GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A blond girl heads from a playground into a women's restroom. A scruffy man, lurking outside, darts in behind her. "Your City Commission Made This Legal," the words on the TV screen read.
The dark ad came from opponents of a gender identity provision added last year to the city's anti-discrimination ordinance, which now allows the city's roughly 100 transgender residents to use whichever restroom they're most comfortable using.
Foes want to repeal the new protection with a March 24 ballot measure that has divided Gainesville, a generally gay-friendly university city surrounded by staunchly conservative north Florida.
Those who support the transgender protections say their opponents are really unleashing a broader attack on the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender individuals in general.
The city commission approved the restroom provision by a 4-3 vote a year ago. Before the ink could dry, Bible-quoting opponents angrily began working for its repeal.
"You are trying to operate in a realm you do not have the authority to operate in," one pastor, George Brantley, told the commissioners.
The debate is expected to become noisier as the ballot nears with opponents resorting to more TV ads and campaigns pegged to such slogans as "Keep Men out of Women's Restrooms and vice versa."
Organizations defending transgender rights are mustering their own campaign.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force notes 108 cities and counties nationwide have similar transgender protections. An attempt to repeal an ordinance in Montgomery County, Md., failed when a court ruled opponents did not collect enough signatures to place it on the ballot.
Citizens for Good Public Policy, the group behind the commercial that aired last summer in Gainesville, collected more than 6,000 signatures last summer to win a referendum. If approved, the repeal measure would also prevent the commission from adding protections beyond what the state requires: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability and marital status.
Cain Davis, chairman of Citizens for Good Public Policy, said the issue is about regulating a "government gone wild" and ensuring public safety, charging that sexual predators could now simply enter a women's restroom claiming to be a transgender individual.
"We know when men go into women's restrooms, bad things can happen," Davis said.
City Commissioner Crag Lowe, leader of a group called Equality is Gainesville's Business, called the ads from Davis' group a grossly distorted attempt to whip up fears.
Lowe's group believes anti-discrimination protections for people who change their sexual orientation are good for business and foster diversity. He noted that 433 of the Fortune 500 companies have policies covering sexual orientation and 153 cover gender identity.
Since the ordinance took effect, police have reported no problems in public restrooms stemming from the law.
Retired postal worker Donna Lee, who became a female with surgery in 2001, moved to Gainesville from Ocala last March after hearing about the anti-discrimination ordinance. The 60-year-old is working to save the protections.
"We just want to live our lives with the basic civil rights that everyone else has," Lee said.
But some are taking no chances.
Computer programmer Clare Holman, who was born male but now lives as a female, said she simply stays away from public toilets.
"I don't want to run afoul of the law by using the wrong restroom," Holman said.
RSS
Prophet wrote:
"Let me clafify what I said:
It means exactly what I said."
I'm glad he clafified that. Now I get it.
(Just kidding........so that everybody's doesn't jump on MY typos, which are plentiful on this site!)
Sure, just know that the last thing you said didn't help your point because it wasn't understood.
I've already made my point how insane "moral relativism" is, so I think we can drop it.
A response to what? The comment you had made previous was an incomplete sentence and was hard to follow. Please rephrase your question/point, or we can just drop it.
It means "I didn't figure I'd get a response."
Well what you said didn't make any sense, which is why you didn't get a response. Clarify, or we can just drop it.
Let me clafify what I said:
It means exactly what I said.
hey mike/mtgburrell,
I wasn't sure where you went. I thought you fell of the edge of the world.
"I figured I wouldn't get a response. Except now."
Precisely, Mike. Meaning what, indeed? (Maybe this guy does too much "figuring," without taking into account human emotions. He's perhaps just too theoretical.)
Meaning what?
I figured I wouldn't get a response. Except now.
If you disagreed with someone, and they killed you because of it, and their morals said it was okay. You would have to accept that.
Prophet, I must have missed this question: "Mike/mtgburrel,
I figured you wouldn't answer the question. If you answered yes, then you would have to either accept the consequences of "moral relativism" or change your tune. If you answer no, then you do not truly believe in "moral relativism."
Prophet, I have forgotten what question you asked (followed by your smug "I figured you wouldn't answer the question.") But I can respond, anyway. Of course, I accept moral relativism. Any sensible person would.
mike
Unfortunately, as I pointed out. Take away the law, and it's consequences, and find out how few people are truly moral. It's sad that it does require the law to keep people on the straight and narrow. But it's those Christians who are a law unto themselves that will gain the greatest reward, because they understand the truth about the law. That is does not hold them in bondage, but rather it is fulfilled in who they are. And not many people will mature to that place. Only a remnant.
Mike, as a child, I knew Jesus as Saviour, but did not understand Him as Lord. He saved me from hell if I believed in Him. I knew I did lots of bad things and easily understood that I needed a Saviour. I was mean and angry. I couldn't care less about anyone else or anybody. I was competitive and being the best was the only thing that mattered. There are many people walking around calling themselves Christians that are in this state. As a teenager, I learned about and accepted Jesus as Lord of our lives and it tranformed me in a very short period of time. I suddenly cared about relationships and no longer held anger. I do many "caring" things now, not out of fear of hell, but in response to the goodness of God. The goodness of God leads to repentance, but my life is submitted to him. Anything craving or desire inside of me that is not holy. I lay at the alter. "It is no longer I who live but Christ in me" My temptation, particularly when hurt, is to go back to the closed off person who doesnt care what anybody thinks. If there were no heaven, I would be hell on earth. The heart of man is corrupt. I just got a call as a foster mom, asking if I would take in a 3 month old with cracked ribs. I doubt the person did this because there was a heaven, it is in heaven that people will be good for goodness sake.
Prophet, I think a lot of people throw the Bible around simply because they're afraid of hell. I love the song "Imagine there's no Heaven, its easy if you tried..." not because I don't believe in Heaven, but because what a beautiful idea! Imagine if people were good for the sake of being good, not because you slammed a book in their face and told them repent or burn in hell.
I believe that is why Paul was saying that we are not in bondage to the law. A person with no morals may still obey the law out of obligation to duty. A person with Godly morals will fulfill the law because he has become the law. He fulfills the law because it is who he is.
I agree with Prophet, moral relativism is about what people believe is right for themselves, what they don't relize in that logic is that what may not be right for you, can be right for someone else. Yall brought up murder, which is a good example of that, in isn't right for quite a few people but for some it is like a common occurance hindered only by the law. If we say that laws are only relative, chaos will break out because of this idea that truth is only relative.
If you want to see what a person's (or peoples) morals really are? Take away the law and the its consequences, and you will see what type of morals people truly have.
Mike,
"we know that to murder is not acceptable." But the problem is that some people know murder is not acceptable only because the law says so. If the law were not there to say it was wrong, there are some that would not find anything wrong with it.
"but I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."
This is exactly what Jesus spoke about to His disciples over and over again. Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. It was the Pharisees and Sadducees who tried to mesh the Bible with their world view.
As for how Prophet has treated you.... I have a son who is in the Army now. Been there for 2 years. He joined the Army because he was tired of people like me telling him what to do.... (insert eye roll here). You're posts remind me quite a bit of how he spoke to people before becoming an expert at push-ups!
*insert eye roll here* Glad you listened.
Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."
This would explain why many, though claiming the Christian name, are still conformed to this world. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Ro 12:2).
Wilderness, you are wasting your time trying to decide who does and does not know Jesus, and that is a matter which does not concern you. Think what you could do if you turned that energy into love for your fellow man.
Actually, DP, I have been reading the comments on the website for months. I've just only started posting. I have generally agreed with Prophet, but some recent boards bothered me. I am absolutely agree that people should be dealt with in different manners. Jesus dealt with people very differently. Paul says to save some with fear and some with compassion. (and I wholeheartedly agree that compassion involves telling the straight truth. As you hear more from me, you will see that) For those who have ears, let them hear...
Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."
This would explain why many people claiming to be Christians, including "Christian" homosexuals, really do not know Jesus. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:10).
Prophet, I more meant that morals are relative to a given situation. I think you have morals without ever reading the Bible or hearing a lick about Jesus because as a society, we do have them. In American society (and I classify so we don't get into the discussion of "what about cannibals?") we know that to murder is not acceptable. I think it becomes relative to a situation because we have discussions about what murdering means to people. I think we'd all agree, even a gang banger, that it is wrong to walk up to someone and shoot them point blank for money or drugs, yet we argue about abortion, capital punishment, and going to war for ethics of "murder." Many views are taken from the Bible, because I don't think any of us living today truly grasp the original text, so no matter how much you deny it, we do in fact interpret the Bible due to our own life experiences (if you're raised conservative, you might have a much more conservative view. I went to a conservative college, but met many liberal professors who raised interesting questions about Biblical interpretation, which IS NOT scriptural twisting.) Also, Prophet, MTG and I are not the same person, please get that through your head.
Mike/mtgburrel,
I figured you wouldn't answer the question. If you answered yes, then you would have to either accept the consequences of "moral relativism" or change your tune. If you answer no, then you do not truly believe in "moral relativism."
Hey, guys. We've been away this evening visiting our son.
"If someone said that they believed that murdering someone who insulted them was morally acceptable to them....you'd agree with them?"
It's foolish taunts such as this that sometimes make me wonder if there is any point in trying to conduct a sensible discussion on this Web site. Still, I learn things on CP every time I look at the site.
So Mike,
If someone said that they believed that murdering someone who insulted them was morally acceptable to them....you'd agree with them? That's what moral relativism is...morality is relative to the person with such morals. Moral relativism is chaotic and unstructured. God has a set of moral standards. It is impossible to be a moral relativist and a Christian.
Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."
Which would explain why one would accept evil. "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father" (Gal 1:4).
I think you can be a moral relativist and a Christian, and its not your place to tell me if I am or not.
Mike22685 said, "I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed."
Which would explain why one would accept wickedness:
"...the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1Jn 5:19).
Mike,
Actually, it is a sign of a declining morality. Homosexuality is a sin, and the acceptance of it being okay is showing that mankind is caring less and less about sin. Thus it is declining morally.
Now, to a moral relativist (someone who is not a Christian) they would view the acceptance of homosexuality as an "awakening" or even "tolerance", both of which aren't Biblical in the least.
DP, I actually never said I believe in a social gospel, but I do believe the Bible and a current worldview can be meshed. You are quite blatantly lying that Prophet has been more than kind to me, which makes me question which Bible you follow.
"That being said, you say alot of truth, but lack compassion and humility. "
Looks like 'nolady' is kind of new here as she has no real idea from months of posting that Prophet has been more than kind to Mike and the other pro-gay people. Still, Jesus got kind of stern with people at times. So, did Jesus sin? Was the way he treated the Pharisees sin? Mike has finally gotten to the point where he has admitted that his is a social gospel and not based on the Bible. His gospel is based on arbitrary absolutes instead of the absolutes cleary stated in the Bible.
"I don't think people accepting gays means morals are declining at all."
Christians consider Biblical morals as the absolutes of life. They define what is right. Therefore, Mike, you would not see the shift towards your social gospel to be a problem. This is simple logic.
Prophet, I don't think people accepting gays means morals are declining at all. I think you may be hinting at the slippery slope argument, but the thing is that there are multiple groups working for their own causes, and its not like we're in line at a toll booth so once one group gets through, the next one steps up to bat. I'm curious how you know that God's view never changes.
mtgburrell/mike
True...hences the phrase "most of the time for the worse". That phrase means "not all the time" or "sometimes it's different".
The slow acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle is one of those examples of the morals of people declining.
Prophet: "Society and their morals change from generation to generation (most of the time for the worse)."
Not always. Ask most black folks. The world is remarkably improved for most African-Americans, not to mention other suppressed group, including - dare I say it? - homosexuals. It's not like the "good ole days" when my people ran everything: our city, our state and our country. But, hey, let's give some other people a chance.
My view isn't a social view. Society and their morals change from generation to generation (most of the time for the worse). God's view never changes. That is why secular Christians despise people like me. They want God's Word to change to suit their current moral and ethical opinions. I rather to change myself into His image, than to try and change Him into mine....though it seems the latter would be "easier" and more advantageous to me.
Good point....
mike/mtgburrell,
You are right to a certain extent. But when social social views conflict with spiritual views, then it becomes a problem.
Jesus said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". That is a social/political view. Too many people think that Jesus was talking about giving to the government whatever they ask (even if it meant their rights). Unfortunately for that "social view", they are wrong. Jesus was talking solely about paying taxes. If the government told us that preach the gospel was illegal, the social view would be "give to Caesar what is Caesar", and they would yield. The spiritual view would be "give to God what is God's" and they would continue to preach the gospel regardless of what the government wanted.
A few weeks ago, I heard an interview on the radio. A man was there with his mother, discussing his new book. He had lived until age 29 (I think) as a female. After gender reassignment, including surgery) he claimed he was living a happy and normal life. His mother concurred, and the interviewer though he seemed OK. What struck me is that this person is now living as a gay man. I try to be pretty open-minded. This guy left me scratching my head, I must admit.
Thanks, Mike. I guess that was a ways back when some people thought you and I were the same person. It odd, but I suspect you and I are very different in our daily lives and or jobs (actually, I'm retired) and in interpretation of Biblical scripture and in other ways (including sexual orientation), but I find you to be the most like-minded poster here. (Like-minded with me, I mean.) There is so much fear in the world. People are fearful of other races, other religions, other viewpoints. Of course, I know that some posters are here to taunt. (I've done that.) Others love God, love his Word and love strangers (you and me) so much that they feel compelled to warn us about a view that will lead us and others to destruction. As a matter of fact, these people feel that they are commanded by scripture to tell you and me the truth. That's a hard job. But for all the ones who make snide or nasty remarks to you, Mike, I read very thoughtful and caring posts. You know, I have had almost no contact with a transgendered person (that I know of, anyway). That way of living seem sad and pitiful (pitiable?) to me. However, I am aware (from radio interviews and other sources) that such people exist. It is about as hard for me to imagine a transgendered person living a relatively normal life as it must be for some of your critics to imagine that you live a normal life. I DO believe that God intended a comma - not a period - on scripture. (I know there is a warning about adding anything, too.) God is still speaking. Don't let your detractors drowned God out. Keep bearing those fruits of the spirit.
Sure it is. Having a social view doesn't mean someone isn't also spiritual. I work in the human services field. My entire undergrad focuses on social interactions with people and it fascinates me, and that's where I get my knowledge base from. I believe very strongly in the presence of God working in our world today and believe that things like yoga are fantastic ways to meditate on God's role in your life. I think you want me to admit I am not spiritual because you could classify me better, but that wouldn't be truthful.
MTG, he was posting that about me. I have no problem calling our someone's ignorance, and I did on another posting. I don't think that's a personal attack or mean prophet, but I think ignorance is a very destructive force.
Prophet, my referring to "ignorant" was just a reference to your joke about yourself. Sorry if you thought that I was calling you ignorant. I guess that I was wrong in your age, I was guessing that you were younger than 30.
You are wrong on many points. I do not call it prideful to speak the truth. It is prideful to not speak the truth in love and humility as is scripturally mandated. I was indicating that prideful is
"The conversations we have with Mike and his ilk, aren't those of trying to save him. I view this as a place to debate the truth" If you believe someone is headed for hell, then why is it more important to debate truth than to represent Christ. Yes, unashamedly, speak uncompromising truth, but speak 1) the truth in love and 2) bring correction with humility knowing that you are capable of falling also.
Prophet: "mtgburrel said "know, I "hear" much more kindness in Mike's comments than I do from so many of my fellow heterosexuals on this board."
"Does that include his post from another thread where he said "Wow, your ignorance just popped up to say hello."?
I would say that is not very kind."
I never said that. I've probably said worse, but I never said what you quote me as saying above, Prophet.
And do you have any idea how patronizing it sounds when you say you are "amused" with nolady's posts? So superior...
mtgburrel said "know, I "hear" much more kindness in Mike's comments than I do from so many of my fellow heterosexuals on this board."
Does that include his post from another thread where he said "Wow, your ignorance just popped up to say hello."?
I would say that is not very kind.
Mike, but that's not what you said earlier. You said "Prophet, you have a Biblical view of sexual immorality, I have a social view". That's not very spiritual of you, now is it?
I actually said I am a spiritual person, multiple times, so at this point you are flat out lying. Nolady was very kind and gave you honest criticism. Take it and learn to be better.
And nolalady,
Many times Paul wasn't "compassionate". He was brutally honest. What you fail to see is that there is a difference between talking to a sinner who doesn't know he's sinning....and a sinner who refuses to admit he is sinning. I've said this many times. The conversations we have with Mike and his ilk, aren't those of trying to save him. I view this as a place to debate the truth. How I act in my personal life, with those around me, is quite different.
As far as your comment "...you are probably more young than "ignorant" You are wrong on both accounts. I am neither young, nor ignorant. But I do find it amusing that you associate the fact that I preach the Word uncompromisingly with being prideful. There is no connection there, but it is amusing.
You also said "Before you hit submit, ask yourelf, what is my objective? Is it to "win" or is it to represent the truth of Christ and bring forth life?"
And yet that's what I do. I merely present the truth. But yet it is considered prideful. And I also challenged you before that you do not know my prayers for the lost when I come before God.
Mike,
Is calling you carnal a personal attack? Then you best be giving Paul a earful then. In some places he called them babies. Like his comments, I was making an observation that you have already admitted that you weren't a spiritual person. So why are you getting mad?
Last post for now (I promise): Look again at what nolady has written. You know, I "hear" much more kindness in Mike's comments than I do from so many of my fellow heterosexuals on this board.
Did you ever think you would be caught posting on a Web site with "Transgendered Restrooms" in the title? Yikes! I didn't. (I guess there are parts of me that are still naive and politically incorrect.)
Having said that, I must comment that nolady's post is a valuable one. We should ALL think befoer we hit submit. Sometimes I think if we were all face-to-face, we would laught off some of these jabs. One facet that is lacking on Internet writing is "tone." Sometimes I am kidding people here. And sometimes I'm trying to be mean. It often hard for the reader (any reader) to tell which is which.
Now you people are starting to make me sympathize with Prophet! Stop that! I enjoy complaining about him too much. What IS this weird feeling I have? Could it be....Christian love? (Probably not by Prophet's high standards...)
JHS, I've been hearing a lot of that lately, and I honestly am interested to know: Do you know of any cases such as the scenario you presented where other states have passed this type of legislation?
prophet, from what I gather, you are probably more young than "ignorant". That being said, you say alot of truth, but lack compassion and humility. In doing so, it is no longer a representation of Christ. Compassion and Humility do not mean weak. They have to do with the spirit that we speak from. Life will produce life. Even though I likely have several points of disagreement with "believer," read his posts. The sincerity of his heart and Christian maturity is evident. Before you hit submit, ask yourelf, what is my objective? Is it to "win" or is it to represent the truth of Christ and bring forth life? The prophets of old said very challenging things to the people, but they wailed for them in the process.
The people that voted for this, ought to be charged with a crime the first time a person is attacked or a child molested in a bathroom, they just opened pandora's box!
Prophet, didn't you just say something about resorting to a personal attack? You are such a hypocrite! You judge without even knowing which shows how ignorant you are. You judge that I don't know the Bible, that I know nothing of spiritual, but all you are doing is digging your own grave. Wake up and realize you are doing nothing for the greatest commandment of all.
And, actually, the spiritual is more real than the carnal. But, then again, I wouldn't expect a carnal person to understand.
No philosophy. Just the Bible. Again you show how little of the Bible you do know.
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:6-7
"For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" I Corinthians 3:3
And you still think there is no difference. LOL
Prophet, of course you can be! What kind of philosophy have you studied? The carnal world is the most real thing we have, and Jesus himself give to God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's (the spiritual and the worldly, at the same time...)
DP,
Oh. That's because this article is about Gainesville. LOL. Ok. I've got it.
Colorado has the same law on it's books too. It's scary to watch my little girl go into a public restroom by herself.
We drive by Gainesville on I-75 on the way to visit the kids Grandpa. Looks like we won't be stopping there anymore. I've emailed them to let them know as I have two small children.
http://www.visitgainesville.com/contact/
DP,
Sorry, but that statement was lost on me (I'm one of those "ignorants" that nolalady was refering to. LOL). I know that Gainesville is something I should know, but can't quite place it. LOL.
Looks like we won't be stopping in Gainesville on the way to visit Grandpa....
mtg, Fortunately, God saves the ignorant and the brilliant and thankfully we still live in a country that allows both to speak.
For the record, I have read quite a bit more than the Bible, including works of many, if not most, of the major religious writers, philosophers, scientists, and political theorist.
My conclusion.. none of them, nor all of them together, hold a drop of water to the Word of God, the Bible.
Mike said, (Prophet, you have a Biblical view of sexual immorality, I have a social view)
Did you expect anything less from Christians on a Christian site . . . ?
mike,
But you can't be spiritual and carnal at the same time. And you have shown that you are not very spiritual.
Prophet, cut and paste what? I am very spiritual actually. You can be spiritual and realistic at the same time.
Mike,
Wow. Cut and paste. Other people do that and you flag them for spamming.
Still from another site, but appropriate here:
I don't think Mike is being that way, Prophet. You DO place yourself so high...so superior. Your CP handle says it all: prophet. How overweening.
mtgburrell/mike,
The Bible says to offer up ourselves a living sacrifice. So does that mean that I am supposed to take a knife to myself and put myself literally on an altar, and kill myself? I think not.
So please don't make a fool of yourself by calling me a literalist. I'm a spiritually minded person. Mike is a carnally minded person.
People can be Christian without being literalists. Mike can be a Christian as he views it. (You are not his judge; and you do not speak for God.) Some of you people are slaves to a printed text.
Mike22685, your own words have revealed what is in your heart, even judged and condemned you, when saying:
"Prophet, you have a Biblical view of sexual immorality, I have a social view." Maybe you will humbly come to understand that.
Mike,
That is true. Finally you are honest about your "Christianity" and lack of spirituality. But the thing is, God isn't going to judge us by our "social views" because they change according to man's morals (which always tend to decline rather than incline).
Weekender, for one, keep your filthy mind out of my bedroom, and two, we don't practice that, thanks. Prophet, you have a Biblical view of sexual immorality, I have a social view.
Sexually immoral means anything outside the way God designed it. So homosexuality is immoral.
Except, of course, that the Bible refers to homosexuality in words similar to "revolting" and "disgusting."
"Disgusting."
So writes Prophet. You know, Prophet, I remember seeing a sea lamphrey in my high school text book. It was so "disgusting" that I clipped two pages together so I would never see that photo. (A childish over-reaction, no doubt.) But...sea lamphreys occur in nature. I guess one sea lamphrey does not find another one "disgusting." Did you ever think that what you and I do with our wives in private some gay people might find disgusting? Homosexuality occurs in nature - right up to humans. A partly out-of-date book will never convince me that the God of the universe finds anything in nature "disgusting." Maybe we should all put away our childish disgust with loving, homosexual relationships.
If Mike is sodomizing his partner -- or being sodomized . . . then the Bible explains that as sexual immorality.
Yes, it is Mike . . . you fail to realize the context of this passage . . . why would there be any mention of clothing in this passage if it were not to make a distinction between sexes? One cannot interpret something that is never, ever mentioned, right; such as same sex unions?
No, Online, its not, but its very clear that's how YOU interpret it. Everything in the Bible is up for interpretation, honestly. If someone interprets differently than you, they could be wrong, but you could be as well, and your failure to admit that is what is so infuriating.
Mike,
If we follow your logic . . . every woman that wears pants is commonly mistaken for being a man . . . right? Come on now . . . the text is clearly speaking of distinction and you still fail to acknowledge that marriage in scripture is always between a man and a woman . . .
OK, but if you take the Bible literally, pants are a man's clothing, so women would be sinning in wearing them. This is my point...EVERYONE picks and chooses what the Bible says literally and what it does not, because some things seem more absurd that others. To me, God condemning my love to my partner is just as absurd as God condemning women wearing pants.
(Online, that passage also condemns women wearing pants. Uh-oh, we have an epidemic of sin on our hands!)
Sigh . . . mike, once again; you try to make scripture say something it does not say . . . yes, there are some that make an issue about pants, however, it has nothing to do with pants . . . the REAL issue is:
There needs to be a DISTINCTION between the sexes. . .
Prophet, no, we're not. Sexual immorality means things like lust, rape, molestation...any abuse of sexuality. My partner and I are not abusing sexuality at all. You just can't get over the fact that we can have a truly loving relationship, so you drone on and repeat the exact same sentence.
This whole issue is a little disconcerting. No one wants to "discriminate", but why so complicated? I have seen a trend in family restrooms, which makes sense.
While on vacation, awhile back, a young father needed to take his daughter to the bathroom ~ I saw his concern on his face so I offered to stand outside the bathroom door and not allow anyone in until they were done.
Family restrooms need to be more available. Individual restrooms with their own door makes more sense not only for fathers and mothers, but for someone transgender. I feel much more comfortable standing outside a door my child is in knowing noone else can enter.
Actually, nolady and rolln, I have read the Bible. It's just not the ONLY book I've read. I get the impression from some people on this Web site that the Bible is the ONLY book they've read. If that's true for anyone, that person is under-informed, if not just plain ignorant.
Homosexuals are sexually immoral people.
Actually weekend, the Bible refers to sexually immoral people as sodomites, which you ever so nicely plop gays into the same category with, despite the fact that in Sodom, they wanted to rape the angels, not have a committed relationship as my partner and I do. To use the term homos is CLEARLY an attempt at a put down, which simply is not Christian, no matter how you may justify it.
Online, that passage also condemns women wearing pants. Uh-oh, we have an epidemic of sin on our hands!
Rolln, quite honestly, I have only known 2 transgender people when I was living in Providence, and they would use the bathroom they felt more comfortable in anyways (my boss actually wasn't trans, but had very short hair and looked quite manly, so she'd usually go into the men's bathroom as women would actually scream if she walked in. Long answer short, I don't think these laws are necessary.)
I have a young daughter. Here in Colorado we have the same law as Florida. I watch my daughter as she goes into a public restroom. If she is taking too long I send my wife in to check on her, and if I were to ever see a man go in after her, you get your last quarter I'm going to be right behind him. I think the rights of keeping a child safe would trump all these other rights. But I forget...this country is run by a bunch of pro-infantcide people who care nothing for our children.
Pro-abortion.
Trying to give out birth control at school without parental consent.
Trying to allow minors to have abortions without parental consent.
