Tuesday, May 1, 2007

TRANSGENDERING --still a mental illness --desire for mutilated, dysfunctional body

Last night on MSNBC, there was a documentary about transgenders. The American Psychiatric Ass'n. (or whatever it's called) says this is a mental problem. Supposedly they previously ruled that homosexual orientation was NOT a mental illness --but I know many pschiatrists would disagree with that who say the APA is run by politics on this topic.

Transgenders' Lament: Because doctors don't recognize transgendering as a condition to be accommodated with surgery, they can't get coverage. San Francisco, however, does cover transgender surgery for its employees and that may be a sign of coverage to come.

Sadly, these young people, who would have been fine looking, normal-looking heteros given time to mature, got it in their heads at early ages that they were in the wrong bodies. One afr. american fellow (wannabe girl) never realized that one could cross over and pass with the help of surgery --to be the other sex--until he got out in the world and saw a transgender performance in NYC. So he is working on being a girl in every way he can, waiting for surgery.

It was sad to see normal-looking little boys and little girls growing up to want to mutilate themselves to become the opposite sex --given that while homosex is a difficult and sometimes lonely lifestyle --transgendering has to be even worse for dating. A transgendered female (boy to girl) proably can't bear children --and in one rare case of a TGgirl with a normal hetero boyfriend, she still had her male equipment. There just aren't very many normal males who want a girl with a penis instead of a uterus. And we know that some fellows who find out the girl who enticed them is really a guy underneath the clothes --have turned violent, repulsed that they've been chasing a bio-male --at least turned off.

One therapist was a girl turned male --who wanted to be with males --so was in appearance a guy and oriented to guys like a girl --but really a girl genetically.

Transgender social life includes a sorority/fraternity in many cities called "Ballroom" --I thought they meant dancing --I'm thinking otherwise. The fixation is on the sexual equipment, having it or not having it. Wanting to be something God did not make them to be. So their whole lives revolve around this preoccupation. The activities of the Ballroom social life of allnight parties in elaborate clothing were totally sex-focused, superficial, based on looks and sexual attributes --maybe no more so than a beauty pageant --except the activities were outlandish, to say the least.

I found it VERY interesting that one transgender boy (formerly a girl) plays on the girls' soccer team --because "he" would be too small --his body would only be right for the girls' team. So what about other small boys? Can they apply to play soccer on the girls' team? Since we've let girls play footbal with guys, have we already paved the way for all teams to be sexually integrated --and why not let all small guys play on the girls' teams? But then won't girls lose team spaces to boys with their greater athletic prowess despite size, and the whole idea of sports for girls will be eroded because of small guys and transgender "guys" on hormones --who will get all the team spaces. So we'll have basketball teams by height for short people and soccer for small guys and another team for girls --and more and more competition for team times and games and sports monies.

If you wonder how kids could grow up wanting to transgender, all you have to do is find an Oprah forum on the topic --where mothers write in and wonder if their kid is a transgender because he likes the color pink --because he likes to wear her high heels, carry a purse and put scrunchies on a towel on his head --pretending to have long hair, likes to put on Mom's make up and jewelry, etc. etc. Then if there is a father, he is incensed that mom is feminizing the boy by just allowing him to identify with her interests instead of encouraging male identity --because she doesn't realize she has a role --nor does he know how to manifest HIS role as a father toward a baby who quite naturally would play with make up and let his mom and sister put nail polish on him --just to entertain him.

Parents are the key when kids want to transgender. They need to celebrate the child's given gender and delight in it --passing that joy on to the child. There are ways. How many mothers bad-mouth men to their kids? No wonder some little boys would want to be women. LIkewise, I know of an irritable brow-beating husband --whose daughter was lesbian.

There is no one road that leads to Rome in sexual identity issues. But parents should do all they can to deliberately guide their children's sexual self-image toward normalcy, especially in this age of cultural confusion on sexual identity.

A person on the program said we shouldn't be looking for a cause --but figure out how to accommodate these youth so they can live happily. But they CAN'T LIVE HAPPILY --EVER --being in such basic rebellion against how God made them to be--exchanging perfectly healthy bodies for mutilated ones and mega doses of hormones to change their secondary sexual characteristics --thus living a charade that isolates them romantically from most normal men and women. Maybe I don't have enough faith in med. technology, but can a transgender male ever father a child --can a transgendered female ever have a womb and give birth? What a hormonal mess that would be.

I say, yes we SHOULD look for a cause --to prevent this preoccupation in children and this desire for self-mutilation and bio-dysfunction. It's preposterous that ANY so-called experts would encourage cross-gendering in children --before those children's normal hormones have kicked in. Kids don't know WHAT they want, really, because they haven't the maturity or the life experience to make such an important, life-altering decision for themselves. Children of 5 or 6, e.g., have no idea what their sex organs are for --nor any idea of normal or good sexual experience. This is not the age to let them make this choice by allowing them to cross-dress, etc. I'm sorry to be so insulting, but such experts are IDIOTS!!!! All sexual self-image problems are cases of "arrested development," --except when there is a chromosomal abnormality or ambiguous genital development--which is extremely rare. These are the ones entitled to confusion who may have choices to make, including surgery. The best thing is to go with the hormones you are given. There is nothing abnormal about the original hormone levels of homosexuals and transgenders.

And a final question--why should anyone spend the money for this kind of self-mutilation--to exchange a healthy body for a dysfunctional one? And why should insurance money or taxes ever cover such expense, when the whole world suffers from curable life-threatening diseases for lack of basic immunizations and preventative care?

It's a self-indulgent preoccupation. Transgenders need to "get a life" --and get to the root of the pain over the way God made their bodies to be male or female.

An interesting case study in the area of sexual identity is Rosie O'Donnell. She was a delightful lady in her first show, fun and good-natured. Since coming out of the closet, she walks like a Mack truck and thinks she has to be mad and assertive all the time --trying to be manly, I guess. Maybe she's taking male hormones.

Any good actor can act like the opposite sex --and that's what this is all about -charades and mutilation based on a mis-guided preference to be the opposite sex.

The program did report honestly that there is no known bio-cause for transgender desire (or homosexual orientation)--only speculation about hormonal washes of the fetus during pregnancy. I think it's like homosexuality; you can find reasons for desire to be the other sex or to be with the other sex in one's upbringing and childhood experiences, in a child's imagination, lack of knowledge, or misunderstanding of childish sexual feelings.

One possibility: if a mother watches Oprah, daytime TV, and her child sees children on TV wanting to be the other sex as though it were a legitimate desire, the child will think he/she HAS a choice to transgender --and the mother will think so, too.
Oprah's experts told them to accommodate the child's cross-dressing, transgender toys and play interests, rather than channeling them toward a sex identity that would match their bodies, genes and hormones.

There is so much culture to counter!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


steve said...

If they want to be transgendered.. I say all the more power to them because it doesn't affect me in anyway whatsoever.

But I don't think that insurance should cover such an operation because there's a lot other more serious things that insurance could cover, but they don't. It's sort of like elective plastic surgery.

My wife is very upset that insurance companies will cover "viagra" prescriptions for men, but won't cover fertility medications for women. She says most health insurance is very male centric.. so I would be very suprised if an insurance company covered transgender surgery.

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON — A Brazilian spider delivers more than a painful bite that sends most victims to the hospital. Its venom stimulates an hours-long erection. Now scientists have figured out the chemical that seems to be responsible for the penis boost.

In Brazil, emergency room staff can immediately spot the victims of a bite from the Brazilian wandering spider (Phoneutria nigriventer). Patients not only experience overall pain and an increase in blood pressure, they also sport an uncomfortable erection.

“The erection is a side effect that everybody who gets stung by this spider will experience along with the pain and discomfort,” said study team member Romulo Leite of the Medical College of Georgia. “We’re hoping eventually this will end up in the development of real drugs for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.”

The research was presented here at a poster session at the American Physiological Society (APS) annual meeting.

A recent, nationally representative study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that about 18 million men in the United States suffer from erectile dysfunction. Research has shown that about one in three men with mild to moderate forms of erectile dysfunction don’t respond to Viagra, with some of these men having success with either Levitra or Cialis. And men with severe erectile dysfunction have less success with the drugs.

Rodent erections

Kenia Pedrosa Nunes of the Medical College Georgia, Leite and colleagues separated the different components of the spider venom and ran tests on rats to eek out the erectile enhancer. Dubbed Tx2-6, the compound turned out to be a relatively short string of amino acids called a peptide.

Then, they injected the venom-chemical into rats stimulated to begin an erection. A tiny needle-like device inserted into each rat’s penis measured the pressure change, which corresponds with the increase in blood flow to the blood vessels inside the penis. Compared with control rats, those injected with the peptide showed a significant increase in penis pressure.

The scientists also found an increase in nitric oxide within the two main cylindrical cavities that run the length of the penis and are called corpora cavernosa.

Erection science

The significance of the nitric oxide is clear when the science behind an erection is considered: The brain senses sexual arousal in the body and certain neurons produce nitric oxide, a message telling the body to get started in making an erection. A cascade of biochemical steps occurs, one of which includes the production of an enzyme dubbed cGMP. This enzyme causes the smooth muscles of the penis’ two cylinders to relax so that blood can rush in and fill up the now expandable tubes. (A human penis can hold about 10 times more blood when erect compared with its non-erect state.)

“All of this leads to vaso-dilation of vessels that go through the penis and also relaxation of those [cylindrical tube muscles],” Leite told LiveScience. “They need to relax so the blood will come inside and that’s how you get an erection, because the blood gets trapped into the penis.”

But erections don’t last forever. The erectile party crasher, a substance called PDE-5 breaks down the cGMP and in turn transforms the erect penis into its normal limp state.

The most popular erectile-dysfunction drugs—Viagra, Cialis and Levtra—work by blocking this party crasher.

The spider chemical works in a different manner, affecting an earlier step in the erection process. Somehow, the toxin ups the amount of nitric oxide, which sort of sets into motion an erection. The scientists suggest that a combination of a synthetic version of the spider venom with a drug like Viagra would result in a magnified effect.

“So the combination of the two drugs could be even more efficient in patients that don’t respond well to Viagra,” Leite said.

Barb said...

Good grief, LD, you're baaaack!

but it is an interesting post. Do you want to share my blog, is that it? I guess we could work something out --a blog titled "pro and con" --or "relevant and irrelevant" --or something like that... : D

Actually, you are quite welcome here on The Barb Wire. I've never said you weren't interesting.

Barb said...

As for insurance, Steve, we agree -we shouldn't pay for transgendering, I suspect viagra is covered because the insurance guys want it covered for themselves. 2ndly, i imagine fertility drugs are not covered because pregnancy and babies would be more costly to the family plans. 3rdly --they do cover birth control pills, now, don't they?? If they do, it's because they are cheaper than babies. I guess it IS all about money for the guys!

As for transgenders not affecting you --would you feel that way if you got ready to marry someone who later turned out to be a man on hormones, who thinks he's a girl and is trying to become one?

Would you want your child to plan on surgery to change his/her sex when he/she has never grown up --much less experienced real sexual arousal or intercourse? Should children think this is a choice? Is there not something almost abusive in an environment that doesn't tell a child what sex he/she is, doesn't help him/her feel normal, nor help him or her realize how being male or female is a good thing --nor teach what it means for his/her future as a grown-up who will marry a lady or a man and become a dad or a mom someday?

Children are so very impressionable. Dissatisfaction with one's body and envy of the opposite sex and orientation toward the same sex --these do not occur in a societal vacuum.

These kids seemed completely fixated on portraying the opposite sex --without time for more wholesome pursuits. some older man was providing housing for them --what were his motivations, I wondered.

Barb said...

by the way, LD, the article says 18 million estimated to have ED. my husband tells me they sold 30 million prescriptions for Viagra the first 3 months this year --that's not including the other drugs of this type.

Valérie said...

Hello Barb,

I saw your blog after visiting Microdot's blog, He comes regularly on "Pourquoi Pas?" blog where I visit every day.

I have a bit of trouble understanding the complicated scientific English here, LOL.

I am probably understanding it all wrong, but if the article is about mutating and such, I am not agreeing at all. I think women are women, and men are men, and the same applies to every species.

Nature should be respected.

But I am very sorry if I misundertood. In any case, thank you for the information and your blog.


Dick said...

A sexual arms race waged with twisted genitals has been discovered in waterfowl.
The genitalia of the females of these species have at times apparently evolved to make it harder for males to successfully impregnate them, according to new findings that shed light on the eternal war of the sexes.
Most birds lack phalluses, organs like human penises. Waterfowl are among the just 3 percent of all living bird species that retain the grooved phallus found in their reptilian ancestors.
Male waterfowl are especially unusual in that their phalluses vary greatly among different species in length, ranging from a half-inch to more than 15 inches long. They also display a remarkable level of diversity how elaborate they are, ranging from smooth to covered with spines and grooves.
Scientists had speculated that male waterfowl evolved longer phalluses to give them a competitive edge over those not as well-endowed when it came to successfully fertilizing females.
After looking at the genitalia of a male duck, "I became immediately intrigued by what the female anatomy would look like to accommodate such a bizarre organ," said behavioral ecologist Patricia Brennan, who researches at both Yale University and the University of Sheffield in Britain.
Now Brennan and her colleagues unexpectedly find the vaginas of female waterfowl can be just as ornate as male genitalia, full of "dead ends" and other countermeasures that all seemed design to exclude the phallus, findings to be detailed online May 2 in the journal PLoS ONE.
Like lock and key
In most birds, the vagina or oviduct is a simple tube. However, in some waterfowl, there are sacs in the sides of this tube, pockets that are just inside the opening of the oviduct. These sacs appear "to function as 'dead-ends,' or false passages," Brennan said. "If the phallus were to enter one of these sacs, it would not progress further into the oviduct where it would deposit sperm more effectively."
Waterfowl oviducts can also possess a series of tight, clock-wise spirals. "Interestingly, the male phallus is also a spiral, but it twists in the opposite, counterclockwise, direction," said Yale ornithologist Richard Prum, one of Brennan's co-authors on the research. "So, the twists in the oviduct appear designed to exclude the opposing twists of the male phallus," behaving like the opposite of a lock-and-key system.
The number of sacs and spirals in the reproductive tract of various female waterfowl seems to increase as the male phallus gets longer across the 14 different species of ducks and geese tracked by Brennan and her colleagues.
"I became very good at predicting what the genitalia of one sex would look like by looking at the other sex first," Brennan said.
This suggests the genitalia of males and females have evolved to surpass each other in a kind of escalating arms race over which sex gets to control reproduction.
"Despite the fact that most waterfowl form monogamous pairs, forced copulations by other males—the avian equivalent of rape—are common in many waterfowl," said Prum. The length of the phallus of a species is strongly linked with the frequency of forced copulations.
"In response to male attempts to force their paternity on females, female waterfowl may be able to assert their own behavioral and anatomical means of controlling who fathers their offspring," Brennan said.
This means that male waterfowl evolve more ornate phalluses to attempt to successfully overcome the physical defenses raised by ever more elaborate vaginas, and vice versa.
"Some large waterfowl that are highly monogamous, like geese and swans, have small phalluses, whereas other species that are quite small but more promiscuous have more elaborate genitalia," Brennan said. "A larger phallus is advantageous in situations where there is more promiscuity while more monogamous species have a much reduced phallus."
Consent and cooperation
When females consent to advances from a chosen male, the researchers speculate female cooperation during copulation helps the phallus bypass female defenses.
"If the female is constantly struggling during unwanted copulations, this may prevent the phallus from being able to bypass the blind pouches," Brennan told LiveScience. When females cooperate during copulation, they "don't struggle," she added.
These findings "help dispel the notion that females are simply passive members of the battle between the sexes," said evolutionary biologist Robert Montgomerie at Queen's University at Kingston in Canada, who did not participate in this study. "This study, and many like it, serve to remind us that we should pay equal attention to both sexes when it comes to the process of making babies."
Ornithologist Kevin Johnson at the Illinois Natural History Survey in Champaign also noted these findings suggest "that other species that exhibit forced copulation behavior, although rare, should be examined" for similar adaptations to their anatomy.
Brennan plans to delve further into the development and evolution of genitalia in birds. "I am sure there are more surprises out there," she said.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality has been documented in almost 500 species of animals, signaling that sexual preference is predetermined. Considered the closest living relative to humans, bonobos are not shy about seeking sexual pleasure. Nearly all of these peace-loving apes are bisexual and often resolve conflict by the 'make love, not war' principle. They copulate frequently, scream out in delight while doing so, and often engage in homosexual activities. About two thirds of the homosexual activities are amongst females.

Homosexual activity occurs with about the same frequency as heterosexual play amongst these marine mammals. Male bottlenose dolphins are generally bisexual, but they go through periods of being exclusively homosexual. The homosexual activities of these mammals include oral sex during which time one dolphin stimulates the other with its snout. Males also rub their erect penises against the body of their partner.

Male courtships are frequent amongst these long-necked mammals. Often a male will start necking with another before proceeding to mount him. This affectionate play can take up to an hour. According to one study, one in every 20 male giraffes will be found necking with another male at any instant. In many cases, homosexual activity is said to be more common than heterosexual.

On average, females mount with other females a couple of times an hour during the mating season. Homosexual mounting encompasses almost 9 percent of all sexual activities within these hoofed mammals in the wild. While courting, the pursuer sidles up behind a pal and raises her foreleg, touching the other female between her legs. This leggy foreplay ultimately leads to mounting.

Homosexual couples account for up to 20 percent of all pairings annually. Almost a quarter of all families are parented by homosexual couples that remain together for years. At times, male couples use the services of a female by mating with her. Once she lays a clutch of eggs, the wanna-be fathers chase her away and hatch the eggs. Other times, they just drive away heterosexual couples from their nests and adopt their eggs.

Male walruses don't reach sexual maturity until they are four years old. During that time, they are most likely exclusively involved in same-sex relationships. The older males are typically bi-sexual, mating with females during breeding season and copulating with other males the rest of the year. Males rub their bodies together, embrace each other and even sleep together in water.

Splashing around in the water is brought to a completely new level in gray whales, where homosexual interactions are quite common. In slip-and-slide orgies, as many as five males roll around, splashing water, and rubbing their bellies against each other so that their genitals are touching.

Males cock-of-the-rock, stunning perching bird, delight in homosexuality. Almost 40 percent of the male population engages in a form of homosexual activity and a small percentage don't ever copulate with females.

Barb said...

that's what I like about you, LD --you do your homework! No arguments of your own but you are great at irrelevant "cut and paste."

To other readers here: when you see cut and pasted irrelevant comments here, they are from LD --no, that's not Learning Disabled --but Liberal Democrat of Mudville.

I think I've driven him mad with my Judeo-Christian, Bible-based view of sexuality (and my voluminous posts and comments) --and these irrelevant posts are the result.

I'd delete his comments except they DO speak for themselves!

Dick, Anonymous, anybody with 666 in his screen name --any "deleted by author" comments --probably his.
Sometimes, he wakes up the next day to see what he's posted on my blog and says, "Yikes! What was I thinking??" Or maybe his wife jumps in and deletes for fear it will look like he's flipped out.

