Genital mutilation.... (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

Back to the question of the thread: We will never be fully able to predict human behavior, but to the extent that we can verify certain influences as part of a structural issue, we should at least recognize those issues and adapt accordingly.

I think I can whole heartedly agree with that statement. The scientific aspect of homosexuality and/or other gender / sexuality topics ought not be discarded by any means. I, for example, as a Christian, should humbly admit that this element ought be taken into consideration as an acknowledgement of the legitimacy and depth of their struggle. Personally, I take this as something similar to people who are genetically predisposed to addiction and overeating - and that's already a known, scientific fact.

Now I'll go further and don't worry, I'm not attributing your agreement to this, it's just me: In fact, it could actually go hand-in-hand with treatment options, if one opted to attempt a change.

In fact, let's think about this and soberly ponder if for a moment - and let me know what you think:

If the gender-fluid crowd has convinced most people that medical/scientific approaches can be used to "switch" them, why must we assume this couldn't possibly be leveraged in some way to switch sexual orientations? You're going to say, "because the switches being successfully done now are to match what's in the brain, not change it" - but why couldn't it be? Give medicine another 10 years. We have myriad medications that switch things in the brain, that guide people gently in different directions than their brain was telling them the day or week before.

The people that are "switching genders" are probably the best unwitting advocates for my suggestion that perhaps the homosexual orientation is not quite so absolutely final, after all ...

 

[Isaac]

Speaking of back to the point of this thread, one thing that comforts me is that as an example ...... @The_Doc_Man ....... despite our differences of opinion, we seem to agree on one thing (which it seems very many even transgender adults are agreeing on, based on articles and interviews I'm reading every day): Even if there is nothing whatsoever wrong with freely changing genders as much as one wants to suit, there is definitely a certain contingent of the population and even the medical associations who have gotten to an extreme and need to be reigned in - and that is the doing of it, (and the strongly encouraging of it, and presenting it as an option), to kindergarteners (etc).

The good news is, it seems the a majority of regular Americans on EITHER side of this debate AGREE that there is a certain extreme element that is moving an agenda a bit too far and a bit too young and fast. We all probably differ a little bit on what that means, and we may not even all agree on what I have said here, but the gist of it is out there, and I'm glad of that.

What adults do in their spare time isn't, honestly, the thing that bothers me nearly as much as when people start presenting detailed, explicit options to kids who yesterday wanted to be a dinosaur and today want to be a fairy. This is so obviously wrong and will only increase the number of sad, VERY lonely, and regretful people in their teens and 20's. And I think we all know what resentful kids in their teens do - well, hurt people hurt people.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm going to strenuously object to one aspect of this: Gender fluidity. It is commonly mislabeled by the closed-minded crowd. If you talk to gays, they would NOT (never in a million years) agree that they are gender-fluid. Using the wrong descriptive terms will alter the viewpoint of outsiders looking in. Gender identification is NOT FLUID. What people (incorrectly) call "gender fluidity" is "delayed gender recognition."

Just about every gay person I have ever talked to on this subject will say "I tried to be what everyone said I should be ... but at age NN years old, I recognized that I was not." (NN does vary from person to person.) So they change gender identification when they are aware that their currently public gender identification is incorrect. But they don't fluidly flip-flop back and forth. There comes that moment of realization that they are gay, that they don't conform to the rigid structure imposed by society that if you have a particular sex organ, you must be like other people who have that same bit of anatomy. Because the determining factor is the BRAIN (the most power of all sex organs), that externally visible anatomy does not tell the whole story.

Now, if some of them choose to hide their gender misidentification from others because they want society to leave them alone, can you blame them? But others sometimes get rowdy in parades because they are tired of living the lie; tired of conforming to someone else's incorrect mental image. NEITHER of those cases is misidentification.

Therefore, when folks discuss "gender fluidity" they are mistaking that for "delayed gender realization" or "temporary camouflage" and thus trivializing the issue.

You said "No matter who may say what about me, and how imperfect and flawed I may be (and am, I'm sure) as a human being and a Christian, I still believe that God meant a man to be with a woman, for life, barring certain extreme cases where marriages must terminate." This runs afoul of a simple reality. If you believe that God made us, then that detectable condition of birth - having mismatched genital and brain anatomy - is made by God, too - and totally spikes your belief. The brain structures in question are defined by 6 months of gestation. If you have to believe that God made us all then you have to believe that God made some people imperfect. And it is medically demonstrable that the condition exists. It cannot be denied in the face of hard science.

This leads to a terrible dilemma: God makes some people gay, which many organized religions claims to be wrong. Therefore (1) God is not all-powerful because He makes mistakes when He makes gay folks; or (2) God is doing exactly what He wants - and thus WE must be at fault for not loving everyone equally. In either case, what we are doing to gays by persecution and ostracism is just wrong.

 

[Isaac]

Influencer Oli London explains why he detransitioned back to male, blasts 'hypocritical' haters

YouTuber Oli London shocked his fans on Friday after revealing he was no longer a transgender woman, after living as one the last six months. Following his revelation, he received intense scrutiny and backlash.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Isaac]

But they don't fluidly flip-flop back and forth

They may not, but many have gone back and forth in their confusion.

Perhaps the only thing we need to replace is the word fluidly.

I strenuously object to the notion that they come to a point of certainty. So would the gentleman in the article I referenced above..ask him

 

[Isaac]

If you believe that God made us, then that detectable condition of birth - having mismatched genital and brain anatomy - is made by God, too - and totally spikes your belief.

So do you think I also believe that God intends for depressed people to remain depressed just because it can be traced to the part of their brain? You're not making much sense anymore your earlier posts were more limited & intellectually honest, I think

 

[Isaac]

In my faith, we don't believe that the way everyone is born or the physical condition or mental condition that they're in is necessarily God's will. We live in a fallen world and you can study that more in the Christian Bible it's quite a bit to go into in a single post.

But we do believe that God equips every believer with what is needed for Faith and godliness. That doesn't mean all topics is of equal ease for everyone.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So do you think I also believe that God intends for depressed people to remain depressed just because it can be traced to the part of their brain? You're not making much sense anymore your earlier posts were more limited & intellectually honest, I think

What part of "God made you" did you not understand when your preacher told you that? You yourself said "I still believe that God meant a man to be with a woman." This completely ignores the fact that for gay couples, there will be no eros (lust) in their romance, maybe a little philias or agape at most. A platonic relationship.

As to your example of a flip-flop, it is a rarity. I've never met anyone who actually flip-flopped - though I HAVE met folks who claimed to be equal opportunity lovers. (Better odds of having a date on the weekend?) Seriously, the study that discovered the brain structures reported several cases in a spectrum of conformance to male or female configurations. It is possible to have someone half-way in the spectrum and thus be receptive to partnerships with either gender. But it is a small percentage.

 

[Isaac]

What part of "God made you" did you not understand when your preacher told you that? You yourself said "I still believe that God meant a man to be with a woman." This completely ignores the fact that for gay couples, there will be no eros (lust) in their romance, maybe a little philias or agape at most. A platonic relationship.

As to your example of a flip-flop, it is a rarity. I've never met anyone who actually flip-flopped - though I HAVE met folks who claimed to be equal opportunity lovers. (Better odds of having a date on the weekend?) Seriously, the study that discovered the brain structures reported several cases in a spectrum of conformance to male or female configurations. It is possible to have someone half-way in the spectrum and thus be receptive to partnerships with either gender. But it is a small percentage.

Your mistake is thinking that I ever said that God specifically created a man to be gay. I didn't.

God created mankind with a certain intent. But obviously, His original intent doesn't carry through to the degree that we will never have a biological struggle to fulfill it.

A baby is born addicted to crack. According to your logic, "if God created that baby, then God wants her addicted to crack". Well of course not. We help the baby overcome that struggle they began facing, even if they began facing it the moment they were born.

The fact that a struggle originates at birth has nothing whatsoever to do with God's will, and conversely (to your points), doesn't necessarily relate to whether it's something that ought to be overcome or not.

As for meeting flip floppers, there's no need to meet everyone we study about. If I had to meet every subject of every study and report I ever read to believe it, I'd be in big trouble, and so would you.

Start with Miley Cyrus and go from there.

Miley Cyrus Says She’s Gender Fluid: ‘It Has Nothing To Do With Any Parts of Me’

As Miley Cyrus is working hard to advocate for sexuality and acceptance beyond the traditional boy-girl norms, she is revealing more and more about herself and her own journeys amidst the gender spectrum.

www.billboard.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Your mistake is thinking that I ever said that God specifically created a man to be gay. I didn't.

No, I'm not mistaken. You just didn't understand the question.

You are quite right. You didn't say that. I said it. According to most of the religious people I meet, God created us, even knew us in the womb. If you believe in the T-shirt slogan, then "God doesn't make junk." Is that wrong? Does God make junk?

The fact that a struggle originates at birth has nothing whatsoever to do with God's will

But then do you blame/chastise/shun people who were born with a birth condition? Do you belittle children born with a cleft palate? Do you demean children born with spina bifida? Do you run screaming from children born with phocomelia or other physical birth defects? You know that kids born missing something major, like an arm or leg, will never be cured, never be fully healed. Does that mean you leave them in the dust? What about kids with Down's Syndrome or Multiple Sclerosis? Are you going to treat them as people anyway?

I fully expect you to answer a highly indignant "NO" to most of those rhetorical questions. But they were asked in order to set up one more little question that isn't rhetorical at all. What makes gay people different, particularly if the science and medical research says THAT is also a condition of birth for the majority of gay people? What is the difference in light of modern science? If you retreat to words in a 2000+ years old book written before modern science could pin down that answer, you are also retreating from the modern world in order to cling to an archaic and hateful superstition.

 

[SachAccess]

No, I'm not mistaken. You just didn't understand the question.

You are quite right. You didn't say that. I said it. According to most of the religious people I meet, God created us, even knew us in the womb. If you believe in the T-shirt slogan, then "God doesn't make junk." Is that wrong? Does God make junk?



But then do you blame/chastise/shun people who were born with a birth condition? Do you belittle children born with a cleft palate? Do you demean children born with spina bifida? Do you run screaming from children born with phocomelia or other physical birth defects? You know that kids born missing something major, like an arm or leg, will never be cured, never be fully healed. Does that mean you leave them in the dust? What about kids with Down's Syndrome or Multiple Sclerosis? Are you going to treat them as people anyway?

I fully expect you to answer a highly indignant "NO" to most of those rhetorical questions. But they were asked in order to set up one more little question that isn't rhetorical at all. What makes gay people different, particularly if the science and medical research says THAT is also a condition of birth for the majority of gay people? What is the difference in light of modern science? If you retreat to words in a 2000+ years old book written before modern science could pin down that answer, you are also retreating from the modern world in order to cling to an archaic and hateful superstition.

Sir I really like the way you write and explain your experiences, thoughts. I have 0 knowledge about the topic discussed above.
May be am an intruder, interrupting your discussion. I thought I will read the post(s) and leave but could not control myself spamming you.

Sir, do you write outside this Forum too, I mean on social media platforms, for example blogs.
Are strangers, outsiders allowed to intrude your personal space there.
If allowed, I would really request you to let me in too.

Just one question if allowed, I definitely do not want to say X is right or X is wrong.
However, somethings are considered moral, and somethings are considered as im-moral.
How do you look issues from this angle.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

First, @SachAccess, thank you for your kind assessment of my (sometimes not so humble and often quite rambling) ideas.

