Gays and transexuals

[MariaTSAngel]

A transexual feels they are born in the wrong body, a homosexual is born with feelings towards their sex.

Technically you are too, you just want to change the way you look too with hormones, surgery, clothes, ect.

So since you still have the DNA of a male, then some people would techincally still lump you in the category as being a homosexual, but just changing the way you look and sound with hormones, ect…

If most of the heterosexual males that have dated me view me as a female than I am a female. Also, all of the heterosexual males that I have dated are devoutly Catholic. Also, as of yet, science has been unable to provide anything that even suggests that transsexualism is not a genetic and/or biological condition. There are numerous studies which strongly suggest that transsexualism is genetic and/or biological condition. Also, my sexual orientation is very fluid, I could be bisexual one day and asexual the next. However, my sexual orientation is currently heterosexual. At a point in my life after I had been hurt by many insecure men, I was homosexual. So, sexual orientation appears to be fluid, for me at least, and gender identity appears to be stable, for me at least. Ergo, proving that not all transsexuals are attracted to me. However, if a female is attracted to men then she is heterosexual. It does not matter if she has a penis or a vagina, she is still a heterosexual female if she is attracted to men.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Once you throw the possibility of abortion into the mix, that does indeed complicate the issue, since I think murder is indeed intrinsically more evil than homo-sex - although of course murderers need compassion too. It’s a good point that I’ll have to think about some more.

I would not have thought of it if you hadn’t been patiently sparring with me, so bully for that, eh?

I’ve thought of a new way to illustrate it, I think, that should help. If it does not help, then by all means, as Lewis would say, drop it.

If a certain shrub grows between 3 and 8 feet tall, and another certain shrub grows between 5 and 10 feet tall, we could fairly say that the first was shorter than the second if the sizes of the plants were evenly distributed. We could not fairly say that the second shrub was generally taller than the first most instances of the first shrub were about 8 feet tall and only a freakish oddity of the second shrub were taller than 7 feet.

When this happens, if it is our peculiar business to measure the relative size of shrubs, we’d be better off comparing particular shrubs of each variety against each other than to make blanket decisions regarding the relative height of the two varieties.

Just so, I’m only making the case that a blanket statement cannot be determined.

 

[RichP]

Research studies of identical twins has shown that transsexualism is not genetic. If an identical twin is TS, then the other twin would have to be TS for it to be genetic. But this is not the case…

 

[RichP]

Also, as of yet, science has been unable to provide anything that even suggests that transsexualism is not a genetic and/or biological condition. There are numerous studies which strongly suggest that transsexualism is genetic and/or biological condition.

Research studies of identical twins has shown that transsexualism is not genetic. If an identical twin is TS, then the other twin would have to be TS for it to be genetic. But this is not the case…

 

[MariaTS]

Research studies of identical twins has shown that transsexualism is not genetic. If an identical twin is TS, then the other twin would have to be TS for it to be genetic. But this is not the case…

There are complications and there are mutations, just because there are two people who have exactly the same DNA does not mean that there cannot be a defect in birth that causes the brain to develop differently from the body. Also, there can be mutations that cause the genetics in the body to change. Those studies would most likely help the case if all of the studies were taken together.

 

[Betterave]

If a certain shrub grows between 3 and 8 feet tall, and another certain shrub grows between 5 and 10 feet tall, we could fairly say that the first was shorter than the second if the sizes of the plants were evenly distributed. We could not fairly say that the second shrub was generally taller than the first most instances of the first shrub were about 8 feet tall and only a freakish oddity of the second shrub were taller than 7 feet.

When this happens, if it is our peculiar business to measure the relative size of shrubs, we’d be better off comparing particular shrubs of each variety against each other than to make blanket decisions regarding the relative height of the two varieties.

That’s a very elegant, very apt analogy, I’d say.

(Although I’m still not crystal-clear on how to size up the particular shrubs in this case. )

 

[jimmy]

No, neither of these actions are moral. Their tendencies must be kept in check because they interfere with others rights. The killer’s action interferes with others live. The adulterer’s actions interfere with the promise that he made to his wife.

