Posted on 12/07/2004 6:56:46 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
August 9, 2004 - An Australian medical ethics expert told an audience at a marriage conference recently that homosexuals are excluding themselves from marriage and family by refusing to join the great "circle of life."
Dr. David van Gend told the audience, "By its very nature, homosexuality has excluded itself. It has stepped outside the circle of life--the timeless, endless natural circle of male and female, parent and offspring."
He notes that the origins of homosexual behavior are complex, but "whatever its origins, the outcome of homosexuality is best understood as a very complex state of confusion over sexual identity."
Van Gend cites the National Health and Social Life Survey published in 1994 in the U.S. In this survey, 8% of the 16-year-olds thought they were gay--but, "significantly, that by age 18 only 4% still thought they were gay, and by age 25, only 2 percent still thought they were gay. What that means is that most sexual confusion in school children clears away if left to iteslf. It doesn't need therapy or counseling. It is a passing phase..."
CNSnews.com has more details on this story: "Homosexuals Are Excluding Themselves From Marriage, Family." The Thomas More Centre in Brisbane has posted a speech on homosexuality from a medical perspective by Dr. van Gend on its web site: Thomas More Centre.
Indeed. Just the fact that former homosexuals exist answers a lot of questions about homosexuality.
It's not sex, that's the so part. There is no penetration into the dog being 'humped'. Neither dog experiences an orgasm.
"Not to belabor the point overmuch but the question wasn't "is it a good idea at the present moment, to be a homosexual". The question was, is the tendency to homosexual behavior an inherited trait?"
Don't think so, and there's no convincing evidence to suggest that it is.
According to evolutionary theory, that would have been eons ago. Since sexual stimulus of the anus would be counterproductive from an evolutionary point of view, one would think those 'nerves' and 'emotional triggers' would have been selected out.
You're arrogant and offensive replies to Scriper's reasoned comments are too much.
Your support of homosexuality using bird's cloakas is stupid and clutching at straws.
The general rule here from the couple plus years I've been around is that if someone asks you not to post to them, you don't.
If you want to post articles defeating his points, why not go ahead and do it? If all you can do is bleat about evolutionary anuses, why don't you start your own thread?
"A high percentage of marriages end in bitter divorce. A disturbing percentage of those same marriages manifest domestic violence."
Loud, ignorant twaddle. Roughly 50% of marriages end in divorce, but this figure includes those who marry and divorce repeatedly, so for first marriages the divorce rate is significantly lower. The misuse of the "50% divorce" factoid is getting tiresome. But those who want to destroy the natural family and promote immorality and homosexuality love to obfuscate facts to give their position false validity.
And "bitter"? And "disturbing percentage"? What kind of loud ignorant twaddle is this?
You said:
"If he doesn't want me to respond, all he has to do is genuinely sign off."
So you're saying that in order for Scripter to request you not to respond, he has to quit posting on FR? WTF?
What we see a lot here is folks, as Satinover says, clinging to ideas that have proven wrong. And one such idea is the animal/homosexuality myth. Those who still cling to ideas proven wrong just need to keep reading.
The really great news today is: The number of former homosexuals continues to grow despite the fact that some people deny their existence.
If they want to know what is really the truth. If they want to cling to their belief system, right or wrong, that's a different matter.
BTW, I used to be completely laissez faire about homosexuality - I figured everyone should be free to "do their thing", who was I "to judge", etc. But after informing myself over the course of several years, I realized that the "gay" agenda was real, dangerous, and meant harm. That was over 15 - wait, about 18 years ago. Now the evidence is overwhelming that homosexual behavior is not normal, unhealthy, but is NOT carved in stone. The very good news is that people can change.
And the "gay" rights people do not want others to know this. That is just wrong.
Yes, indeed, if they had been, obviously, they have not, or we wouldn't have homosexual behavior.
Does it strike you as likely that that's what I mean?. He just as to stop whacking me with a verbal stick when he asks me to stop posting to him. How is that hard to understand from what I've written?
Well, probably the same kind of ignorant twaddle it takes to suggest that most long-term homosexual unions are disturbed and unhealthy, because of the behavior of the tomcats in that crowd.
Show me one of my comments that don't accompany a derogatory or dismissive comment from scripter on the subject, or directed toward me. I'll leave a space below.
The general rule here from the couple plus years I've been around is that if someone asks you not to post to them, you don't.
The general rule of civilized, polite humans is that you don't snipe rudely at someone while you are asking them to leave you alone, and then whine when you get the appropriate response.
If you want to post articles defeating his points, why not go ahead and do it? If all you can do is bleat about evolutionary anuses, why don't you start your own thread?
I've already presented my case, which is pretty bleeding obvious on the available data, and there has been no attempt to wrestle with it, just vague, patronizing & dismissive attempts to claim victory without ever showing up for the bout, such as this.
...
...
As I already explained several times, that's wishful thinking. The article you are waving around here supports my claim that there are lots of reasons why physical sexual pleasure and the often-concommited affection that accompanies it had value for your DNA that easily outweighed the cost, given the way we were molded in tight tribal communities by the veldt for millions of years.
An example of this wrong-headedness--the article dismisses dog mounting behavior because it is dominence behavior. So what? It's also affection behavior to establish a wolf-hierarchy with another wolf--it puts you in the tribe, instead of starving and being beaten up. That was my point--transfer of affection means transfer of resources, and that's what matters when it comes to raising young. You are more likely to grow up safe and sound if you have more resource providers because many of your kin don't mate reproductively. Which is exactly what we observe happening over and over with large, slow-breeding social predators. Hard times cause a restraint from reproductive mating--but they do not stop the mating urge (it is far to strong), so a substitute behavior will be found. Further, just as it was better for the Spartan military engine, it would have been better for primative tribes struggling to get by, not to cancel out the urges that cause you to grow fond of those around you, even if it's necessary to cut down the supply of children by refraining from reproduction.
So it's a double whammy. If you are being molded as a tribe by natural selection, with frequent hard times to get through, it will pay dividends, when times are hard, to prevent potentially fertile copulation while promoting the affection toward others in the group that copulation produces.
And, getting back to the article, that is exactly what we observe: when individuals are stressed out, or made to feel unwanted by their social environment, they turn in droves to homosexuality. That's why you always hear these awful stories about their repressive, hurtful, or distancing families from homosexuals. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. If the tribe is stressed, and you can tell you aren't an alpha male--the ancient signals your body is getting say, "avoid procreation".
Well, that would be wrong. It happens quite frequently, if their aren't disgusted humans interfering.
Of course there is. It is prevalent in our near relatives, it is prevalent in primative tribes, and it exists in every culture, including those that have tried to stamp it out.
definition of Misdirection: preferring to make his own points rather than following me around like a puppet on a string helping me make mine.
Perhaps his ignorance can be cured by reading what former homosexuals have said on the subject.
Do you often consult homosexuals regarding social behavior? What do you find especially insightful about them? How have you managed to confuse this testimony with actual evidence or close, critical reasoning?
If donh doesn't want his misdirection pointed out all he has to do is stop using misdirection. Apparently he thinks he's above being questioned.
Apparently, having asked the moderator to defend his precious person from me, scripter will now hide behind your skirts while he snipes.
"many studies have concluded that the percentage of gay people is closer to 10%" Let's see some backup for that.
BTTT
Lots of lots of words. Let's see, your main points are that since some animals hump other male animals, homosexuality is natural and normal.
Wow.
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.