The slippery slope.

[Elijah John]

It seems to be happening, with liberalism running amuck. In a previous post, I expressed concern that unfettered liberal judges and beaurocrats would eventually force churches to perform gay weddings against their own values.

It hasn't reached that stage....yet.

But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, things seem to be heading in that direction.

Exibit A:

Churches in Massachusetts are now forced to accomodate "gender identity" meaning whatever sexual identity a person embraces for themselves, biology notwithstanding.

In practical terms, this means that churches must now:

a) allow persons of either gender to use whichever bathroom they consider in line with their chosen gender identity. (again, with no regard to biology, or even reassignment surgery)

This means that a man who "feels like he is a woman" can now use the women's bathroom, locker room etc. And vice versa.

OR

b) the church must now install gender neutral bathrooms, at church expense.

For debate:

Do you consider this govenment intrusion on the separation of church and state?

Where does it end? How far will "progressives" go in order to force their values on churches?

How do you feel about this law?

Please address any combination of the above OP questions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... throom-rul

Also, am I understanding the new Massachusetts law correctly?

[tam]

[Replying to post 5 by tam]

I would agree Tammy, except where the laws of the state conflict with the laws of God.

Sure. But that is not what is happening here.

Or do you put the state above the laws of God?

I do not.

But how many state laws conflict with God's law?

Should the state force Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Orthodox Jewish or Muslim doctors/hospitals to perform abortions? They consider abortion to be murder.

Does the State force them to do this?

Again, where does it end?

I don't know, but it hasn't really started yet, has it?

Likewise conservative religionists consider homosexuality and trangenderism to be sin.

Yes, but no one is saying they can't consider it to be a sin. Or that they have to themselves BE homosexual and transgender.

And what are they going to do anyway? Ask every person who looks like the opposite sex to show proof of their gender before letting them into washrooms?

Drinking is legal, but some Christians and Muslims consider drinking to be sinful. Should churches be compelled to serve alcohol?

Bars and restaurants serve alcohol (and there are a lot of rules and regulations that go along with that). Why would a church be compelled to serve alcohol?

Also, getting back to trangender bathrooms. Don't you see the potential for abuse in these situations? A straight man could pretend to be transgender to gain access to women's facilities. There is no sugical proof required. This law as written cannot filter out those with nefarious motivations.

This is a separate issue from the separation of church and state issue. But very few laws can filter out all of those with nefarious motivations. What do you suggest be done? Should we punish the transgender because some straight men might abuse the situation?


I think some people forget that transgenders are kids and teens as well, already facing discrimination and abuse just for being themselves.

Again though, I ask, what evidence is there that sexual abuse/assault in washrooms has rise due to transgenders being permitted to use the washroom that they identify with?

How about the rights of those not comfortable with the situations the law would most probably lead to?

I don't think you can make laws based upon what some people might be 'uncomfortable' with. Otherwise blacks would never have been permitted to use the same washrooms as whites. Or be in the same classrooms. I guarantee that there are men who are uncomfortable with homosexual men in their locker rooms and washrooms as well.

What about women who do not want men in their restrooms and locker rooms?

Don't they have rights too?

Sure they have rights. But so do transgender. I realize its 'newish' and people have to get used to this. But it is not the transgender that is the problem here, is it?

Just for some perspective:

Recently here in Edmonton we had a man in the men's washroom filming boys going to the bathroom. There was no transgender anything involved in that. (The man got caught by an angry dad, who held him until the police arrived.)


Peace again to you!

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

Sorry, that IS what's happening here. State law is conflicting with God's law, as the Bible has it. Homosexuality is condemned in both the OT and the NT. Transgenderism is a form of homosexuality.

Yes, some things haven't happened yet, but religous rights are being infringed more and more. It sure seems to be a trend in liberal countries, (like Canada) and liberal states, like Massachusetts.

It has started. Time will tell, but I predict the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will attempt to compel Churches to perform homosexual marraiges on the grounds of "non-discrimination".

Again, where does it end? Shall we have every aberrant person group claim protected status?

And should the state recognize every aberrant person or group as protected, (beyond basic human rights that is)?

And should the state compel churches to accomodate every aberrant person or group that comes along charging "discrimination"!

