Yes, I know this is a hugely debated subject that's been written about a zillion times. Knowing this blog is of a Christian nature you're probably not surprised by the title.
Instead of simply restating why homosexuality is wrong from a Christian perspective, I'd like to look at this from a secular viewpoint. I, like most people don't enjoy being labeled as close-minded, narrow-minded, intolerant, phobic or anything else that would infer lacking-intelligence or an uncaring nature. It's not surprising that proponents for homosexuals utilize these labels in an effort to discredit anyone that disagrees with their philosophy. Hmmmm, if you read that again you might be able to point out the irony.
None the less, these 'labels' have proved to be an effective method to deflect from the real questions concerning homosexuality. Mainly, should homosexuality be accepted by society as simply against a social moray? Is society wrong to hold an intolerant attitude towards homosexuals?
To answer this, lets first look to see if homosexuality could be considered 'normal'. Of course 'normal' is is a term that's often seen as purely subjective, so this does nothing to diffuse any controversy.
To avoid prolonging any debate, lets look at how the medical community defines what 'Homosexuality' is:
Mental Illness: Any of various psychiatric conditions, usually characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by physiological or psychosocial factors. Also called mental disease, mental disorder.
This seems to be to broad of a term to offer any type of conclusive definition. Lets drill down and look at 'Mental Disorder':
any disturbance of emotional equilibrium as manifested in maladaptive behavior and impaired functioning, caused by genetic, physical, chemical, biologic, psychologic, or social and cultural factors. Also called emotional illness, mental illness, psychiatric disorder.
Based on this definition, 'Homosexuality' seems to fit in as a 'mental disorder'. Just to be sure though, look at the definition of:
Maladaptive: Not assisting or promoting adaptation
Adaptive: A change in structure, function, or behavior by which a species or individual improves its chance of survival in a specific environment. Adaptations develop as the result of natural selection operating on random genetic variations that are capable of being passed from one generation to the next. Variations that prove advantageous will tend to spread throughout the population.
Therefore, because homosexuality is by nature maladaptive, we can confidently designate homosexual behavior as a Mental Disorder. This is true regardless if a person is born with this condition. If someone is born with a heart condition, would we be remiss if we failed to recognize this as a dangerous medical condition? What if someone is born deaf? Is it wrong to recognize that this person suffers from hearing loss? How about those that are born without eyesight?
Society is not seen as intolerant for not considering the rights of the blind to be granted driving privileges.
Somehow though, because society has defined that marriage is to be between a man and a woman this is seen as prejudiced and therefore wrong? Of course it's prejudicial, but this does not equate to being wrong.
Consider, we classify 'homosexuals' to be members of a minority group. What other minority group is designated as such based on their lifestyle? We classify various races as being within a 'minority group' but not based on lifestyle.
How would society be changed if a minority group became the 'majority group'? If divided only by race or nationality we may see a change in our culture. Other than this though, the effect on the Human Race would be as relative as reshuffling a deck of cards. Ultimately, we would still be playing with a full deck of 52 cards.
In contrast to this however, if homosexuals ever became a majority, this would have a disastrous effect on the progression of the 'human race'. For society to embrace 'homosexualism' could impede procreation. More and more children would have to be created in test-tubes. The cost associated with this may be prohibitive for many. Therefore the human population would inevitably cease to progress naturally.
Yes, I know that this is taking things to the extreme, but if the extreme is not considered valid reasoning we'll never be prepared if it came true. If an extreme case proves to be false, then that activity must therefore be deemed false or wrong.
Is it wrong to abolish same-sex marriage? NO, it is our responsibility to outlaw same-sex marriage. Anything that conflicts with the progression of the human race has always been and always should be outlawed. What's wrong with society is not its inability to tolerate differences it's precisely our ability to tolerate just about everything that's wrong!
It's wrong not recognizing homosexuality as a disorder. Society has proved that it has no issue with empathizing for those that suffer from a disease. Society has donated billions of dollars to the treatment and cure for many diseases. This is right because it is FOR the advancement of human life. By contrast, it would be wrong to host a charitable event to promote suicide, cancer, murder, abortion, and bomb making. These are wrong because they advance ideas that oppose human life. In comparison, homosexuals march in parades and seek funding to promote a condition that is diametrically opposed to the advancement of human progression?
The true irony is that proponents of homosexual rights try to speak on behalf of 'human rights' yet their actions are diametrically opposed to the advancement of civilization!
Clearly, for society to accept homosexuality as normal would require the discarding of a few cards... the Kings seem the most appropriate choice.
A few good articles that I've come across recently detail exactly with and provide further proof for my attestations contained in this blog.
Article 1 - details the history of the removal of the 'Mental Disorder' distinction on Homosexuals.
Article 2 - details the effects on a society that accepts and/or promotes the homosexual lifestyle as 'normal'.
Article 3 - details the 'blueprint' for homosexuals to advance their cause onto healthy society.
Article 4 - If your familiar with the site 'Religious Tolerance' then you're probably aware of its inability to be committal towards any view. Likewise, this takes a more 'universal' approach and remains very objective to the subject. Needless to say, you're not going to find an opinion on this subject in this article.
Instead of simply restating why homosexuality is wrong from a Christian perspective, I'd like to look at this from a secular viewpoint. I, like most people don't enjoy being labeled as close-minded, narrow-minded, intolerant, phobic or anything else that would infer lacking-intelligence or an uncaring nature. It's not surprising that proponents for homosexuals utilize these labels in an effort to discredit anyone that disagrees with their philosophy. Hmmmm, if you read that again you might be able to point out the irony.
None the less, these 'labels' have proved to be an effective method to deflect from the real questions concerning homosexuality. Mainly, should homosexuality be accepted by society as simply against a social moray? Is society wrong to hold an intolerant attitude towards homosexuals?
To answer this, lets first look to see if homosexuality could be considered 'normal'. Of course 'normal' is is a term that's often seen as purely subjective, so this does nothing to diffuse any controversy.
To avoid prolonging any debate, lets look at how the medical community defines what 'Homosexuality' is:
Mental Illness: Any of various psychiatric conditions, usually characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by physiological or psychosocial factors. Also called mental disease, mental disorder.
This seems to be to broad of a term to offer any type of conclusive definition. Lets drill down and look at 'Mental Disorder':
any disturbance of emotional equilibrium as manifested in maladaptive behavior and impaired functioning, caused by genetic, physical, chemical, biologic, psychologic, or social and cultural factors. Also called emotional illness, mental illness, psychiatric disorder.
Based on this definition, 'Homosexuality' seems to fit in as a 'mental disorder'. Just to be sure though, look at the definition of:
Maladaptive: Not assisting or promoting adaptation
Adaptive: A change in structure, function, or behavior by which a species or individual improves its chance of survival in a specific environment. Adaptations develop as the result of natural selection operating on random genetic variations that are capable of being passed from one generation to the next. Variations that prove advantageous will tend to spread throughout the population.
Therefore, because homosexuality is by nature maladaptive, we can confidently designate homosexual behavior as a Mental Disorder. This is true regardless if a person is born with this condition. If someone is born with a heart condition, would we be remiss if we failed to recognize this as a dangerous medical condition? What if someone is born deaf? Is it wrong to recognize that this person suffers from hearing loss? How about those that are born without eyesight?
Society is not seen as intolerant for not considering the rights of the blind to be granted driving privileges.
Somehow though, because society has defined that marriage is to be between a man and a woman this is seen as prejudiced and therefore wrong? Of course it's prejudicial, but this does not equate to being wrong.
Consider, we classify 'homosexuals' to be members of a minority group. What other minority group is designated as such based on their lifestyle? We classify various races as being within a 'minority group' but not based on lifestyle.
How would society be changed if a minority group became the 'majority group'? If divided only by race or nationality we may see a change in our culture. Other than this though, the effect on the Human Race would be as relative as reshuffling a deck of cards. Ultimately, we would still be playing with a full deck of 52 cards.
In contrast to this however, if homosexuals ever became a majority, this would have a disastrous effect on the progression of the 'human race'. For society to embrace 'homosexualism' could impede procreation. More and more children would have to be created in test-tubes. The cost associated with this may be prohibitive for many. Therefore the human population would inevitably cease to progress naturally.
Yes, I know that this is taking things to the extreme, but if the extreme is not considered valid reasoning we'll never be prepared if it came true. If an extreme case proves to be false, then that activity must therefore be deemed false or wrong.
Is it wrong to abolish same-sex marriage? NO, it is our responsibility to outlaw same-sex marriage. Anything that conflicts with the progression of the human race has always been and always should be outlawed. What's wrong with society is not its inability to tolerate differences it's precisely our ability to tolerate just about everything that's wrong!
It's wrong not recognizing homosexuality as a disorder. Society has proved that it has no issue with empathizing for those that suffer from a disease. Society has donated billions of dollars to the treatment and cure for many diseases. This is right because it is FOR the advancement of human life. By contrast, it would be wrong to host a charitable event to promote suicide, cancer, murder, abortion, and bomb making. These are wrong because they advance ideas that oppose human life. In comparison, homosexuals march in parades and seek funding to promote a condition that is diametrically opposed to the advancement of human progression?
The true irony is that proponents of homosexual rights try to speak on behalf of 'human rights' yet their actions are diametrically opposed to the advancement of civilization!
Clearly, for society to accept homosexuality as normal would require the discarding of a few cards... the Kings seem the most appropriate choice.
A few good articles that I've come across recently detail exactly with and provide further proof for my attestations contained in this blog.
Article 1 - details the history of the removal of the 'Mental Disorder' distinction on Homosexuals.
Article 2 - details the effects on a society that accepts and/or promotes the homosexual lifestyle as 'normal'.
Article 3 - details the 'blueprint' for homosexuals to advance their cause onto healthy society.
Article 4 - If your familiar with the site 'Religious Tolerance' then you're probably aware of its inability to be committal towards any view. Likewise, this takes a more 'universal' approach and remains very objective to the subject. Needless to say, you're not going to find an opinion on this subject in this article.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posts
Those "labels" describe you, as you are a narrow-minded and intolerant homophobe.
ReplyDeleteSociety should certainly accept & acknowledge the normalcy of sexual orientation across the spectrum. It is not an absolute, not a choice, and is in fact biologically determined - sometimes apparent in toddlers.
No recognized health professional would ever suggest GLBT are anything but normal.
People who preach this hatred must be condemned and as a minimum lose any right to parent or teach children.
I'm sorry for the lack of a citation, these definitions came directly out of The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary. You can also compare these to Gray's Medical Dictionary.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's no coincidence that in the age of "Political Correctness" we're often subjected to untruths in an effort not to be sued. You may also care to read my post on "PC vs PP".
You no longer can look up a medical opinion on how Homosexuality is defined, this doesn't mean though that it remains undefined. It simply remains uncategorized.
By the way, the medical community also does not recognize "homo-phobia" as an actual condition. Therefore, you'll never find this word in a medical dictionary outside of the explanation "a word often used used by homosexuals as a pathetic means in which to defend their anti-humanistic behavior."
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in seeing that how "being born gay" also does not merit further response, please read the entire article.
I'm not against homosexuality, I'm actually lobbying on your behalf that we can one day find a cure! How does that show the slightest in-humanity?
As a matter of fact, I looked into this as a reply to a question posed by a friend of mine who is a lesbian. She posed the question "Is homosexuality normal or is it a mental illness?"
ReplyDeleteOf course she never stated that she was in fact a lesbian, but something I knew personally.
Considering that she didn't offer this additional information to anyone else, and not wanting to simply state a subjective opinion I thought it best to answer this objectively.
