Are transgendered people allowed to get married or be in relationships?

[PumpkinSeed]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Depends. If their real gender is a man, then they can still get married to a woman. They will never be treated as a woman.

I'm not sure though how the Church would treat such a case if there was sex-change surgery. I mean, they will still be treated as with their real gender, but I don't know if for example a man had his parts removed, if he will be allowed to marry.

Well its not just getting things 'removed'. They actually construct the guy female genitalia. So technically he does have girl parts after the surgery. So in this case, would this mean that marriage would be allowed because he is now a female and able to consummate the marriage with his husband?

[1ke]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Well its not just getting things 'removed'. They actually construct the guy female genitalia. So technically he does have girl parts after the surgery.

a) He does not have girl parts.

b) He no longer has his own parts

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

So in this case, would this mean that marriage would be allowed because he is now a female and able to consummate the marriage with his husband?

Asked already and answered already: No.

A person who is biological a male can only marry a person who is biologically a female. What you propose here is a same sex marriage-- a biological male marrying a biological male. It cannot be done.

[PumpkinSeed]

Originally Posted by 1ke

a) He does not have girl parts.

Actually, during the gender re-assignment surgery they mold his parts and shape them into female genitalia. So yes, after the surgery he does have female parts. Not a uterus, but he has the birth canal and the other parts. Not going to list them but I'm sure you know whats down there.

And that is what he will walk out with. They are also able to get breast implants.

[1ke]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Actually, during the gender re-assignment surgery they mold his parts and shape them into female genitalia. So yes, after the surgery he does have female parts. Not a uterus, but he has the birth canal and the other parts. Not going to list them but I'm sure you know whats down there.

And that is what he will walk out with. They are also able to get breast implants.

They are not actual girl parts. They are fake girl parts.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by 1ke

Source please.

Its a bit difficult due to the very nature of the subject. Most transsexuals, particularly after surgery, want to be identified as they are living. This means that they tend not to publicly announce that they are transsexual and they seek to avoid controversy. So news articles about marriages involving a transsexual are fairly non-existent.

The exception would be court challenges and individuals who are in the public light. One example would be Jacqueline-Charlotte Dufresnoy, the French entertainer who sometimes used the stage name Coccinelle. She was married in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris in 1960
http://zagria.blogspot.com/2009/03/j...snoy-1931.html

Otherwise, reports tend to be anecdotal. Here at CAF we used to have a member who stated she had married in the Church and had her baptismal record corrected. But both of those things happened in the 1990s, before the secret Vatican document was issued.

[1ke]

Originally Posted by Dale_M

Its a bit difficult due to the very nature of the subject. Most transsexuals, particularly after surgery, want to be identified as they are living. This means that they tend not to publicly announce that they are transsexual and they seek to avoid controversy. So news articles about marriages involving a transsexual are fairly non-existent.

The exception would be court challenges and individuals who are in the public light. One example would be Jacqueline-Charlotte Dufresnoy, the French entertainer who sometimes used the stage name Coccinelle. She was married in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris in 1960
http://zagria.blogspot.com/2009/03/j...snoy-1931.html

Otherwise, reports tend to be anecdotal. Here at CAF we used to have a member who stated she had married in the Church and had her baptismal record corrected. But both of those things happened in the 1990s, before the secret Vatican document was issued.

This is not evidence that the Church "allowed" transsexuals to marry. It is, at most, an article that confirms that an individual priest somewhere in France is quite confused regarding many church teachings, including the most fundamental: baptism. The article says she was allowed to marry after she was 'baptized again' as Jacqueline. This indicates to me something VERY fishy. Baptism can never be repeated. It is quite possible someone altered sacramental records, which is another forbidden item.

On the whole, I think that the newness of the whole idea of "sex change" in 1960 had someone confused or bamboozled.

Individual cases of where someone may have pulled something over on a priest, or a priest on their own accord did something that was clearly not in line with the Church's teaching, is not (IMHO) evidence that "the Church" allowed anything of the sort.

And I'm pretty skeptical of a blog posting as a source of reliable information.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by 1ke

Individual cases of where someone may have pulled something over on a priest, or a priest on their own accord did something that was clearly not in line with the Church's teaching, is not (IMHO) evidence that "the Church" allowed anything of the sort.

And I'm pretty skeptical of a blog posting as a source of reliable information.

I can appreciate skepticism about a blog posting, but I used it because it did cite a number of sources.

As for Church teaching, I don't think there is one regarding transsexualism. Hence the need for the secret document which was distributed a decade ago. A policy was suddenly necessary, as I recall, because an Italian priest had gotten a sex change, so a policy was quickly created. If there is an official Church teaching on transsexualism, could you please cite it?

The matter of transsexualism is difficult. It poses challenges to the notion of discrete sexes and it bumps up against the Catholic position that men and women have different spiritual natures. However, intersex conditions pose the same challenges and the physical existence of such conditions is unquestionable.

Much is not understood about transsexualism, particularly regarding its causes. There have been several studies during the past decade which suggest physical causes to the condition. I don't think those studies are conclusive, but they do raise real questions.

I suspect the unsettled understanding of transsexualism, and intersex conditions, are the reason the Church has not issued a public statement on these matters. The area is gray and will take time to sort things out.

[OraLabora]

Originally Posted by 1ke

Baptism can never be repeated. It is quite possible someone altered sacramental records, which is another forbidden item..

I suspect a translation issue here. Assuming the original was written in French, I suspect the author simply meant legal name change. My mother tongue is French and we usually use the term "rebaptiser" colloquially to simply mean changing something's name, whether an object, a place name or a person.

It's rarely used in a sacramental context in popular conversation because re-baptism is rare and would be limited to cases of invalidly baptized seeking admission to the Church or correction of an invalid baptism because of error in the original baptism.

[CHRISTINE77]

This is a good example of where do we draw the line with marriage. Obviously it should be between a man and a woman, not a fake man/fake woman, man/man, woman/woman, brother /brother, sister/sister, ad nauseum.

[livingwordunity]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Well its not just getting things 'removed'. They actually construct the guy female genitalia. So technically he does have girl parts after the surgery. So in this case, would this mean that marriage would be allowed because he is now a female and able to consummate the marriage with his husband?

No matter the surgical costume, a man is forever a man physically and spiritually since he will always have male DNA and since he was assigned his maleness from eternity by God.

[PumpkinSeed]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

No matter the surgical costume, a man is forever a man physically and spiritually since he will always have male DNA and since he was assigned his maleness from eternity by God.

Actually, the sperm decides the gender, not God.

I'm not saying God doesn't have the power to, but I'm pretty sure he lets nature do it. (the sperm).

But that has nothing to do with how the person will feel mentally either.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Actually, the sperm decides the gender, not God.

I'm not saying God doesn't have the power to, but I'm pretty sure he lets nature do it. (the sperm).

But that has nothing to do with how the person will feel mentally either.

Isn't saying 'God lets nature do it' the same as saying 'God lets God do it'?

[PumpkinSeed]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Isn't saying 'God lets nature do it' the same as saying 'God lets God do it'?

He designed the sperm to choose the Gender, so yes I guess it could be looked at in the same light, but not the same as HIM choosing the gender rather than the sperm.

We know sperm chooses gender, that is how God decided it to be.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

He designed the sperm to choose the Gender, so yes I guess it could be looked at in the same light, but not the same as HIM choosing the gender rather than the sperm.

We know sperm chooses gender, that is how God decided it to be.

How do the sperm choose? Doesn't choosing require intelligence?

[PumpkinSeed]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

How do the sperm choose? Doesn't choosing require intelligence?

Take a biology class.