Gender Identity in Religion

Dream said:
Your wording shows me a different angle from which to discuss diversity in Christ, Watcher. I should call you Little Cyrus. Brass gates guarded the underwater path into the city of Babylon, but someone opened them for Cyrus the night he conquered that city. It was the night of the writing on the wall. (No one knows how they were opened, however sometimes the right words open gates better than a key.) Cyrus the Persian became the shepherd of the LORD's flock!
Click to expand...


Right on!!
:)
 
Tao_Equus said:
Many Christians and Islam especially have the ideology that any behaviour outside of standard monogamous heterosexuality is an abomination, evil or at best a mental illness. Yet study after study reveals that there are many gender variables and that they are usually linked to some observable genetic predisposition. Is it time for the law to step in and force religions to halt their ignorant discrimination? An employer is not allowed to discriminate, so why should a religion be allowed to?


tao
Click to expand...


a few days ago I heard that in the UK the trade unions are being cajoled into accepting legislation whereby a member of the BNP can be expelled from employment soley on this basis. While on the surface this seems like a good idea- a firm message that the nation will not employ facists- I worry that this will one day deny a person the right to belong to a trade union or any other organisation at the whim of either large employers or the government, and yes, I worry that this will also one day include religious groups too. The British National Party is a political party, however odious the general public believe their views to be. We supposedly live in a democracy, where freedom of political views is supposedly something we have as a right.

My personal view is, if you do not allow ppl freedom to choose openly what they believe they will still believe what they believe but you force them underground and make them appear more appealing than if you allow them to say what they think openly, however unorthodox or damaging their opinions may be.


If it is recognised that most main orthodox approaches to religion are discriminatory in their views towards- ppl of other religions, ppl of other colours, castes, discriminatory towards women, homosexuals, and anyone unfortunate to be afflicted with a mental illness or sickness.

But so too is society. The police force is charged with institutional racism, there is a climate of bullying in the NHS- they're not all religious types who discriminate due to their religious beliefs. A lot of them are atheists.

But look at the facts. 60 years ago, a woman's place was in the home, raising the family. Homosexuality was still a criminal offence. Times change slowly. One generation passes their views onto another. It takes a while for people, collectively, as a society, to change.

It is better they come to change because it is a natural thing for them to do. Force them to change, and you create rebels, and a cause.
 
Francis king said:
a few days ago I heard that in the UK the trade unions are being cajoled into accepting legislation whereby a member of the BNP can be expelled from employment soley on this basis. While on the surface this seems like a good idea- a firm message that the nation will not employ facists- I worry that this will one day deny a person the right to belong to a trade union or any other organisation at the whim of either large employers or the government, and yes, I worry that this will also one day include religious groups too. The British National Party is a political party, however odious the general public believe their views to be. We supposedly live in a democracy, where freedom of political views is supposedly something we have as a right.

My personal view is, if you do not allow ppl freedom to choose openly what they believe they will still believe what they believe but you force them underground and make them appear more appealing than if you allow them to say what they think openly, however unorthodox or damaging their opinions may be.


If it is recognised that most main orthodox approaches to religion are discriminatory in their views towards- ppl of other religions, ppl of other colours, castes, discriminatory towards women, homosexuals, and anyone unfortunate to be afflicted with a mental illness or sickness.

But so too is society. The police force is charged with institutional racism, there is a climate of bullying in the NHS- they're not all religious types who discriminate due to their religious beliefs. A lot of them are atheists.

But look at the facts. 60 years ago, a woman's place was in the home, raising the family. Homosexuality was still a criminal offence. Times change slowly. One generation passes their views onto another. It takes a while for people, collectively, as a society, to change.

It is better they come to change because it is a natural thing for them to do. Force them to change, and you create rebels, and a cause.
Click to expand...

Hi Francis,

I get the point and agree with much of what you say. Esp. that democracy means we still have to accept many an odious view from a bigot is to be protected in principle and in law. But legislation has pushed the tide in many cases. It may seem like a blunt instrument but sometimes that is what is required when you have to lever entrenched prejudices out of the rut they have dug for themselves. Discrimination on grounds of sexuality is an insult to the dignity of many people and it is only acceptable/legal within religions. Why should they enjoy a unique privilege of bigotry? Why should there be one law for everyone else but not for them? I think they need a push, a helping hand. Remove tax exemption for any institution that discriminates and I think the leadership would find creative ways to make acceptance the most natural thing in the world.

tao
 
The bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but then again, it refers to the eating of shellfish as an abomination too.

Yet, strangely, i don't see anyone trying to enact legislation to prevent Red Lobster or Long John Silver's from peaceably going about their business.
 
nightsoul said:
The bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but then again, it refers to the eating of shellfish as an abomination too.

Yet, strangely, i don't see anyone trying to enact legislation to prevent Red Lobster or Long John Silver's from peaceably going about their business.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

It mentions homosexuality as a sin in the OT about as many times as it mentions wearing garments of mixed fibers. And while Paul talked about it a bit, Jesus didn't.

Somehow I missed Proposition 7 that made it constitutionally mandatory to separate linen and wool.
 
nightsoul said:
The bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but then again, it refers to the eating of shellfish as an abomination too.

Yet, strangely, i don't see anyone trying to enact legislation to prevent Red Lobster or Long John Silver's from peaceably going about their business.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, I bet I'm opening myself up for the knee-jerk spasmodic unthinking chain-reaction gang tackle by the lefty louies, but here goes...

Shellfish to this day are still not part of a Kosher diet. Of course, a kosher diet is for observant Jews, not necessarily for the rest of us Noahide Gentiles.

That said...there *are* negative health consequences from eating shellfish, ranging from allergies to mercury poisoning to still more...all of which could be avoided by simply not eating shellfish.

Modern translation: you are gonna do what you are gonna do, you will find a way to justify to yourself that what you do is OK.

That doesn't make it so, to anyone but yourself, and your self might just not be quite correct. A smoker justifies smoking, a drunk justifies drinking, a thief justifies stealing, etc., etc., etc.

Just because one can find a way to justify homosexual behavior does *not* mean it is a healthy choice of behavior. Just like eating shellfish. You are gonna do whatever you are gonna do, and find ways to justify it to yourself...but when the time comes to pay the piper you have no one to blame for the consequences of your choices except yourself.

This is not limited to homosexuals and shellfish eaters...it's the same exact set of rules for *everybody.* Deal with it. :cool:

Put another way: You made your bed, now sleep in it.

It's all about the consequences we bring upon ourselves by our choices of behavior.

Call it karma if you like, or judgement if you prefer, or call it by whatever term makes it meaningful to you...the underlying gist is simply the way it is in the universe...every action creates an equal *and* opposite reaction. You reap what you sow.
 
Last edited:
"Just because one can find a way to justify homosexual behavior does *not* mean it is a healthy choice of behavior."


Ah, i see...it's the health risks you're concerned about.

Actually, the point of my post was to point out highly selective and hypocritical use of sacred texts to justify bigotry.

But as long as you brought up the subject...
It's probably much healthier for a woman to be a lesbian, for example. She's at a dramatically reduced risk of contracting HIV-AIDS, several other nasty STDs, not to mention the associated cancers, for one thing. She's also much less likely to face an unwanted pregnancy, or suffer domestic abuse. Sadly, she is at higher risk of becoming the victim of a hate crime.

Hope this puts your good Christian heart at ease, Juantoo.
 
nightsoul said:
Hope this puts your good Christian heart at ease, Juantoo.
Click to expand...
:D How "good" my Christian heart is, is a matter of some discussion even among Christians, I'm afraid.

nightsoul said:
Actually, the point of my post was to point out highly selective and hypocritical use of sacred texts to justify bigotry.
Click to expand...
No doubt, and it is an oft used POV, and not without some merit, but that doesn't do away with the bottom line. If you are not approaching from a Jewish or quasi-Christian POV anyway, what difference does it make? If you are not Christian, then a Christian POV is irrelevent. If you are not Jewish, a Jewish sacred text is irrelevent. You will find ways to justify whatever behavior it is you wish to partake in...just as the Judeo-Christian sacred text teaches self-restraint and abstaining from certain behavior, so that is the traditional behavior that comes from those traditions.

Agree, or don't...but it hardly seems proper or appropriate to use the dogma of a philosophy outside of a faith to cast judgement on those observing within a faith...kinda like Christianity trying to hold court over science (or vice-versa, for that matter), no?

nightsoul said:
It's probably much healthier for a woman to be a lesbian, for example. She's at a dramatically reduced risk of contracting HIV-AIDS, several other nasty STDs, not to mention the associated cancers, for one thing. She's also much less likely to face an unwanted pregnancy, or suffer domestic abuse. Sadly, she is at higher risk of becoming the victim of a hate crime.
Click to expand...
The human mouth is probably the nastiest source of germ and viral contamination that exists within human society...

But the bottom line is still: "when the time comes to pay the piper you have no one to blame for the consequences of your choices except yourself."

Same for you, same for me, same for everybody. Or do you believe you are somehow special and exempt from the results of your karma? I don't know you from Adam or Eve, but I feel confident in saying that we all steer our lives by the choices we make, and those choices collectively add up to our karma. I am not the one to sit in judgment over any other, yet I do judge myself pretty harshly. I also think self-restraint is a wise lesson not taught in secular philosophical sources. ;)
 
For the record, i am a Jew.
Am i safe in assuming that by "pay the piper," you mean that G-d will punish me for my sins?
 
That depends...what do you mean by "punish?"

I thought I spelled it out rather succinctly. But then, it is not unusual to be misread by those attempting to philosophize their way out of their karma. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...that is the essence of everything I have said...no more...no less.

I am not on a witch hunt, I could care less how you conduct your life. I do not answer for you.

I am entitled to an opinion on how to run my life, just as you are.

Everyone chooses how to direct their life, and everyone deals with the consequences of those choices. That's life. No amount of misdirected hostility will change that fact.

What G-d does about any of this is after the fact...I haven't even gone there yet in this discussion, and had no intention of doing so.

So, do *you* speak for G-d? I don't. I can't say with absolute certainty just what G-d will punish us for.
 
You've been making a lot of vague references to "karma" and "the way the universe works" and especially, the "consequences" of my "choices" and my implied lack of "self-restraint."

What you carefully avoid acknowledging is that hostility and discrimination and occasionally, violence that homosexuals face is directed at them by bigoted, self-righteous people, not some dispassionate universal karmic law of spiritual physics.

i feel much safer placing myself in the hands of G-d, who made me exactly as i am.
 
path_of_one said:
Somehow I missed Proposition 7 that made it constitutionally mandatory to separate linen and wool.
Click to expand...

But dear Path, I can't think of a single garment made today of linen and wool.

On the other hand, there are people who choose to keep tarantula spiders, scorpions and snakes as pets...I don't need to invoke the unclean animal laws of Leviticus to believe such people are a couple of slices of bread short of a whole loaf. Not as an excuse to persecute them, mind you. But as for seeing such behavior as not quite wise...*that* IS my perogative, and my moral obligation for myself and my family.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Yet study after study reveals that there are many gender variables and that they are usually linked to some observable genetic predisposition. tao
Click to expand...


There are a lot of issues with this statement, because some studies are pure propaganda, some are very limited with premilinary samples, some are contradictory with your statement.

None of them I have seen includes a spiritual component. What I mean is no study look at life beyond the 90 years or so, someone lives on this earth.
I do believe that beside the nurture and nature argument of gender issues, our ancestors (lineage) affect us a lot in the same way we will affect our descendants.)

In addition, every one on this planet struggles with his or her sexuality in different way.

We can judge a tree by its fruits. We can see a culture of sexual extinction developping (contraception, abortion, same sex relations) around the world.

People are ending their lineage by not having children, by killing them or by having fruitless sexual relationships while others are trying to multiply healthy families.
Often faith is involved in the mix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top