McQuaid Juniors Allowed to Go To Ball Together

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traci
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dakota_Roberts said:
That’s sex not gender. Sex is almost always obvious.
Click to expand...
Wrong – sex is equivalent with the more “modern” term gender; they are no different. If someone has the biology for male, then it’s also in his soul and in his DNA, regardless of how many change surgeries he has.
It doesn’t mean that he must like rough sports and beer – those might be what you are confusing with “gender” attributes. But that has nothing to do with the person’s ontological construct.

Did you know that we remain male or female even after we die? Sex is built into the personhood. Gender now has an invented meaning which attempts to make a false dichotomy of biology vs. “feelings” or “tendencies.”
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
That’s sex not gender. Sex is almost always obvious.

.
Click to expand...
As is Gender-other than those who have paid someone to mutilate themselves so they act like they are another gender. As in the abortion debate the lack of knowledge of basic biology on the Left is scary indeed/.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
Some of modern concept of gender is, some is not.
Click to expand...
from an article cited here on CAF, summarizing some recent thoughts of Pope Francis:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774873
That’s what those who insist that “marriage” can mean any configuration of consenting adults deny. That’s what those who regard children as an optional lifestyle accessory deny. And that’s what those who insist that maleness and femaleness are “cultural constructs,” not givens that disclose deep truths about the human condition, deny.
Those denials, Pope Francis suggested, lead to a spiritual impoverishment that can be as devastating as material poverty. And those denials can lead to conflicts within societies that shatter peace just as much as conflicts between societies.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis is no “Brother Sun, Sister Moon” romantic. As an experienced pastor and a man of keen intelligence, he knows that reality-contact is as important for societies as it is for personal mental health. He’ll make the case in a different way than Benedict XVI. But you can count on this pontificate to challenge the dictatorship of relativism in the name of authentic humanism.
Click to expand...
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
I’m not saying male and female are constructs, I am saying some of what people think is “masculine” and “feminine” is social construct. For example men have a soft and caring side, it is not their feminine side.
Click to expand...
👍 Absolutely! I have argued the same on many a CAF thread. People get to define their own masculinity and femininity, and in most cases both will grow organically from the person. There are as many genuine versions of each as there are human beings. I am all for challenging traditional understandings that fit a mold, when that mold does not fit the personality.

Men who are caring tend to really turn women on, by the way. (Women I know, anyway. Maybe I hang with an unusual crowd) Nothing will endear me to a man more than the courage to show his feelings, particularly sorrow. I agree: such a trait is not categorically “feminine.” It’s categorically human.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
👍 Absolutely! I have argued the same on many a CAF thread. People get to define their own masculinity and femininity, and in most cases both will grow organically from the person. There are as many genuine versions of each as there are human beings. I am all for challenging traditional understandings that fit a mold, when that mold does not fit the personality.

Men who are caring tend to really turn women on, by the way. (Women I know, anyway. Maybe I hang with an unusual crowd) Nothing will endear me to a man more than the courage to show his feelings, particularly sorrow. I agree: such a trait is not categorically “feminine.” It’s categorically human.
Click to expand...
But agreeing with this doesn’t mean that “sex” and “gender” are two different things (which is the theory posited above that branched into this explanation).
 
surritter said:
But agreeing with this doesn’t mean that “sex” and “gender” are two different things (which is the theory posited above that branched into this explanation).
Click to expand...
No, it certainly does not mean that gender and sex are two different things, nor have I ever believed that. It is irrational. However, I was addressing a particular point of Dakota’s. Tenderness in a man is not equivalent to being effeminate. It is also not indicative, I will add, that such a man’s true gender is really female, and thus he needs a violent medical operation. :eek: But I will submit that many who seek sex “reassignment” (which seems to be most often from male to female, although there are plenty of publicized cases in the opposite direction, such as Chastity Bono) do so because they assume that their emotional natures are some kind of proof that they are women trapped in a man’s body. I’m going by their reasoning, as they describe their “reasons” why they are “really” women, and God or biology got it wrong.
 
I think that this crosses the line into condoning sin and possibly even causing scandal here.
 
It is unfortunate decision, a caving in to the times and to money, into keeping a big tent. It is nonsense to think it is not condoning sinful activity . The desire/ temptation is not sinful we are taught, but to carry out the desire is wrong. A gay date is certainly taking it beyond just an inclination. It is wrong to think just cause they may not have sex it is not wrong. So holding hands as lovers, dancing as lovers, kissing as lovers is being condoned in the misguided light of tolerance/love. Is this not something a “hireling” would allow ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top