Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[Kylie]

You must live on another planet. As far as I know just expressing an opinion or view on these topics is a right under free speech and religious freedom. IE

The UN Human rights seems to disagree with you

EHRC guidelines make clear that people are free to express personal views on marriage in public and in the workplace,
It is not illegal to speak out against same sex marriage (any more than it's illegal to condemn the ban on fox-hunting, or the provisions of the finance bill of 2014).
Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage, but not to act against it | David Edgar

Article 19 of UN Human Rights
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So does the US constitution.
In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

The First Amendment to our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.
Women’s Sports Are Facing a Crisis. These Brave Athletes Are Standing Firm.

People have been debating and expressing their views on these topics for a long time, on social media, YouTube, and even on this forum and it is totally legal to do so.

When Australia had its vote on marriage equality, the right wing certainly did everything it could to try and stop people from voting in favour of it. They certainly seemed to think they had the right to act against it.

 

[Nine of Spades]

When Australia had its vote on marriage equality, the right wing certainly did everything it could to try and stop people from voting in favour of it. They certainly seemed to think they had the right to act against it.

They were following their conscience. In other words, they were doing the right thing.

By the way, why do you feel the need to call homosexual marriage "marriage equality"? That sounds like a misleading euphemism.

 

[Kylie]

They were following their conscience. In other words, they were doing the right thing.

Ah, so people can force others to live according to their own personal viewpoints? If I came and tried to force you to live according to what I thought was right, you would be okay with that? I doubt it. So why do you think it's okay for people against same sex marriage to try to stop it for the people who want it?

By the way, why do you feel the need to call homosexual marriage "marriage equality"? That sounds like a misleading euphemism.

Because it's giving same sex couples rights EQUAL to the ones heterosexual couples have - namely, to get married to the person they love.

Why do you think it's misleading?

 

[stevevw]

Because the government here in Australia at the time was run by a right wing party who had an interest in not letting gay couples get married.

the point is a vote was needed as many disagreed with same sex marriage (nearly 40%). The government couldnt just change such an important law without going to the people. So there was a possibility that the no vote won.

It has only 10 years or so ago that most people disagreed with same sex marriage. So now secular society is less religious and accepting of same sex marriage. That is to be expected. But we cannot say that when society was against same sex marriage that it was wrong as this was about belief.

Margaret Court is facing backlash because she is using her position to spread ideas that are harmful to gay people.

Margaret Court has been a preacher for 30 years. It is natural that she is preaching to people. What she is sayioing is probably not to dissimilar to what she says in church.

Plus, she was recently given an award, but it was for something which she has already received many awards for. So people feel that she is really getting the award because she is spreading harmful viewpoints that our right wing government approves of.

That is rediculous. Margaret Courts most recent award for an Order of Australa which is not something she has recieved before. It was for her charity work of over 30 years. People get the same awards for similar things. People just wanted to deny her any recognisition because of expressing her belief. The fact is amy other sports people have similar beliefs but as forced to keep them to themselves for fear of being attacked. They should not be attacked for expressing their belief as its a fundelmentsla constitutional and human right.

Wow, there's so much here that's wrong.

The government allowed people to vote on it because the demand for marriage equality got to the point where they just couldn't ignore it anymore.

Yes society had changed and the people called for the vote. It was only fair to have the vote as it was an important and big change to the definition of marriage and many people felt that should not be changed. Many people were worried about the affects it would have on religious freedom as well as the government had not clarieid this properly.

Yes, it could have been done through civil laws, but the government didn't because they really didn't want to give gay couples in Australia that right. The government did everything they could to give themselves the upper hand, including saying that it was going to be a non-binding vote. In other words, they said that even if everyone voted for marriage equality, they weren't going to be obligated to pass it. The only reason they did was because they realised that it would have been political suicide to vote against it when the vast majority of people voted for it.

Ironically there was more support for same sex marriage with the conservative government than the labour government so that dispels that idea.

And it is not about changing the Christian idea of marriage. It is about changing the legal idea of marriage, and Australia, as a (theoretically secular country, with no state religion) does not have religion influencing politics. Though we all know that it happens (although business influences politics a lot more)

It did change the definition of marriage in that the existing law was only between a man and women which is in line with Christian values and this stems back to a time when society did support Christian values depsite being secular. It was only natural that as society became more secular that things would change. What Christians were concerned about was in changing the marriage law that this would affect religious freedom which seems to be the case.

Technically no,

since when does violence become a legitimate form of protest. The research shows that violence leads to further violence and that is exactly what has been happening with the many protests we have seen escalated by violence.

but they WERE denying gay people the right to marry the people they love. Telling a gay man that he's free to marry as long as it's to a woman isn't exactly helpful, is it?

The problem is in a society that allows pluralism of beliefs, values and morals this is going to happen. But how can that society claim certain morals when there morals are suppose to be subjective and therefore there is no objective moral right position on this.

If we use transgender ideology, one side says children should transition and any opposition is transphobic. The other view says that not allowing children to investigate things and how other influences may cause gender dysphoria is child abuse. Who is right. It may be that we have another child abuse scandel in the future where children were more or less pushed into permenant changes by medial authorities they regret. Especially considwering transgender ideology is based on subjective thinking and not the science.

