Oh BS, faggots are always good for a joke, for example:
Why do homo's like to use ribbed condoms?
BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE XTRA TRACTION IN THE MUD
and funny pictures:
These are very good props to use when annoying the DimRAT PC crowd
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 truly think AIDs has the possiblity to be threat to public safety down the road.
As far as individual safety (e.g. drinking, smoking, biking without a helmet, driving fast cars, skydiving, rockclimbing, alligator wrestling, or whatever), you're on your own, as long as your behavoir doesn't seriously threaten other's lives.
I agree with individual liberties. We have bent over backwards giving these people the benifit of the doubt but for the last three years AIDS is sky-rocketing!
How long do you respect indivdual rights of a group, for a large part, that refuses to take on their social responsibilities?
Not sure if pun intended.
Along with the rise of Islam, decadence, lead, monetary, and military problems?
My bet is on overall apathy and arrogance.
He does, however, give us Free Will.
I'm of the opinion that homosexual activity between two or more consenting adults in a private location doesn't do the rest of us any particular harm.
This does not mean, though, that I'm at all willing to be taxed to fund research on treatment of diseases spread through promiscuous homosexual behavior.
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.
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.
The same reasoning would apply to all methods of birth control (including the “rhythm method”), oral sex between heterosexuals, and masturbation. Should these be illegal once again?
I don’t favor homosexuality, and personally find it repugnant, but the above argument doesn’t wash with me.
Oh BS, faggots are always good for a joke, for example:
Why do homo's like to use ribbed condoms?
BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE XTRA TRACTION IN THE MUD
and funny pictures:
These are very good props to use when annoying the DimRAT PC crowd
There are two unfounded assumptions in your post:
1)That the behavior is genetic, not learned and
2)That evolution actually happened.
If your unfounded assumptions were true, one would expect to see a similar pattern in the animal --especially primate-- world. There is no parallel.
Neither does celibacy. Next.
I don't suppose you realized this when you posted, but your statement classifies homosexuality as a behavior.
Your comment has also classified homosexuality as a behavior. Gays realized that once their learned behavior has been classified as such, they have lost the argument. This is why they claim they were born queer.
Regardless of your unintended mistake, equating the voluntary spreading of disease with skydiving is not exactly a superb example of sound thinking, yet it is not a total surprise that a secularist would make such an absurd claim.
Substitute just about any behavior for homosexuality and your statement breaks down. Try, for example, gluttony. Fat kids don't remember making a choice to be fat. Kids with bad tempers don't rember making the choice. Neither are natural or healthy states.
It's really, really simple: If God created us, we have His opinion, if the universe created itself and rocks created us, we're supposed to have natural selection and survival of the fittest. Either way, homos are either against God or against nature (or both).
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.