Where do you draw the line?

Let us consider a scenario. You're at the YWCA, (a religious organization) you have finished your workout, take a shower, and step out, naked. And lo and behold, there's a man sitting there, changing.

You are understandably taken aback. The man says, "it's OK, I'm transgender". (he could be lying)

Would you be OK with that?

That scenario would be legal under the new Massachusetts law.

[Elijah John]

Time will tell, but I see a definite trend here in Massaschusetts. And nationally, such over-reach by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency.

Evangelicals turned out en masse to support Donald Trump because of perceived threats to religious liberty and rights, begun by Obama, and likely continued by Clinton's positions on issues such as this. (I believe she supported the North Carolina bathroom bill as well)

Again, what's next? Are we to give every aberrant person or group the status of a protected minority, and have the state force people to accomodate beyond basic human rights?

Transgender does not equate to being black. The two ought not to be conflated. If you don't see the difference, there's not much more that I can say.

[4insight]

It seems to be happening, with liberalism running amuck. In a previous post, I expressed concern that unfettered liberal judges and beaurocrats would eventually force churches to perform gay weddings against their own values.

It hasn't reached that stage....yet.

But in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, things seem to be heading in that direction.

Exibit A:

Churches in Massachusetts are now forced to accomodate "gender identity" meaning whatever sexual identity a person embraces for themselves, biology notwithstanding.

In practical terms, this means that churches must now:

a) allow persons of either gender to use whichever bathroom they consider in line with their chosen gender identity. (again, with no regard to biology, or even reassignment surgery)

This means that a man who "feels like he is a woman" can now use the women's bathroom, locker room etc. And vice versa.

OR

b) the church must now install gender neutral bathrooms, at church expense.

For debate:

Do you consider this govenment intrusion on the separation of church and state?

Where does it end? How far will "progressives" go in order to force their values on churches?

How do you feel about this law?

Please address any combination of the above OP questions.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... throom-rul

Also, am I understanding the new Massachusetts law correctly?

All they has to do is to have bathrooms that only one person can go in at a time, like it should of have been in the first place. I heard of same sex rapist and molesters as well the opposite sex rapists and molesters. If you ever had been in prison, that it goes on all the time. I heard once they enter, the first thing they started to look for someone to be their lover. If not, they'll take it or make trade deals for a lover, The men and the women's inmates does this. But once they are released from prison, then they goes back to their own original lifestyle with their spouse and children as if nothing has never happened.

So basically, a bathroom should not be shared with another person ever, unless it is the parents of the child. And even in the gym's locker-rooms, that there should be only single rooms with showers for only one person at a time. When I goes to the gym, I surely doesn't want to see anyone else's naked body floating around me while I am naked as well.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by 4insight]

"One at a time" seems a reasonable solution, but impractical. Can you imagine the lines at a sporting event or a concert with one-at-a-time restrooms?

[tam]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Fear can make extremists, that is true. That can happen anywhere to anyone. Even to secular people.


And at the least, transgender DOES equate to homosexual. They are hated, feared, abused, bullied (as children and as adults) - obviously not by everyone of course. They are disbelieved (that they are one gender born into the wrong body), and certainly called names.

For some perspective perhaps:

Would you or anyone here tell this little girl (in the process of transitioning from boy to girl) that she is aberrant, and do you think that she should be in the men's washroom or the boys locker room? You might have to scroll down to read, if the video doesn't work.

https://gma.yahoo.com/were-not-threat-t ... id=abcn_fb


http://mashable.com/2015/08/31/transgen ... 2FoFuFmkqC

**


I'm sure one day there will be big issues to face (some of those issues might be religions' own fault for the way that they mistreat others), but I don't see this as being one of them.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[4insight]

[Replying to post 13 by 4insight]

"One at a time" seems a reasonable solution, but impractical. Can you imagine the lines at a sporting event or a concert with one-at-a-time restrooms?

