Religion vs Homosexuality

[mrswdk]

I'm beginning to hate to admit I 'kinda' used to think like this.
I was raised catholic and somehow thought homosexuality was
inherently "wrong" or even "evil" just be its' very nature.

I started to realize how programmed I was maybe around the
age of 17... but even then I didn't openly accept equality.

Thank goodness you've moved on from the sort of irrational fear being spewed by Bernie in this thread.

Please don't use my quote against another person.

That quote became public property the second you hit 'submit'.

And if you don't like freedom then you can go live in France.

1) I said "Please". In an ideal world we are kind to our follow people. No?

2) You are using my words to bash Bernie... even though I don't see where he made any homophobic comments.
So you're kinda um... lying.

I didn't suggest he was homophobic.

[mrswdk]

So again... a minor child is capable of "consensually" engaging in sexual activities?

Yes.

I mean, what is considered a 'minor' is entirely fluid from region to region, but I'm just going to give a blanket 'yes' to all regions.

... but the age of "majority" is moot if a "minor" can consent to sex.

i.e. in the US it ranges from 16yo to 18yo depending on the State. i.e. in some states a 16yo can consent to sex with an adult, and the adult is not at risk of statutory rape, and in others the individual would have to be 18yo.

In your world... it wouldn't matter what the definition "age of consent" is... a 5yo could consent, and the 42yo would be fine.
Yes or No?

I already explicitly answered this question in my previous post.

[clangfield]

Back to the topic...
This is why religions and religion in general are/is nonsense. They can't all be right, so why should one believe any of them?
In the earlier, more ignorant days, they were there to give some sort of guidance (although they were often abused by the smarter ones for money and power); at a time when survival of the species meant procreation, homosexuality was seen as a barrier to that, so it was effectively outlawed - although the more developed societies (Rome, Greece) certainly didn't have a political problem with it. In our more (believe it or not) enlightened times, it is not seen in the same condemned light. Sadly, that has not prevented the newer religions going through the anti-gay and indeed anti-female phases that others went through; people are still being thrown off buildings because of their sexuality.
Abandon all religion and just be nice to each other. It really shouldn't be this hard to be civilised.

[mrswdk]

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226985334_Pedophile_relationships_in_the_Netherlands_Alternative_lifestyle_for_children

The experiences and perceptions of 25 boys in on-going relationships with pedophiles in the Netherlands were studied using a semi-structured interview technique. Areas of personal significance or value to the boys, including the pedophile relationship, the pedophile himself, and the sexual contact, were investigated for their emotional meaning and salience. The older partner and pedophile relationship were found to be significant but not overly important aspects of the boys' experiences. The partner and relationship, including sexual aspects, were experienced in predominately positive terms; evidence of exploitation or misuse was absent.

1) 25qty. is not a statistically significant number.

It's an interesting finding worthy of discussion.

2) I'm not going to download a study promoting pedophilia to my computer.

It's not promoting anything.

3) There are endless studies documenting the inability of minors to make rational decisions... even past the age of 18yo for some people. Young people are less able to factor in long term problems, and only look at short term benefits. As such they are much more easily led to decisions that will have adverse affects. If you allow pedophilia to be legal if both people consent, you open the door to significant abuse by pedophiliacs (i.e. freaks) to trick minors with favors and incentives.

You might as well argue that by permitting women to go to nightclubs and drink alcohol you are opening the door to abuse by date rapists.

4) How would you factor in the rights of parents (guardians) to make decisions for minors? I make all kinds of decisions for my kids every day. If they can make this decision on their own... should they not also be able to make other decisions on their own???
(In which case my kids would eat only candy, skip school frequently, and never leave the computer.)

Do what you want with your kids. Just because something's legal doesn't mean you have to stop parenting them.

5) If you do allow parents (guardians) to make decisions allowing minors to engage with pedophiles... do you not see a whole new world of abuse that will potentially occur, with some people "pimping out" their kids???

No, legalizing consensual sexual relationships between children and adults is not some sort of gateway to parents getting away with inviting people to come over and rape their kids. I don't understand how you have reached the conclusion that it would be.

We would be allowing children to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex, not allowing their parents to decide on their behalf.

6) I can't believe I am wasting my time arguing with you about this. It's ridiculous and sick.

People used to say the same thing about homosexuality, and look which side of history they've ended up on.

[jimboston]

1) 25qty. is not a statistically significant number.

It's an interesting finding worthy of discussion.

How is it worthy of discussion if it's not statistically significant?

2) I'm not going to download a study promoting pedophilia to my computer.

It's not promoting anything.

Hmmm... the summary you posted said that pedophilia was "experienced in predominately positive terms".
That sounds like a promotion to me. You can believe it's not promoting that sick act, if you truly believe the study was scientifically sound and non-biased. I don't believe it was non-biased; and I know it wasn't scientifically sound (as noted above).

3) There are endless studies documenting the inability of minors to make rational decisions... even past the age of 18yo for some people. Young people are less able to factor in long term problems, and only look at short term benefits. As such they are much more easily led to decisions that will have adverse affects. If you allow pedophilia to be legal if both people consent, you open the door to significant abuse by pedophiliacs (i.e. freaks) to trick minors with favors and incentives.

You might as well argue that by permitting women to go to nightclubs and drink alcohol you are opening the door to abuse by date rapists.

Actually this was going to be my counter-point to your believe that pedophilia is fine and minors can make sound decisions about consensual sex. In other words... if you think minors are fully capable of making those decisions, then you must also believe that people all messed up on drugs and alcohol are also fully capable of said decisions.

So what Bill Cosby did to those 50+ women is fine, because after they got Rufied,they were happy to just go along with whatever Bill wanted?

Date rape (which is quite different than what Cosby did) is a tricky one. As it's possible that either or both partners might be intoxicated to some degree.

Oh... and BTW, you are an obvious sexist. You saw that by "permitting women to go to nightclubs"... so you are assuming it's drunk women who are being taken advantage of by sober men??? Is it not equally possible that drunk men might be taken advantage of by sober women?

4) How would you factor in the rights of parents (guardians) to make decisions for minors? I make all kinds of decisions for my kids every day. If they can make this decision on their own... should they not also be able to make other decisions on their own???
(In which case my kids would eat only candy, skip school frequently, and never leave the computer.)

Do what you want with your kids. Just because something's legal doesn't mean you have to stop parenting them.

So then minors couldn't consent? The parents would have to first say it's "OK" for them to consent?
I'm confused. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Some pedophile (i.e freak) finds a kid attractive... does he/she go to the kid for consent or the parent/guardian?

If you are going to say pedophilia is OK, then you need to explain how it would actually work.

5) If you do allow parents (guardians) to make decisions allowing minors to engage with pedophiles... do you not see a whole new world of abuse that will potentially occur, with some people "pimping out" their kids???

No, legalizing consensual sexual relationships between children and adults is not some sort of gateway to parents getting away with inviting people to come over and rape their kids. I don't understand how you have reached the conclusion that it would be.

We would be allowing children to decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex, not allowing their parents to decide on their behalf.

I didn't reach that conclusion. I am trying to get you to explain how consent would actually work in this New World you propose.

So above you say parents can "do what they want" with their kids... and that we shouldn't "stop parenting" them.
Now you say that the kids "would decide for themselves whether or not they want to have sex, not allowing their parents to decide on their behalf." Is this not a conflict?

... or does a Pedophile (i.e. sicko) need to get both parental approval, and consent from the child???

How does it work?

Do you think any sane parent would actually consent to this?
Would you let some freak f*ck your kid?

6) I can't believe I am wasting my time arguing with you about this. It's ridiculous and sick.

People used to say the same thing about homosexuality, and look which side of history they've ended up on.

You are again equating Homosexuality with Pedophilia... and not recognizing or admitting any difference.

Homosexuality between two CONSENTING ADULTS... is NOT... equivalent to Pedophilia; an act between an adult and a child, where science has PROVEN that children are not fully capable of making decisions on their own.

If children were capable of making decisions, then they would not need parents. Modern society now will substitute parents with legal guardians... but in evolutionary terms, children without parent die. We as a species have evolved to require support for many years... at the very least into the teenage years. Evolutionary speaking, children can't make decisions.

[jimboston]

BTW... this thread isn't even about Pedophilia.

I should be arguing with the OP and trying to convince him that Homosexuality is not wrong.

I shouldn't be arguing with you. You are either a freak, or you are just trying to get a rise out of me / this forum.
I'm guessing it's the latter, but I haven't been around long enough to realize your just one of those asses.

[mrswdk]

1) 25qty. is not a statistically significant number.

It's an interesting finding worthy of discussion.

How is it worthy of discussion if it's not statistically significant?

3) There are endless studies documenting the inability of minors to make rational decisions... even past the age of 18yo for some people. Young people are less able to factor in long term problems, and only look at short term benefits. As such they are much more easily led to decisions that will have adverse affects. If you allow pedophilia to be legal if both people consent, you open the door to significant abuse by pedophiliacs (i.e. freaks) to trick minors with favors and incentives.

You might as well argue that by permitting women to go to nightclubs and drink alcohol you are opening the door to abuse by date rapists.

Actually this was going to be my counter-point to your believe that pedophilia is fine and minors can make sound decisions about consensual sex. In other words... if you think minors are fully capable of making those decisions, then you must also believe that people all messed up on drugs and alcohol are also fully capable of said decisions.

So what Bill Cosby did to those 50+ women is fine, because after they got Rufied,they were happy to just go along with whatever Bill wanted?

A vlid comparison this is not.

Date rape (which is quite different than what Cosby did) is a tricky one. As it's possible that either or both partners might be intoxicated to some degree.

he roofied them then fucked them? How is that not date rape?

4) How would you factor in the rights of parents (guardians) to make decisions for minors? I make all kinds of decisions for my kids every day. If they can make this decision on their own... should they not also be able to make other decisions on their own???
(In which case my kids would eat only candy, skip school frequently, and never leave the computer.)

Do what you want with your kids. Just because something's legal doesn't mean you have to stop parenting them.

So then minors couldn't consent? The parents would have to first say it's "OK" for them to consent?

You can still try to teach them how to behave, what to be careful about etc., in just the same way as you currently don't let them eat too much sugary food or watch TV all the time.

Some pedophile (i.e freak) finds a kid attractive... does he/she go to the kid for consent or the parent/guardian?

The kid.

Would you let some freak f*ck your kid?

Well seeing as you said 'f*ck', and that implies consent, I don't see what difference the age of the other person makes.

6) I can't believe I am wasting my time arguing with you about this. It's ridiculous and sick.

People used to say the same thing about homosexuality, and look which side of history they've ended up on.

You are again equating Homosexuality with Pedophilia... and not recognizing or admitting any difference.

I'm equating your arguments with those of the homophobic lobby.

[jimboston]

Date rape (which is quite different than what Cosby did) is a tricky one. As it's possible that either or both partners might be intoxicated to some degree.

he roofied them then fucked them? How is that not date rape?

What Cosby did is just Rape.

The Cosby case(s) are clearly non-consensual, if for no other reason
than the fact that the women didn't consent to getting intoxicated.
There is a spectrum upon which the term Date Rape can be applied.

The term "Date Rape" is applied to a broad spectrum of cases.

If two people are on a date, and there's no consent / one party is forced... that is called Date Rape.

There is also situations where one or both parties are intoxicated, to various degrees.
These situations are also called Date Rape. Though there is a lot of potential ambiguity.
What happens when both parties are drunk, and consent in the moment... but one party
regrets it the next day. Is this Date Rape?

These questions are off-topic though... open a new thread if you want. I won't
debate them here.

[Bernie Sanders]

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226985334_Pedophile_relationships_in_the_Netherlands_Alternative_lifestyle_for_children

The experiences and perceptions of 25 boys in on-going relationships with pedophiles in the Netherlands were studied using a semi-structured interview technique. Areas of personal significance or value to the boys, including the pedophile relationship, the pedophile himself, and the sexual contact, were investigated for their emotional meaning and salience. The older partner and pedophile relationship were found to be significant but not overly important aspects of the boys' experiences. The partner and relationship, including sexual aspects, were experienced in predominately positive terms; evidence of exploitation or misuse was absent.

1) 25qty. is not a statistically significant number.

2) I'm not going to download a study promoting pedophilia to my computer.

3) There are endless studies documenting the inability of minors to make rational decisions... even past the age of 18yo for some people. Young people are less able to factor in long term problems, and only look at short term benefits. As such they are much more easily led to decisions that will have adverse affects. If you allow pedophilia to be legal if both people consent, you open the door to significant abuse by pedophiliacs (i.e. freaks) to trick minors with favors and incentives.

4) How would you factor in the rights of parents (guardians) to make decisions for minors? I make all kinds of decisions for my kids every day. If they can make this decision on their own... should they not also be able to make other decisions on their own???
(In which case my kids would eat only candy, skip school frequently, and never leave the computer.)

5) If you do allow parents (guardians) to make decisions allowing minors to engage with pedophiles... do you not see a whole new world of abuse that will potentially occur, with some people "pimping out" their kids???

6) I can't believe I am wasting my time arguing with you about this. It's ridiculous and sick.

mrswdk has just passed the line of acceptabilily. Any parent who has children would be disgusted with his position and would likely lynch his @ss

[jimboston]

There are endless studies documenting the inability of minors to make rational decisions... even past the age of 18yo for some people. Young people are less able to factor in long term problems, and only look at short term benefits. As such they are much more easily led to decisions that will have adverse affects. If you allow pedophilia to be legal if both people consent, you open the door to significant abuse by pedophiliacs (i.e. freaks) to trick minors with favors and incentives.

mrswdk... You ignored the important point. That it's scientifically proven minors are not wired to make good long-term decisions. Their decision capability making is very limited. On what basis do you think a 5yo is capable of making sound judgements?

4) How would you factor in the rights of parents (guardians) to make decisions for minors? I make all kinds of decisions for my kids every day. If they can make this decision on their own... should they not also be able to make other decisions on their own???
(In which case my kids would eat only candy, skip school frequently, and never leave the computer.)

Do what you want with your kids. Just because something's legal doesn't mean you have to stop parenting them.

So then minors couldn't consent? The parents would have to first say it's "OK" for them to consent?

You can still try to teach them how to behave, what to be careful about etc., in just the same way as you currently don't let them eat too much sugary food or watch TV all the time.

So I can try to teach them... but I have no authority?

Please explain to me how I can prevent them from not eating sugary food or having sex with strange adults if I have no legal authority. Under current law I have legal authority.

So minors now in your New World can make all their own decisions???

Some pedophile (i.e freak) finds a kid attractive... does he/she go to the kid for consent or the parent/guardian?

The kid.

Nice

Would you let some freak f*ck your kid?

Well seeing as you said 'f*ck', and that implies consent, I don't see what difference the age of the other person makes.

So yes?

You would let some 40yo dude f*ck your 5yo daughter, if she wanted?

How old are you and do you have any kids?

Please don't tell me this isn't relevant... it absolutely is.

You are proposing to let minor children make all their own decisions.

Do you have any experience with kids whatsoever?

Hey... everyone else... am I just letting myself fall into this idiots false argument trap?
Is he just being stupid to get me riled up... or does he actually believe this shit?

[Bernie Sanders]

mrswdk does not have legal custody of any children, let alone any children of his own and if he did, sure the courts won't let him near them.

[jimboston]

I'm done with this thread.

It's just infuriating, which is likely the goal of mrswdk.

mrswdk... the idea that you are not making any distinctions between the cognitive decision making capabilities of children is ridiculous. You group all kids together... so 1yo, 3yo, 5yo, 10yo, 15yo, etc. are all equally capable of "consenting" in your "New World". It's simply ludicrous.

There are some things that are legal, but still distasteful... i.e. a 40yo man getting together with an 18yo woman.
Legal, but distasteful. The law however needs to be consistent, and in order to be consistent there must be some measurable way to assign a person the right to make their own decisions.

You are saying that right starts at birth. It's not only impractical. It's completely illogical from a scientific standpoint.

I'm done!

[riskllama]

mrs pulled in a lunker today!!!

[Bernie Sanders]

:lol:
mrs pulled in a lunker today!!!

mrswdk will now cower in other threads and hope that this thread disappears or gets buried.

[mrswdk]

Would you let some freak f*ck your kid?

Well seeing as you said 'f*ck', and that implies consent, I don't see what difference the age of the other person makes.

So yes?

You would let some 40yo dude f*ck your 5yo daughter, if she wanted?

Well no, because a girl/boy that small they're probably going to end up turning several internal organs into mashed potato if they engage in coitus with a full-grown adult.

Not that I've heard of any 5 year-olds interested in having sex before, let alone doing so with an old man. Kids generally only tend to develop much of an interest in that sort of thing around puberty as far as I'm aware.

How old are you and do you have any kids?

Please don't tell me this isn't relevant... it absolutely is.

It's not. It's just your excuse for letting emotion cloud your judgement.

[jimboston]

Would you let some freak f*ck your kid?

Well seeing as you said 'f*ck', and that implies consent, I don't see what difference the age of the other person makes.

So yes?

You would let some 40yo dude f*ck your 5yo daughter, if she wanted?

Well no, because a girl/boy that small they're probably going to end up turning several internal organs into mashed potato if they engage in coitus with a full-grown adult.

Not that I've heard of any 5 year-olds interested in having sex before, let alone doing so with an old man. Kids generally only tend to develop much of an interest in that sort of thing around puberty as far as I'm aware.

So you wouldn't let your 5yo consent to fucking a 40yo?
You just stated earlier you would.

So now you've changed your mind?

... or are you saying that there is some age a person must reach before they can consent?

In response to whether or not a 5yo would be interested in having sex... aren't you kind of agreeing with the rest of us here???

The point being that a 5yo doesn't even really understand what sex is. Whether we are taking about full-blown intercourse or something less... a 5yo doesn't understand the concept. So how can that 5yo consent?

The 5yo may "agree" to something if the adult is nice to them in other ways or gives them stuff... but that doesn't mean they understand what they are agreeing to. So how can they consent?

Can a 5yo sign a contract in your "New World"?

How old are you and do you have any kids?

Please don't tell me this isn't relevant... it absolutely is.

It's not. It's just your excuse for letting emotion cloud your judgement.

How is your exposure to young children (or lack thereof) irrelevant to this argument?
If you have limited exposure to young children, then you also have less direct exposure to the limited decision making capabilities of said children. This directly impacts your ability to understand why they are incapable of "consenting" to certain activities.

Look of the legal definition of the term "informed consent". That's the standard we have to apply.

Furthermore, if you're not a parent, then you are completely incapable of understanding the feelings a parent gets towards threats to their child. THERE IS NOT OTHER EMOTION like the emotion a parent feels when their child is hurt or in danger.

I don't care how much you think you love your parents, your siblings, your best friend, your lover. The feelings you might get when one of these people are hurt or in danger DO NOT COMPARE to the feelings (most) parents get when their child is hurt or in danger. Most (if not all) parents I know would gladly throw themselves in front of harm to protect their kid. So yeah. Relevant.

Can anyone hack mrswdk, and find out what kinda kiddie porn is on his computer?

Question for the other forum dwellers...

Would you rather live in mrswdk's world, where pedophiles can have free access to your consenting children?
-or-
Would you rather live in a world were we string up people like mrswdk, who may not (or may) be pedophiles themselves, but support the "rights" of pedophiles to abuse kids?

[/]

Question for the other forum dwellers...

Would you rather live in mrswdk's world, where pedophiles can have free access to your consenting children?
-or-
Would you rather live in a world were we string up people like mrswdk, who may not (or may) be pedophiles themselves, but support the "rights" of pedophiles to abuse kids?

So Ancient Greece vs Inquisition Spain?
Finally a thread that derails back into the the topic in the title!

[tzor]

Thank goodness you've moved on from the sort of irrational fear being spewed by Bernie in this thread.

Hey, what's wrong with "irrational?" PI is irrational. Everyone loves Pie! (and for the record e is also an irrational number and the product of two irrational numbers is an irrational number).

[tzor]

Would you rather live in mrswdk's world, where pedophiles can have free access to your consenting children?

Let's be clear here. Your average pedophile is (male/female) (hetrosexual/homosexual) (single/married).

While they can be literally anybody, they have one general characteristic; they tend to be very manipulative. They know how to con both children and adults.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously mrwlk doesn't understand the concept of being psychologically mature enough to make informed decisions. An 11 year old doesn't understand the effects of sexual acts on the psyche.

This! Any attempt to claim that children should excercise true free will just doesn't understand children. They can make choices, sure, but not the long term consequences. Its up to adults to make sure the choices they can make are within reasonable limits.

I mean, kids are quite happy to eat candy and ice cream until it makes them sick -- and to stay up too late, run in front of cars to get toys, forget to check -- many things.

What Jesus actually said was that to divorce was wrong because in so doing you made a woman a prostitute. In that time and day, this was essentially true. Even so, he also said "for anything except adultry". In that case, even the Roman Catholic Church has always approved divorce.

Not so fast back at you. There is an odd exception in the Gospels. This is often mistranslated as "adultery" but there are two other generally known meanings of the term porneia.

Another interpretation of porneia is to translate it as sexual activity prior to marriage. This is known as the “Betrothal” view. In Jewish marriage, betrothal was a formal step prior to the consummation of the marriage. Once betrothed, the parties were legally married even though they did not enjoy all of the benefits of marriage. Nevertheless, divorce would still be required if someone wanted to call off the wedding. According to the betrothal view, the exceptive clause means: divorce and remarriage are prohibited, unless there has been infidelity prior to the wedding itself, in which case the marriage does not have to take place.

Source? (seriously, interested.. if you don't have a specific one, I can try to google, but sounds like you know of some specific sources?_

The betrothal view is appealing because, in the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel (See Mt 1:18-19), Joseph is described as a “righteous man,” who, nevertheless, had decided to divorce Mary during their betrothal period since he suspected her of porneia. Joseph could not be called “righteous” if he was about to do an action which would later be condemned by Jesus. Therefore, this situation in the beginning of Matthew's gospel explains why Matthew inserted the exceptive clause.

This is no exception. If she were pregnant from another human male, then he would be righteous. Remember, his debate was whether to divorce her quietly or to have her stoned.

A third interpretation is called the “Rabbinic” view. In the rabbinic view, porneia is interpreted to mean marriage, or in general, sexual activity, within the prohibited degrees of kinship as specified by Leviticus 18. Many scholars agree that Matthew was writing to a mixed Jewish/Gentile community. Gentiles, unlike the Jews, would sometimes enter into marriage with a close blood relative. The influx of Gentiles into the Christian community caused the leaders of the Christians to specify what was necessary of Gentile converts. Their decision is found in Acts 15:20, which includes a statement that Gentiles must avoid porneia. In this context, porneia most likely means marriage to a close blood relative.

According to the rabbinic view, the exceptive clause means: divorce and remarriage is prohibited, unless the marriage is unlawful in accordance with Lev 18, in such a case Gentiles must separate and enter into a lawful marriage.

I am not sure how this applies. The blood relative bit applies prior to any relationship.

Also, I am not sure that converted Gentiles had to divorce when their marriages were found inconsistent. At any rate, the modern Roman Catholic view is that they stay with any prior marriage. Most notably, if a woman is in a polygamist marriage prior to conversion, those bonds stay because in those societies to divorce under those circumstances would cause harm to the women and their children. (example.. the masai converted). That is a bit of a diversion from the OP, though.

The Catholic Church has never "approved" divorce. Technically speaking, she cannot "approve" divorce. Divorce is "civil" construct. The church has never recognized that "divorce" breaks the bonds of sacramental marriage, assuming that a proper sacramental marriage was formed in the first place.

[/quote] Technically true. However, many people refer to an annulment as a "Roman Catholic divorce", because the difference is religious/technical. The point is the marriage is severed.

At any rate, that doctrine actually does disagree with Christ's pronouncement in the view of most Protestants. He did say "may not divorce except in the case of adultry".

[mrswdk]

You guys keep ragging on about 'long-term consequences'. What long-term consequences of sex are you talking about, exactly?

[mrswdk]

Question for the other forum dwellers...

Would you rather live in mrswdk's world, where pedophiles can have free access to your consenting children?
-or-
Would you rather live in a world were we string up people like mrswdk, who may not (or may) be pedophiles themselves, but support the "rights" of pedophiles to abuse kids?

So Ancient Greece vs Inquisition Spain?
Finally a thread that derails back into the the topic in the title!

An excellent metaphor. Do we choose irrational hatred (such as that peddled by jimboston, Bernie Sanders and warmonger) or do we open our hearts and mind to Enlightenment?

[jgordon1111]

The issues are clouded by preconceived teaching,handed down and twisted to the desires of those in charge of them,first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.I digress,Bruce Jenner is still a man,no amount of estrogen,hormones,name change,male organs removed,or breasts grown can change that.Why you ask ? Because a male is born with a X and a Y chromosome, women have 2X chromosomes, and as of yet science has not been able to change them, so Bruce is still Bruce chasity is still chasity, no matter what the media calls them and that's a FACT. It has nothing to do with religion or homophobia. Its science and FACT.

[PLAYER57832]

Back to the topic...
This is why religions and religion in general are/is nonsense. They can't all be right, so why should one believe any of them?
....
Abandon all religion and just be nice to each other. It really shouldn't be this hard to be civilised.

lol...lack of religion IS a religion.