Well, damned if I know. According to the Agnus Dei, the "Lamb of god, takes away the sins of the world; have mercy on us". If there was no sin, mercy would not be called for. — Bitter Crank

Yes if there was no sin Jesus would never have died on the Cross.

If sin is separation from God, and Christ's atonement for the sins of the world reconciled man to god, then the effect of sin -- alienation from god -- is kaput. — Bitter Crank

A man cannot be reconciled with God unless they LIVE a life IN Christ. This means someone cannot go on sinning and living a life in Christ at the same time, lest at Judgement Jesus will tell them that he knew them not even if they come saying Lord Lord ;) . But the Christian life requires the community. It is only in the Church that the Christian can live in Christ and avoid sin. That is why, Christianity is inevitably tied to politics. A Christian requires a Christian society. The tools of the world - in this case peer pressure and social forms of pressure - need to be mobilised for Christian ends. At the moment they are still mobilised - but they are mobilised against the Christian, for the transexual, etc.

As for the Last Judgement, that hasn't happened yet, presumably. Once the Kingdom of God is inaugurated, and though we've been dead 10,000 years, we can get together and compare notes at that time. — Bitter Crank

Look forward to it :)

I prefer to think that man is essentially good, but quite flawed owing to his provenance, which interferes with the "better angels of his nature" God didn't create us by fiat; we descended from other species, and retain features of species long before us. — Bitter Crank

I don't think of any animals as having the capacity for evil. Why do you think animals have the capacity for evil?

I never did like the book of Revelations much. Along with some of the epistles, it should have been dropped into the shredder. — Bitter Crank

That was the first book I've read from the Bible. I think the Book of Revelations is essential - it's the only book where Jesus returns triumphant to banish and destroy all evil, and when Justice finally triumphs and reigns supreme, showing its full glory and power.

In 50 years we'll all be busy filling sandbags to hold back the rising oceans, and doing this at night because it will be too hot in the daytime. It will be too hot to be screwing around, with no air conditioning because all our energy will be devoted to carbon sequestration and running ER rooms to treat people for heat stroke.

I anticipate that global warming and it's attendant problems will resolve all of our moral issues, except the one of making the earth a pest hole. — Bitter Crank

I think the environmental issues won't be the problem - I don't really think we (YET) have the capacity to unbalance the Earth to that degree. The Earth has its own mechanisms, just like a living body, to adjust and safeguard itself. I think the moral issues are the more pressing and serious concern.

But the Christian life requires the community. It is only in the Church that the Christian can live in Christ and avoid sin. — Agustino

Yes, I agree with you here. The Christian life requires a community, (and a real community, not the larger diluted "Christiandom"). Actually, man can not live alone and remain human, no matter what he is -- Hindu, radical atheist anarchist, communist, Donald Trumpist, gay, straight, etc. We require community.

That is why, Christianity is inevitably tied to politics. A Christian requires a Christian society. — Agustino

Your statement puts us on the horns of a dilemma.

On the one hand, certain skeins within the long Christian tradition have found excellent expression in political movements to establish social justice, old age security, disability insurance, mutual assistance, and all that good stuff. Of course, these goods don't require a Christian tradition, but in the west, some of our better social ideas have found support there.

The healthiest, least violence-ridden, most orderly states in the US (those across the northern tier from New England to Washington and Oregon) were most strongly influenced by the descendants of the flinty calvinist Puritan philosophy which viewed society as a divine institution, a 'city on a hill'.

On the other hand, some of our worst social programs have picked up on other skeins. Over the last century, conservative Christians have fought for and achieved in numerous places, the inclusion in public school science textbooks of divine creation (the 6 day kind) or the more elaborate "intelligent design" version (very much present tense). It is in the most strongly conservative Christian school districts that one will find the most intense opposition to sex education -- and by sex education I am not referencing any sort of pro-transgender, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay, pro-etc. curriculum. These curricula have focused on issues of critical personal relevance to "middle class" newly pubescent, heterosexual youth. They are not "sexual activity promotion" programs.

Slavery, and later harsh racial discrimination has been buttressed by scriptural references. The Ku Klux Klan (something of a precursor of the Nazi) was a pro-Protestant, pro-white, pro-nativist, anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, terrorist organization who had a long and disastrous role in American politics. The KKK is pretty much dead now (thanks to the concerted efforts of the capable and sometimes crooked, repressive, sometimes right-wing Federal Bureau of Investigation).

This is part of "the American Experience" -- you may not have experienced anything similar to this. I don't know. But here, combining "Christian" and "Politics" has not always worked out well.

Hmmm this depends though on the terms on which a partnership was founded. I'm not a lawyer, but having run my own business in the past, I know that many times it's not easy to terminate an existing contract. Would you not agree that the terms on which the partnership, in this case marriage, are founded, must determine when and in what conditions it can be dissolved? — Agustino

An agreement isn't required to establish a partnership. When there is no agreement, the law governs disassociation. In that case, a partner by his/her "express will" may cease to be a partner, and may also cease to be one under other circumstances. Also in that case, the law addresses what results from the disassociation.

A partnership agreement may indicate how disassociation may take place and address the results of disassociation. If it does not, the law will control (I'm referring to the Uniform Partnership Act). However, partnership agreements may alter the statutory law only in certain respects. The scope of partnership agreements is limited by the law.

Marriage where I practice is a partnership which is governed in large part by the law, not by agreement. It's considered to be a civil contract, formed by the issuance of a marriage license and declarations to be husband and wife made before an authorized person. The law sets forth how it can be dissolved, and I know of nothing which allows the married couple to vary the law in that respect.

Marital property agreements may be made and entered into, characterizing particular property as belonging to one spouse or the other, and also addressing division of property on divorce.

The common law action for breach of promise was abolished where I practice quite some time ago, and I think that's the case with many other states. I don't know how many states still recognize such a claim or how often it's made.

How does one legally differentiate the kind of pain that merits criminal penalties and the one that doesn't? — Agustino

Pain and harm. By legislative act, practically speaking. Legislatures must determine what is or is not criminal conduct. A policy decision must be made--should or should not sexual infidelity be criminalized? Is it desirable to assign to law enforcement, the court system and jails the task of monitoring the sexual activity of those married and, if they are sexually active with those outside the marriage, arrest and prosecute and on conviction incarcerate them or assess a criminal penalty? I would say no.

As to civil remedies, I had in mind the impact on court decisions related to property division and custody. Where breach of promise actions are allowed, it's my understanding that compensatory damages (financial damages for losses incurred and personal damages to reputation and injury to feelings and health) are allowed.

I have no idea what controversy you're talking about, though. To be honest, I've only heard this kind of moral haranguing from conservative politicians wanting to beat out their opponent on the conserv-o-meter and show their constituents they bleed red-white-blue and believe in traditional values.

But, I accept that my experiences are conditioned by what is a rather conservative state. — Moliere

Funny you say this. I was motivated to make this thread because I was talking to an acquaintance who happens to be fairly conservative.

Then again, there are People's Republics of [insert city here] spread across the world that are dominated by the far left and the progressive ideology and are advocating for these kinds of things.

A practical solution I've seen implemented is to have three restrooms -- male, female, neutral. So those who wish to adhere to traditional roles can do so, and those who do not can also do so. — Moliere

The only problem I find with this is that it would require a tremendous amount of money and bureaucracy.

I would say that it wouldn't require any more bureacracy than is already in place -- you'd just add it to the checklist for the fire martial, give a timeline which is reasonable for businesses to comply, and badda-boom. The usual.

It just depends on what sort of priorities we'd like to set for society.

For my money, I'd say it's worth it when I consider what else we spend money on. If the budget weren't as silly as it already is then I might see a point, but this actually helps people feel included in a society which is a lot better than a lot of what we spend money on :D

add it to the checklist for the fire martial — Moliere

Or more likely, some ADA office. We inspect buildings and encourage, or force, building owners to make all sorts of changes that are just as expensive (or more so) than adding a bathroom. Like, requiring an elevator in an old building; requiring an old elevator in an old building to be brought up to code (that can cost $50,000, easy); put ramps in where only stairs are available (outside usually, and involving only a few steps); enlarge doorways so that wheelchairs can easily negotiate; install handicapped accessible toilets and sinks; provide more exits where they are needed for rapid egress; change sink levels; provide push-bar exit doors, and so on and so forth. Cities spend a lot of money making curb cuts at corners so that wheelchairs can cross the street conveniently.

When the ADA legislation first passed (back in the 70s) a lot of people thought it was just incredibly stupid to make old buildings usable by people with mobility problems. UNTIL, of course, a lot of the scoffers got old and developed mobility problems of their own. Then they began to appreciate the elevator in the old building, the ramp, the curb cut, the higher ADA toilet, the lever taps on the sinks, the mechanically opening door, and all that expensive waste of money.

Lots of men's room have panels between the urinals to provide privacy to the guys standing there who would like to take a piss, but can't because they are pee shy and somebody might be watching them, so they can't make it happen. I have to be in a hurry and have a full bladder to be able to step in between two other guys and urinate readily (or have had a few beers).

All that said, I still think the toilet controversy is much ado for a rather small number of people who are betwixt and between.

Okay, thanks for your input @Ciceronianus the White! It has expanded my knowledge of legal matters from the perspective of a lawyer.

Pain and harm. By legislative act, practically speaking. Legislatures must determine what is or is not criminal conduct. A policy decision must be made--should or should not sexual infidelity be criminalized? Is it desirable to assign to law enforcement, the court system and jails the task of monitoring the sexual activity of those married and, if they are sexually active with those outside the marriage, arrest and prosecute and on conviction incarcerate them or assess a criminal penalty? I would say no.

As to civil remedies, I had in mind the impact on court decisions related to property division and custody. Where breach of promise actions are allowed, it's my understanding that compensatory damages (financial damages for losses incurred and personal damages to reputation and injury to feelings and health) are allowed. — Ciceronianus the White

Well compensatory damages should be allowed because one party may be hurt by the divorce, and it's just not fair to ask them to deal with it, while the other party is free to do as they please with little or no consequence. Justice just has to be done.

On the other hand, some of our worst social programs have picked up on other skeins. Over the last century, conservative Christians have fought for and achieved in numerous places, the inclusion in public school science textbooks of divine creation (the 6 day kind) or the more elaborate "intelligent design" version (very much present tense). It is in the most strongly conservative Christian school districts that one will find the most intense opposition to sex education -- and by sex education I am not referencing any sort of pro-transgender, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay, pro-etc. curriculum. These curricula have focused on issues of critical personal relevance to "middle class" newly pubescent, heterosexual youth. They are not "sexual activity promotion" programs.

Slavery, and later harsh racial discrimination has been buttressed by scriptural references. The Ku Klux Klan (something of a precursor of the Nazi) was a pro-Protestant, pro-white, pro-nativist, anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, terrorist organization who had a long and disastrous role in American politics. The KKK is pretty much dead now (thanks to the concerted efforts of the capable and sometimes crooked, repressive, sometimes right-wing Federal Bureau of Investigation).

This is part of "the American Experience" -- you may not have experienced anything similar to this. I don't know. But here, combining "Christian" and "Politics" has not always worked out well. — Bitter Crank

Yes, these are internal problems to religion and they must be fought against. And I think it's religious people first and foremost, not atheists, who must do this fighting and ensure that those of the same religion as them have reasonable and moral demands.

All your base are belong to us.

The way that the title question is worded doesn't make sense to me, but I doubt whether anything needs to be done to bathrooms or the law regarding the use of bathrooms by transgendered people. They should use whichever bathroom they feel comfortable using, and they shouldn't be discriminated against or be the victim of crime for doing so, but we don't live in a perfect utopia, so that sort of thing is still gonna happen.

Cudos to Trump, contra Cruz, for his position on this. Credit where credit's due.

Bathroom bills only really matter to those you can pick out of a crowd, pretty much all early transitioners, and a portion of the community. No one notices the rest, that's the point. Such anti-discrimination laws apply to a group that is already at high risk of danger, harassment, discrimination, and are probably going through quite a bit in their personal lives.

The way that the title question is worded doesn't make sense to me, but I doubt whether anything needs to be done to bathrooms — Sapientia

They should be cleaned regularly, and leaks should be fixed.

Do I sense a little movement on your support of Trump?

