| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, if one person with a job that offers great health insurance marries four people who have worse or no such benefits, sticking person A's employer with four spousal health insurance bills isn't fair or sustainable. It isn't bigotry, but basic economics. This is not an issue of what gender the spouse is, it's an issue of finite resources. There are legal models that fit and make sense when you have a multi-adult household, but the current institution of marriage isn't really one of them.
Yet another great argument for Universal Healthcare. ;-)
However, homosexuality is still against the rules as per the New Testament as well.Speaking as a Christian myself, this point is very much debatable.
Just to keep in mind: Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever say one word at all about same-sex relationships.
Nowhere.
Not. One. Word.
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you for stating this (I agree wholeheartedly).
And since it was mentioned earlier, it's worth noting with regards to 1 Timothy's positions on women, that the scholarly consensus is that Paul didn't write it, but that it's a 2nd century forgery written in Paul's name. It contradicts Paul's own previous statements regarding the active and equal role of women in the early Church as well as details from other sources.
But I should avoid getting into a scholarly discussion here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it looks like some friends want a ladies night soon. I'm not sure where to go or what to do. Any suggestions? (Yes, I'm trying to shift away from religion before it gets bad.)
The PIE BAR.
http://www.piebarseattle.com/piebarseattle/
Please feel free to add me! That goes for anyone. And thanks for the feedback. I feel it is my responsibility as a...no, that this movement is the culmination of some ridiculous seventh sign or something. Or that there really is a movement that seeks to eradicate their religion. It doesn't have to be real in order to be used by the unscrupulous, and some will eagerly play into their hands. I'm sorry if you find this comical, but it's a real concern of mine.I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.this is one of my greatest fears on this subject.Ohmighod. People might think we want to eradicate homophobia! Or racism. Or sexism. The horror. The horror.
Honestly, while I don't want to eradicate religion, I think it's time for a reform to religion.
And honestly, let's face facts. Anything the LGBT community does to further their goal of equality is going to look like we are eradicating religion by definition of our existence.
Recently we had a man get beaten after being asked if he was gay. It came to light that sexuality was not covered in our state's hate crime laws. As a response to this, we held a rally. A rally at which I again spoke. Actually getting in front of people and starting was easier this time. The subject matter a lot harder. I spoke about violence in the trans* community. I also managed to get most of it on video:
Cori speaking on transgender violence
About a minute or so was cut out. In that minute I talk about Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena, and begin talking about CeCe McDonald.
You're a good speaker. Was touching to watch.
I should add all you guys on facebook or whatnot.
No problem, added. Though I apologize in advance for the tsunami of pictures of homemade food I post ;)
So it looks like some friends want a ladies night soon. I'm not sure where to go or what to do. Any suggestions? (Yes, I'm trying to shift away from religion before it gets bad.)The PIE BAR.
http://www.piebarseattle.com/piebarseattle/
I wanna go to a pie bar! D:
Pie bar sounds good.
I can't bowl because of an injured ankle.
I'm not a lady but I love dressing like one.
We are going to do a game night but they don't like RPGs. They do like Cards Against Humanity! I've got a lot of options for them.
Babes in Toyland may be something I can convince some of them to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a bunch of fun, light games that are good for people who aren't into RPG-depth games -- King of Tokyo is a favorite with a lot of my more casual board-gamer friends, as are games like Wasabi, Forbidden Island, Nuns on the Run, Hanabi, and even Love Letter and Verona.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gloom is a lot of fun, too!
I like Citadels. I know some people think it's aged badly, but it's very simple and sleek and is IMO in the perfect spot between "regular card game" and "g33ky fun".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, don't know if you've seen this, but it's both not that long time left and not many more signatures needed.
Petition to Legally Recognize Non-binary Genders
Oh and it wasn't yellowdingo
Oh, don't know if you've seen this, but it's both not that long time left and not many more signatures needed.
Petition to Legally Recognize Non-binary GendersOh and it wasn't yellowdingo
Oh, well, now I'm not interested ;)
Signed.
And in slightly-depressing news, South Carolina legislature pressures USC-Upstate to cancel humorous show "How To Be A Lesbian by Butchy McDyke."
Apparantly, the legislators assumed that this was an acutal "recruitment" event, and could not be persuaded that it was a comedic performance.
*sigh*
Assistant Software Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a bunch of fun, light games that are good for people who aren't into RPG-depth games -- King of Tokyo is a favorite with a lot of my more casual board-gamer friends, as are games like Wasabi, Forbidden Island, Nuns on the Run, Hanabi, and even Love Letter and Verona.
I've really loved Deadwood Studios recently. It's basically running around a board finding parts to play and yelling your line in your favorite accent for the scene and rolling your dice to see if it was ok. It is simple to pick up and easy to play. Great for nongamers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've gotten them playing Ninja Burger, Munchkin, Give Me The Brain, and Zombie Dice. I want to get them more into Munchkin. I also want them to enjoy some RoboRally. I have Gloom and a few of them have played it. They liked it a lot. We also have Evil Baby Orphanage. I have about 25 games in the trunk of my car at all times. None are RPGs. I like to be ready at a moment's notice.
I am always saddened by the argument they sometimes come up with: "It is our duty to steel ourselves and not give in to committing homosexual acts." Ummmm... Yeah. Sounds like you need to have a little rethinking there, wouldn't you say?
I've gotten them playing Ninja Burger, Munchkin, Give Me The Brain, and Zombie Dice. I want to get them more into Munchkin. I also want them to enjoy some RoboRally. I have Gloom and a few of them have played it. They liked it a lot. We also have Evil Baby Orphanage. I have about 25 games in the trunk of my car at all times. None are RPGs. I like to be ready at a moment's notice.
Once upon a time
Settlers of CatanDixit
Carcassonne
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you could, but it would come out in a series of ampersands, asterisks, and octothorpes ;)
I am always saddened by the argument they sometimes come up with: "It is our duty to steel ourselves and not give in to committing homosexual acts." Ummmm... Yeah. Sounds like you need to have a little rethinking there, wouldn't you say?Wat? If you actually are heterosexual, you don't have to 'steel yourself' because it's not gonna be your cup of tea and it won't tempt you in the least. So basically they're saying that they are self-loathing closeted homosexuals who can't think about gay stuff without wanting to do it. So gay things and gay people scare them, due to their inability to cope in a mature and healthy way with their own sexuality. They have to yell at and blame and oppress other people because they can't take adult responsibility for their own feelings.
Or else they're saying that all LGBTQ people should *be* self-loathing and closeted, to which I say.... wait, I can't say what I would actually like to say to that on this site.
The more I hear their reasoning, the more certain I am that it's the former. A large part of the vocal anti-homosexuality fanatics are likely homosexuals themselves. And really, that is not really surprising. After all... Why would anyone else CARE so much what homosexuals do in the bedroom? A heterosexual person wouldn't, but someone who has felt that attraction, but denied their entire sexuality for decades... Just might. To them, the fact that someone else does the things they chose not to do probably stings pretty badly.
Digital Products Assistant
|
The more I hear their reasoning, the more certain I am that it's the former. A large part of the vocal anti-homosexuality fanatics are likely homosexuals themselves. And really, that is not really surprising. After all... Why would anyone else CARE so much what homosexuals do in the bedroom? A heterosexual person wouldn't, but someone who has felt that attraction, but denied their entire sexuality for decades... Just might. To them, the fact that someone else does the things they chose not to do probably stings pretty badly.I am always saddened by the argument they sometimes come up with: "It is our duty to steel ourselves and not give in to committing homosexual acts." Ummmm... Yeah. Sounds like you need to have a little rethinking there, wouldn't you say?Wat? If you actually are heterosexual, you don't have to 'steel yourself' because it's not gonna be your cup of tea and it won't tempt you in the least. So basically they're saying that they are self-loathing closeted homosexuals who can't think about gay stuff without wanting to do it. So gay things and gay people scare them, due to their inability to cope in a mature and healthy way with their own sexuality. They have to yell at and blame and oppress other people because they can't take adult responsibility for their own feelings.
Or else they're saying that all LGBTQ people should *be* self-loathing and closeted, to which I say.... wait, I can't say what I would actually like to say to that on this site.
Hey, whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! Don't put all that hate on gay self-loathing. These people are all married with kids, so this is clearly the fault of bisexuals!
(sarcasm, btw; actually bi myself)
I dunno. It isn't as if a gay man is physically incapable of fathering children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because as near as I can tell from the propaganda, being gay is so overwhelmingly attractive that constant vigilance, prayer and intervention are required to keep everyone from turning. Without the harsh social stigma (not to mention beatings and murders) everyone would be gay and the human race would have died out long ago.
Makes me wonder about some of these people.
Actually there's pretty solid evidence that the harder and louder someone yells that they think being gay is bad, as opposed to just shrugging and going, "Naah, I happen to be heterosexual, being gay is cool and all but totally not my cup of tea," the higher the likelihood they experience feelings of strong same-sex attraction and arousal. I don't have the study cite handy, but oh my, I giggled a lot when I read it. Unsurprising stuff.
So yeah, that shoe fits.
There are several studies suggesting this, yes. One had to do with word association, while another measured sexual arousal levels while watching videos of gay and straight sex.
To those that thinking talking isn't effective, research shows that is wrong.
I just want to say, this is an excellent article and encapsulates everything that is being tried in many ways.
Thanks for posting this article.
I am a strong believer that discussing the matter is the best method rather than trying to pick fights about it or making accusations about what the other side believes, does, or doesn't do.
Of course, as if it needs to be said again (I think people keep focusing on everything but my main points, which is discouraging, but I keep reiterating)...I think the best discourse is what's been going on already in the progression of LGBT rights. That is to focus on common goals and common ground.
They feel that all people should have an equal chance at freedom and equality. They feel that everyone should have the right to let their loved ones visit when in a hospital, or even make the decisions on what to do in the dreaded occasion where you are in critical care and cannot. They feel that the things you own are yours, and you should be given the rights to pass those items just as freely to the one you loved as they do. They feel equal taxation is a right. This was built upon and eventually, these rights are being given (slowly, albeit) across the States and Europe.
It can be frustrating not to see it happen all at once, or immediately, especially with opposition. The only thing I could say is that tossing accusations and finding faults while being angry really doesn't change things, but taking a more measured approach with talking and pointing out the similarities in beliefs is what changes people's opinions, and has brought about more change for the better in the past two decades than the entire century previous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait did you just tell me that I am going to hell
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait did you just tell me that I am going to hell
see you there, man!
today I have met a friend from company training (20 years ago), he has legaly changed his status to female last year and took a new name after hormone therapy.
she had her final surgery in january and is now back at work.
she looked very happy and at peace but still very exhausted from the procedures
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
see you there, man!wait did you just tell me that I am going to hell
well I mean okay if so
because I think I will just continue to be cool with people being rad to each other regardless of who they get down with or how they want to do what they do or who they know they are on the outside or the inside or just basically whatever manthat seems better to me than needing to agree with a belief that I should not be cool with all this just because I am afraid of ending up in a bad place
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord: I understand you want people to be happy, and you want everyone to get along. Most christians everywhere want this, honestly and truly. It's just the little matter of ACCEPTING THAT NOT EVERYONE SEES THE WORLD THE WAY YOU DO. Meaning, in no uncertain terms, that your solutions will NOT work for everyone, and since they don't, any attempt to forcibly make the world better according to your principles WILL meet resistance. Whether it's abortions, contraceptives, sexual education, archaeology education, biology education, research into stem cells and cloning, or whatever else - there are many who see growing problems with christian policies, and rightly so. Christians do not have the right to decide what is right and wrong for anyone not among their number.
It is understandable that you feel that the important part is that people accept Jesus as their saviour, but joining the church or accepting their legal influence goes far, far beyond that. Stop trying to make horrid laws, including stopping those you affiliate with from doing so, and I'll gladly accept that the situation is well and truly changed. As it is, there is a group of people who churn out monstrous laws and policies (I still think the worst is probably foreign aid in Africa predicated on abstinence being the only type of sex ed allowed, but there are many, many, many others), who are then SUPPORTED, in this and in other things, by millions of well-meaning christians. Stop doing that. Stop voting for them. Stop them when they come up with new revolting laws. If you are unable to, then SAY SO. Tell people you can't condone the actions the fanatics take. What you do will be far differently received. Otherwise put, take care to be the ones who deal with your pack of fanatics so the rest of us don't have to. If you don't, don't complain when you're judged with them for what they have done.
Yes, there are many who are christians despite being homo- or bisexual. There are also many who got fed up with being called "a cancer on the body of society" and similar lovely apellations by people who considered themselves shining examples of good, all for the "crime" of loving someone.
GreyWolfLord: I understand you want people to be happy, and you want everyone to get along. Most christians everywhere want this, honestly and truly. It's just the little matter of ACCEPTING THAT NOT EVERYONE SEES THE WORLD THE WAY YOU DO. Meaning, in no uncertain terms, that your solutions will NOT work for everyone, and since they don't, any attempt to forcibly make the world better according to your principles WILL meet resistance. Whether it's abortions, contraceptives, sexual education, archaeology education, biology education, research into stem cells and cloning, or whatever else - there are many who see growing problems with christian policies, and rightly so. Christians do not have the right to decide what is right and wrong for anyone not among their number.
It is understandable that you feel that the important part is that people accept Jesus as their saviour, but joining the church or accepting their legal influence goes far, far beyond that. Stop trying to make horrid laws, including stopping those you affiliate with from doing so, and I'll gladly accept that the situation is well and truly changed. As it is, there is a group of people who churn out monstrous laws and policies (I still think the worst is probably foreign aid in Africa predicated on abstinence being the only type of sex ed allowed, but there are many, many, many others), who are then SUPPORTED, in this and in other things, by millions of well-meaning christians. Stop doing that. Stop voting for them. Stop them when they come up with new revolting laws. If you are unable to, then SAY SO. Tell people you can't condone the actions the fanatics take. What you do will be far differently received. Otherwise put, take care to be the ones who deal with your pack of fanatics so the rest of us don't have to. If you don't, don't complain when you're judged with them for what they have done.
Yes, there are many who are christians despite being homo- or bisexual. There are also many who got fed up with being called "a cancer on the body of society" and similar lovely apellations by people who considered themselves shining examples of good, all for the "crime" of loving someone.
Nice post. I agree there are many that got fed up with this. I also understand this and can't get upset or angry at them (unless they try to hypocritically do the same to me because of their bias). Some of them had rather bad circumstances and bad experiences. The natural thing is for them to lash out.
However, the bible and Christianity was never simply for certain people, but for all men. It's a point that I think is missed by those who are both extremes of the spectrum (for various reason).
The biggest point though I want to try to make is twofold. First, that being GLBT and Christian are NOT exclusives, one can be both and be well founded in both.
Second, that the best advancements have not been by casting accusation, but by cooperation, even if that is passive intervention (such as sit ins and other things) rather than trying to play the hate game.
There are Christians that work for both Biblical values as well as GLBT and also have the theology of inclusion rather than exclusion.
I think many of them could explain some of my ideas on equality better than I and how both can work together for the common good rather than fighting each other and focusing on differences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Bible is always only as important as you consider it to be. If you choose for it to decide your opinions and values, it will. If you do not consider it more than a book written by various people about their views of good and metaphysics, that's all it will be. The only thing giving it authority is ITSELF. It will NEVER be a book for ALL MEN, nor should it. No matter how important christians consider it to be, they have ABSOLUTELY no right to try to make it into law, because such laws would force non-christians to obey various parts of the bible.
It's not about not trying to find common ground. It's that with fanatics, there won't ever be such. The only "common ground" they will accept is complete conformity to their world-view. Now, not every christian is a fanatic, and some may try to listen, but in my experience, once you start discussing the sensitive areas like evolution, sex ed and cloning, any common ground you might have had disappears.
As to your second point above, that's flat out bullshit. Are you familiar with the (excuse my latin here) Index romanum librorum prohibitorum, the Vatican's list of books that were not allowed to be published? This was kept up for hundreds of years... and it reads like a who's who of every important scientific, philosophical and sociological advance in Western history. People died to defy the church... and eventually, the church lost its stranglehold on temporal power, not through cooperation with the church, but through accusation, judgement, conflict, hatred, blood and death. They died, because the things they knew to be right WERE IMPORTANT. That the church is weaker today means absolutely NOTHING, it would still play the same role if it could. Even today, the religious organizations are ALWAYS the last to adopt something, even things shown to be utterly beneficial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the bible and Christianity was never simply for certain people, but for all men. It's a point that I think is missed by those who are both extremes of the spectrum (for various reason).
This is where beliefs diverge, very much. I've been told that because I follow a largely non-theistic faith that it is not a real faith.
I believe it to be a lack of understanding on the part of the speaker--that is, simply not having been exposed to a nontheistic faith in full, and perhaps unable to comprehend how one would work...or even how it /could/ be a faith at all.
Education and understanding is key. I felt I should point out what appeared to be an assumption, however. You may believe your faith's teachings were meant for me.
...and I would be free to suggest that mine were meant for you.
I don't say this combatively, merely an expression and hope for the future that the talking, and understanding continues...not just for faith, but for LGBTQ and many other areas, instead.
On a similar topic, (or perhaps tangent, so please bear with me) NPR covered wonderful program the other day--they're doing a series on tribalism. The idea of who belongs and 'what we believe' is strong among tribal peoples because it's also equated with safety. That is, everyone would have the same tattoo, or the same rites of passage which then come to identify an 'us.' Anyone outside that 'us' (without the tattoo, or rites) was likely a raider or other, threatening individual.
I'd propose that to some degree--wanting others to conform to our views is also a kickback towards safety, /wanting/ things to be similar, or to provoke a similar worldview. That, wanting everyone to share a similar faith, outlook, or tattoo--could be a measure of that tribal circle of safety.
Again, I am not meaning to insult. This is more academic wandering, and I'll tie it back into LGBTQ in a moment. :)
At our tribal level, what we don't 'know' becomes defined as 'other' and 'other' becomes 'threat.' I do not think this invalidates the studies Jessica and others mentioned--I believe it adds to them because if a person possesses these tendencies (a liking for men where their culture declares gay to be evil) then they fight not only themselves but their fear of becoming a nonmember of their culture. An outsider, and something they've long been accustomed to viewing as 'evil.'
This would imply that those who cannot 'put a face' to someone who is LGBTQ and see how these 'other' peacefully fit into their lives fall into a pattern of fear/hate/etc. The same is for different faiths, outlooks...it's at its basis, and perhaps more crudely said, 'they who do not possess the same tattoo are different and a threat to my tribe and my way of life.'
It's possibly why talking and education breaks down those barriers, because it expands the 'tribal circle.' The 'other' becomes a 'possible us.' ...and why certain hate groups are so against a broader education to begin with.
For example, I once had a deacon level his finger at me and declare, in thunder and lighting, that because I'd taken the time to experience other, Protestant, faiths that my own was then 'weakened' and I risked going to hell.
He feared 'other' becoming 'us.' (And I say this not to condemn a faith--my Catholic friends were a little shocked, too).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those that thinking talking isn't effective, research shows that is wrong.I just want to say, this is an excellent article and encapsulates everything that is being tried in many ways.
Thanks for posting this article.
I am a strong believer that discussing the matter is the best method rather than trying to pick fights about it or making accusations about what the other side believes, does, or doesn't do.
Of course, as if it needs to be said again (I think people keep focusing on everything but my main points, which is discouraging, but I keep reiterating)...I think the best discourse is what's been going on already in the progression of LGBT rights. That is to focus on common goals and common ground.
They feel that all people should have an equal chance at freedom and equality. They feel that everyone should have the right to let their loved ones visit when in a hospital, or even make the decisions on what to do in the dreaded occasion where you are in critical care and cannot. They feel that the things you own are yours, and you should be given the rights to pass those items just as freely to the one you loved as they do. They feel equal taxation is a right. This was built upon and eventually, these rights are being given (slowly, albeit) across the States and Europe.
It can be frustrating not to see it happen all at once, or immediately, especially with opposition. The only thing I could say is that tossing accusations and finding faults while being angry really doesn't change things, but taking a more measured approach with talking and pointing out the similarities in beliefs is what changes people's opinions, and has brought about more change for the better in the past two decades than the entire century previous.
We've already come to an agreement with you about talking things out over violence or extremism. We just disagree with you that the LGBT "extremists" are any worse than the anti-LGBT moderates. Conversation, civil disobedience, and education will always be my preferred method. But you also need to understand that we are trying to find common ground with people that think our very existence is a cancer on society, so that's going to take a lot more understanding on the right's part than with our part.
As for the Bible being all important for everyone, well, it was the Bible that turned me atheist and there's nothing short of dumping 3/4 of the pages that'll make me Catholic again.
The Bible is always only as important as you consider it to be. If you choose for it to decide your opinions and values, it will. If you do not consider it more than a book written by various people about their views of good and metaphysics, that's all it will be. The only thing giving it authority is ITSELF. It will NEVER be a book for ALL MEN, nor should it. No matter how important christians consider it to be, they have ABSOLUTELY no right to try to make it into law, because such laws would force non-christians to obey various parts of the bible.
It's not about not trying to find common ground. It's that with fanatics, there won't ever be such. The only "common ground" they will accept is complete conformity to their world-view. Now, not every christian is a fanatic, and some may try to listen, but in my experience, once you start discussing the sensitive areas like evolution, sex ed and cloning, any common ground you might have had disappears.
As to your second point above, that's flat out b@%~++&#. Are you familiar with the (excuse my latin here) Index romanum librorum prohibitorum, the Vatican's list of books that were not allowed to be published? This was kept up for hundreds of years... and it reads like a who's who of every important scientific, philosophical and sociological advance in Western history. People died to defy the church... and eventually, the church lost its stranglehold on temporal power, not through cooperation with the church, but through accusation, judgement, conflict, hatred, blood and death. They died, because the things they knew to be right WERE IMPORTANT. That the church is weaker today means absolutely NOTHING, it would still play the same role if it could. Even today, the religious organizations are ALWAYS the last to adopt something, even things shown to be utterly beneficial.
Amen to that. And if people really want to force their religion into laws, despite separation of church and state, then I saw we start charging churches taxes from here on out.
The Bible is always only as important as you consider it to be. If you choose for it to decide your opinions and values, it will. If you do not consider it more than a book written by various people about their views of good and metaphysics, that's all it will be. The only thing giving it authority is ITSELF. It will NEVER be a book for ALL MEN, nor should it. No matter how important christians consider it to be, they have ABSOLUTELY no right to try to make it into law, because such laws would force non-christians to obey various parts of the bible.
It's not about not trying to find common ground. It's that with fanatics, there won't ever be such. The only "common ground" they will accept is complete conformity to their world-view. Now, not every christian is a fanatic, and some may try to listen, but in my experience, once you start discussing the sensitive areas like evolution, sex ed and cloning, any common ground you might have had disappears.
As to your second point above, that's flat out b@+$&$!#. Are you familiar with the (excuse my latin here) Index romanum librorum prohibitorum, the Vatican's list of books that were not allowed to be published? This was kept up for hundreds of years... and it reads like a who's who of every important scientific, philosophical and sociological advance in Western history. People died to defy the church... and eventually, the church lost its stranglehold on temporal power, not through cooperation with the church, but through accusation, judgement, conflict, hatred, blood and death. They died, because the things they knew to be right WERE IMPORTANT. That the church is weaker today means absolutely NOTHING, it would still play the same role if it could. Even today, the religious organizations are ALWAYS the last to adopt something, even things shown to be utterly beneficial.
I mis-stated what I meant. I was not meaning on the stage of world history, I meant the GLBT movement. The instances where we've gotten voted in our favor, the instances where the judge ruled in our favor, it's been where we've pointed to the equality and justice of all sides, not with an axe, but with words.
I can understand many being broken and bitter against religion, believe it or not, there is a particularly inspiring story out there about persecution (and I know some have had it much worse, but it still may be inspirational), overcoming it, and building a positive force in regards to GLBT.
http://mccchurch.org/overview/history-of-mcc/
Anyways, once again, I've spoken more than I should. I appreciate your post, I just wanted to apologize for being misunderstood on my context there, as well as clarify just what I meant in the context. It definitely wasn't the world stage, but more in regards to the LGBT movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord,
I appreciate your efforts to remind everyone that finding some common ground is the best way forward, but, as Odraude said, where that common ground may be is sometimes difficult to see. I think some of the issues you raised in a previous post have helped me put a finger on things in a way that allows me to approach my own satisfaction, which I’ve spoilered below.
In the first place, if the passages in the New Testament condemning homosexuality were reasonably clearly about abusive relationships, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. We can ask, that is, what the grounds of the condemnation are. What’s wrong with healthy, homosexual relationships between consenting adults? Denying the probability of such must rest on religious ideas, since the idea seems to be that it’s all “fornication,” or sex in a way that distracts people from what sex is meant to do. (Maybe sex is only to make babies, or too much sex distracts one from one’s duty to God, for example. Unless one wishes to claim that homosexuality precludes a healthy emotional connection, or consent, a position which I can’t dignify with comment.) The problem is, that’s obviously coming from a particular religious point of view, and different people might draw the line in different places (how much sex is too much?), and if we believe in religious tolerance it’s equally obvious that policing people who don’t agree would be monstrous. Our best efforts at sexual ethics must be non-sectarian, based as purely as possible on logic and with a minimum of arbitrariness.
So if someone says they believe in religious tolerance but is still willing to come out and say they think homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, and we want to give them the benefit of the doubt (I’ve heard horror stories that there are people who think American freedom of religion means “freedom to be Christian,” full stop) rather than assume they are being horrifically disingenuous, it must mean that they think it’s wrong in the sense that the violation of Old Testament prohibitions are for observant Jews. That is, it’s a cultural thing, which is also a conclusion one naturally reaches if one simply asks, “What are the contexts in which the New Testament was collected that might account for its condemnation of homosexuality?”
This is probably the wrong place for this discussion, though. I don’t mind taking this elsewhere on the boards, or into private messages, but frankly this is beginning to look uncomfortably like apologetics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the Bible being all important for everyone, well, it was the Bible that turned me atheist and there's nothing short of dumping 3/4 of the pages that'll make me Catholic again.
Seriously. I made it through Exodus when I was 16 and had to set the book down for a while before finishing it. When I did, it was for the sake of study, and not for a religious purpose.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about bitterness. I have never managed to become a christian, despite actually working at it in the Swedish protestant church, one of the most liberal churches around. I have no personal story of suffering or betrayal, nothing to sour me personally on all religion or the like. My atheism stems from an understanding that all organized religion that I have seen preys on people who do not know enough to see their group psychological methods to gather followers (and income), many of the political actions taken seem to me to be aimed at MAKING people poor (primarily anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive and anti-sex ed policies) that they can then recruit, they exercise their power over others through guilt and shame primarily, they act as an excuse for any sort of monstrous behaviour including murder, and worst of all: They actively hurt progress and shut down societal advances any chance they get. The West getting rid of church primacy was THE most important advance we ever had.
So... it doesn't matter what it is about, religion isn't about tolerance. On issue after issue, it's been precisely the other way around. When something new starts to wake up in society, the church condemns it. When it starts getting traction despite this, the church deems it Evil. When enough people question this, and people start to adopt it anyway, the church paints itself as "we, the heroic few who refuse to budge". When EVERYONE else uses it, the church whines about how things were better before this moral laxitude happened and defends those who refuse to change. Only when EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the church who cared about it is gone, the church then finally claims that it was for this all along, some fifty years late. Most egregiously to me was female clergy, in which our extremely progressive Swedish church followed precisely this curve. Only fifty years apparently wasn't enough. It's been over 70 now since it became legally possible, and some in the church are still whining about it, even when the MAJORITY of the clergy are female!
And guess what? We can't allow that anymore. We don't HAVE that much time. The suffering of people with non-heterosexual preferences or who are transgender isn't a theoretical issue, it's anguish, violence, suicide and murder on a daily basis. It's families casting out their children. It's people feeling they are completely worthless, because the only moral system they were ever taught to reference says they are abominations in the eyes of their loving God, who created them as they are, which means they will end up in Hell.
I know enough about the bible to say that every single christian who cares what Jesus said and did would immediately stop doing this to them.
Okay with me.
And in slightly-depressing news, South Carolina legislature pressures USC-Upstate to cancel humorous show "How To Be A Lesbian by Butchy McDyke."
Apparantly, the legislators assumed that this was an acutal "recruitment" event, and could not be persuaded that it was a comedic performance.
*sigh*
Because it totally works that way. Them eeeevil lesbians can turn completely heterosexual people gay with just a comedic stand-up performance.
It sort of begs the question of why LGBT people haven't all turned completely straight from watching heterosexually oriented media. Because seeing a show can clearly do that. The South Carolina legislature says so.
Because as near as I can tell from the propaganda, being gay is so overwhelmingly attractive that constant vigilance, prayer and intervention are required to keep everyone from turning. Without the harsh social stigma (not to mention beatings and murders) everyone would be gay and the human race would have died out long ago.
Makes me wonder about some of these people.
Now you started to tempt me... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Maybe i can ask here, if people are interested in discussing it. Please tell me if this is a stupid question... But how do you guys feel about how to include trans* people in RPG world creation? I know theres officially trans characters in pathfinder, but havent read their parts. Where they wel done? Did the PCs realize their status as trans? What made them work/not work?
When i design adventures (for home use) Id like to include trans characters but since its mostly an oral medium I have a hard time figuring out how to do it without it turning out... Awkward, at best, andstraight up transphobic at worst. I mean, if i describe a character thats a woman, its not like id descrie her as a "trans woman", that seems it would be... Really bad. Or is it even important to include trans character, and have the PCs understand the person is trans? On one hand, trans characcters are hardly included at all in fantasy, on the other gandpointing out that they are trans might very easily lead to it becoming kind of... "not a real man/woman" which i of course dont want to have any part in.
Im not talking about making PCs who are trans, but more like NPCs and such. With a PC you get enough time todelve into their character, but not really with an NPC.
What are your thoughts, everyone? If you feel like sharing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Maybe i can ask here, if people are interested in discussing it. Please tell me if this is a stupid question... But how do you guys feel about how to include trans* people in RPG world creation? I know theres officially trans characters in pathfinder, but havent read their parts. Where they wel done? Did the PCs realize their status as trans? What made them work/not work?
When i design adventures (for home use) Id like to include trans characters but since its mostly an oral medium I have a hard time figuring out how to do it without it turning out... Awkward, at best, andstraight up transphobic at worst. I mean, if i describe a character thats a woman, its not like id descrie her as a "trans woman", that seems it would be... Really bad. Or is it even important to include trans character, and have the PCs understand the person is trans? On one hand, trans characcters are hardly included at all in fantasy, on the other gandpointing out that they are trans might very easily lead to it becoming kind of... "not a real man/woman" which i of course dont want to have any part in.
Im not talking about making PCs who are trans, but more like NPCs and such. With a PC you get enough time todelve into their character, but not really with an NPC.
What are your thoughts, everyone? If you feel like sharing.
If this is a topic you feel strongly about, you really should do yourself a favor and read and/or participate in a Wrath of the Righteous AP campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In reply to Ilja:
Yes, Wrath of the Righteous is the best place to see a transwoman done well in Paizo's writing I think. We've had some missteps as well, I think. Being inclusive is usually a journey and knowing what is and isn't bad representation takes time. I had a GM that had a decidedly bad representation before I came out and it shook me to my core. "Is this what they're going to think of me when I came out?" That alone probably pushed me in the closet for an extra year or two, so I would say be careful and be respectful. Transgendered men and women still have a way to go in the public eye before we reach a general acceptance as high as others on the GLBT spectrum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm. Maybe i can ask here, if people are interested in discussing it. Please tell me if this is a stupid question... But how do you guys feel about how to include trans* people in RPG world creation? I know theres officially trans characters in pathfinder, but havent read their parts. Where they wel done? Did the PCs realize their status as trans? What made them work/not work?
When i design adventures (for home use) Id like to include trans characters but since its mostly an oral medium I have a hard time figuring out how to do it without it turning out... Awkward, at best, andstraight up transphobic at worst. I mean, if i describe a character thats a woman, its not like id descrie her as a "trans woman", that seems it would be... Really bad. Or is it even important to include trans character, and have the PCs understand the person is trans? On one hand, trans characcters are hardly included at all in fantasy, on the other gandpointing out that they are trans might very easily lead to it becoming kind of... "not a real man/woman" which i of course dont want to have any part in.
Im not talking about making PCs who are trans, but more like NPCs and such. With a PC you get enough time todelve into their character, but not really with an NPC.
What are your thoughts, everyone? If you feel like sharing.
I think that is a neat question. I haven’t got my hands on the Pathfinder sources that have trans* characters in them yet myself (though my family’s getting used to my delighted exclamations as I add to my wishlist! :) ), but I think I’ve been able to glean a few ideas to add to my own from discussions around the messageboards.
As far as NPCs go, like building a campaign in general, I think it really helps to have a definite plan in mind for how everything fits together. For example, if you’re running a casual game and want to include trans* characters because they should be there in case it ever comes up, I don’t think you need to worry about making sure the PCs understand that a character is trans* if their interactions with that character don’t lead in that direction. Depending on the interests of your players, you might want to mention the possibilities in the campaign at the outset, so you don’t get a reaction after the fact like, “I wish I had known there were trans* people in your campaign – I might have been interested in exploring that in-game.” (Whether as a PC, or just in the sorts of people one might meet.)
That leads into the question of when it is appropriate for PCs to know. Since it’s so personal, I think it would have to be after an NPC has come to trust the PCs quite intimately, or when there is another good in-game reason for people to be able to know. That is, if you want to do something more specific than just have a campaign in which there are trans* characters, you need to plan your campaign more carefully. For example, if there’s an NPC with whom your PCs are likely to spend a fair amount of time travelling with, or who might become an important ally, you might be able to explore their character in enough detail that if they come to trust the PCs, that might include revealing trans* status. Alternatively, your campaign might include contexts in which your PCs might bump into out more or less out trans* people. In Golarion, the followers of the empyreal lord Arshea often explore a variety of gender identities before settling on one, and believe that gender and one’s physical body are not necessarily related in a straightforward way. That provides another in-game reason – lived faith – for being out in addition to those familiar from the real world, while reminding us that the balance of pressures on trans* people in Golarion is different from that in the real world.
That is, it can’t be as offensively crude as preparing an elixir or casting a polymorph spell and that’s it, and after the NPC had been introduced, they would naturally just be referred to as their identified gender tout court, but my group and I wouldn’t personally have a problem with introducing the NPC as trans*, as opposed to going through it in more detail in world-specific terms, so that everyone gets on the same page a bit sooner, and referring to the NPC as such out-of-character for the sake of clarity. Depending on how many NPCs and personal projects the PCs have to keep track of, and because it is a game, I wouldn’t mind if another player said, “How’s that trans woman your wizard’s helping?” when that player might not know much more than that is something my character’s doing, and in the meantime the party is also helping the Paracountess of Such-and-such with one thing and the priestess of Erastil with another, in completely unrelated business. I mean, I wouldn’t be offended if a mutual acquaintance in speaking to one of my friends referred to me as “your trans friend,” because that might be the easiest way of picking me out, as opposed to “your woman friend” or “your classicist friend,” and I’m not an imaginary person that people only have to deal with in a game they play for fun, who might be harder to remember.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts off the top of my head.