This week Oprah and People magazine introduced the world to what most news organizations have mislabeled a pregnant "man."

In reality Thomas Beatie is a woman who had her breasts removed and injected herself with testosterone to take on male characteristics. She became pregnant by artificial insemination with the help of her female "wife."

On Friday, in a discussion of potential psychological ramifications for the baby, Good Morning America co-host Chris Cuomo said, "[B]iology aside, it is all about love of this child and as long as that's present, everything else is really going to be normal."

Do you agree that the traditional parental model - married man and woman - are inconsequential to a child's well-being as long as there is love?

HT GMA quote: NewsBusters]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I agree that love is most important, yes. Better to have two female or two male parents and love, than a male and a female, and no love. Yes, absolutely.

However, I do think the substantial presence of both genders in childrearing is important for children of both sexes. I think when a strong, constant, father-like male or mother-like female presence (and I mean constant, like living in the same home - not just occasional contact with other relatives or friends) is lacking in a child's life, there will be consequences and attempts to fill those gaps. Those attempts are not always healthy or well-thought out in children, adolescents, or even young adults.

S.

"Do you agree that the traditional parental model - married man and woman - are inconsequential to a child's well-being as long as there is love?"

NO, because that is God's plan.

Chris Cuomo? a big lib like his Pro-abort Dad Mario.

does anybody really question the liberal agenda of the MSM now? This is unbelievable. Talk about confusing young people, by the way they reported this story, one would think a miracle happened and a real man is pregnant.

I don't think it is so cut and dried. Yes, a lot of situations in life would be ideal, i.e. a stable two parent home, no crime, no drug addiction, no natural disasters, but life just isn't ideal.
Children raised in loving two parent homes with every advantage have squandered their lives. Children raised in the most horrendous of circumstances have grown into outstanding adults against all odds.
Would I prefer to see a child placed with a single adult rather than shuttled from foster home to foster home? Yes. Do I have a problem with a lesbian couple adopting a crack damaged child(no thanks to her heterosexual parents)and providing her with care, love, and a home? No. I think the most touching story I read was of a pair of gay men who adopted AIDS infected babies and cared for them. Many of these babies would die shortly afterward but at least they were loved and cared for. Some of the children thrived under their care and did well.
I think there are just too many variables and exceptions and life is not so simplistic.

Yes I do agree--conditionally. Of course I believe that same-sex couples or whomever should be allowed to have children of their own--obviously. However, it is psychologically important for children to have both female and male role models. Especially for boys to have a male and girls a female. So same-sex couples should take care to socialize with other people and let their kids bond with someone who is not of their sex.

So same-sex couples should take care to socialize with other people and let their kids bond with someone who is not of their sex.

Does being "both" sexes count? Who are these kids supposed to bond with to get "the other" influence?

MK: I don't know if being "both sexes" counts. I haven't read anything on it. I imagine as of now the research is very limited. As for who the kids are supposed to bond with, I would say a friend of the family or something. Every situation is unique.

Mary: Oh my gosh. That is a really good answer. I completely agree with you.

Leah, 9:16am

Thank you. I appreciate that.
While I have you here: Do you recall our discussion on slavery and indentured servitude?
I don't know how I overlooked it at the time but my grandmother and her sisters were indentured servants, though not formally viewed as such.
It was a common practice in their era to farm out the children of poor families unable to provide for their children to families that could. Actually a centuries old practice with both adults and children. The children would be fed and sheltered, but expected to work, and very hard, for their keep. My widowed greatgrandmother was forced to do this with her daughters.
My grandmother and her sisters often spoke of how difficult their lives were, often working in the fields for long hours or functioning as domestic servants. The only alternative was to go hungry.

I think a child thrives on the love of a father and the love of a mother. Each parent plays different roles in the child's life. Each parent brings gifts that the other can not bring. Males and females think differently and act differently. A child can grow up without a male or female parent, but this is not the ideal situation. Similarly, a child can grow up and not eat a healthy well balanced diet, yet as long as he or she eats, she will grow up. I think the ideal is for a male and female parent to nurture the child, and the ideal is for kids to get well balanced meals as they grow up. In short, I view that both the father and mother together bring balance to the child - of course this needs to be done in love.

I think all that matters is love. As long as the child is raised in a loving home where the parents (be they gay, straight, or transgendered) love and respect each other and they love and respect their child, then who cares?

This is one of those questions which is going to get the following answers:

-People who believe that men and women are equal in dignity but that they are not the same, and have deep differences - physically, emotionally, and spiritually - will say that a child should have father and a mother.

-People who believe that men and women are the same, and that gender is arbitrary, will say that it doesn't matter if a child has two fathers or two mothers.

The only truly debatable point here is whether or not a child is better off with no parents or with two fathers/mothers.

jasper said: "Chris Cuomo? a big lib like his Pro-abort Dad Mario."

"Mario, senta a me...tu sei proprio uno sfaccim!" -Bob Grant

How is "love" defined?

Agape, eros, or fileo?

Divine love is agape love which is not about feeling but about doing what is right for another.

I see about three or four or five commandments beign broken by this relationship so I doubt this pair has any regard for the Gospel or teachings of Jesus Christ.

Hence, the resulting child will NOT be brought up in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".

Therefore, they are not loving the child as God would (agape). It is an abominable relationship!

In anticipation of repsonses to my post.....yes, any relationship that does not reflect the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ is an abomination to Christ.

At least with a normal man/woman marriage, the bad choice not to bring up a child "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" can be overcome by repentance.

In this female/female relationship repentance would have to include an abandonment of the relationship since one cannot simply repent and then remain in such a perverted condition.

Do you agree that the traditional parental model - married man and woman - are inconsequential to a child's well-being as long as there is love?

I do not agree. I think God set up the parental model for a reason....because He loves us and wants the best for us.

When we CHOOSE to deviate from God's plan for us, there are ALWAYS problems and negative circumstances that arise.

I think that a child needs love, of course, and I'm not saying that a homosexual couple cannot love a child. That would be ridiculous!

However, there is so much more to raising a child than just on love alone. Morals, lifestyles, role models, etc. are passed along to the child via their parents and also their environment. The bible is clear on homosexuality being an offense to God. I cannot understand how a homosexual couple can offend God and raise a child in that environment and expect "all to be well" simply because they love the child.

To me, at least, it's showing the child that you can love other people while not obeying God, and all will be ok anyway. God isn't important, only our needs and wants are! It's just one more instance in where God is being taken "out", and man's so-called "wisdom" is put in its place.

It doesn't work like this. The main role of a parent is to teach a child about God, and make Him the focus point on thier lives. Then, everything falls beautifully into place.

The "world" and "worldy ways" will pass. Eternity is what we are living for and that should be the focus of parenting. God's wisdom is passed along to the father..."man of the house", who passes it down to his wife and children. The homosexual parenting model can't do what God planned. The male brain and the female brain work in two totally different ways!
Check out the brain differences in the table on this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Brain

I know there's many, many more websites and scientific data that show these differences. My point, though, is that a child being raised by a homosexual couple will be missing some type of natural child-raising due to the differences in the male and female brains.

HisMan, your ideas are so weird to me. I don't think I ever will understand them. =/

As for raising a child, yes, I think the most important thing is to provide love. However, I do believe it is still important to provide a close male/female role model in a child's life, and I believe a truly transgendered person does count.

I dont believe its essential. I believe a child can grow up just fine without the traditional 'family' of mother, father and siblings. But my concern for the case mentioned is what I personally perceive to be serious emotional and mental instability on the part of the person who is pregnant.

But my concern for the case mentioned is what I personally perceive to be serious emotional and mental instability on the part of the person who is pregnant.

TR,
That's a great point! And based on your other posts regarding this situation, I agree with your concern. Do you think that other homosexual couples that have children in a similar situation all have emotional and mental instability also? Or, do you think that it's case by case. If you do think it's case by case, what would be the differences in those who have a child in a similar situation than this one?

My niece Gina's husband Sean Cooper has been in a coma for five days. He is only 40 years old and a member of the Mormon church. Please pray that God miracualously intervenes and heals Sean so that he makes a full recovery soon, without any damage. Pray that my niece Gina, a Catholic, is strengthened through this and they both find a stronger faith in Christ.

This is a shock to all of us as Sean was a college football player and as strong as an ox. He is also a super nice young man and totally devoted to my niece. Please, please pray for them.

But my concern for the case mentioned is what I personally perceive to be serious emotional and mental instability on the part of the person who is pregnant.

