most people. Unfortunately, those of us who don't fit in the mold tend to fall through the cracks. We do hurt someone when we do these things. We hurt ourselves.
Alternate sexuality and evolution
It's possible that there might be some evolutionary advantages to alternate sexuality. This is all hypothetical at this point, but I find the reasoning quite intriguing. See the LJ blogpost by Zanne (bhakti), who is, I believe, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School:
http://bhakti.livejournal.com/43231.html#cutid1
Amelia
"Reading rots the mind." - Uncle Analdas
"Reading rots the mind." - Uncle Analdas
Amanda D
I couldn't agree with you more.
If coveting your neighbors' goods made the top ten, and homosexuality didn't, wouldn't that would suggest a less than obsessive Almighty fixation on this aggregious behavior.
The Bible isn't overly concerned with the transgendered.
Don't get too overwrought about the Pope's opinion. He's busy at the moment trying to set off WWIII and probably can't see passed 14th century philosphers long enough to work on a homophobic encyclical.
As I recall the primary directive is to love thy neighbor as thyself -- no restrictive corollaries or addendums.
You might want to read my story "Exitus Acta Probat" for more Papal bull.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
To Amanda D. Re: A rant on transgenderism and homosexuality
OK, I'll stick my foot in it and probably make a few enemies while I'm at it.
Amanda, my dear, I have no doubt that you attend church regularly and say your nightly prayers. However, reading your rant I can see that you are like a great number of people who attend services every Sunday and listen to the preacher and other tell you what the Bible says. Having read it through multiple times myself, I'm hard pressed to see where it says a number of things you infer that it does. One of those subjects often misquoted and taken out of context is what the Bible has to say about transgendered, spacifically cross-dressing. First of all there is only on verse that speaks to that directly. A multitude of theologens have differing opinions on just what that one verse was speaking to. None of them say that it speaks to just what a man, or a woman in modern time might choose to wear.
Now, before you really get another rant going on the subject, I have a challenge for you. Read the thing completely through, right from "In the Beginning" to "Amen." Now if you are going to say you don't really have time to take on such an undertaking let me tell you that it will only require a 20 minute a day commitment. I have a schedule that calles a small portion for you to read each day. If you would like to accept the challenge, I'd be glad to share it with you.
Hugs
Patricia
([email protected])
http://members.tripod.com/~Patricia_Marie/index.html
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper ubi femininus sub ubi
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Ich bin eine Mann
Rants? They just make my head ache...
Forgive me, but aren't Amanda_D:
The Bible isn't overly concerned with the transgendered.
Don't get too overwrought about the Pope's opinion.
and Patricia:
First of all there is only on verse that speaks to that directly. A multitude of theologens have differing opinions on just what that one verse was speaking to. None of them say that it speaks to just what a man, or a woman in modern time might choose to wear.
Essentially saying the same thing rather than differing?
Best wishes, Andrea.
Best wishes, Andrea.
On Controversy
Personally, I don't mind a little controversy, and wouldn't mind seeing this remain posted here. I think Amanda has pointed out a major issue with mainstream public opinion that hurts us and, over the long term, our whole society. Raising consciousness about its origins might seem a little inflammatory, but there are some fires that need lighting.
What I'd like to see this turn into is a discussion on how we could plant seeds that would eventually grow into general public enlightenment, or at least a willingness of people to question the teachings of a certain population of small-minded, bigoted hypocrites masquerading as religious leaders. Religion itself is not a bad thing. There are some lovely people who follow religions, love their fellow man, respect their environment and walk humbly before their god(s), judging not lest they be judged. I only wish I knew a lot more of them.
Response to On Controversy
I agree that there are some lovely Christians out there. Unfortunately that breed of Christian is extremely rare. In fact I believe it is on the endangered species list.
As far as I can determine from my studies, the only thing that the scriptures objected to was a man or a woman assuming the role of the opposite gender. Other than the biological aspects, gender roles in clothes and behavior are what society says that they are. What a man or a woman is allowed to do is based almost entirely upon the biases and beliefs of the culture in which that person lives. In other words, gender is based upon the pride, the prejudice, and the superstitions of the people they live among.
I think that men and women are people first and male and female second.
thank you
I would just like to take a moment and thank everyone that took the time to read my opinion piece. Especially those who for whatever reason felt compeled to leave a coment on it. Thank you all again.
Amanda D
Survival of the Godly
As religion is almost a forgotten art form on this side of the Atlantic, it is quite fascinating to read the passion it still seems to evoke on the other side. (Of the Atlantic of course not that Great Divide that separates, allegedly, the quick from the dead. {Although such an intervention would not surprise me greatly such is the scope of the contributions to Top Shelf!})
Where was I?
