R
royal_archer
Guest
What question? the one in the title? That question asserts wrong doing which is not occuring. So when are you going to stop beating your wife?
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
What is your question?
I think what RA and I are saying is that even if such "Catholic Advocates, (parishes) and some priests have advocated what you say, such is not equivical with RCC church teaching.
R
royal_archer
Guest
FYI: Catholics have suffered a great deal of persecution.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Hello again, Zoe. I am glad this discussion is continuing.
Hmmm… I am not so sure about that. The interpretation that you have advanced, that the Pope expressed opposition to trans and intersexed rights in those two speeches, was shared widely in the secular press. But I don’t think many Catholics who are very familiar with Church teaching would have read the speech and shared that interpretation. The mainstream press is notorious for erroneous reporting on religious (and scientific) matters because the reporters are unfamiliar with the material in any depth.
Let me back track to your second post, which is post number three in this thread, so I can respond to what you stated earlier.
You then mention a Hamtramck, Michigan rally to oppose an antidiscrimination proposal which was on the upcoming ballot. This rally took place in a Knights of Columbus Hall, a lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center spoke, as did a Catholic priest who was co-chairing the organized opposition to the proposal. You mention that this wasn’t a Red state/Blue state matter because Hamtramck voted for Obama 4:1.
Okay, first I think you underestimate how conservative Hamtramck is. It is is a blue collar city which has been very hard hit by the implosion of the Detroit automakers, and also the slump of the housing market. I think many voters were looking for Obama to help revive the Michigan auto industry. Hamtramck also has a large Muslim population, and many of them may have seen Obama as more Muslim-friendly than McCain (Obama’s rival). Hamtramck also has a recent patten of religiousl/ethnic bigotry, which required the US Justice Department to get involved.. I don’t think Hamtramck is a notably progressive community
Now, as far as all levels of organizations are involved in opposing that bill… Zoe, the Catholic Church is very big, with individuals and organizations ranging across the political spectrum. There are priests who break into military facilities to protest nuclear weapons, but the Church doesn’t encourage that. There are organizations which promote gay rights (Dignity USA, Call to Action, New Ways Ministry) which promote gay rights, but the Church doesn’t encourage that. The action of an individual priest and the use of a KofC hall doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is sanctioning discrimination.
BTW, the Thomas More Law Center is not a Catholic organization. It is a conservative Christian organization. Check out its website, specifically its “About Us” page: thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=23
Along that same line, you quoted a Br. André Marie writing on the website Catholicism.org. However, that website belongs to a radical traditionalist religious order founded by an excommunicated priest. It is not in communion with the Catholic Church led by the Holy See, but identifies with some splinter Catholic denomination.
Zoe, I’m sorry to say this, but you are exaggerating when you claim that that multitudes of priests and religious encourage legal persecution. I haven’t seen such multitudes, and the evidence you have offered is meager. I’ve already discussed why I think you are misinterpreting the remarks of Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger.
hmmm… I think I will take a break now, and continue the conversation later.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I am more than willing to forgive you, although I am not sure that you are actually seeking forgiveness.
Zoe, I don’t agree that code words are being used, or that the tactic of plausible deniability has been used by anyone in the Vatican. I realize you disagree, and I am not sure how to convince you otherwise, since your experience and knowledge of the Catholic Church is somewhat limited.
I understand the principle of citing sources respected by your audience. And for sure, many here will take exception to the Southern Poverty Law Center - which does have a liberal point of view. However, that doesn’t mean that AFTAH is a respected source by most persons here at CAF (which I hasten to add, does not not reflect the views of most US Catholics.)
This is an article I disagree with. And I won’t try to defend the NCBC or its journal. I will, however, simply point out that although they don’t speak for the Catholic Church. They are simply a voice in Catholic community, and many voices are astray.
Yes, well… its not the first time that authors have been willing to throw reason to the wind in order to push their point.
The term “radical feminist” is often tossed around CAF, usually by people who have no idea what radical feminism is. However, Mary Daly and Janice Raymond are radical feminists. Yes, citing them in support of Catholic bioethics is very strange indeed. However, Daly, Raymond and the Catholic Church believe(d) in gender essentialism - that men and women have an essence or nature distinct from the other. So I can see why some conservative Catholic thinkers might want to tap, however tentatively, from radical feminism. It is dismaying, and I think speaks to the lack of integrity in their argument.
