This is a text version of an Instagram story I made a few weeks ago in response to this (https://newchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NCL_JanFeb_2022-web.pdf) article, Standing for Marriage in Today's World. A video response by the church to the article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_oQvs9P7Us) is now posted, with an open comment section. If this post means anything to you, please consider sharing your thoughts there.
Now to an extent I’m truly not sure what to think here. How is spamming bible quotes about sodomy and abominations supposed to help someone questioning their gender identity/sexuality? Am I just that many steps removed from someone who is more embedded in the community and would find this meaningful or helpful? Who’s to say. I think the rhetoric is extremely uncompelling and the text is pretty hateful from my perspective, as I'm part of the group under attack in this article.
I also find it difficult to challenge an article like this, because it's very much written around faux civility. The author claims he is not sharing the "right answer," but intentionally or otherwise this is just him being coy.
I'm not quite sure how things went this way, but in his attempt to approach the conversation modestly and humbly, he chose to invoke the word of god, the supreme ruler of the universe for all time, who decided his word and his truth would go almost exclusively to a small rich town in southeast PA. "scientific studies are interpreted without the primacy of spiritual principle as a guide" so what am i supposed to counter this fantasy of the evil gay with? He tries to quickly frame people who follow science as the ones lacking guidance when in reality it is this article approaching you with absolutely nothing in it's hands.
The metaphysical, almost by definition, cannot be proven or disproven. In the context of a debate on LGBT issues, which heavily rely on a solid understanding of statistics, socialization, medicine, and other data, it becomes increasingly apparent that if someone comes to you to tell you your sexuality and gender identity are wrong and harmful and all they have to back their points is "god said so" then they have failed.
The metaphysical, almost by definition, cannot be proven or disproven. In the context of a debate on LGBT issues, which heavily rely on a solid understanding of statistics, socialization, medicine, and other data, it becomes increasingly apparent that if someone comes to you to tell you your sexuality and gender identity are wrong and harmful and all they have to back their points is "god said so" then they have failed.
A common talking point I hear from friends and classmates is that "why can't the community just do it's own thing, what's wrong with believing in one man and one woman? Well, in response, let me ask, what happens when a trans person is born into a cishet household that denies them? They lose their home, they lose their mental health, they lose the people possibly closest to them. Now let's take it up a notch, a trans person is born into a cishet community that denies them. They have to stay closeted or lose their standing in the community. They cannot share their life with their partner in the home they grew up in. They cannot get access to life saving HRT and medical treatment. THAT'S what's at risk. Not hurt uwu feelings like conservatives feel when people criticize them for bigotry. It's life, the life of the weakest members of the population. You can support that, or you can support an institution that has decided to be bully. Nothing more, nothing less.
To be clear I don't think this author is intentionally hateful. I doubt he went into this article thinking "I'm gonna be mean to LGBT people here." Ultimately I don't find the conversation of "what is John's moral standing" nearly as important or even interesting as "what are the effects of John's actions." Then again the church is quite the fan of "you only do things you want to do" philosophy, so perhaps it should use that model before publishing a similar piece :^]
I wanted to include this bit of "some people can't marry or have children" because it perfectly encapsulates where me in conservatives diverge. I'm of the belief that LGBT people should be happy WHILE they're alive - not after.
I think that, as you've pointed out, the biggest roadblock to making improvements on this social issue is the disconnect over doctrine vs. science. It's hard to have a balanced argument with someone who believes they have the word of god on their side. If only the solution were as easy as simply agreeing to disagree...