Homosexuality and transgenderism are dysfunction. Period

There's little chance that the spate of so-called transgender people coming out of the woodwork and clamoring for accommodation of one sort or another in recent months has escaped most Americans' notice. The aggressive push of the LGBTQ lobby to normalize transgenderism, particularly among children, has become part and parcel of the political left's overall campaign of malignant social engineering.

I'm going to articulate a few things on this topic that may shock even regular readers of this space; nevertheless, these things need to be said. For the sake of inclusion, and because these have been well-established, I'll dispense with religious arguments against homosexuality and sexual libertinism. It is my hope that in so doing, both people of faith and others may relate.

First off: There's no such thing as a transgendered person. We might as well rip that Band-Aid off right now. If someone self-identifies as a gender other than his or her biological one, there is something wrong with that person. Excepting the miniscule number of individuals who are born with some form of genetic abnormality or physiological deformity, those who claim to be transgender suffer from deep emotional and/or psychological dysfunction – period.

Second: Homosexuality, itself, is not normal. Nor is homosexuality a lifestyle choice such as most people understand lifestyle choices. Like transgenderism, homosexuality represents fundamental emotional and psychological dysfunction and should be treated as such.

There is a set of early experiential factors common to men who go on to self-identify as gay, and another set of early experiential factors common to women who ultimately self-identify as lesbians. These have been detailed by a few intrepid clinical psychologists and psychiatrists, but between the stigma surrounding those who advance a "nurture over nature" argument for homosexuality and liberal academics and researchers desperately seeking the "gay gene," we ought not expect such theories to garner much ink.

Like the abomination of abortion, which was sold to the public with arguments over maternal health, the mainstreaming of homosexuality was sold to the public over the notion that what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is no one else's business, and that those who practice homosexuality do not otherwise pose a threat to public health.

While these two assertions may be true on their face, it is at this point undeniable that the popular mainstreaming of homosexual lifestyles through social engineering and rampant activism most certainly do pose a threat to public health, both in the traditional medical sense and psychologically. There is also replete historical evidence that it never ends well for societies that embrace and/or normalize such behavior.

Add to this the fact that the incidence of such things as depression, suicide, addiction and domestic violence are substantially higher in the LGBTQ community than in the general population, and the hazards in the area of public health become self-evident. LGBTQ activists maintain that the reason for such things is due to the "persecution" of LGBTQ individuals by the rest of us, but this is simply displacement, as well as a convenient and self-serving fallacy.

Once upon a time, it was taken as a given that the homosexual – like the addict, the serial philanderer or the degenerate gambler – was a morally compromised person. It wasn't the sexual deviance so much that offended others; it was the fact that as morally compromised people, homosexuals could not be counted on to operate within the bounds of accepted morality.

We now live in an environment in which even many conservatives have surrendered to key elements of LGBTQ orthodoxy, starting with the notion that "there's nothing wrong with being gay."

Well, if one follows the line of reasoning offered here, there definitely is.

Think about it: We now have people in the public eye leading with the fact that they're homosexual in order to garner approval, and this includes politicians who know that they can count on the support of many who don't approve of their lifestyle, but who will vote for them so not to be seen as "homophobes." We have parents who are gleefully queuing up to get "hormone therapy" and transgender surgical mutilation for their little boys after seeing them play dress-up with their sisters.

Recently, a video featuring a pediatrician who criticized hormone therapy and transgender surgery for children was blocked on YouTube. Unfortunately, this pediatrician is in the minority among people willing to call this sickness out for what it is over fear of being labeled as bigots.

Thus, it appears that many of us are essentially willing to commit societal suicide over little more than sandbox invective.

As articulated previously in this space, the proliferation of sexual dysfunction in our society can be traced directly to the sexual sensibilities that became popular during and after the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. It therefore stands to reason that the more dysfunction we deny as dysfunction and allow to be normalized, the more dysfunction we will sow in future generations.

So, do I contend that those in the LGBTQ camp are evil people who should be disenfranchised or persecuted? No more than I think that the addict, the serial philanderer or the degenerate gambler should be disenfranchised or persecuted. These are people who suffer from deep emotional and psychological maladies, and who should be offered emotional and psychological aid in the event that they become willing to receive it.

As far as accepting, normalizing and mainstreaming such behavior goes, I'll close with this: Considered in light of the above, allowing the LGBTQ lobby to drive the civil rights narrative in this area – which is precisely what we've been doing for the last 40 years – is nothing short of patent insanity.