I am wondering about this


#1

If Kane’s people were accepted, do you think there will be a time where homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders etc. will be welcome? Please bare with me because I’m still learning about all religions… so I don’t know if this applies to all.


#2

[quote=LoneWolf]If Kane’s people were accepted, do you think there will be a time where homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders etc. will be welcome? Please bare with me because I’m still learning about all religions… so I don’t know if this applies to all.
[/quote]

All people are welcome in the Church, especially since the Church is the surest means that people have of receiving the grace necessary to overcome their particular sins.

– Mark L. Chance.


#3

all are welcome, all are sinners, all need Christ, all need conversion, all need salvation, all need Christ, Christ is present on earth in the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church, so this is the place to be. The commandments are the same for everybody, they don’t change because of your gender, race, age, country of origin, family status, political party. In Christ we are all one.


#4

[quote=LoneWolf]If Kane’s people were accepted, do you think there will be a time where homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders etc. will be welcome? Please bare with me because I’m still learning about all religions… so I don’t know if this applies to all.
[/quote]

Homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgendered, perophiles, adulterers, pornographer are all welcome within the Church, with the expectation that they are sinners overcoming sin with God’s grace. Jesus never said, check the sinful in at the door, he said, “Come to me you who are weary and I will give you rest.” He also said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” He also said, regading who would make up the body of the Church, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad.” The Catholic Church is not the church that expects everyone who walks through the door to be squeeky clean. That is why he constantly berated the Pharisees. Just because a person has a problem with habitual sin does not mean that they cannot overcome it, because with God, all things are possible.


#5

But about transgenders, from my knowledge it never says in the bible anything about them. Does that make them sinners? Aren’t they trying to avoid sin by changing genders? And I can’t help but wonder about people who are born without a certain gender… since transgenders werent in bible times(I think), it says nothing about them sinning.


#6

I assume you mean people who undergo an medical operation to change the sex. This is sinful because it is unecessary mutilation in an attempt to contradict God’s gift of life in the natural gender given as well as violating the divinely-ordained complimetary of men and women. The need for this trendy, so-called self-realization does not trump Truth. Of course, it is a forgivable sin, and after contrition, confession and absolution I am not sure, but I don’t think there is an obligation to surgically reverse the sex-change.

Scott


#7

But what about people who have no defined gender? And how is it sinful if you’re solving a problem? Couldn’t you say its a sin to have medicine? There are people who wish to change gender but are face with the conflict if it is sin or not. I just wanna know where it sets.


#8

[quote=LoneWolf]But what about people who have no defined gender? And how is it sinful if you’re solving a problem? Couldn’t you say its a sin to have medicine? There are people who wish to change gender but are face with the conflict if it is sin or not. I just wanna know where it sets.
[/quote]

No one is born without gender. There is a genetic basis for gender. It is locked into the person’s DNA. A person born with severely deformed genitalia can legitimately be surgically corrected to his or her correct gender.


#9

Thats what I mean, but, there is also undefined. There was this woman that had everything a woman should have except one thing. Where her ovaries were there were testes and they produced sperm. She was undefined because of this.


#10

[quote=LoneWolf]Thats what I mean, but, there is also undefined. There was this woman that had everything a woman should have except one thing. Where her ovaries were there were testes and they produced sperm. She was undefined because of this.
[/quote]

A person’s gender is not dependent on their plumbing, so to speak. This woman has a genetically defined gender. Despite the appearances of her tragic condition, she is either male or female. Today, we have the means to determine which via genetic testing.

Something else I just realized I wanted to comment on:

A transgendered person has indeed committed a grave sin by surgically altering their gender. But that does not mean such a person is forever cut off from the Church and from God’s grace. God’s grace and forgiveness extends to all people. Thus, a transgendered person can receive forgiveness for his or her sins, and can be genuinely in God’s grace.

That being said, I’m not sure what the specific requirements for such a person would be. For example, a homosexual man, to remain in God’s grace, must (among other things) remain chaste. He cannot act on his homosexuality; to do so would be a grave sin.

A transgendered person would not be required to have surgery to correct his or her gender, but beyond that I’m at a loss as to what the Church would require.


#11

But the woman, I call her a woman because thats what she looks like. Has two sexual organs from both sexes which would cause a very troubling decision. In this woman’s case, she had no real sexual disire but moved towards women more.

Though you say they can get fixed into a certain gender if there is any complications, then wouldn’t that be transgender? And what about doctors who make mistakes on what gender the child is?

Though no one has proven to me why being transgendered is a sin. And Homosexuals don’t count… a transgender is not homosexual because they are not happy with their gender or have complications with maybe the wrong choosing from the doctor. Transgenders believe they are the other sex and feel they are straight only in a different body. Homosexuals however are happy with being the same gender as their love interest. Unless of course you’re using homosexuals as a reference.

Make no mistake, doctors still confuse DNA and these gender decision mistakes are made even now. We are not that advanced to check ones DNA well enough because even the DNA can be damaged. Thats why they’re still doing research. Everyone has a damaged DNA in one rung of the latter. That woman’s report was done lastyear…

And another thing I’d like to bring up. If a Homosexual/Transgender/Bisexual is regarded as ‘sin’ because they act upon it… aren’t we taking things too far? Love and Sex are two different things. I’ve know some homosexuals who have no sexual desire at all, would that be considered a sin?

Sorry if I sound like I’m ranting… I just find the topic interesting.


#12

[quote=LoneWolf]…I’ve know some homosexuals who have no sexual desire at all,…
[/quote]

dude, if you have no sexual desire, how can you possibly claim to recognize an orientation? folks are homosexual because they desire sex with those of the same sex. without that desire, they don’t fit the description.
now, perhaps they ‘acted queer’; like prissy men who didn’t want to, or couldn’t see how to, accept their masculine role in nature. but that doesn’t make them homosexuals, just ***a***sexual fags.
sex is the reward for taking a mate with the intention to have and raise children. when those of us who haven’t made that severe committment have sex, we steal intimacy. stealing is bad-bad, made the big list.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry


#13

Funky Cedar’s… thats kinda offensive. Sex and Love are two completely different things… I have no desire for sex but does that mean I can’t be with my girlfriend?

And they wouldn’t be Asexual, Asexual would be them reproducing without the opposite sex. Nice try but no dice.

Sexual doesn’t always mean to have a desire to have sex… sex as in gender. example: bi(two) sexual(genders)


#14

No, a bisexual doesn’t have 2 genders (I think the term for that is hermaphrodite). Bisexual means a person who is sexually attracted to members of both sexes, male and female. Homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex (also known in some Christian circles as suffering from a same sex attraction), and a heterosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex.

If you aren’t sexually attracted to either sex, then it is fair to call you asexual. Which is not the same as asexual reproduction . You can’t call a man a homosexual if he has no desire to have sex w/ other men (same goes for women). Wanting to be w/ someone nonsexually is a different thing. I love my best friend (we’re both women), I like to be w/ her, but I have no desire to have sex w/ her. On the other hand, I love my husband and I like to be w/ him also, but I do desire sex w/ him (as I would other men if I didn’t take my marriage vows seriously).

All that being said, I can’t imagine very many people fitting the description of asexual. We are sexual beings. God created us that way to assure our continued existence (no sex, no babies). Do to our fallen natures or whatever, some have disordered desires towards those of the same sex, or, even, horrifically, towards children or animals. I’ve heard that w/ advanced age it can disappear altogether (although some sexually active seniors deny that), but it’s normally there. If there is NO sexual desire, I would suspect a medical, or even psychological problem, and seek intervention.


#15

Another thing…

As for sex and love being two different things, well, yes and no. Sex can exist w/o love, but it shouldn’t. Wanting sex w/o love is lust, and, according to the Bible, that’s sinful, albeit encouraged by our current society. But there are different degrees of love, one of which is Eros, which is sexual. It’s the love we have (or should have) for our spouses (and bf/gf’s, although if they aren’t your spouse yet, you shouldn’t act on it). There’s also brotherly (or friendship) love, which I suspect you are talking about when you say sex and love are 2 different things. The people we love w/ no desire for anything physical. Then there’s, of course, the highest love, Agape, the love God has for us, and we should have for Him and all our fellow human beings (also, of course, nonsexual).


#16

Ok, your hermaphroditic example perhaps adds a dimension of difficulty. Do you at least understand why we say that it is sinful for a biological male (xy chromasome, all the right bits and pieces, and no extra ones, etc.) to say, “I am actually a woman and I’m going to have an operation to change the my sex.”?

Scott


#17

well for one, I didn’t mean they WERE two genders. I meant that there were relations going towards two genders. according to the dictionry, Homo means of the same, bi means 2 and hetero is opposite.

I could understand why you think its wrong for a biological man to say that even if he has all the right DNA. But most of the responses I were getting were basicly saying it was wrong either way. And everyones been referring these different oriented people as males… which is kinda funny cause I see a lot of females who are homosexual/bisexual/transgendered.

Sex is not the most important aspect of love in relationships. There are people who are mentally scarred from rapes and other family memebers being taken advantage of. Most couples I know say that at first they thought sex was important but they found out that the real love they needed was each other. There is such a thing where love goes beyond sexual actions and orientation.


#18

I could understand why you think its wrong for a biological man to say that even if he has all the right DNA. But most of the responses I were getting were basicly saying it was wrong either way. And everyones been referring these different oriented people as males… which is kinda funny cause I see a lot of females who are homosexual/bisexual/transgendered.

I think it might simply be a misunderstanding over the terminology. When I think of “transgendered”, I accent the “trans” part which I interperet as someone of one sex getting a procedure to change to the other. Someone who was say, dominantly female but for whatever reason had fully functional male and female anatomy and had an operation to remove the male, I would not call transgendered. My knowledge of these unusual cases is limited however.

As far as referring to only males. I can’t speak for others, but I am just using males only for the sake of brevity and leave it to the reader to reasonably infer it applies on the female side as well.

Scott


#19

[quote=LoneWolf]Funky Cedar’s… thats kinda offensive.
[/quote]

how?


#20

[quote=LoneWolf]…I have no desire for sex but does that mean I can’t be with my girlfriend?..
[/quote]

presuming you’re a male, if you don’t have sexual feelings, then your use of ‘girlfriend’ to describe ‘a female with whom i enjoy spending time’ would allow you to describe the males you like to spend time with as your ‘boyfriends’. do you?
i ask because, if not, you seem to be making use of words in ways that is generally limited to little kids and women. when older boys and men speak of their ‘girlfriend’, it is understood to refer to a person with whom they have an physical interest which may lead to marriage or, in today’s america, at least to sexual activities.

when i referred to your friends as ‘asexual fags’ i wasn’t referring to reproduction, i was discussing orientation, which you claimed thay were lacking. Since in orientation, one who is oriented to those of the opposite sex are “hetero” (different) and those oriented to their own are “homo” (same), it seems reasonable that those without orientation would be “a” (non). to have called them “unsexual” would imply that there is desire, but the person has decided to not act on it, like a monk. but that’s not what you described.
i presumed we all know that homosexuals can’t reproduce.

also, i’m confused regarding the ‘woman’ whose ovaries were testes. you indicated that she had the sex organs of both sexes…but if she had no ovaries, what were her female sex organs?

thanks for listening, love and peace, terry


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.