Schools adjust to transgender teachers

[HoppityRedux]

Unfortunately, “Natural Law” is being used here as a stick to beat others? I’ll pass out the stones for the “Sinless” to start casting…!"

Transgenders are a deviant lifestyle? Some people may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types and rely on your parents making the right choices. What if they make the wrong choice? It’s not a deviant lifestyle for everyone, go ask the Intersex Society which is pretty far from deviant and shows more compassion that the “little judges” on this thread.

I won’t mention the Gay monkeys again.

Natural law varies depending on who defines the nature. A typical use of NL is

1. determine your position,
2. define nature to support your position,
3. say your definition is self evident, written on men’s hearts, or the product of right reason,
4. declare natural law supports your position.

Can gay monkeys marry their same sex partners in Massachusetts?

 

[Durendin]

Natural law varies depending on who defines the nature.

Exactly.“Moral relativism!” As they cry from the cheap seats!

Can gay monkeys marry their same sex partners in Massachusetts?

No, and I never said that I approved or condemned either way in so much as to state that for those that claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” might want to also tell the animals? (Unless of course animals are capable of making moral choices and know the difference between good and evil? This is of course shaky ground).

 

[dafalax]

Unfortunately, “Natural Law” is being used here as a stick to beat others? I’ll pass out the stones for the “Sinless” to start casting…!"

Transgenders are a deviant lifestyle? Some people may be born with genitals that seem to be in-between the usual male and female types and rely on your parents making the right choices. What if they make the wrong choice? It’s not a deviant lifestyle for everyone, go ask the Intersex Society which is pretty far from deviant and shows more compassion that the “little judges” on this thread.

I won’t mention the Gay monkeys again.

You cannot have it both ways. You are saying homosexuality (in the case of monkeys) is found in nature. Sex change operations are not found in nature. Therefore by your own standards of “natural”, hermaphrodites shouldn’t be operated on. Furthermore, monkeys may engage in homosexual acts, but not exclusively. Animals would be “bisexual” if anything. Animals go into heat to procreate and propagate the species. Only man is capable of having a “unitive” dimension to the sex act in addition to the procreative dimension. To remove either the unitive or procreative aspect is unnatural.
Anyway, what leads you to believe the people on this thread are uncompassionate? Are we advocating the stoning of the teachers in this article? No. We’re just not condoning their lifestyle. Am I uncompassionate when i tell my son he is wrong for trying to open the oven door when it’s on? Nope. I would be uncompassionate, as a matter of fact, if i didn’t correct him. Just as Christians are obligated to lovingly correct those who are in grievous sin. No one on this thread has been unloving of the teachers. You and several other posters like you have been uncompassionate to the Christians on this thread. Why do we not have the right to these beliefs? Furthermore, it would seem your only purpose in coming to Catholic Answers would be to antagonize Catholics. Maybe you need to look at the log in your own eye or get better at compassionately explaining why we are wrong instead of baiting us.

 

[Durendin]

Maybe you need to look at the log in your own eye or get better at compassionately explaining why we are wrong instead of baiting us.

Ok, let me put it another way, is being born “in the middle” rather than a defined sex as described by the Transgender Society, is that a “Deviant Lifestyle” or a genetic cock-up?

 

[JimG]

But does she have a double X chromosome?

Or is she a XY impersonating an XX?

 

[estesbob]

So quick to judge, so easy to point the finger?

Natural Law? Lets see. I’ve seen male monkeys exibiting homosexual tendancies and performing homosexual acts even when females were plentiful.

I’m aware that not all people are born with such clear cut sexual identities.

Natural Law? I’d rather stick to Christs Law and Teachings on how to deal with other people.

My dog licks his anus and eats his own feces. Does that mean it’s okay for me to do so? After all since its found in nature it must be accordance with natural law, right?

 

[Durendin]

After all since its found in nature it must be accordance with natural law, right?

If you want to split hairs, you must concede that nature doesn’t conform to natural law.

 

[estesbob]

If you want to split hairs, you must concede that nature doesn’t conform to natural law.

I take it you not going to answer my question?

 

[Durendin]

I take it you not going to answer my question?

I’m the one arguing that “Natural Law” is highly relative with concepts such as right and wrong not applying. Let me say it again, if it occurs in nature you can’t logically say that it’s un-natural.

Unpleasant by your opinion, but that rather depends on where you’re standing. A Vegetarian may look at a meat eater and consider it unpleasant and animalistic behaviour, but he would be hard pressed to call it un-natural.

You want to follow your dogs example? Why not. Monkeys throw their own filth at each other, we post on forums. Highly Natural, just more evolved!

 

[estesbob]

I’m the one arguing that “Natural Law” is highly relative with concepts such as right and wrong not applying. Let me say it again, if it occurs in nature you can’t logically say that it’s un-natural.

Unpleasant by your opinion, but that rather depends on where you’re standing. A Vegetarian may look at a meat eater and consider it unpleasant and animalistic behaviour, but he would be hard pressed to call it un-natural.

You want to follow your dogs example? Why not. Monkeys throw their own filth at each other, we post on forums. Highly Natural, just more evolved!

Or perhaps man is different from animals. Perhaps since we are made in the image and likeness of God and have an immortal soul we should not look at the way animals behave to try and justify our sinful behavior.

 

[Durendin]

Perhaps since we are made in the image and likeness of God

Do you mean literally?

we should not look at the way animals behave to try and justify our sinful behavior.

Or are we just picking and choosing? Animals eat meat, bathe and clean, care for their young and familes. I won’t be giving that sort of thing up any time soon.

Again, I’ll repeat it ad-nauseum, “You can’t call what occurs in nature un-natural,” so Natual Law is a contradiction in terms if you use it to define what humans should and shouldn’t do according to your beliefs.

 

[gilliam]

Animals don’t know right from wrong. They have no moral compass. (e.g., some animals eat their young.) Humans know right from wrong and God guides us to do what is right. Natural Law is part of the tool set God uses to guide us to what is rightful behavior.

 

[dafalax]

Do you mean literally?

.

We are literally made in the image and likeness of God. Jesus is the son eternally begotten of the Father and it is in His likeness we are made. Just FYI.

 

[gilliam]

From the Catholic Catecism:

355 “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

**I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD” **

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
–Cathrine of Sienna

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

There’s more read it here.

 

[fix]

Dignity, check, human rights, check, basis for civil law… check, sure. It looks to me to be more of a social construct than a divinely mandated one that extends across all cultures really. And here’s where we fall down – you say ‘it must apply, for it comes from God’ and I say ‘why does it have to? I don’t see it’. I don’t dispute that a basic desire for rights is ingrained in all people – that’s just pride really, we’ve all got it.

So, what is right for you is right for you because you say so, not because it can be proven? People fail to grasp moral reasoning all the time. That does not make the one who fails to grasp it correect.

And I don’t see any wrong in my reason, and my conscience is doing fine. Not going to fall for saying it’s all relative, but perhaps the bar is a little lower than absolute adherence to every single word published on ‘moral behavior’?

You make yourself the final authority which is by definition moral relativism.

1. It does tend to make them a lot easier to get along with though, which is an important quality in a teacher… Only particularly dangerous with sociopaths, who shouldn’t be there anyway.

1. Hehehe… ‘objective’.

1. Nope, but if you’re going to be rigorously moral about everything and then only have one problem with someone else’s behavior… you probably have a longer bulleted list with your own name on the top. Plank, speck, eye, etc.

A sociopath is a good example of where relativism leads.

 

[Mirdath]

So, what is right for you is right for you because you say so, not because it can be proven? People fail to grasp moral reasoning all the time. That does not make the one who fails to grasp it correect.

mh, not quite. I’m not so foolish or proud as to believe myself absolutely, unquestionably Right. I simply try my best based on what I know and have experienced. In its own way, it’s actually a fairly rigorous moral code, even if it doesn’t touch on many points that that of the Catholic Church does, save Jesus’ second commandment (‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’).

You make yourself the final authority which is by definition moral relativism.

See above. I make no claims to authority, all I’m saying is that it works for me and I’ve not been hit by lightning yet!

A sociopath is a good example of where relativism leads.

uh, no. Moral relativism is far more likely to lead to holding hands singing Kum-Bay-Yah around a campfire with a bunch of giggling hippies (who ideally are all Cool With Each Other, Maaaan – perhaps a truer expression of Christian love than many, hmm? After all, Jesus did have that thing about loving one another…). Sociopathy is an actual psychological disorder where the brain is not properly formed. I… do not see the connection.

---

Anyway, are we going to talk about the horrors of moral relativism in this thread or about the possibility of Myra Breckinridge no longer being fiction?

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

I don’t know if anyone here watches South Park, but the resemblance between one of the teachers on the show and the teacher in question is uncanny.

 

[system]

I don’t know if anyone here watches South Park, but the resemblance between one of the teachers on the show and the teacher in question is uncanny.

I’ve only seen a couple (since they go WAY over the line) but I know the guy you’re talking about. The absolute wierdest show ever was when the guy wanted to become a dolphin, and insisted on a large salt-water tank as his bathroom, otherwise, he was being discriminated against. Meanwhile, the short jewish kid wanted to be a tall black kid to play basketball. It made a few good points, but was downright disturbing on every level!

 

[fix]

mh, not quite. I’m not so foolish or proud as to believe myself absolutely, unquestionably Right. I simply try my best based on what I know and have experienced. In its own way, it’s actually a fairly rigorous moral code, even if it doesn’t touch on many points that that of the Catholic Church does, save Jesus’ second commandment (‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’).

See above. I make no claims to authority, all I’m saying is that it works for me and I’ve not been hit by lightning yet!

Failure to accept there is an objective right and wrong is relativism.

uh, no. Moral relativism is far more likely to lead to holding hands singing Kum-Bay-Yah around a campfire with a bunch of giggling hippies (who ideally are all Cool With Each Other, Maaaan – perhaps a truer expression of Christian love than many, hmm? After all, Jesus did have that thing about loving one another…). Sociopathy is an actual psychological disorder where the brain is not properly formed. I… do not see the connection.

No, this thread demonstrates the evils of moral relativism quite well. Sociopaths do not have a properly formed conscience. Right and wrong have little or no meaning to them.

The end of relativism is not happy clappy people it is things like Nazi Germany. Once we reject absolute moral truth we each make ourselves a god. Then we do as we please.

 

[Mirdath]

Failure to accept there is an objective right and wrong is relativism.

There may be an objective right and wrong. I don’t know it. My idea of morality extends only as far as myself anyway – can you just call me a general moral apathetic and get it over with, please?

No, this thread demonstrates the evils of moral relativism quite well. Sociopaths do not have a properly formed conscience. Right and wrong have little or no meaning to them.

How does it demonstrate them? For all you know, Ms McBeth may hold to an absolute moral code – it just isn’t yours. And she might take issue with your sense of morals just as much or even more as you do to mine.

The end of relativism is not happy clappy people it is things like Nazi Germany. Once we reject absolute moral truth we each make ourselves a god. Then we do as we please.

The Nazis were pretty absolute; they just followed the Fuehrer before God. Not a lot of room for “what you believe is right is fine, what I believe is right is fine” when you’re sending everyone who doesn’t believe the way you do to concentration camps.