Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?

UM List ^ | Tim Wilkins

[fml]

I believe some people can be born with psychological defects that leave them with homosexual desires.

I *also* believe that children can become "homosexual" through "nurture," just as someone can get a physical defect through a car accident.

I can only agree with the second half of your thoughts. It has been proven time and again (actor Anthony Perkins comes to mind) that homosexual behavior can be overcome.

[vannrox]

Great "talking point"...

100% of homosexuals have the physiology of a heterosexual.

[chuckwalla]

"What's the patent number for his device to measure God"

patent no; 000000001 TRUTH

[headsonpikes]

Cruel joke it is, then!

[Kevin Curry]

The Supreme Court of Massachussets implicitly affirmed the 100 percent physiological heterosexuality rule (well, maybe 99.9 percent, allowing for the extremely rare natural hermaphrodite) when it redefined marriage as a union of any sex, but of only two people.

This binary distinction has its roots in the heterosexual nature of humankind. Any other distinction is arbitrary and contrary to natural law.

[4CJ]

Why is one hundred percent of the homosexual population physiologically heterosexual?

Because they've been discriminated against!!!! </blatant sarcasm>

[Khepera]

The APA was taken over by the homosexuals that were once seeking help. Now it basically a queer organization.

[adam_az]

I think his point is that the body's design is irrefutable argument than all are made to be heterosexual.

This is especially compelling if one adopts a theistic perspective.

Unfortunately, the theistic viewpoint requires unprovable beleif, the same standard that the author criticizes in his strawman opponent.

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but he does not have a right to his own set of facts."

Show the proof that a god exists. What device can measure and detect it? What other non-measurable things do you "believe" in? Zeus? Allah?

[Kevin Curry]

A belief in theism isn't required to enable a thinking man to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a willing perversion of the physiologically heterosexual (binary) nature of humankind. Simple common sense is more than sufficient.

[xzins]

We both know that the arguments for or against God are unprovable by you or me. In fact, they don't enter the realm of fact but of opinion.

However, the facts of which he speaks are the physiological facts of the human body.

It is a fact that 100% of homosexuals have heterosexual equipment. It is a fact that the physiological responses of homosexuals are actually the responses of heterosexual design.

[adam_az]

OK, how about this.

1) Jesus is King.

2) Zeus is King.

3) Bill Clinton is the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Which of these statements is true?

What proof can you present that one statement is true, and the others are false?

None, thats what proof.

Gravity is provable truth. The properties of iron are provable truth. God is not provable, and is entirely based on faith.

The author of this paper rebuts himself, when he says "verbalizing a belief automatically makes it factual," by then going into a THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, something inherently unprovable.

Fact and Truth have no place in theology, because theology at least so far has not been proven using the scientific method, which is the litmus test for "fact."

Theology is Faith and Beleif, not fact.

[Kevin Curry]

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but he does not have a right to his own set of facts."

To get to the crude but overwhelmingly compelling clinical point: penises and vaginas are simple facts. Like the simple fact of gravity, you must deal with them as they are. You are not free to arbitrarily redefine them to fit your arbitrary, liberal, perversion accomodating opinion.

[adam_az]

Yes, those things are true.

The theological perspective is irrelevent.

Have you ever used a device for a purpose other than what it was "intended?" Ever use a flathead screwdriver as a chisel or lever? But that's not what it was designed for! Unnatural! Sinner! Has your wife or significant other ever performed an act of oral or manual sex on you? Unnatural! That's not what the parts were designed for! And if so, SO WHAT? What differentiates humans is our ability to press the tools available into service to suit our purpose. The unnaturality argument doesn't stand up. Especially considering tha being unable to prove that god exists, you can't prove that mans body was "designed" to do anything in particular.

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.

[adam_az]

Like the simple fact of gravity, you must deal with them as they are. You are not free to arbitrarily redefine them to fit your arbitrary, liberal, perversion accomodating opinion.

My statements are not arbitrary or perverted, they are observations from a strictly biological perspective. Ever put your little wee-wee into your wife or girlfriends mouth or hand? Why does it matter what genitalia is attached to the person whose mouth or hand it's in? How about your own hand? It's attached to a man, you must be one of them there homosexuals, quick get the rope!

For that matter, please explain what I've arbitrarily defined without bringing out idiotic arguments like "OMG ANYONE WHO SEES THINGS FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN ME MUST BE A LIBURL!!!!!!!!!" Penises and vaginas are facts, yes, but people have found that both organs can be utilized outside the context of producing offspring. Outside of being able to prove that a god exists who wants you to be able to act a certain way (that's called FAITH not FACT) how can you make a statement that it's "unnatural" to use them differently? Ever open a bottle with something other than a bottle cap opener?

[adam_az]

A belief in theism isn't required to enable a thinking man to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a willing perversion of the physiologically heterosexual (binary) nature of humankind. Simple common sense is more than sufficient.

The binary scheme is required for reproduction of the species. Period. If it's so simple, please explain the logical steps which show that man should only do things which are necessary for the reproduction and continuation of the species, and nothing else? How many things do you do, strictly for your own pleasure, that have nothing to do with that lofty purpose? Why are they any less a perversion of your purpose here on earth?

[ErnBatavia]

Yep - plain and simple, it's a plumbing issue...

[BibChr]

Very thoughtful, well-written. The sad thing is there are FReepers who will be threatened by it.

Oops, I already see there are!

Dan
Biblical Christianity message board

[adam_az]

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

That's a very clever statement, but here's the burden of proof on you: 1) Prove god existed, 2) Prove he created Adam and Eve. Hint: A book's say-so isn't empiric proof.

[r9etb]

What a COMPELLING point - and purely squared conclusion.

While it's certainly compelling, I fear that it's far too obvious a point for those whose wishes point the other direction. It seems that our capacity for willful blindness increases in direct proportion to the obviousness of the point in question.

Why else would we see this never-ending (and yet-to-be-successful) search for the "gay gene," which would "prove" that homosexuality is "normal," sort of like having blue eyes, when the physiology is there for all to see?

I was also surprised to see that the author did not bring in the old question of "why do bad things happen to good people?" From his perspective, homosexuality would certainly fall into that class of conditions.

Finally, while it may not have fit too well with the rest of his point, he could have added in the observable fact that the "gay rights" movement moves in lockstep with that group of activists who want more help dealing with the medical consequences of homosexual activity -- which come as a direct consequence of violating the physiological imperatives the author so rightly points out.

[goodnesswins]

Prove God does NOT exist.