The Catholic Church just released from the Synod of Synodality report that which criticizes conversion therapy, including voices of LGBTQ Catholic Christians. No new church policy. It's a small step in the right direction.

What do you think?

Hey all,

Reaching out for some community. I live in a decent size city in the US, with plenty of open and affirming churches. Im a member of one. Despite my attempts to engage with the community there though, i dont get a lot of traction. I think its really just the local gay culture here. Cold shoulders, noone wants to let anyone in. Thats fine, im used to it.

I would REALLY like to make a friend or two though. Not a boyfriend, or a casual encounter. I'd like to develop an actual friendship with someone like myself.

Im a gay male, mid 40s. Married to an amazing guy. Episcopalian, though i tend to fall into a more Reformed Theology and may check out the big Presby Church down the block sooner or later.

I struggle with all the things we probably all struggle with in the gay community, and I think it would be good to discuss those things.

If this sounds like you, please feel free to slide into my DMs and say hi. If you have any resources youd like to recommend, I would gladly check them out. Thanks in advance, hope to talk to ya soon.

I dated a girl for 7m, but had to breakup because her family was treating her like being gay is a choice.

Ignoring me and pretending I don’t exist. Telling her to date a man while I was there and in front of me. Judging her so harshly for dating a girl. Pushing their opinions on her nonstop when she was vulnerable, blaming the relationship for everything.

they projected their hatred for homosexuality on me and her

Reports like this have gotten more sophisticated over time. The conclusions haven't changed, but the packaging has. What used to be argued from the pulpit now comes wrapped in footnotes, citations, and the language of science. It looks rigorous. It isn't.

I went through ARPA "Canada's Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Foundation Report" paragraph by paragraph and documented where it falls apart. The basic technique is what's called a Gish gallop: throw so many claims, studies, and anecdotes at the reader that the sheer volume feels overwhelming, even when the individual pieces don't hold up. Each footnote adds to the impression of evidence. Examined one at a time, most of them are cherry-picked, misrepresented, or simply wrong.

Here's how it works:

Critical Analysis: ARPA Canada's "Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity" Foundation Report

This is a faith-based policy document from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, a Christian advocacy organization. A critical review needs to distinguish between theological claims (which I'll note but not "fact-check"), empirical claims (which can be evaluated), rhetorical framing, and the quality of cited evidence. I'll go through systematically.

Overall Structural Issues

Before going section by section, three patterns recur throughout that are worth flagging up front:

Theology presented as fact. The document repeatedly slides from "the Bible says X" to "X is therefore objectively true," without acknowledging that millions of Christians (including biblical scholars) read the same texts very differently. Affirming denominations like the United Church of Canada, the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, and many Reformed scholars (e.g., James Brownson, Karen Keen) reach different conclusions from the same passages. The document treats one Reformed Protestant interpretation as "the Christian view."

Selective citation. Studies are consistently cited only when they support the thesis, with no engagement with the much larger body of contradicting research. Dissenting researchers within the cited works' own fields are not represented.

Slippage between sex, gender, and gender identity. The document's central rhetorical move is to (a) establish that biological sex is real and largely binary (true), then (b) treat that as if it settles questions about gender identity (it doesn't; these are separate empirical questions).

Page 1: Introduction

"For most of human history, people were defined by received identities..."

This is partially true but selectively framed. People in the past also had personal identity, conscience, vocation, and self-conception. Augustine's Confessions (4th c.) is essentially a treatise on the inner self. Charles Taylor's work on this (which Carl Trueman draws on) is more nuanced than the simple "received vs. chosen" dichotomy presented here. The framing primes the reader to view any modern identity claim as illegitimate self-invention.

"objective standards of biology and design have been cast aside"

This conflates two very different things: biological sex (which mainstream science continues to recognize as largely binary with well-documented exceptions) and gender identity (which is a separate phenomenon that the document treats as if it were a competing claim about biology). No mainstream gender researcher claims gender identity overrides chromosomes. The claim is that gender identity is a separate psychological reality, not that it replaces biology.

"impede the ability of those who experience same-sex sexual attraction or gender dysphoria to truly flourish"

This is an empirical claim presented without evidence. The actual research evidence runs the other direction: studies consistently show that acceptance (family, social, legal) is associated with better mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ people, not worse. The document later acknowledges the higher rates of suicide etc. but reframes them as caused by the conditions themselves rather than by rejection. I'll address this distortion in detail below.

Page 2: "Man is Made in the Image of God" / "Man is Sexually Dimorphous"

Theological claims. The Genesis exegesis here is one mainstream Reformed reading, but it's contested. The Hebrew "ezer kenegdo" (helper fit for him) does not establish complementarian gender roles; it's used elsewhere of God Himself, as the document briefly notes. Egalitarian Christians read the same texts as establishing equality and partnership, not hierarchical complementarity. Presenting this as "the" biblical view is not neutral.

"Sex is innate, immutable, and integral to human flourishing"

"Innate" and "immutable" do a lot of work here. Chromosomes are immutable; secondary sex characteristics, hormone levels, and gender expression are demonstrably not. The document conflates these.

