Is transgender something to get upset about?

[thedoc]

No. What got me going was a gay friend on fb recently posting an article about a study exploring why gayness didn't die out since not breeding would seem a poor strategy for passing on one's genes. So the survival value to gayness would seem to be due to gays being being 1) extra pairs of hands 2) extra minds available not swamped by family responsibilities, and 3) having slightly different kinds of minds, adding new perspectives to the group. I expect the same would apply to transpeople.

You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.

Of course they can pass on their genes. Being 'gay' doesn't mean you can't have children, or don't want them.

And you seem to be confusing "Don't ever' with "don't usually". I did not say that gays can't have children or don't want them, but a strictly gay lifestyle would preclude having children with another gay partner of the same sex. The gay would have to engage in a heterosexual relationship to produce a child.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You seem to be accepting the idea that being gay is a genetic condition. If that were true, homosexuality would die out because gays do not usually pass on their genes. To my knowledge there have been gays throughout history, and in many areas and times have been brutally persecuted, though there have been places and times where it was accepted. I would venture to say that there is more to homosexuality than genetics.

Of course they can pass on their genes. Being 'gay' doesn't mean you can't have children, or don't want them.

And you seem to be confusing "Don't ever' with "don't usually". I did not say that gays can't have children or don't want them, but a strictly gay lifestyle would preclude having children with another gay partner of the same sex. The gay would have to engage in a heterosexual relationship to produce a child.

Isn't it kristians who are always preaching that procreation has nothing to do with sexual desire? All that 'guilt and shame' that is the great gift of kristianity to the human race?

[Greta]

Of course they can pass on their genes. Being 'gay' doesn't mean you can't have children, or don't want them.

And you seem to be confusing "Don't ever' with "don't usually". I did not say that gays can't have children or don't want them, but a strictly gay lifestyle would preclude having children with another gay partner of the same sex. The gay would have to engage in a heterosexual relationship to produce a child.

Isn't it kristians who are always preaching that procreation has nothing to do with sexual desire? All that 'guilt and shame' that is the great gift of kristianity to the human race?

The stigma is probably why many gays had kids. When one considers the roots of homophobia and the "populate or perish" circumstances of various warring middle eastern tribes, it would seem that the whole idea was to force everyone to participate in baby making, regardless of preferences. To that end, it's mission accomplished - more babies made. Trouble is, in modern society, if a married a gay person manages enough of his or her conjugal duties to produce children then, when they have their inevitable meltdown, the marriage partner and the children are deeply affected, no matter what decision the married queer person comes to; they will either leave or go somewhat crazy.

Woman and children are the unacknowledged victims of homophobia. IMO it's best in this overpopulated world to leave the breeding to those who most want to do it, not those breeding because they feel pressured by society. Of course, anyone who's been through the Christmas Inquisition "have you thought about having children?" knows that peer pressure to breed does not only affect queer people :)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And you seem to be confusing "Don't ever' with "don't usually". I did not say that gays can't have children or don't want them, but a strictly gay lifestyle would preclude having children with another gay partner of the same sex. The gay would have to engage in a heterosexual relationship to produce a child.

Isn't it kristians who are always preaching that procreation has nothing to do with sexual desire? All that 'guilt and shame' that is the great gift of kristianity to the human race?

The stigma is probably why many gays had kids. When one considers the roots of homophobia and the "populate or perish" circumstances of various warring middle eastern tribes, it would seem that the whole idea was to force everyone to participate in baby making, regardless of preferences. To that end, it's mission accomplished - more babies made. Trouble is, in modern society, if a married a gay person manages enough of his or her conjugal duties to produce children then, when they have their inevitable meltdown, the marriage partner and the children are deeply affected, no matter what decision the married queer person comes to; they will either leave or go somewhat crazy.

Woman and children are the unacknowledged victims of homophobia. IMO it's best in this overpopulated world to leave the breeding to those who most want to do it, not those breeding because they feel pressured by society. Of course, anyone who's been through the Christmas Inquisition "have you thought about having children?" knows that peer pressure to breed does not only affect queer people

There is a major flaw here. Those who most want to procreate are often those who perhaps shouldn't, plus, gays often have a strong desire to have children--no different from anyone else.

[thedoc]

Isn't it kristians who are always preaching that procreation has nothing to do with sexual desire? All that 'guilt and shame' that is the great gift of kristianity to the human race?

When one considers the roots of homophobia and the "populate or perish" circumstances of various warring middle eastern tribes, it would seem that the whole idea was to force everyone to participate in baby making, regardless of preferences. To that end, it's mission accomplished - more babies made. Trouble is, in modern society, if a married a gay person manages enough of his or her conjugal duties to produce children then, when they have their inevitable meltdown, the marriage partner and the children are deeply affected, no matter what decision the married queer person comes to; they will either leave or go somewhat crazy.

Woman and children are the unacknowledged victims of homophobia. IMO it's best in this overpopulated world to leave the breeding to those who most want to do it, not those breeding because they feel pressured by society. Of course, anyone who's been through the Christmas Inquisition "have you thought about having children?" knows that peer pressure to breed does not only affect queer people

As you both seem to insist on addressing your own stero-types of Christians rather than me, please leave me out of your conversation, bashing the same people that i would criticize. If you want to address me, please find out where I actually stand on the issue, rather than bashing some imagined stance out of ignorance.

[thedoc]

There is a major flaw here. Those who most want to procreate are often those who perhaps shouldn't, plus, gays often have a strong desire to have children--no different from anyone else.

Do you have any real data to back this up, or is it just more flatulence on your part.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Isn't it kristians who are always preaching that procreation has nothing to do with sexual desire? All that 'guilt and shame' that is the great gift of kristianity to the human race?

When one considers the roots of homophobia and the "populate or perish" circumstances of various warring middle eastern tribes, it would seem that the whole idea was to force everyone to participate in baby making, regardless of preferences. To that end, it's mission accomplished - more babies made. Trouble is, in modern society, if a married a gay person manages enough of his or her conjugal duties to produce children then, when they have their inevitable meltdown, the marriage partner and the children are deeply affected, no matter what decision the married queer person comes to; they will either leave or go somewhat crazy.

Woman and children are the unacknowledged victims of homophobia. IMO it's best in this overpopulated world to leave the breeding to those who most want to do it, not those breeding because they feel pressured by society. Of course, anyone who's been through the Christmas Inquisition "have you thought about having children?" knows that peer pressure to breed does not only affect queer people

As you both seem to insist on addressing your own stero-types of Christians rather than me, please leave me out of your conversation, bashing the same people that i would criticize. If you want to address me, please find out where I actually stand on the issue, rather than bashing some imagined stance out of ignorance.

Gosh. I wonder why it's a 'stereotype'? It wouldn't be that it's true or anything would it?

[thedoc]

Gosh. I wonder why it's a 'stereotype'? It wouldn't be that it's true or anything would it?

Your ignorance is probably not true in most cases. You are working with a fiction that has been invented by non-Christians to make Christians look bad.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Gosh. I wonder why it's a 'stereotype'? It wouldn't be that it's true or anything would it?

Your ignorance is probably not true in most cases. You are working with a fiction that has been invented by non-Christians to make Christians look bad.

They aren't exactly invisible shrinking violets.

[Greta]

Gosh. I wonder why it's a 'stereotype'? It wouldn't be that it's true or anything would it?

Your ignorance is probably not true in most cases. You are working with a fiction that has been invented by non-Christians to make Christians look bad.

They aren't exactly invisible shrinking violets.

Doc, she has a point there!

Veggie, I think doc's just trying to say that not all Christians are prejudiced.

[Immanuel Can]

Thedoc:

Just a bit more grist to the mill, on the issue of "transgenderism" propaganda and it's effects on the vulnerable:

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/are ... backs-link

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

You're right: it ain't your fault.

It's Harbal's fault.

Bad Harbal! BAD Harbal!

woof...woof

[henry quirk]

"are limits to human diversity(?)"

Yep: XX and XY. Whatever falls outside these natural boundaries (psychologically, biologically) is aberrant.

[Immanuel Can]

"are limits to human diversity(?)"

Yep: XX and XY. Whatever falls outside these natural boundaries (psychologically, biologically) is aberrant.

True dat.

Actually, the question is so absurd as to refute itself. If there were NO "limits to human diversity," a "human" could just as easily be a cat, a paramecium or a rock.

What there may not be is a limit to Liberal-minded illogic.

[attofishpi]

maybe in the multi-dimensional control that God has Jesus truly is portrayed to the believer in the form most identifiable in likeness to their region.

Well, that's one option. It does rather raise the question of whether there was an historical Jesus and what he actually looked like.

As far as im aware even atheist theological scholars have little doubt that Jesus existed. He would look like a jew wouldn't he?