Replies

Let's say that I think I would be more satisfied as a man than as a woman.

You have a bad habit of conflating two unrelated things. You describe a mental illness above. Using contraceptives isn't, in itself, a sign of mental illness.

We're Christians and within the Christian meaning of celibate is abstinence. Otherwise, you're accepting fornication as not a sin. It's another nonsense argument. See your own definitions in your own link. The Catholic prohibition on clerical marriage is unBiblical. If it is a Papal decree via revelation from God, fine. Believe as you will, but don't pretend that it's Biblically based

Christ's and Paul's arguments are consistent. Marriage is the highest and expected state. That's consistent with the OT teaching. There is no need for clerical celibacy to serve God. Christ is pointing out the moral terpitude and vacuity of the apostate Jewish teachings on marriage. The world of the NT was much like our own today, morally bereft and selfish. As for other "Christians" practicing the misinterpretation of Christ's and Paul's words, keep in mind that Protestantism as a whole is made up of schizmatic Catholics. Protestants are a Catholic subculture. If Catholic's got it wrong, it's likely that the offshoots of Catholicism would as well. You've hung your hat on the wrong verses. They don't mean what you think they mean. Take a look at the Bible as a whole. Protestants do the same thing you're doing. Hang on to a verse for dear life, to rationalize an irrational belief.

I respect your right to conscience and you can believe what you like. But conflating contraception with moral depravity is nonsense. Can contraception lead to moral depravity? Yes. Must it lead to moral depravity? No. Human choice, as you've pointed out, is the difference. We can choose good.

Let's say that I think I would be more satisfied as a man than as a woman.

”You have a bad habit of conflating two unrelated things. You describe a mental illness above. Using contraceptives isn't, in itself, a sign of mental illness.’

I’m disappointed you didn’t think it worthwhile to answer the question, because I was hoping your answer would cast some light on your larger understanding of sexuality as a part of our embodied gift of self --- our Intelligent Design, if you want to put it that way.

I am not conflating two unrelated issues, but precisely aiming to compare and contrast. So now I have to ask again , because I’m trying to get to the level of understanding your principles.

What do you think of using drugs, devices and surgery to attempt to change one’s sexual nature, i.e. from “male” to “female” or t’other way around? Is it positively good as an act of human choice and intelligence through the application of science? or is it neutral, not to be thought either right or wrong? or is it morally objectionable as contrary to Divine and Natural Law; or what?

If you would give your well-considered answer, and expand a bit on the reasons why, then I will better understand your principles and therefore your arguments.

You’ve raised other relevant issues, but in order for this not to run to a couple thousand words, I’m keeping it short for just now.

“I’m here to learn.”

Thank you.