On the News today...

I see that the pope ( Benedict XVI) has opened his mouth & spouting more rubbish, just like he usually does. This time he reckons that " that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. How many times have we heard that from him? When is he going to realise that this is the 21st century & not the dark ages, and that this sort of thing goes on all over the world. Just because HE thinks its wrong, there's no need for him to condemn people just because they live differently to him. There's enough intolerance in the world without him stirring things up, I Just wish he wouldn't be so hasty to judge a subject that he quite plainly knows NOTHING about.




lol xxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

Hunni,

This is'nt a subject he 'plainly knows NOTHING about', after all, he does wear a dress most of the time...

Much love

Rae xx

It's a shame he didn't bother to condemn peadophiles as well, or would that be too close to home! The catholic church seems to be endemic with them.
There is a law in england, which makes it illegal to incite racial and religeous hatred, this was extended a few years ago to include homophobia, I trust the british police will arrest this bigot as soon as he sets foot upon british soil.

Let me say first, I love the come backs on this topic ! Rebeca, RIGHT ON GIRL! Hoo- ha, hey , Michael Savage has more ammo to spew about we Trannies now as he did last night on his show . I'm sorry all he sees are the whinny ones, I wish I could afford to travel to San Francisco and show Mister Savage what a Libertarian , self employed Trans person really does look like too! I want LESS GOVERNMENT, not more social programs ! Ellen S

Unbelievable ignorance!
I wonder just what he thinks transsexual behaviour IS? I behave much like my peers who aren’t TS. I am certainly more “normal” than a barmy old twat like him.
Rebecca is absolutely right; if he’d said this in the UK he would have just broken the law.
The pope is a criminal.
Merry Christmas to all my normal friends here.
xx

So much for tolerance in the catholic church!
Sad,
MichelleLynn

Ella, if I ever start a debating team, you are top of the list!

Beautifully turned.

(I have a suspicion you may be just a little bit wrong in your interpretation, , but I much prefer your version!)

Ella, hunni, you got my vote for Pope....

So much love

Rae x

OH GOD! GIVE ME A BREAK!

This whole god business has gotten totally out of hand!

When humanity finally wakes up and gives up the preposterous delusion that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and everything in it, will we be able to live up to our full potential.

I'm so tired of religious people telling us how evil we are, not just the transsexuals, but the TG's, the gays, lesbians, the bi-sexuals too. (While we're at it, let's name a few more groups; Democrats, Libertarians, Atheists, etc.) Religious people cannot even accept other religious people, why should they accept us?

A "Christian" guy I work with claims that we're all sinners, that mankind is by nature "evil". We always have been since Adam & Eve's original sin in the Garden! According to him, humanity will always will be evil. To this, I say, BULL-poo!

What makes us different than the animals? Free will. A conscience. We are sentient (self-aware) beings. If we were to really use our free will, we could choose to rise above the prejudice, the intolerance of those unlike ourselves, desire, greed, petty differences, and make this world something really beautiful.

But as long as we choose to believe in superstitions, gods, and accept the way things are, we will never know peace. We will never know how beautiful life on this earth could be. We will never know true happiness.

Oh, but wait a minute, that's what we're supposed to receive in the "afterlife", provided we're good little Christians, Muslims & Jews. Good luck with that.

I think Ella stated things extremely well, especially the part about human nature and so many needing to be lead. Would you prefer a positive spiritual leader or a murderous slave driver? I think often people mix up spiritually versus organized religion. Believing in God can be as simple as remaining open minded and living life with higher morals just because there just might be someone watching. Organized religion is often attacked as hypocritical and yes it is, SOMETIMES! But not all the time, not all the pastors, ministers, rabbis.......are hypocrites.

Eileen made an excellent comment about what was the context of the Pope's message. Do those following this thread know that the message did not even include the words "gay, lesbian, homosexual or transsexual"? Just as those who condemn Religion for twisting things to mean what they want, often anti religious people do the same thing.

My interpretation of the Pope's message including released clarifications from the Vatican is that the message was about the sanctity of marriage. God gave us man and woman, and the joining of the two is a "marriage". He did not say anything derogatory about others; just marriage is between a man and a woman. He did not say homosexuals couldn't have a relationship and he did not even imply anything in regards to transsexualism. All he did was restate the church's position that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.

I am personally in favor of marriage being for only a man and a woman. However, I believe whatever you would like to call it, civil union or whatever, that all rights of marriage should pertain, just call it something else.

Hugs,
Marsha

Marsha, what a load of s**t, civil union with all the same benefits of marriage, or a differant name??? If it has all the same rights and meaning why call it something else? It's a Marriage! so what if the genders don't differ. I believe you're married to a woman? How do you explian that? Or perhaps your not really TS?

As was said above, some people need to be led, thats fine but don't impose these stupid beliefs upon those of us with more sense.

Huggles

Becca

I havnt been able to find the full text of the speech. I will not accept any excerps which can be, and usually are, taken out of context. however, it is well documented that the pope is against same sex marriages, so i find it hard to believe that all of a sudden his interpretation of saving humankind includes accepting and embracing the gay and transgendered comunities.

here is a report i found...
http://www.guardian.co.uk[...]xuality

there are a few news reports but I was unable to locate the full text for me to determine my own opinion.

much love, merry xmas everyone!
penny
x

I guess what bothers me most about that Rebecca is why argue over it in the first place. There are different races of people and using your philosophy why distinguish between the races, they are all people. But everyone seems to go along with terms like african, asian, etc. Again I don't mean to argue this point, just that society uses similar distinguishing terms in other situations. Yes I do happen to be married and I consider myself very fortunate to have my wife and family. I have yet to have my gender status changed and in the U.S. it works a little different than other countries, therefore technically I am still married. Marriage is a religious term, so I see that as already being used. I think the best solution would be to just have a new term for unions that represents everyone. The church can keep their recognition of a marriage and as far as legalities go, some other union term could be used for that.

As far as anyone imposing their views on you all I can say is, why? Are you leading or following? And being this thread has to do with what the Pope said, I'm not catholic so I really could care less what he has to say. But I think what you may be implying is those who make laws often are influenced by various beliefs and that is wrong. I can fully agree with that.

Hugs,
Marsha

I'm not sure about in the US but in England "marriage" is not a religious term, It's a legal deffinition. In England you can marry in a church, or as most people seem to do these days, get married in a civil (non-religious) ceremony. They are identical in law. Many other european countries (France for example) you can only get married in a civil ceremony (by the Mayor of your town) and the church only does a blessing.
All I'm saying, marriage is a legal issue only here, so why should ones gender make any difference?

Unlike most people I have no wish to lead or to follow any one or anything (especially some fictitious god) I just wish to lead my own life and marry some one of my choice irrespective of other peoples bias.

Getting back on topic, (sorry) Channel four in England is to broadcast an alternative Xmas message this year- from the prime minister of Iran, His speach (only part of which I've heard so far) contains many referances to Jesus and his relationship to Islam, Many christians are trying to stop it's full broadcast, If the pope can be seen through out europe spitting his bile, why not this idiot? It merely exposes these religions for what they really are.

Huggles

Becca

I can fully agree with your last post Rebecca. I don't believe anyone's views should be suppressed. Marriage originated before the Bible. Marriage was a contract and it was the church that helped evolve it into what it is today, a loving relationship between two people. All historical reference refers to marriage with the terms husband and wife or bride and groom. Even during the Roman Empire, homosexuality was acceptable, yet marriage remained between a man and a woman. That is why I suggested we just toss out the old "marriage" and replace it with a new united term. The church could continue to bless and recognize marriages as they saw fit, meanwhile everyone would be covered under the new name.
Hugs and Happy New Year,
Marsha

Hi All,

1st of all - I'm not "pushing" my opinion on anyone, just expressing my belief.


It's sad that humanity confuses Faith in God with Religion!! Every religion on the planet has a human component, in addition to the tenets of its faith. I pose the following question:

Name a human activity or organization , that over time has not had human frailties, fears, behaviours and "special interests" injected into what may have started out pure.


Add a couple of thousand of years of people "interpreting" for others what God said (or may have said). Does the result resemble the original intent?

I for one, pray that each would find their peace, faith and relationship with God and be fortunate to look past the human patina that sits on top of all the major religions today.

For me , it's FAITH NOT RELIGION that truly matters. Did God ever intend for some person in ROME (or any other place) to stand between me and my personal relationship with Him/Her? I think Not!!

Hugz,
MichelleLynn

Ella,

I disagree, at least in part with your statement that 90% of people on the planet need to be lead, not left to have free will. They aren't capable of thinking for themselves. I think that the figure is much closer to 99%. The really sad part, is that those doing the leading, are unable to find their car keys, and certainly don't have a clue as to what's best for humanity.

Many people claim that without faith in God, or the flying purple spaghetti monster, that we'd have no morals, no order whatsoever. I totally disagree. Sure, there might be certain uncivilized pockets of people, for which that might be true. But within civilized societies, order is maintained for the mutual benefit of its' members. Granted, without people's faith in God, or religions as we know them, it may not be the same type of order to which we are accustomed. But I believe that there would be order, and that eventually would result in moral conduct as well. I may not believe in God, or the flying purple spaghetti monster, but I do believe in humanity's ability to reason, and adapt. We might even want to call it, evolution?


Marsha,

I believe that Rebecca is right; if civil unions and marriages have the same benefits, then what's the difference? Whether the ceremony was held in a courthouse (like my first) or a church (like my second) made no difference when I I was living as a male, marrying a female. Both ceremonies were recognized by the county, the state, and the federal government for all legal rights and privileges.

But had I chosen to marry a guy [see note below] in the state of California a few months ago, before passage of Proposition 8, I would have most of the same legal rights and privileges within the state of California, but not all. I would not have been able to file my federal income taxes as a married couple. I would not have have the rights of survivorship for Social Security benefits had something happened to my spouse. I would not have been able to take advantage of inheriting real estate from my spouse without a federal inheritance tax.

(Note: I'm pre-op TS, legally considered as male in my home state of Kansas. Even after SRS, though my Kansas birth certificate will be changed to indicate "Male", a Kansas Supreme Court ruling a few years ago, would invalidate any legal marriage rights I might enjoy elsewhere, at least within the state of Kansas. )

THIS IS NOT EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, as provided for in the Constitutions of the United States, and the State of California. Which incidentally, is the reason that the Supreme Court of California ruled last spring to allow same sex marriages. The very same reason the Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled the way it did a few years ago.

A civil union is NOT the same as marriage. I'm fine with calling it something else if that's what it takes to equalize the institutions. I'm fine with civil unions being performed in a courthouse, and marriages in a church, as long as the benefits and privileges are the same, i.e. equal.

You claim to be TS, do you not want to be considered an equal to any other woman? I know that is what I want.

Michelle Lynn,

You are correct, I did indeed use the terms religion and faith rather loosely, interchangeably. My apologies, I'll try to be more careful with my choice of words/meanings/intentions.

Nicole

Nicole,
Of course I want equal rights and I have tried several times here to basically state: Get rid of the term marriage, get rid of the term civil union, and come up with a new term that will equally cover everyone. For thousands of years the term marriage has meant a contract between a man and a woman and all I'm saying is leave it alone. Sure something has to change, and like you and everyone else I believe we need to be considered 100% equal. I say take church out of government and one way to do that is remove marriage and replace it with something else. So I'm not saying have two different but equal terms, just one new one.

Next is I am tired of hearing "You claim to be TS" out of you. What? Who made you God with all the answers as to who is TS and who is not? Based on your profile we are basically the same age and have been transitioning for about the same amount of time. We both have experiences to share with others, yet we both have completely different lives. So therefore I resent anyone questioning my integrity as to being TS or not. I have not professed to being a rocket scientist or anything, I am just me, a simple minded gal who believes she is a good person. I like expressing my opinion and that is all it is, my opinion. Please don't question my gender.

Hugs,
Marsha

Girls......................seems to me there is a hell of lot of reading between the lines and some very free interpretation going on here! I get the impression that Marsha and I are the only ones here who have actually LOOKED AT AND READ the offending article. The translation is s*** (but what else can you expect from a computer programme?) ,but I also looked at the original,italian,text and,although I don't know italian,there was NO specific refence to homosexuals or transsexuals anywhere- it's the ninth paragraph for those who are interested.

(I found it via Roses Forum.............http://rosesforum.tv

The thread there has almost the same title as this one!

Happy New Year,

Lynn H.

OK girls,

what we're talking about here seems to be Benedict's 'Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia and Prelature,22/12/08'- interestingly it's only in german and italian, according to the Vatican website.Even in german,which I can read,there is no specific mention of Homosexuals and/or Transsexuals.He alludes to 'Gender' but only in a very general way.I can't help feeling that those with an axe to grind have perhaps read a little too much into a poorly,and probably unofficially, translated speech ....For those who want to go direct to RC Mission Control,The Vatican:

http://vatican.va

Once there,click on Site Map,then on Benedict XVI and then on Speeches- but as I say,it's only in german and italian. Google will do you a s*** translation, perhaps Babelfish does it better. I had a quick look at other speeches,messages etc etc but couldn't find anything controversial in regard to us.......

One thing.....I AM NOT RELIGIOUS....but if I was I certainly wouldn't want to belong to that club!!!

Happy New Year

Lynn H.

I'm with Lynn on this and feel that the GLBT community was expecting the Pope to comeout against gay marriage and they were ready to attack anything he said. It is pretty sad for groups to twist words the way they have here, like i said, I feel they were already prepared to attack the Pope's words. I'm not Catholic, I think the idea of a Pope and everything else related to the Vatican are ludicrous, nevertheless I'm not about to put words into his mouth that he didn't say.
Hugs,
Marsha

In his previous incarnation as the old Pope's rottweiller, Benedict XVI was responsible for the Vaticans stance on homosexuality which was as follows: " Gays are immoral, their behaviour contrary to natural law, their acts are grave sins, and they are objectively disordered." So who cares what he says now. I was born and raised, and am a sometimes practicing Catholic. As I'm sure some of the girls who have already posted here are. So I feel guilty when I'm attracted to someone, I feel guilty when I have sex with someone, and I feel guilty when I don't attend the Church that I know hates me. Sorry, they don't hate me, they hate what I do. Or in my case, what I have done to me. For Pope Benedict doesn't condemn homosexuals, he condemns homosexuality. The Pope may be a prejudiced bigot, but I guess he's my bigot. I was born a Catholic and I will die a Catholic. Can you understand how much I hate that? As for gay marriage. Well there is nothing natural about marriage. Just as people aren't naturally monogomous, we choose to be. So also we choose to marry. Marriage is a social construct. It is just one of many legal binds. It really wouldn't matter if you chose to marry a giraffe. Those who object to gay marriage by implication object to gay sex. As long as the institution of marriage continues to be between man and woman it remains in some way sacrosanct; and those who have other sexual proclivities however tolerated will continue to be 'objectively disordered.' Which is why gay couples who marry in a civil union are doing the gay community a disservice. We should hold out until we have full and equal rights and nothing else, and not accept scraps from the bigots table.

lets see if this works cris.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7797269.stm


Lol xxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie

Take a deep breath Cristine, hugs hon.

To start with, here are links to what you posted:
http://www.traditioninact[...]003.htm
http://www.christian.org.[...]ism.htm
and the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h[...]663.stm

Now realise the first two are from 2003 and only reflect general views on homosexuality and transgender. The first link above is actually titled "VATICAN PERMITS TRANSSEXUALS". The second link discusses what the Christian Institute believes a transsexual is and ISN'T. I take all of it with a grain of salt anyways because they site no real evidence to support their views. Their references are basically obscure examples that say what they want to hear.

Now for the BBC article you are so excited over, The darn thing only translates a few points, not the entire speech. The first is "human ecology", basically saying we were created in a way that it requires a man and a woman to procreate. Should we abandon that would be the demise of mankind. Makes sense to me.

Next is the 'Gender" issue. Basically once again he states there is man and woman, two genders. We need to do all we can to protect that. Otherwise it is a bunch of mumbo jumbo that leads to multi intepretations.

This is the BBC text:

On 'human ecology'
"We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way. The Church speaks of human nature as 'man' or 'woman' and asks that this order is respected.

"This is not out-of-date metaphysics. It comes from the faith in the Creator and from listening to the language of creation, despising which would mean self-destruction for humans and therefore a destruction of the work itself of God."


On 'gender'
"What is often expressed and signified with the word 'gender' leads to the human auto-emancipation from creation and from the Creator. The human being wants to make himself on his own and to decide always and exclusively by himself about what concerns him.

"But, in so doing, the human being lives against the truth and against the Spirit creator. Rain forests deserve, yes, our protection but the human being - as a creature which contains a message that is not in contradiction with his freedom but is the condition of his freedom - does not deserve it less."

I don't know if this helped but I think the consensus is who cares what the Pope has to say anyways.
Hugs,
Marsha

“The Christian response to a transsexual, as with any other person, should be prayer, care and counsel…”
God, give me strength!
I’m sure there could be a place for gender variant people in organised religion, but these people simply choose what they want to believe and make their “rules” accordingly. It’s all utter nonsense, and isn’t it a little bit arrogant for a mere mortal to suggest that they know best what God’s will is?
The author of the first link posted by Marsha above refers to us as “abominations”, how lovely, and points out that that the Vatican decided that a person who undergoes sex-change surgery must continue to be viewed as the same sex they always were, and thus a post-op M2F is “still a man” and cannot marry another man, which of course is now contrary to the law of this land.
Both articles contain lies, personal opinion stated as fact and self-righteous sophistry.
As to what the pope did or didn’t say, or what he actually meant by the reported vagaries, one has to ask:
IS THE POPE A CATHOLIC?
Go on Ben, give us a straight answer pleeease?
According to Catholicism, homosexual acts are a sin, and TS’s are homosexuals. I don’t think the pope is leaping to our defence here.

Should we pay attention to “a load of men in dresses who worship an imaginary friend”?
No, in my opinion it’s all stupid and futile. They invent this entity they call “The Creator” and decide for themselves what “He” says we should believe.
Believe in whatever God you like, but me, I have faith in myself.
Peace and love.
xx

In all honesty Cristine, I don't think the Pope's latest babble has anything to do with transgender. We are such a minute portion of the population that we are pretty irrelevant to be part of a major Christmas announcement. I think all he has tried to state is that God gave us the method of procreating with a man and a woman, and we should not lose site of that. If he and his followers want to believe the nonsense he speaks, so be it. Eventually as the facts that support our side become more widely known, then those believers will lose confidence in what the Pope and church have to say. That is how things change. They don't change by misconstruing what has been said, that if anything makes us look bad. We need to focus on educating people on the facts, not bad mouthing the uninformed. I just think you are reading way too much into what the Pope said.
Lots of Hugs for you always,
Marsha

LOL, Geez, Cristine, This is what the Pope said

"Rainforests deserve, yes, our protection, but the human being ... does not deserve it less," the pontiff said. ]

He did not use the words transgender or homosexual. Whoever wrote that stupid article did!

Lots more hugs for you Cristine,
Marsha

Marsha Ann,

I don't recall ever challenging your integrity or authenticity of being TS before, or even in this instance. If you took it that I was, please accept my apology. I am not qualified to diagnose or analyze anyone's condition, not even my own.

But I was just trying to make the point that, being TS, we're as good and deserving of equality as anyone else. But I felt that your statements did not support the issue clearly. That perhaps you felt that "marriage" should be reserved only for male/female unions. That for us, (TS, or GLBT's) the term "civil union" should be applied.

You said:
I am personally in favor of marriage being for only a man and a woman. However, I believe whatever you would like to call it, civil union or whatever, that all rights of marriage should pertain, just call it something else.

When used in this way, even though we say they're the same, they're not the same. Do you remember, though it actually took place a little before our time, a very big issue was made out of the term "Separate, but Equal."?

{Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka} http://en.wikipedia.org/w[...]ucation
I urge TW members to read the the Wikipedia page regarding this historic, landmark case, and tell me that it doesn't have some remarkable similarities to this topic.

Then Rebecca replied with: (I'm paraphrasing here)
... marriage and civil unions (where she lives) are legally the same...

So why not call it marriage? It's a term that virtually everyone is familiar with. If I were to flirt with a (married) guy, and he rebuffs me with, "Sorry sweetie, I'm in a civil union." Does this mean that he's a member of a labor union for civilians, or is he married? If they're the same thing, (marriage or civil union) let's just use a word that everyone already knows.

Nicole,
First off your apology is accepted. I believe that was the second time you used that statement but now knowing your intended meaning I understand. Again where I differ with you on the marriage thing is I see the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. No matter how you arrange things, you cannot call two homosexuals a man and a woman. Therefore they don't fit the criteria for a marriage. Finding state laws that took for granted the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, yet not including those words, then exploiting those laws is wrong in my opinion.

The Brown vs Board of Education example is not a bad argument, just that I don't feel it fits here. Nobody argued the definition of education, just equal access to the same education. I am just against redefining a word that has had a given meaning for thousands of years. Earlier, I mentioned an entirely new term would cover everyone, not just the gay unions. That would meet your Brown vs Boad of Education criteria. Personally a marriage is basically a civil union, so why not just call it that and have it so everyone has equal rights under that name. But no, no, no, you want what the other has no matter what. That falls under you believe the grass is always greener on the otherside. Maybe your side is just as green or even greener, have you ever looked at it that way. Just like TG is the umbrella term for CD/TV's, TS's, and others; why can't civil union be the umbrella term with marriage and other titles listed under it? Most important is all of them have equal rights.

You also argue why call it something else when we already have "marriage." What is wrong with tradition. Many people argue that we need to be accepting of different culture's traditions in our society. Take for example muslims that wash their feet before a meal, does that now mean because they do everyone else must or the muslims shouldn't? For those that argue that, would it not be the samething to say a culture whose definition of marriage is between a man and a woman should be required to change for the minority? I believe the answer to both is no, we don't need to change our traditions.

Hugs,
Marsha

Oh Boy!(or should that be 'Oh Girl'?),

collectively you've worked up a fine head of steam here and the safety valves are on the point of lifting.................

A few things to bear in mind:

The 'offending' speech is only in german and italian-an official,Vatican 'blessed' english translation is not available.............So how did the Beeb get hold of it? It wasn't intended for mass-consumption a la 'Urbi-and-Orbi'´.Oh,by the way Christine,as a consequence of cuts ,re-organisation,new guidelines etc etc, the Beeb is not what it used to be.

Interestingly,only the english-speaking world seems to be in uproar.So far,I've not found any trace of this speech on any german or austrian transgender sites.True,I've only carried out a superficial check but the main austrian TG site,for example,which picks up on more anti-LGBT speeches,utterances,etc etc than TW or Roses do, has nothing. It does,on the other hand,have this-(5/12/08)-

<b> 'The Vatican condemns a french UN initiative which would put an end to death or prison sentences for homosexuals in the world.'</bold>

France was intending to place before the full session of the UN on 10.12.08 an initiative which would 'Outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity'- the idea being to exert pressure on those 75 states in which homosexuality is illegal-in 9 of them it carries the death penalty. (I don't know what happened at the UN)

Actually,this press report is an example of LGBT axe-grinding..........The permanent Rep. of the Holy See at the UN,an Archbishop Celestino Migliore, based the Vatican's rejection on the grounds that the french initiative would strengthen supporters of same-sex marriage,and that pressure would be exerted on those states who don't accept such 'marriages', that they'd be ostracised, and that "new,merciless,discrimination would be created".
So far,so good.......then the LGBT politicos got in on the act and the headline above is the result.Actually,the Catechismus of the Catholic Church rejects the death penalty,prison sentences and discrimination on grounds of homosexuality. However,whereas the Vatican Rep. only rejected the initiative because of the 'gay marriage' aspect,the LGBT groups promptly interpreted the rejection as supporting the continued harassment of homosexuals........which is,to my mind,NOT what the Vatican said..........and this is probably what happened with the cause of this thread-someone got a Google translation and passed it on to his/her friendly local LGBT activists............ who promptly came up with 2+2=22............. Oh,and there are almost certainly extremely conservative orientated catholic clergy who'd be more than willing to come up with a similar reading (at least one Cardinal/Archbishop apparently thinks that Pinochet was the best thing that happened to Chile......................)
As I understand it,the concept of Gender is rather wider than simply homosexuality and transsexuality.

One thing I'm not clear about-does homosexuality,as referred to by the Vatican,cover both gay and lesbian,or only gay??

Happy New Year

Lynn H.

Christine et al,

we believe what we want to believe...I have however,as a sideline to my main job,also had to make translations from german into english so I know that the one thing you CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES do when translating is introduce extra text-opinions,explanations and so on.You can only translate the text you are given. The Beeb translation is therefore,in my opinion,sloppy and untenable. Where does this sort of sloppiness get us....very simple......'Weapons of mass destruction'...........;(We all know where that lead....).;)

There is an interesting sub-thread running here concerning marriage.........those of you getting hot under the collar or twisting knickers over this might care to concentrate your thoughts on the following and come up with some suitable definitions:

1.define 'Man'

2.define 'Woman'

3.define 'Sex' (NOT as an act!!)

4.depending upon your results for 1-3 define 'single-sex'(aka 'gay') marriage.

Depending upon how one looks at the topic,one could,for example, argue that the churches/religions have always blessed 'single-sex' marriages!

Happy New Year,

Lynn H.

Marsh Ann,

Let us agree that we disagree and end this here.

We're two different people, living in two different environments, with a common affliction, we're TS. We just happen to have a difference of opinion.

I have no idea of what it must be like to be TS and living in Georgia; which may color your views differently than mine, and that's perfectly fine. C'est la vie!

(I'm ashamed to admit that I actually used to live in Kansas, a very bigoted state when it comes to gay rights, or anything else GLBT. )

But on the other hand, you don't know what it's like to live in my area, (San Francisco Bay area) where we're much more "out" and vocal. The major cities here in California are mostly very accommodating toward the GLBT people, and yet, the more rural areas can be quite the opposite.

I suppose another reason that I jumped into this particular thread, was because it was about the Pope. I've always had a bone to pick with the Pope, it doesn't matter which one, I feel that they're all charlatans. I grew up as a Catholic, I was even an "alter-boy" for a number of years. I couldn't wait to get out of the house and on my own; I only went along with it all to keep peace with my father. I am no Catholic, I didn't even believe in God then, and I really did try, but it just never worked for me.

Happy New Year to all, I hope to see you all on Trannyweb in 2009!

Nicole

Woops, I'm sorry I failed to contribute to this thread but i MISS-read it as "When will SHE learn to keep quiet?", realized it was about The Church and figured it meant me and everyone knew what I had to say already anyway, so it would be "coals to Newcastle" :-)

Besides, I was still celebrating Xmas.