Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Here's an interesting new topic

bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 6:11:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.

A transvestite doesn't obey the commandments of God any better than the rest of God's people. God's people who are religious worship false idols and gods so they are disobeying the commandments, also. So when a religious sinner judges another sinner, the religious sinner is disobeying the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor". That's because our Creator is the ONLY JUDGE that exists.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 6:18:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Think about it like this:
Let's say two unmarried people who are in their twenties, a man and a woman, are dating. One day they take things too far and the woman gets pregnant.
Now, the act that caused the pregnancy was sinful, but the pregnancy itself isn't, nor is the existence of the child.
In this way, something may be sinful but all the results of it may not necessarily be.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 6:43:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 6:18:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
Think about it like this:
Let's say two unmarried people who are in their twenties, a man and a woman, are dating. One day they take things too far and the woman gets pregnant.
Now, the act that caused the pregnancy was sinful, but the pregnancy itself isn't, nor is the existence of the child.
In this way, something may be sinful but all the results of it may not necessarily be.

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your gournd, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on accound of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land wich you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

ALL the flesh in this age will perish because it was the reason man was deceived by it. They thought their flesh was real when we saints know that it's only illusions formed from our created existence within the mind of our Creator. Life is but a dream of our Creator's.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:33:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ha! I'm crashing this thread but I'm perfectly willing to argue from the standpoint of someone who believes homosexuality is immoral.

Are you claiming that science could one day make a female body into a male body capable of producing sperm? Or that science could one day make a male body into a female body capable of producing eggs, being pregnant, and giving birth to a child? Or is this the hypothetical scenario you are talking about?
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 2:11:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 5:33:49 AM, rockwater wrote:
Ha! I'm crashing this thread but I'm perfectly willing to argue from the standpoint of someone who believes homosexuality is immoral.

Are you claiming that science could one day make a female body into a male body capable of producing sperm? Or that science could one day make a male body into a female body capable of producing eggs, being pregnant, and giving birth to a child? Or is this the hypothetical scenario you are talking about?

Yes, that is the scenario that I am referring to. This whole scenario is hypothetical. I do not know whether science will ever achieve this. However, in the 1950s (which were technologically primitive times compared to today) the first "sex change" operation was performed. So, I think that with today's technology, millions of dollars, and with the participation of the brightest minds, such a thing could be done.
Hopefully not, but it probably will happen one day, if it hasn't already.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 3:18:03 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I have scientific proof gay marriage is immoral. http://www.thisdaylive.com.... Take that heathens.

I'm against it as much as the next conservative, but that article did a really bad job.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:41:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
FYI, in Iran (where you have a Shi'ite Islam theocracy that isn't always exactly fundamentalist as Westerners would expect), sex changes are allowed and if, for example, a man has sexual reassignment surgery and becomes a woman legally, she can then marry a man. It is considered a heterosexual marriage then. Homosexual sex, though, is punishable by death.

All of this does not address the fact that being transgendered has nothing to do with having homosexual attractions. If a person is transgender (which does not necessarily mean that that person wants sexual reassignment surgery) and wants SRS, that person could be attracted to men, women, or both. Their attractions have nothing to do with their gender dysphoria: the inescapable (and probably innate) feeling that their body is different from their gender. Even if a person with a biologically male body is attracted to women, that person could be living in a psychological hell because of gender dysphoria and want SRS. Such a person would identify, even before SRS, as a homosexual woman.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 2:25:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
People have posted good posts here, but I feel my question hasn't been answered. So, I will provide a more precise scenario:

The year is 2017. Tony undergoes an experimental procedure at MIT and he becomes biologically female in every way. Her name is now Tawnia.
As Tawnia, she meets Bobby on a dating website. Soon enough they meet in person and get married after dating for about three years.
From a Biblical perspective, was it a sin for Tony/Tawnia to marry Bobby? If so, why? If not, why not?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 2:47:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but I'll share some thoughts anyway.

This whole scenario raises the question of what it means to be male or female. Is it just the genetalia? Or is it the whole reproductive system? Or is it the DNA? Or is it something immaterial altogether? If immaterial, is it the mind (i.e. whether a person sees themselves as male or female, regardless of their physicality), or do souls come in gender?

If it's purely physical, then if somebody changes everything about them (including their chromosomes) to make them change gender, then I see no reason to think a person who had a sex change of that sort would be sinning if they then had a relationship with somebody whose gender was the opposite of their new gender.

