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.
Yes, it suffers many drawbacks, but truth and accuracy are not among them, are they?
a) Only heterosexuals are marital couples.
incorrect. fails the existence disproof. Married homosexuals do exist. There are just fewer in number is all.
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?
So...what you are basically saying is that there aren't any reliable statistics worth looking at, eh? How about we all just refrain from battering either gender-choice over the head with statistics, then? Homosexuality is designed for different circumstances than these statistics were collected in; circumstances where the long-term drawbacks of homosexual intercourse are not very likely to have time to be noticed before the particpants get eaten.
That is a totally mis-directed refutation, caused by far too casual reading of the argument I have presented. Of course it is a small percentage now. Times are good now, and that favors pair-bonding over the alternative scheme: harem-keeping by the alphas and redirection for everyone else.
Science has found no biological etiology, pointing more toward environmental/behavioral factors, such as abuse.
And again, lots of words--no sign of comprehension. The gist of my argument is that scarce resources produce stress in the young in a manner that is emblematic of scarce resources: missing parents-uncertainty-neglect-resentment-rejection, and that stress determines gender choice.
As usual, you are re-enforcing my argument when you think you are attacking it--which comes from not being bothered to understand it.
The transfer of bodily fluids does not occur in the former.
As for your notions about the anus--how is it that it can accomodate several items often bigger in diameter than a c#ck, several times a week without tearing, or giving out from exhaustion?
The rectum does tear. It is a well-known fact that anal intercourse causes minute tears in the tissue abetting the transfer of the AIDS virus. The sphincter does wear out. My nurse friend told me of a patient who suffered a fairly normal GI bleed, but his poured out his rectum because his sphincter was destroyed.
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.
At least you admit the statistics are unavoidably persuasive.
It probably happened sometime after monotremes hit the stage, which would probably put it sometime between 45 and 30 million years ago. What's your point? They are both sensitive for similar reasons. If we didn't still like the feel of large things going through our anal sphincters, we'd be pretty stove up by now. Do you go into a panic at the thought of a bowel movement?
Any more often than in the latter. Are you reading before you answer?
Just as pursuasive as they are irrelevant.
This guy has nailed it and has actually voiced it. Way to go guy
Everything tears. That's not a pursuasave arguement either. It is not our primary job to get to our graves with a perfect rectum.
Tammy Bruce, in her book, Death of Right and Wrong, said that of the hundreds of homosexual men she has talked to (and she is a lesbian) reported sexual abuse as a child or adolescent. This is a behavioral problem which is probably exacerbated by unstable family situations, i.e. creating children at risk. Stress does not determine gender. Abuse does.
BTW, you still haven't answered my question: when did the "separation of rear openings" occur? Or have you decided to give up on that tack?
And why would that be? Why isn't abuse remarkable for causing, oh, lets say--paralysis, or color-blindness?
I answered you in post 284. How about a little more reading and a little less impatience?
Condoms are not failproof. Not to mention the practice and resurgence of barebacking among homosexuals.
I was busy.
30 to 45 million years ago? Hardly the recent past. The differentiation between excrement and sexual openings happened for a reason. The amount of illness that occurs by trying to use the rectum as a sexual opening is proof enough.
Now there's a perfect example of donh's ignorance. He clearly doesn't understand anything I've said which apparently comes from not being bothered to understand it.
When donh asks: "Why isn't abuse remarkable for causing, oh, lets say--paralysis, or color-blindness? it's yet another sign of profound ignorance behind the major factor causing homosexuality or he's playing games.
Comments like this speak volumes: It is not our primary job to get to our graves with a perfect rectum..
Take a look at the homoerotic behavior examples for bonobos, dogs, etc and compare that to the major factors behind the causes of homosexuality and you realize just how far donh is pushing this misdirection. The two are completely unrelated.
The question was, is the tendency to homosexual behavior an inherited trait?
The answer is "no".
Answer: Playing games.
Everything you've said makes sense, is rational, backed up by incredible amounts of research and evidence, and consistent.
It's funny, every time someone tries to argue that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, and people are likely born "that way", they can never - I repeat, NEVER - provide any - NOT ONE - article, study, or evidence of any kind that supports their side.
All they can do is label, demean, use straw man arguments, shoot the messenger, sidestep, switch, use sleight of hand and so on.
It's laughable. And they always sound so angry, too...
We have a great team of folks pointing us to more and more information on the subject.
It's quite possible some people aren't interested in learning the truth about homosexuality, which may be due to their believing they already know the answers. We can only tell folks what the experts and what former homosexuals are saying, and if they don't want to listen, shake the dust off our feet and ignore them.
It's funny, every time someone tries to argue that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, and people are likely born "that way", they can never - I repeat, NEVER - provide any - NOT ONE - article, study, or evidence of any kind that supports their side.
Some will do whatever they can to change the subject. The entire animal angle is interesting - too bad it has nothing to do with the subject but it makes for a great diversion. Still, some of them are good folks, that is, it's good to ignore them.
Hmm - shake the dust off. I just read that this afternoon.
:-)
It saves you lots of time! ;-)
Answer the question put to you. You can't gainsay an argument by bleating like stuck pig over and over.
You don't think there is any way to reform the public education system?
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.