So there isnt just one right view. Christian may also be right that marriage who knows. So as a pluralist society there is no one right position and rejecting other cultures and religions is denying the right to religion and free speech.

I believe I have been quite clear.

I do NOT believe it is harmful for a Christian to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and if you want to believe that gay marraige is wrong, that's fine by me.

What is harmful is when a person starts saying, "That couple can't get married because it goes against my beliefs! I think gay marriage is wrong, therefore no one is allowed to do it! Everyone must live according to MY beliefs!"

But as a society we do that now. We deny Indigenous Australians and the US denied American Indians the right to practcie their beliefs on marriage. They believe in polygamy and older men marrying younger girls. But the dominant culture has denied indigenous people this right when they are the original inhabitants. They have forced their own view on marriage onto others. Isnt that saying doing exactly the same thing.

This is very very wrong. There are more than two biological sexes. How do you want to measure it? By chromosomes? Okay. You think that XX and XY are the only possible variations? They're not! "Classical disorders of sex chromosome are Klinefelter syndrome, XX male, XYY male, Turner syndrome, XXX female, and XY female. True hermphroiditism, mixed gonadal dysgenesis, and pure gonadal dysgenesis are also included, because most of these disorders have abnormal sex chromosome." SOURCE

Or do you want to go with the shape of the genitals? Again, incorrect. There's a huge amount of variety. What Does Intersex Look Like at Birth? What to Know

This is a logical fallacy. Intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism. This is a common ploy used by the left to conflate intersex as evidence that there are more than 2 biological sexes.

The issues with intersex and the variations of male and female biology and genetics are abnormalities of the normal developmental process of male and female sex during gestation. There is still only 2 sexes. Whereas transgenerism is an isue of the mind, self identity of gender. The two are not the same and conflating them as such is a misrepresentation of bit intersex and transgender people.

Being Intersex has NOTHING to do with TRANS
I'm tired of people making these wild claims that being intersex has to be inclusive, that we're some kind of club for yet another oppression label. That they use the various intersex conditions to justify psychological nonsense and claim sex is a spectrum
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyC...ng_intersex_has_nothing_to_do_with_trans_and/
Intersex is not a gender identity, and the implications for legislation
Intersex is not a gender identity, and the implications for legislation - Intersex Human Rights Australia

 

[stevevw]

Again wrong. The problems are caused when people try to say they are linked when they are not. Can you provide a source that shows that gender identity is "indelibly connected": to biology sex?

This one needed a reply on its own.
The best evidence is common sense and self-evidenced lived reality. When a male with male anatomy enters a female safe or private space regardless of what’s in a males head in thinking they are a female it is the physical appearance that the women in the change room immediately recognise and will recoil from that identifies them.

In sports it is obvious that biological sex is connected to gender identity when it allows a man with male advantages can compete in women’s sports. The male and transgender ideology may pretend the physical body has nothing to do with it but ask the female competitors whether this is the case. They get to experience how the body is connected to the mind in a very practical way when they lose out to men.

What transgender ideology tries to do is separate out of the equation the male advantage (biology) by claiming it has no influence. They try to rationalize that everyone has different genetics, conditioning and environments etc. so it’s never a level playing field. Like because it’s not a level playing field let’s not just worry about any advantage transwomen have because it’s not a level playing field anyway, life’s not a level playing field.

But they are using biology when they talk about genetics and genetics defines males and females and using the reasoning that we have to accept the obvious advantages transwomen have because well heck there is no level playing field is a pretty poor justification. Ok well let’s just let people take steroids because it’s not a level playing field. It becomes quite irrational in the end.

So in trying to rationalize biology away from the connection to gender they inevitably cannot avoid it. Our entire history of sports is based on the fact that males are different to females and that’s why two separate categories male and female were created.

The other common sense and self-evidence aspect is that transgenderism is always focusing on the body. They want to change their bodies to fit their mind set. So everything they do is about their biological sex. A person’s sex influences their gender identity because their bodies are the visual expression of that whether they accept or reject this. Their bodies infleunce their gender identity in that they will feel feminised or masclinised and try to align this and having certain bodily features influences the way they see themselves. Their gender identity influences their bodies IE being ladylike, macho, hairstyles, makeup, fashion, posture, walks, expressions, gestures ect.

Anyway here is the science. This paper is probably the most comprehensive and goes into the multidimensional aspect of gender. This is research by biologists experts on the topic and not some ideology and they not only say gender is connected to biological sex, they state it has a physiological basis. Gender is connected to physiological processes in a number of ways through hormones and genetics which affect behaviour and cognitive processes.

An interesting finding is that because of the many varying influences these physiological processes have on the mind and body that this may be why there are differing genders.

Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?
It is known since long that homosexuality, one of the many possible gender variants, occurs in several animal species. For biologists this illustrates that this gender form must have a physiological basis that occurs widely in the animal kingdom.
Nature, thus genetics, is much more important than Nurture in defining gender and gender orientation.
Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?

 

[stevevw]

I'm not going to respond to everything you posted, but this one in particular struck me because I responded to this exact same example in November 2019, and I haven't seen anything that warrants a change in my position. For the record, my original response to this (a different article, but the same individual making the same claims) can be found HERE.

Here's my original reply...

"And yet this person cites no actual numbers. They don't say "I've seen this many people regret it out of that many people who had the surgery." So that's suspect right there.

Also, I find it interesting that they say that they see mostly in their 20s, and often autistic, and yet she has seen 30 people from Newcastle, a city that has about 310,000 people. I mean, in a city of that size, autistic trans people in their 20s is a pretty narrow demographic. I'm surprised there are that many. I mean, according to the data on THIS page, about 14% of the entire Newcastle population is in their 20s. With a population of about 310,000, that means there are about 44,000 people in their twenties in Newcastle. Now, exact figures of the percentage of people in Newcastle who are trans is difficult to come by, since the government has not included this information as part of their census program, but we can make an educated guess. The population of the entire UK is about 66.5 million. And the estimates for the number of trans people in the UK is estimated between 200,000 and 500,000. Even assuming a high figure of 500,000 trans people in the UK, that's less than 1% of the population. So, let's say that 1% of the population is trans (which fits in fairly well with other studies - for instance a study in the US suggests that about 0.6% of the population is trans). So we can figure that out of the 44,000 people in their twenties in Newcastle, 1% of them are trans. That makes roughly 440 trans people in newcastle. Now, when it comes to how many people are on the autism spectrum, studies have shown that about 1.1% of people in the UK are autistic. If we apply that to the trans people in their 20s in Newcastle, that comes out to about 4 or 5 people who would be Newcastle residents in their twenties who are both autistic and trans. And yet Charlie Evans, according to the article, has found about 30 trans people in their twenties in Newcastle, and most of them are autistic. How can this be? Is Newcastle a magnet for trans, autistic people in their twenties? And Ms Evans has said that many of these people have had full gender reassignment surgeries. That also strikes me as odd, since trans people in England often face waits for treatment that have been described as "soul destroying." And yet, in Newcastle, there appears to be a concentration of autistic trans folks in their twenties almost ten times higher than average who have been able to get access to treatment much more easily than in the rest of the country!

Yeah, that doesn't seem right to me."
​

There's nothing I've read that indicates to me that my conclusion here needs to be changed.

First yes the concentration of Autism is with Trans people so it correlates with being trans. IE we should find higher rates of Autism where there are higher rates of Trans people. What you are doing is not making the correlation by looking at national figures of 1.1% rather than the figure for Tran’s people which is 6 times that. So at 6.6% we then get a figure of around 28 to 40.

Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study
Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study

But for the purpose of the point which is that Tran’s people experience comorbid conditions and therefore we should not automatically assume transitioning is the answer and look at how these comorbid condition are influencing the person before jumping into permanent hormone therapy and medical interventions.

As well as Autism Tran’s people also experience higher rates of other mental health issues because of childhood abuse, and poor relationships and abandonment with parents. So these issues also need to be address to best determine treatment.

Attachment Patterns and Complex Trauma in a Sample of Adults Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria
Attachment Patterns and Complex Trauma in a Sample of Adults Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria

But if a doctor suggests any psychological treatment other than transitioning to investigate non-transitioning therapies or take a wait and see approach even if the patients or parent request this they are branded transphobic and can even be sacked from their job. Therefore many people in the medical industry avoid even mentioning these alternatives through fear and send kids to transitioning therapies that may be totally unsuitable and harmful. That is my main gripe as it is not helping in all cases but making matters worse.

 

[Speedwell]

First yes the concentration of Autism is with Trans people so it correlates with being trans. IE we should find higher rates of Autism where there are higher rates of Trans people. What you are doing is not making the correlation by looking at national figures of 1.1% rather than the figure for Tran’s people which is 6 times that. So at 6.6% we then get a figure of around 28 to 40.

Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study
Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study

But for the purpose of the point which is that Tran’s people experience comorbid conditions and therefore we should not automatically assume transitioning is the answer and look at how these comorbid condition are influencing the person before jumping into permanent hormone therapy and medical interventions.

As well as Autism Tran’s people also experience higher rates of other mental health issues because of childhood abuse, and poor relationships and abandonment with parents. So these issues also need to be address to best determine treatment.

Attachment Patterns and Complex Trauma in a Sample of Adults Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria
Attachment Patterns and Complex Trauma in a Sample of Adults Diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria

But if a doctor suggests any psychological treatment other than transitioning to investigate non-transitioning therapies or take a wait and see approach even if the patients or parent request this they are branded transphobic and can even be sacked from their job. Therefore many people in the medical industry avoid even mentioning these alternatives through fear and send kids to transitioning therapies that may be totally unsuitable and harmful. That is my main gripe as it is not helping in all cases but making matters worse.

You are certainly not painting a very attractive picture about how trans people are responded to in Australia. I had always imagined Australians as social liberals, not a bunch of religious fascists.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Is Exodus 22:2-3 a ceremonial law? yes or no.

Again, for the third time. Asked and answered in that post.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Sure you can and all Christians do.
The abortion and
drug use, and
pre-marital sex rates and
adultery rates
are no different between Christians and the general public.
This was church-sponsored research.

