Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

Gilbert Williams’ outrageous lies about homosexuality among dumb animals is simply shameful. Homosexuality comprises a barren act that serves no useful purpose in nature, therefore no collection of living creatures whether man or animal, can sustain themselves from generation to generation exclusively through this practice – it brings death. Furthermore, since when do we look to animals for guidance on sexual morality: animals routinely practice incestuous relationships, polygamy and spousal abuse. Does Gilbert Williams, suggest we do the same?

Additionally, if homosexual acts were also practiced among animals, then such acts would be readily observed by all and sundry and there is no need to learn of such accounts in books.

Besides, if homosexual unions were historically so acceptable, natural and as commonplace as Mr. Williams claims then, how and why did it come to pass that homosexuality is universally outlawed, until recently, in all countries and condemned by all major religions?

Now consider this Ken Scott: a 1978 American study found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals estimated they had sex with more than 500 partners and 28 per cent had more than 1 000 partners (clearly a neurosis); the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (including hepatitis) was seven times higher among homosexuals and in some categories it was as high as 20 times; the life expectancy from all causes of homosexual males was 43, and with the advent of AIDS, it is now 39. A BBC report of June 26, 2003 mentioned that the incidence of AIDS among homosexuals was ten times higher than that in the general population; and 52 per cent of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals. In summary, homosexuality is unhealthy and condemns our young men to an early grave. Given these glaring statistics, opposing the homosexual cause is neither stupid nor ignorant.

The laws of Barbados permit marriage between one man and one woman, which is as much a prescription against homosexuality as it is against bigamy. It applies equally to every man and woman. There is no discrimination; it protects every one equally. The law must not be changed because you do not feel good obeying it.

The book “Religious Apartheid” quoted statistics which revealed that 75 per cent of all paedophiles in the US are homosexual. Mr. Scott’s assertion that most homosexuals abhor child abuse rings hollow since I am yet to hear organisations such as Lambada, GLAD or ACT-up publicly denounce NAMBLA for its public policy of molesting little eight-year-old boys. What you do not say also condemns you.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children; the trauma and shame visited on children raised by two “mummies” or two “daddies” should not be a burden society imposes on children. Children are not pet puppies who need only to be fed and housed; they also need moral and spiritual guidance. Children should not be recruited into a social experiment to further the political agenda of militant homosexuals. If homosexuals truly wished to have and to care for children they would forgo their homosexual lifestyles and enter stable heterosexual relationships since American surveys indicate that less than one per cent of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual, which means that they can and do perform sexually with someone of the opposite sex.

We do not need the psuedo-science of sociologists, psychiatrists or psychologists to tell us that homosexuality is wrong; they masquerade ideology as science. The “Bible” condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms and that is enough for us.

Ken Scott, God did not make you a homosexual. Your homosexuality is the result of a deprivation neurosis and in trying to deal with that neurosis you have developed an inordinate sexual attachment or attraction to other men just as other people in dealing with a neurosis they develop an inordinate attachment to people, objects or substances. For the homosexual is insecure in his gender identity and in his confusion he attempts to attach himself to someone of the same sex in an effort to attain an identity. It is a disordered love. However, you have chosen to believe the lies of psychologists.

People are not born with a disposition that is impossible to change – even dumb animals are trained to conduct themselves in ways that run counter to their natures. If homosexuality is accepted because of sexual orientation, then there is no sensible reason to reject paedophilia or bestiality since these too can be regarded as sexual orientation.

Ken Scott, thank you for not coming to Barbados and please discourage others of your homosexual persuasion not to visit. Rejecting immorality is discrimination.

Although gays do not by themselves reproduce, they may have historically assisted in the maintenance of the hunting band or tribe by making use of positive gifts that seem to go with homosexuality: artistic gifts (aiding communication), intuition (medicine/spirit-world), ...

So you are saying that sucking c#ck makes a man more artistic and more spiritual? Do you have any objective evidence of that?

Regardless of one's religious views on homosexuality, I can't think of any other "Life style" that young people could choose to engage in that would totally ruin their lives for ever, that is being forced on society as being normal and benign.

What self-respecting loving parent would encourage their children to take part in any activity that would put them at risk for deseases, decrease their life span, increase their chances for drug addication, rape, assault, and early death?

Yet, those loving parents are demonized as homophobic and mean spirited and intolerant.

Shame on all of them.

Posit: Homosexual behavior spreads terminal disease at epidemic rates among its practitioners, serves no useful purpose for society and causes excessive lost productivity both for those who contract the disease(s), those who must divert care from other conditions to care these diseased homosexuals and those who (through taxation) provide funding for the care and research for a cure/vaccine (in lieu of the same for diseases that are less avoidable and more widespread).
Posit: All human societies, in the interest of self preservation, limit, discourage, or prohibit by law voluntary activities which serve no useful purpose to society and cause excessive lost productivity both for those who contract the disease(s), those who must divert care from other conditions to care these diseased individuals and those who provide funding for the care and research for a cure/vaccine.
Conclusion: Society should, in the interest of self preservation and increased productivity, limit, discourage or attempt to prevent homosexual behavior through law.

Posit: In an otherwise, normally functional (in a societal sense) and responsibly productive adult, and without a connected, or dependent, activity or action (e.g., speech, physical deeds, etc.), no proclivity or emotional predisposition has any meaning for legal regulation or even mild societal sanction.
Posit: Sexual orientation is a proclivity or an emotional predisposition.
Conclusion: Unless a normally functional (in a societal sense) and responsibly productive adult acts on his or her sexual orientation, there can be no legal sanction, discrimination, or other societal repercussion, i.e., it is impossible to discriminate against anyone purely on the basis of sexual orientation absent attendant actions.
Corollary: A celibate individual who exhibits no action or speech identifying that individual’s sexual orientation suffers no legal or societal sanction including unfair discrimination.
Counter?

"are saying that sucking c#ck makes a man more artistic and more spiritual? Do you have any objective evidence of that? "

You weren't asking me, but I have lots of evidence that women who love sucking c#ck are much more artistic, imaginative and interesting than those who don't.

But maybe I'm wrong. What's your experience been like on that point?

The native Americans (at least the Ohlone out by San Francisco) were very tolerant of homosexuality, even though they were strict about gender roles. Men were allowed to live as husband and "wife," but one had to permanently give up hunting and do the domestic tasks with the women. Their civilization was doing fine until a bunch of illegal immigrants showed up from Spain.

Certain cancers of the male reproductive system are very prevalent among Catholic priests and religious who do not masturbate. Just as breast cancers are statistically higher among nuns.

So now that they've finished with Big Tobacco, and after they're done going after Big Food, who do you think the lawyers will attack next? Big Nunnery?

"Posit: Homosexual behavior spreads terminal disease at epidemic rates among its practitioners"

What if they don't have anal intercourse? What if one guy squeezes his thighs together and the other guy rubs his c#ck between them. That's how the ancient greeks did it. I mean, when you think about it that way, it's not so different from a women squeezing her breasts together while her lover rubs his c#ck between them. Maybe the government could offer clinics on gay sex as part of a public health campaign for safer sex?

Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

Neither does my drinking of beer. Or skiing. Or having two cats, who don't do anything around the house except barf up hairballs from time to time.

And while we're at it, I don't need an SUV - having that big vehicle serves no useful purpose, I should have a compact car - or better yet, take mass transit. We should not just determine if something is useful, but we should make sure that people are doing things the best way possible. Set up a government agency to do just that. Call it the Bureau of Usefulness, and get John Cleese to play the director.

There are many good arguments against homosexuality (it goes beyond lack of usefulness to being a major public health problem, for example), but I am leary of those who demand that an activity serve a useful purpose to be allowed. They're usually overweening busybodies who want to pry their way into every aspect of your life, with the government as their crowbar.

Since 75% of all pedophiliacs are homosexuals does anyone doubt this is part of the goal?

It's always fun and easy to throw around statistics with nothing backing them up. Until I see some numbers, I will contiue to doubt that pedophilia is part of the gay agenda. Using your logic, one could posit that pedophilia is also part of the Catholic doctrine, now couldn't one?

The nuns and priests are only killing themselves. So I don't see any need for government intervention.

Hmm ... there's a principle there. I wonder how it applies to gay sex?

OH I KNOW! The government shouldn't make criminalize consensual gay sex between adults in the privacy of their own home, no matter how unhealthy people think it is.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong about that, the government should teach the importance of masturbation for male reproductive health (ie prostrate cancer) and run commercials encouraging young boys and young men to masturbate at LEAST five times a week, since studies indicate that's the frequency at which the risk of prostrate cancer diminishes considerably. I suppose for perfect symmetry one might consider making it a crime for parents, religious leaders or anyone else to tell young boys or young men differently, but I'm not sure if people are ready to accept full-blown symmetry arguments.

If God created us, we have His opinion, if the universe created itself and rocks created us, we're supposed to have natural selection and survival of the fittest. Either way, homos are either against God or against nature (or both).

You said yourself, "It's really, really simple." yes, dataman, your worldview is apparently a bit too simple. I know you believe the Judeo-Christian god created Adam and Eve and everything else in Genesis. Fine. I'll ignore the inherent silliness of the resulting generations of incest that would have been necessary with that (and a few thousand years later after the great flood). I'll even ignore your thinly veiled jab of evolution, because I think your ignorance is readily apparent (where on earth did you get the notion that "rocks created us?!")

However, my worldview is a bit more complicated because I believe everything isn't so black and white. Homo sapiens come in all stripes, some straight, some gay, some in between. Some male, more female, with all kinds of in-betweens. I hate that I'm sounding a tad liberal here, but it's true.

"I hate that I'm sounding a tad liberal here"

Liberals have a complicated view of the facts and conservatives have a "really, really simple" worldview?

That's disheartening. I was going to cite GW as a counter-example, but I wasn't sure it would be convincing.

A celibate individual who exhibits no action or speech identifying that individual’s sexual orientation suffers no legal or societal sanction including unfair discrimination. Counter?

Sure - it sounds to me like you're saying, in essence, that no one gets busted for thought-crimes if they keep their thoughts to themselves, or no one gets in trouble for what is known only to them. I have no disagreement with that, but I fail to see the relevance to my earlier post. I objected to your characterization of homosexuality as 'choice or mental illness,' and since you've changed your position to "Sexual orientation is a proclivity or an emotional predisposition" it sounds like you agree with me. Of course, I personally believe that no one should be sanctioned for orientation or activity - neither one is any of my business - but that's another topic...

I'm afraid I may not be able to continue this thread - I'm getting married on Saturday (to a woman :-) ), and my time is no longer my own - but I'll try to check back.

"Homosexuality serves no useful purpose"

Not so. It feeds the families and careers of thousands of scientists sucking at government teats around the planet.

And, ironically enough, it gives thousands of "gay activists" a reason for living -- namely, the AIDS epidemic...

Substitute just about any behavior for homosexuality and your statement breaks down. Try, for example, gluttony. Fat kids don't remember making a choice to be fat. Kids with bad tempers don't rember making the choice. Neither are natural or healthy states.

Aren't they? People come in all sizes and dispositions, and every kid who is chunkier than is friends or testier than his peers is not mentally ill. Of course, your point is that there are extremes of morbid obesity and uncontrollable rage that are indicative of illness, and you put homosexuality in this class on the scale of sexual behavior. I simply don't agree - I'm no psychologist, but I've seen no credible research to lead me to change my mind. So again, I maintain that homosexuality is a normal state, neither choice nor illness.

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.