Falling Faster

>> Monday, February 2, 2009

It is incredible how bad things are already on the culture front. This piece shows that we ain't seen nuttin' yet.

You know, it's frustrating to comment on the sad state of affairs regarding human sexuality in America. It grieves me deeply to see the direction we are heading and to see how willing some are to get there. Too many look upon such as being of little consequence while we now deal with the consequences of having fallen as far as we have. Fall deeper and the consequences will increase in number and intensity. Whether the consequences are foretold or unintended doesn't matter. What does is that they are unnecessary but for misbegotten attitudes that serve as invitation to their destructive effects. Traditional values of honor, integrity, self-discipline, service, etc, have been at best, re-defined, but in truth rejected in favor of meaningless and misused replacements such as tolerance, social justice, and diversity. To hold fast to the former would mean the latter, in their true definitions and benefits, would be a given.

As to the linked article, such things don't surprise me, even though they disgust me in their impudence and selfishness. A great policy would be as follows: I seem to recall that some state or states, Texas may be one, officially determine gender by chromosome. That is, if one insists one is female, and tests show the presence of the y chromosome only men have, then no matter the outward appearance, that person shall be legally referred to as "male". I like it. It reflects reality perfectly and prevents the confusion that the Massachussetts travesty will undoubtedly foster. Those people who insist that they are truly of the opposite sex will have to deal. I encourage professional help.

51 comments:

Eric February 3, 2009 at 7:38 AM  

That's a great idea. Why didn't anyone think of that sooner? Why, we could have saved ourselves all the anguish and histrionics from the Oprah Society if we'd just had this on the books 20, 40, hell, 100 years ago! It's so simple enablers on the left, including Oprah and Dan, will call it hate-crime legislation!

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 9:49 AM  

Yes, Marshall, there is a HUGE problem with transgendered folk out running amok and getting away by "hiding" their "true" gender on their license. Why, this must happen... Well, wait, I don't guess this has ever happened.

Do you know what percentage of citizens are transgendered? 1%, maybe? What percentage of them are ruthless criminals, I wonder?

Could this be an example of imagining a problem where none exists?

BenT - the unbeliever,  February 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM  

If you read the linked story, you would see it's not as easy as checking a box on the application.

You have to request a specific form, you have to get the form signed by a licensed medial professional, before someone can change their gender on their driver's license.

The only change in fact is that applicants no longer have to show they already undergone gender reassignment surgery prior to requesting the change to their license.

Marshall Art February 3, 2009 at 12:44 PM  

Dan,

Like the simpleton you are, you ignore the consequences of this type of enabling. YOU might not have a problem with a man using the same public restroom as your wife or daughters, but most people would. When these sorry and confused individuals are so coddled by wrong-headed loons like yourself, the rest of us are forced to cope with that which we shouldn't have to cope. People who feel they were born with the wrong body ala "I'm a woman born in a man's body", are mentally disturbed and in need of professional help. A doctorate in psychology is not required to understand this obvious truth.

Marshall Art February 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM  

Bent,

The ease with which one can have one's ID altered for this purpose, or the lack thereof, is not the issue. It's that they are allowed to at all. One is what one is, not what one wishes one was born as.

Al-Ozarka February 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM  

"Do you know what percentage of citizens are transgendered? 1%, maybe?" - Dan

Probably about the same as women who seek abortions because of rape/incest.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM  

Marshall, do you know even one transgendered person? Have you studied psychology so that you are qualified to make a judgment on someone else's mental state? No?

Perhaps if you had a doctorate - or even if you just read a book or two - you might have a better understanding of real world issues.

As it is, you speak from ignorance, brudda. Go out. Meet people. Read. Learn. It's not so scary in the real world, you know.

We held a funeral at our church a few years back for a dear church member who was transgendered. She was not a danger, she was not crazy, she was not disturbed. As far as I know, she never once presumed to talk with as much vitriol in as much ignorance as you have done here today.

So tell me: WHO has the greater problem? My church member who was a lovely person who happened to be transgendered or someone speaking as judgmentally and harshly in apparently extreme ignorance as you?

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 1:35 PM  

Or, put another way: WHO do you think should make the call about who is "mentally disturbed and in need of professional help" - just some guy with no formal training in psychology or an association of trained, educated people who have studied and researched the topic thoroughly and who actually know the people in question?

Does Marshall's uneducated hunch trump all other educated, research-based opinions? Does this apply in other areas? I mean, I have absolutely no experience in designing bridges: IF I have an opinion about how bridges should be built, do I get to trump the opinions of engineers and architects?

Al-Ozarka February 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM  

Umm...uh...Dan

Maybe it would do you some good to sit back for a moment a simplify things rather than complicating them with a load of flawed human reasoning.

Male...Female...simple as that.

Your deceased church-member, regardless of how sweet she acted to you, obviously had issues with reality.

Ask "her" chromosomes...they'll set you straight

Mark February 3, 2009 at 3:29 PM  

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world.

Who knew there were so many perverts in Louisville? Everytime we post an entry on perversion, Dan chimes in with someone he knows who is just such a deviant.

I'm thinking Dan doesn't live in the real world, but a kind of perverse world filled with all kinds of sexual deviancy. Maybe he really doesn't know any other kind (Read normmal) of lifestyle.

By the way, Dan, what did your dear "transgendered" friend die from? I'm guessing AIDS?

Marshall Art February 3, 2009 at 3:53 PM  

"So tell me: WHO has the greater problem?"

That's a tough call. At first blush the obvious answer is the transgendered. They're the folks who can't tell who they are.

But then I think, WOW! with loons like Dan adding to the confusion of the poor unfortunates, the answer would be, THE REST OF FREAKIN' SOCIETY, most of whom do NOT think in as muddled a fashion as the psuedo-sanctimonious Dan.

By your own arguments (the arguments of those like yourself who support deviancy), did God make a mistake? This is what we hear when the issue is homosexual behavior and the suggestion that it is normal. With the transgendered, who see themselves as the opposite of what they were born, they suggest that God goofed and put them in the wrong bodies. So you want it both ways and as has been suggested, you cling to only that which supports your goofy perspective of life, God and reality.

And as I stated emphatically, one has no need of sheepskin to know the transgendered have a mental problem.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 3:55 PM  

Would that make you happy, Mark?

I'd warn you once again not to call "unholy" (or "perverted" or "deviant") what God has called beautiful and blessed. You don't know this beloved sister, don't go straying into your own perverse imaginations to try to pass off onto her your own sexual hangups.

In other words, back off.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM  

Marshall has rejected with impugnity education and knowledge, by saying:

And as I stated emphatically, one has no need of sheepskin to know the transgendered have a mental problem.

And so, the answer to my question (who knows best about an issue, someone who has studied it and is familiar with the problem or a complete bozo who knows absolutely nothing), in Marshall's mind, is that the bozos are the ones who know best.

So let's fire our engineers and have first graders build bridges instead. Let's fire all the doctors and go back to using leeches. "heh heh. Knowledge is stoopid. I know best, and I don't know nothing! geez!"

You go ahead and use an imbecile for your doctor, Marshall and drive a car designed by an idiot over bridges built by simpletons. You're a free man.

By all means, thin the herd some.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 4:19 PM  

Seriously, Marshall. How can we have a society where informed opinion is to be cast aside? Are all expert opinions to be discarded or only the ones that Marshall doesn't agree with? And does Marshall mind if the rest of the society prefers to trust experts to at least some degree over Marshall's gut feelings?

Just because you get all queasy thinking about people who are different than you does not mean we ought to base our society on your feelings and tender emotions, brother. Facts matter.

I'm sure that on at least some level, you agree with me. It would be insane not to think that we need authentic doctors and engineers over play pretend ones.

Mark February 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM  

I've got an idea! Instead of any of us answering one of Dan's off-topic questions, why don't we insist he answer our on-topic questions?

C'mon Dan, show us you can follow the topic of discussion. Answer the question. These so-called "trans gendered" people that are telling us that they are a man in a woman's body or a woman in a man's body, are obviously accusing God of making a mistake when He created them. So, answer the question:

Do you think God makes mistakes?

Well, do you? It's a simple yes or no question, Dan. Yes or no?

And just to satisfy my curiosity, did your transgendered friend die of AIDS or not? Why are you avoiding the questions we are asking, Dan?

Here, I'll answer your question, "Would that make you happy?"

Depends on what "that" refers to.

But if you are asking if your friend dying of AIDS would make me happy, I'll say no. I am not happy that anyone would die of AIDS.

That's one of the reasons I believe homosexuality is a mental illness. Why else would someone intentionally, willingly, and carelessly engage in a behavior so likely to cause the contraction of the AIDS virus, unless they are mentally unstable?

Mark February 3, 2009 at 6:24 PM  

But seriously, Dan. I really want to know if you believe God makes mistakes.

Mark February 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM  

Oh, and Dan, you are seriously in danger of God's judgement even suggesting that God Blesses deviant behavior.

You back off.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM  

No, I don't think God makes mistakes. Some of us are born 100% heterosexual and male, some of us 100% homosexual and male, some 70% homosexual and female, some of us into male bodies but with female inclinations, some with blindness, some with an appalling lack of decency (or perhaps that's bred into us?), etc, etc. It's how we're born and I wouldn't call those things mistakes.

Would you?

As to any other questions you have, Mark, until you apologize for your obnoxious remarks here in the past, I don't have much use for your stupid questions.

If we were talking about your mother who got sick and died, would you feel it acceptable to say, "Wow, what a perverted person she must have been. Did she die of AIDS? Gonorrhea? Bleeding from her woman parts??" - is that an acceptable way for someone to talk about someone they don't even know? Someone who happens to be beloved by others? No. No. No, it's not. It's horribly wrong.

The thing is, I'm sure you'll be offended by that sort of illustration, but you won't understand why your comments are out of line and offensive and perverted. I hope I'm wrong. I hope a light will go off and you'll see, "Oh my gosh! How horrible a comment that was! I am sorry, until you put my mother in that same context, I had no idea how truly awful that sounds. I am terribly sorry! Please forgive me."

And I will be glad to do so, brother. Until then, you have some truly perverse thoughts bouncing around in your head and I hope you get help.

Mark February 3, 2009 at 6:48 PM  

Oh, I see. So you are saying God intentionally sows confusion.

Anyone else want to address what the Bible says regarding who sows confusion?

I guess by your refusal to answer my question that your friend died of AIDS, as I wondered. Thanks for playing.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM  

Mark also wrongly stated:

you are seriously in danger of God's judgement even suggesting that God Blesses deviant behavior.

Oh! That's right. The Bible clearly condemns being a transgendered person in... oh, wait, transgender issues are never addressed in the Bible. Why, it's not even a behavior, it's a state of being.

WHAT deviant behavior are you talking about, Mark?? Are you talking about the folk who were saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus who were born physically a male but felt that emotionally, mentally, spiritually, they were female? What's deviant about that?

I know, I know, it makes you feel all queasy, like Marshall. You don't feel comfortable with that reality. It makes you emotionally upset to think about it. But we don't base our morality or science on your emotions, Mark. Let's deal with facts. Logic. Reality. Not emotional discomfort.

The fact is, some physically male folk are emotionally, mentally more female in nature. Or do you think God makes mistakes?

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 6:52 PM  

No, Mark, your mom died of AIDS from all those years of whoring around, just like your grandmother. This person died of old age.

You are a deviant, son. Get help.

Dan Trabue February 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM  

So, Mark, by your line of reasoning, then, homosexuality must be okay, because after all, God doesn't make mistakes. I agree.

Mark February 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM  

No, Dan, don't be stuck on stupid. My reasoning is no one is born that way. It is a conscious choice.

God said homosexuality is an abomination to Him. It defies logic to suggest God would create something that is an abomination to Himself.

"Oh! That's right. The Bible clearly condemns being a transgendered person..."

Yes it does. Finally you admit it. Since transgender is one aspect of homosexual behavior, and since God specifically said, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Lev 18:22, it is indeed difficult for me to understand what part of this passage you don't understand.

Now, this is about the umpteenth time you've said God blesses homosexuality and other deviant perverse behavior. Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Cite chapter and verse where God says He blesses homosexual behavior. To make such an outrageous statement is blaspheme.

I am done with you. Your stubborness is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Mark February 3, 2009 at 10:03 PM  

May God have mercy on you. You won't get any from me.

Marshall Art February 3, 2009 at 11:51 PM  

Dt 22:5 A woman must not wear mens's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Obviously, as for someone to dress like a member of the opposite sex, for one to pretend one is a member of the opposite sex, or for one to have surgery to appear as if one is a member of the opposite sex, all these are variations of the practice prohibited by the above verse.

So the question is not whether or not "God made them that way", the question is how God wants us to be. It wasn't MY belief that God made any mistakes, but I was merely asking if that lame argument fit this situation, seeing as how it suggests the opposite of what the homosexual lobby says.

As to expertise, I would posit that one needn't be an expert to know when a bridge is unsafe if pieces of it continually fall off. I don't need to know how a car works to know that it doesn't if I can't get it to start or stay running once I do. I don't need to be a professional football player to know when the Bears could use a better QB. I don't need to be a doctor to know when I or my kid is sick. I don't need to be a psychologist to know that someone who thinks he is a monkey has a mental problem, or if someone thinks he's George Washington, or if a guy thinks he's a girl trapped in a man's body. Sorry if that doesn't help your argument, but it is true. Let me remind you that the APA did NOT remove homosexuality (nor it variations) from the list of mental illnesses because of some scientific revelation, but due to activism. So your dear church member was mentally disturbed man that got no help from his dear church because they buy into the nonsense of the homosexual lobby. Way to go. I guess you continue to allow your delusions to trump common sense and fact. YOUR mental health is debatable as well.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 9:02 AM  

There's not really any point in discussing matters like these with such ignorant, hateful bigots. You make false claims (they're mentally ill) but can't back that up with any source other than you own opinion which you have elevated to the level of God - Marshall, Mark and their ilk are infallible and all-knowing, bow to their mighty ignorance all who wish to embrace ignorance!

They have no use for "knowledge" or "science" or "real world experience" or "book learnin'" - no, that is for mere mortals. If you're a marshallgod or markgod, you don't need none of that "smart" stuff because you are all-knowing.

Have fun worshiping at the temples of your ignorance, boys.

Mark February 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM  

HUH?

"can't back that up with any source other than you own opinion"???

Both Art and I backed up what we say with actual scripture form the Holy Bible!!! Remember the Bible? God's Holy Word???

You, however, was specifically asked to cite book, chapter, and verse as to when God blessed homosexuality, and you failed.

Now, you're just embarrassing yourself, Dan. Run along and play in your little sand box.

Eric February 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM  

Marshall, it begs the question: Are those who support and applaud deviant behavior complicit in the pain and anguish the behavior brings? There are certainly some who are okay with who they are and have no desire, nor feel any need to change- these, it could be said, have seared their consciences. But there are many who still feel shame at what they do, despite the support and love given them by folks like Dan. These people who STILL feel shame, is there something wrong with them? Or is there something RIGHT with them?

Yet when you ask questions like this, folk like Dan get all huffy and storm out-- they can't possibly be wrong, no! but you can. Yessiree! We can and are often wrong, but the likes of Dan never are.

It's a one-sided argument, fellas. We waste our time with folk like this.

Let's continue to expose the descent of this once great nation and defend the truth. But let's leave the self-righteous to bask in their own glories. WE need to know when to stop kicking at doors that don't want to open.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 10:15 AM  

Deviant, according to whom, Eric?

The Bible does not address transgendered people.

What I am saying that you're wrong about is that experts, as well as the people who are actually affected by being transgendered, agree that there is no mental illness here. I'm not storming out because you disagree with me, I'm saying it is idiocy to say, "Well, I think being transgendered is a mental illness and a perversion..." regardless of the fact that you probably don't even KNOW anyone who is transgendered, regardless of the fact that scientists and psychologists say it isn't a mental illness.

It is speaking in ignorance that is problematic. I can state factually, "Psychologists don't consider transgenderism a mental illness," and if hateful people insist, "Yea, it is, it is, too! I know it is, so it is! The Bible condemns it all the time so it must be a mental illness, besides, it's OBVIOUS to me it's perverted so it must be perverted..." etc, there is nothing to say to such ignorance.

If someone wishes to embrace ignorance and make hateful, unsupported and ignorant facts about people they don't even know, you are free to do so, but it is difficult or impossible to have a conversation with such people. They revel in ignorance and hatred, without even realizing their ignorance, hatred or own perversity.

And so I offer some truth and reality and those here are welcome to spit on it and deny it, but there's not much use in maintaining a conversation with such idiots. To what end?

"They're perverted and mentally ill and sick, sick, sick!!!"

"umm, actually, psychologists don't..."

"NO! NO! I DON'T BELIEVE THEM! THEY'RE IDIOTS AND PERVERTS, TOO..."

"But, studies show..."

"I DON'T CARE ABOUT STUDIES, I CARE ABOUT THE BIBLE!"

"But, the Bible doesn't..."

"DOES TOO, DOES, TOO! NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

Really? That truly is some American Indecent you have here.

Al-Ozarka February 4, 2009 at 11:12 AM  

Rather than being justified by Christ, Dan is justified by man.

That's all there is to it.

He's not my brother in any way, shape, or by any means.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM  

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?...

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...

But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Marshall Art February 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM  

Dan,

For all your rantings about science and psychology, you've offered not one link or referrence to support your claims. So your childish representations as to the course of this debate

""NO! NO! I DON'T BELIEVE THEM! THEY'RE IDIOTS AND PERVERTS, TOO..."

is, what word would fit....slanderous.

I have stated, and have linked to sources in other discussions, that have shown that there was no science that caused the removal of homsexuality (and its variations) from the rolls of mental illnesses. It was homosexual activism that prompted the removal. Since then, there has been NO studies that have categorically proven that such is NOT a mental condition.

Now, for the sake of THIS discussion, I will not link to those sources yet again. Instead, I will patiently await your offerings of proof for your position. Are their members of the psychological world that view such things as normal? No doubt. Are they representative of the company line? Perhaps, but based on what study, on what proof? Offer that, and then we can move on to why it doesn't matter as far as sin and salvation.

Frankly, I'm wagering you won't come up with anything I haven't already seen. The truth is, if there was some confirmed proofs for what you wrongly think God would ever bless, we'd hear about it until we puke. Hasn't happened yet.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM  

From the APA's resolution when they recognized that homosexuality is not a mental disorder:

For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-1 fulfill either of these two criteria. (While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning. Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.

The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).


source
======

The change was just a logical, fact-based conclusion for them to make, away from the hysterical, cultural-based reasoning for having it listed in the first place (ie, originally, homosexuality was considered a disorder because it was not the norm nor appreciated by most people, but as they make clear here, just because a behavior is not the norm or accepted by most people does not make it a mental disorder).

What is there to argue with? It simply is not a mental disorder, which is defined:

a psychological syndrome or behavioral pattern that is associated with subjective distress and/or objective impairment.

webmd

Now, what objective reasons would you have for disagreeing with the experts? (And for the record, I have no problem with the notion of disagreeing with experts, they're not infallible. BUT, disagreeing with experts based on one's feelings and hunches is not reasonable.)

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 12:47 PM  

And transgenderism is similarly not a mental disorder, by definition. It simply isn't. So making wild claims in ignorance is what I'm objecting to, here.

I note that you never answered my earlier question, Marshall: Do you know even one transgender person? If not, what are you basing your wild accusations upon? TV? Gut feelings? Best guess?

It's a legitimate question to ask of someone who has made such wild and unsupported, unsubstantiated claims.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM  

"The social and political impetus for change, Sabshin said, was supported by scientific evidence. The APA's Committee on Nomenclature reviewed numerous studies that used standardized instruments and nonpatient populations and showed that most gay persons were satisfied with their sexual orientation and were not impaired in their social functioning."

source

Or, if you'd like to read a book on what actually happened, you might check out Bayer's book.

I could give sources all day showing that the APA does not, in fact, consider either homosexuality or transgenderism (two separate things, Mark, and not the same) a mental disorder since they do not, in fact, meet the definition of "mental disorder."

But what difference does it make if you reject the voice of experience, reason and science in favor of your own perverted definitions and interpretations?

Marshall Art February 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM  

Dan,

Are you that stupid and gullible? The Soulforce piece alone could not be more slanted. Yet in it, it describes the divide between those who see homosex as a disorder and those who don't. The "don'ts" might have resulted in a 58% majority, but at the same time they include those who are themselves homosexuals. In addition, it says studies were reviewed before the vote to remove this disorder from the list of mental illnesses, but cites none. Furthermore, by a look at the APA archives, one can easily see that the vote took place by fewer than half the APA membership. Hardly a freakin' mandate! Nice to see them mention the activism involved, but they make no mention as to the effect of that activism on their redefining mental disorders so as not to include homosexuality.

In your first laughable quotation, it states at the end:

"However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions:"

And goes on to list a number of things which do not consist of apples to apples grouping, such as---

celibacy--since when is celebacy a failure to function rather than a conscious decision?

revolutionary behavior--since when is RB a failure to function rather than a conscious decision?

religious fanaticism--since when is adhering to the teachings of one's deity a failure to function rather than a conscious decision?

vegetarianism--again, most vegetarians are so by choice based on their understanding of health and nutrition, not a failure to function.

racism and chauvinism--These can be classified as disorders for their stupidity alone.

So out of the above list, all but two are directly conscious decisions and those two that aren't still involve a conscious decision to avoid looking at the issue in a more learned light. What this says is that homosexuality is therefor also a conscious decision which flies in the face of the main argument of the agenda.

As if that wasn't enough, there is the assumption that because a number of homosexuals claim to be just fine with their orientation, it cannot then be a disorder. What of those who think they are someone else and feel just fine with that? It's no wonder that so many consider psychology a bullshit science.

So thank you, Dan for so quickly demonstrating what I could have so easily predicted. You have bought into the homo. agenda fully and completely and have rejected God's teachings just as much.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 4:41 PM  

Yes, and thanks for demonstrating that you reject science and expert opinion in favor of your own glorious feelings and hunches.

Mark February 4, 2009 at 4:41 PM  

Dan, all those verses speak to the saved in Christ, not those who willfully disobey God, because they place their love of sex above their love of God.

I pointed out in previous similar posts that homosexuals break at least 3 of the ten commandments.

Yes, even homosexuals can enter the Kingdom of heaven, but first, they must repent, and turn from the evil ways, and call upon the name of the Lord, and be saved. If they are not willing to do those things, they will not enter the Kingdom of God.

by your recitation of those scriptures, you not only fail to answer the challenge, but you have proven to the rest of us that you believe all people go to Heaven regardless of their spiritual status. Consequently, you must not believe there is a Hell if everyone goes to Heaven.

This belief is absolutely contrary to the basic teachings of the Bible.

Dan, the Bible mentions Hell, in one form or another, twice as often as it mentions Heaven. Are you prepared to throw out over half the references to an after-life because you prefer to believe there are no consequences for sin?

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM  

By the way, there is no "homosexual agenda," beyond wanting to be treated like humans. Proving that you have bought into the religious right's hateful falsehoods wholeheartedly and blindly.

Dan Trabue February 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM  

Are you prepared to throw out over half the references to an after-life because you prefer to believe there are no consequences for sin?

Mark, are you prepared to go to hell yourself? After all, you are bound to be mistaken on some point on some sin and, by your "reasoning" if you are mistaken, you are hellbound.

Sorry big fella.

Mark February 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM  

"By the way, there is no "homosexual agenda," beyond wanting to be treated like humans."

Pshaw! They are already r=treated like humans, they already have the same rights as every other American. What they want is special rights because they are gay.

You can deny that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Marshall Art February 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM  

Dan,

"Yes, and thanks for demonstrating that you reject science and expert opinion in favor of your own glorious feelings and hunches."

I reject what passes for science and expert opinion among enablers like yourself. Once again, there is no science that supports the homo. position on their orientation, and further, none would justify their continued practice of it.

But you, who through "prayerful consideration", which isn't much more goofy than Feodor's "serious spiritual mind", together with homosex propaganda, are nothing more than your own "glorious feelings and hunches", since there is no Biblical justification whatsoever for any form of homosexual behavior. So between a lack of serious science and Biblical support, you've got nothing.

I, on the other hand, prefer the logic and consistency of good Biblical scholarship and those who have maintained their position psychologically in the face of activist pressure.

Regarding the homosexual agenda that you lyingly pretend doesn't exist, I refer you once again to the book, After The Ball.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford February 4, 2009 at 7:45 PM  

Eric, Mark, and Marshall - you seem to confuse transgenderism with sexual perversion, when the two have nothing - a contraction of two words, not, and thing - in common. Being transgendered is, as Dan correctly states, a confusion of gender identity. There is little in the literature on the source of this confusion, but the consensus is that it a very real phenomenon. It can be corrected through gender reassignment, which includes hormone and a rather lengthy emotional and psychological therapeutic process, with the final stage being gender reassignment surgery, usually in stages.

Only those whose minds are so confused that they hear the word "transgendered" and see all the little video boxes behind the black curtain in the local store with "Chicks With Dicks" in the title confuse transgender and sexual perversion.

And, Mark, to be candid, Dan's comments concerning Marshall utter refusal to consider his opinion might not merit as much worth as the weight of decades of serious scientific research is spot on. After all, the entire point of this post, unless I was reading another linked article and post and stumbled on this comment thread by accident, was his disgust at optional gender ID on some state-issued identification forms.

Now, here's the thing that always gets me: If you want to check the box next to "male", go ahead. No one is forcing you to check the box next to female if you don't want to. How any of this is a sign of decadence and cultural descent is beyond me. Like Dan, I only see a whole lot of ignorance, bigotry, small-mindedness, ill-fitting Bible-quoting (why is it Deuteronomy and Leviticus only get dragged out when people get all het up about all those nasty queers and girlie-men?), and rank silliness. Dan addressed the post with seriousness, thoughtfulness, and a great deal of grace, and as is par for the course with the lot of you over here (and most likely at your own blogs as well) gets treated like dirt.

Is it at all possible to have a discussion, here and elsewhere, that does not include the invocation of the eternal damnation of one of us evil liberals? Is it at all possible to have a discussion on a topic in which we acknowledge that, perhaps, one particular point-of-view is of less intellectual merit than another? Is it at all possible to discuss an issue of human sexuality and gender issues in general without suddenly screaming "pervert" at something you folks display a monumental ignorance about?

I suppose the answer to all these questions, as should be evident, is "No", because to a man, if men you really are, you are all afraid. Afraid of what you don't understand. Afraid of anything different. You quake in your boots that some gay man might come up and be more interested in more than asking you what time it is. You shiver and shake at the thought that there are people out there who live perfectly happy lives that are so totally different from yours as to be almost unrecognizable, at least to you, as a human life at all. Your imaginations are as limited as your gracious welcome to any and all. Rather than embrace this world that God made and continues to love as it is, redeeming not through anything we do, but through the gracious outpouring of Divine self-emptying in the crucifixion and resurrection, you condemn what doesn't fit in the little checklist as "normal". Marshall, you condemn yourself with your own comment; by stating that one does not need a "sheepskin" to know that the transgendered are mentally ill, you display a devotion to ignorance that is breath-taking. Since those who actually know something about human behavior have said that it is not, in fact, a mental illness to suffer from gender confusion; since both the mental and physical health sciences offer a relief from the multiple stresses and sufferings caused by such confusion, it seems to me that their opinion, rather than your unsupported, and unsupportable, insistence that they are in fact mentally ill, might just have more meaning for some people, myself included.

Marshall Art February 4, 2009 at 11:39 PM  

Geoffrey,

Well, I guess you told ME! Let's look at your comments in detail and show what YOU don't understand.

"...you seem to confuse transgenderism with sexual perversion..."

Not me. I said it's a mental disorder. I don't know that each of them expresses themselves in the same manner sexually. But since you brought it up...

If a guy changes his sex and courts a guy, he's a homosexual and sex with that guy is a perversion based on his God given sex. If a guy changes his sex and courts a chick, he's living as a lesbian and that's also a perversion. It's all a perversion since the dude is perverting the natural function of his biology.

" Being transgendered is, as Dan correctly states, a confusion of gender identity."

Hence the mental disorder.

"It can be corrected through gender reassignment"

That's not correction, that's enabling. You mean "treated", but to treat means to address the problem with an aim toward "fixing" it. Reassignment doesn't correct or treat the problem.

"Only those whose minds are so confused that they hear the word "transgendered" and see all the little video boxes behind the black curtain in the local store with "Chicks With Dicks" in the title confuse transgender and sexual perversion."

Does the missus know how you spend your free time?

"...Dan's comments concerning Marshall..."

...are based on Dan's refusal to use common sense on this issue rather than devotion to pro-homosex research that has yet to yeild any reason to reject Biblical teaching on the issue of homosex behavior.

"How any of this is a sign of decadence and cultural descent is beyond me."

Not surprising, Geoffrey, as you, Dan and a few others of your side of these issues have so easily rejected thousands of years of moral standards to assuage your own unwillingness to defend Biblical truths.

"Dan addressed the post with seriousness, thoughtfulness, and a great deal of grace, and as is par for the course with the lot of you over here (and most likely at your own blogs as well) gets treated like dirt."

More like: he gets treated like the heretic he is for constantly supporting counter-Biblical teachings on this issue.

"Is it at all possible to discuss an issue of human sexuality and gender issues in general without suddenly screaming "pervert" at something you folks display a monumental ignorance about?"

You'd like to think we (or I) know nothing about the subject, but I know enough to know that your support has no basis in fact. It makes you feel better to believe we "display a monumental ignorance", but unfortunately, it's not that simple, Bucky. I've mentioned the lack of "deal breakers" in another discussion and you certainly lack them here. So I'll say again, if there was something, either scientific or Biblical, that would put your position, the homosex position, over the top, it would be pushed in our faces with every discussion on the issue. There is no such "something", no "deal breaker".

"...you are all afraid."

