Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

Patently false and not validated by ANY legitimate scientific study. Ever. If it is, source it.

 

Bs. Define delusional and then explain how transgender doesn’t fit the TEXTBOOK definition of delusional.

 

At least you’re honest. I can appreciate that.

 

Sadly, it is not false witness if he believes what he claims. He's still wrong, but it's not false witness.

 

Again patently false. There was NO scientific evidence in the early 1970s that the psychological community used to validate homosexuality. If there was provide it. There are plenty of examples of homosexual militants harassing psychologists for years, including Molotov cocktails, in an attempt to change their views.

Second of all The instances of “homosexuality in nature” are instances of domination not homosexuality. There is no instance ANYWHERE that you can point to where a male animal penetrates another male animals butt and both animals enjoy it and play along. Except homosexual males. If you have an example provide it.

 

Plenty of evidence for god in the fine tuning theory. While there’s ZERO evidence that a man can change into a woman.

 

That's right up there with claiming that the sun moves around the earth, and that it changed to the earth moving around the sun due to political pressure.

 

The problem with that argument is that you are equating deviance with being automatically wrong. Left handed people are deviants. And yes indeed they were once considered to have a mental deficiency. And no doubt when the scientific/medical community showed that it wasn't many claimed it was due to social/political pressure.

 

You do realize that this argument fails because abortion and sex reassignment and such are all specialities that one has to first choose to go into? If these procedures violate religious tenents, then the doctor already violated them by entering that specialty, regardless if there is a law for it or not.

 

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethic...things-confusing-them-is-harmful-to-children/

There you go british medical journal

 

No it doesn't it's no more than a claim with no scientific study behind it at all.

Just a small counter argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[32] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the ontic existence of the Multiverse.[33]

Anyother evidence?

 

Maybe I should have been more clear. I was referring to a scientific study, not a blog. And secondly I was referring to his claim that a pedophile will molest any sex of children and he doesn’t care.

I’ve already sourced that if you are attracted to only male children you are a homosexual pedophile. Pedophile describes the age you’re attracted to and homosexual describes the sex. You could be a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual pedophile.

 

False. By trying to prevent or enact certain laws, which are based upon religion, they are indeed trying to force us into things. Especially when they use the Bible, Koran, or whatever holy book as the basis of their argument.

 

The issue isn't the genetics of the body, but whether or not those traits of "man" and "woman" that we typically assign to those physical bodies are universal, or simply commonplace with natural exceptions, similar to right and left handedness.

This is before the fact that people keep trying to make the assignment of male/female without ever seeing a person's genitals, chromosomes or genes.

 

Right but that’s not the argument and is, in fact, highly dishonest on their part. That is tantamount to the argument which says... Jerry wins the lottery. So someone asserts there was a 100% chance that Jerry won the lottery because all of the conditions happened in such a way that he won. But that’s not the point. The point is that BEFORE Jerry won the lottery, the likelihood that the conditions for his winning the lottery would occur were 1:250,000,000.

Did it happen? Of course or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the likelihood of all of the exact characteristics needed to even create and sustain Physical MATTER, much less life itself, given all of the other possibilities is for all intents and purposes nil. It is FAR more likely that there was an intelligent force behind it as opposed to sheer dumb luck. It’s FAR more likely that You, you children, their children and so on for six generations win the lottery every single day for the rest of your lives than for everything to just coincidentally pop into existence given all of the other possibilities that could have occurred.

But that’s not even fine tunings entire argument. For life to occur on this planet (or any other) there are tens of thousands of very specific conditions which must be met. For instance we must have a gas giant to absorb and attract the debris from space so we don’t get bombarded. We have to be within a MINUTE range from the sun so that it’s not too hot or too cold. We have to have a satellite the right size so that it impacts our oceans. Our sun has to be the right size and age. And any number of the thousands of more scenarios which ALL must be true and within a minuscule range for life to exist. Much less to exist for the millions of years it has without being completely annihilated.

 

Me trying to make you not violate my religious beliefs does not equate to me violating your rights. You can enact whatever law you’d wish for yourself but you have no right to do it to me.

 

The issue IS the genetic traits of the body. I’m referencing an individual’s sex because for 99% of the people out there (including transgenders) they are easily identifiable as one sex or another. Their madeup gender is not.

 

Because we learn more and more medically all the time, and it changes and/or invalidates earlier knowledge. There is a wealth of medical knowledge on the menstrual cycle alone that overturn earlier established medical knowledge. Then there is the fact that religious fervor can cause people to ignore science and claim it false science. I point once again to the example of the sun moving around the earth.

 

Remember blue laws? Where by law one could not open most businesses on Sunday? Religious based. Granted those are long gone, but make for a good example of such things. But to go more current day let's look at SSM laws and the efforts of the religious to prevent the legalization of such because it was against their religion. And claims of marriage's supposed history of "always being one man and one woman" are further religious attempts to cover up the fact that all kind of forms of marriage have existed in history and across cultures.

 

As is freedom from religion.

 

When you meet a person, how do you know that their sex is?

 

That still doesn’t explain how they’re not delusional. Transgenders fit the TEXTBOOK definition of delusional. They believe something to be true even though all available evidence says it’s not.

 

Well that’s because they had a correct interpretation of the first amendment. They, like the founders, read it for what it says. That CONGRESS, not government, not orgs that take government funding, not state or local government, not schools... CONGRESS cannot make laws establishing or prohibiting religion. So when state laws did so, it was not unconstitutional.

As for SSM the main reason it shouldn’t have happened is economical, not religious.

 

The medical community is saying that the new evidence has sex and gender as separate innate traits, and that characteristics we have been associating with the physical body are tied to gender (internal identity) instead. As noted for example's sake, Galileo was called delusional as well.

 

You know as well as I do that most people are readily identifiable by sex. Most men look like men and most women look like women. Even the ones pretending to be something else look like what they are in almost every case. There are exceptions but they are few and far between.