PabloSerna said:

---

Transgender ideology? I'm not familiar professor.

---

I'm sure you're not. Most likely willfully so.

I'll order my response differently and start with: all Christians should denounce all bullying of any person, Christian or non-Christian. I think you may have a different opinion on what does and does not constitute bullying, especially on an internet forum of adults, but your point does stand. We should all do the best job possible of showing God's love to all sinners, because we are ALL sinners.

I hope that states my position well enough and I hope other Christians here agree. Now, to deal with the rest of your post: the problem, from my perspective, is you commit the very fallacy I have stated. You take a critique of a worldview and apply it as a condemnation on the person who espouses it. To expound:

No I have not experienced gender dysphoria. Neither have I experienced schizophrenia, severe depression, eating disorders or drug addictions. I don't think this precludes me from weighing in on these matters.

I approach this from both a philosophical and biological position. Since philosophy largely rests on presuppositions, I try to stick to the hard science of biology. The problem is I will be refuted with "personal experience" like you did here or a soft science like sociology, where a prior poster said he thinks people have always been this way and hid it, despite zero evidence. When I try theology or the soft science of historical sociology, it goes absolutely nowhere because "where's the evidence?"

It does get a bit tiring because I'm typically up against a world view that wants hard evidence until we run up against issues of personal preferences. The reality is plenty of money and time has been spent on "gay gene" research and they've come up empty. Sexual preference is far and away more determined by nurture than nature. The highest number you'll find in reputable studies is 25% of sexual preference is determined by genetics. The low end is 8%. This is a nurture issue first and foremost. I've seen no evidence, nor do I have good reason to believe we will find good evidence, for a "trans gene" or genome sequence. I can speak to the social contagion issue if you'd like, but it's tangential to this post.

Why does this matter? Because there is far better research that shows anger issues, alcoholism, addiction, eating disorders (both leading to underweight and overweight individuals) and other societally rejected impulse control conditions actually are more affected by genetics than LGBTQ related issues. (I will provide links if desired) When I pointed that out on this very board, I was told it was closed minded speech that would crush any chances I have at having fruitful conversations with a LGBTQ identifying person. How dare I compare homosexuality or transgenderism to alcoholism and anger issues. How dare I suggest someone with this issue may be able to overcome it. Why? IDENTITY.

The alcoholic does not say "I am born this way and I want everyone to carve out a special place for me". And they actually are "born that way". Their genetic predisposition to latch on to alcohol once they become a drinker is FAR greater than a person who becomes attracted to the same sex.

Same with the rage bro. Or the sexaholic. We see this isn't conducive to a fruitful life so we rightfully shut it down. We try to get them help. Do some guys brag about body count? Sure. And if that guy never grows out of that, settles down and gets married, is it still celebrated? I'm pretty sure everyone here by the time they were in their 30s just saw that lifestyle as sad. But even then what does that guy say?. Look how cool he is! look at the life he has chosen because of what he can achieve. Not "I was born incapable of marriage and am resigned to a life of one night stands so accept me".

Or the rage monster. We don't accept "the waiter got my order wrong so I cussed him out, threw my plate across the room and left without paying". No one calls him brave. They call him an *******.

So you can try to say the "identify as" vs "person who does/struggles with" as secondary to the discussion, but your 4th paragraph shows how central this is. Imagine a kid who thinks society sees THEM as an existential crisis versus a a society that has a WORLD VIEW THAT SAYS THIS IS OK is an existential crisis. If we want to use biology, this is the equivalent of saying that we should allow for alcoholics to come to work drunk and give them jobs that can safely be done inebriated because to do otherwise may cause them emotional distress. They feel like this is a part of them that they can't run from. It runs in my family, so I am intimately familiar with that "feeling" and we, as a society, tell them to reject that feeling. Any argument you have against this is going to be consequential. You will have to come up with a subjective value of why one issue is ok and the other is not. You can't bring hard facts into it without granting the alcoholic his/her rightful place as a protected class. "Alcoholics allowed to live their life can't perform tasks at 11 AM like trans people living openly can". Can you give me a coherent reason to not determine you as bigoted towards people genetically less gifted than you?

Or take anger/impulse issues. One of my very best friends has described the way he sees the world. How badly he wants to harm people that cut him off in traffic. How badly he wants to go full vigilante on people that "deserve" it. How badly he wants dominate anyone who gets in his way (and he is very capable of doing that). But he doesn't. Why? Because he has been taught by both society and, even more importantly, his faith that these feelings are not who he IS. He has to struggle with them and seek help (which he does) but that doesn't define him. He IS a human. What are humans supposed to do? Not kill randos in traffic. What he FEELS is secondary. Feelings can help but they are not our infallible guide through this life.

But in matters of homosexual sex and gender identity, this is off the table. Why? If you have an answer other than people attach these particular feelings to who they are as a human, I'm all ears. I don't know of any other realm where feelings are supposed to determine our actions outside of this. Here we cannot discuss the action because the feeling supersedes any sort of best practice. Here we say that even if you've lived most of your life well but fall in a same sex interaction, this is simply who you are and you must embrace this part of you. Live this way. Don't struggle against your impulses.

And to be fair many Christians will say if you fall to this sin you are basically irredeemable. To those Christians I would say they are wrong, damaging to the faith and need to take a deep look at their own sins.

So now, let me take the leap: if we lived in a society where every rage machine, alcoholic, sexaholic, addict, bulimic, anorexic, glutton, layabout, etc was told that not only is this ok, but it's good, how would that turn out? Actually, we are going to actively teach the youth that you have a MUCH better genetic claim to these conditions, and because of that, your actions are normal and good! Would you or would you not see that as a dumpster fire? Would you tell these young children receiving this education that THEY are bad or the SOCIETY teaching this is bad? Because the claim levied in the OP was the society is screwed up. Not the people that are struggling to find their way through the muck.

I admit I'm giving more than one issue, and they each carry their complexity, but I would like you to show me where both the HARD science and logic do not dictate that these conditions are of equal merit.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Edit: there is some irony in asking if we know how a gender dysphoric person feels, when a gender dysphoric person does not know how being the other sex feels. They cannot experience life as someone who's never struggled with it, nor have they gone through the developmental phases we have. It is a basic fact.

---

Years ago, my wife went through a bout of depression, Nothing super severe and I'll spare the details, but she lost a lot of weight, didn't feel like eating, spent most of the time in bed, felt guilty about spending her time in bed, cried a lot. Not her favorite times.

She comes from two parents who are engineers and she married another one. I think that all of our initial instincts were to assess the problem and work a solution as though it were some technical problem we needed to find the fix for. I've since learned that we are hardly the first people to misunderstand the problem of depression and try to work it from the wrong angle. After a change in strategy, she and I spoke more about what she was feeling, she saw a therapist for some time, took anti-anxiety medication for a little while but quickly stopped needing it, and fast forward now and everything is all good. . .

I only offer this anecdote because I think it may be important in how we reach out and get through to people in positive ways. My fear [about what I think the Christian approach to LGBTQ persons is] is that I worry that the Christian approach ignores and dismisses what they feel and experience and prescribes them a solution. And maybe I'm wrong - I'm only offering my perspective.

As you said, we start from different points and we view identity differently. Maybe something I've said here resonates in some ways and maybe it doesn't. I don't expect to change anyone's mind

---

I know my last one was a novel, so I'll keep this brief: this is a perfect example! Imagine if the clinical prescription was to help your wife identify as a depressed person. If she feels this way, then it's who she is. Embrace it and live with it. If she identified as depressed person and I told her depression is an illness and we should seek to fix it, do you see how that could be a near impossible conversation to have? I'm essentially telling her that her lived experience isn't real, while what I'm trying to do is show an alternative way to live life.

However, if you're a person struggling with depression, we can have that conversation. It's not central to who you are. I'm not trying to change your lived reality. Therein lies the difference.

First step is identifying gender dysphoria as a problem. Like you identified depression as a problem.

Second step is to work through the problem (with a combination of counseling and medication) to help the person see reality. Just like your wife.

The non-Christian approach today would be the equivalent of helping your wife commit suicide because of how she views herself.

There are also massive differences in identity in a classical Christian worldview vs a modernist one.

Christianity teaches you are a living body, that your soul is the animating life of your body. You are not a soul wearing your body like a skin suit - that's Plato talking. You are not your brain doing the same thing either. Your identity is not based on this soul, because your soul is not a "thing", your soul is your life.

Your identity is external to "you". It is the web of relationships around you combined with how you interact with those relationships and the world around you with your body that make you who you are. It is the sum total of these actions, but all of this is external to "you". There is no "you" other than how your body is in the world. Identity isn't something to be discovered, only reviewed in the past and actualized going forward.

Under this framework people talking about their gender somehow being at a mismatch with their body is a presupposition that completely does not work. We have to start there. You can't have the "wrong" body. You just have the body you have. You can't have the wrong gender - you just have the gender you have. You can't identify as anything, your identity is tangible thing. You can't choose a different set of relationships and actions and a different body - we don't have a time machine. The only thing you can choose is how you interact with those relationships, the actions you take, with the body you have, going into the future.

Homosexuality is not an identity. Gender is not an identity.

Taking all of these non-Christian, pre- and post-Christian and in some cases anti-Christian presuppositions for granted (as above for example "the brain and physical appearances of the body are not in sync" and "the brain is the driver in a person's view of themselves") creates a whole mess of confusion. And, I think that a lot of the problems we're talking about here about identity crisis, dysphoria, etc are in many cases caused by the modernist approach.

Humans are funny and the mind is a funny thing (see, for example, ***** stealing witches). We know that mental illnesses can spread by contagion - teenage suicide, the story I linked there, mass hysteria are all things that happen. We also know that socialization and "nurture" deeply affect the mind and self image and probably even our basic mode of interacting with the world. So the last sentence of the previous paragraph should not be dismissed out of hand.

Quote:

---

When you start from a place of "how you feel is wrong, here is the solution", you aren't granting any legitimacy to what they are feeling. You are treating something that feels real and personal to them as a tumor to be cut out and discarded

---

Ok - but when you start from a place of "how you feel is fine, here is the solution" you are granting legitimacy to what they are feeling - which in its very essence is not real. A boy is not a girl. A boy cannot be a girl. A girl cannot be a boy. So you are treating something that feels real but objectively is not as real, to be embraced and empowered.

It's super long so feel free to ignore it lol. I'll try to same the same thing here but (slightly) shorter.

The goal is a healthy human being. Let's apply that to several scenarios.

A healthy human is not severely depressed. The goal is to get rid of the depression. The prescription is meds, therapy, etc. Often times it seems like we're trying to help depressed people be happy, but as you found, it's really how to get them healthy so they can feel happiness again. For all intents and purposes, you did "remove the tumor" of depression. Something was wrong with her. Your wife probably knew something was wrong with her. You just needed professional help, and part of that help is granting that they do feel what they feel before trying to change how they feel. Would you have been happy with a doctor that said "yep, you're depressed and you should just embrace that. Don't fight it. This is who you are and it's perfectly healthy"?

My wife struggles with postpartum anxiety. She's plenty "happy". But she also feels like the house is always a wreck, the kids are out of control, her nerves are constantly firing and she constantly feels like a failure. This is not healthy. She knows it's not true but it FEELS true. I certainly would not have been happy had her doctor told her that she should embrace the feeling of being a ****ty mom, she is a bad housekeeper and all those feelings leading her to lashing out at others is a good thing. Instead the doctor helped "remove the tumor" through meds, talk sessions etc until she leveled out. She listened to my wife's feelings, but did not validate them.

We do this with a whole host of mental issues. Sometimes we fail to help these people, but the goal is always the same: what does a healthy person look like and let's try to get them there. We need to listen and understand, but we don't change our standard of healthy and we never identify them with their issue in a positive way.

You think you are the opposite gender? Healthy humans do not feel this way, so let's prescribe _________ to help you…. But we don't do this here. In the area of LGBTQ we instead redefine what it means to be a healthy human. Maybe healthy humans can be in the wrong body. Maybe we need to change your surroundings, not your feelings. You feel like a boy because you ARE a boy.

We aren't prescribing a treatment. We aren't saying "just don't be the way you are" We are pointing to what the end goal should be, no different than we would point at the end goal for both of our wives. Now let's go find the right treatment, and let's walk along side you while you do. Is it offensive if you tell your wife you want to get her help to get rid of those depressed feelings and back to full mental health? No. But it is wildly offensive to suggest an LGBTQ person can change their orientation/gender identity because it cuts against their very sense of self. To say "I want to understand how you feel. I want to help. You obviously aren't the opposite gender, so let's see what's going on" is verboten.

I want to be empathetic. If one of my kids struggles with this, I certainly want to be there for them. But with the way the issue is currently wrapped into the sense of self, I don't know how I can possibly do it without utterly abandoning what I think is true biologically and logically. I don't even need religion for this one.