Oh yes.... The historic and indeed present disapproval of transgenderism, homosexuality etc. by the official spokesmen for the Church, Mosque, Temple, Oak Tree, etc. (Not surprisingly there seems to be a lack of spokeswomen on the subject.)
Well it all comes back to the need for the human race to survive. To do that in the early days it had to increase its numbers. Not only was it starting from a relatively small base, but mortality, particularly infant mortality, was cripplingly high.
So high productivity was essential and as homosexuals and the transgendered tend to be under-achievers in this field, they and their practices attracted official disapproval. They were accordingly designated a Bad Thing.
This state of affairs lasted for centuries and was acerbated by the fact that when the various religions, sects, etc. did achieve workable populations so that their immediate survival was assured, they developed a tendancy to try to spread the Divine Truth, which had fortuitously been revealed to them alone, to other less fortunate neighbours who persisted in living in spiritual darkness in spite of all advice to the contrary.
The most effective way of doing this was to kill the said neighbours, which had the attractive side benefit of freeing up land, natural resources, women etc. for the use of the Godly. The acqusition of such benefits was further proof of their own rightousness for where they not being rewarded for furthering the influence of their one true God?
The only downside to this was that some of the Godly, particularly their young men, would also be slain. This was particularly regrettable as the newly acquired women had also to be serviced so that they too could produce offspring who would be further evidence to the Bounty of the One True God. All of which meant that any deviation involving activities not conducive to maximum procreation attracted heavy taxes and other punitive measures such as castration, burying in the sand up to their necks, beheading, disembowelling and whatever else was fashionable at the time. A further benefit was that such events, coinciding with public holidays, hopefully provided a public spectacle for the general amusement and delectation of the more conventional and productive citizens who were thus additionally confirmed in the rightousness of their own beliefs, the adherence to which had saved them from such a fate. There but for the Grace of God go I!
The argument for all this was written down and attributed to being the thoughts and inspiration of whichever God was in favour at the time in that particular part of the world. So it became a Divine Utterance and was generally accepted as sacred. This universality of opinion was encouraged by the practice of massacring in various excrutiatingly painful ways anyone foolish enough to express doubt.
Times of course have changed. Now the world has generally too great a population to support. However the longer something is written down the more True it becomes. This curious phenomenon has obstinately survived despite the fact that some Truths whose origins are lost in time conflict quite radically and that this should give rise to the suspicion that not all can be equally True. Indeed there has been a counter effect in that the more it is evident that any Truth is less Universal than its adherents claim, the more vehemently those same adherents proclaim it, pouring scorn on opposing Truths.
But I digress. The one thing that all these Truths have in common, hallowed my time iteself, is that procreation is a Good Thing. In this day and age of course this is complete codswallop, and much money is made by companies providing means and products to assist individuals in avoiding just such a consequence of actions engendered either by affection or by unbridled lust. However the principle overall is written down and Hallowed by Time and that is what matters. It is imbedded in psyches worldwide as a Universally Accepted Truth.
I rest my case. About time too!
I hope it helps Amanda. It is about as rational as I can make it
Hugs,
Fleurie
Thanks, Fleurie
I've been hoping somebody would point this out. I'd read pretty much the same thing some years back, but was unwilling to marshal the necessary brain cells to make a coherent case, something you've done very well.
Another point is that the Bible (as well as other religious tomes)is/was as much a guide for safe living to ensure the officially-approved procreation occurred. Once you strip out the great truths (such as the Ten Commandments), the genealogical records, and the history stories, much is a practical guide to survival in the desert of the Middle East. The Jewish dietary laws are a good example of that.
I confess I didn't read the original rant all the way through (next time some visual breaks would be nice). I personally make a distinction between Christianity and those who claim to interpret Christianity for the masses. It may seem a meaningless distinction, however, I find it a useful distinction to make.
Suffice to say, I have no problems being post-op and calling myself a Christian. I'll not debate my beliefs nor proselytize the members here. It's your life.
Hugs!
Karen J.
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
hmm
Well said. Thank you for your input.
Amanda D
It is "holes"
Dear Amanda et. al.
How did I miss this one? Well, it is Black "holes" not "wholes", like asshole? Which brings me to the point of my comment. First the "whole" discomfort with the TG scene is largely a construct of "asshole" western religious notions (which fleurie described beautifully) and those wild and crazy Christians,Muslems, and Jews are just the top of that pile. They hate each other because they are cut from the same cloth and manipulated by the same sorts of very sick puppies trying to achieve their own personal agendas. Mostly I do hope that there really is a God and those clowns will really have to explain what they were really doing in that deities name but I remain skeptical of that ever happening.
