Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[stevevw]

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.[

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.

Like I said those polls especially by Get Up with is a leftist organisation and young people who mostly represent todays generation who are pro same sex marriage are going to have some bias and poor sampling. The only true poll was the vote and it showed nearly 40% of people opposed same sex marriage which is no small number.

The fact is society use to oppose same sex marriage and that seemed to be OK despite some saying it was unfair. Nows its become more secular things have changed. Christian belief has stayed the same. But on what basis does an atheistic secular society claim certain things are good and bad. They do what they claim religion should not do which is push their beliefs onto others.

Like I mentioned they deny Indigeniou people their versio of marriage (polygamy). But under relative morality there is no absolute right or wrong so secular society should not be telling Indigenous, Margaret Court or any Christians or any other cultures that what they do or say is wrong. They have no justification. .

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."

So I guess that someone saying my view that same sex marriage is right so therefore I want to stop people like Margaret Court from succeeding in life and I want to cause them as much pain as possible by wrecking their reputation and stopping them from getting awards, invitations and contracts. Same thing different belief. Like I said what basis do they have for doing this. At least Christians admit that they belief morals are absolute.

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.

Part of the same belief is to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. She is only following the Christian belief. But this is not to dissimilar to some sales people, people pushing life changing ideas, and politicians who preach their ideals. They all have a right in a free speech democracy.

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

OK but this is no different to many other sporting greats who have received Australia day Honours. In fact I think most are sports people on that list. After all she was the greatest women’s tennis player of all time.

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.)

Actually there was. Percentage wise more conservatives voted for same sex marriage than labour.

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.

So doesn’t that seem strange that around 13 years before the same sex marriage vote it was decided that marriage should only be between a man and women. It goes to show how recent that change has come. But even before it was changed I think everyone knew that marriage was between a man and women and that aligned things with the Christian view. So the Christian view is not so alien to people as made out. It seems the majority accepted the definition to be between a man and a women and no one thought it was wrong.

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.

The problem with this reasoning is that equating it as a violent act will then cause those affected to respond with violence. We see a lot of supporters of gender ideology physically attacking and shutting people down.

But the other problem is you are assuming that a right is being denied based on one sides view. It may not be a right to be given. Society is always denying people something and we don't seem to have a problem with that like we do for certain more politically motivated rights. Society denies people/groups like single mums, stay at home mums, dole dependents, cannabis smokers, hunters, and all sorts of weird and whacky groups.

As I mentioned we deny many religions and cultures like Muslims and Indigenous people their right to marry their way or practice other beliefs we find unacceptable. But on what basis, it’s just societies and the government’s view or belief and yet that seems to be OK. Why single out certain groups above others. Saying that certain groups have rights because of x or Y doesn’t cut because X and Y are subjective reasons. There is no basis and yet secular society will stand on absolute moral truth to justify rights while condemning other people who do the same. Seems hypocritical to me.

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

Actually in today’s society it seems like some are using it as the first resort. The new ideology equates language with hate and violence. That is why we see people react so aggressively when certain speakers come on. They want to throw things at them, shout, dispute, and block people. That’s because they cannot handle the truth. In a free speech society all views should be heard as this creates the best environment to learn and get different perspectives. But because leftist ideology assumes society as groups of oppressors and victims this creates identity politics which then creates conflicts and divisions.

 

[stevevw]

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

I don't understand what you mean.

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.

I don’t think you really understand what is actually happening. There isn’t any option. There is only 1 option and that is to transitions. The assumption is that any kid that questions their gender is gender dysphoric and the advised treatment to send them down the path of transitioning. That may start with puberty blockers but the research shows that once they start on this path they rarely stop because there are no checks and balances.

It’s all about transitioning once they start. The research shows the child doesn’t even understand what is happening so they cannot make the right decision at that age. Even the American College of Paediatricians agrees with this. This is all because the science has been taken out, well at least the real science. There is this new wave of what can only be called an ideology which people are trying to claim is supported by the science but when you look at it is really pseudoscience and once again even the American College of Paediatricians agrees.

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.’”
Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine - Public Discourse

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.

I agree but at the same time buying into the ideology which is not being promoted by the young people but adults with political and ideological agendas will only confuse and harm kids more , as the experts have said. We have to keep reminding ourselves of what the facts are as this whole thing is based on very flimsy science. I am all for helping kids transition. But we have seen something like a 2000% increase and the research shows it’s not all about being transgender. There are social influences and kids are vulnerable to that. Adults’ pushing their ideologies doesn’t help. It’s become a political battle.

But we know that most kids realign their gender with their biological sex so just automatically assuming the only treatment is transgender conformation and transitioning seems illogical. But anyone who tries to point out that hey maybe there are other ways to look at this and treat these kids and even just wait and see are shot down as transphobic. That’s the political side coming out which doesn’t help.

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.

Yes I agree so we need better and more balanced assessments. I believe allowing stuff like psychotherapy helps as it brings out the inner feelings and self-reflection that is needed to make a good judgement on this. But the activists the ones in powerful positions who can make a noise don’t want this as it’s a threat to their own relevance. Its more than just health and welfare, it’s become a political and religious battle filed.

 

[Speedwell]

The fact is society use to oppose same sex marriage and that seemed to be OK despite some saying it was unfair. Nows its become more secular things have changed. Christian belief has stayed the same. But on what basis does an atheistic secular society claim certain things are good and bad. They do what they claim religion should not do which is push their beliefs onto others.

Like I mentioned they deny Indigeniou people their versio of marriage (polygamy). But under relative morality there is no absolute right or wrong so secular society should not be telling Indigenous, Margaret Court or any Christians or any other cultures that what they do or say is wrong. They have no justification. .

So I guess that someone saying my view that same sex marriage is right so therefore I want to stop people like Margaret Court from succeeding in life and I want to cause them as much pain as possible by wrecking their reputation and stopping them from getting awards, invitations and contracts. Same thing different belief. Like I said what basis do they have for doing this. At least Christians admit that they belief morals are absolute.

Part of the same belief is to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. She is only following the Christian belief. But this is not to dissimilar to some sales people, people pushing life changing ideas, and politicians who preach their ideals. They all have a right in a free speech democracy.

OK but this is no different to many other sporting greats who have received Australia day Honours. In fact I think most are sports people on that list. After all she was the greatest women’s tennis player of all time.

Actually there was. Percentage wise more conservatives voted for same sex marriage than labour.

So doesn’t that seem strange that around 13 years before the same sex marriage vote it was decided that marriage should only be between a man and women. It goes to show how recent that change has come. But even before it was changed I think everyone knew that marriage was between a man and women and that aligned things with the Christian view. So the Christian view is not so alien to people as made out. It seems the majority accepted the definition to be between a man and a women and no one thought it was wrong.

The problem with this reasoning is that equating it as a violent act will then cause those affected to respond with violence. We see a lot of supporters of gender ideology physically attacking and shutting people down.

But the other problem is you are assuming that a right is being denied based on one sides view. It may not be a right to be given. Society is always denying people something and we don't seem to have a problem with that like we do for certain more politically motivated rights. Society denies people/groups like single mums, stay at home mums, dole dependents, cannabis smokers, hunters, and all sorts of weird and whacky groups.

As I mentioned we deny many religions and cultures like Muslims and Indigenous people their right to marry their way or practice other beliefs we find unacceptable. But on what basis, it’s just societies and the government’s view or belief and yet that seems to be OK. Why single out certain groups above others. Saying that certain groups have rights because of x or Y doesn’t cut because X and Y are subjective reasons. There is no basis and yet secular society will stand on absolute moral truth to justify rights while condemning other people who do the same. Seems hypocritical to me.

Actually in today’s society it seems like some are using it as the first resort. The new ideology equates language with hate and violence. That is why we see people react so aggressively when certain speakers come on. They want to throw things at them, shout, dispute, and block people. That’s because they cannot handle the truth. In a free speech society all views should be heard as this creates the best environment to learn and get different perspectives. But because leftist ideology assumes society as groups of oppressors and victims this creates identity politics which then creates conflicts and divisions.

Like I said those polls especially by Get Up with is a leftist organisation and young people who mostly represent todays generation who are pro same sex marriage are going to have some bias and poor sampling. The only true poll was the vote and it showed nearly 40% of people opposed same sex marriage which is no small number.

The fact is society use to oppose same sex marriage and that seemed to be OK despite some saying it was unfair. Nows its become more secular things have changed. Christian belief has stayed the same. But on what basis does an atheistic secular society claim certain things are good and bad. They do what they claim religion should not do which is push their beliefs onto others.

Like I mentioned they deny Indigeniou people their versio of marriage (polygamy). But under relative morality there is no absolute right or wrong so secular society should not be telling Indigenous, Margaret Court or any Christians or any other cultures that what they do or say is wrong. They have no justification. .

So I guess that someone saying my view that same sex marriage is right so therefore I want to stop people like Margaret Court from succeeding in life and I want to cause them as much pain as possible by wrecking their reputation and stopping them from getting awards, invitations and contracts. Same thing different belief. Like I said what basis do they have for doing this. At least Christians admit that they belief morals are absolute.

Part of the same belief is to go out into the world and preach the Gospel. She is only following the Christian belief. But this is not to dissimilar to some sales people, people pushing life changing ideas, and politicians who preach their ideals. They all have a right in a free speech democracy.

OK but this is no different to many other sporting greats who have received Australia day Honours. In fact I think most are sports people on that list. After all she was the greatest women’s tennis player of all time.

Actually there was. Percentage wise more conservatives voted for same sex marriage than labour.

So doesn’t that seem strange that around 13 years before the same sex marriage vote it was decided that marriage should only be between a man and women. It goes to show how recent that change has come. But even before it was changed I think everyone knew that marriage was between a man and women and that aligned things with the Christian view. So the Christian view is not so alien to people as made out. It seems the majority accepted the definition to be between a man and a women and no one thought it was wrong.

The problem with this reasoning is that equating it as a violent act will then cause those affected to respond with violence. We see a lot of supporters of gender ideology physically attacking and shutting people down.

But the other problem is you are assuming that a right is being denied based on one sides view. It may not be a right to be given. Society is always denying people something and we don't seem to have a problem with that like we do for certain more politically motivated rights. Society denies people/groups like single mums, stay at home mums, dole dependents, cannabis smokers, hunters, and all sorts of weird and whacky groups.

As I mentioned we deny many religions and cultures like Muslims and Indigenous people their right to marry their way or practice other beliefs we find unacceptable. But on what basis, it’s just societies and the government’s view or belief and yet that seems to be OK. Why single out certain groups above others. Saying that certain groups have rights because of x or Y doesn’t cut because X and Y are subjective reasons. There is no basis and yet secular society will stand on absolute moral truth to justify rights while condemning other people who do the same. Seems hypocritical to me.

Actually in today’s society it seems like some are using it as the first resort. The new ideology equates language with hate and violence. That is why we see people react so aggressively when certain speakers come on. They want to throw things at them, shout, dispute, and block people. That’s because they cannot handle the truth. In a free speech society all views should be heard as this creates the best environment to learn and get different perspectives. But because leftist ideology assumes society as groups of oppressors and victims this creates identity politics which then creates conflicts and divisions.

Why should "atheist secular" society have to justify its laws to anyone, just because they pretend to have an "absolute morality?"

 

[stevevw]

Why should "atheist secular" society have to justify its laws to anyone, just because they pretend to have an "absolute morality?"

Can you elaborate this from me as I am not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you elaborate this from me as I am not sure I understand what you mean.

You keep going on about how it is hypocritical of "atheist secular societies" to pass laws which don't agree with your version of Christian morality.

 

[stevevw]

You keep going on about how it is hypocritical of "atheist secular societies" to pass laws which don't agree with your version of Christian morality.

I think I get it. I am saying that an atheist secular society claims they are inclusive and take a relative moral position. So when they declare that another culture or religion is wrong in what they do or believe they are being hypocrites because according to their moral position there is no absolute right or wrong.

In other words when that society or the people in it say that Margaret Court is wrong for preaching what she does or that certain groups should have certain rights because its the right thing to do on what basis is this done if there is no right or wrong, good or bad according to their moral position.

In some ways they are borrowing from Christians because at least Christians claim moral absolutes with Gods laws. But an atheist has no basis tomake absolute moral claims. In fact by claiming absolute morality they are acknowledging there mmust be a God. So in that sense depsite critizing someone like Court they are actually agreeing with her that there is absolute morals and a God. At the very least they are doing exactly what Court is being condemned for making absolute claims based on their views and imposing them on others except they have no basis to do so.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why should "atheist secular" society have to justify its laws to anyone, just because they pretend to have an "absolute morality?"

This will be an fools errand.

 

[Speedwell]

I think I get it. I am saying that an atheist secular society claims they are inclusive and take a relative moral position. So when they declare that another culture or religion is wrong in what they do or believe they are being hypocrites because according to their moral position there is no absolute right or wrong.

In other words when that society or the people in it say that Margaret Court is wrong for preaching what she does or that certain groups should have certain rights because its the right thing to do on what basis is this done if there is no right or wrong, good or bad according to their moral position.

Margaret Court is wrong for telling lies about LGBT.

In some ways they are borrowing from Christians because at least Christians claim moral absolutes with Gods laws. But an atheist has no basis tomake absolute moral claims. In fact by claiming absolute morality they are acknowledging there mmust be a God. So in that sense depsite critizing someone like Court they are actually agreeing with her that there is absolute morals and a God.

The claim is not "my morality is absolute" but "my morality improves the human condition more than yours." Which in the case of Christianity is not a hard call to make.

 

[SilverBear]

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

a quote from your hero Court

Which is the fake research.

the research I've called out about four times now about transgender youth and how they "outgrow" it

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.

you mean the research I've referenced and you ignored?

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.

except children are not rendered permanently surgical or can even have surgical interventions. Your claims of these things is not based in reality.
The Medical Integrity Guidelines, the medical procedure and ethics guide that all hospitals =sign on to and all surgeons agree states clearly that children don't begin transition. Period. To start what you are talking about an individual has to reach age of majority, eighteen years plus one. THEN they have to undergo psychiatric counseling for a minimum of two years and if they want to continue they then need to love as a member of the opposite sex for up to two additional years. meaning the earliest age a individual can begin transitioning would be 23 years.

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.

but they aren't being pushed, that is propaganda.

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.

This isn't the American Academy of Pediatrics. the ACP a recognized hate group with a best estimate of members of about 50 and only a fraction of those individuals are doctors.

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

and here is what the author of the study has to say on the subject:

"...Researchers are happy when their findings are recognized and have an impact. However, once your study is published, you lose control of how the results are used. The paper by me and co-workers named “Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden.“ have had an impact both in the scientific world and outside this community. The findings have been used to argue that gender-affirming treatment should be stopped since it could be dangerous (Levine, 2016). However, the results have also been used to show the vulnerability of transgender people and that better transgender health care is needed (Arcelus & Bouman, 2015; Zeluf et al., 2016)
I’ve even seen professors use my work to support ridiculous claims. I’ve often had to respond myself by commenting on articles, speaking with journalists, and talking about this problem at conferences.
The aim of trans medical interventions is to bring a trans person’s body more in line with their gender identity, resulting in the measurable diminishment of their gender dysphoria. However trans people as a group also experience significant social oppression in the form of bullying, abuse, rape and hate crimes. Medical transition alone won’t resolve the effects of crushing social oppression: social anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress.
What we’ve found is that treatment models which ignore the effect of cultural oppression and outright hate aren’t enough. We need to understand that our treatment models must be responsive to not only gender dysphoria, but the effects of anti-trans hate as well. That’s what improved care means." Cecilia DheJne address to the AMA June 2017

 

[stevevw]

Margaret Court is wrong for telling lies about LGBT.

But who says she is wrong. Isnt saying she is wrong a hypocritical position for secular society to take considering they are suppose to be all inclusive of different cultures and religions. Claiming she is wrong is also claiming an absolute truth of right and wrong.

The claim is not "my morality is absolute" but "my morality improves the human condition more than yours." Which in the case of Christianity is not a hard call to make.

But that is an arbitrary call in itself. What does improve human condition even mean. To you it means one thing and to others it means another. Even many in secular society disagree that a lot of the calls secular society make don't improve the human condition and in fact make it worse. How do we trust that call when there is no objective measure. For all we know Court may be right in the long run, just saying.