Zoe, I wouldn’t call your anger narcissistic. I think your anger issues from a genuine fear. I don’t agree with some of your interpretations, but I do not fault your concern.
Could you tell us more about this? I think it is very much to the point - that organizations representing Intersexed persons are seeking reassurance from the Vatican but are being rebuffed.
L
LilyM
Guest
Zoe, time prevents me doing further research into this bill and the events and opinions you have discussed - but a few questions immediately spring to mind.
- are these ten the ONLY rights the bill proposes to grant to intersexed people?
- did those Catholics opposing the bill - each and every single one of them - not only oppose it personally but ALSO claim that Church teaching demanded that EVERY Catholic oppose it? I don’t see that claim made in any of the writings you’ve mentioned.
- what practical consequences are attached, for example, to the ‘right to use hospitals’ or other facilities?
Surely such a ‘right’, if it were included, would be impractical.
I’m not saying that accommodations should not, as far as possible, be made for the intersexed, far from it. I’m saying the bill may’ve included things that were either impractical or indeed contrary to Catholic teaching that you haven’t mentioned or weren’t aware of.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
The short answer is “yes”, but It’s more complicated than that.
That was the list of rights that no-one should be excluded from enjoying in Montgomery County, Maryland, “because of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, presence of children, family responsibilities, source of income, sexual orientation, gender identity, or age”
The opposition was to the inclusion of the underlined clause.
Different jurisdictions have different wordings to their laws, but the formula follows a certain pattern: “race, creed, colour, sex…” often “national origin”… sometimes “veteran status”… and sometimes ending with “sexual orientation”, at other times “sexual orientation and gender identity”.
One thing that is absolutely in common with all the legislation, everywhere: that is, they prohibit discrimination against Intersexed and Transsexual people for being Intersexed or Transsexual, to exactly the same extent that they prohibit discrimination against Catholics for being Catholic. No more, no less. Exactly.
All the ones I asked did
Because all Catholics agree on everything don’t they? 
Tyra Hunter (1970 - August 7, 1995) was an African-American transsexual woman who died after being injured as a passenger in a car accident and was refused medical care.[1][2] Emergency medical technicians at the scene of the accident uttered derogatory epithets and withdrew medical care after discovering her real sex, and ER staff at DC General Hospital subsequently provided dilatory and inadequate care.
I have to travel several hundred miles, interstate, for necessary regular medical examinations, because the local specialists have religious objections to treating me. 6 hours of travel for a 15 minute appointment, then 6 hours back. I’d actually forgotten about that, didn’t count it as “discrimination” because it’s just “par for the course” for Intersexed people. I live in the capital city of Australia, by the way, not a small country town.
I’ve made sure I have friends in the ER in one of the local hospitals. Not the Calvary Hospital, run by the Little Company of Mary, which is the closest, unfortunately. I think it likely I’d be treated there of brought in after an accident. But not certain, no. Some doctors there have refused me treatment in the past. Most did not refuse though, and my son, who’s also Intersexed, has never had a problem.
To exactly the same extent they could before the law was passed, no more, no less. Most places do not have laws preventing men from using ladies restrooms, or vice-versa. The usual crimes of voyeurism etc will still be in place. None of the proposed laws mention restrooms as such.
In 33 years, only 2 cases remotely similar to the hypothetical you described have been recorded. One was in Washington state, where a criminal ducked in to a ladies restroom to change into female attire to elude pursuit. Such a law was in effect, but he did not attempt to use it as a defence. The other case was of a man dressed in female attire who paraded himself through the female changing facilities at a gym in Montgomery County, Maryland. The church-backed (through fund-raising drives run by local churches) opposition organisation later admitted that this was a “publicity stunt” - after they had been caught. Before they were caught, they were using it as proof that such things happened, and the story is still being used in WorldNetDaily and other media outlets, despite the later admission.
There are many cases like this one though:
thegavoice.com/index.php/news/atlanta-news-menu/176-trans-man-alleges-restroom-discrimination-at-underground
and this one
365gay.com/blog/manly-lesbian-wins-restroom-discrimination-settlement-from-caliente-cab-co/
Women with Polycistic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) - which causes the traditional “Bearded Lady” effect in severe cases - and those with various intersex conditions face similar problems. It’s ironic that I don’t. I look too normal. I did even before the genital reconstruction that gave me a normal, rather than ambiguous-to-male vulva.
:extrahappy: :dancing:
:yeah_me:
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
The usual tactic of the opposition is to label it the “Bathroom Bill” that legalises perverted voyeurism.
Statements to the contrary by lawyers, Judges, Attorneys-General etc are ignored, they just shout it louder. The fact that no such event has ever been recorded in 35 years is also ignored.
The funniest thing is when you have a case such as the Illinois Family Institute, who recently made all sorts of dire predictions about the effects in Illinois of proposed Federal legislation. It was pointed out to them that Illinois already had such laws on its books, and some Illinois cities had had since 1973. They hadn’t noticed. So much for their dire predictions of doom.
I know of no cases where the bill wasn’t just to tack the words “…sexual orientation and gender identity…” to the end of the list of “race, creed, colour…” etc. - though sometimes they’ve have added additional words about block-busting or other minor tweaks to existing legislation as well. Sometimes “disability” or “veteran status” are added too.
e,g.
scribd.com/doc/482726/Montgomery-County-Gender-Idenity-Discrimination-Law
Note that exactly the same arguments were made about including “sex” in the list. That it would lead to men in the ladies room, the Catholic Church having to ordain women, etc etc no matter what the lawyers, Judges, Attorneys-General etc said.
I can’t guarantee that every bill in every county or city doesn’t include objectionable language, I don’t have the resources to pore through the exact wording of all of them, there’s hundreds. But usually, they’re one-liners, repeated dozens of times to add “…sexual orientation and gender identity…”.
Unfortunately a lot of them - almost half - only add “sexual orientation”. It’s illegal to fire someone for being gay in 20 states - but only illegal to fire them for being intersexed in 12.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Dale… if I was going to list all the things I’d like to be forgiven for… I’d blow the storage space of this forum.I am more than willing to forgive you, although I am not sure that you are actually seeking forgiveness.
Seriously though, I’d like to be forgiven for the hurt I’ve caused anyone on this forum. Even if it was “justified”, hurting others is bad. But forgiveness requires repentance, and restitution. I can say “sorry” - and mean it - but that’s useless if I keep on doing it. I have no right to ask for it, but will gratefully accept if offered. I’d forgive in return, but I know of no-one who’s hurt me here. So there’s nothing to forgive.
More than you might think. The hardest task I’ve faced was restoring the faith of the priest giving my father extreme unction. My mother and sister are both catholic, and my father converted in the last minutes of his life. He was the most saintly man I’ve ever known. He did it for his wife and child, but I know he was truly sorry for all his imperfections, and asked forgiveness for them.
:bighanky:
My Daddy was dying, I had to authorise withdrawal of the “heroic measures” that were keeping him breathing, semi-conscious, and in agony… and here was a priest suffering a crisis of faith, and I had to give the usual theological arguments to restore him. Because it was the right thing to do, and my Daddy would have wanted that.
How many people who would like to see myself and my son exterminated are truly villains? Not all. Not even most. So how many who merely oppose my having human rights are evil? I mean, compared with a sinner like me? Approximately… none. Misled, fallible, in error, yes, all of the above.In other words… only Human.
So many are acting out of fear. Fear that breeds anger. How can I condemn them overmuch for something I suffer myself? OK, so maybe they haven’t been rendered unconscious with a crowbar in an assault, while I have, but they’re in fear for their children. Or should I say, “for their children too”, as my son is intersexed, and had genital reconstruction years before his peculiar father did.
See above. Anger doesn’t help. Charity does.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 13[/BIBLEDRB]
Dale, I am so imperfect, I fall so far short of my ideals, that it would be easy to despair. But I was never one to take the easy path.
Met with silence. The prime organisation is Organisation Internationale des Intersexués
I don’t think the letters were posted online, though some with a religious subject have been -
From OII Australia
Dale… I’ve only just scratched the surface here, only adduced theses where I have primary sources. There’s a lot more.
L
LilyM
Guest
I’m a law graduate, and I know it always is
That’s partly why I asked the question. Without looking at the whole text of the bill and the whole text of whatever legislation it might propose to amend or add to, I couldn’t begin to give an answer as to whether there’s anything involved that might offend Catholic teaching. If you have those texts, I’d love to see them.That may be true, but obviously being Catholic, while the sorts of discrimination levelled against us may overlap with the sorts faced by you, also creates a different subset of problems - and accommodations that might be needed. Likewise being intersexed, of course.
Yup, all 1.2 billion-odd of us. On EVERY thing. You saying you contacted all those folks in Maryland and elsewhere that you’ve quoted? And got replies from all of 'em?All the ones I asked did
Well, that’s not just an issue of discrimination. There’s other legislation covering such callous disregard of a person in need of emergency treatment, no?
Zoe, dear, I’m Australian, been to Canberra too many times to count. It’s comparable in size to Wollongong where I grew up. A nice place (in fact I’ve recently applied for a few jobs there, so I may move). Capital city it may be, large, at least population-wise, it is not. I’d imagine there is a lack of specialists there in a lot of specialties, which sucks for all sorts of reasons.
My parents were doctors in Wollongong, and I know dang well that they had to send many a patient (including me) up to Sydney for treatment. I’m sure you’d find you and people with your medical needs are far from the only Canberrans having to travel far and wide for treatment.
Six hours each way, though? Where are you going, Melbourne? Is there nothing available for you in Sydney at all?
Some doctors refuse to treat patients for any number of reasons, good, bad and indifferent.
Would anti-discrimination law help more than prosecuting the so-and-sos for medical malpractice, or breaches of the medical code of ethics? I don’t know, but suspect not really. People who discrimnate are very dismissive of anti-discrimination legislation, oddly enough. And/or simply get very creative about avoiding prosecution.
With the important difference that the previously non-existent defence of being a pre-treatment transsexual will be available. Not to mention the possibility of the transsexual countersuing for discrimination in the event that management or police took any action thinking they were a voyeur.
Regardless of the fact that a poor user of the facilities (and policeperson or managerperson) in such a situation won’t necessarily know that the other is intersex. And whatever damage is suffered would, of course, be the same as that suffered from an ordinary case of suspected voyeurism.
Not reported, so it doesn’t happen, I suppose? That’s poor reasoning.
Can’t see that the second case has to do with intersex.
PCOS would probably come under disability discrimination provisions, though. As would the disability I suffer from, though I too look ‘normal’. In fact my disability is one some people refuse to believe exists - even I was sceptical to the point where I sought an independent (and not cheap!) second opinion about my diagnosis.
Do I like it being labelled as a ‘disability’? Of course not, few people do. Am I happy that the legal provisions are there to help me should I need them? Yes. Could intersex people seek the same recourse that I would? Something to think about.
:extrahappy: :dancing:
Trust me, among the people I know, I’m not unusual enough to merit the reaction.
R
royal_archer
Guest
I object to it because it does not protect from discrimination due to physical appearance, balding, social skills, athleticism, popularity, employer, political persuasion, etc.
These are all cases where people are “discriminated” against. Also keep in mind that many of the items on your list are privately owned businesses. Humans have a natural right to run their businesses in a way that suits them. If I want to open a pirate theme restaurant and demand that all patrons wear ey patches, I have that right. If a night club wants to cater to the “hip” crowd they have the right to exclude service to those who are nerdy. By the same token if someone wants to have a restraunt that caters to a theme of traditional family values, they have a natural right to ensure that anyone entering that building appears in a way compatible with that theme.
What appears to be happening is a special interest group is not looking out for the needs of others but wants special treatment.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Only the ones available online. I have no legal training BTW. But I did have to do the Quality Assurance checks for Westlaw in Australia, their online legal database. So I had to read line by line every reported case in every jurisdiction in the country between 1995-2000. And all the legislation, and regulations, and commentary. That was after I’d designed the retrieval and publishing systems for it.
The bar was set so ridiculously high - every catholic etc - that I thought I’d answer in kind.
No. There isn’t. A civil suit succeeded, but medics had no legal obligation to treat. They don’t here either.
Pop ~ 350,000 - and the medical centre for about half a million in the SE, from the Riverina north to Goulburn and Yass. There are 3 qualified specialists here who could do the job.
3 hours to get to Sydney, 1 hour travel within, 2 hrs waiting due to bus timetabling, and the same back. My income over the last 4 months was $2,800, and I have too many assets - the house my in-laws live in - to qualify for assistance.
There is no breach, the medics simply claim that it would offend their religious sensibilities, so get a free pass in both the USA and Australia. In the USA, being Intersexed is not a “suspect class” nor does it qualify for “intermediate scrutiny”. So the only test is “rational basis”, ie any plausible excuse to do with religion is fine. The Pope’s recent sayings on the subject are enough to prove that it’s plausible that Catholics, and even Christians generally, are supposed to shun us. Other caselaw states that Intersexed people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex - it’s impossible.
Parenthetically, because “Natural Person” in the USA has been defined as “a man, woman or child” by the SCOTUS (quoting its favourite traditional legal dictionary, Bouvier) it is not certain that Ms Wood had standing to sue under this legislation anyway. She has the same rights as a corporation, or (in times past) a slave. Thus if her body was damaged, the charge might be “felony vandalism” rather than assault. As owner of her body, she could institute a civil suit of course. But I digress.
It’s all about fear. Put such legislation in place, even if defective and ineffectual, and it acts as a deterrent. Few in the USA know that firms employing fewer than 15 people can quite legally (from a federal viewpoint) advertise jobs saying “Catholics need not apply” or “Whites only”. Legal services which report 2-3 complaints per month before such legislation is enacted - complaints thar have no legal remedy - find themselves with perhaps one complaint per year afterwards. Sometimes none.
And it would only take one person who’s trans- or homo-phobic on the jury to create a deadlock. Don’t believe me?
myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/041610-jury-struggles-for-verdict-in-mcrae-trial
5 witnesses. Video. But the victim is trans, and the accused a good christian (that’s been emphasised repeatedly by the defence). Who “acted in self defence” against a seated victim being held down by one of the witnesses against him, using handcuffs as brass knuckles, then when she stood up after the beating, pepper-spray. The victim can’t testify because she was shot in the head execution-style just before she could leave town, fearing for her life.
So… the odds of a unanimous decision are slim. It took 3 trials with the Gwen Araujo case, and then there were 30 witnesses.
The thing is… it may genuinely be a coincidence. She was the sixth Black trans woman to be murdered in Memphis in a space of 2 years. That’s about a third of them, if the 1 in 30,000 APA figures are correct.
D
Dale_M
Guest
You may have a point that Catholic leaders have not been advocating for legal protections for transsexual and intersexed persons. However, a quick Google search does find examples of acceptance of gender variant persons. For example, [watoday.com.au/travel/mexican-transvestite-fiesta-rocks-indigenous-town-20081203-6q89.htmlthe priest blessing the muxes](http://www.watoday.com.au/travel/me...a-rocks-indigenous-town-20081203-6q89.htmlthe priest blessing the muxes) of southern Mexico. Or a gender therapist being allowed to use a Catholic student center as an office for her practice (although, granted the new priest kicked her out and the bishop then fired her from her housekeeping job.) As for Catholic organizations, I haven’t really followed the activities of Dignity USA, but they do have a transgender wing:
dignityusa.org/transgender
Zoe, I think this blog entry tends to undermine your contention that the Catholic Church is opposed to rights for gender variant persons. The entry says that the Archdiocese did not fight the antidiscrimination law in Maryland (the one you have spelled out in some detail), and the blogger is upset that it was not opposed by the bishops conference, by the archbishop, by the Catholic newspaper, or even at the parish level.
Zoe, I am deeply saddened that you feel that way. It must be horrible to carry that fear around with you. I don’t want to take away the legitimacy of your feelings, but I strongly disagree that it is acceptable to advocate for exterminating people. Anyone who advocates murder, and the Catholic Church views euthanasia (and capital punishment, in almost all cases) as murder, is a villain. They have stepped outside of civilization and are promoting barbarism. Such advocates are to be opposed just as strongly as potential terrorists are opposed.
Earlier in this discussion, you mentioned that an an organization had written letters to express dismay and to seek clarification regarding Pope Benedict’s two speeches which you cited in your first post. I asked you for additional information regarding the letters and the response:
Thank you for the letter to Fr. Kurylowicz. Part of the problem with writing a large bureaucracy, whether it be the Catholic Church or the federal government, is knowing who to write to. Its important to send the letter to a person who sees the concerns as within their field of responsibility, and its important to find someone who is not too high up the chain of command, since they are more likely to shrug off the numerous letters they receive. Fr Kurylowicz, perhaps because he is a psychotherapist and perhaps because he has struggled with homosexuality, was willing to respond, even though he admits he knows little about the topic of intersex.
I wish I knew the Church bureaucracy better, so I could suggest who or where to write to get clarification.
D
Dale_M
Guest
erm… sort of. I am not aware of situations where customers are denied restaurant service because they are bald. Or people denied housing because they aren’t popular.
A full discussion of this would be off-topic, but that view opens the door to bigotry. If a business is open to the public, it needs to treat its customers equally. It cannot refuse service to someone because of skin color, religion, disability etc. Protecting minorities from abuse by those with the power and resources to indulge their bigotry is necessary in a pluralistic society.
R
royal_archer
Guest
The point is that in every private transaction there is a potential for discrimination to occur. At some point people have to have a right to make personal choices based on personal preference regardless if society thinks it is fair or not. Also, when society only lists a small set of criteria as basis to be protected from “discrimination” then it essentially says that anyone not in one of those categories is fair game for discrimination. We need to ensure that the laws treat everyone fairly and equally.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Indeed - and the author was then informed of action being taken by Catholic churches, outside of the public eye.
For myself? No matter. But for my son, yes, there I have fears, and am trying to do what I can now so that he won’t have the same things happen to him.
That only applies to Humans. No-one - apart from a few of the “reality challenged” - advocates murder. They advocate the extermination of a threat to humanity. Not people. Threats. Vermin, if you like.
Most people think I have to be exaggerating. That’s why I keep some screen shots.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Any nutcase can say such a thing of course. But when people are tossed out of Holy Orders…
D
Dale_M
Guest
I had to read down in the comments to see what I think you are referring to. Someone posted in the comments section that several Catholic parishes were participating in the coalition which opposed to the antidiscrimination proposal. Zoe, if that is what you are referring to, then it is hardly out of the public eye, since the members of those Catholic parishes knew about it and anyone who was involved with the coalition t would have known if they were interested in a list of participating members. If the participation of a few Catholic parishes in the organized opposition to the proposed law (which, thankfully passed) isn’t what you are referring to, then I apologize.
But I stand by my point that if the Catholic Church truly were opposed to the antidiscrimination ordinance it would have had much greater resources and tactics it could have brought to bear. What (I think) you are citing are the actions of a few Catholics (and in this case, Catholic parishes), rather than of the Catholic Church as a whole. There is quite a range of political opinion in the Catholic Church. The examples of Catholics being involved in opposing antidiscrimination in Michigan and Maryland are simply instances of that range of opinion. Some priests and some parishes are conservative, others are middle of the road, others still are liberal. Please do not mistake their decisions as indicative of what the Catholic Church as whole believes. They aren’t, not any more than the parishes which declare themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens. In both cases, the actions may be religiously motivated, but the interpretations of Catholic belief which motivates the actions are not shared universally within the Church.
I think anyone who advocates extermination of other humans, and justifies it by reclassifying their opponents as non-human are reality challenged. And murderous.
Zoe, I can’t read your screen shot because it is so small. I appreciate your transcription of it. I’m not sure who is doing the talking, but yes, s/he sounds like a nutcase. Is the person a former priest?
Of course, the interwebz are famous for crazy people saying crazy things. And priests are humans, with all the flaws which come inherent in the human condition. But I am curious about the screenshot, and why you think it is important.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Being a cradle Catholic and living around other Catholics all my life. Not exclusive to being Catholic, but very typical of a Joe sixpack Catholic which I am major surrounded by where I live there are a few attitudes that make it very easy for the typical Catholic to not view transsexualism well. First is the idea of something different from what they grew up with is always bad, believe me I get looks and comments for ideas that don’t conform myself. Catholic children are more likely to have the parents have their track in life planned for them than most other faiths and anything transsexual related puts a monkeywrench in that. As time advances thewese attitudes will slowly fade away as Catholics get better educated and the old populist attitudes die. In the meantime I’d be a bit more concerned with the Catholic faithfull than the HolySee.
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Full video at Video of beating of transgender prisoner
As predicted, a deadlocked jury and a mistrial.
One of the comments:
Few on this board would agree. But some would, would they not?
That says it all.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
The lack of response to threads like this except for a certain few who usually do says alot to me. People are blahzee over it. Not to bring in or change the subject. But it would be convenient when the powers that be want to have national healthcare cover the things that involve transsexual tranition upto and including sexual reassignement surgery we get the same blahzee attitude from the " Joe Sixpack" public as we are getting now. Something tells me thats verymuch wishfull thinking.
- Status