Two consenting adults however… whose rights are they interfering with?

I agree that being born with a tendency doesn’t automatically make it moral. But there needs to be a reason to deem it immoral as well.

Is even the desire for murder acceptable? Is it a distortion, or evil, that a man should desire to kill another man (even if the man is innocent)?

If it is unacceptable, then you should get my point that it is irrelevant that something interferes with another persons rights, in the question of whether something is morally acceptable. Some desires are inherently ugly, and therefore are also inherently evil. Envy that would like to see the prosperous man fail is ugly, even if you don’t try to make that man fail.

Now, I wouldn’t say someone is evil simply because they have a desire that is disordered. Every man is judged by his actions. We all have disordered desires that must be transformed, even if they are due to a genetic imbalance. Those disordered desires don’t make us sinners unless we accept them as good, and consequently act on them.

 

[mgreen77]

However, if a female is attracted to men then she is heterosexual. It does not matter if she has a penis or a vagina, she is still a heterosexual female if she is attracted to men.

In her feelings sure, but wouldn’t she need female genitals to make those heterosexual feelings a practical, heterosexual experience?

 

[MariaTSAngel]

In her feelings sure, but wouldn’t she need female genitals to make those heterosexual feelings a practical, heterosexual experience?

Well just because I have a penis does not mean that I cannot have a practical heterosexual experience. I’ve kissed men and cuddled with them, they never viewed it as anything other than heterosexual. In regards to sex, there might be some differences if the couple is married, but do people get married for sex or fall in love for sex? People usually fall in love because they have common interests. There will be some things that she cannot do with her husband that a “normal” heterosexual female could, but those are few and far between. If the man she is with views her as a woman, as any man who respects her should, then there is a high likelihood that she will have a practical heterosexual experience with her husband. Men that I have dated have either chosen to ignore the fact that I have a penis or embrace the fact that I’m just a girl with a penis. Either or, I have been able to have practical heterosexual experiences with men just as most other females with penises should be able to. So, no, depending on how much her husband or the man she is with truly loves her, it shouldn’t be a problem for practical heterosexual experiences. They can adopt children and take care of them like any other heterosexual couple would. They can also have sexual intercourse like any other heterosexual couple would, with some obvious differences. It may not be “normal” but it can be practical.

 

[mgreen77]

I have been able to have practical heterosexual experiences with men just as most other females with penises should be able to.

If a female can have male genitals, and (anatomical) male with male sex is considered hetersosexual… don’t the terms “female” and “heterosexual” become meaningless then?

 

[MariaTSAngel]

If a female can have male genitals, and (anatomical) male with male sex is considered hetersosexual… don’t the terms “female” and “heterosexual” become meaningless then?

No, because if I identify as a heterosexual female and the man I am married to views me as a female (not that I would ever marry a man who didn’t view me as a female) then it’s a heterosexual relationship. The terms would not be meaningless because I identify, live, and dress as a female and identify as a heterosexual since I only date men (just to clarify, the men I date are only attracted to females). Also, what is you and this obsession with sexual intercourse? I don’t live as woman to have sex with men, I live as a woman because I need to live as who God intended for me to be.

 

[JDaniel]

I agree with you that some sins are more grave than others — and this would go for a “venial” sin being more grave than another “venial” sin – for example, stealing two lollipops would be more grave than stealing one lollipop though both are venial. And the same would apply for “mortal” sins. But I don’t know that there is a sharp distinction between venial and mortal sin. Sin, including “venial” sin, wounds the soul – it somehow weakens or deforms charity.

Paulinx:

There is a very sharp distinction between mortal and venial sins:

“The essential objective difference between mortal and venial sin consists in the fact that the former is a transgression that involves an aversion from God, and the latter includes only an inordinate conversion to a created good, but no aversion from God.” - Outlines of Moral Theology, the Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., S.T.D., LL.D., page 55, 1958

That it is not clear and sharp to each person does not emanate from the distinction itself.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The question is between the relative evils of fornication and homosexual acts. I argue that the difference is hardly so dramatic that we are able to tell with certainty which is worse as we would between wholesale genocide and a murder in self-defense. The point that there are spectacular sins which are wholly more evil than lesser sins is well taken, but it does not apply.

For both acts to be reasonably judged: We assume a single act, done with an earnest if misguided intent. For both, the act itself is intrinsically evil. And, as the hysterectomy of a pregnant woman may be moral though it inadvertently results in the death of a child, just so is fornication no less sinful if it inadvertently results in conception. This is an imperfect comparison, I know, but I believe it’s sound enough for our purposes.

Furthermore, we must differentiate between procreative and non-procreative fornication. If fornication is done with the intent to conceive a child, then it may be less grave than homosexual acts. When is fornication done to conceive a child? Rarely, I’d say, with quite a lot of albeit anecdotal evidence.

Elijah:

I guess I have to disagree with you a little bit here. Whether or not fornication is morally wrong is not dependent so much upon some sort of intent to procreate. It is rather the negative that causes its wrongfulness. Thus, if the act is not open to procreation, but, is instead effectively closed to procreation, then the fornication is wrong. You are correct that there are many acts where the intent to procreate is not present. But, that is very different from such acts that are inherently closed to it.

The problem with homosexual fornication is that it is never open to procreation. Nor can it ever be. It is pleasure purely and simply for the sake of pleasure. This is precisely what is sinful with regard to hetero acts that involve non-natural and excessive natural means of avoiding pregnancy.

It is always important to always remember that if God had not made the act pleasurable, no one would do it. That would endanger the survival of man, as a species. What else has God made that naturally pleasurable?

Non-procreative fornication, for that matter, may be often worse if compounded with the additional sins of contraception, these repeated denials of being open to the natural consequences of an act.

I do not think so . . .see above.

Bottom line: It is improper to say wholesale that homosexual acts are more grave when fornication is very, very often free of intent to conceive a child. At best, it is more accurate to say that homosexual acts can be worse morally than fornication, but not necessarily. I’d add the admonition that this is true only in specific, rare circumstances.

I’d have to seriously disagree with this, too. If the sinfulness of an act is an intentional as well as intrinsic inherency in the act, it is graver. To determine whether an individual act is confomable to the norm of morality or opposed to it, three factors are to be considered: the object, the circumstances, and the end. These are technically known as the fonts of morality.

God bless,
jd

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I guess I have to disagree with you a little bit here. Whether or not fornication is morally wrong is not dependent so much upon some sort of intent to procreate. It is rather the negative that causes its wrongfulness. Thus, if the act is not open to procreation, but, is instead effectively closed to procreation, then the fornication is wrong. You are correct that there are many acts where the intent to procreate is not present. But, that is very different from such acts that are inherently closed to it.

Good objections, and Betterave and I went back and forth on these issues. Later in the thread I learned to differentiate between pure fornication and modern fornication, and I mean only the latter when I make the case that homosexual fornication is not necessarily worse.

• Heterosexual fornication may lead as often or more often to abortion, either through the pill or through Planned Parenthood, than the marital union.
• Heterosexual fornication, each time it does not lead to marriage with that particular individual, denies the marital union.
• Heterosexual fornication encourages premeditation of contraception and multiple sexual partners.

For these claims to be completely washed away requires to believe that the good incurred by the marital union is more than any amount of intrinsic evil preceding it. I find this dubious and so I don’t so much reach an opposite conclusion as I do the non-conclusion. I don’t see that we know enough to judge firmly what bears more weight.

 

[ManOnFire]

It seems that some boys have demanding, perfectionist mothers whose dream it is to provide an ideal life for their children. Part of their ideal dream is their belief that the mother’s role is to save the children from any and all discomfort and struggle, while bieing very rigid with the rules, in an attempt to FORM the child into this perfect little object, instilling confidence and ego, while shielding the child from conflict with the rest of the world. Although there’s plenty of conflict with the mother herself, becuase the mother is laying down the strict rules to FORM her ideal child. This ideal child, in effect, becomes a “princess.” This princess’ only conflict has come from the mother, since the mother protected the child from most of the conflict with the outside world. The child might excell thanks to the mother’s strict standards, but if the child is a boy, he remembers all the criticism from his mother (remember, mother sheilded him and defended him from society’s criticisms). Naturally, he’s not very attracted to women, because his mother was his greatest source of criticism, in her attempt to create her vision of the ideal childhood. He might even despise women due to his lopsided experience perception of women: the nagging, demanding mother, who was the only real source of conflict in his life.

If the child seems fragile, this makes sense because the mother tried to protect him from the “mean” society, so naturally, he has a low pain tolerance thanks to all the protectionism. The parent’s over-protectionism almost makes the child feel like a victim relative to the rest of society once the child grows older and must face the world. The child was raised center-of-the-universe style, so he believes that it’s the rest of society’s responsibility to conform to him, otherwise there is injustice. Sound familiar?

This is why truly poor countries don’t have this problem: they don’t have the luxury to shield a child this well during childhood.

Does this help SOME people with understanding??? I hope and pray for peace and more understanding.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

I’m sorry but my beliefs are a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
If you were born a man, you are one, now and forever.
If you were born a woman, you are one, now and forever.

If God wanted someone to be male, he would him male parts.
If God wanted someone to be female, he would give them female parts.

If you want to be a woman, then take up the cross, just like the celibate homosexuals.
Don’t get the operation, don’t dress like a woman.

And if its bigoted to call a man a man, and a woman a woman, then I am.

[BIBLEDRB]Isaias 5:20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[BlueShadow123]

I’m sorry but my beliefs are a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
If you were born a man, you are one, now and forever.
If you were born a woman, you are one, now and forever.

If God wanted someone to be male, he would him male parts.
If God wanted someone to be female, he would give them female parts.

If you want to be a woman, then take up the cross, just like the celibate homosexuals.
Don’t get the operation, don’t dress like a woman.

And if its bigoted to call a man a man, and a woman a woman, then I am.

[BIBLEDRB]Isaias 5:20[/BIBLEDRB]

Yes, I guess you are. Thats your opinion though, so I have to respect it, but really?

But all the studies and scientific advancements we know about this hasn’t even touched you yet?

I used to think people were born gay and whatnot, but after enough researching and observing, and listening to what gay people have to say about this, I’m sure its true.

Here, I’ll post a few videos to give you a little bit of an easy understanding about this:

youtube.com/watch?v=b1u-7jW7opc

youtube.com/watch?v=EPffj8k7iLk&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=r7aUlWjPZVw

youtube.com/watch?v=jnxYQOyLvlY&feature=related

Parts taken from documentaries and national geographic

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-says-brains-of-gay

pnas.org/content/105/27/9403

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=having-older-brothers-inc

pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.abstract

pnas.org/content/103/27/10456.abstract

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species

sciencemag.org/content/318/5858/1882.abstract

beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/21.abstract

livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html

trans-health.com/displayarticle.php?aid=49

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200785.html

apsa.org/Portals/1/docs/About%20APsaa/PositionPaperGayMarriage.pdf

newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

newscientist.com/article/mg19826613.900-gay-brains-are-hardwired-at-birth.html

newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=gay+sex

seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

-American Academy of Psychiatry on Same-Sex Marriage
-American Academy of Psychoanalysis
-American Academy of Pediatrics
-American Academy of Psychology
-American Academy of Child Psychiatry

Identical Twin studies demonstrate statistical likelihood of inborn (genetic and/or intrauterine) causes:

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science, vol. 253:1034-1037, 1991.

W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 50:228-239, March 1993.

fMRI studies demonstrate mirror neuron activity consistent with sexual preference:

Ponsetia, J., Bosinkia, H.A., Wolff, S., Peller, M., Jansen, O., Mehdorn, H.M., Büchel, & Siebner, H.R. (2006). A functional endophenotype for sexual orientation in humans. NeuroImage, 33, 825-833.

Mouras, H., Stoléru, S., Moulier, V., Pélégrini-Issac, M., Rouxel, R., Grandjean, B., Glutron, D., & Bittoun, J. (In Press). Activation of mirror-neuron system by erotic video clips predicts degree of induced erection: an fMRI study. NeuroImage.

That should be good enough for you to look around in.