The Southern Baptist Convention throws transgender people under the bus

Yesterday delegates to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant body in American, with around 16 million members) approved a resolution concerning transgender people. The points they affirmed about transgender people are below, each followed by the supporting text from the affirmed resolution. Following these points is the whole of the resolution from which this support is derived.

Transgender people are crazy. (“[Transgender people experience] a perceived conflict between their biological sex and their gender identity.”)

Transgender people are delusional. (“Gender identity should be determined by biological sex and not by one’s self-perception.”)

Transgender people are rejecting God’s will (“We affirm God’s original design to create two distinct and complementary sexes, male and female.” “We affirm distinctions in masculine and feminine roles as ordained by God.”)

Transgender people are rejecting God’s plan. (“We affirm that male and female designate the fundamental distinction that God has embedded in the very biology of the human race.”)

If transgender people would pray more they’d stop being transgender. (“We invite all transgender persons to trust in Christ and to experience renewal in the gospel.”)

Transgender people should not be protected by law. (“We call upon all judges and public officials to resist and oppose the efforts to treat gender identity as a protected class.” “We commit ourselves to pray for and support legislative and legal efforts to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other legislation like it that would give gender identity the same legal protections as sex and race.”)

No law should ever in any way validate transgender people. (“We continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any court or state legislature to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy.”)

It’s immoral for a transgender person to alter their body to reflect their gender identity. (“We condemn efforts to alter one’s bodily identity [e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery] to bring it into line with one’s perceived gender identity.”)

Children need to be protected from the idea of transgender people being normal. (“We oppose all efforts by media and entertainment outlets and public schools to mainstream transgender identity in the eyes of our children.”)

Hate speech from the pulpit against transgender people should be practiced and protected. (“We call on Southern Baptist churches to commit to guard our religious liberty to teach and preach the Bible’s message about sex and gender.”)

All Christians should actively teach and preach against transgender people. (“Our love for the gospel and urgency for the Great Commission must include declaring what God’s word teaches about God’s design for us as male and female persons created in His image and for His glory.”)

Transgender people are welcome in church as long as they repent. (“We welcome them [transgender people] into our congregations as they repent and believe in Christ.”)

The Southern Baptist Convention loves transgender people. (“We love our transgender neighbors, [and] seek their good always …”)

People belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention aren’t transgender. (“We will teach and model for our own children the Bible’s message about manhood and womanhood.”)

It’s wrong for transgender people to be bullied. (“We condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against [transgender people].”)

Before moving on to the whole of the resolution concerning transgender people ratified today by the Southern Baptist Convention, I would like to propose a resolution concerning the Southern Baptist Convention:

On the Southern Baptist Convention

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention continues to speak and act in ways that are profoundly contrary to the spirit and Gospel of Jesus Christ; and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention continues to foster great pain and suffering in this world by codifying its condemnation of entire populations of human beings; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention is sad beyond expression and a tragically perverted version of Christianity that the march of time cannot soon enough trample into the dust.

Here is the whole childish mess of the SBC’s anti-transgender resolution:

On Transgender Identity

WHEREAS, about 700,000 Americans perceive their gender identity to be at variance with the physical reality of their biological birth sex; and
WHEREAS, the American Psychiatric Association removed this condition (aka, “gender identity disorder”) from its list of disorders in 2013, substituting “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria”; and

WHEREAS, the American Psychiatric Association includes among its treatment options for gender dysphoria cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired gender; and

WHEREAS, news reports indicate that parents are allowing their children to undergo these “therapies”; and

WHEREAS, many LGBT activists have sought to normalize the transgender experience and to define gender according to one’s self-perception apart from biological anatomy; and

WHEREAS, the separation of one’s gender identity from the physical reality of their biological birth sex poses the harmful effect of engendering an understanding of sexuality and personhood that is fluid; and

WHEREAS, some public school systems are encouraging parents and teachers to affirm the feelings of children whose self-perception of their own gender is at variance with their biological sex; and

WHEREAS, some public school systems are allowing access to bathrooms and locker rooms according to a child’s self-perception of gender and not according to their biological sex; and

WHEREAS, the state of New Jersey prohibits licensed counselors from any attempt to change a child’s “gender expression”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Senate passed last year legislation titled the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would radically alter the idea of protected classes in American law, granting sexual orientation and gender identity the same employment protections as sex and race; and

WHEREAS, ENDA would make it illegal for certain businesses and organizations to fire or to refuse to hire or promote an employee because of his or her gender identity that is at variance with biological sex; and

WHEREAS, Although recent formulations of ENDA contain a religious exemption, they do not contain an exemption for rights of conscience or religious freedom to protect businesses with a religious character (such as religious bookstores, publishers, and parachurch ministries) and other businesses with religious owners or managers; and

WHEREAS, Such legislation jeopardizes our First Amendment freedoms by establishing in law the principle that disapproval of transgender behavior is a form of bigotry, equivalent to racism; and

WHEREAS, these cultural currents run counter to the biblical teaching that “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation” (BF&M 2000, “III. Man”); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10-12, 2014, recognize that all persons are created in God’s image and are made to glorify Him (Gen. 1:27; Isa. 43:7); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we recognize that the Fall of man into sin and God’s subsequent curse have introduced brokenness and futility into God’s good creation (Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 8:20); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we extend love and compassion to those whose experience of this brokenness includes a perceived conflict between their biological sex and their gender identity (Rom. 8:22-23); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm God’s good design that gender identity should be determined by biological sex and not by one’s self-perception—a perception which is often influenced by fallen human nature in ways contrary to God’s design (Eph. 4:17-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm God’s original design to create two distinct and complementary sexes, male and female (Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm that male and female designate the fundamental distinction that God has embedded in the very biology of the human race; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm distinctions in masculine and feminine roles as ordained by God as part of the created order, and that those distinctions should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim 2:12-14); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we invite all transgender persons to trust in Christ and to experience renewal in the gospel (1 Tim. 1:15-16); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good always, welcome them into our congregations as they repent and believe in Christ, and spur them on to love and good deeds in the name of Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-20; Gal. 5:14; Heb. 10:24); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers of almighty God and therefore that we condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against them; and be if further

RESOLVED, That we condemn efforts to alter one’s bodily identity (e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery) to bring it into line with one’s perceived gender identity; and be if further

RESOLVED, That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any court or state legislature to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy (Isa. 5:20); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to pray for and support legislative and legal efforts to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other legislation like it that would give gender identity the same legal protections as sex and race; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call upon all judges and public officials to resist and oppose the efforts to treat gender identity as a protected class; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose all efforts by media and entertainment outlets and public schools to mainstream transgender identity in the eyes of our children; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptist churches to commit to guard our religious liberty to teach and preach the Bible’s message about sex and gender; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we will to teach and model for our own children the Bible’s message about manhood and womanhood; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That our love for the gospel and urgency for the Great Commission must include declaring the whole counsel of God, including what God’s word teaches about God’s design for us as male and female persons created in His image and for His glory (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 20:27; Rom. 11:36).


I’m the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question:

unfair-cover-xsmallPaperback. Kindle. NookBook. Signed and inscribed by me according to your direction.

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. Don't forget to sign up for his mucho-awesome newsletter.

  • BarbaraR

    And I am so not surprised.
    Appalled, yes, but surprised… sadly not.

    • R Vogel

      I agree – I am surprised how much consternation these announcements still engender. Would we be surprised if the KKK put out a resolution that said people of color are inferior, should not be a privileged class, and should not be allowed to marry white people? Yet we are still surprised when the Sorry Bigot Club puts out crap like this?

  • Jennifer Vice

    I’m just wondering why they spent so much energy fixating on that? I did used to be a student of Freud….;)

    • Ellen K.

      Frankly, I think it has to do with their insistence on gender roles. Anything that goes against their gender roles they don’t like. Thus the negativity toward both homosexuality and transgendered individuals.

      • Dani Smith

        You have to make sure there are gender roles, so the patriarchal misogyny can be perpetuated.
        The only gender “roles” are those of someone who carries sperm, and another who carries eggs and can carry a fetus inside of them. That, and one of them can pee standing up much easier. :)

        • buricco

          Well, some of them obsess about how the KJV refers to men in one passage as “one that pisseth against a wall” as saying you’re somehow “wrong” if you’re XY and you don’t stand up to use the facilities! Wrong focus, bros… >_>

    • R Vogel

      They are trying to get out ahead of it – even they know they have lost the LGB fight, it is only a matter of time, but they think they still have a chance with the T since they are an even smaller minority and still mostly misunderstood. Unlike the movies, when the kid socks the bully in the mouth, he doesn’t cease being a bully, he just finds what he thinks is an easier target. In this instance, though, I think they are woefully underestimating the courage and strength of Transgender people.

      • crash2parties

        And the parents of transgender people. And their siblings and friends. Also they underestimate the effects of courts at multiple levels including Federal ruling that discrimination based on “change of sex” [sic] or not fitting someone else’s stereotype of a given sex is still indeed discrimination based on sex. Which the SoBaps know full well is a protected class, much to their chagrin.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Blah blah blah transgender this transgender that…..but we don’t condone bullying. Unless it’s the systematic, shunning, fingerpointing kind of bullying. WHAT JOY I HAD GROWING UP SOUTHERN BAPTIST! HUZZAH!

    • Jeff Preuss

      I will be completely honest here, I’ve never quite figured out how one “should” respond to being transgendered. I don’t know what is the right way to handle it, and I am skeptical about procedures and such, since they seem so permanent. True, I’ve met transgendered folks in real life, and made their acquaintances in online communities as well.But I am not transgendered – I’m cisgendered – so it’s really not MY decision to make.

      What I DO know is how I think I should respond to a transgendered person when I meet them, as a gay man, as a human, and mainly as a Christian.

      Love. And not that “I think what you are doing is horrible and I am going to tell you every chance I GET” love which isn’t Love at all. Love. I believe it is my mandate as a follower of Christ to absolutely treat other people with complete Love and respect, even if I don’t completely understand their situation. Even if I don’t agree with their religious beliefs. Even if I don’t agree with their choices. Even if I cannot quite fathom the things that aren’t choices at all.

      (I am doing my best to try to be sensitive with my language. Even if I don’t understand transperson struggles completely, please know I am not offering any condemnation. I hope that’s clear, but I’m ranting, and may not hammer that point home clearly enough.)

      And, this resolution flies in the face of EVERYTHING we are called to do as Christians. It is NOT showing capital L l-o-v-e. It is NOT showing respect for individuals or groups that do not fit the expected mold. It is taking an entire group of individual human beings that are marginalized and ostracized for something most of us don’t understand and will never feel in our entire lives, and drafting a gigantic treatise specifying just how we can continue to ostracize them in an organized and clinical manner. Forget they’re humans! Forget they’re God’s children!

      Y’know, reading around today, I’ve noticed a few spots where I’ve been called broken for being gay.

      If THIS is how the Southern Baptist Church treats PEOPLE with REAL FEELINGS and STRUGGLES, without even trying to get to know them, then I am fairly certain I am not what’s broken.

      Ugh. I think I’m gonna go around giving big bear hugs to people today. Get this disdain out of me. And the bad taste out of my mouth. Maybe a donut will help.

      • Jill

        Bear hugs right back to you, Jeff. Seriously that’s what I do when human beings do all they can to disappoint. Firm embrace.

      • Andy

        I’m not trying to take away from your comment (which is excellent, btw) but since you alluded to it, I’ll mention that the preferred word seems to be “transgender”, not “transgendered”.

        But I completely agree. You are no more broken than I or anyone else. The idea that one’s orientation or gender or race or religion or socioeconomic status makes one “broken” and another not is completely bullshit. Only when we all agree with that will we escape hell*.

        * I mean “hell” in a figurative, terrestrial sense, not the likely mythical place of eternal torment.

        • Jeff Preuss

          Yes, I saw that….after I’d typed other comments naturally. Then I had the internal debate of wondering whether I should alter something already replied to, or if that diluted the integrity of the exchange, as if I could get someone to reply in agreement to me, and then alter my original post to say, “Beans!” as if they were agreeing to Beans.

          Then I saw a shiny object and forgot.

          I’ll change it later, or leave it up to your shiny (shiiiiiiiny) Mod powers, with my blessing, to go in and alter it when I used it. I think I made 3 comments with the non-preferred term.

          • Andy

            I think I fixed it.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Cool, and as another post of mine says that might show up as soon as the crack in the space/time continuum is fixed: “Shiny.”

        • Jeff Preuss

          Huh, I’d typed out a big old response to that, with liberal uses of the word “shiny,” but somehow it’s gone (um, IF I remembered to submit…). In a nutshell: yeah, saw the preferred term after I’d typed a few comments. No disrespect intended at all, and I’ll edit those out.

          • Andy

            Disqus might be acting funny. I saw it and fixed your other comment.

          • Guy Norred

            And I liked your shiny objects comment so I don’t know what is going on.

      • Dani Smith

        Dear Jeff, I love you. And everyone else on here who “gets” the idea of compassion and confused acceptance. And John of course, for being the coolest person EVAR!!
        I take support as it is given. Even if the words seem weird, the intent matters more to me sometimes. Trans* people like to throw around the terms transphobic and trans-misogyny a lot, but I prefer to use the term trans-ignorant.
        And what’s worse, there are so many cis-gay people who do not want to understand it. We are very strongly maligned by many in the gay spectrum. It’s why I don’t read comment sections on pages like The Advocate and HuffPost. Just sickening. I’d rather go and read comments on a mainstream site. Then at least the bigotry is all over the place.

        • Guy Norred

          You are right. Cys-gay people can be very trans-ignorant (I like that–the term I mean). I myself have been myself and I am sorry. I don’t think I ever directly said or did anything but I know very well that that does not mean I have not been guilty of, at the very least, a lack of empathy. For this I am sorry and ask forgiveness, both of the transgender community, and our mutual creator. I may never understand completely and may occasionally unintentionally offend, but I am working on it. Peace

        • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

          Hi Dani –
          Thanks for understanding. The trans* people I’ve encountered have been very gracious as I fumble my way to understanding. Please know that I’m listening and trying to learn.

          I have to give a special shout out to Matt who is often a denizen of this community. He has been a God send to trans*-ignorant people like me.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        I’ve met a few in my life, I just treated them as I did everyone else, as people.
        One of the benefits of working in a hair salon in a shop at the mall, was the complete variety of people you encounter. You could have a pastor’s wife in one chair, and a male stripper in the next, while the child of a non-English speaking mother in another. Out front, the cute gay couple and a couple of giggling teenages are looking at products. On queue a young man with dreads would be sitting next to the older woman waiting for a perm.
        I miss that job sometimes.

        • Jeff Preuss

          Sadly, there’s not a lot of variety where I get my hair cut…

          …of course, that’s because I’m extremely balding, and I cut my own hair in the garage with clippers.

          But, I get your point. ;)

  • Dani Smith

    ACK!! You know, the whole “trust in Christ and to experience renewal in the gospel” didn’t exactly work so well for me.
    Prayed, prayed, begged, considered suicide, pleaded, cross-dressed, promised, bought and purged women’s clothes (many times), self-harmed, attempted suicide (half-assed as it was), prayed, prayed some more, then some more prayer. DID NOT WORK!!!
    Only when I prayed for God to help me understand and accept it did “She” finally come out. I never really felt God’s love before that December night in 2009. And yet people kept saying it couldn’t be right and I couldn’t be a Christian and transgender. I could no longer play drums at my church because they didn’t feel I was acceptable as a worship leader.
    I lost ALL of my former “friends” because they could not understand and deal with it. I still haven’t found many now, but I know who I am. It’s just hard when nobody is available to you. I’m also living in a smaller area now. It’s pretty accepting, but still hard to find people to do things with.
    I’m a little further away from Jesus than I’d like to be now, but it’s so hard when family are the ones who are so “religious” and awful.

    This falls right in line with Christian leaders saying you can be homosexual, but must be celibate.

    • R Vogel

      Your courage is inspiring, Dani.

      • Dani Smith

        Thank you so much. It helps me be more courageous when people tell me that it is inspiring.

        • gimpi1

          I applaud your bravery. You will find new friends. You may find a supportive on-line group until you find people in your area that can value you for who you are. Also, there’s many other places in the world. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and we’re pretty laid-back and accepting up here in the north woods.

  • Georgianna

    Since they can’t get anywhere with women’s issues or homosexualality issues, thye have now decided that here is another group they can exclude themselves from! I really believe they will eventually segregate themselves so apart from the rest of society that eventually they will disappear from society altogether!

    • paganheart

      Exactly. On some level they know that they are losing (or have lost) the war on gays and lesbians, so they are now setting their sights on fighting the “transgender agenda.” After all, it’s no fun being a witch hunter if you have no witches to hunt.

  • Cranky

    “Whereas we are constantly on the lookout for new groups and categories of people that we can hate and vilify in order to feel morally superior and powerful in a world that frightens us…”

    • Andy

      This is awesome.

  • Andy

    Ordinarily after reading something like this, I would make a snarky comment like “I just threw up in my mouth.” But this…this is not worthy of sarcasm. The only reason that I can’t say with certainty that this is the worst thing I’ve read all day, and perhaps in a long time, is because I also read the Texas GOP’s new platform which — I swear I am not making this up — actually endorses reparative therapy for LGBT+ people and opposes any legislation that would outlaw such therapy.

    I am not literally sick to my stomach, but I have a queasy numb feeling. It hurts me to read this kind of assholery. It boggles my mind how anyone can not only believe this, but promulgate it and support laws or rules based on it. I’ll save you the profanity-laden rant, but really, that’s about all I have for this. If I leave out the bad words I’m thinking about this…well then, I have no words.

    God help us.

    • Jill

      I have no words. I have angry, vitriolic, disgusted words.

    • KonaGabe

      Thanks for the free advertising for the Texas GOP platform. I will make a donation based on their humanitarian platform of helping people accept their true sexual identity, and help the Texas stand for protecting babies from the other political party – which views defenseless babies as an economic profit to destroy.

    • anakinmcfly

      “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me: ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’”

      - Fred Rogers

  • Cynthia Brown Christ

    Seriously! There wasn’t even one person at that convention who had eyes to see and ears to hear?

    These people are so clearly and definitively ugly and evil!

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      There are probably people that do, but they are a definate minority.

    • R Vogel

      They handed out ear plugs and blindfolds at registration….

    • gimpi1

      You could make a case that the Southern Baptist convention, with its formation around supporting slavery, its support of segregation in the mid-20th century and its continuing call for oppression of women and gay/transgender people, represents the Anti-Christ. Or at least shills for him.

  • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

    I saw this yesterday and it saddened me so much. How can such a lack of compassion and understanding be confused for Christian love? It is just mind shredding.

    The cynical side of me thinks SBC leaders are moving on to the next “other” now that the yunguns’ are no longer motivated by the war on teh gays. They must have an enemy to fight if they are going to maintain their moral superiority.

    • R Vogel

      The death throes of a movement are always associated with a tighter and stricter adherence to ‘orthodoxy.’ It is a very dangerous phase, but it is definitely a sign of decline….

  • http://katedanahy.blogspot.com/ Kate Danahy

    I find it tragically laughable that they condemn bullying, when this entire manifesto not only encourages the law to bully transgenders by denying them protection and even acknowledgement, but also reflects the transphobic mindset behind much bullying that goes on/

    • R Vogel

      We don’t condone bullying (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)….

  • CDR_N

    Spot on – as the latest peer reviewed information demonstrates.

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/11/surgical-sex

    • Lamont Cranston

      I hope those children in your picture manage to survive being around you. It might take years of therapy, though.

      • Amy

        You know a thing or two about traumatizing kids, don’t you Monty “Sneaky Hands” Cranston?

    • Guy Norred

      Ten years old is hardly the latest and I am not sure what peers you mean in this instance. First Things is a religious journal, not a psychology journal.

    • Matt

      WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) is a far more authoritative source. They were recently invited to advise the World Health Organization on gender identity and sexual health. Sorry, but white male American psychiatrists are no longer the gatekeepers of transgender medical care and the authority on how we should be allowed to live our lives.

    • R Vogel

      ” The post-surgical subjects struck me as caricatures of women. They wore high heels, copious makeup, and flamboyant clothing; they spoke about how they found themselves able to give vent to their natural inclinations for peace, domesticity, and gentleness—but their large hands, prominent Adam’s apples, and thick facial features were incongruous (and would become more so as they aged).” [Translation: if they don't conform to my vision of beauty, they aren't women. I'm guessing he's never see an episode of Drag Race]

      “Second, discussion of babies or children provoked little interest from them; indeed, they seemed indifferent to children.” [Because it's the only thing women are good for really....]

      “…many of these men-who-claimed-to-be-women reported that they found women sexually attractive and that they saw themselves as “lesbians.” When I noted to their champions that their psychological leanings seemed more like those of men than of women, I would get various replies, mostly to the effect that in making such judgments I was drawing on sexual stereotypes.” [Better than the reply I would like to give him]

      Yeah, this sounds very objective and scienc-y. Or at least what passes for science in the SBC worldview. But I love the attempt to cite ‘peer review’ – nice touch. What a load of tripe….

      • Dani Smith

        I don’t know of many post-op transwomen who look like “caricatures of women.” That is generally the early stages of cross-dressing and coming out. The rebellious, “Look at ME!” stage that we all go through. By about year two you start wearing more reasonable clothing, and what makeup you feel is necessary. Especially when you start on hormones. The excitement of wearing a bra wears off after awhile. I still enjoy it, but the underwires do suck.
        And people who don’t understand need to shut up about whether someone is post-op or not. Doesn’t Matter!!
        There’s also a reason many transwomen are lesbians. It’s because men suck. When someone looks at you only with disgust or lust, it’s hard to find that gender attractive. Yes, I know not all men are like that, but boys are so gross with all that facial hair and stuff.

      • anakinmcfly

        It’s also worth noting that trans women in particular were often denied access to transition unless they could sufficiently convince psychologists that they were sufficiently female, and had to do so in an over-the-top manner that likely resulted in those ‘caricatures’. I know of trans women who went for therapy appointments in t-shirts and jeans and were turned away for “not taking it seriously”, because apparently a *real* woman wouldn’t wear t-shirts and jeans.

    • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

      Latest? Peer-reviewed? An article by the disgraced former advisor to the Vatican on sexual matters, who openly boasted in his book “Psychiatric Misadventures” that, and I quote:

      This interrelationship of cultural antinomianism and a
      psychiatric misplaced emphasis is seen at its grimmest in the
      practice known as sex-reassignment surgery. I happen to know about
      this because Johns Hopkins was one of the places in the United
      States where this practice was given its start. It was part of my
      intention, when I arrived in Baltimore in 1975, to help end it.

      Religious verdict first, cherry-pick or falsify data afterwards. That’s not “science”, that’s theology. Quackery.

      No wonder this article was published in a religious journal!

  • Jeff Preuss

    Ugh. Read the resolution again. I “love” how the resolution so clearly articulates SBC’s concerns that transgendered people jeopardize [their] First Amendment freedoms THAT’s what a resolution a Church drafts about people should focus on – the CHURCH’s freedoms.

    BEAR HUGS FOR EVERYONE. In the name of Jesus, I offer hugs and Love, even if you think this resolution is a lovely idea!

  • usingmyvoice

    I really didn’t have to read past the heading: “Southern Baptist Convention throws transgender people under the bus”. Well, of course it did. I didn’t really expect anything else, did you? Look at the photo; notice any diversity there? Of any kind? Nah. Just homogenous white bread cookies from the same cutter. They don’t “know” diversity. They don’t understand “difference”. They don’t get that we’re *all* broken… and that the Bible, with its many translations and especially as taught in the South today (I live in the heart of the Southern Baptist belt, so I am speaking from experience), has little to do with the original (Greek, Hebrew, and/or Aramaic). They don’t get that the Bible is written for the person reading it… not for “Christians” to use to bash others over the head. They just don’t get it. And for that reason alone, we must pray for them, and pray that the Holy Spirit will move in their hearts, and their eyes will be opened, and they will wake up. And then stay awake with Christ.

    • Jonathan S. Jenkins

      Sorry to disappoint you but the SBC is a convention growing in diversity including its current president who happens to be black. It should also be noted you are challenging us as a people who don’t know difference yet you condemn out different beliefs.

      • Jeff Preuss

        To be clear, I believe it’s the application of those beliefs that are condemned here. You can believe that transgendered people are wrong, broken, what have you, all you want, but when you exercise that opinion in the way to further ostracize them and deny them Christian communion because you find them unrepentant, it’s a bit repugnant to other folks who want to spread the message of Love of Christ to ALL God’s children.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        I do find it ironic though that every single SBC congregation I have sat in, and I have sat in several, have been almost completely segregated. You are either at a white church, or a black church or a hispanic church etc. It is how they are, and its an open secret. The SBC is not the only denomination to do that, sadly. The most diverse congregation I’ve ever been in was Roman Catholic. I found the cross section of the city, all worshipping together, quite lovely
        Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated that “Sunday was the most segregated day of the week.”
        For the record, the president, who was just elected, is white.

        • Guy Norred

          Now that you say that, I find it a little funny that in two of the rather few I have ever sat in, I was the only white kid (this was years ago). One was an all black church and one an all Asian church.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Churches and beauty/barber shops. Proof that racial segregation is still alive and well….sad to say.

        • Jonathan S. Jenkins

          Sadly I am forced to agree with your first statements. I can say though that intentional efforts are being made to change that in many places and while that change is coming slowly it is coming.

          Just to be clear on my statement that you corrected, the president that was just elected is white but the president that was presiding at the time of my comment was black.

        • Sofi

          There’s nothing ironic about it. The Southern Baptists broke away from the main Baptists at the time that the Baptists decided that they were abolitionists – and the new Southern Baptists wanted to preach the virtues of slavery in their church.

  • James Walker

    this just reveals publicly what we knew already – that SBC leadership has no clue at all how human sexuality and sexual identity works.

    the question is what, if anything, can we do with this information that will produce any good fruit at all?

  • Matt

    What struck me was just how thorough the resolution was. Not a single indication that transgender people are in the end human like them. Just lip service to “compassion.” It’s hard to ignore when someone talks about you that way.

  • R Vogel

    It seems a bit if chicanery for them to assert being transgender is some sort of delusion, and then to assert that ‘our transgender neighbors [are]s image-bearers of almighty.’ Can you have it both ways? If I call myself ‘egg salad’ can you say I am nuts and in the same breath declare you love ‘egg salad’ neighbors?

  • R Vogel

    Just for clarification which proper – transgender or transgendered? I have seen both and the grammar of it is alluding me. Can someone help?

    • http://coolingtwilight.com/ Dan Wilkinson

      Transgender not transgendered. See http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

      • R Vogel

        Thanks!

      • anakinmcfly

        It’s disputed though; I’m one of those who preferred it with the ‘ed’, firstly because I like how it suggests I’m only trans because of the way doctors gendered me at birth and how society then continued to gender me, rather than something that’s inherently ‘wrong’ with me. (i.e. in a society where trans identities are fully accepted, ‘transgendered’ would cease to lose meaning, or only apply for a short while, because everyone would be correctly gendered); and secondly because it sounded more grammatical.

        I’d only consider it wrong when it’s used as a synonym for transition, e.g. the idea that someone is ‘transgendering’ when they transition and are only ‘transgendered’ after. That’s inaccurate and wrong. Right now my main issue with ‘transgender’ is that people seem to think it’s a noun, which bothers me far more and is a mistake they never made with ‘transgendered’.

  • http://ecclesiaextraneus.wordpress.com/ Matt

    And compare this denomination’s reaction to how the Bible describes the first Christian encounter with a person who is transgendered in the account of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch… thankfully Phillip wasn’t Southern Baptist…

  • Leanne Coates

    Seems slightly hypocritical that after having taken all the statements out of context and re-worded them with your own spin on the meaning, you’ve called the actual (articulate) wording of the resolution a “childish mess”.

    The denomination have a considered view on God’s word which they hold strongly and honestly to, even when that view is extremely counter-cultural and against the flow of public opinion. Ironically, your view on them is intolerant in the extreme.

    ” (…) the Southern Baptist Convention is sad beyond expression and a tragically perverted version of Christianity that the march of time cannot soon enough trample into the dust”

    • BarbaraR

      Tolerance becomes meaningless if one tolerates hatred and bigotry wrapped up in God’s name. The fact that they hold strongly to it does not excuse the ignorance, fear and ugliness of their statement.

      • Leanne Coates

        But I just don’t see the “hatred and bigotry” in their words. They want to defend their view of Scripture, yes, and they want to promote what they view as God’s best for humankind, but they explicitly state their love for transgender individuals:

        “That we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good always, welcome them into our congregations as they repent and believe in Christ, and spur them on to love and good deeds in the name of Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-20; Gal. 5:14; Heb. 10:24)”

        They aren’t just making this up! If you read into any of their statements that they have hatred towards transgender individuals, or indeed any individuals, then that is just your interpretation of what is nothing more than a statement of the denomination’s position on a particular issue.

        And yes, they welcome transgender individuals into their congregations as they repent and believe in Jesus- in the sense that they will be part of the family of God once they have done this- but this would be the case for anyone who walked into one of their church meetings, of any creed, colour, race, gender, sexuality. This does not mean that they do not love them. It demonstrates that they DO love them, and want the best for them.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          “as they repent”…That is the loophole and the question. Repent? From what? What has a transgender person done that they have to repent from, in order to continue in a SBC congregation?

          That’s not love, that’s a demand for conformity. That’s not come just as you are, that’s get over here, and start changing so you can fit into this pre-made mold.

          • Leanne Coates

            Every human in the history of the world has need to repent! Romans 3:23. It’s not about being transgender. It’s about being human.

          • BarbaraR

            Wait. It was about being transgender and now it’s not?

            Not all people in the world subscribe to the “need to repent” theory. I personally don’t believe in the “repent or you die forever” stuff; I conceive God to be much bigger than that.

            Being human is a complicated gig and one size does not fit all.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Repent in English has taken on a meaning of “Say you are sorry for your sins and really mean it and ask God to help you stop doing it any more.”

            But what metanoia in the Greek more closely means is: To turn and go in a new direction. To change your mind. This casts “repent” in a whole new light.

            Even in secular terms we want people to stop and go in a new direction when they are doing things that cause harm and damage relationships. We want our spouse to turn from using passive aggressive communication techniques, we want our parents to turn from conditional love, we want our neighbor to turn from selfishness that adversely affects others. We want politicians and world leaders to turn from greed and indifference.

            This is how “turn from sin” can be understood in a more clear understanding and in secular terms.

            So the only problem I see with “repentance” being a condition of participation is if what they are asking people to do is “turn” from “the sin of” being transgender.
            Another commenter explained that what they mean be “into the congregation” is membership. You have to be a convert to be a member. You do not have to be a convert or affirm a creed to merely attend – though that is not clear in this language.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            That is based on a particular religious tenet, not necessarily shared by the population of the world at large.

            This topic is about our trangender community. People who are our neighbors, our co-workers, our siblings, our parents, our aunts. People who should be loved as we love ourselves, but find that love hard to come by. They feel that way because people in leadership in churches like the SBC, tell them that they are unlovable, UNLESS they become something they are not.

          • Guy Norred

            But that is not what they are saying–that transgender people sin in the same way cysgender people sin. They are specifically saying that they need to repent of their being transgender?

          • Leanne Coates

            The fundamental issue here is, as I’ve mentioned in other comments, that the denomination see being transgender as a choice, or something which can be changed by God, and as a way of living which does not reflect God’s design for humankind. To some extent, this is how all humans live, as we all have turned from God in some way. So I think from their perspective, their statement about repenting would be equally true of any individual who wanted to come into relationship with Jesus, not just transgender people.

          • BarbaraR

            If they kept it only at their personal belief level, that might have a very small amount of validity. They can practice chicken sacrifice on alternate Tuesdays and it doesn’t affect me, but it is poisonous and dangerous to the vulnerable among them who don’t have a voice, such as teens and children.

            But when they step into the political arena and urge that trans people not be protected by anti-discrimination laws (“oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and other legislation like it that would give gender identity the same legal protections as sex and race”), then they have given up all pretense of it being strictly denominational. If they feel it’s fine that a person be fired for being trans, then they are no longer a church and are now a political organization lobbying for the right to discriminate.

            And then they attempt to temper it by saying they are against bullying.

          • Guy Norred

            I certainly get that–and agree with aspects of it. But I obviously think they are expecting a change that God not only does not require, but might possibly condemn (while not understanding, I find that doing “unto others as you would have them do unto you” involves trusting them to speak their own truth). My biggest problem is that their words have great power to harm. I do not believe that the majority of people who feel this way intend this harm, but, especially in the context of protecting children, their language is at least ironic and perhaps verging on criminal in its power to incite.

          • lrfcowper

            Does the SBC require a cisgender or heterosexual person to repent of their gender identity or sexuality in order to be in communion with Christ? If not, then it is not the same thing, because transgender people are being asked to repent of an inherent and unchanging condition.

        • lrfcowper

          Try this. Go replace the word “transgender” with “deaf” and see if this would be loving. Someone who says they’re being loving while repeatedly kicking someone in the kidneys doesn’t get a pass.

          • lrfcowper

            (Note: Yes, there are transgender people who are also deaf. I am not trying to imply the two identities are exclusive.)

          • Leanne Coates

            Well I think this is where the misunderstanding between the two camps lies. The denomination would argue that being transgender is a ‘lifestyle choice’, and that the individual could have their hearts changed when in loving relationship with Jesus. Clearly, this is a contentious position. But when this is the position of the church, you can’t just replace ‘transgender’ with ‘deaf’, because obviously a disability is not within the individuals’ power of choice.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            ding ding ding!!! Being transgender is not within the individuals power of choice either…hence the comparison.

          • lrfcowper

            The denomination would be wrong.

          • Leanne Coates

            well yes, clearly that would be yours and many other’s opinion, but the denomination has a different opinion, and that is what is being expressed in their ‘resolution’. From their perspective ‘transgender’ and ‘deaf’ would not be on a par with one another.
            Just to say, I’m not a member of this church; just interested in the debate.

          • Andy

            …and that is why we are upset with those that support this crap.

          • lrfcowper

            This is not a matter of “opinion” however, this is a matter of scientific fact. Scientific fact does not change if you don’t believe in it. The sun was still at the center of the solar system even when the majority of people, including official church “opinion” said otherwise. Transgender people are not transgender by choice but by birth, whether the SBC in its hubris want to accept this scientific fact or not. Telling people that they must repent of their inborn neurology is offensive, as offensive as saying that my autistic son can only come to Jesus if he “repents” of being autistic.

            Creating an “us”– Christians– vs. “them”– transgender people– denies the faith experience of transgender Christians.

            Furthermore, suggesting that a person’s moral standing within the doctrines of your faith entitles you to dictate a second-class legal status for those people is hateful and bigoted, period. And that is what they are doing with their opposition to legal protections for transgender persons.

            They are also being intentionally, willfully disingenuous when they imply that parents and doctors are using hormone therapy and surgery on children. It’s a scare tactic.

          • Jeff Preuss

            And the challenge herein is that assumption that these folks who are transgender do not have the loving relationship with Jesus, and have not repented for their sins. It is much the same assumption for gay people who are ALREADY Christian, but because others view them as broken and unrepentant because of it, they must seek Jesus first before being welcomed in for churchin’.

            It’s not to say that the nature of something as a sin isn’t open for debate, but that the SBC puts its foot down to state with certainty that someone hasn’t already come to Jesus if they are gay or trans is a supremely condescending act, not at all concerned with the individual’s faith walk.

            From the perspective OF trans people, you CAN replace ‘transgender’ with ‘deaf.’ What is very clear is that trans people are not welcome as they ARE in the SB Church. And, that’s sad. Reminds me of the hymn I used to sing in the SB Church growing up:

            “Just as I am – without one plea,

            But that Thy blood was shed for me,

            And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,

            -O Lamb of God, I come!”

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            A life style choice is deciding to live in a motor home, as a nomadic explorer, or in an upscale condominium, surrounded by art and small dogs, or in a sub-division, complete with three kids and a mini-van, or as a roadie for Miley Cyrus.
            Being gay, transgender, straight, bi, left handed, deaf, arthritic, myopic, tone deaf, double jointed, hirsuite…well those are all just a few of the wonderful variations that God placed into the formula called Humans Infinity

          • Andy

            You mean if I’m tone-deaf I’m out of luck? I can’t practice my way out of it? Dadgummit.

          • Dani Smith

            Yeah, this isn’t a lifestyle, it’s a life. And hopefully lived fully, and with style!
            My mom said that she told a relative about my “lifestyle”. I asked her not to call it that and to call it my “new life”.

          • anakinmcfly

            There’s no choice in the matter, though, lifestyle or otherwise. Regardless of what trans people do or not do, we’re still trans. A trans woman who doesn’t transition and continues to live as male is still trans and still a woman. And vice versa.

        • Matt

          They want to oppose laws that would protect people like me from discrimination in job hiring, among other things.

          We already have double the rate of unemployment. We are four times more likely to live on less than $10,000 dollars a year. 90% of us experience harassment on the job. 47% of us have been fired, denied a promotion, or not hired.

          Source: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

          Sound hateful enough yet?

          You want to understand this issue? Read that document. It’s exhaustive, it’s eye-opening, and it has everything in cold numbers. It’s also awful.

          • Dani Smith

            Ooh Ooh!!!
            You forgot about the suicide statistics. Ridiculously high.
            If suicide is supposed to be the biggest blasphemy, why do Christians encourage a line of thought that pushes our people to that level of desperation?

          • Leanne Coates

            I have to confess my knowledge of the issue is not extensive. I have joined this debate as an ‘outsider’ of both communities involved (although I’m a member of another denomination) and am just interested in the discussion, and thinking about the challenges it presents to the church. I will read the article you mention.

            I have re-read their statement on employment law, and am actually a little confused by it. Excuse my ignorance, but if sex is protected by law, how can gender identity not be protected? (I am British and live in Britain, so perhaps there’s a difference in common definitions/understandings?) Do they just mean physicalities when they say sex, and pscyhological aspects when they say gender identity?

          • BarbaraR

            in 29 states you can be fired for being gay; in 39 states you can be fired for identifying as transgender. Just exercising one’s right to free speech (i.e. “I am gay”) is enough in some places. And unfortunately it is legal in those states and the person has little recourse.

          • Leanne Coates

            Wow! Well it’s certainly not like that in the UK! I am shocked. I think we’re a little further down the track in terms of equality over here!

          • anakinmcfly

            Yeah, I’ve always found ‘gender identity’ to be a clumsy way of wording it when it comes to those laws. It’s usually the term they use to refer specifically to discrimination against trans people (as opposed to sex-based discrimination, which is more about equal opportunities for women in general.) But from what I know, it also covers non-trans people who happen to have atypical gender presentations, e.g. a really effeminate gay guy.

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            “Gender identity” is the phrase I was taught in my Psychology of Sex and Gender class and is a phrase I use myself when trying to explain my gender fluidity. Your mileage may vary.

        • Andy

          I am really getting sick of hearing about how demanding that people change something innate about themselves, just because someone else thinks that his or her interpretation of some ancient writings is correct, is a “loving” action. That’s utter bullshit. If you love someone, you don’t demand that they change.

          I’ve occasionally also heard this compared to saving someone in a burning building, as if there’s any parallel based in reality between a clear and present danger and “saving souls”. This is also bullshit.

          I’d also like to point out that the idea of eternal punishment is incompatible with an all-loving God, but I repeat myself and it’s a tangent anyway.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            i’ve never gotten the burning building analogy myself. I find some major cracks in the theory.
            I’m also with you on the whole “eternal punishmant” rote. I find it as part of God’s love for us, an inconcievable idea

          • Andy

            I’m pretty sure I’ve heard the burning building thing several times lately on here, but I’m not going to look it up because I don’t feel like retching. Yes, the burning building analogy absolutely does not hold water. (Pun not intended, but I’m amused at myself nonetheless.)

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Thanks. I needed that daily dose of pun.

          • Andy

            I do what I can. :)

          • anakinmcfly

            The burning building analogy works for me regarding what motivates those who believe in hell to evangelise to others (I might have used it before, years ago), but it has no relevance whatsoever when it comes to sexuality, because it depends fully on the false notion that being LGBT means you’re not a Christian.

          • Andy

            I understand the parallel that these people want to make between saving a person in a burning building and saving a soul from the fires of hell. The problem I have is, there is no basis in reality for that comparison, and if you don’t believe in hell it doesn’t work anyway, and all you do is annoy the crap out of people.

          • anakinmcfly

            While it’s obviously not the case for everyone, I do believe that some of those are acting out of genuine compassion, though. I remember being in that state as a teenager and being deeply disturbed and traumatised by the idea that most people I knew and cared about were going to end up burning forever in hell, and it’s what drove me to try desperately to convert them and thus save them from that fate. I thought that if I didn’t and they ended up in hell, their torment would be my fault for not trying hard enough. When it came to loved ones, just imagining them in hell, screaming with inescapable pain, forever, hurt a lot. I cried myself to sleep so many nights over that mental image. It haunted me for years.

          • Andy

            I completely understand. And it’s unfair for anyone to feel that burden. I hope that communities like this one will help future generations to not carry that kind of guilt around with them. People worry too much as it is; nobody needs more of that.

          • anakinmcfly

            Thanks. Yeah, it’s one of the things that make me wish I hadn’t been brought up in Christianity, but had perhaps found it on my own as an adult. Kid logic leads people down very scary paths, and it’s hard to overcome all that stuff you’re taught.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            The church I grew up in was not all that interested in evangelizing. Besides, unless you’d been grandfathered in, by having parents already in, new members had to jump through hoops just to attend a service. They of course had no qualms about deeming everyone not on the inside to a very unhealthy future. That meant that all my friends at school were screwed, and my teachers and the bus driver, and the nice lady at the bank who gave out suckers.

            When I left that faith and went SBC, and saw the evangelistic route of trying to “save” everyone from a similar unhealthy future, I couldn’t help but notice the similarities. Yeah the pool of the screwed was a bit smaller, but not by much, and there was a sense of anxiety about making as many converts as possible balanced by a righteous contentment that certain people were heading for that unhealthy future.

            Neither scenario made me comfortable.

        • BarbaraR

          They “love” them but not as they are. They believe transgender people only “perceive” themselves as trans and that if they would only repent and be “healed” that they’d be “normal” (you know, male OR female – pick one! Stay there!).

          How can they possibly know what’s “best” for someone they clearly have zero understanding of and in fact don’t seem to believe exist, who does them no harm whatsoever, and yet whom they believe to need “healing” and repentance?

          That isn’t love.

          • Dani Smith

            I’d love to be “healed” of being transgender! I don’t know how that would work, other than lobotomizing me, or using a time machine to go back and tweak my life a little bit. Okay, a LOT!!
            And I’ve now come to understand that God made me this way and had my life be this way to help change society for the better. I’ve already changed quite a few people’s minds about transgender persons. And that’s what I want to keep doing.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Ok, I’m going to see if I can order a triple like button.

        • lrfcowper

          Also, it is not loving to infantilise other people– to patronisingly claim to know what is best for them in the face of their own lived experience. And it is always oppressive and, therefore, unloving to claim entitlement to another person’s body and what they can do with it.

        • anakinmcfly

          “They want to defend their view of Scripture, yes, and they want to promote what they view as God’s best for humankind”

          Except that there’s nothing in the Bible that says a single thing about transgender people. They’re making a lot of assumptions.

    • Andy

      “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
      — Karl Popper

    • anakinmcfly

      It’s not about it being counter-cultural or against the flow of public opinion (which it isn’t, unless you live in some other universe where trans people are fully accepted with open arms, in which case how do I get there?) It’s about it being counter-science and counter- established medical fact.

  • Steve Rose

    If I may chime in as a Southern Baptist pastor – #1, SBC local churches are autonomous in nature, so even though a resolution may be made and affirmed at a national convention such as this, it does not filter down automatically to the local church. I do not attend the convention meetings, primarily because of things like this. #2, while the SBC as a whole does have a very negative perception regarding issues like this, not all of us are cut and dried the same way. Though I still have my questions personally about many issues of sexuality, I am not into making resolutions and commands about such things – instead, I do my best to be friends with people who differ in opinion, and genuinely care about them and for them while we often agree to disagree. #3, many people ask me why I stay SBC in light of these things – for one, I don’t believe you can ever affect change by leaving, so I hope that by staying and being a voice that differs perhaps God can use persons like me to promote change. Additionally, the SBC does have some of the best ministries to people around – the Disaster Relief program is among the best in the world when it comes to responding to situations (I worked with them in the Katrina situation, as well as more localized situations), and the network the SBC provides is invaluable to me as a pastor. If I want to go to Thailand for example for purposes of mission, in a couple of phone calls I can have a trip set up. If I want to seek a church in the states to assist in ministry, again, all it takes is a couple of phone calls and I’m in.

    Will I forever be a SBC guy? Not likely – the day is probably coming when instead of local churches being autonomous the SBC will move to a creed/confessional statement that each church/pastor has to sign to be a part of it. When that ship sails, I’ll be gone. But until then I hope to be an agent of change, not for the sake of the SBC necessarily, but for the kingdom of God and those who are created in His image…all of them.

    • James Walker

      that, Steve, is the pastoral response to issues like this and it is what we hope for from anyone in a position of church leadership. it’s why we are so disappointed when the leadership of a major denomination so clearly fails at being pastoral.

      • Steve Rose

        I agree James – the reality is that denominational leadership is so far removed from pastoral situations that it doesn’t surprise me when they respond this way. They may have started out as pastors, and still may hold a “pastoral office” somewhere, but they are not living that anymore. Too busy leading academic institutions, heading up lobbyist organizations in Washington, etc…

    • buricco

      I thought they already did that with the “Baptist Faith and Message” ? (Disclaimer: not a Southern Baptist myself.)

      • Steve Rose

        The BF&M is a confessional statement, but at this point it is not being used to include or exclude churches from the SBC. For example, and I’ll probably get cracked for this if any SBC watchdogs are monitoring this blog :) , the BF&M states churches should practice “closed” communion, which limits communion to the registered members of that SBC church. We practice open communion, meaning I invite anyone that is in our service that day who professes a relationship with Christ to partake. I preface that with a teaching from 1st Corinthians 11, how in taking the Lord’s Supper we are proclaiming that relationship, but I leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. The day may come where they BF&M is used to oust a church on an issue such as this for example, but it is not yet today.

        • buricco

          Ah.

          I understood it to be effectively a creed that said, well, if you don’t agree with this, you’re not One of Us.

          For the record, I can believe in a church’s entire statement of faith and still be an outcast there (it’s why I left the last one I went to).

          • Steve Rose

            Make no doubt about it, there are those in the SBC who want to make it that way. Each year at the convention motions are made in that fashion, and each year the percentage they get defeated by grows smaller.

            When I moved to Phoenix to plant the church I currently pastor, one of the things I was getting hammered on by a state convention guy was church government. The BF&M implies congregational voting as church government, which I don’t believe in. I believe the Bible points more towards an elder/overseer led governing, and as we discussed it in my interview I said, “All I know is if Moses had taken a congregational vote at the Red Sea, they never would have crossed.” The discussion ended then :)

    • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

      Steve-
      Thank you for this really measured and helpful response. I’m curious…How do you feel about the “third way” on issues of human sexuality (as put forth by Ken Wilson: allowing them to be disputable matters and fully including sexual minorities in the life of the church)? Would you agree or disagree with those who say there is no such thing as a “third way”?

      • Steve Rose

        I have read some bits and pieces regarding Ken Wilson. I am uncomfortable with the “third way” discussion, not necessarily because I am against it, but because I think it has the potential to add even more division in an already unified body of Christ. We continually add more and more labels, and I think that is damaging. I understand the third way philosophy, I think, and am in favor of a more relational environment in churches for all persons. Sexual issues are diverse in nature and in causality, and in my own opinion require relationship to be at the forefront of discussion, not religious observation, if that makes sense.

        • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

          I think I understand. [when you say "....more division in an already unified body of Christ", did you really meain "...already divided..."?]

          Sexual issues are diverse in nature and in causality, and…require relationship to be at the forefront of discussion, not religious observation…

          How does the church have difficult conversations about sexuality without either stigmatizing sexual minorities or breaking communion? Is that even possilbe, or are we better splitting into binary factions? This resolution by the SBC is completely exclusive (not to mention dehumanizing with an intent to stigmatize), suggesting that they want no part of keeping communion with those who believe differently.

          BTW, I would highly recommend Ken Wilson’s A Letter to my Congreations. I think it’s the most important book I’ve ever read regarding the pastoral response to people who are queer.

          • Steve Rose

            yep, I did mean divided…sorry, neither baby slept last night :)

            I think the only way I can answer your question is to do so from a personal point, as opposed to a corporate point – I was sexually abused twice as a boy, once by a close family member. As a result, most of my life has been a sexual crisis – from questioning what my identity was as a boy, to being hyperactively sexual with girls as a teenager and women as an adult, to ultimately realizing that what happened to me didn’t define me or my sexuality. Even as a married man of 14 years with 2 kids, an adopted son and a foster baby, I still have moments of sexual brokenness in my life. I’m not yet complete or fully free of issues, but I’m more complete and free today than I was yesterday. It’s a process. I realize that’s a highly personal vomiting of information, but that’s they way I have those conversations with people – through honest, transparent, discussions of my own issues as we discuss theirs. It immediately stops the dehumanizing as they see me regarding myself as human, as it were, while being open with my life’s struggles. Now obviously, not every person in the local church has stories like that, but given the rates of sexual abuse, rape, parental abandonment, etc…that exist in our culture, it’s like that someone does, and I think it behoves a pastor to help that person be in a position of leadership for those discussions to occur rather than it be a person who cannot identify with issues. Similar to when I was a youth pastor and realized over half my kids came from divorced homes – I immediately added an adult team member whose parents got divorced when he was young, so that I had someone who could identify with feelings, emotions, etc…these kids were having.

          • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

            Steve –

            Thank you for sharing so openly; such vulnerability is a gift and it is appreciated. I agree with the idea of “pastor as partner as we work through stuff” rather than “pastor as morality cop or Shell-answer-man”. Your congregation is lucky to have your perspectives.

            One of my core beliefs is (in a nutshell) that by knowing and being known by one another we are mutually transformed – we are sanctified through relationship. That means that we need to keep communion with one another. I’m not sure how that’s possible when churches act in ways that exclude (as the SBC continues to do).

            All my best to you –
            David

          • Steve Rose

            Thank you David, for your kind words, and I agree completely. I love how you put it, “mutually transformed-we are sanctified through relationship” I tell my church, they have one Holy Spirit and it ain’t me :)

            I just read another blog today by an SBC guy out of Oklahoma – he believes there will eventually be an evangelical movement with, as he puts it, “southern Baptists, northern Baptists, Baptists of different persuasions on tertiary issues, and even non-denominational evangelicals interested in expanding the Kingdom through joint mission efforts” – I hope he is right. It would be awesome to live one day in a true kingdom community.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      I know that some SBC churches are already moving to a credal confessional statement for its staff, at least in my neck of the woods. I learned that when I was out of work a few years ago, and trying to find a job, anywhere. I had to rule out positions at SBC churches because I discovered they had credal statements.

      • Steve Rose

        Yes, some local churches are doing so. That’s sad to me. I’ve always been a borderline black sheep in the SBC though. I tell people I’m a “little b baptist, and a big C Christian”. Those outside the SBC tend to appreciate that statement – those inside, not so much ;-)

        • Bobby Spencer

          LOL I’m surprised you haven’t been defrocked. Keep up the work.

          • Steve Rose

            haha, thanks! :)

    • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

      #1, SBC local churches are autonomous in nature, so even though a
      resolution may be made and affirmed at a national convention such as
      this, it does not filter down automatically to the local church.

      It was passed unanimously. Without debate.

      Not a single dissenting voice.

      • Steve Rose

        Zoe, with all due respect, you are incorrect. The attendees at the convention who vote are “messengers” from local churches. Each local church can send X number of messengers based on church membership numbers (I forget what the actual number is, as I don’t send anyone). With over 50,000 SBC churches in America, let’s just say hypothetically it averages out to 2 per church. That means there should have been 25,000 messengers in attendance at this convention if we were “all” like this. There were not. At time of the first voting assembly on Tuesday, 5,001 messengers were registered. 5,001. So no, we are not all like that…and considering that from 2000-2012 the number of messengers averaged a little over 7,500 per convention, and a decade prior to that it was over 10,000, I’d say the picture is clear. Fewer of us are as interested in matters such as these and it absolutely does not automatically filter down to the local church. No one from the SBC national administration will be at my doorstep in the next few weeks asking me to sign off on this. Just as I’m assuming your elected representatives do not always speak for you in D.C., neither do the SBC representatives always speak for me.

  • Russ Howe

    The author’s paraphrasing of the actual resolution is inaccurate and basically hate propaganda. Disappointing and misleading. Pity it got published here on what cna be quite a helpful site.

    • AtalantaBethulia

      Would you be willing to think about this from a non-SBC perspective? That when outsiders read these resolutions this is the distillation of what it means to them? In a nutshell, this is what it appears to be saying. This is how it feels to those in the LGBT and ally communities.

      Why shouldn’t people perceive them in the way that John presented them here?

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Care to point out where exactly I inaccurately quoted the resolution?

      • Russ Howe

        Perhaps you should accurately quote me. You paraphrased the resolution inaccurately, in a way to make the message seem much more hostile than it is. That is not journalism that is propaganda.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          I read the resolution. It is as hostile as it seems.
          For the record, this is NOT a news site.

        • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

          Again: Show me where I did that and I’ll remove it from the post. (And I was cutting you a break by substituting my “quoted” for your “paraphrased.” Because I didn’t paraphrase the resolution at all: I only quoted it. I was just trying to hide your mistake.)

          Don’t forget now: Point out to us all where I, in your words, “paraphrased the resolution inaccurately.” Good luck with that. (Especially since I didn’t paraphrase anything at all, you dink.)

    • Jeff Preuss

      Misleading? He offered his take on what the wording in the resolution meant, then offered the FULL TEXT of said resolution within the body of his post so we could read it for ourselves…and maybe even come up with our own conclusions.

      • Russ Howe

        You are right Jeff. Most readers won’t focus on the bolded sections of the article they will likely read the entire resolution for themselves. Or not.

        • Jeff Preuss

          It’s kinda the responsibility of the reader to read an ENTIRE article (or since this isn’t exactly journalism, a blog post) before making any conclusions about the nature of its content. Now, one could reasonably argue that the title of the blog post (“headline”) is misleading, especially if one disagrees with the notion that trans people are being thrown under the bus, but I reiterate:
          He offered his thoughts on the resolution (SBC officials are mean to trans people), then shared the whole text of said resolution (a lot of legalese poop detailing how to be mean to trans people).

          The fact that you don’t agree with John’s impressions, or you didn’t read past his impressions makes them neither inaccurate, nor misleading, nor hate propaganda. (Disappointing, I’ll give you, since that’s a highly subjective call.)

          (BTW, “hate propaganda” is a reeeeeeeeeeeally ironically funny thing to call Christians’ disgust at the SBC treatment of trans people. Y’know, considering the resolution itself could be considered hate propaganda.)

  • Mark O’Neil

    Never mind that on the one hand it is assumed that we have a biological nature that operates and functions in a certain way in order to be healthy, and then on the other hand that that biological nature is somehow arbitrary and can be changed at one’s own will without causing injury to that biological nature. Yeah right, it is bigotry, intolerant, and to want and pass laws to protect the health of the nature of human beings that operate and function in the proper way. Authentic freedom makes a cultural contract to protect the proper operation and function of humans beings, even in spite of the will to harm themselves. The only intolerance and bigotry I see here in this article is against what is the truth concerning human nature and against an honest commitment to the authentic well being of all humans so that they will not cause injury to human natures.

    • BarbaraR

      What?

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      What?

    • Andy

      What?

    • Guy Norred

      No one questions that we have a biological nature. What is pointed out is that we also have a psychological nature that may be at odds with biology and that while physical health is of extreme importance, it is of little use if we ignore mental and spiritual health. And I agree that we society absolutely has a responsibility to protect, even sometimes to protect people from themselves, but we cannot do any of this if we only look at the surface. This is like keeping the paint job, etc. of a car in pristine condition, but abusing everything under the hood–which is really more important?

      • lrfcowper

        Actually, the psychological, since it arises in the brain, is as biological as the bits between the legs, if not moreso. The gonads develop very early in fetal growth. The brain develops later, and your neurological gender with it. If the gonads are functioning properly there are some low-level hormones in play that cause the gender identity to match the gonads. However, sometimes that signal gets screwed up and the neurological gender identity doesn’t match the genitalia. Why it’s the outward appearance and not the inward identity that matters to the SBC and other cisgenderist groups mystifies me.

        • Guy Norred

          For what it is worth–I agree entirely–so far as I understand any of this.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Well thanks to lrfcowper, I do understand a bit better. It sure helps having an interpreter handy.

          • lrfcowper

            Basically, people who say, “It’s all in your mind” are saying “It’s all in your brain” which is the same as saying “It’s all in your biology.” They’re just ignorant that that’s what they’re saying. A lot of these churches also shame people suffering from mental illness, using the same logic.

          • Andy

            And yet, are they not (unwittingly) correct in some way?

          • lrfcowper

            Their initial assumption– “Depression/transgender identity/sexual orientation is all in your mind.”– is correct. What they mean by that– “This is not an actual biological thing.”– is entirely incorrect. And what conclusions they reach based on their incorrect meaning is not even in the same galaxy as correct.

          • James Walker

            well, you know, since they don’t believe in the scientific method it’s scarcely surprising they fail at drawing scientific conclusions from data… =)

          • Andy

            Yep, that’s what I thought.

        • James Walker

          because they don’t believe that “theory” of fetal development. as far as they’re concerned, God puts each person into the womb fully developed, just very, very tiny.

        • James Walker

          you know, Lynette, because you’ve faced off with some of the same people I have, just how many of these people flat out tell us it’s “impossible” for neurological development to differ in any way from external physiological development, that it’s “impossible” for there to be epigenetic and pre-natal hormone exposure factors in play with sexual development, sexual identity and gender expression.

    • Guy Norred

      Or did I completely misunderstand you?

      • R Vogel

        I would be amazed if you even partially understood that….

        • Guy Norred

          Not at all sure and actually hope I misunderstood but….

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Oh, good, I’m not alone…WHAT?

    • Glenn Olson

      Injury?

      Left untreated, transgendered persons have a suicide attempt rate of around 50%, with a 70% rate of suicide ideation (that is, serious consideration of suicide.) The rate drops down to 4% when they are treated with support and respect for their self-asserted gender identities.

      Meanwhile, biological indicators within the neurology have been discovered; suggesting that the aspect of our biology which most heavily influences behavioral function aligns more to our sense of identity than to the anatomical structure of our genitalia. For us, this *is* our natural function; and your attempts to stifle it are both injurious and intolerant.

    • anakinmcfly

      SCIENCE
      1) About 10% of trans people are visibly intersex to some degree

      2) The current theory is that transgenderism happens in-utero as the result of too much cross-sex hormones, which in some cases not only causes the brain to develop in a gendered direction opposite to the rest of the body, but also ‘primes’ it to function best in that particular hormonal environment.

      3) Many trans people who undergo cross-sex hormone therapy experience significant improvements in physical health. I’m one of them. I used to get sick all the time; any major disease came by (including tuberculosis, which was supposed to have been eradicated here) and I’d catch it. I had all the allergies, plus lots of weird health issues that no doctor could figure out despite multiple gruelling tests. Everything. Then I started testosterone, and suddenly all that crap just… stopped. It was magical.

      I’m healthier than I’ve ever been. It’s like my brain and body started functioning properly for the first time ever since I got that first shot of T. And while one might argue that it’s all in my head, which I don’t doubt does play some part, it’s also worth noting that every time I reach the end of my injection cycle, my health starts declining again. It’s happening right now, in fact – I’m on a temporarily lower dose of T while I switch to a different formulation, and my eczema and asthma are creeping back with a vengeance. It’s reliable enough that I can tell when my next shot is due just by looking to see if my left elbow is developing rashes again.

      So if “injuring” my “biological nature” results in me being healthy, able to have sufficient oxygen in my lungs, able to run or exert myself without fainting or heart palpitations, able to not get weird twitching for hours on end, able to be free from disfiguring, itchy, bleeding eczema sores all over my body… I’ll keep up that injury, thank you very much.

  • Justin

    “We condemn efforts to alter one’s bodily identity [e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery] to bring it into line with one’s perceived gender identity.”

    Okay. So does anyone know what the SBC policy for intersexed people is? Some have surgical procedures and hormone treatment to bring them “into line” with either a male or a female identity. Is that okay for them to do that – after all, they are trying to bring their bodily identity in line with their (or their culture’s) preceived gender identity. Or are bodily alterations, hormone therapy always sinful? If that’s the case, then what exactly are intersex people supposed to do? Should they just stay “as God made them?” If so, they certainly can’t identify as intersex, because SBC will not allow that in their congregations.

    Maybe it’s too uncomfortable for them to think about – too much cognitive dissonance for their worldview. Or more likely, maybe it is because those in SBC leadership don’t have the emotional or intellectual maturity to consider the issue.

    • Jason Valasek

      I wonder how they feel about circumcision. Isn’t that altering your body too?

      • Dani Smith

        But that is part of the Abrahamic covenant, which Christians MUST follow, even though Christ “supposedly” came to fulfill the law. Which would mean we didn’t have to. But what do I know?

        • Andy

          I thought we were absolved of the old law.

          • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

            Only the bits about shrimp, bacon, and cotton blends.

    • Bobby Spencer

      I’m pretty sure the answer would be that the scientists are lying, no human has ever been born with both (or ambiguous) sexual organs/external parts. “HEY GOD DOESN’T MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!!” Like I said I expect hell to freeze over long before the SBC accepts gays, much less trans.

      • asmondius

        You may rest assured that there has never been a human being with both male and female reproductive organs, that is a ‘scientific’ impossibility. An ambiguously formed part of the body does not make one a ‘transgender’.

    • Dani Smith

      Well since the medical community pushes gender alignment on inter-sex newborns, I’m sure that is okay. Because doctor’s are so smart and perfect.
      “We don’t believe in genital mutilation, unless it is cutting off a newborn males tiny little penis and removing any testicles and creating a vagina and giving female hormones. Because that is creating a proper gender binary. And that is what is important.” Ugh.

  • Rod Taylor

    Please. I used to be Southern Baptist. The SBC “loves” transgendered people? Kinda like they loved me (I’m gay) right out the doors of their church. Some love! They teach Christ’s teaching to love others as much as a dog teaches her pups to fly.

    • http://lotuslandfineart.com/ W. Lotus

      They (and Christians of other denominations with similar beliefs) keep using that word “love”. I do not think it means what they seem to think it means.

      • Rod Taylor

        They don’t seem to. Fortunately there are LGBT affirming denominations out there. ELCA (Lutheran) for one. And they seem to have a much better grasp on the term.

      • Dani Smith

        Don’t you know the term, “speaking the truth in love”?
        That’s what I got thrown at me the whole first year after I came out that I tried to stay friends with Christians. Soooo much fun.
        And sooo much love to be felt.

      • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

        It’s just like “hate the sinner, idolise the sin”.

        Wait, did I get that right?

        • http://microblog.lotuslandfineart.com/ W. Lotus

          Yes, you did. :-)

  • Christine Spencer

    Apparently Intersex people don’t exist in Gods plan either. Sorry, reality conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

    God would be laughing at them if this didn’t kill people…mostly kids.

    • asmondius

      How is that?

  • Sarah

    I’m so sorry! As a member of a church that’s SBC, this greatly disgusts me. This is simply the HATE OF IGNORANCE not the LOVE OF CHRIST, which Christians are to adhere to. I’m so so sorry! I’m fighting this horrible hate in the trenches. Just so you know there are Christ followers who see this political junk and cringe and we confront those in power with their own HATEFUL ACTIONS, hoping to bring about real change.

  • buzzdixon

    Jesus never miraculously changed anyone’s mind. He healed imperfect bodies. (And, no, you can’t say he changed minds by driving out unclean spirits. A literal meaning is that he drove out demonic invaders, a more figurative one is that he cured people suffering from schizophrenia which is a disease with biological origins that affects the mind.)

    Any time somebody’s mind changed because of Jesus, it was because they thought about what Jesus taught, not because Jesus put the whammy on them.

  • Bobby Spencer

    Nothing to see here really. I’m pretty sure the response to “Well what about someone is intersexed” would be “No such thing, God never makes mistakes, everyone is born either a man or a woman.” Until hell freezes over, and the SBC recognizes that God did make some of us gay and lesbian, and that it’s not a sin, I would expect no less hatred directed at transpeople as well.

  • Pavitrasarala

    Did I really see the words “Southern Baptist” and “biological” in the same sentence?

    • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

      Only when it suits them… only when it suits them.

      They break their own rules about interpreting scripture, using science, and treating culture as an authority.

  • KonaGabe

    What about all the people who believe they are actually a dragon, but are trapped in a human body? No one should criticize them as they work to modify their bodies to conform to their identity. Why is the medical & psychological community so opposed to this? Are they speceist?

    • James Walker

      umm.. nice straw man there.

    • lrfcowper

      Urgh. This stupid argument again.

      There is no scientific evidence that a human’s neurology could be wired the same as a mythical species. There is also no evidence that a human’s neurology could be wired the same as a different real species, because there are no dragon, snake, cat, or dog hormones floating around in utero to affect the brain’s development.

      There is overwhelming scientific evidence that a trans person’s neurology more closely matches their identified gender than their genital sex. A transwoman’s brain is female. A transman’s brain is male. It is their inborn biological gender, not just something they “believe”.

      Forcing someone to live in the wrong gender causes unimaginable pain and suffering. It kills people.

      • KonaGabe

        “There is overwhelming scientific evidence”

        Nice claim, but totally bogus claim. Surveys indicate people who have mutilated their genitals are not happier after the irreversible operation. Encouraging people to continue down road of delusion is not comforting or helpful. Some people need help.

        • Dani Smith

          It is not “mutilation” when you are willfully having something removed that you no longer want and causes you emotional anguish.
          There may not be “overwhelming scientific evidence”, but there is a decent enough amount to show that it is better.
          And the people who were not happier probably didn’t take enough time to make sure it was who they were completely sure they wanted to be.
          You’re right, some people need help. That help is love and understanding, not saying they are mutilating themselves or are delusional.

          • KonaGabe

            When you cut off a sexual organ, to placate your ‘feelings’, that is mutilation.

            There is NO scientific evidence that a Man is ever born into a Female’s body, or vice versa.

            http://tinyurl.com/llfxbsz

            As to help, it is sad going to a local playground and watching 6 yr old boy wearing pink tutu and telling all the kids at the park ‘I’m a girl!’ (true story here). His parents are not truly loving their child and training him for manhood. Let alone the confused teenagers who look up to plastic tv personalities who pretend on tv that they have a happy life, now that they are out and proud.

          • asmondius

            ‘Decent enough’ does not justify self mutilation.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          O’rly? Well I had my uterus removed, and I couldn’t be happier.

          • KonaGabe

            Hopefully you didn’t attach a dead penis to your extremity.
            No biology book refers to the uterus as a sexual organ.
            If genital mutilation of males is ‘humane’, then why is it only done routinely in Thailand?
            FGM is very popular in Muslim countries, but different topic, but still barbaric.

          • asmondius

            Another victim of unnecessary surgery?

          • anakinmcfly

            What sucks is how, based on that, in most places you would qualify to legally change your sex to male if you so wished. While I can’t, because all my parts are still with me and I don’t want doctors poking around perfectly-functional organs with sharp objects. It’s a stupid law.

        • meesa

          nice, try, but there is plenty of evidence, just because you are too lazy to bother looking dosnt give you the right to be a keyboard warrior and just claim whatever anyone else says is bogus, use your fucking head, and your heart for ONCE

          • asmondius

            Incorrect – there is not. There is no such thing as a genetic male who is also female.

        • Darlene Martin Cox

          Kona, you have no knowledge of what it means to be transgender. It is a normally occurring birth anomaly. Please don’t speak on a subject you know nothing about.

          • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

            I assume you mean “anomaly” in the sense “diverse and rare” rather than “not normal/normative”? :-)

        • Glenn Olson

          All the surveys I’ve seen have indicated the exact opposite.

        • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

          Luk Gijs Anne Brewaeys, Surgical Treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adults and Adolescents: Recent Developments, Effectiveness, and Challenges, 18 Ann. Rev. Sex Res. 178-224 (2007), APEx. 10.

          This study examined results of 18 international studies published between 1990 and 2006 that reported follow-up data of at least one year from 807 persons who had undergone sex reassignment surgery (193 FM, 614 MF).
          The purpose of this study was to update and assess the current validity of a conclusion in a 1990 article (based itself on review of 11 studies following post-operation) that transsexual surgery is an effective treatment for the alleviation of gender disorder in adults. This study
          concluded that

          [d]espite methodological shortcomings of many of the
          studies SRS is an effective treatment for transsexualism and the only treatment that has been evaluated empirically with large clinical case series and that the conclusion that SR [sex reassignment] is the most appropriate treatment to alleviate the suffering of extremely gender dysphoric individuals still stands: 96% of the persons who underwent SRS were satisfied and regret was rare. The authors noted that the methodologies and designs of later studies were improved but that true randomized control studies are not feasible, and might be unethical for SRS.

          Religious groups claim that “Surveys indicate..” but the actual surveys say otherwise. They make stuff up, and deliberately mis-represent conclusions..

          The US Department of Health and Human Services recently reviewed the situation, in its Departmental Appeals Board ruling, DAB No. 2576 – NCD 140 3 Transsexual Surgery

          Please read it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/227212239/DAB-No-2576-NCD-140-3-Transsexual-Surgery

        • anakinmcfly

          Source please. Because apart from what Zoe linked down there, I’ve seen lots of other studies with similar success rates – one with 98% of trans people reporting a ‘greatly increased quality of life.’ Of the 2% or so who don’t, either they weren’t trans to begin with, or the resulting discrimination and hate from friends and family ended up being too much for them to take.

      • asmondius

        There is no ‘overwhelming evidence’ – that is simply conjecture. ‘Inborn biological gender’ indeed.

    • buzzdixon
    • Jeff Preuss

      Plus, there is no way super-conservative church leaders would care about someone becoming a dragon, because they are more focused on anything having to do with SEX and GENDER.

      • Jeff Preuss

        (Now I wanna be a dragon. Can I be a dragon?)

        • Andy

          You can be anything you want to be, Jeff. That’s the American dream.

    • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

      Maybe this might aid understanding:

      A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

      Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically
      male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity
      develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and
      sex hormones

      I’m sure you weren’t aware that Trans people have anatomically cross-sexed brains, even though this has been known for nearly 20 years now.

      I’m sure you never even suspected that such proof existed.

      Worse – you didn’t know that you didn’t know. So completely ignorant of the subject you hadn’t got a clue how ignorant you are – hence the fatuous comment about “dragons”, making you look foolish.

      You’re not a fool. There’s many areas of knowledge everyone knows little about. I try not to comment about things I know nothing about, but there’s bound to be some where I too don’t suspect how badly I’m misinformed, and I end up looking like an ignorant fool too, even though that’s unfair in your case. My own.. sometimes I wonder.

      But please, if the medical and psychological community, after much resistance, has come to a conclusion that you think goes against “common sense” – maybe you should attempt to see why before commenting. It’s not as if it’s a great secret, and both Wiki and Google are your friends here.

    • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

      Speaking as a former member of the Otherkin community, I have known people who altered their bodies to be more draconic. They were able to do so without suffering persecution for their efforts.

  • Guest

    While it’s completely understandable to be angry and upset over what the SBC has passed, returning hatred for hatred will never get either side closer together.

    • lrfcowper

      “Aw, Jesus, why are you so mean to the Pharisees? You shouldn’t be calling them out on their oppression of people. That’s hateful!”

      • asmondius

        ‘Oppression’?

  • Sean Shenold

    While it’s understandable to be angry and upset over what the SBC has passed, returning hatred for hatred is never going to bring people closer together. I’m sure it gave a lot of people at least some small bit of pleasure to see the Southern Baptists declared to be “sad beyond expression and a tragically perverted version of Christianity”. But such statements only deepen the rift between Christians. Such things are akin to those whose concept of evangelism is standing on a street corner, waving a Bible overhead, and screaming to the traffic, “You’re ALL going to HELL!!” (Did any church, ever, gain even a single new member as a result of such efforts?) Labeling the Baptists as ‘sad’ and hoping for them to be ground to dust for their egregious and anti-Christian proclamations (which they are, of course) may give some temporary satisfaction, but perhaps it would be better to address these diametrically opposite and seemingly insurmountable differences in a more civil and conciliatory manner.

    • Candice

      I very much agree with you .

    • Glenn Olson

      Tried that.
      Turned the other cheek and tried it again. I’m now out of cheeks.

    • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

      When Jesus saw that the merchants and priests were excluding people from the temple (by selling things in the area the people were meant to occupy), he quietly invited them each to dinner to discuss their differences.

      Well, actually, he conducted pre-mediated assault and vandalism by making a whip, tipping over the tables of the merchants, and using the whip to drive them all out of the temple.

      And, actually, he ate dinner with the poor, the orphan, the widow, the oppressed, the prostitute, the tax collector, …

      I think you have your reactions a little mixed up. (Although, I have advocated for being conciliatory at times, rejecting an entire group of people deserves the same response.)

    • anakinmcfly

      nah. I’d usually agree with you, and firmly believe that one shouldn’t return hatred with hatred. But this didn’t strike me as hateful at all. You want to see trans people returning hate with hate, google ‘die cis scum’.

      • Andy

        Hating an entire group for a small minority that persecutes you is not cool. I get this a lot because I’m from Texas, and I frequently see people commenting on progressive articles about dumb things that my governor or the Texas GOP said or did. They assume that the majority of Texans are in favor of things like discrimination, which isn’t true. More than half of Texans support marriage equality, for example. This really bothers me because one of the things that I believe should be characteristic of a progressive is to move past bullshit like discrimination and blanket stereotypes. Those are the hallmarks of anachronistic idiots. If you call yourself progressive, you should be above that shit. (Actually, I know a lot of conservatives that don’t stand for it, either, so it’s not like it’s an innate conservative thing, either.)

        • anakinmcfly

          Yeah; I get that same feeling when people insult whole countries (including mine) because they have anti-LGBT laws. I mean, there are LGBT people in those countries too, many of whom still love their country, and it’s unfair to hold a whole population responsible for stuff that politicians (whom they might not even have voted for) are doing.

          Though in the example I gave and similar, I can see that it’s more a case of people using it as an outlet for anger and frustration. When you’ve been hurt, it’s easier to declare that everyone sucks than to actually be discriminate. It doesn’t necessarily mean they believe it, any more than a teenager yelling “I hate you!” at his parents.

          • Andy

            That’s a very good way of looking at it. Thanks for that perspective.

  • Steve Bailey

    This confirms everything that’s wrong with the SBC. Very sad indeed. God’s blessing cannot rest on such an institution. No wonder their numbers are declining. They are no longer a viable or acceptable expression of Christian faith. Bottom line.

  • http://www.holyvacationqueen.com Kathy

    gosh, I wonder what Jesus would say.

    • KonaGabe

      Jesus – “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” Mark 10:6-8 –
      No gender confusion found in teachings of Jesus, pretty simple and easy to understand.

      • meesa

        and sick and dark and hateful and spiteful and it makes the people who follow it just the same, and they teach their kids to be the burden of humanity after them, just like you

        • asmondius

          Your comment seems rather dark in itself.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        Male—Female…opposite ends of the sexual spectrum. All the rest is somewhere within that spectrum. All part of the creative work of God.

        • asmondius

          Well, Jesus’ statement is very straightforward and easy to understand – I don’t see the word ‘spectrum’ there anywhere, do you? When God created one male and one female, where was the ‘spectrum’?

      • Darlene Martin Cox

        It is stated quite clearly there …..god made them male and female……which is EXACTLY describing those who are transgender. God does not create imperfections!

        • anakinmcfly

          And trans people are also male and female, so I fail to see the issue here.

      • Jeff Preuss

        No intersexed people in the teachings of Jesus either. But I’ll bet he loves them, too…

        • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

          Really?

          “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” — Jesus in Matthew 19:12 (NIV)

          If being “born a eunuch” isn’t an intersex condition, I don’t know what is…

          Oh, and in Jesus’ culture, eunuchs were non-(cis-)gender-conforming – both physically and socially. That’s probably the closest Jesus gets to addressing trans* people. (There could be other passages – I’d really like to find some!)

          • Jeff Preuss

            I stand corrected, then! Maybe the SBC should include that stuff in some of their language about gender.

            I still stand by my second sentence. :)

          • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

            The SBC is ready to break all their rules about handling scripture, culture, and science – all for the sake of their ideology.

            And yes, Jesus has a special place in his heart for those who are non-conforming. He elevates being a “eunuch” to an incredibly high status in the passage I quoted: “The one who can accept this [live this way] should accept it.” After all, that’s what he did!

          • Tracy

            Eunuch was a term used in relationship to the ability to have children/sex during the era in which Jesus lived – a person was considered a Eunuch who was either born with an inability to procreate or became unable to due to either castration or by choice… a choice to refrain from sexual encounters. In context, it is clear Jesus is talking about whether to marry or not to marry after a divorce and whether a person feels called and able to be celibate for the sake of spreading the gospel. The context is important in this passage. Jesus is talking specifically about a husband and a wife who divorce and that (unless the divorce is due to sexual immorality) it is better for the two not to re-marry others. You can potentially generalize the statement by saying Jesus was saying celibacy is a good choice to make rather than getting married. It is not talking about transgender issues.

          • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

            Actually, Tracy, I said that the passage addressed intersex people directly (many intersex people aren’t born with [fertile] sex organs, and even if an intersex person was born with functional sex organs, they may have been considered “eunuchs” by the standards of the culture at the time.)

            I agree that you can apply the passage to marriage, singleness, and divorce. But it does mention an intersex condition (“born a eunuch”), which was socially non-gender-conforming in that culture.

            I then said the passage was *probably the closest that Jesus gets* to addressing trans people.

            Do you know of any passages where Jesus is more direct in mentioning trans people?

      • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

        I took that literally: I am male and female — two who are one flesh.

        What now?

    • asmondius

      ‘Go, and sin no more’.

  • Candice

    This is yet another article written to justify or legalize the sin of homosexuality . Yes , I said it is a sin .

    Read your bible . The Gay Agenda is a very satanic , and widespread seen , just as Jesus said it would be shortly before his return . Read the ” Gay Manifesto ” written in 1987 it states in itself that they will kill all that is old and ugly . Where are the older , honest gay men who would admit the battle they deal with inside about rejection by their own gay society , as they age ?

    • Candice

      So I guess if someone dosent like what you say here they just delete your comment ….. The truth is the truth .

      • Bones

        It’s about protecting people on this site from people like you who wish to harm them in the name of God.

        I’d expect the same if it was an anti-semite or white supremacist post.

        Jesus calls us to stand for the weak and marginalised against those who would oppress them.

        • asmondius

          Hmmm – those who doubt the veracity of some comments here are Nazis? But isn’t that the very game the Nazis themselves used – objectify and vilify the dissenters?

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        When someone posts intentionally inflammatory, hateful statements, they will be deleted immediately, whether the poster thinks its true or not. If you have questions about what you can and cannot say here, please refer to our comments policy tab, its here…http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/be-nice/

        • asmondius

          Such as ‘the crazy train -toot toot’?

  • meesa

    how sad, religion still holding people back, sickening.

    • KonaGabe

      Yes, how sad that some encourage the genital mutilation of young girls to appease the Koran. Others try to prove they are tolerant and compassionate by supporting transsexuals and others who mutilate their genitals and tell others young boys that many males are actually women trapped in the body of a females body. Both harmful and twisted ideologies should never be introduced to children.

  • Leon Custer

    I am very confused! I just recently stated receiving the Patheos information. I thought it was a Christian group? Why is this article allowed that seems to support transgenders? I am not a member of any Baptist Church. However, are they not right to stand against sin? I am a single straight male and I would be living in sin to have relations with a woman., so I don’t. A homosexual that abstains from giving in to his or her feelings can also be a Christian. How can a practicing transgender person be counted as a Christian if continually and knowingly sinning? I think all churches should separate themselves from people living in sin wanting to be called a clean Christian.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      This article does not seem to support transgenders. It DOES support transgenders.

      The SBC has the right to stand for or against anything they see fit. We have the right to say we disagree and why.

      And here’s one more thing. If churches emptied itself of “sinners”,,gossips, bigots, liars, cheats, sluggards, abusers, addicts, prideful etc….well then, there would be no such thing as a church.

      • anakinmcfly

        Drive by grammar correction: ‘transgender’ is an adjective, not a noun. :)

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          Caught by the grammar police….again. :)

          • anakinmcfly

            :D

            I’m usually not that rigid with grammar around trans stuff, because I know it’s not really common knowledge, but that’s one of the few that tends to bother me because I’ve heard it most often from people who… aren’t being nice. >_> Like how a friend of mine reported strangers whispering about her: “that’s not a woman, that’s a transgender!”

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I need an grammatical editor following me around at times.

            And I certainly am intentional in trying to convey respect when using descriptive labels. Its an interesting dance at times.

          • anakinmcfly

            Yeah, same here. It can get frustrating from both sides, especially when acceptable terminology changes so often and across cultures too – words that are okay in the US are considered slurs here (like ‘queer’), and vice versa. It’s hard to keep track of everything.

          • lrfcowper

            A slur is a slur when it’s been used to oppress and other people. Words are emotionally neutral sounds until we imbue them with emotional meaning.

            There are plenty of folks in the US who still regard “queer” as a slur. It’s been reappropriated by some LGBT folks as an umbrella term that’s less unwieldy that LGBTQQIIA and other word soup constructions, but it’s really only appropriate for use by LGBT folks for themselves, not for straight-cis people to use about LGBT folks. Oftentimes, older LGBT folks who have had that word flung at them while being bullied or assaulted don’t regard it as redeemable/reclaimable.

            Right now, I’m seeing “homosexual” as having a similar emotional tenor as “negro”. It’s being used oppressively (especially among anti-gay “Christian” groups), but there’s enough emotionally neutral scientific and historical use of it that it’s still tolerable, barely.

            The main thing is to keep your ears out for what’s being used for oppressive purposes and then be very careful of using those terms on others who may have been hurt by them.

          • BarbaraR

            *Nods* As soon as I read “homosexual” instead of “gay,” I’m pretty sure how the rest of the comment is going to go.

          • asmondius

            ‘Homosexual’ is the correct term – ‘gay’ is 5th Ave slang meant to wallpaper over the condition for the uninformed. The word means ‘happy’, by the way.

          • Guy Norred

            I realize this when reading, but have noticed that sometimes I use homosexual and heterosexual, perhaps in a clinical way, but I think it at least is slightly more equal than something where the default would be straight as I find that implies the other is crooked. Any other words I can remember seeing used, tend to be bulky phrases.

          • lrfcowper

            BTW, for the people who are going to argue that “gay” is ruining a perfectly good word that never meant that till recently and that “homosexual” is more correct…

            “Gay” is historically an older term for a same-sex attracted person than “homosexual” is. “Homosexual” is a clinical term that tends to get used by anti-gay people to justify their bigotry because it 1) has the word “sex” in it, so they can rail about sexual perversion and the like, and 2) dehumanises people by reducing a whole person to a clinical term about one aspect of their neurology.

          • BarbaraR

            That latest semantically-obsessed person won’t be back.

          • anakinmcfly

            I didn’t know that! Thanks for the linguistic history lesson. :)

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            I’m fond of QUILTBAG myself. It can actually be pronounced. ^_^

          • Jeff Preuss

            Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay?

            (I’m afraid I don’t know all my letters.)

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            Yep, though some letters can stand for more than one group.

            Queer/Questioning
            Undecided
            Intersex
            Lesbian
            Trans
            Bisexual
            Asexual/Agender/Ally
            Gay/Genderqueer/Genderfluid

          • Andy

            What do you consider most appropriate? Trans person, maybe?

          • anakinmcfly

            Anything that uses it as a modifying adjective is generally fine: Trans/transgender(ed)/transsexual person/man/woman. Different cultures seem to prefer different terms over others. Plus not using it as a gender or sexual orientation, like forms I’ve seen where the gender options are given as ‘male/female/transgender’ or sexual orientation options given as ‘gay/straight/bisexual/transgender’. Those make my head hurt, especially when they only let you tick one.

          • Andy

            Yes, I don’t get that one, either. I guess “cisgender” isn’t a very common word yet. But the conflation of classifications of different types isn’t altogether rare. How many times have you seen options for “religion” that include several religions, followed by “agnostic” and “atheist”? I know it’s probably easier than asking two questions, one for theological stance and another for epistemological stance about theology, but you can be both. In fact, most atheists are agnostic. I suppose for someone who selects “agnostic” you might infer “…with no theological stance” but that’s not always true.

            Similarly, asking separate questions about gender and orientation would be more correct, but the people making these forms may not know (or care) enough. I’m curious, when you fill one of those out, if you can only pick one, do you ever pick “transgender”?

          • anakinmcfly

            It usually depends on the purpose of the form and/or that particular question field: are they trying to gauge how many trans people fill it in? are they concerned about one’s childhood gender socialisation? one’s body parts? one’s experience with male privilege? etc. But if it’s a paper form, I ignore the rules and tick all the relevant options. This once happened in a feedback form for an LGBT event, of all things – listing ‘transgender’ with sexual orientations and telling people to only tick one – where they really should have known better.

          • lrfcowper

            At least there is some recognition of people other than male and female. My oldest is non-binary genderqueer and rants all the time about only having the choice of “Mr., Mrs., Ms.” and “M or F”. It’s made me very sensitive to the way so many forms completely erase whole identities. The latest one was the book giveaway contest here on Patheos. There were a lot of other title choices, but all of them were religious titles. And your title and gender were required fields.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Kinda like when there is an occasional exclamation that I am “a gay!” It just sounds more off-putting than I’d like.

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Oh, great. The crazy train has pulled in…

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        toot toot

      • R Vogel

        Don’t disparage Ozzy like that!

    • Jeff Preuss

      Patheos as a WHOLE has many conversations on aspects of faith. There are evangelical discussions, atheist discussions, and even Pagan discussions. What you seem to have done is linked in to the Progressive Christian discussion of accepting and affirming transgender people as valid welcome members of Christianity. Clearly, you disagree with that on a theological level, but if you think you are going to get support from fellow Christians in here that homosexuals and transgender folks cannot be Christians until they turn away from those things…..well, you’re just not gonna.

      Signed, a clean gay Christian.

    • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

      Well, Leon, the reason I can be counted as a transgender Christian is because being trans isn’t a sin, it’s a medical condition – and I’m a Christian. Is it a sin to be intersex? To have Klinefelter’s syndrome? Or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? If it’s a sin to be trans, then I truly have no hope of living without knowingly sinning, because I have no choice about being trans. This has been pretty convincingly demonstrated not only in law, but in science. The Wikipedia article on “Causes or Transsexualism”, 2.2, references a number of studies that have found sex differentiation in the brains of men and women – with trans people having brain morphology of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth.

      So, are you a practicing man? A practicing Caucasian, perhaps? What does it mean to be a “practicing transgender person”? I’m a practicing Christian, though.

      • Dani Smith

        I’m a practicing transgender person. I practice everyday at navigating life and dealing with insensitive people and occasionally being concerned for my safety and well-being.
        I also am a practicing ‘lover of other people’. Which is really damn hard sometimes when they act like they do. I practice at it a LOT!!

        • asmondius

          Perhaps when you stop conceiving of yourself as a victim superior to others, their attitudes will improve.

      • asmondius

        ‘Brain Studies’ from Wikipedia? This is your ‘science’?

    • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

      Just like those Christians practicing ignorance or bigotry, Leon.
      You may discriminate, but Jesus doesn’t.

      • asmondius

        yah, He chose a million Apostles.

    • anakinmcfly

      I’m trans, and the only thing I’m practicing is my web design skills at my 10-6 office job. And then I go home and sleep. I go to church on Sunday. On Saturday I help my family with our perpetually-growing laundry pile, and with practice I’m getting faster at ironing.

    • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

      Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.

  • raleighwally

    Mr. Shore seems to driven by a passion to redefine Christianity in his own image and to viciously condemn anyone who disagrees with his version of it. I think it’s fine for him to disagree with the political agenda of the SBC but his “resolution” reveals more than just disagreement, it betrays utter hatred for people who oppose the normalization of transgender identification on moral and/or religious grounds. I would not trust someone like Mr. Shore to protect religious liberty in our nation.

    • Dani Smith

      I’m gonna pull this from a comment lower down:
      “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
      — Karl Popper

      It’s about LOVE! Which they are not preaching.

      • Jeff Preuss

        Oh, by the toot, I love you, too, Dani! (Truth be told, I even love the members of the SBC, sad as they make me, but there it is. Aaaaaaaand there’s sawdust in my hair. Stupid table saw.)

      • raleighwally

        With respect, I disagree. It is not just “about love”. It is about honest disagreements over what moral boundaries are necessary to ensure the well being of a society. We are always imposing and adjusting boundaries based on the mores of our culture. For example, in the United States, we don’t allow parents to give away their 11 year old daughters to 40 year old men as wives. We don’t tolerate it. No society tolerates everything. Are homosexuality and transgender identity real? The evidence suggests that they are. Are these individuals deserved of our compassion, of the basic human rights afforded to all citizens, and of protection from bullying? Absolutely! Yet, are these identities good and natural or are they conditions of brokenness, evidence that we live in a fallen, imperfect world? This is a religious question. If a person answers “yes” to this, it does not mean that they can not love or even respect homosexuals or transgendered persons. It just means that they disagree with certain behaviors on moral grounds. Moral convictions must be tolerated in a free society. Otherwise, there really is no freedom. I have friends who are vegetarians on moral grounds. I actually eat meat. It has never once occurred to me that vegetarians are hate mongers because they have a moral objection to my carnivorous indulgences. They disagree with my behavior but we get along nonetheless. I once saw a Southern Baptist pastor embrace a homosexual who was dying of AIDS. This was at a time when most of the population feared those with AIDS. There was no condemnation in the pastor, only sadness. Yet this pastor maintained the conviction that homosexual behavior was wrong until the day he died. We have to stop accusing people who have moral and/or religious convictions of being hate mongers. It’s simply not true.

        • AtalantaBethulia

          Re: “Are homosexuality and transgender identity real? The evidence suggests that they are. Are these individuals deserved of our compassion, of the basic human rights afforded to all citizens, and of protection from bullying? Absolutely! Yet, are these identities good and natural or are they conditions of brokenness, evidence that we live in a fallen, imperfect world? This is a religious question. If a person answers “yes” to this, it does not mean that they can not love or even respect homosexuals or transgendered persons. It just means that they disagree with certain behaviors on moral grounds.”

          If you replace “homosexual or transgendered” with “Black”, I think the problem with this train of thought will become clearer.

          • raleighwally

            Your analogy isn’t even logical. You could just as easily replace “homosexual or transgendered” with “child molester” (which, by the way, I would never do). It makes nothing clearer. You are avoiding the question. Which stipulations?

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            Child molesters violate the rights of children.

            Intersex and Trans people violate the rights of whom, exactly?

            The Pacific Justice Institute claims the existence of Intersex people violates the rights of the non-Intersex majority by making them feel uncomfortable. They should therefore be suppressed, not allowed to use public facilities etc. Many who agree feel the same way about blacks of course, for the same reasons.

            And yes, you just *have* compared Trans people to child molesters. As many, many, many people do.

          • raleighwally

            Sorry, you are just wrong. I was using a false analogy to illustrate how illogical it is to try and make a point by comparing transgendered people to blacks.

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            You’re right in one way – Trans people can be fired for being Trans in 34 states. Blacks can’t.
            They’re routinely excluded from coverage by health insurance policies. Blacks aren’t.

            Among the key findings from “Injustice at Every Turn”:

            Respondents were nearly four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, with household income of less than $10,000.

            Respondents were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the population as a whole. Half of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or other
            mistreatment in the workplace, and one in four were fired because of their gender identity or expression.

            While discrimination was pervasive for the entire sample, it was particularly pronounced for people of color. African-American transgender respondents fared far worse than all others in many areas studied.

            Housing discrimination was also common. 19% reported being refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity or expression. One in five respondents experienced homelessness because of their gender identity or expression.

            An astonishing 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to only 1.6% of the general population.

            Discriminationin health care and poor health outcomes were frequently experienced by respondents. 19% reported being refused care due to bias against transgender or gender-nonconforming people, with this figure even higher for respondents of color.

            Harassment by law enforcement was reported by 22% of respondents and nearly half were uncomfortable seeking police assistance.

            http://transequality.org/PDFs/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf

            Transsexuality has as much biological causation as being Black. Or Red-headed. Or Left-handed – that too is a result of anomalous neurological development in foetu.

            Fortunately,we’ve largely gone past the days when being Left-handed was seen as a moral issue, and only a few fringe religious groups teach that it’s a mark of Satan. Even the SBC doesn’t claim that – now.

          • Andy

            The mistreatment of people who aren’t straight and cisgender continues to astound me. Every time I think that most people are inherently good, I run across some jackhole that makes me weep for the future of humanity.

            I saw an article on Charisma News that you commented on, and the hatred was unbelievable. I normally avoid jumping into a sea of wolves like “Christian” bigots bashing LBGT+ people, but I couldn’t help myself. I commented about how hateful some of them were being. I got a response that read:

            So “hateful” = “doesn’t agree with you,” right?
            Weird definition of “hate” there.

            I don’t even know where to begin with how wrong that is. Fortunately, my comment was deleted, along with the response, which is probably just as well. Screw those assholes.

            I continue to hope, though. One day…hopefully…

          • AtalantaBethulia

            I’m sorry I wasn’t able to express myself in a way that was clear to you in order for you to understand my point. It seems others understood.

            The comment of yours that I highlighted could have been from 50 years ago in a Southern Baptist Church that was trying to “protect its religious liberty” through resolutions designed to buffet the removal of Jim Crow and desegregation

            We love Black people.
            They are image bearers of God.
            We should show them compassion.
            But they are only welcome in our church if they stop being Black.

            So…

            ** Is African American identity real? The evidence suggests that they are. Are these individuals deserved of our compassion, of the basic human rights afforded to all citizens, and of protection from bullying? Absolutely! Yet, are these identities good and natural or are they conditions of brokenness, evidence that we live in a fallen, imperfect world? This is a religious question. If a person answers “yes” to this, it does not mean that they can not love or even respect African American persons. It just means that they disagree with certain behaviors on moral grounds.” **

            The parallel I’m drawing is based on American History and the Church’s history of othering in order to keep undesireables at a distance, a practice that I am quite sure makes God weep.

            Now, like then, this prejudice is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the people group in question. And now, like in Galileo’s day as the Church did with the Geocentric theory, the SBC doesn’t get to simply assert that Trans* people are an aberration simply because they do not understand the science nor does it fit in their worldview… a worldview of strict binary gender roles about which other parts of the Evangelical culture are challenging them.

            Just like in Galileo’s day and in the Abolition Movement – just because the Church asserts it, Porgy and Bess offer a famous reply: “It ain’t necessarily so.”

            So when the rest of culture and the rest of Christianity see religious groups like the SBC traveling down the same sadly well-worn path of oppressive and misguided othering, Christians have a duty to point out the error of their ways.

        • lrfcowper

          When vegetarians start trying to legislatively limit the human rights of omnivores and carnivores, your comparison will be valid.

          And, no, our laws are not based on religious questions of whether something is moral. They are based on human rights questions– Does this violate the human rights of another human being or group of human beings? Does this cause harm to another human being or group of human beings? Murder isn’t illegal because the Bible says Thou shalt not murder. It is illegal because it harms another person and violates their basic human rights.

          • Tracy

            I have to wonder though… is murder really illegal in our country because it violates basic humans rights or because it is in the 10 commandments or perhaps both? Knowing the intent of the founders of this country along with their educational backgrounds, religious heritage and standings, and societal structures of their day … I would argue both are true. Would murder continue to be illegal if the media and active lobbyists became cannibals and promoted their agenda? Ridiculous sounding question I know but rewind 50 years and the questions posed today weren’t even on the radar. How do you determine the basis of good law? Human rights? Who determines what our basic human rights are? What is the basis of morality as well and are they absolute or culturally driven?

          • lrfcowper

            Easy way to find out– did the Founding Fathers make it illegal to take the Lord’s name in vain, to work on the Sabbath, or to covet your neighbour’s ass?

            I also think it’s important to realise that the media and lobbying groups are not “them”. There is no “them”, there is only “us”. This is especially true in this day and age when anyone can start a blog, a news site, a youtube channel, a twitter feed, and become a source of news and opinions for thousands and even millions of people.

          • Andy

            I’m tempted to make a joke about coveting your neighbor’s ass, but I just can’t put my finger on it.

          • lrfcowper

            I chose that word specifically… ;)

          • Andy

            I suspected as much.

        • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

          Again, Raleigh/Wally,

          Who gets to decide what love means to a trans* person?
          The SBC, or trans* people?

          You can talk different moral standards all you like, but they’re not the core issue here: if what you intend as love, I understand as hate, what should we do about that?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Its quite easy to decide what love means to a trans person, or a baptist, or an agnostic, or anyone for that matter. It a tenet that has existed for eons, found in many cultures as a basis for how to treat one another….

            its….Love your neighbor as yourself.

            Someone who is transgendered, should be shown the same amount of love as you feel you deserve for yourself…the entire love package, even the snoopy wrapping paper and the pretty bow. That means loving others, using compassion, patience, generosity, respect, dignity, recognizing their value, opinions autonomy as as valued as yours.

            that is something that Christianity, and in this case the SBC repeatedly fails to do…Its a failure to try to place ourselves in the skin of another and see the beauty and worth there….to see them as God does, gorgeous, talented, valuable, useful, vibrant, adored.

            Instead people are told “God loves you….BUT, and because God has this great big but, well then we will withhold love until that BUT is addressed”…That’s not love, that’s extortion.

          • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

            Or even the platinum rule:
            “Treat others as *they* would wish to be treated.”

            Otherwise, the moral standards of the privileged get used as a way to condemn those who have diverse needs.

            http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/12/the-corruption-of-the-golden-rule/

        • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

          Society does not tolerate moral convictions that cause harm. It’s not ok in our society for the Christian Scientist to withhold essential medical care from his child. We’re far less tolerant of misogyny than we were fifty years ago. We’re far less tolerant of racism than we were fifty years ago.

          The traditional sexual ethic has caused undeniable harm to people who are gay. Thankfully, our society is becoming far less tolerant of heterosexism.

          And now the SBC is actively attempting to stigmatize and marginalize yet another group of human beings (i.e., fighting the normalization of trans* in society). Where is Jesus in that?!?

          This is not a mere moral disagreement as you suggest. This resolution seeks to cause actual damage to flesh and blood people. In the name of Christ no less. That’s outrageous. That’s deplorable. That’s intolerable.

        • James Walker

          Did you read the resolution? The SBC leadership is claiming that trans people aren’t real and that the “delusion” of being trans isn’t deserving of any accommodation.

          If that’s not hateful to you, I think your empathy circuit is faulty.

        • Lyn Wilson

          You characterize sexual orientation and gender identity as ‘moral’ issues, and write as if Christians (SBC in particular) have some sort of lock on what morality is. How arrogant, narrow-minded and IMMORAL is that!?!

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          So you are calling transsexual persons and people who are gay broken and unnatural?

          And this pastor, even though he had compassion for a man who was nearing death, still had no problems condemning him solely on the basis that he was a gay man. Would he have done the same to a man dying of cirrhosis of the liver from a life of alcohol addiction, or a woman fighting stage 4 breast cancer who’d owned a strip club? Or the kid who’d been killed by police after stealing a six pack of cheap bear and a bag of chips from a quickie mart?

    • Jeff Preuss

      Actually, I think it shows utter disappointment in spiritual leaders who are supposed to demonstrate the all-encompassing power of the Almighty, but are instead using Scriptures to pick and choose who is welcome into Communion with them, easily pointing at the “other” and screaming, “That ain’t mine!”

      If you’d like to see an example of hatred in action, might I suggest you re-read the resolution, and every time you see the word ‘transgender’ replace it with the name of someone you care very deeply about? Let’s just pick a name out of a hat: Jennifer.

      Now, if you can read through the whole resolution, attaching a name and a face to each and every proclamation, and still think it sounds like the right thing…well, then that would make me very sad, but more power to you, I guess.

      • raleighwally

        Seriously, Jeff. Did you actually read the resolution or just Shore’s caricature of it?

        …we invite all transgender persons to trust in Christ…
        …we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good always…
        …we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers of almighty God and therefore that we condemn acts of abuse or bullying committed against them…

        Where actually are those “We hate Jennifer.” quotes to which you refer?

        • AtalantaBethulia

          Those comments are belied by and ring hollow because of all the other stipulations.

          • raleighwally

            Which stipulations?

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            How about “we love our Trans brothers and sisters – we just think they should be denied necessary medical treatment, so they die”.

            Or the bits about permitting overt discrimination against them in providing service at lunch counters, allowing them to use public restrooms, and all the rest. Things that would be considered intolerable if applied to Baptists.

          • anakinmcfly

            Zoe! I love how you pop up on trans-related articles all over the internet. :D I keep seeing you around, and you raise each discussion to a higher level with science. You’re awesome.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            How about, We love Transgenders and will allow them in our church, but only if they repent…which is code speak for, only if they stop being transgender.

        • Jeff Preuss

          Yes, I read through the whole damn thing. You are ascribing quotes to me that weren’t ever quoted. It would actually be more ballsy and…oddly respectable if they just out and out SAID ‘hate’ a la Westboro Baptist.
          I was raised Southern Baptist; I am quite familiar with the language they use. I am actually half-surprised they didn’t just call trans people ‘pagans’ since pretty much everyone who WASN’T Baptist got called that.

          • raleighwally

            So you are reading into the resolution based on your own experience. I’m sorry you were hurt by Southern Baptists. Perhaps you can find it in your heart to forgiven them and then address the specific legislative issues that are problematic in the resolution. You might get some traction.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Oh, I forgave them for myself a long time ago, but I find resolutions like this indefensible, as they clearly hurt other people. It saddens me to see specific language used to limit who can join their church, when the reality is that gay and trans people have been part of their congregations as long as the SBC has existed.

            I think churches and denominations should have statements of faith, but when those statements of faith are worded to maintain an exclusive club, well, then we’re back to putting God in a box. And I disagree with that wholeheartedly. God is bigger than their box, and He’s big enough for ALL.

        • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

          In context, “love”, “trust Christ” and “abuse and bullying” are narrowly defined. If one considers the resolutions as a whole, there isn’t a lot of “love” and “Christ” left by the time these statements come up. And there a lot that doesn’t qualify as “abuse and bullying”, either.

          Let’s just say that the definition of “love” provided by the SBC looks a whole lot like “hate” from where I’m standing.

          Do transgender people get to define what love means for them? Or does the SBC get to tell everyone else what love is? (Because that’s worked so well, even for their own pastors.)

        • Mark

          Look at about the 10th “whereas,” which addresses their objection to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Their resolution very clearly supports continued discrimination against transgender people in the workplace. They are being transparently hypocritical.

    • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

      Because the SBC is doing such a great job with religious liberty…
      The SBC claim you can’t be Christian and gay, lesbian, or transgender.
      That’s a violation of religious liberty.

      The SBC claim you can’t be Christian and support marriage for non-male/female couples.
      That’s a violation of religious liberty.

      And the SBC completely ignore people who are bisexual, intersex, polyamorous, … and many other forms of gender, sexuality, or relational diversity – even when the topic concerns them. (e.g. no mention of intersex people in a piece on gender, sex, and biology.)
      That’s not a violation of religious liberty per se – it’s simply the erasure of whole groups of people.

      If the SBC is going to act like entire groups of people just don’t exist, I don’t trust them to protect my liberty!

    • Lamont Cranston

      Bigots like you and the SBC should be hated. You are evil, anti-Christian filth.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      religious liberty is in no danger from John Shore. The SBC is in no danger from him either. Their biggest threat is themselves. They have a long history of marginalizing people who they feel are not worthy of the church. Recently their tenets along this line has caused people to walk away, so instead of really looking at who they are shutting out, who is disgusted with the whole mess and why, they are doubling down on the isolationist rhetoric.

    • Justin

      I would just point out that in this context, the persecution of “religious liberty” to stigmatize transgender people is about as unconvincing and pitiful as those who believe “men’s rights” are seriously trampled upon, or those who supposedly suffer from “reverse racism.” It’s the last desperate gasp of privilege that is finally being questioned – “We can no longer discriminate and marginalize with impunity. Let’s find a few antedotal stories of brave people who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings – they are just like the early church martyrs! Indeed, we are all martyrs standing up for the Word of God!” Let it be known that I oppose any efforts to prevent the free speech of religious organizations that are anti-LGBT. Their rights should be protected. However, each time they present their best public case, it is resoundly defeated by the application of reason, science, and morality. So I can’t promise they won’t feel cultural pressure on their views, and I can’t promise their young people won’t leave their congregations in droves, as more more and more people are not convinced by their arguments and see the bad fruit of their doctrine.

      Religious liberty also means the freedom for churches to love and accept our LGBT neighbors – whose equal rights have yet to be fully established in this country. I challenge you to spend some time with someone who is transgender soon – not to prosetyze, but just to hear the stories. Find out how persecuted the “religious liberty” of social conservatives is in comparison.

    • lrfcowper

      Religious liberty is not safe for conservative Christians until it is safe for all. If you do not stand up for the religious liberty of those with whom you disagree– including LGBT people whose religious beliefs include that they are created in God’s image in every way and do not need to change their innate nature to be in communion with God, and LGBT people who do not believe in God at all, and LGBT people who belong to other faiths that recognise and welcome them– you have no call to complain when your own rights are trampled. When people outside the conservative Christian church defend their religious liberty or the religious liberty of others, they are ALSO DEFENDING YOURS. When people within the conservative Christian church oppose the recognition and protection of the religious liberties of those of other beliefs, they are also opposing and endangering their own.

      • BarbaraR

        If I could like this 10,000 times, I would.

      • Andy

        Bookmarking this one.

      • Lance Schmidt

        Wow…wow…wow! I don’t even have words for how awesome it is what you posted.

  • http://limpingtowardsgrace.com/ James Jarvis

    O.K. I’m going to explain the meaning of religious freedom one more time. The SBC is free to teach and believe anything it wants to. I think their teachings and beliefs about Transgender people are contrary to the teaching of Jesus and scripture. But the First Amendment allows them to hold views that I disagree with or find distasteful. It does not give them the right to impose their views on anyone else. Since several of the resolutions clearly call for denying transgender persons the same right everyone has they are clearly asking that the government violate the First Amendment. Thus what they are supporting is the violation of religious freedom.

    • Jeff Preuss

      DING DING DING. We have a winner (chicken dinner). If it was JUST about them deciding who can and cannot come into THEIR house, it would be ONE thing (though in a broader sense, they’re attempting to deny entry into the BIGGER house – the Church with a Capital C) and should be protected, although we other Christians might find it distasteful and say so.

      But, when they SPECIFICALLY CALL for political action to prevent civil liberties for those with whom they don’t agree, extending that to those not IN their house, well that’s crossing a line. (I mean, it crosses a lot of lines that piss me off, but let’s focus on that one.)

    • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

      I think you mean the “equal protection clause” in the bill of rights.
      The first amendment is about the US Government regulating speech.
      The equal protection clause is about the US Government and the States regulating actions in a discriminatory manner.

      • http://limpingtowardsgrace.com/ James Jarvis

        I was referring to the establishment clause in the First Amendment. Sadly discrimination against LGBT persons is still legal in many US states.

        • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

          It will take me some time to get my head around religious freedom, the government, and transgender people. I’m sure I’ll get it eventually.

  • Susan A

    These Baptists didn’t throw me under a bus. The LGBT activists and “Friends of Transgenders” who wound these Baptists up to this level did. My unbidden allies who want to fight the good fight on my behalf have done nothing but make my life worse. Up until a year ago, I’d never been afraid as a trans. Now, every other time I walk out my door, I end up in a situation that I have to escape from. And it’s because idiot non-transgender know-it-alls who have absolutely nothing to lose, are living-out their romantic notions of pulling for the underdog by going out, winding people up, yelling in their faces and then, happily going about the rest of their day because they’re completely invisible to the hostile counter-attack they set in motion. Who receives that hostility in its full force? People like me. Solitary, highly visible targets who can’t defend themselves from the shear volume of vitriol being concentrated on them. For over 40 years I managed to live in peace with these people. Now I can’t. Why don’t you take a break….sit down and STFU before you get me killed. I’d appreciate that. I’ll give you a call if I need your “help”, again.

    • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

      As a transgender woman, I’ve got say … nope. It’s because of cisgender allies I have access to appropriate medical care. It’s because of cisgender allies I was able to transition peacefully at my job. Cisgender allies have actively countered acts of bigotry directed at me. It’s the folks like SBC that CHOOSE to lie about us and be hostile toward us that make my life more difficult. Not our cis allies. I will not give the haters a pass if they CHOOSE to become more violent as a reaction to cisgender ally activism. That’s on them, and they bear full responsibility, and will do so as they stand before the judgment seat of God. “I never knew you: depart from me, ye who work iniquity.”

      • anakinmcfly

        I agree with both of you in part; I’m also extremely grateful for all the rights and access to medical care I have as a result of cisgender allies, but at the same time there have been situations when I was just quietly going about things, and then a cis person decides to kick up a fuss about a really minor thing that didn’t bother me, only to end up creating a huge backlash that *did* hurt me a lot.

      • TameOne

        I am not fond of you freak shows changing what we are called. Non-transgender = normal. Drop that “cis” ish.

        • anakinmcfly

          Heck, why stop there? People who aren’t black/Asian/Latino/whatever aren’t ‘white’, they’re normal. People who aren’t old aren’t ‘young’, they’re normal. People who aren’t women aren’t ‘men’, they’re normal. Animals that aren’t ‘amphibians’ or ‘birds’ or whatever other shit, and can actually give birth to live young and be covered in hair aren’t ‘mammals’, they’re normal. So many useless words we can get rid of!

          • Jeff Preuss

            Wait…I’m only normal if I’m white? Shoot, then I’m only partially normal. Granted, it’s like 97%, but 3% of my skin is abnormal!

        • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

          Sorry, you’re just going to have deal with it. Look at the bright side – I won’t resort to insults, like “freak show,” to refer to you. I will recommend that you learn a little about us before you make judgments though.

          • TameOne

            I have no interest in learning about you. Freak show gonna freak show.

      • Susan A

        “Haters” can be held blameless in a situation when pushed with fighting words. And they should be held blameless, then. Whether they’re right or wrong, people who can’t be civil or are stridently stupid deserve to be slapped.

        • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

          I could not disagree more. You are saying that a person or group of people are justified in committing verbal/emotional/legal/physical violence against transgender people if a cisgender “ally” CHOOSES to use provocative language that offends that person or group. NO! Every person is responsible for their own choices and actions, the “ally” as much as the “hater.” Would you say that a Muslim should be held blameless for an attack on Jews because an American Christian pastor said that Mohammed is a tool of the devil and sponsored a Koran burning? I know I wouldn’t. The “ally” may deserve to be slapped, but regardless of the actions or words of the “ally,” the “hater” is still fully responsible for their own choices and actions; likewise, regardless of the actions/choices of the “hater,” the “ally” is also fully responsible for their own actions/choices. To be cliche, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I will not give a pass to either the “ally” who provokes the “hater,” nor to the “hater” who subsequently commits violence against a trans person. If the “hater” responds with violence then the “hater” deserves to be slapped also. The philosophy you seem to be accepting, that a person or group can be absolved of responsibility for violence committed against a third party due to offense caused by a second party is abhorrent to me. I hope that’s not what you intend. But in any case, I maintain that, as I am responsible for my own actions and choices, each other person is also. At every decision point, each one of us chooses whether to escalate the violence or promote peace. Giving someone a pass for their violence because of provocation chooses to escalate, IMO.

          • Susan A

            I’m sorry I missed this but, no. I never said their reaction was justified. You’re putting words into my mouth OR extrapolating a conclusion that I find their reaction justified. I think the former is less likely so, no – it’s not justified: I find it understandable. There’s a subtle but huge difference. “Justified” implies the reaction is morally correct, when, in this case, it’s not. “Understandable” means that if I walk past a beehive every morning and my proximity alarms the bees –but they don’t sting me – I’m OK. After a few months, they’ll get used to me and stop flipping out. I just need to be patient and careful not to be a threat: changing nature takes time. But, if some idiot wearing a bee suit decides to help by punishing the bees for their reaction by pushing the hive over, I’m screwed. At that point my immediate problem is the bees but my biggest problem is the impatient moron who’s “helping”.

            Sun Tzu pointed out that combat operations have to be executed as fast as possible. Bring overwhelming force to the battlefield and stop fighting once you win the field because no one has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

            Over 2000 years later, “activists” in the US are so lacking in empathetic intelligence they can’t reason that simple truism out, and so ignorant, they never see it pointed out in writing. Rebuilding is never a part of their cunning war plan.

            The open warfare portion of this conflict was over – we won in the courts: the law and a majority of the public supports us – and we needed to move to shoring up the victory by fixing the minor problems here and there and, winning over the vanquished. Which is not going to happen when people are screaming in their face like the battle’s still on. You can change laws by making a scene, but not hearts.

            When someone comes to recognize they were wrong – by force or teaching – humiliating them will almost always cause extreme resentment or lead them to fall back and dig in even more. Hence the well-known teaching of ‘Magnanimity in Victory’.

            I learned that from reading Sun tzu and various other authors, but I understood it from something General MacArthur did, of all people. Growing up, I didn’t like that stupid corn-cob pipe and the sunglasses look he cultivated, so I disliked him. I still don’t like him, only now, I respect a lot of what he did. If you study the katana long enough, you inevitably come across an interesting story: one of the first orders he issued as Military Governor (Dictator) of Japan was that the occupying forces were to go door to door and destroy all the swords in the country.

            He was very angry at Japan over the murders of American officers and soldier POWs and Filipino POWs by Japanese wannabe Samurai. He lost several friends, American and Filipino, this way. The true Samurai believed an honorable, surrendered enemy became their charge and subsequently the death of a POW was a personal failure. The corrupted non-Samurai who led Japan into World War II were foul creatures who cut-off body parts and heads with a type of sword that was stamped-out, not forged, called a gunto.
            For no reason other than to play Samurai.

            This was because Japan outlawed the Samurai after the shogun was over-thrown: it was made illegal to openly carry a katana in an obi. Most of the “Samurai” then joined the newly-formed military, made cosmetic changes to the katana and carried it on the right side of their bodies, upside-down.
            Hearing about MacArthur’s order, a Japanese-American doctor made an appointment with the Dictator and showed up with an armful of swords. MacArthur allowed him in with the weapons and the doctor proceeded to school MacArthur on the differences between the cheap, poorly made, soulless gunto and the often generations-old works of art, katana.

            MacArthur “got it” immediately. He saw the difference in the swords and realized he’d be doing the Japanese a favor by destroying the gunto – finishing the job of ending the samurai that the Japanese couldn’t finish themselves. At the same time he knew it would be an insult and humiliation to rip family katana off the walls of homes and throw them away like worthless, lifeless trash. No matter how much he hated what the curved Japanese sword represented to the people of the United States – and to him personally – he knew that letting Japan keep its dignity in defeat – first by not dethroning the Emperor (who’d been an unwilling pawn of the military during the war) and then through various, smaller acts, would create a friendship between the countries that would never exist if we bludgeoned the Japanese with the dishonor of what they’d done.

            So he swallowed his pride and hate, and modified the order: destroy the gunto, but don’t touch the katana. Not only that, the American government repatriated most of the katana that had been taken by US soldiers as souvenirs during the war. The gunto? No. They’re all over the US, today.

            We don’t have a perfect relationship with Japan. No nation has a perfect relationship with another. MacArthur could have made a resentful nation of terrorists, of Japan. But he kept his balls in check and formed a friendship with the people of Japan that’s become one of our greatest alliances. Just by pushing aside his well-earned anger and showing people who hated him respect.

            I have yet to encounter even one LGBT activist or supporter who’s willing to do a tenth of what MacArthur did. They shit all over everything with equal aplomb and pat themselves on the back while believing they’ve won some fight when, in fact, they made things better but now, much worse. In the last month, I got into a situation walking down a sidewalk that required the threat of violence to get out of. And a week later, I had to back my car into another car with two guys in it that had seen me park in a small lot on a side street, turned around, pulled into the lot and crossed the T of the back of my car – trapping me someplace with no witnesses and no help.

            Now, I can’t leave the house without a weapon…..when I do leave. I haven’t been going out all that much. Who would? The actions of these people aren’t justified but they are being goaded into their behavior with fighting words and ridicule. They’re being subjected to the same type of insults and disdain from the very people who they used to heap those on. LGBT activists are becoming everything they worked against for want of a little self-control…..for want of just a thimble full of magnanimity.

            Because of the on-going failure of modern activism, I now understand what “We have met the enemy and they are us” means. The victories being now won, are shames.

    • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

      I understand where you’re coming from — as a gender fluid person who often presents as not being of their “appropriate” sex, I have been the target of discrimination, persecution and violence, sometimes obviously motivated by religion.

      However, the argument I make is that it doesn’t matter what we or anyone else could have done this; when we began vying for rights, this became inevitable. The only thing that would have been accomplished by being quiet is to have another few generations go by where people were treated as either not existing or as disturbed and dangerous freaks who could be murdered with impunity. You may not have experienced this; I know plenty of others who did.

      In the end, the violence we suffer drives the arc of the moral universe further toward justice. I’m sorry that it has to be this way, that people can’t seem to grasp the idea of extending rights and humane treatment toward each other without being compelled to do so by law, but we’ve revisited this argument several times over the past couple of centuries and this seems to be a firmly established pattern.

      I don’t like it either. I don’t like knowing there’s a very real chance of my being killed some day because I went outside in the wrong clothing, or because I was seen in the company of a member of the same sex. I’m not asking you not to resent them, or to resent the circumstances from which they have derived — but if it helps at all, be aware that those who come after us will have it better because of what we suffered.

      • Susan A

        No. I didn’t make
        clear what I was talking about. The
        original fight was fine and necessary but in every war there has to be an end
        to the battles. You have to move from
        fighting to building. When building, there may be skirmishes but the major combat
        operations are finished. I’d argue the largest flaw in a free society has to do
        with populations becoming less able to make good choices as they become
        larger. The larger the population, the
        more likely to pursue the lowest common denominator.

        Combat operations for the LGBT lobby (as well as the
        feminist lobby and race lobby) are over. Yet, very few of these lobbyists will
        get over the war and start building. Subsequently, they have to pick progressively
        more absurd situations to be strident about.

        Few things piss people off faster than stridence in
        absurdity.

        We saw the ultimate example of that just a couple years ago:
        the “pregnant man” in Oregon. Well, that was complete and utter nonsense: there
        was no pregnant male…there was a pregnant female with a male-oriented brain.

        But we were treated to a bunch of activists breathlessly
        trumpeting this BS as fact when, in fact, every person with the minimal level
        of common sense that God gave grapes knew this was BS from the second they
        heard it. Most people said nothing,
        though. Because they’ve been intimidated
        into holding their tongue. They’re
        scared to voice even completely logical counterpoints.

        That is a crime of oppression being perpetrated by LGBT,
        race and sex activists. And the average person is getting pretty sick of
        it. As well as they should. Unfortunately, transgenders are an easy
        target for the hostility being created by LGBT lobbyists: most of whom have
        their heads up their rears.

  • scottrose

    We should start substituting the word “Southern Baptist” for asshole. In places where previously, you would have said something like “What an asshole!”, now instead say “What a Southern Baptist!”

  • Candice

    What’s the point of this discussion if your comments can be deleted … Oh that’s right I’m being ” hateful ” because I said homosexuality is a sin …

    • scottrose

      Hateful, and stupid.

    • Bones

      Good to see you got it.

      Now you just need to repent.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      You are entitled to that opinion. It is how you phrase your opinion, the amount of respect you display that will determine whether or not your comments stay. If you cannot bring yourself to continue in such a manner, then this is not the place for you.

      On a side note, getting a comment deleted and then whining about it, is a rather childish thing to do.

      • alanfish

        No, Candice has a point. I disagree with her absolutely – homosexuality is not a sin (or indeed, for someone who does not believe in the notion of a sin, ethically wrong in any way) – but she should be allowed to express her opinion in this discussion.

        • James Walker

          there are lots of folks who regularly post comments disagreeing with key points John makes and their comments aren’t deleted. this isn’t an echo chamber where dissent is censored and only voices in agreement are permitted.

          the rule here is “don’t be an ass”.

          • alanfish

            OK. I didn’t see Candice’s comment so I’ll just have to assume she was being such an ass that her comment was unacceptable for this forum.

      • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

        Admittedly I tend to prefer when comments are marked “under moderation” rather than deleted, so we can still view them if we choose to do so. The moderation marker is a decent shorthand for a trigger warning.

        • Jeff Preuss

          I concur to a point, because sometimes the deleted comments are so off-kilter as to be entertaining, but their intent here is to mostly delete the comments that are very much hurtful attacks on other people.

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            It’s less the entertainment value and more a form of both education and accountability — “what kinds of posts get removed here?” and “did that really need to be removed?” can be answered by “under moderation” posts in a way that “This post has been deleted” cannot. Generally I have no problem at all taking a moderator’s word for it that it needed to be deleted, but I like being being able to verify context too, and it deflates a lot of troll arguments about censorship.

    • Thomas Collins Jr

      Being a homosexual is not a sin, actively engaging in homosexual sex is, just like straights not married, or lying to the IRS, cheating on you spouse, living a worldly life and claiming to be a Christian. All equal, sort of equality in SIN, the only unforgivable sin is Blasphemy, those who identify the saving works of God and call it evil.

      • anakinmcfly

        So you’re one of those who believe that gay people are inherently inferior to straight people? given that you believe any expression of a gay person’s non-platonic love would be sinful, whereas a straight person can do the same within marriage and have it be ok.

        • Thomas Collins Jr

          Never said inferior, my faith is one man one woman and sex only in the bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage. Sex of any type outside those bonds is a sin. Being Homosexual doesn’t make you a sinner any more than a Heterosexual makes on a sinner. It’s our acts that determine that.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Then the Bible is full of sinners. People who’s sexual activities receive zero condemnation from God, people who are considered heroes of the faith

          • anakinmcfly

            Yes, but you’re saying that a straight person has the ability to have sex with someone they love and not be sinning (if it’s in marriage etc), whereas if a gay person ever tries to do the *exact same thing* (sex with someone they love), it would always be a sin.

            In other words, gay people have to meet higher standards (living a celibate, single life) in order to have an acceptable sexuality, whereas no equal burden is placed on straight people, who are allowed to get married and have sex. There’s no good reason for why that double standard should exist, nor is it supported anywhere in the Bible.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            More than once it is said in the bible that man and woman were created to be as companions in marriage. Specifically in Genesis God created Man then Woman as a companions. Homsexual sex is condemed more than once both in the Old and New Testament. The Holy Sacrament of Marriage in the Church is between one man and one woman. Christ is the bridegroom of the Church (the Bride). You can say it doesn’t exist but it does. We all have a cross to carry in life, if it is to be celibate and single (homosexual or heterosexual) so be it. But God gave us Free Will also, to follow his laws or ignore some or all of them. We each will ultimately be judged by Christ on what we did in this life. My wife passed 4 years ago June 30 of this month, I am celibate and will remain so as I have no intention of dating or remarrying and I am good with that.

          • BarbaraR

            There are six or seven verses in the Bible supposedly condemning gay sex, which was (again) about non-consensual rape by straight men of unwilling slaves. Since a committed gay relationship was unknown to the writers of the books of the Bible, they could not possibly have addressed it.
            Nothing in the Bible states that a gay person has to remain celibate because that is their cross to carry. Why would they be held to a different standard than straight people simply because historically they have not been allowed to legally marry? As for the one man-one woman stuff, the Bible defines marriage in multiple ways.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            The analogy of Christ being the bridegroom and the church being the bride, is to me a poor use of the one man/one woman theory…

            Why?

            Because the church is made up of a bunch of people, male, female and a bunch in between. So if Jesus marries us, its going to be the largest polygamous, multi-sexual union ever contrived. I think I’ll pass on that.

          • anakinmcfly

            I’m sorry to hear about your wife, and I’m glad you’re okay with being single and celibate for the rest of your life. But not everyone has that ability or the gift of celibacy, and there’s still nothing in the bible that suggests that for some people, being part of *any* loving sexual relationship would be a sin.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Thank you, yes no specifics about relationships other than the bible does talk about one man and one woman, but we will all have to answer one day for our actions here in this life. God Bless and have a great life.

          • anakinmcfly

            You too. God bless.

      • BarbaraR

        We’ve been over this issue many, many, many times on this blog.
        Many people do not interpret scripture as saying gay sex is sinful. When it is hurtful to others, non-consensual, or a show of power, then it as as sinful as when straight people do this.

        My copy of the Bible does not call for gay people to remain celibate.

        • Guy Norred

          I almost prefer the old “God didn’t make you gay, you just became so because you reject Him” or even the “you are disgusting and vile and your very existence is an affront to God” arguments to these “you aren’t inherently awful, you are just called to lead a lonely life” ones. Those just made the speaker sound like an idiot or a jerk–this one makes God sound like one.

          • BarbaraR

            An offshoot of “love the sinner, hate the sin” and other offensive platitudes.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Love the sinner, hate the sin, is not even in the Bible. We have St. Augustine to thank for that bit of really lousy advice.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Would you rather hate the sinner and the sin? No, Jesus said to the adulteress go forth and sin no more. So you would have rather them stone her? Christians are to love everyone, but that doesn’t mean supporting sin nor turning a blind eye to it. When I work with people in the Rest Homes I don’t ask them their sexuality or whether they are sinners, I just play cards, chess or chat with them. All they want is interaction with another human. It doesn’t matter to me what others do, I don’t have to answer to my God for anyone but me. The Southern Baptists are wrong for what they are doing, it is a sin IMHO, but as Pope Francis said Who am I to judge? That is Christ’s job in the end.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Someone else’s “sin” is quite frankly none of my business, UNLESS they are doing something that is literally causing harm to another and I can do something to stop it. In that case it would acting as a protector/advocate.

            As for that woman accused of adultery. I don’t really believe it actually happened, and what her story was patently unjust. She was accused judged and condemned by the story teller, She never had a chance for a defense, and could have easily been someone who was being raped at the moment of “being caught” Where was her sin? Where was her partner in this so called crime? Where was any shred of proof, other than a poor woman, no one had the balls to care about? Yeah Jesus did her a big favor…if the story is true, which again I doubt.

            “Go and sin no more” Big help there, as she has to return home,still outcast and condemned by her community, knowing at any moment, her would be murderers would be on her again.

            See, flip that story around a bit, and you get a whole different take on it.

            Yes the story is actually about how we are so quick to blame and condemn others without qualm, and what hateful shitheads people can be, all because they think someone is a “sinner”

            Maybe that message “go and sin no more” was not supposed to be told to the victim of mob violence, but rather to us…to stop judging, condemning, casting out, looking at others in derision, feeling all righteous and morally superior, because of our “holy” opinions. Are we in this modern era any better than that stone wielding mob? Sometimes I wonder, and that makes me weep,

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Then you get Jesus’s message, we are not to judge others but as Christians we are to spread the Good News not judge others. But I will defend my faith and the Doctrine of my Catholic church till the end.

          • Jeff Preuss

            And I think we differ with you on what spreading the Good News means. :) I think there’s less spreading Good News, and more guilt-tripping gay people going on, for something they themselves (we ourselves…whatever. when I get all talky, I start trying to sound objective, but don’t intend to leave myself out of the equation to obfuscate my natural leanings) did not choose for their lives.

            From the Southern Baptist Church…and from you. The more you try to hammer home that you “know” homosexuality is sinful, the more beaten up we tend to feel. No Good News feelings there.

          • Guy Norred

            It is that “knowing” that in the end gets me. They “know” this but they have never really questioned it. What is worse, they “know” much more about our lives than we. They “know” we can’t possibly feel real love and somehow we obviously then can’t feel real pain. They “know” they are not influenced by centuries of worldly tradition because this is all straight from God and has nothing to do with history or tradition. And on and on…

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            I’m not trying to guilt trip anyone. This discussion started about the SBC and their change of doctrine. I think it wrong period, but I’m not a member of their Church nor would I want to be. As to the other matter, Homosexualality outside of Sacrament of Marriage is just as much a Sin as Heterosexuality is, equal, neither worse than the other. I buried my wife in June 2010, I am making the choice to remain celibate my remaining years, my choice just like all humankind have to do that’s all.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Again, every time you state that line “Homosexualality outside of Sacrament of Marriage is just as much a Sin” when we are not allowed the “Sacrament” of marriage in many cases, it just comes across as hurtful when I believe you think you’re helping. Because it reflects what is an intrinsic part of who we are. I’m not saying we should be free to sleep with everyone we want, free of consequence, but frequently those who oppose our rights do not even consider our commitments marriages, so no matter WHAT me may do, we will always just be sinners. (Unless we decide to live our entire lives celibate, which is not a realistic expectation.)

            So, stop making that point with us. Unless you are actually okay with gay marriage (in which case, yay), this just comes across as guilt-trip “reminding” us that we’re “living in sin.”

          • anakinmcfly

            “Unless we decide to live our entire lives celibate, which is not a realistic expectation.”

            Well, it’s realistic; I know lots of gay Christians doing that and struggling a little but otherwise managing fine. It’s mean, though, and hypocritical, especially when the person saying that is themselves in a relationship and having lots of sex (within or without marriage.)

          • Jeff Preuss

            Well, it’s unrealistic in my mind, precisely for the reasons you state about the inequity. Celibate Catholic homosexuals are sometimes priests, and there could be something said or implied about lifelong denial of romantic impulses. Definitely not saying that all priests are molesters, far from it, but there is a potential correlation with the self-imposed loneliness and “acting out” in some way.

            But, yes, one can sorta kinda maybe be celibate. I mean, I was a virgin until I met my partner, well after college. I wanted to be ready for a commitment.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Celibacy can be a choice, it can also be imposed for reasons of health, state of mind, location, lack of a partner. Sexual orientation is not.
            As for priests who are pedophiles, yes, they exist, but they are a minority of the clerical population and likely exhibit similar percentages to Protestant clergy who are also pedophiles. Interestingly, sexual predators of children tend to be heterosexual

          • Jeff Preuss

            Of course they are a minority. I’m speaking anecdotally about the news stories and a few gay closeted priests and bishops I’ve known (from discussions in the early, fairly anonymous days of AOL) that celibacy can be a lonely existence, especially when it is not a personal choice, but an expectation.
            And I think others expecting us to remain celibate simply because we are gay IS the unrealistic expectation. If one makes that personal choice, great, but I don’t think it’s essential for maintaining a solid relationship with God as a gay man, as some certainly want to tell me.

            I remember when I came out, one of my professors implored me to remember that God calls us to be celibate if we are not within the confines of a straight marriage. I told him I was fine with God, and that I wasn’t going to be single the rest of my life, but I assured him I wasn’t going off the deep end. (I was a virgin at the time.) I don’t think, 20 years later, he’s yet comfortable with my gayness, but at least he didn’t shun me like some other professors (whose classes I’d thankfully already completed).

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Again…wishing for that triple like button. Where’s that like bazooka when I want it?

          • Andy

            Who do we have to thank for “God helps those that help themselves”?

          • Jeff Preuss

            I think I shall help myself to another donut.

          • Bones

            Æsop’s fables—Hercules and the Waggoner (6th century BC). In the story, a waggoner’s heavy load becomes bogged down in mud. In despair, the waggoner cries out to Hercules for help. Hercules replies, “Get up and put your shoulder to the wheel. The gods help them that help themselves.”

          • Andy

            Really? So some Christians have been touting an aphorism from a (possibly) polytheistic fable? That’s ironic.

          • Bones

            Well Paul did.

            The quote “‘In him we live and move and have our being’ as some of your poets have said.” in Acts 17:28 comes from a Pantheist poem about Zeus.

            Epimenides’ Cretica quotes Minos addressing Zeus:

            They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
            Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
            But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
            For in you we live and move and have our being.

            The author of Titus also quotes the bigoted line about Cretans in Titus 1:12

            12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

            Paul had no problems using pagan imagery.

            Unlike Christians today.

        • Thomas Collins Jr

          What copy or translation is that?

      • anakinmcfly

        “Being a homosexual is not a sin, actively engaging in homosexual sex is”

        Except that the Bible doesn’t say this anywhere.

        • BarbaraR

          True dat.

        • Andy

          It certainly doesn’t say that Jesus said anything about it. As far as we know, Jesus didn’t say a thing about it. And what he said (or, at least, what we’re told he said) is more important to me than what others (however venerable they may be) may have said.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            And people have accused me of cherry picking the Bible (smh).

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            And yet people fixate on the one possible sex issue, and ignore the ones that talk about slander, or greed.

          • Andy

            I would hardly call being skeptical of writings that do not contain the words of Jesus, and which do not purport to be divinely dictated or inspired (am I wrong in this?) cherry-picking. Really, do any of the epistles say anything to suggest they are actually the word of God?

          • Kurt

            Except that all Scripture is equally inspired, so what we believe to be more important isn’t really the issue.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Inspired…equally? even the really boring parts, like all those begats and those laws no one bothers to follow anymore, unless they want to drag them out to make others try to follow, or the ones where people were really horrible to one another and told everyone that God told them to do that?

          • Kurt

            Yep, even the parts we deem to be boring and all that you said…doesn’t say anywhere that God inspired some of it less.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Yeah. Except no one can prove such a thing, and a single verse written about a body of work that didn’t even exist yet, means nothing.

          • BarbaraR

            That’s the story we’re told. But when humans are doing the transcribing and translating, prejudices and cultures and political favoritism come into play.

            Various faiths/ denominations disagree on even which books/parts of books should be included, as well as squabbles over exactly which translation is accurate and confirms their particular views.

            “Inspired,” in my view, is not the same thing as “accurate” or “historically factual” or “complete.” What we believe to be more important or less important is tainted by our personal prejudices.

          • Guy Norred

            Perhaps, but the question of what is Scripture is a little more complex. The New Testament canon as we know it did not exist during the Church’s first few centuries and at least as late as 100 years after the Crucifixion, there were many Christians who did not consider anything except the Old Testament to be Scripture. Those who did find reason to consider newer writings were an emerging group at this time. It is true that there had been at least a few people who had looked at some work writers as Scripture for some time–there is even evidence of this in some of the epistles though never to my knowledge by a writer in reference to his own work. I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of the writers and truthfully trust them overall a little more than I trust the motives of those actually compiling the canon (or canons as these have almost never been truly universally accepted), but they were still human. Certainly they may have been lead by the Spirit but we all still fall short. The same can be said for all those who have brought it down to us, either in transcription, translation, or interpretation. Jerome despite his best efforts which included going to Jerusalem to improve his Hebrew, famously made an obvious error in the Old Testament and for centuries, there it was, in Scripture–Moses had horns. Now perhaps this is not an issue of great import, but it certainly, especially when combined seen by those who already had reason to dislike or distrust Jews, has contributed antisemitism that is deeply ingrained in some quarters to this day. Also, why would anyone think that the God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, would suddenly stop inspiring after so short a time? The Old Testament took millennia to produce but the New Testament was written in about a century (again, it took several centuries to be compiled…).

          • Andy

            Where does it say all scripture is equally inspired? I would love to hear this.

          • Jeff Preuss

            ALL Scripture? Which set of Scripture?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_biblical_canons

            I mean, my GOODNESS, just looking at this link alone shows that there are many books that differ in their canonical acceptance, all by people who maintain they are Christians. So, HOW in the world can we speak with authority about certain passages or ALL passages maintaining inerrancy?

            What is sadly too often shouted in theological arguments is the supposed inerrancy of the Bible when outlawing/condemning acts or groups of people, but those people using that as a tactic just completely gloss over the FACT that what we know as the Bible today (pick a translation, ANY translation!) just is NOT the same Bible that existed a thousand years ago. Or on this continent. Or that one.

            As much as we would like to maintain that GOD’S WORD is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the words used to convey that Word HAVE changed. A lot.

            So, what WE believe to be more important isn’t really the issue? When was the last time you read from the book of Judith? Or 1 Meqabyan? Or 3 Maccabees?

            YOUR Bible isn’t MY Bible or HER Bible or HIS Bible. Except….they are all our Bible. Quit getting hung up on the details that aren’t the crux of the faith. Get hung up on the central truth of Jesus.

          • Kurt

            The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is at the very crux of the faith, it’s not a side issue. There is no “supposed” inerrancy. To assume that it is “supposed” is to say that God has error in His Word. If God is indeed perfect, then how does Scripture, which is a revelation of Himself, have error in it? So, do we then get to decide which parts of Scripture have error in it? Was Jesus in error when He said “I am THE way THE TRUTH and THE life? There is no such thing as multiple truths in this case. if Jesus then is the truth, and was a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and Jesus is God, then God is perfect, and we can trust that all of the Scripture He inspired was perfect and without error, and trust His perfect guidance through men to have the canon of Scripture we have today. Regardless of how naive or misguided you may think this line of reasoning is, I trust the inspired, inerrant Word that I believe to completely true to have much more power to save than one that ha the possibility of having error. And seeing people saved from their sin, regardless of what that sin might be, is what it is all about. Blessings to you.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Okay, let’s try this from a different angle, since you’ve completely ignored the point that I’ve made about there being many version of the Bible, ones which contradict themselves and each other.

            If you are adhering to a stance of complete inerrancy of the Bible, yet you are not establishing WHICH version of the Bible is your inerrant version, then it stands to reason that ALL versions of the Bible are inerrant, including the ones which do NOT explicitly condemn homosexuality.

            No one is saying that God’s Word is in error, but what we are saying is that MAN’S writing and subsequent translation (and re:translation, etc.) is not necessarily God’s Word. Especially given the inaccuracies and discrepancies that exist among the four Gospels alone. To ME, the crux of faith is NOT seeing the Bible as this big, inerrant rulebook that we must blithely follow without question or study — it’s acknowledging there are errors, and still believing its inherent truth.

            Jesus certainly WAS a perfect sacrifice for our sins, but the Bible is NOT a perfect telling of all the minor details for everyday life. Because if you are going to insist that it IS, then you have. to. PICK. one.

            Which Bible? King James? New King James? New International Version? The Catholic one with the Apocryphal Books added? Coptic Orthodox with 3 Maccabees? Orthodox Tewahedo with Books like 1Meqabyan?

            You cannot insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole, without acknowledging there are Bibles out there which are NOT the same as yours. Which contradict yours.

            You refer to “the canon of Scripture we have today” as if there is ONLY one. When clearly there are multiples. ALL called the Bible. Either you put your stamp on ONE version and call all the other heretical (and you really need to say WHICH one) or you accept there are multiple takes on the story of God and Jesus, and allow there may be versions and interpretations that do not call homosexuality the sin you so desperately want it to be.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Ugh, somehow weirdly italicized the whole shebang. Tried to edit it, but it didn’t fix it. Oy.

          • anakinmcfly

            >”The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is at the very crux of the faith, it’s not a side issue.”

            That’s not true, though, and is something that differs greatly from denomination to denomination. The consensus is that all Scripture is inspired by God, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to inerrant – not because God makes errors, but because the people who did the actual writing were themselves human and thus prone to fallibility. Things like typos happened, for instance, and mistranslations, which were the result of human error, not that of God.

            More importantly, there’s the issue of how the books of the Bible were themselves finalised by humans, who chose those books (out of a pool of similar Christian texts) because they were the most consistent and lacking in contradictions, and (I think) cross-referenced by at least one of the other books to present a passably unified message. But not everyone agreed on this either, which is why Catholics have the apocrypha.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Gee, it feels like I already told him that before he even responded. :)
            But, let’s see if he listens to you when you say it.

          • anakinmcfly

            Thanks! I didn’t see your reply until I posted mine, so I guess we were typing them at the same time. :D

          • Jeff Preuss

            Oh, no, I’m talking about what I said to him BEFORE his post today. Stuff about the different versions of the Bible, and different canons….which he completely ignored in his response, instead sticking to the “inerrancy of the Bible” shtick.

            What no one EVER seems willing to answer when they play that song is just WHICH Bible?

            You just reinforced the points I’ve been trying to make, so yay! (And, truth to be told, you always seem a LOT more knowledgeable about the history of the assemblage of the Bible, so I like reading your input.)

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Here is a huge question. Since Jesus apparently never wrote down anything himself, and everyquote attributed to him was not penned down until at least 20 to 30 years afterwards, how are we to be 100% certain that is exactly what was said?
            Here is what we moderns fail to understand, living in a world of being able to record instantly what someone says, by audio, video, or even by taking notes. NONE of that existed 2000 years ago. Jesus didn’t have a press team, there wasn’t an official biographer, or someone scribbling down notes around him. So to accurately retrieve a quote verbatim after a few decades of time passing, with no written audio, or visual referencing would have been a major feat, and a highly improbable one.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Every time this discussion occurs, I liken this to one millennia-long game of Telephone. So much was passed around and down to us through oral tradition, that we MUST allow that some details might not be the same, and therefore not fixate on some of those details – it’s a fool’s game, because we’re bound to be wrong somehow. It’s interesting that this explanation is often equated to saying God’s Word isn’t true, which is NOT what I’m saying at all. But, to your point, how do we know exactly which of the Bible IS God’s words? I don’t think we can know with complete certainty.

            But, as long as we take the spirit of the Bible as a whole, and the meat of the Gospel story, I think the validity of the message rings true and is applicable to our modern lives.

          • Andy

            “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone purple monkey dishwasher.”

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Well St. John’so eyewitness accout of Jesus doings were written down by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. I know others have written first hand accounts. That is another aspect of the Catholic Church history I love. We have the writings of the earliest followers of Jesus and fathers/scholars of Church history. It’s more than the Bible alone we study.

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            Which scripture? What we call “the Bible” didn’t come into form for some time; there are many deuterocanonical books which were not included and many which are not considered canon at all. It becomes a rather self-serving argument to retroactively claim a text which insists scripture is inspired while dismissing many similar texts because they “obviously weren’t.”

        • Thomas Collins Jr

          9 *Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

          New American Bible. (2011). (Revised Edition., 1 Co 6:9–11). Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

          • BarbaraR

            During the time that was written, a gay person living in a committed relationship with another gay person was an unknown concept. What was known was non-consensual rape of slaves by Romans. Paul could not have written about a relationship that he did not not existed.

