Fathers, sons and homosexuality

Christian Post ^ | 5/12/2009 | Dr. Warren Throckmorton

[Lucky Dog]

Whether or not there is mental disease or not, unless the homosexual practitioner's behavior is beyond his or her conscious ability to control, then each individual is still responsible for choosing his or her behavior.

In short, everyone bears the consequences for their decisions. That responsibility extends to the impacts, both, to themselves and to others.

[yazoo]

“Nobody is born homosexual.”

That has yet to be proven one way or another.

[SeekAndFind]

Throckmorton turns Nicolosi’s argument into a straw man argument so he can excuse himself for any role in the fact his son is a homosexual.

I believe that Throckmorton was referring to another person he was talking to, not his own son.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

No, it is proven that everyone is born male or female.

There is no evolutionary viability for homosexuals.

Evolution only occurs with heterosexual relationships.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Anatomical functions are clearly defined by nature.

Any grown human being that is not mentally retarded or mentally ill can clearly see what function the parts of the body fulfill for our species. The mouth is for eating. The genitalia is for reproduction and urination. The anus is for defecation. Quite simple...

Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited?

The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.

Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes?

Disability, welfare, Social Security, etc., etc., ad nausea...

The social psychosis generated by behavioral conditioning (Pavlov's salivating dogs) in the popular culture and the conditioned response to accept the false premises of mental illness or birth defect will be used as a political tool to systematically rob the public purse.

Then, we could have other self-inflicted mental illness and disease (aside from those we already do) subsidized by the government consolidating an ever increasing portion of the economy in the hands of the cultural Marxists.

Genesis also ruins the illogical and non-biological arguments of homosexual monogamy. In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.

This is the whole crux (pun intended) of their attack on creationism - - they are really frustrated by Genesis, but cannot destroy the axiomatic state of procreant human biology, it does not fit their religious agenda.

Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.

Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.

Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).

This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term “Gaystapo,” they might not realize how close to the truth they really are.
(Also, consider their eugenic breeding programs.)

Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.

Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...

[cornfedcowboy]

“I think there is a “gay gene” (or genes).

You have bought in to a lie. In that case, is there a pedophilic gene? Is there a “beasteality gene?”
Let’s take it up a notch. If this is true, then do the previously mentioned genetic traits legitimize there behavior? Many studies prove alcoholics actually do have a genetic disposition to the affects of alcohol. (None for homosexuality) Should society encourage self destructuve alcohol abuse if one has this genetic trait? Of course not!

[Lucky Dog]

Wow!! Your post was quite the lengthy dissertation. However, I am not sure what point(s) in my previous post(s) it was intended to support or refute.

It would seem that we agree on the basic premise that those who practice homosexual behavior are responsible (whether it is to society, or themselves, or God, or any combination of the three) for the consequences of their choice to behave in such a fashion. The thread's original discussion was predicated upon an implied premise that the source of the desire to behave in such a reprehensible fashion could, somehow, excuse the behavior.

I tried to maintain that absent some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder, the individual is always responsible for his or her behavioral choices. The natural, follow-on inference from this premise is that homosexual practitioners have no more rights because their behavioral choices than do practitioners of any other behavior, e.g., pedophiles, prostitutes, polygamists, etc.

I generally try to avoid couching my arguments on this topic in religious terms because such can be dismissed logically on basis of different axiomatic start points, e.g., atheism, animism, etc. However, making the point that homosexual behavior is purely a choice like all other behaviors puts the onus on those who advocate for it.

These homosexuality advocates must defend why homosexual behavior should not be regulated through law and societal norms as are all other human behaviors. If these advocates cannot logically defeat the behavioral choice position, there can be no justification for providing its practitioners with special rights. That is to say no non-discrimination injunctions or requirements to allow so-called gay marriage, etc.

Your non-religious predicates are based in what is called the natural law argument. Such is a relatively good basis for the argument. Unfortunately, it is susceptible to logical defeat by the "argument of exception." For example, suicide is arguably against natural law. However, lemmings run off cliffs en mass without any apparent individual threat, and certain arachnoids willingly allow their mates to devour them in order to complete insemination, etc. Homosexual behavior advocates can (and have) used this "argument of exception" to try to justify their behavior.

Therefore, the behavioral choice argument is a stronger counter to those who advocate for homosexual behavior.

[Savage Beast]

I've seen many a male dog hump another male dog. In fact, dogs are so indescriminate they'll hump 'most anything--including the human leg. Now Fee, don't tell me this comes as a surprise. A female dog in oestrus makes male dogs go crazy, but if none's available they'll apparently settle for anything.

As for chimpanzees, more closely related to humans than dogs are, from what little I've read on the subject, they're even worse than the dogs.

And then there are the famous lesbian sea gulls.

It's my observation that female dogs don't drive male dogs crazy any more than female humans drive male humans crazy. I know you won't disagree with this.

Just how similar human sexuality is to canine or ape I don't know, but I'm reluctant to dismiss it outright. Evidence to the contrary is too unconvincing--the wholesome, decent behavior of well-adjusted, happily married family men like you and me notwithstanding.

[Savage Beast]

True.

[Ann Archy]

I think it’s having strongly doting mothers and Hen-pecked fathers.

[Savage Beast]

Homosexuality is abnormal. It may be a psychosis. But I don't think homosexuals can snap out of it any more than schizophrenics can.

I don't agree with you about orientation though. I've known people who were evidently not sexually active but who were evidently homosexual. One was a priest. Two were women who lived together for a long time; I doubt that they were sexually active.

[Savage Beast]

No.

[Lucky Dog]

Homosexuality is abnormal. It may be a psychosis. But I don't think homosexuals can snap out of it any more than schizophrenics can.

I would argue that it doesn’t matter, as I noted in another post, absent some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder, the individual is always responsible for his or her behavioral choices.

I don't agree with you about orientation though. I've known people who were evidently not sexually active but who were evidently homosexual. One was a priest. Two were women who lived together for a long time; I doubt that they were sexually active.

1) The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior. This term (sexual orientation) is an expression based exclusively on “feelings.” To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief. Therefore, one’s “feelings” toward members of either sex are irrelevant to how one rationally chooses to behave with, or toward, another individual.

2) Homosexuality is defined in a practical sense only by behavior. Again, as noted in another of my posts, the reason (genetic, childhood abuse, etc.) homosexual practitioners choose to behave as they do is purely an item of idle curiosity unless their behavior requires clinical intervention for modification.

3) Any mentally healthy (in the sense of not having some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) human being chooses his or her behavior.

4) Therefore, one is a homosexual purely by choosing to be so. Additionally, as yet again noted in another of my posts, everyone bears the consequences for their decisions. That behavioral responsibility extends to the impacts, both, to themselves and to others.

[yazoo]

“There is no evolutionary viability for homosexuals.
Evolution only occurs with heterosexual relationships.”

You are assuming that homosexuality is inherited from the Father. You are also assuming that homosexuals never procreate, which is a big fallacy. Given the taboo on homosexuality up until the last 20 years many homosexuals married and had children either to self deny their proclivity or to cover it up. There is no evolutionary viability for childhood cancer, but kids still die from it.

Didn’t you know any kids in 1st through 4th grade who were always called sissy and grew up to be homosexual? Do you think children at the age of 7 or 8 who have no sexual feelings at all make a decision at that age to have sex with men? I don’t recall at age 7 or 8 even knowing or considering that sex with a woman was something I would ever want to do.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...up until the last 20 years many homosexuals married and had children either to self deny their proclivity or to cover it up.

First, they weren't homosexual if they had children... Having children is a heterosexual desire.

[yazoo]

“First, they weren’t homosexual if they had children... Having children is a heterosexual desire.”

That is absolute nonsense and nothing more than playing with words. Many homosexual men have been married, had children, then got divorced because they couldn’t live the double life. The statistics are significant.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Many homosexual men have been married, had children,...

Then by definition, they are not born homosexual if they had heterosexual relations.

[yazoo]

“Then by definition, they are not born homosexual if they had heterosexual relations.”

Homosexuality is not about who you have sex with, it’s about who you are attracted to. If a man is sexually aroused by another man and not sexually aroused by women then he is by definition a homosexual.

[yazoo]

“Then by definition, they are not born homosexual if they had heterosexual relations.”

Homosexuality is not about who you have sex with, it’s about who you are attracted to. If a man is sexually aroused by another man and not sexually aroused by women then he is by definition a homosexual.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Homosexuality is not about who you have sex with,

Bullshiite...