Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Why do males have nipples? The purpose of the mamalian nipple is to suckle young, but in no species does the male do that. In no species is a male able to do that. So why do males have them? It's a valid question.
How we do it is a choice -- and emotional as well as mental health play a part in that.
So... what's your point?
My point on the other issue is -- they are not born that way. It is not biology. It is not science. It is not equal to heterosexuality. No one is physically made to have intercourse with a same sex partner. No part of their biological make up supports that theory. Desire doesn't make it natural.
You suspect? Many homosexuals have told me they wish they weren't homosexual. Many have asked me - why would anyone want to be homosexual? My question - why all the antagonism toward those homosexuals who want to change? You mention 200 people who were helped to change to normal sexuality. What's wrong with that?
Nicolosi, to my knowledge, has not told any homosexuals that they should change. He has simply shown and stated that change is possible for many, if they truly want it. But the fact is, the homosexual community (very insecure, as it is), vitriolocally condemns anyone who suggests that change is possible, or who tries to help those who want to change. In the New York Times, last year, a psychologist who had been friendly to the homosexual community for many years had done several years worth of research in which about 1/2 of the homosexuals he treated experienced complete and lasting change back to normality. He expressed his own surprise at the result. Of course, he was brutally attacked. Nicolosi has suggested that help is preferable for children who are experiencing gender-identification confusion. I would certainly want such help for my child, if he/she were experiencing such.
C'mon, madg. You vent homosexualist orthodoxy so easily... Anyone with a brain understands that men and women were designed to fit together and that sex exists to be able to create children. Anyone with a brain understands that it's highly abnormal and disordered to engage in filthy and disgusting habits like anal intercourse. In the same way, anyone with a brain understands that it's highly abnormal to engage in sex with animals, or with dead people, or any other of the numerous sexual disorders. That doesn't make people afflicted with these disorders bad - but they are clearly disorders.
Maelstrom is right. Many homosexual men were homosexually molested as adolescents. In the Catholic Church homosexual molestation scandal (which has hit many of the Catholic schools in our area), young, confused adolescent boys, in many cases, just having entered puberty, were introduced by priests to homosexual pornography, were told that they would be introduced to sex in the way that all men were, were told that they (the priests) should be trusted in this initiation, that their parents trusted them (the priests), etc. etc. Then, slowly, they were encouraged to engage in things like mutual masturbation, oral sodomy, and eventually anal sodomy. Then, once the boys were fully integrated in the priests' sexual practices, these boys were told they were homosexual - all before they even had a chance to know and to cherish female relationship and sexual attraction for females. That is why it is entirely inappropriate for boys to be placed in the care of homosexual men in general. Much of this kind of thing happened in the Boy Scouts, until Boy Scouts adopted its stringest standards against homosexual abuse.
What, exactly, are you basing your theory on? If male nipples make no sense to you, then why does anything else have to? Why do humans have hair on our arms and legs? Why do men tend to have hair on their chests and frequently go bald while women tend towards neither?
Nature isn't dictated by what makes sense.
That's not true at all. The process of natural selection should have either adapted the physical attributes of gays with evolutionary changes or eliminated them from existence if it were a natural occurence. What doesn't fit or adapt to the environment doesn't survive. Isn't that the theory?
Your whole argument rests on "because I want to." Absolutely nothing else that is physical and natural supports the theory. The contradictions are countless.
Put simply... no. Nature tends to breed-out weaknesses and select for advantages. It's not perfect and it's not particularly efficient.
Your whole argument rests on "because I want to."
If you think that's my position, ok, tell me why it shouldn't be.
He is offering hope to many who wish to lead normal lives. He does not deserve the vitriol and attack and denunciations he has received from the insecure homosexual community.
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.