I would say no - but that's just me...

Binxly: Also, I fail to see how if a homosexual union dissolves, that it somehow 'proves the point' that it is somehow less entitled or more inferior than a heterosexual union. 

PJ: Heh, that was my point huh?  Whoops.  That was your first mistake.  Where did I say that? 

Binxly: Heterosexual couples, fiance's, AND even hetero marriages end, even after years of 'happiness.'  Does that mean they are sinners because they decided to get out od a situation that no longer made them happy?

PJ:  What's your god say?  I'm arguing to the happiness angle right there.  It's a broken vow.  Promises were made.  Love was declared. 

By the time the relationship ends, at least one massive lie was told.   

Binxly:  I'm definately not one for divorce as a settlement for a mild disagreement, but I think what you are saying here is wrong, or perhaps the point is just lost on me through a bad example of comparison.

PJ:  Let's take it one point at a time.  You believe an intimate relationship cannot ever be faked?  It only takes one partner.

Binxly: As for conditional vows, I'm pretty sure I see what you're saying, and you're correct in regards to the fact that telling someone they MUST act a certain way specifically or the union is over is indeed wrong, but a marriage is not exactly unconditional love. 

PJ:  Conversely, you forgot to state what it was. . .don't leave me hanging.  You seem to place quite a bit of value on a marriage vow.  Do you believe everyone takes it just as seriously as you?  I hear Vegas is pretty this time of year. 

Binxly: Truth be told, the only person I think most can feel 'unconditional' love toward is their children. 

PJ:  You think love is a feeling?  I don't define love that way.  I define love as a deliberate decision.  I believe in love in spite of, and not love because of what the other does for you.  Love as a feeling is not the element of the marriage vow.  "Do you promise to love (verb) honor (verb) cherish (verb). . .etc."  These verbs are all to be enacted despite sickness, health, and subjective feelings.  "Forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live.(?)"

This debate was easier than I thought. =)

Binxly: What you are claiming, it would seem, is that unless a person is willing to put up with ANYTHING, they are not a legitimately loving couple worthy to be joined together in matrimony/union.

PJ:  Oh SNAP! The jig is up, he's on to me!!!  LOL! CORRECTOMUNDO!!! That's the love everyone wants to have, but is totally unwilling to give, nez pas?  Death to self, remember?

Binxly:  I'm sorry, this is a load.  Therapists, biologists, and Psychologists and sociologists will all tell you it is.  True, most of the psychological science community is leery to touch this subject matter, and many do still want to consider it a 'mental defect' to the degree of things like schitzophrenia and bi polar disorder, but literally in the past 3-5 years, scientists have found proven evidence that it is not in that realm of 'mental defect.'

PJ:  I didn't say that.  I am sure there are many many perfectly sane transgendered people.  I'll even extend that to furries.  But just because you're a hardcore fan of a particular costume does not make you the being you're trying to obtain the identity of.  It puts the lotion in the basket Binxly. >;)   

Binxly:  What you claim is that because a transexual woman has never felt 'natural cramps due to menstration' that they are somehow less legitimate.  What about women who have mild cramps?  Are they now 'less' legitimate?

PJ:  I know how we can clear this whole thing up.  I'll take you and all your friends with me to OB/GYN and we'll tell all the patients that we can identify with them just because we say so, "trust us, we're transsexuals."  Real life isn't a John Irving movie.  

Binxly:  What about a woman who feels like a man? 

PJ:  For one thing, it's purely subjective.  For another--it's just a "suit" to you, right?  It's just a few extra hormones she hasn't had yet, right?  Someday maybe we won't have this discussion when they discover a way to alter chromosomes in adults. 

Binxly:  Because she's never felt an erection she all of the sudden can't know the societal and mental things about being a man?

PJ:  She's rejecting her own identity for a fantasy personae.  And what's that based on?  A conclusion that your identity is the sum-total of your parts.  It's a very shallow view of the self indeed.  Shallow, two-dimensional, and animalistic.  Just because you can get a PhD from studying it doesn't make it any more valid.  The universities are full of liberal students and professors looking for that new; unique way to get their degree.  One of my ex-girfriends is getting her's in the relationship between sci-fi/fantasy and queer theory. 

And if it's still just a theory, it means the debate isn't over.   

Binxly:  I mean, this is the weakest of your arguments, and, thankfully, if you're willing to be open-minded, there is a TON of info on the legitimacy of this situation. That is, unless you only seek out the one side of the issue.

PJ:  Trust me, I've read it.  Pick a link, any link.  Gimme your best pitch.  C'mon, something out of your favorites up there, I'll have it back to you in a week.  Are you the type of person that lets a degree get in the way of debate? 

Binxly:  The great thing about the transexual issue is even the haters who see these people as abominations have agreed, it is not a mental defect persay.  It is an issue of incongruence of brain to physical, but it is shown, as I've stated before that a transexual female (male to female) has had a brain chemistry within 3-5% variation of that of a genetic female and is MUCH more different than the brain of a genetic male identifying as heterosexual.

PJ:  Cite please.  Is this pre- or post-hormonal treatment?  It's should be obvious how that affects the statistic.  Which chemicals? 

Binxly:  I know what's next, the same question:

Well aren't they just gay and confused about identity?  Where did the homosexual brain fit on the spectrum?

PJ:  Wow, LOL! We're just all alike to you, huh??? I'm not saying it's an identity confusion.  I'm saying they don't have an identity to begin with.  It can be an inborn loss or taken away. 

Binxly: The homosexual brain was the most interesting in information yield about the variations of brain chemistry among hetero, homo, and transexuals.  The genetic woman's brain was signifigantly lower in certain levels and the transexual female was similar or even slightly below that of a genetic woman, both signifigantly lower than the levels of a heterosexual male.  A homosexual male, however, has shown not only to be closer to the heterosexual male range, but actually, on average, is *higher* levels than that of a heterosexual male. 

PJ:  "Certain levels of. . ." ---> vague   "higher levels of" ---> vague 

Binxly:  So this studies show that there is indeed weight to the idea that many of these people were born with a brain whose chemistry does not coincide with their physical sex.  There are even strong theories which seem to show that during the early stages of gestation, the fetus can become exposed to high levels of estrogen, altering the brain during its formation, and causing a 'gender rift' between the two.

PJ:  And this makes them better equipped for healthy; committed relationships, how?  

Binxly:  Its not that I'm trying to be rude or talk down to anyone on this issue, but this DOES occur.  We all know the roles of male and female.

PJ:  Role = Identity?  

Binxly:  I think most of us would be mortified to have to live as the other gender, that is a reality these people deal with on a daily basis.  As for its consideration as 'plastic surgery,' it certainly doesn't make it invalid.  Got a deviated septum?  Need that nose job so you can breathe correctly?  That's plastic surgery.  Burn yourself terribly bad?  Getting a skin graft so people aren't mortified by your face?  That's also plastic surgery.  Born without certain body parts?  Prosthesis is available to help you live a more 'normal' and easily integrated life?  That's plastic surgery.

PJ:  Then the transgendered person is biased against the gender they're born with?  Why is this not a form of gender bias?  How does their being born the gender they despise so much inhibit them physically? 

Oh, by the way, in that last statement. . . 

1. You made a leap from mental desire to physical need, and back again. 

2. Your examples range rather absurdly from birth to any stage of life.  Burns may count; deviated septum may count, but not both in the same time at the same place.  A transgendered person is assumed born with the "defect" that I myself live with.  So please winnow your disfigurement examples one way or the other and move ahead.  Please.   

Binxly:  They call it that primarily because it isn't necessary to sustain life.  It doesn't mean it isn't necessary to keep someone functional in life, but if it isn't *required,* and it's absence would result in death, it's considered cosmetic or plastic surgery. 

PJ:  However, you are proposing that gender alteration would save a life who would rather resort to suicide, correct?  To me, it's all cosmetic and makes everyone feel better about their self-image.  The argument is why do some hate the body that is clinically normal and defect free to begin with?      

Binxly:  I know one of these people, and I swear to you, she is a girl.  I know that marks me as either claiming God messed up with her or that he is a malicious being who put this fate onto her on purpose, but I am claiming neither. 

PJ:  You left me hanging again.  What do you claim?  The girl in your example was not created another Eve.  Why is all the blame heaped on God? 

Binxly:  I *do* know, however, that your take on this particular part is ill-informed (again no offense) and I think you are going more on what *you* feel rather than going by logic, science, and proven fact.

PJ:  I have seen neither up to this point and hope to have sufficiently proven why I haven't seen it.  My questions are equally honest and require just an authorative answer as you claim to have.  Of course, I expect you too keep hiding it, just as you have thus far.  But you're welcome to deliver on your claims anytime.   

Binxly:  Like I said, are there fakers?  yes.  Do they make it THAT much harder to approach this issue and how to handle it?  Absolutely.  However, you can't just say 'you're all screwed because we don't want to bother figuring out who's genuine or who isn't, so, as of now, you're all illegitimate in your perils.

PJ:  "All" as in "all GLBT"?  or  "all humanity"?  The mistake comes from thinking God ranks some sins particularly worse than others.  What does the word "abomination" really mean?  Hm?  Doesn't God see all sin that way?  According to my theology, there are no pecadillos.  So while the sodomite can be more potentially destructive (as you have admitted previously), we are all born under the same condemnation with the same sense of antipathy for the holy.  We merely express it in different ways.

Binxly:  However, as I said before, there are many homosexuals and transexuals who are better people overall, in private *and* public, than some heterosexuals, but you claim that because of God, and his *supposed* hatred and exclusion of people based on who they choose to love, not their character, that they are still 'tainted' and 'will not recieve the kingdom of God.' 

PJ:  Some put mere words in other people's mouths, but you'll stuff an entire volume if you can!  I'm impressed by your moxie.  My statements above cover this.  I'm saying that my statements should be seen in the context of the entire Word.  All our righteousness is as filthy rags.  Not compared to God's righteousness, but rather it is simply self-serving righteousness.  

It's the difference between total depravity and utter depravity,* which look the same on a superficial level, but are indeed two completely different things. 

I believe we're all of us born the former, but only a few become the latter.  Sure, one tends to hasten God's wrath faster than the other, but we're still under it regardless.  It also depends on where your utter depravity comes from.  I myself would rather share a foxhole with a GLBT than with a pathological liar or a thief.

Binxly:  I'll say this again to that, whether it be in the book or not, it is *not* your place to make that judgement. 

PJ: Which definition of judgement?  It actually is my place for the one, but not the other. 

Binxly:  If God *is* infallible, then he *can* change his mind at *any* time.  Afterall, if one is infallible, they cannot commit wrong, even if it is indeed 'wrong.'  So therefore, one may see going back on one's 'word' as a sign of error, but if an entity is truely infallible, then they can never be 'wrong,' even when they 'change their mind.'

PJ:  If God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then His will never changes.  Likewise, his word never changes (if it truly is His word).  Can a truly omnisicent God be surprised? Just because I intend to do something does not make me responsible for actually doing it. 

Binxly:  If you mean to say what I think you are saying here, it is you who may need guidance my friend, not them. 

PJ:  See above. After what I saw you write about love, I'm not even sure you know what you think I'm saying. 

Binxly:  The physical is not the main driving force behind this.  Thats the biggest problem, I think too often the opponents of homosexuals and transexuals are so against it because they see it as sexually driven only.  It isn't an issue of solely physical.  

PJ: But if that's all they have to relate to. . .then?  The brain cannot tell the body, "You're really the opposite gender" but not tell the body it is really the opposite gender in the same time and the same place.  I think our argument jumps from one origin to the other.  Chromosomes, to fully functional fetal brain, to pubescent brain, and all over the place in between.  Gotta start somewhere. 

And my point is that in the end, no matter how much surgery you have, you will be no more satisfied with yourself than when you started.  Because you can have all the requistie parts you want, but not the soul.

Binxly:  The main issue IS, however, how society views them and how they integrate.

PJ:  Oh, but with that statement aren't you telling society how to think?  Just sayin' it runs both ways.  Your position is no more righteous than mine unless it's backed by a higher authority.  It's not about the circumstances you must endure or the "severity" of the sin either (Luke 13:3-5.). 

Binxly: . . .and while I'll never believe there is sin in something unless I see actual sin, and TM believes sin exists where the book claims it does, we still have productive conversation and it never disintigrates into insults and blanket, rude remarks.

PJ:  What's your definition of sin, Binxly?  How can sin exist without a source?  And if there is a source, why is it not to blame?  Who or what gives you the right to define your own customized moral code?  The authority of the individual?    

-PJ 

*That's philosophical code thyar. If you haven't heard of it yet, you might want to look up the def.  Hope you did. Just sayin'.

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

hahaha that is ludicrous.  An open mind does not always mean a blanket of condonement and acceptance.  An open mind is someone willing to weigh the options.  A closed mind is the same as a mind that tolerates and accepts anything and everything without question.  A closed mind is someone who sticks to their own personal beliefs regardless of facts, evidence, and better common sense.

I hope this was a joke unsane.  If not, why bother being here?  If you aren't looking to grow then you are simply looking to enforce YOUR views on others.  Promoting open-mindedness does NOT equate to promoting open condoning of any and all acts.  It also is not the same as enforcing a static, closed form of beliefs onto others.  Promoting open-mindedness is the idea of asking people to look at situations, facts, and scenarios critically while weighing ALL options.  Not merely running back to the talking points of your own opinions and passing them off as complete truths. 

I myself have beliefs I am cemented in, beliefs that are questioned by open minds, but I am still not foolish enough to believe my personal stance is the ONLY stance, nor would I think someone is wrong for disagreeing with my stance.  There are only one or two things in life that are TRUELY black and white with me. 

Again though, you could be merely joshing around so I'll just hold my opinion on this last post until I know if you were merely being fecitious or if indeed you truely do believe an open mind is dangerous.

As they say, minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open :-P