A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Gatefan1976]

Yea no. If you dumb things down enough every thing is simple, but also mostly wrong.

Killman is on his throne in Heaven, he is obviously a delusional evangelical Christian

[Coco Pops]

Did you know there was a state in the USA where to combat SSM they decided it was just all too hard and wanted to ban ALL marriages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...fell_v._Hodges

It didn't pass into law. Fortunately

[Gatefan1976]

It should have.

[Coco Pops]

It should have.

Why????

[Gatefan1976]

Why????

It, at least, would be equal.

[Womble]

Did you know there was a state in the USA where to combat SSM they decided it was just all too hard and wanted to ban ALL marriages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s...fell_v._Hodges

It didn't pass into law. Fortunately

It is the logical end of the process. Once you water down the definition and the meaning is gone, why even have the concept?

[Gatefan1976]

It is the logical end of the process. Once you water down the definition and the meaning is gone, why even have the concept?

Have the concept, there is no need for the religion to have any impact on the legal aspect.

[Falcon Horus]

I didn't get that memo. When did humans change so that the two genders are identical? Any why do I still see a lot of differently shaped people around ? If you're correct, they should be all the same

Humans come in all shapes and sizes. The outside is not in question here.

How we are build, on the other hand, ... sure there are differences. Psychology, there are differences, but should those differences decide our equality? Or inequality?

The only one deciding about our equalty or inequality is the people themselves. We are defining that ourselves.

On that notion, thought about you over the weekend when I saw an article about how men are always "dying" when they have a cold. Turns out male physiology does respond differently, is weaker in resisting a cold and the effects. Female physiology has a better way of dealing with it. So next time, a cold is killing you -- in a manner of speaking -- you can say there's scientific evidence you truly are sicker than the average female.

Why can't politics enter religion, it seems to want to put it's foot in politics often enough.

Roy Moore seems to think it has a prominent place in politics. In fact, biblical law trumps secular law in every case.

Oh yeah, he lost the election.
Though he's confident God's gonna help him win it anyway. He's not conceding.

Because ISIS.

You don't have to go that far out of the country -- just look within your own borders.

If Gender is a social construct...how can one "be born"
with the wrong gender? In other words, how can our Sex not match our gender if gender is something invented by society while sex is purely a genetic/anatomical feature while one is not born with a gender because it is yet to be constructed by society in a given individual?

Social construct -- you pretty much answered it yourself.

If there was no social construct, would you have asked the same question? If we would never have assigned male or female to sex, would we still be asking these questions? We would probably since it would probably be assigned something else, - and + perhaps.

I think he is trying to posit that girls can pay more attention for longer bits of time? But I haven't really ever heard of that. Our attention spans don't really work that way.

My attention span certainly doesn't work that way...

In fact, from what I understand, there is no hard evidence for a matriarchal religion to have ever existed.

Some female deities took suppreme but there's only speculation whether there was ever a matriarchal religion in place.

The other major difference with this is that women are more social & cooperative, while men prefer to stand independently. This is behind the age old debate about whether to stop and ask for directions or not. Women will give up and look for help far earlier than males will. How many times have you had this discussion with your S.O.? That's the best thing about smart phones... They all have GPS, which renders that whole discussion moot.

Stereotyping 101

Why????

It would have been hilarious.
Just imagine, no one able to get married and reap the legal benefits it brings. How fast they might be begging to bring it back.

It, at least, would be equal.

LOL -- true.

It is the logical end of the process. Once you water down the definition and the meaning is gone, why even have the concept?

What definition and meaning?
From what era in time?
From secular or religion?

[Gatefan1976]

Roy Moore seems to think it has a prominent place in politics. In fact, biblical law trumps secular law in every case.

Yeah, and a Christian theocracy is just a myth...........
(and you can swap Christian out for any religion)

Oh yeah, he lost the election.
Though he's confident God's gonna help him win it anyway. He's not conceding.

Let him try, trump won with only 80k votes over the entire country, he wants to debate a 10k loss in a single state?
ROFLMFAO!!!

You don't have to go that far out of the country -- just look within your own borders.

They aren't terrorists, remember?

Social construct -- you pretty much answered it yourself.

If there was no social construct, would you have asked the same question? If we would never have assigned male or female to sex, would we still be asking these questions? We would probably since it would probably be assigned something else, - and + perhaps.

I'm not sure either of you are explaining your viewpoints here accurately.
Gender may well be fluid, but what you are "packing" biologically does not change without major surgery (and is not functional), and we DO need a baseline of comparison, at least biologically. For all your "maleness" if we hooked up, we could have kids purely based on biology unless you have chemically, or surgically altered your biology to prevent it.
This is where people like annoyed are correct.
HOWEVER.
It ignores all psychology, is simplistic, and does not take anything -but- biology into account, it's half the story and perhaps not even that as even biologically compatible people can and do have issues with having kids.

Some female deities took suppreme but there's only speculation whether there was ever a matriarchal religion in place.

I couldn't even find that.
I found patrons who were female, but not pantheon leaders. The closest is the notion of "mother Earth", but that is a more modern take on things as a "prime urge" to replicate being a female trait.

It would have been hilarious.
Just imagine, no one able to get married and reap the legal benefits it brings. How fast they might be begging to bring it back.



LOL -- true.

Indeed.

[Womble]

What definition and meaning?

Of the term marriage.

From what era in time?

Why does it matter? The definition of many things predates your generation, yet their meaning is not voided by virtue of that fact. Why should marriage be?

From secular or religion?

Both. Secular definition of marriage, even in virulently anti-religious societies like the old USSR, did not until recently include same sex marriage. The goal of marriage as an institution was universally acknowledged as promotion of childbirth and child-rearing.

[Gatefan1976]

You forgot maintaining bloodlines and caste advancement.

[aretood2]

Social construct -- you pretty much answered it yourself.

If there was no social construct, would you have asked the same question? If we would never have assigned male or female to sex, would we still be asking these questions? We would probably since it would probably be assigned something else, - and + perhaps.

The thing is, those who argue that transgenders really are stuck in a body predicate their argument on the assumption that it is a social construct.

I'm not sure either of you are explaining your viewpoints here accurately.
Gender may well be fluid, but what you are "packing" biologically does not change without major surgery (and is not functional), and we DO need a baseline of comparison, at least biologically. For all your "maleness" if we hooked up, we could have kids purely based on biology unless you have chemically, or surgically altered your biology to prevent it.
This is where people like annoyed are correct.
HOWEVER.
It ignores all psychology, is simplistic, and does not take anything -but- biology into account, it's half the story and perhaps not even that as even biologically compatible people can and do have issues with having kids.

Definitions: Male/Female is the anatomical/Biological genetic natural thing. Boyness/Girlness are the genders one identifies with. I'm excluding orientation for this one.

Timmy was born male. That's just biology. At birth, Timmy was neither boy nor girl for those roles have not been taught to Timmy. Society would naturally teach Timmy that Timmy is a boy. Timmy grows up a little and identifies as girl instead claiming that Timmy was simply "born in the wrong body". The question here is...how is that possible?

If it is Timmy's body that is in error...what is the error? Timmy's boyness did not exist neither did any girlness during gestation or birth. Timmy's parents gave Timmy "boy" things and society taught Timmy that Timmy was a boy. Yet, out of the blue (pun intended)...Timmy "learned" girlness instead of boyness.

The arguments that I have heard is that Timmy was born with the wrong body. But the problem is that the body came first. The more correct argument is that Timmy got the wrong gender. Timmy should have gotten boyness but somehow Timmy got girlness...so where did that girlness come from?

