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.

<> Using your logic: Either homicidal behavior is inborn, like race, or by choice, like religion. Ei-ther way, the people should not be hounded. …Are you implying that perpetrators of homicide should not be subject to legal, moral, societal sanctions or, possibly, psychiatric help? Substitute any legally prohibited behavior you like and your logic still remains faulty. <> Is, or was, Pat Buchanan’s marriage theoretically capable of naturally producing healthy, normal children? Is a homosexual union ever theoretically capable of naturally producing healthy, nor-mal children? <> Self-gratification within the bounds of marriage is only one of the outputs of the institution. Fur-thermore, this single purpose is far from the reason that humans in particular and society in gen-eral engage in and approve of the institution of marriage. <> Ok, for the sake of agreeableness, let’s also allow the same restrictions to apply to homosexuals. For males that would be somewhere around 65 to 70… not a problem as the average age for male homosexuals is less than 42, currently. For females of this persuasion, the qualifying age would be lower…around 55 to 58… again the average life span of this group would limit those qualify-ing to a very small number. <> The purpose of serial murder is the satisfaction and enjoyment of the perpetrator. (search for Ted Bundy’s comments) Those serial murders who are on “death row” serve as a warning to others. Are you suggesting, perhaps, we should make homosexual behavior a capital crime? Admittedly, the public health menace of AIDS/HIV would certainly be limited in your solution. Additionally, a host of other attendant problems would also lessen.

Well, we don't see chimpanzees smoking crack or gorillas committing serial murder, either.

But we do see homosexuals committing most serial murders.

Consider:

Homosexual Serial Killers Randy Steven Kraft 65 (est.) 1971 to 1983 Oregon, Michigan, etc. "Score Card Killer"

Michael Swango 35 - 60 1983-97 Ohio, Illinois, New York, South Dakota, Virginia "Doctor of Death" -- killed hospital patients

Andrei Chikatilo 52 until 1992 Russia

Fritz Haarmann 40 (est.) until 1924 Germany "Butcher Of Hanover"

John Wayne Gacy 33 until 1978 Chicago

Patrick Wayne Kearney 28+ 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. gay cruising areas of Hollywood; "Trash Bag Killer"

David D. Hill 28? 1968 to 1977 Redondo Beach, Calif. Hollywood Patrick Kearney's lover; confessed to being co-killer with Kearney, but police weren't sure about the extent of his involvement

Hans Grans 27+ until 1924 Germany accommplice and love of Haarmann, the "Butcher Of Hanover"

Wayne Williams 27 1979-81 Atlanta

Dean Corll 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX

Elmer Wayne Henley 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX

David Owen Brooks 27 1960s to 1973 Ft. Wayne, Indiana; later Houston, TX

Donald Harvey 25 - 40 (est.) 1970-71 London, Kentucky

Juan Corona 25 1971 From Mexico; moved to Yuba City, CA in 1950s

Norman Afzal Simons 21 (est.) 1986-1994 Capetown, South Africa victims were mixed-race boys; believed to be the "Station Strangler"

Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo 21 (est.) until 1989 Matamoros, Mexico "Matamoros Cult Killer"

Carl Panzram 21 1910-1930 Warren, Minnesota USA, West Africa

Larry Eyler 19 1980s Chicago Illinois and Indiana

Jeffrey Dahmer 17 1978, 1988-91 Milwaukee Milwaukee and Chicago cannibal

Robert Berdella ? until 1988 Kansas City Kansas Dennis Nilsen 16 1978-83 U.K.

Marcelo Costa de Andrade 14 until 1991 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

William Bonin 12+ 1979-80 Downey, Orange County, Calif. Orange County, Calif

. The list goes on and on.

You are mistaken in your assertion that “there are no sound natural arguments against sodomy” beyond its sinfulness. In a previous post on this thread (Post 13), a factually based, logically sound argument against homosexual behavior was established using only observed, or naturally resultant, impacts of homosexual behavior (to use your term, “sodomy”). I suggest you review it. Additionally, you may wish to consult some references on the topic of “Natural Law.”

However, beyond the argument in Post 13, the very use of your term “natural” provides the greatest counter to your assertion. Consider that in every species of higher order animal on the earth, the “natural” use of genitalia, beyond liquid, body waste elimination, is procreation and not homosexual behavior. This statement is true even for those “heathen,” most of whom, it was noted in earlier posts (e.g., Post 131), have a problem with “sodomy,” in any case.

You are even more mistaken in your other assertion that “it's [having a problem with, or dislik-ing, homosexual behavior] no different than disliking blacks...” Being “black” is the result of an immutable, and inborn characteristic, over which the individual has no control, i.e., no one can, by a simple act of will, choose not to be “black.” “Sodomy” (to use your term) is a behavior that is completely subject to an individual’s will (assuming the absence of mental illness), i.e., no free, mentally healthy individual is forced to participate in the activity. Just as no free, mentally healthy adult is forced to perpetrate bigamy or prostitution, no free, mentally healthy adult is forced perpetrate “sodomy.”

Unless you are equating “sodomy” to a religion, then your assertion that “disliking it is no differ-ent than disliking Jews” is equally flawed. There is no major religion (or minor one, to my knowledge) that has the practice of “sodomy” as a part of its tenants. In fact, as was noted in earlier posts on this thread, every major religion either “discourages” the practice of “sodomy” or prohibits it, outright.

The only portion of your assertion that may have any validity is that disliking “sodomites” is the equivalent of disliking “fat people.” In that both situations involve a voluntary behavior, there are some grounds for your comparison. However, consider that by merely by voluntarily over-eating, “fat people” do not spread HIV/AIDS or cause any of the societal degradations noted in Post 131 and others.

Your argument that “sodomy” is a “major league sin before God” stands. However, your impli-cation that it is the only valid argument against “sodomy” fails. Please reconsider your position and include the fact that there are a number of valid reasons to object to homosexual behavior in addition to religious ones.

I am afraid your position is logically inconsistent. Your first statement, “there is no sound natural argument against sodomy” is known in the field of logic as a “gratuitous assertion.” It is logically defeated by a “gratuitous denial:” “Yes, there is a sound natural argument against sodomy.” (You concede this position in your last statement.)

Unless you can offer indisputable facts and an irrefutable logic chain, your gratuitous assertions are mere expressions of opinion. As opinions are similar to certain portions of anatomy in that everyone, including sodomists, has one, yours is no more valuable nor meaningful than anyone else’s.

Your assertion “the reproduction and health arguments are hypocritical” is equally gratuitous as well as inaccurate. The reproduction and health arguments were/are offered sincerely and are based in indisputable facts cited in the presentation of these arguments. The term “hypocritical” means showing the characteristics of hypocrisy.

hy·poc·ri·sy
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I am not aware of “the overpopulation argument” you are citing as being in favor of sodomy. Nonetheless, I will assume that you are inferring that as sodomists practicing that behavior exclusively do not reproduce, that, therefore, sodomy contributes to a lower population growth. This position is a logically consistent argument. However, your assertion as to its relative strength compared to other arguments is another gratuitous assertion.

Please present the facts and logic chain on which you base your assertions. Otherwise, it would be intellectually appropriate for you to abandon these assertions.

Please note: I have not asserted (in fact, I have conceded) your position that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior in clear, consistent, and repetitive terms. Furthermore, I have not questioned the authority of the Scriptures in any way nor have I challenged your belief in these Sacred Texts. As a matter of record, I, personally, accept the Bible in its entirety and its message as the inerrant Word of God.

What I have challenged is your largely unsupported and illogical assertion(s) that the Bible is the only sound argument against homosexual behavior. Let me respond to each of your statements and ask you to consider my arguments dispassionately and logically with an aim to being convinced if the facts are indisputable and the logic is irrefutable and you cannot offer an equally well supported and logical counter argument.

“Would you like for me to prove to that there is a God and that the bible is His Word?”

Answer: No. Belief in God and that the Bible is His Word are articles of faith. One accepts or rejects the existence of God and His Word on the basis of spiritual revelation. However, accepting this faith does not exclude the use of facts, logic or debate following this acceptance. There is an entire discipline known as Christian apologetics taught in every major seminary of every denomination. This discipline is devoted to the very endeavor of using facts, logic and debate to further the promulgation of God’s Word and His Cause.

“You seem to be overly well versed in the terminology of debate.”

Answer: I freely confess to being a student of Christian apologetics. Furthermore, I have been a debate coach and college professor in my past. Therefore, by virtue of training and experience, I am “well versed in the terminology of debate.” However, I do not concede that I am “overly” versed in this discipline, as it is impossible to be such, just as it is impossible to be “overly” healthy. Allow me to cite a passage for your consideration concerning this topic: Acts 18:27-28 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. NIV Consider that hearts and minds can be, and are, changed through skilled and vigorous debate.

“Logic and reason will not prove the bible to you.”

Answer: You are correct in that logic and reason will not “prove” that the Bible is God’s Word. However, you are incorrect that logic and reason cannot be applied to the Bible. Such application has been the case throughout the Bible’s history. Jewish scholars have produced numerous texts on the logic and reasoning of the Old Testament such as the Talmud and others. Similarly, Christian authorities have applied logic and reason as well, beginning with Saint Paul and extending through Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and many others too numerous to name. The application of logic and reason to the Bible have shown it to be a beautifully coherent and sound basis for life and faith for anyone, including the questioning intellectual scholar and philosopher

“My perspective is as one who believes the bible and this is not based on logic nor can it be proven though reason”

Answer: I also believe the Bible and my faith is enhanced and strengthened through applying logic and reason to it. As an item of interest consider that even God has called on us to reason: Isaiah 1:18 18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD….” NIV

“However, my position remains the same. Other than the fact that God has defined sodomy as a sin, there is no other reason for being opposed to or disliking sodomites except for reasons of prejudice and hypocrisy.”

prej·u·dice n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
(As an item of note: being opposed to, or disliking, homosexual behavior is not the same as “disliking sodomites.” There is very well known phrase, “love the sinner but hate the sin” that applies in this case.)

Your implication that beyond Biblical guidance, only prejudice or hypocrisy can be reasons for opposing homosexual behavior is seriously flawed both in terms of logic and facts. Prejudice means that a decision or action has been arrived at without examining the facts of a particular situation. It should be obvious to you if you have read this thread that most of the facts have been put forward in the discussion and posts by various parties. If one has examined the facts and formed a conclusion by applying rigorous logic to these facts, the charge of prejudice is completely unfounded. In fact the charge of prejudice, itself, without examining the arguments against which it is made with their supporting premises and logic is a form of prejudice on the part the one making the charge. Perhaps, you have heard the phrase, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind?”

The definition hypocrisy has been put forward in previous response. Succinctly, it means being insincere about, or less than, what you say you are. As you have offered no rationale for this charge, I cannot understand what you base this assertion on. Are you somehow trying to imply that because I oppose homosexual behavior on grounds in addition to Biblical ones, that I am insincere or less than what I say I am?

“Nearly every natural claim against sodomy can also be made against normal sex.”

Answer: Not true. You have cited no example nor made any logical connections, therefore, you have another “gratuitous assertion.” Like the others you have made, this one is merely your opinion unless you care to put forward some facts and logic. By the way, even if a single irrefutable claim against sodomy exists that cannot be made against “normal sex,” your argument is logically invalid.

“Even when it comes to procreation, the average person has sex 7000 times in his/her life and only produces 2 children. Therefore 99.97 percent of sex turns out to only have been recreational.”

Answer: You have given no source for your assertion. (My wife of 32 years and I are seriously behind. I may have to abandon this discussion and go try to catch up). However, even it is accepted as true, how is it in any way a logical counter to any argument against homosexual behavior that has been put forward to date?

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.