I thought it would be interesting to find out how the medical community defined "homosexuality". As you know, for reasons of political correctness they've had to sacrifice a certain amount of truth in their public opinion.
This guided me to looking up the definitions I provided.
I later clarified this by comparing the definitions to Gray's Medical Dictionary. As you may know, Gray's is the most popular and accepted source to be cited in a court of Law when defining medical terms.
So, the only thing that makes this definition pertinent is that when I'm speaking about something, I like to be sure that people know what the definition of something is.
The institution of marriage originated and has always been strictly a religious institution from the Bible. The fact that the government has hijacked this union so completely over the years is a testament only to mans manipulative and coercive ways.
Therefore, the mention of homosexuality and marriage proves that your argument has been invalid since the beginning of time.
You've changed the subject. Now you're talking about religious marriage, as opposed to the civil (or as you called it, 'secular') institution that you spent the whole post on.
ReplyDeleteBut let's go with that, just for grins. You're still wrong, since you've still manufactured a connection between mental illness and homosexuality that -and this is important- DOESN'T EXIST. The DSM-IV doesn't connect them and neither does your own source, Gray's Medical Dictionary. They only connect because you want them to, and that's not a good enough reason to withhold rights from a group of people.
The subject of religious marriage is quite separate from civil marriage. If they were the same, the US Government wouldn't permit marriages of atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or agnostics. If they were the primary purpose for marriage were childbearing (which you seem to be arguing, though tacitly), the US Government wouldn't permit marriages that include women past menopause, women who have had hysterectomies, men with are impotent, and couples who say outright that they have no intention of having children.
Since we permit marriages within those groups, we must be talking about something separate from marriage within the church. And since we don't live in a theocracy, we don't demand that people follow our religious beliefs just because we say so.
By the way, about this 'curing' of homosexuality. There's nothing to cure, since there's nothing wrong. You may as well talk about curing left-handedness. You aren't lobbying on my behalf, you're trying to do away with people who are different from you.
Briefly, if you notice I didn't state that Marriage was strictly a "Christian" belief. I said it was a Religious Institution. For those religions that believe in book of Genesis, this would include Jews, Muslims as well as Christians.
ReplyDeleteMarriage was the first divine institution of Scripture and the only one established for mankind before the entrance of sin. As such it is the foundational institution of human society. The divine ideal is established with the first man & woman Genesis 2:18-25. The description of "cleaving" together so as to form one flesh depicts marriage as a union of love Hosea 2:19 between a man and a woman forming a permanent community of personal concern and fidelity.
It involves a covenant relationship Malachi 2:14. The explanation of woman being a helper suitable for man further explains marriage as equal partners in a complementary relation of mutual help. The selfishness of sin disrupts marital harmony, bringing turmoil, infidelity, and sometimes dissolution to marriages. Because of the hardness of human hearts God permitted deviations from His creation ideal but regulated them from excessive abuse Matthew 19:4-8
Now, if you want to dispute the the fact that Marriage was not invented or observed outside the the relation to God, please provide something that says otherwise.
I think it's hilarious that you're actually saying that I want everyone to be like me. I think if you really look at it, I'm for marriage among the opposite sex only. I'm certainly not attracted to anyone that looks just like me.
The institution of marriage, for the purposes of the state, is not a religious institution. It is a civil contract with only civil responsibilities and benefits. The question of where religious marriage comes from, who it involves, and why it was created is quite irrelevant to the discussion of civil marriage.
ReplyDeleteOK, lets remove religion from the discussion of marriage all together. This is where it gets really complicated. By removing God from the equation then you're removing concepts that you can't rely on later.
ReplyDeleteMost people that want to remove God have to introduce the concept of science.
I know you want this to be strictly about law & politics, but to consider these you have to include history and sociology into the discussion, right?
I promise you, without relying on God in a discussion of homosexuality & marriage your argument lacks a prayer.
It's your call, pick a catagory and state your case.