[SIGN][/SIGN]
I think you’re reading too much into what I said. ALL people should approach this in an appropriate way, and once again, I hope no children with gender identity issues read this thread. I stand by my comment about being disillusioned with the church. Again. ALL people should be approaching this with kindness, but what I’m seeing said here isn’t the kind of thing I was taught growing up in a catholic household. I always was taught that Catholics set the example. What I’m seeing here is mean spirited and insensitive statements.
We are discussing issues related to the suicide. Were we talking with a person who had these issues, I am sure each of us would approach the conversation differently.
When people are discussing an issue, they must put aside many of their own feelings, which might otherwise get in the way. For example, in discussing the *issue *of porn addiction, people would talk very differently than they would if someone came to them and said they had that type of problem.
If we allow our feelings to interfere with the discussion, ideas can get out of place. The Church teaches that euthanasia is a sin. It is also illegal in most states. If a discussion about the law were to take placr, it would certainly sound unfeeling to someone who had perhaps made a decision in a place where it would be legal to do to to have a doctor take immoral steps to end a suffering loved one’s life. This is why we discuss policy and morality in impersonal ways, but with people who have *personal *sityations, we have completely different conversations, much more sensitive conversations.
This is actually a phenomena understood in psychology. (I will try to find an article I read about this.) A good example is when Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, started protesting against the war. People could not discuss the resumption of hostilities with her or near her, because her emotional involvement was such that that would have been insensitive.
In short, the fact that I am polite to a man I know to be an adulterer does not mean I cannot in another venue advocating making adultery illegal as it once was.
Even the insisting to refer to the child as “he” is being beaten to death. The child clearly identified as a she and likely wanted to be remembered as She. I personally respect the wishes of the dead, regardless of my personal views on transgender issues, not insist on saying what I know would hurt the person if they were still alive just because of MY beliefs. This child’s death isn’t an opportunity to stick it to the PC crowd. It’s an opportunity to reflect on how we can better approach such issues.
He was male. The is a fact. Hormonal treatment and mutilation of his body would not have changed that fact. If I met a diagnosed mentally ill person who insisted he was Napoleon, I would not refer to him as the Emperor, either.
What I’ve seen here is selfishness.
Apparently you missed the post I made previous to the one In which I answered your post, in which I pointed out that the young man’s causing someone else to kill him by stepping out in front of a truck probably caused a lot of emotional damage to that driver, and his posts about his parents which he timed to show up after his death on the internet for all the world to see was rather manipulative.