We've slipped back into the postmodern dialogue. Every time you ask who defines 'healthy', that's where we are. There is no reconciliation or resolution to the disagreement if you reject objective standards outside of one's mind.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

We've slipped back into the postmodern dialogue. Every time you ask who defines 'healthy', that's where we are. There is no reconciliation or resolution to the disagreement if you reject objective standards outside of one's mind.

---

In other words, there is no resolution to the disagreement because we disagree. Yes. . . . .

There doesn't have to be agreement and there doesn't have to be resolution. We believe different things, which does not exclude the possibility of common ground. Is there not value in exchanging ideas? If there is no value, then why engage?

---

This is farcical. Reality exists outside of one's head. Once that is acknowledged, it's easy to see why truth must be grounded in the objective instead of 'feelings' or 'ideas'.

You're right, if someone denies an objective reality then there is no point in engaging.

I'm sure you are well meaning. I know that Christians often times can say something brash or rude or totally misunderstand the situation, and you'd like them to clear up their language. I have no problem with that. The first trans person I ever met was at a time when it was socially unacceptable. a 40 something year old man turned woman told me all about his childhood, the trauma, the broken family, the anger he had, why he ended up in jail for multiple violent altercations and as soon as he started taking estrogen and accepting he was a girl all along, he was able to become a peaceful person. I have nothing against this individual. I wish them well. But it also sounded like you could have plucked that kid out of his ****ty upbringing and he would have turned out quite different. Idk.

Listening to detransitioning stories has solidified that view. It's not until they leave the ideology behind that they are able to see the contributing factors. They have been (sadly) fascinating to listen to. Same for people that were active homosexuals and stop. To hear them relive their childhood through a lens of what happened TO me versus why am I like this is really enlightening.

I guess I view transitioning as more of a band aid than a cure, if that makes sense. If a girl says she's a boy, and she's clearly not a boy, my desire would be to see why she feels that way and try to work through it. The transitioning process, to me, seems to say figuring that out is too difficult so let's just make you a boy. Suicide risks don't go down after the surgery, even in very welcoming European countries, so I'm not sure, on a large scale, transitioning actually helps.

We know what healthy things do. They grow. They mature. They reproduce. This doesn't mean every person (or plant or animal) ends up with each of these capacities. Some are deprived of hearing, or mobility or fertility. You name it. But instinctively we notice a lacking of a good, not an appearance of a perfectly healthy new type of human being. Even saying you wish no one had gender dysphoria (which I agree with) shows this. Or how many homosexually attracted people in their youth wish they weren't. I wish they weren't too. Not because I hate them or fear them, but because I can't imagine having to go through that.

I'm sure you've heard this before, but when cochlear implants became a thing, deaf people were ostracized by the deaf community when they got one. Their deafness had created an identity and culture in order to give a communal experience in a world they were there was little connection. It was a protective measure for these folks. But now there is a cure and to get the cure means you are abandoning your true nature. So what we all see as a lack of a good that can be cured is refused because of the way it's become a part of who they are. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a good thing that they stay deaf. But the thought of never hearing my child laugh? Hearing beautiful music? Experiencing the wind blowing through the trees? Idk. I'm not going to go around sticking cochlear implants in deaf people, but I can see that as a deprivation of the full human experience, and in my opinion, it shows the harm of identifying the person with the deprivation. I would not be in favor of "normalizing" deafness in a way that would create a pride in that deafness, but I would still want anyone experiencing deafness to be a fully accepted member of the community, given every courtesy possible to fit in.

Maybe gender dysphoria is the same. Maybe in some cases it's just better to stick with their identity, but I have a very, very hard time believing that. If any LGBTQ individuals want to weigh in, I'm open to be corrected on this: my experience in real life and on this board is that these individuals would have done whatever it took when they were younger to not have homosexual feelings or gender dysphoria. Anything! But once they owned it, life got better for them. So let's put them in the shoes of deaf people. If a "cure" for these issues came out tomorrow, would they take it? I think most have grown so deeply into this identity (relationships, friendships, communities) that they would not be willing to. And I wonder how they would feel if it began to be marketed to families who have kids that struggle with these issues.

