Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want you here"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want you here" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 9:56:20 AM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

So, for the couple in the article. They just need to find a place they can call home. They do exist but because of society's ignorance unfortunately it is not going to be everywhere they want to be.


Sadly not. Charles City is a town of 7800 people. In that town, two churches have told the couple to leave. And a third church told them they were welcome to attend services, but they would not be allowed to join the church.

I am heartsick that people in my state can be so close-minded and rude. And am shocked that the people in these churches can ignore the obvious teachings of their religion.

Edit:

It appears that a fourth church has stepped forward and is willing to take the couple in.
Full story

< Message edited by onceburned -- 4/26/2005 1:20:37 PM >

(in reply to sub4hire)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 3:29:49 PM   
stormsfate


Posts: 849
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: knees2you

The Church must be going by the Bible,
and what it states about "Why God made us Man and Woman
and why it is a Sin to change that."

If the Church is wrong then God will Punish them.

But the Bible is clear and There are Gay Churches out there.
They just don't teach What the Bible really says~


Sincerely, ant



Where do intersexed people fit into this scenario? I mean...afterall....God created them as well, didn't he?


best regards,
fate

_____________________________

Vision? What do you know about MY vision? My vision would turn your world upside down, tear asunder your illusions and the sanctuary of your own ignorance crashing down around you! Now ask yourself, are you really ready to see that vision? [/size

(in reply to knees2you)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 4:29:28 PM   
SweetDommes


Posts: 3313
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

It appears that a fourth church has stepped forward and is willing to take the couple in.
Full story


I am proud to see that not all DOC churches are as closed minded as the one that I grew up in. I'm still technically a member, but haven't attended in years because of some of the policies of the Indiana DOC council.

(in reply to onceburned)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 4:50:39 PM   
perverseangelic


Posts: 2625
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetDommes

I am proud to see that not all DOC churches are as closed minded as the one that I grew up in. I'm still technically a member, but haven't attended in years because of some of the policies of the Indiana DOC council.



Wow. I am -really- surprised this was a DOC church. Before I left Christianity I was a DOC. Our church went through a process to qcall ourselves "open and affirming" and declared we welcomed people of -all- orientations.

I've found DOC and UCC (united church of christ) to be some of the most progressive Christian denominations.

I am sad now.

Sadder.

_____________________________

~in the begining it is always dark~

(in reply to SweetDommes)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 5:08:32 PM   
SweetDommes


Posts: 3313
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
My parents have since left that church because of other issues, but when the National DOC was going to form a partnership with a denomination that allows gays and lesbians to be ordained, the Indiana DOC threatened to break off (and my parents were at the head of the movement *sigh* and people wonder why I haven't told them about Holly and me ...).

But obviously, nationally, the denomination isn't that bad, since the one in that town welcomed the couple - and I'm glad to see it.

< Message edited by SweetDommes -- 4/26/2005 5:09:44 PM >

(in reply to perverseangelic)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: A person's gender is in their mind - 4/26/2005 5:51:24 PM   
sissymaidlola


Posts: 518
Joined: 3/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

A person's gender is in their mind, not in their body. (nor in their clothing)


That's not strictly true, chris. If you argue that gender is only in the mind then if you wake up tomorrow morning and decide you are now uncomfortable in your male body and that you wish you had been born a female, then according to your definition, you have just changed your gender. You CANNOT change your gender by changing your mind any more than you can change your gender by changing the physical construction of your genitalia or chest. There are FIVE dimensions to gender and any view of gender that one adopts that is simplistically one-dimensional is ultimately unsustainable. As you correctly pointed out, a person's gender is NOT in their body NOR their clothing as those are just particular facets of two of the aspects that constitute gender, and either of those aspects by itself will not determine anything. But to say that a person's gender is in their mind is as equally ludicrous. That, too, is just a single aspect of gender and by itself will also NOT determine anything.

If you were to spend the rest of your life in a room and never interacted with another person again, then you might be able to successfully argue that gender is only in your mind. Since you would be the only person in your own universe you could be whatever gender you wanted to be ... your gender could be vampire (to use knees2you's stupid suggestion) if that's what you wanted it to be! There would be no one else in your universe to dispute your claim to being that gender, so who would care? However, humans are social creatures, and gender is a social construct. As soon as we introduce another person to your single room world your gender is now determined by two factors ... what gender you believe you are, and therefore wish to project it as to others, and what any other person interacting with you perceives your gender to be.

The five aspects that constitute human gender are as follows:

(1) Biological Gender - determined by one's chromosomes (XY for males, XX for females, and other relatively rare combinations, such as XXY or XYY, for intersexed individuals, or both XY and XX for hermaphrodite individuals).

(2) Mental Gender - how one truly thinks of oneself (TV/TG/TS think of themselves as being the opposite gender to their birth assigned gender some or all of the time ... that's why they are transgendered).

(3) Physical Gender - bodily attributes such as genitalia and breasts, but also secondary indicators such as body hair, Adams apples, etc. all contribute to the identification of the male versus female.

(4) Social Gender - how one presents to the public or close friends and associates in a social context (transgendered males that wear female clothing and makeup 24/7 and take female hormones, etc. are to all intents and purposes female by this criterion).

(5) Legal Gender - what they put on your birth certificate at birth (and later on your driving license as your main legal identification).


Once you are in a social context, chris, your gender is no longer solely up to you to determine. You only have sole control of aspects (2) and (4) of your gender. You cannot alter aspect (1). You need medical help in order to alter most facets of aspect (3) of your gender. And you need legal help to change aspect (5) of your gender, but don't even consider attempting to do that unless you have already addressed and successfully modified aspects (3) and (4) first. One can only change one's legal gender if one can successfully demonstrate that one is significantly gender dysphoric (i.e., your mental gender is seriously different than your birth assigned gender) and that one can successfully transition between genders in both your private and work life. This means mastering presenting as the opposite gender (i.e., crossdressing) in all social contexts - aspect (4) - and also sufficiently modifying your physical appearance - aspect (3) - such that you can pull that presentation off (i.e., successfully pass as the opposite gender in most social contexts and not just appear as, in your own case, "a man in a dress").

This used to require that you went through the complex process of Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) - now more politically correctly called Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) - but thanks to people such as Virginia Prince, who advocated non-GRS transgenderism over GRS-based transsexualism, completion of GRS procedures is no longer a necessary prerequisite for changing one's legal gender status. However, all the old prerequisites of having to live and work full time as the opposite gender that were necessary before the doctors would even consider performing GRS still apply. Even though one doesn't necessarily have to go through the complex, painful and expensive process of modifying one's genitalia via GRS, most transgendered M2F women will still prefer to develop real breasts rather than only use prostheses, and permanent body and facial hair removal and hormone therapy are also considered mandatory in order to feminize the most obvious masculine physical traits affecting aspect (3) of gender that would prevent one from comfortably passing in a public context.

So just wanting to be the opposite gender (i.e., in your own case, being female in your own mind) is hardly a sufficient criterion for determining that you actually are of the female gender. Severe gender dysphoria only serves as an initial impetus to start on the complex journey of changing one's social and legal gender so that they align with one's private (mental) gender, which is a non-trivial process that requires permanently modifying four of those five aspects of one's gender to be the opposite of one's birth (biological) gender. The vast majority of transgendered people (TS/TG/TV) go through their entire life without permanently modifying more than one, or at most two, aspects of their gender. For instance, as a pretty serious transvestite, sissy has only ever temporarily modified aspect (4) of his gender, and temporarily modified some minor facets of aspect (3) of his gender - viz., fairly extensive body depilation on an as-needed basis (i.e., sissy let his hair grow back in whenever he wasn't dressing because regular maintenance of full body depilation by shaving is just too much work if you don't really need to do it! ).

One could also argue that sissy also modifies his mental gender when he crossdresses and gets in touch with his feminine side to become lola, so that might represent a third aspect of his gender temporarily played around with. However, sissy is NOT gender dysphoric at all as the term is normally understood in a medical context. As a TV sissy has his "girly" moments and his "blokey" moments but they don't necessarily always align with how smooth his body is or what he is wearing. sissy Can be in his most "girlish" headspace while being lola online, despite sitting at his PC with a two week beard in his bathrobe (oooh, sissy apologizes for creating that awful image of himself ... OMG, now no one will read sissy's posts because his feminine mystique just evaporated! LMAO). Similarly, all the time that sissy might be completely depilated, coiffured and dressed as lola he is fully aware that he is really a man, no matter how far he might slip into "girly" headspace.

You know sissy respects your opinion and intelligence, chris, but in trying to simplify the concept of human gender to just the mental aspect of it you are being just as silly as knees2you is in referring us all to the Bible for guidance on this subject. Debating the topic of human gender along the lines of: "it's determined by chromosomes" ... "no, no, it's all in the mind" ... "no, no, it's determined by chest hair" ... "I know you are, but what am I" is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. Even sissy's post is far too trite on this subject - one can hardly define and explain human gender in a single CollarMe post - but at least sissy has tried to address the real complexity of the subject rather than define it in whatever one-dimensional terms suits his own agenda (which, BTW, he doesn't have) as others are doing on this thread.

Finally, gender definition and diversity is not the topic of this thread and sissy does not intend to hijack it onto that topic. But sissy could not just sit by and watch you respond to the absolute nonsense posted by both knees2you and Youtalkingtome by stooping to arguing in kind with them. We need to educate people BETTER about the true complex nature of human gender if we are to move society's understanding forward on this topic, but trying to discuss this complex issue by only approaching it from one or two aspects of gender while ignoring all of the others, or by completely ignoring the fact that gender is a social construct not a private construct, will simply keep the debate in the dark ages - where some people posting here would clearly like it to remain. As you know, this topic got raised here on sissy's "chastity/castration poll" thread as a result of similar half-baked comments made there, so if anyone, including yourself, wants to discuss human gender intelligently, please feel free to continue the discussion over on sissy's thread, or even start a new one. But please, please, no more of this inane debate with the likes of knees2you who couldn't tell a transgendered person from a vampire even if one bit him!

Best regards,

sissy maid lola





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 5/28/2005 8:00:37 AM >


_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to onceburned)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 5:54:11 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
I am a Christian. I believe in God. I believe in the word of God.

When I read about occurances like this I feel anger. A righteous anger that is Gods, that people are treated so calously by people who haven't even begun to understand the consept of Gods Works.

I read the bible and I use that to the best of my ability.

I don't wish to preach here... so if it sounds like it, forgive me. It is just what I have learnt.

God created man and woman, be they gay or straight. Be they mixed gender. Be they disabled. Be they black or white.

He also sent His message to the people, by the people. But as beautiful as any message is, we as a people have to rememeber that people are selfish, imperfect... and manipulative.

When the bible is written, I rarely find a church who can understand it. Many claim to. Many want to believe they do. But they follow words... words, that in present day english dont even exist... but have been translated as best they can. Is that good enough? IMO, no.

You can't follow a book written over goodness knows how many years ago word for word and just 'accept'. Although they are Gods words, they are translated via man. What ever happened to testing and examining for ourselves? It's easy to just follow words, but few people are bothered actually listening to what God has to say through those words. In that case, to me, that is a total disrespect to God, christian or not. It's like taking a manual on 'How to use a Whip'.... reading it cover to cover and then saying... 'ok... now I am an expert'.

Bull.

God is everywhere. And yes, shit happens and I am sure God gets the blame...

'why do babies die?'
'why are their wars?'
'Who's idea was it to created George Bush?'

These are all questions that puzzle, anger and annoy to masses.

But one thing is that God is LOVE. I don't want to get too deep... It isn't my desire to offend people. I know what I know and if people want me to share that, then they can contact me.

(This is part of an interview that I think sums up my exact understanding -


Genesis 1:1 … in the beginning was the word and the word was god… original Aramaic text that word was Yahweh or Jehovah which means ‘light’ and ‘love’ … er… we kinda twisted it to this guy with a beard passing judgement, but its not… ‘in the beginning was the word and the word was love and light’ – infinite, unconditional and without judgement… at that point, you can pretty much close the book, you know?
Maynard James Keenan )

There, thats my 'rant' over....

PS... The commandments do not contradict. As a christian... I would like to know what the 10 commandments have to do with this post. Because if they do in anyway, then its that church that needs to go back and apologise, first to God and then to the couple...

*gets of soap box*

Peace and Love


_____________________________


.dark.




...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to onceburned)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 5:57:46 PM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
*apologises in advance to all for her typos and bad engish in previous post... *

...slipping away to meditate...

Peace and Love


_____________________________


.dark.




...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/26/2005 6:39:44 PM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

*apologises in advance to all for her typos and bad engish in previous post... *


I totally understand. When I first heard of what happened I couldn't even think straight.

I am glad that the Ushers were able to find support among fellow Christians, but deeply saddened that so many in leadership positions do not understand central tenets of God's Word.

Its a troubling story, even if it has been 'resolved'.

(in reply to darkinshadows)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: A person's gender is in their mind - 4/26/2005 6:45:10 PM   
onceburned


Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

gender definition and diversity is not the topic of this thread and sissy does not intend to hijack it onto that topic. But sissy could not just sit by and watch you respond to the absolute nonsense



Sissy, you have put more thought into defining gender than I have. Surely it is more complex than many would have thought.

(in reply to sissymaidlola)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: UCC and Unitarians ? - 4/26/2005 8:42:22 PM   
sissymaidlola


Posts: 518
Joined: 3/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I am sad now.

Sadder.

Hi perverseangelic,

sissy Is somewhat confused by your post. Why are you sad ? The Charles City FCCDOC is the hero of the hour here, offering the Ushers the hand of friendship where three other churches have only shown them the door.

What is the connection, if any, between the United Church of Christ (UCC) and the Unitarian Church ? sissy Associates the initials UCC with the Unitarians ... but it may be because of the Unitarian Church of Calgary. Also, most Unitarian churches are members of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UUAOC). Too many similar acronyms! LOL

Personally, sissy is a long time lapsed RC (Jesuit educated), but if he ever did return to a Christian church the Unitarian church would be the first church he would look to join. The Unitarians have always struck sissy as one of the few Christian sects that actually follow the most important Christian tenets, such as living by the golden rule and being accepting and non-judgmental. Most of the other Christian sects have always come across to sissy as being self-righteously hypocritical, just as the Messiah Lutheran church that rejected the Ushers in the OP obviously are (or, at least, the council members that effectively made the decision to reject are, because clearly there were some parishioners that wished the Ushers to stay, and others that at least wanted to discuss the issue).

Regards,

sissy maid lola





_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to perverseangelic)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: UCC and Unitarians ? - 4/27/2005 1:03:16 AM   
temptation


Posts: 111
Joined: 2/20/2004
From: heaven
Status: offline
action with malicious intent is in the definition of evil. To act with the sole intent of hurting someone else, with no true personal gain is evil.

and how can something evil, be good?

Seriously, I wish everyone would just stop fucking with other peoples happiness, simply because it bothers them.

hypocrites.

(in reply to sissymaidlola)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want... - 4/27/2005 1:49:45 AM   
darkinshadows


Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Religion is based on faith.Blind faith.


I would disagree.
Blind faith is an oxy-moron used to try and justify someones way of life that isn't ones own. My faith does not need justifying by others... it just, like me, exists.

My faith certainly isn't blind. You think God wants me to accept something, eyes closed? He created me (IMO), but He certainly didn't create an unthinking, unquestioning, boring robot.

People can 'know' all the biblical facts, 'know' that God exists, 'know' that Jesus died and resurrected... know them all to be true and still spend eternity in 'hell'. A person can be real religious and still not know God, and not even be able to touch Him.

My faith is tested all the time. And all the time, I test my faith. If I didn't then I may as well give up on Christianity altogether and become a sheep, knawing on grass without even wanting to know what it does for me and why it is there.

The word 'faith' is such an overused misnomer. 'Faith' is one of those words that was used when translating biblical references to make it easier for people to understand. But what has happened in reality is that people have become lazy and used to having things done for them. If you want to believe in something... want to understand if their is a God, then you have to have the conviction to study the bible in it's entirity.

Sadly, because people just want to read the NIV, King James, or countless other poorly interpreted versions of a book... you get the word' faith' used out of context - such as 'blind faith'.

In the original text... 'faith' is translated from dokimazo(test) pistis (credence) peitho(convince)... it is linked with elegchos(conviction/proof)... the list goes on.

So faith is having the reassured belief in a credited, tested, convincing proof.

Peace and Love


_____________________________


.dark.




...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to Youtalkingtome)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: UCC and Unitarians ? - 4/27/2005 11:32:44 AM   
perverseangelic


Posts: 2625
Joined: 2/2/2004
From: Davis, Ca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

quote:

I am sad now.

Sadder.

Hi perverseangelic,

sissy Is somewhat confused by your post. Why are you sad ?



...is this article changing? I -swear- I read something differnt this morning....

Hrm. The text I thought I read this morning was much different than what I read now. Don't ask me what was going on and disregard previous post.

UCC isn't associated with Unitarians, really. They're closer to Methodists, in practice and doctrine, though much more liberal.


< Message edited by perverseangelic -- 4/27/2005 11:33:07 AM >


_____________________________

~in the begining it is always dark~

(in reply to sissymaidlola)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Gender Reassignment Surgery - 4/27/2005 7:18:31 PM   
sissymaidlola


Posts: 518
Joined: 3/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

There is no such thing as "Gender Reassignment Surgery".

Well since you always like to give someone a good "bonk on the head" when you feel they are wrong, stef, sissy is hereby giving you a "bonk on the head." sissy Doesn't disagree with what you are ultimately saying in your post, but he does disagree with how you are saying it.

"There is no such thing as GRS." Really? Explain that to any post-op TS. Whether one calls the set of procedures SRS or GRS they exist alright. Does SRS reassign sex? Well, if "sex" means "sexual orientation" then hell, no. Whacking of a guy's penis and balls and then remodeling what is left of his penis into a vagina makes absolutely no difference to the kind of people to whom he is sexually attracted.

If the TS was heterosexual before SRS (and about 70%-75% are) then he will identify as lesbian after SRS is complete. If the TS was gay before SRS (about 10%-15%) then he will now identify as straight. If the TS was bisexual before SRS then he will still be bi after SRS. Maybe some of the straight and gay TS will consider themselves bisexual after SRS but that really has nothing to do with the SRS itself, and much more to do with their own parallel sexual progression. Anybody that is strictly straight or gay today can claim to be bi tomorrow as they broaden their own sexual horizons. Going through the trauma of SRS might simply act as a catalyst in this sexual progression for some TS.

If "sex" is just a synonym for "gender" then the question now becomes does SRS / GRS reassign gender? At best one might claim that it reassigns the physical gender aspect of one's overall gender, effectively aligning it with one's mental gender. But SRS / GRS certainly does nothing to reassign human gender. One's biological gender (chromosomes), social gender (whether others perceive you as male or female), and one's legal gender (which determines whether you can marry another male, for instance) are all completely unaffected by SRS / GRS.

But there definitely still is such a thing as GRS whether it fails to reassign human gender or not. Just because something is inappropriately named does not mean that it does not exist.

sissy maid lola





< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 4/27/2005 7:22:54 PM >


_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Gender Reassignment Surgery - 4/29/2005 4:19:49 PM   
domwolfe71


Posts: 12
Joined: 10/21/2004
From: Petersburg, VA
Status: offline
I have read through a lot of this post, and I feel a lot of the conflict that everyone is dealing with in one form or another. I wholeheartedly believe in God, but there is something that I do not believe in--and that is the Absolutism of the Bible.

I tend to look at things a little differently then everyone else, and I pray you will bear with me as I try to make what I mean clear.

The Modern Church, would have you believe that the bible is the absolute authority and that it came to us as a whole book--a complete guide to life written by God for us to live by.

I do not subscribe to this, because of what I know about human nature, and world history. God's Message has always been a simple one. You look at the times in which he speaks to us the message has always been simple.

Yet whenever a Church brandishes a bible, they make it infinitely more complicated, for the sake of being able to control what you do. The simple truth is, the modern bible was decided on by convention. Some books were included, others left out. In Latin, Translated from Greek, translated from the original Aramaic.

Not by computers, but by humans. The same humans that thought everyone who was not white was a savage. The same humans who persecuted jews, gypsies and other ethnic groups. The same humans who waged war on other civilizations simply because they had a different GOD than them.

You expect me to believe these same men who did this, in the name of GOD, wrote the bible without putting their own "Interpretation" of the words and their meaning? My experience with human nature says otherwise.

My experience tells me that men make things complicated, even when the world is much simpler. GOD is much simpler. "Love oneanother, as I have loved you..." is the simplest and most potent command Jesus spoke to us. Learned men took this, and made a religion around it--and fucked it up for everyone, pardon my french

I bend my knee for no man.

_____________________________

New BDSM Community Portal
http://www.obsidianrealm.com

(in reply to sissymaidlola)
Profile   Post #: 36
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Church council tells TG couple: "We don't want you here" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.096