Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Sair]

A response I wrote a couple of days ago, before the intarwebs deserted us temporarily:

It could simply be that homosexual inclination is part and parcel of the complex web of human social interaction.

Consider it from a very basic biological, evolutionary viewpoint - homosexual behaviour is inherently non-reproductive, so why would it persist as a genetic predisposition under such circumstances, unless it served a less blatantly obvious purpose in strengthening the survival prospects of offspring?

What seems to have been overlooked in most posts to this thread thus far is the bonding function of intimate sexual behaviour. If we consider this from the point of view of prehistoric human societies, small bands of foragers and hunters, the advantages of intimate bonding within a group are more obvious than they are today, in our individually-orientated societies in which the nuclear family has become a more or less symbolic extension of individualised notions of success.

But human biological inclination does not evolve anywhere near as quickly as artificial technology. Our ancient proclivities have not kept pace with technologically - and subsequently culturally - imposed norms.

Think about this - if you have a group made up of a dozen adults, and the combination is such that there can be six male-female pairs, each of which have their own offspring, there are likely to be a large number of offspring for the adults to care for; alternatively, if you have an arrangement of males and females in which there are only a few reproductive pairs, the ratio of adults to children is larger. If the adults are closely bonded through sexual intimacy, amongst other forms of social sharing, there is mutual interest in the welfare of the group’s offspring. More adults to care for fewer children will lead to stronger, healthier, better-protected children, who will be more likely to survive than children who have only two adults with an interest in their welfare.

So, in response to the question of whether homosexuality represents a ‘genuine’ form of human sexuality, I would say - of course, because human sexual bonding is about far more than straightforward sexual reproduction.

 

[tonyrey]

So, in response to the question of whether homosexuality represents a ‘genuine’ form of human sexuality, I would say - of course, because human sexual bonding is about far more than straightforward sexual reproduction.

In other words you believe it is just a mechanistic device - like every other form of biological activity!

 

[Sair]

Well, you have labelled yourself quite well here. Moral guidance virtually cannot exist with the view you hold. That, of course, makes all morality relative and you are excusing moral hedonism.

I have said it before and I will say it again - I believe hedonism is unjustly disdained by religious moralists, perhaps through some perverse inclination to believe that pleasure is inherently sinful.

I think this attitude disregards the fact that hedonism is one of the few systems of moral calculus (and yes, morality is always a matter of give and take, a calculation of benefit - it’s just that those who hedge their bets on a prescriptive system or just delay their moral certitude until after they die are gambling on there actually being an afterlife…) that has a consistent, self-evident basis upon which moral decisions may be made.

Pleasure and happiness are good by definition, by virtue of our existence as sentient beings. Pain and suffering are, likewise, plainly, self-evidently bad. Life itself, however, is not cut and dried thus, so it is as well to have such a sound basis upon which to build morality. Sometimes it’s necessary to endure some suffering in order to obtain a greater pleasure or, as Epicurus would have put it, tranquillity. That’s just the way it is, and we really can’t control much about our lives except, to some extent, the way we behave. The utilitarians have merely expanded hedonism to include consideration of all the pleasure and pain involved in any given action.

Where I think critics of hedonism fall short is in supposing it to be merely a selfish system, devoid of regard for the pleasures or suffering of others, and one based upon transitory physical pleasures alone. This ignores the fact that humans are, by nature, empathetic - all social animals are, and must be in order to survive; it likewise ignores the capacity for intellectual pleasures, which even Epicurus - disdained and derided by the early church - recognised as the most valuable by virtue of their being the most enduring. But it also ignores the fact that there is selfishness in all moral systems - particularly those motivated, at their roots, by the desire for ultimate reward. But what if there is no ultimate reward? What if the only rewards to be had are such as may be obtained in this life - the joy of creative activity, of social interaction, of intellectual stimulation and, yes, of sexual pleasure with a trusted partner?

I don’t claim that there is no pleasure to be obtained in the building of a family based upon heterosexual relationships - of course there is, and some would rate this the highest and most valuable of all pleasures. But no system that denies the pleasures of sexual intimacy and family-building to those who do not conform to heterosexual strictures cannot, by hedonistic standards, be considered moral. Would the ability of homosexual couples to, for example, legally marry and to adopt - or otherwise acquire the responsibility of raising children - really so completely undermine the commitment of heterosexual couples to their families and the joy they take in them, as is portrayed by the anti-gay-marriage lobby - to the extent that the undermining of one pleasure justifies the denial of another? I doubt it.

 

[Sair]

In other words you believe it is just a mechanistic device - like every other form of biological activity!

I think you confuse the idea that there must be an ultimate purpose to everything with the idea that particular occurrences and activities may have a temporal purpose, or a particular meaning to the individuals involved.

Human bonding may serve a long-term evolutionary purpose - bearing in mind that such a purpose is ultimately not driven by any overarching intention, but only by a natural law such as no religious moralist would be brave enough to embrace - but that doesn’t change the fact that human bonding, on the scale of individual relationships and from the point of view of sentient beings, is a profound and often life-changing experience.

On the level of meaning that matters - that which influences our day-to-day behaviour - bonding with others of our kind is paramount. We cannot survive without some level of personal interaction, and survival is deeply ingrained in our animal nature.

 

[Lui]

Did someone write that about you? Please, by all means, show us where. It was you who labelled anyone who teaches that “… gay people as disordered and perverted I don’t see them as moral guides but rather as moral fascists.” Like I said, Moral guidance virtually cannot exist with the view you hold. That, of course, makes all morality relative and you are excusing moral hedonism.

Who determines morality? If the Catholic Church says masturbating without confessing will send you straight to Hell while general society says it’s no big deal and absolutely natural who is to determine if it is morally ok or not? We can agree that doing things that harm others like rape, murder, violence, torture or whatever is immoral but masturbation is nothing that actually harms anybody. So to discuss if it is immoral to masturbate is a matter of dispute. The same goes for many other issues like having sex without being married.

You can’t convince anyone about a ‘code’ you don’t have.

Gimme a break. Just because I don’t follow your moral of code, you can’t say I don’t have one. Who knows if you have one. Talk is cheap.

Well, he taught you to turn a blind eye to immorality, it would seem. So anyone who disputes you is a “know it all”. Well, that’s a juvenile way to have a discussion. By the way, if I spoke 5 languages, would that then make your father a know it all too?

I don’t turn a blind eye to immorality because for me gays having sex is not immoral. Just because you and others think it is, doesn’t make it true. Millions of Americans thought is was alright to own slaves. Did that make it morally correct?
No, my father is highly educated. He knows that he knows nothing because his intellect is higher than that of a ‘know it all’.
.

With the level of debate you seem capable of, I’m surprised you’ve even heard of Noah’s Ark.

I like fairy-tales.

You seem to think that if you post rediculous figures often enough, there will be at least one dummy around that will beleive it. You might be right. I’m sure when that happens the two of you will get along just fine.

Wow, your level of debate shows real sophistication.

Obviously not. You can’t seem to hook one permanently. I worry that lots of practice is doing you no good.

Where did I say that I can’t hook one. Is that another fact your pulled out of your ***?

Another wild claim. You are full of them.

I don’t know one person who only had sex with the person he married after the marriage and I know a lot of people. How many do you know who were virgins when they married?

What?! So the few who you think marry then give up sex? I think you have a very distorted view of the world. Like I said, you need to get out a bit more… Of course you don’t and that is your trouble. You are morally blind.

Maybe if you’d understand what I write, you wouldn’t make theses claims. I meant there are very few people who first marry before they have sex. IN OTHER WORDS PEOPLE WHO ARE VIRGINS WHEN THEY MARRY. Entiendes? Verstehst Du? You get it? I speak a lot if languages too because I get out quite a lot. I only have 1/10th of the posts you have although I’ve been a member longer so speak for yourself.
I’m not morally blind. I’m just not a hypocrite like certain people.

So, you support something that grosses you out?!! Man, that’s weird.

Being tolerant and supporting something are two different things. If you would talk about clean-cut Catholic sex in graphic detail it would gross me out too. I don’t need to talk about specific details of sexual practice in a forum.

We only have your word that you have an IQ of 135. Considering how spurious some of your other material and information is, I’m wondering if you are not numerically challenged. You are certainly morally blind, if not bankrupt. Stick around. You might have your eyes opened.

At least I’m not constantly dishing out insults. You think you’re morally superior and consider yourself Christian but yet you have insulted me on various attempts on the lowest levels and also tried to insult my father. It just reveals your true face. (On a side note, you’ve made more spelling errors than I can count).

And neither she nor you knows much about Catholicism. Go look up the Catholic Catechis. It refutes and contradicts both she and you.

I said I’m out. Why should I look up teachings I don’t believe in?

I know, it’s a worry. Some people are just sooo slow to see what’s right.

And yet another insult.

Well, considering how you admit to hedonistic behaviour and fail to see the ‘wrongness’ of certain behaviours, I’d say you don’t have a moral code. That means, of course, I only require a few basic moral principles to trump your (non-existant) moral code. However, you are right in saying I am not the one to decide what the moral code is. That’s because it’s self evident, if your eyes are open.

It’s sad how big your need is to keep on insulting me. Next Sunday you will be in Church all proud of yourself, being the good Catholic, probably being in the first row on your knees praying while you’re secretly thinking “hehe, I really showed that loser where his place is”

Btw, I don’t intend to argue with you any further. Good luck with your hateful attitude to your fellow man.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Has anyone checked 1 Corinthians 7? Paul only recommends marriage by “way of concession, not of command” because he wishes all were in the better state of celibacy. I’m that’s not to say that marriage is bad per se, but rather that it simply isn’t as good, that it’s an inferior state. How many of our saints were married? Not many, indeed those that were married seemed to have a tendency to being martyred as their way of sainthood… Now, what is extolled in our patristic legacy? Spiritual friendship, which is a kind of selfless, spiritual and intellectual love of another, furthermore they didn’t even seem to think about the possibility of spiritual friendship with someone of the other gender. So from our own history we have recommendations for both celibacy and gracious friendship. Now lets compare this to the Church’s teachings on what “homosexual persons” should do, “2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” Hmm… That pretty blatantly slots into what they were saying. Sounds like more is expected of homosexual persons than heterosexual persons… Wait a sec, you don’t expect more from the bad child…

 

[Lui]

What seems to have been overlooked in most posts to this thread thus far is the bonding function of intimate sexual behaviour. If we consider this from the point of view of prehistoric human societies, small bands of foragers and hunters, the advantages of intimate bonding within a group are more obvious than they are today, in our individually-orientated societies in which the nuclear family has become a more or less symbolic extension of individualised notions of success.
.

You can see this behavior with our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos. They have sex all the time, including same sex sex. Sex is a form of bonding and easing the tension of aggressive conflicts. I guess that humans naturally have a lot of these traits left from prehistoric times which is why sex is such a big deal in general in every society.

 

[davidv]

You can see this behavior with our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos. They have sex all the time, including same sex sex. Sex is a form of bonding and easing the tension of aggressive conflicts. I guess that humans naturally have a lot of these traits left from prehistoric times which is why sex is such a big deal in general in every society.

Since humans are not bonobos, bonobos are hardly the benchmark for acceptable human behavior.

 

[Lui]

Since humans are not bonobos, bonobos are hardly the benchmark for acceptable human behavior.

They are our closest relatives. We share many similar traits. I didn’t say humans ARE bonobos and of course we are more advanced but we still have many natural instincts.

 

[Mudgely]

Why is your question directed at me?

It should be directed at the person who guesses for a living.

My apology. Not intended to be at you. I was responding to another member.

 

[davidv]

They are our closest relatives. We share many similar traits. I didn’t say humans ARE bonobos and of course we are more advanced but we still have many natural instincts.

So what? One of my closest human relatives committed a federal crime. Does that mean it is OK for me to do so?

 

[Mudgely]

You can see this behavior with our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos. They have sex all the time, including same sex sex. Sex is a form of bonding and easing the tension of aggressive conflicts. I guess that humans naturally have a lot of these traits left from prehistoric times which is why sex is such a big deal in general in every society.

Genomic similarity is a complicated topic which is not fully understood. Few animals have had their full genome translated. But even so, genomic length and chromosomal division varies. So a direct comparison is difficult.

Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

Here are some examples.

• Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
• Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
• Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans.
• 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans, 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.
• The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.
• About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

I’m not quite sure how the Bonobo observations are relevant to this discussion. Can you elaborate on what you mean? Homosexual activity is normal in many species. This has been studied by anthropologists and biologists, and it is well documented. Nobody would disagree on that point.

 

[Lui]

I’m not quite sure how the Bonobo observations are relevant to this discussion. Can you elaborate on what you mean? Homosexual activity is normal in many species. This has been studied by anthropologists and biologists, and it is well documented. Nobody would disagree on that point.

I just mentioned that in regards to Sair’s statement that bonding is also an important factor of sex and it has not just the purpose of reproduction. Bonobos use sex to do just that: bonding, relief of aggressive tension etc. Even if you don’t want to acknowledge that humans have any trait in common with bonobos, it shows that animals in nature also have sexual practice that is not only for reproduction but for bonding and socialising. Bonobos actually have oral sex among other non-reproductive sex practices.
In other words sex does not exclusively have to be for reproduction, no matter if you’re human or bonobo.

 

[Mudgely]

I just mentioned that in regards to Sair’s statement that bonding is also an important factor of sex and it has not just the purpose of reproduction. Bonobos use sex to do just that: bonding, relief of aggressive tension etc. Even if you don’t want to acknowledge that humans have any trait in common with bonobos, it shows that animals in nature also have sexual practice that is not only for reproduction but for bonding and socialising. Bonobos actually have oral sex among other non-reproductive sex practices.
In other words sex does not exclusively have to be for reproduction, no matter if you’re human or bonobo.

Yes, sex can be an important part of emotional bonding. No doubt about that. The Church’s roots are in Judaic law which couples sex strongly with reproduction. Nature does too, but more loosely than the Church. It is hard to disentangle what part of Church doctrine is based on prejudice and ignorance of man, and what parts are objectively true (if there is such a thing).

 

[Sair]

Since humans are not bonobos, bonobos are hardly the benchmark for acceptable human behavior.

Humans are roughly 98% genetically similar to both chimpanzees and pygmy chimpanzees, otherwise known as bonobos. This basically means we all share a comparatively recent common ancestor - we are cousins.

When chimpanzees are subjected to stresses or environmental pressures, they exhibit a lot of human-like behaviour - aggression, violence, cunning and manipulation. Bonobos have never been observed to demonstrate such behaviours, either in the wild or in captivity. They resolve conflicts, reduce tension and strengthen social bonds by means of sexual interaction. They are probably the most peaceful animals on earth. It’s a pity we don’t behave more like them.

 

[Sair]

Yes, sex can be an important part of emotional bonding. No doubt about that. The Church’s roots are in Judaic law which couples sex strongly with reproduction. Nature does too, but more loosely than the Church. It is hard to disentangle what part of Church doctrine is based on prejudice and ignorance of man, and what parts are objectively true (if there is such a thing).

Such a densely packed can of worms to open up…

The approach to sexual morality taken by Judaism and inherited by Christianity is one based on the notion of women as property and the need for paternal certainty for inheritance purposes. The only way, after all, that a man can be certain he is the father of a woman’s child is to stake an exclusive claim upon sexual interaction with that woman. This opens the way to a whole raft of rules and social attitudes designed to keep a tight leash on female sexuality, and to keep men in a position of power and authority. One interpretation I’ve seen of Judaism’s horror of homosexuality is that homosexual male sex requires at least one of the men involved to assume a submissive position, and submissiveness is a quality that only women should have, apparently. Hence, also, the complete silence on the subject of female homosexuality - women are meant to be submissive anyway, so it doesn’t matter if a woman submits to another woman; and who cares what women get up to in their own time anyway, so long as it doesn’t threaten their husband’s paternity certainty…

