TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Hediacrana]

Some good news: Americans are becoming more supportive of trans rights - even the ones belonging to parts of society that are generally unsupportive.

Survey Shows Americans Are Becoming More Supportive of Transgender Rights Amid Federal Rollback of LGBTQ Protections:

More than six in ten Americans say they have become more supportive of transgender rights compared to their stances five years ago, according to a new survey.

The findings from the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, show a shift in public perception across political parties. Over three-quarters of Democrats surveyed reported being more supportive of transgender rights now than in 2014. Meanwhile, 64% of independents said they felt this way, and 47% of Republicans did.

Majorities from major religious groups also indicated their perceptions had changed, according to the survey, which contacted over 1,000 people. Nearly 70% of Catholics reported becoming more supportive of transgender rights over the last five years, versus 60% of nonwhite Protestants and 52% of white evangelical Protestants, the findings published Tuesday say.

Robert P. Jones, the CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, suggested the shift is part of a larger trend of mounting LGBTQ support.

“Increase in support for transgender rights tracks fairly closely with the large increase in support for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans,” he tells TIME. Jones also says the number of Americans who report having a close friend or family member who is transgender has doubled since 2015, and that “having a close relationship with someone transgender is strongly correlated with holding more supportive views of transgender rights.”

(...)

“Generally, the Trump administration’s policy directions, such as refusing to collect data on transgender Americans and restricting transgender military service, are flying against the wind of support for transgender rights in the country,” he says. “Virtually every demographic group in the country, including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants, report they have become more supportive of transgender rights over the last five years.”

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How do you reconcile queer theology with the Bible stating multiple times that homosexuality is immoral?

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

Interesting. Is the original text of Leviticus 20:13 different from its english translation as well?

[Luminesa]

I mean, conjoined twins and those with similar birth defects are separated and have defects removed all the time. Considering intersex people by and large have characteristics that are closer to and will identify as one sex or the other, how is it any different?

Let them choose on their own fucking accord then, instead of having it forced on them against their will by an institution like the Vatican or whatever.

It’s not being “forced” by the Vatican. It’s being suggested.

[Cekoviu]

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

Interesting. Is the original text of Leviticus 20:13 different from its english translation as well?

Yes, as the original text is וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תֹּועֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מֹות יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם׃

[Cekoviu]

Let them choose on their own fucking accord then, instead of having it forced on them against their will by an institution like the Vatican or whatever.

It’s not being “forced” by the Vatican. It’s being suggested.

A suggestion from the Vatican is essentially a command, given that the Pope is supposedly divinely inspired.

[Washington Resistance Army]

How do you reconcile queer theology with the Bible stating multiple times that homosexuality is immoral?

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

You can literally go learn Koine Greek and read the direct texts for yourself and see this isn't true.

[Cekoviu]

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

You can literally go learn Koine Greek and read the direct texts for yourself and see this isn't true.

Hebrew would be more useful for finding an unambiguously anti-gay verse.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You can literally go learn Koine Greek and read the direct texts for yourself and see this isn't true.

Hebrew would be more useful for finding an unambiguously anti-gay verse.

I went with Greek cuz of the Septuagint and early Christian texts but yeah that works too.

[Crockerland]

The Bible simply does not state that it is immoral to be gay at any point, old or new testament.

When I point this out to people they usually cite some verse totally out of context from a translation skewed to be anti-gay, and when I point out that it can be easily shown that the original Hebrew/Aramaic text states nothing close to what they want it to say, they evacuate from the thread or refuse to reply to me further.

Interesting. Is the original text of Leviticus 20:13 different from its english translation as well?

The original text of Leviticus 20:13 uses a Hebrew word that has no direct translation into English. The word translated as "abomination" is "toevah" (תֹּועֵבָה) which has inherent connotations with religious practices the Hebrews considered to be profane. At the time this part of the Bible was written, it was common practice in Canaanite religion for prostitutes at temples, especially males, to have sex with worshipers (again, mostly males), as a form of pagan worship, with one of the men representing one of the Canaanite gods. The Bible deals with this elsewhere, such as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

So basically, reading Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation of gay people is a bit like reading Leviticus 18:21 as a condemnation of parents whose children die and are then cremated for burial.

[Aidonaian Soviet Republic]

The original text of Leviticus 20:13 uses a Hebrew word that has no direct translation into English. The word translated as "abomination" is "toevah" (תֹּועֵבָה) which has inherent connotations with religious practices the Hebrews considered to be profane. At the time this part of the Bible was written, it was common practice in Canaanite religion for prostitutes at temples, especially males, to have sex with worshipers (again, mostly males), as a form of pagan worship, with one of the men representing one of the Canaanite gods. The Bible deals with this elsewhere, such as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

I could go for some sex on demand.

[The New California Republic]

Interesting. Is the original text of Leviticus 20:13 different from its english translation as well?

The original text of Leviticus 20:13 uses a Hebrew word that has no direct translation into English. The word translated as "abomination" is "toevah" (תֹּועֵבָה) which has inherent connotations with religious practices the Hebrews considered to be profane. At the time this part of the Bible was written, it was common practice in Canaanite religion for prostitutes at temples, especially males, to have sex with worshipers (again, mostly males), as a form of pagan worship, with one of the men representing one of the Canaanite gods. The Bible deals with this elsewhere, such as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

So basically, reading Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation of gay people is a bit like reading Leviticus 18:21 as a condemnation of parents whose children die and are then cremated for burial.

Here is something else that also muddies the waters further. I have quoted the text almost in its entirety, which I am loath to do because it creates a "wall of text", but I felt it was important enough to do so, or else some of the meaning would be lost:

Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”

This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text.

So why is this particular word “male” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty?

This is not a stretch of the imagination. Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.

These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law.

It is even possible that the term “men with males” was a well understood phrase – perhaps even being idiomatic and axiomatic at the time.

If man>male is a specific term referring to Greek pederasty, then its use in Leviticus 20:13 would make that verse a prohibition of that practice and not of homosexuality in general. That would also mean that there is no such condemnation anywhere else in the Torah (Leviticus 18:22 also uses the word zachar, rather than ish).

The use of “man” and “male” here so precisely mirrors the Greek terminology that another inference can be drawn, as well-that pederasty was an abhorrent alien practice not common to Israel. If it had been a common Israelite custom, a distinctly Hebrew word for “young boy,” such as bachur or yeled, would have been used in the text, rather than “zachor” (“male”).

Similarly, if the verse was meant to refer to adult homosexual behavior, the style of usage in both Leviticus 20 and the earlier Leviticus 18 would require that ish>ish be used, not ish>zachar. The fact that “isha” (woman) is used in both Leviticus verses adds to this. “An ish should not lie with a zachar as he would with an isha” makes less contextual sense than “an ish should not lie with an ish as he would with an isha.” Only if zachar has a specific meaning does its use here make sense. Absent such a specific meaning in Hebrew usage (other than to mean “male” in general), the specific meaning we do find is its Greek meaning – that is, that “man>male” signifies a pederastic relationship and it is this that the Leviticus verses outlaw.

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.co ... icus-2013/

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There is no historical Jesus, he was made up by the Romans.

Most historians specializing in the field would disagree with you. Who should I believe? People who dedicated their professional careers to studying it, or some guy on the internet? Hmm.

Probably the historians. Also, if one strips the Bible of the religion, one can see it is also the record of a people, the Hebrews. So for starters, in that aspect, yes, it is historically verifiable.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Interesting. Is the original text of Leviticus 20:13 different from its english translation as well?

The original text of Leviticus 20:13 uses a Hebrew word that has no direct translation into English. The word translated as "abomination" is "toevah" (תֹּועֵבָה) which has inherent connotations with religious practices the Hebrews considered to be profane. At the time this part of the Bible was written, it was common practice in Canaanite religion for prostitutes at temples, especially males, to have sex with worshipers (again, mostly males), as a form of pagan worship, with one of the men representing one of the Canaanite gods. The Bible deals with this elsewhere, such as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

So basically, reading Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation of gay people is a bit like reading Leviticus 18:21 as a condemnation of parents whose children die and are then cremated for burial.

Okay, so why do Jews think that it means homosexuality?

[The New California Republic]

The original text of Leviticus 20:13 uses a Hebrew word that has no direct translation into English. The word translated as "abomination" is "toevah" (תֹּועֵבָה) which has inherent connotations with religious practices the Hebrews considered to be profane. At the time this part of the Bible was written, it was common practice in Canaanite religion for prostitutes at temples, especially males, to have sex with worshipers (again, mostly males), as a form of pagan worship, with one of the men representing one of the Canaanite gods. The Bible deals with this elsewhere, such as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18.