 

[Speedwell]

But who says she is wrong. Isnt saying she is wrong a hypocritical position for secular society to take considering they are suppose to be all inclusive of different cultures and religions. Claiming she is wrong is also claiming an absolute truth of right and wrong.

Yeah, there is a standard of truth--it's called comporting with the facts, and some of Court's comments did not comport with the facts.

But that is an arbitrary call in itself. What does improve human condition even mean. To you it means one thing and to others it means another. Even many in secular society disagree that a lot of the calls secular society make don't improve the human condition and in fact make it worse. How do we trust that call when there is no objective measure. For all we know Court may be right in the long run, just saying.

no more arbitrary than your morality.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, there is a standard of truth--it's called comporting with the facts, and some of Court's comments did not comport with the facts.

The problem with this is that morality doesnt equate to facts. They are based on metaphysical presuppositions. So you can't determine them 'wrong by facts. Besides lets say you can, on whose facts are you basing things on. Its still a subjective determination. What one person views as a basis for facts which may be based on one worldview or cultural view another person or group may have a different factual base which is just as relevant.

We can't trust secular society for the facts because they have a very poor track record of getting things wrong. Thinking they are right and then later being found out to be wrong even when claiming facts. Because people can twist things and lie and have biases. Truth can be corrupted.

no more arbitrary than your morality.

Yes so therefore there is no absolute truth where one culture or group be it religious or secular can claim. The moment you say Court is wrong is the moment you claim absolute truth which is impossible considering humans cannot be capable of knowing this and the poor track record we have at thinking we are right only to find we are wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

The problem with this is that morality doesnt equate to facts. They are based on metaphysical presuppositions. So you can't determine them 'wrong by facts. Besides lets say you can, on whose facts are you basing things on. Its still a subjective determination. What one person views as a basis for facts which may be based on one worldview or cultural view another person or group may have a different factual base which is just as relevant.

We can't trust secular society for the facts because they have a very poor track record of getting things wrong. Thinking they are right and then later being found out to be wrong even when claiming facts. Because people can twist things and lie and have biases. Truth can be corrupted.

Yes so therefore there is no absolute truth where one culture or group be it religious or secular can claim. The moment you say Court is wrong is the moment you claim absolute truth which is impossible considering humans cannot be capable of knowing this and the poor track record we have at thinking we are right only to find we are wrong.

So none of us can say anybody is wrong because none of us have absolute truth? When Court announces that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice and that homosexuals have predatory designs on our children we have to agree to it because we don't possess absolute truth? In that case, I ought to be able to call her a degenerate sexual pervert for those statements and you wouldn't have grounds to complain because you don't possess absolute truth, either.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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

Yes. The customs of the temple, primarily.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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

There are nearly 600 posts here. Please go back to find the first one in which this was specifically answered, in context. I don't have time to reiterate.

 

[SilverBear]

There are nearly 600 posts here. Please go back to find the first one in which this was specifically answered, in context. I don't have time to reiterate.

you have time to type all that but no time to type either 'yes' or 'no'???

 

[Kylie]

Yes. The customs of the temple, primarily.

Does Leviticus 11:7 still apply to Christians? That's the passage that forbids the eating of pork. It's not about worship or the customs of the temple, so it's not ceremonial. Thus, your argument would indicate that it still applies.

 

[stevevw]

So none of us can say anybody is wrong because none of us have absolute truth? When Court announces that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice and that homosexuals have predatory designs on our children we have to agree to it because we don't possess absolute truth? In that case, I ought to be able to call her a degenerate sexual pervert for those statements and you wouldn't have grounds to complain because you don't possess absolute truth, either.

Yes no one can really claim absolute truth on morality. So in reality under a secular atheist society that promotes relative/subjective morality you can only say it my view that x is wrong or x culture is wrong and I understand that other people and cultures may have a different and opposing view and in the overall scheme of things they have as much right to their view as I do and no one can really claim a moral truth.

So when a dominant culture imposes their view on other cultures or even indigenios people which has happened in most western nations they are really being dictators and forcing people to follow their version of what is right and wrong which is hypocritical to relative/subjective morality.

Therefore so long as the views expressed don't incite violence then free speech and freedom of religion allows people to express their views. You can go on a number to sites and see people calling Christians all sorts of names. But not just Christians anyone especially sites like Twitter which are instant messaging.

But under identity politics and PC people will call anyone who disagrees with transgender ideology evil and demented by oppression a minority group. But thats free speech and in ordwer to find the truth or something you have to risk offending people. I mean some of the more well know speakers on this subject have been called all sorts of things and even threatened and attacked and that all seems ok with the left.

But there is a big difference between you calling Court those names and Court expressing her religious beliefs as well. Court has a right under the 1st Amendment and the UN Human rights with religious freedom. As far as I understand Court is not expressing her personal opinion and having a go at anyone personally but just expressing her belief though it may be more radical.

I disagree that Court is saying that homosexuals are predators in the sense of sexually preying on kids. Rather she is expressing a general view that satan works through people to cause others to sin and young people are more easily led into sin.

Her view is in line with the non-religious mainstream view that transgender ideology is being pushed on young people because transgender affirmation is now the default treatment approach for any child with gender dysphoria even if the child or adolescent cannot fully understand what is happening. They are teaching it in schools despite there being no conclusive evidence it is the best approach.

 

[stevevw]

a quote from your hero Court

I am not defending Margaret Courts views, I am defending her right to express her views even though people may disagree with them. She has a legal right to express her beliefs.

Here’s another point. Who says that you are right and Margaret Court is wrong. When it comes to abuse how do we know that the current gender affirming treatment is not abuse and Court is right in trying to point that out even though she is more radical in doing so. It is only your opinion against Courts. We know from experience that secular society thought things like taking Indigenous kids from their parents was a good thing only to find out that is was child abuse. Court is not the only one saying that transgender ideology can lead to abuse of children as I have pointed out from the science.

the research I've called out about four times now about transgender youth and how they "outgrow" it

Then how come so many good and reputable sources say the same thing. I have posted several and yet you want to say they are all fake. Look here is one even from the American Academy of Paediatrics. Surely you cannot dispute that.

• For the majority of pre-pubertal children, Gender Dysphoria (GD) does not “persist” into adolescence
In a minority (15%)*, GD does “persist”
https://www.aap.org/en-us/documents/solgbt_webinar_transition_garofalo.pdf

you mean the research I've referenced and you ignored?

OK I just went through your posts in case I missed it and I cannot see any research you posted. Can you repost it so I can check it out?

except children are not rendered permanently surgical or can even have surgical interventions. Your claims of these things is not based in reality.

I never said child will have surgery. I said they will have “medical procedures” which include puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. But my point still stands that this is still pushing kids into having medical treatment that is known to have risks and that is a form of child abuse.

At the very least the risks are unknown so that in itself should cause doctors to not refer kids to this treatment. Yet some clinics are pushing these medical treatments despite the health risks. Even the NHS, Britain’s National Health Service and the Royal College of General Practitioners have acknowledge the misleading information being pushed by some clinics and that there are risks.

For example most clinics are claiming that puberty blockers are reversible and don’t have any side effects. The facts are it is not reversible and at the very least the risks are unknown. But tests have shown on animals that stopping puberty at a crucial time when young brains are also developing can also alter brain development. So it’s a pretty big risk and yet people are still pushing transitioning affirming treatments.

The NHS no longer says that puberty blockers are ‘reversible.
“Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones.
The Tavistock GIDS is saying that the effects of blockers are physically reversible yet the NHS is now saying that this is not known.
Would parents say yes to puberty blockers if they knew that trials on sheep suggest that blockers impair brain development in significant areas, which is not reversed if blockers are discontinued? We know there is a window of development in puberty which, if missed, cannot be regained at a later stage.

GONE is the claim that biological sex is “assigned at birth”.
position statement issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners last year:

RCGP Position statement:
“There is a significant lack of robust, comprehensive evidence around the outcomes, side effects and unintended consequences of such treatments for people with gender dysphoria, particularly children and young people, which prevents GPs from helping patients and their families in making an informed decision.”

“The promotion and funding of independent research into the effects of various forms of interventions (including ‘wait and see’ policies) for gender dysphoria is urgently needed, to ensure there is a robust evidence base which GPs and other healthcare professionals can rely upon when advising patients and their families. There are currently significant gaps in evidence for nearly all aspects of clinical management of gender dysphoria in youth. Urgent investment in research on the impacts of treatments for children and young people is needed.”

The updates the NHS has made to the gender dysphoria pages are significant and the changes are welcome. However, out-of-date information is still available on the page parents of young children will look to for information, and on the page that teenagers may read. Information has been updated because the old information was misleading in critical areas, so these two pages need an urgent review to reflect current thinking and to be consistent with the new section.
Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

So it looks like some are changing the language which is more in line with reality. Instead of pushing this ideology and making out that just about every child who may experiment with the opposite sex is a potential transgender they admit that this is a normal part of growing up and most kids grow out of it to identify with the birth sex.

The Medical Integrity Guidelines, the medical procedure and ethics guide that all hospitals =sign on to and all surgeons agree states clearly that children don't begin transition. Period. To start what you are talking about an individual has to reach age of majority, eighteen years plus one. THEN they have to undergo psychiatric counseling for a minimum of two years and if they want to continue they then need to love as a member of the opposite sex for up to two additional years. meaning the earliest age a individual can begin transitioning would be 23 years.

Like I said I didn’t say children were able to have surgical procedures. But anyway the research shows that more and younger people are having surgery. According to the latest information law changes allow adolescents can consent for themselves to have surgery and even go against their parents.

but they aren't being pushed, that is propaganda.

Then why are there so many reports that they are from reputable sources. The fact as mentioned above that the NHS and the Royal College of General Practitioners have stepped in and stated that there is widespread promotion of gender affirming treatments despite the risks and despite little scientific evidence shows that a false ideology is being promoted. Other evidence states the same thing.

LACK OF GATEKEEPING: MINORS ARE BEING MEDICALLY TRANSITIONED WITHOUT ANY MEANINGFUL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Gender dysphoric minors are being medically transitioned with little or no therapy
GENDER DYSPHORIC MINORS ARE BEING MEDICALLY TRANSITIONED WITH LITTLE OR NO THERAPY — Gender Health Query
The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology
There have been no long term trials conducted on the use of puberty-blockers in childhood. One trial was conducted on 50 children prescribed triptorelin but the full results of the trial were never fully published, leading one writer to suggest that the trial was ‘a pretext to administer unlicensed drugs rather than an attempt to gain scientific knowledge.’91
https://civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf

The Endocrine Society, a professional medical organization based in Washington, DC, recently stipulated that children under sixteen years old can safely begin hormone treatment therapy; even though its own research indicates that there are insufficient data to support its recommendations.
Casualties of a Social, Psychological, and Medical Fad: The Dangers of Transgender Ideology in Medicine - Public Discourse

[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.
"There is huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing," says Dr Chris Hyde, director of Arif.
Weekend feature: sex change operations

This isn't the American Academy of Pediatrics. the ACP a recognized hate group with a best estimate of members of about 50 and only a fraction of those individuals are doctors.

To say it’s a hate group is a logical fallacy. It’s saying that the experts Paediatrist have nothing to say on the subject and that whatever they say is not valid because of association. They are experts in the field so they would know what they are talking about. The other point is what they have said has been verified by other reputable organisations like the NHS and the Royal College of General Practitioners.[/quote]

 

[Speedwell]

But there is a big difference between you calling Court those names and Court expressing her religious beliefs as well.

How do you know that those are not my religious beliefs?

Court has a right under the 1st Amendment...

Is Court a US citizen?

and the UN Human rights with religious freedom. As far as I understand Court is not expressing her personal opinion and having a go at anyone personally but just expressing her belief though it may be more radical.

In other words. she gets a pass on her false, hateful statements because she's a Christian.

I disagree that Court is saying that homosexuals are predators in the sense of sexually preying on kids. Rather she is expressing a general view that satan works through people to cause others to sin and young people are more easily led into sin.

Which is just as false and just as nasty.

Her view is in line with the non-religious mainstream view that transgender ideology is being pushed on young people because transgender affirmation is now the default treatment approach for any child with gender dysphoria even if the child or adolescent cannot fully understand what is happening. They are teaching it in schools despite there being no conclusive evidence it is the best approach.

I thought we were discussing Court's views on homosexuality and how she expresses them.