Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?

UM List ^ | Tim Wilkins

[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?

[Paul C. Jesup]

All you need to do is click on the link and find out what kind of help. You are being not only disruptive and rude, but you are personally insulting a dedicated and honorable Freeper who I consider a friend.

I have been lurking here since 98, signed up in 01. You signed up three weeks ago.

Also, I clicked the link, but I was asking for a personal opinion.

By the way, I have seen people like you on FR for years, you people obsessed with banning homosexuality, but you turn a blind eye when it comes to the crimes and corruption commited by government.

Actually I created a thread on FR over TWO years ago on the subject. You can read it if you dare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/568835/posts

[little jeremiah]

I read part of the thread, and many of the comments were very good. Maybe you should re-read them.

Is the length of time a person has been registered on FR a yardstick of his intelligence and right thinking?

[Paul C. Jesup]

I read part of the thread, and many of the comments were very good. Maybe you should re-read them.

I posted the thread, I read the comments, you should read my replies.

Is the length of time a person has been registered on FR a yardstick of his intelligence and right thinking?

You haven't read that many zotted threads on FR have you.

[chuckwalla]

I was talking about truth not man.
Did man come before truth??????

[scripter]

I'm glad we have:

Post 343

to document this clowns actions.

[little jeremiah]

I am starting to feel sorry for him. He is very fixated - exactly how or on what I am not sure, and not interested enough to find out!

I have no problem debating or even arguing with people who disagree with me - but there has to be some points where the back and forth is an actual back and forth!

Maybe I'll make myself useful with some emailing articles.

You are a king of mental equilibrium, BTW!

[scripter]

I've been trying to post a nice response but I can't, so I'll leave it at that... Thanks for all you're doing here.

[Paved Paradise]

That may be true in some situations but I think it's way too simplistic for the majority. Many of these people do NOT want to be that wey and they fight the thoughts, urges, desires. If I was raised to like a certain food and didn't want to eat it anymore it would be fairly simple to avoid it, unless it was my favorite. I guess I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

[cid89]

"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?"

So you don't believe in love? or can you show a way to measure and detect it?

[xzins]

There are very few choices for relieving ones sexual needs. Only one of them is acceptable.

If you had only one choice for food, imagine how difficult that would be. We have a passable illustration in our day with the Atkins diet in which carbohydrates are forbidden. Many, many people testify to breaking out of that diet in short order because of the overwhelming urge to return to carbs....a food they had learned to be acceptable. (While it is not possible to push the illustration too far, it is a picture of what denial of a choice means when there are limited choices.)

[adam_az]

So you don't believe in love? or can you show a way to measure and detect it?

Making the analogy between God and Love, are you making the argument that God is nothing but a mental state, and that He can dissapear if you stop feeling him?

[adam_az]

How is it then, that humans are among the most fragile of all the mammals?

Brains and opposing thumbs. I'm not surprised you missed the brains part, but opposing thumbs! You shoulda gotten that part, at least.

[adam_az]

You are clearly a fool, I'm not surprised no one claims you.

And you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, either. You cannot claim the high ground by claiming that your particular viewpoint is the one which others must disprove. Your say-so is not empirical proof either. It is not the Christian who must prove that God exists, it is the Atheist such as yourself which must prove that He doesn't. Because if He does, you're screwed.<

No problem, I'll get right on it once you prove that Zeus, Allah, and Shiva don't exist without using the bible as proof.

[armydoc]

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

The Christian belief system is faith founded on historical facts (i.e. hundreds of eye-witnesses, fullfillment of hundreds of prophecies, our very existence, etc), so to say God is not provable is not entirely correct. Yes, faith is required, but God gave us many facts supporting His existence.


"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." "

You might as well say fact and truth have no place in modern science, because modern science at least so far has not been able to explain the existence of the universe. Ask any athiest physicist, and he would tell you that he is sure that the existence of the universe can be explained without a Creator, but he certainly can't fully explain the details. He may be able to nicely explain basic scientific principals, but certainly cannot prove the origin of our existence. So, a belief that God does not exist also requires an element of faith.

[adam_az]

You might as well say fact and truth have no place in modern science, because modern science at least so far has not been able to explain the existence of the universe. Ask any athiest physicist, and he would tell you that he is sure that the existence of the universe can be explained without a Creator, but he certainly can't fully explain the details. He may be able to nicely explain basic scientific principals, but certainly cannot prove the origin of our existence. So, a belief that God does not exist also requires an element of faith.

There is a vast difference between science saying it can't answer certain questions yet, and religious yahoos who take that as proof that one possibility among multitudes, the God explanation, is true. As for the rest of your comment, I'll ignore it since you can't produce a single person who has seen Jesus for 2000 years, unless you count the loonies who see his image in dried up tortillas, peeling paint, and middle-ages forgeries.

[MattAMiller]

Some people aren't born with fully formed sex organs. The vagina is sometimes simply a fold of skin. Are these people not physiologically heterosexual?

If straight man suffers a horrible accident and loses his penis is he no longer straight?

[tuesday afternoon]

Because same sex acts are forbidden in the OT, the NT, the Koran, and the Vedas

Also Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Dalai Lama.

[armydoc]

"There is a vast difference between science saying it can't answer certain questions yet, and religious yahoos who take that as proof that one possibility among multitudes, the God explanation, is true. As for the rest of your comment, I'll ignore it since you can't produce a single person who has seen Jesus for 2000 years, unless you count the loonies who see his image in dried up tortillas, peeling paint, and middle-ages forgeries."

You can't produce a single person who has seen Napoleon, George Washington, or a host of other well-documented historical figures. I guess it's just faith to believe they existed. Jesus Christ is one of the most well-documented historic figures in history. The overwhelming majority of historians acknowledge He existed. There is plenty of historical evidence. You will acknowledge Him in the future. I pray you do in this lifetime.

[xzins]

Answered above.

An accident as you mention doesn't change ones chromosomes.

[adam_az]

Why don't you address the other part of my comment?

"There is a vast difference between science saying it can't answer certain questions yet, and religious yahoos who take that as proof that one possibility among multitudes, the God explanation, is true."

Just like evidence that Jesus was a living human doesn't automagically mean that he was also the Hebrew Messiah, and that just because someone can't prove that he wasn't doesn't mean that he must have been.