Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?
UM List ^ | Tim Wilkins

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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: form; function; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; physiology; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-397 next last
To: adam_az
The article predicates it's hypothesis on the existence of God.

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".

161 posted on 12/05/2003 10:39:41 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Theo
People are born with all sorts of faulty mental/emotional/psychological faculties, from fetal alchohol syndrome to Downs syndrome and so on. It seems reasonable that people can be born with any sort of mental/emotional/psychological defect.

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.

162 posted on 12/05/2003 10:40:44 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You made the argument that all morality is dependento on divinity.

I replied, that's crap. Religion is manmade, not divine. (even if you belive in God.)

Since man created religion and its moral codices, man can also create moral codices outside of the concept of religion that are not your straw-men examples like rouseau and "might makes right."

Do you get it yet?
163 posted on 12/05/2003 10:41:27 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Thanks for explaining.

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...

164 posted on 12/05/2003 10:41:53 AM PST by Dad was my hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"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."

I approached from that direction too.

Search the thread for "screwdriver."

I guess you never mistyped an apostrophe? I didn't realize I was in the presence of perfection. I genuflect in your honor!
165 posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:04 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: John O
I stand corrected and agree with you entirely.
166 posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:09 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Those who do not accept peaceful change make a violent bloody revolution inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Dad was my hero
It's the underlying argument, because he's writing from the perspective of knowing that God exists, and that he(the author) understands God's will.

If either of those two conditions can not be proven, then the argument based on those conditions falls.

167 posted on 12/05/2003 10:46:20 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Regarding the term "inborn psychological" I MEAN (SORRY _ ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAPS ARE LOCKED _HELP!) THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL QUALITIES _ SOME FROM BIRTH< AND OBVIOUSLY VERY INFLUENCED BY UPBRINGING> BUT BABIES ARE NOT "BLANK SLATES">

(SORRY ABOUT THESE CAPS _ I"LL INVESTIAGE NOW!)
168 posted on 12/05/2003 10:47:46 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
NOPE _ (SORRY _ MY CAPS ARE INEXPLICABLY LOCKED) I PROVED THE FLAW IN YOUR CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT "GOD HAS NOT A DAMN THING TO DO WITH IT"> IOW YOU STATED AS FACT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST> THEREFORE< YOU MUST KNOW EVERYTHING> THEREFORE YOU ARE GOD_LIKE IN YOUR UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE AND VISION>
169 posted on 12/05/2003 10:50:30 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Since man created religion and its moral codices, man can also create moral codices outside of the concept of religion that are not your straw-men examples like rouseau and "might makes right."

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?

170 posted on 12/05/2003 10:53:01 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Don't pull a Maureen Dowd on me, caps-boy. At least she has the decency to use ellipses, unlike you.

My whole quote was:

"Homosexual practices of promiscuity and poo-play are unsanitary, and homosexuals tend to die much earlier than their hetero counterparts because of it. God doesn't have a damn thing do do with it."

171 posted on 12/05/2003 10:54:44 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Occam slices all of those dialectical arguments with his Razor.

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.

172 posted on 12/05/2003 10:57:26 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"Ah, but the rub is that they cannot demonstrate that they're absolute -- relativism is the best you can do."

Religious morality, being invented by man, is also relative.

I'm not going to bring evolution into this, and it's a bad example, because it is an attempt to describe a biological process, not relationships between humans. I'm guessing you brought it up, out of an itch to change to topic to something you feel more comfortable debating. I'm not interested.
173 posted on 12/05/2003 11:00:40 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I did.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1034458/posts?page=156#156
174 posted on 12/05/2003 11:02:34 AM PST by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
My point was, all of those long dialectical arguments culminated in the idea that, therefore, the answer must be a God.

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.

175 posted on 12/05/2003 11:02:54 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
I AM TRULY SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS> I HAVE A WEIRD LAPTOP< AM NOT VERY COMPUTER LITERATE (PUTTING THAT MILDLY) AND SORRY FOR MY COMPUTER IGNORANCE I DON"T KNOW WHAT ELLIPSES ARE>
I WILL RETREAT TO THE PRIVACY OF MY QUARTERS AND TRY TO FIX MY KEYBOARD>

AS FAR AS YOU WHOLE QUOTE< I WAS REPLYING TO THE GOD DOESN"T HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH IT PART> (OBVIOUSLY!)
176 posted on 12/05/2003 11:02:57 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Not an answer. See #175.
177 posted on 12/05/2003 11:04:03 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: xzins
thanks for the thread. Can you post the link?
178 posted on 12/05/2003 11:11:40 AM PST by Coleus (Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adam_az; Dad was my hero; BibChr
You're insulting me because I have a deeper understanding of his article than you have the capability to grasp. That's pretty funny.

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.

179 posted on 12/05/2003 11:13:28 AM PST by William Wallace (Darkdrake Lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Of course I could be wrong, but to me it appears the question is directed at those who believe in God. Whatever it is, for those who believe in God it's a valid question.

I think it's a valid question for everybody, believer or not.

180 posted on 12/05/2003 11:18:19 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-397 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson