|
Replies: 64
| visibility 334
|
Hall of Famer [21576]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13918
Joined: 9/7/02
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [30190]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31797
Joined: 9/13/01
|
Kind of like Rick Perry comparing alcoholism and being gay?***
Jun 13, 2014, 3:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
He thought himself brilliant for that one I'm sure...
Jun 13, 2014, 3:14 PM
|
|
his thought process: "Can't say homosexuality is a choice...can't say homosexuality is a choice...but what to do?...got it!"
"I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that - and I look at the homosexual issue the same way," Perry said."
"nailed it again, Rick"
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
because... they dont?
Jun 13, 2014, 3:17 PM
|
|
It's certainly true that there are people who believe their gender differs from their bodies, but nobody can change their gender by mutilating their bodies.
Nothing in that article suggests that what was in the SBC resolution isn't arguable, and yet the author makes the incredibly stupid statement that "this was a matter of theology, not rationality." Anyone who makes that kind of statement can't be taken seriously as a judge of theology, and they probably shouldn't be taken seriously as a judge of "rationality" either.
I do love when people claim that gender and sex are socially constructed on the one hand, but then claim that their understanding of gender and sex is the only right one, on the other. Clearly they don't believe one of those two things: if they believed in the social construction of gender and sex, they would recognize that alternate views of gender and sex are alternate social constructions to be contended with politically (instead of making the facially nonsensically claim that "science" has determined that gender and sex are socially constructed); if they believed their understanding of gender and sex was the only right one, then they would have to abandon the idea that there is a natural category of people that can be called "transgender," and they'd have to acknowledge that even the term "transgender" depends on the understanding of sex and gender they're trying to critique.
Here's a response from Denny Burk, who mostly wrote the resolution: http://www.dennyburk.com/the-daily-beast-says-christian-conviction-is-harmful-to-the-idea-of-democracy-itself-thedailybeast/
Of course, the Daily Beast writer alsmost entirely mischaracterizes the resolution.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
there he is***
Jun 13, 2014, 3:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21576]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13918
Joined: 9/7/02
|
Always voting to exclude people.
Jun 13, 2014, 3:31 PM
|
|
Their wall keeps getting higher and higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
what in that resolution excludes anyone?
Jun 13, 2014, 3:33 PM
|
|
Did you even bother to see what the resolution says?
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21576]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13918
Joined: 9/7/02
|
I'm sure you were one of the 5,000 in attendance that God
Jun 13, 2014, 3:24 PM
[ in reply to because... they dont? ] |
|
told to vote yes for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I only read the first paragraph...
Jun 13, 2014, 3:43 PM
[ in reply to because... they dont? ] |
|
so forgive if the author talks about this later on but, in the first paragraph he seems to be saying that gender and sex are not both social constructs, right? He's saying gender is a social construct (mentally decided) but that sex is a natural construct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
That is the current use of terminology, yes.
Jun 13, 2014, 3:48 PM
|
|
Sex = the bits you have
Gender = what you identify as
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I think that's what The Daily Beast writer said
Jun 13, 2014, 4:08 PM
[ in reply to I only read the first paragraph... ] |
|
but that's actually not in keeping with the feminist scholarship that is being used by transgender activists. If he was only claiming that gender was socially constructed, then he would have a hard time explaining why "sexual reassignment surgery" makes sense as a therapy for gender dysphoria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
He would? Why?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:14 PM
|
|
It's not the first time a natural thing we are born with and the mental version of ourselves don't match up and we have changed. We do that all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: He would? Why?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:34 PM
|
|
Mostly because he'd have to make a further argument about how gender related to biological sex, and then to justify the modification of the body as somehow necessary to his understanding of gender. But if gender is socially constructed, there's no reason why a man couldn't have a female body, other than prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Not really
Jun 13, 2014, 4:17 PM
[ in reply to I think that's what The Daily Beast writer said ] |
|
Or at least, I don't see it that way.
It doesn't seem incompatible, to me, to believe that sex is a biological construct, and yet think it to be a biological construct you can change via surgery, hormone therapy, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Not really
Jun 13, 2014, 4:31 PM
|
|
That would be true if it were actually possible, but it's not. All you're left with after "sex reassignment" surgery is a mangled body that looks more like what you've got in your head.
Besides, do we really want to live in a world where everything about us can be changed by technology? What do we have to offer as resistance against whatever it is that somebody might will in that case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I would classify most plastic surgery as how you described
Jun 13, 2014, 4:40 PM
|
|
but your last question is an interesting carry through and one that has a clear answer. Our future is going to be different, yes that means change, from what it is now. You can't avoid it. You can, however, try to steer it one direction versus another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
most plastic surgery doesn't try to change metaphysics***
Jun 13, 2014, 4:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It doesn't?***
Jun 13, 2014, 4:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
What do you mean by metaphysics in this context?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:54 PM
[ in reply to most plastic surgery doesn't try to change metaphysics*** ] |
|
Because I understand the term as it references philosophy and psychology (and thus identity), and it seems like what the surgery would actually be doing is attempting to make biology match the identity of the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1723]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1842
Joined: 12/22/11
|
Yay!!
Jun 13, 2014, 3:24 PM
|
|
Gaynet returns...I've been on pins and needles...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
This first paragraph...I don't even...
Jun 13, 2014, 3:35 PM
|
|
“Gender” refers to one’s felt, and societally constructed, sense of being male, female, or somewhere in between. As understood by a generation of psychologists, sociologists, and other scientists, it is distinct from sex, which has to do with biology, genitalia, and genetics. Put roughly, sex is between your legs. Gender is between your ears."
Really?? This is news to me, because this is quite the opposite of what my biology classes taught me. I think the problem here, is psychologists, sociologists, and the like are starting to wander into subjects where they don't belong. You can have balls and want to be a woman all you want to, but that doesn't mean you are one. I mean, can I become an Asian just because I want to all of the sudden? You could classify this as a mental disorder, but I'm sorry, gender refers to ones sex, that's just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Hey now...
Jun 13, 2014, 3:38 PM
|
|
saying that puts you in the "laughable" category for gotigers. Because science, at least according to The Daily Beast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21576]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13918
Joined: 9/7/02
|
You are right, I disagree with you both.
Jun 13, 2014, 3:41 PM
|
|
And your posted article is no better.
Just same old "hate the sin, not the sinner" BS!
Its fine, as usual, your side will be on the wrong side of history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Or, your side will be vehemently mocked because of the
Jun 13, 2014, 3:44 PM
|
|
outright ridiculous positions on matters like this.
And I'm not religious, I just find this completely insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
It seems popular in today's culture to make stuff up and
Jun 13, 2014, 3:42 PM
[ in reply to Hey now... ] |
|
then back up your position by labeling it science. I think a lot of it stems from that "I ####### love science" website, but it's getting ridiculous.
Hey look! Ethnicity is now just a state of mind, because science!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21576]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13918
Joined: 9/7/02
|
I think its funny the continuation of ignored science.
Jun 13, 2014, 3:45 PM
|
|
"darn those psychologists and sociologists and things I have no clue of and are from the debil!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
So, how are the geniuses now defining what a woman is?
Jun 13, 2014, 3:47 PM
|
|
Anybody? Do they have to like to shop? Drive horribly?
This isn't science, this is utter nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Since it's all socially constructed...
Jun 13, 2014, 4:10 PM
|
|
a woman is whatever a woman says she is. Figure that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You have spoken about alpha and beta males before yes?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:18 PM
|
|
that would seem to imply that you view masculinity as a spectrum with alpha and beta on either ends. If so, then why do reject that the spectrum could extend further into female? or the female spectrum extending into the male?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Maybe because they aren't on the same spectrums***
Jun 13, 2014, 4:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I'm not sure we can say that with any certainty***
Jun 13, 2014, 4:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
They aren't? How do you define alpha and beta?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:28 PM
[ in reply to Maybe because they aren't on the same spectrums*** ] |
|
It's possibly you are right, but using the logic used in describing alpha and beta males, how would you separate them from the argument of male/female spectrums?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It's not so much that I reject that notion...
Jun 13, 2014, 4:29 PM
[ in reply to You have spoken about alpha and beta males before yes? ] |
|
although I don't know that to be true, it's that I think our notions of gender and sex as rooted in something natural about ourselves are important. So even if there was some kind of continuous gender spectrum, it might be better only to affirm two parallel, male and female, spectrums.
The thing is, I don't think it's some kind of happy coincidence that our views of gender and sex are the way they are. They at least try to refer to the given realities of our bodies, and that's at least one reason why they're better than those of the feminist who overemphasize individual autonomy over the body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
adhering to tradition is just as illogical
Jun 13, 2014, 4:35 PM
|
|
as change for the sake of change. My position falls between your side and what you say the feminists position would be or it falls more neutral. We are just now really getting into the subject of the mind/brain/self relationship, so to speak with any certainty or to disallow any variance of thought on the topic of who or what we are comes from a place of bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
My side is not blind adherence to tradition
Jun 13, 2014, 4:50 PM
|
|
Although I do think blind adherence to tradition is usually safer than blind adherence to revolutionary change, obviously tradition needs to justify itself and reform itself.
I also don't think nueroscience can boil the self down into chemical reactions. Trying to do so betrays a scientistic bias about metaphysics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Then the question is, "what is revolutionary change?"
Jun 13, 2014, 4:56 PM
|
|
and wouldn't/couldn't any change to tradition be described as "revolutionary" as it is disrupting the establishment as defined?
Your view of what science can say about the self is a popular opinion and may be right. But considering we are just now learning how our brains work from a biological and scientific level, I'd say that question is still very much unanswered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60228]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42556
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
so are we just nature? No nurture?***
Jun 13, 2014, 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60228]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42556
Joined: 11/30/98
|
my dog thinks he's a person
Jun 13, 2014, 3:48 PM
|
|
can I get him voting rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
A good bit of both
Jun 13, 2014, 4:06 PM
[ in reply to so are we just nature? No nurture?*** ] |
|
But that isn't really the question. One side, I think, understands it to be a disorder when somebody born a male believes they are a female, while another side believes that anything up to surgical mutilation ought to be on the table in order to make a person's body conform to their perceived gender.
The first side can accept a certain amount of social construction of gender and sex, but it understands sex to be biologically fixed: you can't simply lop off your #### and call yourself a female, and you can't simply attach a prosthetic to your hips and call yourself a male. The second side believes it's ALL socially constructed, so if technology can make our will's wishes look like they're true, then why not? From this point of view, any claim to unalterable nature is an oppression of an individual's will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It is very much the question
Jun 13, 2014, 4:12 PM
|
|
unless you think the science of the mind, body, and self is settled. Your argument gives the impression that you do and that your gender is naturally determined with no input from nurture. Considering how new the sciences of the mind is in human history, and how complex the human mind is I find the view that the science on this subject is settled to be incredibly arrogant and erroneous. And any attempt to place gender outside the realm of the mind is just trying to keep the difficulties in understand the self-mind body relationship from interfering with one's argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I actually don't disagree
Jun 13, 2014, 3:56 PM
|
|
I think he's right that gender is properly tied to sex, even though they aren't the same thing. There is far more that's socially constructed about gender than about sex, but the connection with sex isn't a construction.
What most transgender activists advocate isn't only that gender is socially constructed, but that sex is also. Are we prepared to go down that rabbit hole?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
and I'd probably disagree with them on sex being social
Jun 13, 2014, 4:06 PM
|
|
but I think I'm much less confident in saying so as you and your side.
I do think Gender is much more socially constructed than your side thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: and I'd probably disagree with them on sex being social
Jun 13, 2014, 4:14 PM
|
|
I can accept social construction of sex as long as those who advocate social construction understand that social construction doesn't imply that our current understanding of sex and gender is necessarily wrong. There is a mistaken idea that when we say that something is socially constructed, it means that thing ought to change, can be easily changed, and that any claim that refers to the authority of the social construction is just oppression. But nothing about social construction implies any of that, and in fact a committed social constructionist would have to concede that their own views of sex and gender also have a history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
How would that argument fly with your side's position?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:16 PM
|
|
Does your side not require the same acceptance that the other side may be correct or that your position may be wrong as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: How would that argument fly with your side's position?
Jun 13, 2014, 4:42 PM
|
|
If you come at it from a sort of postmodern conservative stance, as I'm suggesting you could, you would point out that there's no authority on gender (or, even, sex) other than the political. Therefore, one should determine the way gender is understood political, not scientifically, as if science had authority on a social construct.
If you think sex is not socially constructed, and that gender has a fundamental natural relation to sex (without trying to say that every way we currently express gender was natural), then you would appeal to the fundamental authority of our unchangeable natural sex to say that gender dysphoria was a disorder that shouldn't be encouraged, even if it should be treated with compassion. Just like those who believe the social construction of gender and sex is natural, you wouldn't believe yourself to be under the compulsion to stand off politically agains those you disagree with on equal footing.
Now, since you can't really change your sex no matter how badly you've mutilated your body, I would say the anti- transgender side is close to the natural truth. Those who think they've created a new man or woman through surgery sound like they believe that all it takes to change reality is to will whatever they wish to be so, and then to find some technology to help them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12851]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15971
Joined: 10/25/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12269]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14009
Joined: 2/19/99
|
HOF Post !***
Jun 14, 2014, 7:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
To be fair
Jun 13, 2014, 3:47 PM
[ in reply to This first paragraph...I don't even... ] |
|
Whatever you want to label it (gender, gender identity, sex, etc) what is being discussed is what the person believes himself to be. And that, surely, is within the realm of scientific study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists, etc.
I get that you may very much disagree with their determinations, and of course you are welcome to do so, but they aren't just asserting these things. These identity issues are being studied and investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Fair enough, I believe myself to be a lion...
Jun 13, 2014, 3:50 PM
|
|
They should acknowledge then, that just because one believes themselves to be one thing, doesn't make it so. Trying to redefine gender as something socially constructed is absurd. I get that there are people out there with this sort of confusion, but that doesn't make them a different gender any more than it makes me a lion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Thinking yourself a different species vs gender
Jun 13, 2014, 4:08 PM
|
|
is an absurd comparison and does your argument incredible harm when much of your argument is from a place of criticizing science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
Well, it was meant to be absurd, since this whole topic is
Jun 13, 2014, 4:18 PM
|
|
absurd.
How about a more realistic comparison then...Let's tackle race and ethnicity. I was born white, but I feel as if I'm hispanic. I should be acknowledged as a hispanic since I feel as such. Therefore, I shouldn't be excluded from minority scholarships and the like just because my race differs from how I view myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Ok...
Jun 13, 2014, 4:48 PM
|
|
Race is more natural (think sex)
Ethnicity is more societal (think gender)
Race is determined by skin color, hair, eyes color and shape, etc..
Ethnicity is just the values of a cultural (values, religion, history, etc)
As a white person, you can get a tan, learn spanish and move to mexico and become a citizen. No one will think you have a mental disorder. Louis CK is a born mexican but most would identify him as White. Does he have a mental disorder? Carlos Mencia is german and dutch I think, but looks hispanic so he's allowed to say racially charged jokes.
If you were born in a hispanic country and identify as hispanic but look white? You'll still qualify for the scholarship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I don't think anybody is arguing...
Jun 13, 2014, 4:22 PM
[ in reply to To be fair ] |
|
that these people don't really believe themselves to differ from their biological sex. But confirming that these people genuinely believe this is as far as science can go. It cannot tell us whether they really do differ from their sex, or whether we ought to treat that feeling as a disorder or something to be affirmed. The SBC resolution, which gotigers thinks is "laughable," doesn't say anything that would contradict this.
Another thing that science could tell us is whether sexual reassignment surgery is actually beneficial for somebody with gender dysphoria. Studies have shown that there's not much difference between people who have the surgery and people who do, but that all kinds of physical problems do result from the surgery. As such, Johns Hopkins won't do sex reassignment surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I was responding to this
Jun 13, 2014, 4:26 PM
|
|
"I think the problem here, is psychologists, sociologists, and the like are starting to wander into subjects where they don't belong"
Identity, and this issues surrounding it, are precisely the sort of issues they should be investigating.
I'm not condemning the SBC for their stance. I'd expect them to believe just that. I just happen to disagree with it, or at least disagree with the confidence with which they are making the comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
I did.
Jun 13, 2014, 4:48 PM
|
|
I went directly to their resolution prior to commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I don't see how scientists are going to...
Jun 13, 2014, 4:52 PM
|
|
"explore identity" without making the error of believing that all there is to identity is what can be explored by science (that is, material reality). We also don't really need science to tell that you aren't a man just because you've taken hormones and you've attached an appendage to your hips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
That's the thing
Jun 13, 2014, 4:57 PM
|
|
No one is arguing that someone is a man "just because you've taken hormones and you've attached an appendage to your hips." The argument, rather, is that the individual was ALREADY a man (in his identity) but that his bits didn't match.
And I'm, not arguing, by any means, that I agree with all of the conclusions from investigations done by psychologist, psychiatrists, and sociologists, but the pursuit of attempting to figure these questions out is not one without merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
Or, better yet, what makes a Frankenstein monster?
Jun 13, 2014, 5:09 PM
|
|
or even a Frankenstein society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Unlikely to happen
Jun 13, 2014, 5:12 PM
|
|
It came out. America rejected it completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25476]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14972
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Re: Southern Baptist Convention
Jun 13, 2014, 6:51 PM
|
|
"This is why I don't waste my time at church anymore. Simply laughable."
Yeah, I'd say in your case, you are better off not wasting your time at church anymore. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 64
| visibility 334
|
|
|
50
