OLAADEGBU: From the White House website we read:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

Are people justified when they say this man is an antichrist or not?

Deep Sight:

I have often heard people assert that instances of supposed “homosexuality” in animals prove that homosexuality is natural.

And I positively assert that it is a comprehensively false and fraudulent argumentation.

Let’s have a critical look at it –

For the argument to fly, the natural first premise is that Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans indisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

The second premise on which the argument is hinged is that Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate: If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be – "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animal sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of mas.turbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion is that in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addition to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

TheIkoro:


The purity in male homosexuality has always been recognised as that which it is - even when no more
than instinctively - both by women in particular, and by the world in general; SUCH THAT THE TWO HAVE
ALWAYS WARRED AGAINST SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS ONLY WHEN SUCH RELATIONSHIPS
ARE MALE.

- The Holy Homily.

And that same war it is that thou art waging with this thread, where all the abuse
(be it in the form of subtle criticism, or blatant condemnation) has been directed against
the male homosexual - with not one word made of the lesbianism that has always been a prominent (even when not so
obvious) feature of female human relationships.

- Adedotun The Ikoro.

lagerwhenindoubt:


[size=30pt]GAY POWER !!!![/size]