Transsexual Sin?

[Icystwolf]

the bottom line Washington is Christians believe that being a transsexual is a sin and you will be punished for it. Heck even having lust in your mind is a sin according to these fundy's. Don't sweat it, because sin is just a concept used to make people fell guilty.

Another of your assumptions....

we have yet to decide whether a spirit which isn't gender defined to be affected by transexuals.

Personally I have no idea how to discuss this or speak of it, so whether it's a sin or not, most Christians probably won't know...else I'd be the only one....I do have faint ideas on it....
But I think I'll wait to hear more experienced Christians tackle this one...

 

[Icystwolf]

no, it is not a matter of just dressing up. A transsexual is someone who has hormonal and surgical treatment to make their body into one (or at least closely resembling) of the opposite gender.

confusing transsexuals and transvestites is a common problem, and it has cropped up at least twice in this topic alone. the two conditions are entirely different.

Ok, so transexuals are those that make themselves as close to the opposite sex, whilst transvestites are those that completely pull out their genetials and pluck in the opposite set of genetials....

 

[Jet Black]

transvestites wear the clothes of the opposite sex, transsexuals take hormones and have operations so they are indistinguishable. Furthermore, transvestites tend to just dress some of the time, wheras transsexuals live out their entire lives as the opposite sex to the one whey were born.

 

[Washington]

Ok, just to clarify we are talking about a situation in which a man, would dress up like a woman, and then sleep with a woman, correct (or vice versa)?

That's a transvestite.

A transsexual is one who is surgically changed (the genitals) to resemble the opposite sex.

 

[Jet Black]

That's a transvestite.

A transsexual is one who is surgically changed (the genitals) to resemble the opposite sex.

exactly. there is nothing worse than discussing things when people can't even get the definitions right.

 

[Spuffy]

yes. i can see your viewpoint.
i myself have been inflicted with the desire to dress as a lady for several months.. i have so far not succumed to it, my will and faith are both strong. However, i can see that some time soon i may give in.

 

[God rocks!]

Transexualism is a big no no. That's what my friend (Him upstairs) tells me anyway.

If God intended men to dress up as women, or have their *****es removed, it wouldn't cost so much to get done. You're looking at $10,000 to get the snip you know. That's what a friend of mine said anyway. I'm sure God wouldn't want our honestly earnt cash being spent on a sin like that.

 

[Godskitty]

I don't think it's the financial implications you should be concerned about God Rocks! We are given our genders according to God's will, they are out pre-defined life paths. I don't think its wise to manipulate such things, it could lead to a lot of confusion.

 

[God rocks!]

Oh, I quite agree, that's not to say that poor people shouldn't have the chance to change sex if that is their will. I'm poor.

I'd never dream of changing my sex though. It's wrong, isn't it?

 

[Godskitty]

Well how do you truly fel about the subject God Rocks? Do you believe it to be wrong?

 

[Gadreel]

I don't know if the bible is rational, for a text that is meant to be guided by god it has been re-written and awful lot of times and insodoing has left some amusing latencies.

Butmore to the point this tread is asking a serious question (for some) and I feel that these people who defile there bodies have already commited that sin, but then still cannot decide what they want to be. They revert to their true selves and so are not commiting a sin (as long as there union is confussed before God).

 

[Jet Black]

Transexualism is a big no no. That's what my friend (Him upstairs) tells me anyway.

If God intended men to dress up as women, or have their *****es removed, it wouldn't cost so much to get done. You're looking at $10,000 to get the snip you know. That's what a friend of mine said anyway. I'm sure God wouldn't want our honestly earnt cash being spent on a sin like that.

let's all get rid of our cars and houses and live in cardboard boxes with thousands of dollars in the bank

 

[Jet Black]

Butmore to the point this tread is asking a serious question (for some) and I feel that these people who defile there bodies have already commited that sin, but then still cannot decide what they want to be. They revert to their true selves and so are not commiting a sin (as long as there union is confussed before God).

sorry, what do you mean by "defile", and what do you mean by "true self"? I am having a bit of trouble following your position here.

 

[tcampen]

What about hermaphrodites - those born with both genders' genitalia?

If we are to accept the argument that we should stick with the gender that God designed us to have, how to treat hermaphrodites? True they can usually be consider slightly closer to one gender or the other, but it's still a difficult question.

Is it wrong for such a person to have an operation to definitively establish one gender over the other? If not, how is that materially different from the transexual?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

To me the Bible is rational

It is. All Biblical principles have a reason behind them. The problem comes when people don't look for the underlying reasons. This can result in an irrational mishmash of misinterpretations.

 

[panterapat]

panterapat,

You say:
"Any act of impurity such as immodesty, maritial relations out side of marriage, lust, etc. is sinful. Transsexual relationships would fit this category."

I would appreciate it if would would explain just HOW or WHY a transsexual relationship fits any of these categories and is therefore sinful.

Thanks

Man and woman God created us. And we were told to go and multiply. Natural law dictated that in order to use something in the proper way, the use must be in sync with the nature of the object.

Example: To grow a plant, one must have a seed, soil, water and sunlight. To deny any on these elements would lead to the demise of the plant.

God created man an woman to multiply through THE act. Pleasure is attached to this ACT in order to enhance us to do the ACT, that we may propogate the species. The bonding between male and female engaging in this ACT is to foster a nurturing environment for the offspring, with a mother and father.

To seperate the procreative quatities from the unitive qualities, denies the nature of the ACT.

And to have a transsexual relationship is to deny what sexual relations are for, thus thwarting God's plan of creation. And it may also be denying the gender that God gave to you.

All things in nature are created for a certain purpose and use. To use anything against it's prupose is to go against what is in God's plan for humanity.

In Christ, Patrick

 

[tcampen]

Gee, that kinda reduces the ACT into a very animalistic exercise with benefits. What about it being an expression of both physical and emotional intimacy? What about it's roll in an intimate relationship and part of the closeness of two individuals regardless of creating offspring?

From what you're saying, if a married couple decides they do not want any children, and both undergo surgical procedures to prevent pregnancy, then they have no business doing the ACT? And what about engaging in certain things extremely similar and related to the ACT, but could never result in offspring? (You know what I'm talking about.) Should these things be avoided completely because procreation cannot result? What about the couple that is infertile? Same for them?

What if in a marriage the husband was paralyzed from the waste down, making the ACT impossible. However, using the latest fertility technology, the wife could concieve using the husband's "seed." Since they cannot perform the ACT, is procreation out of the question?

I see the desire to link the ACT and procreation as inseprable concepts, and perhaps they are within the rest of the animal population. However, as humans, we have placed additional significance to the ACT beyond just procreation and related benefits to our offspring. To deny committed couples this intimate expression of love, trust and affection simply because the procreative aspect of it is missing seems way off base to me and most other humans I know.

 

[panterapat]

On the contraty-

The Catholic Church elevated the ACT to a spiritual level. Sex is a SACRED thing, not to be expressed except in the confines of marriage. A sacred vessel is used for special occassions. The ACT of union is to cooperate with God's creative power.

 

[tcampen]

On the contraty-

The Catholic Church elevated the ACT to a spiritual level. Sex is a SACRED thing, not to be expressed except in the confines of marriage. A sacred vessel is used for special occassions. The ACT of union is to cooperate with God's creative power.

So the ACT can only be "used for special occasions?" I can understand a honeymoon or the wedding night itself, but are anniverseries a good enough occasion? How about birthdays, or are we limited to religious holidays like Easter or Christmas? So just feeling a bit frisky isn't quite good enough to warrant the ACT, even between married couples?

Talk about the pendulum swinging. We just went from an animalistic interpretation of the ACT to an almost purely ceremonial concept, And what about those sects beyond Catholicism? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[tcampen]

I noticed that no one wanted to address the issue of hermaphrodites, who have the organs of both male and female. Since they were created by god that way, should they remain somewhere inbetween genders, or are they allowed to pick one and have a transexual operation?

tough one, isn't it?