Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

Indeed.

 

That's a different question. Being kind to Chuck and going along with his wish to behave like a woman is not a lie. Helping him fool someone else into a kiss would be a lie. Just going along is nowhere close to a violation of Christian ideals.

On the other hand, I find the idea of men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, absolutely disgusting and I wouldn't want to have to do the things you're arguing against - I'm just saying it wouldn't be a sin or false witness unless you're helping to fool someone with what you're doing or saying.

My solution to the moral dilemma is that I just stay away from homosexuals and other perversions of nature as much as possible. At work, though, I work with quite a few homosexuals and have to say that they're virtually all (2 exceptions I know of) among the very best employees we have.

Yeah; it turns out that the left doesn't really believe any of that gender identity stuff, do they? At least they only believe it when its used to harm people on the right or the traditional family.

 

Scientific knowledge isn't all it's cracked up to be. Science is constantly proving itself wrong. And constantly proving history and the Bible right.

 

Until 1973, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness. It was changed due to political pressure and constant protests and civil disobedience by gay rights activists and groups, and not because of scientific evidence.

 

Because those who are sexual deviants are more likely to be sexual deviants.... 100% of homosexuals are sexual deviants.. They have deviated from the sexual norms. It's simply another step along their illness to take it to transsexual, transvestite, sex with minors or children.

 

Already did and you are trying to duck out of dealing with the immorality of making false allegations about gays being pedophiles.

 

Science works on the concept of establishing what is factual by falsifying everything else.

Theism uses superstitious assumptions that it pretends are the "truth" even after they have been proven to be false.

With Science you eventually end up with fact based knowledge.

With theism you are stuck with superstitious assumptions that have been falsified.

 

I never made the claim, so why are asking me about it?

 

Wrong!

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality as ESTABLISHED by the scientific evidence of homosexuality occurring among other species in nature.

Or are you going to pretend that same sex penguin couples are "mentally ill"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html

 

Bovine excrement allegation without any shred of credible substantiation.

 

Because you fallaciously alleged that theists are "morally superior".

 

I said they are moral. You just keep adding strawmen BS. Have fun, arguing with your own claims, they are not mine.

 

You cannot DEFEND your own allegation duly noted FTR!

Got it!

 

That is projecting your very specific religious beliefs on to the concept of religion in general. Anyway, by the same belief isn’t it equally possible that an otherwise good but non-religious doctor forced to perform abortions would be condemned to hell too?

In general terms, while I totally agree with laws based around preventing harm (that is essentially the entire point), that can only be about harm that is actually measurable and demonstrable. If you extend it to harm that someone believes could happen, you’re opening it up to literally anything. That really leads back to the question of how we’d determine what is and isn’t a “valid” religious belief to base legal exemptions on.

I’m struggling a bit with your wording here and I think you’re too focused on US Constitution rather on general principles. My general moral position remains fairly simple; No law should be made on the basis of religion, in favour or against it. Laws can take account of particular exemptions or requirements due to individual preferences, including where they’re religious based, but only as long as that doesn’t counter the point of the law.

If it forces you in all circumstances yes and I totally think that should be avoided wherever possible (and in the US largely has been). Of course, laws that apply only in specific circumstances (such as in particular work places), those who greatly object can at least avoid them entirely. That isn’t a perfect solution but it is something of a counterbalance.

 

Any credible evidence to support this BS.

How is science proving itself wrong all the time, unless you mean sciences ability to continue to improve its understanding.

I'll take a guess and say that you don't really understand what is meant by a scientific Theory.

 

We've done the same for religion for centuries, there's not a single piece of evidence supporting religion but it continues to have special dispensation, why is that? is it because it's so popular?

 

Could you explain how it's a perversion of nature when it occurs in nature?

 

How does someone receiving treatment for a psychological issue “harm people on the right or the traditional family”?
Feel free to go into detail since you are obviously completely unbiased after calling it “absolutely disgusting”.

 

It was originally added due to religious influence, fitting that it be removed the same way — homosexuality has not met and does not currently meet the qualifications of mental illness.

 

Lol everything you just said was either incorrect or laughable.

First of all the last line was placed there because of what was discussed earlier. Not all pedophiles are child molesters. You can be a pedophile and never actually molest a child. So they assert that homosexuals being more likely to be pedophiles doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to molest children. It doesn’t change the fact that they acknowledge homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

Second of all even IF today’s rate is 8% homosexuals (which you have yet to source) but assuming it is, you can’t use 8% as your number because that includes female homosexuals. Whereas this study was referring to males. So you’d have to use less than 4%. Moreover they assumed a 2% rate of homosexual males adjusting for those who wouldn’t admit it on a poll. So how about you rework that math.

And lastly and most hilarious. You’re asserting because it was in 1992 that somehow changes the numbers and invalidates the study? Well that’s funny because if you look at almost any defense of homosexuals not being pedophiles, they ALWAYS reference Frank Kameny and Freund. Frank Kameny (besides being an advocate for man-boy sex) did his work in the 60’s and yet you all have NO problem using his research to advance your agenda.

 

Pot kettle achromatic?

 

Nobody is trying to force you. Unlike the left with gender pronouns

 

Well I believe there’s a difference. Though I agree with a lot of your post. The difference in religion and transgender is that while religious belief COULD be true (we don’t know but the possibility exists) whereas we KNOW that a human with a Y chromosome (specifically the SRY gene but no need to get technical now) is a male and nothing that male can EVER do can change that fact.

 

Nothing you said was accurate. You can be a pedophile and never molest a child. You can also molest a child and not be a pedophile because you’re not primarily attracted to children.

 

This is factually false. Pedophilia is about attraction. In the same way that a heterosexual person can engage in homosexual sex, but still not be a homosexual, so too can child sexual molestation occur, with no sexual attraction. Likewise, a person can have pedophilia and never touch a child. It's hard for them, because pedophilia is a compilation disorder much like kleptomania, but it's possible and has happened. Sorry, but I can't let you answer a falsehood with a falsehood.

While individual homosexuals can be child molesters and pedophiles, such are not even a large minority of their numbers. While a distinction, it is an important one.