Still, not all religions go badly for us. In many tribal cultures intersexed and transgendered were considered powerful magic. The "Shaman" of many groups were often cross dressers and or "mysterious" in other behavioral or physical ways. They were/are reverred as we should be because we do posses a sort of magic and vitality that is very real.
Frankly, I procreate just fine and my wardrobe is none of their goddamn business! Not that I think this is gentetic, but if it is we ain't going away! :)
Gwennie
Gwen Lavyril
Gwen Lavyril
Rant Continued
... I myself am anti-religious. I dislike all religions equally well so I do not discriminate amongst them. I am the type of person that if you get along with a person of the same sex or TG then lucky you! :) It should not matter if you love someone and they are the same sex, opposite sex, tg'd their sex, or possess both sexes! Their skin color, racial make up shouldnt matter either. You pick and choose who you want to be with and if you love them, thats all that should matter.
Is a woman any less a woman if she loses her breasts to cancer? what about her uterus? what about an arm or leg? Is a man any less a man if he loses his balls or penis? what about other limbs? So why should it matter if you love someone who is tg or homosexual? It shouldn't.
Most of the time the violence causers, hate mongers, and fire eaters are the so called hetero extremists - irregardless of their relgious backgrounds. They use us poor tg, gay, lesbian people who go out of our way to stay discrete and under the radar scope as a whipping post. Sometimes I feel heteroism is the disease and everything else is the norm.
Sephrena Miller
A little sanity
First off, although I'm by no means an expert on the Bible, I doubt that Jesus slammed gays because they didn't produce children, and I'm certain that he never discussed transsexual issues. Those are modern, so-called "rational" arguments.
Secondly, despite all blanket slamming of religion, religions are very different in the way they treat minorities, tolerance, slavery, and gays. This is simply a fact. To lump all of them together, or to lump all the thousand or so flavors of Christianity together while pointing to its more radical members as representative is grossly inaccurate and misleading. Further, what happened historically, religiously speaking, and what is happening now, are quite different affairs and should be treated that way.
To discard these distinctions is blatent discrimination and intolerance - against Christians. Sure, you can find racists, homophobes, intolerant, and generally nasty people among the Christians (and far more among a religion that shall remain nameless), but I find an equally distributed number among the secular humanists, of which I am one. To have an intelligent discussion, you must deal with facts, not inuendo and distortions. Just because attacking Christianity is accepted among the so-called "enlightened ones," does not make it right.
Points in Christianity's favor - they began the abolitionist movement that ended slavery. Rev. Wilberforce (who, BTW, was an Evangelical - same as GW Bush), a stubborn group of English religious abolitionists, and somewhat concurrently and later, American abolitionists, used their religion to preach the "rightness" in freeing slaves. The fact that slavery was done away with using Christian and Christian inspired arguments puts paid the notion that Christianity had a major role in keeping the status quo (slavery). Events have proven that the tiny minority that used the Bible as a means to justify slavery were drowned out by the majority, who believed the opposite.
The same can be said for women's emancipation. The vast majority of Christian males did not allow arguments in the Bible to sway them from voting for the XIX amendment.
Under the current multiculturalist environment, where genocide in Africa is tolerated because it's not being done by Christians or Jews, and "torture" with panties on the head, and scaring terrorists with dogs is on the front page for 40+ days in a major newspaper, I somehow doubt that what passes for "enlightened multiculturalist secularism" nowadays would have eliminated slavery - the reoccurence of slavery in Africa, and the "tolerance" thereof is proof of that!
And I wonder if there would have been anything like the pressure on other cultures to have their women vote - after all, all cultures are equally valid (except for the Jews and the evil American imperialists), right?
Sure, sex, and sexually related matters should be a strictly private non-issue for everyone, although I draw the line at minors, and people who have unprotected sex with unsuspecting people, knowing they have AIDS (I guess I DO discriminate!).
The plain fact of the matter is that it isn't Christians who are the worlds' boogeyman. In Canada the people were never *ever*, in any of the provinces, permitted to vote on gay marriage because it would have been rejected - it was entirely done through the legal system, and, in the end, voted in nationally by a slim majority in parliament made up of the leftist parties who knew they weren't representing the will of the people on this issue. In the UK, gay rights were imposed by the EU.
In the US, like Canada, a majority were against gay marriage because of the name - they didn't like redefining the word - but were for civil unions (even Bush was *okay* with it); however, instead of following the normal legislative process by going for reasonable and doable civil unions FIRST and then gay marriage LATER, pro-gay activist judges and officials tried legal end runs in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, New York, and California, deciding for gay marriage against the clear will of the people and violating their own state constitutions. Their elitist arrogance outraged about a hundred million people. Unlike Canada and the UK, the people could do something about it (easily, that is), and did, passing state referendums in a vicious backlash that pushed back the gay marriage cause a dozen years. (Which I called at the time, if you remember, Erin.)
