Skip to main content

I'm "Non-Affirming": An Explanation

 This covers homosexuality/gender non-conformity, and anything related you can think of. Why? It starts with this simple assertion: Our bodies and our organs are for something, and that something is not exhausted in personal pleasure. 


Sex is for creation. To be more specific, procreation. That's what it's for. To create new people is the reason we've been given this gift. To be sure, it gives pleasure. Most likely because people will not always do the things we ought to do, if none of it was pleasant.


Why does it matter? If we were to say that "parents" were any two people, and that a "family" is whatever we say it is, we necessarily say that the traditional view is wrong. Suppose we all chose to believe this, and acted accordingly. The human race would cease to exist. It's no longer about being tolerant of a rare variation; if various radicals are correct, everything we ever believed in is wrong. But we know better.


We are seeing that transgenderism rigidly reinforces sex stereotypes; Bruce Jenner couldn't simply be a woman; he had to be his idea of an alluring, attractive, almost unattainable woman. It's staring us in the face: why? Did he feel ashamed of homosexual tendencies? Was there a trauma that caused this? And speaking of trauma, I remember when clinicians tried to heal trauma; they did not offer mutilation instead.


A large portion of what we see is teenage social contagion. Take away the phones and the apps. Being a growing youth is confusing and scary. I don't really believe most kids are confused in a new way; it's the same confusion, turbocharged by listening to other confused kids, for hours on end.


Parents are obligated to their children, even if they don't want to be parents. Sex has been severed from marriage, and severed from procreation. Abortion is the murderous end-point of this. We could argue endlessly about whether politician X understands the negative implications of law Y, but it obscures the reality that abortion takes the life of a human being. I think most people know this, deep down. But distraction is easier.

Conflating tolerance and compassion is a fun trick, too. I know the easiest way to hate someone is to lie to them. If you know a person is trying to re-create an ideal they never had, why do you celebrate that distortion? Why are we celebrating lies? Is it actually kinder to let someone hurt themselves? We rightly fear and discourage suicide, but in other ways, we let people commit suicide in slow motion.

Finally, the kids are not alright. They are owed two parents who stay married, because mommies and daddies who don't stay married--if at all possible--have done the wrong thing. Maybe our own pain as children of divorce blinds us to the harms of other things, but harm people they do.

I'm already going to the re-education camp, so I don't care. I mean, I do, but I know I can't please everyone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar