A question of morality.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SwordOfGod

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2005
257
12
35
✟508.00
Faith
Christian
The following is under three assumptions. (I have found these to be true but you may disagree.)

1. The reaction of orthodox christianity to homosexuality and transexuality is correct.

That is, holding that these are both disordered and that by embracing one's identity in Christ that a person suffering with these disorder's will be healthier (whatever you understand that to mean). If you disagree with this then please don't debate it in this thread as it is merely an underlying assumption.

2. A victim of sexual confusion or gender confusion cannot be trusted to interpret the Holy Spirit's guidence correctly.

People who struggle are in the middle of a battle and it is easy to mishear the Lords voice when a person cannot help but hope that their own will is the same as God's. This is evident in homosexuals who say that they feel no conviction that their lifestyle choice is immoral, or in transsexuals who feel that God is calling them to be the opposite gender.

3. A person who claims to be transsexual is in fact confused and should be led to embrace their true Identity in Christ.


------------------------------------

The existence of humans who can be classified as neither male nor female poses moral problems that I have found little to no information on. Babies born with this unfortunate condition (or not?) is thought to occur at a rate .018%. The intersexual question appears to all but ignored within the church.

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

The most that I have gotten from questions on this issue is a rather naive suggestion that the person with this condition should pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. This is not a bad suggestion! But all who read this who have talked to people with deviant sexual disorders (e.g. homosexuality) will no doubt have found that sexuality is such a loud voice in people's lives that it often drowns out the still, small voice of God on the subject. This is why sexual deviants often say that they do not feel as if they are committing a sin. The question of the correct moral options for an intersexual person should be worked out logically, with a firm scriptural understanding. The case of intersexuals is especially difficult, however, because there is not necessarily any gender identity that can be trusted within the individual.

Let me explain: If an intersexual claims that they are female because they feel female and therefore that they wish to marry a male, how do we respond? It is difficult. We have no way of knowing if that person's Identity in Christ is actually female. After all, transsexual men claim that they are in fact female. Generally, of course, mainline Christians would reject this. However the problem it poses for the intersexual is obvious: the feeling that a person is one gender cannot be trusted.

And yet, perhaps the question then answers itself. Mainline Christians generally say that a transsexual must, in reality, be the gender that is genetically(XX, XY) and phenotypically(Reproductive parts) obvious. Generally, Christian counseling is focused on helping that person come to see this and embrace it as the identity that they were destined to have. Maybe the same could be done with an Intersexual. If a person is born this way then, perhaps, they should be counseled to except their identity in Christ as genitally ambiguous. Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and therefore they should be encouraged to not seek marriage, but instead to embrace the gift of celibacy.

Using this approach, the risk of getting the wrong surgery is nullified. That is, the risk of letting a person who is Intersexual get a surgery that could render them the incorrect gender in Christ would no longer be there. After all, they could well be transexual in their understanding of their identity and it would then be a sin for them to attempt become the wrong gender.

This has even wider implications. Many children born that are gender ambiguous are generally operated upon immediately to render them one gender(usually female). This may well be a sin committed by the parents as it may be rendering their children the wrong gender.

Unfortuanetly, there is very little scripture to go on. However, there is this little gem that Christ spoke:

Matthew 16:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Here, the eunuchs who are born eunuchs are contrasted directly with those who are to marry. Thus, those who are born gender ambiguous should not marry.

What do y'all think about about the subject?
 

Stinker

Senior Veteran
Sep 23, 2004
3,555
174
Overland Park, KS.
✟4,880.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For many people who are perceived as radiating the nature of the opposite sex (the transgendered/pre-transexual and many homosexual men and women) they are shown the way as to who or what they truly are by members of society, even against the denials of that person! That person was brought up to believe that homosexuality was a 'choice' and one that he or she definitely did not make especially years ago when it was so much worse to be labeled as a queer.
 
Upvote 0

2ndRateMind

Pilgrim Defiant
Sep 8, 2008
1,091
66
In Contemplation
✟9,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
What do y'all think about about the subject?

I think we should stop trying to legislate other people's lives for them, and get on with the business of saving our own souls by loving God and loving each other, as we are commanded to do.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
 
Upvote 0

SwordOfGod

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2005
257
12
35
✟508.00
Faith
Christian
There are those born eunuches as the bible says.

Indeed, it's just that I find that this area of morality remains untalkedabout and I think that there are many questions that remain unanswered.

For example, do we suggest that the intersexual members of our congregation to dress ambiguously. If we follow the logic above then it seems we should. And yet I have a feeling that some would disagree...

What's more, I doubt that someone who is born intersexed and wants to be married will think it very just that what could be fixed in an operation is holding them back from union with another person.
 
Upvote 0

SwordOfGod

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2005
257
12
35
✟508.00
Faith
Christian
I think we should stop trying to legislate other people's lives for them, and get on with the business of saving our own souls by loving God and loving each other, as we are commanded to do.

Well, I'm not talking about legislating an unwilling person's life. I'm talking about a person in a congregation who wants to live out the lifestyle that most pleases God.

I'm not into the brainwashing business.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Because it is a lifestyle that repulses most of us.

Whoa! The OP is not defending homosexuality -- in fact, he specifically presumes the evangelical conservative Christian "take" on the subject.

The question he raises is what lifestyle is most pleasing to God for the rare but real individuals who are born genitally ambiguous, that is, intersexuals.

Glibly saying "embrace the gift of celibacy" is, I think, in error. Cerlibscy -- permanent abstinence from sex -- is indeed a gift from God, a charism in the Catholic parlance, the strengthening of moral purpose to resist desire while living a life in which ethical sexual activity is not possible -- for example, in a religious community, as a career military person with a specialty that keeps him/her in places where a family cannot accompany him/her, some clergy or missionary positions.... It is quite real but not something one may "name it and claim it" -- God calls you to it, and (IMO) it is inappropriate for other humans to demand it of those to whom He does not call to it.

IMO the intersexual will feel 'itself' (avoiding a sexual pronoun) to be either male or female, and should either remain chaste until marriage or celibate if so called. And when the intersexual enters serious courtship, he or she should be quite frank with the potential fiance/-ee about his/her genitalia, so that he/she is not courting under false pretenses. A man who truly loves his girlfriend, a woman who truly loves her boyfriend, will be understanding of the fact that some immature body parts of "the wrong type" are also present.

(Notice we're not talking transvestism or transsexuality here -- this is a woman with girly bits -- and also underdeveloped boybits, or vice versa.

And, of course, the Christian intersexual will be seeking after God's will for his/her life in prayer before ever entering into any such decisions.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
64
Left coast
✟77,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
sorry if i misunderstood the prior post, my comment was not directed at the OP but to the assertion that we should accept as a possibility that any particular lifestyle a person might be drawn to could be acceptable to God and more directly how it is we might know that it is not acceptable to God. Our internal intuition about right and wrong is often a basis for morality and that fact that something repulse most of us should carry some weight. If most of us can reason something aught not to be, then it is probably correct that it aught not be.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2ndRateMind

Pilgrim Defiant
Sep 8, 2008
1,091
66
In Contemplation
✟9,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
Because it is a lifestyle that repulses most of us.

Sorry, but I can't get my head around this idea that 'I am repulsed by such and such; therefore you ought not do/be/think such and such'. I am repulsed by unthinking prejudice, but I do not see that my repulsion (and that of most liberals) should act as a taboo for people who prefer that 'way of being'. I do not have a right not to be offended by prejudice; you do not have the right not to be offended by people whose sexual development and sexualities and manners of sexual expression are unconventional.

Rather than repulsion, and condemnation, and hatred, I think these people deserve sympathy and understanding and genuine friendship, and as Christians I think that is what we are called upon to provide. It seems we both need to grow up and put our repulsions away into a mental closet marked 'immature'.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SwordOfGod

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2005
257
12
35
✟508.00
Faith
Christian
Our internal intuition about right and wrong is often a basis for morality and that fact that something repulse most of us should carry some weight.

I disagree, humanity is fallen and nearly all(if not all) humans have some sin in their lives that they do not feel is wrong for them to commit. Pedophiles do not feel that what they want is wrong. Nor do people who go above the speed limit to work regularly.

Our internal intuition cannot be trusted. Instead we must focus on bringing our own understanding of morality from the Bible.

Well, that's my thought at least...
 
Upvote 0

SwordOfGod

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2005
257
12
35
✟508.00
Faith
Christian
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying parents shouldn't decide at birth or in infancy?

If that's the case, then I'd have to disagree. I say the parents have the right to decide and anyone else's opinion in this does not matter. It's up to the parents period.

I disagree, unfortunately a quick read of David Reimer's life suggests that gender is not as simple as picking one and raising the child in that fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟9,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That wiki doesn't even sound truthful. One can't develop schizophrenia due to a circumstance.

Though David Reimer was not born intersexual, there's quite a lot of evidence available on the Internet and in print that testifies to the substantive truth of that Wikipedia article (there may be errors of detail in it, like most such articles).

I believe it was posted to illustrate the point that the parents cannot justly choose for the child.
 
Upvote 0

2ndRateMind

Pilgrim Defiant
Sep 8, 2008
1,091
66
In Contemplation
✟9,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
I also agree that all people should be approached with deep love. However, love does not mean condoning everything a person wishes to do. In this case we are debating the correct morality for an intersexual from the standpoint of an non-liberal Christian.

Of course, you're right. We should not condone those whose activities cause harm to themselves, or to others, however much we love them. And if we see a thread whose stance is the desire to straitjacket unknown others into behavioural patterns that just don't suit the way God built them, of course we should speak out. This thread is not, as it is purported to be, a question of morality. Morality is other-regarding. This thread is about finding justification for a selfish pre-disposition to condemn people who are different.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
64
Left coast
✟77,600.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, but I can't get my head around this idea that 'I am repulsed by such and such; therefore you ought not do/be/think such and such'. I am repulsed by unthinking prejudice, but I do not see that my repulsion (and that of most liberals) should act as a taboo for people who prefer that 'way of being'. I do not have a right not to be offended by prejudice; you do not have the right not to be offended by people whose sexual development and sexualities and manners of sexual expression are unconventional.

Rather than repulsion, and condemnation, and hatred, I think these people deserve sympathy and understanding and genuine friendship, and as Christians I think that is what we are called upon to provide. It seems we both need to grow up and put our repulsions away into a mental closet marked 'immature'.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.
Condemning the act is not the same as condemning or judging the individual. The repulsion I spoke of is not for the individual, who, just as any of us, deserves our respect and love. The repulsion is for the acts. And we should all be repulsed by wrong actions, whether it is lying, stealing, homosexual acts or whatever. The OP had passed over all this and was focusing on those few souls born with a true sexual identity issue, much more than just a strong desire toward the same sex.

For such people truly born with ambiguity I think there is no simple answer except love and compassion. I would think that such a soul, raised properly, would know the right path for them. I do not think such a path would involve active bi-sexuality or a life-long ambiguity (like a man for 10 years then a women…etc).

I cannot form as a basis for morality a system which says that whatever I desire must be ok or that whatever anyone else desires must be ok for them. Morals, what is right or wrong, are independent of the mind that can know right from wrong. If it is wrong, it is wrong for all of us.

I was not suggesting burning people at the stake or discrimination against lifestyles. People choose to do wrong all the time. Expressing my belief that what they are doing is wrong, even to them is not the same as discrimination or being prejudice. Neither would be asking people PUBLICALLY endorsing alternative lifestyles (or any wrong action) to repent before receiving communion.

In my Church the same stance is taken on politicians supporting abortion. Private living a life in sin is another matter, something we all do and must deal with. Asking people to accept me as I am, a sinner is one thing. And I agree we are called to love all, regardless of their deeds. However, asking others to accept my sin as ok FOR ME to do and publicly calling them prejudice or discriminatory if they don't accept it as being ok for me to do would not be about fighting for equality, fairness or against unthinking prejudice. It would be about eroding our societies stand for what is right and maybe more fundamentally that there is right and wrong.

I can accept someone in love without having to tell them what they are doing is ok when I know it is not. And a true friend should always tell me when I am wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

one11

Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,319
89
✟9,395.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Of course, you're right. We should not condone those whose activities cause harm to themselves, or to others, however much we love them. And if we see a thread whose stance is the desire to straitjacket unknown others into behavioural patterns that just don't suit the way God built them, of course we should speak out. This thread is not, as it is purported to be, a question of morality. Morality is other-regarding. This thread is about finding justification for a selfish pre-disposition to condemn people who are different.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

Why is this thread about condemning people who are different?

My point is that for parents this would be a difficult decision and a parent couldn't just take one case as presented here and make a conclusion. The parents would need to do research and get multiple medical opinions, etc.

This isn't an issue for the church; it's a private family issue.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.