Born Gay Or Trans?

 

Progressives argue that being gay or transgender may be innate, or influenced by hormones, personal experience or other environmental factors. If the choice to be gay or transgender were mostly or primarily biological, then so being and acting could not be sinful because God made them that way. Lifestyle choices are only sinful if one can choose one’s sexual identity and gender, and those choices be in conflict with one biological sex or not. Conservative Christians regard being gay or transgender as sinful, or as living a psychological disorder, and they have considerable, credible if non-scientific Biblical support from Jesus and God for their reservations, so conversion therapy is required, acceptable, and should be legal if the sinner/patient, and adult, voluntarily agrees to undergo it, and such treatment is gentle, not cruel and inhumane, driving recipients to suicide.

There are heated arguments on both side of the issue, but I would care less about how one is oriented, but for religious and moral reason a transgender or gay person decided to be man or woman or heterosexual in practice, if one would choose to be cisgender and heterosexual, that would be a fine choice.

I think not being just a man or a woman or cisgender may be a free-willed choice more than just how someone is, and to refuse to live as born and oriented might well be mental illness or sinful. At best, living gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. is not moral for cisgenders or those whose sexual identity and sexual orientation aligns with their sex at birth, or for those with a heterosexual orientation refuse to confine themselves sexually to being attracted to and mating only with the opposite, heterosexual sex.

If consenting adults are not visibly mental ill, and are not bothering anyone else, maybe it is acceptable and even not sinful to God and the heterosexual binary gender majority, for the gay/transgender minority to do their thing, but this is not the norm for say 93% of any population which is of the two genders and happy with it, and heterosexual, for engaging in such behavior would be mentally ill or unhealthy for them and sinful in the eyes of God. Let the minority do what they will or must but the majority must stay in their own lane, sexually speaking.

Christian and conservatives regard being gay or transgender as sinful or sick choices to be abandoned by the practitioners, whereas progressives deny that changing what one innately is is impossible and that such therapy is cruel, perhaps even human rights abuse.

I am considering this issue of whether or not to ban or outlaw conversion therapy for gays and transgender should be allowed or outlawed and I explore below it from several different articles and points of view and then comment on each

A.

Now here is today’s (4/6/26) woke article on conversion therapy from Wikipedia, which I think is ideological pseudoscience itself, but I cursorily read and dissect what is written there about conversion therapy, which I think is legal and constitutional, but should not be coerced upon anyone, but voluntarily undertake if a gay or trans person so elect. I disagree with any medical or criminal ban on conversion therapy. Here is the Wikipedia entry, and I spot copied and pasted paragraphs I think capture the issue generally: “

W: “

Medical professionals and activists consider "conversion therapy" a misnomer, as it does not constitute a legitimate form of therapy.[8] Alternative terms include "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE)[8] and "gender identity change efforts" (GICE).[8] Together, and more commonly referred to as "sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts" (SOGICE),[9] or "sexual orientation and gender identity or expression change efforts" (SOGIECE).[10]

According to researcher Douglas C. Haldeman, SOCE and GICE should be considered together because both rest on the assumption "that gender-related behavior consistent with the individual's birth sex is normative and anything else is unacceptable and should be changed"”

My response: I generally accept that gender-related behavior consistent with the individual’s birth sex is normative and anything else is unacceptable and should be changed—well perhaps not among adult over 21, or at least if it cannot be changed in those under 18, they should be encouraged to act out sex roles normative for heterosexual children consistent with the individuals birth sex.

W: “

Bans on conversion therapy

In 2020, the United Nations Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity (IESOGI) published a Report on conversion therapy, which documented global practices on conversion therapy against LGBTQ individuals.[19][31] In the report, the UN IESOGI called for a global ban on "conversion therapy", as an umbrella term describing various interventions practiced to "cure" people, and to "convert" them from non-heterosexual to heterosexual, and from trans or gender diverse to cisgender.[31][32] The report highlighted a 2015 US court case from New Jersey, "Ferguson v JONAH'", in which a jury unanimously found the defendants guilty of fraud, claiming they were providing "services that could significantly reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction."[31][33] In March of 2026, laws prohibiting conversion therapy were struck down by the US Supreme Court.[34]

Motivations

A frequent motivation for adults who pursue conversion therapy is religious beliefs that disapprove of same-sex relations, such as evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and conservative interpretations of Islam.[35] These adults prioritize maintaining a good relationship with their family and religious community.[36]

Adolescents who are pressured by their families into undergoing conversion therapy also typically come from a conservative religious background.[36] Youth from families with low socioeconomic status are also more likely to undergo conversion therapy.[37] “

My response: We want children to move from non-heterosexual to heterosexual and from varied genders to their heterosexual genders they were born with and conversion therapy should not be outlawed--regulated yes and non abusive-- but transgender surgeries need to be outlawed for children and regulated for adults.

W: “

Modern-day practitioners of conversion therapy—primarily from a conservative religious viewpoint—disagree with evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance that does not view homosexuality and gender variance as unnatural or unhealthy.[1][94] Advocates of conversion therapy rely heavily on testimonials and retrospective self-reports as evidence of effectiveness. Studies purporting to validate the effectiveness of efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity have been criticized for methodological flaws.[98]””

My response: My point is that homosexuality and gender variance is acceptable but not preferable for consenting sane adults who are gay and gender variant among their own kind a small minority but homosexuality and gender variance are not natural, healthy or moral in human or God’s eyes for the heterosexual majority.

B.

This morning (4-1-26) I was listening to the Chris Stigall radio show and Mark Davis was hosting. I did not get the entire context while making breakfast, but it appears Davis had on a very sharp lawyer from some Christian podcast on, and this guy was commenting likely on the very recent Supreme Court ruling that conversion therapy is legal.

I did hear the lawyer remark that this case is very important (culturally I assume) because the biological and scientific premise beneath this 8-1 ruling seems to be that gays and transgender persons are not born gay, but are environmentally pushed in that direction, or that the individual elects to be gay or transgender.

In the world I grew up in, Catholics and Protestants regarded being gay, transgender or some conception of gay marriage as immoral or indicators that the participants in these immoral, prohibited and likely then illegal practices were mentally ill.

The lawyer argued that our constitutional law are predicated upon a belief in the existence of objective morality, grounded in God, natural law, natural rights, that a moral people are a free people, the only ones worthy of and capable of keeping our country free, so that free speech or conversion therapy are critically necessary for America to remain a free, just, God-fearing, God-blessed argument. This, if I have the argument right, is quite appealing and seems right.

The Progressives, the lawyer explained, regard that being gay and transgender are how people are made, and the lawyer dismissed that claim. I do believe personally that people with gender confusion may have some natural propensity that way, but it mostly is a social construction, that there are only two genders, that men are men, and women are women and that the two can be defined.

Legal marriage is between a man and a woman and that is how God wants it. I have never opposed cvili unions for gays, and I would not outlaw or criminalize gay sex, transgender practices or whatnot, but do not surgically practice these misconceived, pseudoscientific practices on children under 18, and likely under 21, then they can do the transgender surgeries which they want to, though the taxpayer shooed not pay for these million dollar surgeries.

I am not as convinced as that conservative Christian lawyer and evangelical Christians that gays are not born gay, but certainly it is a chosen way of life for straights who just are attracted to that lifestyle, for conservative Christian gays that want to live as straight, married men as fathers and husbands, who do not practice their gay lifestyle anymore or at all. For these two categories who are gay, or living gay, or are socially prodded to live the gay lifestyle, I see nothing wrong with conversion therapy as long as it is voluntary and not coercive.

I do not want to spend too much time regulating others sex lives socially let alone legally, but if transgenders and gays want especially as adults to live the gay lifestyle and do gay sex, I would suggest that if they are not promiscuous or reckless, that it might not be immoral in God’s eyes, but that for heterosexuals doing either the gay or transgender lifestyle or have sex with them, that that is immoral, and abomination unto God and should be religiously and socially prohibited, condemned or denounced, even if legally people keep their hands off most of what other consenting adults are doing to each other in the privacy of their homes.

C.

Then opened todays computer (4-1-26) and came across this article in Breitbart News, Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Colorado Law Banning So-Called ‘Conversion Therapy’. The writer is Katherine Hamilton and I will copy and paste her article below and then comment on it and tie it back to my editorial remarks written above about wha the conservative Christian lawyer alluded to on the Chris Stigall show this morning. Here is the article: “

Supreme Court Rules 8-1 Against Colorado Law Banning So-Called ‘Conversion Therapy’

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty

Katherine Hamilton

31 Mar 2026449

The Supreme Court overwhelmingly ruled against a Colorado “conversion therapy” law on Tuesday that bans therapists from helping minors align their “gender identity” with their biological reality. “

My response: Minors should be taught, as much as possible to align their gender identity with their biological reality, as most parents would prefer and insist upon and most children are better off psychologically in the long run being who they are biologically and adjusting from there.

Hamilton: “The High Court ruled against the law 8-1, saying it likely violates the First Amendment by allowing some viewpoints but not others. Liberal-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has repeatedly been unable to describe what a woman is, penned the lone dissent. 

Colorado’s law was passed in 2019; more than 20 other states have laws banning “conversion therapy.” While Colorado’s law bans archaic and unethical aversion methods historically associated with conversion therapy, like electroshock therapy, it also more broadly outlaws “providing professional services for the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempting to change behaviors or expressions of self or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”

Kaley Chiles, a practicing Christian and a licensed counselor who, per court documents, “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” sued the state over the law. She argued the law banned her from using talk therapy with clients who voluntarily come to her to help them align their sexuality or view of their identity with their biological reality, particularly with regard to minors.”

My response: I agree with Chiles that children generally should live consistently with God’s design for them, including their biological sex.

Hamilton: “Chiles contended Colorado banned consensual conversations based on the viewpoints expressed, in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and only allows counselors to push minors toward “gender-affirming care,” which includes social transition, sex change drugs, and surgeries — methods which are experimental, steeped in ideology, and pushed by large medical associations. Colorado argued that licensed health professionals in the state are subject to professional discipline for providing treatment to patients that falls “below the accepted standard of care.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, saying the question before the court was a “narrow one,” and noted that Chiles did not seek to overturn the Colorado law in its entirety but to insure talk therapy between her and her minor clients is protected.

He wrote:

We do not doubt that the question ‘how best to help minors’ struggling with issues of gender identity or sexual orientation is presently a subject of fierce public debate. But Colorado’s law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint.”

My response: Christian therapist constitutionally enjoy the free speech right to discourage kids conversationally from straying from heterosexuality and their biological sex at birth concerning issue of gender identity and sexual orientation for each child.

Hamilton: “Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.

“However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an egregious assault on both of those commitments. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” he added. 

Jackson conversely wrote in her dissent that the majority “plays with fire in this case” and said she is afraid “the people of this country will get burned.”

“Before now, licensed medical professionals had to adhere to standards when treating patients: They could neither do nor say whatever they want,” Jackson wrote. “Largely due to such State regulation, Americans have been privileged to enjoy a long and successful tradition of high-quality medical care.”

Nearly two dozen states and Washington, DC, have similar laws, which could be impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision. 

Jim Campbell, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)  attorney who argued the case on behalf of Chiles before the High Court, called the decision a “significant win.”

“Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children,” Campbell said in a statement. “States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies.”

She said in a statement:

When my young clients come to me for counsel, they often want to discuss issues of gender and sexuality. I look forward to being able to help them when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies. Counselors walking alongside these young people shouldn’t be limited to promoting state-approved goals like gender transition, which often leads to harmful drugs and surgeries. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere.

The ruling is the latest example of the 6-3 majority conservative Supreme Court slapping down overreach from transgender activists who have worked for more than a decade to elevate gender identity over biological reality in all spheres.”

My response: We cannot elevate the proposal that children elect whatever gender identity they prefer, a social construction, over biological reality.

Hamilton: “Last year, the court dealt major blows to transgender activists pushing for sex changes for minors and LGTBQ+ propaganda in schools. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the whether transgender-identifying males (biological boys and men) should be allowed to dominate female sports and spaces. 

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.”