You're talking about a macron accent.
¯ as opposed to _
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?
I didn't realize who I was writing to... my apologies. Apparently God is a Freeper since only God can truly say what is good and what is not. Boy, talk about the arrogance of man!
God only made ameads when Job called him on his actions.
Ahhh... so you haven't read the story. Why didn't you say so in the first place? It would have saved a lot of time.
The entire approach of the NT is different than the OT, it is like in the NT they have forgot almost everything the happened before in the OT.
I like a good debate as much as the next guy but this statement makes it very clear you don't have clue what you're talking about.
Did it ever occur to you that God may not have the best interests at heart for you, me and the rest of humanity.
Wow... that's bold. Since this statement acknowledges God, I'll ask you... if He doesn't, who does?
Total blind faith can lead you to a whole world of pain.
We found an area where we can agree. Given your obvious lack of scholarship on issues you adamantly advance, who is the blind one?
All joking aside... this one post clearly shows that you consider yourself God's judge. If you have even a shred of faith, study, reflection and repentence are very much in order. May God bless you.
I know I just posted to you and noted your lack of Biblical scholarship but this post is so absurd it needs an answer... The entire purpose of the OT is the necessity of salvation and the anticipation of the Messiah. This is fulfilled in Jesus of the NT. Maybe they're not mutually exclusive after all...?
Usually just about anybody can look at a bogus study and demonstrate where it went wrong. What I mean is, usually it's really obvious. Or sometimes the study won't even come close to demonstrating any root cause of homosexuality.
Thanks for the link. I just checked the title and it doesn't sound familiar, but I'll take a look and get back to you.
I don't know you think you are God. :P
By the way, the Jews have a different opinion than you do on the OT and NT.
Good, also, you might want to also read down the posts, one of them explains how that same hormone effects both slim and fat lesbians.
No one really believes that homosexuality is genetically based.You responded in post 205
But there is some evidense that it can be traced to hormonal mix-ups during developement in the womb.You pointed me here to support your statement but that article in no way states homosexuality/lesbianism is genetic. In fact it states:
Agrawal said her research neither suggests nor indicates PCOS causes lesbianism, only that PCOS is more prevalent in lesbian women.As I said in post 214:
Many studies have been done and many claims made, and everything points back to environment. I think you might find this informative:
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces TogetherThe study you pointed me to in no way supports there's any link to homosexuality and genetics. Everything points to environment.From everything I've read I'd say the above is a good summary of the issues. Also of interest: Homosexuality and Genetics.
Notice the last part of the sentence, PCOS could be used as a starting point, and it does bare more reseach.
You're talking about a macron accent.
¯ as opposed to _
It says no such thing.
It says "PCOS is more prevalent in lesbian women" and that the research "neither suggests nor indicates" any cause to lesbianism. The fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle further supports the environmental factor, which is the major factor in determining homosexuality. That's what the studies state. Please read them:
Genetics and HomosexualityYou'll find articles dating from 1995 to the present.
By the way, homosexuality has been around since the time of Ancient Greece. It is not something new.
Let's say big noses were more prevalent - would it make sense to say that big noses cause lesbianism.
Well, one glaring weakness is that it can't be the cause because there's a number who don't have big noses.
Let's say there is a greater prevalence of living in the south among patients with lung cancer.
Does that mean that the south causes lung cancer?
It's not a keystroke. It's ¯ (or ¯).
Then you get ¯ either way.
I'll say. When I quote the author I'm not reading anything into it, where you're adding words, phrases and ideas that can be found nowhere in the article. In fact you're saying the article supports something the author specifically states it doesn't.
By the way, homosexuality has been around since the time of Ancient Greece. It is not something new.
It appears you're thinking the recent articles I referenced go back to the beginning of homosexuality. Sheesh, you're either reading something that isn't there or you're not reading what is. It's obvious you're not really reading or probably not even clicking any of the links I'm providing. Just click here and read and read and read.
You know, xzins, it takes all kinds. From the article:
Agrawal said her research neither suggests nor indicates PCOS causes lesbianism...,and from that PCJ appears to read into it just the opposite of what the doctor explicitly said.
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.