Transgenderism Is A Real Threat To Christians

[NBB]

Balanced against the hundreds of years of aggressive activism by Christians against such folks. Seems fine.

No it wasn't. It's about gay people wanting to be gay without being told they are abominations or worse.

Yep, because that is what has happened throughout history. It's why Christianity is so successful. It adapts to the culture around it.

Here's the thing. Non-Christians are not engaging in a 'war' against Christians. For the non-Christian God is simply not a consideration. Certainly not a windmill to be quixotically tilted against. No one sits about thinking "If I love so and so that'll really stick it to God".

You may. But you would be wrong. Again, for the majority of people on the planet the tenants of Christianity are irrelevant; further the vast majority of people do not know what those tenants are. So it's hardly a planned assault in a religion but people not of that particular religion.


And this is exactly where we are in society. Your religion tells you to do xyz. You know the consequence. So you need to weigh up whether you religion is worth being sanctioned by society or not. Griping that that things aren't so easy for Christians any more isn't very meaningful.

So several hundreds in the however many Christians there are in the world? So you have more chance of being shot to death in a school in America than being a Christian being sanctioned for breaking the social contract we all agree to abide by if we want to part of society?

Not impressed with your woes.

Its not just transgender stuff and religious freedom, it seems they are banning criticizing vaccines in France.
You really don-t want a government that doesn-t let people speak.

 

[NBB]

Like I said, what did Jesus Christ of Nazareth do with sinners.

He said they should repent, and repent of what? sin..... and which sin? the bible tells, but in today society you can loose your job for saying something is sin.

 

[gaara4158]

Its not just transgender stuff and religious freedom, it seems they are banning criticizing vaccines in France.
You really don-t want a government that doesn-t let people speak.

I’m willing to bet the sensational headlines reporting these instances are missing important context. It’s not a simple “you’re not allowed to say these things because the mustache-twirling elites don’t want any opposition to their authority.” It’s probably more like “People are being penalized for sharing dangerous misinformation that influences individual health decisions on a scale that impacts public health as a whole.”

 

[NBB]

I’m willing to bet the sensational headlines reporting these instances are missing important context. It’s not a simple “you’re not allowed to say these things because the mustache-twirling elites don’t want any opposition to their authority.” It’s probably more like “People are being penalized for sharing dangerous misinformation that influences individual health decisions on a scale that impacts public health as a whole.”

I-m not a conspiracy theorist, but people do are getting punished in some ways just by having different opinions.

 

[Larniavc]

"Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that."
Deuteronomy 22:5

Have Deuteronic laws not been set aside?

 

[Larniavc]

Its not just transgender stuff and religious freedom, it seems they are banning criticizing vaccines in France.
You really don-t want a government that doesn-t let people speak.

What does that have to do with Transgenerismisticals winning the war against Christianity?

 

[Landon Caeli]

What does that have to do with Transgenerismisticals winning the war against Christianity?

Where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in it's doctrines, does it state that transgenderism is a sin?

...Is this really a battle between Transgeners and Christianity? Or is it a battle between traditionalism and modernism?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think our ideologies are quite as idiosyncratically incompatible as you’re suggesting. Class interests unite far more of us than the political and donor classes would have you believe. That’s what my original post alludes to. Sure, we may be truly split on these wedge issues, but it is a concerted effort by those in power to keep those issues at the forefront of the discourse.

Sure, I recognize there is an amount of conceptual overlay between us and that the concert of politics keeps playing beyond what we all believe we've paid a ticket for.

 

[Whyayeman]

For Christians here that think the whole self-gender identifying trend is foolish but trivial, it's time to wake up and see what's happening. It took 20-30 years of aggressive activism for the gay community to successfully and significantly change America's culture. The transgender advocates are making progress much faster. In both cases, the Christian implications are the same, involving a much more profound development than just sexual freedom.

Well, what is happening? Certainly attitudes are changing on gender issues. About time!

I agree that it is about more than sexual freedom (which I approve of, of course, living in a free country). It is about people's happiness, and about the charity of others to grant them an opportunity to be happy. Transgender people do not do others any harm by their identification. The problem comes from the resentments of the portion of the population who find it difficult to tolerate the presence of people who identify this way.

Perhaps transgender people should just keep quiet about it.

 

[DJWhalen]

Yes, back to before 1954.

I grow up in a small school, it was about 1982.

 

[gaara4158]

I-m not a conspiracy theorist, but people do are getting punished in some ways just by having different opinions.

I think “punished” and “having different opinions” are being used very loosely here.

 

[Whyayeman]

I-m not a conspiracy theorist, but people do are getting punished in some ways just by having different opinions.

More accurately, expressing certain opinions, I think. The 'punishments' are mainly getting sacked, I think. I doubt if many employers get rid of valuable employees just for what they say on one occasion.

However if one employee makes the workplace miserable for his or her workmates it is reasonable to fire the trouble-maker. I would certainly consider letting a troublemaker go - in the interests of my other workers. Any employer would.

 

[Landon Caeli]

More accurately, expressing certain opinions, I think. The 'punishments' are mainly getting sacked, I think. I doubt if many employers get rid of valuable employees just for what they say on one occasion.

However if one employee makes the workplace miserable for his or her workmates it is reasonable to fire the trouble-maker. I would certainly consider letting a troublemaker go - in the interests of my other workers. Any employer would.

I have no problem with employers hiring and firing in the best interest of the company. But that's not the full extent of the problem, when we see politicians engineering new social laws. For instance, should a Christian parent lose custody of their child for misgenderimg them with the wrong pronoun?

Couple appeals to Supreme Court after child is removed from home over gender identity squabble

A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

nypost.com

"in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a “gender-affirming” home."

 

[Larniavc]

Is this really a battle between Transgeners and Christianity?

Only in the eyes of Christians with nothing better to do with their time than be angry about other people they don't know.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have no problem with employers hiring and firing in the best interest of the company. But that's not the full extent of the problem, when we see politicians engineering new social laws. For instance, should a Christian parent lose custody of their child for misgenderimg them with the wrong pronoun?

Couple appeals to Supreme Court after child is removed from home over gender identity squabble

A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

nypost.com

"in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a “gender-affirming” home."

It's more complicated than that. Shame on NyPost for sensationalizing the case.

First, she was removed, initially because of abuse allegations: MSN

The initial allegations of abuse leading to the removal of their child A.C. were dismissed as unsubstantiated after an investigation by Indiana officials, but the courts still upheld the removal based on A.C.’s mental health concerns.​

{My Emphasis}

Second, to elaborate on the mental health concerns, she had an eating disorder than the state adjudged wasn't be adequately dealt with (along with other things): MSN

​

"Rather, petitioners' child was removed because the child had a severe eating disorder that petitioners had not been able to effectively address for two years, that jeopardized the child's brain and bone health," the attorney general's office argued in a brief filed earlier this month.​

​

​

The brief also reiterated a Madison County judge's ruling that A.C.'s eating disorder was partly caused by "self-isolation" from her parents that was "likely to reoccur" if she's returned home. The state is also saying the case is moot because A.C. is now an adult.​

​

I don't know who's right or wrong. But, I know this: It ain't about pronouns.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It's more complicated than that. Shame on NyPost for sensationalizing the case.

First, she was removed, initially because of abuse allegations: MSN

The initial allegations of abuse leading to the removal of their child A.C. were dismissed as unsubstantiated after an investigation by Indiana officials, but the courts still upheld the removal based on A.C.’s mental health concerns.​

{My Emphasis}

Second, to elaborate on the mental health concerns, she had an eating disorder than the state adjudged wasn't be adequately dealt with (along with other things): MSN

​

"Rather, petitioners' child was removed because the child had a severe eating disorder that petitioners had not been able to effectively address for two years, that jeopardized the child's brain and bone health," the attorney general's office argued in a brief filed earlier this month.​

​

​

The brief also reiterated a Madison County judge's ruling that A.C.'s eating disorder was partly caused by "self-isolation" from her parents that was "likely to reoccur" if she's returned home. The state is also saying the case is moot because A.C. is now an adult.​

​

I don't know who's right or wrong. But, I know this: It ain't about pronouns.

Well, that's quite a relief, that the child's removal wasn't based solely in pronoun use then. Thank you for the correction.

 

[RileyG]

Quite frankly, I think of transgenderism as a slap in the face to God. Enough is enough. Men are men. Women are women. Our species is binary.

 

[Larniavc]

I have no problem with employers hiring and firing in the best interest of the company. But that's not the full extent of the problem, when we see politicians engineering new social laws. For instance, should a Christian parent lose custody of their child for misgenderimg them with the wrong pronoun?

Couple appeals to Supreme Court after child is removed from home over gender identity squabble

A Catholic couple in Indiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold the state accountable for keeping their child out of their home after they declined to use his chosen name and pronouns.

nypost.com

"in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a “gender-affirming” home."

Here's some additional details from M.C. v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs. (In re A.C.), No. 22A-JC-49 | Casetext Search + Citator

[¶4] The FCM prepared a preliminary inquiry report (PIR), which indicated the following: Mother and Child both stated that Child had been suffering from an eating disorder for the past year but had yet to be evaluated by a medical professional; the Parents had withdrawn Child from school, and DCS was unaware of the family's intent to enroll Child in a new school for the upcoming school year; Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it; Child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe in the home; Mother said things such as "[Child's preferred name] is the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that killed my son"; and Child "would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if [Child] were to return to the family home due to mental and emotional abuse." Id. at 14-15. The PIR also indicated that Mother stated that the family was planning to work with a doctor at a clinic for eating disorders, but Mother refused to sign any consents so that DCS could verify any medical concerns or past therapy services. Id. at 14.

[¶5] On May 28, 2021, DCS filed a proposed CHINS petition in the trial court, alleging that Child was a CHINS on two bases: Child's physical or mental condition was seriously impaired or seriously endangered due to the Parents' neglect pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-34-1-1 (CHINS-1) and/or Child's physical or mental health was seriously endangered due to injury by the Parents' acts or omissions pursuant to Section 31-34-1-2 (CHINS-2). Id. at 23.

[¶6] On June 2, 2021, the trial court held a combined initial and detention hearing, at which it found that there was probable cause to believe that Child was a CHINS and that Child's detainment was necessary to safeguard Child's health. At the close of the hearing, the trial court cautioned the Parents to avoid discussing Child's transgender identity during visitation. Following the hearing, the court issued the Initial/Detention Order finding that it was in Child's best interest to be removed from the home due to the Parents' "inability, refusal or neglect to provide shelter, care, and/or supervision at the present time." Id. at 29. The Initial/Detention Order also ordered that Child keep the current appointments to address Child's eating disorder and for a psychological evaluation and that the Parents "have unsupervised visitation so long as certain topics are not addressed." Id.

[¶7] On October 26, 2021, DCS filed a motion for leave to amend the CHINS petition to add an allegation that Child was substantially endangering Child's own health and that Child was a CHINS pursuant to the CHINS-6 statute. The motion indicates that the amendment was appropriate because Child's eating disorder was worsening, Child had lost "a significant amount of weight," Child was throwing away and hiding food and neglecting to eat full meals, and Child did not believe that Child had an eating disorder, had lost weight, or needed treatment. Id. at 40. The Parents did not object to the amendment. The trial court granted the motion.

So it seems clear that the emotional and physical wellbeing was being put before before the parent's idiosyncratic views which is entirely appropriate and in no way violates their constitutional rights.

[¶2] We conclude that the Parents' appeal of the Initial/Detention Order is moot and decline to address it. As for the Dispositional Order, we conclude that it is not clearly erroneous and that it does not violate the Parents' constitutional rights. Accordingly, we affirm.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Quite frankly, I think of transgenderism as a slap in the face to God. Enough is enough. Men are men. Women are women. Our species is binary.

So you're not transgendered then I take it. Neither am I. I'm way too tall, at 6'2".

 

[RileyG]

So you're not transgendered then I take it. Neither am I. I'm way too tall, at 6'2".

Correct. What’s your point?