Gays and transexuals

[Betterave]

Are you kidding me?!!! Have you even read the Gospels. You can’t be real.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”
“Judge another, and thy shalt be judged by the same means.”
and finaly
"Our Father…].forgive our trespases as we forgive those who trespas against us…
Etc. etc.

In Romans, Paul adresses the issue of the Jews and the Gentils and states that simply following the mosaic laws is of no use. Only actions inspired by faith in God count.

In short…Christianity is all about love and tolerance towards others. And, yes, towards oneself descipline and strictness.

I’ve read them many times and it’s clear that you’re just being silly here, cherry-picking your favorite texts. Here’s an assignment for you, and a test of your intellectual honesty: go do some gospel reading and find some of the not so ‘tolerant’ stuff Jesus said and report back to us with what you find. (It shouldn’t be hard.)

And next time, please actually answer my questions: What do you mean by ‘tolerance’ and where did Jesus teach us that?
(Hint: there are two questions here and the first precedes the second for a reason.)

 

[roelblomsma]

Serious questions:

The OP speaks of not only gays, but also of transsexuals. Now, say a man chooses to get surgery to become a physical female. That person would still have the dna of a man, so I assume “he” would still be a man in the eyes of the Church/faith.Is that right? Is it a sin for that man to get the surgery?

Further, let us say that newly formed “female” marries a biological male. Are they in fact engaging in homosexual activity when they have sex?

It seems the Catechism and the Church has plenty defined regarding homosexuality, but not about transsexualism (forgive me if I have butchered this stuff).

Let us flip this. Say the man who wants the surgey never stops thinking of himself as a woman, he cannot escape it no matter what “he” does. Say he decides to go all in on his physical male nature and chooses to get married to a biological woman. Does that then become a quasi lesbian relationship?

Further, what happens to the souls of people who do get the sugery, and then marry their new “opposite” sex? Are they then fornicating because two people with the same gender dna cannot be sacramentally married?

The transsexual aspect is far more morally difficult imo.

Well, I’d like to add here to the questions. I think that if someone really wants to go a gender operation, its because he or she has suffered a whole lifetime for ‘not being in the right body’. So, I don’t think someone would do such a thing just for sexual pleasure, but because they really have some severe psychological or psychiatrical issues.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave

No, Elijah didn’t do that, and philokalia is right about the point in question, but he was being to harsh (specifically with the personal attack - that’s a clear no-no).

Which is more harsh as a personal attack: to be called illogical, or to be called unchristian?

I think it’s a clear no-no for a Catholic in this forum to call another Catholic unchristian. But I think it’s a clear yes-yes for a Catholic to call another Catholic illogical** if he is**. We have no obligation to deal with illogical people and it is fair to tell the person we consider to be illogical that we are done with them because they are not being logical.

Fine, let’s call a spade a spade: YOU are being illogical, Charlemagne. You straw-manned Elijah (read what he wrote: you’ve turned his fair comment into an ad hominem) and you’ve begged the question against me (on the point just mentioned) and ignored my point.

 

[Cristiano]

Are you kidding me?!!! Have you even read the Gospels. You can’t be real.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. Love others as well as you love yourself.”
“Judge another, and thy shalt be judged by the same means.”
and finaly
"Our Father…].forgive our trespases as we forgive those who trespas against us…
Etc. etc.

In Romans, Paul adresses the issue of the Jews and the Gentils and states that simply following the mosaic laws is of no use. Only actions inspired by faith in God count.

In short…Christianity is all about love and tolerance towards others. And, yes, towards oneself descipline and strictness.

Be careful tolerance it is not a virtue at all, and it could go against the other four cardinal virtues. Looking at the Gospels to create our politically correct exegesis is never a good idea. God made it clear what wrong behaviors are, and Jesus added a list of good behaviors that would bring us closer to him. I think that your point of stressing the concept of doing things out of love is essential, otherwise Catholics might start to think that they earn salvation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

*Fine, let’s call a spade a spade: YOU are being illogical, Charlemagne. You straw-manned Elijah (read what he wrote: you’ve turned his fair comment into an ad hominem) and you’ve begged the question against me (on the point just mentioned) and ignored my point. *

I’m not going to pursue this point with you because you are being illogical. But I’m not going to say you are unchristian.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tolerance is good up to a point. so is patience. But it was Jesus himself who advised that if we speak the gospel and the person we speak to is deaf to our words, we should shake the dust of his town from our feet and move on. That is not unchristian if Christ himself counsels us to do it.

Paul was famous for telling it like it is, for admonishing and chastising Christians to behave properly, when he could have just as easily played the politically correct fellow, Mr. Tolerance.

 

[paulinx]

You’re missing the point: all mortal sins are equally mortal. But some are worse than others. It is very unreasonable to deny this. Read the CCC yourself:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
There is nothing to suggest that all mortal sins are equally evil. Do you really think it is equally evil to, say, kill a man because he beat up your daughter, as it is to walk into a Church and assassinate 60 people who are praying, because you hate Catholics and want them to convert to Islam or to leave your country? This point should be very obvious.

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. Now with “venial” sin that is more serious would by virtue of that very fact (assuming culpability was the same) wound the soul more than venial sin that was less serious. And it would seem that the same would be true of “mortal” sin – that “mortal” sin that is more serious (assuming like culpability) would do more damage to the soul than less serious “mortal” sin. But if all mortal sin is mortal and mortal sin literally kills any charity that subsists then one mortal sin cannot do more damage than another. So either all mortal sin is equally grave or there the sharp distinction between mortal and venial sin is an oversimplification. I suppose one might say that mortal sin can not only kill charity in the soul but do additional damage to the soul – but what more damage of a moral nature could there be done to the soul if all charity were extinguished? If one mortal sin is more grave than another, it has to have a greater malice – but if one has a greater malice than another, it has to do more harm to the soul. One could theorize about some additional harm – that it not only kills charity but also removes some inclination to charity more so than other mortal sin – but the inclination to charity is itself charity – to desire to desire to do good, is itself to desire to do good.

I also don’t necessarily agree with your juxtaposition there. I’m taking the man to be Christian versus the Muslim. But I’ll assume you meant a generally good man who is overcome with passion versus a terrorist who is already inclined to evil (since there is no similar sympathetic motive in the latter case). First, having sympathy or understanding of someone’s motives has little or no bearing on whether the act is moral OR on how moral or immoral the act is. So to use a clearer example, a man who murders someone who has tortured is daughter does not commit an objectively less grave act than a man who murders that same someone for no particular reason. The fact that his daughter was tortured may tend to reduce culpability – but it’s not going to have any mitigating effect on the objective gravity of the act itself. So right idea, wrong example. Secondly, one sins not only by the wrong that one does, but the good that one denies. And when we are speaking of a generally (or before this sin) good man versus a generally bad man, the good man actually sins more – objectively – when doing the same act. That’s why it would be more grave for someone who has received great blessing to turn away from God than it would be for someone who has received little to turn away from God – not just in culpability, but objectively, because by sin one is not only electing a variance from good (i.e. evil), one is choosing to deny the good that is in you. The bad man has less good and so in that respect sins less (generally because he has already sinned a lot).

Now what you said is technically true but IMO it gives people the wrong impression as I’ve just tried to explain. To repeat – you are right, some grave sins are more grave than others – but the reason behind that is NOT that some grave sins are more “understandable.” And sins are never understandable. One can understand how a man might commit sin and be sympathetic to his reasons, but the sin is never understandable at all. To the extent it is understandable, it is not sin.

Just my two cents.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Denying God’s will is always a grave sin if the consequences are grave. But there are degrees of consequences.

Denying the existence of God is the greatest sin we can commit against ourselves, because we willfully shut out the source of light and love that is always offered by a merciful God.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

This denial is the worst thing that can happen to a human being. If we deny God with our dying breath, we are forever lost. Truly, “The fool in his heart says there is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)

This kind of chastising is the kind we should promote, rather than the politically correct bromide: “Oh, I know lots of atheists that are as good, and some better, than most Christians.”

 

[Betterave]

Betterave

*Fine, let’s call a spade a spade: YOU are being illogical, Charlemagne. You straw-manned Elijah (read what he wrote: you’ve turned his fair comment into an ad hominem) and you’ve begged the question against me (on the point just mentioned) and ignored my point. *

I’m not going to pursue this point with you because you are being illogical.

If YOU were being ‘logical,’ you would attempt to substantiate your claim here and you would notice that your ‘because’ is a question-begging non sequitur. (Question-begging non sequitur’s are illogical, in case you’re keeping track. )

But I’m not going to say you are unchristian.

Wow. I guess that makes you a model Christian. Still illogical though.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Of course there is a sharp distinction. It’s just not easy to characterize in a way that we can apply to real acts.

I suppose one might say that mortal sin can not only kill charity in the soul but do additional damage to the soul – but what more damage of a moral nature could there be done to the soul if all charity were extinguished?

One obvious answer here is that sins have consequences beyond the charity that is somehow ‘intrinsic’ to the sinner’s own soul.

If one mortal sin is more grave than another, it has to have a greater malice – but if one has a greater malice than another, it has to do more harm to the soul. One could theorize about some additional harm – that it not only kills charity but also removes some inclination to charity more so than other mortal sin – but the inclination to charity is itself charity – to desire to desire to do good, is itself to desire to do good.

How about this: It not only removes charity, it merits (and possibly earns) a greater punishment.

I also don’t necessarily agree with your juxtaposition there. I’m taking the man to be Christian versus the Muslim. But I’ll assume you meant a generally good man who is overcome with passion versus a terrorist who is already inclined to evil (since there is no similar sympathetic motive in the latter case).

I’m not comfortable with those assumptions - what justifies them?

First, having sympathy or understanding of someone’s motives has little or no bearing on whether the act is moral OR on how moral or immoral the act is. So to use a clearer example, a man who murders someone who has tortured is daughter does not commit an objectively less grave act than a man who murders that same someone for no particular reason. The fact that his daughter was tortured may tend to reduce culpability – but it’s not going to have any mitigating effect on the objective gravity of the act itself.

I disagree. The act itself is different depending on the circumstances. The object of the act is different from the act itself or the objective act, as you seem to recognize below…

Secondly, one sins not only by the wrong that one does, but the good that one denies. And when we are speaking of a generally (or before this sin) good man versus a generally bad man, the good man actually sins more – objectively – when doing the same act. That’s why it would be more grave for someone who has received great blessing to turn away from God than it would be for someone who has received little to turn away from God – not just in culpability, but objectively, because by sin one is not only electing a variance from good (i.e. evil), one is choosing to deny the good that is in you. The bad man has less good and so in that respect sins less (generally because he has already sinned a lot).

That’s true, but I’m not sure what your point is in saying it.

Now what you said is technically true but IMO it gives people the wrong impression as I’ve just tried to explain. To repeat – you are right, some grave sins are more grave than others – but the reason behind that is NOT that some grave sins are more “understandable.” And sins are never understandable. One can understand how a man might commit sin and be sympathetic to his reasons, but the sin is never understandable at all. To the extent it is understandable, it is not sin.

Interesting, but I don’t see why you think your claims here are true. Don’t you think Jesus understands our sinfulness? How could he have compassion for us or love us or help us to overcome sin if he didn’t understand sin? Do you think he looks at us and says, “I don’t understand you and your sins, even though I came and lived among you and was tempted myself - but 'fess up and I’ll forgive you”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

Wow. I guess that makes you a model Christian.

Considerably less than model! But I’d rather say it about myself than to hear others say it about me!

 

[BlueShadow123]

So chastity is good if you want to do it, bad if you don’t want to do it?? What do you think chastity is??
(RichP made a very good point, which I’d have thought would be obvious to anybody who knows what chastity is.)

No I said I think somebody participating in chastity is not a bad thing. If they don’t do it, its their choice. Not my business. Don’t assume things.

PLEASE don’t pretend that it is a Christian doctrine that if people are born with homosexual inclinations then they are born ‘abominations’ - that is not even close to true and would be extremely offputting - i.e., a counter-witness to the faith - to those who struggle with same-sex attraction who didn’t know that it wasn’t true.

Did you even read a darn thing in my post? I said that most of them want to be able to fall in love and get married. THAT would be an abomination because then they would marry someone of the same gender, which would probably lead to sex.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I was ready to apologize for calling someone unchristian. If at all I wrote “unchristian” it would mean in the sense means “ungentlemanly” is used to describe a man of poor moral fiber. I’m just reading Mere Christianity, you see, and Lewis’ counter-examples seem to be rubbing off. Let’s hope I stay away from The Screwtape Letters.

But I did not write “unchristian.”

… is this a Christian way to tell me?

There is plenty of variation to make it appropriate. The comment, remember, was certainly un-Christlike and as a comment we are able to judge it. If I were to describe the author, the nearest appropriate analogue would have been “uncharitable” — but I thought that less appropriate.

---

Anyway:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Betterave]

Isn’t it ‘un-Christian’ to refuse to listen when your brothers and sisters call you to account for your conduct?

 

[Betterave]

Did you even read a darn thing in my post? I said that most of them want to be able to fall in love and get married. THAT would be an abomination because then they would marry someone of the same gender, which would probably lead to sex.

Maybe you should start reading your own darn posts before you post the darn things - not to mention the posts you are replying to. My comments were well-grounded in what you wrote. Read them again for yourself.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Regardless, homosexual acts represent an intrinsically greater perversion of the good of sexuality, a greater alienation from its licit use. Isn’t that obvious? (And I believe this is Church teaching, although I don’t have a reference for you.) Remember: an explicit intent to direct a sexual act towards procreation is not required in order for it to be licit; what is required is that we not actively thwart the natural end of the act. Sexual activity outside of a heterosexual context is inherently farther removed from the natural end of the act than such activity within a heterosexual context.

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.

That what is true? The “more accurate,” the “worse morally,” or the “not necessarily”?

 

[RichP]

God says homosexuality is an abomination, and if they are born gay, why would they want to follow a God who allowed them to be born that way and yet call it an abomination?

I understand the reasoning behind this thinking. However, this thinking is based on faulty facts resulting in a wrong conclusion… People in general drift away from God because they WANT to drift away from God not beacuse of what God says but because of what THEY THINK God says… It is far easier to walk away from God than to find out exactly what God says and, if necessary, climb up on the cross with him.

As mentioned before, according to Catholic teaching, homosexual ACTS are wrong. It is not a sin to BE a homosexual. Unfortunately, other Christian and non-Christian religions do not have the same teaching…

Most of people want to be able to fall in love and get married someday. Its only natural for the gays to want it too, and I hope they can all find happiness someway in their life, like everybody else.

What you say is true for single heterosexual people as well. They are called to chasity, too. THERE IS NO difference here! Also, there are many single people who, for one reason or another, cannot marry. Just because they cannot marry, they do NOT get a free pass from chastity.

You make an excellent point about everyone seeking happiness. We all want to find that special, perfect relatonship that brings us joy and happiness and helps us become fulfilled in life. Most people forget that there is only one, true, ulitimate happiness and that is God. Everything else cannot come close.

However, the thing is that we assume they are born gay, we don’t really know 100% yet and that definitely DOES matter. Because if they aren’t born gay, then they need to work on becoming straight. (only if they want to) If they are born gay, then they’ll have to deal with it in ways they feel works best for them.

Not believing in God is a different discussion… But let me clarify something… If someone is gay, no matter why they are gay, they don’t have to “work on becoming straight”… They need to work on chastity. If they became straight but did not practice chastity, they would still have a problem…

The OP speaks of not only gays, but also of transsexuals. Now, say a man chooses to get surgery to become a physical female. That person would still have the dna of a man, so I assume “he” would still be a man in the eyes of the Church/faith.Is that right?

Yes. The surgery gives a man the* outward* appearance of a female.

Is it a sin for that man to get the surgery?

This one is difficult to answer because there are many, many reasons why men (and women) do this… Individual circumstances need to be examined with one’s spiritual advisor… In general, there are two areas of concern. First, the deliberate alteration of one’s genitals so that it no longer functions is considered an unnatural form of birth control and is forbidden. Second, permanently altering various parts of one’s body to “improve” the appearance for non-medical reasons is vanity…

Further, let us say that newly formed “female” marries a biological male. Are they in fact engaging in homosexual activity when they have sex?

It seems the Catechism and the Church has plenty defined regarding homosexuality, but not about transsexualism (forgive me if I have butchered this stuff).

As I mentioned, there are too many different reasons for transsexualism.

Let us flip this. Say the man who wants the surgey never stops thinking of himself as a woman, he cannot escape it no matter what “he” does. Say he decides to go all in on his physical male nature and chooses to get married to a biological woman. Does that then become a quasi lesbian relationship?

Outwardly, yes… Technically, it is probably more like a eunich/woman relationship… These are very complex situations, mentally, emotionally, physically, and spritually. There is no “one size fits all” answer.

Further, what happens to the souls of people who do get the sugery, and then marry their new “opposite” sex? Are they then fornicating because two people with the same gender dna cannot be sacramentally married?

The transsexual aspect is far more morally difficult imo.

It is morally difficult for* everyone*! However, if they are in sin, they can be forgiven even if they have had the surgery. We cannot and MUST NOT make any presumption about their souls!

Well, I’d like to add here to the questions. I think that if someone really wants to go a gender operation, its because he or she has suffered a whole lifetime for ‘not being in the right body’. So, I don’t think someone would do such a thing just for sexual pleasure, but because they really have some severe psychological or psychiatrical issues.

There are many different reasons for transsexualism. Not all of the causes are known and many are still being researched. There are a LOT of issues involved. One of the issues is that our bodies are merely containers and we can do whatever we want with them. That is, they are not “temples of the Spirit”… There is also a belief that God can and does make mistakes in creating bodies (and probably other things as well).

Just because someone believes that their body is the wrong sex does NOT mean that they are the wrong sex or that there is even such a thing as a “wrong sex”. Just because one believes they are the Pope doesn’t mean they can go live in the Vatican…

There are clearly issues of what is reality and what isn’t. Unfortunately, the medical community prescribes changing a person physically instead of addressing a person’s true issues. Your prayers are needed for these people who suffer so much!

 

[MariaTSAngel]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with Transsexualism so please don’t lump the two together.

 

[MariaTSAngel]

If you want to learn about transsexualism, please don’t compare transsexual (or transgendered) women to transsexuals. How about you ask an actual transsexual woman about transsexualism. I prefer the term transgendered, but, in the medical sense, I am transsexual. Also the proper pronouns for a transgendered woman (MtF) are she, her, or hers, otherwise she will most likely be upset. I’m not a homosexual, so please don’t compare me to a homosexual. Anyways, you can ask me whatever you want.

 

[MariaTSAngel]

There are clearly issues of what is reality and what isn’t. Unfortunately, the medical community prescribes changing a person physically instead of addressing a person’s true issues. Your prayers are needed for these people who suffer so much!

The true issues of transgendered women are, usually, in most cases, physical. Also, this is currently the best treatment available. Trying to fix the brain will just make the individual suffer more, it’s been tried, it failed. I am a woman and I do not suffer, ever since I was able to live as the woman who God intended for me to be. However, there are mistakes in nature and in development because we live in a fallen world.