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.
I think you're doing a fine job. Sometimes we could all use some clarification - I'm just too busy to go back and re-read my own posts and do the same.
Oh I don't think there is any question about it at all, it obviously is an natural tendency for a small "genetically isolated" minority of both man and animals.
However...
You are still ignoring the point re the difference between man and animals, the volitional and reasoning abilities which man has and animals don't. This difference is far from "irrelevant". Man can know the hootus in the anus is illogical and unreasonable because he is man, animals cannot know the hootus in the anus is illogical and unreasonable because they are animals. (BTW it's hootus not hooter, hootUs as in "How Do I Get Herculiner Off of My Hootus?!"). Pure "natural tendency" is called instinct and is something animals cannot rise above without the reason and volition that only man has. When man refuses to use his reason and volition he reverts to inborn animal instinct and acts like animal.
"If humans live in genetically isolated tribes, as they did for about 3 million years, give or take a tad, then investing in your tribes collection of your near relatives, rather than in your own personal DNA destiny, is bound to be a cinch bet for your DNA."
But humans don't "live in genetically isolated tribes" these days do they? This is the 21st century, Man. Man is not a bird. Man is not an animal (even though he sometimes acts like it.) Human women have two holes. Human men have only one. Every man can be the alpha male of a family unit as there are plenty of women. But not when he chooses the stinky hole. My brother does not provide resources for my children. I do not provide resources for my sisters children. I provide resources for my children. My two uncles do not provide resources for me, in fact they ripped off the inheritance from their siblings and their siblings children. A chicken might tell you none of this is not true. But a chicken is, after all, a chicken and Man, is Man.
So get with it, Man.
"Practicing sodomy is like taking a crap on your keyboard before you type. A high percentage of marriages end in bitter divorce. A disturbing percentage of those same marriages manifest domestic violence. Clearly, practicing heterosexuality is like taking a crap on your keyboard."
You brought up using fingers for the "unatural act" of typing as a pitifully anemic analogy in "defense" of sodomy. Stay focused. No one takes a crap on their keyboard before typing. No one has to give either their fingers or keyboards enemas before typing. Your analogy stinks, just like sodomy.
Actually Kinsey came up with a figure of 3% hardcore homosexuals, almost the same as the 2.8% figure of the Lawrence brief (which iincludes bisexual men). The 10% figure came from any indulgence, but since he used lots of prisoners and sexual offenders for his studies, the number would naturally be skewed.
How about a quote from a leading gay conservative on monogamous relationships:
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Biologically the rectum is not designed for sex. 60% of US AIDS cases occur in 1.4% of the the population: homosexual men. Not to mention the havoc it wreaks on the rectum, per a nurse friend of mine.
That's not in the least my main point, which you would know if you had been reading with your brights turned on. That's just one of a host of manifestations of sexual behavior giving a survival advantage other than by direct reproduction. Do you think it's a survival advantage for an outlier wolf to enter a dominence hierarchy, or do you think it's the most advantagous to be pummeled and killed or driven away.
It is, of course, not normal in good times like these, as for being natural--that's a slam dunk on the evidence: nature is pretty ruthless about adding doo-dads to creatures for no particularly good reason.
If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?From the conclusion:
the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.The entire animal homosexuality issue as it relates to humans is subterfuge. In How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together we have a great summary of how it all happens. And of course this has nothing to do with animal behavior. It's all a ruse demonstrating a profound ignorance of homosexuality.
Right. Because we live in good times, and not in the isolated tribes where our behavior was bred, so we pretty much all want the luxury of pair-bonding, even though few of us are alphas. If you want to make a homosexual, there's nothing to it--deprive him of his parents, feed him irregularly, accompanied with disdane or outright abuse, make sure he never feels like a competent person, much less a leader regarding anything, and by the age of 18, you will have a full blown sissy man, flat out guaranteed. That's what accounts for the presistent presence of homosexuals--ask wherever homeless kids hang out in your city if you need vivid evidence--these kids are doing exactly what wolves do--trading sex for survival, not babies. That is what accounts for the vast majority of homosexual behavior, and it is plainly obvious that it accounts for most of the 3 to 10 percent that is being pointlessly niggling over here.
Give a kid the right signals, and just as nature intended, he will instinctively make the right choices for his gene's best chances. That is exactly what street kids and other prostitutes do--you couldn't ask for a more graphic demonstration. You are unlikely to procreate at all if you are dead of starvation or exposure or gangrape before you attain your majority--just as is the case with wolves.
It most certainly was designed for sex--the separation of rear openings is quite a recent innovation in genetic history.
60% of US AIDS cases occur in 1.4% of the the population: homosexual men. Not to mention the havoc it wreaks on the rectum, per a nurse friend of mine.