In short, I think a lot of the church’s teaching is based upon keeping a leash on sexuality as a way of keeping people subservient and slightly discontented with their lives. The makers of the rules recognised that the sex instinct is one of the most powerful we possess, and that left unchecked, it can cause social chaos - at least if you’re trying to maintain social structures that are fundamentally at odds with our nature (it’s arguable that agrarian civilisation is one such structure). Homosexual sex isn’t directly necessary for procreation, therefore it can be consigned to the dustbin - it doesn’t do to allow people to have unnecessary sexual activity; might as well make it a sin and go the extra mile of also making it a capital offence. Better to direct sexual energy into other things, like warfare and religious devotion. The irony is, of course, that if you accept and embrace sexuality for what it is - a fundamental aspect of our nature - it ceases to maintain such a powerful hold over us. In trying to suppress sexuality, the church creates in many people an unhealthy and often perverse obsession with it - you only have to read the Moral Theology forum to see that this is so!

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Such a densely packed can of worms to open up…

The approach to sexual morality taken by Judaism and inherited by Christianity is one based on the notion of women as property and the need for paternal certainty for inheritance purposes. The only way, after all, that a man can be certain he is the father of a woman’s child is to stake an exclusive claim upon sexual interaction with that woman. This opens the way to a whole raft of rules and social attitudes designed to keep a tight leash on female sexuality, and to keep men in a position of power and authority. One interpretation I’ve seen of Judaism’s horror of homosexuality is that homosexual male sex requires at least one of the men involved to assume a submissive position, and submissiveness is a quality that only women should have, apparently. Hence, also, the complete silence on the subject of female homosexuality - women are meant to be submissive anyway, so it doesn’t matter if a woman submits to another woman; and who cares what women get up to in their own time anyway, so long as it doesn’t threaten their husband’s paternity certainty…

In short, I think a lot of the church’s teaching is based upon keeping a leash on sexuality as a way of keeping people subservient and slightly discontented with their lives. The makers of the rules recognised that the sex instinct is one of the most powerful we possess, and that left unchecked, it can cause social chaos - at least if you’re trying to maintain social structures that are fundamentally at odds with our nature (it’s arguable that agrarian civilisation is one such structure). Homosexual sex isn’t directly necessary for procreation, therefore it can be consigned to the dustbin - it doesn’t do to allow people to have unnecessary sexual activity; might as well make it a sin and go the extra mile of also making it a capital offence. Better to direct sexual energy into other things, like warfare and religious devotion. The irony is, of course, that if you accept and embrace sexuality for what it is - a fundamental aspect of our nature - it ceases to maintain such a powerful hold over us. In trying to suppress sexuality, the church creates in many people an unhealthy and often perverse obsession with it - you only have to read the Moral Theology forum to see that this is so!

Actually Catholicism uses the commandments from Deuteronomy which clearly delineates wives from property unlike Protestantism.

The concept of lesbians would probably have been met with a lolwut?

It’s true that Americans have such an unhealthy fixation or sex, good thing the Church doesn’t

 

[inocente]

Its really no surprise therefore that people are willing to place their attractions before the intrinsic self evident fact and value of their gender identity. Humans are deceptive, especially people with something to lose that they enjoy doing, and thats a fact you seem quite happy to ignore (surprise surprise). This is a sufficient rebuttal of your accusation.

While you, of course, managed to escape all these deceptions by the great virtue not of years of hard work walking paths of righteousness but by just happening to turn out that way. And just turning out that way cannot possibly give you get the power to decide what’s best for others and question their integrity. Nowhere near a sufficient rebuttal.

Somebody with SSA cannot fulfill or enjoy their objective nature and identity as a man or a women because their sexual attraction has not developed like how it was suppose to, a fact which is self evidently implied by a person being either male or female.

The phrase “somebody with SSA” is loaded, implying a dread pseudo-scientific disorder “SSA”. By that logic you and I suffer from the equally pseudo-scientific “OSA”. Look at the long lists of animals displaying homosexual behavior, including mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and insects (summary page here). What you deem supposed and self-evident is unsupported in the real world.

Just like a person with a deformity, having no legs, cannot fulfill his objective nature to run or walk, a person with SSA cannot fulfill their gender identity, and this is a cause of great distress for those rational thinkers who have SSA but value there gender identity and want that identity to be fulfilled.

¿Que? “objective nature to run or walk”? Is it in our “objective nature” to post to a forum? Drive around in cars? Eat candy-floss?

Have the majority stereotype a minority and tell them they are deformed for generation after generation and of course they’ll find it distressing. Make people suffer senselessly and hey, surprise, surprise they suffer senselessly.

Its not denial, prejudice, or any other imaginary deception your mind can come up with. SSA fulfills the definition of a disorder, regardless of whether or not people enjoy it or have legal rights which allow them to deny their objective heterosexuality. Nobody has a moral right to say that its normal, and shame on you for defending a lie.

If it isn’t people who say what is normal, who could it possibly be? If you say that a minority who pay their taxes and commit no crime is immoral or disordered (I’m confused which, as you seem to keep changing your mind) then it’s you, not me, who claims this moral right you say no one has.

If parents want their children to be taught that homosexuality is a normal healthy moral lifestyle, then they can. But parents should have the right to choose whether or not they want their children to be indoctrinated with that nonsense, since it is by no means evident that it is normal or objectively moral.

If homosexuality is an ideology then heterosexuality must be too. You have still to give a reasoned argument as to why sex in private between consenting adults is a moral issue at all.

It is evident to me that SSA is a disorder of a persons gender identity, just like being attracted to an animal is a disorder, and i am right and rational to think so.

It’s often the case on this kind of thread that slippery slope is used as a last desperate resort, but animals can’t give consent, just as children can’t give consent.

Assuming 2.5% of the world have a homosexual orientation, there are three times as many homosexuals as there are people in the UK. And unlike the Brits, most gays are not so outrageously disordered as to deliberately drive on the wrong side of the road. Fine, it’s their country, they can do as they please, but they know they have no right to impose their left on the rest of us, since there’s obviously no objective reason why left or right is best. (No doubt you can figure out my metaphor. )

 

[tonyrey]

In other words you believe it is just a mechanistic device - like every other form of biological activity!

It has nothing to do with an ultimate purpose. Science does not take into account intentions or purposes. You are implicitly introducing a non-scientific explanation.

Human bonding may serve a long-term evolutionary purpose - bearing in mind that such a purpose is ultimately not driven by any overarching intention, but only by a natural law such as no religious moralist would be brave enough to embrace - but that doesn’t change the fact that human bonding, on the scale of individual relationships and from the point of view of sentient beings, is a profound and often life-changing experience.

What is this long-term evolutionary purpose apart from the survival of the species - which is another unexplained phenomenon?

On the level of meaning that matters - that which influences our day-to-day behaviour - bonding with others of our kind is paramount.

You are attempting once again to extract meaning from that which is meaningless. Scientific explanation is restricted to physical causes and does not recognise an elaborate superstructure imposed on reality by curious freaks of nature…

We cannot survive without some level of personal interaction, and survival is deeply ingrained in our animal nature.

As far as science is concerned persons don’t exist! There are merely biological organisms which survive or don’t survive. That is all. Everything else is a figment of the imagination…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

While you, of course, managed to escape all these deceptions by the great virtue not of years of hard work walking paths of righteousness but by just happening to turn out that way. And just turning out that way cannot possibly give you get the power to decide what’s best for others and question their integrity. Nowhere near a sufficient rebuttal.

You have this uncanny ability to twist the context of what has been said. Surprise surprise once again. I know human nature because i am human, therefore i can judge human nature. I do not have to be gay to know that in general if people strongly desire something, and there are no boundaries in place, they will sooner be in denial about the reality of its disorder than accept that it is a disorder or it is wrong; and some will even act on that desire regardless of knowing that it is a disorder, they simply don’t care.

It is self evident that SSA does not conform to ones gender identity. It destroys their capacity to express and respect their gender identity. That is a disorder. It is a sufficient rebuttal of you deceptive claim that if there was sufficient disproof of homosexual behavior there would not be so many threads on the subject. When the fact is, there is just as many threads on other subjects, and in those subjects there are people who would rather believe in the possibility that the universe popped out nothing rather than admit that a first cause exists. They are in denial. You ignore that which is self evident because you don’t respect gender identity, you want to believe that Catholics are being prejudice rather than face the fact that SSA is a disorder and that those who support it as being normal behavior are irrational.

I don’t know why you are doing it, but it is dishonest.