Pope Francis Compares Transgendered People To Nuclear Weapons

eviltwin

fran17 wrote: »

Right....And this conversation never happened

If I judged him I would have no problem saying so. I judge his comments about gays, abortion, contraception etc as foolish, dangerous and unrealistic but I don't judge the man himself who I don't know. You see, you can disagree with someone but still respect them as a person. I think that's what your Papa has actually told you do during some of his less inflammatory speeches so maybe you should start paying more attention to all the things he says rather than just the ones about the homosexual and transgender communities.

Omackeral

If God is so against Transgender people, why did he create them with the need to change? Same point for any LGB people. Why didn't he just make them straight? Seems like a bit of a flaw in the supposed omnipotent one there.

P_1

1123heavy wrote: »

Do tell me how you have come to the conclusion that I don't ?

EDIT: He's also your God too, whether you like it or not he made you.

Feck so Thor is in the construction business these days, I guess he does have a hammer but I thought that was more for the demolition side of things...

Links234

Seriously sometimes AH can be pretty awesome, and I do want to say thanks to some of the awesome posters here and to let you know that I believe in the you that believes in me

Here, enjoy this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDAlZ7PDMDU

I'm sure even Fran17 can't resist a bit of World Order

Meesared wrote: »

I see what you did there

I ain't done nothing, so see ya space cowboy!

dogcat

Is it possibble that the pope be fined for homo/transphobic remarks.

Links234

dogcat wrote: »

Is it possibble that the pope be fined for homo/transphobic remarks.

No, don't be ridiculous.

Kiwi in IE

1123heavy wrote: »

I think Boards need to do something about such poisonous activity

1123heavy wrote: »

MOD: User banned for continually ignoring mod instuction.

You got your wish!

I missed most of this. Only had time to read through it today. I am in awe of you guys for staying so calm, collected and reasoned. I would have lost it!

floggg

moxin wrote: »

Axe wielding murderers? What's that got to do with the topic? Transgendered persons are the most gentile persons imaginable, please do not label them as "undesirables"

While your heart is in the right place, that's just plain wrong.

I'm sure SOME trans people are absolute arseholes.

They are just people like the rest of us. Some will be lovely, and some will be right arseholes. Most will fall somewhere in the middle.

Like with any group of people, you should assume anything much about them simply based on the fact they are trans or belong to whatever group - just take them on their own merits and give them the dignity and respect every one of us deserves.

Assuning them all to be great is just as illogical as assuning the opposite.

Edit - left out the "some", which gave the second line a very different meaning. Oops.

floggg

Pherekydes wrote: »

If god wanted us to discover penicillin he would have had us dicover it before 1928.

If god wanted us to discover pencillin he would exist.

floggg

1123heavy wrote: »

Artifically inserted hormones or whatever else the maniacs are coming up with today are simply not natural, you are either a man or a woman and you do not change no matter what all these lunatics will tell you. I feel that most transsexuals are so because of going through tough times in their lives which have lead to severe states of confusion which gave way to such thoughts and people managing to convince themselves they are of the opposite sex, absolute nonsense.

If you want to try to paint transgenderism as a modern cultural phenomenon then you will need to take a very broad viewof what's "modern".

There is evidence of trans gender people going back to at least Roman times, and there is also a long history of recognising "third gender" people's who liekly would fall within the transgender spectrum, or the modern "gender theory" decried by Big Papa, in diverse societies ranging from native North Americans, South Asia to the Pacific Islands.

Unless this is something which developed organically in each place (suggesting its a natural phenomonen) then we can only assume it was something which had developed within the culture of mankind before those groups split off from each other - likely sometime at least 20- 40,000 years ago (if not more).

If that's the case, then this "modern cultural phenomenon" pre-dates all forms of religion, political systems, languages and even agriculture.

It was probably invented shortly after spears and cave painting. Heck, it may even pre-date clothes (I believe man was only able to colonise Siberia circa 20,00 years ago after the invention of the sewing needle which finally enabled us to make the proper clothing needed to survive up there).

sbsquarepants

Links234 wrote: »

Been saying for ages, Pope Francis peddles the same old bull**** just with better marketing than Ratzinger (who proclaimed that transgender people would lead to the self-destuction of mankind or somesuch nonsense).

Trust me, I'm not going to destroy humanity..


...yet

You would say that though, wouldn't you:D

I don't know - I'm very anti religion in general but I kinda like old Frankie.
I think he gets an unduly hard time sometimes, like peoples expectations of him are just unrealistic - he's the fúcking pope for gods sake, people should stop expecting him to be more like lady gaga!

floggg

Links234 wrote: »

Wha?! I'm not making any references...
Ok, maybe I am, but I'll give you this strawberry if you keep it a secret.

The funny thing is, Heavy was going on like "Oh if we even talk about this, people will be in such danger, oh noes!" Well then, why are you fecking talking about it? I really don't enjoy coming along and countering every piece of nonsense that gets posted on here, there's a hell of a lot of other things I'd rather be chatting about on boards, I'm just childish and I hate to lose. But this is seriously gibbering conspiracy theory level talk here, transgender people really are just like regular people, we're not trying to reign over a new world or something. I'm as average as the next person, I'll take a potato chip and I'll eat it.

Just to say I have so much respect for you and other trans posters for contributing to threads like this and staying so calm and rational throughout. I know its not easy!

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

Seriously sometimes AH can be pretty awesome, and I do want to say thanks to some of the awesome posters here and to let you know that I believe in the you that believes in me

Here, enjoy this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDAlZ7PDMDU

I'm sure even Fran17 can't resist a bit of World Order



I ain't done nothing, so see ya space cowboy!

Ok then Links,seen as you want to continue to include me in your postings why don't you answer my question that you have evaded continuously now.Do you agree that a parents decision should veto any other available courses of action regarding a prepubescent child deemed to show symptoms of GID? If you do not wish to answer the question then I respectfully ask that you cease including me in such a condescending manner.

Akrasia

bodice ripper wrote: »

You think your puny human brain understands the concept of god?

Must be a **** god if it can be grasped by a mere mortal.

And this is one why the 'ontological argument for the existence of god' fails

God is that being which nothing greater can be conceived. Existing is better than not existing, therefore god exists.

Ok, we'll ignore the sheer ridiculousness of the argument as a whole, and jump into the part where god can 'be conceived'

Nobody can 'conceive of god' If you ask anyone to explain the actual properties of the christian god without contradicting themselves, they will make them dizzy from going around in circles before they fall back onto the whole 'god is too big to be grasped by us mortals' escape route.

If god is inconceivable, this doesn't disprove god, but it certainly makes the ontological argument even sillier than it otherwise is. (the sheer idea that you can define something into existence should have been laughed out of intellectual discourse centuries ago)

floggg

Links234 wrote: »

I...

...

I got nothin'!

This is why I tend not to even bother engaging fran in a discussion, I should've known better.

In fairness, encouraging him to post his views is usually the best way to win an argument with him.

floggg

1123heavy wrote: »

Do tell me how you have come to the conclusion that I don't ?

EDIT: He's also your God too, whether you like it or not he made you.

Are you saying I'm adopted?

Looks like at least one of my parents have been stealing credit for making me for a long time now so.

Akrasia

The reason why the pope and people of his Ilk are happy to condemn transgender or gay or anyone who falls outside of their view of what god considers to be worthy of a 'good life', is because the pope doesn't think the pursuit of happiness is a worthwhile goal in this world.

The pope thinks that the 'purpose' of life is to glorify god, and if this means we need to lock ourselves up in nunneries and monastaries and vaticans and spend our whole life denying our natural urges and worshiping god, and this is more 'virtuous' than just trying to live your own life to it's full potential.

Any religious person who thinks a life of self sacrifice is a life of virtue can call on others in society to also deny all of their natural urges and live lives of self denial and sacrifice too.

Like it or not, it is consistent with their world view.

Problem is, what a ridiculous waste of a life! I feel sorry for them.

These deluded men think that denying yourself any hope of happiness in this world will secure your place in paradise. It's so sad that they waste the only chance that they will ever have to be conscious and to have experiences.

These people have won the cosmic lottery, we all have, it is ridiculously unlikely that any of us have ever been born, and they have chosen to hand back their prize of a life time supply of love and achievement and art and culture and all the possibilities that the future can bring, in favour of the mystery box they call 'everlasting life'.

Links234

fran17 wrote: »

why don't you answer my question that you have evaded continuously now.

You mean the question I answered twice now? Is this like summing Beatlejuice, and I have to say it three times?

1. There's no such thing as a "veto" in this cases, it doesn't work that way.
2. Parents must give consent on behalf of minors for all medical treatment.

Now, any reasonable person might say that that is a clear and unambiguous answer, that you know, it's not for a parent to "veto" anything, it's for them to give consent. For some reason, that's not sufficient for you and I'm not sure why that is, but you seem to be badgering me to answer it in a certain way... Hey, wait a minute! You're not up to anything disingenuous are you?

Why, I bet you don't even like World Order! :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mkiGMtbrPM

By the way Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Ans pls y/n

StormWarrior

Akrasia wrote: »

The reason why the pope and people of his Ilk are happy to condemn transgender or gay or anyone who falls outside of their view of what god considers to be worthy of a 'good life', is because the pope doesn't think the pursuit of happiness is a worthwhile goal in this world.

The pope thinks that the 'purpose' of life is to glorify god, and if this means we need to lock ourselves up in nunneries and monastaries and vaticans and spend our whole life denying our natural urges and worshiping god, and this is more 'virtuous' than just trying to live your own life to it's full potential.

Any religious person who thinks a life of self sacrifice is a life of virtue can call on others in society to also deny all of their natural urges and live lives of self denial and sacrifice too.

Like it or not, it is consistent with their world view.

Problem is, what a ridiculous waste of a life! I feel sorry for them.

These deluded men think that denying yourself any hope of happiness in this world will secure your place in paradise. It's so sad that they waste the only chance that they will ever have to be conscious and to have experiences.

These people have won the cosmic lottery, we all have, it is ridiculously unlikely that any of us have ever been born, and they have chosen to hand back their prize of a life time supply of love and achievement and art and culture and all the possibilities that the future can bring, in favour of the mystery box they call 'everlasting life'.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but this is just ridiculous. Who on earth said you have to deny yourself any hope of happiness and repress all your urges? Christianity may teach against shagging random strangers in the nightclub toilets every weekend, but it doesn't limit the amount of sex you can have with your spouse. As for monks and nuns, who says they are denying themselves happiness? Some people actually really enjoy that sort of quiet life, and not everybody needs or wants to have sex.

floggg

StormWarrior wrote: »

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but this is just ridiculous. Who on earth said you have to deny yourself any hope of happiness and repress all your urges? Christianity may teach against shagging random strangers in the nightclub toilets every weekend, but it doesn't limit the amount of sex you can have with your spouse. As for monks and nuns, who says they are denying themselves happiness? Some people actually really enjoy that sort of quiet life, and not everybody needs or wants to have sex.

No, it just limits the nature and purpose of the type of sex you have with your spouse, and range of permissible sexual activities. Not to mention who you can actually take as a spouse in the first place.

Of course, if you don't actually want to conceive, then requirement to only engage in unprotected penis in vagina sex will clearly have an indirect impact on frequency.

Akrasia

StormWarrior wrote: »

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but this is just ridiculous. Who on earth said you have to deny yourself any hope of happiness and repress all your urges?

Ah, basically all calvanists...

And regarding the catholic church, the rate of suicide amongst gay and transgender people is unacceptably high and this is in no small part due to the fact that they feel are not accepted for who they are by their family and community.

The pope denies himself his sexual urges, so as far as he is concerned, he thinks 'If I have to deny my own urges to live a good life, then these homosexual people should do the same'

All catholics are supposed to think that all sexual urges outside of marital copulation are to be denied and to do otherwise is a sin against god. Given that sexual urges are amongst the most powerful natural instincts that humans are driven by, telling someone he/she has to deny every sexual urge he/she ever has for his/her entire life because they are all sinful then he is telling them to deny themselves happiness.

All healthy humans need to practise self denial some of the time, and all of the time where fulfilling our urges would harm innocent people, but this directive by the church prohibits entire sections of the population from engaging their primal desires and securing a loving caring mutually respectful romantic relationship with another consenting person.

Christianity may teach against shagging random strangers in the nightclub toilets every weekend, but it doesn't limit the amount of sex you can have with your spouse. As for monks and nuns, who says they are denying themselves happiness? Some people actually really enjoy that sort of quiet life, and not everybody needs or wants to have sex.

