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?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Being Homosexual isn't a Mental Illness, like any other sex outside of Marriage between a Man and a Woman, it's a Sin.

Since extrmeme nitpicking exists on this thread from a few fellow Freepers...let me say that I agree with the above statement; and for ones who might not believe that there is a "thing" called sin; let me rephrase the above statement:

"Being Homosexual isn't a Mental Illness, like any other sex outside of Marriage between a Man and a Woman, it's a choice made by an individual that will have a detrimental effect on the person making that choice, other people, and quite possibly society as a whole."

[adam_az]

"Prove He didn't."

I have nothing to prove. I didn't make the statement that there is no God, only that his existence is unprovable, and thus not a good thing to refer to as "fact."

I'm also not asserting that God exists in this thread, you are.

Prove your assertion.

[CaptRon]

My take on homosexuality has always been that it is bio-illogical.

[BSunday]

Bookmarked. Excellent article, thanks!

[Greenback_dollar]

Excellent post, I agree with you whole heartedly (although heterosexual sex can also be recreational).

A man is a man because of physiology; by definition he must have certain characteristics that physically define him as "male." When a man is stimulated sexually, he is aroused in the traditional sense. The cause of that arousal is the crux of the issue.

If the stimulation is a result of homosexual attraction or if the stimulation is the result of heterosexual attraction the end result is the same. (As Wayne and Garth would say SCHAWING!). The physical body was designed to respond to simulation in the same way.

So regardless of internal preferences, external responses have to be the same.

[Spiff]

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.

Maybe someone who has seen the cat in the box told me it was there. But you won't believe me. Maybe someone who saw the cat in the box wrote it down in a book and I read it and believed him. But you won't believe him or me. Maybe I sensed in some way the cat in the box through some subtle means that you failed to detect because you were too busy trying to prove to everyone how damned intelligent you think you are. Yet you still don't believe me.

I'm fine with that. The box will be opened and the cat will emerge and the fact will be proven beyond all doubt.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess - yes, even yours. It is just a matter of time. Spend it wisely.

[OXENinFLA]

Bookmarked!

[scripter]

That makes a lot of sense. Congenital defects occur, no doubt, but very rarely. Still, none have been found in homosexuals. Of course theres been a lot of hype and bias but it's usually discredited within hours of it's release. The genetics argument has been trashed over and over.

[B-Chan]

How postmodern. Just because the author says there is a god who has created people, doesn't make it so.

How postmodern. Just because adam_az says that detectability and measurability are the sole criteria for determining the truth doesn't make it so.

What's the patent number for his device to detect and measure god?

What's the patent number for the device to detect and measure adam_az?

[BibChr]

Actually, neither.

Deal with your problem, and stop trying to make it mine, please. I'm a grownup, and busy.

Dan

[xzins]

bio-illogical

Awesome!! LOL!

[adam_az]

How postmodern. Just because adam_az says that detectability and measurability are the sole criteria for determining the truth doesn't make it so.

Measurability and detectability are the proof for fact of existence. I'm being a scientist here, and ironically you are being the solipist.

Anything else is faith. What other unmeasurable, undetectable things do you "believe" in?

[ethical]

Following your "logic" someone who shoves food up their nose or in their ear instead of their mouth is not engaging in an abnormal act or using their body the wrong way?

[adam_az]

Come on, you were referring to someone! Who was it! Don't you have any balls, or was that last response naught but a pathetic attempt to extricate yourself from the corner you've painted yourself into.

Who were you you referring to, if not me?

[jimt]

If it can't be proven that G-d does not exist it can be assumed that He must.

If it can't be proven that fairies don't exist it can be assumed that they do.

If it can't be proven that the moon is not made of green cheese it can be assumed that it is.

If it can't be proven ghosts don't exist it can be assumed that they do.

Belief in God requires faith.

[adam_az]

Following your "logic" someone who shoves food up their nose or in their ear instead of their mouth is not engaging in an abnormal act or using their body the wrong way?

Sure they are, but you don't need to believe in God to show that food inserted nasally will not be digested, and no nutrition will be derived.

[scripter]

And a valid point it is.

I agree it's a valid point.

Still, many of us believe God exists, and if He does exist the author has some valid points. Then the author asked those who support homosexual marriage:

Is this phenomenon a cruel joke or a medical anomaly?

Of course I could be wrong, but to me it appears the question is directed at those who believe in God. Whatever it is, for those who believe in God it's a valid question.

[Dad was my hero]

I'm mulling this one over. Upfront (no pun intended) I agree with virtually all he wrote, the part I'm having trouble with is that of the religious perspective. If God didn't make mistakes as to how people are made, then what explains babies with birth defects such as Down syndrome, cleft palates and spina bifida?

Good article.

[BibChr]

Right. You want to understand what I'm saying, and just aren't able to, like you want to know the truth about God.

< /ten-ring sarcasm >

What part of #49 is unclear to you, *if* understanding is your goal?

Dan

[JCEccles]

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

True, although the conservative Judeo-Christian theological understanding of the issue is a particularly powerful reinforcement (among its adherents) of the natural law argument.

Homosexual attraction is akin to a psychosis wherein a person grossly misapprehends (hallucinates) a person the same sex to be the approproriate object of sexual coupling. Proponants of gay marriage are seeking societal affirmation of this psychosis as a kind of folie a deux between society and people affilicted with homosexual attraction.

Similarly, there are people who believe the CIA is scanning their brain waves and inserting thoughts into their heads. Employing the same logic used by gay marriage proponents, one could argue that laws should be passed prohibiting the the CIA from scanning the brain waves of these unfortunate creatures and inserting thoughts into their heads. One would resist such foolishness not merely because such laws cannot change psychotic thoughts into rational thoughts by simply declaring them rational, but because rational people are ill-served by being forced to participate in and affirm the personal psychoses of a small group of politically powerful people.