And to add, I also think it is a mental illness when someone thinks they are an animal, so called furries, or want to surgically alter their bodies to look like an animal.

To your first question, by your use of the term "lifestyle" I understand that to mean something not permanent, like the show "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." So it does not surprise me that people change their lifestyle as their means dictate. If however, you are referring to something more enduring, I am more familiar with the numerous studies that show it is a "pseudoscientific and discredited practice that attempts to force LGBTQ+ individuals to change their sexual orientation or gender identity as heterosexual or cisgender. Because it is now understood that sexual orientation is not a choice or something that can be changed, so-called conversion therapy sometimes called reparative therapy, ex-gay therapy, or sexual reorientation therapy is not only ineffective, it is often actively harmful." (LINK)

To your second question, that you are connecting human sexual attraction to compulsive behaviors such as porn (not a disease/disorder), drug addition (disease), alcoholism (disease), and depression (mood disorder) is fascinating, if not somewhat disturbing:

Porn- we don't know (medically/psychologically) from what I am seeing. However, there is reason to believe that it is a "compulsive behavior" not unlike OCD and there have been studies that indicate it has a genetic component which would mean that some people are indeed "born" this way. I'm going to stop there and say that science will help us understand more in time. Depression, drug addition and alcoholism all have a "genetic predisposition" so again, in some case people are "born" this way.

+++

However, you wrote "made this way" which is a theological statement. If God is indeed the creator of all life and if God is the source of all goodness- how can there be any privation (evil) in the world? I will get to this in a follow up, because I am at work (lunch time) and need to get back. I have thought about this for a long time and done my share of reading on the subject. More to follow.

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

Correct, becoming Hindu does not require hormones or surgery. It only requires the denial and rejection of Jesus Christ and God Almighty and then the active worshipping of false demon gods. You know. . . . no biggie. 4 of the 10 Commandments are about worshipping the proper God in the proper way. How many of those commandments are dedicated to transgender people?

And, I don't get furries either. Seems strange to me. But also, who the **** am I to tell a grown ass adult what they can and cannot do with their body?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

Correct, becoming Hindu does not require hormones or surgery. It only requires the denial and rejection of Jesus Christ and God Almighty and then the active worshipping of false demon gods. You know. . . . no biggie. 4 of the 10 Commandments are about worshipping the proper God in the proper way. How many of those commandments are dedicated to transgender people?

And, I don't get furries either. Seems strange to me. But also, who the **** am I to tell a grown ass adult what they can and cannot do with their body?

---

A lot of these are not adults.

And I was never taught in medical psychiatric training to make delusional behavior "better" by encouraging it and calling it normal.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

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.

---

But also, who the **** am I to tell a grown ass adult what they can and cannot do with their body?

---

Grown adults can do whatever they want to their bodies, so by all means, if you want a set of hooters, go for it.

Only other caveat would be that in no way shape or form should the tax payer be subsidizing these operations.

When you tell a Christian God isn't real, how do they respond? Do they say you're a bigot that hates them, or do they attempt to engage in an intellectual battle to change your mind?

When a Christian tells you you're wrong for being an atheist, do you feel personally attacked, or do you engage them in an intellectual exercise to get to the truth?

If I tell a Hindu that they need to follow Jesus, a conversation around the merits of both religions comes next.

If a Hindu tells a Christian that Jesus was not God, most (most) Christians will recognize this as an attack on God, not themselves, and attempt to convert them.

If one were to tell an LGBTQ person that they aren't born that way…. Totally different. There is no intellectual discourse after that. There is no scientific debate. There is no agreeing to disagree. It is completely feelings based from that point forward. Most of what I've typed here is taken as bigotry from the jump.

If I tell a black person to stop being black, I'm telling them to stop being who they are. There is literally nothing they can do about that. When I tell a Hindu to not be an Hindu, I am telling them they have made a wrong choice/were taught wrong. Where LGBTQ people fall makes all the difference in how their sin receives "different treatment". Deriding an unchangeable trait is much worse than a changeable one. This is why I can tell my Hindu friends I think they are wrong and stay friends. But to tell a LGBT person they can change? Game over.