And that is what makes this conversation so difficult. To counter LGBTQ views is to counter the very person themselves. No matter how much we say we have nothing against them personally, it's difficult to be received. So to bring this back to the original "dumpster fire" issue: I do think that from a societal perspective, advocating these difficulties as normal is ultimately harmful for this very reason. Advocating that people assume this as part of their identity can really hinder future communications around the subject. But at the same time, cleaner language needs to be used for the same reason. If people think we view them that negatively, we'll never be able to reach them, or they will bottle it up. Imagine your wife or mine just fake smiled through the day instead of talking about what was bothering them. Disastrous results. So people struggling should be able to talk about their struggles without the stigma. Maybe it's too pie in the sky but I see a world in which the healthy human is an objective goal, we're all trying to get there, and we don't hammer each other for our failings, but attempt to help each other along the way.

Certainly it's out of fear. Which is why I think Christians need to be more warm and understanding. Sin is not something to fear and so many Christians have made this the ultimate sin of all time, so it makes sense that they would hide it.

Your second paragraph is exactly the issue. Being black is hereditary. Being Irish is hereditary (you didn't pick where your parents lived). Now, you can't control that but you can control how you act. You equate inherent traits with LGBT actions. Thats what makes conversations essentially impossible.

Widespread greed and corruption are super important. They are also massive issues parents can't protect their kids from. Their 4th grader receiving an agenda they disagree with is not only something they can control, but one that hits closer to home. It's a gut reaction to attack anything that seems like a threat to your child. It's visceral. I'm not saying all parents are doing a good job of it, but I understand it.

I think most Christian parents wouldn't put a blanket ban on their kids being friends with gay/trans people, depending on the age. How else can you evangelize to them? How else will they hear the truth about Christ?. But age is where most of this debate settles. Leave. Kids. Alone.

Kids who come out as trans in 3rd grade are not getting there on their own. It's an incredibly impressionable age. I guarantee you I can convince a 3rd grader that he or she is a dinosaur if I want to. If a kid comes out as trans in 7th or 8th grade, then I feel very confident that my child will have had the time to mature enough to be ready for those topics. I think it is wildly irresponsible to have kids talking about gender and sexuality in elementary school. Because of that, I would not want my child taught by a trans teacher in elementary. In older grades, especially high school, I'm much less bothered by it. I think people who are bothered by it are worried they aren't doing enough at home to prepare their children to face it. The caveat here, as stated in the OP, is private school. If I'm sending my kid to a Christian school to get a Christian education, I'd expect the school to honor their promise and deliver said education.

This mostly stems from my belief (and scientific evidence) that nurture is the primary cause. And based on what I've listened to, it's not people "turning your kids gay". It's being exposed to confusing material at a confusing time in your development. This is consistent across many mental disorders (and I know calling it a disorder is offensive but idk what else to do). Anorexia often develops through a few comments from a parent or peer group. Binge eating is the same. Low self esteem is the same. Sex addiction is a kid getting ahold of porn a little too early. Or, similar to LGBTQ individuals, molestation. It's well known that LGBTQ people have much higher victim rates of child sex abuse. What kids are exposed to most certainly shapes their life.

And that development happens at different ages. My oldest is 8. Honestly, he is so interested in learning how things work that he'd probably be ready for a base level conversation, but I'm going to give it a little longer. He's very open and asks lots of questions. If he had a trans kid in his class, it would be the first thing he asks when he gets in the car after school.

Our second is very quiet and reserved. If something great happens at school, he doesn't tell us. If something bad happens, he doesn't tell us. It seems he prefers to process things internally. He would be one that I do not want exposed to any confusing material early in life. By middle school I doubt I'll have any serious qualms. Our other 3 aren't old enough for me to make a determination either way, so I would default to protection mode.

In actuality, it will likely be LGBTQ students who won't want to be friends with my kids, provided I've taught them what I think I have/will: love everyone, but don't withhold what you believe to be true. In other words, the evil phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin". Again, on this very board I've been told this is a hateful phrase due to the identity issue.

I understand that feeling persecuted can lead to a higher level of identification, but I challenge you to show me where else we accept this for a non-hereditary or minimally hereditary issue. Do depressed people ban together around their issue? Do rageaholics? Do addicts? Where else do we take a contra-societal action and envelop into who we were born to be? I don't think it's merely being an outcast. I believe it comes from being told this is the way you are, there is nothing you can do about it, so embrace it. That's fine if you're defending your Irish decent, your black skin or your deafness prior to technological breakthroughs. I do not believe that should extend to LGBTQ issues.

PabloSerna said:

---

" You equate inherent traits with LGBT actions. Thats what makes conversations essentially impossible."

Are you saying that you can "pray the gay away?"

---

Please read the rest of my posts before dumbing it down to this.

Can you pray the depression away?
Can you pray the alcoholism away?
Can you pray the rage away?
Can you pray the porn addiction away?
Can you pray the anorexia away?
Can you pray the obesity away?

Catholics are supposed to engage in faith and reason. You know this. We are body/soul composites. We must treat both the body and soul in these matters. Go read up on genetic studies and get back to me with something more substantial than pray the gay away.

I spent far more time than I should have typing my responses specifically to avoid claims like this. This is an incredibly important topic, with many complexities, that I painstakingly tried to address. Please don't reduce my efforts to something so simple.

ETA: I have refrained from typing many, many paragraphs in retort. It just so happens that I am very quick to anger. Have been for as long as my parents can remember. I hope this was just a throwaway response based on a quick read that you only had a bit of time to respond to. If you didn't have the time to read all of my posts, I understand as I did get long winded. If you'd like to engage my ideas, I'm happy to carefully consider your responses.

*The Banned and Kurt Vonnegut cast lvl 10 "Great Wall of Text" crit for max damage*

-3 END, -4 STR, +1 CON

ha! nerd

Quo Vadis? said:

---

*The Banned and Kurt Vonnegut cast lvl 10 "Great Wall of Text" crit for max damage*

-3 END, -4 STR, +1 CON

---

All to be asked if I'm just suggesting we pray the gay away. I guess I should use my time more wisely

PabloSerna said:

---

You wrote it, I zeroed in on what I see to be the most concerning part of your argument. Please pass on this line of inquiry if it disrupts your logic.

There is this idea that LBGTQ folks "choose" to be a certain way. That line of thinking has lead many to send good young people to conversion therapy camps with the misplaced understanding that people can change this aspect of their being. This is an unfortunate, misguided effort to help and or witness the love of God.

The fact remains that we do not know enough about human sexual orientation to assume that it can be re-wired or suppressed.

However, reading your opening remarks (yes, I actually read all of your post) you put anyone on notice that this is a non- starter with you. So, yes, I naturally jumped to a ridiculous idea that has been repeated to many young people that they can actually "pray the gay away."

---

Before I spend hours and hours crafting a post that's going to be misinterpreted, I would prefer to get these premises understood.

You say I claim "born this way" as a non-starter. This is true, but is because I cite hard science as my reasoning. Black people are black 100% because of their genetic code. White people are white 100% due to genetics. All ranges of skin tone in between are 100% due to genetics. Eye color is genetic. Color blindness is genetic. Height and body type are almost 100% genetic. Severe malnourishment and over nourishment are the only nurture factors that would have significant effect. We cannot say this about LGBTQ issues. They are not "born this way" by anywhere near the measure we would apply to traits that we are actually born with. If you have reasons to believe that LGBTQ identities rise to the level of these types of inherited traits, I will change my stance.

What I'd ask you to clarify is if "born this way" is the only starter for you. You say this is a part of their being, essentially proving my point in prior posts. Are you open to the idea that this is not something people are born with, but something that happens TO people? Are you open to the idea that those you love that are currently in this lifestyle may have had experiences that have caused confusion instead of just being experiences that showed them they've been this way all along? I've listened to many stories that have shown me that this subtle shift in thinking was the catalyst for leaving an LGBTQ lifestyle behind. Would you be open to those stories?

If you are open to that, then I'll continue the discussion. If you are not open to that, then nothing I will spend my time typing will matter. Most people I talk to with skin in the LGBTQ game are not open to this conversation, but I hope you are.

*Note: nowhere did I say choose. I have intentionally avoided that word, because I know enough to know that LGBTQ people don't "choose" this anymore than other people suffering with any number of conditions "choose" to suffer from them*

Sadly, this is what I expected. Are you open to the idea that LGBTQ feelings are the product of something that happens TO people or no?

I'm open to further discussion but I put my rubric on the table for you to inspect, tear apart, agree with or whatever else you choose. I don't ask any questions of you that I myself am unwilling to answer. If you can't answer my question, I don't know how to proceed. Even if you answered no, we'd have something to talk about. But total avoidance?

I agree to avoid personal attacks. Was something I said in my last post an attack that I didn't see?

PabloSerna said:

---

Wasn't trying avoid, was putting my cards on the table by defining the terms with respect to science and religion.

I do reject the notion that you can somehow "become gay" as well as my initial remark about "praying the gay away".

Engage or don't engage.

---

Understood. Questions:

- what do you say about people who have left that lifestyle and see it as something that happened to them versus who they were made to be?
- would you say it is acceptable for people struggling with alcohol/addiction/porn/depression/etc to consider themselves made that way?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Certainly it's out of fear. Which is why I think Christians need to be more warm and understanding. Sin is not something to fear and so many Christians have made this the ultimate sin of all time, so it makes sense that they would hide it.

---

Hahaha, I agree. It also feels like I've spent 2 and a half pages saying exactly this and getting push back from Christians. You all know that its okay to agree with me sometimes, right? God probably won't send you to hell for sometimes agreeing with me.

Quote:

---

Your second paragraph is exactly the issue. Being black is hereditary. Being Irish is hereditary (you didn't pick where your parents lived). Now, you can't control that but you can control how you act. You equate inherent traits with LGBT actions. Thats what makes conversations essentially impossible.

---

I don't agree, but that's fine. So, lets compare LGBTQ actions with those of non-Christians. Religion is clearly not something heredity and is clearly taught. 120 million Americans have chosen to reject the Christian God and live a life in open defiance of God and in sin, but we don't treat that sin the same way, do we?

Quote:

---

In actuality, it will likely be LGBTQ students who won't want to be friends with my kids, provided I've taught them what I think I have/will: love everyone, but don't withhold what you believe to be true. In other words, the evil phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin". Again, on this very board I've been told this is a hateful phrase due to the identity issue.

---

Its a clever phrase. Application of the phrase 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is important. And I think you have to ask yourself - if someone treated me this way, would it make me feel loved or unloved.

Lets say that I told you that I knew for a fact that Christianity was a terrible religion built on lies and deception. That I had zero respect for the ideology of Christianity, that it was poisonous to the mind, and that it was a system built for its own self elevation. And lets say that I opposed Christians being able to marry or adopt children. And that we should remove references to Christianity in books and media so that our kids are not exposed to this infectious idea. None of this comes from a place of hate. Actually, I love Christians and it is my love for them that drives my dislike for their false and damaging ideology. I respect Christians as humans, but not their ideology because I KNOW the truth and they don't.

So, after reading that, how much do you want to be my best friend? Do you feel loved by the paragraph above? Could you really blame your child if they didn't want to make friends with someone like this at school?

Quote:

---

I understand that feeling persecuted can lead to a higher level of identification, but I challenge you to show me where else we accept this for a non-hereditary or minimally hereditary issue. Do depressed people ban together around their issue? Do rageaholics? Do addicts? Where else do we take a contra-societal action and envelop into who we were born to be? I don't think it's merely being an outcast. I believe it comes from being told this is the way you are, there is nothing you can do about it, so embrace it. That's fine if you're defending your Irish decent, your black skin or your deafness prior to technological breakthroughs. I do not believe that should extend to LGBTQ issues.

---

Again, religion is the prime example. If you believe that rejection of the Christian God is a sin, then we are back to the 120 million Americans who openly reject your God. And we have come to accept this as perfectly okay. Or at least Christians aren't actively fighting the normalization of this 'sin'.

The societal pendulum is swinging away from traditional values. Perhaps it has swung too far and maybe even in a way that is dangerous or destabilizing. I think that most people who think they are trying to stop the pendulum swing are actually just adding fuel to the fire. The more Christians single them out for their sexuality or gender association - by opposing rights and advocating for their censorship - the more that sense of identity grows and the more they dig their heels in.

I'd like to see Christians treat LGBTQ persons like they treat Hindus. You clearly don't approve of Hinduism and you think it's a false religion and disagree with some of its values. But, how many Christians are out actively trying to suppress Hinduism and shield their children from it? The reason there are no Hindu pride parades and the reason why there aren't a thousand tv shows with Hindu people is because Christians don't care as much about their 'sin'. Christians exhibit a level of respect for individual autonomy when it comes to who we worship, but not when it comes to who we love or how we view ourselves.

---

The difference is that becoming a Christian or a Hindu does not require surgery and hormone treatment. And also does not require denying a biological reality which I think is a mental illness.

I am all for treating all people who disagree with me with respect or "like Hindus". But this is apples to oranges. I do not think being a Hindu is a mental disease.

Oh, and God does not send people to hell, they send themselves.