Again, this might make you feel better to believe so, but it is just silly nonsense. We are, however, concerned about any further deterioration in the moral character of our culture. As Christians, indeed as Christian men, we are compelled to stand for truth and against lies, such as those that are the foundation of the entire pro-homosex agenda and argument.

"Your imaginations are as limited as your gracious welcome to any and all."

Are you kidding? Our imaginations are open enough to accept the possibility that all will put God ahead of their personal desires. That how they wanna get their nuts off won't take precedence over their desire to serve God on HIS terms. That wacky liberal enablers like you and Dan will eventually see the absolute error of your amending of Scripture to suit your fancies.

"Rather than embrace this world that God made and continues to love as it is,..."

You mean the one we are taught to be in but not of? If He loves it, why are we taught to not be of it?

"...redeeming not through anything we do, but through the gracious outpouring of Divine self-emptying in the crucifixion and resurrection, you condemn what doesn't fit in the little checklist as "normal"."

Ah, the "if it feels good, do it no matter what the Bible says" doctrine. BTW, I don't need to condemn anything. Sinners condemn themselves by clinging to that which God/Jesus/the Spirit has taught us through Scriptural revelation. I just warn because I truly care. You enable because you care more about what men think of you than what your God does.

"by stating that one does not need a "sheepskin" to know that the transgendered are mentally ill, you display a devotion to ignorance that is breath-taking."

Sez you. It is YOU and Dan who are devoted to ignorance. If a guy walks around dressed as and believing he is Napoleon Bonaparte, are you honestly going to say that you can't see he's got mental and emotional issues? You really need a freakin' doctor to help you with that determination? In the same way, a guy who thinks he's a chick in a man's body is a freakin' nut case. Where's your confusion here?

"Since those who actually know something about human behavior have said that it is not, in fact, a mental illness to suffer from gender confusion..."

Then reasonable men can reasonably conclude that psychology ain't all it's cracked up to be. Indeed, honest people in the profession will admit to how little they understand regarding the human condition. Conflicting theories abound and new ones pop up any time they don't get the answers for which they hope. In fact, I believe that due to the activist pressures, the field has abandoned these people and have aquiesced to the homosex lobby.

So feel free to throw common sense to the wind and believe what you want. The bottom line here is that you and Dan are full of crap. I start with Biblical teaching on the subject which we have shown has no support for your pulled-from-your-butts beliefs, but teaches against even dressing like a member of the opposite sex, so surgically changing one's sexual appearance can in no way be anything less than taking cross dressing to the limit. Thus, for a man to check off "female" when given the usual two options is similarly wrong. That you and Dan can't see this as another example of the descent of our culture simply shows how lost the two of you are.

Marshall Art February 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM  

Correction:

The statement should have read---Sinners condemn themselves by clinging to that which God/Jesus/the Spirit has taught us through Scriptural revelation is sinful behavior.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford February 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM  

Marshall, your response only details how really ignorant you are.

That's really all I have to say. Continuing in ignorance, reveling in it, holding it up as "wisdom", isn't heroic. It's just stupidity compounding the original ignorance.

I really don't care to pursue this further. You folks are pathetic. Truly, sadly, unfortunately pathetic.

Live in your boxes where people who are different are mentally ill. Live in your boxes where gays and lesbians want special rights. Live in your boxes where there is a threat to our national existence from a box checked on a state-issued ID card. Parade your fact-free ruminations on the mental illness of trasgenderism for all to see.

I really am quite tired of this.

"Sez you" is the perfect summary of the ignorant trying to trump those who know. A mind is a terrible thing to waste; it's nice to know that nothing is being wasted by the folks who write this blog.

Eric February 5, 2009 at 4:36 PM  

What Geoffrey and Dan are both trying to say is,

"Sez You!"


Ignorance is the well-worn club used by Liberalism.

Dan Trabue February 5, 2009 at 5:31 PM  

Ignorance is as ignorance does...

Marshall Art February 5, 2009 at 11:34 PM  

Well, dudes, we try not to hold your ignorance against you. At the same time, I have given my reasons for why I feel as I do, I have given links to support those reasons, and for all my ignorance, it befuddles me how you intelligent and totally hip dudes can't come up with anything to refute my arguments outside of disparaging comments and meaningless platitudes. Pretending I have the problem is getting really old. Have just a smidgen of honor and present an actual argument for a change. The old "well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you" ploy might work at the women's guild, but not here.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP