7 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
RU's avatar

IMO, LGBs need to remove the rest from the group. We all know one is a natural innate preference, while the other is a mental illness. LGB is about "some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla." The rest of the acronym folks think "I am the ice cream."

On a broader social level, enabling mental illness never helps. E.g., Michael Jackson. We all knew he had "issues." He clearly wanted to become a woman or maybe a pre-pubescent boy. He had all the money in the world, supportive, "affirming" doctors, a fawning media, and even more fawning fans. IOW, he had the exact thing the medical establishment (that just happens to make billions off this issue) says they want for all "trans" people. How did it work out for him?

Enablement is never a good thing. If someone says they are something that they are not, the issue is with them, not with everyone who refuses to play along with their magical thinking. We don't dress up as men in black and follow around paranoid people to affirm their paranoia. These people need psychological help, and failing that, they need a spiritual awakening. It's all a spiritual issue in the end. As MJ showed us, drugs, surgery, etc. solve absolutely nothing and actually destroy the human being.

Expand full comment
Thoughtful's avatar

RU, respectfully, I cannot agree "We all know [LGB] is a natural innate preference, while the other [TQI++] is a mental illness."

If I naturally, innately preferred alcohol consumption to the point of cirrhosis, would you not consider that an illness?

If I naturally, innately preferred to starve myself of food to the point of death, would you not consider that an illness?

I think of any preference that leads to misalignment with the Purpose for which we, male and female, were created (to glorify our Maker, fill the earth and [govern] it) as an illness.

LGB inclinations do not glorify God (Who in fact called them "unnatural"), do not fill the earth (with children) and work against both of those governing principles (i.e. rejection of God's authority, rejection of God's instruction, rejection of God's "ordering" of families as one man and one woman).

🙏

Expand full comment
Bitesandpieces's avatar

I agree. I have compassion for gay and lesbian people. It must be difficult to struggle against what seems to be their inclination. Definition of inclination: affection, appetite, aptitude, bias, capability, and desire. But I can’t use the word natural because it is not. Your example is accurate, thoughtful. We have fallen so far away from what we were put on earth to do; to worship and glorify God. He does not wink at sin; he has called it an abomination.

Expand full comment
RU's avatar

Well, we are free to disagree. I do not consider those logically sound analogies. Nor do I believe God put us here merely, or only, or especially to procreate.

Expand full comment
Thoughtful's avatar

Yes, certainly. And I appreciate the respectful exchange of ideas (so rare these days). :)

I am curious what you feel is not logically sound about my analogies as I try to understand your point of view better. You speak of preference and attraction to the same/both genders by a person as "natural" and "innate" and like a preference of ice cream flavor (chocolate v. vanilla). That implies that, as between preferring a sexual partner of the same/both sex or a sexual partner of the opposite sex, there is no way to measure any benefit or deficit in those choices. I think we can remove the discussion from any Biblical worldview and still see pros and cons (much more akin to alcoholic/anorexic self-destruction than mere chocolate v. vanilla).

If you live out same-sex attraction, you will never naturally produce children with your life partner. If you enter into a same-sex union, you will deprive any children within your household of either a male or female parent.

If you live out a both-sex attraction, you will never experience the joy/security of monogamy (or the sexual intimacy of having an exclusive life/sex partner). If you live a both-sex attraction lifestyle, any children you may have would not likely have the chance to be raised by a mother and father committed to each other all within the same household.

Only in the opposite-sex attraction category can you experience exclusive, monogamous, and potentially pro-creative sexual intimacy. Any children born of that intimacy are more likely to be raised in a household with male and female role models and all the benefits that come with that diversity.

I think it's hard to argue there's no benefit to choosing heterosexual monogamy with a life partner (and the data so far show that children raised in such households are happier, healthier and more likely to achieve their own success... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/). So I don't see this as "merely" chocolate v. vanilla preference. The preference is a choice to live in a manner beneficial to ordered society, gender role models and their complementarity, and the opportunity of children being raised in the ideal setting.

That said, it's much easier to make the pros/cons argument for opposite-sex attraction in the context of a Biblical worldview. God's first commandment was to Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge and evil... (i.e. don't try to be God... ironically a different path to the same sin as PRIDE). God's second commandment (as part of a blessing) was to Adam and Eve to go forth, be fruitful, multiply and govern over the creatures of the earth. That's not JUST procreation... but certainly procreation is part of our blessing/inheritance. And the words attributed to God in Genesis aren't ambivalent or confusingly unclear about His order and our purpose.

🤷‍♀️

Expand full comment
RU's avatar

Well, first, I don't think comments sections of websites are good places for discussions like this. It's hard to have a nuanced discussion and not come off the wrong way. :-) But, to answer the questions...in my opinion, a more logical analogy would be to say if someone had a desire to have rampant unprotected sex with others of the same gender that would be akin to alcoholism. Of course, the same would be true of someone who had a desire to have rampant sex with someone of the opposite gender or sex. Either way, that would be something like addiction, and it would be self-destructive. Like drinking to the point of disease. (In fact, I don't think a desire to drink alcohol is even natural - it's something we learn.)

That's why I see a distinction b/w gay (LGB) and trans (TQIA whatever). One is a matter of the type of attraction one has to another person; the other is an argument about the nature of reality and a desire for self-harm in the form of physical mutilation. There is an overtly self-destructive quality to "trans" ideology; an inherent inability to see the value in oneself as oneself, leading to a desire to physically end that particular self. I don't see anything similarly self-destructive about being gay. (FWIW, when it comes to trans issues, my main issue has to do with foisting this on children, convincing them they are "trans" when they are really just experiencing normal hormonal changes. And also the violation of parent's rights.)

The issue that I have with the analogy is that to assume that just being gay is like drinking to the point of disease is to assume that being gay is itself a diseased state. All of the things listed as "bad" things about gay people or gay relationships are not really inherently bad IMO, unless you believe that our main purpose here is to procreate and be good parents. As I said, I don't agree with that view. As to monogamy, anyone can choose monogamy, regardless of orientation. Finally, I don't agree with the view that there is one right/only/true way to read something like the Bible. As I'm sure you are aware, that issue has been fought over - as in, wars - for millennia. So, I think there are many valid ways to read what the Bible is telling us, and of course what God is telling us is yet another thing to many people.

Anyway, thanks for reading and for your time.

Expand full comment
Thoughtful's avatar

RU, thank you for your time and thoughtful reply. I heard everything and see where our belief systems diverge. It would be great if we could be friends IRL and have this conversation over (well, I was going to say a glass of 🍷...but maybe that's not your ideal 😉, haha!) a cup of coffee!

Expand full comment