Homosexuality in geneology?

[jcrichton]

No, I am intersexed.

In the womb, all of us start female, and some triggers make males, male. If those triggers are not done right, or done at the wrong time, or done partially. You get an intersexed child. The word used in the past is hermaphrodite, but is out of date.

…so you have both male and female genitalia? Could your parents and their doctor not have use some treatment to assist the most dominat sex?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Uh…no…chromosomes are done at conception, it’s when the egg and sperm combine.

The priests advocated surgery for me shortly after birth to ‘clarify’ my gender, and it mangled me in the process and also making me completely unsuitable and impossible to consummate the marriage act, making me unable to marry in the church as a result.

Thank you for clarifying… I understand your situation… something similar happened to a person I knew… the surgery was done by an inexperienced surgeon… a horrible experience compounded with another… even with today’s tech advances things go wrong (the sister of a friend died on the operating table as she attempted to have her breasts lipo done…); my heart goes to you… but I still think that you should not blame the Church for what eventually transpired; the priest had the same idea as I had (determine the deminant sex and assist its development) but none could determine the outcome, specially in today’s modern times.

I will pray for your wellbeing. May the Holy Spirit bless you with Christ’s Peace.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Jcrichton, you seem to have a case of diarrhea of the mouth. You are skimming through this thread acting like you are sooo smart making random little senseless comments when you obviously don’t understand what everyone is saying. About your comments to me, A) like so many other people you are assuming homosexuality only has to do with sex. It would not be right for anyone to just have sex, even if it is monogamous. Perhaps you could read through everything I’ve been saying to know where I’m coming from on all this rather than me repeating it. And B) I’m not rejecting the Catholic Church, I’m saying there is no Biblical basis for saying that all forms of homosexuality are wrong. You know, you really need to truly follow this thread rather than just randomly picking little parts to interject your word vomit. Like, for instance, when you decided to simply ignore my last comment to you (I guess because you couldn’t refute it) and add a few smart-alec remarks to other random passages of mine. Get it together.

Rather then go into the offensive (again); I will ignore your post as we find ouselves in this forum.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[peduzzi89]

I try not to get offensive, but it is offensive to me and other people I’m sure when you go through and drop these little bombs when it doesn’t seem like you’re fully reading/understanding everything that’s being said. I am interested in actually debating this topic, so I hope you will choose not to simply ignore my posts, as they are quite valid, unless of course there is nothing you could say in response…I’m not just throwing random insults at you, just stating facts. Except for the diarrhea of the mouth thing, which was over the top, for which I apologize.

 

[pathia]

but I still think that you should not blame the Church for what eventually transpired; the priest had the same idea as I had (determine the deminant sex and assist its development) but none could determine the outcome, specially in today’s modern times.

Maran atha!

Angel

My doctors said I would be fine without surgery, there was no need for it. My parents felt pressured by the priests because they feared for my spiritual development with the variation I had below. So, I was operated on pretty much entirely because the priests said it would be a good idea, the doctors didn’t want to, my parents had to find new doctors to do the surgery.

There is no way to determine my dominant sex. I have XY, XX and XXY chromosomes. There is no way to say which one is right without dissecting every cell in my body, which would obviously kill me.

 

[SCALCO]

truagape,

Are you saying that same-sex marriage should be acceptable and the Church cannot use scripture to disapprove because scripture is inconclusive or mum on “homosexuality as we know it today”?

How does it follow that same-sex unions should be recognized as marriage if scripture is inconclusive or silent? I would think that for the same reason it can’t be rejected, it would hold true that it can’t be approved either.

Or, are you not even arguing for marriage, just that the Church accepts same-sex unions in general?

Are there any examples where scripture is silent on a Church teaching?

Just to be clear, the Church does not adhere to sola scriptura; it has Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[SilentKnight]

I know none of you would believe this, but I felt God that summer. I finally felt at peace with Him, like he had led me to my true self, the one he created, instead of the fake image I was putting up.

For hopefully obvious reasons, I’m not fond of telling people what they are thinking or feeling. But, on the same token, I have to at least note here that “feelings” are very subjective experiences.