At most events has many of Porta potties that has even pump action sinks to wash their hands or whatever. They can have at least 20 of them in rows.
You go to most events now, with the same men and women bathrooms, that they are still a line waiting for someone just to get from off of the toilet alone. And so it will make none difference if they uses single person restrooms. But it is better because , no one has to stay in an confined area standing around, inhaling someones else's flatulence vapors for hours. And then the one that is using the toilet, doesn't have to worry about someone else's standing outside of the stall, listening and inhaling the vapors as well. And so then that everybody will be at peace.


http://www.anypromo.com/stress-reliever ... 718687&g=2

[Clownboat]

As far as I understand, churches have to obey the law of the land. If this is a law of the land, then churches cannot be exempt from it. THAT would be a slippery slope, imo.


Just as a church cannot violate the law of the land with regard to the 'rod' for disciplining a child; and cannot violate the law of the land with regard to 'stoning' a lawbreaker or some such thing.

I also believe that churches HAVE to be public (therefore laws for the public must apply to them) because they would otherwise lose their tax-free status.


I don't know about US law with regard to gender equality issues, so the above is based on whether or not this is an actual law.


Peace to you!

This law has nothing to do with "gender and equality" Tam, both males and females are already equal under the law.

This has to do with newly legislated gender identity equality. There's a difference. The latter gives licence to transgender, or even people who feel as though they are trangender, to go wherever they want.

Let me put it this way, if you have a daughter, would you be comfortable having a man who claimed he "felt like a woman" use the woman's restroom while your daughter was using it?

Also, where DOES it end. Should churches be forced to perform same-sex weddings?

My daughters have probably been in line next to pedophiles and rapists. Possibly even murderers.

Should I really be overly concerned about a transgender in a bathroom with myself or one of my children once I realize this? Seems like a non issue compared to pedo's, rapists and murderers.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Fear can make extremists, that is true. That can happen anywhere to anyone. Even to secular people.


And at the least, transgender DOES equate to homosexual. They are hated, feared, abused, bullied (as children and as adults) - obviously not by everyone of course.

No one here is condoning persecution, bullying or violence against transgendered. And if you equate transgender as a form of homosexuality, then yes, it is a question of God's law in conflict with the laws of the State. That is, if you take the Bible at face value, which most Evaneglicals and Jehovah's Witnesses do.

Both the NT and the OT condemn homosexuality.

The whole pedophile thing is a red herring. Pedophiles are not the subject of this particular debate.

This ain't an either/or proposition.

[tam]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Fear can make extremists, that is true. That can happen anywhere to anyone. Even to secular people.


And at the least, transgender DOES equate to homosexual. They are hated, feared, abused, bullied (as children and as adults) - obviously not by everyone of course.

No one here is condoning persecution, bullying or violence against transgendered. And if you equate transgender as a form of homosexuality, then yes, it is a question of God's law in conflict with the laws of the State. That is, if you take the Bible at face value, which most Evaneglicals and Jehovah's Witnesses do.

Both the NT and the OT condemn homosexuality.

The whole pedophile thing is a red herring. Pedophiles are not the subject of this particular debate.

This ain't an either/or proposition.

How is bathroom usage and regulation a matter of God's law being in conflict with the laws of the state?


(I did not bring in the issue of pedophilia, but I think it might be valid considering that the concern people bring up is the possibility of one's daughter being in the bathroom with a transgender who might still have male parts, or one that might be a non-transgender male disguising himself as a transgender in order to 'peep' or abuse.)


Please note that I did not equate transgender as a form of homosexuality. You did not want me to use discrimination (and fear) against black people, so I used homosexuality, and discrimination (and fear) against homosexual people.


Why not just let people be who they say they are, trust that they know themselves better than you (general you) know them, and stop making them feel bad about being themselves?


You did not answer the question (perhaps the OP does not reflect your personal views), but what about that little girl? Should she be in the men's washroom? The boys locker room? Should she be faced every time that she has to go into the men's washroom or boys locker room that the world denies who she is, and does not accept her, that there is something wrong with her?

Do you think MEN and BOYS would be comfortable having her in the washroom and boys locker room with them?

I am so glad that she went to a school that had a principal accept her for who she is; letting her use the girl's washroom and girl's locker room. I would not be the least bit uncomfortable if I had a daughter in her school, in the washrooms and locker rooms with her. (I would probably be more worried for the little girl, because kids can be cruel... some of that is caused by the prejudices from their parents.) I am actually incredibly impressed with the school and the principal. A rare find, imo.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy