Is It A Sin?

[p0lar_bear]

Also, is it cross dressing for a Scot to wear a kilt? or was Jesus cross dressing because he wore what would now be considered a dress? In China, women wore pants long before men. Does that mean Chinese men wearing pants are cross dressing? Or that a Chinese woman wearing a skirt is cross dressing?


Oh, and regarding intention...Since you already provided the exception of acting in a play, then you have already allowed an exception based on intention. What is the moral distinction between dressing for a play and dressing for a joke? Can you provide references for that distinction?

[cmotherofpirl]

]First of all nobody defined cross-dressing.

] Are you talking about women wearing pants or men wearing bras. BIG DIFFERENCE.

] Are you talking about something someone does every day or once in their lifetime.
The Bible doesn't say women cannot wear pants, because they were not invented in that culture then.

]Are you talking about someone who cross-dresses as a profession? Remember women used to be banned in the theater, so men took womens roles - are you calling all of those people sinners?

]Is it for laughs, for Halloween, or some deep-seated gender identification problem.

]The bible doesn't define clothes. Men in those days wore long flowing robes and head coverings. Sounds suspiciously feminine to me.

] Where does the Church [ not you] teach homosexuality is equal to cross-dressing?

]How are you going to explain to the whole Scots nation that they are committing mortal sin by puitting on their kilts, or any other nationality where men where long flowing robes - are you going to insult a muslim or an arab and yell them they are dressed like a girl?

]How about priests who stll wear cassocks?

]How about women who live in Alaska, Siberia , China are you going to insist they put on DRESSES when its -20 degrees?

]Are you implying I am sinning by putting on overalls to cut the grass, or get on the roof to clean the gutters, and get under a car to help my sons change the transmission.

THINK

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Madonna]

cmotherofpirl: You're my new best friend. Thank you. My points exactly.

Catholicguy: I am not going to confession for wearing jeans and t-shirts.

[cmotherofpirl]

Where did you get your qualifications to be the cultural fashion police or decide what is masculine and feminine?

You are entitled to your opinon, but not pass it off as any teaching of the Catholic Church.

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[carrdero]

Madonna writes: I think the ventures into dangerous territory. That completely nullifies male and female roles

I think the boundaries should be nullified. If I was to have any relationship with anyone it would not be because they were a man or a women or an animal or a plant. It would be because they are a pleasing entity to be around. I think one of the reasons that GOD created man and women was so that we could simply identify with another entity not so that we could classify or catagorize or stereotype a sex race or creed or color. You don't hear to many people going around saying "This is Brenda she is my woman friend, or this is Carl he is my black friend or this is Sheila she's Catholic. We are human beings first and foremost and that is how we should perceive and accept people. This is how GOD understands us. What would be the benefit of GOD recognizing you as a man or a woman or black or white or Jewish or born again. How could this recognition be fair to other people who aren't of a specific gender race creed or color?

Madonna writes: With gender comes certain duties and responsibilities.

Yes and the duties and responsbilities are all yours deciding which model (man or women) you chose to be. Don't forget a great deal of these responsibilities have been thrown at us through are upbringing. A mother who tells her daughter that she should sit with her legs crossed or the father who tells his son not to cry because real men don't cry. These are just simple examples but there are many unforgivable and irreversable examples already in effect.

Madonna writes: A huge part of who I am is my sexuality and the fact that I am woman.

Fortunately or Unfortunately I do not live my life like that. Though I do sometimes feel the outside pressures of how a man or a guy is supposed to act (or react) I do not wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say "Wow am I glad I am a man or Gee I sure do wish I could have been a woman". My interests, my beliefs, the clothes I wear, the things I do are not based on mild misconceptions of the fact that I am existing in the body of a man. It is just something that I chose not to contend with.

Madonna writes: If our genders weren't important, God would have probably made us so we could just replicate like bacteria.

What is wrong with replicating like bacteria? What is wrong with all those creatures who reproduce asexually?

[cmotherofpirl]

You are confusing culture and gender.

You are either male body and soul or female body and soul , that is biology.

How masculine or how feminine you act is determined by a mix of choice and culture.

[carrdero]

GOD CONQUERER writes: As such we are either Male, or Female. Not neither, not both, not any one WE choose, but as we are created.

How do you explain hermaphrodites? (I hoped I spelled this correctly)
Also I believe that all people have masculine properties as well as feminine properties regardless of the human from we portray outward. One could easily become over-developed in these properties depending on personal experiences, upbringing and environment. I have never met "a real man" nor have I met "a true woman". In fact there is a certain "pride" that I respect in myself to be able to discern which property (masculine or feminine) that a person is utilizing most based on my present understanding of how a woman or a man would respond. Which in essence really isn't all that impressive I guess.

[catholicguy]

[quote]a]First of all nobody defined cross-dressing.[/quote]

The Church has given us directives for women's modesty. The directives did not mention the wearing of pants whatsoever but only spoke of skirts and dresses. Until the Church gives directives about women wearing pants, we cannot presume God's mercy because of a culture change which originated with radical feminism, a heresy itself.

[quote]] Are you talking about women wearing pants or men wearing bras. BIG DIFFERENCE.[/quote]

I am talking about both since the case for women wearing pants is stronger than that of men wearing bras as far as definition is concerned (prudence would dictate that both are crossdressing) because the Church has not given these directives but has spoken concerning women's fashions. The Church has said that women's skirts and dresses must cover to the elbow, two fingers below the pit of the throat, and must be more than "scarcely below the knee." The directives give no information concerning pants and certainly not concerning shorts. From this it can be derived that this attire is not suitable for women.

[quote]] Are you talking about something someone does every day or once in their lifetime. [/quote]

I am talking about either, I suppose.

[i]The Bible doesn't say women cannot wear pants, because they were not invented in that culture then.[/i]

Okay. That is correct. That does not really have a bearing in the argument, though.

[quote]]Are you talking about someone who cross-dresses as a profession? Remember women used to be banned in the theater, so men took womens roles - are you calling all of those people sinners?[/quote]

That is an interesting point, but as far as I know that was mostly a British, Protestant practice. I would have to get more information to discuss that, but I suppose the logic still follows. Just because intention is good or acceptable, that does not make the act so. In any event, the rules are usually stricter concerning women dressing as men because women who do this often break modesty as well as crossdressing.

[quote]]Is it for laughs, for Halloween, or some deep-seated gender identification problem.[/quote]

As stated above, this is not relevant. Why would someone break an explicit command of God "for laughs"?

[i]]The bible doesn't define clothes. Men in those days wore long flowing robes and head coverings. Sounds suspiciously feminine to me.[/i]

Those outfits sound feminine to you, but that does not make them so. I am sure you have seen a Priest in a cassock. It would be offensive to pious eyes to see a woman to wear a cassock. A cassock does not include pants, but that does not mean that it is automatically feminine. Such an outfit is extremely masculine with the collar and even the design with the sash. For another example, look at the fashions of the Romans. While the outfits for men and women were similar, there were still types of clothing only acceptable for men and some only acceptable for women.

[quote]] Where does the Church [ not you] teach homosexuality is equal to cross-dressing?[/quote]

This kind of question is a typical, anti-intellectual statement. Both Scripture and the Church teach that homosexuality is an abomination. Both Scripture and the Church teach that crossdressing is an abomination. Any decent examination of conscience has crossdressing listed as a mortal sin. The two are both mortal sins and are both abominable before God. The two acts are equal in kind (not necessarily in degree).

[quote]]How are you going to explain to the whole Scots nation that they are committing mortal sin by puitting on their kilts, or any other nationality where men where long flowing robes - are you going to insult a muslim or an arab and yell them they are dressed like a girl? [/quote]

The Church has never defined which fashions are masculine and which are feminine simply because the fashions are so different in separate cultures, but in each of these cultures men and women have separate clothing. As I stated earlier, just because an outfit does not include pants, that does not somehow mean it is feminine.

[quote]]How about priests who stll wear cassocks?[/quote]

I plan to wear a cassock. I address this in an above answer.

[quote]]How about women who live in Alaska, Siberia , China are you going to insist they put on DRESSES when its -20 degrees?[/quote]

If you have ever seen a movie or a picture from before the 1970s (and probably even after the fact, before feminism polluted these areass), you will notice that the women all have dresses on. They still wear warm clothing underneath, multiple layers of stockings, etc, but dresses are often much warmer than pants (look at Victorian fashions).

[quote]]Are you implying I am sinning by putting on overalls to cut the grass, or get on the roof to clean the gutters, and get under a car to help my sons change the transmission.[/quote]

I would think that the distribution of labor would be such that the men would do labor jobs and women would do the jobs in the home (cleaning inside, laundry, cooking, etc). This has always been done in the past. Further, women who have worked in the fields wore dresses as you probably know. This can be seen with an Order of Nuns that does physical labor and with the peasants of the past who labored in the fields. As far as I know, you watch EWTN. Next time you see the Angelus on there, look at the painting which comes up with the peasants praying in the field. There is a man and a woman. The woman is wearing a denim dress (it might be even nicer than denim) and she even has a bonnet on I believe. She covered her head even outside a church. It is a great painting. My friend owns it, but I do not. In any event, it will come up for a few moments before the Angelus begins. Try looking for it next time. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

A hermaphrodite still has more of one side or the other.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Madonna' date='Jul 28 2004, 01:17 PM'] cmotherofpirl: You're my new best friend. Thank you. My points exactly.

Catholicguy: I am not going to confession for wearing jeans and t-shirts. [/quote]
Ditto. lol

[God Conquers]

A hermaphrodite has a physical gender deformity. Most if not all have prominence of one gender at birth. They will develop into either one sex or the other, regardless of what they or their parents "decide" to become.

Of course we all display both masculine and feminine properties in different proportions. We are unique. Yet you can classify properties which are generally masculine and those which are generally feminine.

Your opinions fly in the face of both reason and biology, I suggest you take a closer look at the physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual natures of the sexes.

[Aloysius]

men are men. women are women. they should act as such. men and women are intrinsically different. we do not decide our gender, God does.

[mmmerf]

[quote name='carrdero' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:25 PM'] I think the boundaries should be nullified. If I was to have any relationship with anyone it would not be because they were a man or a women or an animal or a plant. It would be because they are a pleasing entity to be around. I think one of the reasons that GOD created man and women was so that we could simply identify with another entity not so that we could classify or catagorize or stereotype a sex race or creed or color. You don't hear to many people going around saying "This is Brenda she is my woman friend, or this is Carl he is my black friend or this is Sheila she's Catholic. We are human beings first and foremost and that is how we should perceive and accept people. This is how GOD understands us. What would be the benefit of GOD recognizing you as a man or a woman or black or white or Jewish or born again. How could this recognition be fair to other people who aren't of a specific gender race creed or color?

Madonna writes: With gender comes certain duties and responsibilities.

Yes and the duties and responsbilities are all yours deciding which model (man or women) you chose to be. Don't forget a great deal of these responsibilities have been thrown at us through are upbringing. A mother who tells her daughter that she should sit with her legs crossed or the father who tells his son not to cry because real men don't cry. These are just simple examples but there are many unforgivable and irreversable examples already in effect.

Madonna writes: A huge part of who I am is my sexuality and the fact that I am woman.

Fortunately or Unfortunately I do not live my life like that. Though I do sometimes feel the outside pressures of how a man or a guy is supposed to act (or react) I do not wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and say "Wow am I glad I am a man or Gee I sure do wish I could have been a woman". My interests, my beliefs, the clothes I wear, the things I do are not based on mild misconceptions of the fact that I am existing in the body of a man. It is just something that I chose not to contend with.

Madonna writes: If our genders weren't important, God would have probably made us so we could just replicate like bacteria.

What is wrong with replicating like bacteria? What is wrong with all those creatures who reproduce asexually? [/quote]
Gender is a human characteristic. While it is unfair to make judgements on a person based solely on their gender, it's also unfair to negate that difference entirely. According to your logic, men should be granted the right to bear children. Except, whoops, there's a difference between men and women that goes beyond mere societal norms. It's called natural law. Which is why a man and a woman can enter a relationship that a man and a man (or a man and a dog or a man and a radish for that matter) cannot enter into.

Because men and women were created with gender to compliment each other.

Purposefully trying to subvert those roles would be grave matter because you would be trying to move against how God had created you.

You don't decide your gender. Your parents don't decide your gender. God decides your gender and you know what? HE MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE. Don't mess with it.

We don't 'exist in the bodies' of men or women. WE ARE men or women. That is how we are created. The idea that we are a 'ghost in the machine' of our bodies is a huge heresy - because it means we don't have to respect other people's bodies. It is a philosophical convenience to allow hedonistic behaviour (and worse), and an insult to God, in whose image and likeness we are created. There must be merit to the 'shell', else why would Christ have subjected his body to such suffering on our behalf?

God loves us unconditionally, it's true. But we maintain our identity in the presence of God. Indeed, identity is a gift from Him.

And you know what? While you're entitled to your opinion, if you're wrong, believing you're right doesn't make you right. Truth does not depend on preference, thank heaven.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:38 PM']
The Church has given us directives for women's modesty. The directives did not mention the wearing of pants whatsoever but only spoke of skirts and dresses. Until the Church gives directives about women wearing pants, we cannot presume God's mercy because of a culture change which originated with radical feminism, a heresy itself.



I am talking about both since the case for women wearing pants is stronger than that of men wearing bras as far as definition is concerned (prudence would dictate that both are crossdressing) because the Church has not given these directives but has spoken concerning women's fashions. The Church has said that women's skirts and dresses must cover to the elbow, two fingers below the pit of the throat, and must be more than "scarcely below the knee." The directives give no information concerning pants and certainly not concerning shorts. From this it can be derived that this attire is not suitable for women.



I am talking about either, I suppose.

[i]The Bible doesn't say women cannot wear pants, because they were not invented in that culture then.[/i]

Okay. That is correct. That does not really have a bearing in the argument, though.



That is an interesting point, but as far as I know that was mostly a British, Protestant practice. I would have to get more information to discuss that, but I suppose the logic still follows. Just because intention is good or acceptable, that does not make the act so. In any event, the rules are usually stricter concerning women dressing as men because women who do this often break modesty as well as crossdressing.



As stated above, this is not relevant. Why would someone break an explicit command of God "for laughs"?

[i]]The bible doesn't define clothes. Men in those days wore long flowing robes and head coverings. Sounds suspiciously feminine to me.[/i] 

Those outfits sound feminine to you, but that does not make them so. I am sure you have seen a Priest in a cassock. It would be offensive to pious eyes to see a woman to wear a cassock. A cassock does not include pants, but that does not mean that it is automatically feminine. Such an outfit is extremely masculine with the collar and even the design with the sash. For another example, look at the fashions of the Romans. While the outfits for men and women were similar, there were still types of clothing only acceptable for men and some only acceptable for women.



This kind of question is a typical, anti-intellectual statement. Both Scripture and the Church teach that homosexuality is an abomination. Both Scripture and the Church teach that crossdressing is an abomination. Any decent examination of conscience has crossdressing listed as a mortal sin. The two are both mortal sins and are both abominable before God. The two acts are equal in kind (not necessarily in degree).



The Church has never defined which fashions are masculine and which are feminine simply because the fashions are so different in separate cultures, but in each of these cultures men and women have separate clothing. As I stated earlier, just because an outfit does not include pants, that does not somehow mean it is feminine.



I plan to wear a cassock. I address this in an above answer.



If you have ever seen a movie or a picture from before the 1970s (and probably even after the fact, before feminism polluted these areass), you will notice that the women all have dresses on. They still wear warm clothing underneath, multiple layers of stockings, etc, but dresses are often much warmer than pants (look at Victorian fashions).



I would think that the distribution of labor would be such that the men would do labor jobs and women would do the jobs in the home (cleaning inside, laundry, cooking, etc). This has always been done in the past. Further, women who have worked in the fields wore dresses as you probably know. This can be seen with an Order of Nuns that does physical labor and with the peasants of the past who labored in the fields. As far as I know, you watch EWTN. Next time you see the Angelus on there, look at the painting which comes up with the peasants praying in the field. There is a man and a woman. The woman is wearing a denim dress (it might be even nicer than denim) and she even has a bonnet on I believe. She covered her head even outside a church. It is a great painting. My friend owns it, but I do not. In any event, it will come up for a few moments before the Angelus begins. Try looking for it next time. God bless. [/quote]
Women where pants because of radical feminism?
Women wear pants because they are comfortable and practical
for getting thru the day.
It didn't take a radical feminist to come up with that.



Do you really think women wore dresses when they poured molten steel in the mills?
Do you really think God's mercy depends on whether I wear blue jeans or not?

The Church didn't issue directives for pants because most women were not wearing them then. This doesn't mean we have to wait around to wear pants until the Church decides to issue directives on them. Because they have not issued a directive YOU have decided pants are wrong. You don't speak for the Church.
Somehow I don't think such directives are high on their agenda.




Yes it does have a bearing on it, since you are quoting the Bible to bolster your argument.


No it was not just a british protestant practice. Ask the chinese, koreans or japanese, or read medieval history.


In this next section you are just quibbling. You don't think men in cassocks are feminine, but that is your personal opinion. I think Scots in kilts are very masculine, but that is my opinion.



So I am anti-intellectual now- that simply means you have run out of arguments.


Scripture teaches homosexual activity is a sin and defines it. Scriptures says cross-dressing is a sin, but does NOT define the clothing, it only says male and fermale. Male and female fashions change. Today but male and females wear pants, but I assure you there is a style difference.

I watch Turner Classic Movies, not all women are wearing dresses. I have never seen an Eskimo or someone in Siberia in a dress.


It would be nice if there were a clear divsion of labor as in the Ozzie and Harriet world of TV, but that is not real life. Women have been doing dirty dangerous jobs for years, simply because they had to be done. When the men went off to war or died or simply were not available, it was the women doing the plowing, shoeing the horses and defending the territory. Division of labor is fine when you have the available people.

I am sure Mother Angelica has a handyman or two to do the really big chores around the convent. You don't see nuns on roofs because they have men to do it. Not everyone is that lucky.

Yes I have seen the painting you are mentioning, it is a snapshot of a different time. We don't live in that time, nor in the time when men and women wore long flowing dresses.

Edited July 28, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[IcePrincessKRS]

[url="http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html"]http://www.gianna.org/Biography/Photo_Album/photo_album.html[/url]

Check out that link. The woman in those pictures is a SAINT. She is wearing pants in about half of them.

[img]http://www.gianna.org/Bl.gianna.3.jpg[/img]