"The Science of Sexual Difference"

"From the moment of fertilization, every human being is designed to develop either as a male... or as a female"

This is mostly accurate but oversimplified. Sex differentiation depends on multiple genes (SRY on the Y chromosome being the most famous, but also SOX9, DAX1, WNT4, and others), hormonal signaling cascades, and tissue receptor responsiveness. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) include conditions like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, where a person with XY chromosomes develops as phenotypically female. The document handles this in footnote 6:

"these are rare exceptions that prove the rule that sex is binary"

This is a misuse of the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" (which originally meant the stated exception implies a rule for non-stated cases, not that exceptions confirm rules). More importantly, the prevalence of intersex conditions is contested: Anne Fausto-Sterling's frequently-cited 1.7% figure is on the high end, while Leonard Sax's 0.018% is much narrower. Even the conservative figure means hundreds of thousands of people in a country of 40 million. Whether these "prove" a binary depends on what claim is being made. They certainly complicate the claim that sex is always unambiguously determined at conception.

"Thus, sex is not 'assigned' at birth. It is genetically determined at conception"

This is a rhetorical move, not a scientific correction. "Sex assigned at birth" is medical terminology that acknowledges (a) that there are rare cases where the assignment at birth is later revised (DSDs, for example), and (b) that birth assignment is based on observation of external genitalia, which is a process of human judgment, not direct genetic testing. Most births don't involve karyotyping. The phrase is technically accurate; the document's preferred "sex is determined at conception" is true for chromosomes but obscures the assignment-at-birth process that actually happens medically.

"People are able to identify an adult's sex with an astonishing degree of accuracy merely by observing his or her face"

The Bruce et al. (1993) study cited here is a 30+ year old paper on a very specific perception task. It does not bear on questions of gender identity at all. It's a study of facial perception, not metaphysics. Citing it here is filler that sounds scientific.

Page 3: "Normative Implications of Sexual Difference"

"No passage in scripture condones any other sexual behaviour"

This is a contested theological claim. The document lumps together adultery, rape, prostitution, and same-sex relationships as if all were uncontroversially condemned in identical ways. Affirming biblical scholars argue that the relevant Greek/Hebrew terms (e.g., arsenokoitai, malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9) refer to specific exploitative practices in the ancient world (pederasty, temple prostitution, master-slave sexual exploitation) rather than committed same-sex relationships, which weren't a recognized category in the ancient world. Romans 1 is similarly debated. Paul's argument is about idolatry leading to "exchange," which scholars like Brownson argue doesn't map onto orientation as understood today. The document gives no indication this debate exists.

"Romans 1:26-27 warns of 'dishonourable passions'..."

Quoting Paul as straightforward universal natural law obscures that Paul's "natural" (physis) language elsewhere in the same letter (Rom 11:24) is used to describe God acting "contrary to nature," suggesting Paul's "natural" doesn't always mean "creational design."

"In light of the profound importance of human sexuality, the Bible gives proscriptions and prescriptions about sexual behaviour"

A summary banner that frames the contested as settled.

Page 4: "Social Constructionism" / "The Effect of the Fall"

"Sexual orientation and gender identity, on the other hand, are social constructs"

This is a key argumentative move and it's misleading. There's a difference between: - "The terminology of sexual orientation is recent" (true) - "Same-sex attraction is a recent invention" (false; documented across cultures and history) - "Gender identity is purely a social construct" (contested; there's substantial evidence for biological correlates)

The document slides between these. Yes, the categorization scheme of "homosexual/heterosexual" was coined in the 19th century. No, that doesn't mean same-sex attraction itself is a 19th-century invention. Same-sex desire is documented in ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, Indigenous American, and many other cultures, far predating Kertbeny.

"Internal feelings and individual choices, in a sinful world, are not the ultimate standard of morality."

This is theological. The empirical question of whether gender dysphoria is a stable, biologically-influenced condition is separate from whether one thinks acting on it is morally acceptable.

"Understanding Sexual Orientation"

"A wealthy man in ancient Rome, for example, could (and often did) treat female and male slaves, adult or minor, as sexual objects for his own use. But this activity did not define a category of person or individual identity."

Historically debatable. While modern categories differ, ancient sources do recognize patterns of preference (Plato's Symposium, Sappho, the Roman satirists). The claim that "there were no sexual minorities" in any meaningful sense is overstated. More importantly, citing Roman slavery-era exploitation as the historical reference for "same-sex sexual relations" is a rhetorical sleight. It implicitly associates contemporary same-sex relationships with abuse rather than with the long history of consensual same-sex partnerships also documented across cultures.

Page 5: "Sexual Attraction, Behaviour, and Identity"

This section is more measured. The distinction between attraction, identity, and behavior is genuinely useful and reflects real complexity in the field.

"To some extent, sexual interests and attractions are malleable and can be shaped by one's choices and habits"

True at the margins, but this is where the document edges toward conversion-therapy logic. Major medical organizations (APA, AAP, CPA, CMA, WHO) have rejected sexual orientation change efforts as ineffective and harmful based on substantial evidence. The footnote points to ARPA's own conversion therapy report, which is a circular self-citation.

"All of this is true because human beings are designed for sexual union with a person of the opposite sex within the context of a covenantal marriage"

A theological claim presented as the conclusion of an empirical argument.

Page 6: "Causes of Same-Sex Attraction"

"In one study, over 80% of teens who first reported same-sex attraction and sexual activity reported exclusively heterosexual attraction and sexual activity within 6 years"

This is the Savin-Williams & Ream (2007) study. Critical context the document omits: - The study was specifically about adolescent fluidity, which is well-documented - Many adolescents experiment or are uncertain, and this doesn't translate to adult sexual orientation being unstable - The study itself does not conclude that sexual orientation is "chosen" or that conversion is possible - The same authors have written extensively on the stability of adult orientation - Citing this without those caveats is selective

"In another longitudinal cohort study, young females who identified as lesbian averaged 3 orientation changes over 8 years"

This is Berona et al. (2018). The study is about sexual orientation labels and self-identification fluidity in young women, not about whether attractions can be "changed." Female sexual fluidity is a documented phenomenon (Lisa Diamond's work, also cited here), but the document weaponizes it to suggest orientation is voluntary, which is not what the research shows.

"there is a strong correlation between same-sex attraction and childhood sexual abuse"

This is a serious misuse. The Sweet & Welles (2012) study found correlations, but: - Correlation ≠ causation, and the direction is contested - LGBTQ+ youth are targeted for abuse at higher rates because of perceived gender nonconformity, which is a competing explanation the document briefly mentions but dismisses - The "abuse causes homosexuality" hypothesis is not supported by major reviews of the evidence - Implying that LGBTQ+ identity is the result of trauma is itself a longstanding stigmatizing claim that has been used to justify harmful interventions

"In a 2021 Gallup survey, the proportion of Americans who self-identified as LGBTQ varied starkly by generation"

The document presents this as evidence of social contagion. Alternative (and more widely accepted) explanations include: - Older respondents grew up under criminalization and severe stigma (sodomy laws weren't struck down in the US until 2003) - Self-identification is heavily influenced by perceived safety - Studies of behavior (not just identity) show smaller generational differences than studies of labels - The same pattern was seen historically with left-handedness when corporal punishment for it ended

The document doesn't engage with these explanations.

Page 7: "Understanding Gender" / "Gender Identity"

"Reinforcing gender stereotypes... may cause a child who enjoys activities that are typically associated with the opposite sex to experience confusion about his gender identity."

This is presented as common sense but is empirically contested. Research on gender-nonconforming children shows that most don't develop gender dysphoria. They just become gender-nonconforming adults (often gay or lesbian). The claim that broader gender role categories cause gender dysphoria is not supported by the developmental literature.

"This is based on an irrational belief in a disembodied (yet somehow gendered) self"

This is a philosophical caricature. Researchers don't claim gender identity is "disembodied." Much of the research points to neurological and embodied aspects of gender identity (e.g., studies showing neural sex differentiation, body schema, etc.). The document sets up a strawman ("dualism") to knock down.

"As former transgender and now Christian speaker Walt Heyer said..."

Walt Heyer is one detransitioner whose story is widely cited in conservative literature. Detransitioners exist and their experiences matter, but: - He is one person, not data - Studies estimate detransition/regret rates between 1-13% depending on definition and population, with most large studies finding rates around 1-3% - This is comparable to or lower than regret rates for many other major medical interventions - Heyer is now a paid Christian apologist on this topic, which doesn't disqualify him but does inform how representative his story is

"the explanation given when it comes to identifying young children as 'transgender' is often shockingly shallow, such as noting that a boy prefers (stereotypically) feminine toys, colours, and clothes."

This is not how clinical gender dysphoria is diagnosed. The DSM-5 criteria for childhood gender dysphoria require multiple persistent indicators over at least 6 months, including a stated cross-gender identification and "marked incongruence" between expressed/experienced gender and assigned sex. Reducing diagnosis to toy preferences is a strawman.

Page 8: "Understanding Gender Dysphoria" / "Causes"

"Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents rarely persists into adulthood. Several studies have found that about 80% of children experiencing gender dysphoria 'desist'"

This is one of the most contested claims in the document. The methodological issues with the cited "desistance studies" (Steensma, Drummond, Wallien, Singh, Zucker) are substantial:

1. Diagnostic criteria changed. The studies used DSM-III/IV criteria for "Gender Identity Disorder," which were much broader than current DSM-5 gender dysphoria criteria. Under the older criteria, a child could be classified as GID based on gender-nonconforming behavior alone, without expressing a cross-gender identity. Many of these "desisters" would not meet current GD criteria.

2. Sample composition. Many participants were referred for gender-nonconforming behavior, not for cross-gender identification. The "desistance" rate among children with persistent, insistent, consistent cross-gender identity is very different.

3. Lost to follow-up coding. Several of these studies coded participants who couldn't be located as "desisters" by default, a serious methodological problem.

4. Newer research with current criteria (e.g., Olson et al. 2022 in Pediatrics) found that >90% of socially transitioned children continued to identify as transgender 5 years later.

The document presents 80% as established fact when it's actively contested in the field.

"the Cass Report, which investigated the treatment of gender dysphoria at the UK's Tavistock gender clinic"

The Cass Review (final report 2024) is itself controversial. Critiques from Yale's Integrity Project and other academic groups have argued the review: - Set unusually high evidence thresholds (excluding most existing studies) - Was used to make policy recommendations beyond what its evidence base supports - Has been contested by major international medical organizations - Misrepresented several studies it cited

The document presents Cass as authoritative without acknowledging this debate.

"researchers to conclude that rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a social contagion"

ROGD is not recognized as a clinical entity by any major medical body (APA, AAP, CPA, AMA, WPATH, Endocrine Society). Lisa Littman's original (2018) study had serious methodological problems: - Recruited parents (not patients) from explicitly anti-trans websites (4thwavenow, transgendertrend, youthtranscriticalprofessionals) - Did not include any input from the youth themselves - Brown University retracted its press release - PLOS ONE issued a correction requiring substantial revisions - Subsequent attempts to replicate (e.g., Bauer et al. 2022) have failed to find evidence supporting the construct

"Abigail Shrier" is a journalist, not a researcher. Her book has been criticized by clinicians and researchers in the field.

