Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don't blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
We will see if they make good on it next year.
Probably because they want to avoid the children getting abused at home, or worse
Most abusers do not wait for some specific reason to start abusing. I would be interested to see data how many abused LGBT kids were never abused before they came out to their parents.
Edited in all of the above.
Hmm, I wonder what would happen in we’d apply this to past social issues…
This might be splitting hairs a bit, but it basically is what happened.
Edits in italics: For US women's suffrage they gained the right to vote in a number of cities, territories, and states then eventually gained the right to vote nationally.
Also when slaves were freed, they certainly did not become equal members of society the next day. It has however gotten significantly better over time.
If you want to push in a certain direction, you take a few steps forward, show people that the world did not burn down, and then take a few more steps forward.
That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.
More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination
With these departures, progressives are expected to propose changing church law at the next General Conference in 2024 to allow for same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.
No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.
This was a really interesting read, thank you for laying it out.
Are PDFs like that Direct Democracy common releases from the UK parties? It really spells things out, at least as far as I made it through before getting distracted.
There did seem to be a couple sections that I read that the data didn't seem to match what was being claimed. Particularly the section on the Broken Pendulum (Pages 8,9). The authors seem to claim that in 2001 and 2005 were unique in that the opposition party wasn't able to gain from losses in the government. If however you look at 1964 and 1983 they seem to be even more stark examples of the same. Seems like the pendulum was a general trend at best.
Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.
We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.
Options are definitely nice for those technical enough to understand and use them.
Though personally I am keeping an eye on Linux devices for my next upgrade.
Do I not want USB-C (for some weird reason)?
This is probably temporary until it is time to move past USB-C. Which will be a slower and more difficult process now that there are laws in place requiring it.
Same reason that people stick with Google.
After years in the eco-system it is obnoxious to swap, and the other main competitor isn't any better of a company to deal with.
My problem with your stance is that you seem very quick to jump at “bigoted hate speech from LGBTQ+ people”
Show me a Christian or conservative acting like a bigot in this post, community, or even instance and I will gladly call them out. I am sure a few are hiding somewhere around here but they are few and far between. I do understand that there are instances where it is more common from them, but I do not regularly visit those places.
admittedly, but understandably, quite vitriolic - responses to that trauma.
This is my main issue right here. None of this conversation would be happening u/I_Fart_Glitter had just acknowledged that u/gravitas_deficiency had spit out some vitriolic bigotry instead of defending. Their opinions may be understandable to you, but a public News forum is the wrong place to be spewing that kind of bigotry. If they gravitas has unresolved issues they need to get off their chest, there are plenty of appropriate forums for it.
This fear mongering is reinforced every single Sunday when they go to their church and get told these things directly by their leadership
This may be true for many Christians, but there are millions of American Christians that believe quite the opposite and would never tolerate that in a church.
I live in BFE Texas and there are ten Affirming Churches in the area; five of them are within about 45 minutes of me. As a comparison there are only two Cowboy Churches in the same area. Every major City I checked had several Affirming Churches.
https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/
A belief system is much more mutable than intrinsic characteristics like gender identity, skin color, and sexuality
Belief is as fundamental to a person as sexuality or gender identity. Some people's beliefs, gender identity, and sexuality change several times through their lives, others stick with the one assumed at birth, and anywhere in between.
assume you simply misspoke and meant “gender identity”.
You are right, I meant transitioning gender identity, not "gender transition"
based only on the inherently Christian idea that your parents are the sole deciders in the welfare of their children
What? I am sure there are cultures and religions where something different would be the norm, but do any of them represent a significant chunk of the world's population? I did a bit of web-searching but can't seem to find anything remotely related to this. I am getting swamped with references to child welfare laws and related court cases.
what’s the transitional stance between “trans rights are human rights” and “we need to eradicate gender ideology from the public world”?
This is the first time I have gotten this deep into trans topics in a loooong time, but off the top of my head, I see two middle grounds between those stances.
"If you want to live your life as a different sex than you were assigned at birth, that is fine but don't expect everyone else to agree with or support that choice."
"Let adults live their lives as the sex they choose, but kids need to wait until they are out of high school if their parents refuse to accept it."
I am sure there are other middle grounds between those stances even if both sides are offended by them.
How might it impact them? That brings me to your direct question.
Who does trans identity affect other than the trans person?
Really? Is this just a setup to call me a bigot instead? Fine, I will express the opinions I have seen or heard from women who could probably be described as TERFs even if they don't see themselves as such, but only with a spoiler tag and a few caveats.
Trigger warning. These are not my personal feelings. If someone taking oppositional stances or undercutting your self-identity will hurt you, please do not click this.
