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

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...