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?

[xzins]

My flathead screwdriver doesn't lubricate at the thought of a philips screw. In fact, none of my screwdrivers self-lubricate at all.Your illustration doesn't apply.

But the human female does. What is the purpose of her lubrication?

[adam_az]

That's a distinction without a difference.

In fact, you came back asking what the "purpose" is.

What's the purpose of a screwdriver?

Are you a sinner if you open a paint can with one?

[adam_az]

Again, you will have to prove that god exists before you can prove he cares where you stick your weiner.

[thepainster]

At the risk of being napalmed.....I do not agree with his 100% number. Go do a google search on "unambiguous genitalia".

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

[Spiff]

Theology is Faith and Beleif, not fact.

Wrong. It is a fact that there is a God despite your refusal to believe it. If there was a box that neither you nor I could reach or measure in any way and I said that there was a cat in the box and you said that there was not, and then the box was opened it turned out there WAS a cat in the box, then my statement was fact and yours was not. You just refused to believe the cat was there.

Until we die or until the second coming of the Messiah, belief in God will be based upon faith - and that is how it should be. God will not allow Himself to be scientifically proven or measured, for then faith would no longer be required. It is by our faith that our worth is proven and when you ultimately realize that the existence of God was a fact all along, it could be too late for you.

[nothingnew]

Very good reply ErnBatavia. It is that simple. We don't take a dump in the kitchen sink and we don't wash the dishes in the toilet.

[xzins]

The author allows IN THE ARTICLE for other approaches. I've pointed that out to you. He says:******"Regardless from where you believe Mankind originated..."

---

That he afterwards approaches origins from his own standard of truth doesn't change the facts of the physiology that are the basis of his discussion.

In other words, I don't care how the physiology arrived at the point that it is; I just care about the facts of the physiology that are before us.

Does that make sense?

100% of homosexuals have heterosexual physiology.

[BibChr]

Answered. I guess it takes you more time to think honestly than to spurt, eh?

But then you wouldn't be trying to play the Big Tough Rational Atheist (contradiction in terms), would you?

Dan

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Further proof, IMO, that "gayness" is a mental illness and the APA erred by succumbing to pressure from the homosexual community in removing it from their list of pyschological disfunctions."

I would have to disagree with you here simply on the premise that if we call it a mental illness then we have to treat it.

Being Homosexual isn't a Mental Illness, like any other sex outside of Marriage between a Man and a Woman, it's a Sin. In this case, God calls it an abomination. I would take from that, that it's a really BAD sin, but I don't know what his attitude is about abominations :)

[PISANO]

I am afraid that FACTS and TRUTH mean little to NOTHING in the Alice in Wonderland world that the LEFTISTS occupy. Remember there HERO and LEADER is Bill Clinton who, as the most brilliant POTUS ever and a Rhodes Scholar reminds us that "IS" isn't really "IS" unless we want it to be!

[r9etb]

Show the proof that a god exists. What device can measure and detect it? What other non-measurable things do you "believe" in? Zeus? Allah?

It's a fair question. Karl Barth commented that, because of what God would have to be like, scientific proof of God's existence is probably not available. But scientific proof is not the only sort of proof available to us.

For example, I can truthfully tell you that I have a brother. I cannot scientifically prove to you that my brother exists -- I can only tell you that he does. Would you therefore argue against his existence?

Now let's go the next step: suppose you met my brother -- you would know that he existed. You could not, however, scientifically prove his existence to your friends who were not there. Does my brother exist? Of course: his existence is independent of whether or not you can prove it. Moreover, you would not conclude that the person you met does not exist, merely because you cannot scientifically prove his existence to others.

Now let us extend this to the idea of God. Suppose God makes Himself known to me. Thus, I know He exists. Does your skepticism change that? No. Can I introduce you to God? No. All I can do is suggest that you might open the door when God knocks -- as He always does. (And you know it, too -- else why would you be fighting it so very hard? ;-)

As for your questions concerning Zeus, Allah, or the tree sprite on the next block -- you've made the classic mistake of equating human perception with reality. Just because humans believe all manner of things, you cannot therefore conclude (as you seem to have done) the following:

1. You cannot conclude that because humans believe different things, that all such beliefs are incorrect.

2. You cannot conclude that it is impossible for some humans to have perceived the truth.

3. You cannot conclude that variability in human beliefs is equivalent to the non-existence of God.

[bk1000]

"Show the proof that a god exists. What device can measure and detect it?"

This is not the point. If man were made by some factory or assembly line, the author's point would still be valid.
All humans (except for the aforementioned rare hermaphrodite)
are indeed psysiologically heterosexual. Sex is by nature intended for reproduction. Homosexuality is strictly recreational.

[FourtySeven]

WOW........that is a really good post! I think I'll keep this one, somewhere, if you don't mind. hehe

[xzins]

First, it is a provable mathematical theorem that 99.999999 = 100% (I didn't know how to put the line over top of the final nine so I underlined it.)

Second, It's not "unambiguous;" it is "ambiguous."

It is a congenital defect. There have been ZERO congenital defects or missing X or Y chromosomes in homosexuals. Otherwise, you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that that discovery would have been trumpeted from every molehill in America.

"Certainly, humans are born with a number of abnormalities. One of these is called “intersex” which is found in an extremely rare fraction of one-per-cent of all babies. These have female organs, wombs and go through menstrual cycles, yet they have an oversized clitoris, which can grow to resemble a tiny penis. But normal girls have a set of XX chromosomes and normal men have a set of XY chromosomes. Babies born with a set of XO chromosomes are girls with Turner’s Syndrome. Those born with a set of XXY are boys with Klinefelter’s Syndrome. Science says a Y chromosome is essential for male development. Therefore, it is possible to say those with the Y chromosome are men. Those without the Y chromosome are women, despite confusing physical abnormalities.

[bk1000]

"That's a very clever statement, but here's the burden of proof on you: 1) Prove god existed, 2) Prove he created Adam and Eve. Hint: A book's say-so isn't empiric proof"

Prove He didn't. If it can't be proven that G-d does not exist it can be assumed that He must. The arguement is invalid. The point is regardless of it's origination,
the human body is made in such a way as to naturally facilitate heterosexual reproduction. Irrespective of your determined use of the associated components, the facts remain. If G-d is left out of the discussion altogether, the author's point is still valid

[adam_az]

Wrong. It is a fact that there is a God despite your refusal to believe it. If there was a box that neither you nor I could reach or measure in any way and I said that there was a cat in the box and you said that there was not, and then the box was opened it turned out there WAS a cat in the box, then my statement was fact and yours was not. You just refused to believe the cat was there.

That's a poor explanation and misuse of Shroedingers Cat. Of course, the box WOULD be reachable and measurable, for it is physical, and with some ingenuity, can be located and measured. If you can pull down the god-box and meausre it, please demonstrate.

Until we die or until the second coming of the Messiah, belief in God will be based upon faith - and that is how it should be. God will not allow Himself to be scientifically proven or measured, for then faith would no longer be required. It is by our faith that our worth is proven and when you ultimately realize that the existence of God was a fact all along, it could be too late for you.

That's just silly. Why won't He allow himself to be measured? Why should I believe in your God vs Zeus, Allah, or other? If a Muslim made the same argument about Allah, would you become a Muslim?

How can you say IT IS A FACT THERE IS A GOD, when the rest of your argument is that you can't prove it? You can believe in God, I really don't care, but please, don't insult the rest of us thinking folk by confusing the burden of faith with the burden of fact.

[adam_az]

"Yawn. Denial and diversion. How original. "

With this statement you are describing yourself.

Who were you referring to, if not me?

Is that a log in your eye, or are you just happy to see me?

[jimt]

My point is, you don't need God or whatever to describe why putting numerous total strangers poo poo on your pee pee isn't a good idea.

And a valid point it is.

[adam_az]

"For example, I can truthfully tell you that I have a brother. I cannot scientifically prove to you that my brother exists -- I can only tell you that he does. "

Sure you can, through DNA testing, thanks to science.

Now let us extend this to the idea of Zeus. Suppose Zeus makes Himself known to me. Thus, I know He exists. Does your skepticism change that? No. Can I introduce you to Zeus? No. All I can do is suggest that you might open the door when Zeus knocks -- as He always does. (And you know it, too -- else why would you be fighting it so very hard? ;-)

Funny how that works, huh? ;-)

Add, you can not prove that a variety of beleifs is equivalent to the existence of God.

After all, if God can make His will known on earth, he is affecting the physical, and thus this affectation should be measurable.