Caveat: I am neither a woman nor trans, nor do I have daughters or sisters, nor have I ever had any close trans friends or family, only regular acquaintances, nor am I strongly opinionated about whether trans-women are actually women. I really do not have a leg to stand on when taking a stance around this issue.
Another caveat: These are areas where the belief of what a trans person actually is controls the perspective. If you think a trans-woman is a woman, full stop, then this doesn't make any sense at all. If you believe that a trans-woman is a man that prefers to live as a woman then it does, so in an effort to answer your question, I am going to frame it from that perspective.
A final caveat, from my admittedly limited perspective these particular issues only typically apply to trans-women and not usually trans-men. Though I am sure there are some exceptions to that.
First, the first woman X. I happened to have a conversation with a relatively young lady that went on a rant about Biden naming Rachel Levine as the first woman 4 star general of the Public Health Services Human Corps. She made quite the impassioned rant that it was undercutting women everywhere to call a "biological male" the first woman anything.
Second, women's sports. The Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas thing last year was hard to miss. The main point of women's sports seems to be related to fields where men absolutely dominate the standings. Though there are definitely some women's leagues for certain things where I can't see how it would matter. As I understand it, many men's leagues around the world have no rule against women, it is just exceptionally rare that a woman is selected for them. The NHL for example has had exactly one female player and it was for an exhibition game back in the 90s. Should leagues be based off of physical size like boxing? Or should there be a testosterone check? No idea, but some people assigned female at birth definitely think it affects them.
Third, the old bathroom example. Men are feared in our society. Every one of us is viewed as a potential rapist. Women feel exceptionally uncomfortable in certain situations where a man is present or might be. It isn't right, but it is the way things are. As long as bathrooms exist in their current form, some women, and some parents of young girls, are not going to be okay with people they see as men using the one for ladies.
That’s what afraid_of_zombies has been saying all this time.
Then they have a funny way of expressing it. It sounds a lot more like they were defending a bigoted statement by saying someone can't be bigoted against people from religions they find disgusting.
There is a difference between attacking someone who chooses a disgusting belief system and bigotry.
https://lemmy.world/comment/4026429
Edit: added people from
tl;dr Maybe. It mostly depends on your wording and actions. Christians are not one group or thing anymore than Europeans or LGBT people are. They are a collection of highly varied peoples that can't even agree on the number of books in the bible or whether Jesus was man, god, or both.
If someone says or implies "all Christians" are this or that negative thing it moves closer to yes rather than maybe. If someone is accuses a person of being something for no other reason than a group they belong to, then the accuser is probably a bigot.
,
,
This wall of text is an eyesore, so I added bold to your words and Italics to other quotes to help with readability. My words have neither.
would you say I’m a bigot?
If you personally dislike them, but you don't let it affect the way you treat them, I really wouldn't care one way or another.
As far as I am concerned, fear and hatred of the unknown and different are as human and natural as love and lust. It is what people do with those emotions that matter.
If someone's lust encourages them to date and eventually spend their life with someone they are attracted to that is a good expression. If someone's lust encourages them to violet the privacy of or assault someone then that is a bad expression.
Fear of the unknown and different is similar. If it encourages someone to learn more about different peoples, foods, or animals, then it is a good expression. If it encourages them to disparage or commit acts of violence against them then that is a bad expression.
I’m curious what you consider hate speed or bigotry against christians.
a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot
hate speech, speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hate-speech
I see bigotry and hate speech as more words and actions than opinions. What does an opinion matter if it is not expressed through word or deed? Is someone really intolerant if they tolerate someone in all areas except their own mind?
Mostly it comes down to treating any group, Christians in this case, as if they are the same and are each responsible for the acts of all the others.
If I dislike all christians that follow the bible/their gods commands and believe in their gods benevolence,
Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxy don't even agree on the number of books in the bible. If you haven't run into the idea of the Apocrypha you may find it interesting.
Various numbers below (formatting edited for readability):
The canon of
the Protestant Bible totals 66 books—39 Old Testament (OT) and 27 New Testament (NT);
the Catholic Bible numbers 73 books (46 OT, 27 NT),
and Greek and Russian Orthodox, 79 (52 OT, 27 NT)
(Ethiopian Orthodox, 81—54 OT, 27 NT).
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2022/04/why-are-protestant-catholic-and-orthodox-bibles-different/
Lest you think that it is only the old testament that is debated here is info about the New testament in Martin Luther's Bible:
Though he included the Letter to the Hebrews, the letters of James and Jude and Revelation in his Bible translation, he put them into a separate grouping and questioned their legitimacy.
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their "divorce" amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren't actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.