TR,
That's a great point! And based on your other posts regarding this situation, I agree with your concern. Do you think that other homosexual couples that have children in a similar situation all have emotional and mental instability also? Or, do you think that it's case by case. If you do think it's case by case, what would be the differences in those who have a child in a similar situation than this one?

Posted by: JLM at April 5, 2008 12:50 PM
*******************
No, I dont think thats quite the same. I think a kid can grow up having 'two mommies' or 'two daddies' and be ok. They are going to grow up in a different KIND of world and will understand their parents did something 'different' to have them, but they also will know they were wanted very very much, but if the parents are stable and loving I think they'll be fine. In this case we have a kid who is going to have to adjust to the fact that is 'daddy' gave birth to him which is going to be bizarre enough, but I think the kid will ALSO grow up with at least one parent who is seriously a couple of tacos shy a combo platter.

HisMan,
Will do!!! Please keep us updated on his progress, ok?

HisMan what happened? What put him in a coma?

Stephanie:

Are you a believer?

I defer to JLM becasue she does a much better job at speaking feminese than I do. Her last post essentially said the same thing but in terms I think you could understand.

TR,
Thank you for the response. But what makes you think that this "man" is unstable emotionally, and other "two women" homosexual couples (ie., the one that takes the "man role") that have children are not?

Do you agree that the traditional parental model - married man and woman - are inconsequential to a child's well-being as long as there is love?

As long as there is love, familial and financial stability, and good parenting technique: absolutely.

TR:

Not sure. The other morning my niece couldn't wake him up.

I guess he was in a car accident a few years back and they aren't sure if that accident resulted in some unknown brain damage.

This certainly would be tragic. They are so in love.

Again, I covet everyone's prayers today as we are told by the nurses that 5 days is kind of a pivitol point.

I'll keep you guys posted.

I know God is a good God and whatever happens will be for the good even though it's hard to understand.

And Jill,

This week Oprah and People magazine introduced the world to what most news organizations have mislabeled a pregnant "man."

News organizations have made no mistake: Thomas Beatie is legally a man.

In reality Thomas Beatie is a woman who had her breasts removed and injected herself with testosterone to take on male characteristics. She became pregnant by artificial insemination with the help of her female "wife."

No need for the quotes, Jill. Thomas Beatie is legally a man, legally married to his wife.

TR,
Thank you for the response. But what makes you think that this "man" is unstable emotionally, and other "two women" homosexual couples (ie., the one that takes the "man role") that have children are not?

Posted by: JLM at April 5, 2008 12:59 PM
***************
Its the contradiction in insisting she 'is a man' but still wanting to give birth to a child. She obviously still views herself as female at some level. There is the admission of a very unstable early life. Those two issues suggests to me emotional instability. There is also the matter of turning the pregnancy into a side show. I think gay people can be perfectly stable and emtionally healthy whether they are male or female. I think they can be great parents and raise perfectly healthy children. But I think in this particular case the mother is in a lot more need of a good therapist than an infant. As Ive said before, this is my personal opinion.

I know God is a good God and whatever happens will be for the good even though it's hard to understand.

AMEN to that!!!

HisMan, your entire family is also in my prayers, as I can only imagine the strength and comfort that that you guys need during this time, that only God can provide.

Jill:

Really in order to answer this question we must all agree on what type of love you are talking about.

If agape love, the answer is absolutely NO.

If eros or fileo love, then maybe, but then who cares, no eternal significance.

If we takes God's defintion of love out of the issue what's the difference, why ask the question?

HisMan,

My thoughts and best wishes are with your niece's husband. My first suspicion on what may have happened is a ruptured cerebral aneurysm. It usually strikes out of the blue on otherwise normal healthy people, often young like your nephew. It was always the first thing we suspected in situations like this.
I'm sure the hospital would diagnose this rather quickly though. A stroke from a blood clot or vessel breakage would be another possibility, but not likely given your nephew's age.
Has the problem been diagnosed or have you just not been informed of the diagnosis?

TR,
Thank you. That clarifies it better for me. And I agree that the needs of this man/woman, needing to be "watched" by millions, is quite disturbing.

Thomas Beatie is legally a man, legally married to his wife.

Oh well, I mean if it's LEGAL, then that's all right. Legal equals "right", no? Cuz everything that's "legal" is good!

TR,
Thank you. That clarifies it better for me. And I agree that the needs of this man/woman, needing to be "watched" by millions, is quite disturbing.

Posted by: JLM at April 5, 2008 1:11 PM
*****************
That makes me uncomfortable too. I cant help but wondering 'Is this being done just to get attention?' and I suspect in part that it is. I wouldnt prevent this from happening but I cant help but think the child is going to be born into a family where they have one unstable parent and possibly two unstable parents.

TR,
I agree.

Hey, I had another thought about this...when I was growing up, I had to deal with ONE mother with PMS...it was rough. This child has to grow up with TWO!!! Double the PMS!!! That cannot be fun!

TR 1:18PM

Concerning attention. I read of a few other couples who did the same thing so this isn't a first. They preferred to keep it private to protect themselves and their children.
So what's with this pair? Are they expecting adulation?
I don't know why people feel they have to broadcast their business to the world, and then cry and moan when they are harassed or "judged".

HisMan I will pray for him, for your whole family.

My friend's father was just an awful womanizer. I think He turned her off towards men forever. She probably would have been better without him.

All you need is love.

If someone was going to abort because say, the father would leave them if they had the child, I would say just have the kid. You're the mother as long as you love the kid they'll be fine.

Oh well, I mean if it's LEGAL, then that's all right. Legal equals "right", no? Cuz everything that's "legal" is good!

mk, it's silly of Jill to blame news organizations for "mislabeling" Thomas Beatie's gender and marriage when they are clearly only reporting the legal facts.

Thomas Beatie legally is a man, and legally is married to his wife. The fact that you disapprove doesn't make it not true.

If someone was going to abort because say, the father would leave them if they had the child, I would say just have the kid. You're the mother as long as you love the kid they'll be fine.

JLM:

Hey, I had another thought about this...when I was growing up, I had to deal with ONE mother with PMS...it was rough. This child has to grow up with TWO!!! Double the PMS!!! That cannot be fun!

Thomas Beatie will resume testosterone injection after his pregnancy, so he will not have a menstrual cycle. And his wife has had a hysterectomy, which means that she does not menstruate, either.

TR,
I agree.

Hey, I had another thought about this...when I was growing up, I had to deal with ONE mother with PMS...it was rough. This child has to grow up with TWO!!! Double the PMS!!! That cannot be fun!

Posted by: JLM at April 5, 2008 1:21 PM
**********************
She was taking testosterone - would that keep her from having a period etc ? I know they said she had to stop taking testosterone during the pregnancy. That would be true of lesbian couples though - and typically if women are in close proximity they wind up having periods at the same time. Mother was one of 8 girls - all had an 'attitude' in the best of times - I always wondered if grandpas and one uncles hunting trips were scheduled around that time of month for his wife and 8 daughters -

My daughter's wayyy better off without her father.

Let's face it, life isn't this cookie-cutter where everybody grows up with a perfect mommy and daddy, but if you have people in your life that love you and take care of you, then THAT is what is most important.

I think living in an unhappy relationship is far, far worse on your children then living in one that is unconventional based on society's standards of "normal." It is important for children to see relationships that are happy,committed, and have good communication. They do learn through watching their parents relationships how to have relationships themselves. That's why daughters of abusive relationships are more likely to get involved in abusive relationships. That's how they think relationships are and how people act in them. So if the relationship is a healthy one, I do not think it matters as much whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

I do,however think it is important to have good role models of BOTH genders for the child to look up to. My daughter may not have a good father, but she has a GREAT grandpa, and 3 great uncles...so I don't think she's lacking in a positive male role model. I knew having all those brothers would come in handy someday. :)

My youngest sister in law had a baby at 16 - they got married but divorced soon after. She went back home to live with her mother. The baby grew up with a house full of people who loved him. He had 3 uncles who were good role models. He had two aunts and a grandmother who helped take care of him when he was small. We were in the AF so didnt see him all that often when he was small but he seemed a happy baby when we were around him. He did grow up to be the bassist in a very popular local metal band but I dont think that should be held against him ....

TR 1:18PM

Concerning attention. I read of a few other couples who did the same thing so this isn't a first. They preferred to keep it private to protect themselves and their children.
So what's with this pair? Are they expecting adulation?
I don't know why people feel they have to broadcast their business to the world, and then cry and moan when they are harassed or "judged".

Posted by: Mary at April 5, 2008 1:26 PM
********************
Ive heard of gay couples having children by artificial insemination but never anything like this.

HisMan: You all have our prayers. God bless you.

Thomas Beatie will resume testosterone injection after his pregnancy, so he will not have a menstrual cycle. And his wife has had a hysterectomy, which means that she does not menstruate, either.

Ah, ok. That makes more sense.

But still, even without "PMS" wouldn't whatever chemical imbalance from both reak havoc on the emotional condition of both? I mean, both bodies are fighting hormonal deficiencies, one way or another, right?

But still, even without "PMS" wouldn't whatever chemical imbalance from both reak havoc on the emotional condition of both? I mean, both bodies are fighting hormonal deficiencies, one way or another, right?

Posted by: JLM at April 5, 2008 2:23 PM
*************
Not if the wife kept her ovaries - she'll be 'normal' except she wont have periods. That's what I did - had my uterus removed when I was 30 because of weird pap smears but I still had my ovaries and didnt go into menopause until after I was 50. Ive no idea what doses of testosterone does to a womans body or psychology though above causing excess hair growth ...

Mother was one of 8 girls - all had an 'attitude' in the best of times - I always wondered if grandpas and one uncles hunting trips were scheduled around that time of month for his wife and 8 daughters -

TR,
HA! I wouldn't doubt it!!!

My father definately played an important role in "offsetting" my mother's PMS. I can't imagine growing up in a home with "two mom's" and no "dad", or "male brain" to offeset the PMS!

does anybody really question the liberal agenda of the MSM now?

No, Jasper, the MSM is mostly owned by Republican conservatives. In fact, there's only about eight companies that own most of the media in the nation.

I'm sure you know that even though an employee may be liberal, his or her employer will dictate what is published and so forth, so I won't explain that relationship ...

Ive no idea what doses of testosterone does to a womans body or psychology though above causing excess hair growth ...

TR,
Well, here's a sick little bit of what it does to a woman's body:

After about a half hour of chatting with Beatie, Winfrey brought up the questions everyone wanted answered.

"Let's get to the penis part," she said. "Did you have a penis implant?"

"No. Amazingly, hormones are an incredible thing," Beatie said, explaining that his intake of testosterone enlarged his sex organs.

"It looks like a small penis ... and I can have intercourse with my wife," he said.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04032008/tv/pregnant_man_visits_oprah_104866.htm

Well...I'm speechless!!!!

Thomas Beatie legally is a man, and legally is married to his wife. The fact that you disapprove doesn't make it not true.

Earlier I was accused of being "crazy"...

You say that because the "law" says so, this "person" is a man, and my disapproval doesn't change that...

Yet this "man" is pregnant.

Yeah that makes sense. I mean it's not possible that "this man is pregnant and therefore is obviously a woman, and the law saying she's a man doesn't change that", right.

Cuz you only deal in "reality"...

This would be the problem with using the status of "legality" to determine the truth.

Life begins at fertilization and all the laws in the world can't make this untrue.

This is a woman, and is proven because she is pregnant, and all the laws in the world can't make this untrue.

I think you have your logic backwards. It's incredible to me that you can actually manipulate reality to fit your agenda. Just what exactly is the difference between men and women, if it's not at the very least the ability to bear children.

How many hoops are you willing to jump through to justify your view of reality, reality?

Here's an interesting essay about the domination of the liberal media.

How many hoops are you willing to jump through to justify your view of reality, reality?

Hoop-jumping makes me tired, that's why I stick with the truth.

HisMan, your posts are so friggin awesome!

I will keep Gina and Sean in my prayers. God love you.

Bobby, I hope Sean recovers too. But, please don't encourage those rantings.....

"I see about three or four or five commandments beign broken by this relationship so I doubt this pair has any regard for the Gospel or teachings of Jesus Christ.

"Hence, the resulting child will NOT be brought up in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".

"Therefore, they are not loving the child as God would (agape). It is an abominable relationship!
Posted by: HisMan "

Is love(and fear) of the Lord really the test of a good parent????

But still, even without "PMS" wouldn't whatever chemical imbalance from both reak havoc on the emotional condition of both? I mean, both bodies are fighting hormonal deficiencies, one way or another, right?

I'm not sure what you mean. If Thomas is taking testosterone injections, he'll be more likely to act like a man... unless you think being manly is an emotional condition, haha.

I wanted to add to this hormone discussion... Not all women experience intensely emotional and painful PMS!! (like me, if I didn't get sleepy the day before my period I'd have no other way of knowing it was coming ... and my sleepiness doesn't really affect others around me, lol)

My older brother however, most definitely gets some kind of PMS. He gets emotional and moody and generally acts like a jerk.

And to the original question posed... No, I don't think a child has to grow up in a traditional household. Single parents have been raising their children with one role model for years! At least this kid will have two parents and twice the love.

However, I do agree that outside role models (both male and female) are important to shape the child's perceptions of proper and kind human interaction.

It takes a village!

No, traditional (male & female) marital/parental models (which do not necessarily include abuse, btw) are not inconsequential. Ideas always have consequences; good ideas, carried out, have good consequences, and bad ideas, if acted on, have bad consequences.

It is natural for parents to love their children, but it is not natural for power-seeking governments (aka, "big brother") to love anyone. That is why the campaign to reduce/redefine/destroy the traditional nuclear family is so essential to a totalitarian government, e.g., a slave system.

Proper love and fear of God are the beginning of wisdom and so are the basis of being a good person, whether one is a son, daughter, friend, husband, wife, father, mother, boss, employee, etc.

Oh, and Hal, just because you can't handle hearing it doesn't mean it doesn't need/deserve to be said. God Himself advocated that children be brought up in biblical nurture and admonition.
If you want those of us who believe this to accept your word over His, then go create your own universe after the pattern established in Genesis 1, complete with unique, original plant and animal life, environmental factors, etc. Prove to us that you did it all yourself and that is it superior to the one we have, and then you can talk to us. I think that's more than fair enough.

@Edyt; I have heard of "male PMS". "Male menopause" exists too.

Brian, John and HisMan- good posts.
HisMan I will add my prayers too - full recovery, lets pray!!
Study after study demonstrate what we all know - a man and woman are what produces an emotionally stable adult, even in high conflict marriages.

Both sexes have their roles in the physical, emotional and psychological development of a child. I'm a great mom but I can't be a dad to my kids no matter how hard I try.

mk --

Earlier I was accused of being "crazy"...

I don't know anything about that.

You say that because the "law" says so, this "person" is a man, and my disapproval doesn't change that...

I say if you have a problem with Mr. Beatie being called a man, take it up with the law. Blaming the press makes no sense.

Is the pro-life movement now going to fight the law that allows people to change their gender?

czech --

It is natural for parents to love their children, but it is not natural for power-seeking governments (aka, "big brother") to love anyone. That is why the campaign to reduce/redefine/destroy the traditional nuclear family is so essential to a totalitarian government, e.g., a slave system.

The United States is governed By the People, For the People. There is no totalitarian campaign to destroy the nuclear family. Come on out of your basement -- it's safe out here.

If you want those of us who believe this to accept your word over His, then go create your own universe

It sounds like you're the one advocating totalitarianism, here. No thanks. If you want to live by your religion, that's fine by me, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Hal:

It is not we as fallen creatures who define anything. God does the defining via His Word, His written revelation of Himself to us, His creatures.

His word says in Proverbs 1:7 that "7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline." As Christians mature and grow in love they realize that God is not to be feared but rather "perfect love casts out all fear". Look if you don't fear a God who holds your destiny in His hands, how can you even begin to believe anything He says! Unfortunately as fallen creatures and with satan trying to decieve us, what other means does God have to reach us but the fear of Him, especially if we reject the ultimate expression of His love towards us, His Son? To reemphasize, fear is not the desire of His heart towards us as He states, "perfect love casts out all fear". He simply wants relationship with us so He can love us more fully.

I obey Him because I love Him.

So Hal, it is not I who define what true wisdom is but God. You can believe it and flourish towards life or disbelieve and spiral into destruction, it's your choice. I choose to live. Join me.

Now, God's word also says things about marriage and how we are to raise our children, etc., etc.
We can choose not to believe but observation and history shows us what happens to people's lives when they do not obey God. You don't have to be a genius to figure this out, however, you do have to be somewhat honest.

To all, thanks for your kind remarks regarding Gina and Sean. We'll be going to the hospital tonight and I will post his condition to you later.

What, does the media think we're a bunch of f*cking retards??

A man cannot have a child, a woman can.

So what if I got surgically implanted horse junk and hooves and starting eating hay?... Am I a f*cking horse now???

If you want those of us who believe this to accept your word over His, then go create your own universe after the pattern established in Genesis 1, complete with unique, original plant and animal life, environmental factors, etc. Prove to us that you did it all yourself and that is it superior to the one we have, and then you can talk to us. I think that's more than fair enough.

Reality czech...awesome!!!!

MK 2:47 exactly!

man, woman, who cares? They're having a baby. Don't you guys love that? Better than the first pregnant man aborting isn't it?

Better than the first pregnant man aborting isn't it?

No such thing as a pregnant man, Hal.

reality
the FACTS are: "Thomas" Beatie is a woman who "partially" thinks she's a man (as she decided NOT to have her uterus removed), who has mutilated herself and is in a same-sex relationship.
Those are the REAL facts.
All the other "facts" are made up by Beatie and partner to fit their own "reality" (there's that word again!).

Reality needs a dose of reality. Seriously.

I agree with the other people who say not to blame the press.

We can't report that Thomas is a female if he is legally considered a male. Despite whether or not he has a uterus, it's not correct (as noted in our stylebooks).

"gender identity: An individual’s emotional and psychological sense of being male or female. Not necessarily the same as an individual’s biological identity."

"transgender (adj.): An umbrella term that refers to people whose biological and gender identity or expression may not be the same. This can include preoperative, postoperative or nonoperative transsexuals, female and male cross-dressers, drag queens or kings, female or male impersonators, and intersex individuals. If an individual prefers to be called transsexual, etc., use that term. When writing about a transgender person, use the name and personal pronouns that are consistent with the way the individual lives publicly."

When writing about a transgender person, use the name and personal pronouns that are consistent with the way the individual lives publicly.

This would be truly laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Yes, Patricia, treating someone with basic human decency by calling them by their chosen name and gender is "so sad." And laughable.

I don't "get" Thomas Beatie any more than you do. I don't understand why he felt he needed to do what he felt he needed to do. I do know we live in a free country, and what he is doing doesn't hurt me, and makes him feel better. Life is hard enough without attacking him or laughing at him. If his names is Thomas, then we should call him Thomas. If he identifies as a man, then we should use "he" and "him" when referring to him. Is it really that hard to treat him with that small kindness?

Hal,
No...at least no for me! I don't appease people by saying something that I don't believe, or something that simply isn't true. Now, if her name is legally "Thomas", well then, that's her name and the one that I will use. But I refuse to call her a him simply because that confused individual can't seem to figure it out. Names can be changed legally, but gender cannot. I will call her what God made her....a woman. And if she doesn't like it, well tough! She is more than welcome to call me anything she would like as well.

Thomas the woman..the pregnant woman.

Can there ever be a discussion of a legitimate issue without talk of religion? I'm just saying, I immediately discount arguments that go straight to religion, because this is not a theocracy.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

-Adam Savage of "Mythbusters"

Yes, Patricia, treating someone with basic human decency by calling them by their chosen name and gender is "so sad." And laughable.

If I decided that I wanted to be a rabbit, and acted like a rabbit, could I legally change my status to "rabbit" and when people reported about me, would it just be common decency to refer to me as "the rabbit"?
Sheesh, this is just so insane.

Rae 8:15 LOL!!!

"Sheesh, this is just so insane."

Bethany, God works in mysterious ways.

@Bethany: I wasn't saying it to mock Thomas Beatie, I was just saying it as a humorous retort to the people telling reality she needs a "reality check" or something...

That, and I found it a humorous quote.

Are you able to chit-chat tonight on MSN?

Yes, Bethany, but we will strip you of your voting and personhood rights and force you to live out in the wild or in a cage.

If you'd like we will call you "the rabbit" but if someone names you otherwise that's okay too since we humans have the right to name animals what we want regardless of what you decide to name yourself.

@Bethany: I wasn't saying it to mock Thomas Beatie, I was just saying it as a humorous retort to the people telling reality she needs a "reality check" or something...

I know, I just love that quote!

You're funny Hal. :)

This is the type of stuff that three young shepherd children were warned about 91 years ago in a small village in Portugal. God help us all.

This WOMAN is confused and most likely suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness. Her mother's death and father's absence were likely very traumatic for her.

This poor little child is innocent and will probably not grow up as normal as he or she should.

"This poor little child is innocent and will probably not grow up as normal as he or she should."

most of us don't, but we do okay.

"Is it really that hard to treat him with that small kindness?

Posted by: hal at April 5, 2008 7:55 PM"

The greatest kindness that could be done to Tracey is to get her some serious help. Mutilation has never been shown to help this kind of situation, often making things worse. By calling her Thomas we are only helping her to continue to live in her delusional confused world.
This baby should be removed from their "home" and would be if the authorities were so bloody concerned about being politically correct and were truly concerned about the welfare of the child.

This baby should be removed from their "home" and would be if the authorities were so bloody concerned about being politically correct and were truly concerned about the welfare of the child.
Posted by: Patricia at April 5, 2008 9:44 PM

you're sweet, Patricia. Can you list the criteria you'd employ for removing children from their parent's care? All parents who you don't understand, or only transgendered ones?

If I decided that I wanted to be a rabbit, and acted like a rabbit, could I legally change my status to "rabbit" and when people reported about me, would it just be common decency to refer to me as "the rabbit"?
Sheesh, this is just so insane.

Isn't it though???

I want to be a Canadian goose. I want to go around antagonizing others for my "territory", or heck, just because! If someone comes near me, I want to be able to peck the living daylights out of them without retribution. I want to walk across the street, into traffic, whenever I want, taking as long as I well please, and I expect all cars to stop. I want to be able to just plant my butt on anyone's property and decide to live there and raise my young. I want to be protected by the government so that if anyone tries to hurt me or my young ones physically, they will do an obsene amount of jail time immediately, no questions asked.

Where do I start...by declaring that I, now, am a Canadian goose and gluing feathers to my arms?

Patricia 9:44PM

I'm sorry but I cannot go along with you on this one. By what criteria do we remove children? By what right? This is "Thomas'" daughter and until he and his partner are proven to be truly unfit parents, removing the child and placing her in the foster care system, which is less than reputable, would be hard to justify.
I remember a story from WW2 that I heard in my high school sociology class, and I think it applies here. During the Battle of Britain the children of lower class mothers, who mainly lived in the dangerous urban areas, were sent to the countryside for their safety. How wonderful for the children to be away from their mothers, who were mostly streetwalkers, drug addicts, stippers, barmaids, or homeless. Away from the city and out in the good clean country air and best of all away from their disreputable and certainly unfit mothers.
Nine out of ten of the children cried themselves to sleep every night. They wanted their mothers. They wanted to go home, even if it was some one room dive. The children became so homesick they had to send them back to the mothers they were supposedly rescuing the children from.
I think the lesson here is that we cannot assume that children are better off removed from certain types of parents based solely on our own prejudices against the parents.

I guess I'm bringing that icky liberal intellectual bias here...but I took a human sexuality psychology class last year and I'm pretty much convinced that being transgendered isn't some crazy disease. These people don't need help; they're happy, they're finally settled emotionally. They were miserable and needed therapy BEFORE they accepted who they truly are. They need others to be more accepting. Happy people at peace with themselves=good.

I guess I'm bringing that icky liberal intellectual bias here..

Is all liberal bias considered "intellectual" now?

These people don't need help; they're happy, they're finally settled emotionally. They were miserable and needed therapy BEFORE they accepted who they truly are.

Silly me....and all along I thought that self-mutilation to "get what I want" was a bad, bad thing!

That's it....Canadian geese don't have arms, they have wings. I'm chopping off my arms and having plastic wings bolted on so I can FINALLY be happy and FINALLY settled emotionally.

am: Can there ever be a discussion of a legitimate issue without talk of religion? I'm just saying, I immediately discount arguments that go straight to religion, because this is not a theocracy.

Of course there can be, but it may not lead you to the truth.

Mary, 10:09 p.m.

Very good post! Although the whole children crying themselves to sleep every night breaks my heart. I couldn't imagine having my baby go through that..and you are correct, we can not assume a child is better off without their parents just because we don't like what the parents represent.

People are just people, we're ALL just trying to get through the day and do the best we can...it isn't our job to be judging who or why somebody else loves who they loves. Would it be preferable for you guys that a person who is homosexual never find love? That they go through their life alone?

To me that seems a far worse existence than to be in a relationship that society looks down upon.

I agree with you Elizabeth, whole heartedly. :)

Oy, I've heard you are on facebook? Is this a truism?

Elizabeth, I agree with you too. well said.

Oy, I've heard you are on facebook? Is this a truism?

Rae, I am working on this....I have had TONS of homework this week so I haven't gotten it up and running yet, but I will try to tomorrow. Everybody else is on facebook and I only have a myspace..I got rid of my facebook before because well, it got hacked by a stalker I have/had. So I only have myspace now, but I feel all left out of facebook so I'm going to make another one...but shhh...it's a secret.

@Elizabeth: Okay, I'll keep it on the DL.

*zippeths lippeths*

Rae,
I heard that!!!!

Hal:

Plain and simple, you are an enabler. Probably as a result of a history of alcoholism or abuse of some sort in your childhood. Your expression of that experience as evidenced by your posts, is just as destructive as the alcoholism or the abuse. Until you take this stuff to the cross for healing you will NEVER be free from it.

You also have a distored view of what kindness is.

This female named Thomas is not helped by telling her lies.

The truth is her behavior will lead her to a hellish destiny.

To help her there is the ultimate expression of utter hatred, perhaps unintentionally

This is not to say she does not deserve love, it's to say she deserves the type of love which will lead her to Christ.

Hal, I know your intentions are good because down deep I think you have a good heart. However, your heart has been hardened by something and Christ's unconditional love is the only thing that can soften it. If only for your two daughters' sake I would just ask that you just say these words to God; "Please help me". He will if you mean them.

Elizabeth: Ditto.

@JLM: Oh noez! Crumbs!

Ditto to what HisMan?

The stuff you said to Hal?

News flash buddy: No abuse or alcoholism in my childhood, and no hardening of my heart AT ALL. How can one's heart be hardened when they wish that all people on this earth could experience love? Seems kinda twisted logic if you ask me.

But keep coming up with theories about me..and I'll keep shooting em' down. It's really quite fun actually.

HisMan,

Were you "ditto'ing" Elizabeth's 11:20 pm post?

JLM,

I couldn't imagine he would be dittoing that post..I think he was dittoing what he said to Hal for me as well. Eh, whatever.

I just said "dittoing" twice in a sentence and that is not an actual word. I need some help, it is too late at night.

Elizabeth,
I would be shocked if he did...that's why I asked!

You know, the more we type "dittoing", the funnier that word looks!!! LOL!

Hehe, this is true, JLM.

I think it is time to make "dittoing" an official word.

It's late, Hisman is experiencing some real family trauma. Let's forgive him tonight.

Well, kids, my brain might blow up if I stay up any later.

We shall argue more tomorrow. :)

I shall, Hal.

Hehe, I just rhymed...

The position of the Catholic Church is that children placed in homes with homosexual parents (or transgendered) borders on abuse. I agree.
This is about a child's right to grow up in an environment, that is a family with a mother and a father is best for them as has been proven by thousands of years of experience and was which designed by God (note: this idea is crucial and I don't doubt you liberal pap spouters will disagree).

It is not about these two adults right to have a child. A child is not a right, he/she is a gift from God and therefore should be treated as such. It's quite obvious that Tracey/Thomas and her partner are more concerned about themselves being happy than what growing up in this situation would mean for the baby.

In more reasonable times, these two people would be considered mentally ill. However, we don't live in reasonable times.

Elizabeth said

People are just people, we're ALL just trying to get through the day and do the best we can...it isn't our job to be judging who or why somebody else loves who they loves.

Right - that would be Jesus Christ who's coming to judge the living and the dead. Do you know him?

Would it be preferable for you guys that a person who is homosexual never find love? That they go through their life alone?

Actually, if they truly loved God with all their heart, mind strength and spirit, they would repent of rebellion and trust in Him alone, confessing He is Lord, he would come to them and never leave them or forsake them for eternity. That relationship seems to be infinitely more valuable than one which will eventually end in death here on earth.

God is Love. You cannot reject God and expect love. It only becomes a form of idolatry, which is self-worship. I believe that breaks the First Commandment, which Christ upheld.

But as for yourself, if you don't inform people of their idolatrous ways, then you're breaking the one that is like it - "Love your neighbor as yourself".

You too must put God first in your life, before you're capable of loving your neighbor. I believe that has to do with specks, beams and not being able to see clearly...

Chris @ 7:13
very nicely stated....

For those who think homosexuality is immutable, here's a personal story which illustrates that what I expressed at 7:13 AM is indeed true.

One more thing I'd like to share - I didn't go looking for that article - it literally showed up on the very next blog page I opened: Dawn Eden's Dawn Patrol"

God's timing is perfect.

" HisMan at April 5, 2008 12:51 PM"

Hisman, my prayers are with your nephew-in-law.

Hey, Chris, that's too amazing! Good article. Archbishop Burke is a good man and a holy bishop.

I knew a fellow when I was in my 20's who was an ex-homosexual. He had had a terrible time and an intense struggle with his sexuality (this was during the 1980's). I often wonder about him and how he's doing.

It is not about these two adults right to have a child. A child is not a right, he/she is a gift from God and therefore should be treated as such. It's quite obvious that Tracey/Thomas and her partner are more concerned about themselves being happy than what growing up in this situation would mean for the baby.

I agree..having a child is not a right. But what about people who were married and have kids, and then come out? Should they forfeit their kids? Or should they stay married and just suck it up?

Chris,

Right - that would be Jesus Christ who's coming to judge the living and the dead. Do you know him?

Right, yeah, I do know that He is the one who can judge us. But you, Chris? Where do you think YOU have the right to judge others and who they love?

Actually, if they truly loved God with all their heart, mind strength and spirit, they would repent of rebellion and trust in Him alone, confessing He is Lord, he would come to them and never leave them or forsake them for eternity. That relationship seems to be infinitely more valuable than one which will eventually end in death here on earth.

So, if you truly loved God, you would be fine with living your life without love here on earth? And people who don't truly love God are idolatrous for wanting to find another person to love here on earth? So I guess EVERYONE is guilty of that, not just homosexuals, because I hear quite a few straight people who want to find their "soul-mate." But that's not idolatrous? Why? Because they want the opposite sex instead of the same sex?

God is Love. You cannot reject God and expect love.

I agree that God is Love...but do homosexuals automatically reject God because they want to find someone to love here on Earth?

I frankly don't understand how one can turn these into purely black-and-white issues because their religion says so. I am Catholic, but at times I just can't understand the "I'm Catholic so I say that you, you, and you are wrong because you don't live your life the Catholic way."

Oh and p.s. I am not really talking about the people this thread is about..the "pregnant (wo)man"...I was just making general comments about homosexuality. I think the people involved in this article have mental health issues and are seriously confused about a lot of things/looking for attention.

To be honest, my feeling about homosexuality is somewhat conflicted because I don't necessarily agree with the lifestyle. But there are also people who disagree with interracial relationships...and I KNOW how that makes me feel. So I would never want to make other people in their relationships feel how I have felt.

Elizabeth:
They should seek therapy for the sake of their children. It use to be called self-sacrafice and doing what is right and what is best for the children.
It's not a "Catholic" position Elizabeth. It's the most loving and Christian position there is because these tendencies are NOT normal. Homosexuality is a distortion of what it means to be a man or a woman. It is intrinsically disordered and disordered conditions do not lead to happiness.

If it's not a Christian position, Patricia, whose is it? I don't really know anyone who is so repulsed by homosexuality other than the religious.

I read in the news a while ago that the leader of an ex-gay organization committed suicide. I guess learning to be straight didn't really work out for him.

I read in the news a while ago that the leader of an ex-gay organization committed suicide. I guess learning to be straight didn't really work out for him.

That's so sad!

PIP: I am with you on this. I am not repulsed by homosexuality and I don't believe that it is a disorder. I lean Catholic, but the Church's attitude towards homosexuality is the reason I don't fully committ.

Right, yeah, I do know that He is the one who can judge us. But you, Chris? Where do you think YOU have the right to judge others and who they love?