Christianity denies homosexual and transgender people the right to have a spouse, and expects them to remain celibate their whole lives (including self masturbation which is also considered sinful for no good reason)

floggg

Akrasia wrote: »

Christianity denies homosexual and transgender people the right to have a spouse, and expects them to remain celibate their whole lives (including self masturbation which is also considered sinful for no good reason)

Because its a waste of the sperm I'm not allowed use.

the_monkey

Absolute BILGE once again from the RCC, I actually like it at this stage, it just shows what a joke they are and their days are numbered.

Kiwi in IE

I'd really like to hear from some of those spouting the 'think of the children' rhetoric, as to how exactly you would manage it if one of your own children was transgender?

fran17

Links234 wrote: »

You mean the question I answered twice now? Is this like summing Beatlejuice, and I have to say it three times?

1. There's no such thing as a "veto" in this cases, it doesn't work that way.
2. Parents must give consent on behalf of minors for all medical treatment.

Now, any reasonable person might say that that is a clear and unambiguous answer, that you know, it's not for a parent to "veto" anything, it's for them to give consent. For some reason, that's not sufficient for you and I'm not sure why that is, but you seem to be badgering me to answer it in a certain way... Hey, wait a minute! You're not up to anything disingenuous are you?

Why, I bet you don't even like World Order! :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mkiGMtbrPM

By the way Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Ans pls y/n

Your two points are well understood Links,you've now stated it three times.My question though,which you continue to evade,has not been answered.Do you accept that if a prepubescent child shows symptoms of GID and a parent refuses to give concent to any form of treatment,then the matter should end there? Or do you feel there should be a mechanism available to contest the parents decision?

Hmmm what do you feel would be the outcome if I made a defamatory remark against a fellow poster in this forum regarding spousal abuse? You being a moderator,I'm curious to get your input?

Links234

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'd really like to hear from some of those spouting the 'think of the children' rhetoric, as to how exactly you would manage it if one of your own children was transgender?

Sadly, I imagine they'd be forced into 'Reparative Therapy' or sent away to some 'Pray away the gay' camp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXmxIVHoag

That, or they'd cut all ties with them and kick their children out of their own homes, like so many Christian families do, which leaves us with the kind of disproportionate levels of LGBT homelessness in places like the US.

Kiwi in IE

Links234 wrote: »

Sadly, I imagine they'd be forced into 'Reparative Therapy' or sent away to some 'Pray away the gay' camp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXmxIVHoag

That, or they'd cut all ties with them and kick their children out of their own homes, like so many Christian families do, which leaves us with the kind of disproportionate levels of LGBT homelessness in places like the US.

And yet they dare to judge others who would emotionally and financially support their child through the choices and transitions that come with being born the physical characteristics of the opposie gender. Very warped ideas of what constitutes good and bad parenting!

ScumLord

1123heavy wrote: »

I often wonder if atheists believe this only because they can't be bothered to do some proper research

What's your definition of proper research?

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Your two points are well understood Links,you've now stated it three times.My question though,which you continue to evade,has not been answered.Do you accept that if a prepubescent child shows symptoms of GID and a parent refuses to give concent to any form of treatment,then the matter should end there? Or do you feel there should be a mechanism available to contest the parents decision?

Hmmm what do you feel would be the outcome if I made a defamatory remark against a fellow poster in this forum regarding spousal abuse? You being a moderator,I'm curious to get your input?

Much as with any child welfare issues, it would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?

Parents should generally have a right to say what medical treatment their children receive? Agree?

But should that be an unfettered right?

What if a parent refuses to allow their critically ill child receive a blood transfusion on religious grounds? Or denies them all medical treatment, and instead just prays to god for a cure that will never come? Do you feel there should be a mechanism available to contest the parents decision?

Does the child's rights not trump the parents? Is it right to conclude that the parent's judgment will always be exercised in the child's best interests? Does the state have any responsibility to vindicate the child's constitutional rights?

Since I imagine you can't give a simple unqualified answer to the above questions, why do you think Links or anybody else would be able to give a simple answer to your question?

Links234

Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Stop evading and answer yes or no!