Citation? It is irrelevant really, except for informational purposes, I guess. Going to church or just calling yourself a Christian doesn't matter in the least. Many call themselves Christians because they don't happen to be Jews or Hindus or Muslims, so they just pick a comfortable category.

If you are a disciple of Christ, Jesus said that if you love Him, you will DO what he says. He IS the Word. And all scripture is profitable for teaching. So if you are claiming to follow Jesus yet knowingly, intentionally, and persistently denying and working against scriptural commands, you are either in deep deception, or not a Christian at all.

I've heard it said, "As a Christian, you can sin, but you can never enjoy it." So true. You might sin, but will feel terrible and not be able to persist in that course of action. If you are unrepentantly sinning on an ongoing basis, something's really wrong.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Okay. You've made the claim that some verses in Leviticus are ceremonial, others are not. I've asked you to present a method by which we can determine if a particular law is ceremonial or not.

Your answers have been, "You just have to know what ceremonial means," which doesn't actually help, and that we just have to know the context - something which is very open to interpretation.

So no, you have not actually answered the question.

Maybe John Calvin can explain it better (bolded mine, and I did not address Judicial precepts or law at all):
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509-1564)

“We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. ‘moral’ precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; ‘Ceremonial’ precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and ‘judicial’ precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men.”

The moral law always existed as it reflects God's unchanging character. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply with each other and to follow one rule because it would protect them (of course, they knew better and didn't listen. Every parent is still dealing with this). The Ten Commandments are God expressing the Moral law to Moses, and these commandments were inscribed on the tablets. Don't kill, steal, lie, commit adultery (or any sexual immorality), covet; Make sure to Honor God and keep the Sabbath, etc. Always to be followed.

The ceremonial law was about HOW the temple worship would be expressed. Who qualifies as priests, what his functions are, the sacrifices of which certain animals on which certain days, how to set up and care for the temple, etc.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. The ceremonial laws were fulfilled the moment Jesus said. "It is finished" and the curtain tore in two.

The moral law never changes. It is ALWAYS wrong to do those proscribed actions: lie, steal, commit adultery (or sexual immorality), covet, fail to Honor God, etc.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't see where in that post you say, "This law is ceremonial," or, "This law is not ceremonial."

You just go over what it says. You make no determination about whether it is ceremonial or not.

I have replied again just now to your former post. Hopefully, this clarifies to your satisfaction. The difference is quite stark.

 

[stevevw]

You are certainly not painting a very attractive picture about how trans people are responded to in Australia. I had always imagined Australians as social liberals, not a bunch of religious fascists.

Yes its not a pretty picture. I call it child abuse the way transgender ideology is pushed onto children. Thankfully people are standing up for these poor children in Australia. But they are in other countries like the US as well thank God as we begin to see the reality of this dangerous ideology and stand up for children.

The papers I posted are scientific facts about the true state of what transgender people go through and have nothing to do with fascism or religion. They help people understand how best to help them. The fact you try to make out that pointing out the true state of affairs is some bad thing is deceptive and only makes matters worse. What I find sad is that someone will attack people for speaking the truth and make it even harder for children to have access to the best possible support.

Let me ask you do you think that trans people should be able to have acces to both transitioning treatments but also non transitioning treatments due to the associated problems they experience such as psychotherapy and counselling. Do you think a child should be pushed down the path of hormone therapy without exploring other possibilities and God forbid perhaps realigning their minds with their body rather than just changing their bodies to fit their mind. Or is that forbidden. I wonder. Especially that the majority will naturally realign themselves to their natural gender.

Why push this ideology to young minds who cannot even understand themsleves let alone deal with such complex issues considering there is no science to support it and the majority will grow out of it. I would be the first to support someone to transition if that was determined by science and after proper investigation. But that is not what is happening.

You see the leftist ideology today is to pretend and lie about the true state of what is going on and they think this is being compassionate. But in reality it is being cruel and not telling people what is best to help them. So instead of giving all the options available to help they only allow 1 treatment option even if its irrational and is not supported by any science because that fits their agenda. All esle is regarded as being transphobic. The more they can spread their ideology the better even at the expense of young children. I find it cruel and abusive.

Heres the reality, don't be fooled by this ideology, using your words they have painted an unrealistic and false picture of what is happening.
The following is from professionals who know what they are talking about. They promote good practcie rather than some ideology that has no scientific basis.

Professionals Questioning Medical Transition Of Children
Pediatric endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and ethicists are increasingly speaking out in opposition to the practice of diagnosing and treating children as transgender.

“The treatment of gender- dysphoric children has become highly politicised and, in many ways, operates outside good medical practice. There is pressure to view patients as consumers who have a choice over their gender, rather than people with underlying conflicts about themselves and their relationship with society.”

“When you work in the area of gender dysphoria you begin to see that many of these children have other areas of concern or difficulty, such as depression, autism, trauma, childhood abuse, internalised homophobia, relationship difficulties, social isolation and so on.””

“Parents are risking psychologically damaging their children by allowing them to “socially transition” their gender without medical or psychiatric advice, NHS experts have warned.

“I think it is a problem that GIDS clinicians are making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and on their lives, potentially the rest of their lives, without a robust evidence base.
Professionals Questioning Medical Transition Of Children - Transgender Trend

Besides the science also shows that transitioning is not even the best option as it doesnt really solve the problem and can infact make things worse.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

So you tell me, are we creating the next child abuse scandel like the church did except this time its mainstream society and the government doing the abusing.

 

[Kylie]

A July 2011 poll of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan Research measured the support for a number of positions on marriage and found that 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage and 78% classified marriage as a "necessary" institution, with only 22% stating it was an "unnecessary" institution.[

the point is a vote was needed as many disagreed with same sex marriage (nearly 40%). The government couldnt just change such an important law without going to the people. So there was a possibility that the no vote won.

It has only 10 years or so ago that most people disagreed with same sex marriage. So now secular society is less religious and accepting of same sex marriage. That is to be expected.

Some information I found...

• In June 2007, a Galaxy Research poll conducted for advocacy group GetUp! measured the opinions of 1,100 Australians aged 16 and over and found that 57% of respondents supported same-sex marriage, 37% were opposed and 6% were unsure. The poll also found that 71% of respondents supported same-sex couples having the same legal entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples.
• A June 2009 poll conducted by Galaxy Research and commissioned by the Australian Marriage Equality group measured the opinions of 1,100 Australians aged 16 and over and found that 60% of respondents supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 36% opposed and 4% undecided. Among Greens voters 82% supported same-sex marriage, whilst 74% of those aged 16–24 supported same-sex marriage. Those aged 50 or above were the only age bracket to oppose same-sex marriage recognition, at a 55% disapproval rate.
• An October 2010 poll conducted by Galaxy Research and commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality measured the opinions of 1,050 Australians aged 18 and over and found that 62% of respondents supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 33% opposed and 5% undecided.
  
• A July 2011 poll of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan Research measured the support for a number of positions on marriage and found that 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage and 78% classified marriage as a "necessary" institution, with only 22% stating it was an "unnecessary" institution.

For over a decade, it has been fairly consistent that about 2/3 of Australians support marriage equality and only 1/3 oppose it.

But we cannot say that when society was against same sex marriage that it was wrong as this was about belief.

But it's not just the belief. It's also about using that belief to control what other people can't do. And to me, saying, "My religion says that gay marriage is wrong, therefore I want to stop that gay couple from getting married," is about the same as saying, "My diet says that eating chocolate is bad, therefore I want to stop everyone from eating chocolate."

Margaret Court has been a preacher for 30 years. It is natural that she is preaching to people. What she is sayioing is probably not to dissimilar to what she says in church.

And if she wants to preach, she already has a platform from which to do so. And when she preaches in church, she is preaching to people who want to hear what she has to say. I don't have a problem with that.

But when she starts making public statements like that, she is attempting to preach to people who may not want to hear what she has to say, and, lo and behold, we have people telling her as much.

That is rediculous. Margaret Courts most recent award for an Order of Australa which is not something she has recieved before. It was for her charity work of over 30 years. People get the same awards for similar things. People just wanted to deny her any recognisition because of expressing her belief. The fact is amy other sports people have similar beliefs but as forced to keep them to themselves for fear of being attacked. They should not be attacked for expressing their belief as its a fundelmentsla constitutional and human right.

No, her award of an Order of Australia was very clearly for her tennis accomplishments.

"Court’s AC citation makes clear that the award is for her tennis. " SOURCE

Yes society had changed and the people called for the vote. It was only fair to have the vote as it was an important and big change to the definition of marriage and many people felt that should not be changed. Many people were worried about the affects it would have on religious freedom as well as the government had not clarieid this properly.

However, the way the government handled it was to give themselves as good a chance as possible of getting out of it.

Ironically there was more support for same sex marriage with the conservative government than the labour government so that dispels that idea.

So? That does not mean that there was more support for same sex marriage from conservatives than from the left-wing (I hesitate to use the term liberal, because in Australia, the Liberal party is actually the right wing conservative party.)

It did change the definition of marriage in that the existing law was only between a man and women which is in line with Christian values and this stems back to a time when society did support Christian values depsite being secular. It was only natural that as society became more secular that things would change. What Christians were concerned about was in changing the marriage law that this would affect religious freedom which seems to be the case.

Actually, Australian law only changed to specifically say that marriage had to be between a man and a woman in 2004, when the law was changed to legal define a marriage as, "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." Before that, the definition did not specifically say it had to be a man and a woman.

since when does violence become a legitimate form of protest. The research shows that violence leads to further violence and that is exactly what has been happening with the many protests we have seen escalated by violence. The problem is in a society that allows pluralism of beliefs, values and morals this is going to happen. But how can that society claim certain morals when there morals are suppose to be subjective and therefore there is no objective moral right position on this.

This, I think, is muddying the waters.

First of all, I was saying that to intentionally deny a group in society a right that the rest of society has (such as the right to marry the one you love) is a violent act, even if it doesn't involve physical violence.

Secondly, violence is often the last resort when people have tried other non-violent forms of protest and got nothing from it.

If we use transgender ideology, one side says children should transition and any opposition is transphobic. The other view says that not allowing children to investigate things and how other influences may cause gender dysphoria is child abuse. Who is right. It may be that we have another child abuse scandel in the future where children were more or less pushed into permenant changes by medial authorities they regret.

Or we could just let the person decide for themselves...?

Especially considwering transgender ideology is based on subjective thinking and not the science.

Citation required.

So there isnt just one right view. Christian may also be right that marriage who knows. So as a pluralist society there is no one right position and rejecting other cultures and religions is denying the right to religion and free speech.

And that's fine.

However, as I have said many times now (and which you seem to ignore), no one has the right to use their beliefs to control others.

So if a Christian individual thinks that gay marriage is wrong, that's fine. They don't have to enter into one. If they are invited to a same sex marriage, they can decline the invitation. But if they gay couple down the street wants to get married, the Christian person shouldn't have the right to say no.

But as a society we do that now. We deny Indigenous Australians and the US denied American Indians the right to practcie their beliefs on marriage. They believe in polygamy and older men marrying younger girls. But the dominant culture has denied indigenous people this right when they are the original inhabitants. They have forced their own view on marriage onto others. Isnt that saying doing exactly the same thing.

People should be free to practice their beliefs as they see fit, unless those beliefs involve causing harm to someone who does not wish to be harmed. If there is a man whose beliefs say he has the right to marry a young girl, then that girl is going to be harmed by being forced to marry him, and thus her right to a safe life needs to be protected, and it overrides the man's right to practice his belief.

Beliefs should NEVER override the safety of anyone.

This is a logical fallacy. Intersex has nothing to do with transgenderism. This is a common ploy used by the left to conflate intersex as evidence that there are more than 2 biological sexes.

The issues with intersex and the variations of male and female biology and genetics are abnormalities of the normal developmental process of male and female sex during gestation. There is still only 2 sexes. Whereas transgenerism is an isue of the mind, self identity of gender. The two are not the same and conflating them as such is a misrepresentation of bit intersex and transgender people.

Being Intersex has NOTHING to do with TRANS
I'm tired of people making these wild claims that being intersex has to be inclusive, that we're some kind of club for yet another oppression label. That they use the various intersex conditions to justify psychological nonsense and claim sex is a spectrum
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyC...ng_intersex_has_nothing_to_do_with_trans_and/
Intersex is not a gender identity, and the implications for legislation
Intersex is not a gender identity, and the implications for legislation - Intersex Human Rights Australia

You've really missed the point I was trying to make here.

If someone is transgender, then they do not identify with the biological sex they were assigned at birth. My points about intersex show that determining someone's biological sex is very difficult.

Let me ask you - what method should be used to determine a person's biological sex?

 

[Kylie]

This one needed a reply on its own.
The best evidence is common sense and self-evidenced lived reality. When a male with male anatomy enters a female safe or private space regardless of what’s in a males head in thinking they are a female it is the physical appearance that the women in the change room immediately recognise and will recoil from that identifies them.

Utterly irrelevant. A person's gender identity is not based on what other people think of them.

In sports it is obvious that biological sex is connected to gender identity when it allows a man with male advantages can compete in women’s sports. The male and transgender ideology may pretend the physical body has nothing to do with it but ask the female competitors whether this is the case. They get to experience how the body is connected to the mind in a very practical way when they lose out to men.

Again, utterly irrelevant. A person's gender identity is not based on their physical capacity.

What transgender ideology tries to do is separate out of the equation the male advantage (biology) by claiming it has no influence. They try to rationalize that everyone has different genetics, conditioning and environments etc. so it’s never a level playing field. Like because it’s not a level playing field let’s not just worry about any advantage transwomen have because it’s not a level playing field anyway, life’s not a level playing field.

Again, utterly irrelevant. A person's gender identity is not connected to the physical structure of their body.

But they are using biology when they talk about genetics and genetics defines males and females and using the reasoning that we have to accept the obvious advantages transwomen have because well heck there is no level playing field is a pretty poor justification. Ok well let’s just let people take steroids because it’s not a level playing field. It becomes quite irrational in the end.

So in trying to rationalize biology away from the connection to gender they inevitably cannot avoid it. Our entire history of sports is based on the fact that males are different to females and that’s why two separate categories male and female were created.

Are you seriously arguing that we should not let trans people be trans because it might give them an unfair advantage when it comes to sports?

The other common sense and self-evidence aspect is that transgenderism is always focusing on the body. They want to change their bodies to fit their mind set. So everything they do is about their biological sex. A person’s sex influences their gender identity because their bodies are the visual expression of that whether they accept or reject this. Their bodies infleunce their gender identity in that they will feel feminised or masclinised and try to align this and having certain bodily features influences the way they see themselves. Their gender identity influences their bodies IE being ladylike, macho, hairstyles, makeup, fashion, posture, walks, expressions, gestures ect.

They want their bodies to match what their gender identity tells them. What's the problem here? It's about bringing the physical body in line with what their mentality is telling them. When you say it's about the physical body only, you are ignoring the thing that is motivating them to make the change in the first place.

And, by the way, not all trans people feel that they have to make those changes to their bodies.

Anyway here is the science. This paper is probably the most comprehensive and goes into the multidimensional aspect of gender. This is research by biologists experts on the topic and not some ideology and they not only say gender is connected to biological sex, they state it has a physiological basis. Gender is connected to physiological processes in a number of ways through hormones and genetics which affect behaviour and cognitive processes.

An interesting finding is that because of the many varying influences these physiological processes have on the mind and body that this may be why there are differing genders.

Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?
It is known since long that homosexuality, one of the many possible gender variants, occurs in several animal species. For biologists this illustrates that this gender form must have a physiological basis that occurs widely in the animal kingdom.
Nature, thus genetics, is much more important than Nurture in defining gender and gender orientation.
Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain?

No. You claim it was written by experts (note the plural) in the subject, and it was actually written by one (count them - ONE) person who is an expert on the evolution of the endocrine system. That doesn't make them an expert in transgender studies.

Also, the title of the article claims only to sex forms, yet in the article, he says, "male, female or an intersex variation which may complicate sex assignment..." That sure doesn't sound like a "A person either has a penis and is a boy, or has a vagina and is a girl" binary to me!

And if you had read the article, you would have seen him say at the bottom, "there are probably as many different gender variants as there are sexually reproducing individuals," thus he disagrees with the idea that gender is a binary.

 

[Kylie]

First yes the concentration of Autism is with Trans people so it correlates with being trans. IE we should find higher rates of Autism where there are higher rates of Trans people. What you are doing is not making the correlation by looking at national figures of 1.1% rather than the figure for Tran’s people which is 6 times that. So at 6.6% we then get a figure of around 28 to 40.

Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study
Transgender and gender diverse people up to six times more likely to be autistic – new study

That still doesn't address the issue of how they managed to apparently get treatment to transition so much more easily.

But for the purpose of the point which is that Tran’s people experience comorbid conditions and therefore we should not automatically assume transitioning is the answer and look at how these comorbid condition are influencing the person before jumping into permanent hormone therapy and medical interventions.

We should also remember that a person has the right to be treated the way they wish. SO if they say that they believe the best course for them is to medically transition with whatever therapies are available to them, that is their decision, and the doctor they are seeing doesn't have the right to try to talk them out of it.

As well as Autism Tran’s people also experience higher rates of other mental health issues because of childhood abuse, and poor relationships and abandonment with parents. So these issues also need to be address to best determine treatment.

Yeah, let's start with not treating trans people like garbage, and instead, respect them when they say they are trans. Use the name and pronouns the say are correct for them, etc. There's a huge amount of data to show that doing this dramatically reduced the problems that trans people face, such as the increased risk of suicide.

But if a doctor suggests any psychological treatment other than transitioning to investigate non-transitioning therapies or take a wait and see approach even if the patients or parent request this they are branded transphobic and can even be sacked from their job. Therefore many people in the medical industry avoid even mentioning these alternatives through fear and send kids to transitioning therapies that may be totally unsuitable and harmful. That is my main gripe as it is not helping in all cases but making matters worse.

I agree that potential options for treatments should not be withheld. But there are some cases where the kind of wait-and-see action is not valid. If a teenager who was assigned male at birth says they identify as a young woman, telling them to wait and see could likely mean they go through puberty, which can cause problems if they decide to transition after all.

 

[Kylie]

Maybe John Calvin can explain it better (bolded mine, and I did not address Judicial precepts or law at all):
The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509-1564)

“We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. ‘moral’ precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; ‘Ceremonial’ precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and ‘judicial’ precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men.”

The moral law always existed as it reflects God's unchanging character. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply with each other and to follow one rule because it would protect them (of course, they knew better and didn't listen. Every parent is still dealing with this). The Ten Commandments are God expressing the Moral law to Moses, and these commandments were inscribed on the tablets. Don't kill, steal, lie, commit adultery (or any sexual immorality), covet; Make sure to Honor God and keep the Sabbath, etc. Always to be followed.

The ceremonial law was about HOW the temple worship would be expressed. Who qualifies as priests, what his functions are, the sacrifices of which certain animals on which certain days, how to set up and care for the temple, etc.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. The ceremonial laws were fulfilled the moment Jesus said. "It is finished" and the curtain tore in two.

The moral law never changes. It is ALWAYS wrong to do those proscribed actions: lie, steal, commit adultery (or sexual immorality), covet, fail to Honor God, etc.

So Ceremonial law was just about worship, that kind of thing?

 

[SilverBear]

Again, for the third time. Asked and answered in that post.

no where do you say exodus 22:2-3 is ceremonial or do you say exodus 22:2-3 is not ceremonial. and your continued evasions only drive that point home

 

[SilverBear]

Yes its not a pretty picture. I call it child abuse the way transgender ideology is pushed onto children.

yet you defended bigoted statements about "going after children" and that anti-abuse programs are works of the devil.
You also cite fake research but i guess that is all ok.

Thankfully people are standing up for these poor children in Australia. But they are in other countries like the US as well thank God as we begin to see the reality of this dangerous ideology and stand up for children.

who is defending children against your ideology?