If it's the mind, then it's ALREADY not a sin to have sex with a member of the same physical make-up, even before any surgery takes place. If I have a male body but consider myself female, then I'm female, so it wouldn't be a sin for me to have sex with another person who is male.

If it's the soul, then there's nothing you could do to your physical body to cause you to change gender. In that case, it doesn't matter whether you have a complete sex change operation or not. In fact, if a female soul is born in a male body, then it would not be a sin for that person to have sex with a male (who had both a male bod and a male soul). To an outsider, it would look like homosexuality, but it wouldn't be if souls actually come in gender and if it's possible for a female soul to be born into a male body.

I don't know whether souls come in gender or not, but I suspect they do. I also suspect that it's impossible for a male soul to be born into a female body. So my inclination is to think that if it were possible to completely change the gender of a physical body, chromosomes and all, then it would still be a sin to have sex with a member of the opposite physical gender, i.e. the physical gender your body used to be a member of.

But I'm speculating of course. If this technology ever happens, it'll certainly raise ethical issues for Christians.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 3:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 2:47:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but I'll share some thoughts anyway.

This whole scenario raises the question of what it means to be male or female. Is it just the genetalia? Or is it the whole reproductive system? Or is it the DNA? Or is it something immaterial altogether? If immaterial, is it the mind (i.e. whether a person sees themselves as male or female, regardless of their physicality), or do souls come in gender?

If it's purely physical, then if somebody changes everything about them (including their chromosomes) to make them change gender, then I see no reason to think a person who had a sex change of that sort would be sinning if they then had a relationship with somebody whose gender was the opposite of their new gender.

If it's the mind, then it's ALREADY not a sin to have sex with a member of the same physical make-up, even before any surgery takes place. If I have a male body but consider myself female, then I'm female, so it wouldn't be a sin for me to have sex with another person who is male.

If it's the soul, then there's nothing you could do to your physical body to cause you to change gender. In that case, it doesn't matter whether you have a complete sex change operation or not. In fact, if a female soul is born in a male body, then it would not be a sin for that person to have sex with a male (who had both a male bod and a male soul). To an outsider, it would look like homosexuality, but it wouldn't be if souls actually come in gender and if it's possible for a female soul to be born into a male body.

I don't know whether souls come in gender or not, but I suspect they do. I also suspect that it's impossible for a male soul to be born into a female body. So my inclination is to think that if it were possible to completely change the gender of a physical body, chromosomes and all, then it would still be a sin to have sex with a member of the opposite physical gender, i.e. the physical gender your body used to be a member of.

But I'm speculating of course. If this technology ever happens, it'll certainly raise ethical issues for Christians.

I would think the whole thing resides in the DNA, xx's or xy's.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:05:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I suppose that in my scenario, Tony/Tawnia being involved with anybody from that point on would be a sin.
Think about it this way: if she dated and then married a guy, well, she used to be a guy, and for the first 20 years of her life she was a guy, so it would be gay in a way.
If she dated a woman, well, her currently biology would make such a relationship also gay. So if you get one of those operations, I suppose the right thing to do would be to stay single and keep your new body pure.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 3:14:02 PM, annanicole wrote:

I would think the whole thing resides in the DNA, xx's or xy's.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is when the Y chromsome is not expressed so a person can be born intersex (with physical traits that aren't strictly male or female) or, with extreme androgen insensitivity syndrome, a person can be born who is essentially female in appearance (usually infertile though) but is XY. So sex and gender are not clean cut even on a genetic level.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 8:51:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 8:42:13 PM, rockwater wrote:
At 2/6/2014 3:14:02 PM, annanicole wrote:

I would think the whole thing resides in the DNA, xx's or xy's.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is when the Y chromsome is not expressed so a person can be born intersex (with physical traits that aren't strictly male or female) or, with extreme androgen insensitivity syndrome, a person can be born who is essentially female in appearance (usually infertile though) but is XY. So sex and gender are not clean cut even on a genetic level.

To which physical traits to you refer?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:18:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 2:47:12 PM, philochristos wrote:
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but I'll share some thoughts anyway.

