I agree. The cousin was not behaving in a charitable manner and I think he crossed the border from uncharitable to cruel. Of course he was free to explain to his family members (they are legally married, so the former woman turned man is his in-law) that he believed the marriage to be a fraud and why, but he should have been as kind as possible about it and kept it a family matter.
Thank you. That makes it much less confusing to me.
I am going to try to explain it without being too graphic. Is a little hard to explain so sorry if I am nor clear but I’ll give it a try. As you mention indeed the hormonal therapy does causes the female genitalia to change. Specifically causes the clitoris to get enlarged. When it becomes enlarged it resembles a penis. The reason why it is not actual intercourse is because that while it resembles visually a penis, is not an actual penis. It cannot complete the marital act because it doesn’t have real male gonads so while she can feel sexual pleasure she cannot complete or do the actual sexual act. Is again trying to replicate something artificially it may look like intercourse on the outside but is not real intercourse because is done with let’s say an artificial organ. So from the church’s perspective is not intercourse not anymore than that it would be with any other artificial artefact.
100% agree with you. I think it should have been kept a family matter. That part of calling people to join and unite against them is a very hateful attitudes and does not speak well of the cousin. It bugs me because then these stories ate used to generalize all religious people and all pro lifers
and most practicing catholic that I know would have address it in a much charitable way. What the cousin is doing is just pushing them more away from the truth 
Agreed 100%. What the cousin has done is very cruel and the couple concerned has my sympathy. I can’t imagine what they are going through.
Someone can naturally be a karotype male (XY chromosomes), but physically a male naturally. Such people tend to live ad females and get hormone treatment to fit in.
I meant physically a female.
Thise cases are very very rare. You cannot make a general rule based on a rare exception. The vast majority of transgendetism are people who are undoubtedly that sex both genetically and physically. The above case is an undoubtly XX female with an undoubtedly female anatomy who artificially modified her body to look like a male. She is still a female biologically and when she dies if she gets a scientific test to determine her sex she would be places as female.
“Legal” and “legitimate” do not always mean the same thing.
With the inclusion of qualifiers things are less cloudy. States are involved in civil marriages. The requirements and definitions used for civil marriage don’t imply similarity or compatibility with the various forms of religious marriages. Thus far states have not attempted to alter Catholic sacramental marriages. And the Catholic Church does not see all civil marriages as sacramental.
There is a difference between a civil marriage (which might be a marriage, whether or not it’s a sacrament) and a situation that can never be a marriage regardless of what the state calls it on paper.
Is not a civil marriage a union that is is recognized by the state (and the people involved) as a marriage? If so then you seem to be indirectly violating the logic law of non-contradiction; what you’ve said seems to amount to "It is untrue that a union recognized by the state as a marriage is a union recognized by the state as marriage "
Not if it is not a marriage in the first place.
Sure it is. It’s a civil marriage. The requirements and definition of a civil marriage are independent of those of churches. Though I understand you will feel otherwise. And that’s fine.
No. A relationship between 2 women or 2 men is not, by definition, a marriage. It is not any kind of marriage because it cannot be a marriage. Therefore when the state calls it a marriage, that statement is a lie.
Community and civil definitions can be changed. The meaning attached to words evolves with their usage; they are not static for the living languages. In some communities including but not limited to 32 states of the USA and at least 16 other countries by convention and by vote the civil definition has transitioned.
Unfortunately, you still don’t see it.Community and civil definitions can be changed. The meaning attached to words evolves with their usage; they are not static for the living languages. In some communities including but not limited to 32 states of the USA and at least 16 other countries by convention and by vote the civil definition has transitioned.
Not forgetting the qualifiers, had you said by definition a Catholic Sacramental Marriage cannot describe a union of two people of the same sex I would totally agree. I think what is occurring here is that within any given community that allows for same sex marriage the members of that community don’t necessarily have a universal agreement with it. This could be said to be the case of many other divisive topics. So within these communities there are some that will refuse the convention, some that are apathetic, some that fully support it, and positions between these (I’ll refer to groups of people that hold these views as sub-communities for now). And that’s fine, there’s variation in human behaviour and in view on it. It seems that we are members of different sub-communities on this matter. I understand that you are of the view that marriage can never be used to refer to a union of two people of the same sex. I won’t try to change your mind on that. I think there is room for both of us to adopt the conventions of our choice.
Sure I do. You feel that in any context that marriage can never refer to anything other than a binary relationship of opposite genders; there is no compromise. I understand that’s your disposition. And you feel that anything that doesn’t conform to this is a violation of something for which you’ve got strong uncompromising feelings. I’ve got that. I understand your position.
That’s going to dependent on which school of jurisprudential thought to which you subscribe. For example, under the National School (the written law of a given society at a particular point in time) the law is defined by the communities, just as definitions are. Under this school I think your application of “legal fiction” doesn’t apply to something that was produced to by the convention of the community.
You are confusing relativism with truth.
Nope, I’m not. Though I can understand why you think that I am.
Under bivalent evaluation, sure.
Ok
We don’t have a disagreement over the bivalance of the evaluation. Our disagreement is over which of the definitions of “marriage” from our respective communities that we are using.