Elizabeth - your disagreement is not with me, because you too are judging me - telling me I'm wrong. If you understood Christ's teaching in Matthew 7:1-5 which I referenced via sawdust "specks and beams" you would see that Jesus doesn't tell us to withhold judgement, but to make a clear judgement. The only way we can do that is by relying on God completely - repenting and throwing ourselves at His feet. If we've done that, and we confess freely and openly He forgives us. Matthew 6:14-15 tells us "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive you." [NIV]

I think the story I linked to was an excellent illustration of that teaching.

Lastly - perhaps you should read the Bible, because it's pretty explicit in Roman's 1:18-32 that homosexual practices (particularly verses 26 and 27) are a clear rebellion against God. I can also point out the prohibitions in the Old Testament, but that teaching (stoning by the Israelites) has been replaced with God's grace and mercy through Christ's atoning sacrifice.

So your argument is not with me, but with God's Word - the Bible, and ultimately God. It's His Word, not mine.

Shoot me if you will - I'm just the messenger, and it would be nothing different than what the prophets and martyrs suffered. I work for Jesus Christ, and someday He'll inquire about why I didn't admonish you. I want to be clear about what I do, because I have several friends and acquaintances who are homosexuals and I would rather Love them with Christ eternally, than to leave them under the curse of the Fall, and God's eternal wrath. It's not the lifestyle alone, but what is being taught, which is self-idolatry. But for you to understand why that's bad, you'll have to understand why it would be better to have millstones around the neck...

What you choose to believe is up to you.

I am not repulsed by homosexuality either...I don't fully understand it..but it really doesn't bother me. I just can't for the life of me actually believe that people would CHOOSE to be persecuted..that's why I don't believe it's a choice.

Most of my friends/acquaintances are homosexuals..I used to be a musical theatre major, and my brother is on the Joffrey Ballet..sooo, I think maybe that's why I'm so used to being around gay people that it doesn't bother me.

Chris,

I am not judging you, just merely trying to understand how you see everything in such a black-and-white way. I don't need to hide behind the Bible to justify why *I* feel the way I do about things. I also don't believe I have to condemn anyone else in order to work for Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is Love, I believe in Love and acceptance of people. To Love someone is to accept them for who they are, not tell them they are wrong for being who they are.

And you say you have homosexual friends, so do you actually tell them they are living a sinful lifestyle and they should repent? Cause I really can't imagine them being your friend after that..and if you haven't, well then by your own definition or God's I suppose it is, you are not "loving your neighbor."

Hey Elizabeth.

"And you say you have homosexual friends, so do you actually tell them they are living a sinful lifestyle and they should repent? Cause I really can't imagine them being your friend after that..and if you haven't, well then by your own definition or God's I suppose it is, you are not "loving your neighbor.""

Chris IS doing the loving thing in this case. What is love? Love is not an emotion or a feeling. Love is an act of the will which desires the highest good for someone. When someone engages in sinful behavior, it is not okay to look the other way and say "I'm OK, you're OK." The highest good for all of us is heaven. So if we see someone living a lifestyle that is contrary to not just the gospel but natural law, it is our duty to let that person know that they are endangering their immortal soul.

All that being said, this of course begs the question as to whether or not homosexual activity is intrinsically evil or not. I think this article shows many of the problems with homosexual behavior from a natural law point of view. The article argues along lines that any rational atheist should be able to accept. It is somewhat long, but well worth the read. God love you, Elizabeth.

@Bobby: I glanced at that article and I have to say, those questions were really leading and "begging" a specific answer.

"Do Catholics oppose same-sex marriage because they think sex is dirty? Do they not want others to have fun?"

I mean come on...that is a leading question to an answer that says something on the order of saying, "Oh, sex is only fun in the context of marriage because of sexual complementarity, sex isn't dirty, but it can be sinful if it is used to achieve ends that are not held by God (by being open to life and being intimate with your partner)."

Yeah, I'm sorry Bobby, I examined the rest of the article...and no. I heartily disagree with everything that article states. All they are doing is taking a pre-fabricated conclusion and stating only the evidence that supports that pre-fabricated conclusion.

Bobby,

I am not an atheist, but thank you.

Chris did not tell me whether or not he told his "homosexual friends" that they were living a sinful lifestyle. I'm pretty safe in saying that IF he did do this, they would no longer be his friend. I highly doubt they would be like "Oh, thanks Chris, I CAN be straight now..all thanks to you!"

So..if Chris did not do this, than by your, Chris, and God's definition, he is not loving his neighbor.

But you brought up an interesting point Bobby, do you believe that gay people get into heaven? I mean, gay people who openly accept being gay, yet still accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Do you think they go to heaven?

Well...I'm speechless!!!!

********************
The professional wrestler Chyna did the same thing - took major doses of 'roids to bulk up her muscles and I saw a picture of her genitals .... thats about the creepiest thing I have ever seen. Honest. You can probably find pictures on the web - but its flat out creepy IMO. I honestly dont see how anything that tiny could be functional for vaginal intercourse ... it looked like a tomato worm wearing a turtle neck sweater ....

This baby should be removed from their "home" and would be if the authorities were so bloody concerned about being politically correct and were truly concerned about the welfare of the child.
Posted by: Patricia at April 5, 2008 9:44 PM

you're sweet, Patricia. Can you list the criteria you'd employ for removing children from their parent's care? All parents who you don't understand, or only transgendered ones?

Posted by: hal at April 5, 2008 9:47 PM
*********************
Anyone not raising their child to meet Patricias standards obviously have no business being left with their natural family. But Patricias idea of treating a child right would include forcing a 12 year old victim of rape to continue a pregnancy. She said so herself. Rape and incest are not valid reasons for abortion. To her any pain and difficult the woman has to go through is justified as long as she continues a pregnancy and gives birth. I personally would consider THAT grounds to have children taken away from parents.

I am not repulsed by homosexuality either...I don't fully understand it..but it really doesn't bother me. I just can't for the life of me actually believe that people would CHOOSE to be persecuted..that's why I don't believe it's a choice.

Most of my friends/acquaintances are homosexuals..I used to be a musical theatre major, and my brother is on the Joffrey Ballet..sooo, I think maybe that's why I'm so used to being around gay people that it doesn't bother me.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 6, 2008 1:52 PM
**********************
I dont believe you can 'choose' what attracts you and what turns you on. I personally like men with some heft to them - tall, broad shoulders, thich chests, big hands - I love big hands. I think Mitch Peleggi is one of the sexiest men on tv - he played Skinner on The X Files and now is on Stargate Atlantis. I didnt make any conscious or deliberate 'choice' in finding that particular look appealing. Its a gut reaction. I find thin men no fun to hug at all. No rational 'cause' - just how I feel. I dont believe anyone decides to be gay. They can decide whether or not to act on how they feel. They can decide, if they are bisexual, to gravitate towards one gender or the other. But I dont believe anyone can 'choose' to be gay any more than you can 'choose' to be straight. And I dont believe you can be 'turned' straight any more than you can be 'turned' gay.

"But you brought up an interesting point Bobby, do you believe that gay people get into heaven? I mean, gay people who openly accept being gay, yet still accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Do you think they go to heaven?

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 6, 2008 2:32 PM"

Elizabeth: I'll let God's Word answer that for you in 1 Cor 6:

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Chris and Bobby, keep fighting the good fight.

@Texas Red: I know who you're talking about! He was so *awesome* on the X-Files, I had no idea he was on Stargate...makes me wish I had cable...

"David Duchovny, why won't you love me..." -Bree Sharp

I believe that in the context of the scriptures some of the judgmental holier than thou self righteous Pharisees who pose as christians are going to get a big wakeup call on judgment day.

Me either, TR.

People used to make jokes about how I only like black guys...which frankly, just isn't true. If I find a white guy who is attractive to me, I'd date him...I just happen to be very attracted to darker skin. I don't really know why, I just find the complexion of darker skin very attractive. I HAVE had white boyfriends who I have been attracted to, but I just seem to prefer darker-skinned men. I stopped analyzing myself a long time ago about that, and just figured, it's what I am attracted to. The reason I used to analyze myself over it, is because people used to say "Why do you only like black guys?" or "This is Liz, she only likes black guys." (NO JOKE, people actually say stupid stuff like that)

But I really couldn't see forcing myself to be attracted to someone who I just frankly, am not just to appease society.

@Bobby: I'm sorry if I sounded really...jerk-y in my post to you in response to that article you gave me, that was not my intent.

I notice that when I ask people directly their opinions on things like this, they quote Scripture. Can you really not answer for yourself? If YOU don't believe gay people go to heaven, then SAY SO! I have plenty of formed, logical opinions that I don't have to quote anyone else for. I have my own opinions and have no problem saying them. I know Bobby, Chris, and HisMan are intelligent, so why not answer these questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS!

Rae, my friend, hello. The question and answer format of the article is just so people can browse it easier. Yes, some questions are leading, but in regard to even the first question you mentioend, I think if we were to ask our friend reality whether or not she thought that the RCC views sex as dirty, she would say yes. So I don't think even that question is that far fetched. But there is a lot of other important info in the article. The most important pointing out the fact that homosexuality is never life giving. So I think that anyone would agree that if one rejects artificial contraception, as a corollary, one must reject homosexuality because every homosexual act is contraceptive. God love you, Rae.

I'm gonna address Elizabeth's post too, but please please please please note that I (and more importantly the RCC) distinguish between someone with same sex attraction and one who performs homosexual acts. Whenever I discuss homosexuality, I always refer to those who actually act on their homosexual impulses, not those who are attracted to people of the same sex but who do not act on it. I am attracted to many women who are not my wife, but I do not sleep with them (by the grace of God alone). So the distinction is important.

Also, I have nothing but love for homosexuals. I sympathize greatly with them. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it must be to struggle with same sex attraction. But it is a cross to bear. And in bearing that cross there is power.

Now Elizabeth, I did know you weren't an atheist. I know you're a Christian, but I was just trying to illustrate the fact that I believe that the condemnation of homosexuality is not a religious issue or something that only Christians should believe because "God said so." I believe that an atheist who studies the arguments fairly will come to the rational conclusion that homosexuality is disordered.

"do you believe that gay people get into heaven? I mean, gay people who openly accept being gay, yet still accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Do you think they go to heaven?"

Well, I'm not sure about the part about "accepting Jesus as personal Saviour." Certainly that is important, but as Catholics, Elizabeth, there is more to salvation than "accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour." But, the question is akin to asking if an adulterer goes to heaven or a rapist or an abortionist. Only God knows. Objectively speaking, these sins are grave matter which cuts off sanctifying grace from God. However, only God knows their culpability and level of knowledge. So I don't make judgments as to who goes to heaven and who doesn't. That's God's business. But I can say that it is grave matter, which is very serious business. God love you.

"@Bobby: I'm sorry if I sounded really...jerk-y in my post to you in response to that article you gave me, that was not my intent."

Of course not, my friend. I know it's a very contentious issue, very emotionally charged, with intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides. It is hard to discuss, especially when such good friends are on the other side :)

@Bobby: I hate putting you on the spot, but why would God create something he knew would be considered "disordered"? Why would God create something that would go against natural order?

Again, the "no life giving stuff" that also goes for infertile straight couples, but apparently all that matters is that the partners have different sex organs and so that makes their marriage "a-okay".

Why does it have to be life-giving? Isn't adoption "life-giving"? Adoption by gay couples gives those children a chance at a more positive life in a loving home that they would not have gotten in an orphanage. I would say that that is life-giving because of the opportunities you give a child you adopt. My friend was adopted from a South Korean orphanage and that adoption by her infertile parents gave her a chance at life that she never would have had had she never been adopted in the first place.

I do understand what you are saying, Bobby...and thank you for answering in your own words instead of just using someone else's. And yes, I know there is more than accepting Jesus as one's personal savior. I can respect that we, as humans, do not really know who gets into heaven and who does not. It IS for only God to decide, and I really can't stand it when people say they *know* gay people don't go to heaven or they just quote Scripture. Quoting Scripture doesn't mean you know that there are no gay people in heaven.

I have much compassion for homosexuals. I have compassion for people, at any level, who suffer, and I do believe that homosexuals suffer a great deal.

Chris did not tell me whether or not he told his "homosexual friends" that they were living a sinful lifestyle

Actually, Elizabeth, I haven't been talked with them lately - we lost touch many years ago, and people move away, but I still consider them friends, and I would really like to see them again. Though they hold atheistic viewpoints, they are not mean or nasty people - in fact quite the opposite, but that doesn't change what God says, or their unrepentant condition. We had spiritual discussions at the time - if they choose not to believe in sin and God, that is their choice. Can I pray for them? - yes, I do, but election is a work of God, and to be true, it must be free will.

For some reason you believe I'm picking on a particular type of unbeliever, but the only major difference is a major non-stop agenda to teach children that this lifestyle is morally correct, when it isn't. If you've seen the latest issue April 7th of Newsweek, you'll see the increasing property view of humanity emerging - "Wombs to Rent". Free markets wish to thrive and homosexual unions are a legalized acknowledgment of a sterile market that can be exploited.

I see it in black and white rather than gray because life and death is black and white. Eternital Salvation is a black and white issue. Jesus Christ - God Incarnate did not leave us any gray options. Either he is who he claims, Lord, or he's a Liar, the world's most notorious, or he's a Lunatic. But if the last one is the case, then most of the world is mad - and dying to love one another.

Elizabeth, 2:57PM

There are people who would view your relationship with a black man and resulting racially mixed child as an abomination in God's eyes, every bit as abhorrent as homosexuality.
Black Americans established their own churches because mainline churches would not tolerate their presence.
Throughout history people have been singled out as "abominations" based on race, religion, ethnicity, and culture. All too often, and tragically, religious justifications could be found for their persecution, torture, and murder.
My greatgrandmother would never accept the "abomination" of my German Lutheran grandmother marrying an Italian Catholic.
People who were mentally ill, physically or mentally challenged, and those who suffered from genetic anomolies have often throughout history been shunned, brutalized, viewed as being at the receiving end of divine retribution and killed.
What was abhorrent and couldn't be explained or understood was regarded as "evil".
In my opinion we have limited knowledge of human sexuality and how it is affected by hormonal factors in the womb, and factors outside. We try to make it simplistic, as our ancestors did, and what we don't understand or really know much about we brand as "evil" and are afraid of it.

"I hate putting you on the spot, but why would God create something he knew would be considered "disordered"? Why would God create something that would go against natural order?"

That's quite alright. The answer is to bring about a greater good. Look at the cross. Jesus dying on the cross is simultaneously the greatest good and greatest evil in human history. Jesus on the cross redeemed mankind from our sins and allowed us entry into heaven. Yet, it is also deicide; the killing of God. So why would there be this disorder among people? Why is there pain, suffering, disease, etc etc? It is part of the mystical plan. As I mentioned above, there is power in suffering. There is power in resisting homosexual attraction and putting yourself up there on the cross with Jesus. There is so much wonderful theology on suffering. But the bottom line is, God raises us up to become more like Jesus by allowing us to suffer with Jesus on the cross. Col 1:24 is one of the strangest bible verses, unless one believes and understands the power of suffering. So my point is, a homosexual attraction, when not acted upon, brings one closer to Jesus. Just like when someone who is tempted to look at pornography decides not to, it brings them closer to Christ.

"Again, the "no life giving stuff" that also goes for infertile straight couples, but apparently all that matters is that the partners have different sex organs and so that makes their marriage "a-okay"."

Right, so the idea is that homosexuality does not have the NATURAL CAPACITY (not yelling, just emphasis) to give life. Ever. One man and one women, a priori, DO have that life-giving capacity. Because a man and a women have the natural capacity to procreate, even an infertile couple engaging in relations is okay.

I think an analogy would be helpful here. Think about why it's wrong to abort a down's baby. Well, first of all, why is it wrong to kill anyone? Because humans have a rational nature that separates us from other animals. If some day, aliens who were rational like us came to earth, they would be considered persons because of their rational. But now, a down's baby will never be rational. But, every single fertilized egg, a priori, has the natural capacity for rational. Because a down's baby is a member of the human species, he automatically receives the protection that any rational human being would get because of his a priori disposition.

This is the idea behind homosexuality and life-givingness. In my analogy, a down's baby is like an infertile couple and a cat (or dog or whatever) is like a homosexual couple. A dog or cat can never ever never be a rational creature, just like a homosexual couple can never ever never produce life. They simply don't have the complementary "tools." An infertile couple, or sterilized or what have you, does. So that is that in a nutshell. I hope that makes at least some sense. God love you.

Bobby Bambino,

At this point in my life I no longer have the "tools" to produce a child. Would I be forbidden to remarry? I'm not being facetious.
I read of a gay couple who adopted abandoned AIDS babies (produced and abandoned by people with the right "tools). They have saved some of these children from an early death, and provided love and care to children as they died.
Are they not life giving?

There are people who would view your relationship with a black man and resulting racially mixed child as an abomination in God's eyes, every bit as abhorrent as homosexuality.
Black Americans established their own churches because mainline churches would not tolerate their presence.

Yes, this is true, I remember reading about how interracial marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. This is why I really try to pass no judgement or condemnation on homosexuality. It isn't my place, just as it isn't someone else's place to tell me I should marry a white person to save me from going to Hell.

Hi Mary.

"At this point in my life I no longer have the "tools" to produce a child. Would I be forbidden to remarry? I'm not being facetious."

No, you could remarry for the reasons I mentioned above. A man and a women have the natural capacity to produce children. And the fact that you can't bear children but may desire it is a wonderful cross to bear as well.

"I read of a gay couple who adopted abandoned AIDS babies (produced and abandoned by people with the right "tools). They have saved some of these children from an early death, and provided love and care to children as they died.
Are they not life giving?"

What they did was very selfless and obviously very loving. However, we must remember that this world is not "where it's at." Nothing is more important than heaven. Period. A few extra years here on earth is dirt compared to eternity with God. Homosexual adoption gives legitimacy to homosexual relations, and hence causes scandal and endangers not only those practicing homosexuality, but also the children whom they adopt. Nothing is worth their eternal souls. All the pain and suffering in the world that these children experience and sadness that they have if they are not adopted does not compare to the pains of hell that they could suffer as a result of being influenced by a homosexual lifestyle.

I don't mean to take away from the love and good desires of such homosexual couples. I know they are doing only what they feel is right, but I can not in good conscience condone it.

Bobby,

So you view your life here as inconsequential as compared to your life in Heaven? Then why are we even here? Why aren't we all just in Heaven enjoying our eternity with God?

All the pain and suffering in the world that these children experience and sadness that they have if they are not adopted does not compare to the pains of hell that they could suffer as a result of being influenced by a homosexual lifestyle.

So not only do the wonderful couple who adopted these poor, suffering children go to Hell, then the children who are already suffering from AIDS would as well if they are at all "influenced" by the homosexual lifestyle. What do you mean by influence? Tolerance of homosexuals perhaps?

I can not in good conscience condone dying children to suffer in the streets when there are people who will take very good care of them, just because it doesn't fit my own idea of what is "normal."

Oh, and Bobby, I don't mean to come off as harsh and accusatory in anyway..I am just trying to wade through this issue and find maybe something consistent with my faith as a Catholic and my own humanity.

Elizabeth,

"So you view your life here as inconsequential as compared to your life in Heaven? Then why are we even here? Why aren't we all just in Heaven enjoying our eternity with God?"

No, but nothing is worth sinning. I don't say everything in this life is inconsequential, not by a long shot. In fact, our actions in this life determine where we go in the next life. That is why it is so important to avoid evil and scandalizing others.

"So not only do the wonderful couple who adopted these poor, suffering children go to Hell, then the children who are already suffering from AIDS would as well if they are at all "influenced" by the homosexual lifestyle. What do you mean by influence? Tolerance of homosexuals perhaps?"

I never said they go to hell. We went over this before. But they entertain the very real possibility of eternal damnation. By influence I mean cause scandal. Give them the idea that homosexuality is okay. Tolerance of homosexuals is, of course, fine. I tolerate them very much. What I don't do is accept it and tell them that it is okay.

How can you tolerate something but not think it's "okay"?

Yeah I guess leaving those babies to die alone is better because they won't cause scandal.

Seriously, Bobby, I love you, but these ideas seem really whack to me.

God really makes someone a homosexual so that he can bear a cross. Thanks God! That was very helpful! If someone can't become straight and commits suicide, I guess they are going to hell because not only did they "cause a scandal" on earth but their cross fell off their backs. How merciful of Him.

Also I don't know one atheist who would reject homosexuality on the grounds that they have the same sex organs. You'd think of all of this talk on spiritual and loving connections then there would be someone to be said of a loving partnership between 2 members of the same sex. You'd think of all this talk on adoption, people should be able to. You know, adopt. No matter what sexual orientation they are.

Wouldn't children dying in the streets of AIDS cause scandal?

I would think something like that would make God more outraged than a guy who, :gasp: likes another guy.

Bobby Bambino,

With all respect to your faith, I see these men as loving, caring human beings giving love, comfort, and in some instances, prolonged life to children who might otherwise die alone. They were condemned to this fate by heterosexual parents.
I cannot see an issue of any kind here at all.
To me, these men are following the teachings of Jesus.
I have a hard and fast rule not to get into religous debates so I will leave it at that. I thank you for your feedback.

"How can you tolerate something but not think it's "okay"?"

By tolerate, I mean put up with. I had friends in college who were homosexual and I never shunned them, or yelled at them, or treated them as though they were not human. But I never approved of what they did. It's like how I know someone who is in an adulterous affair right now. I tolerate his adultery in the sense that I don't shun him or treat him like garbage or anything like that, but at the same time, I do not approve of what he does, but that does not mean I will stop seeing Christ in him.

"Seriously, Bobby, I love you, but these ideas seem really whack to me."

Love you too, PiP.

"Yeah I guess leaving those babies to die alone is better because they won't cause scandal."

Honestly, if that is the difference between heaven and hell (which I am NOT saying I know) then, yes it is. We (humanity in general) have really lost the sense of suffering that is so important to salvation (obviously now I am speaking as a Christian). We are imitators of Jesus when we suffer, no? It's a paradox. I highly recommend the apostolic letter by JPII "Salvifici Doloris" (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering). The theology of suffering is massive, and beautiful, but as I said above, paradoxical and difficult to understand if one hasn't thought about it.

"If someone can't become straight and commits suicide, I guess they are going to hell because not only did they "cause a scandal" on earth but their cross fell off their backs. How merciful of Him."

I will say this, PiP, that I'm not sure if "converting" someone with homosexual tendencies to heterosexuality is always the best option. Some people may never be attracted to those of the opposite sex, and that is okay. So in the case you mentioned above, "conversion" was obviously not the best decision.

I hate to get in the "last word" but I must get going. I gotta also say, I don't really like arguing with my fellow pro-lifers. Lately, it has been Catholic vs. Protestant and now it's this. I really love all you guys, and I don't like being on the "other" side from ya'll. (Of course, that includes my abortion-choice friends like Doug, Hal, and Leah as well.) God love ya'll.

"Anyone not raising their child to meet Patricias standards obviously have no business being left with their natural family. But Patricias idea of treating a child right would include forcing a 12 year old victim of rape to continue a pregnancy. She said so herself. Rape and incest are not valid reasons for abortion. To her any pain and difficult the woman has to go through is justified as long as she continues a pregnancy and gives birth. I personally would consider THAT grounds to have children taken away from parents. "

Forcing a 12 year old victim of rape to have an abortion is also abusing that child. To kill an innocent baby because of the crime of it's father does not make the situation better for the 12 year old. In fact, it's likely that the birth of the child will have a positive effect on the 12 year old by offering a positive conclusion to a very terrible situation. To subject the 12 year old girl to the violence of abortion and have her body violated once again by the abortionist is wrong.

Bobby some very good points (as usual).
The Catholic Church has REPEATEDLY stated that having homosexual tendencies are not in and of themselves sinful, but that acting on those tendencies and promoting this lifestyle are sinful. Tracey and her partner are doing both. In the end, they will be corrupting the very child they proclaim to love, adding to this child's confusion.
An active homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy stable lifestyle. And of course, homosexuals who struggle with their inclinations are no different from the rest of us, struggling with our various weakness. God doesn't ask for success, although he certainly gives us the grace to succeed if we ask him. He does ask that we fight the good fight though, and try our best to remain faithful.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 6, 2008 2:43 PM

I just wanted to add a few things...

Homosexuality is not a "disorder" but it is, rather, disordered. There is a difference. There is a natural "order" to the world. The sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. Flowers bloom when it's warm, and trees go dormant when it's cold.

Men have certain body parts, women have complimentary ones. The "Natural Order" is that men and women "fit" together in a specific way.

Two men are not "ordered" to be with each other sexualy. Their "parts" are simply not complementary. So far I'm not making any moral judgment, just stating what is meant by disordered.

Next, sex outside of marriage is always viewed as a grave sin in the CC. Marriage is considered a sacrament. Two complementary bodies, fitting together to make "one body". Both physically, mentally and spiritually.

My son has sex with his girlfriend and I view this as a grave sin. And he knows my feelings on the matter. But he remains my son, and my love for him has not changed on iota.