Orlando

[keglo]

Originally Posted by Dysole

The current rules governing "right to refuse service" don't give much wiggle room for this as long as you are serving the public and are not some exclusive club. Should it be that way? I don't see why not. To me, those who claim right to refuse service seem perfectly fine serving couples who have premarital sex, couples who divorce, and couples who are outside of the Christian faith so the argument that they have a religious objection to it feels really really really really hypocritical to me. (Now a pastor is allowed to pick and choose who they wish to marry and are not obligated under any law)

Well the truth is, you make a damn good point. You actually made me have a "Hmmm" moment. There is no doubt a great deal of hypocrisy going on. Although they would probably argue that those engaged in premarital sex, divorced couples, and non-Christians aren't asking the baker to bake them a cake celebrating these things. Sort of a "don't ask don't tell" sort of thing maybe? But for the record, I'm not making that argument. I have for a while now thought that the Church is far too focused on standing against homosexuality when there are much more important issues to focus on. Not to mention that all of those things that you mentioned are going on right within their own walls. I quite honestly don't know the answer, but again, you make a good point.

Sigh.

So I take it either you don't recognize my gender or you don't understand that in 15 states laws allowing trans people to use the restroom of their choice have already existed for years with no side effects except for trans people are at lower risk of being assaulted in a restroom.

I'm not at all sure what me recognizing your gender has to do with anything, but no I did not know about the 15 states, but it does not change my mind on the subject. I don't know if anyone could actually know if there were any side effects or not. And I would think that it would put trans people at a higher risk of being assaulted, especially a male using a female restroom. It just seems to me that the more states that join in the higher the risk for pedafiles and perverts in general, posing as trans, to take advantage of the situation. It is what all of us that oppose this are worried about I think.

The last thing that I wanted to do was to offend you Dysole, or anyone else. I need to learn to listen to my own advice, as I had no intention of getting involved in this conversation. But judging by @Dad_Scaper 's reply to you, and your own response, my previous post did indeed offend you both. Some previous post in this thread said that this issue needed to be talked about, but as I said, I don't believe that it can be discussed without people coming away with hard or hurt feelings. I never wanted that. And if it's any consolation at all, some things said by you, @Dad_Scaper , and @joseph Sweeny have made me reevaluate my thinking on some things.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by keglo

. And if it's any consolation at all, some things said by you, @Dad_Scaper, and @joseph Sweeny have made me reevaluate my thinking on some things.

And that is the best any of us can hope for. This is why our worlds is... and will continue to get better. Not through throwing stones but through rational discussion. When we allow ourselves to feel empathy, when we put ourselves in the shoes of others, when we stop and ask ourselves why we believe what we believe with a critical eye, the world becomes a better place.


Sometimes simply asking: "what if the other person is right" or "why do they feel different than me" can really enlighten an argument. For example I understand the fears of having a "Man" use the "little girls room". However, when you really start to think about it and run the argument to it's full conclusion you realize that no one is checking passports as the doors of bathrooms now, and if someone was up to something unsavory there are lots of laws that already cover that. All those laws do is make people who are already on the fringe feel excluded. Gender issues are complex issues, but remembering that we are all humans (Equal under God or under Biology) is a good place to start.

[Dysole]

Just so you know keglo I'm trans. That's where the gender comment came from. This topic does get me riled and like I said earlier I'm still in a pretty emotionally vulnerable state so that kind of snapped it for me. If you wish to discuss the nuances of both laws I've done a lot of looking into them but I'll admit I'm still a bit emotionally raw so I don't think I'll be as rational as I'd like to be.

~Dysole, taking her life one day at a time

[The_X_Marker]

I'm planning to march in the Pride Parade in NYC to show my support for the victims and the LGBT community as a whole. I also implore those who support the community to donate blood to Orlando, there are centers everywhere.

Originally Posted by keglo

And as for boys using girls bathrooms and girls using boys. Just no! No, no, no!

There are a lot of rules in this issue here. The person has to be considered passing or passable, for instance. Someone can't just decide to pretend to be a man or woman to peep on the people in that bathroom. It's not as black and white as the media is making it seem.

But hey, Target has been doing it since the early 90's and they have had no problems. They just found a good opening in the media to remind people that it is a policy of theirs.

[MementoMori]

Didn't want to enter the bathroom debate. But do you remember when Ally McBeal made unisex bathrooms cool?

[Dr.Goomonkey]

I would like to give my sincerest condolences for Orlando and the LGBT community everywhere.

Coming from a fairly non-religious standpoint and hope that people in time will, as many Christian people I know have, learn to hate the sin and not the sinner. Even if someone believes that something is wrong, that doesn't deny them the ability to practice the golden rule to the person.

~Dr.G, hoping that the world will continue to learn from our tragedies and eventually choose peace.

[Elven Lord]

Well I had written a very long, detailed, and excellent response, but it was deleted when the session failed. Things I forget about when I haven't been on here for a while. While I am upset to have wasted an entire hour of my life, I really don't feel like typing it up again. Here is a quick preview of what I wrote.

1) I am a Roman Catholic man, and I profess the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted by his executors in Rome.
2) The Church's teaching are highly misunderstood.
3) The Church does not teach "gay hate," but urges all peoples to care for and respect each other in all things.
4) Tolerance is for people, but never for ideas. I don't tolerate my own. I accept them on the grounds of faith and reason, I allow them to be challenged on the grounds of faith and reason, but I by no means tolerate my own ideas.
5) The point of marriage is to provide the best possible conditions for the bearing and rearing of children. When a man and a woman commit to each other and produce offspring, these conditions are met. Therefore, marriage is between a man and a woman.
6) Homosexual activity is just as wrong as premarital sex, divorce, and all other activities in which two people engage in mutual degradation of the others dignity. These are degradations of dignity because they do not reflect the growing love of God as truly as when a man and a woman marry (reflecting the covenential aspect of salvation) and produce a baby (reflecting the procreative aspect of God's love).
7) Supporting evidence from the U.S college of Pediatricians can be found here
8. Orlando would not have happened in Texas because the audience would have fired back such that they would have to pick him up off the floor with a mop later. You think our problems (gun violence) are bad? Wait until you see our solutions (gun control).
9) I just got a job with Northwestern Mutual, and I'm going to get back to that now. Goodnight and Godwill.

~EL

[All Your Pie]

I won't respond to most of your points, EL, because I simply fundamentally disagree with them. However, I will point out that despite it's official-sounding name, the U.S. College of Pediatricians is not a purely scientific institution and in fact ignores a great deal of established science in their recommendations. I mention this partly because it's something I remembered hearing about in the past, but a quick Google search reveals a number of sources that testify to their identity as a hate group rather than a medical institution. (These three sources, for instance.)

It is extremely not appreciated of you to come onto a thread created in support of victims of a mass shooting and decry those victims for having participated in an activity you consider to be "wrong". It is even less appreciated for you to use flimsy and biased sources in doing so. If you feel the strong need to lead a crusade to defend Catholicism's interpretation of Homosexuality, go ahead and lead that crusade well and fully somewhere else.

[wriggz]

Originally Posted by All Your Pie

I won't respond to most of your points, EL, because I simply fundamentally disagree with them. However, I will point out that despite it's official-sounding name, the U.S. College of Pediatricians is not a purely scientific institution and in fact ignores a great deal of established science in their recommendations. I mention this partly because it's something I remembered hearing about in the past, but a quick Google search reveals a number of sources that testify to their identity as a hate group rather than a medical institution. (These three sources, for instance.)

It is extremely not appreciated of you to come onto a thread created in support of victims of a mass shooting and decry those victims for having participated in an activity you consider to be "wrong". It is even less appreciated for you to use flimsy and biased sources in doing so. If you feel the strong need to lead a crusade to defend Catholicism's interpretation of Homosexuality, go ahead and lead that crusade well and fully somewhere else.

I love the second part. It is okay to hold what ecmver view you wish but do so in your own house. This tread is about support and moving forward not about debate and judgement. Next time they visit I hope they bring some of that CAthol ic love the current pope champions instead of the dogma of hate and in tollarance.

[marrowick]

Originally Posted by wriggz

It is okay to hold what ecmver view you wish but do so in your own house.

Actually, while I agree to some extent, Jesus tells that we must make disciples of all nations and spread the truth wherever possible. So to a certain extent we can't keep our beliefs to ourselves, it is our job to stand out in the crowd and spread the truth.

[Dysole]

My thoughts on what EL and marrowick say are varied. I'm in an interesting position being a trans lesbian Christian. I'll muse more before deciding if what I want to say will add to this conversation.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about EL posting (I mean considering the topics we've touched it's not exactly "just" a condolences for Orlando thread so I'm not quite sure how off topic it was). The topic might be better served for another thread (pretty sure we have several lying around but this conversation doesn't look like it's going away soon).

~Dysole, collecting her thoughts

[Elven Lord]

Originally Posted by Dysole

My thoughts on what EL and marrowick say are varied. I'm in an interesting position being a trans lesbian Christian. I'll muse more before deciding if what I want to say will add to this conversation.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about EL posting (I mean considering the topics we've touched it's not exactly "just" a condolences for Orlando thread so I'm not quite sure how off topic it was). The topic might be better served for another thread (pretty sure we have several lying around but this conversation doesn't look like it's going away soon).

~Dysole, collecting her thoughts

I would just like to say; tolerance ^ and intolerance v. Dysole is correct. I posted because I read through this thread and found that more often than not the topics of discussion were 1) gun control and 2) LGBT rights. There was a section on the Catholic Church, and I thought I would help by objectively clarifying what it is that the Roman Church teaches.

Originally Posted by All Your Pie

I won't respond to most of your points, EL, because I simply fundamentally disagree with them. However, I will point out that despite it's official-sounding name, the U.S. College of Pediatricians is not a purely scientific institution and in fact ignores a great deal of established science in their recommendations. I mention this partly because it's something I remembered hearing about in the past, but a quick Google search reveals a number of sources that testify to their identity as a hate group rather than a medical institution. (These three sources, for instance.)

It is extremely not appreciated of you to come onto a thread created in support of victims of a mass shooting and decry those victims for having participated in an activity you consider to be "wrong". It is even less appreciated for you to use flimsy and biased sources in doing so. If you feel the strong need to lead a crusade to defend Catholicism's interpretation of Homosexuality, go ahead and lead that crusade well and fully somewhere else.

I took a look at your sources. For one thing, I agree that the American College of Pediatricians was a flimsy source, and I apologize for only taking a cursory look at it. I would like to point out that two of your three sources refer to one of your sources when identifying ACP as a hate group. SPLC designates it a hate group, but I don't think the SPLC is a reliable source for the simple reason that the group actively seeks to identify "hate groups." At the same time they take what appears to be a broad-spectrum stance on civil rights in America. By their standards, anyone who publishes material expressing an opposing opinion is automatically labeled a "hater" and a "bigot."

I am not surprised, as a Roman Catholic, I am no stranger to either of these terms. I have experienced a lot of rejection for what I believe, enough to make several of my friends simply give up and take what's left of their zeal into the house. It hurts, but this is the message. I have to try.

As I said in my post, my tolerance I reserve for people, but not for ideas. If I make a blunder, I expect to be called out on it, and by the same token I have to call out errors I see. I will never sit in a house while people suffer needlessly.

Why does what I say make you angry? If you are truly in the right there is no need to react with anger. If you are really in the right then it would be most natural for you to defend your position (or argue against the Church's position) not with angry words but with carefully reasoned arguments.