The papers I posted are scientific facts about the true state of what transgender people go through and have nothing to do with fascism or religion.

you posted junk science authored but the dead of a recognized hate group.

Why push this ideology to young minds who cannot even understand themsleves let alone deal with such complex issues considering there is no science to support it and the majority will grow out of it.

and here you are citing that junk science again.

Besides the science also shows that transitioning is not even the best option as it doesnt really solve the problem and can infact make things worse.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

So you tell me, are we creating the next child abuse scandel like the church did except this time its mainstream society and the government doing the abusing.

i don't need to ask if you actually read this study, you obviously have not.

 

[rturner76]

I think it was a good move. He has basically asserted "Gay marriage is not a Catholic business, take that to the courthouse." If you want to live that way, get a civil union, not a marriage as gays cannot marry in the church. Making laws based on religious beliefs is a slippery slope.

Do we make rules like stores can't be open on the Sabbath? Do we outlaw homosexuality again? If homosexuality is legal, the law of the land can't stop them from a civil union due to civil rights laws. The church is exempt from that law because of the rights of religious institutions.

The Pope never said "homosexuality is no longer a sin." He's just dealing with the realities of the world. The civil world has decided it's ok and there's nothing he can do about that. Besides that, I think it's a better philosophy to welcome sinners to the church instead of casting them out. How else will they learn not to sin unless they have a relationship with God. He's trying to get and keep butts in the pews which is the name of the game for a Priest.

The problem is in the process, he is losing conservatives. Conservatives want their fire and brimstone, not hope, acceptance, and unconditional love

 

[stevevw]

yet you defended bigoted statements about "going after children" and that anti-abuse programs are works of the devil.

Not sure I remember saying I defend anti-abuse programs. What does that refer to.

You also cite fake research but i guess that is all ok.

Which is the fake research.

who is defending children against your ideology?

My ideology is the truth, it is backed by the science. What you need to do is refute this with facts and not appeals to emotions because that is what is causing the problems. I am on the same side as the many who are now seeing that transgender ideology is not based in reality. It is being pushed onto young people who cannot even understand themselves let alone decide such impostant things like whether they really want to choose to have medical interventions that will render them permantely sterile or put them at risk of other health problems.

I had linked ample support from excperts in the field who agree that this ideology has little scientific supoport and that some are pushing it onto young people without proper consultation or understanding by young people and this is causing harm. Surely exposing this is a good thing. Even the American College of Pediatricians agrees with what I am saying. Surely there is no greater support on this than from the organisation that represents childrens welfare. This is what the American College of Pediatricians has to say on the issue

American College of Pediatricians released a policy statement titled “Gender Dysphoria in Children” that asserts that there is a “vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists, and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for GD [gender dysphoria] in children.” Disputing the growing trend of using hormone therapy to treat children with gender dysphoria, the College states that “a review of the current literature suggests that this protocol is founded upon an unscientific gender ideology, lacks an evidence base, and violates the long-standing ethical principle of ‘First do no harm.’”

“There is not a single large, randomized, controlled study,” the College points out, “that documents the alleged benefits and potential harms to gender-dysphoric children from pubertal suppression and decades of cross-sex hormone use. Nor is there a single long-term, large, randomized, controlled study that compares the outcomes of various psychotherapeutic interventions for childhood GD with those of pubertal suppression followed by decades of toxic synthetic steroids.”

In a follow-up study of their first 70 pre-pubertal candidates to receive puberty suppression, de Vries and colleagues documented that all subjects eventually embraced a transgender identity and requested cross-sex hormones. This is cause for concern. Normally, 80 percent to 95 percent of pre-pubertal youth with GD do not persist in their GD. To have 100 percent of pre-pubertal children choose cross-sex hormones suggests that the protocol itself inevitably leads the individual to identify as transgender. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging a young child with GD to socially impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression.

“The treatment of GD in childhood with hormones,” the College declares, “effectively amounts to mass experimentation on, and sterilization of, youth who are cognitively incapable of providing informed consent.”

“Not only is there a profound lack of diversity of philosophical worldviews among medical school faculty and professional medical guilds,” she told me, “but also, staunch transgender physician activists—some of them trans-identified—[have] achieved positions of authority allowing them to craft the current standards of care.” In this environment, Cretella argues, “no one is free to dissent without being punished. Such punishments range from being “passed over for promotions” to “demoted from Chairmanship positions” to suffering “loss of research funding” and being subject to “severe harassment by peers [and] death threats from activists.”

“And this censorship continues,” she says, “even as those ‘expert’ physicians admit that their recommendations have no long term scientific evidence to back them.”
Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine - Public Discourse

you posted junk science authored but the dead of a recognized hate group.

Which papers were they. What about the above from the American College of Pediatricians who say exactly the same thing which therefore now makes those so called junk science fact.

and here you are citing that junk science again. [/quote] You do realize the paper is from a scientific journal with expert scientists in their fields and is peer reviewed meaning other scientists have reviewed it as not junk science.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden

i don't need to ask if you actually read this study, you obviously have not.

I have have you. Tell me why it is junk. But like I said the American College of Pediatricians support the fact that transgender ideology is unscientific and harmful to children and they are the one organisation who know what they are talking about.