This whole scenario raises the question of what it means to be male or female. Is it just the genetalia? Or is it the whole reproductive system? Or is it the DNA? Or is it something immaterial altogether? If immaterial, is it the mind (i.e. whether a person sees themselves as male or female, regardless of their physicality), or do souls come in gender?

If it's purely physical, then if somebody changes everything about them (including their chromosomes) to make them change gender, then I see no reason to think a person who had a sex change of that sort would be sinning if they then had a relationship with somebody whose gender was the opposite of their new gender.

If it's the mind, then it's ALREADY not a sin to have sex with a member of the same physical make-up, even before any surgery takes place. If I have a male body but consider myself female, then I'm female, so it wouldn't be a sin for me to have sex with another person who is male.

If it's the soul, then there's nothing you could do to your physical body to cause you to change gender. In that case, it doesn't matter whether you have a complete sex change operation or not. In fact, if a female soul is born in a male body, then it would not be a sin for that person to have sex with a male (who had both a male bod and a male soul). To an outsider, it would look like homosexuality, but it wouldn't be if souls actually come in gender and if it's possible for a female soul to be born into a male body.

I don't know whether souls come in gender or not, but I suspect they do. I also suspect that it's impossible for a male soul to be born into a female body. So my inclination is to think that if it were possible to completely change the gender of a physical body, chromosomes and all, then it would still be a sin to have sex with a member of the opposite physical gender, i.e. the physical gender your body used to be a member of.

But I'm speculating of course. If this technology ever happens, it'll certainly raise ethical issues for Christians.

What I believe is that whatever biological gender you are born as...that's the gender of your soul. And it will always be the gender of your soul, even if you change the gender of your body. After all, no bodily operation can affect your soul.
There is no reason for God to give somebody a soul with a gender that is in contrast to their original biology. That just doesn't make sense. And "gender dysphoria" is more like "gender confusion" and those who cannot deal with it should attend therapy sessions.

However, most of how we act is affected by our environment and our biology. If you're biologically a dude, you'll most likely act like a dude because you've got the chemicals and instincts of a dude. If you get an operation and become a girl, your new biology will cause you to probably act like a girl, but in spirit you'll still be a dude, as you will find out when you die.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's just say that if we didn't have chromosome tests, people born with an extreme type of androgen insensitivity syndrome would probably live their entire lives as women with no one having any reason to question it. So the traits I am talking about are genitalia and, after puberty, secondary sexual characteristics like body and facial hair, vocal pitch, breasts, etc. I am not sure about menstruation but there might not be a hard rule about this because there are many different degrees of androgen insensitivity syndrome. But if someone has a body that appears completely female on the outside from birth and if that same person identifies as female, does it really matter if the person menstruates and is fertile?
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even with talk therapy and a supportive environment, there are quite a few people with gender dysphoria who feel utterly unable to continue living in the bodies they have. It seems cruel to deny them sexual reassignment hormones or surgery in this case.

To clarify:

transgender means anyone who identifies or expresses different gender(s) than the biological sex they were born with. It is a very broad category and includes people who do not feel any need for medical treatment. It is different from being intersex, which means that you are born with a physical body that does not neatly fit into the traditional categories of male or female.

transsexual means that someone identifies as being the opposite gender as their biological body. Not all transsexual people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria means having pretty severe psychological pain from not being in the body that matches your gender identity. It usually requires psychotherapy at the very least. Not everyone with gender dysphoria needs sexual reassignment hormones and/or surgery (and the surgery if it occurs may only be of the upper body and not of the genitialia), but this decision, like all medical decisions, is for that person and their physician to make and not really anyone else's business.
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 9:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 9:31:15 PM, rockwater wrote:
Even with talk therapy and a supportive environment, there are quite a few people with gender dysphoria who feel utterly unable to continue living in the bodies they have. It seems cruel to deny them sexual reassignment hormones or surgery in this case.

To clarify:

transgender means anyone who identifies or expresses different gender(s) than the biological sex they were born with. It is a very broad category and includes people who do not feel any need for medical treatment. It is different from being intersex, which means that you are born with a physical body that does not neatly fit into the traditional categories of male or female.

transsexual means that someone identifies as being the opposite gender as their biological body. Not all transsexual people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria means having pretty severe psychological pain from not being in the body that matches your gender identity. It usually requires psychotherapy at the very least. Not everyone with gender dysphoria needs sexual reassignment hormones and/or surgery (and the surgery if it occurs may only be of the upper body and not of the genitialia), but this decision, like all medical decisions, is for that person and their physician to make and not really anyone else's business.

I don't mean to be rude...but you call Creationism pseudoscience?
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 10:03:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 9:31:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:31:15 PM, rockwater wrote:
Even with talk therapy and a supportive environment, there are quite a few people with gender dysphoria who feel utterly unable to continue living in the bodies they have. It seems cruel to deny them sexual reassignment hormones or surgery in this case.

To clarify:

transgender means anyone who identifies or expresses different gender(s) than the biological sex they were born with. It is a very broad category and includes people who do not feel any need for medical treatment. It is different from being intersex, which means that you are born with a physical body that does not neatly fit into the traditional categories of male or female.

transsexual means that someone identifies as being the opposite gender as their biological body. Not all transsexual people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria means having pretty severe psychological pain from not being in the body that matches your gender identity. It usually requires psychotherapy at the very least. Not everyone with gender dysphoria needs sexual reassignment hormones and/or surgery (and the surgery if it occurs may only be of the upper body and not of the genitialia), but this decision, like all medical decisions, is for that person and their physician to make and not really anyone else's business.

I don't mean to be rude...but you call Creationism pseudoscience?

I didn't say anything about creationism. What does creationism have to do with this discussion?
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 3:24:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 10:03:29 AM, rockwater wrote:
At 2/9/2014 9:31:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:31:15 PM, rockwater wrote:
Even with talk therapy and a supportive environment, there are quite a few people with gender dysphoria who feel utterly unable to continue living in the bodies they have. It seems cruel to deny them sexual reassignment hormones or surgery in this case.

To clarify:

transgender means anyone who identifies or expresses different gender(s) than the biological sex they were born with. It is a very broad category and includes people who do not feel any need for medical treatment. It is different from being intersex, which means that you are born with a physical body that does not neatly fit into the traditional categories of male or female.

transsexual means that someone identifies as being the opposite gender as their biological body. Not all transsexual people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria means having pretty severe psychological pain from not being in the body that matches your gender identity. It usually requires psychotherapy at the very least. Not everyone with gender dysphoria needs sexual reassignment hormones and/or surgery (and the surgery if it occurs may only be of the upper body and not of the genitialia), but this decision, like all medical decisions, is for that person and their physician to make and not really anyone else's business.

I don't mean to be rude...but you call Creationism pseudoscience?

I didn't say anything about creationism. What does creationism have to do with this discussion?

Because Gender Dysphoria sounds a lot like pseudoscience. Men who must become women or they'll commit suicide? That's crazy talk.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 6:07:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
Given your recent posts, this topic isn't new for you. You hate gays. I got it.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 6:16:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 2:25:34 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
People have posted good posts here, but I feel my question hasn't been answered. So, I will provide a more precise scenario:

The year is 2017. Tony undergoes an experimental procedure at MIT and he becomes biologically female in every way. Her name is now Tawnia.
As Tawnia, she meets Bobby on a dating website. Soon enough they meet in person and get married after dating for about three years.
From a Biblical perspective, was it a sin for Tony/Tawnia to marry Bobby? If so, why? If not, why not?
We must always remember that the ' biblical ' response is merely the opinion of some humans that devised it!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 7:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 6:07:22 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
Given your recent posts, this topic isn't new for you. You hate gays. I got it.

A typical accusation from a typical Liberal.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 10:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 3:24:08 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 10:03:29 AM, rockwater wrote:
At 2/9/2014 9:31:53 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/6/2014 9:31:15 PM, rockwater wrote:
Even with talk therapy and a supportive environment, there are quite a few people with gender dysphoria who feel utterly unable to continue living in the bodies they have. It seems cruel to deny them sexual reassignment hormones or surgery in this case.

To clarify:

transgender means anyone who identifies or expresses different gender(s) than the biological sex they were born with. It is a very broad category and includes people who do not feel any need for medical treatment. It is different from being intersex, which means that you are born with a physical body that does not neatly fit into the traditional categories of male or female.

transsexual means that someone identifies as being the opposite gender as their biological body. Not all transsexual people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria means having pretty severe psychological pain from not being in the body that matches your gender identity. It usually requires psychotherapy at the very least. Not everyone with gender dysphoria needs sexual reassignment hormones and/or surgery (and the surgery if it occurs may only be of the upper body and not of the genitialia), but this decision, like all medical decisions, is for that person and their physician to make and not really anyone else's business.

