Posted on 12/05/2003 5:50:56 AM PST by xzins
Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly? Proponents of same-sex "marriage" owe us an answer
by Tim Wilkins
(part of this article may be unsuitable for young readers)
The Physiology of Mankind
"Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage. This I tell ya, brother, you can't have one without the other." Neither can you have a marrriage without a man and a woman, unless you’re the Massacheutts Supreme Court–to whom I ask the following question.
Why is one hundred percent of the homosexual population physiologically heterosexual?
When I asked that question before a group of university students, one said the question contained a presumption–that homosexuals were physiologically heterosexual. I am always open to differing views, yet he offered no explanation. In postmodernism one need not waste syllables buttressing one’s views—verbalizing a belief automatically makes it factual. Hubert Humphrey said, "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." The student reminded me of a man who, on another occasion, steadfastly disagreed when I said that at conception the man determines the sex of the child. "Every man has a right to his own opinion, but he does not have a right to his own set of facts."
My statement regarding human physiology is neither sexist nor politically motivated. It is a fact.
Look at this statement from two perspectives—first, a theological perspective and second, a medical perspective.
If in fact God creates some people as homosexuals, we must conclude that God has played a cruel joke on them. He has engineered their minds and emotions for attraction to the same-sex and yet created their physiology to be in direct opposition to that attraction. Such an act would be malicious. Only a sadistic god would conceive and conduct such a horrific deed.
Look at the statement from a medical perspective! If homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon—a legitimate alternative to Mankind’s expression of sexuality, we would have to conclude that homosexuals bear severe physiological anomalies.
I am aware the previous conclusion may infuriate some; few things anger people more than uttering a logical thought. Truth has always angered people—which is why some wise sage cautioned, "Tell the truth and run!"
But alas I do not believe the conclusion because I do not believe homosexuality to be moral.
If for no other reason, homosexuality is illegitimate in that it is anatomically unsuitable.
The Ingenuity of the Physical Body
Regardless from where you believe Mankind originated, we must agree that the human body is the work of a genius. How do we account for tear ducts that automatically flush the eye when a microscopic grain of sand invades them? Who can fathom how an arm or leg produces chill bumps, which in turn raises the hairs on those limbs in order to reduce the amount of body heat being expended by a cold wind?
These mysteries of the human body include libido. When sexually aroused, the woman’s body changes through a series of preparations. Her vagina lengthens for a distinct reason. Her body, equipped with Bartholin’s gland, produces lubrication for a distinct reason. More intricate than any scientific invention ever conceived or constructed, the outer third of her vagina swells with blood for a distinct reason. The Psalmist was correct--we are "fearfully and wonderfully made." (Psalm 139:14)
But these incredible workings lead us to another question which refuses to be ignored--why would such physiological changes occur in homosexual women when the changes do nothing to assist sexual interaction?
One cannot simply dismiss the question as irrelevant. If God makes no mistakes, and He does not, what accounts for this dichotomy among homosexuals? If homosexuality is "natural" why the inappropriate and unnecessary body changes?
No legitimate answer exists. God desires each of us to become personally what He has created us to be physiologically, biologically and anatomically.
The Universality of Sin
The answer to why homosexuality exists is sin—a universal condition unconfined to homosexuals; one hundred percent of the world’s population are sinners. "…for all have sinned and come short of God’s glory." (Romans 3:23)
And the answer to sin is Jesus Christ who, by the way, performed His first miracle during the marriage of a man and a woman.
The proponents of homosexual "marriage" appear to have all the answers. What say ye? Is this phenomenon a cruel joke or a medical anomaly?
No it doesn't. Your antipathy toward religion has obviously clouded your mind on this. While the author does approach it from a religious perspective, he goes out of the way to point out scientifically verifiable ideas that should warm the cockles of your heart.
And you misspelled "its".
The key difference is that the diseases one can be born with all have a genetic or physiological marker. SAD is more closely related to what they used to call "shell shock" it is a result of trauma of some sort. It is purely a mental disease and no one is born with this disease. They catch it from somewhere else.
I still disagree with your premise that the article is predicated on the existence of God but rather that he tries through his article to tackle both positions through his argument.
BTW, I've known plenty of adults with poor reading comprehension and was wondering only if you were one. Of course, the problem with them is that so many don't recognize it anyway. Maybe I have it because I don't see how God's existence is his underlying argument but rather the overall focus of one of his two prongs of discourse. As noted earlier, the first being if God created things, then why... OR the second being that if things evolved post big bang and following what we call Darwinian evolution, then why...
Ah, but the rub is that they cannot demonstrate that they're absolute -- relativism is the best you can do. Worse than that, given your loudly stated desire for "scientifically verifiable evidence," the only thing I'd expect you to be in favor of is things like might makes right, which is present at every level of life on Earth.
Unless you're going to call the theory of evolution a "straw man example," which I rather doubt.
Do you get it yet?
So why not explain what Occam says if you place your trust in his arguement?
You asked for proofs and were given them. If you're unahppy, state why.
Nope. Didn't you read what I posted?
"... and this everyone understands to be God."
"... to which everyone gives the name of God."
"This all men speak of as God."
"... and this we call God."
"... and this being we call God."
St. Thomas is saying that the descriptions given are descriptions of what we call God.
The alternative to this is to say that they are not descriptions of what we call God. This requires (a) providing the alternative description of what we call God, (b) providing the alternative naming of these five things as some other thing(s).
If you wish to take up that challenege, go ahead and do so here and now. Don't sit around and pretend that Occam did it for you.
What's funny is the chasm between your inflated opinion of yourself and your foolish/belligerent posts on this thread.
Since you're a fan of Occam's Razor, perhaps that instrument can help you discern why you need to resort to self-congratulatory utterances like the above when nobody else is singing your praises.
One possibile explanation is that no one on this thread is clever enough even to be a Salieri to your Mozart.
The other explanation is much simpler. BibChr summed it up earlier in one word.
I think it's a valid question for everybody, believer or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.