It isn't about Christianity, folks. If gay rights is your litmus standard, then be aware that Oregon, a majority Democratic, liberal state where many millions of dollars in gay rights money were spent, the "show" state where gay marriage had the greatest chance, rejected gay marriage. In 2005, however, civil unions were instituted in California with little fuss, where something over 60% still reject gay marriage.
It isn't that the majority of Christians don't want gays and transgenders to have equal rights, if you allow that civil unions which grant the same legal rights as marriage without using the word marriage are equal, which one can debate either way. The majority Christian voters in the US voted in hate crimes legislation that protects gays as well as other minorities, remember (although I am against all hate crime legislation - fair disclosure). By and large, Christians are very tolerant. Most straights of any culture and religion just don't like that word "marriage" redefined. Isn't it far more logical to bash a religion (if you must) that will kill you for non-approved sexual activities than one that is largely innocuous, (relatively) tolerant, and with a proud history of freedom and civil rights?
I defy you to point out ANY non-majority Christian country that has voted in gay marriages. What? There are none? Case closed.
/rant
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
For a "secular humanist" ...
... you seem to be awfully defensive about Christianity, hon. The fact of the matter is that extremely vocal evangelicals with lots of money and media play DO have trouble with gays, lesbians, the transgendered -- well, basically, anyone who isn't just like them. You can't discount their influence or the hatred they preach, just because most Christians are okay folk.
I found your comment about "pro-gay activist judges and officials" disturbing. In case you weren't aware, it is the judicial branch of government that is tasked at its highest levels with ensuring the constitutionality of the law. The high courts aren't there to appease the majority -- they're there to protect the Constitution. The Supreme Court was deliberately created by the Founding Fathers to provide "checks and balances", as a way to prevent the tyranny of the majority from undermining the Constitution with laws that do not comply with its intent. That's why the US is a republic and not strictly a democracy, and why it's so hard to amend the Constitution.
That's also why Supreme Court judges have lifetime appointments -- if they were elected, they would be subject to the same tyranny of the majority that the other two branches. Our system of checks and balances would be destroyed.
"Activist judges" were responsible for advances in civil rights and women's rights because they looked at the law of the land and said "these laws, duly voted into place by the people and their representatives, VIOLATE the intent of the Constitution." In short, it's their JOB to thwart the popular will if they believe, after learned reflection, that it undermines the spirit of the one document that makes this country work well after two hundred plus years and counting.
Civil unions and "gay marriage?" Remember segregated facilities for African-Americans and white folk? Does "separate but equal" ring a bell? Or yes, "activist judges" undid that one, too. In the same spirit, creating two classes of marriage to appease a popular prejudice does justice to no one.
Too many use the words "activist judges" as some kind of prejorative. Once you understand that they're SUPPOSED to protect the intent of the Constitution -- its spirit -- the whole concept becomes ludicrous. Yet, conservatives are constantly crying "activist judges" -- even people who should understand what the heck they're supposed to do according to the Constitution (including people in Congress who ought to know better).
Forgive me if I sound a bit upset -- Congress passed laws this week essentially giving the government the right to pull me off the street, imprison me as an enemy combatant without due process on their own say-so, hold me as long as they like without charging me, keep me incommunicado so my family won't know what the hell happened to me, abuse me any way the President tells them they can --then let me go without even an apology. Oh, and they took away my right to sue for false arrest (or any other reason, for that matter), so no ordinary citizen can hold them responsible for overstepping their authority. You see, someone managed to delete the words in the laws making it illegal for them to do this "inside the borders of the U.S.," so none of us is safe anymore.
I'm praying hard for "activists judges" -- the rest of the government doesn't seem to be working too well anymore.
Just my two cents. *smile*
Randalynn
Exactly Randa
Whatever happened to liberty and justice for all?
I would also like Aadrvark to point to one word of scripture where Christ talked about homosexuality. Aardvark's too good with words not to have made such a claim by his opening paragraph.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I'm beginning to think I should kill this thread...
...Before the shooting starts. I'm not kidding, keep it civil, on any and all sides, there's entirely too much baiting going on. And the response to perceived baiting should not be more baiting.
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Bait and Switch
I'm going to lock the thread. It's not that anyone is doing anything exactly wrong, it's just the level of civility is going downhill like a mudslide about to carry off the house, closet and all.
No one's to blame, this is just a hot button topic. Take a day or so to think about your position and start another thread if you like. I don't object to these discussions, it's just that this isn't the Congress, the British Parliament or the Japanese Diet -- I'm in charge and there will be no caning, no bloody noses and no strangling. :)
Hugs to all who have commented and listened,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.