            The Bible condemns hurtful, excessive, predatory sexual activity for both gay and straight people.

          • anakinmcfly

            Nowhere in that quotation does it say “if you’re gay, that’s ok, just don’t have sex.”

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            But fornication is covered for both heterosexual & Homosexual.

          • anakinmcfly

            Yes, but if not all heterosexual sex is fornication, the same should apply to homosexual sex as well. If for instance you have a married gay couple who only ever had sex with each other within that marriage, it’s not the same as fornication, which is casual (often promiscuous) pre-marital sex, with connotations of prostitution (which is where the word ‘fornication’ originated).

            The issue here is with having equal, reasonable standards for everybody regardless of sexual orientation, and adhering to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. There is no biblical precedent for gay people to be treated differently or held to higher expectations than straight people. The verses that referenced homosexuality, apart from referencing very specific, harmful types of homosexual sex (rape, boy prostitution, etc), were based on the idea (held until the 19th century) that everybody was straight, and that anyone who engaged in gay sex was thus doing so out of insatiable sexual depravity, in open rebellion against God, or to actively harm and humiliate other people (for instance in how conquering soldiers in bible times would rape their defeated enemies). It involved people going against what was natural to them and pursuing excessive, sometimes cruel, lust.

            Many people from that period (and centuries after) believed that homosexuality was the result of straight men having so much sex with women that they’d gotten bored of it and wanted to try something new and exciting; there’s quite a lot of written evidence supporting that view (can’t remember if I’ve linked it on this thread), and I’m sure that there were some people who had gay sex for that exact reason, as there possibly are today. So if we’re talking about homosexuality as defined that way, then sure, it’s wrong. But the thing is that that’s not the case where we’re talking about gay people for whom same-sex attraction is what’s natural and tied to love, and where pursuing opposite-sex relations would be what requires that excessive, loveless lust and perhaps desire to harm.

            It comes down to determining why a specific biblical law is in place: what harm or sin was it speaking against? What was its purpose? There’s the story of how Jesus was condemned for healing someone on the Sabbath, because the law firmly said that no work should be done on that day. But Jesus then chastised them for it: “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” They had been so occupied with following the literal meaning of the law that it was at the expense of showing love to others and pleasing God, which was the whole reason the law was set up in the first place. The New Testament has other instances where Jesus broke biblical laws, always in the name of love, which was the ultimate purpose behind those rules: to love God and love your neighbour were the two commandments upon which all the laws were based, and which override all else. If we thus end up in a situation where following a law means breaking that greater law of loving your neighbour, chances are that we’re on the wrong path.

            Which is what’s currently happening with the church’s treatment of LGBT people. The strict adherence to biblical laws allegedly against homosexuality has led to so much pain and suffering and violence, with families torn apart, gay kids taking their lives, teenagers disowned by their parents and descending into self-destructive promiscuity and drug addictions, others subject to hate crimes and murders in places like Uganda. On the flipside, the church and society embracing LGBT people with affirmation and acceptance and love has saved so many lives – including mine – and brought healing and joy and peace to so many broken people and families.

            We’re to do the loving thing, and as a guide to whether or not we’re doing the right thing, Jesus says we’re to judge them by their fruit. So this doesn’t mean condoning sin – if something is indeed sinful, correcting someone out of love will bring positive results. That happens, over and over again, with things that are actually sins. But the very opposite happens when people try to do the same with homosexuality – even with the same person – where what results is not good fruit but bad, and that alone should bring us pause. Condemnation drove me away from God. It made me angry and hateful and cruel and suicidal. But when I eventually found that acceptance for who I am – though I’m still on that journey to fully accept myself – all that began to fall away, and for the first time I wanted, desperately, to know God and love God as God first loved me, and to love my neighbours and enemies where I could. I pray often for God to use me as he will to do good in this world and be a blessing to others. I’ve found freedom and the life abundant that Jesus promised. I feel human.

            I still stumble, sometimes, and there are other sins I struggle with – mostly pride and envy. But that struggle is a good struggle and one that helps me grow and become a better person, while the struggle against my sexuality and who I am was one that never, ever did.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Re: your first few paragraphs, trying to point this out to Thomas, promiscuous heterosexuals are simply not held to the same expectations of “morality” as homosexuals. If I am a homosexual in a monogamous relationship (hey! I am!) then I am still treated far less “moral” than a straight person who bedhops. And, you can maintain the church’s position on fornication is the same for everyone, but that’s just the rulebook’s treatment – it’s not how the people in the church actually treat it.

          • anakinmcfly

            yep. It’s the double standard that particularly bugs me. Heck, I’m a single virgin (and enormous prude who hasn’t jerked off in… 81 days, now) and I’m *still* treated as less sexually moral than a promiscuous straight person. I barely if ever hear of pastors speaking against pre-marital sex from the pulpit, or writing long essays against promiscuity, but they sure like talking about gay people. Plus we’ve still got a long way to go to catching up with the US, and many churches here have yet to get to the point of even believing that being gay is okay as long as you don’t actually have sex. The orientation itself is already viewed as sexual depravity, with reparation therapy as the cure. They don’t seem to have gotten the memo from Exodus that it doesn’t work. :/

          • Andy

            You mean like this? (NSFW – language)

            http://i.stack.imgur.com/nF033.jpg

          • Guy Norred

            Very beautifully said.

  • scottrose

    What do Southern Baptist assholes do with babies in their community who are born intersex? This is something naturally occurs in about 1 out of 1,000 babies. The genitals are ambiguous. Yet, there is no reason why the person cannot be considered a whole person. What do the Southern Baptists do with intersex babies? Chop them up and eat them for Jesus?

    • R Vogel

      Follow these easy step:

      1. Don’t tell anyone!
      2. Take child to surgeon to alter genitalia to male. (because, duh, who wants a female!)
      3. Never mention it again.
      4. Continue to hate LGBTI people under the guise of ‘love’

      • anakinmcfly

        Actually the vast majority of intersex kids end up surgically altered to female, because it’s ‘easier’ to just create a hole in there; doesn’t matter if they can’t actually feel much, as long as the kid can serve its function of having a penis stuck in it.

        • R Vogel

          I was not aware. Thanks for the correction.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          Dang. That just made my heart hurt.

          • anakinmcfly

            Apparently the decision was also supported by people being hysterical over “omg, how could this kid grow up to be a normal, psychologically healthy male if he has a tiny penis? It would ruin his life! BETTER TO CHOP IT OFF AND MAKE IT A GIRL”

            People suck, basically. :|

    • Lyn Wilson

      where do you think the communion wafers come from?

      • BarbaraR

        That made me laugh out loud.

  • Thomas Collins Jr

    Don’t like the doctrine, don’t join the Church.

    • AtalantaBethulia

      Is that how you would have responded to the SBC when they were founded on segregation decades ago?

      • Thomas Collins Jr

        No, never was a Baptist.

        • AtalantaBethulia

          But as a Christian, would you have stood against racism and segregation in the 60s? Or would you have said that churches who promote segregation and racism can do whatever floats their boat?

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Knowing what I know now, yes. during that time I was like 12-13, my Dad was a racist I learned better during my 8 years 1970-78 that he was wrong. I brought my two sons up to respect everyone no matter race or religion. We didn’t use racial slurs in our house, I did hear them as a child on a regular basis.

        • Lyn Wilson

          “never bought into a Church that preached against other faiths”, and you’re Catholic? You are a very confused person!

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            In the 14 years as a Catholic I have never heard one word against another religion come from a Homily nor any Priest say one word against another faith. I attend 3-4x a week Mass, involved in feeding poor and elderly, working around the church and spend time at Rest Homes visiting the sick and aged. No, the Catholic Church respects all religions and consider all who believe in the Trinity of God as ecumenical. Just a few days ago Pope Francis met with the Head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Palestinian Leader, and Jewish Head of State together. The only problem with the Catholic Church we make a large target for bigots and unbelievers.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I am a fan of the current Pope and ever Catholic service I’ve had the delight to attend has been a wonderful experience

          • Jessica

            Sadly the new Pope said that they should talk less about GLBT people but he didn’t say anything about treating them any better. The head of the catholic bishops group concerning marriage equality will be marching and preaching against it at the NOM rally in DC next week along with a host of other well known homophobs.

            Don’t confuse a lack of discussion on the subject as acceptance and tolerance.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Yeah, I know Jessica. The church has a long ways to go on several fronts.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Never heard Pope Francis speak against the LGBT movement, he did say when questioned by an Italian journalist about homosexuality, “When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers.” Don’t expect SSM in the Catholic Church anytime soon, nor women as priests it would take more than a Pope to do that. Near the beginning of him being elected he did say the Church has been focused on gays, abortion and birth control too long. Also he has spoken many times on inequality & capitalism and the poor.

          • Bones

            Yes.

            I like Pope Francis. He certainly seems to be following his namesake.

            You hit the nail on the head re ssm and women priests when they need to tackle clerical celibacy and I can’t see that happening anytime soon

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            I have. I just looked further back then when he was Pope Francis, to the days when he was just Cardinal Bergoglio and had no hesitation calling the LGBT movement an act of the devil himself which sought to destroy humanity and totally reject God’s law.

          • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

            Especially in light of his past dialogue on the subject, which has all been exceedingly negative.

          • Lyn Wilson

            In my 12 years of experience with the Catholic church, I have heard multiple homilies where other faiths were either disparaged, or prayers offered that ‘brothers in Christ’ would be enlightened and come over to the ‘true’ faith. There are many good Catholics, and they do many good things; I am also a fan of the current Pope. But I am not blind to the arrogance of the Church towards other faiths.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Sadly, the church at large does tend to play the arrogance card, and its a learned behavior. Maybe we need some new lessons.

          • Lyn Wilson

            I was raised in a Southern Baptist tradition, so I am definitely aware of the many flaws all major religious organizations seem to share (arrogance and moral superiority seem especially pervasive). Not knocking Catholics, Baptists, or any individual belief systems. We all, as a group (Catholics, Baptists, etc.) seem to forget that we, as humans, are not God, and can not lay any exclusive claim to ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’; in this sense, we are all truly One. What we take to be right or wrong is strictly a function of what we choose to believe. The mistake many of us make is tying our beliefs strictly to the dogma of a religious organization (created by Man) and being dismissive of alternative interpretations of God’s creation.

          • lrfcowper

            Something I really don’t understand sometimes is the resistance to scientific discovery and the witness of conscience to focus and interpret scripture. The Bible says right there that the Holy Spirit will write God’s law within our hearts so that we don’t need to say to each other “Here’s the law, go read it” (I’m paraphrasing) and that the creation itself bears witness to God’s nature and purpose.

            So, if you take the Bible seriously, it supports at least two other forms of revelation. How do we know which ones to accept and reject? Bible tells us that, too. Test a teaching by its fruit. A good teaching will yield good fruit, but a bad teaching will yield bad fruit.

            When scientific evidence brings into question your interpretation of certain scriptures or where you find yourself saying, “I’d really like to accept and welcome this person, but my interpretation of the Bible says I can’t,” or “Boy, I wish there weren’t so many murders and suicides and assaults and hateful acts against these people whom my interpretation of scripture says are wrong,” isn’t it time to look and see if maybe your interpretation isn’t the problem? And if it isn’t the interpretation, maybe it’s time to consider that that particular scripture was for a particular people, with a particular issue, at a particular point in time, and not universal.

            I just don’t get why people don’t do this. I mean, the scriptures literally instruct us to, so even if you’re a literalist, you’re still without excuse when you fail to do this.

          • Nathan Aldana

            in all fairness, theres quite a few churches that are arrogant towards all other faiths, its not just Catholicism where you find that sentiment.

          • BarbaraR

            True, very true. It’s always sad to see that kind of thing.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Did you hear True Faith or True Church. The Catholic Church is the True Apolistic church with 2000 years of history.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            The church…every single bit of it, is made up of fallible people who will stand in front of a congregation and saw some very unfortunate things.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            We are All sinners even Christians. I don’t know what u mean by “unfortunate things” I commit Venice sins most days, someone cuts me off, impure thoughts, say something (gossip) sometimes. But that’s why Catholics go to confession or at night ask God to forgive me of any sins by mind, mouth what I have done or not done. It’s the Mortal sins that will get you if one doesn’t go to confession. Prayer for me is not a Church thing or only at bedtime, being a Christian is a 24/7 365 day a year way of life. It’s why I go to Mass 3-5 a week.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I’ve heard pastors say Catholics follow the great whore, that no other people are christians but the members of that particular denomination, that women dressing a certain way…wearing makeup, skirts at knee level or higher, sleeveless tops, etc. causes men to lust. That a woman who is not a virgin at marriage is unclean and akin to a whore, That’s just the short list, but still things that have angered and saddened me, and that I’ve decided to live differently from such mindset.

            I stopped worrying about sin years ago. I know that I am imperfect, but I am no longer guilt ridden about it. But then our theology is quite different. I respect your personal diligence and devotion to your faith and to God. I do agree, being a Christian is an all the time thing. I don’t feel the need for corporate worship, or regular rituals, but that doesn’t mean I don’t practice my faith on a regular basis, I just do it differently. The cool thing, God encompasses love for us all.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Yes, I heard the same remarks as a youth, from birth till about 17 I was dragged by the ear to a Pentecostal church and they regularly preached that. Took the Bible literally about some things, women not cutting their hair, etc. I never for a second bought into it all, just seemed too much too me. I had the opportunity to attend many different christian and non christian churches during my 8 years in the Army, but for some reason I always felt Gods presence during a Catholic Mass. I didn’t get confirmed as a Catholic until I was 48, 14 years ago. But find a comfort and peace in the faith. Never met a Priest I didn’t like, not many Nuns, and I chose not to socialise in the church, I go to Mass, work in the food pantry 1x a week, visit a local rest home and Veterans Home mainly to talk, read and play some games. Been approached by the Knights of Columbus, not interested nor Masons. All I want is a quiet place to pray, listen to Mass and go home. Sorry you had those experiences, I know I will never forget them. And to this day, the large family I grew up in are all still members, those alive now. It was a scandal in my family when I became a Catholic, but no one shunned me and never heard anyone say anything about it after a year or so. I love the Church, the Catechism and Mass.I don’t preach to anyone about anything and love all without judging. As to sin, yes I am careful, maybe obsessive a little, could be my age 62, or could be I want to be the best person I can to all. My two sons, well one is a Zen Buddhist and the other a Wicca/Shamanism. I don’t say anything about their beliefs, at 39 and 37 they chose what they want to believe in. My youngest son came to me at 18 and told me he thought he was a Bisexual, all I said was to be careful, that was around the big AIDS awareness. I love them both as they are my sons and will accept whatever faith or life they want to lead. I don’t judge others, or try not too.

          • Andy

            “I commit Venice sins most days”

            I’m curious what you mean by this. Why pick on Venice? Is it because it’s sinking? Because it’s not nice to kick someone when they’re down.

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Venial, sorry typo.

    • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

      Thank God, joining the church is a choice…

    • Jeff Preuss

      What an amazingly uncompassionate position for those who might have grown up in the church. Besides Big C Church is supposed to be inclusive, not just for those who the powers-that-be deem good enough to worship.

      • Thomas Collins Jr

        I knew the Catholic Doctrine when I joined 14 years ago. I wasn’t quizzed then nor now when I was confirmed nor during the Eucharist of my sexual orientation or whether I have been committing any sins. I do go to confession regularly. You can fake it all your life if you want, but in the end we all stand before Christ who will judge us on what we have done here in this life.

        • Jeff Preuss

          We believe the same kinda stuff, too, but we happen to differ on whether a twist of our birth or early childhood development or what have you over which we have no say is a moral issue that should prevent us from church participation.

          My example? I grew up in the Church, came to Jesus at 7, then BOOM puberty hit and surprise, I was gay! I didn’t expect it, nor did I want it at that time, but there it was, something that I did NOT create in myself.

          It’s not a moral issue, and for the SBC to say they have the authority to declare that it IS is galling. And unfair. And mean. Christ will judge THEM for their actions in this life as well.

          So, there’s no faking here – I come to church and Christ as my completely honest self. We should allow others to do the same.

          • James Walker

            Jeff – were you also a PK?

          • Jeff Preuss

            PK adjacent – church organist’s kid. Not quite as much pressure placed on my sister and me as would be on PKs, but we were still very visible. (But since Mom regularly had theological disagreements with our church pastor, she didn’t expect us to just blindly follow him as “examples,” rather she and Dad expected us to study and learn with our own hearts, minds, and personal walks.)

          • James Walker

            I was also saved and baptized at 7 years old. my mom was the organist (in our churches that had organs) and pianist (in the ones that didn’t). my dad started as Music and Youth Minister but was a Pastor when I hit puberty and suddenly had to cope with “gay” thoughts that I certainly never asked for and, at the time, certainly didn’t want.

            I sometimes get really, really angry at the people who blather on about how I’m just choosing to live counter to God’s “plan”.

          • Jeff Preuss

            After I came out to my folks at 19 (um, not by choice – Mom read my prayer journal because she thought it was a creative writing journal…), they sent me a beautiful card (I was away at college) stating this didn’t change anything other than them worrying about how other people would treat me. They wanted the exact same things for me that they did when they thought I was straight – to be happy, kind, successful (and success isn’t defined by money), find love in a committed relationship, and above all, never stop loving God.

            I was very lucky to be raised by kind, devout parents who accept me for who I am, and recognize the good in me, and I just wish I could share that love and acceptance with others every day. Even more so, I wish that everyone would try to do that.

        • Andy

          What if there’s no hell and no judging?

          • Thomas Collins Jr

            Andy, before I was saved I use to tell people “Religion is like Insurance, many hate to pay the premiums for it but damn glad they have it in case they need it.” I don’t use that anymore, I say people make their own Hell and each one of us will stand before Christ to make our case. This I know to be true because of faith and belief and how God has helped me over my 62 years. God is there for all of humankind not just Christians, you only need to reach out for God.

          • Andy

            I see what you mean. Shame we don’t know what’s going to happen, but maybe it wouldn’t be as fun if we did. Anyway, the concept of hell is quite the nugget. Personally, I believe God is all-loving, and I’m uncomfortable with the idea that life is just a test required for entry into heaven. It doesn’t make sense to me. There are too many good people of different faiths or none, and too many bad Christians (yes, I know, I’m judging here) for me to think that’s how it will be. I could be wrong, but for now that’s how I see it.

          • Katepatate

            Saying you are a Christian doesn’t make you one any more than saying you are a car makes you one. It’s the belief in Jesus Christ that he came to earth as God’s only Son, lived and preached and died on the cross and took every one of our sins upon Himself. He arose the third day and ascended into heaven where He waits to come and judge us all. It all comes down to what you will do with Jesus. Accept Him or reject Him. It’s that easy. If you reject Him, don’t be surprised that you are not welcome in heaven. That would just be so unjust. It’s a gift all wrapped up in love for you. Why would you reject it?

          • Jeff Preuss

            Saying YOU are a Christian doesn’t make YOU one, and your actions clearly show very unchristian behavior. So, just because you shout that you are a Christian, and only your version of the Bible is correct, are we supposed to believe you?

          • Andy

            I don’t care if you think I’m a Christian or not. First of all, the definition of the word is highly contentious. Second, if we are simply judged by whether or not we identify as Christian — despite the fact that everybody doesn’t agree on what that means — then I want no part of this judgment, and your scare tactics will not work on many people. I know too many good people who don’t identify as Christian, and too many bad people who do, to think that’s going to happen. I want no part of worshipping a god who makes one’s eternal fate hinge on a test of faith.

            Take those buzzwords elsewhere. They do not sound indicative of an all-loving God.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            That is what gives me peace Andy, that very belief.

          • Katepatate

            Your peace will be shortlived. There is only peace in one person. Jesus Christ. You can live eternity with Him or you can live eternity in hell. That is your choice. Accept Him as your personal savior today. He is waiting for you.

          • Katepatate

            Well, if we who believe are wrong, we don’t lose anything. If you, an unbeliever is wrong, you lose your whole eternity. Think about it. There is a hell and there will be a judgement day. Count on it.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            There’s that loving Southern Baptist charm we’ve all come to know so well.

          • Jeff Preuss

            She’s a charmer. Ahhhh, reminds me of growing up listening to how everyone ELSE who wasn’t Southern Baptist, was a Pagan. A lot of love there.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Sweet tea, a smile and a dagger in your heart. SBC members can be wonderful people, generous, kind, gentle souls, who wouldn’t dream of saying a crude or harsh thing about anyone. Hell, I’m related to a slew of them, and most of the people I work with are SBC. Then there those who embody the unfortuate and deserved stereotype.
            Reminds me of a woman that got furious with me on a Wednesday night business meeting/”we all agree what the deacons want, no dissent welcome”, because I dared question her insistence that all Muslims were going to hell.
            It is the same woman who I swear was plotting an unhealthy future because I also dared, during another business meeting that we donate our organ to a fledging church in the community, because we didn’t use ours. I would know as I was the worship leader/pianist/lead soloist. Her argument? “We’ve always had an organ.” It got played twice the 8 years I ministered there, both by me, and horribly.

          • http://limpingtowardsgrace.com/ James Jarvis

            Pascal phoned he wants his wager back.

          • Andy

            The only “proof” of the hell you’re describing is specious and only hinted at variously in a number of writings, some of which don’t even indicate that it’s anything but an allegorical concept.

            I’m quite familiar with Pascal’s Wager. And while technically it’s possible, I find it difficult to reconcile with an all-loving God. Therefore, I don’t cite it as evidence or for persuasion.

          • anakinmcfly

            I came up with an alternative to Pascal’s Wager a few years back:

            - If you diligently follow a religion and its god(s) and it turns out that it’s true, you get to go to its version of heaven or have good things happen to you.

            - If it turns out that no god exists, either:

            1) You get wiped out of existence and have nothing to worry about, or
            2) You get whisked off to another dimension/universe/plane of existence/life and carry on from there
            …both of which you can’t do anything about.

            - If you follow a particular religion and it turns out that another religion got it right after all, or if you don’t subscribe to any religion – in both cases with a good justification for your belief or lack thereof, then either:

            1) The god(s)/higher powers of that religion are fair and send you to their version of heaven anyway, or
            2) The god(s)/higher powers of that religion are unfair and send you to their version of hell

            …But since it’s not a particularly appealing idea to spend eternity (or just a very long time) with a bunch of unfair higher beings, being apart from ‘em in their hell wouldn’t be that bad an idea after all.

            Either way, no matter what you do, you sort of win.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      If it were that simple. There are some very influential people in this denomination, and others who take similar stances. Their desire to make their religious views public policy is problematic, That there has already been some success shows that we do have cause to be concerned, and therefore work to counter that trend.

    • Lyn Wilson

      That’s not ‘doctrine’ – - it’s hatred, fear, and bigotry

    • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

      Don’t like the doctrine, watch as it becomes adopted by political leaders and is used as the basis to spread discriminatory legislation.

      • Katepatate

        Kind of like atheism is doing now, huh?

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          how?

        • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

          If you consider the legislation being passed to be discriminatory, sure. It’s not. It’s just insisting that a new class of people receive the exact same rights most people currently enjoy.

  • Corman

    Wow, Susan A…Way to show your appreciation to those who stand up and fight for your right to live as a Transgender person….Just sayin….

  • Corman

    Thomas,…Don’t like Transgenders? Don’t have the surgery…

  • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

    You know, when someone (as the SBC does here) says in the same breath that they love me and want to withhold necessary medical care from me, marginalize me, alienate me from my children, and lie about me… That’s not love, that’s hypocrisy.

    • Jeff Preuss

      Don’t forget oppose legislation to protect you from losing a job just for being trans… “We love you, but we don’t want you to hold down a job.”

  • Boomer8238

    “RESOLVED, That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any court or state legislature to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy (Isa. 5:20); and be it further”

    This is the OVER THE LINE portion of the whole proclamation. When the goal is to deny constitutional rights to others based on your personal ‘sky man’ beliefs, you’ve crossed the line and become the monster you fear.

  • Lyn Wilson

    “Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome” – where a genotypical X-Y male is insensitive to the male (androgenic)hormones – - I guess God does make mistakes, as evidenced by the existence of those individuals, and the SBC

    • anakinmcfly

      What makes you think those people are mistakes, though? Most of them grow up to be perfectly well-adjusted (and often uber-feminine, due to the compromised ability or inability of testosterone to do anything) women with the extra bonus of not having to suffer a monthly period. They’re also infertile, though, but so are many other women.

      • Jeff Preuss

        Looking at this in context with Lyn’s other posts, it seems more likely to me that she’s refuting the very typical claim that “God never makes mistakes,” and therefore trans/gay/bi people are all just falling prey to sin/Satan/the world/what have you. I don’t think she (I am assuming she) is ACTUALLY saying they are mistakes as far as she is concerned.

    • Cris D Putnam

      Hello? creation is under a curse?

  • Brandon Roberts

    to be honest i think if someone has a disorder that causes them to believe they’re the other sex they should be allowed to get surgery to have that happen i’d rather they be happy than kill themselves.

    • James Walker

      and that, Brandon, is the response of someone who has empathy and compassion. =)

      • Brandon Roberts

        no problem.

      • Cris D Putnam

        It’s abusive to hack body parts off of mentally ill people. Its not compassionate, its insane and macabre.

    • anakinmcfly

      It’s not just about ‘believing’ one is the other sex, though, at least in the sense that there’s often biological evidence for that belief, like this study shows: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

      • Brandon Roberts

        didn’t know that. thanks for sharing.

  • schnauze72

    Christ must get a good laugh out of listening to these nitwits – and they have the nerve to do all this garbage in His name !!

  • Michelle Faustermann

    I don’t know who these people’s God is, but he sure isn’t the one I grew up with. They should be ashamed for spreading hate.

    • Katepatate

      You should blame the messenger, not the people he writes about. This man hates Southern Baptists and is willing to spread lies about us. While we believe God made all people, we believe He wants us all to strive to be more like Jesus every day instead of trying to make people believe our lifestyle is okay.

  • Guest

    John is effectively advocating physical abuse of the mentally ill. While he accuses the SBC of “mentally ill” is a more appropriate way to describe it. Gender is not determined by one’s feelings. Humans have a chromosomal arrangement that defines their sex: XY for males and XX for females. When a persons’ mental state does not match physical reality (a man believes he is a woman or vice verse) it is a mental problem not a physical one. The correct and loving course of action is to counsel the person so that their feeling match reality. It is abusive and unethical to mutilate someone’s body to match their mental illness.

  • Cris D Putnam

    This is effectively advocating the abuse of the “mentally ill” . Gender is not determined by one’s feelings. Humans have a chromosomal arrangement that defines sex: XY for males and XX for females. When a persons’ mental state does not match physical reality (a man believes he is a woman or vice versa) it is a mental problem not a physical one. The correct and loving course of action is to counsel the person so that their feelings match reality. It is abusive and unethical to mutilate someone’s body to match their mental illness.

  • Amtep

    This is not really “throwing them under the bus” but more “driving the bus over them”.

  • James Ritchie

    There is no such thing as a “transgender” person. Mutilating your genitalia, and putting on makeup and a dress, does not turn a man into a woman. All it does is create a mutilated man who looks like a woman. he’s still a man, still a sinner, and still just a homosexual pervert. That’s the way it is, like it or not.

    God is specific about homosexuality, and a church has two options, which are to follow God’s word, or not to follow God’s word. Either way, mutilating your body to look like the opposite gender does not change who and what you are. If you were born a man, you will be a man until the day you die. If you were born a woman, you will remain a woman until the day you die. And if you are a sodomite, you are a sodomite, whatever the church says about it.

    Get the sin out of your life, stop looking for ways to justify you perversions, and come to God. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with being thrown under the bus. You’re sending yourself to hell, and expecting anyone else to accept your perversion, your sodomy, you sin, is foolish in the extreme.

  • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

    Never knew the Southern Baptists could actually see reality. I’m impressed. Now when are they going to notice that their cult was created out of a bunch of tent revival con artists in the 1700s and 1800s?

    Oh, and too bad that transgender people still refuse to admit to reality. But they’re in good company with the Republicans and the Democrats.

    • anakinmcfly

      I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What’s the reality that we refuse to admit? I’m very in touch with reality, though I’d often rather not be.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        The reality that body and soul are one, and much as we wish we could be something else, we are what we were born as. Any attempt to change that will not result in happiness, and is just indulgement of fantasy, fixing the symptom instead of the root issue.

        Of course, the modern American medical community has become extremely good at fixing the symptoms without fixing the cause; it’s far more profitable to do so, and not just in this disease, but in many others as well. There is a reason why “Code Slow” exists in hospitals.

        • AtalantaBethulia

          But a slow code is illegal in some jurisdictions and it surely would be an egregious, illegal, unjust, prejudicial and murderous application to use it on someone simply because they are transgender.