So basically, reading Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation of gay people is a bit like reading Leviticus 18:21 as a condemnation of parents whose children die and are then cremated for burial.

Okay, so why do Jews think that it means homosexuality?

A mistake? It happens.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

A mistake? It happens.

I think the interpretation of homosexuality in the Bible benefits from Occam's Razor and the emphasis on marriage as between man and woman present repeatedly elsewhere in the Bible. Focusing on the specific use of certain Hebrew words, and then extrapolating from there to excuse homosexuality in contrast to Church and Judaic* teaching for centuries, seems off tbqh.

*My knowledge of Judaism is abysmal, take with grain of salt.

[Torrocca]

Let them choose on their own fucking accord then, instead of having it forced on them against their will by an institution like the Vatican or whatever.

It’s not being “forced” by the Vatican. It’s being suggested.

"The Vatican also calls on doctors to ‘intervene’ on intersex patients, even when parents do not agree."

They sure as shit want it to be forced on people.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

"The Vatican also calls on doctors to ‘intervene’ on intersex patients, even when parents do not agree."

They sure as shit want it to be forced on people.

Can we have a source beyond Gay Star News that also links the document? I want to read it for myself.

[Torrocca]

"The Vatican also calls on doctors to ‘intervene’ on intersex patients, even when parents do not agree."

They sure as shit want it to be forced on people.

Can we have a source beyond Gay Star News that also links the document? I want to read it for myself.

This one appears to have the document in question.

[Des-Bal]

Can we have a source beyond Gay Star News that also links the document? I want to read it for myself.

Closest thing.

That said, in cases where a
person’s sex is not clearly defined, it is medical professionals who can
make a therapeutic intervention. In such situations, parents cannot make
an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society. Instead, medical science
should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least in-
vasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to
establishing the person’s constitutive identity

http://www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/ ... NGLESE.pdf

[Crockerland]

A mistake? It happens.

I think the interpretation of homosexuality in the Bible benefits from Occam's Razor and the emphasis on marriage as between man and woman present repeatedly elsewhere in the Bible. Focusing on the specific use of certain Hebrew words, and then extrapolating from there to excuse homosexuality in contrast to Church and Judaic* teaching for centuries, seems off tbqh.

*My knowledge of Judaism is abysmal, take with grain of salt.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be "excused", as there's nothing wrong with being gay.

As for "Church [...] teaching for centuries", I find centuries worth of church teachings on how heliocentrists and Jews are spawn of Satan to be less than compelling.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Homosexuality doesn't need to be "excused", as there's nothing wrong with being gay.

As for "Church [...] teaching for centuries", I find centuries worth of church teachings on how heliocentrists and Jews are spawn of Satan to be less than compelling.

On the matter of Galileo and heliocentrism. With regards to Jews, Pope Clement VI issued two papal bulls in 1348 which condemned violence and persecution against Jews, calling on the clergy to protect them. I'm not aware of any Catholic doctrine or dogma which asserted that Jews were the spawn of the devil.

[Hediacrana]

Homosexuality doesn't need to be "excused", as there's nothing wrong with being gay.

As for "Church [...] teaching for centuries", I find centuries worth of church teachings on how heliocentrists and Jews are spawn of Satan to be less than compelling.

On the matter of Galileo and heliocentrism. With regards to Jews, Pope Clement VI issued two papal bulls in 1348 which condemned violence and persecution against Jews, calling on the clergy to protect. I'm not aware of any Catholic doctrine or dogma which asserted that Jews were the spawn of the devil.

Let's try not to veer off topic, though.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Let's try not to veer off topic, though.

Apologies.

[Novus America]

Can we have a source beyond Gay Star News that also links the document? I want to read it for myself.

This one appears to have the document in question.

A much less biased and more measured article to be sure. The other source makes the document out to be far more extreme than it is.

[Necroghastia]

Can we have a source beyond Gay Star News that also links the document? I want to read it for myself.

This one appears to have the document in question.

In a 2015 book-length interview, he listed gender theory alongside “nuclear arms” and “genetic manipulation” for its failure to “recognize the order of creation.”

What does the Pope eat? One would hope that corn, carrots, bananas, watermelon, and probably a lot more things aren't a part of his diet, otherwise this would be quite hypocritical.