My own opinion, not to judge* you* but to judge the situation for all interested parties, is that you indeed did feel peace that day, coming to terms with reality - that you have a homosexual orientation. And I’ll even go so far as to say that God may have really been present, basically saying, “Yes, this is how it is.” But even if this is what happened, this is different from God saying, “Yep. This is how you’re supposed to be. Now, be ‘fruitiful and multiply’, so to speak.”

The fact that you are quoting the RSV kind of emphasizes my point, because it is “revised”. The closest we can get to the original is the KJV, which is the most widely used and the one that most go to on debatable subjects. The KJV uses the words “burned” and “lust” instead, which wouldn’t be all homosexuals, again.

Most Protestants, yes. The KJV is a Protestant translation. Most Catholics that want as literal an interpretation as possible go to the RSV or the Dhuay Rheims (sp.?) And, in fact, the current RSV may be more accurate in that regard.

Whatever the case, here is the KJV’s rendition of Romans 1:26-27:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Please notice the clear wording of verse 26 and then note that verse 27 does speak of “burning” with “lust”. However, keeping in mind the rest of the verse, this actually only speaks doubly against homosexual activity, rather than defend “committed” homosexual relationships, inferring as it does that homosexual behavior is disordered (unnatural) from the starting gate.

As for Leviticus, how do we know which rules to follow and which we don’t have to?

The answer to this necessarily is another question: “Do you want to know (how to know)?” If so, the answer will be provided. If not, then it really doesn’t matter.

Leviticus 11:12 says “Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” There we have abomination again. Do you see what I’m saying.

I do. And I can offer some thoughts on how to simply weight this passage all by itself, but am out of time again for the moment.

Also, I want to make it clear that I resent the implication that being openly gay is selfish. It’s not just because it “feels good” it’s because it feels like the life I was meant to live. Before I felt I was at odds with God now I feel one with Him.

I totally understand what you mean by that, but you must also recognize that life is what it is regardless of how we perceive it. You can agree with that, right? If I don’t think gravity exists…That doesn’t really matter. Im still gonna fall. If I believe that I am the President of the United States and I write an executive order on something and, amazingly, no one pays it any attention…Surprise, or no?

Our faith teaches us that there are some aspects to life that are basically self-evident. There are other forms of knowledge that are not. More details to follow…

SK

 

[SCALCO]

…I think that it is much simpler than that… you do not like something… you change it! You do not like the Church you create your own (wait that’s been done to death, hasn’t it?)… you submit! It is God’s Will vs ours; the Church is His Body on earth: done deal!

Maran atha!

Angel

I understand that, but that doesn’t help those who do not understand Church authority.

 

[SilentKnight]

I just want to second you and say that my journey has been similar to yours. I have had two girlfriends (and I still have girls who I know are attracted to me). However, it was not until I began dating my friend John that I truly understood the love that “normal” heterosexuals feel for each other.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, we have decided to live chastely and celibate, while still being a part of each others life. We really do bring out the best in one another and we really want to grow in our love of Christ together. It has really been a great journey and it is wonderful to see how God can bring some good out of the predicament of being attracted to the same-sex.

That’s really cool, Kevin. Thank you for sharing it. Indeed, God does do amazing things with people’s lives when they seek Him, rather than design their own way.

Peace,

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

You do realize, however, that the same word “arsenokoite(s)” is being translated in both Corinthians and Timothy, right? Also what about the very first sentence in your post namely: "In the RSV (one of the most literal renderings of Scripture available), in 1 Tim 1:10, the English word used is "sodomites…" Taken at face value, are you aware that it contradicts itself?

…No. I’m not. Feel free to elaborate.

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

Peduzzi,

I think calling homosexual relationships things like “material” once again refers to them as being selfish. I’m not totally understanding your explanation as to why the romantic sense of homosexual relationships are not legitimate. So I guess all I can do is to maintain my opinion that they are because I have seen it.

Ok. What I said (in somewhat muddled fashion) was:

SilentKnight:

“They key difference is that women and men really do “complete” each other in heterosexual relationships. (We see this even physically where “rod A” fits into “slot B”, if you follow me.) Whereas in homosexual relationships, one man “completes” the other, but as a man, (in some way that is difficult to put into words and which varies in its specifics for every individual - but which all comes down to what this parenthetical remark is couched in) not, in contrast with the other, as a communion of persons like the Trinity. And so, in this way, the material relationship may be real, but the transcendant meaning of it and the legitimacy of it as a romantic communion of persons is not.”

As previously referenced, there are plenty of things in life that all of us misperceive. All of us. Misperceiving these things does not alter their reality. For example, I may personally choose to believe that gravity is not real, that it’s just a story concocted by scientists to “oppress” non-scientists…Doesn’t change the fact that it is real.

Thus, one of the things I was trying to do was to differentiate between the “feeling” that homosexual relaitonships are (authentically) complementary and the objective reality that they are not. The “feeling”/perception that they are is very real, I have no doubt. But feelings, as you know, do not dictate reality and are very much subject to distortion and complete misunderstanding.

The wording of the paragraph in question was fairly awkward and I apologize for that, but do you see better now what I was getting at?

Don’t read “material” relationship" as “materialistic relationship”. That’s not what I was getting at. And, in fact, as I re-read that particular sentence, I have to say that it is one part of the paragraph that was pretty well articulated.

As for the anatomy, I understand that rod A fits slot B, but that’s not the only way it can work…

…Right…But I don’t have to drive with a windshield either. The car “works” fine without one. Not the safest thing in the world to be doing, though. Not the way the car was designed, and for good reason.

SK

 

[jcrichton]

I try not to get offensive, but it is offensive to me and other people I’m sure when you go through and drop these little bombs when it doesn’t seem like you’re fully reading/understanding everything that’s being said. I am interested in actually debating this topic, so I hope you will choose not to simply ignore my posts, as they are quite valid, unless of course there is nothing you could say in response…I’m not just throwing random insults at you, just stating facts. Except for the diarrhea of the mouth thing, which was over the top, for which I apologize.

…I have used the same term when speaking to people I know personally–and it has been as a recognition that they go on and on even about the least interesting topic. I make a very strong effort not to dismiss a person for wanting to communicate (specially on an open forum as this is); I have often opted to stop communications with various individuals (including here on this forum) due to religious or personal impass… however, I do so very respectfully–charity is a design of being a disciple of Christ, it is never an option!

I will explain that when I come across a topic I seek to respond to the OP’s query in an effort to help clarify the issue (from a Catholic position); this I do to the best of my abilities–I use the Holy Scriptures and common sense (I have no background in theology, science, and history and I am not a linguist) to respond. As a human being my patience is tested many times–and sometimes it gets the best of me and I do respond in kind (though I do keep it civil). When I enter a forum topic I read, for the most part, from the original post (entry port to any thread); I mostly read and reply to the posts as they are innumerated, which means that till I am caught up I will be responding to old posts. I tend to read most, if not all, of the posts–excluding those of any individual with which I have had prior problems; yet, even this is not an unbreakable rule as I may forget that I am not to communicate with a particular poster or I may want to respond in order to challange anti-Catholic/Scriptural statements that visitors may accept as correct doctrine or unanswered challanges.

Yet, as we are of different minds, not all queries can be resolved through citing Scriptures or offering common sense… hence, circular arguments ensue and I resolve them by, amicably, dropping the issue.

If you feel I have not properly responded to any personal queries and you desire my comment please feel free to direct me to the post or restate your question.

Know that I do not believe that I know all–it’s simply a natural happening!
(…being humorous)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

My doctors said I would be fine without surgery, there was no need for it. My parents felt pressured by the priests because they feared for my spiritual development with the variation I had below. So, I was operated on pretty much entirely because the priests said it would be a good idea, the doctors didn’t want to, my parents had to find new doctors to do the surgery.

There is no way to determine my dominant sex. I have XY, XX and XXY chromosomes. There is no way to say which one is right without dissecting every cell in my body, which would obviously kill me.

…so you were not born with multiple sex organs? I am speaking from an actual event where this person was born with both male and female genitalia; the female organ was superficial and the male organ though underdeveloped was fully functional; as a young child it was determined that he would be brought up as a male and the necessary surgeries were performed. There was no psychological hang ups as the child, though somewhat effeminite, accepted the male persona.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I understand that, but that doesn’t help those who do not understand Church authority.

…yet, I do not think that they are having a problem with understanding… their problem seems to stem from a desire to have God’s Word and His Church acquiesce to their wants and demands…

…some people use the once saved always saved rethoric to suggest that Scriptures are only speaking about the need of non-Belivers to repent from their sins and their ways… once saved, there’s no need for repentence 'cause past, present, and future sins are automatically forgiven in Christ Jesus… that, of course, is not Christ’s Teaching! Scriptures make it clear that we have to accept Christ’s mediation and we must confess our sins and repent from our wicked ways–no matter how many times we fail!

Yet, if we are obstinate enough to not accept sin as sin we delude ourselves since we are rejecting the Church’s Authority, which she inherited from Christ Himself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pathia]

…so you were not born with multiple sex organs? I am speaking from an actual event where this person was born with both male and female genitalia; the female organ was superficial and the male organ though underdeveloped was fully functional; as a young child it was determined that he would be brought up as a male and the necessary surgeries were performed. There was no psychological hang ups as the child, though somewhat effeminite, accepted the male persona.

Maran atha!

Angel

I was born with one set of ambiguous ograns, not two. It is extremely extremely rare to have two sets, usually the one set is confused.

According to my family I rejected the identity forced upon me before I even have memories, however the therapists and priests thought otherwise and continued to pressure to treat me as what I was initially assigned. I tried to commit suicide for the first time at the age of eight as a result.

 

[jcrichton]

I was born with one set of ambiguous ograns, not two. It is extremely extremely rare to have two sets, usually the one set is confused.

According to my family I rejected the identity forced upon me before I even have memories, however the therapists and priests thought otherwise and continued to pressure to treat me as what I was initially assigned. I tried to commit suicide for the first time at the age of eight as a result.

…I am not being defficult… so you were born with male sex organs but your mind told you that you were a girl?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pathia]

…I am not being defficult… so you were born with male sex organs but your mind told you that you were a girl?

Maran atha!

Angel

And I don’t mean to be insulting, but do you know what ambiguous means? My organs were ambiguous I can’t describe how they were, because they weren’t like either sex!

 

[jcrichton]

And I don’t mean to be insulting, but do you know what ambiguous means? My organs were ambiguous I can’t describe how they were, because they weren’t like either sex!

No. I have no knowledge of “ambiguous” when it pertains to sexual organs and since there also seems to be a reference to chromosomal malfunction and a hint at mental indecisiveness I wanted to understand the difficulty that you, as a child, may have had faced…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pathia]

No. I have no knowledge of “ambiguous” when it pertains to sexual organs and since there also seems to be a reference to chromosomal malfunction and a hint at mental indecisiveness I wanted to understand the difficulty that you, as a child, may have had faced…

Maran atha!

Angel

I had no indecisiveness, I stated very firmly from a young age that I was not a boy. THe reason I was suicidal was because they said I was sick, and needed help for saying such things.

Ambiguous means in between. When we are in the womb, we all start female, the clitoris and the penis are from the same flesh. If you have a Y chromosome, and proper hormones, what happens is that it grows into what you are born with. Mine only went part way. If you want more detail than that, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to disappoint you, I don’t make it a habit of describing my bodyparts to others in hyper detail.

 

[jcrichton]

I had no indecisiveness, I stated very firmly from a young age that I was not a boy. THe reason I was suicidal was because they said I was sick, and needed help for saying such things.

Ambiguous means in between. When we are in the womb, we all start female, the clitoris and the penis are from the same flesh. If you have a Y chromosome, and proper hormones, what happens is that it grows into what you are born with. Mine only went part way. If you want more detail than that, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to disappoint you, I don’t make it a habit of describing my bodyparts to others in hyper detail.

…you said that there was an operation; that your sex organ was ambiguous, that your parents and a Priest wanted to guide you into accepting a male persona… that you, as a very young child, demonstrated your desire for other boys… that your parents, urged by their Priest, refused to accept you as you are…

I was attempting to understand if your situation was due to some shared masculine/femenine organs, not to determine your sexual make up but the reason behind your determinantion to desire a relationship with males rather than females…

I must confess that I do not understand your situation since at one point you (hope I am not confusing your statements with someone else) stated that the Church told you that you could not have a relationship with either sex… another statement revealed your early childhood desire to be with boys, and you do not have both male and female sexual organs…

…not to be disrespectful… have you considered that it is a matter of will?

Maran atha!

Angel