          People with epilepsy and mental illness used to be considered possessed by evil spirits. Slowly superstition is replaced with scientific understanding.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I’m saying that transgender is more superstition than science at present time; an internal individualized response to external pollution and politics (for instance, the common “all men are evil warmongers, murderers, abusers, and rapists” meme that permeated American primary education over the last 30 years, pushes some men to consider themselves more female than male).

            A sex change treats the symptom without discovering the underlying problem. It is in fact a “slow code” treatment.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            No. It’s biological, long since proven by science.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            No, in fact, it hasn’t been “proven by science” because science is incapable of proof. A mark of pseudoscience is claims of “proof”; any time you have certainty the one thing you don’t have is science.

            The evidence that it is biological in all cases, is wanting. Studies with insufficient numbers to be statistically relevant, are simply irrelevant.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63
          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            The first link is what I’m talking about- transgender is entirely in the mind, a symptom, not a cause. It is a mere sense that one’s mind doesn’t fit one’s body.

            The second link also, is more about symptoms than causes. CAH needs more research to determine the actual causes, but instead, the expensive MTF transgender lifestyle is pushed merely to make more money for the medical community.

            Both of these describe exactly what I am talking about- indulging fantasy to prolong the problem, rather than finding a solution.

          • Andy

            It seems to me that this is what you’re saying. Tell me if I’m wrong.

            You: People who think they are transgender aren’t really. They think they are because it’s a symptom of some underlying cause.
            Us: What’s the cause?
            You: We don’t know. But there must be one, because it doesn’t make sense that people should not be able to find congruence between how they perceive themselves and how they are physically.

            Did I miss something?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Funny, CAH looks like an underlying disease to me (albeit, one that only explains FTM trans).

          • Andy

            I’m going to see if I can find any evidence that all (or even most) FTMs have CAH. In the meantime, I did find this worth reading.

          • Andy

            Found one. I might look more later, but this says about 10% of intersex people with CAH identify as transgender.

          • Matt

            It is facetious to say that being transgender is “entirely in the mind” and use that to dismiss it. Here’s a bit of perspective: Everything you experience is in your mind. Your thumb doesn’t feel pain when it is cut; rather, its nociceptors are stimulated (sensation) and the information is sent to the brain for processing and integration (perception).

            What’s more, the brain keeps a sort of map (for lack of a better word) of its parts and where they are located. Hence why amputees experience phantom pain–their brain still has a part that would receive signals from the missing limb. That pain is very real despite the lack of stimulus, and there is nothing wrong with their brain. It is simply responding to the way it views its own body. It’s not a stretch to think that a transgender person’s brain would have a viewpoint of its body that is opposite of the sex it was assigned at birth.

            Human beings aren’t always neatly divided into male or female, XX or XY. Turner syndrome is when a person has one X chromosome only (their configuration is written as XO). The other X might be missing completely or not work correctly. People with Klinefelter’s Syndrome have the configuration XXY. Interestingly, people with both of these disorders are frequently given hormone therapy and surgical procedures similar to what transgender people undergo.

            So given all of the above, it is reasonable to say that transgender people are a legitimate phenomenon and a normal (if very uncommon) variation of the human experience.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            It is facetious to say that I’m using transgender as a mental illness “entirely in the mind” to dismiss it.

            “So given all of the above, it is reasonable to say that transgender people are a legitimate phenomenon and a normal (if very uncommon) variation of the human experience.”

            You are using the word “normal” inaccurately at best.
            http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-new-homophiles-and-three-sigma-rule.html

            and

            http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2009/04/homosexual-doctors-cant-do-math.html

            Rather, I am urging us to look at *real conditions*- such as Turner’s and Klinefelter’s- and separate that from some kid who just suddenly decides to be something that they aren’t.

            Transsexual is a symptom of the above two diseases, but it isn’t the disease itself. And to treat only the symptom, without looking at the underlying cause, is tantamount to medical malpractice.

          • Matt

            I used the word “normal” to mean that being transgender in and of itself is no longer considered a disease process. As of 2013, the APA no longer classifies it as such. Definition number 3:

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal?s=t&path=/

            I’d like to know where you get the credentials to make such a claim that “Transsexual [sic] is a symptom of the above two diseases.” Are you an endocrinologist? A psychologist with a specialty in LGBT issues? A member of WPATH? Do you even know what that is?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            The APA made all kinds of decisions for the DSM-V out of pure politics. My own diagnosis, Asperger’s, was eliminated and reclassified as High Functioning Autism.

            I do not agree with replacing science with politics for any reason whatsoever. LGBT, WPATH, all of them are based in fantasy, not in reality, and I find the “science” they quote to be highly suspect and bigoted.

          • Matt

            You are free to hold that opinion. But no one has to listen. Thanks for clarifying your position, at least. Have a good one.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Using your own blog posts to back up your claim comes off as weak. By the way your answer to the commenter’s comment on left handedness is weak, very weak. Gear shifts are on the right hand….In the US and other nations that use the right hand lane. In countries that drive on the left hand side, all the gears will be left handed.

            As for being left handed. We are a global minority, occupying between 10 to 14 percent of the world population. Manufacturers tend to cater to the majority, when making goods. We’ve had to adapt, living as minorities, using tools not designed to our needs or specifications.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “Using your own blog posts to back up your claim comes off as weak.”

            So what? I’m not doing this to appear “strong” or “weak”, those are designations I reject.

            “Manufacturers tend to cater to the majority, when making goods. We’ve had to adapt, living as minorities, using tools not designed to our needs or specifications.”

            Exactly- and left handed people are a much larger minority than transgendered people, so why do you expect the rest of society to reorder their lives to a minority? I don’t expect neurotypicals to reorder their society to my autism; I’ve had to learn to adapt instead.

          • Andy

            It sounds like you’re suggesting that no one has ever accommodated lefties, and as a lefty, I can tell you that’s not true.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I know I’d pay good money for a vegetable peeler that is truly designed for lefties, or kitchen knives. 90% of them are honed for righties, and vacuum cleaners, some of them are balanced specifically for righties, making us lefties having to work harder to keep the fucking thing up right…Kirby vacs are notorious for that.

          • Andy

            I don’t have a problem with a lot of those things. Kinda helps my wife is a lefty too, so either we both put up with it or neither of us does.

          • Andy

            It sounds like you’re suggesting that no one has ever accommodated lefties, and as a lefty, I can tell you that’s not true.

          • Jeff Preuss

            How in the hell is allowing trans people to have right to live their lives equivalent to the rest of society reordering their lives? Outside of some government-mandated “Invite a Transgender to Dinner” night in everyone’s home, the super-small percentage of transgenders means that most people in society won’t have any significant interaction with a trans person at all.

            If we want to fall back onto the pervasive fear some have of a transgender assault in a public bathroom, that’s just highly unlikely.

            I can afford a little bit of kindness and human respect to trans people, and reasonably accommodate their societal needs without it changing my life or inconveniencing me in any way.

          • Bones

            After reading your nonsense blog article about homosexuality being unjust because it limits the partner’s ability to procreate, I’d take everything you say as bs.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Which is your right, but the only way gay people can procreate is through prostitution.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Alrighty. And now we’re done. That’s it, Theodore. You’ve more than made your opinions clear.

            You are simply wrong.
            They can procreate in many ways and your comments are unkind and ugly. So move along.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            All of those ways include prostitution in the form of a surrogate. If telling the truth is unkind, because you’d rather live in a fantasy world where a man can carry a baby to term, then yes, I might as well move along, your censorship is complete.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Your intentional use of inflammatory language to obfuscate your real meaning is not gracious nor helpful to furthering civil discourse.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            On this issue, the bus of civil discourse left in 2004 when the gay marriage debate started turning violent.

          • anakinmcfly

            Prostitution = the purchase of sex with money. Given that no sex occurs in the process of surrogation, I think you need to buy a dictionary.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Prostitution- the selling of a human body for the purposes of sex OR PROCREATION.

            I think YOU need to buy a dictionary.

          • Bones

            Oxford Dictionary – Prostitution

            ‘The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment:’

            You must be using a Catholic Dictionary.

            Certainly not one that I know of.

            Prostitutes don’t engage in sex to have babies. It’s to make money.

            I thought that would be a basic fact.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Aaaaaaand somehow NOW is the point at which this conversation has gotten completely ridiculous.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            In what way is buying a woman’s body to use as an incubator for nine months different from buying a woman’s body to use for any other sexual purpose?

          • Jeff Preuss

            Prostitution is when money is exchanged for the purposes of sexual gratification. Surrogacy is usually achieved by In Vitro Fertilization, so no sexual congress between the two parties is undertaken.

            That said, you don’t have to agree with surrogacy, but don’t be ridiculous and use hyperbole to state your opposition. If you have any case to make, going to ridiculous extremes just undermines any traction you might otherwise make with it.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Procreation is a form of sexual gratification- and IVF is a form of procreation.

            It is those who claim that surrogacy isn’t prostitution that are being ridiculous.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Procreation is NOT the act of sexual gratification, yet it CAN result from it.

          • Giauz Ragnarock

            WOW! Do I smell the whole basis of the anti-choice argument, or what? That’s clearly how you view women, so stop projecting!

          • Bones

            Which raises
            1) Who says gay people wish to procreate?
            2) Have you heard of adoption?
            3) Lesbians can have children, believe it or not.

            Your statement is a massive fail on all levels.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            1) Oregon Reproductive Technologies, in my metro area, who specifically markets to gay people and has a $5,000,000/year cash flow from selling surrogates.
            2) Adoption, while noble, isn’t procreation. The procreation already happened with the biological parents.
            3) Not without paying for a man to donate sperm- which is also a form of prostitution.

            So sorry, you just haven’t thought it through.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Donating sperm is prostitution?

            Selling Surrogates??

            What the bloody hell!!!

            Oregon Reproductive Technologies is an invitro facility. Some of the customers use surrogates, or donated eggs and/or sperm from donors, Some patients use some of their own, depending on the fertility status of the partner. They do NOT specifically market to the LGBT community. Nothing on their website specifies that. http://www.oregonreproductivemedicine.com/ I don’t know where you get your information, but I will say it is at least creative,

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Selling of human body parts is indeed prostitution; I’d say the same about selling a human kidney.

          • Jeff Preuss

            So. Not an organ donor, are we?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I am. Once my body has completed its allotted time on earth, people are welcome to whatever is still usable. They can send even it to a medical school for dissection, or just cremate me, and use the ashes to fertilize a tree.

          • Jeff Preuss

            I am, too. I’m very fortunate to have pretty good darn health, and the thought that any part of me might extend or simply better the life of someone else or multiple someones after I go is a very comforting thought. I don’t need to leave anything behind to bury, because that’s simply not me anymore.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Exactly. All I want to leave behind are memories, fond ones of course, and hopefully a legacy that promotes peace, laughter and harmony, that others can take up and vastly improve on my paltry attempts.

          • Bones

            IVF/ surrogacy isn’t prostitution.

            You obviously don’t understand basic sexual intercourse which btw for the vast number of people isn’t for procreation.

            Bizarre that that has to be said.

            You should be more worried about the relationship between enforced clerical celibacy and child sex abuse.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “You obviously don’t understand basic sexual intercourse which btw for the vast number of people isn’t for procreation.”

            Rather, I have a historical view of it. I reject the mistake made by the invention of birth control, which separated sex from procreation. For the vast majority of human beings who have EVER lived on the planet, sex was for procreation.

            It is not valid to change the definition based on the fantasies of human beings currently alive.

          • BrinKennedy

            And you say you haven’t been disrespectful… although disgusting would be a more accurate description for some of your comments (including the one where you claim that being transgender is nothing more than “some kid who just suddenly decides to be something that they aren’t.”

          • Jeff Preuss

            I argued a few months ago with someone who told me that as a gay man, I am failing all the children that could exist if I were straight, and that it is some massively grave injustice and selfishness on my part that I’m intentionally NOT creating more people.

            I was so blindsided by the level of crazy in that argument, that I only exist to create more beings, that I almost couldn’t come up with a retort.

            Almost.

          • Giauz Ragnarock

            Women as baby tanks, breeding, and bodies (life, health, and peace of mind optional) are all the “objectively moral” see, apparently.

          • Jeff Preuss

            “Baby tanks.” That just makes my skin crawl.

          • Andy

            Indeed. And yet, that’s what some people basically relegate women to. They don’t care if carrying a child to term is dangerous to the mother. They don’t care if she was raped. All they’re concerned about is that fetus being born…and from that point, it’s on its own. They aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth. After kids are born, fuck ‘em.

          • Andy

            Also, the person he was arguing with apparently has no problem with the ever-growing population of the world.

          • Guy Norred

            Not too long ago, I actually had someone seriously say to me that he was worried about under population–he was so serious and insistent about it that, unlike Jeff, it took very little time for me to be rendered speechless.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I’ve heard the under population trope….The fear is a loss of white privilige thing, from what I gathered.

          • Guy Norred

            I have heard that also but this guy seemed seriously to feel that we were on the verge of dieing out as a species. I did try to suggest that it might be because we had TOO many people but he wasn’t buying it.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Never so many people on the planet, as now, and yet we are dying out. Gotta love the complete disconnect

          • Jeff Preuss

            I’m afraid of losing white privilege every DAY! Especially now that I know I’m only 97% white. I’M ALREADY SLIPPING AWAY.

            (Okay, not really. I mean, yes, it’s only 97%, but there’s no fear about that. Some day in the future, “white” people won’t be in power, and I think that’s perfectly fine.)

          • anakinmcfly

            In a global context, or more specific one? Because underpopulation is a huge actual problem in my country at least – I think we have the second lowest birth rate in the world or something.

          • Guy Norred

            He insisted he was speaking globally. I do wonder if he had been influenced by those around him who are more worried about the decline in the white population in the US though I have to admit I believed him when he said this wasn’t what he was interested in. He is not the brightest bulb in the lamp but I also don’t see racial animus in him. I am probably being a little hard on him. This situation does though speak to how one’s malevolent intent can become another’s mis-informed and destructive goodwill.

          • Andy

            Lefty power!

          • Jeff Preuss

            I’m ambidextrous. ALL THE TOOLS ARE MIIIIIIINE!!!

          • http://limpingtowardsgrace.com/ James Jarvis

            I going to assume that you are using normal in the statistical sense of the word in which case you would be correct. To use statistical norms to justify discrimination or make moral judgements is a huge misuse of statistics. And just how would you quantify gender identity in a way that would allow it to be plotted on a normal distribution curve. Matt is using normal in an entirely different way than you are using it. Your rhetorical argument is not the least bit convincing to me. But maybe I just bad a math being a liberal and all.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Yes, I’m using the statistical normal.

            Discrimination doesn’t need justification.

            Anything that can be quantified, can be counted. If gender identity can’t be plotted on a normal distribution curve, then it doesn’t exist at all. If it exists, then it’s a simple ratio of queer to cis, and the cis, being far more than the 68% needed to be in the center of the curve, is normal.

            Matt is using the word normal incorrectly, like most liberals who are bad at math do.

          • Andy

            Okay, you’re done here.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            And you don’t think the medical community looks for issues like Turner’s Syndrome and Kleinfelder’s when people seek medical advice and intervention? Or checks hormone levels, or looks for androgen disorders, or takes a psychosocial history…

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I think doing so would be called discrimination by the trans community.

          • Bones

            Orthodox Archbishop Lazar Puhalo has ministered to transgendered people.

            Response to Critics About Transgender

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N122i0eK-ws

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            He makes me want to commit suicide out of his hatred of heteronormative society.

          • Matt

            Spare us the melodrama. You clearly have nothing to contribute to this discussion. I think it’s time for you to move on or be blocked.

          • Jeff Preuss

            Suicide is prostitution, and therefore a major sin. Don’t do it.

          • Bones

            Lol, defending transgendered people is the same as hating hetero people.

            Your logic is quickly failing.

          • Giauz Ragnarock

            HOLY SHIZ, DUDE?!!? ALL SHALL FOLLOW ME AND BE STR8 and CIZ BECAUSE TO DISAGREE WITH ME IS TO DISAGREE WITH JESUS CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!

            Your love is for ideology and the love and upholding of that ideology. If everyone paid no attention to that ideology would you torture people yourself (considering Jesus doesn’t exist thus far)?

          • Andy

            I wouldn’t trouble yourself with this guy. He won’t be responding to you anytime soon. (He was banned, in case that wasn’t clear.)

          • Matt

            I watch this video when I desperately need an antidote to the pain, suffering, and vitriolic hatred. Thanks for re-posting, Bones.

          • Matt

            It wouldn’t be. It’s the standard of care for transgender people. Turner’s and Klinefelter’s have other associated conditions (such as a webbed neck) that need to be addressed as well. Every transgender person who undergoes hormone therapy has their existing hormone levels checked beforehand, and regularly during therapy.

            Stop speaking for us when you clearly don’t know anything.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Hormone therapy in and of itself is exactly what I’m talking about- treating the symptom, not the disease.

          • anakinmcfly

            Are you also against, say, the use of EpiPens when someone is suffering anaphylatic shock from a peanut allergy, or the use of inhalers when someone is having an asthmatic attack, on the basis of how they treat the symptoms and not the disease?

          • Bones

            “Are you also against, say, the use of EpiPens…”

            Well yes, if the guys in the Vatican say so.

          • Bones

            In God’s Image (Transgender short documentary)

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi05bulbRyU

          • AtalantaBethulia

            I think you have a non-objective sense of how things actually work.

          • anakinmcfly

            “I think doing so would be called discrimination by the trans community.”

            Considering that it’s currently the practice, I have no idea why you insist on treating this as some obscure idealised thing you just thought up and that no one else has ever thought to do.

            I had to go through two months of therapy (up to several years in other places), followed by an uncomfortable gynaecological exam – to check for intersex genitalia – and various blood tests before I was allowed to start testosterone. Then when I went back to my home country, I had to do it *all over again* because my US diagnosis wasn’t considered valid, and over here it took about half a year before I was allowed to continue treatment I’d already been on for months.

            I honestly don’t know where people get the idea that one can just waltz into a clinic and demand a sex change and then get it right there on the spot.

          • James Walker

            some kid who just suddenly decides to be something that they aren’t

            and where do we gain the chutzpah to tell that “kid” he/she isn’t “really” how they envision themselves in their own minds? the situation of being transgendered doesn’t map to the situation of someone deciding they’re descended from fairies or dragons and wanting to staple wings to their back. this is not mere delusion or fantasy. this is something at the very core of how a person expresses themselves to the world around them – their sexual identity. who can tell us more about what’s going on in their inner life than the person directly experiencing it?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “and where do we gain the chutzpah to tell that “kid” he/she isn’t “really” how they envision themselves in their own minds? ”

            Out of love for that kid who is making a mistake that will destroy their life, I would hope.

            It is those who hate the PERSON that kid really is, who would encourage the opposite.

          • James Walker

            that’s ballsy, to imagine you can determine for someone else what would or would not be a “mistake that will destroy their life”.

            John’s right. the people who’ve given up on convincing gay guys like me that “it’s all in our heads” have moved on to run the same shame job on trans people.

            I find myself hoping that you don’t ever encounter anyone in your personal life, no close friend or relative, who is trans because I don’t want there to be one single additional suicide due to stupidity and lack of empathy like you display.

          • anakinmcfly

            “Out of love for that kid who is making a mistake that will destroy their life, I would hope.”

            I was suicidal since I was 8, which was when I first learnt that suicide was a thing people could do. At 21, after a suicide attempt, I decided I had nothing to lose and should just come out to my parents and see how things went; and if it went badly, I could just carry on with the suicide, no harm done.

            Transition didn’t destroy my life. It saved it. And that of many other friends I know. You’re expressing theoreticals that have zero basis in reality.

          • Andy
          • anakinmcfly

            I don’t know what’s going on, but I approve. :D

          • Andy

            I dunno. Just trying to think of a different way to express my approval. Since you have a cool name, I thought I’d play off that.

          • anakinmcfly

            “Rather, I am urging us to look at *real conditions*- such as Turner’s and Klinefelter’s- and separate that from some kid who just suddenly decides to be something that they aren’t.”

            That’s a false dichotomy. Most (if not all) people with Turner’s look and are perfectly fine identifying as female; it doesn’t affect gender identity. Those with Klinefelter’s have a tendency to have female gender identities while raised as male, and a fair number of trans women do have that.

            “Transsexual is a symptom of the above two diseases, but it isn’t the disease itself”

            That’s objectively false and medically ignorant. To use your terminology (which is already questionable – I’m not sure if all medical conditions are necessarily diseases), it *is* “the disease itself”. Going by various medical studies on trans people that have revealed various structural differences in the brain that match those of the identified gender, it would thus qualify as an intersex condition in itself, similar to Klinefelter’s and so on.

          • Andy

            Scientific “proof” is never “future-proof” — the curious mind is always ready to hear a better explanation if one comes to light. If someone comes up with better theories than gravity and evolution, for example, the scientific community will pay attention. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” comes to mind.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “Scientific “proof” is never “future-proof” — the curious mind is always ready to hear a better explanation if one comes to light.”

            Scientific “proof” is an oxymoron to begin with. There will *ALWAYS* be better explanations.

            “If someone comes up with better theories than gravity and evolution, for example, the scientific community will pay attention.”

            Yes, they will. So therefore closing one’s mind on a given theory, regardless of the amount of current data, is not rational.

            “The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” comes to mind.”

            And when it comes to a symptom that is not a disease in and of itself, that only affects 1:2000 people, and that a very small subset of the people with that problem wants to completely upset all of the rest of society to pander to the symptom, doubt is extremely reasonable.

          • Andy

            Alright, you are being disrespectful. You are presenting ideas that are very rude, you are suggesting that being trans is symptomatic of some underlying illness — with no scientific basis for that — and you’re trying to use semantics to undermine our points. If you do not show a modicum of respect, and cite evidence for your outrageous claims, you will be asked to leave.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “Alright, you are being disrespectful. You are presenting ideas that are very rude,”

            Expressing doubt is rude?

            ” you are suggesting that being trans is symptomatic of some underlying illness”

            Like any other variant behavior of mankind. Nothing special there either.

            “with no scientific basis for that ”

            There’s no scientific basis for either.

            “and you’re trying to use semantics to undermine our points.”

            Disagreeing with you is not undermining you.

            ” you do not show a modicum of respect, and cite evidence for your outrageous claims, you will be asked to leave.”

            Ok, but you could have asked nicely:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939

            But even that isn’t statistically relevant.

            Oh, yeah, you like anecdotes, and think they are proof:
            http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

          • Andy

            You can express doubt without being rude. You were not doing so.

            And I had asked for your evidence already in another comment. And I never said anecdotes were proof. Don’t put words in my mouth.

            Not all trans people choose SRS, by the way.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “You can express doubt without being rude. You were not doing so.”

            So rude now means somebody disagrees with you?

            “Not all trans people choose SRS, by the way.”

            True. But the point is more that indulging the fantasy does little to nothing to alleviate the problem.

          • Andy

            “But the point is more that indulging the fantasy does little to nothing to alleviate the problem.”

            Pretty sure a large part of trans people would disagree with you. Some of them might change their minds later, but certainly not all of them.

            Look, I’m not saying no one transitions and then never regrets it later. I’m not saying that at all. But to suggest that most or all will regret it? Please.

            Why can’t you just let them be? I’m pretty sure none of them take this lightly, and that it takes a long time and there are plenty of opportunities to change your mind before actually having SRS. If you have some grudge against the medical community, take it elsewhere; this is not the forum for it.

          • Andy

            “I’m saying that transgender is more superstition than science at present time”

            No it absolutely is not. Find us a citation from a reputable scientific study not conducted or sponsored by an organization with a clear anti-trans agenda. I’m calling bullshit.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            There are no reputable scientific studies on this issue at all. They’re all conducted by either “organization with a clear anti-trans agenda” or “organization with a clear trans agenda”.

            Part of the problem lies in the fact that for a population that is only .05% of the total human population, just about any study done that isn’t a mega study involving billions of human beings will not allow the target population to rise above the error incidence in relation to the control population.

            What you are doing is not science, it’s superstition.

          • Andy

            You are setting the statistical bar way, way too high.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            Only if you’re trying to claim that correlation is causation.

          • Bones

            How many trans people have you met or counselled?

            Or did you just pick up your ‘theories’ from the internet?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            I’ll admit mine is based on a meta study done in Sweden on post-op trans people. But that gets back to anecdotal evidence not being reliable.

          • anakinmcfly

            Those are unfounded theories.

            They don’t explain trans girls as young as 3 – some of whom have yet to realise the differences between men and women – trying desperately to cut off their penii with scissors because they insist in agitation that “it’s not supposed to be there”, and just trans kids in general who are still ignorant of all those politics.

            They don’t explain trans men who have the very views you list – that all men are evil warmongers, murderers, abusers, rapists, etc – and despise men as a result, but still feel a strong and irrepressible identification with them.

            They likewise don’t explain misogynist trans women, some of whom spent years in angry self-loathing for ‘wanting’ to be what they deemed an inferior gender.

            They don’t explain the fairly reliable probability that an intersex person with a particular intersex condition will identify as male or female. There are charts for those things, e.g. if someone has intersex condition X, they have a 30% chance of identifying as female and a 70% chance of identifying as male.

            They don’t explain how trans people have existed over the centuries and in all civilsations, despite very different and sometimes contradictory cultural politics.

          • Andy

            Thank you for sharing on this topic. I think most cis people probably don’t know a lot of things like this unless they’re doctors or have a trans or intersex relative or close friend or something like that.

          • anakinmcfly

            You’re welcome!

          • anakinmcfly

            And actually, to add on to that, there’s the flipside to it all. There are oppressed women in developing (and developed) countries who have been tormented and discriminated against and beaten and raped and made subject to unfair, violent systems that privilege men, but who still have no desire whatsoever to be male, even though being male would bring with it significant benefits and possibly save their lives. There’s the boy whose mother was such a vocal advocate of LGBT rights to the point that he was actually embarrassed to tell her, upon reaching puberty, that he was straight and cis.

            There are the cis gay men who were forced to take female hormones as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality, who at one point (I think it was under the Nazis, not to sure though) were used as experimental subjects for MTF genital surgery; and who still remained firmly identifying as male, in some instances committing suicide at the horror of what had been done to them against their will. Alan Turing was one of those gay men who killed himself after a year or so of being forced to take estrogen; his feminising body drove him to despair. There’s a woman I knew whose lesbian mothers insisted on dressing her in ‘boy’ clothes, encouraging masculine activities and countering traditional gender roles, who grew up hating them and eventually converted to fundamentalist Christianity, where she now revels in being as stereotypically feminine as possible.

            There’s the well-known case of David Reimer, accidentally castrated at birth and raised as a girl from infancy, who nonetheless never felt ‘right’ and spent his childhood and early adolescence plagued with depression and feelings of gender dysphoria disturbingly similar to my own. There are the countless intersex kids assigned male or female and raised as ‘normal’ boys and girls, but who likewise never felt right, often transitioning later in life.

            Human history is littered with the attempts of people to change other people’s gender identities – not just those of trans people, but those of some cis people as well. If there’s anything it shows us, it’s that gender identity is stubbornly immutable; and the idea that ‘external pollution or politics’ could change it is completely laughable. People have tried. They have tried very hard.

        • Andy

          You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not be successful.

          The rates of suicide and attempted suicide by trans people are sky-high. I haven’t seen stats on the issue, but I have read many accounts of trans people post-transition who claim their quality of life is so much improved, and that they finally feel like themselves. I admit it’s possible — likely, even — that some people have transitioned and regretted it. But I haven’t read such accounts. If you have some stats to indicate that the vast majority of people post-transition regret it, then it’s absolutely bullshit to say that “Any attempt to change that will not result in happiness”.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “The rates of suicide and attempted suicide by trans people are sky-high”

            Yes, likely because the underlying CAUSE isn’t being treated.

            Anecdotal data is not relevant and is not science. There are plenty of cases of transgender people still having problems post transition. But those too, are mere anecdotal data.

          • Andy

            And what is this underlying cause you speak of? I would love to hear this.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            We don’t know because, as I said before, everybody’s focused on treating the SYMPTOM rather than the CAUSE.

          • Andy

            What if the “cause” is just a random variation at birth whereby one’s gender identity does not match his/her/their/its/etc physical body?

            I do not think you can prove that being trans is a symptom of some underlying illness. That’s incredibly rude and disrespectful, not to mention completely unscientific.

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “What if the “cause” is just a random variation at birth whereby one’s gender identity does not match his/her/their/its/etc physical body?”

            Random doesn’t exist. Effects have causes. If this is happening regularly, like it does to certain other species that get too close to mankind’s industrial outputs, then there is likely massive pollutants involved, such as artificial estrogen or testosterone in the water supply.

            “I do not think you can prove that being trans is a symptom of some underlying illness.”

            Once again, the proof. Science deals in probability, not proof.

            “That’s incredibly rude and disrespectful, not to mention completely unscientific.”

            What is rude and disrespectful is pandering to mental illness to make more money.

          • Andy

            “Random doesn’t exist.”

            What? Do you not believe mutations are real?

            “Once again, the proof. Science deals in probability, not proof.”

            Fine. I don’t think you can even assign a probability to the idea that being trans is a symptom of some underlying illness. How’s that?

          • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

            “What? Do you not believe mutations are real?”

            Mutations are real, but they are significantly NOT uncaused or random. They have causes.

            “Fine. I don’t think you can even assign a probability to the idea that being trans is a symptom of some underlying illness. How’s that?”

            Links below.

          • Andy
          • anakinmcfly

            I’m guessing he’s a reductionist. Quantum physics proves it’s an inaccurate view of the universe, though, because true randomness has been proven – mathematically – to exist at the quantum level, to Einstein’s chagrin. Granted, it’s not at the level that we’re talking about (be it evolution or what causes transgenderism), so I think in this instance it’s just a matter of people using different definitions of ‘random’.

            And yes, there *is* a cause for transgenderism, currently theorised to be related to androgen levels in-utero. And the treatment for that cause? Transition.

          • anakinmcfly

            The very existence of intersex people already proves that gender identity does not always correspond with what we consider the suitable body configuration for said gender.

          • Giauz Ragnarock

            Other matters that cause ambiguity of “traditional” sexual morals include conjoined twins and parasitic twins/the people carrying them.

          • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

            Actually, there is significant evidence that the cause is 1) an anomaly in the sex differentiation in the brain likely caused by 2) genetic influences or 3) hormonal irregularities in utero. See the link above, or read “The Riddle of Gender,” by Deborah Rudacille, or do your own research.

          • anakinmcfly

            Stats! From the National Center for Transgender Equality, 41% of currently-living trans people have made at least one suicide attempt.

            Trans people who reported a ‘greatly improved’ quality of life post-transition: 98% from one source, 96% from a similar source. (I think one of them (the second?) was post-surgery, which led another source to comment that if so, it would make it the surgery with the highest rate of patient satisfaction and life-improvement.)

            “I admit it’s possible — likely, even — that some people have transitioned and regretted it. But I haven’t read such accounts.”

            I’ve read a few. These included:

            - A few trans women who, post-transition, encountered extreme levels of discrimination and harm from others such that they detransitioned for their own safety, family acceptance and peace of mind;

            - A few trans men who felt like they were betraying his radical feminist friends by joining ‘the enemy’, and detransitioned out of guilt (one of them descended back into intensive self-harming.)

            - This guy who wasn’t trans to begin with, but thought that women had it easier, decided to try it out by way of being really rich and effectively bribing doctors, learnt otherwise, and detransitioned

            - Trans people who encountered financial problems that made it impossible for them to continue paying for hormones, and thus detransitioned

            - Someone who thought they were a trans woman, transitioned and lived a couple years as female, only to realise that while the hormones had many positive effects on their physical and mental health, and wished to continue, identified more as genderqueer and went back to their original name (while continuing estrogen)

            - A trans woman who lived for several happy years as a woman before converting to fundamentalist Christianity and being taught that what she was doing was sinful. She now heads one of those ‘ex-trans’ organisations in my country, and says that life is a lot harder now that she struggles every day with gender dysphoria, but is willing to bear that cross for God.

            - A trans man in the US, similar case – lived many happy years as a man before converting to fundamentalist Christianity, where he continued living many happy years (being part of a Christian men’s group and all) without people knowing he was trans; until someone found out, and everyone pressurised him to detransition or else be no longer welcome. They made him stop hormones and go back to dressing and living as female, and while he was initially resistant he eventually caved.

          • Andy

            I think I’d heard that 41% figure before. That is so sad.

            I don’t understand why people can’t just let others be who they feel they should. Why must they project their own insecurities or ignorance into denying happiness for others who aren’t exactly the same as they are?

          • anakinmcfly

            And those are the ones who are still alive; it’s uncertain how many actually succeeded in suicide, but I’ve seen estimates of around 50% of the total trans population. For comparison’s sake, the average suicide rate is 0.012% in the US (according to Wikipedia). And of those who survive, 1 in 12 trans people will be murdered (vs average of 1 in 20,800), and 1 in 2 raped. Mostly trans women, in both cases.

            as for why… it’s human nature. We’re all hurt and angry, and we need targets to blame for that pain. I hated trans people for a long time before I managed to admit I was one. In my case it was mostly jealousy, and thinking that they were taking the easy way out instead of struggling and being obedient like I was. I thought that any bad thing that happened to them was thus the justifiable price they paid for being happy when so many people – like myself – didn’t have that same freedom.

            I’ve noticed that most people against trans people are those who themselves have long struggled with their own gender issues; while many aren’t trans themselves, they might for instance have been harshly condemned for not being acceptably masculine or feminine enough, and so conformed, and resent that others are pushing those boundaries even further without similar condemnation – which they then willingly provide as a form of poetic justice. Others were hurt in different ways: a lot of transphobic radical feminists are rape survivors who have been deeply hurt by men; they view trans women as those men trying to intrude on the few spaces – like female bathrooms – where they thought they could be safe from penises, while viewing trans men as traitors joining those who caused them all that pain. And so on. Hence the call to love our enemies. It’s the only way to break the cycle.

        • anakinmcfly

          “and much as we wish we could be something else, we are what we were born as”
          No disagreement there. For years since childhood I wished I could be ‘normal’, and tried to be the daughter my parents deserved and thought they had, self-harming and punishing myself for all my persistently ‘wrong’ thoughts of being a boy, hating myself for wanting to be male because of all the harm that men do to people, particularly women; but nope, still trans. All that wishing got me nowhere.

          What root issue are you referring to?

          For decades, trans people were treated the way you suggest – sent for years extensive psychotherapy, electroshock therapy, put on all kinds of drugs, locked up in institutions, et cetera ad infinitum. Lots of them killed themselves. Lots of them developed hosts of genuine mental illnesses. But when they were allowed to transition instead… all those problems went away, and had the potential to be fruitful, productive, happy members of society.

          Here’s an extensive collection of scientific studies on trans and intersex people: http://aebrain.blogspot.sg/p/transsexual-and-intersex-gender-identity.html

    • Katepatate

      I am a Southern Baptist after coming from the Methodist church. It follows the Bible’s teachings more than any other religion. But I am not a religious person. I am a person of faith. A faith in the one true God, Jesus Christ. Our church is so far from a cult. You really don’t know what a cult is.

      • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

        Worshiping scriptures as an idol is pretty much a mark of a cult as far as I’m concerned.

      • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

        Actually I do. I was in one from age four till my early thirties. And I spent some time in the SBC before moving to the Methodist variation. The core teachings are not all that different between the two. The SBC does exhibit some cult behavior patterns, which is why I easily transitioned from a cult to the SBC….some patterns, not all. It is why I ultimately left it.

    • Lamont Cranston

      You’re still alive? That’s a shame. Do you still rape children?

  • Guest

    I do not understand how everyone is jumping on board this bashing train towards the SBC. This article by John Shore is based upon presuppositions he has towards the denomination clearly. In his article the statements he makes, for example, “Transgender people are crazy” is not true. That statement, that feeling NEVER occurred at this convention. Society demands of those in Christianity especially a decision on this matter all the time. When a denomination sees a cultural/social issue at hand, for the sake of it’s members, there is discussion on these topics and matters, and a general decision is made. The SBC, and myself believe the Bible to be true, and that on issues of gender we believe it to be God-chosen the way we are. That is all they are stating. If you want to be LGBTQACRPTNZ or any other letter references you are more than welcome to be, and in many churches you will still be welcome, but does that mean we have to abandon, NOT our traditions, but our understanding of the Bible, SIMPLY because it offends someone, NO. The fact this author chooses to manipulate the statements of the SBC shows the character of that individual and I wouldn’t trust everything you read on the internet.

  • Billy Joe Crocker

    I do not understand how everyone is jumping on board this bashing train
    towards the SBC. This article by John Shore is based upon
    presuppositions he has towards the denomination clearly. In his article
    the statements he makes, for example, “Transgender people are crazy” is
    not true. That statement NEVER occurred at this
    convention. Society demands of those in Christianity especially a
    decision on this matter all the time. When a denomination sees a
    cultural/social issue at hand, for the sake of it’s members, there is
    discussion on these topics and matters, and a general decision is made.
    The SBC, and myself believe the Bible to be true, and that on issues of
    gender we believe it to be God-chosen the way we are. That is all they
    are stating. If you want to be LGBTQACRPTNZ or any other letter
    references you are more than welcome to be, and in many churches you
    will still be welcome, but does that mean we have to abandon, NOT our
    traditions, but our understanding of the Bible, SIMPLY because it
    offends someone, NO. The fact this author chooses to manipulate the
    statements of the SBC shows the character of that individual and I
    wouldn’t trust everything you read on the internet.

    • Guest

      This below, is what was TRUTHFULLY put in the resolution… Notice the MAJOR differences.

      ON TRANSGENDER IDENTITY

      WHEREAS, All persons are created in God’s image and are made to glorify Him (Genesis 1:27; Isaiah 43:7); and

      WHEREAS, God’s design was the creation of two distinct and complementary sexes, male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6) which designate the fundamental distinction that God has embedded in the very biology of the human race; and

      WHEREAS, Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles as ordained by
      God are part of the created order and should find expression in every
      human heart (Genesis 2:18, 21-24; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 2:12-14); and

      WHEREAS, The Fall of man into sin and God’s subsequent curse have introduced brokenness and futility into God’s good creation (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 8:20); and

      WHEREAS, According to a 2011 survey, about 700,000 Americans perceive
      their gender identity to be at variance with the physical reality of
      their biological birth sex; and

      WHEREAS, Transgenderism differs from hermaphroditism or
      intersexualism in that the sex of the individual is not biologically
      ambiguous but psychologically ambiguous; and

      WHEREAS, The American Psychiatric Association removed this condition
      (aka, “gender identity disorder”) from its list of disorders in 2013,
      substituting “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria”; and

      WHEREAS, The American Psychiatric Association includes among its
      treatment options for gender dysphoria cross-sex hormone therapy, gender
      reassignment surgery, and social and legal transition to the desired
      gender; and

      WHEREAS, News reports indicate that parents are allowing their children to undergo these therapies; and

      WHEREAS, Many LGBT activists have sought to normalize the transgender
      experience and to define gender according to one’s self-perception
      apart from biological anatomy; and

      WHEREAS, The separation of one’s gender identity from the physical
      reality of biological birth sex poses the harmful effect of engendering
      an understanding of sexuality and personhood that is fluid; and

      WHEREAS, Some public schools are encouraging parents and teachers to
      affirm the feelings of children whose self-perception of their own
      gender is at variance with their biological sex; and

      WHEREAS, Some public schools are allowing access to restrooms and
      locker rooms according to children’s self-perception of gender and not
      according to their biological sex; and

      WHEREAS, The state of New Jersey prohibits licensed counselors from any attempt to change a child’s “gender expression”; and

      WHEREAS, These cultural currents run counter to the biblical teaching
      as summarized in The Baptist Faith and Message, Article III, that “Man
      is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them
      male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender
      is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation”; now, therefore, be it

      RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention
      meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10-11, 2014, affirm God’s good
      design that gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by
      one’s self-perception—a perception which is often influenced by fallen
      human nature in ways contrary to God’s design (Ephesians 4:17-18); and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we grieve the reality of human fallenness which can
      result in such biological manifestations as intersexuality or
      psychological manifestations as gender identity confusion and point all
      to the hope of the redemption of our bodies in Christ (Romans 8:23); and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we extend love and compassion to those whose sexual
      self-understanding is shaped by a distressing conflict between their
      biological sex and their gender identity; and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we invite all transgender persons to trust in Christ and to experience renewal in the Gospel (1 Timothy 1:15-16); and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we love our transgender neighbors, seek their good
      always, welcome them to our churches and, as they repent and believe in
      Christ, receive them into church membership (2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Galatians 5:14); and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we regard our transgender neighbors as image-bearers
      of Almighty God and therefore condemn acts of abuse or bullying
      committed against them; and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we oppose efforts to alter one’s bodily identity
      (e.g., cross-sex hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery) to
      refashion it to conform with one’s perceived gender identity; and be it
      further

      RESOLVED, That we continue to oppose steadfastly all efforts by any
      governing official or body to validate transgender identity as morally
      praiseworthy (Isaiah 5:20); and be it further

      RESOLVED, That we oppose all cultural efforts to validate claims to transgender identity; and be it finally

      RESOLVED, That our love for the Gospel and urgency for the Great
      Commission must include declaring the whole counsel of God, proclaiming
      what Scripture teaches about God’s design for us as male and female
      persons created in His image and for His glory (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 20:27; Romans 11:36).

      • AtalantaBethulia

        John included the resolution’s original language so anyone reading could compare and decide for themselves how fair or unfair his analysis was.

        What you seem to not understand is that what John offered is a summation of what the resolution sounds like to someone outside the SBC, and what the resolution – in essence – says. This should be insightful to SBC supporters as to how their words and actions are perceived by Christians outside their group.

        • Katepatate

          You hear what you want to hear. The message should not be toned down just because you don’t accept it or it offends you.

    • anakinmcfly

      “If you want to be LGBTQACRPTNZ or any other letter references you are more than welcome to be”

      But I don’t want to be. Still am though.

      ” and that on issues of gender we believe it to be God-chosen the way we are”

      yes, and as a trans guy, it would be going against God’s will for my life if I caved in to social pressures and continued pretending to be a girl.

    • Jeff Preuss

      Aaaaaaaand John Shore never SAID “Transgender people are crazy” was a quote from the convention. He made it pretty darn clear that the bolded parts are his take on what the lines from the resolution were, as in when he said THIS above: “The points they affirmed about transgender people are below, each followed by the supporting text from the affirmed resolution. Following these points is the whole of the resolution from which this support is derived.”

      Bolding mine to show where he indicated what the lines ACTUALLY in the resolution were.

      Great, you believe the Bible to be true. Same question everyone who says that gets, “Which Bible? Which canon?”

      • Katepatate

        The one God inspired. The Holy Bible. The only one who tells the truth. You can choose to believe lies. The world is full of lies today because Satan has blinded man’s eyes to the truth. You can choose to believe or not. It doesn’t make it any less true.

    • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

      I’m all for rational dialog, but John Shore’s characterization of this resolution is not unfair in the least. The SBC is trying to claim that transgender people don’t exist, and anyone whose gender identity doesn’t match their birth sex have a faulty, sinful self-perception for which they need to repent. Further the SBC says that trans* people should be viewed as abnormal and that discrimination against them is right and good.

      The SBC has a really nasty habit of trying to pathologize minorities in order to push them to the margins.

      Are you really trying to defend this bald-faced attempt to stigmatize and marginalize 700,000 flesh-and-blood human beings?

      • anakinmcfly

        More than 700,000, at that; its effects are felt way outside the US.

  • Noah Oldham

    Talk about “Unfair” John. Your descriptions of what the resolution actually says are biased and unfair. The word crazy is never there, as well as other words like delusional, telling people to pray it away, etc. You have biased and hateful stereotypes of conservative, Bible-believing Christians. And because of your unfair representation of the resolution, no one will give it an honest reading without your commentary. You’ve tried to throw SBCers under the bus with the article.

    • AtalantaBethulia

      What if we look at this from another perspective.

      The resolution is offered unedited for all to read and compare so that anyone can make up their own mind how fairly John has or has not summarized it.

      Also, when Liberal, Progressive, Moderate, Emerging, and Unfundamentalist Christians offer commentary on religious matters such as these, it should be insightful to those who support such resolutions HOW they are perceived by others outside the in-group. It SHOULD be a moment of enlightenment of how the SBC’s words and actions appear to other Christian groups. As with any relationship, such as in marriage, it is useful for parties to understand each other… and to make the effort to understand each other. What John has outlined is in essence this: When you (SBC) say this_____________, this is what I hear. This is how it is perceived by those outside the SBC fold.

      If this is not what the SBC wants those outside the fold to perceive, good questions to ask in the spirit of achieving greater understanding are: Why do those outside the SBC understand this resolution this way? How can the we (the SBC) achieve greater understanding of our (the SBC) position? Did people outside the SBC actually misunderstand the SBC position?

      • Noah Oldham

        The resolution IS offered unedited…AFTER. After he unfairly caricatures the historical biblically orthodox stances on gender identity. Then right before he gives the unedited version for people to “make up their own minds” he calls it “childish mess” Within this he strikes the SBC with the crime of perverting Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. Yet throughout the whole article he is maligning and unfairly explaining the nature of the resolution. Claiming to be a believer, he attacks other Christians. Instead of following the teachings of Jesus, which he feels he has to defend against conservative Christians, he seeks to hurt them. How about taking another approach. How about sitting down with the leadership of the SBC, or someone on the resolution committee even, and seeking to understand the heart of the resolution. (Because it is clear he does not or refuses to). He can then explain how it might come across to some outside of conservative Christianity. THEN, because he claims to be a believer, he could instead write an article seeking to bridge the gap and explain the heart behind the resolution. For example, “While you may think this line means that they believe transgendered people are delusional, let me take you to Scripture and show you the justifiable reason why someone who both loves God and loves people could say that sin causes us to own identities that God never meant for us to. It is not a biased position against gender identity but a blanket theme in Scripture about sin in general affects human beings.”

        • AtalantaBethulia

          So you would like others to handle differences among Christians in the way that those who affirm SBC doctrine and policy handle differences among Christians?

          That’s not acting like Jesus.
          That’s acting like Paul.

          Jesus took his frustration with the religious leaders of his day public (See Matthew 23):

          Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. 6 They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi.

        • Margaret Whitestone

          So you don’t like the way John interprets the SBC’s resolution on transgender people but you’re ok with their utterly demeaning, dehumanizing position on transgender people? Nice to know you’re more worried about your dogma than human beings.

        • anakinmcfly

          “could say that sin causes us to own identities that God never meant for us to.”

          And who are you to speak for God? How do you know that trans people’s identities are identities that God never meant for us?

        • Andy

          “(Because it is clear he does not or refuses to).”

          How do you know this? I strongly suspect this is not the case.

        • http://rebeccasdaughter.blogspot.com/ Rebeccas_Daughter

          There is nothing “about sin in general” in a resolution that specifically mentions and promotes discrimination against transgender people.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Has sin always been this ‘Chemical X’ that can override anything “Jesus intends”? Sin is pretty much Kryptonite from the show ‘Smallville’ or a type of applied phlebotinum ( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum ), as sin gets used for whatever you need to explain “bad/foreign/othered” stuff/people in your narrative (never mind you also include a being who is ALL-POWERFUL, supposedly can’t stand said applied phlebotinum, and then says, “Sin is totally okay with me… but I’m also okay with torturing people who don’t make my cut!”). Seriously, you never argued with yourself about this?

    • Margaret Whitestone

      The SBC claims transgender peoplr are broken and shouldn’t be protected under the law. That’s disgusting.

      • Noah Oldham

        the SBC, quoting the Bible, claims that all people are broken because of sin and that brokenness manifests itself in many different ways. It also claims that the Gospel can heal all sin as we come to Jesus for healing.

        • Margaret Whitestone

          They’re creating a nonexistent problem (“sin”) and telling people “you’re shit just because you are human” so they can peddle their snake oil “cure”.

        • AtalantaBethulia

          Noah, is depression a form of brokenness? Is it caused by sin? Can the gospel heal it? What about Cancer? Diabetes? Down Syndrome? Where do you draw the line?

          This is at the heart of a disagreement within Christendom regarding the doctrine of sin. The SBC and other similar evangelical denominations believe everything is caused by sin. Thus for all the problematic nails of life caused by sin, Jesus is the hammer.

          This is not what many Christians see as an objective worldview. You call it a Biblical worldview – not just “a”, but “the” Biblical worldview; the majority of Christendom disagrees. It is a literalness taken beyond reason.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Along with the issue of brokenness, mental health and sin, is the following (I know the SBC isn’t Bob Jones University nor the IFB, but there is a lot of overlap when it comes to their theology and this is a good explanation of the bad theology that is too common among conservative evangelicals regarding sin, brokenness, and mental health):

            “BJU practices, preaches and instructs a version of Christian counseling that rejects “secular psychology.” In the school’s worldview, almost all mental problems – beyond the medical – are the result of sin. As explained in the 1996 book, “Becoming an Effective Christian Counselor,” “most people in mental hospitals are not sick; they are sinful.””

            http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/6/18/bob-jones-universitysexualabuse.html

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I grew up with the illness being akin to sin theology, which was also made worse because seeking medical assistance for a medical or mental illness was also akin to sin. As a result people suffered and sometimes died from treatable ailments.
            Mental maladies, like depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, alcaholism, anxiety disorders were either ignored, the sufferer dealt with it as best as they could quietly and covertly, or the sufferer pushed aside because it was determined they had “a demon” controlling them.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            We don’t still treat scarlet fever with leeches nor drown women for being witches.

            The “sin is the cause of all problems; therefore just get right with Jesus” pat answer for everything taken to the literal extreme is simplistic, unhelpful and dangerous.

          • BarbaraR

            *Nods*
            I have listened to friends in extreme circumstances – loss of job, health care, losing their home – tell how they were asked at church, “Are you praying hard? Really hard?” and then being viewed skeptically because they must have done SOMETHING to bring these calamities on themselves.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            The lesson from the Bible is not:

            If you’re really good, nothing bad will ever happen to you.
            Nor is it, if bad things happen to you, you must be doing something wrong.

            The lesson from Job is: No matter who you are, no matter how righteous you are or not – BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO US ALL. What matters is how we react to it. That’s where spiritual growth happens.

          • Andy

            Wow, I didn’t realize God granted prayers based on fervency and repetition.

            “Alright, Timmy, you’ve prayed for a bicycle 37 times, 14 of which included the phrase ‘pretty please.’ I guess you can have one now.”

          • BarbaraR

            For a lot of people, God is kind of like a temperamental and capricious Santa Claus. If you’re on the good list, you get all kinds of goodies out of the big bag! You’ve been blessed! God is so good! But if you’re on the naughty list… “Have you asked for forgiveness? Are you praying really hard?” or “God has a plan that we can’t understand,” or “God is testing you.”

          • Jeff Preuss

            Wow, so my praying and crying asking God to make me straight was just not enough? Let’s see…at least twice a day, every day, for over 10 years…ONLY 7300 times! I bet 7500 would have been the ticket! D’oh!

          • Jeff Preuss

            It’s always frustrating when our family or our church family ignore any actual suffering we may have in favor of the ministry or leaving it up to God. I’ve had conversations recently with one of the Phelps clan who left his church (and family) because they always waved off his chronic back pain as a cry for attention, which is ironic since some in the family work as nurses.
            Additionally, speaking as things relate to general cries of homophobia, he was actually brought up in that family to BE afraid of us. He said he was taught we are something to fear, that we are violent offenders who are out to assault everyone. Since leaving his family, he’s been met with an amazing level of graciousness from straight and gay people that has really changed how he perceives everyone.
            He’s a really sweet kid, and I hope and pray he can find his purpose in the world, but right now I think he’s questioning what he believes.

    • Moe Sizlak

      The SB church is very dangerous. I used to attend one and they have nothing to do with god or anything Christ related. They are no more than a blind cult. I completely understand where you are coming from though. This is a very biased article however it is also very true about the SB church. The words the author uses are not found in the SBC resolution although the Sb church believes exactly how the author states.

  • 3Dunedain90

    The gay community, and all its permutations, has been throwing the church and its doctrines “under the bus” for some time now. It’s time for this transgender son to stop whining about acceptance, and think more deeply about His Creator, His attitude of rebellion, and who He will answer to on the Day he gives an account.

    • Jeff Preuss

      That colloquialism. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Amtep

      Are you aware that “the church and its doctrines” is not actually a thing? You may have noticed the Protestant Reformation, among others. There are now many, many churches and doctrines. Some of them differ wildly from yours! You may want to think more deeply about this.

    • Margaret Whitestone

      Yes, Christians are so oppressed. My heart really bleeds.

      • Andy

        It really bugs me when I hear this. I suppose it’s possible that individual people might be oppressed, in certain isolated situations. But as a whole, at least in the USA, that’s bullshit. There are bunch of assholes out there that think that because we demand equality regardless of religion or orientation or anything, and because we want laws based on bigoted ideas gone, that we are oppressing them. It makes me furious and not want to be associated with them at all. It’s a big reason why I often don’t volunteer identifying as a Christian.

    • anakinmcfly

      I’m not sure who you’re referring to there.

      • James Walker

        why, naturally, they’ve assumed John must be trans else he wouldn’t be posting on this topic. *eyeroll*

    • Kathy K-m

      By “throwing under the bus”, do you mean pointing out that your own theological practices don’t support your condemnation? Do you mean pointing out that your own Christ didn’t feel it even “sinful” enough to comment on? (He sure had lots to say about hypocrisy, though. Hmmm.) And what “the church” are you referring to? Certainly many have read the exact same texts, and decided discriminating, hateful behavior is NEVER okay. Even your biggest “pray the gay away” organization, Exodus, has admitted they were wrong, apologized, and closed their doors.
      But yes…I suppose gay folks, and others, HAVE “thrown the church under the bus” ; just like those uppity black people did when the doctrines were used to uphold slavery, and just like those pushy ladies did, when the doctrines upheld abuse and oppression of women.
      But I wouldn’t call that “throwing under the bus”. More like “doing what’s morally and ethically right, based on our current knowledge”.

      • Jeff Preuss

        Rosa Parks sure threw those white people under that bus she was riding.

    • James Walker

      this idea that LGBT+ people are somehow engaging in “rebellion” is one of the ugliest lies of all the ugly lies foisted on us by the so-called “ministers” who’ve made themselves rich by catering to the basest instincts of the ignorant.

      ETA: if you want to know why so many of the “pastors” who have a presence on television, radio and now the internet have been so vocal for so long about abortion and “the gays”, it’s because it brings in money! no two issues have ever generated more donations to these “ministries” than these. it has nothing at all to do with their “strong convictions” about what the Bible has to say and everything to do with what gets butts in the seats and dollars in the offerings.

      • 3Dunedain90

        Sorry James, your spouting of a narrow prejudice does not even come close to describing me. You are so misdirected and caught up in stereotypes. How easy that is. What you must do, sooner or later, is repent of such slander against the Almighty, and let God be God, and honor His claim and right to design your life rather than you and yours “(us”), and deluded sex-change whiners, to dictate to Him your rights and claims. He is sovereign, you are not. He is Creator and Redeemer (on his terms), you are not. He builds His church on His terms, not yours. That you think His word lies on sexual ethics and your word is true is only a symptom of how “progressives” twist truth.

        • Bones

          Some stereotypical whining there.

          You people MUST believe in MY image of god.

      • Giauz Ragnarock

        Which really says something. If some churches didn’t bring these subjects up every so often, not nearly as many people would find worth in going to church. To many, I imagine, church just looks like the best vector to demean and misrepresent these people. You can’t say, “I’m part of the righteous who will judge the wicked!”, (i.e. co-masters of the all the wretched slaves) if you don’t show whose boss and manipulate themselves to see themselves as the victims.

  • Sergio Rangel-Ibarra

    I dont feel there is anything actually christian about John shore. he should just be a buddhist with a liking to christianity. but his whole progressive stance is a load of bull to me. hes weak in the kness and has succumbed to pleasing men who have no love for the church.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Ugh.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXmxIVHoag

    “We’re in the business of trying to save prodigals.”

    • Guy Norred

      “A way to kind of show the amount of pain they are putting on everyone else is to put a little of the pain on them.”

      just wow–what utter blindness

  • Marcus Vittitow

    Wellllll Baptist wish in one hand and shit in the other..see which one fills up first. I knew there was a reason WHY I left the Southern Baptist faith years ago! They left me first! Moving right along…

  • Brianna Carringer

    I’m sorry for the other followers of my religion guys, this is ridiculous and not needed in our modern times (it shouldn’t have been like this when the Bible was written either honestly). The truth they will never admit to is that they are using their belief to fuel their own opinions, and they cannot deny it no matter what Bible verse they use, no matter what they say. These are not true Christians, these are hypocrites that I wish didn’t call themselves Christian. So please don’t hate all of us, okay? -scurries away to avoid being yelled at-

    • BarbaraR

      We can only be responsible for our own actions. Those actions will let others know what kind of people we really are.

  • Michele N. Morgan

    WHEREAS the SBC continues to creep up my crotch when I clearly did not invite them there.

    RESOLVED the SBC needs to keep their hands offa my up and coming plastic jimmies.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X