Amethyst Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 We have learned from listening to individuals and families dealing with intersex that: * Intersexuality is primarily a problem of stigma and trauma, not gender. * Parents’ distress must not be treated by surgery on the child. * Professional mental health care is essential. * Honest, complete disclosure is good medicine. * All children should be assigned as boy or girl, without early surgery. Click here to learn more about our agenda. With your help, we can make the world a safer place for families dealing with intersex conditions. Why "assign" kids a gender in the first place? Why is so much in our society based on genders, for crying out loud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixchel Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I have always vehemently hated the argument that compares homosexuality to bestiality. One is a consensual agreement between two people, and another there is no choice for the animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Why "assign" kids a gender in the first place? Why is so much in our society based on genders, for crying out loud? I agree. Years ago I saw a PBS documentary on, I believe, some Latin American community where there was an extraordinarily high incidence of intersex babies being born, across many generations. What these people did about it was to dress the toddlers in a unisex sort of way, then dress them as the kids themselves chose to be dressed as they got older, then wait until the kid was well into the teen years to learn from their child what direction (or directions) the young person felt most comfortable in going. The whole society had no problem with any of this, and there were certainly no destructive, sometimes lethal, surgeries performed on babies just so the parents could comfortably choose the "It's a girl!" or "It's a boy!" birth announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris B Chikin Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Here's a thought to throw into the mix: Why not legalize Straight Civil Partnerships instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulQ Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 DQ, Thanks for this further elaboration on the point I was making earlier -- who's to say who's a man and who's a woman? I think, though, that the PC term for what we used to call hermaphroditism is intersexuality. Intersex folks have organizations, now, and below is the mission statement from one such group. I was not aware that there was a PC term; but then again, I was unaware that the term hermaphrodite had negative connotations associated with it. Then again, Christians do tend to be pretty hush-hush about it, as the existence of such people destroys the already shaky foundation of their beliefs. What these people did about it was to dress the toddlers in a unisex sort of way, then dress them as the kids themselves chose to be dressed as they got older, then wait until the kid was well into the teen years to learn from their child what direction (or directions) the young person felt most comfortable in going. I personally see no reason why a person should need to opt for one direction or another. What harm would there be in doing both, or neither? Then there's asexual people. These are people who do not experience sexual attraction. What of them? Who's to say that a marriage between two people even needs to be sexual in nature? An asexual couple could care for and love one another deeply, but since their relationship would be built on something much deeper than sexual attraction, what would it matter? Clearly, human sexuality is a broad spectrum. Perhaps the fact that marriage is often based purely on sexual attraction is what's wrong with marriage, and what contributes to the high divorce rate. I think it's time to de-stigmatize human sexuality, and allow people to fulfill their sexual needs (assuming, of course, that they're not asexual; no need to force it on anyone) without making them feel guilty about not being married. That way, we can reserve marriage for any couple, regardless of each others sex, who have formed that deeper bond and are ready to move beyond a physical, materialistic relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twincats Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 They are obsessed with the mechanics of gay sex in torturous detail and tries to find the negatives of gay sex in order to do away with gay sex while the very real dimensions of personality, togetherness and companionship of gay love is ignored! Exactly Onyx! I have yet to see a thread on a Christian forum thread regarding gay marriage that did not go into incredible detail about the mechanics of the sex the two parties would ‘supposedly’ be involved in. How would they feel if their relationships were speculated about in such a manner? They could just as easily speculate wildly about any heterosexual couple’s sexual life before they marry, but that would be considered rude and of no barring to their love and commitment to each other. Why is the love and the commitment that my partner and I share ignored, while it remains open season on sexual speculation? What my partner and I do or don’t do in the privacy of our bedroom is not what we want recognized, it is our relationship, or commitment, the responsibility we pledge to each other that we want recognized. That is why you never see us having sex in public, but you will see that we are couple. But that does not make for an interesting thread about fudge packing, so it is ignored. If I was half as interested in gay sex as most Christians, I would never leave the bedroom. IBF If the fundies started acknowledging actual relationships between same sex partners, it starts sounding all warm and fuzzy which doesn't get the rabble sufficiently roused, you see. In order to attain and sustain the required levels of righteous indignation among the masses, it has to be all about teh gay seks and how icky and unnatural it all is. This is also why hetero anal sex must never be discussed except in terms of how unnatural and icky it is. And by no means must they ever get sucked into discussions of oral sex, because they (and nearly everyone else, to be sure) likes to do it and they don't like to be reminded that oral sex is unnatural, too (even if they don't classify it as icky.) Yep, if you're a fundy, better to treat what nice, normal hetero couples do within their marriages as sacrosanct and nobody's business altogether lest someone try to point out that what the nasty gays get up in the bedroom to is frequently enough the same set of behaviors that any given hetero couple might be doing at any given time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 31, 2008 Super Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2008 " . . . the PC term for what we used to call hermaphroditism is intersexuality." Now it's PC for hermaphrodites? A legitimate medical term? Sheesh! I like Archie Bunker's term - "morphodite." I'm not poking fun. It would be a distressing and confusing condition to be born with, but I still refer to my Chinese doctor as Oriental! I'm just a pig - or a "porcinist" as we like to be called now. Back to gay marriage - whom exactly does it hurt, and how are anyone else's rights infringed by it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brought None Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 It hurts the religious fundies cause they don't have a witch to burn for social woes which they feel is their right to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitchu Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 " . . . the PC term for what we used to call hermaphroditism is intersexuality."Now it's PC for hermaphrodites? A legitimate medical term? Sheesh! I like Archie Bunker's term - "morphodite." I'm not poking fun. It would be a distressing and confusing condition to be born with, but I still refer to my Chinese doctor as Oriental! I'm just a pig - or a "porcinist" as we like to be called now. Back to gay marriage - whom exactly does it hurt, and how are anyone else's rights infringed by it? "Morphodite" was the only term I knew, growing up, to describe the condition. One of Bunker's writers must have attended my Junior High. I don't think there's a thing in the world which can't have fun poked at it. I scrambled for years to stay on top of whether I was in the age of "colored people" or "negroes" or "Afro-Americans" or "people of color" or "African-Americans" or "blacks." I only brought it up (about the morphodites) because I think most people do want to call other people what they want to be called. (So, my friend, "Porcinist," it is! As for me -- "Poor White Trash Pitchu" will do nicely. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Here's a thought to throw into the mix: Why not legalize Straight Civil Partnerships instead? No. That would be gay. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 The way to deal with foot-draggers is to cut their damn feet off! Haha, I like that. I've debated this topic a lot and there hasn't been a single logical argument against gay marriage. It's full of rhyming statements about a creation myth and based on ridiculous arguments. They say it's not natural, and they ignore you when you state it's been found in hundreds of animals. They say anal sex is gross, but ignore you when you say fat/old people sex is gross, that not all gay males have anal sex, and no women do. The arguments are purely based on fake ignorance and hatred. Christianity is so backwards and negative for society. Rather than teach people good morals, it teaches them to lie about people like homosexuals. It teaches them to give money to propaganda machines that spew forth pseudoscientific studies and people who twist other studies in order to show how evil gay people are and how self-destructive they are. It encourages them to lie and say that they're "pro family" while they work the system, ignoring the separation of church and state, in order to break up families involving two gay people. They could be doing positive things for the planet, but instead, they're ruining innocent people's lives in the name of bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameen Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I've debated this topic a lot and there hasn't been a single logical argument against gay marriage. I hear you. I once had a run-in with a Fundie on another board, and he admitted that my pro-gay arguments were convincing and that I had made him feel some sympathy for gay people--especially when I countered his telling me that I had to be celibate and never again be with a man again by asking if he was willing to give up his girlfriend and pledge absitinence for life. He was not. Nevertheless, he said he had to go with what the Bible said... That's the point. No matter how logical you are or how well reasoned your argument is, you can't win with a Bible thumper. They don't see reality the way others do. I should know, as I was a Fundie before I became a Born Again Gay Atheist. All that being said, I just wanted to point out that there are some open-minded Christians. My parents and sister, who are heterosexual, go to a mostly heterosexual Protestant church where there are two open lesbian couples in the congregation. When the church had to appoint a new minister, anti-gay candidates were not considered. In addition, I know of a mostly heterosexual Protestant church with an openly lesbian minister. There are also some groups--including the Universalists, the UCC, and the Quakers--with proven track records of support and inclusion. The Christian world is a grim place for gays in general, but there are some bright spots. Sadly, not everyone can give up religion as we have, and I am glad that the gay Christians I know--people who would be lost without a church to go to--have places where they are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrosmith Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 . My parents and sister, who are heterosexual, go to a mostly heterosexual Protestant church where there are two open lesbian couples in the congregation. When the church had to appoint a new minister, anti-gay candidates were not considered. In addition, I know of a mostly heterosexual Protestant church with an openly lesbian minister. There are also some groups--including the Universalists, the UCC, and the Quakers--with proven track records of support and inclusion. This I cannot understand. Would *any* African American want to be a grand wizard in the Ku Klux Klan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Moon Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I have to agree with the post above I mean why would anybody in their right mind go somewhere where they are hated and despised for being the way they are?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameen Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 To a large degree, I agree with both of you. The church just isn't for me, and I am aware of what 2,000 years of Christian history has meant. I am free now that I am no longer a Christian. I have two close friends, and my best friend is also a gay atheist. My other close friend is a heterosexual Christian like my parents and sister: They cannot live in a universe devoid of an intelligent creator who cares about them, and they need to be "sure" of what will happen after they die. In addition, their social lives revolve around the church. It's like my seeking out friends who are fellow science fictions fans; I want to be around people who love what I love so we can share it. This is how the Christians I know feel. That being said, my parents, sister, and other close friend all know that I am gay and all know that I am an atheist. When I was a kid in the 70s, the church preached 'homos in hell'; that is no longer allowed. It is hard for me to forget my bad memories, but I am glad others who actually need a spiritual life in the church for whatever psychological reason will never have to go through what I did. My sister is the head Sunday School teacher in her church, and she teaches her students that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I dislike the church for a number of reasons, but I see what I have said as a good thing. Of course, you are welcome to disagee--with absolutely no hard feelings on my part. This is, after all, a discussion board. I also know a number of gay Christians, and they believe unquestioningly in Jesus. They need to know that this 'Jesus' loves them and approves of their same-sex relationships. Again, I don't. But if I even lost my best friend--the fellow gay atheist, someone who has been like a brother to me since 1992--I would really be lost in life. Yes, I'd survive and move on, but I would always feel his loss. That is how they feel about Jesus and why they cannot let him go. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Broke Free Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 To a large degree, I agree with both of you. The church just isn't for me, and I am aware of what 2,000 years of Christian history has meant. I am free now that I am no longer a Christian. I have two close friends, and my best friend is also a gay atheist. My other close friend is a heterosexual Christian like my parents and sister: They cannot live in a universe devoid of an intelligent creator who cares about them, and they need to be "sure" of what will happen after they die. In addition, their social lives revolve around the church. It's like my seeking out friends who are fellow science fictions fans; I want to be around people who love what I love so we can share it. This is how the Christians I know feel. That being said, my parents, sister, and other close friend all know that I am gay and all know that I am an atheist. When I was a kid in the 70s, the church preached 'homos in hell'; that is no longer allowed. It is hard for me to forget my bad memories, but I am glad others who actually need a spiritual life in the church for whatever psychological reason will never have to go through what I did. My sister is the head Sunday School teacher in her church, and she teaches her students that there is nothing wrong with being gay. I dislike the church for a number of reasons, but I see what I have said as a good thing. Of course, you are welcome to disagee--with absolutely no hard feelings on my part. This is, after all, a discussion board. I also know a number of gay Christians, and they believe unquestioningly in Jesus. They need to know that this 'Jesus' loves them and approves of their same-sex relationships. Again, I don't. But if I even lost my best friend--the fellow gay atheist, someone who has been like a brother to me since 1992--I would really be lost in life. Yes, I'd survive and move on, but I would always feel his loss. That is how they feel about Jesus and why they cannot let him go. I hope that helps. I belong to gay men’s group where I live in New Hampshire. On an average meeting night we have about 30-40 men show up and I have met over 150 in all. We occasionally discuss religion, but I have kept quiet for the most part because my questions were not well received. Most of the non-religious members don’t see the point in having me challenge our religious members to think, it makes their brains hurt. About a third of the members are quite religious and like most Christians are not really keen on discussing their religion beyond how wonderful it is in their lives. They keep telling me how ‘affirming’ their church is toward gay people and I just want to gag. They may be affirming, but the base message is still the same, “Humans are a piece of crap in the eyes of God and without us you are lost to eternal torment.” I just want to shake them silly sometimes. IBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 When I told my mother I was for gay rights, she immediately brought up bestiality, but I shot her down by simply saying that a gay couple consists of two consenting adults and bestiality is more like rape since the animal isn't expressing consent. It really does irk me when Christian heteros go into how disgusting gay sex is when they are guilty themselves of performing the same acts (a hetero man can still receive anal from his wife). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I have to wonder this...because of the uproar over gay marriage, has hate crimes against homosexuals increased or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 When I told my mother I was for gay rights, she immediately brought up bestiality, but I shot her down by simply saying that a gay couple consists of two consenting adults and bestiality is more like rape since the animal isn't expressing consent. Not surprising. "IF homosexuality THEN bestiality" is one of the typical preprogrammed phrases in the "minds" of the cultist robots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I'm also a gay atheist and a militant supporter of gay marriage. I'm proud to be a supporter of the godless liberal gay agenda. I have yet to have heard a coherent argument against gay marriage that wasn't nine times out of ten, just an excuse to hate people for who they are. The argument from scripture is not a reason to ban gay marriage; it's just an excuse to hate people. I think when Christians start debating whether or not the bible says homosexuality is a sin to support their side of the debate, they're missing the whole point of the debate entirely. The point being that we really don't care what the bible says about it. You can't use baseless religious beliefs that have no evidence for them as the basis for government law. Christians wouldn't like it if Muslims tried to turn America into an Islamic democracy and tried to infuse Shariah law into the government, but for some reason it's perfectly a-ok for xtians to do so. Christians can debate all day long if they want whether or not the bible says the sky is pink or blue, but regardless of what the bible says, it still doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue and Christians are going to have to put up with it whether they like it or not. The argument from tradition doesn't make sense either because what do they mean by "traditional" marriage? Do they mean like how in the OT polygamy was ok? Or by "traditional" marriage, do they mean like when women had no rights and were the property of men? Or how about the days when inter-racial marriage was banned? Is that "traditional" marriage? I've asked this question from Christians plenty of times before and I have so far not heard a coherent response to this. The truth is there is no universal traditional definition of what marriage is. Marriage is always constantly evolving and changing, whether Christians like it or not. Even if you could pinpoint a defiition of what "traditional" marriage is, it's still not an excuse to ban gay marriage. Traditions don't last forever and are also constantly evolving with our cultures. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. The pledge originally didn't have "under God" in it and people were ok with that. Then suddenly Christians decided they had the urge to change that tradition by adding "under God" into the pledge and suddenly it's a "tradition". So even Christians will disregard traditions if it means they can force their beliefs on other people. But traditions are not some magical unchanging being. Traditions are something that changes with the culture. I wish Christians would get it through their thick heads that America is not a "Christian" nation. It was established under the separation of church and state, which exists to protect their beliefs, too. I don't get why Christians can't understand that when they disregard the separation of church and state, then they're putting their beliefs at risk too, because who's to stop people from disregarding it further. I also despise the whole "separate but equal" argument for civil unions. If they were really equal, then why not just go ahead and change it to gay marriage? Christians always say we shouldn't make a big deal about the name because we'll get the same rights, but if the name is all that's different and we shouldn't make a big deal about the name, why do they always make such a big deal about it when someone decides to change the name? I think that because Christians make a big deal about whether or not it's called gay marriage or civil unions, then that's proof that what it's called is important, otherwise they wouldn't care if we just went ahead and legalized gay marriage. If Christians want to live in a theocracy so badly, they should move to Saudi Arabia, but don't drag the rest of us down with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Moon Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 When I told my mother I was for gay rights, she immediately brought up bestiality, but I shot her down by simply saying that a gay couple consists of two consenting adults and bestiality is more like rape since the animal isn't expressing consent. It really does irk me when Christian heteros go into how disgusting gay sex is when they are guilty themselves of performing the same acts (a hetero man can still receive anal from his wife). By the way I must point out that it's not just the fundies that use this arguement. As last week I had this debate with a family member and they brought up bestiality and I said the same thing as you did but I think this person missed my point. As they said if gays are born that way then so are paedophilies does that mean they should marry children? again I pointed out that a paedophilie marrying a child is not an consenting relationship. Now this person has a brother who is now female who is also gay so this family member who I was having this debate with seems to have gotton transgender and homosexuality mixed up as they kept doing an impression of someone saying "I'm a woman trapped in a mans body" and I had to point out that transgender has nothing to do with sexuatily Anyway this person isn't really religous but still believes in a god so she is not a fundie but she still brings up the same thing as a fundie does. All I think this boils down too is their obssesion with how gays have sex I mean I don't think even the most horniest people in the world are obessed this much about how other people have sex. Oh btw I think the documentry "because the bible tells me so" is relevant to this topic I've just tried to look for the full vid but I can't find it but you can the DVD at this website http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/index2.htm Sorry for the long post everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Pedophilia is a fetish rather than a sexual orientation. It's roughly parallel to white guys that have a fetish for Asian women, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 That's a daring claim. With some it may well be kind of a fetish. For all I know looking at it from the outside, for others it's really an orientation thing - they don't feel attracted in any way to adult persons. Which of course will make lurking morontheists go "See?! Those evil unbelievers say pedophilia is okay!!1111!!!!!". To all those lurkers I say a heartfelt "FUCK YOU". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vomit Comet Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 That's a daring claim. With some it may well be kind of a fetish. For all I know looking at it from the outside, for others it's really an orientation thing - they don't feel attracted in any way to adult persons. Well, I used to know an expert... that's what he said when I asked years ago. I asked because I was a Christian at the time and I thought pedophilia was an exact parallel to homosexuality. I was actually disappointed that he said it was a fetish, not an orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I have to wonder this...because of the uproar over gay marriage, has hate crimes against homosexuals increased or not? Probably. It's very high, either way. Pedophilia is a fetish rather than a sexual orientation. It's roughly parallel to white guys that have a fetish for Asian women, for instance. I've wondered about that issue myself. Do you know if studies have declared it as either more of an orientation or fetish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts