LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You were deligitimizing my relationship by insensitive questions of whether I would be loyal to my wife? or if the other member’s partner is indeed a male or female. I dont ask you about your marriage so stay out of mine and her relationship. Thanks

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

1. You have a misconception that bisexuals can only be attracted to either men or women at a time. Bisexuals are actually attracted to men and women simultaneously. I believe that your thought process is that if the "options" available to an individual are more or less doubled, than the likelihood of that person losing interest in their partner will increase; this notion is deeply flawed and may or may not reflect on your own character/commitment to your own partner. I would look into that if I were you. If your wife would feel insecure about you being attracted to both men and women, that's more reflective of trust issues in your relationship rather than issues from a person's sexuality.

If a person is in a deeply committed relationship (ie marriage), then it doesn't matter how many alternatives there are available to a person, regardless of their sexuality. If that person is truly a person of integrity, then if they are in a deeply committed, monogamous relationship, they will stay true to their partner.

================================

2. How are you having trouble understanding that her wife is a wife? Genitalia at birth only determines that person's assigned sex, not their gender identity. To clarify, some quick terminology:
- male/female - sex terms related to genitalia assigned at birth (male = penis, etc)
- man/woman - gender terms based on subjective identity (man = identifies as a man, etc)

Thus, if their wife was originally born with a male sex assignment, but they identify as a woman, they are inherently a woman regardless of their biology. This identity is not a choice, it is something that manifests as the person's sense of self-awareness and identity forms. If you believe it is a choice, please ask yourself when you chose to stay the gender that correlated with your assigned sex at birth. If you can't figure out the rough date you made that choice, then sit down because you just discovered that it's not a choice.

Referring to a trans woman as the gender identity that correlates with their originally assigned sex is extremely disrespectful, as you are denying that person's autonomy and sense of self in leu of your own, narrow-minded worldview. To illustrate how disrespectful that behavior is, let's imagine you introduce yourself by name to someone, but that person refuses to you accept the name you introduce yourself with because in their mind, you look like a Bob instead of [insert your name here]. So regardless of how much you try to have that person address you by your name, which is something you can legally change to match your self-identity, they call you the name they think suits you best when they don't know anything about you. Don't you think that's disrespectful behavior? That's exactly what you're doing to this person's wife. Stop it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't you think that's disrespectful behavior?

No, none of my posts are disrespectful. But I do think it is a little disrespectful to post anonymously without even a moniker. You cannot play semantic word games and then call me "disrespectful."

Why is it you have not addressed my points? I have made numerous posts on this forum on behalf of women. I stand against all abuse, and stand up for the rights of those who have been hurt. On this particular thread I have pointed out how the trans movement hurts women. It damages women's rights. It is just ripe for corruption and fraud. Since I am advocating for women, why do you not support me?

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, none of my posts are disrespectful. But I do think it is a little disrespectful to post anonymously without even a moniker. You cannot play semantic word games and then call me "disrespectful."

Why is it you have not addressed my points? I have made numerous posts on this forum on behalf of women. I stand against all abuse, and stand up for the rights of those who have been hurt. On this particular thread I have pointed out how the trans movement hurts women. It damages women's rights. It is just ripe for corruption and fraud. Since I am advocating for women, why do you not support me?

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists; a person may genuinely believe that all Muslims are terrorists so from their perspective they are stating a fact rather than bigotry, so as a product of that person's ignorance, a bigoted statement doesn't appear disrespectful to that person.

When it comes to your "activism" of women's rights and safety, you're hiding behind the veil of advocacy to label an entire demographic you clearly don't understand as a 'danger to society'. The intention behind identifying as trans is not anything else but identifying as that person actually is. This hypothetical danger you perceive from the trans community to women is irrational and incorrect.

Will there be individuals who might take advantage of a situation for their deviant behavior? Sure, that goes for all of humanity in every circumstance and scenario. Does that justify denying an entire demographic of real people the right to live normally in society? No. That would be like outlawing cars because some outlier deviants would intentionally use cars to kill people.

[zeek]

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that He was straight? If it's actually important to be straight instead of homosexual, bisexual, etc, don't you think the Bible would have explicitly emphasized that in the humanity of Jesus, which is a pattern for Christians everywhere to follow?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Trollin' on by?

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

I just want to echo our visitor Humperdinck's answer on this one (zeek, welcome back!)

