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?

[little jeremiah]

I'm disposed to the idea that the causes for homosexuality are different for men than they are for women.

In scripter's index of articles, there is much evidence that poor parenting (or lack thereof) as well as childhood sexual abuse or early seduction are very common in homosexuals. And children and adolescents are a lot easier to seduce and abuse when they have been indoctrinated since childhood that "gay is good". Note all the "Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered and QUESTIONING" youth groups and clubs.

From what I have read, it seems reasonable that a small percentage of homosexuals had an inborn psychological imbalance or whatever that made them prone to same sex attraction. But those who have made this their study say that it is primarily nurture, and childhood experiences.

A very high percentage of female homosexuals were sexually abused by men, when they were children. So many fear men.

[BibChr]

I've made peace with God on His terms, so the threat-issue is all yours, fool.

Dan

[RobbyS]

inborn psychological Is this not an oxymoron, since all psycholocal facts we have are from observing people after birth?

[TheSpottedOwl]

OK, how about this.

1) Jesus is King.

2) Zeus is King.

3) Bill Clinton is the Second Coming of the Messiah.

Which of these statements is true?

What proof can you present that one statement is true, and the others are false?

You forgot #4...Lemmy is God.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Has your wife or significant other ever performed an act of oral or manual sex on you? Unnatural! That's not what the parts were designed for! And if so, SO WHAT?

You mean "SO WHAT" besides blow jobs being a mortal sin? Oral (and anal) sex is a sick perversion. Its homosexuality glossed over and gussied up for heterosexual consumption. Part of the homosexualization of the American male.

American males caught up in oral and anal sex are just sick perverts, no matter whether it is with their wife, or with a random male or little boy.

[Theo]

People are born with all sorts of faulty mental/emotional/psychological faculties, from fetal alchohol syndrome to Downs syndrome and so on. It seems reasonable that people can be born with any sort of mental/emotional/psychological defect.

I believe the homosexual tendency to be a defect from what God intends, from what is "right," from what is "normal." People can be healed from that defect, just as people are healed of broken arms or cancer.

To clarify my position -- the "tendency" is a defect. Acting on that desire is "sinful." Homosexual inclinations aren't necessarily sin, while homosexual behavior is clearly a sin.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

How we know God exists:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

[scripter]

The facts keep mounting up against homosexuality.


1. 100% of homosexuals have heterosexual physiology.
2. Homosexuality causes awesome disease and kills the practitioner.
3. Homosexuals can change to heterosexual practice.

An accurate summary of what we know. In addition to the above:

4. Studies show that genetics isn't a factor in determining homosexuality.

Numbers 3 and 4 support each other. That is environment is the major factor in determining homosexuality.

[adam_az]

I've made peace with God on His terms, so the threat-issue is all yours, fool.

Let's play "how many sins has Dan committed in this thread?" I'll give you a head start, the statement you made above is prideful and boastful.

[adam_az]

OK, so you made another argument based on the existence of a God.

Your task is to prove that one exists, and then prove that others don't exist.

I didn't postulate the existence of anything other than a logical flaw in the authors argument.

[adam_az]

What you say will have force only with those homosexuals and their supporters who are atheists. Now, what about those homosexuals who claim that God exists?

What about them? It's not my business to tell people how to live their lives. I only take offense at having property stolen to pay for the consequences of other peoples bad decisions.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Jamie Lee Curtis is the most famous of these types....

Are you sure? Gosh but does she ever look like a fine woman here ...

[BibChr]

Factual. Romans 5:1 for the first statement, Psalm 14:1 for the second.

Gosh, haven't you even GLANCED at the Bible? Typical.

So, to sum:

1. Excellent article.
2. Homosexuality is a perversion viewed from any angle.
3. The God-threatened will have a problem with that.

Dan

[adam_az]

Although Christian beleif must ultimately be based on faith, there are facts which demonstrate that it is true. The Bible itself says that nature declares that there is a God and that no one has an excuse for rejection of God.

Although Muslim beleif must ultimately be based on faith, there are facts which demonstrate that it is true. The Koran itself says that nature declares that there is a Allah and that no one has an excuse for rejection of Allah. Discuss.

[adam_az]

science has no instruments for this exercise.

That's why religion is an exceedingly bad basis for argument, particularly when it takes the form of the bedrock facts of an argument. Unless you are the kind of person who likes to build their house on sand.

[scripter]

To clarify my position -- the "tendency" is a defect. Acting on that desire is "sinful." Homosexual inclinations aren't necessarily sin, while homosexual behavior is clearly a sin.

That's a good clarification. I think you might find this informative:

How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together

From everything I've read I'd say the above is a good summary of the issues.

[adam_az]

Have you ever passed a reading comprehension test?

Yes, which is why I don't read the rest of a post when I comprehend a childish insult in the first sentence.

[steve-b]

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?

I certainly can't, given that this reaction doesn't reduce the amount of body heat lost by humans -- the vestiges of body hair just don't raise any barrier to the wind.

Another day, another goofball argument down in flames.

[TheSpottedOwl]

What about them? It's not my business to tell people how to live their lives. I only take offense at having property stolen to pay for the consequences of other peoples bad decisions.

Ok, so where do you stand on the issue of male lesbians?