I know you disagree with which category they fall into, which is why I think you see it the way you do. You see Hindus as getting a pass, where we would see them as someone we can discourse with. You see LGBTQ people as being singled out, where we find a topic that is utterly off limits for discussion.

By lifestyle I mean people who were actively transitioning, or actively homosexual, sometimes for decades, who came to realize this isn't who they ARE, but it is an experience they are living WITH. Have you looked into courage? https://couragerc.org I would recommend it. They have both an English and Spanish speaking chapter in the Diocese of Austin (I think you've said that's your area).

By saying you can't overcome these feelings is both true and false. These feelings may persist, but that does not mean you cannot take control of them, as these people witness to. To say otherwise precludes you from looking at alternative solutions, and in my opinion, is a severe misstep by the APA. And that's ok, as long as we learn from it. They've made many missteps, as evidenced by:

Have you researched how we use to treat alcoholism? Or anorexia? Or schizophrenia? Depression? Anxiety? DID? To say that because an attempt to help failed does not mean better ways to help do not exist. And I hate the conversion therapy moniker. Every therapy is conversion therapy of sorts. If we're trying to take someone from depressed back to a normal baseline, are we not "converting" them? To take someone from alcoholism to sober is a conversion, yes? that label is used to slap down any attempt at saying "maybe it doesn't have to be this way"

I'm certain that the original attempts to help were crappy. Just like original attempts to help a myriad of issues. Unfortunately most all attempts to get better at this were abandoned at the APAs recommendation. So again, I ask, what other "condition" do we do this for? You agree that many of these others issues indeed have a solid genetic component. But for those folks we try to help them stop. Not with LGBTQ. For them we say full steam ahead. Why?

This is all a product of taking this as a part of their person rather than something they are afflicted with. The fact that it disturbs you to consider that is proof positive that identifying with the LGBTQ action makes it harder to say its a bad action without hating the person.

The APA saying it causes people distress to deny this reality is not a hard science. You know what else distresses people? Interventions. Forced sobriety. Social shaming of porn addiction. As Kurt said, try treating depression with "just be happy" and see how much worse it gets for that person. Try treating severe anxiety with "it's not that big of a deal, relax" and see how much worse it gets for that person. Reducing distress is not an end goal of the human person. Healing a human person should be.

A hard science is saying I can look at your DNA and tell you what your skin color is, what your eye color is, what height range you had, what your body type is, etc. I can even look at your DNA and tell you if your deafness is genetic or not. There is nothing like this that we can find for LGBTQ leanings. So you're right in saying we are very similar genetically. What I don't understand is how can you say they are "born this way". What is the factor added to the DNA that makes them that way?

So I'll ask you this: if they made a pill tomorrow (which I know they won't because I don't think it has a biological cause, but is instead experiential) that would erase all LGBTQ thoughts your loved one(s) have, would you be excited at the thought, or dismayed? If there was a way to help these people achieve marriage and a potentially reproductive life inside of the Church, would you be in favor of that treatment? You mention privation of good, as did I. Do you think LGBTQ people are dealing with a privation? If so, what is the Catholic stance on how we should treat those privations?

Picking up where I left off...

"1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parent, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. " - Jn 9:1, Jesus heals the man born blind

+++

The basis for my understanding of "why" there are some things in this world that are not as designed (teleological failures) according to God's plan (1), is not because of some random disorder or punishment, but rather that their condition is part of a greater plan according to the will of God (2). So, indeed, the man born blind, the person with a drug addiction, or other persons dealing with some "thorn" in their side as St. Paul would write- are made this way by God according to St. Thomas Aquinas. The moral implications remain whether one is heterosexual or homosexual. We are called to live a chaste life, even in sacramental marriage.

I am repeating my personal understanding that there must be a way for homosexual persons, and transgender persons to participate in the life of the Church without fear and judgement by their fellow brother/sister. Will there be a struggle? Yes, indeed just as the blind man was sent to find this well (Aquinas believes is on the other side of town) having to endure the stares and possible ridicule of others as he walked with mud over his eyes. Further, he was repeatedly questioned by those who sought to trap Jesus for working on the Sabbath.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that LGBTQ+ persons need to rub mud on their eyes to remove their sexual orientation, but rather that their orientation is a key to their journey which finds it's end in the arms of Jesus. So many homosexual and transgendered persons have avoided God because of the judgmental words of his followers, like those of the Pharisee's when they grilled the blind man accusing him of lying. They even went after his parents who out of fear told them to "ask him" instead. The blind man persevered and in the end came to "see" the face of Jesus. That is the goal.

For now, there is only a Blessing for same sex couples and the Recognition of transgendered persons for baptism and to serve as godparents with certain conditions. For a Church that moves incredibly slow, these are small but important steps that are meant to widen the tent and start to incorporate our brothers and sisters as they make their journey.

+++

Notes:
(1) Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 22, a. 2 c.
(2) Aquinas, Commentary of the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 9. (LINK)

"So I'll ask you this: if they made a pill tomorrow (which I know they won't because I don't think it has a biological cause, but is instead experiential) that would erase all LGBTQ thoughts your loved one(s) have, would you be excited at the thought, or dismayed?"

When I read this I couldn't help but think about Peter's words to Christ about his impending crucifixion and the immediate rebuke by Jesus, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."

As I have come to understand it, we are made this way. Not because of some trauma or past sin, but as a means to glorify God.

ETA: Very familiar with the Courage ministry.

dermdoc said:

---

A lot of these are not adults.

---

Of course, which is why I've said I'm not in favor of transitioning children. The example in the OP was an adult.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Grown adults can do whatever they want to their bodies, so by all means, if you want a set of hooters, go for it.

Only other caveat would be that in no way shape or form should the tax payer be subsidizing these operations.

---

Sure, no objections here.

Quote:

---

When you tell a Christian God isn't real, how do they respond? Do they say you're a bigot that hates them, or do they attempt to engage in an intellectual battle to change your mind?

---

I would not tell a Christian that there is no God. I would tell them that I don't believe in a God. The first reason for this is that its a more accurate description of what I believe. Second, I think its too easy to come off as sounding pompous or overly self-assured when someone states beliefs as though they are simple facts. If I wish to engage in a discussion with someone on this topic, what level of civility and meaningful discussion should I expect if I start from a place of "I'm definitely 100% right and you are definitely 100% wrong." If my attitude is one that touts my own infallible judgement, then I'm not fostering a discussing, I'm giving a lecture.

So, if I were to come into a discussion about religion with a Christian and I began with "There is no God, there is zero evidence, your a moron for thinking there is a God, all you are doing is wasting your life and chasing false and dangerous ideas, your values are a danger on society and they shouldn't let you have children." Then, yes, I would expect the Christian to think I have attacked them personally.

Quote:

---

When a Christian tells you you're wrong for being an atheist, do you feel personally attacked, or do you engage them in an intellectual exercise to get to the truth?

---

Depends on their attitude. If a Christian is genuinely interested in what I believe, then I am always happy to engage. If the Christian wishes to 'own the atheist' in a debate to make me feel lesser, then I'm going to brush them off and move on with my life.

Quote:

---

If I tell a Hindu that they need to follow Jesus, a conversation around the merits of both religions comes next.

If a Hindu tells a Christian that Jesus was not God, most (most) Christians will recognize this as an attack on God, not themselves, and attempt to convert them.

---

Open discussion about the merits of different values, philosophies, and religions is always good. At a minimum, it is useful for each party to understand the other. But in my opinion, the real value of these exchanges occur when each party makes serious effort to consider opposing ideas. And to do this, requires participants to each consider the possibility of their ideology being false. And this is where I think most religious people stumble. If one party is not willing to consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, then they aren't discussing - they are lecturing. And the best the other party can do is use that lecture to understand what the first person believes. But, its always going to be, at best, a one sided exchange.

Quote:

---

If one were to tell an LGBTQ person that they aren't born that way…. Totally different. There is no intellectual discourse after that. There is no scientific debate. There is no agreeing to disagree. It is completely feelings based from that point forward. Most of what I've typed here is taken as bigotry from the jump.

---

I don't think I've accused you of bigotry. . . . . Once again, I think its all in the delivery. When someone takes the position "LGBTQ people are not born that way, its a learned behavior, I know this for a fact, and my infallible grasp of the will of God supports all of this.", then no room has been left for disagreement. We can't have a discussion at this point. Only a lecture. You have to be open to the other side. I think you need to be open to the testimony of millions of LGBTQ persons who overwhelmingly describe it otherwise. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But if their experience can be discarded out of hand because it does not reinforce your presuppositions about the nature of sex and gender, then there is no where to go. What kind of discussion options are we left with? Taking this stance isn't automatically bigotry, but bigotry is easier when you can simply discount millions of people as simply wrong because 'my belief says so'.

Quote:

---

I know you disagree with which category they fall into, which is why I think you see it the way you do. You see Hindus as getting a pass, where we would see them as someone we can discourse with. You see LGBTQ people as being singled out, where we find a topic that is utterly off limits for discussion.

---

If Christian evangelical politicians were to engage in a culture war which opposed Hindu marriage, opposed Hindus from adopting children, complained about Hindu symbolism in public, banned books from libraries with Hindu characters, and described their value system in terms of dumpster fires, perversion, and poisonous, then lets see how quickly that discourse between American Christians and Hindus turns sour. I feel that the reason that Christians generally do not support these measures against Hindus is that there is some level of mutual respect. While you do not necessarily need to respect their religion, there is at least a respect toward their sincerity and good intentions.

Having a civil discussion with someone who is gay or trans is not difficult. The problem is that if all you care about is convincing them you are right and converting them, then you aren't listening to them. You are lecturing at them. And people don't like that.

PabloSerna said:

---

"So I'll ask you this: if they made a pill tomorrow (which I know they won't because I don't think it has a biological cause, but is instead experiential) that would erase all LGBTQ thoughts your loved one(s) have, would you be excited at the thought, or dismayed?"

When I read this I couldn't help but think about Peter's words to Christ about his impending crucifixion and the immediate rebuke by Jesus, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."

As I have come to understand it, we are made this way. Not because of some trauma or past sin, but as a means to glorify God.

ETA: Very familiar with the Courage ministry.

---

Sincerely, thank you for spelling that all out. It made it much easier to see where you're coming from. I'll say a few last words and let you have the last response if you want it:

I think this proves my point on why push back on LGBTQ can seem like a special hatred only reserved for them. It's because it is viewed as inherently part of them. To even suggest considering they can be healed is to speak the words of Satan, in your opinion. This is an incredibly strong charge that I can't believe was levied.

Pablo. You have cited a miracle story where someone born blind can see again. He is literally healed. I don't understand your quotes around "see". The teaching is that he was blind and was healed. Jesus raised people from the dead. He healed paraplegics. He exorcised demons. He did all manners of miracles to help people become whole again. But in this one area, this one privation of good, we are supposed to believe there can be no healing. There is no hope. It seems to me a more proper analogy would be that God allows people to feel this way for very purpose of showing God's healing powers, like he did with the blind man.

The only reason I can fathom that you are unwilling to consider this too can be healed is because you don't see this as a deprivation of good. Having deep seated feelings that would prevent someone from ever experiencing marriage or natural parenthood is actually great way to live, which is why God made them that way. The blind guy? Deprivation and healing. LGBTQ has nothing to heal, ergo not a deprivation of natural good. In my opinion, if this isn't a deprivation of good, we should be doing absolutely nothing to stand in the way of them living their life the way they feel they should. I would think homosexual marriage and medical transitioning should be green-lit immediately, as they were made to live that way.

If you have an opinion on whether or not LGBTQ feelings are a deprivation of good or not, and if yes, why God can't heal it both through spiritual and human means, I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts.

Also, if you do choose to respond, I'd love to know your thoughts on Courage. Like I said, I'll let you have last word unless you want to direct any question to me.

I'll leave our conversation at this (unless you have further questions):

You have not accused me of bigotry. Yet I have been frequently enough to know how this goes with a person that has skin in the game. For example, a fellow Catholic just accused me of speaking the words of Satan lol. And all I did is ask what his opinion would be if we definitively found how to change orientation.

I have long given up on approaching these conversations with religion unless, like Pablo, they bring it up first. My course of conversation has been biological first and foremost, followed by the typical goal of medicine as we see it applied to any other atypical human behavior. Despite how you think that may be met with civil discourse, my experience is otherwise. Do I believe I'm right? Yes. Am I open to changing my mind? Yes. Can I say this for all Christians? Idk. I would lean towards no, but many Christian denominations have changed their stance on these issues, so it appears quite a few are listening.

Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.

Have you been civil despite this? Yes. Now, do you think everyone, or even the majority, of people with your views that I interact with stays civil? I can tell you from experience that the answer is no. I'm not even trying to convert people. I'm stating the facts as I see them. I'm stating that people are capable of conversion, and that belief is what gets the vitriol. The fundamental worldview is so different that both sides resort to name calling. Until one side agrees that people are "born that way" or the other side agrees this an issue that can change without changing you are as a person, then it will remain this way. Right now, we are one group arguing that the light is green and the other group arguing the light is red. Neither side, as a whole, is open to changing their mind, so name calling is inevitable.

Lastly, I don't think the idea of restricting marriage for Hindus is the same as it is for gay marriage. Homosexual people have always been able to marry- they just had to marry the opposite sex. In fact, based on how we have seen people leave their opposite sex spouse for a gay relationship, I would say the LGBTQ feeling people have been getting married for a long time.

Do I think civil unions would have been opposed by Christians? Yes. Do I think it would have been opposed as vehemently? No. But since we went the marriage route, we were yet again forced to debate marriage IS this or marriage IS that. It did not allow for a both/and. While I would hope discourse could remain civil, when you are both intent on upholding your definition, people are gonna get pissed. It's human nature.

Allow me to clear up the rebuke from Jesus to Peter- it was not directed at you, but rather that Jesus was pointing out the importance of suffering. You had posed the question about taking a pill to avoid being gay, I was responding more to the symmetry in those two scenarios than taking a swipe at you. Apologies.

ETA: I will respond to the second part of your question in a bit. I'm at the San Jacinto Historic Site today. Kick off for a massive restoration and capital improvements.

PabloSerna said:

---

Allow me to clear up the rebuke from Jesus to Peter- it was not directed at you, but rather that Jesus was pointing out the importance of suffering. You had posed the question about taking a pill to avoid being gay, I was responding more to the symmetry in those two scenarios than taking a swipe at you. Apologies.

ETA: I will respond to the second part of your question in a bit. I'm at the San Jacinto Historic Site today. Kick off for a massive restoration and capital improvements.

---

Fair enough. Sorry for misinterpreting that and appreciate the clarification.

Zobel said:

---

Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.

It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.

---

Agree fully with you on this one.

The Banned said:

---

Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.

---

I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standards ) and respond to just a couple items.

Up until the last decade or so, virtually everyone who came out as gay or tans did so in opposition to every social, family, religious, political, or economic pressure imaginable. The idea that these things are nurture only and that nature plays no part seems absurd to me. Why would these people have sabotaged their entire lives and every relationship or opportunity to live this way? Historically, LGBTQ ideology has been as far from 'nurture' as possible, and yet, there has always been a record of people like this.

That said, it kinda doesn't matter to me if its nature or nurture. Until someone can explain to me why its my business to tell others who they are allowed to love or what they can do with their body, then its not my business. I don't need to understand it. I don't need to like it. I don't need to be able to tie it to some scientific / biological proof. All I need to do is be able to treat others the way I want to be treated. And I don't want to be told who I can love or what I can do with my body. Why would I not extend the same to others. If their actions are an offense to God, that is between them and God. Not me.

There are of course arguments that homosexuality and transgenderism does affect me. There are those that will argue that even if I am not directly affected, there are a million ways I am affected indirectly. If I can steal a line from someone else in another thread, there might be an argument that there is no such thing as 'private sin'. But, to that argument, I would say 'be careful what you wish for'. Because if who I sleep with is your business, then your religion is now my business. If what I do with my body is your business, then what you teach your children is mine.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.

---

I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standards ) and respond to just a couple items.

Up until the last decade or so, virtually everyone who came out as gay or tans did so in opposition to every social, family, religious, political, or economic pressure imaginable. The idea that these things are nurture only and that nature plays no part seems absurd to me. Why would these people have sabotaged their entire lives and every relationship or opportunity to live this way? Historically, LGBTQ ideology has been as far from 'nurture' as possible, and yet, there has always been a record of people like this.

That said, it kinda doesn't matter to me if its nature or nurture. Until someone can explain to me why its my business to tell others who they are allowed to love or what they can do with their body, then its not my business. I don't need to understand it. I don't need to like it. I don't need to be able to tie it to some scientific / biological proof. All I need to do is be able to treat others the way I want to be treated. And I don't want to be told who I can love or what I can do with my body. Why would I not extend the same to others. If their actions are an offense to God, that is between them and God. Not me.

There are of course arguments that homosexuality and transgenderism does affect me. There are those that will argue that even if I am not directly affected, there are a million ways I am affected indirectly. If I can steal a line from someone else in another thread, there might be an argument that there is no such thing as 'private sin'. But, to that argument, I would say 'be careful what you wish for'. Because if who I sleep with is your business, then your religion is now my business. If what I do with my body is your business, then what you teach your children is mine.

---

Fair enough. But if you believe trans is a mental disease as I do, shouldn't they be under psychiatric care? Are we doing them a service enabling a delusion?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Now, do LGBTQ aligned people believe they are right, just as much as I do? Yes. Do you believe you are right? Yes. Has anything I've said even remotely opened you to the possibility that LGBTQ orientations can change? You say no. Unless you change that statement and say you are open to changing your mind on the cause of LGBTQ orientations, I would say you're asking for something you're unwilling to give.

---

I agree we can let this discussion go - I'll be brief (by my standards ) and respond to just a couple items.

Up until the last decade or so, virtually everyone who came out as gay or tans did so in opposition to every social, family, religious, political, or economic pressure imaginable. The idea that these things are nurture only and that nature plays no part seems absurd to me. Why would these people have sabotaged their entire lives and every relationship or opportunity to live this way? Historically, LGBTQ ideology has been as far from 'nurture' as possible, and yet, there has always been a record of people like this.

That said, it kinda doesn't matter to me if its nature or nurture. Until someone can explain to me why its my business to tell others who they are allowed to love or what they can do with their body, then its not my business. I don't need to understand it. I don't need to like it. I don't need to be able to tie it to some scientific / biological proof. All I need to do is be able to treat others the way I want to be treated. And I don't want to be told who I can love or what I can do with my body. Why would I not extend the same to others. If their actions are an offense to God, that is between them and God. Not me.

There are of course arguments that homosexuality and transgenderism does affect me. There are those that will argue that even if I am not directly affected, there are a million ways I am affected indirectly. If I can steal a line from someone else in another thread, there might be an argument that there is no such thing as 'private sin'. But, to that argument, I would say 'be careful what you wish for'. Because if who I sleep with is your business, then your religion is now my business. If what I do with my body is your business, then what you teach your children is mine.

---

Be careful what we wish for? Society is already ordered like that: religion, or its relegation, has been societal business for a hundred years. You're not threatening us with anything new but seem to be pushing back on us having an even playing field.

dermdoc said:

---

Fair enough. But if you believe trans is a mental disease as I do, shouldn't they be under psychiatric care? Are we doing them a service enabling a delusion?

---

Mental disease, mental condition, mental disorder . . . I don't know the right term. What I do know is that we don't put every person with an atypical mental condition into psychiatric care. People with a condition that makes them unable to function on their own or those with conditions that make them a danger to themselves or others - sure.

My position is that we do people the most service by helping them find a mental state that allows them to be happy and productive rather than calling them delusional for experiencing life differently.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Fair enough. But if you believe trans is a mental disease as I do, shouldn't they be under psychiatric care? Are we doing them a service enabling a delusion?

---

Mental disease, mental condition, mental disorder . . . I don't know the right term. What I do know is that we don't put every person with an atypical mental condition into psychiatric care. People with a condition that makes them unable to function on their own or those with conditions that make them a danger to themselves or others - sure.

My position is that we do people the most service by helping them find a mental state that allows them to be happy and productive rather than calling them delusional for experiencing life differently.

---

What? What makes someone's happiness healthy? What makes their productivity healthy? Why are these standards and what are their boundaries? Every single person experiences life differently, yet we have a shared reality. Surely there's more here than simply that.

AGC said:

---

Be careful what we wish for? Society is already ordered like that: religion, or its relegation, has been societal business for a hundred years. You're not threatening us with anything new but seem to be pushing back on us having an even playing field.

---

I thought you decided it was not worth engaging with me?

AGC said:

---

What? What makes someone's happiness healthy? What makes their productivity healthy? Why are these standards and what are their boundaries? Every single person experiences life differently, yet we have a shared reality. Surely there's more here than simply that.

---

Its not my job to tell someone else how to be happy or demand that their happiness follow my prescripted definition of a healthy version of happy. The boundary starts roughly where their happiness infringes on my ability to be happy or where said happiness poses a danger to someone's health and safety.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

What? What makes someone's happiness healthy? What makes their productivity healthy? Why are these standards and what are their boundaries? Every single person experiences life differently, yet we have a shared reality. Surely there's more here than simply that.

---

Its not my job to tell someone else how to be happy or demand that their happiness follow my prescripted definition of a healthy version of happy. The boundary starts roughly where their happiness infringes on my ability to be happy or where said happiness poses a danger to someone's health and safety.

---

Of course it is, and as a parent you should know this is patently false. If you let children chart a path to happiness it leads to heartache. You'd be a **** parent to simply allow them to pursue it without shaping their vision with some idea of what is good, true, and beautiful.

And this goes for your friends, neighborhood, coworkers, etc. Who wants a friend that wouldn't look out for their best interest, even if it meant no happiness in the near future, such as delayed gratification?

No one lives this way because no one actually believes it, or they recognize it for what it is: a patronizing platitude that denies the reality of the world. Look how much time you spend on here debating with us instead of letting us be happy in an echo chamber. Why can't we have happiness?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Be careful what we wish for? Society is already ordered like that: religion, or its relegation, has been societal business for a hundred years. You're not threatening us with anything new but seem to be pushing back on us having an even playing field.

---

I thought you decided it was not worth engaging with me?

---

You misinterpreted the post. My point stands: rational materialists have been meddling in Christianity for well over a century via education and government. Your threat is empty.

AGC said:

---

You misinterpreted the post. My point stands: rational materialists have been meddling in Christianity for well over a century via education and government. Your threat is empty.

---

I'm not sure I understand. In what manner have rational materialists been meddling in Christianity?

AGC said:

---

Of course it is, and as a parent you should know this is patently false. If you let children chart a path to happiness it leads to heartache. You'd be a **** parent to simply allow them to pursue it without shaping their vision with some idea of what is good, true, and beautiful.

And this goes for your friends, neighborhood, coworkers, etc. Who wants a friend that wouldn't look out for their best interest, even if it meant no happiness in the near future, such as delayed gratification?

No one lives this way because no one actually believes it, or they recognize it for what it is: a patronizing platitude that denies the reality of the world. Look how much time you spend on here debating with us instead of letting us be happy in an echo chamber. Why can't we have happiness?

---

You can also be a **** parent, friend, neighbor, and coworker by not allowing them a say in what their best interests are.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

You misinterpreted the post. My point stands: rational materialists have been meddling in Christianity for well over a century via education and government. Your threat is empty.

---

I'm not sure I understand. In what manner have rational materialists been meddling in Christianity?

---

Quote:

---

But how to catechize democratic citizens, with their chaotic willfulness and nettlesome individuality, into a secularized kingdom wherein alone they could find their true freedom? The obvious answer was state-mandated and -controlled educational apparatuses. Dewey was long enamored of 19th-century America's greatest effort at socialist catechesis: Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, which Dewey ranked only behind Das Kapital as the most important book of the previous century. In April of 1934, as the Great Depression descended on America, Dewey wrote an appreciation for Bellamy's bloodless revolution, where human activity was directed toward a common good and all wealth was held in common. Dewey saw Bellamy as the great defender and prophet of American democracy. Perhaps the most important educational idea that Dewey got from Bellamy was that the traditional systems of education were predicated on and perpetuated an unjust class system. Dewey, like Bellamy, vehemently opposed any vestiges of hierarchy and old class structures in education. The democratic purpose was to facilitate communication and to involve everyone in a great society founded on mutual sharing and responsibility, while also identifying the tasks for which each person was uniquely fitted.

---

Warning: this is a long read on Dewey but it explains just how long it's been going on.

https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-34-number-2/teacher-prophet-john-deweys-liberating-education

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Of course it is, and as a parent you should know this is patently false. If you let children chart a path to happiness it leads to heartache. You'd be a **** parent to simply allow them to pursue it without shaping their vision with some idea of what is good, true, and beautiful.

And this goes for your friends, neighborhood, coworkers, etc. Who wants a friend that wouldn't look out for their best interest, even if it meant no happiness in the near future, such as delayed gratification?

No one lives this way because no one actually believes it, or they recognize it for what it is: a patronizing platitude that denies the reality of the world. Look how much time you spend on here debating with us instead of letting us be happy in an echo chamber. Why can't we have happiness?

---

You can also be a **** parent, friend, neighbor, and coworker by not allowing them a say in what their best interests are.

---

So what? You're not really making a case for what you posted. The point is that you cannot simply be hands off entirely, so the argument is moot. Individuals must make continual choices that impact others, whether to help or not, and cannot say it's none of their business.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You can also be a **** parent, friend, neighbor, and coworker by not allowing them a say in what their best interests are.

---

So what? You're not really making a case for what you posted. The point is that you cannot simply be hands off entirely, so the argument is moot. Individuals must make continual choices that impact others, whether to help or not, and cannot say it's none of their business.

---

Are the only options 'hands off' or absolute authoritarian control?

If I wish to help someone to be happy and healthy, I should listen to them to learn what that looks like for them. And, provided that doing so does not violate my values, help them toward THEIR goal of happy rather than mandate that they seek MY goal of happy.

I absolutely can say its none of my business. I do it every day. AGC, what are you having for dinner? . . . you know what, none of my business. What books are you reading your kids before bed tonight? Nope, none of my business. Are you going to church this weekend,? None of my F-ing business.

I recognize your actions affect me. Hell, if you sneeze right now and get someone sick, maybe we can track a cause and affect across the state that ends up with one of my coworkers kids getting sick and causing some minor inconvenience to me because my coworker now needs to juggle work and sick kid.

We all draw lines where actions from other people are 'our business' or 'not our business'. Apparently I draw that line differently than you. Irony is complaining about secularists meddling in Christianity while simultaneously stating that the beliefs of secularists are your business to control.

nortex97 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.

It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.

---

Agree fully with you on this one.

---

Mozart need not apply.
Einstein need not apply.
Tesla, Steve Jobs, etc.

The list of people dealing with various types of mental illness is long and distinguished.

PabloSerna said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Body dysmorphia to the point of gender identity crisis and transitioning is a mental illness. I don't need to put a value judgment on it or say it is morally corrupt or anything to make that statement. It is as much of a mental illness as a severe eating disorder, or the kind of body image issues that drive anabolic steroid use in some men.

It is not a panic or even a hot take to suggest that people with mental illnesses should not be teaching grade school children.

---

Agree fully with you on this one.

---

Mozart need not apply.
Einstein need not apply.
Tesla, Steve Jobs, etc.

The list of people dealing with various types of mental illness is long and distinguished.

---

Agree. But they did not have surgery as a treatment. That is apples to oranges.

Regarding my use of quotes around the words "see", because it was not simply the physical aspect of his sight that was restored, but Aquinas talks about spiritual blindness and how Jesus restored this man's vision. When I say the goal is to "see" God- I mean specifically to partake in the beatific vision that is heaven. That is what awaits us.

To your question of being gay/lesbian as a privation of a good (a.k.a. evil)- Aquinas again surprises with a take that follows his previous logic of order. He suggest that if there is a greater good to be achieved, was it really an evil to begin with? This follows his axiom that you cannot achieve a good by doing evil. So, I am more of the mind that the homosexual condition is part of human nature and not evil. Moral and ethical conditions remain.

Last, my opinion of the apostolate, Courage International, is that they do a lot of good work in helping same-sex attracted Catholic persons live a chaste life. They do this through "the development of a life of interior chastity in union with Christ. Chastity itself is the fruit of a dynamic relationship with Christ based on love, discipleship, holiness, and charity." They go on to state, "The spiritual practice of reparation is not the same as psychological counseling techniques known as reparative therapy."

I used to know the Pastor at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in east Austin, where at that time they held their meetings. I did a project for him. Lighting had struct the cupola and I was hired by the diocese to design the repairs. We talked quite a bit. He helped me come out of the Sodom and Gomorrah days in which I equated being homosexual as an abomination.