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death. They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

I'm all for no question being off the table when it comes to grappling with the Bible. I hope the sincere and reasoned responses you are getting don't just "glance off" of you, but actually settle some of these questions sufficiently.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

For all we know Jesus was built like a Ken doll down there ... or even like a Barbie doll. I doubt it, but we don't know. Nothing in the New Testament mentions such things.

We don't even know if Jesus had bowel movements. And if he did -- that's likely since he was 100% human -- where he relieved himself. Did they back then just go in the open ground, like in India today.

We don't even know what made Jesus laugh. It's recorded that he wept, and that he was perfect.

The point being : We know little about the historical Jesus. We only have accounts of Jesus written decades after Jesus left the earth, by anonymous authors.

And we can't look to Paul. He didn't know the historical Jesus. And we don't know if he was a celibate homosexual either ... or what the thorn in his flesh was. And Paul was 100% human. No divinity there. No perfection either.

But thanks bro zeek for bringing up the question. What I wonder is, if Jesus was gay -- doubtful -- would we still love him.

[awareness]

Just for the record, transgender is not mentioned in the Bible, neither for or against it. None of the authors of the books of the Bible, writing in the bronze and iron ages, knew anything about it. Therefore Bible believers have no Biblical standing to be against it.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

This raises a very interesting question because back in the day, the average guy living in that time era would have been married before age 33, which was how old Jesus was before he got crucified.

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

The Bible never says God was lonely. That would imply the infinite God was needy or lacking, and He sure isn't.

Genesis 1:26 says "Let US make man in Our image...." not "let ME make man in MY image". God wasn't alone at the beginning of creation when He made Adam, and He didn't create man because He was lonely.

If He was gay, then He would have wanted Adam for Himself, and would never have created Eve for Adam.

If God was gay, then why would He make a straight Adam? And Adam was clearly straight because God made Eve. That's a heterosexual relationship. It would be pretty awful of God to have made a straight Adam if He wanted a gay relationship with straight Adam.

So, no, for multiple pretty logical reasons, God's not gay.

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands, knows every star, every hair on your head, He is powerful, moral, personal, more mighty and majestic than we can ever comprehend.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists;

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

No, I did not mischaracterize you. I said, "People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists."

If you would read my words carefully, you would discover I assumed nothing about you nor did I mischaracterize you. I only expressed how much you were needed these days.

But you claimed I did. So, I will accept your apologies gracefully.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

Not so fast there!

I said repeatedly that the trans movement poses dangers to women's rights.

• I cited an open letter addressing radical cancel culture to support my position
• I cited recent lawsuits by female athletes whose scholarships and futures were damaged by trans athletes
• I explained how trans athletes would nearly destroy most of women's sports
• I agreed with Serenity that trans-gender incentives were ripe for fraud
• I supported that position by noting that trans-racials have received enormous benefits from their deceptions, one of which ran for President, and there have been numerous others who have benefitted

How unfortunate it is that your blatant biases mischaracterize me, all the while claiming that you are the "victim" here.

But to your point, actually I agree. Though I did not yet mention this, there are huge segments of society outraged by the dangers presented by trans to women while sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, gym classes, etc.

Trans rights violate women's rights and puts them in danger!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh my, are you sensitive! I'm only trying to discuss issues here bringing up diversities you may not be aware of.

I'm not delegitimizing your relationship. It was you who brought up the subject. But, think about if the roles were reversed here. I have been married to my wife for decades. What if my wife overheard a comment I made that "I am bi, I like guys too." Would not that seriously undermine our marriage? Delegitimize our relationship? Perhaps my "serenity" might take a turn for the worse.

Seriously though, how can you call your spouse your "wife," when "she" was born a boy? I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding this. I'm just trying to work thru this.

SerenityLives never said her wife is a transwoman, not that it would matter if she was.

I'm the one whose girlfriend is a transwoman. We've been dating for one year minus 2 days. One of the anonymous posters.

[Sons to Glory!]

Is it just me, or is all this confusing?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me, or is all this confusing?

That's why I said it's a little disrespectful not to identify oneself somehow.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why I said it's a little disrespectful not to identify oneself somehow.

You are just so curious about everyone else arent you? I thought the forum was supposed to be anonymous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You are just so curious about everyone else arent you? I thought the forum was supposed to be anonymous.

You missed the point entirely!

I said the minimum was to pick some moniker.

How else do we have a discussion? When a string of comments can't even be ascribed to a single poster?

Is that too hard to understand?