Second, I do not write regularly on other forums since too many of them often become SPAM-fests or shouting matches. Also, I tend to be somewhat protective in my personal space, so I rarely let people in very far. It is my personal preference that I want to keep a limited public profile. There is the added issue that a lot of my writing time is spent in writing fantasy fiction. No publications yet, but a couple of nice rejection letters! And I spend some time on home programming projects, most recently including a genealogy support program that is capable of reading a rather complex file format called GEDCOM. I used it and continue to use it to build family tree information and documentation. Considering that I now have a family tree that, with sibling branches has reached over 2200 members, I've been busy. So my time for writing is sometimes limited. But some day, that family tree data will be for my grandsons.

Finally, regarding morality: To answer that question, we have to look at anthropology and its study of the development of Mankind, not from a pure historical viewpoint but also from a social viewpoint. Then temper that with a little bit of evolution.

Man developed in such a way as to become a somewhat gregarious animal, one who learned to tolerate and even thrive around his herd/pack/close neighbors. But man also has a territorial streak inherited from our saurian ancestry. So we developed a protective attitude against strangers/people who were different. We tended to shun folks unless they adopted our ways.

If you allow yourself to think about it objectively, you can see that the Ten Commandments can mostly be derived from people making rules so that everyone in an extended community - defined as "too big for everyone to personally know everyone else" - could just get along with each other. A couple of those commandments are primarily so that you can get along with the priest/shaman/fakir. I.e. since the commandments came from a religiously oriented source, a couple of extras got tossed in to placate the religiously oriented source. Otherwise, we might have been talking about "Eight Commandments."

Proponents of "divine" morality claim that the commandments came to us from God. Proponents of "practical" morality point out that if you stayed within the limits of the commandments, you were less likely to be banished from the community or bashed in the skull by a jealous neighbor. For whatever reason, communities taught behavioral standards based on those implied or explicit rules.

Let's dip into Christianity for just a brief moment. Jesus is quoted as saying (and here, I'm paraphrasing) that the commandments could be derived logically from two simple ideas: Believe in God, and Treat Others As You Wish To Be Treated. But if you realize that the "Golden Rule" appears in multiple religions for a long time before Jesus or even before Moses, this leads to the question of its origin. And in anthropology we find that the origin is blindingly simple: Treat people kindly or they will kick your butt out into the wilderness where you will have NO help when you need it. It is a basic survival rule.

Therefore, back to your morality question. Something is immoral if it is likely to get you ejected from the community. Being put in jail counts as 'ejected from the community' for this discussion.

The fact that so many people get away with immoral behavior is because of a limited number of reasons.
(a) Legal loopholes due to complex laws or laws introduced by too many folks who are soft on crime for some reason
(b) A violent gang has their back - or a misguided gang has their back... see "(a)" and "soft on crime"
(c) the action was against someone else who ALSO performed questionable actions, thus leading to an ambiguity.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but it always boils back down to the Golden Rule which is common to, but precedes, all major religions. When your action will intentionally and needlessly hurt someone else, it is probably to some degree immoral.

 

[Isaac]

But then do you blame/chastise/shun people who were born with a birth condition? Do you belittle children born with a cleft palate? Do you demean children born with spina bifida?

I can tell you're getting desperate for an argument, as the attacks are getting personal - and laughably false. Demonstrably so too, as I have gone out of my way to express that I have sympathy for anyone in these plights, and have never remotely suggested that I chastise people because of how they were born, nor that I belittle people, nor that I demean them.

In fact, I said they should be lovingly accepted.

Doc I respect you most of the time, but sometimes you need to learn that it's OK to just say "I have nothing else to say on this", rather than begin asserting a bunch of totally false things that anyone can easily see by reading my previous posts simply aren't so. You usually don't do this either, so I will assume you are just having a bad day -

Cheers, I guess this one has run its course. Anyone truly interested in what I said can just .... read it
Anyone more interested in pretending I presented a certain attitude for the benefit of their own need to persuade people that that's how people like me are (oddly ironic, as that's exactly what you're asking me not to do to others), can just jump on the bandwagon. Happy Tuesday everyone

 

[Pat Hartman]

The discussion has been very interesting BUT:

But others sometimes get rowdy in parades

Some behaviors are simply unacceptable in public, especially within sight of children. You may as well have people actually fornicating on the floats. It is this "in your face" behavior that hardens people's hearts. Heterosexual couples would be jailed for similar lewd behavior.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is this "in your face" behavior that hardens people's hearts.

Except that many times I have seen gays treated to "In your face" behavior from uncaring straights. And this is NOT supposed to make gays react? The cavorting and openly rowdy behavior come from being continually confronted by people who get in their face, and defiantly so. Including armed protesters.

Drag story time at Oregon pub draws gun-carrying protesters

Protesters, some of them armed, threw rocks and smoke grenades at each other outside a drag queen story time event at an Oregon pub, but the weekend show that was to have featured a child performer went on as planned. The 11-year-old did not take part as scheduled but was in the audience of...

www.yahoo.com

In the event, there is the tacit understanding that NOBODY was required to attend. Nobody was forced to participate. But the armed protesters made it unsafe for the event in question. If you don't like an event, don't go to it.

@Isaac

Demonstrably so too, as I have gone out of my way to express that I have sympathy for anyone in these plights, and have never remotely suggested that I chastise people because of how they were born, nor that I belittle people, nor that I demean them.

And did you note that I explicitly enumerated that list for rhetorical effect, EXPECTING you to deny an unsympathetic behavior? I believe fully that you don't chastise those folks. Your "man and woman in marriage" attitude ignores the fact that sometimes that is not possible. That was my point and I tried to make it clear. But... sometimes I don't. For that lack of clarity, I apologize. But not for defending my friends and my gay family member. From post #19:

We're getting to the point in this country where if you believe something that contradicts the current sickness of society

Is it sick to acknowledge that people are being mistreated for being born different? Is it sick for the mistreated people to say "I've had enough! Live with me as I am, and I'll behave outrageously for a while just to force you to actually SEE me rather than discard me like trash." ?

No matter who may say what about me, and how imperfect and flawed I may be (and am, I'm sure) as a human being and a Christian, I still believe that God meant a man to be with a woman, for life, barring certain extreme cases where marriages must terminate.

This is the attitude that gives me pause. It allows no room for homosexuals to desire a stable relationship with someone of their choice. You don't see it as an attitude that can be hurtful.

I have to agree with you on one point. We are not going to agree with this, so I would say this has perhaps run its course.

 

[SachAccess]

Hi @The_Doc_Man thanks a lot for your detailed response (as always). I was out of town hence could not reply.
Please give me some time to reply, have a nice day ahead.

'I tend to be somewhat protective in my personal space, so I rarely let people in very far. It is my personal preference that I want to keep a limited public profile.' Sir I absolutely agree with you and respect your preference.

'Something is immoral if it is likely to get you ejected from the community' This makes it clear and simple to understand. Thanks.
Still there are few aspects which cannot be called illegal but can be called immoral by the society or one's close circle or one's personal beliefs.
For me, conflict is there, something can be immoral (and legal) for me but can be moral for another person and vice versa.
How do you resolve this conflict.

I cannot give explicit examples here. Some relations are forbidden in every society but can be legal in some regions.
A person involved in such relation can always claim that it is legal to continue however it might be immoral to continue.
And this definition of moral things can change as per the person or the society.
Or a person can say that relation A is forbidden for me but accepted by you however for same person relation B is acceptable but immoral as per to you. How do you look at this scenario. Sorry if am making it confusing.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Sorry if am making it confusing.

I find it useful.

 

[MsAccessNL]

Rather than allow this to get nasty, I won't continue to bait you. I simply believe that your remarks reveal a certain bias and if you can't see it then I can't show it to you. This would quickly devolve to a Monty Python routine regarding the Argument Clinic.

i Love monty python, did you know that the code python is invented in the 80/90’s ( this so called new language) by a Dutchman and that the name came from Monty Python..

 

[The_Doc_Man]

How do you look at this scenario.

Specifically in the scenarios in which there is a cultural divide, there is the idea that just because a culture says something is OK does not make it so.

The USA went through a long-term cultural nightmare of slavery as a legal option. Took a shooting war to end it. Repercussions still abound from the ill feelings brought about by that event. Civil rights issues still arise in very visible ways. The culture is trying to evolve in a positive direction, but I personally believe in something like "cultural momentum" that can run into cultural resistance when you try to do too much at once. It is more like a culture that, when you rip out a long-seated concept, needs time for the resulting wounds to heal before you can proceed further. Taking steps in huge leaps is more than the culture can stand, which is why the "woke" ideas are not going over too well.

Many cultures treat women as second-class citizens. These are cultures that allow brutality in the name of "family honor" and thus turn a blind eye towards suppression of women in some way or another. Some South American and Central American cultures allow parents to kill a female young adult (still a child in their eyes) if she chooses a potential mate from outside their culture. Oh, it is illegal, but the cultures often turn a blind eye. These cultures that allow such treatment have not evolved as the rest of the world has, and thus are offering archaic viewpoints. When a culture allows a woman to be slapped around or beaten or killed in the name of "honor" - there is no honor. There is only cultural misogyny, culturally instilled hatred. When a culture differentiates in the legal capacity of women vs. men then they are following archaic rules.

The most frightening cultural group to me right now (along these lines) is Islam, where women are pushed into domestic situations (turning themselves into baby-makers) because only men can go out of the house when they please. Women have to wear a burka because if they don't then some man in that culture will be unable to keep his junk in his pants. Of course, to further that suppression, a woman needs four witnesses to be able to claim sexual assault. (I originally used another word, but the 4-letter word is filtered.) What's the matter? Are the Islamic men weak enough to be unable to control their animalistic urges?

There are other significant Islamic restrictions. Only recently have Saudi women even been allowed to drive a car. Young women are limited in the amount and nature of the schooling they receive. In cases of adultery it is the women who are stoned to death. But adultery always requires two people and the male in question is NOT stoned to death. Misogynistic cultures suppress half of their national brainpower in their misogyny and recent history has shown that it is the education level of a country that allows it to progress more rapidly. Long term, such cultures shoot themselves in their own feet rather than allow themselves to climb out of their own ignorance.

In every case, every instance of suppression, the rule that is violated is the Golden Rule. The simplest test? Would a man surrender his ability to leave the house, drive a car, work in an office, show his face?

Now, there are those cultures that find harm where they should not. Buddhism - certainly can endure pictures of the Buddha or statues of him. Christianity has many illustrations of Jesus. Wicca allows images representing their spirits and deities. But Islam loses all sensibility if you dare to show an image of a disapproving Muhammad. They see harm because they can't tolerate criticism. Yet they offer criticism of Christianity. I.e. the pot objects to the kettle calling it black. It is fielding and understanding criticism as a way to grow that makes any group improve itself, whether that group is religious, cultural, or interest-bound.

In religious terms, everyone knows the Golden Rule - but not everyone honors it. There is a simple atheist equivalent, "Do no needless harm." But too many folks manufacture harm in order to excuse their actions. The answer to your question, SachAccess, is therefore that assuming that a culture is right can be a mistake, just like assuming that a person is right is often a mistake. Cultures can be wrong because they are made up of people who can be wrong. The answer has to be to look for real harm and to be able to split that out from perceived harm.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I am but a simple writer offering opinions, but there are others who have offered far more eloquent opinions on the subject of cultural differences and whether those differences justify harsh treatment in one direction but not in another. I offer The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 1, as Shylock responds to a question about "a pound of flesh" and responds with why it is of value to him. I will emphasize key phrases.

"He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s the reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example?Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."