If boyness and girlness are just cultural inventions, then that means that Timmy's girlness can't be something innate. It has to be something learned. That's where I end up not seeing eye to eye with transgender people. Put it simply, they weren't born with boyness nor girlness. So they weren't "born" that way. It's just not possible unless Boyness/Girlness does have some sort of biological basis to it, in which case it could feasibly be true that Timmy was unfortunate to simply be born with girlness while being male.

But that then begs a few more questions. Why only focus on changing male to female? Why not change girlness to boyness? Why is one seen impossible while the other doable? Does society then have justification for making up boyness/girlness since there is some innate biological determinant? How often do mismatches occur? What causes the mismatch? Can or should such mismatch be corrected? Can one be mistaken? Is Boyness/Girlness a spectrum? If so..then how does that relate to male/female? Why or how did that trait of having a gender spectrum evolve when sex is binary (minus some statistically very very small percentage of individuals)?

[Gatefan1976]

The thing is, those who argue that transgenders really are stuck in a body predicate their argument on the assumption that it is a social construct.


Definitions: Male/Female is the anatomical/Biological genetic natural thing. Boyness/Girlness are the genders one identifies with. I'm excluding orientation for this one.

Timmy was born male. That's just biology. At birth, Timmy was neither boy nor girl for those roles have not been taught to Timmy. Society would naturally teach Timmy that Timmy is a boy. Timmy grows up a little and identifies as girl instead claiming that Timmy was simply "born in the wrong body". The question here is...how is that possible?

Neurochemical errors?
Timmy maintained his biological maleness even though his pre-birth programming was flooded with estrogen that in most cases would result in timmy being tina?
Not having a pure XY basepair but a XXY one?
There are several purely biological reasons for timmy to feel like he was born in the wrong body.

If it is Timmy's body that is in error...what is the error? Timmy's boyness did not exist neither did any girlness during gestation or birth. Timmy's parents gave Timmy "boy" things and society taught Timmy that Timmy was a boy. Yet, out of the blue (pun intended)...Timmy "learned" girlness instead of boyness.

The error is the "cultural norm" of what is boy and what is girl.

The arguments that I have heard is that Timmy was born with the wrong body. But the problem is that the body came first. The more correct argument is that Timmy got the wrong gender. Timmy should have gotten boyness but somehow Timmy got girlness...so where did that girlness come from?

I can see that.

If boyness and girlness are just cultural inventions, then that means that Timmy's girlness can't be something innate. It has to be something learned. That's where I end up not seeing eye to eye with transgender people. Put it simply, they weren't born with boyness nor girlness. So they weren't "born" that way. It's just not possible unless Boyness/Girlness does have some sort of biological basis to it, in which case it could feasibly be true that Timmy was unfortunate to simply be born with girlness while being male.

I am not sure the biology and the social conditioning can be separated that easily. we do know that people can be conditioned to produce biological responses to stimuli.

But that then begs a few more questions. Why only focus on changing male to female? Why not change girlness to boyness? Why is one seen impossible while the other doable? Does society then have justification for making up boyness/girlness since there is some innate biological determinant? How often do mismatches occur? What causes the mismatch? Can or should such mismatch be corrected? Can one be mistaken? Is Boyness/Girlness a spectrum? If so..then how does that relate to male/female? Why or how did that trait of having a gender spectrum evolve when sex is binary (minus some statistically very very small percentage of individuals)?

I have never noticed such a focus TBH.

[Womble]

You forgot maintaining bloodlines and caste advancement.

No I didn't. Marriage as an institution existed in all human societies across history starting from hunter-gatherer tribes, regardless of whether or not these societies had a caste system or whether they put any importance on bloodlines.

[Gatefan1976]

No I didn't. Marriage as an institution existed in all human societies across history starting from hunter-gatherer tribes, regardless of whether or not these societies had a caste system or whether they put any importance on bloodlines.

I think you might find ownership developed before "marriage", and ownership is not between a man and a woman exclusively.