Uh huh, however, homosexuals in committed long term relationships are not amongst this statistic to any significant extent. Most marital abuse cases occur between heterosexual couples--why doesn't that raise alarm bells concerning heterosexual coupling?
why are rectal exams ok? Because they are pursued in moderation, in safe, clean conditions, perhaps?
And how is that not precisely my frequently re-iterated point?
You are still ignoring the point re the difference between man and animals, the volitional and reasoning abilities which man has and animals don't.
If I am ignoring your point, I am only returning the favor. As to reasoning ability--what is the reasoned recourse of an abused homeless kid close to dying of exposure on a cold rain, when offered a warm bed for the night? How is it different for that of an outlier wolf about to have his neck bit open by an alpha male?
Apparently, you do your reasoning from a nice, safe, warm spot in front of an expensive computer, which, in my opinion, distorts your judgement on this matter.
Your entire set of "arguments" (if they can be called such) are pretty much based on two premises:
1. The truth and validity of evolution, with extrapolation derived from animal behavior (defeated by Scripter above) and
2. Half truths and smoke-and-mirrors. Statements like "most marital abuse takes place in heterosexual couples". What a bogus statement. Why?
a) Only heterosexuals are marital couples.
b) Of course most spousal abuse takes place between a man and a woman since homosexuals are only around 2% of the population.
c) If you want to look at the abuse figures in truth, you have to figure it out using percentages of population, not raw numbers. Since homosexuals are around 2% of the population, what kind of statistics are there for partner abuse?
How recent? 100,000 years ago? 1 million?
Uh huh, however, homosexuals in committed long term relationships are not amongst this statistic to any significant extent.
Not many of those, according to studies:
1.) Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, but in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from 1-37 years, "all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for sexual activity outside of their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1984, pp. 252, 253
2.) Clinicians Mattison and Mcwhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop)
3.)In a study of 2,583 older homosexuals, "the model range for number of sexual partners was 101-500 (Paul Van de Ven "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Hoimosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354)
4. According to the Centers For Disease Control, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. NY: Dutton)
5.)For homosexual men, the term "monogamy" doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term "open relationship" has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealously, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), p. 213)
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1275961/posts
why are rectal exams ok? Because they are pursued in moderation, in safe, clean conditions, perhaps?
I've never had one, but I've heard they are not pleasant. Plus I assume they occur no more than once a year.
To compare anal sex to a rectal exam is a joke. Besides the rarity and cleanliness of the later, the former involves contact with fecal matter, a harbinger of disease. Hence the term "gay bowel syndrome", involving all sorts of parasitic diseases. Not to mention that the tissue of the rectum is fragile, leading to tears that facilitate the transfer of the AIDS virus.
Just a few statistics:
38. Women are four times more likely to be victims of domestic violence in a lesbian household than in a married household. (Claire Renzetti, Violent Betrayal) Married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships ("Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2)
39. The incidence of domestic violence among homosexual men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population (D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, New York: Haworth Press, 1991, p. 14).
From Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues
Great posts, placemarker.
Thanks :)
If you want to argue with me, you'd be better served to try to show why my arguments are incorrect. Making up arguments to attribute to me so you can soundly refute them is pointless. I don't give a tinker's poop about "defending the homosexual lifestyle"--so knock it off, you are wasting your time and my bandwidth.
Oh come now. What's the difference between an impermiable glove on a hand and an impermiable glove on a cock? All these issues can be bridged by people who are willing to be prudent and careful in pursuing sexual gratification--just as is the case with heterosexual couples. As for your notions about the anus--how is it that it can accomodate several items often bigger in diameter than a cock, several times a week without tearing, or giving out from exhaustion? Pretty curious, eh? I don't personally recommend it, but I also don't much care for arguments aimed at people who look to me like they haven't gotten their fair share of life's breaks, that seem to have more basis in malice or annoyance than in unavoidably pursuasive statistical justification.
Hogwash. Scripter's cited study supports my contentions better than they do his, as I have been at length to explain. If it's evolutionary theory that is giving you trouble, then I can't help you any further, we have no sound basis for discussion.
bttt
But these arguments do show that homosexuality is associated with incredibly high incidences of sexually-transmitted disease, promiscuity, physical violence, and emotional problems. It may be a coping mechanism but so is alcoholism.
If it hadn't had its uses it wouldn't exist, nature is parsimoneous that way.
What uses do alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, bestiality have? Your argument that homosexuality exists to parse out scarce resources makes no sense given the miniscule portion of the population in which it exists. Science has found no biological etiology, pointing more toward environmental/behavioral factors, such as abuse.
If you want to argue with me, you'd be better served to try to show why my arguments are incorrect.
I did. You didn't answer my question as to when the "separation of rear openings" occurred; presumably because you have no answer.
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.