Posted on 08/06/2003 6:14:18 PM PDT by 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.
I would say your progression breaks down here, where you conflate homosexual orientation (i.e. being gay) with homosexual activity (i.e having gay sex). Any single act of homosexuality is voluntary and not required for the survival of the individual, as is every act of heterosexual intercourse (although I will admit, there have been times when i was sure I would die without some...). But the real question is homosexual orientation, which again, is not required for the survival of the individual. BUT, being heterosexual is also not required for the individual's survival (you may say heterosexuality is necessary for species survival and homosexuality is not, but since one of the explicit questions of this thread is whether or not homosexuality is also good for the species, we can't use that escape hatch). So we have to ask the same question about heterosexuality as you did about homosexuality - choice or mental illness. I flatly reject that my heterosexuality is an illness, and I doubt anyone will argue the point, so we're left with it being voluntary. And here's the problem: I don't recall making that choice. I have always been what I am, and I've always known it. Furthermore, I doubt any straight person on the planet has a recollection of choosing to be straight. So, we have a quandary - heterosexuality is either a choice or a mental illnesses, but we didn't make the choice and we know it's not an illness - so we have to choose option three, that it is a natural healthy state. But perhaps homosexuality is different, perhaps it really is part of your dichotomy - a choice or an illness. I'm sure homosexuals feel just as vehemently as heterosexuals on the illness option, so we'll toss that out, as you did in step 3. Now we're left with choice, which we disposed of on the hetero side of the equation. Here too, we have a simple test: someone has to decide to be gay. So here's an experiment - one straight person has to decide to be gay, even for just a while. They have to wake up in the morning and say "for the next week, I'm a gay man!" They have to look at men the way they'd look at women, and get the same same thrill from a bulging package as they would from a well-filled bikini, and they have to really mean it. Can you do it? I can't, I can barely type "bulging package" without gagging. Can anyone do it? Until I meet someone who can actually make this choice, I reject the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that it is anything but a natural, innate state of being. Is it good for the species or society? I guess that's a question for another day...
The apostles were married men for the most part. But somehow in the next few hundred years, it was decided that sacrificing comforts and needs were a way to honor God.
But I think it wasn't until the 1500's that celibacy became established in the Catholic church and at that point it was more a political decision (inheritance laws I think came into play (?)
(Here's a kicker. Women were still being ordained in the 1400's. I've read women had much more rights in the dark ages (not quite comparable to women's rights today) than they did in the Renaissance. I guess the Renaissance was not the "Renaissance" for everybody.)
Anyway, although neither adds to the human population, one adds to our sense of humanity and it's ability to sacrifice for what we precieve is good. The other is a show of self-gratification and meeting needs however detrimental it may be to society. Major Difference.
I don't agree: I don't think homosexuality rises to the level of "...threatening ... society’s ... existence", and given that, there are lots of things that have costs and risks to individuals and society (e.g. drinking, smoking, biking without a helmet, driving fast cars, skydiving, rockclimbing, alligator wrestling, or whatever), but individual liberty is the cornerstone of our society and shouldn't be dismissed too glibly. If 'society' thinks it's going to keep me from drinking a pint of bourbon, smoking a fat cigar, and jumping in the ring with a bunch of gators, then 'society' needs to just eff off! :-)
Well, those who say they don't are liars. :-)
It wasn't that long ago (the late 70s) when 100 percent of AIDS (GRID) cases in the US were among homosexuals. But due to militant homosexual terrorists deliberatley attacking the nation's blood supply to force additional funding of AIDS research by the federal government, a diverse mixture of the population to include children, has now been stricken with what was once only a pervert's disease. That is the legacy of homosexuality in America.
,,, from what I've seen of your comments on other threads, you're well qualified to answer.
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.