Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[Wrangler]

Outstanding! I sent email to the communications director.

 

[TinMan]

CLEVELAND DIOCESE ISSUES MODEL LGBT POLICY​

Bill Donohue​

The Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, under the leadership of Bishop Edward C. Malesic, has issued a policy for Catholic parishes and schools on sexuality and gender identity that is a model for all Catholic entities, nationwide. Predictably, LGBT activists and their supporters in the media and politics are unhappy, and some are seriously misrepresenting the policy.

In explaining his position, Bishop Malesic restated Church teachings on this matter. “The human person,” he said, “created in the image and likeness of God, deserves the utmost respect, for each person’s dignity is inherent and inviolable.” This set the tone for his policy.
Contrary to what some are saying, the policy does not forbid students who suffer from gender dysphoria—or confusion about their biological sex—

Gender dysphoria is an anxiety disorder stemming from inner understanding of their gender doesn't match the outward physical body.

It is not confusion. They know what their biological sex is.

Calling it confusion is dismissive and belittling. When it is used it presents these people as just being silly or playing some sort of game rather then acknowledging and addressing the very real issue here. It shows that the claims about "each person's dignity" is pretty much meaningless.

from attending Catholic schools. None will be denied. But what will not be tolerated are public denunciations of Church teachings on sexuality. This would include strictures on homosexuality and gender identity. In other words, everyone is welcome to attend Catholic schools, but no one is allowed to publicly resist what the Church teaches.

You are welcome here but you have to pretend to be something other than what you are....that isn't welcoming.

Policy specifics include notifying parents if their child is experiencing gender dysphoria.

Even if that child and the person they are confiding in has every reason to believe that the parents will respond to this with violence and abuse?

Correct pronouns—those which reflect the biological sex of the student—must be used to describe students. Boys’ bathrooms are for boys, not girls, and vice versa. Sports competition allows only biological girls to compete against girls, not boys who think they are girls.

School functions, such as dances, must respect the biological differences between the sexes. Personal appearances and attire should also reflect these differences. No one may undergo sex-reassignment surgery. And all school records will mirror the biological sex of the student.

None of this should be considered controversial, but in some quarters it is.
Benjamin Huelskamp is an LGBT activist who maintains that “the majority of American Catholics are actually supportive of the LGBTQ community.” Wrong. They are not.

A Pew Research Center survey of Christians last year found that Catholics are considerably more likely to say that “society has become too accepting of transgender people” now than they were in 2017. A plurality of Catholics support requiring students to use the public bathrooms of their biological sex, and a plurality want to make it illegal to teach gender ideology in the schools. Six-in-ten want biological boys and girls to compete against those of their own sex, and not against each other. Almost two-in-three oppose adding new gender options to government documents.

The LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland issued a statement saying the Cleveland diocese’s policy used “harmful rhetoric towards the LGBTQ+ community.” This is a lie. It cited not one example.

it contains several starting with misrepresentation of gender dysphoria

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said that “the new policy forces LGBTQ+ kids to hide their authentic selves and attend school in fear of persecution of who they are.” This is also a lie. It should also be noted that the “authentic selves” of students is their biological sex, not some socially contrived notion of who they think they are.

more harmful rhetoric

and the policy itself makes it clear that LGBT kids in Catholic schools have to hide.

 

[Illuminator]

BIDEN, TRANS KIDS AND FOSTER PARENTS​

Bill Donohue
The Biden administration is seeking to limit the rights of foster parents who currently care for LGBT children. It also wants to limit the rights of all future foster parents, making sure they respect the wants and desires of adopted children who may elect to switch their sex.
The public has until November 27 to respond to the proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Information will be provided at the end of this article.

Before examining the proposal, we need to understand what is driving this issue. It’s not hard to figure out.
No queer organization has been more prominent in affecting policy in this administration than the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Lavishly funded by the corporate world, it was ready to hit the ground running if Biden won the presidential election. On November 11, 2020, eight days after he won, it rolled out its 22-page “Blueprint for Positive Change.” It detailed a list of policy recommendations for the administration to follow.

HRC officials have not been disappointed. On June 8, 2023, they issued a press release applauding the administration for its “continued support.” They had previously decided, in 2019, that “Adoption is a Trans Issue.”

The proposed policy, which appeared in the “Federal Register” on September 28, makes it clear that foster parents of trans children do not call the shots—the kids do. And by kids, we mean those who are fourteen years of age; in some cases, even children under fourteen can overrule their foster parents.

For example, what if the child of foster parents decides she is unhappy being a girl and wants to identify as a boy (80 percent of the time it’s the girl who wants to transition), and the parents object. According to this proposal, the foster parents are “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.” In other words, the state is eclipsing the rights of parents.

What if the child of foster parents wants to finish the job, accessing “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care”? In other words, submitting to irreversible puberty blockers and chemical castration. Can the parents overrule their child? Not on your life.
Ordinarily, as even HHS admits, the age that most states say is the legal age of adulthood is eighteen. There are rare instances, such as consenting to certain medical treatments, where a child of sixteen is permitted to consent. But fourteen and below? This is novel, and precarious, territory.

Worse, the issue is not overruling one’s parents in electing to take aspirin—we are talking about physically altering a young person for the rest of his or her life, changes that also have dramatic psychological effects.
When they talk about “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care,” they are talking about “age appropriate services that support their [the child’s] needs related to their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.” That obviously includes sex-reassignment surgery.

The term “age-appropriate” is used in this section of the proposal on p. 66760, but it is not specific. The first time this term is used is on p. 66757. It is never defined. But we do know that fourteen-year-olds can override their parents counsel, and if there are some serious problems at home (e.g., the child was removed due to familial conflict), even those who are younger than fourteen can overrule their parents. This is unprecedented in Western law.

What if the foster parents of a young girl who identifies as a boy refuse to accommodate her? Can the government take the child away from them? You bet. It says that “LGBTQI+ children can be transferred from any entity that will not provide a safe and appropriate placement,” as described in the proposal. It defines as unsafe attempts by the parents to dissuade the child from transitioning.

What if the parents object to their child’s transitioning plans on religious grounds? Too bad. The proposal ostensibly recognizes the validity of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which protects religious liberty, but nonetheless concludes that no religious exemption should be afforded if the burden on the religious rights of parents “is necessary to the advancement of a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible.” Thus does the proposal stand RFRA on its head—it’s the government that has to have a compelling interest to override religious liberty!

Of course, the proposal says that allowing sexually confused kids to transition to the opposite sex meets this test. In other words, it is not a “compelling government interest” to defend parental rights, and this extends even to parents who have sincerely held religious convictions. To be exact, this proposal undermines parental rights and eviscerates RFRA.

Tomorrow, I will take up the issue of allowing trans adults to adopt children. But in the meantime, please register your objections to this proposal by emailing your response to the address below.
[email protected] Be sure to put the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) in the subject line: RIN 0970-AD03.

 

[Wrangler]

Gender dysphoria is an anxiety disorder stemming from inner understanding of their gender doesn't match the outward physical body.

It is not confusion. They know what their biological sex is.

Calling it confusion is dismissive and belittling.

Being offended doesn’t mean you are right.

 

[TinMan]

BIDEN, TRANS KIDS AND FOSTER PARENTS​

Bill Donohue
The Biden administration is seeking to limit the rights of foster parents who currently care for LGBT children. It also wants to limit the rights of all future foster parents, making sure they respect the wants and desires of adopted children who may elect to switch their sex.
The public has until November 27 to respond to the proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Information will be provided at the end of this article.

This is not true as anyone who reads the proposal can see

Before examining the proposal, we need to understand what is driving this issue. It’s not hard to figure out.
No queer organization has been more prominent in affecting policy in this administration than the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
Lavishly funded by the corporate world, it was ready to hit the ground running if Biden won the presidential election. On November 11, 2020, eight days after he won, it rolled out its 22-page “Blueprint for Positive Change.” It detailed a list of policy recommendations for the administration to follow.

You can read the whole thing here. It recommends that civil rights laws be enforced. that children should be protected from abuse and neglect. Reverse the Trump administration issued regulation making it more difficult for student being sexually abused and harassed to report this.

No wonder so many are upset with these proposals.

HRC officials have not been disappointed. On June 8, 2023, they issued a press release applauding the administration for its “continued support.” They had previously decided, in 2019, that “Adoption is a Trans Issue.”

The proposed policy, which appeared in the “Federal Register” on September 28, makes it clear that foster parents of trans children do not call the shots—the kids do. And by kids, we mean those who are fourteen years of age; in some cases, even children under fourteen can overrule their foster parents.

Yes even foster parents don't have the right to abuse kids.

For example, what if the child of foster parents decides she is unhappy being a girl and wants to identify as a boy (80 percent of the time it’s the girl who wants to transition), and the parents object. According to this proposal, the foster parents are “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.” In other words, the state is eclipsing the rights of parents.

Their right to do what?

What if the child of foster parents wants to finish the job, accessing “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care”? In other words, submitting to irreversible puberty blockers and chemical castration.

Puberty blockers are reversable.
Chemical castration is not an accepted medical standard of care for any child.

Can the parents overrule their child? Not on your life.
Ordinarily, as even HHS admits, the age that most states say is the legal age of adulthood is eighteen. There are rare instances, such as consenting to certain medical treatments, where a child of sixteen is permitted to consent. But fourteen and below? This is novel, and precarious, territory.

yes 14 yar olds can consult with a medical or psychiatric professional without parental consent. The consultation is strictly limited by law.
Here the bigger question is why would foster parents deny a child in their care from seeing a medical professional. I guess that denying them care isn't abuse

Worse, the issue is not overruling one’s parents in electing to take aspirin—we are talking about physically altering a young person for the rest of his or her life, changes that also have dramatic psychological effects.

And more lies

When they talk about “Clinically appropriate services” based on “accepted medical standards of care,” they are talking about “age appropriate services that support their [the child’s] needs related to their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.” That obviously includes sex-reassignment surgery.

the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People clearly states that anyone wishing gender reassignment surgery has to be a consenting adult, have a comprehensive diagnostic assessment by three professionals and have engaged in a minimum of 18 months of psychiatric evaluation and counseling.

So "obviously inclides sex-reassignment surgery" is not true.

The term “age-appropriate” is used in this section of the proposal on p. 66760, but it is not specific. The first time this term is used is on p. 66757. It is never defined. But we do know that fourteen-year-olds can override their parents counsel, and if there are some serious problems at home (e.g., the child was removed due to familial conflict), even those who are younger than fourteen can overrule their parents. This is unprecedented in Western law.

What if the foster parents of a young girl who identifies as a boy refuse to accommodate her? Can the government take the child away from them? You bet. It says that “LGBTQI+ children can be transferred from any entity that will not provide a safe and appropriate placement,” as described in the proposal. It defines as unsafe attempts by the parents to dissuade the child from transitioning.

Unsafe attempts. IE abuse

 

[TinMan]

Being offended doesn’t mean you are right.

not offended but I think you are when ever facts are presented

 

[Pierac]

I will be advocating for the side that homosexuality is inherently wrong, and the promotion of such actions and thoughts are evil. Similar or contrasting views are welcome and gladly accepted. Let us be in constant search for the truth during our discussion.

Of course homosexuality is wrong.... Disgusting Too!!!! Yet so is Smoking... (is not our body a temple of God)!

You need to understand sin! Sin is sin.... Homosexuality is no different that Smoking.... They have the same Judgement!

Missing the Mark!!!

Sin
G266
ἁμαρτία
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G264

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313
Citing in TDNT: 1:267, 44

Could seeing trash on the ground and knowing in your heart you should pick it up... but choose not too.... be counted as Missing the Mark... in God's eyes...??? Makes you think.... !!!

 

[Jack]

and you are preaching hate.

Everybody here knows that Liberals nearly always accuse others of what they do!

This is what you call "hate" :

1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

 

[Jack]

what would you do is someone said yes?

I would say, show me the proof.

 

[TheOneHeLoves]

not offended but I think you are when ever facts are presented

you seem to be the one that is ignoring facts/truth. You are looking at your feelings and personal experience. To say you are a Christian but disregard what God set at rules and standards, how can that be? Do you follow Christ Jesus or not?

To call evil evil is not the same as beating someone or mistreating them. Homosexual activity (including lust of the eyes) is sin, transgenderism is sin.

You call violence a sin and you are right but stating truth is not sin. lying is a sin and you sir seem to not know the difference.

 

[St. SteVen]

... Homosexual activity (including lust of the eyes) is sin, transgenderism is sin.

Transgenderism is a sin?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This is the problem with the church on these issues.
This whole area is gray, but the church makes it black and white.
It's a refusal to dialog.

Basically one step away from what they do in some Islamic countries where gays are
thrown from building rooftops to the street below to kill them. Seething hatred.

... lying is a sin and you sir seem to not know the difference.

That's pretty heavy-handed!

/

 

[Jack]

Transgenderism is a sin?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This is the problem with the church on these issues.
This whole area is gray, but the church makes it black and white.
It's a refusal to dialog.

Basically one step away from what they do in some Islamic countries where gays are
thrown from building rooftops to the street below to kill them. Seething hatred.


That's pretty heavy-handed!

/

Another gay / Liberal Bible attacker?

 

[TinMan]

Everybody here knows that Liberals nearly always accuse others of what they do!

This is what you call "hate" :

1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Calling hate by its name is just honest

 

[TinMan]

I would say, show me the proof.

And what would this proof be?

 

[TinMan]

you seem to be the one that is ignoring facts/truth.

Gender dysphoria is an anxiety disorder stemming from inner understanding of their gender doesn't match the outward physical body.

and that is just a fact

 

[Jack]

Calling hate by its name is just honest

Then be honest. Liberals murder babies. You're pro abortion, right? Oh that's right, Liberals / gays don't like answering questions.

 

[Jack]

And what would this proof be?

Something Liberals never have. Liberals / gays love nearly everything against Christianity! You're proof!

 

[TinMan]

Then be honest. Liberals murder babies. You're pro abortion, right? Oh that's right, Liberals / gays don't like answering questions.

I'm a liberal and I haven't murdered anybody.

 

[TinMan]

Something Liberals never have. Liberals / gays love nearly everything against Christianity! You're proof!

You wanted to know if it's OK with the rules to ask someone if they are gay.

I asked you what would you do if someone said yes?

You said you would want proof.



Were you even paying attention?

 

[Jack]

And what would this proof be?

Something that Liberals / gays avoid like plague.