Is our headlong plunge into uncharted territory really something to celebrate?

There is indeed a basic architecture to the universe, and we're flouting it

Given the volume, tone and areas of focus the comments under my recent piece at Ordinary Times, "Church Shopping, Again," I'm now wondering if a more narrowly tailored presentation of my relationship with institutional Christianity might not have been more effective.
Put a little differently, perhaps I should have either put more emphasis on my stand on the universe having a basic architecture, or left that subject for another essay.
It seems to be what most people want to discuss.
Specifically, my inclusion of a link, when using the term "basic architecture of the universe," that steered people to a World piece by Carl R. Trueman entitled "Gay Conservatism is a Contradiction in Terms" sparked a bit of a firestorm.
It might help to provide more information about where Trueman, a religious-studies professor, church historian and Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow, is coming from.
Last November, I wrote a review of his book The Rise of the Modern Self here at Precipice, which I'll share here:

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism and the Road to Sexual Revolutionby Carl R. Trueman examines the process over the last few centuries by which sexuality became the overriding factor in summing up an individual human being’s identity. Throughout the work, he reminds the reader that this has not always been the case.

The first major figure in his lineage of thinkers who brought us to our present juncture is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose essential contribution was the focus on the inward psychological life, as opposed to presumptions, norms and institutions developed over the course of a society’s evolution. From Rousseau we get the notion that the individual can decide for himself or herself what will best enhance well-being.

He puts together three figures from the Romantic period of English literature - Wordsworth, Shelley and Blake - as having given us the view of “feelings and instinct as lying at the heart of moral action and what it means to be truly free and truly human.” Shelley, in particular, was pretty radical in embracing this position, asserting that monogamous man-woman relations was harmful to expressions of the way people naturally are.

He puts together in one chapter another trio, this one from a few decades later. There are important distinctions to be made between Nietzsche, Marx and Darwin, but together they did much to point Western civilization in a materialistic direction. Their common basis was viewing the world as having no significance or meaning beyond that imparted by human action.

Next up, Trueman discusses Freud, with particular interest in Freud’s concept of happiness as being rooted in genital pleasure, and what that has meant for the whole field of psychoanalysis.

He then looks at the roles played by Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse in bringing together the lineage of thinkers, in particular Marx and Engels, who put the power dynamics between society’s classes front and center, and the primacy of sexuality in the search for a stable society that Freud brought to the table.

Trueman does a great job of presenting the case that the surrealist movement in art moved the entire impetus along. Ditto his look at how Hugh Hefner’s putting the sheen of sophistication over the commercialization of erotic arousal has had ramifications up to the present day.

Trueman’s meticulous. You may find yourself going back to previous chapters to reread something that seemed arcane at the time, but that you now see as having planted the seeds of future developments. By the time you get to the chapters on how eroticism and a therapeutic framework triumphed in our culture, and, finally, how transgenderism came to be mainstreamed in an alarmingly short time, you can see the thread tying it all together with unsettling clarity.

Along the way, I was introduced to some minds I had at best only a glancing acquaintance with who have informed Trueman’s thinking. Now I’m inspired to further investigate Philip Reiff, Augusto Del Noce, Alasdair McIntyre and Charles Taylor.

Is scripture the foundation for understanding the universe's basic architecture, or just one take on it?

As I say, I may have bitten off more than was helpful with "Church Shopping, Again." I go through my conversion to conservatism, my saying yes to the Lord, and my current set of issues with various denominations and the modern approach to structuring worship services. However, what I wound up giving short shrift to was my desire to land somewhere that made scripturally sound doctrine the highest priority. Had I made that clearer, I might not have left myself so open to charges of being anti-gay or anti-trans. 

One commenter pointed out Christ's command in Matthew 22:26-40 to love our neighbors as ourselves. That's about as simple and direct as it gets.

But so are Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:27. 

A couple of other passages put this kind of activity in the broader context of various types of sins. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11also deals with drunkenness, slander and swindling, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 puts it along side slave trading and perjury. 

Let me pause here to say that what they’re doing at Stedfast Baptist Church in Watauga, Texas is so toxic, so devoid of love, and, in fact, so batshit crazy that there is no way we can call it Christian. Go to the link to see what I mean. I feel the need to head off any potential argument that might bring it up before something like that were to get started.

Now, let's consider the Matthew 22 commandment again. It assumes I love myself, does it not? And that means grappling with aspects of myself the are decidedly unloveable. If there's anybody in need of grace, it's me. 

That's how I'm to love my fellow human being. I'm to extend a grace that reflects to the best of my ability the divine grace I undeservedly get from my Lord. 

This basic architecture is obvious even without getting into the scripture-as-foundation angle

Another commenter provided a rundown of human-genome statistics regarding sex-determining chromosomes:

X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births

A look around the world plainly shows that the phrase "most common form" is being asked to do some very heavy lifting here. "Man and woman he created them" plays itself out in the identities of pretty much everybody you're likely to run into this week, month, year and decade. 

There's the sweep of history to consider as well. In what culture, anywhere in the world at any time prior to the last thirty years at the outside, did marriage ever mean lifetime union of two people of the same sex? Where were the men who felt that they were women and vice versa, even after the above-mentioned Rousseau and Shelly had begun the process of eroding our civilizational foundations?

But now we live in a time when cultural observers such as Abigail Shrier, Bari Weiss and Jesse Singal come in for the slings and arrows of opprobrium even as California appoints a man who chose four years ago to identify as a woman to a Superior Court judgeship, and another such man serves as secretary of the federal Health and Human Services department. 

I'll express myself plainly here: It does not make me anti-trans to point out that as a society, we have chosen to put individuals in positions where they'll have unprecedented cultural and institutional impact. We're treading on entirely new ground. How it's going to work out in the long term is not knowable.

It's different than the way we've ever done things before. Just sayin'.