Philosophy

Love Is Hate: Pro-Transgender Speech Is Hate Speech

There are only two possibilities: either God exists, or we each are gods. In either case, pro-transgender, pro-sodomy, pro-perversion speech of any kind is hate speech and must be condemned, expunged, ridiculed, excoriated, punished.

“Which God?”, did I hear you ask, Mr Ackshually?

God, the Biblical God, the God of St Thomas Aquinas, the God of the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, the triune God of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The God that created you, and indeed created everything, including the form or essence of what it means to be man.

Now if you don’t yet believe in this God—and that “yet” is absolute—accept His existence for the sake of argument. Suppose, in this grand little thought experiment, He is real. It may be difficult for you to keep this idea in mind, but do try.

Everybody knows God abhors perversion. Quoting only one of many instances, God said…Well, hold up. Let me rephrase. God-Jesus-Holy-Ghost said “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.” For some reason, when we moderns quote this passage we forget the Trinity. Somehow many of us think a stern father stubbornly condemned something, only for his cool son to come later and say “Forget my Old Man, it’s all fine”. If we accept the Trinity, as we are in this argument, it’s that all three, being One, said it.

Thus, pedantry aside, sexual perversion is Not Okay. It is the very opposite of Okay. Therefore, praising it, taking Pride in it, partaking in it, is wrong. Speaking well of it is therefore hate speech.

The very worst kind of hate speech there is, too. Saying a man is a woman, despite being logically self-contradictory and impossible, God existing or not, is the same as telling your creator—who we are all accepting as real and in charge—to blow it out His rear. “Sorry, God. I know better, and I’ll do as I damned well please.”

So, given God exists, and it being obvious Pride-speech is hate speech, we should condemn and punish it as we do all hate speech. Firings, purgings, fines, canceled visas, banks accounts deleted, on-line accounts whacked, shunnings, houndings , riots and all the rest.

This conclusion follows even if you don’t want it to.

Of course, the conclusion only follows if we accept God exists and hate speech should be punished even up to death (as some call for, even if not always openly).

Perhaps it comes as a relief then, that we can without noticeable earthly penalty abandon our first premise that God exists.

Alas, it will turn out that Pride speech is still hate speech. And, as hate speech must be punished, Pride speakers must still pay the penalty.

If there is no God, then there are no rules. Nothing really matters. Oh, sure, it may seem like things matter. They matter to each of us, but without an absolute reference point, nothing really matters. All is arbitrary, useless, futile, meaningless.

The human race doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean an undamned thing if every mother-loving one of dies horribly tomorrow. Pain doesn’t matter. Not ultimately, however much it means to you.

Since you are just a shambolic directionless conglomeration of matter following unemotional chemical and physical rules, here one moment, gone the next, the best you can argue is that your feelings and your state are essential to you. But that in no way, no way at all, implies your feelings and state of being have any importance to me.

Sure, you can gather like-minded individuals and threaten violence against me lest I threaten you. So what? The stronger will win, and I am confident. Whoever wins, wins, and that’s an end of it. The battle itself has no essential meaning. There is no right and no wrong, only winners and losers.

This sounds bad, but take heart! There is tremendous freedom here. You are free to invent your own standards of right and wrong, and what it means to be man. If you are a man and want to say you are a woman, you can! You decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong, and there will be no way whatsoever to prove you wrong. When referring to yourself alone.

I am free to say this is insane. I am free to say you are insane. I say a man is a man only. If you disagree with me, and the many who agree with, you are showing hate toward us. You are intolerant of our view. You are not being inclusive. Your speech is hate speech.

And we all agreed hate speech should be punished.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here

Categories: Philosophy

33 replies »

  1. Grade: 100% for logic. 0% for desired effect.

    Unfortunately, our opponents are not practitioners of logic or reason. Sly, satirical sarcasm is lost on them.

    Hatred, animus, bile, spite, disdain, destruction, vainglorious narcissism, smug self-centered and inverted self-righteousness are the rotten contents of their bitter minds.

    Thanks for trying to convert them. I’m afraid it’s a lost cause. The road to our current state has been long and intense, with massive energy expended to achieve the cultural destruction you observe. A turn-around will not come easily, or cheaply. Gird your loins.

  2. I left our Lutheran congregation when we called an openly gay pastor. At the congregational meeting I asked in all, seriousness, if there were other parts of the Bible we were planning on ignoring. One woman fell back on the “ we are all sinners” argument- i pointed out to her that, if she made that argument she was acknowledging that gay sex was a sin. In addition I said that we were not merely accepting that we are all fallen creatures, but rather redefining a sin to be a virtue. I went back to the One True Church- now in the HOV lane to Protestantism under Frankie- boy.

    Fun fact: at the confab in Minneapolis several years ago when the ELCA voted to roster openly gay clergy, a tornado struck the city shortly after the vote.

  3. I don’t see the conclusion that gays must be punished by their fellow men for acting as gays. It is obvious that if God states that acting gay is wrong, it is wrong. For the act to be punishable by men God need to make a law that such deeds must be punished by their fellow men. In fact, this was law in Israel, Leviticus 18-22.

  4. Good intent, wrong argument. We do not need Revelation and Faith to know the ghey is wrong, natural reason figuring out the natural function of things suffices.

    Chesterton got this right. Sin is not a religious, supernatural, Revelation/Faith idea. You just go out on the street and see it. By natural reason.

    The religious idea is purely that there is a supernatural salvation from sin. Sort of an unexpected, undeserved deus-ex-machina.

    The correct, precise, rational way to be an atheist is to feel desperate: sin is real and there is no salvation from it, no special, surprising, undeserved Good News giving people a special chance to beat sin.

    No rational atheism can say the ghey is not sin. Nor can it deny the many other kinds of sins, like my own wrath and gluttony. It can only be hopeless about our chances of beating it because it does not believe in such a special, surprising, supernatural saving grace.

    Which is my current depressing position.

  5. “How much trans would a transchuck chuck
    if a transchuck could chuck trans?
    They would chuck, they would,
    as much as they could,
    and chuck as much trans
    as a transchuck would
    if a transchuck
    could chuck trans.”

  6. A primary cause of all of this lunacy was the anti-discrimination civil rights legislation that rendered illegal our individual decision making authority and, in the end right to think. Preserving the right of families, churches, organizations, and employees to decide who to live with, what to pay for, who to hire, who to support, and what to allow on any basis whatsoever would end it immediately. Discrimination might be stupid, but it is not wrong. Unfortunately, not one in 500 will take that position today. Thoughts?

  7. It’s worth noting the phrasing of the original injunction: God doesn’t say those who engage in distorted sexuality are abominations, He says it — the act itself — is an abomination. The only way to assume that condemnation of the act amounts to the condemnation of the actor is for the actor to identify himself with the act — to say that it is who he is.

    This is not only a logical falsehood but an offense against dignity; no human being can be reduced to a single type of act, experience, interaction or relationship, however fervently beloved or central to their life. Even Beethoven was more than his music; even Einstein was more than his scientific genius; even Florence Nightingale was more than a nurse; and even the most loving and devoted husband and father is more than solely the provider for wife and children. And since all hate speech is defined as that which attempts to rob the target of his or her human dignity, then the claim that one’s identity can be reduced to one’s sexual predilections, or that the sole criterion of a worthy life is to achieve the practical maximum of sexual gratification, is itself a form of hate speech.

  8. ”Shambolic”

    Had to look it up. “Chaotic, disorganized, or mismanaged.”

    What a useful word for our times.

  9. PK: “”A primary cause of all of this lunacy was the anti-discrimination civil rights legislation…”

    Yup. Mop Man Briggs has previously mopped up this filthy, uncivil mess of shambolicism.

  10. Kent: “Unfortunately, our opponents are not practitioners of logic or reason.”

    No indeed. They are practitioners of worldly power. The Apostle Alinsky rules, ““Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Logic and reason are our rules — the “enemy”. Lefty plays by no such rulebook. Briggs knows this, he’s not trying to convince the shambolic horde. But a mop man hates to see puddles of filth. I never need to clean my shoes after visiting Briggs.

  11. A primary cause of all of this lunacy was the anti-discrimination civil rights legislation…

    AMEN!!!!

  12. “Age of entitlement,” by Christopher Caldwell is a book about how Civil Rights Legislation ate Our Constitution.

    The ACLU used to defend the rights of all citizens.

    Ask the average Joe or Jane American what Civil Rights are and you will likely hear (if they are informed) Civil Rights are a collection of government programs and benefits which punish whites and reward blacks.

    Well, it wasn’t always that way…Civil Rights used to mean YOUR rights to live as you desire without force or coercion from the federal or state government. Of course it was to be expected that one would obey all legitimate laws but the idea the Federal Government could control your speech, what you did with your private property, or how you desired to freely worship or freely associate would have sounded like Communism not American liberty.

    Believe it or not, The ACLU used to fight for such rights, not war against them as they do now.

    Originally, the ACLU was concerned with the CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES of all American citizens and their freedom to exercise those rights even if the Federal or State Government did not want those Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to be exercised.

    If you can scare up the ACLU’s old “Maintain your rights” poster, look at the last two paragraphs on the right and just think that there was a time in America when the Federal Government or State Government could not heave your ass into jail for expressing your opinion about anything.

    Now, you can be fired for questioning the putative facts of the War Crimes committed against the Messias-Deniers; you can be fired for mocking sodomites; you can be fired for telling idlers on your private property to buy something or leave; and you can most definitely be fired for not baking a cake for sodomites. The list of potential firing offenses is exhaustively long.

    ACLU, we hardly knew ye before you began to become corrupt and serve the ever-changing narrative of the information class.

    You are now the kept counsel of the Messias-Deniers, the Blacks, the Abortionists, the Communists, the sodomites, the pronographers, the Mahometans, the border invaders, and there is not a single Christian alive who thinks you would lift even one of your limp pudgy fingers to help defend their Civil Rights of a Christian against an aggressive and Anti-Christian Culture and Government.

    ACLU. GO TO HELL

  13. Thanks for the history ABS.

    I have always been suspicious of the term Civil Rights. The simpler term Individual Rights is more definable and clear.

    God bless Mr. Briggs for this site.

  14. How do you reconcile all of the laws in the OT that we *don’t* follow?

    I’m not saying that the sexual rules set out on Leviticus 18 are wrong, but Leviticus 19 goes on with things like:

    “you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.”

    “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

    And all of the absolutely fascinating rules about ‘uncleanliness’ and ‘defilement’ in Leviticus 15 and uncleanliness after childbirth in Leviticus 12 (33 days if she has a boy, 66 days if she has a girl).

    Obviously sodomy is not a good thing for civilization as a whole nor for Christians. But how do you reconcile ‘God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost’ requiring:

    “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.”

    Atonement for giving birth to a child?!?

  15. Dear Nate. Sodomites (and their supporters) exempt themselves from the Universal Objective Moral Code (UOMC) when it comes to their perverted Lust and they insist normal men respect their right to violate the UOMC and engage in perverted lust while at the same time insisting, hypocritically, that other men obey the Universal Objective Moral Code when it comes to not condemning the perverted practice of sodomy which has always sickened real men.

    Well, too bad for them for Jesus Christ has condemned sodomy and judged it as a soul-destroying sin.

    If they have a “right” to reject part of The UOMC, they have no standing to object if other men do similar although Mayor Pete doesn’t understand that.

    Th reason we no longer have the sixteen million laws/codes of the Old Law is because it is kaput, but we do have the UOMC which underpinned it because the UOMC is created by God.

  16. Dear Nate, I’m just your average idiot, but I’ve noticed that whenever people want to challenge Christian moral teaching or Holy Scripture, they point to Leviticus. Others could explain it better, but we understand many of these old and detailed laws were given to “a stiff-necked people” for a period of time, and Jesus Christ is the New Covenant.

    While He told us that “not a dot or tittle” has fallen away from the old law, these are understood to be God’s Mosaic Laws, embodied in the Ten Commandments, not the detailed rules of living set forth in Leviticus. Indeed, the Apostle Paul spent no small amount of time, trying to explain that salvation included the Gentiles, and wasn’t dependent upon “the works of the law” by which he meant circumcision and other Jewish practices. Today, some Protestants insist Paul meant “good works” (the kind St. James meant when he said “faith without works is dead”) but he was referring to the “works” of the Old Covenant, as set forth in Leviticus and elsewhere.

    Even so, when our Blessed Mother, who was conceived without sin, presents Jesus in the Temple, for the ritual Jewish purification or “sin offering”, it is an act of obedience to God, an act of the Jewish religion, but also a foreshadowing of the crucifixion, when our Lord and Savior will be offered up (and will offer up Himself) on the Holy Cross as the “Sin Offering”, once for all. My theology is imperfect but you get the drift. It’s the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.

    So much of the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of Jesus, and some call the Book of Isaiah, “the Fifth Gospel.” Some experts recommend skipping Leviticus when reading the OT, or saving it for later, because it just stops the flow of the narrative.

    Transgenderism is a modern invention, and maybe the closest we come in Holy Scripture is talk of eunuchs. But what all of these “sins that cry to heaven for justice”, whether they be physical mutilation, sodomy, infant sacrifice (abortion), have in common, is their primary target is children, who are innocent, vulnerable, and without personal defense. This is what feeds The Beast, and it tends towards acceleration.

    Thus, “safe and rare” (ha ha) first trimester abortions have become “if the full-term baby survives our attempts to murder it during birth, we’ll ‘make it comfortable’ while we talk to mother about how killing her child is the most convenient option. And these sentiments were so applauded in Manhattan, they lit up the Empire State Bldg. to celebrate.

    So it is, with “gender roles:” Girls once understood to be “Tomboys” (common to many girlhoods) must now become “actual boys”, by gaslighting them, giving them hormone-blocking drugs, and cutting off their young breasts; True boys who play with dolls, or who spent their infancy drinking estrogen-laden soy milk, must be given testosterone-blockers, more estrogen, breast implants, even have their penises cut off.

    “Biological boys” or what we used to call “boys” may now compete as girls in sporting events, and “unaltered” (meaning still having penises) transgenders will be admitted to women’s prisons and elsewhere. And all of this, apparently, is just fine with so-called “feminists”.

    In the U.S., Britain, and elsewhere, if a child is lucky enough to make it out of the womb alive (1 in 3 won’t), they’ll be forced to undergo a relentless gaslighting regimen, from pre-school on, some form of “gender exploration studies.” Worldwide, thousands of children every year are mentally impaired, then chemically and physically altered and mutilated, before they are even old enough to buy cigarettes or sign a legal contract, marry, or basically have any adult decision-making faculties in place.

    And all of this is just fine, nothing hateful at all, about murdering, sodomizing, and mutilating children and young adults, and opposing it is hate speech, punishable by stoning, because, words. Time to turn the tables, because they are the ones who are “science deniers” and true haters, and their words are true hate speech. Another brilliant column, Dr. Briggs. I’ve been thinking about it for days, and Nate’s comment inspired me to respond. Thanks to you both.

    God bless and have a lovely Sunday. We’re praying for our POTUS and FLOTUS, especially today! They’re at the top of the gratitude list.

  17. I don’t accept that hate speech should be legislated against, but that doesn’t mean some speech isn’t hateful in intent. (Such as that of Kent Frisbe, above.)

    Regarding your hypothetical question, if I knew for a fact that the Christian God existed, that wouldn’t change my opinion that there isn’t anything wrong with gay sex or transexualism. Why should I care about the opinion of a God who says gay sex is an “abomination”, but doesn’t condemn slavery at all?

    And yes, that wasn’t a mistake: I meant God’s opinion. By definition, God’s moral rules aren’t based on any external facts or reasoning. If they were, we wouldn’t need God to be able to arrive at those same rules. (See Euthyphro dilemma) So they actually carry no weight at all. I can give reasons for my moral beliefs, God can’t.

  18. @ Ann Cherry,

    “But what all of these “sins that cry to heaven for justice”, whether they be physical mutilation, sodomy, infant sacrifice (abortion), have in common, is their primary target is children, …”

    Are you quite sure you’re not mixing transgenderism up with the activities of child-molesting Catholic Priests? Religions have always targeted children. I did a quick bit of googling and although it’s difficult to find a definitive answer, according to one study of 222 transexuals, the average age for having gender resassignment surgery was 43. Some have it done in their 70’s.

    The rest of your comment is similarly disconnected with actual reality.

  19. Dear swordfish: A “bit of googling” and you’re ready to declare another’s comments “disconnected from actual reality.” The world is full of experts spoon-fed their “actual reality” based upon the first two pages of a Google search, but let’s consider the nuances (ie actual facts) that Google probably won’t.

    Nearly every one of those “child-molesting Catholic Priests”…and bishops, and cardinals, we’d add, over 90%, were also what we call “men having same-sex attraction and practicing same” with other men or boys. It’s the “practicing same” part, especially with minors, that’s a sin in our churches, and sometimes a crime in our courts. For obvious reasons, right?

    And yet, the problem is not just in our Catholic Church, it’s in our Protestant churches, our Synagogues, our Mosques, our schools, Boy Scouts, government agencies, and most especially, our families. Wherever there’s access to children. Overall, more than 70% of pedophile incidences, both pre-pubescent and teen, involve male, same-sex molestation. In any case, boys or girls, it’s understood to be nonconsensual, and rape as a matter of law, “Statutory Rape” when it involves young people. For obvious reasons, right?

    As for transgender statistics, I read an article that some 2,000 transgender procedures were performed on minors in the United Kingdom during a recent year. Keep in mind, that chemical hormone-blocking drugs, and hormone replacements, are the main approach with children, and they often save the cutting and hacking and sewing-on parts for later, if it’s still needed after all the hormonal witchcraft started as early as the pre-teens.

    So you say, according to Google, not much “surgery” on the kiddies, just the Bruce Jenner types. Well, if a grown man, in his forties, no less, wants to cut his manhood off and pretend he’s a woman, that’s not mental illness, it’s freedom! Far out, and the rest of us are free to be repelled, amused, horrified, or have any other (one might say, sane) reaction (because we’re free too!) upon finding out that Uncle Butch is now Aunt Brianna, and we must all bend the knee to the madness and remember B’s new pronoun, which might even be “it”. It is exhausting.

    Google is part of the information cabal that, for various reasons, seeks to normalize this serious mental illness called “gender dysphoria”. Did you know that in some places, even here, it’s illegal to provide psychological counseling to people, even minors, who’ve (mostly) been gas-lighted into this insane illness?

    This is an illness that compels people to take serious, life-altering hormones, block other, essential ones (while opposing GMOs in their cornflakes, no less); an illness that compels them to cut off their own body parts or those of their children, or approve of it, condone it, even mandate it, in others, is A-okay. In fact, it’s so A-okay that it’s “protected” like an endangered species, and carefully nurtured in the larger population. Misery loves company!

    When “God’s moral rules aren’t based on any external facts or reasoning” then anything goes….how convenient! Even thinking you can “re-assign” your gender by cutting off your little wee-wee. That seems pretty childish, and anti-science to boot, given that gender is determined at birth and is in our DNA.

    That’s not to say a guy can’t act like a gal! I miss the old-fashioned “transexuals”, the “Priscillas of the Desert” who just put on some stockings and lipstick and went with it. So much less grim, and so many fewer regrets, not actually cutting things off, because as women, well….they’re notorious for changing their minds.

  20. My point was simply that using Leviticus (as in the OP) will always bring up these sorts of arguments. I think it’s far better to argue on the merits of the behavior leading us away from God.

    The OT ‘laws’ in general appear to be designed to prevent the spread of sickness, couched in a ‘moral code’. The focus on blood, cleanliness, etc., even if not completely correct on how disease is spread, can help. Homosexual behavior spreads disease far and wide as well. Imagine you are dealing with bronze age tribesmen. What’s the easiest way to get them to stop drinking raw blood and getting sick – tell them God says so.

    The big reason homosexual behavior is bad is because is directs men (and women) toward hedonism and seeing other people simply as objects to be used for sexual satisfaction.

  21. Men cannot become women, nor women men.
    It is ridiculous that such a thing even needs to be said.

    Neither can we become zebras, or elephants become butterflies, or acorns become pigs.

    We cannot become other than we are born to be…what we are conceived to be….what the atoms inside the polynucleotide chains linked in spiral strands of DNA ‘fingerprints’ say, indeed, we must be.

    It doesn’t matter how many times we click our heels together. It isn’t; it won’t be; it can’t be. Even if we really really think it should be.

    We are free to pretend, of course. We’ve always been free to pretend.
    I’ve pretended I was Geronimo, the Lone Ranger, John Steed, Harry Callahan, and Mighty Mouse. But I’ve never ACTUALLY BELIEVED these fantasies to be true. And I’ve never demanded that everyone respect & recognize my play-pretend self.

    “Yes, good friends, I believe myself to be the King of Siam. My preferred pronoun is “Your Majesty” (accompanied by a deep bow). That’s not asking too much, is it?”

    Such fantastical demands deserve only laughter (even if such laughter offends the Pretender).

    Equally true: men and women are ‘designed’ to be one…. by God, obviously, for those who Believe….by Evolution, obviously, for those who don’t. Two halves of the same coin, it is the union of male & female which allows our species to survive. Our bodies are so formed; our psychologies are so shaped; our desires are so, quite naturally, aligned.

    Woman needs man
    And man must have his mate
    That no one can deny
    it’s still the same old story
    …as Time goes by.

    Anything else….everything else….when it comes to human sexuality….is “a turning from truth or right; a diverting from the true intent or object; applying to a wrong end or use”. Everything else, in other words, is perversion.

    But we are still free to pretend; we are able to believe & behave otherwise, even if our behaviors are wrong, perverse, illegal, and sinful. But our belief and our behavior does not make a perversion good or right; it only makes it real.

    And, as per normal, the world we build works to enable and amplify our ‘good’ acts….and seeks also to disable and discourage our ‘bad’ (even if such discouragement makes someone feel bad).

    Even…. if 5 Clowns in Black Robes, playing Humpty Dumpty, say otherwise….
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
    Their 5-voice legal finding does not change the Truth beneath the Judicial Lie, beneath the language which remains absolutely clear. Marriage is the sacred union of man & woman. Period. And though everyone is free to marry — as per the definition — we are not free to Humpty-Dumpty-like shift the meaning to match our own idiosyncratic desires. Two men cannot be married….nor two women….nor 5 men and 4 women (all together)….nor a man and his motorcycle….nor a co-ed volleyball team. None of those arrangements is ‘marriage’ as our society and culture define it to be.

    It is ridiculous that such a thing even needs to be said.

    “I can’t believe that!” said Alice.
    “Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
    Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
    “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

    Here in Wonderland, having fallen down the rabbit-hole and plunged progressively through the Looking Glass…. we specialize in believing impossible things. It makes us feel good, don’t you know!

  22. @ Nate,

    > The big reason homosexual behavior is bad is because is directs men (and women) toward hedonism and seeing other people simply as objects to be used for sexual satisfaction.

    There’s a huge difference between claiming something is “bad” and that (as the Bible says) it is “an abomination” which justifies torturing people forever. But it isn’t bad anyway. Straight people can seek others “as objects to be used for sexual satisfaction”, and there’s nothing wrong with that if both parties consent to it. It’s also true that there are many gay people in loving, long-term relationships (including marriage).

    If anything, your complaint should be directed against God for making sex more pleasurable than seems strictly necessary.

  23. @ BDavi52,

    > Men cannot become women, nor women men. It is ridiculous that such a thing even needs to be said.

    Men cannot fly. Yet they do. You use an inordinate number of words to say very little. Don’t you think that maybe transexuals know that they aren’t actually literally becomming members of the opposite sex? They have simply decided, often quite rationally, that they would be happier if they lived as members of the opposite sex. What is morally wrong with that? How does it even affect you personally in any way?

  24. @ Ann Cherry,

    > A “bit of googling” and you’re ready to declare another’s comments “disconnected from actual reality.”

    I’m not citing google, I’m citing a peer-reviewed paper. If I went to a library and asked the librarian where to find a book on this subject, would you complain that I was getting my information from a librarian?

    > Nearly every one of those “child-molesting Catholic Priests”…and bishops, and cardinals, we’d add, over 90%, were also what we call “men having same-sex attraction and practicing same” with other men or boys.

    A man molesting a child isn’t an example of same-sex attraction, it’s an example of paedophilia. Gay men are attracted to other men, not children. You move on to the ‘other groups are just as bad’ claim, but really, if Christianity had any truth to it, I’d expect there to be hardly any child-molesting priests, not for priests to be just no worse than any other group.

    > I read an article that some 2,000 transgender procedures were performed on minors in the United Kingdom during a recent year.

    I think you’re referring to the number of children referred to a clinic, but most of those don’t go on to have surgery, and surgery is carried out on over-18s only. In any case, there are 10 million children under 14 in the UK, so 2,000 referrals is only one in 5,000 – hardly a large number.

    > Even thinking you can “re-assign” your gender by cutting off your little wee-wee. That seems pretty childish, and anti-science to boot, given that gender is determined at birth and is in our DNA.

    Do you have any moral objections to lazer eye surgery? If not, why is this morally different to an adult man deciding that he’d rather live as a woman, and having appropriate surgery?

  25. “There are only two possibilities: either God exists, or we each are gods.”

    Or no gods exist and people believe in an invisible sky daddy which is most probable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *