Does nature discriminate against same sex people

[Sojourner]

Reviewing your previous post, I realize I reacted more defensively than your verbiage warranted. Due to my general view of same sex relationships, I took references regarding callousness toward same sex people, judgmental finger-pointing, and "high horses" as personal, when that should not have been the case. You're correct that I misinterpreted your intent and I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction, and for unduly mischaracterizing your intent. When I'm wrong, I take ownership. I was, and I do.

Thanks, that's appreciated.

Understand that as someone pushing 70, and dyed-in-the-wool "old school," the moral turpitude in which our society is descending is disheartening to me -- of which the growing power and influence of LGBT organizations are part and parcel. The LGBT agenda has gone well beyond a struggle for civil rights and freedom to be who they are. A burgeoning desire for acceptance and equality has given way to the expectation of assent and affirmation. And that brings with it changes that are unsettling.

It has even gone so far that there are plenty of within the LGBT 'community' (as if it's some homogenous thing) who are pariahs and black sheep for holding to views deemed verboten (particularly within trans spaces). But yes, there has been a move beyond 'recognise I'm a person trying to live my life' towards affirm X, Y, or Z or else you're outmoded, immoral, and so on. I don't think there's any working through that conflict when it comes to Christian teaching, as the nuanced interaction of love in light/in spite of sin has been lost on both sides. It's now affirmation not toleration, and actually I think that's a point on which society is being polarised. So that big agenda as presented by the media is only that, I think -- a media presentation. Maybe that's a discussion for a different thread, though.

I struggle with the idea that calling someone "sir or "ma'am" can now potentially offend someone "identifying" as other than their appearance suggests. I don't like the fact that we're expected to use gender-neutral pronouns "they" and "them" when referring to an individual. Normal rules of grammar must be abandoned because a person "might" be offended? I think the concept of gender fluidity -- that a person's gender can actually vary from day to day, depending on the present state of mind is ludicrous.

To be fair, if someone looks like a 'sir' or a 'ma'am' and they're referred to as such, but aren't, then that's an opportunity for them to correct, not to become offended. There are certainly people that immediately jump to offence, but I don't think that's the majority, and I think the majority don't approve of such antics. At the same time, consider if you were expected to justify your existence to everyone you met -- you'd eventually get annoyed too.

To 'they' / 'them', that's something only enbys (non-binary) typically request, and if you were to call someone else a 'they' / 'them' you would be misgendering them, and possibly also offending their understanding of grammar. The gender neutral stuff is another puffed-up media thing that does nothing but polarise society. Outside of the enbys I know, I don't know anyone who cares for 'they' / 'them'. And yes, it's a difficult one to use without having to think about it.

The whole gender fluid by the second thing is a trope.

I hate that public school systems are teaching kids to question their gender identity, explore their sexuality and to dismiss the concept of binary gender. I detest the fact that kids are being programmed to think men dressing up like women is normal, as per the "drag queen story time" campaign being adopted by many public schools,  libraries, and bookstores. Kids at a young age are very impressionable, and this is nothing short of blatant indoctrination.

Yeah, I'm a black sheep for opposing the 'down with the binary' crowd. We have to understand that this thinking is informed by a metaphysic most people don't share in, and I think it's quite proper to be concerned about what this means for our understanding of things like biology.

I don't care for the drag queen stuff because I think it's a mockery of women, but I also don't live in an area with 'drag queen story time'. Like, do women really dress up as drag queens do? Not so much.

God created male and female specifically, and never intended for the line between them to be blurred by same sex relationships, bisexuality, or cross-dressing.

He did, but then He also presumably didn't want the rebellion of Genesis 3 to happen, and it did, so we don't live in the world as God created it to be, and we ourselves are not the people God created us to be.

I'm dysphoric by the way, and on HRT, and I do what you would consider to be cross-dressing (not that anyone would notice because at this level, the only difference is the gender on the tag). I tried for decades to find some other way to deal with the dysphoria, but it was either what I'm doing now, or depression leading into suicidal ideation. Throw in an unrelated medical issue, and well, here we are (I tried the depression, it didn't work out).

So that's why the stakes are existential for me. I've gone from theologically sophisticated to insane in a matter of seconds because of a medical issue sensationalized by the media. Fun times.

People should be free to be who they feel they are, without interference from those who disagree with them. But those who demand freedom of conscience, that people respect their differences and perspectives, should be willing to do the same for those prone to a more traditional, Bible-based mindset. And as those charged with bearing the light of the Gospel, Christians should not be expected to hide their lamps under a basket because it opposes an agenda promoting sexual deviance. But love and compassion should always undergird their testimony.

Yes well as Jesus said about the world...

I appreciate your candor. I had no idea about the dysphoria, and now have a better grasp of your perspective. Satan knows Scripture, including the book of Revelation. So, he's aware his time is short, and what his final destination will be. As such, he pretty much has to settle for muddying the waters and disrupting things before his time runs out. (Kind of a scorched earth exit, so to speak).

In particular, he hates God's people, both Jews and Gentiles, and besides stealing, killing and destroying, he loves to sow discord and division. Too often, we take the bait, and make enemies even amongst ourselves, instead of focusing on our common enemy. As we approach the last days before the Lord returns, we are fellow sojourners on a trek to our destination, with no real control over what happens.

However, along the way, we can renew our efforts to hold our light high for the lost we encounter, and invite others to seek salvation before it's too late. In the meantime, we have to remember that Jesus said people would know us by the love we show --both for others, and each other.

[Oscar_Kipling]

The current trend where I live is that teenagers are told at school to just try out both options to find out what suits them best. How bad do you want to have it?

Told by who at school?

Teachers. 12-13-14 old boys/girls are told to experience. I wonder how confusing that must be at that age.

Those are confusing ages regardless, but I am a bit baffled by this assertion...first because its not my understanding of how attraction or sexuality works really, but i'm also confused about the context like when would a teacher be telling a student such a thing, is this sex ed class? What lead you to this knowledge and can you link me?

[Athanasius]

Those are confusing ages regardless, but I am a bit baffled by this assertion...first because its not my understanding of how attraction or sexuality works really, but i'm also confused about the context like when would a teacher be telling a student such a thing, is this sex ed class? What lead you to this knowledge and can you link me?

Where I am these kinds of discussions happen early, for example:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/primary-one-children-will-be-told-your-gender-what-you-decide-582881
https://www.irishpost.com/news/children-as-young-as-four-in-scotland-are-allowed-to-change-gender-at-school-without-parents-consent-218140
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509204.scottish-government-issues-school-guidance-support-transgender-pupils/

There's a tension between 'born this way' and 'you have to experiment to know for sure'. It's a mess and it's more confusing than you might imagine. If you hang around trans subreddits you'll read a lot of "I'm not sure, I tried this but, I did this but".

Also, I have a young child in said school system.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Those are confusing ages regardless, but I am a bit baffled by this assertion...first because its not my understanding of how attraction or sexuality works really, but i'm also confused about the context like when would a teacher be telling a student such a thing, is this sex ed class? What lead you to this knowledge and can you link me?

Where I am these kinds of discussions happen early, for example:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/primary-one-children-will-be-told-your-gender-what-you-decide-582881
https://www.irishpost.com/news/children-as-young-as-four-in-scotland-are-allowed-to-change-gender-at-school-without-parents-consent-218140
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19509204.scottish-government-issues-school-guidance-support-transgender-pupils/

There's a tension between 'born this way' and 'you have to experiment to know for sure'. It's a mess and it's more confusing than you might imagine. If you hang around trans subreddits you'll read a lot of "I'm not sure, I tried this but, I did this but".

Also, I have a young child in said school system.

You're right of course, I have been privy to some of these 'debates" albeit obliquely for the most part, however "Just try both" as THE PIECE OF ADVICE (TM) really doesn't seem to align with the fact that there is even debate and variation or that "both" doesn't quite capture what one could be trying, iow it probably doesn't work like that or at the very least it probably doesn't always work like that. Even reading the articles you posted (thank you btw), don't really strike me as teachers saying "try em both", and what is being done, well idk if its sufficient or too much or too much too soon, I suspect that just like everything else in this area for some people, children even it is all of those things due to variations. I tend to fall back on the fact that these variations in humans exist so it is probably best to find a way to explain these things to children in a way they can understand in a context that is appropriate...whatever that means lol...idk I don't have kids so ultimately i'm talking out of my hat, but I do agree that its difficult and confusing to know what the right thing to do is, at the same time I feel that while I don't know the exact line It's probably not drawn at ignoring reality. Also while I don't really have a puppy in this hunt I dont think i'm completely misinformed in my position that the fear surrounding what is happening is frequently not well grounded in what is actually happening on the ground, or what people are actually attempting to accomplish or why.


Also as an aside, you said something like you believe that drag queens are a mockery of women, I think that's definitely sort of true in the theatrical sense and perhaps regarding femininity more so than women, but does that disturb you or it is more like eyroll?

[Athanasius]

You're right of course, I have been privy to some of these 'debates" albeit obliquely for the most part, however "Just try both" as THE PIECE OF ADVICE (TM) really doesn't seem to align with the fact that there is even debate and variation or that "both" doesn't quite capture what one could be trying, iow it probably doesn't work like that or at the very least it probably doesn't always work like that. Even reading the articles you posted (thank you btw), don't really strike me as teachers saying "try em both", and what is being done, well idk if its sufficient or too much or too much too soon, I suspect that just like everything else in this area for some people, children even it is all of those things due to variations. I tend to fall back on the fact that these variations in humans exist so it is probably best to find a way to explain these things to children in a way they can understand in a context that is appropriate...whatever that means lol...idk I don't have kids so ultimately i'm talking out of my hat, but I do agree that its difficult and confusing to know what the right thing to do is, at the same time I feel that while I don't know the exact line It's probably not drawn at ignoring reality. Also while I don't really have a puppy in this hunt I dont think i'm completely misinformed in my position that the fear surrounding what is happening is frequently not well grounded in what is actually happening on the ground, or what people are actually attempting to accomplish or why.

Yes, it's not that teachers are saying "try everything", but that "try everything" is being reinforced as something you should to to find yourself, find out who you are, determine what your gender is, or your sexuality is, and so on. It does all stem from the idea that identity, gender, etc., are fluid, you can make choices (which is the very thing that was argued against for so, so long), and it's confusing a lot, a lot of young people.

It's anecdotal but when I come across posts from kids who are writing things like, "I put on a dress over the weekend and I kind of liked how it felt, does that mean I'm trans feminine?" Then it really is the reduction of gender to feeling and performance. It's an environment where the experiment is immediately followed up with 'oh you felt funny wearing a dress then that means you are THIS'. And hence, there are a billion labels and distinctions. These are like, all the goth kids, or the scene kids, or whoever else, except they're doing permanent things to their bodies and the fallout is going to be horrible.

Also as an aside, you said something like you believe that drag queens are a mockery of women, I think that's definitely sort of true in the theatrical sense and perhaps regarding femininity more so than women, but does that disturb you or it is more like eyroll?

Both? It's a mix of:

- Women don't dress like that, that's a caricature, degrading, sexist in its over-sexualised portrayal, etc.
- That's aesthetically offputting like, mein Gott...
- Oh I hope I don't look like that...

I mean, if people want to do it let them do it, I just find it wholly offputting. More to the point, when you have stuff like https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.co.uk/. That's the sort of thing that's burned into my mind as an extreme negative, except instead of Ru Paul wannabes it was Rocky Horror Picture Show. I just can't.

[Redeemed]

 At some point, logic dictates there is direct correlation between the activities of gay men and diseases that seem to target them. And while the world may roll its eyes at the suggestion, some of us suspect this connection to be rooted in a natural consequence of unnatural sexual activity.  In Romans 1, Paul speaks about those who rebelled against God, both in pagan forms of worship, and in sexual deviation.

I'm done some digging into scriptures and news reports, statistics etc.

First the scriptures. What does the Bible say about homosexual actions?  It's a sin. It's not a "greater sin" it's simply sin just like any other sins fallen mankind commits.

Now the rest. Homosexual males are far more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases ( skin to skin contact ) at a much higher rate than other groups including heterosexuals and gay females. Why?
The consensus seems to be that they are not only more promiscuous than other groups ( Hetro, gay women and whatever )they are far more likely to engage in risky behavior.

I've come to this understanding by doing simple Google searches over the last couple of days. I looked at a LOT of things written about this that reference medical journals, statistics and the like.

I don't think that God "discriminates" against gay people. It's sin sure and God hates that, however, it's the risky behavior that they willfully engage in at very high rates that's the culprit.

Just my 2 cents. I thought that this was interesting.

[Sojourner]

 At some point, logic dictates there is direct correlation between the activities of gay men and diseases that seem to target them. And while the world may roll its eyes at the suggestion, some of us suspect this connection to be rooted in a natural consequence of unnatural sexual activity.  In Romans 1, Paul speaks about those who rebelled against God, both in pagan forms of worship, and in sexual deviation.

I'm done some digging into scriptures and news reports, statistics etc.

First the scriptures. What does the Bible say about homosexual actions?  It's a sin. It's not a "greater sin" it's simply sin just like any other sins fallen mankind commits.

Now the rest. Homosexual males are far more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases ( skin to skin contact ) at a much higher rate than other groups including heterosexuals and gay females. Why?
The consensus seems to be that they are not only more promiscuous than other groups ( Hetro, gay women and whatever )they are far more likely to engage in risky behavior.

I've come to this understanding by doing simple Google searches over the last couple of days. I looked at a LOT of things written about this that reference medical journals, statistics and the like.

I don't think that God "discriminates" against gay people. It's sin sure and God hates that, however, it's the risky behavior that they willfully engage in at very high rates that's the culprit.

Just my 2 cents. I thought that this was interesting.

No, God Himself does not discriminate, being an equal opportunity Savior. And yes, the evidence supports the fact promiscuity promotes and facilitates the spread of STD's and certain other diseases. Gonorrhea and syphilis were a problem in Paul's day. I personally believe he referenced such diseases when he said, "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." STD's are rampant today, as people engage in indiscriminate sex, often with people they just met. We would not be seeing such widespread disease if sexual relations were limited to one man and one woman in a married, monogamous relationship as God intended. God has established a natural order, and when people choose to rebel against it, there are natural consequences.

[Redeemed]

Yep. That pretty much sums it up perfectly.

[RabbiKnife]

Sort of like eating 3 fried chickens and a loaf of bread twice a day

And washing it down with a fifth of scotch

Eventually your body will pay the price

The instruction manual is there for a reason

[Kingfisher]

This could go in the quotable quotes thread, but...

"Now days, you not only have to explain the birds and the bees, but also the bees and the bees, the birds and the birds, the birds that used to be bees, the bees that used to be birds, the birds that look like bees, the bees that look like birds but still have a stinger..." - Unknown