But I'm happy to have blog visitors --and said at the outset that I welcome differing views.

Barb said...

Valerie. I think we agree.

We SHOULD respect nature. The Bible says, "male and female, He created them."

I feel sorry for people who are focused on desire for the unnatural--who want to change their sex --or to be with the same sex --or who want to change their sex to the opposite sex and then have relations with one who appears opposite but is really the same sex as the transgendered person. So confusing!

I was just reporting on a TV show that wanted us to think transgendering was necessary for the happiness of these unhappy people.

They will never be happy because they are in rebellion against their Creator's design for their lives.

God will forgive them if they admit this is sin --an extreme self-centered focus.

I do think culture and parents contribute to their confusion as children.

Barb said...

By the way, LD

ANIMALS BEHAVING HOMOSEXUALLY DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. (I doubt your stats are proof of prevalence of gay animals, by the way.)

Good grief, a dog will hump your leg --does that mean you should accommodate the dog and have a mutual sex relationship? By your logic, bestiality is permissable because some are inclined to do it and have done it.

We are NOT animals. We are made in God's image and he is a God of Moral Law which He has defined.
There is only one "safe" sex --that between a loving faithful man and his loving faithful wife.

Barb said...

anonymous (aka LD) printed, "Homosexuality has been documented in almost 500 species of animals, signaling that sexual preference is predetermined"

How does this behavior signal that homosexual preference is predetermined??? It simply does not. Some science, indeed!

whether it is prevalent or rare, it would be the cause of extinction of a species if the animals typically had exclusive same sex preference. Bisexuality is just the capacity and desire to have orgasm any way one can.

As for the twists of the bird receivers and penetrators --for all scientists know, those twists enhance pleasure or staying power --long enough to impregnate. Silly scientists --to presume an antagonistic relationship by design. But so what???

As for the forced copulation among some birds --rape is always animal-like behavior. Humans DO know better even if they don't DO better. Same with homosex as with bisex as with rape as with adultery, incest, pedophilia or bestiality. IT's never been that these were "against HUMAN nature" as much as they were "against God" and His plan for our bodies.

It is against nature for the dog to hump your leg, for the apes to behave gay. Or is it? Sin nature IS man's nature. Sin nature is to be immoral or amoral --as with animals--who also behave "against nature" (as in leg humping) --if that means "against God's design plan."

Moreover, animals are NOT ethical creatures. We are. We are the ones accountable to our Creator to use our bodies properly --to have self-control and not follow around the most basic drive to have orgasm.

Yankee Doodle said...

A columnist for the Sport Section in L.A. Times "changed" his identity from male to female last week. Such a surgery can only change your outside apperance. It cannot change your feeling, your body function, and your identity.

It is not how to confront to a physical disorder.


Virginia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
liberal_dem said...

So, Barb, how long have you had this 'sex' thing? Have you sought some counseling about your obsession? When did 'it' all begin? Childhood incident?

Or do you just get a kick out of crotch politics?

Barb said...

Actually, I didn't have any traumatic childhood incidents
if that's what you're implying.

But I did have enough child experience to know that normal stages of child and adolescent development, normal feelings of children toward their own and the opposite sex, could be misinterpreted by those children and lead them into an abnormal self-image --especially given encouragement by today's confused and immoral cultural climate.

Why are YOU so defensive of the abnormal?? and the immoral?

The Bible is my authoritative source. It says God has prescribed hetero marriage as the only legitimate sexual relationship --for our own good and the good of our children. I don't think little kids should be encouraged in wanting to transgender --before they even know what normal hormonal feelings and sex experience are like.

There are many tomboy girls who grow up to be very feminine in their romantic inclinations --and some sissified boys who turn out normal. But we've got "change agents" who want to "help" such kids "explore their sexuality" and identify as gay. We're putting ideas into their impressionable heads with books like "jesse's skirt" or whatever it was --a book for very young children about a boy who wants to wear a skirt to school and this is seen as just fine. When, in fact, if a child is confused, it's because of some dysfunction in the way he was raised-- or in traumatic sexual experience in childhood. How many come from divorced/single parent homes? Or how many of their mothers are terribly ignorant in how to raise kids who know what their sex is and are glad for it?

I'm surprised that as a former educator you don't see the common sense of my perspective. Children should not be presented with transgendering or homosexual ideas --anymore than we would expose them to explicit normal sex. They should be encouraged to delight in their given bio-sexuality as boy or girl. And they should be protected from early sex experience of any kind. We are made wonderfully for procreation and no other sex will ever really satisfy because the bodily functions practiced are abnormal --and the transgenders undergo what really can't be called anything other than mutilation of their normal, functioning, healthy bodies.

I'm not saying the transgenders or the gays are as guilty as the societal influences that confused them. We need to wake up and do a better job of parenting --and staying married.

liberal_dem said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barb said...

Your imagery is just too vulgar for my blog, LD.

If you can phrase your opinions more delicately, I'll not delete them.

But as it is, you are showing yourself in a bad light. I do you a favor when I delete you --because, your posts do have an unpleasant odor --like those piles of manure you posted on your blog.

I bet your mom would be ashamed.

Anonymous said...

Hi Barb--I saw your post on the religion clause site about birth control not being prohibited by the Bible and I just wanted to bring to your attention a couple of things you may not have known. All birth control pills, patches, what-not--all of them have the potential to be an abortifacient which means they have the potential to induce an abortion without you knowing. But, more than that, birth control is about your attitude before God--does God have to explicitly tell us that something is wrong when we can look at the way He designed us and consider what acts of love He has asked us to take part in within a marriage? God is very well aware of the fact that sexual acts create babies and He commands us to give our bodies to one another in marriage . . . He never once tells us to prevent the natural course that takes place from the love act within marriage. I think thats pretty strong evidence of His thoughts on the birth control issue! Birth should never be within our control for then we are playing with life and impeding an area that is God's jurisdiction. Birth should always only be controlled by God Himself. The question is do we trust Him to truly be in control? Thats the question. Bless you.

liberal_dem said...

My, my, barb, DELETING my posts? Tisk, tisk, is this what you chided me about on my blog??

Such hypocrisy, eh?

Well, 'crotch' politics is not a term of my invention, or don't you know that?

Crotch politics is that kind of politics which centers itself on sex. Your blog and your comments on my blog were mostly about sexual functioning.

If you don't want me to comment on your crotch politics, then stop posting about it.

liberal_dem said...

I find this comment of yours [regarding transgendering] quite poignant:

"Why are YOU so defensive of the abnormal?? and the immoral?"

Interesting statement, barb. It says quite a lot about you.

Tell me what you meant by this statement, then I'll tell you what it says about you as a person, an American, and a christian.

Barb said...

I'll start with what I did NOT mean. I did NOT mean that everyone should be alike, that is, "the norm" in ways that don't matter --and in ways they cannot help --in ways that God allowed them to be different from the norm by genetics, accident, or disease(e.g. race, appearance, intelligence, disabilities, genetic abnormalities) or in life choices which don't hurt others or society at large --and usually not themselves. Those life choices that have traditionally been viewed as "freedom."

Barb said...

As for diversity in religious belief and morals:

I defend as much as any liberal the equal rights of all people to believe and practice any religion they wish (including the right to choose or be born into a religion that is harmful to themselves and their families if it doesn't take them to Heaven) because religion must be freely chosen and not coerced --though parents have every right to steer their children in religious and moral matters. Of course, that doesn't mean parents have a right to circumcise females, to push transgendering onto them because they wanted a child of the opposite sex, to commit ritual sacrifice, to prostitute kids, to force marriages or abortions, to involve them in porn or incest or any sexual activity -- to teach them to participate in what our society deems to be crime (as my one Hispanic arsonist friend did who would get kids into movies free by telling the management their kid had lost a shoe in the theater; could they all go look for it--then they sat down to see the movie and would get away with it.) He took them to stores and expected them to shoplift, also. The mother told me these things. So the parents' right to define morals for their chidren is not absolute. Religions that teach drug use or voodoo, blood drinking, ought not go over well here in the U.S. especially if imposed on one's children.

As for the religious choice, hopefully some who are ignorant of Christ may be pardoned by His sacrifice because they were souls that sought righteousness and had godly consciences about right and wrong, love and compassion, generosity and unselfishness, etc. --by God's grace. Hopefully, God would reveal himself to these who earnestly seek Him, "the unknown God" to whom Paul referred in Athens.

There is evidence that there were people who found God's favor in the Old Testament without being Jewish (or Christian, obviously.) I don't say that salvation without faith in Christ is for sure possible today, but it certainly is true that God IS ABLE and HAS THE SOVEREIGNTY to save anyone He wishes for any reason He wishes--whether or not they knew about Christ. I don't think we can reject Christ since He has come, however, and go to Heaven, according to Scripture.

Scripture says, the PROMISE of Heaven is for those who accept Christ --and the Jews who kept the Covenant before Christ. that's why Jesus gave the Great Commission to tell the world about Him --and why St. Paul walked miles and miles to establish churches throughout the Roman world of his day --to tell them God had sent a Savior who had proven himself in miracles and resurrection (the Gospels) --This Savior proved His reality to a devout Jew, Paul, in his Damascus road experience in Acts 9--the most dramatic conversion to faith in Christ on record, I think. Paul addressed amphitheaters of pagans --and converted a very high Roman consulate on the island of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus --when he made his sorcerer, Barjesus, temporarily blind, condemning his evil origins as a sorcerer. That convinced Sergius Paulus that Paul's source was powerful and His stories about Paul and Jesus were true.

You probably realize, LD, that there were scoffers like you who despised the Christians, all through the New Testament accounts. In fact, Paul was one of them. He was stoned and imprisoned and threatened by angry mobs. Paul converted because Jesus came to Him in a dramatic way. I believe God can get your attention, too.

steve said...

You guys are way to serious about this stuff.

Barb said...

More for LD --In America and most of the western civilized world there have been societal norms about sexual morality --the only approved sex was for adults in covenanted, hetero, monogamous marriage --after the teachings for church leaders in the New Testament. It was also "natural" for men to not want to share wives and vice versa--just as God is a jealous God wanting no other gods worshipped other than He, so man, made in the image of God, wants no competition in his sex life with his wife, and vice versa.

Porn and prostitution and homosex were viewed as harmful to marriages and thus to children and usually, women. They were seen as evil --immoral. the Bible and churches would support that view.

The romantic ideal of one woman for one man had been around for ages--as in the original couple of Creation, Adam and Eve. As with Jesus' parents, as far as we know. God did not approve the polygamy of the Old Testament and it was not the norm. Sarah's decision to share her maid with Abraham was not God's will and led to Ishmael, whom the Muslims claim as their ancestral father. One writer rightly refers to Arab-Israeli conflict as the "War of the Cousins."

In medieval times, the elevation of Mary (Maryology) led to chivalry toward women --an improvement over the idea of women as chattel.

In America, ideas of equality of sexes and persons gradually evolved so that women were no longer regarded as property except to the extent that the husband was also property--they belonged to each other --and "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder" --those were the words of Christ.

there was that scripture by Paul that in Christ all are one (equal)--slave, free, Jew, Greek, male and female.

In America the Bible was studied by the public school children and many of the people came here for religious freedom and established churches in every community --and there was a Bible-supported moral code in the community that respected fetal life, marriage, church involvement, the Bible, charity and education "get wisdom" "study to show thyself approved"--and since nearly everyone was Christian or no faith, Christmas creches were part of school pageants. The Bible was studied. And the Bible influenced public policy for good --making ours the best nation of all to live in.

There was evil, too, public hangings, violence, prejudice, etc. but the moral "norms" were Bible-based --and our earliest laws were Bible-based --including the blue laws about Sunday commerce, an effort to keep the Sabbath holy. We still believe in a day of rest --and it became the norm to have weekends off work in our country. It's a Biblical principle that the 7th day should be a day of rest --and of course we made that day, Sunday, from New Testament tradition of Christians meeting on Resurrection Day. (Parents rightly resent the sports teams who disrespect this family and church day and require kids to miss church in order to play.)

Of course, you will want to bring up the native Americans and the slaves. Slavery was a global phenomenon --going back to before the days of Moses. In USA, instead of hiring, workers, cooks, a maid or a gardener, or a service done for your house, people who could afford them, bought them because they were being sold. They became part of a household. A Christian who owned slaves would be humane to them --they did justify it, not by explicit Biblical passages as much as interp. But it was the Bible in the hands of the people that would inspire the Afr. Americans to identify with the Jews and sing, "Let my people go!" and it was the Bible in the hands of the people that challenged John Newton and Wilberforce to fight slavery in England --emboldening the abolitionists of America --who also were fueled by their Christian faith. The Golden Rule suggested all men should be free because all wanted to be free. "Do to others as you'd have them do unto you."

Safe to say, however, Afr. Americans do not want to live in Africa today as the continent is in an awful rut with their civil strife and tribalism.

It's a testimony to American Christianity, that Condi Rice would be a very competitive choice for president--as one of a white president's top advisors.

Two of the early church leaders, according to historian Pliney, the Younger, who established a church in some city, in the early Christian era, were two slave women. They certainly were emboldened by the Gospel.

As for native Americans, America was big enough for both the settlers and the natives --and I don't think I'll tackle this subject for now --for time constraints.

ultimately, America is the land with a conscience --and both liberals and conservatives do appeal to Biblically informed views of rights and compassion --but liberals have typically abandoned the Biblical definition of righteousness --PARTICULARLY in the areas of sexual mores and entertainment. They think liberty means licentiousness --licenses to do anything one wants (except steal, kill, discriminate, evangelize, pray or preach or acknowledge the Creator or the Bible's moral standards on gov't property.) they favor an amoral gov't which allows rampant immorality in entertainment which influences our culture and our children for the worst. In short they want THEIR philosophy of atheistic hedonistic secularism advanced and favored by gov't --instead of the wonderful civilizing characteristics of biblical christianity.

So we ARE in a culture war, LD, and you are on the wrong side--according to how you have presented yourself.

Barb said...

And finally --about defending the immoral. They deserve compassion and love which God offers them --which real Christians offer them. But God never tells us to condone immorality--just to forgive --and to the immoral He said, "go and sin no more."

But we need to have righteous indignation about those who would lead children astray about morality --getting them to "explore their sexuality" and to focus on gender such that they focus on TRANSgendering or conclude from early feelings and thoughts that they must be born gay. We don't need your "crotch politicians" who have no common sense and want porn accessible by kids in public libraries (the ass'n of librarians), who would put raunchy programs on TV during times when the well-parented or the poorly parented --or the unsupervised by necessity (old enough not to have sitters with parents working) are likely to see. We see no effort on the part of liberals to respect the feelings of conservative parents in these matters, whether in schools or entertainment or internet porn. We are so benighted as to think free speech means no restrictions on filth and unwholesome, even addictive influences upon kids.

We seem to no longer agree about what is good for children --OR for adults.

Evil has become good, and good, evil, as the Bible predicted.

OK, LD --YOUR turn. And don't cut and paste. If you can't think for yourself and be civil, don't bother.

Barb said...

Steve - these issues are really important --I don't think people realize just HOW important it is to be a nation of righteous ideals. The bible leads a nation upward --and God may have blessed us because we are People of the Book in our views of justice and human rights --and our willingness to self-examine and admit wrong.

I'm sorry that I write books --I know people don't have time to read and think about what I'm saying.

In summary, We are not well-served by those who say "whose righteous ideals"? "whose morality?" and conclude that not only is gov't to not establish religion, but they cannot respect the Judeo-Christian religious foundation and ideals that made for this country's greatness.

You said, "You guys" are too serious --I'm not sure whom you mean, but LD really is upset with me --and I say that's the conviction of the Holy Spirit upon Him --which is a good thing. It does mean that God cares about LD's soul and doesn't want him to miss the boat.

If I were just an irrelevant dingbat, LD should go away.

Barb said...

Hello Anonymous. I wonder if you are Catholic or Calvinist or something other?

I thought birth control really prevented ovulation. It would seem that that could be unhealthy, but my husband says they haven't seen much negative side effects to birth control drugs since they started the lower doses many years ago --BC has been around for nearly 50? years at least. The intention of BC is certainly not to abort.

As for the Bible not forbidding BC --it doesn't forbid modern medicine at all --and the purpose of modern medicine is to relieve suffering, improve quality of life, lengthen life, manage conditions that a determinist/Calvinist would say God has allowed us to suffer. Well, I agree, He allows it --but I don't think of suffering as His plan --but as the curse of the Fall --and as such, He encourages us to fight it, fight death, disease and pestilene, fight the subjugation of women and pain in childbirth --all the curses of the Fall. "Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven." there is no sickness or death in Heaven.

There are devoutly religious Christians who have refused all medical help, including vaccinations for their kids --and let their children die unnecessariy, believing illness and recovery is a sovereignty issue. So are you trusting God for all your healthcare? or just pregnancies?

there are some women for whom pregnancy is very difficult and they shouldn't have 12 kids as some women without BC do .

God gave us our minds --and He gave us knowledge of our bodies' functions --and scientists to find remedies to manage our fertility and our diseases.

Will you refuse viagra if you should ever need it?

Would you seek fertility treatment or study if you should find it difficult to become pregnant as a couple?

I believe that being able to pace our pregnancies may be just one of the blessings and helps of medical science that does not offend God.

as for me, I don't mind disclosing that I tried the pill and it made me sick every month --back when doses were higher --I was a little afraid of it and quit using it very early in my marriage. But they strongly encouraged a tubal ligation for me when I had 2 C-sections 14 months apart and I had 4 children. The first c-section was because of early labor which nearly killed the baby --my husband was the only one watching the monitor and he yelled when he saw the baby going under --and they did a C-section without the anesthetic taking. I am a heroine! So the 2nd C-section was scheduled because I had the first one --for in those days they were afraid to risk normal delivery after a C-section. As for the tubal, I was in no mood to say no. Labor is really severe pain--but C-section is worse pain--for recovery.

I don't feel guilty for the tubal. I trust the Lord --and think the pharmacy and medical management of fertility is one of His blessings. However, I don't support abortion as birth control at all --and doubt very much that it is really necessary for the mother's life. But that's where the legality should go --we should end convenience abortions and let couples decide when it comes to mother's life risk. I also would advise a rape victim to do the rape kit --especially the very young and innocent victims. If you had a young, innocent rape victim for a daughter, I wonder if you would really force her to endure pregnancy and labor. That's a lot to ask --though the baby might be a blessing. But you don't know if conception occured yet on the day of the rape --or within hours of the rape. So I say, go and clean out the foreign invasion. The rape, sin, is never God's will. I realize that all born babies become His will, but see what you think if your sweet innocent girl of 11 gets raped.

As I understand it the rape kit starts a period and flushes out the uterus? or maybe prevents implantation? It's appropriate --that man's seed didn't belong there. But I don't recommend waiting to see if the girl is pregnant and then aborting the developing child.

liberal_dem said...

Good God, you do talk a lot. Sadly, though, you say nothing.

Yankee Doodle said...

Hi, I have included some new polls on my sidebar. Check them out and remember to vote!