Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

barbadosadvocate.com ^

[chance33_98]

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.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Two words: The Apostle Paul. (Okay. That's THREE words.)

[Dataman]

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).

Fine. I'll ignore your ignorance of history and point out that incest wasn't taboo originally. The gene pool wasn't degraded at first. Evolution, OTOH, has a male or a female evolving without the benefit of a partner of the opposite sex. That is silliness. The flood required incest? If marrying your cousin (there was no one else in existence) is incest, Charlie Darwin was an incestuous beast since he couldn't get anyone to marry him EXCEP his cousin (and there were other women in existence).

(where on earth did you get the notion that "rocks created us?!")

Your own public school science texts teach that it rained on rocks for millions of years which created the environment for the "complex chemical soup" that gave rise to life. Perhaps I should have said "rain and rocks created man."

[Dataman]

Evolution is objective fact,

It's a bit irrational to call a theory, and a very flawed theory at that, fact. Theories don't evolve into fact.

[TigersEye]

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

I think it's because artistic, imaginative, creative and interesting women are naturally drawn to weenie washing. It gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment that can't be found in mundane activities like child rearing and executive careers.

Gays do it to please "Daddy".

[whattajoke]

I'll ignore your ignorance of history and point out that incest wasn't taboo originally.

That's cool. I have no idea how you know this, but I bet you'll go on to tell me some nonsense about how the original gene pool (Adam and Eve) was "perfect" and "not degraded" so therefore their progeny would have equally "perfect" genes.

The gene pool wasn't degraded at first.

Ha ha. Let's pretend this makes the least bit of sense. "Perfect gene pools" create murderers (Cain or Abel, I forget)? Interesting bit of revisionism.

Evolution has a male or a female evolving without the benefit of a partner of the opposite sex.

No it doesn't.

The flood required incest?

That's how I understand it. Who else was around besides each "kind" 2x2?

Charlie Darwin was an incestuous beast since he couldn't get anyone to marry him EXCEP his cousin

Marrying one's cousin is not illegal. It's not even taboo in most of the world. (No, I'm not married to my cousin). Procreating with one's sister, however, is. As is procreating with one's mother.

Perhaps I should have said "rain and rocks created man."

Instead of spouting nonsense, perhaps you should get to your local library and read up on abiogenesis. "Rain on rocks" created wet rocks. It still does. However, rain, sun, volcanism, thermal vents, lightning, etc did a bit more. However, none of them "created man." That came much later, but you konw that already. Cute catchphrases may work on some, but not on me.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Please literize yourself and look up the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of science. The Theory of Evolution is scientific "fact," as best as they can make it. The "Fact" of your interpretation of the "literal truth" of Genesis is a stinking pile of manure (although it is an incredibly accurate POETIC description of what actually did happen--the Big Bang, et al). Biblical "literalism" of the sort you are practicing is foolishness for the illiterate and ignorant, and is the moral equivalent of thinking that the Earth is a big flat plate on the back of a turtle.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Your own public school science texts teach that it rained on rocks for millions of years which created the environment for the "complex chemical soup" that gave rise to life. Perhaps I should have said "rain and rocks created man.">>

God Made Man, And He Used the Monkey to Do It. -- St. Devo

[whattajoke]

Or, as I've often posted:

"It’s just a theory"

Often this statement is considered a sufficient dissenting argument. But it really is an expression of ignorance about how science works. I remind you that everything we understand about how things work in this world is ‘theoretical.’ Architects consult architectural theory. Structural engineers designing a bridge consult structural engineering theory. Medical doctors consult medical theory. Repeat, scientific theories are discoveries of how our natural reality is organized. To the extent a theory is useful it will be used. To the extent a theory is not useful it won’t be used. Given the power and utility of the theories that form the foundation of modern, technological civilization, a statement like the one above reflects a failure to understand this.

[First Amendment]

That's not historical evidence that celibacy wasn't an historical part of Christian behavior until the 15th century. Has nothing to do with it. (Are you sure what post you're replying to?) And what about celibacy in other spiritual or religious traditions?

[Lucky Dog]

Let me invite those who have commented, or will do so, on this thread and its topic to return to the basic facts and logic of the discussion case. Emotional venting and ad hominem attacks (while, perhaps, satisfying to the originators) do not advance rationale consideration of the topic at hand.

In an attempt to advance the discussion, I will endeavor to summarize the essential essence(s) of relevant arguments presented to date without comment on facts and support (or any lack thereof) previously offered. For those who feel I have left out important approaches or misstated essential elements, please correct this post in a subsequent reply.

Negative Arguments:

1) Utilitarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior serves no useful/productive purpose [to society] and causes significant detriments [both to society and individuals].

2) Resource Inefficient Use/Misapplication Assertion: Homosexual behavior results in significant misuse of societal resources:
a. Increases completely avoidable, deadly disease rates (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates.
b. Increases other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).
c. Inordinately diverts resources to the care of completely avoidable diseases (especially in acute stages).
d. Inordinately diverts (in proportion to the percentage of those affected to the overall general population) limited resources into medical research for prevention/cure of these completely avoidable diseases.

3) Societal Degradation Assertion: Homosexual behaviors and open advocacy for their acceptance result in significant detriments to society at large.
a. In ordinate numbers (in proportion to percentage to the total population of perpetrators) of pedophiles are homosexual practitioners.
b. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased numbers of homosexual practitioners and resultant increases in cases of pedophilia.
c. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in legalization of homosexual marriage which will degrade the institution of marriage and its benefits to society.
d. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of child adoption by these practitioners and cause increased societal costs for dealing with children harmed psychologically (and otherwise) by this practice.
e. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of bigamy, polygamy, incestuous unions, prostitution, bestiality, etc., which will inordinately and adversely affect the family in general and children (future citizens) in particular.
f. Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.
g. Society unnecessarily loses potentially valuable contributions from homosexual practitioners who die prematurely due to avoidable diseases resulting from this behavior.

4) Theological Assertion: No major religion approves of homosexual behavior and most discourage and/or prohibit or condemn it.
a. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned multiple times in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (both Old and New Testaments).
b. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned in the Islamic foundational documents.
c. Tenants of Buddhism strongly discourage homosexual behavior.
d. Hindu documents discourage homosexual behavior.
e. Homosexual “orientation” is not a problem absent homosexual behavior.

5) Biological/Psychological Assertion: Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of sex and normal human social behavior
a. Procreation is impossible to exclusively homosexual behavior practitioners.
b. If homosexuality were a genetic anomaly, it would appear in the population at much lower incidence than is observed.
c. Homosexual behaviors observed (Skinner, et al) in non-human animals are neurotic, abnormal singularities and require artificial, forced conditions (e.g., overcrowding) and is not seen in the normal habitat and behavior of these animals.
d. Homosexual behavior is a conscious choice by its practitioners… homosexual “orientation”(if it exists) no more requires an individual to participate in homosexual behavior than heterosexual “orientation” requires an individual to participate in rape, bigamy, prostitution or any other sexual activity.

Affirmative Arguments:

1) Libertarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior practiced privately between consenting adults should not be subject to prohibition by the state.

2) Bigotry Assertion: Anyone who condemns (or does not approve regardless of rationale) of homosexual behavior is a “homophobe” and unqualified to speak on the subject and to do so is “hate speech.”

3) Biological/Psychological Counter Assertion: Homosexual behavior in humans is unavoidable.
a. Homosexual behavior is mandated by genetic factors in the individual practitioner… It is not a conscious choice.
b. Homosexual behavior is part of a normal continuum of human sexual behavior.
c. Homosexual behavior has been practiced throughout recorded history.

4) Avoidable Disease Counter Assertion: Homosexual behavior may result in avoidable diseases/premature death such as HIV/AID and STD’s but do other activities, e.g., smoking, driving while intoxicated, etc., and therefore homosexual behavior should not be condemned.

5) Theological Counter Assertion: Some religious organizations do not condemn homosexual behavior, i.e., Episcopal Church, Methodist Church, etc., therefore, it is inappropriate for any to do so.

[Jeff Gordon]

You do lots of thinking about homosexuals. Do you enjoy it?

[Jeff Gordon]

..and she (your daughter) is unable to collect child support..

You have made an excellent argument for feminists who preach that a women should never depend upon a man.

[Dataman]

To the extent a theory is not useful it won’t be used.

Evolution is indeed useful.

Useful to promote cruelty (Marx)
Useful to justify the execution of the inferior (Hitler)
Useful to atheists in their self-justification
Useful for breaking down morality
etc. etc.

[whattajoke]

[Evolution is] Useful to promote cruelty (Marx)
Useful to justify the execution of the inferior (Hitler)
Useful to atheists in their self-justification
Useful for breaking down morality

You have broken Godwin's rule so badly I simply must believe you are joking.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Perhaps, but that does not affect the argument at hand. In fact, I have absolutely no idea how your last state is intended to do anything but vaguely discount my argument without addressing it in the slightest. Sad, really.

[The Green Goblin]

Celibacy does not result in premature death to its practioners. Counter?

Recent studies have indicated that masturbation prevents prostate cancer. If that is the case, then surely an active sex life is healthier than celibacy, at least where men are concerned.

[The Green Goblin]

If not, he's risking premature death from prostrate cancer.

People who spend too much time lying down tend to get this disease :)

[Spunky]

"That said, I'm not of the opinion that it's our place to deny individuals the exercise of their Free Will granted by God, to the extent it doesn't do the rest of us any harm."

Yes we were given free will, but we were also given guidelines to live by.

You may not think the actions of homosexuals are doing any of us harm, but you might want to re-think that.

I believe harm is coming to our society in ways we can't even yet imagine.

[Jeff Gordon]

..vaguely discount my argument without addressing it in the slightest..

Your kidding!

I did not see you make any argument against what I said. My original statement said that homosexuals were useful for exposing bigots. You responded with some fantasy about the future demise of the social welfare system.

If you reframe your argument to somthing dealing with usefullness of homosexuality for exposing bigots, I will be happy to respond on topic.