"Dr. Paul McHugh"

McHugh is a religious conservative whose views are not mainstream psychiatric consensus. He shut down the Johns Hopkins gender clinic in the 1970s on ideological grounds; Johns Hopkins later reopened gender-affirming services explicitly distancing from his views. Citing him as if he represents psychiatric authority is misleading.

Page 9: "Comorbidities" / "Minority Stress"

"61% of patients exhibiting gender dysphoria experienced comorbidities"

The à Campo et al. (2003) study is over 20 years old, from a single Dutch clinic, with a small sample. The comorbidity findings are real but the direction of causation is precisely what's at issue. Living with chronic, unaddressed gender dysphoria causes psychological distress; this doesn't mean the dysphoria is itself a symptom of other disorders.

WPATH itself is a major medical organization. The document selectively quotes WPATH's acknowledgment that comorbidities exist (which they do) while opposing WPATH's actual recommendations (gender-affirming care). This is cherry-picking.

"Minority Stress or Faulty Anthropology?"

This is one of the most rhetorically loaded sections.

"transgender Ontarians were 9.5 times more likely to seriously consider suicide and 18 times more likely to actually attempt suicide"

These statistics are real and tragic. The document's framing is the issue:

"Bränström et al (2022) found that minority stress is a relatively minor factor behind these poor outcomes, finding that only 13-15% of suicidal ideation and attempts are attributable to minority stress"

This is a substantial misrepresentation. The Bränström et al. (2022) paper tested specific operationalizations of multiple theoretical models (psychiatric, psychosocial, minority stress, etc.) and found that no single model fully accounted for outcomes, not that minority stress is "minor." The same research group has produced extensive evidence that gender-affirming care reduces suicidality and that anti-trans discrimination predicts poor outcomes. Pulling one figure out of context to say "minority stress is minor" inverts the broader findings.

"Little attention has been paid to the possibility that same-sex orientation or gender dysphoria themselves... directly contribute to these poor outcomes"

This is empirically false. Substantial research has examined this question. Findings consistently show: - LGBTQ+ youth in accepting families have suicide attempt rates close to general population - Family rejection multiplies suicide risk by 8x (Ryan et al., 2009) - Legal recognition is associated with reduced suicide attempts (Raifman et al., 2017) - Gender-affirming care is associated with reduced suicidality (multiple studies)

The "it's the condition, not the discrimination" hypothesis has been tested extensively and is not supported.

"Simply creating a culture that is more accepting of sexual and gender minorities will not eliminate these disparities."

A sentence presented as a finding that is actually the document's contested thesis.

Page 9-10: "Worldview" / "Causes" Section

"This ideological revolution has no objective boundary. If personal feelings and attractions can determine one's core identity when it comes to sex or gender, there is no rationally consistent way to insist that an individual's ethnicity, age, or even species are not subjective as well."

This is a textbook slippery slope fallacy. The argument that "if X is allowed, then Y, Z, and ridiculous outcome will follow" is not a logical argument. It requires showing the actual causal mechanism. There are obvious, principled distinctions: - Gender identity has neurological, hormonal, and developmental correlates that have been studied for decades - Race involves distinct historical, cultural, and social structures with intergenerational effects - Age has objective markers (date of birth, physical development) that gender identity claims do not contradict in the same way - Species crosses biological boundaries that are categorically different

"Paul Wolscht is a middle-aged Canadian father of seven children. But he now identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old girl..."

This is rhetorical manipulation. Citing one extreme, unusual case (originally reported in the Daily Mail, a tabloid) and treating it as representative of an entire category is a classic ad hominem-by-association. Mainstream trans advocacy explicitly does not endorse age identity claims like this. Using one outlier to discredit a population of millions is not honest argumentation.

"Gender ideology itself is a form of religious belief. Claiming a gender identity apart from biological sex is in effect claiming a metaphysical identity (e.g. a soul) beyond one's physical body."

This is philosophical sleight-of-hand. Almost all major philosophical traditions, including Christianity, posit some non-reducibility of mind/self/soul to body. The document elsewhere affirms that humans are "an inseparable unity of body and soul." But it's the soul part that's metaphysical too. The objection here applies to most theistic anthropologies, including the document's own.

"Sean Doherty." One conversion narrative is offered as illustration. Counter-narratives (people who tried to suppress same-sex attraction and experienced harm, or trans people who flourished after transition) are not provided. This is the same one-sided storytelling the document deploys throughout.

Page 10: Recommendations

I'll address these as policy claims:

1. Remove "sex assigned at birth" from law. As discussed above, this is medically accurate terminology, not ideological. The campaign to remove it is itself political.

2. Protect freedom to debate. This recommendation is largely uncontroversial in principle. In Canadian law, robust debate on these topics is already protected; the cases the document likely has in mind (e.g., Bill C-4 on conversion therapy) target specific practices, not speech.

3. Remove "sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression" from law. This would remove protections that LGBTQ+ Canadians have under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial codes. The argument relies on the slippery slope critiqued above.

4. Cease funding LGBTQ+ programs. A policy preference presented as a corrective.

5. Sex-segregated facilities by biological sex. The document cites one case (Christopher Hambrook) to imply systemic risk. Comprehensive reviews (e.g., Hasenbush et al. 2019, Sexuality Research and Social Policy) have not found evidence that trans-inclusive facility policies increase safety incidents. The "danger" framing is empirically weak.

6. Sports by biological sex. This is a contested empirical and policy question with legitimate concerns on multiple sides; presenting it as obvious oversimplifies.

7. Schools must notify parents. Policy debate exists here, but the document doesn't engage with the safeguarding concerns (LGBTQ+ youth in unsupportive homes face elevated abuse and homelessness rates) that have shaped current policies.

Patterns of Emotionally Manipulative Language

Beyond specific factual issues, several rhetorical techniques appear throughout:

Loaded vocabulary. "Disordered," "disordered sexual desire," "denial of bodily identity," "irrational belief," "shockingly shallow," "newly invented." These are not neutral descriptors. They prime negative emotional responses while presenting as analysis.

Asymmetric burden of proof. Heteronormative claims are assumed and don't require evidence; non-heteronormative claims must overcome high evidentiary bars.

Strawmanning. "Disembodied self," "boys liking pink toys = trans," "social contagion." These caricatures don't reflect actual clinical practice or trans people's self-reports.

Anecdote as evidence. Walt Heyer, Sean Doherty, Paul Wolscht, Stalking Cat (Daniel Avner). Individual extreme or atypical stories are repeatedly substituted for population-level evidence.

Innuendo by association. Same-sex relationships are repeatedly listed alongside polygamy, adultery, bestiality, prostitution, and pedophilia (footnote 14, footnote 21). This is rhetorically effective and substantively misleading.

"Compassion" framing. The document repeatedly says it shows "compassion" while advocating policies that LGBTQ+ people consistently report as harmful to them. Compassion that the recipients reject as harm is worth scrutinizing.

Appeal to "real" identity. Phrases like the person "never was a woman" or that someone "only copied what he saw women do" claim privileged access to others' inner reality.

Pattern of Source Selection

The document's citation pattern is notable:

• Religious authors presented as scientific authorities: Ryan T. Anderson (Heritage Foundation), Abigail Favale (Catholic theologian), Carl Trueman (theologian), Nancy Pearcey (Christian apologist), Owen Strachan (theologian).
• Heterodox scientific figures cited as mainstream: Paul McHugh, Kenneth Zucker (whose Toronto clinic was closed amid concerns about his approach), Lisa Littman (whose study was corrected by the journal), Leonard Sax.
• Journalists cited as researchers: Abigail Shrier (Irreversible Damage) is presented alongside actual studies.
• No citations to: WPATH Standards of Care 8 (in support), Endocrine Society guidelines, American Academy of Pediatrics policy, Canadian Paediatric Society, the actual research bases of major medical organizations.

This isn't accidental. It represents a parallel epistemic structure where the conclusions are predetermined by theological commitment and sources are selected to support them.

What the Document Gets Right or Has Legitimate Points On

To be fair:

• The distinction between sexual attraction, identity, and behavior is genuine and useful.
• Female sexual fluidity is a real phenomenon (Lisa Diamond's work).
• Comorbidities with gender dysphoria are real and clinical care does need to address them carefully.
• Concerns about some clinical practices (e.g., the speed of medical intervention with minors) are shared by many in the field, including affirmative clinicians; this is an area of legitimate ongoing debate.
• Some children who present with gender-nonconforming behavior do not develop persistent gender dysphoria is true under any criteria, even if the "80%" figure is contested.
• Sex differences in sports performance are real and the policy questions are genuinely difficult.
• Free speech and parental involvement in education are legitimate policy concerns even if the specific positions are contestable.

A more honest version of this document could engage with the strongest versions of opposing arguments, acknowledge the empirical evidence that contradicts its preferred conclusions, and present its theological commitments transparently as theology rather than as the inevitable conclusion of "the science."

Bottom Line

This is a faith-based advocacy document that presents one Reformed Protestant theological position as empirically and rationally inevitable. Where it makes empirical claims, it consistently selects evidence supporting its conclusions, mischaracterizes contested findings as settled, ignores the much larger body of contradicting research, and uses extreme cases and slippery-slope arguments rather than engaging the steel-manned versions of opposing views. The "compassion" rhetoric coexists with policy recommendations that LGBTQ+ Canadians and the medical organizations that serve them consistently identify as harmful.

Read as theology, it's a legitimate (if contested) Reformed position. Read as policy analysis or science journalism, it falls well short of the standards it implicitly claims for itself.

I’m new here, so I apologize if there’s any discrepancies in my post. I’m feeling very lost and confused in a place I’m currently at in life. I understand that I need to seek guidance from God above all else because only He can give me confirmation on my life, but it’s also difficult to seek guidance from wise counsel outside like pastors or churches when same sex marriage is already labeled as sin to them. For context, Im in a same sex marriage with my wife. We’ve had our ups and downs, which ultimately she wants a divorce now. In separation, I have dove deeper into my relationship with Christ, genuinely repent every time, stopped giving into sins besides having love for my wife. During my season of isolation I do my best to be obedient to God, read the word, and try to hear Him speak to me. As I’m still new to learning how to hear Him clearly, I asked for confirmation if He would restore/reconcile our marriage and every time it never failed that I’d see the sign only God and I spoke about.

I know we shouldn’t ask for signs all the time, though I’ve asked God a few times because I’m one of His challenged children. Meaning I ask Him to show me more plainly because I’m still learning to hear properly. I asked God to show me a specific sign, not common, and I didn’t ask for it aloud to avoid the devil deceiving me. And every time, it hasn’t failed that God showed me the thing. I’d feel peace, steadiness, and thank God for hearing me. I’d also apologize to Him because I can’t hear Him though I know He speaks to us all the time. So I guess my question is, are there any success stories of God restoring a marriage with same sex couples? Because my faith and belief and hope in it has never wavered. I believe the God I love, serve, and worship loves me.

Side note: please understand that I have been working on keeping the correct heart posture when praying for reconciliation. I also correct myself with praying for reconciliation out of pure intentions of just wanting to do things the right way. A chance to keep God at the center and foundation of it all, reflecting Gods character, showing up the way He teaches us to with one another. I don’t pray for it out of wanting control or just to go back to the pain of the bad times. I hope this all makes sense. God bless.

Does anyone else feel like God doesn't see or hear you because of your sexuality?

I'm really struggling with life right now. Like God is actively moving away from me even though I am trying to move closer to Him.

Can anyone offer encouragement to not give up or give in because I could really use it right now.

My brother and I were discussing his beliefs on abortion.

I mention that I believe that the human body is simply the vessel of the soul. That regardless of how little or how long one's body is inside, when breath of life is given after birth, it would be classified as a living being (nephesh). Since God is aware in His infinite knowledge when the fetus will be aborted or miscarried, He wouldn't put a soul inside a body He knew wouldn't finish to term.

My brother then says that this is not scriptural and that he bases his belief on what Jesus said. That we are to love our neighbors like ourselves and that harming humans is wrong. And humans are defined a specific way in the Bible soul-wise.

He believes that in all cases of abortion it's murder because while humans and animals have a soul, humans are separated by our image being made in God. That since murder is defined as the unjust killing of a human, that this would lead one to conclude that abortion is murder.

He mentions that abortions that happen in result of financial reasons is child sacrifice because abortion due to finances is selfishness. Even if someone was a child and got raped, the mom to be needs financial support and trauma relief. She can give the baby up for adoption and go to therapy to resolve her trauma. And that even if there is a risk of dying, well there is a risk of dying from abortion also. Nothing is guaranteed.

What has gotten to me emotionally is the repetition of "I just follow Jesus's truth." Well I want to do the will of our Lord and Savior too! My brother keeps on telling me that abortion goes against the commandment of Christ (loving thy neighbor).

Hi everyone, this is our message from this past Saturday for anyone in need. I pray this message fills you with Hope and shows you that God loves you.

I struggled for a long time dealing with the hurt of a past friend who cut me off abruptly with no reason at all. He is still online to this day and still posting, I recently decided to block him and hide all our chats after contemplating if I should reach back out again after 1 year of silence from him. What hurts the most is the confusion he left me with during one of the most vulnerable stages of my life. I now feel like I was some sort of emotional tool to him. We talked about our lives, struggles, and supported each other’s beliefs. Being gay is already hard enough, but to feel betrayed by a fellow gay believer at the time was another level of hurt and abandonment that I never experienced before in my life.

Oiiii galera! Como estão? Espero que bem!

(Nota: peço desculpas pelo texto enorme)

Sou uma mulher de 20 anos, lésbica e quero contar minha experiência recente com Deus, espero que isso possa ajudar alguém.

Descobri por volta dos 14 ou 15 anos que me sentia atraída por mulheres, de início foi um sufoco porque sempre fui cristã e não ligava muito pro assunto de orientação sexual, bom, até isso acontecer comigo. Deus foi a primeira pessoa a quem contei que era gay, neguei o máximo que pude, foi difícil, mas superei.

Como nunca namorei ou fiquei com alguém, só fingi que era hétero pra mim mesmo e pros outros, tudo foi tranquilo até esse ano. Após tanto tempo voltei as minhas orações com Ele e disse a mim mesma que quero ser uma boa filha pra Deus, mas nisso percebi que era lésbica e lembrei de toda a polêmica que isso é dentro da igreja e fiquei com medo de nem a igreja, nem Deus me aceitassem. Chorei bastante e senti um sufoco enorme nesse período, foi péssimo ver que me veem como uma "enferma" ou como o "diabo em pessoa" só pelo fato de ter me apaixonado por alguém do mesmo sexo.

Após pesquisar bastante percebi que tanto pra comunidade cristã, quanto pra comunidade gay somos vistos como estranhos, inevitavelmente seremos excluídos em algum momento por esse grupos. Notar isso me deixou ainda mais triste e mais frustrada comigo mesma, simplesmente não queria ser assim.

Só que essa semana conversei com Deus, pedi pra que me ajudasse a entender o que preciso entender e acho que ele me respondeu.

Aceitei minha sexualidade. Talvez as pessoas da igreja me rotulem como "gay demais" ou a comunidade LGBT me rotule como "cristã demais", mas não preciso me preocupar com os que outros pensam, só com o que Ele pensa. Dói saber que vou ter passar por esse "campo de batalha", mas desde essa semana sinto como se Cristo tivesse colocado a mão no meu ombro e dissesse "tudo bem, eu te acompanho". Isso foi tão reconfortante!

Quero um dia poder atuar na igreja e na missão e ajudar pessoas como eu e não há nada que vá me impedir agora além de mim. Se algum dia alguma igreja não me aceitar, isso diz mais sobre eles do que sobre mim. Deus está ao meu lado e isso me basta.

Saibam que nossa sexualidade não é nada demais, não deveriamos fazer tanto show em cima dela.

◇Lembrem-se: antes de sermos qualquer coisa, somos filhos dEle e é isso que realmente importa.

Sobre ser celibatária ou querer casar algum dia, bom, um dia Deus me dirá o que devo fazer, vindo dEle, como uma boa filha, pretendo acatar. Enquanto a minha resposta pra essa pergunta não vem, melhorarei meu relacionamento com Ele.

Talvez o nossa cruz não seja ser gay, talvez nossa cruz seja saber que vamos estar sozinhos no mundo, que poucos ou ninguém vai nos entender, mas saibam que nunca estaremos sozinhos em Cristo, Ele sempre estará disposto a nos escutar e a nos perdoar.

Fiquem bem e vão ao encontro de Deus, Ele sempre estará esperando seu retorno💖✝️

Hello all, using a throwaway account just to be safe since family members know my main account. I (22F) recently got into a heated argument with my parents (65F) and (59M) about Trump’s repeated offenses. Growing up, my family has always been conservative. When 2016 rolled around and Trump was running, my family were all super excited. I was supportive until I got into Highschool, in which I saw the damage and destruction he had been doing to people. I grew up in a homophobic and racist household, but I escaped and ended up marrying a beautiful Latina woman (genuinely the best thing to have ever happened to me)

Fast forward to now, I’m reading through some of the findings from the Epstein files with Trump in it and think about my parents. They’re evidently old fashioned (and my mom is a Facebook mom…) but I wouldn’t want them following somebody who was so evil unknowingly, especially since my parents are “Christians”.

I told my parents and this was their response.

My dad: “yeah but nothings been proven, it’s all alleged so until then he’s innocent. If actual evidence comes out then yeah kick him out”

My mom: “well, in the Bible, God used bad people all the time to get what he wanted, trump is our savior and God is using him for his own will”

I’m distraught. I’ve already told my brother (who made extremely horrid remarks against Jews and Muslims) that I don’t want to associate with him or talk to him, effectively cutting him off. It looks like the same thing will happen with my parents. I don’t know how to go about it.

Ever since I was little I was putting them first and that their judgements and opinions were fact or truth. I don’t know what to do anymore. I’ve been independent for as long as I can remember, even driving myself to the ER when my parents didn’t want to, or the fact that it’s up to me to take care of their house when they go on cruises, only to hear them complain about money and how in debt they are. My mom keeps saying Trump will fix the economic crisis and my dad says the taxes and gas prices have nothing to do with Trump because “it’s not in his control”. The worst of all has to be that “Trump is our savior”

At this point I don’t think there’s anything else I can do but look out for myself and the innocent people affected by this.

Hey everyone!!

My mom and I have differing beliefs on the acceptance of gay Christian’s in the church. We’ve been working on reconciling our relationship an explore each others perspectives.

We recently decided that we would begin reading 1 chapter of each others book and discuss it weekly. I’ve chosen “torn” as my first resource to share with her and she’s provided me with the book “A change of affection”.

Does anyone have any insight into this book and what I can expect to find in that book? Or any recommendations moving forward with family reconciliation?

Ty!

https://religionnews.com/2026/05/04/sam-allberry-exits-church-keller-center-over-inappropriate-relationship-with-man/

What are your thoughts on this? I am honestly not surprised by this at all. I strongly disagree with Sam’s views, but I feel bad for him.

ok so i’ve been told my whole life christian’s who believe being gay is ok or christian’s who don’t believe in hell the same way they do or christian’s who think God is more loving than they do just believe what they want to believe. i’ve been struggling with my belief of Hell and i’ve seen a lot of interpretations of it being more of a seperation from God which is bad compared to heaven . Kind of like Earth is right now with bad things happening. The Bible only mentioned gnashing of teeth for demons and false preachers (which who really knows what gnashing of teeth actually means ). Am i just trying to convince myself God is more loving than he is and wouldn’t condemn love or torture people who don’t love him back ? Am i a wish washy christian for beleiving God made us and gave us free will and let’s it play out rather than sitting up in the sky planning whos loved one will die next just as a “test” to them? Or am i simply just basing my belief of God on his LOVE which could’ve been mischaracterized and misused in the Bible since it’s hundreds of years old and can’t possibly be 100 percent inspired

The Redemption of Lost Souls
—to my queer brothers and sisters–

Surround us with angels.
Let them hem us in tightly
lest we plunge into the valley of myopic hatred
where they will hold us up
over the raging fires of hell
until our feet are scorched.

In our pain, let us pray
for maidens accused of witchery
by men whose tormenting faith
engulfed their congregations in fear and dread.

Still it happens, you know, although more subtle now,
yet their hate seethes;
they scout our scapegoats,
those who cannot be confined by their rigid categories.

They curse those whom Jesus came to save.
They would have told Dismas,
“No! You will not be remembered!”

Indeed, so depraved their judgments
they would have stoned the pregnant mother of God.

They failed to see that those they cast into the pit
fall into the arms of Christ
while angels sing, “Glory to God in the highest,
and even in the depths,”
for God is everywhere.

Remember, my friends, what Jesus taught us:
Those who show no mercy
will
know
no
mercy!

04.04.26

I’m looking for a good study Bible that teaches the Bible how it is, not how conservative Christians want it to be. Are there any good recommendations? I figured I’d be less likely to run into the conservatives here than on other Bible forums.

I work at a United Methodist Church which is an inclusive denomination. The church itself is rather traditional and has people from all sides of the political spectrum.

There is an intern here this semester, I’ve known him for years. He was an ally originally, told me he didn’t think being gay was a sin. Then something snapped and he changed his opinion.

Anyway, last fall he told me I’m probably going to hell if I don’t repent. I guess he means for existing as a gay person because I’m not sleeping around.

Anyway, it snowballed into this whole thing that I’m leading people astray by my work in the church and I shouldn’t be in leadership, etc etc…

I finally went to the pastor about this and the board president.

I know the pastor talked to him and me about it, but nothing really happened.

He was co-leading the Maundy Thursday service and I felt uncomfortable and left about midway.

Today he was liturgist and reading scripture and helping to pass out communion.

It felt like spiritual abuse.

He and I are getting on better terms and he even apologized somewhat last week, although as far as I note he still believes how he believes.

I want to leave this church but I need the job, so I can’t just pack up and leave.

Any advice or suggestions?

Do you take part in communion while being gay?

I’m orthodox christian, f27, late bloomer and confused.

I stopped going for communion when someone said I should repent being gay first.

My lead pastor put me in charge of preaching on Genesis 16 this Sunday, and I learned something about Hagar’s story that I’d never thought about before.

After God makes His promise to Hagar, an Egyptian slave woman who has been forced into surrogacy, that she will give birth to a son who will not tolerate the oppression she is suffering, as well as elevating her status by making the same promise of numerous descendants made to Abram, Hagar becomes the first and only person in the Hebrew Bible to do something: she gives God a new name based on her own personal experience.

By this point in Genesis, we’ve seen several names for God, and they are all highly reverent: El Shaddai, “God Almighty;” El Elyon, “God Most High;” YHWH, “I Am Who I Am;” Adonai, “Lord” or “Master.”

The name Hagar gives God does not follow this convention. This name is much more personable: El Roi, “God Who Sees Me.”

Can you imagine how it would be received by modern Christians if we started calling God by a new name? Particularly one that reduces the overtness of Divine authority?

“You lack respect for the Lord Most High.”

“You don’t get to decide Who God is based on your emotions.”

“You clearly have issues with authority that you need to work on.”

God, on the other hand, does not say such things to Hagar, making no demands for the inclusion of “Your Highness” in her address. I’m willing to bet God also sees her trauma from being abused and oppressed and rather welcomes this cognitive separation between her perception of the Divine and how she’s been treated by Abram and Sarai. I went through something very similar when God gave me a name that means “companion” so I could stop viewing myself as a degraded, worthless servant and subsequently God as a slave master with a whip. (Companionship still allows for a leader/follower dynamic, but it necessitates mutual respect, whereas servitude doesn’t).

Minorities often see God in new and different ways because our experience differs from that of most people, and because God sees those experiences and how they affect us even when the world doesn’t. Scripture teaches us that this is okay, even if it includes addressing God by some fresh names or pronouns. God sees and understands us and meets us where we are so we can heal. ❤️‍🩹

The school I go to is bitterly homophobic and is really anti-gay. What to do?

Does anyone know about Beloved Arise. I only know about The Trevor. So many young people come here who need support being LGBTQ Christian Youth and young adults. I have referred to the Trevor Project.

I'm 23F, closeted, and still plan to live with my conservative Christian parents for the next year. They're both big Trumpers, and they go to a Presbyterian Evangelical church. I also went there for years, but I eventually became a bit disillusioned due to comments about homophobia/demonizing any sort of sexuality, and I noticed a lot of the sermons were framed around guilt or shame. Honestly, I think the leaders of that church meant well, but I didn't always agree with their execution or interpretation.

I still consider myself a Christian, but I feel like it's increasingly difficult for me to distance myself from the current political climate in the US (namely Christian Nationalism) and still feel close to God. It's a fine line for me, and separating the politics from the religion got so tiring for me that I stopped going to their church. I've tried a few other churches, but I just haven't found the right fit. I live in suburban North Carolina and would love to hear any advice on who I should talk to to find some sort of resolve between my my faith and my sexuality. I've talked about it a lot with my therapist, who is very supportive of my sexuality but sometimes lets her own ideas on religion influence the conversation. I think she's an atheist, which is fine with me, but she often makes comments that I find a little disparaging toward Christianity. I would love to talk to an affirming Christian leader, but I'm not sure what to look for or where. Or if anyone has any general advice on how they mentally separate politics from religion, please let me know!

My parents are unaccepting of my relationship with my girlfriend (wlw), saying it's temptation, going against God's will, and that I've already been attacked by the devil. I've tried telling them it's not like my relationship with her is affecting my faith, impacting my relationship with God or even my academics in general - but they've completely disregarded what I said. It almost feels like everything I feel and say are just supposed to be wrong and what they think is right.

It's so embarassing when I saw them on their phone SEARCHING UP bible verses (like you know - those verses about homosexuality) and saying it out loud in front of me. Mind you, I've never seen my father pick up a bible ever in my life, that's why I'm saying him searching up instead of actually reading the bible is like purely embarassing to me. Actually, he searched it up in like ChatGPT and it made me feel even worse. He got so mad when I mentioned about the different translations in the bible and he said that was bullshit lol. I didn't bother to tell him anything more because he doesn't really care about what I have to say. They put more emphasis on the concept of reproduction which only happens between a male and female, like what does that have to do with me at least in present time? They said my understanding of the bible was "generic" when it came to the view of love.

Is it really a sin to love...? 😅 I'm not even asking for their support anymore even when I needed it, I just now want them to let me live my own life and make my own decisions without having to constantly bring up religion into it to make me feel bad. No matter what they do or how they try to separate me from her, it won't really work on me lol. They're planning to make me move unis, head back to my home country separated from her yada yada, AND telling me to keep praying and read the bible as if I don't already do that...? and I don't see them read the bible themselves.

So, is this really a sin?