Ah yes, escape into legal intricasies.
Ah-ah. Upthread Coptic has stated that transsexuals are really homosexuals!
False dichotomy. Of course that they have a problem. It’s about what should be done about that problem. By the way – sex change is one heavy cross also…
Transsexualism = who you think you are
Aux,It’s a very good analogy actually
What you are ignoring is that Galileo has been sentenced twice: in 1616 and in 1633. While the arguments you’re quoting made some sense in 1616, they definitely did not hold in 1633. That’s because of Johannes Kepler, who has published his two first laws of planetary motion in 1609 and the third one in 1619. 14 years between 1619 and 1633 was enough to gather extra observational evidence in favor Kepler. Now, the reason Kepler is important here is that his laws cannot hold in geocentric universe. Yet, the 1633 sentence against Gallileo reads:
and
Now, I challenge you to find me a Church document which reverts classification of heliocentrism as a formal heresy. It does not exist. Instead, books advocating heliocentrism were quietly removed from Index between 1758 and 1835. But no formal statement until the 1992 apology.
(As for Brother Copernicus, he had no problems, because (a) he worked in Poland, far away from the Holy See; (b) his work was published after his death; and (c) he published before the couter-reformation movement gained any force, while Gallileo published at the height of the counter-reformation.)
So, if we applied to heliocentrism the same criteria this board routinely applies to, say, Humane Vitae, we’d have to conclude that everyone who believed in the motion of the Earth before 1992 would have to suffer a latae excommunication for heresy. Yes, the laity held a widespread belief that the Earth indeed moves, but the Church’s 2000 years of tradition were firmly on the side of geocentrism. Likewise, today the laity largely holds beliefs on contraception and other sexual matters which are in conflict with 2000 years of tradition.
So, back to the subject.
The matter at hand is whether transsexualism exists and is an inborn disorder with neurological basis. Now, such proposition, as you have said yourself, contradicts the scripture.
Of course, your side is free to disregard this evidence as long as it you see fit… But you’re just doing a repeat of the Gallileo affair
There is no such thing as mounting evidence in the field of medicine. Their is only one thing that will convince me and that is direct evidence. Show me the pathologic brain studies in large numbers, by many showing that the brains are different, until then the only mounting that is done is the mounting of persons that equates to evidence of mounting.
Aux,That’s very progressive of you
Err… why?
.
IF is a big word that means it is contigent…
Not even a Vocaloid.
Aux,
I appreciate your acknowledgement and let me repeat it again. Transexuals are homosexuals. There are reported cases, if you can believe this of women wanting to be men to act like homosexuals. What a twisted world the desire to deny our genitals creates…
The heavier cross is waking up, dreaming, realizing, knowing that no matter what you do…
Aux,
Please note…Thinking and Liking other than what you are, exist in the mind and does not equate to anything but a disorder of thinking…there are remedies other than surgical steel for disorders of thinking.
Oh, my wrong! Shame on me. Sorry Stephanie. Thanks for the correction!
Haha I’m not even sure what this means!That’s very progressive of you
Huh? Okay, so the principle here is “whatever one identifies with, society should treat one as such”. Don’t you see the problem? Again, the anorexic identifies as being overweight. Should society treat her like this? The man in the lunatic asylum thinks he’s Jesus Christ. Should everyone bend their knee at his name?
Well that’s interesting. Stay tuned?
Is this a fancy way of calling what I am saying just a question of semantics?
As I said before, the statement by a few members, even of the hierarchy, does *not *constitute the Church’s doing something, *especially *in regards to something outside the area in which the Church has authority.
OK, I went too far. Most people studying this question do not deny…
Not at all. Remember that I specified a physical or mental problem, by which I meant that those suffering in this way have a personal problem to be addressed personally, much as the problem belonging to a person who has clinical depression. Since there are two ways of looking at the situation of the transexual person and two different proposed solutions, the dichtomy is not false.
In order to find a solution to the problem, the nature of the problem must be known.
This statement indicates a *huge *lack of understanding of the nature of a cross.
Male-to-female transexuals do not identify with giving birth, which is something only women can do. It is hard to think of another societal role–other than being a Catholic priest—that women do not perform. When male-to-female transexuals talk about identifying with women they don’t mean 'going to school, you know, like women do," or “having jobs, you know, like women do,” or even “cooking, like you know, women do.” In my experience, they are obsessed with their looks and sexual prospects----that they think this is what womanhood is really about is a sign of their misunderstanding about what being a woman means.
Kolbe,
So you believe it is physically impossible for there to be any pathological reason a person “thinks” or “likes” something with regards to this subject?
So you believe it is physically possible for there to be a pathological reason a person “thinks” or “likes” something with regards to this subject?
Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll have to stay tuned.
Coptic, this makes it seem as if you have a strictly moral reason for not wanting there to be a pathological reason behind some of these transgender and homosexual issues. You are free to want that, obviously, but does that have any bearing on medicine and science?
No it doesn’t.
How much scientific data do you need to be convinced? You remind me of those global warming skeptics that hide behind the idea that it can’t be true because it’s not completely proven, and it’s too complicated to completely prove. Aren’t observation and common sense enough to motivate action? Meanwhile the environment is being damaged, species are dying, and Pacific Islanders are in danger of being refugees, because people hide behind the “complicacy” of it all…
Kolbe,
Have some fun researching this…
You can read about many causes of Kluver-Bucy here…
ditto…
Your inference as to what you believe my reasoning as it regards morality is based on what? Tell me what in your opinion so that I may know something I am not aware of, what has bearing on medicine and science in your opinion?