These people are just sick. They're twisted. Perverted. Disgusting.
nolalady;
Well said. mtgbur appears to have not even read the Bible which is the ultimate in arrogance and ignorance when he/she/tran makes such a statement. The Bible is still the most popular text both as a historical piece and has the Word of God in the world. So powerful, that you'd be hard pressed to find any part of the world that hasn't been affected by It.
mtg:
No one said that no ethical standard existed outside of christianity. The issue is that if there is no standard then you can start to justify anything. You simply want to make "Christianity" a religious code, like all others and it is not. Many so-called Christians do the same thing which is why people get in silly Scripture wars and still come out with no understanding. The bible is there to help us understands the works and ways of God if we spend time with Him and abide in Him and seek Him. It is not a legal code.
However, I am amazed that someone who claims to know history, would think that the Bible is outdated for modern issues, particularly since the Bible was written in time of Roman rule. Homosexuality was rampant. "those in authority" that we are to pray for were very likely homosexual. Sex was part of religious rituals. I have yet to find an issue were Biblical wisdom and standards do not apply.
believer: "My wife and I stopped at a rest stop in New York state last summer and they had three bathrooms, men's, women's and transgender's."
At Smith College Isaw a set-up that was even stranger (to me) than the three restrooms above. It's awkward and unnerving to me to think about the situation. But, then again, I am not "transgendered," and I have a hard time identifying with their situation. All I know is: life is just not as "simple" as some of us would like it. Not in nature and not inthe human community either. People who are "not like us" refuse to hide away any longer.
weekenderman: "mtg: On what basis do you base your own morality or sense of ethics?"
How can modern America Christians be so ignorant of history, weekenderman? Morality and a sense of ethics exists in many places where our Bible has never been even heard of. Morality and a sense of ethics occurs in Buddhist and Muslim societies, even in officially (supposedly atheistic) societies such as held sway in the Soviet Union. Most Russians (with quite notable exceptions) behaved morally and ethically throughout the 20th century - despite the rotten core of their temporary government. Most of those Russian ethics had nothing to do with religion or (for hair-splitters) with Christianity.
For a person to think that no morality or ethics exist outside of Christianity (which is the religion that guides me) is just to state how woefully ignorant that person really is.
My wife and I stopped at a rest stop in New York state last summer and they had three bathrooms, men's, women's and transgender's.
..computer programmer Clare Holman, who was born male but now lives as a female, said she simply stays away from public toilets...
too confused to make a choice!?
The new modern sexuality is like a bad case of alzheimers!..
mtg: On what basis do you base your own morality or sense of ethics?
mtg:
Have you even read the Bible?
weekenderman: "How do you define "Christian," Mike? The way the Word of God defines it, or the way the world chooses to paint believers in the Word of God as warm, fuzzy creatures who say "anything goes" despite what the Bible says?"
This is just another example of how much of the Bible is outdated. On the topic of modern sexuality, the book in places offers no useful advice.
Gee, who'd a thunk this bathroom issue would come up? Creepy.....
mike-
Do you support equal access for transgender or perceived gender to bathrooms of their choosing?
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God (Deuteronomy 22:5).
The meaning of this passage is clearly obvious . . . there needs to be a distinction between the sexes.
How do you define "Christian," Mike? The way the Word of God defines it, or the way the world chooses to paint believers in the Word of God as warm, fuzzy creatures who say "anything goes" despite what the Bible says?
The Bible refers to homosexuals as sodomites -- do you prefer that term?
Homos huh? Wow, incredibly Christian. I can feel the love.
Whichever restroom THEY'RE COMFORTABLE using?? What?
How about someone else's comfort? These transexuals may still have the plumbing they were born with...what would differentiate a transexual from a child molester?
This is crazy... it's more important we make this small population happy than to protect our children from molestation? Or honor the comfort of the vast majority?
Let's see, the world wants us to redefine marriage so homos will be happy, now we sacrifice the safety of our children and the comfort of most everyone else to please another group of deviates? This is not about equal rights but special rights run amok.
More evidence of the slippery slide caused by the actions of sodomites in this country.