I don't mean to be rude...but you call Creationism pseudoscience?

I didn't say anything about creationism. What does creationism have to do with this discussion?

Because Gender Dysphoria sounds a lot like pseudoscience. Men who must become women or they'll commit suicide? That's crazy talk.

People with gender dysphoria do not all need hormone therapy or sexual reassignment surgery. What they need (and often feel that they cannot live if they cannot have) is to be able to express their gender identity freely. Some of them, even after transitioning to living life as a member of the opposite sex but while retaining the physical characteristics of the biological sex of their birth, continue to feel great distress with the difference between their bodies and the gender that they identify with. I am not sure whether this distress - the distress with the sexual characteristics of their bodies and not the distress with not being able to express their gender indentity - is innate or the result of a culture that is not accepting of deviations from the gender binary. Someone else can probably comment on that better than I can.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 4:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 7:19:54 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 6:07:22 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
Given your recent posts, this topic isn't new for you. You hate gays. I got it.

A typical accusation from a typical Liberal.
Is that supposed to be an insult? "Here's an interesting new topic"
Doesn't seem new to me. I have read some of your posts. You seem to have a problem with homosexuality. I'm curious why? Do they come onto you a lot or something? Why do you care if somebody is homosexual? Does it stain you in some way? By the way, you are nothing but a conservative! Oooh, the comeback!
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:02:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 4:57:13 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/11/2014 7:19:54 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 6:07:22 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
Given your recent posts, this topic isn't new for you. You hate gays. I got it.

A typical accusation from a typical Liberal.
Is that supposed to be an insult? "Here's an interesting new topic"
Doesn't seem new to me. I have read some of your posts. You seem to have a problem with homosexuality. I'm curious why? Do they come onto you a lot or something? Why do you care if somebody is homosexual? Does it stain you in some way? By the way, you are nothing but a conservative! Oooh, the comeback!

I've encountered a user just like you. Back during my botched debate with TUF there was a user who harassed me to no end on the comments section.
Anyhow, as I explained in a previous post on another forum, I do not hate homosexual people. I hate the sin of homosexuality. However, you probably would never understand the difference.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 5:02:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/12/2014 4:57:13 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/11/2014 7:19:54 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/10/2014 6:07:22 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 2/4/2014 2:56:28 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
This forum is only for people who believe homosexuality is immoral. I ask those who do not believe homosexuality is immoral to not post on this thread, please.

This is a thread about Religion and Transgenderism.
Granted, most religious people who oppose homosexuality will believe that transgenderism is also a sin.
One reason is that it doesn't do anything except make you look like the other gender, or so I've heard. So if you look like you're a girl yet you're really a guy and you go out smooching guys it's the same thing as being gay.
However, if the technology were to progress to the point where a person could biologically and fully become a member of the opposite gender, would it be morally wrong to continue from there?
Most religious people who oppose homosexuality will agree that such an operation in itself would be sinful. However, after this operation, would it be sinning further to continue living in the new opposite-gender body, or go even further and engage in a relationship? If so, what gender would it be sinful to engage in a relationship with?

Do not worry, I'm a normal person. However, I thought this would be an interesting forum topic.
Please keep your posts civil.
Given your recent posts, this topic isn't new for you. You hate gays. I got it.

A typical accusation from a typical Liberal.
Is that supposed to be an insult? "Here's an interesting new topic"
Doesn't seem new to me. I have read some of your posts. You seem to have a problem with homosexuality. I'm curious why? Do they come onto you a lot or something? Why do you care if somebody is homosexual? Does it stain you in some way? By the way, you are nothing but a conservative! Oooh, the comeback!

I've encountered a user just like you. Back during my botched debate with TUF there was a user who harassed me to no end on the comments section.
Anyhow, as I explained in a previous post on another forum, I do not hate homosexual people. I hate the sin of homosexuality. However, you probably would never understand the difference.
Sorry if you think I'm harassing you. It isn't my intent. I may have deleted the post using the delete all button. No sorry, I don't understand the difference. Oh, maybe I do now remember the "no nookie" comment, but I don't know what thread it was on.
Please define for me the difference between homosexual people, and the sin of homosexuality?