Distractions: Alcohol, Guns, Pornography, Video Games, Gambling...

[RandyPNW]

This is confusing. You think Deuteronomy 22 specifically disallows 'gender confusion with a homosexual purpose', and for the same reason think hormonal treatments are - not can be - ungodly, even if this doesn't infer (do you mean, imply?) homosexuality. What are you hiding in that "this is why I think" that better connects these two thoughts?

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?

Although Gay Christians normally refer to the laws against homosexuality as an attack on aggressive and violent homosexuality, conservative Christians normally feel that *any form* of homosexuality is being opposed in the Bible.

The example used of cross-dressing serves as an example of any kind of gender confusion, even if it is not explicitly stated. It could be wearing long fingernails if in a particular culture only women wore long fingernails, and some men choose to do the same. In this case, it is the attempt at gender confusion that is being out-lawed--not just cross-dressing.

What I said sounds a little confusing because normally homosexuality is thought of as a sexual preference, in terms of intercourse. It isn't just favoring a particular gender in terms of friendships or sharing in similar interests of the opposite gender.

So when I say that cross-dressing is, biblically, a form of homosexuality, I'm *not* talking about intercourse--rather, I'm talking about gender confusion, and on what the Bible views as a form of homosexuality apart from intercourse. After all, the Bible opposes cross-dressing, and it is *not* intercourse.

Nor is it, I think, talking about fashions that change over time, from dresses to pants to dresses, etc. It is the *gender-confusion* that is at issue, in which a person wishes to be perceived as being the opposite sex, and thus attracting others to homosexual lust.

What Scriptures do you think speak to gender dysphoria?

It does no good now to defer to "live by your conscience" as the charge of ungodliness has been made, so what's your support for that charge? And I think I've been exceptionally articulate, so I have no inkling of an idea where you think I've been vague.

As I said, you admit to being conflicted in terms of your eternal destiny based on your decision to "transition." The Scriptures I refer to include, as you indicated, Deut 22, which prohibits *all forms* of homosexuality. It may not affect you sexually, but it certainly tempts others who are so inclined due to the assumed base nature of Man after the Fall.

The biblical story begins with the Fall, after which Man murders and then descends into mass violence and sexual corruption, which is a form of covetousness and violent lust. The insinuation is that we are all weak to our base natures, and that God wishes for us to avoid anything that elicits this kind of behavior.

Even if a Hebrew, under the Law, has a statue of an idol, which he didn't worship or think of as a god, he was not supposed to keep it inasmuch as it gives others the false impression that there are other religious options out there. This was, of course, in a very religious culture in which they were all supposed to worship a single God.

Deut 7.25 The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the Lord your God.

You haven't said anything about your experience, so I'm going to doubt that you have that experience until you say something more about it.

We're all creatures of the breakdown of Christian morality post WW2. I've never been part of the Gay Movement, although what Gays have done is no more despicable than things I've done.

At one point in my backsliding I think I was capable of almost anything. And though I've had no illusion about who I am, gender-wise, I certainly have some feminine characteristics, as many guys do.

You're talking about different conclusions, but I've been clear that I'm not acting out of conclusions, but survival. The questions that I have are still outstanding, so what conclusions do you think I've made?

I haven't suggested that you hate me, but you have suggested that I'm acting in an ungodly way, so again, where's your support for that assertion?

"Ungodly" does not translate into mean-spirited or violent or unlikeable--obviously, people here seem to like you. "Ungodly" refers to ignoring God's word on a particular subject, whether fully aware or not.

I've been "ungodly" in my attitude at times, thinking I was just defending the truth, whereas I was actually mistreating others in my approach. So ungodliness is something we all experience. You have to be convinced personally before you acknowledge something like this as "ungodly."

Two things: (1) plenty of men, including all older men, experience issues with lower/low testosterone and don't develop gender dysphoria; (2) my dysphoria has been around since childhood, so hormones aren't the cause.

As I said, there is the matter of inheritance, as well as spiritual influence, which is difficult to pin down. When you combine these things with low testosterone, yes, hormonal imbalance can become, I think, a larger issue than with most.

Well, three things: (3) I've been on treatment to correct my low testosterone and the dysphoria became worse, not better.

That should discourage typical testosterone treatment. It obviously is not the cure in and of itself. You cannot correct who you are, or your actual condition, short of a creative re-make from God. And this is not likely.

You can continue to think dysphoria stems from hormonal imbalances, but the data just isn't there, and my experience directly contradicts the suggestion. Since we're talking about my experience, you might want to look elsewhere for potential causes.

As I said, I believe hormonal imbalance is in all of us, and some have it worse than others due to other extenuating factors, such as physical and spiritual inheritances, as well as spiritual influences from our environment. Your own pressures appear to come from your family background, which may have affected your spiritual state of mind.

Though these things may seem obscure, they aren't for me personally. I've seen the mind-set of both my father and my mother affect me personally. Though they were both life-long Christians, both had their weaknesses. And in the area of their weakness I seem to have been impacted.

Early in life my Mother opened the door, for a time, to pornography. In my rebellious teen phase I got into pornography without any sense my Mother had also done so.

My father had a strict Christian father, and was naturally musical from his Mother, and appeared to indulge his desire to play very worldly kinds of music, which he was very good at. Oddly, he taught us to avoid Rock Music and Folk Music, which he considered to be rebellious music.

At the same time, he led our church in the choir and in playing the organ. And he performed piano at any number of functions, perhaps free of charge. He was very generous with his gift, as far as I know. And yet he opposed my own wish to get into a Rock Band.

From him I think I found a stubborn streak and pride, wishing to rebel against conventions, suffering a basic confusion between what is godly and what I felt are my natural impulses.

I think this is a spiritual thing, and something children of parents like this have to deal with for themselves. And it can be a life-long process, in my opinion.

I feel significantly worse with healthy male levels of testosterone and I feel significantly better with healthy female levels of estrogen. Explain.

Your base inclinations are against your perception of religious oppression, causing you to feel better "in your own skin." I did this myself, thinking my parents' religious discrimination against my pagan friends were a form of prejudice and a lack of religious compassion. I felt more comfortable being "real," hanging out with pagan girlfriends and pagan guy friends.

You should rather fight against natural inclinations that are "ungodly." But as long as you feel religiously oppressed, you would rather feel more comfortable "being real." You can, however, teach yourself to feel better fighting a war against your own base inclinations, rather than justify them as a war against religious oppression.

Similar thinking led me towards suicide. If not HRT, what's your alternative?

For one, stop taking hormonal treatments period. And then enter into the fight of your life, to be an example of how others should be fighting base inclinations. You've inherited the tendency from the spiritual failings of your predecessors--if not your parents, perhaps their parents?

Though it's dangerous to do, drugs that simply make you feel better and less preoccupied may do you well. These are addicting, however, and you have to manage your doses. I don't wish to be specific.

As a reminder: I've pursued the course I've pursued because I was becoming severely depressed and suicidal. I don't think my death would have been worth keeping petty, ignorant so-called Christians from acting with hostility. Maybe I'll make it my task to educate them.

I'm well aware that you've been suicidal. It deeply concerns me--I don't want you to die. I had an alcoholic friend call me every weekend into the wee hours of the night. I finally had to put a stop to this enablement.

Eventually, I had to have nothing to do with him, and I still remember his eerie stare at me--he was a Christian, but one hopelessly addicted--so addicted that he had committed crimes and had been jailed.

One day I was told he died, while doing a fire-watch on newly-constructed houses. He had lived with me for a short time, and had caught my own rented house on fire while in a drunken stupor.

I lost another close friend to what I think was a heroin overdose. I could go on. I don't want you to die.

But if I enable you to go on the wrong course you're going to end up both dead and a failure in your spiritual life. I think if you succeed in your spiritual life, death won't matter.

Thanks for the conversation. All the decisions are yours. And all of your own personal experiences are yours, and I respect that.

[Athanasius]

I'm not going to reply to most of what you wrote because it's a bad take, and instead, I'm going to focus on just a few items.

The example used of cross-dressing serves as an example of any kind of gender confusion, even if it is not explicitly stated. It could be wearing long fingernails if in a particular culture only women wore long fingernails, and some men choose to do the same. In this case, it is the attempt at gender confusion that is being out-lawed--not just cross-dressing.

This is a core concern of mine, but I think my bioethical dilemma transforms the contextual considerations such that I'm not in a circumstance, personally, where Deuteronomy 22:5 applies as it would to another who didn't experience the same dilemma. If you think it does anyways, then why? I'm interested in an exegetical treatment of the text that takes into account something like a mental disorder. Catholic bioethicists are particularly good at this sort of thing, so I'm not particularly poorly read on the subject. But I'm not as well-read as I'd like to be, so what's your take?

So when I say that cross-dressing is, biblically, a form of homosexuality ... I'm talking about gender confusion, and on what the Bible views as a form of homosexuality apart from intercourse. After all, the Bible opposes cross-dressing, and it is *not* intercourse.

This is an awful syllogism (and that's putting it nicely, to call it a syllogism). What it also fails to account for are other circumstances not under discussion, like highly creative individuals who don't particularly care for gendered labels on clothing and wear what they want to wear. There's nothing inherently sexed about any piece of clothing, and I'd hesitate to imbue clothing itself with moral significance given what's valued changes over time and from one society to another.

Problematically, your argument is that the bible opposes cross-dressing as a violation of sexed norms (the male/female distinction) necessarily, but if what is problematic is a violation of sexed norms, then cross-dressing, per your examples and the above, won't always be a violation of those norms. By norms I mean norms that are God-ordained, and not merely socially valued. The prohibition then is against violating God's intentions for men and women as sexed creatures.

...But then you'll need to walk back the claim about cross-dressing always and necessarily being an example of such, and you'll also need to go further and demonstrate the application of this to my bioethical dilemma. To give you a concrete scenario (keep in mind that it's an example), in recalling what Fenris wrote earlier, consider this:

- I experience intense anxiety as a result of gender dysphoria
- Wearing women's socks is the only thing that relieves that anxiety
- Do I wear women's socks or do I continue to experience intense anxiety?

What would you do? And those are the only two options, so don't go trying to find an alternative. Do you subject yourself to intense anxiety, or do you wear women's socks?

As I said, you admit to being conflicted in terms of your eternal destiny based on your decision to "transition."

I haven't decided to transition. I wrote that I'm in effect, medically transitioning as a consequence of starting cross-sex HRT, but I only decided to start HRT. In other words, I'm transitioning by definition, not intention. It's a consequence, where the desired primary effects were to mitigate my depression and relieve the experience of dysphoria. Socially transitioning is something else in addition.

And having questions about my eternal destiny isn't me being vague. It's me working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

"Ungodly" does not translate into mean-spirited or violent or unlikeable--obviously, people here seem to like you. "Ungodly" refers to ignoring God's word on a particular subject, whether fully aware or not.

I've been "ungodly" in my attitude at times, thinking I was just defending the truth, whereas I was actually mistreating others in my approach. So ungodliness is something we all experience. You have to be convinced personally before you acknowledge something like this as "ungodly."

I know what you meant, and I'm going to push this one. Present your argument that I've acted in an ungodly way. I want to hear it, first of all, but if you can't make the argument then why offer the claim? As IMINXTC has been asking: let's see the Scriptural argument. Let's tie that into the bioethical consideration and the day-to-day dilemmas that follow (such as the example above). I'm not acting to violate the distinction between sex categories, even if that's the misperception. So, what's the argument?

And instead of just explaining to me why I'm acting in an ungodly way, offer me an alternative, godly course of action. I've been looking for one for a long time, so make it something I haven't heard before.

[IMINXTC]

Getting on with life as husband, father and witness for Christ, in the face of physical challenges and ever-present stereotyping and judgments.

Much to deal with.

[RabbiKnife]

Words fail.

[Fenris]

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?

The rabbis understood the prohibition of crossdressing as being forbidden specifically because it was presumed that the intent was to go amongst the opposite gender and behave immorally. An easy way to "hook up" or whatever. It wasn't so much the act itself as what it could lead to.

[RandyPNW]

Deuteronomy 22:5 is the go-to for most Christians I come across. What about Deuteronomy 22:5 do you think is applicable to my circumstance, such that you can say with warrant that I'm acting in an ungodly way?

The rabbis understood the prohibition of crossdressing as being forbidden specifically because it was presumed that the intent was to go amongst the opposite gender and behave immorally. An easy way to "hook up" or whatever. It wasn't so much the act itself as what it could lead to.

Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited. Unless the person is incapable of understanding the difference, putting on female clothes for a man was an intentional act of wanting to identify as a female, which was prohibited.

Now we may argue that someone wishes to identify as a female for health reasons, for psychological reasons. But that does not supersede the need to avoid intentional identification with the opposite gender. To do so in the matter of clothing is prohibited, and by extension, any kind of obvious identification with the opposite gender would be prohibited--not just cross-dressing.

And I would agree that those who do so wish to identify with the traits associated with the female, which is sexual relations with men. With a reduced sexual urge, that desire for intimate relations with men may assume a less-blatant form, but could include things like kissing, touching, etc.

These things are prohibited along with the notion that men should not lie with other men as though a woman. I should think any kind of foreplay and sexual intimacy would be prohibited as well.

Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother!

Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

[IMINXTC]

Has the issue here shifted to one of cross-dressing?

[ProDeo]

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

No ridicule, just disappointing.

[Athanasius]

Has the issue here shifted to one of cross-dressing?

Not really. It has the appearance of a 'discussion' on cross-dressing, but it's actually more about (1) nonsensical concepts and (2) "one true believer"™ syndrome.

Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited. Unless the person is incapable of understanding the difference, putting on female clothes for a man was an intentional act of wanting to identify as a female, which was prohibited.

For example, here we're introduced to the concept of 'homosexual dressing', which is nonsense, and who is going to put this on their salad anyway? We're also once again treated to the idea that cross-dressing/homosexual dressing is necessarily the 'intentional act of wanting to identify as a female', but we'll just kinda sorta never mind that the word "identify" rather than "act" was used. No attempt has been made to account for what I said in my earlier reply, so this is really just Randy reasserting himself as if to say, "sure, but..."

Now we may argue that someone wishes to identify as a female for health reasons, for psychological reasons. But that does not supersede the need to avoid intentional identification with the opposite gender. To do so in the matter of clothing is prohibited, and by extension, any kind of obvious identification with the opposite gender would be prohibited--not just cross-dressing.

Here Randy fails to account for the bioethical question. He also seems to be confused over the motivations of my actions, despite my spelling them out. We're told that 'psychological reasons' don't impact our understanding of Deuteronomy 22:5, but why? We're not told, we should just trust Randy because he said so. Fenris says different, as do most commentators on Deuteronomy 22:5.

We'll notice at this point that Randy hasn't produced his own Scriptural argument. For the moment he's latched onto my mention of Deuteronomy 22 and is running with it.

And I would agree that those who do so wish to identify with the traits associated with the female, which is sexual relations with men. With a reduced sexual urge, that desire for intimate relations with men may assume a less-blatant form, but could include things like kissing, touching, etc.

We're instead told that only the gayest of gay homosexuals would ever possibly want to identify as female. The world has legitimately moved beyond this (as it should have). Why Randy feels it necessary to start talking about 'less-blatant'<sic> forms of sexual urges is known only between him and Cthulu.

Anyway, notice the subtle movement from 'mere' cross-dressing to same-sex sexual activity. For Randy, the two are one and the same.

Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother!

And so we arrive at "one true believer" syndrome. In this case, it's the idea that those on this forum are supportive of same-sex sexual activity, or cross-dressing as a necessary expression of homosexual dressing, and similar. But of course, this isn't what anyone is saying, and Randy is simply out of his depth or has significantly misunderstood the discussion at hand. Both, I would say.

Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have.

Thus, my concrete example has been entirely ignored because... stumbling blocks. I don't think I need to explain to anyone how ridiculous this appeal is. What I will say is that this betrays a failure to understand the condition in question, as if my acting is something arbitrary, and I could simply do X or Y differently. Having done many variations of X or Y, in fact, as many as I and others could think of, I know this isn't the case.

Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.

This is a return to Randy's epigenetic argument, although I'm not sure he's aware he's making it. This is ignorable as the comparison of my situation to homosexuality is unwarranted, and I've already stated that hormonal imbalance isn't the cause of my dysphoria.

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

No one was ridiculing Randy, but this is the only way Randy can justify his position to himself.

Unfortunately for Randy, I'm not going to let it go. Randy, you suggested that I've acted and am acting in an ungodly way, which is to act sinfully, which is to be in sin. I take this very seriously. "Deuteronomy 22 says what it says" isn't an argument, so support the claim or retract it. If you're going to support it, also let me know what you think I can do to act in a godly way, and don't just say "follow Deuteronomy 22" because that's not helpful, and has already been tried in the way you understand the text (for 30+ years).

[IMINXTC]

Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.

Might even be a completely different topic.

Just saying.

[Athanasius]

Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.

Just saying.

And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.

Unless Christians specifically are able to offer a workable solution, then I've done my ~30 years of tries and this is the point I'm at. Throwing Scripture at me, that I've studied for 20+ years, is to miss the point entirely of what I'm asking. As Fenris was saying, sometimes we have to act in ways we would have preferred to avoid because there are no better options. This is a 'no better options' scenario. I know, because I've exhausted all of them.

[IMINXTC]

Looking for scripture verses that might seem to support one's opinions is "proof texting" and rarely actually does much in the way of contextual evidence, regardless of how many words one attaches to the text.

Just saying.

And on this topic, there's a lot of proof-texting. The best argument as far as I can tell is the appeal to God's created order and intention for the sexes. Fair enough. What complicates that is the reality of mental health and the accompanying bioethical questions. As I was saying earlier, I can affirm Genesis and Jesus until I'm blue in the face, but I must still contend with the psychological reality.

Unless Christians specifically are able to offer a workable solution, then I've done my ~30 years of tries and this is the point I'm at. Throwing Scripture at me, that I've studied for 20+ years, is to miss the point entirely of what I'm asking. As Fenris was saying, sometimes we have to act in ways we would have preferred to avoid because there are no better options. This is a 'no better options' scenario. I know, because I've exhausted all of them.

Genesis also introduces us to the conditions of the fall and gradually reveals a broken system, laden with weaknesses, sickness and death, the common denominator for all us humans.

We learn about what is deliberate sin and what is, in effect, a fractured natural system, subject to weakness.

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe I'm just slow, but I'm still stunned by the proposals that  (even though homosexuality has NEVER been raised as an issue of either desire or conduct in this thread...)

~~~ homosexual preferences are sin
~~~ homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance
~~~ some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female
~~~ that "cross dressing" -- whatever that is -- is homosexual conduct
~~~ that the be damned "weaker brother" is the ultimate fall back for supporting any position we wish that is used as a cudgel against that which we fear

 I'm also flummoxed at the illogical leap that "the Bible addresses gender dysphoria".  Not in Deut. 22, not even in Romans 1.  Of course, it doesn't address menopause, erectile dysfunction, or air conditioning and indoor toilets either, but, there you go.

The effort to separate the psychological from the physiological is inherently a false flag.  Our brains are biochemical factories.  The incorporeal part of us still resides within the meat suit.  Struggle is not sin; to the contrary, struggle is acknowledged as a stark reality of faith in a fallen world.

And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous.  "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."

[RandyPNW]

Maybe I'm just slow, but I'm still stunned by the proposals that  (even though homosexuality has NEVER been raised as an issue of either desire or conduct in this thread...)

~~~ homosexual preferences are sin
~~~ homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance
~~~ some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female
~~~ that "cross dressing" -- whatever that is -- is homosexual conduct
~~~ that the be damned "weaker brother" is the ultimate fall back for supporting any position we wish that is used as a cudgel against that which we fear

 I'm also flummoxed at the illogical leap that "the Bible addresses gender dysphoria".  Not in Deut. 22, not even in Romans 1.  Of course, it doesn't address menopause, erectile dysfunction, or air conditioning and indoor toilets either, but, there you go.

The effort to separate the psychological from the physiological is inherently a false flag.  Our brains are biochemical factories.  The incorporeal part of us still resides within the meat suit.  Struggle is not sin; to the contrary, struggle is acknowledged as a stark reality of faith in a fallen world.

And the idea that I'm not conservative enough for the taste of some is rather humorous.  "And I, only I, am left among the faithful prophets of Israel."

You seem to be expressing nothing biblical--only claiming the Bible cannot touch issues that are modern or beyond the reach of God's written word. I'm trying to apply the Bible, conceptually, to issues that are similar to those explicitly referred to in the Scriptures.

Yes, you do appear to be leaning towards the more liberal side of things. I don't wish to label you, as such, but the position you're taking appears to be right out of a liberal's handbook.

You also sound like a cheerleader for your "friend." Why not make your own arguments, instead of doing some kind of color commentary? Snide remarks can be funny, but not always. If the above is an argument, it sounds more to me like an attempt at marginalizing my own arguments, or trying to portray them as weak and irrelevant. Where's the argument?

Yes, homosexual preferences are sin.

Yes,  homosexual conduct is the result of a hormonal imbalance, plus our inherited and environmental spiritual influences, when we choose to act on this. Some homosexual appearances are just that, and not actual homosexuality.

Yes, some activities are inherently "male" and other activities are "inherently" female. Intercourse is the obvious example.

Yes, "cross dressing"  is homosexual conduct. The Bible says so. Confusing cross dressing with "fashions" is a digression, or worse, a misdirection. We are only talking about cross-dressing in the sense of intentional identification as the opposite gender.

Yes, the "weaker brother" is the biblical example exhorting us to avoid certain behaviors that afflict him in his weakness. This could conceivably include a man wearing female clothing in the presence of an ex-homosexual believer. It would be like drinking alcohol in front of a converted ex-alcoholic.

[Fenris]

Yes, it wasn't just homosexual fornication that was forbidden--it was also homosexual dressing that was forbidden. And so, regardless of the *intent,* the act was prohibited.

Thank you for explaining Jewish law to me. 

It wasn't homosexuality that concerned the rabbis, but heterosexuality outside of wedlock. A man would not dress like a woman to have sex with a man. A man would dress like a woman so that he could infiltrate a woman's group (as it were) and have sex with the women there.

 

Conservative Christians would normally agree, but this particular group appears to be rather supportive of the opposite position. I wonder why that is? Words fail me too, brother!

Yes. If only we had the Christian Theocracy that you so long for. Then you could criminally prosecute people for engaging in behavior that you, personally, find un-biblical.

Even if a person is psychologically imbalanced and only wishes to wear female socks to feel well, or to not throw up, it remains true that we are not to put stumbling blocks in front of (or behind) others who wish to avoid being subjected to particular weaknesses they may have. Those who are weak towards homosexuality, due to a hormonal imbalance, would not wish to see men appear in the form of women. And so, cross-dressing or anything that looks like trying to feel feminine by men would be prohibited, by extension.

I thought salvation was via faith, yet you appear to be a Judaizer.

Just my honest thoughts. Too bad some here think that my thoughts are worthy of ridicule.

So disagreement is now "ridicule"? One can only imagine what it would be like to live under a theocracy where "ridiculing" "Christian beliefs" would be punishable by law.