Why judge anyone? Why can't beliefs about transgender identity be respected equally?

[emilynghiem]

GWV5903, you can complain all you want, but you are not on authority on scripture, scripture is not universal and all encompassing as you wish it was, and Jesus' counsel contradicts yours.

So, easy peasy, trot along.

Dear JakeStarkey
yes and no

The language and culture of using Scripture literally is not universal.

But the MESSAGE AND MEANING of Scripture is universal to all humanity.
The message is Restorative Justice, how forgiveness and correction
in that spirit of Christ Jesus "saves humanity from suffering and sin"
and brings "peace on earth or the Kingdom of God."

The terminology may not be universal, but the purpose is to help all humanity
to realize peace and justice both personally and publicly, locally and globally.

BTW I say the same for our Constitutional laws: the letter and LITERAL
jurisdiction and process is only for US govt and American citizens;
but the MEANING and AUTHORITY behind the natural laws
the Constitutional systems and principles are based on,
THOSE are universal for ALL HUMANITY.

I agree if you stay literal, that is limiting the audience and scope.

But the spirit of the laws in the Bible and the Constitution
apply to all humanity in the spiritual process of seeking
peace and justice. One set of laws addresses church authority
and the people who commit to following and putting that first; one set of laws addresses
state authority and the people who commit to following and putting that first.
And the ideal is make sure these agree in harmony.

 

[emilynghiem]

When will we get a law protecting normal people?

When more people enforce them that way.
Grampa Murked U
I believe in enforcing consent of the governed as the standard of law.
Where any policies, rulings, laws or decisions involving matters of BELIEF
require a consensus on procedure or policy by the people affected, or it
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If people AGREE to use majority rule,
court ruling, or executive order to make a faith-based policy, that shows consent.
But if they don't agree to use govt for faith-based matters, then anyone can invoke the First Amendment or argue against discrimination by creed, and show that the policy is unconstitutional by excluding someone's belief.
This way, the liberals are right about separating church from state, but it has to be applied EQUALLY
to THEIR political beliefs as well, the same way it is enforced for religious beliefs. All beliefs should
be treated EQUALLY under law or it's discrimination to legislate some and penalize others!

That would protect ALL people regardless who we consider normal or abnormal.

Any bullying by coercion or exclusion is abuse and any group
like LGBT or Political Parties seeking to collectively censor or punish people for their beliefs
is basically "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" by abusing govt to penalize and discriminate against others.

 

[emilynghiem]

What is wrong with people having conflicting beliefs about transgender identity.
To some people it's internal, and not a choice.
To others it's about external appearance, a behavioral choice.
Why not treat both approaches as creeds, and weigh and respect them equally under law?
Is that really too much to ask?

If Hindus, Muslims and Vegans don't agree on not eating beef, pork or no meat at all;
does this require govt to pass a policy imposing one and excluding another? For matters of beliefs or creeds, what happened to govt generally staying out of conflicts and letting people work it out and decide for themselves how to exercise their beliefs without stepping on each other's boundaries.

Do we see Lutherans suing to force Catholics to open up their communions to everyone to avoid discrimination? The policy of letting institutions work out their own systems works in private; why can't bathroom policies be treated as personal. Sure, where public institutions are involved, nobody should be discriminated against, but that goes both ways; a policy that seeks to CORRECT an issue of discrimination can't impose a different one and be pushed as a solution.

If a couple is the only Vegan at a dinner is there anything wrong with preparing a meal differently for that couple, WITHOUT changing the whole menu for all the other guests so they are all treated the same?

Let's compare some other scenarios, tell me if you see the similarities or not:

When Muslims want to pray at work, they may request a special arrangement with their management to have a quiet place to pray 5 times a day.
Does this mean EVERYONE has to be subject to that? No. it's kept in private.
There is nothing shameful about being different, and doing something in a private
room or corner that nobody else has to ask for and do.

If Christians want to express or share their beliefs in ways that affect others, people have the right to say NO I don't feel comfortable. Don't impose that on me in public, keep it in private. This isn't considered discrimination but courtesy to understand other people may not take it the same way it is meant.

Some people don't get how is it imposing on Christians to ask them to keep their ways to themselves. But some of their belief is based on duty to share with others, and they feel excluded and a sense of loss at being denied what is natural to them as free expression and exercise. to others it is imposing and pushing religion in public.

Here isn't something similar happening? Both sides have beliefs that impact the others.
Neither side is going to get their way without infringing on the sense of security of the others. So that is why Unisex restrooms or neutral / singlestalled facilities seem the best option which don't require EITHER side to change their views or change how they act.

The rest of the debate appears to be emotional attachment and personal meaning this issue has to different people.

Since it isn't scientifically proven what is going on with transgender identity, it's all personal beliefs and faith based. So why not respect those equally and impose none, and exclude none. Allow people freedom to work out their issues they are bringing to the table. And as for the restrooms, it seems unisex restrooms don't cause any conflict, so why not remain neutral? isn't that what govt policy should be ideally, totally neutral?

The emotional and personal factors involved here are what is really causing the debates to escalate beyond repair. The facts are simple that NOTHING is proven, so it's all faith based on both sides. The sooner we can accept that, and separate our personal stakes and meaning this has to us from the actual policies that are going to work or going to fail, the better we can take steps to avoid failure and to seek what is more effective.

I hope the hoopla and upset calms down, and people rise above the personal issues at stake to work out fair policies that respect all people and restore a sense of normal standards. Thanks for letting me share, and I hope you will also! Yours truly, Emily

It is not a "belief"

It is a MENTAL ILLNESS caused by chemical imbalances.
Would you offer a suicidal person a gun?
Would you offer a really fat person a bag of candy?
A depressed person downers?

Dear Grampa Murked U
How do you suggest we screen for this mental illness?
Don't we have to prove someone is mentally ill and incapable of knowing right from wrong before we declare them incompetent.
Where is due process of law here?

I have no problem PROVING what is sick, what is natural,
what can be changed, what cannot. Great! Let's do it.

Until then, however, without PROOF, Grampa Murked U
that means our arguments are based on human judgment and faith based.

We don't want advocates depriving US of liberty just because
of some percent of the population that is bullying people over their gender.
PROVE these people did wrong, go through due process, and punish THOSE people
who are threatening, harassing or bullying people for their beliefs about gender and orientation.
(Don't punish all of us collectively as a response to bullying by other people.)
Likewise, PROVE which people are mentally ill; don't assume ALL such people are.

We have to live by the same rules.
Due process is due process, BEFORE you deprive EITHER SIDE of the
rights to their beliefs and their liberties.

And BTW Grampa Murked U I'm NOT just saying this "hypothetically"
I DO believe with marijuana and health care laws about how to pay for costs,
we DO NEED BETTER SCREENING for mental addiction, abuse and illness,
if not simply to save on costs. We do need to research and PROVE a better
way for early detection, diagnosis, treatment and cure. It has to be neutral and
scientifically sound, because we don't need more stories like CPS, IRS and other agencies
punishing and harassing people for political agenda who haven't committed any wrongs.

And yes, Grampa Murked U
what people believe about their orientation and gender is FAITH BASED.
If you believe you are a woman in a man's body, if you believe you
should be married to a partner of the same sex as your right, those are BELIEFS.

That is not proven by science, it is based on what people BELIEVE.
So it is equal under the law as what you and I believe, too!

That way we are EQUAL.
We are Equally protected from having rights and liberties deprived from us
without due process of law.

If you want to prove that we did something wrong, go through the process,
prove we committed a crime or we are mentally ill and not legally competent.
But don't pass judgments or policies based on faith and belief.

It has to be equal. No more bullying back and forth.
If you have beliefs that can't be proven, well so does the other side.
So let both sides have their beliefs, keep them in private,
and don't impose them in public based on faith.
Clearly other people don't agree, so the process stops there!

Nobody can lawfully legislate beliefs in such ways that discriminate against others.
Whoever is abusing govt to do so needs to stop. That goes for BOTH SIDES!

Screen for it? They openly admit it. They seek drugs to enhance their delusion. They seek surgery to confirm their Delusions.

Pwe are a free society so do what you will but if you try to force that nonsense as normal on my children or grandchildren then I draw the line and tell you to kindly fuck off.

And this is an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most on the right, and the propensity of most on the right to lie.

In this case the idiotic lie that those transgender try to ‘force’ anything on anyone.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
No "force" is necessary only the existence of a belief.
For the cases of references to God, to prayer, to crosses in public institutions or on public property,
no "force" is necessary to call for "separation of church and state" based on BELIEFS.

Just principle alone, C_Clayton_Jones
do you agree?

 

[Silhouette]

Does that include separation of the Church of LGBT and state?

 

[emilynghiem]

GWV5903, you can complain all you want, but you are not on authority on scripture, scripture is not universal and all encompassing as you wish it was, and Jesus' counsel contradicts yours.

So, easy peasy, trot along.

Dear JakeStarkey

1. Jesus would remind us to forgive trespasses as we want God to forgive ours.
So if LGBT cannot forgive Christians but want to penalize them for differences in belief,
natural laws would tell us you get the justice you give.
And so there are as many Christians who cannot forgive LGBT
and believe God punishes them with suffering for what they consider bad choices.
In spiritual healing, that has worked to heal people after abuse that caused
unwanted homosexual attractions and behavior, these conditions CAN change
after the forgiveness allows full healing.

How many LGBT people do you know support spiritual healing
of transgender people to avoid suicide? Most gay activists I know
are unfamiliar or afraid of spiritual healing if it has anything to do with changing orientation to heterosexual.
When I explain that it helps equally with people who come out homosexual or transgender,
then they aren't so afraid it is only for trying to "force people to change"
That's not how it works.
The only successful cases I know of people healing this way
is by Forgiveness and Letting Go of all fear, attachment, unforgiven issues and conflicts,
anything negative. Which is consistent with both Christianity and Buddhism, as part of natural laws
on how human nature works spiritually.

2. As for matters of state govt and public law
Jesus would tell us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
and unto God what is God's

Since our beliefs are private and what we need to feel secure in bathrooms
is personal, we should address and resolve these matters on a personal private level first.

Any grievances we have with neighbors should be addressed directly with those neighbors.
See also Matthew 18:15-20

What is public policy should be agreed on by all the public so it represents everyone on that level.
If we can't agree, we take it locally, either state by state, or if we can't agree
we take it district by district, school by school. And create a policy that all people in that
community can agree on and live with as including and representing interests of everyone affected.

If we cannot agree on beliefs, then many people have found
that unisex, single stall or neutral facilities have avoided this conflict of personal beliefs.

Nowhere does Jesus or the Bible expect anyone to force people
to forgive and change their beliefs through Govt.

The only way I can imagine this, is if it is KARMA that if Christians
have violated the rights of others by pushing their private beliefs through secular govt,
then this is the backlash and their turn to feel how oppressive and damaging
it is to do that! But again, it goes both ways. If this is the case, if it is backlash and
political karma, then the liberals and LGBT need to ALSO recognize they are
COMMITTING THE SAME VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION
by bullying and bulldozing their beliefs through govt against the will of others.
And so judging and penalizing people for opposing them IS JUST AS WRONG
as when Christians do this.

So if that is why this is happening, it is the PROCESS of reaching equal justice.
But two wrongs aren't right. This is just the PROCESS of learning we can
be equally right or wrong as the neighbors we criticize. After we agree
to forgive and correct the problems that are MUTUAL, then maybe we can
establish a more fair standard and understanding of what is equal justice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GWV5903 may think he grasps man's laws but clearly has forgotten that Jesus Christ brought the greatest gift of all, the Grace of Love. Those who fail to grasp that, whether LGBT or those like GWV, priceless gift will keep looking to scripture for The Law and yet always fail. God judges morality and man but behavior. And America as a whole will not be going back to the old way of dealing with LGBT individuals. Just not going to happen.

 

[emilynghiem]

When will we get a law protecting normal people?

We already have. North Carolina passed it and it will be upheld against the DOJ's challenge. The USSC will find in favor of women rape survivors and Justice Ginsburg's words about equality not applying to sex-segregated showers and bathrooms etc. marked "women" outside.

As soon as North Carolina wins, other states will adopt similar measures to escape the certain liability of allowing self-diagnosed men-pretending-to-be-women into showers and locker rooms with actual women. That is lawsuit central. No state could afford the tsunami of lawsuits that will follow with men triggering 17 million women rape survivor's PTSD in the shower rooms.

Dear Silhouette
It depends how the law is written and enforced.
If it goes TOO far and discriminates "the other way"
it could end up like DOMA and cause the equal and opposite backlash.

Because DOMA went too far, like the bans AGAINST same sex marriage that went too far,
then people used that as grounds to argue they needed protection and
pushed through rulings to defend their beliefs from discrimination.

The best way is to ban any contested policy that discriminates on the basis of creed or belief,
and require that policies satisfy all sides and represent the community affected.
I suspect this would lead to unisex or single use facilities to avoid lawsuits or the need for security guards.

 

[emilynghiem]

GWV5903 may think he grasps man's laws but clearly has forgotten that Jesus Christ brought the greatest gift of all, the Grace of Love. Those who fail to grasp that, whether LGBT or those like GWV, priceless gift will keep looking to scripture for The Law and yet always fail. God judges morality and man but behavior. And America as a whole will not be going back to the old way of dealing with LGBT individuals. Just not going to happen.

Neither of you can force that on people.
Only by respecting each other's beliefs can we even hear each other
and redress the grievances we are each trying to voice. Then we can heal our relations,
work together, and put together solutions that rise out of all these problems we are complaining about.

I believe both of you are on the side of reason.
If we put the truth first, it sets us free from all this other suffering and strife.
Let us not let that defeat us.
I trust you both to put aside the personal issues,
let's stick to the points we are trying to share, and we can establish
a better understanding that way. Thank you JakeStarkey and GWV5903
I know you both mean well, and I hope you both succeed in getting your points across
and not losing them to online bickering. I know that's the culture here, but please,
let us rise above that as it is clear to me you are both better people than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GWV5903 may think he grasps man's laws but clearly has forgotten that Jesus Christ brought the greatest gift of all, the Grace of Love. Those who fail to grasp that, whether LGBT or those like GWV, priceless gift will keep looking to scripture for The Law and yet always fail. God judges morality and man but behavior. And America as a whole will not be going back to the old way of dealing with LGBT individuals. Just not going to happen.

Neither of you can force that on people.
Only by respecting each other's beliefs can we even hear each other
and redress the grievances we are trying to voice. Then we can heal our relations,
work together, and put together solutions that rise out of all these problems we are complaining about.

That is why we have legislatures and courts.

Our democratic Republic is adversarial, always has been and always will be, emily.

 

[emilynghiem]

GWV5903 may think he grasps man's laws but clearly has forgotten that Jesus Christ brought the greatest gift of all, the Grace of Love. Those who fail to grasp that, whether LGBT or those like GWV, priceless gift will keep looking to scripture for The Law and yet always fail. God judges morality and man but behavior. And America as a whole will not be going back to the old way of dealing with LGBT individuals. Just not going to happen.

Neither of you can force that on people.
Only by respecting each other's beliefs can we even hear each other
and redress the grievances we are trying to voice. Then we can heal our relations,
work together, and put together solutions that rise out of all these problems we are complaining about.

That is why we have legislatures and courts.

Our democratic Republic is adversarial, always has been and always will be, emily.

We don't have to be so adversarial that we contradict our own principles and defeat our own purpose.

Even when people disagreed about the difference between Federalism and antifederalism,
Americans managed to pass a well written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why can't we come together, despite the same historic differences that haven't changed,
and write policies we agree cover all the bases?

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service:
ethics-commission.net
Passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980.

Why can't we strive to write laws where we actually AGREE to them?

The Second Amendment is written where it is interpreted two totally opposite ways,
but it still stands. If the marriage laws were written that neutrally, and now the
bathroom policies, we could all get our way and nobody would feel left out.

I'm even open to the idea of separating funding so citizens don't have to fight over
beliefs they don't want to be under or support. When it comes to private matters,
of course, people want personal control and don't want outside parties deciding what affects us.

It only makes sense that if we reserved federal govt to just those areas it is designed to manage,
we wouldn't have all the problems we have today.

A lot of the problems we have is from not managing personal responsibilities
locally, so that collectively it becomes a global problem and we turn to govt to handle it.
But by the nature of it being an escalated problem, govt isn't in a position to
untangle and address issues that are better solved on a local level to begin with!

Part of the ADVERSARIAL nature of govt is this conflict between local and global authority,
Individual vs. collective

I am asking to set up better means of mediating conflicts so we can resolve
MORE problems locally and cost-effectively.

Just because conflicts will always arise in diverse populations as in America,
doesn't mean we have to resort to political bullying to get anything done through our system.

It is not illegal to form a consensus first, and pass more policies by consensus
like the Code of Ethics was passed.

If people aren't even taught how to do that, how is that an equal choice?
It may become a necessary part of citizenship and "equal rights and protections"
to teach people conflict resolution, so they don't become victims of political bullying and abuse!

 

[Silhouette]

When will we get a law protecting normal people?

We already have. North Carolina passed it and it will be upheld against the DOJ's challenge. The USSC will find in favor of women rape survivors and Justice Ginsburg's words about equality not applying to sex-segregated showers and bathrooms etc. marked "women" outside.

As soon as North Carolina wins, other states will adopt similar measures to escape the certain liability of allowing self-diagnosed men-pretending-to-be-women into showers and locker rooms with actual women. That is lawsuit central. No state could afford the tsunami of lawsuits that will follow with men triggering 17 million women rape survivor's PTSD in the shower rooms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We always resort to political bullying to get our way.

We are America.

It is better than shooting each other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When will we get a law protecting normal people?

We already have. North Carolina passed it and it will be upheld against the DOJ's challenge. The USSC will find in favor of women rape survivors and Justice Ginsburg's words about equality not applying to sex-segregated showers and bathrooms etc. marked "women" outside.

As soon as North Carolina wins, other states will adopt similar measures to escape the certain liability of allowing self-diagnosed men-pretending-to-be-women into showers and locker rooms with actual women. That is lawsuit central. No state could afford the tsunami of lawsuits that will follow with men triggering 17 million women rape survivor's PTSD in the shower rooms.

A none answer to a none problem. Legislate away.

 

[emilynghiem]

We always resort to political bullying to get our way.

We are America.

It is better than shooting each other.

No, again JakeStarkey
the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed unanimously by Congress
ie a CONSENSUS

Do you see anyone bullying anyone to revoke the First Amendment?
Everyone know agrees to keep that law.

Why can't we write more laws like that?

Verbal bullying may be better than shooting,
but resolving conflicts is even better than both.

If we don't like other people bullying, we'd be hypocrites to bully others.
If we want the right to CONSENT to policies and changes that respect
our beliefs, this works where we respect the same CONSENT of others.
That's how mediation works.

In fact, I've heard testimonies, even by lawyers, who said that mediation saved their
lives and careers. Once they experienced the difference, they wouldn't go back
to the adversarial system.

You get your way, without fighting or gambling by giving the power to a third party to decide for you, and the other side equally supports the solution. Both sides win, both get their objections addressed in the process in order to reach agreement at the end.

JakeStarkey how else are we going to live up to the standards of
redressing grievances and
equal protection of the laws.

If we are going to achieve Equal Justice, it will be by peace and free choice, not by force of bullying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like what? A Code of Ethics that no one wants to follow?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Why? Because I am not going to entertain the idea that some delusional dude who thinks he is a woman is mentally healthy and sane. Not only is that insulting American's intelligence, but you're not doing the delusional man who thinks he is a chick even though he has a dick any favors either when you pretend they're not nuts.

Put them in a mental hospital and see if you can snap them out of it....because I'll be damned if I'm going to buy what you crazy leftists are selling.

 

[emilynghiem]

Like what? A Code of Ethics that no one wants to follow?

I propose to put tax incentives behind it JakeStarkey
We can reduce the debts charged to taxpayers if we sort through how much was incurred by abuses, or how much was spent unethically for private benefit (or wasted on illicit contracts) that could be claimed by the public to be a LOAN to a private interest that owes it back as a credit to taxpayers.

For funding govt reforms WITHOUT raising more taxes on the people,
I am proposing to enforce the Constitution and Code of Ethics,
identify and assess the costs and causes of any DAMAGES and DEBTS from violations/abuses,
and then set up RESTITUTION and CREDIT to taxpayers for righting all these wrongs.

If taxpayers are credited for correcting problems and either saving or collecting back
on tax money that is otherwise wasted or lost on problems,
then there is INCENTIVE and ownership. I suggest identifying programs or properties
that individuals can claim as collateral until these debts/damages are paid back to the public
BY THE WRONGDOERS. If the public citizens or individual investors buy out and pay off the debt,
then the shareholders own stakes in the property and programs.

the precedents to use as models
1. the Federal Reserve and system of private banks acting as investors and voting shareholders
2. the RICO laws that allow crime victims and communities to claim as restitution any property
that is abused for organized crime and trafficking (so I am asking to expand this idea to govt abuses
at taxpayer expense, and reclaiming property and restitution so there is accountability financially)
3. the Green Party and Ithaca Hours system of circulating currency based on the value of local labor

If people get rewarded with tax breaks or reimbursement of debts we are already charged with,
and we can invest those credits into funding schools, jobs, local programs and development
to solve economic and political/govt problems, then people will see the benefit in enforcing ethics.

If we continue to let public officials charge whatever they want on our credit,
then what incentive does anyone have to change that?

But if we set up a system that will hold officials (and corporate interests) accountable for spending,
then we can start hiring and firing govt staff based on who is collecting on our behalf and defending
public interests.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is interesting indeed.

You will not be able to get the majority you need, I think, but go for it.

 

[emilynghiem]

That is interesting indeed.

You will not be able to get the majority you need, I think, but go for it.

Dear JakeStarkey
I don't think it takes a majority. I think it takes the right people to solve each problem most directly
and effectively. In each case, that's a minority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is interesting indeed.

You will not be able to get the majority you need, I think, but go for it.

Dear JakeStarkey
I don't think it takes a majority. I think it takes the right people to solve each problem most directly
and effectively. In each case, that's a minority.

Not in a democratic Republic when one of the groups are not interested in reconciliation.