In some ways he was better than Cruz, just like in some ways Mussolini was better than Hitler.

https://aeon.co/ideas/human-sex-is-not-male-or-female-so-what

That other cultures have had different views on sex and gender does not mean that any or all of them are equally valid. Ours may not be perfectly accurate, but it seems to me as going too far to say that sex is a spectrum. I wouldn't exactly call a man with a womb a third sex, for example. It is most likely only a biological error as it is non-functioning in the natural world, i.e without extensive scientific remediation. In what other areas of science do we appeal to pre-scientific or scientifically illiterate peoples for enlightenment on scientific matters? Let's all remember that sociology (and this is what it is) is a soft science, and these post-modern theories are being wielded for political purposes.

Ah, the hard science of toilets; I missed that bit of biology 101. If you define gender as identical with genetic sex, having no regard for disposition, orientation, bodily expression, hormonal balance, or identification, then indeed the modernist white western view triumphs as usual. Otherwise, it is going too far to say there are two genders, and mere scientism.

The link you provided is some revisionistic, liberal mockery of science. Gender simply is the sex you're born with, end of story. That's how the word is used.

Well I've not specified where I stand on the issue of gender entirely, and my post was only in direct response to your link. In fact, I wasn't even really talking about the larger gender issue and public toilets at all, but sex. I think there is room for some revision in our views on each, but we shouldn't forsake the truth of who people really are simply because there are human beings on the ends of our conclusions, or because we want perfect equality and inclusion to the exclusion of common sense. Facts before feels is my position.

Gender simply is the sex you're born with, end of story. That's how the word is used. — Agustino

Transsexuals and other more open-minded people don't use the word exclusively in that narrow and simplistic way in which you obviously approve.

Transsexuals and other more open-minded people don't use the word exclusively in that narrow and simplistic way in which you obviously approve. — Sapientia

That's the common usage, and meaning is use. They can't redefine words as they please. They have to speak the same language as all the rest of us do.

That's the common usage, and meaning is use. They can't redefine words as they please. They have to speak the same language as all the rest of us do. — Agustino

Actually they can. Who's going to stop them? The language police? :D

How do you think language evolves and gains new or additional meaning?

If they do, then the rest of us have a right to say that they are speaking nonsense.

How do you think language evolves and gains new or additional meaning? — Sapientia

I don't know to be honest. But I will not assume that this is how. The reason is likely very complex, and I have spent no time studying this, so I cannot claim knowledge. Sorry.

If they do, then the rest of us have a right to say that they are speaking nonsense. — Agustino

And they have a right to call you ignorant and behind with the times, and such.

I don't know to be honest. But I will not assume that this is how. The reason is likely very complex, and I have spent no time studying this, so I cannot claim knowledge. Sorry. — Agustino

Well, obviously, a word gets coined, or used in a new context, and this usage gains popularity, until, in some cases, at some point, it eventually becomes common usage. You don't need to do extensive research to gain that knowledge. It happened with the words "gay" and "queer" and many, many others.

And they have a right to call you ignorant and behind with the times, and such. — Sapientia

So if I decide that "red" means "gay sex", then I have the right to call people who disagree with my usage ignorant and behind the times? :s

Well, obviously, a word gets coined, or used in a new context, and this usage gains popularity, until, in some cases, at some point, it eventually becomes common usage. You don't need to do extensive research to gain that knowledge. It happened with the words "gay" and "queer" and many, many others. — Sapientia

I am not a linguist and would not like to pretend I am one. I really am sorry, but I just don't have knowledge to converse about this. Nor do I think I can just know by thinking about it 10mins for the first time in my life.

So if I decide that "red" means "gay sex", then I have the right to call people who disagree with my usage ignorant and behind the times? :s — Agustino

That's a false analogy because "red" hasn't evolved to gain such a meaning amongst a large community.

Sorry, the transexual community isn't large.

I am not a linguist and would not like to pretend I am one. I really am sorry, but I just don't have knowledge to converse about this. Nor do I think I can just know by thinking about it 10mins for the first time in my life. — Agustino

You don't have to be a linguist, either. Just as I don't need to be a scientist to know why we don't simply float off into space.

Sorry, the transexual community isn't large. — Agustino

If you recall, I referred to transsexuals and other more open-minded people.