Gays and transexuals

[foreignerstudy]

homosexuality in acting is worst than fornicatio because fornication don’t conteract the natural order. In this discussion the notion of nature is the important.

why ? because we believe in God who is the Goodness. the evilness in sin is in denying of that. If God is goodness, the order who Thy is creating (yesterday, now, tomorow, in ever and ever ) need our respect. ( see in theological summ of St Thomas aquinas doctor of the Church in IIa IIae 153 for this explanation. ) here, evil is profound revolt against God.

we see in our world blatant disorders (trisomia, cancer, etc.) but don’t miss the point, God is over all creation and order, his will is good also he have give to intelligent and voluntary creatures occasion to choose the goodness by themselves.

all the creation is affected by our defections, by consequencies of the orginal defection of our first parents, and more subtily by the total rejection of the goodness by fallen angels.

some part of the worldly desorder is provided by fallen angels. It’s evident if you read the four gospels. Our Lord act precisely to instaure a new order, the supernatural order of the eternal Kingdom where awfull power of fallen angel and evil men will be cleared.

homosexuality is perhaps sometimes by birth, that not implies positive will from God, and it isn’t fault and sin to have these tendancy.(acting only)

the subject is homosexuality and transexuality. two different words for two different things.
vocabulary permit precision. not all homosexuals want to become the other sex, and all transsexuals don’t want to have same sex behaviours.

connections between subjects isn’t identity.

the main affirmation from transsexuals is to have congruency between inner and outer feeling of themselves. It is more serious than to choose bizarre style life, because it’s affecting you absolutely ( socialy, emotionaly, historicaly, physicaly etc. ) the active homosexual is seeking for sexual intercourses and milieu, he don’t want to neglect or affect his own identity (specialy in sexual aspect.)

we can discussing about this strange will ( or impulse ) of changing, but we can’t believe that is same subject with homosexuality.

This subject is complex because it’s more simple to elude it. imagine, you have this strange tendancy since your childhood. Are you certain to have good comprehension from your peers, parents or priests about it ? eluding come from the two side, and all transsexual people aren’t member of lgbt activists.
it’s simple to say that’s psychiatric matter. yes, but the affected persons no, never ,nobody is a psychiatric folder.
this subject need considering about equal humanity in all of us.

perhaps transsexuality is pervert intrinsicaly, hence that’s implies implicite, positive and firm will to destroy the natural order to instauring his own obnoxious views instead.

note: We can’t confuse it with travestism, because travestism isn’t equal to transexualism. there are person with transsexual impulse who don’t want to act transvestism. transvestist will act that, (music-hall isn’t the sole place for that, there is some people who disguise them at home ).
lgbt movements aren’t transsexual persons. these activists argue that gender theory is solution with an arbitrary conception of sexuality and transsexual are seeking to live in their “real” sex. there is contradiction between gender theory and transsexual expectations.

in this matter, we don’t have scientific clues to construct definitively models and theory. But the suffering exist. don’t distract yourself from that.

Nobody need “tolerance”, we need the truth with respect and kindness. Nevertheless some people haven’t detailed vocabulary without any fault from them. charity implies that we must keep in mind that we can thinking right with approximative words. we aren’t our concepts, and concepts aren’t beings and human beings (concepts haven’t existency, look at Saint Thomas Aquinas, it’s very interresting.)

We mustn’t divised between us . thruth and charity are the names of the unique God. and God is the creator and the redeemer of logic and coherence.

• Une vérité qui n’est pas charitable, procède d’une charité qui n’est pas véritable -

“one verity that isn’t charitable proceed from a charity that isn’t veritable” saint Francis de Sales, doctor of the Church.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

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

What has been wrong with my conduct in this thread? How am I refusing to listen? As far as I can honestly tell, I’ve dealt with each objection. I don’t write with arrogance. I’m honestly at a loss to why you’re blowing that poor choice of words out of proportion.

Please avoid being so glib. You’re making it difficult.

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.

Define “natural end of the act.” If by this you mean procreation, I refer you to my earlier statements regarding procreation. I’ll revise them as appropriate, replacing my language with yours to illustrate that I think we’re saying the same thing.

If fornication is done and is open to conception, then it may be less grave than homosexual acts. When is fornication done while open to conception? 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 the sexual act.

Fornication is almost always coupled with contraception, that is, repeated denials against the natural end of the act. Homosexual acts have no natural end and make no pretense about having a natural end. Fornication, popularly coupled with contraception, denies Christ several times and each time is intrinsically evil. Homosexual act deny Him once, this one time intrinsically evil.

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

All three are true. I’ve been very clear on my position. If there’s any difficulty in understanding it, it would be from slight imprecision and not from outright contradiction. But if you must, I’ll change this:

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.

To this:

Homosexual acts can be worse morally than fornication. The most popular form of fornication is not inherently worse. I’d add the admonition that it would take a specific, rare, “ideal” circumstance of heterosexual fornication to make it “better” than homosexual acts.

Rephrased, because nothing I can say is perfect on a first draft, the least sinful fornication is “better” than the least sinful homosexual act. We agree on this. I add, merely, that:

• In practice, it is impossible to tell with certainty which is worse, because
• Practical fornication is likely often worse than practical homosexual acts for the sake of contraception, and
• By publicly insisting that homosexual acts are inherently worse than fornication we make a blanket statement that applies only narrowly.
• Most dangerously, this blanket statement distorts rather than elucidates truth.

When it comes to sexual morality, we’re in a warzone. We’d be better off concentrating on fighting the sins of fornication and homosexuality as they exist in our world rather than to distort out of proportion the ideal case of each, deciding which is worse purely at the sake of the ideal.

I remember sending a message to one of the apologists in response to a Q&A she answered regarding abortion. I asked her why she didn’t mention the example of hysterectomies being morally allowable for pregnant women. Because it results in the death of the child, these procedures erroneously are popularly called abortions, though they are not. She said, roughly, that to mention this exception would distort the truth of the matter, and give pro-abortion Catholics a loophole. It is more important to say that all abortions are wrong, and the Catholic Church opposes the whole practice, and to leave the exceptions to the experts.

Just so, I firmly believe that fornication which is undoubtedly “better” than homosexual acts is extremely infrequent and would distort the truth that fornication is nine times out of ten coupled with contraception and may, in fact, be as bad or worse. To say this would give a loophole to Catholics who do hate homosexuals to keep on hating them, and this would be a most evil result.

And, before you again accuse me of words I didn’t say and thoughts I don’t intend, let me say that I sincerely disbelieve that you want this effect or even that you hate homosexuals yourself. But your words will allow such a seeming loophole for the sake of an impractical theological legalism.

 

[Betterave]

What has been wrong with my conduct in this thread? How am I refusing to listen? As far as I can honestly tell, I’ve dealt with each objection. I don’t write with arrogance. I’m honestly at a loss to why you’re blowing that poor choice of words out of proportion.

Please avoid being so glib. You’re making it difficult.

You got me all wrong on this one - I was defending you. My comment was directed toward Charlemagne (who chastised you for doing something you didn’t do). Please re-read my comment with this context in mind. I disagree with you here, but I have no problem at all with your conduct.

Define “natural end of the act.” If by this you mean procreation, I refer you to my earlier statements regarding procreation. I’ll revise them as appropriate, replacing my language with yours to illustrate that I think we’re saying the same thing.

No. I believe all of your comments on this subject are mistaken because you have defined the natural end of the sexual act too narrowly: procreation, full stop. I can spell it out if you want me to, but obviously the Church doesn’t teach that procreation is the only end of ‘the marital embrace.’

So consider these comments you made in light of that fact:

Fornication is almost always coupled with contraception, that is, repeated denials against -]the/-] one natural end of the act. Homosexual acts have no natural end and make no pretense about having a natural end. Fornication, popularly coupled with contraception, denies Christ several times and each time is intrinsically evil. Homosexual act deny Him once, this one time intrinsically evil.

Homosexual acts constitute a far more profound perversion of the created order. They just do: they are fornicative, intrinsically sterile, and intrinsically represent a distortion of the whole natural order, even from the most obvious biological perspective. Likewise, sex with, say, a sheep is a more profound distortion of the natural order than homosexual sex. Most people understand this and don’t need it explained, but I can try to elaborate if you’re still unconvinced…

 

[BlueShadow123]

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

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…

either way, both are apparently born that way, and even if they are not, they still deserve equal rights. INCLUDING MARRIAGE. Which will happen someday. (they already do in some places)

 

[BlueShadow123]

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.

I don’t know how else to be any more clear to you. than what I have posted to you a million times that you still don’t seem to get. So forget it.

 

[davidv]

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…

either way, both are apparently born that way, and even if they are not, they still deserve equal rights. INCLUDING MARRIAGE. Which will happen someday. (they already do in some places)

Marriage is a vocation; a calling from God. It is not a right.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

either way, both are apparently born that way, and even if they are not, they still deserve equal rights. INCLUDING MARRIAGE. Which will happen someday. (they already do in some places)

Marriage which is not child-centered should not be:

• Called marriage.
• Encouraged by the state for any reason.

Marriage is not a selfish union or an impermanent union. It is entirely selfless — that is the definition of love, even more than affection — and it is as close to eternal as we are able on this earth. When it is a childless union, that sterility is a matter of great sadness, not relief.

To speak of equal rights is to show how far marriage has fallen, now seen as a selfish union freely entered and freely left, like a business partnership, or the Republican Party, and sterile to boot, like the National Organization for Women. The modern conception of marriage combines the worst parts of both political ideologies and calls it new, and because it’s new it calls it good.

Meanwhile kids are getting shafted. This should be encouraged?

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I disagree with you here, but I have no problem at all with your conduct.

That’s a relief, and thank you sincerely. It was getting a little silly there for a bit.

Homosexual acts constitute a far more profound perversion of the created order. …

I do understand that pure fornication is a lesser perversion of the created order than pure homosexual acts, though I do thank you: Your example makes it much clearer. What of my claim, though, that pure fornication exists in a tiny minority within modern fornication?

Fornication these days is hardly a matter of rolling around in the hay with the farmer’s daughter. It involves deliberate sterility, which is not clearly worse than intrinsic sterility, specifically due to the element of taking the gift of fertility and specifically denying it.

Modern fornication is not simply fornication, but the conflation of at least three instances of intrinsic evil:

• Fornication (or adultery)
• Contraception (condom)
• Contraception (the pill)

I say that it is modern fornication which may, in bundling up the evils together, approach or meet if not exceed the evil inherent in homosexual acts. It is the bundling of these sins together which brings me to the conclusion that modern fornication cannot be clearly identified as “less” sinful than homosexual acts.

I firmly believe that the fornication which is undoubtedly “better” than homosexual acts is extremely infrequent and would distort the truth that fornication is nine times out of ten coupled with contraception and may, in fact, be as bad or worse. To say this would give a loophole to Catholics who do hate homosexuals to keep on hating them, and this would be a most evil result.

and

We’d be better off concentrating on fighting the sins of fornication and homosexuality as they exist in our world rather than to distort out of proportion the ideal case of each, deciding which is worse purely at the sake of the ideal.

I do see that we agree on almost everything. It is these last two thoughts which bring me to the different conclusion.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Marriage which is not child-centered should not be:

• Called marriage.
• Encouraged by the state for any reason.

Marriage is not a selfish union or an impermanent union. It is entirely selfless — that is the definition of love, even more than affection — and it is as close to eternal as we are able on this earth. When it is a childless union, that sterility is a matter of great sadness, not relief.

To speak of equal rights is to show how far marriage has fallen, now seen as a selfish union freely entered and freely left, like a business partnership, or the Republican Party, and sterile to boot, like the National Organization for Women. The modern conception of marriage combines the worst parts of both political ideologies and calls it new, and because it’s new it calls it good.

Meanwhile kids are getting shafted. This should be encouraged?

then your understanding of marriage would not apply to old people or infertile couples.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

then your understanding of marriage would not apply to old people or infertile couples.

Please re-read the following sentence:

When it is a childless union, that sterility is a matter of great sadness, not relief.
I’ll also add “… not relief or apathy.”

Besides, for old people and sterile couples, there is a reasonable presumption of children.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Please re-read the following sentence:

When it is a childless union, that sterility is a matter of great sadness, not relief.
I’ll also add “… not relief or apathy.”

Besides, for old people and sterile couples, there is a reasonable presumption of children.

I know of married couples who do not have kids. They never wanted kids and are actually living very happy marriages.

So your statement does not always apply. Some people just don’t have time in their schedule for kids. Some people don’t seem to be fit for parenthood. Its not your choice, its theirs. I think we can leave it to that.

 

[mgreen77]

To speak of equal rights is to show how far marriage has fallen, now seen as a selfish union freely entered and freely left, like a business partnership,…

From a secular, civil point of view, that’s pretty much all it is. A civil institution granting certain civil benefits and rights. Which is why I suspect that eventually all courts will rule that preventing people from marrying the same sex (notice I’m not saying gays or “gay marriage”) is unconstitutional.

I doubt the Church will ever recognize such marriages though.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

From a secular, civil point of view, that’s pretty much all it is. A civil institution granting certain civil benefits and rights. Which is why I suspect that eventually all courts will rule that preventing people from marrying the same sex (notice I’m not saying gays or “gay marriage”) is unconstitutional.

I doubt the Church will ever recognize such marriages though.

Agreed, on every point. I have hope that the world will come around afterward.

I know of married couples who do not have kids. They never wanted kids and are actually living very happy marriages.

So your statement does not always apply. Some people just don’t have time in their schedule for kids. Some people don’t seem to be fit for parenthood. Its not your choice, its theirs. I think we can leave it to that.

Balderdash. My statement certainly does apply. Read this again:

Besides, for old people and sterile couples, there is a reasonable presumption of children.

But, for clarity’s sake, let’s add “and those who choose to not have children” right before “reasonable presumption of children,” making the statement:

For any man-woman couple, there is a reasonable presumption of children.

 

[Betterave]

I do understand that pure fornication is a lesser perversion of the created order than pure homosexual acts, though I do thank you: Your example makes it much clearer. What of my claim, though, that pure fornication exists in a tiny minority within modern fornication?

I actually intended to address that claim with my comments.

Modern fornication is not simply fornication, but the conflation of at least three instances of intrinsic evil:

• Fornication (or adultery)
• Contraception (condom)
• Contraception (the pill)

How does it make sense to list contraception twice here? Why not analyze like this:

1a) Hetero-fornication 2a) that is contraceptive - but still a natural expression of two becoming one, and which *could *possibly develop into a fully moral marital union.

1b) Homo-fornication 2b) that is intrinsically contraceptive (which therefore could never develop into a fully moral marital union, and is worse than 2a for the same reason that bestial sex is worse than homo sex), and 3b) a perversion of the natural order, as well as in many cases 4b) compounded by it’s casualness, its lack of cultivation of any kind of human intimacy (referring here to typical serial sexual behavior of many - not all! - gay males - and I believe the same applies to most lesbians, though the statistics on lesbian promiscuity are not nearly as dramatic as for gay men).

So I don’t think the claims you make are true…

We’d be better off concentrating on fighting the sins of fornication and homosexuality as they exist in our world rather than to distort out of proportion the ideal case of each, deciding which is worse purely at the sake of the ideal.

I do see that we agree on almost everything. It is these last two thoughts which bring me to the different conclusion.

So my claim is that the notion that there is a restriction of the principle that homo-fornication is intrinsically worse than hetero-fornication to the rare cases where hetero-fornication is non-contraceptive is not sound. But of course you’re right that practically speaking it’s usually not a hugely important issue and that it should never be an excuse for not loving or for unjustly discriminating against those who experience same-sex attractions, or even bestial attractions (poor souls).

 

[Betterave]

From a secular, civil point of view, that’s pretty much all it is. A civil institution granting certain civil benefits and rights. Which is why I suspect that eventually all courts will rule that preventing people from marrying the same sex (notice I’m not saying gays or “gay marriage”) is unconstitutional.

I doubt the Church will ever recognize such marriages though.

Hmmm… It’s important to recognize, however, that from the fact that marriage is a civil institution granting certain civil benefits and rights, it doesn’t follow that the courts will/should rule that preventing people from marrying the same sex is unconstitutional.

 

[mgreen77]

Hmmm… It’s important to recognize, however, that from the fact that marriage is a civil institution granting certain civil benefits and rights, it doesn’t follow that the courts will/should rule that preventing people from marrying the same sex is unconstitutional.

I’ve never been able to think of a valid, secular, legal reason to prohibit someone from marrying the same sex, granting them access to those benefits. Not opinion on it’s morality or it’s original intent, but an actual legal reason?

There’s no requirement that would “catch” gays without also catching heterosexuals. Do we stop same-sex couples because they can’t have kids? Then ordinary infertile couples can’t marry either. Do we stop gays because it’s a bad environment for raising children (true or not)? Well, then everyone must take a parenting skills test first.

It’s not that it should be “allowed,” it’s that it’ll become apparent that banning it was never legally justified.

Personally I’m really torn on the issue. My heart goes out to gay people who just want to celebrate their loving relationships in marriage, but at the same time I really adore and cherish marriage being a celebration of the unique relationship between a male and female, rather than “just” love between two people (though that’s nice too!).

And come to think of it, maybe that’s also why many people instinctively feel an aversion to the idea people can “change sexes,” since it kinda dilutes the meaning of the terms (man or woman, male or female) if someone can change from one to the other.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

We’re going to continue restating our cases, I think, until we refine them into the core of what we really mean, so instead of noting the similarities, please note that there are several differences.

How does it make sense to list contraception twice here?

Because there are two instances of contraception of two wholly different characters. There is the single instance of the condom and the serial instances, the dire habit, of the pill.

So my claim is that the notion that there is a restriction of the principle that homo-fornication is intrinsically worse than hetero-fornication to the rare cases where hetero-fornication is non-contraceptive is not sound.

And the principal reasons you give:

• Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
• Homosexual acts cannot lead to the marital union.
• Homosexual acts encourage a lifestyle of serial sexual partners. (Noted with caveat.)

For the sake of argument, let’s accept the preceding as factual. For every count but the first, we see a parallel with heterosexual fornication. A parallel in place of the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts is replaced with the intrinsic evil of abortion:

• 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.

But of course you’re right that practically speaking it’s usually not a hugely important issue and that it should never be an excuse for not loving or for unjustly discriminating against those who experience same-sex attractions, or even bestial attractions (poor souls).

Catholics need to get that message out. We get lumped in with “God Hates Fags” when we don’t.

 

[Betterave]

Elijah,
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.

 

[Betterave]

I’ve never been able to think of a valid, secular, legal reason to prohibit someone from marrying the same sex, granting them access to those benefits. Not opinion on it’s morality or it’s original intent, but an actual legal reason?

There’s no requirement that would “catch” gays without also catching heterosexuals.

Do we stop same-sex couples because they can’t have kids?

Yes; and more specifically because their relationship is by its very nature devoid of reproductive potential.

Then ordinary infertile couples can’t marry either.

No; the foregoing reason does not apply to infertile couples. A hetero couple is naturally ordered towards having kids, even if in a particular case this natural ordination cannot be realized.

 

[mgreen77]

Yes; and more specifically because their relationship is by its very nature devoid of reproductive potential.

From a religious point of view, sure, a perfectly valid reason why the Church won’t bless same-sex marriages, since it’s focused on the original intent behind marriage.

But I’m not so sure secular courts care about the “nature” of marriage. They focus on the practicalities, and as far as the state is concerned marriage is pretty much just a business arrangement, joining together two people into a single financial entity of sorts.

And from that perspective, the religious, spiritual intent of marriage is kinda lost, and the courts are just left asking, “Why should we prevent same-sex couples from forming a financial and legal partnership? What difference does it make if they are same or opposite sexes as far as benefits granted are concerned?”