The Official Winds eNewsletter
Copyright © April 2004
Gay Marriage Rights?
Forgotten Facts that Undermine the Gay Agenda....
~written from the common sense perspective of The Winds of the Soul~
by Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.)
|Although these changes were never scientifically validated, the costs of further deliberation proved uneconomical and a political firestorm.||
For years Gays have been hard at work advancing the notion that the practice of their sexual preferences are "normal, healthy and good." So successful have they been in the aggressive promotion of their politics, few even recall how their clever persuasion first began.
The organized Gay Agenda first succeeded years ago in lobbying their case both to the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, critically changing the manner in which homosexuality is referred to and categorized diagnostically, politically making it more a manner of personal choice than a dysfunction, attempting to further "normalize" and legalize their lifestyle with the equivocating approval of these very liberally-appeasing, unprincipled, and gutless professional associations.
Although these changes were never scientifically validated, the costs of further deliberation proved uneconomical and a political firestorm. And, so established, with many health professionals soon after becoming scorned when refusing to comply with this new political, as opposed to a medical outlook, the Gay agenda became firmly entrenched as a legal force to be reckoned with, soon occupying places of power in the business of media, learning to control what information about their lifestyle was to be conveyed to the public and what was to be suppressed.
Copyright © 2003 Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.). All Rights Reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, including but not limited to all forms of media print, audio, electronic and video reproduction, without the prior express and specific written content of the author, except in cases of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.
|I find a a basic flaw in their demands, one that has since become so hidden from public discussion, and made so politically incorrect to discuss, so costly that to venture into this arena publicly is to commit social and professional suicide. Namely, the reinvestigation into the overall soundness and "rightness" of their lifestyle.... In other words I submit that their lifestyle is not and cannot ever be considered in the least "normal, healthy or good."||
With little formal resistance against their continuing self-promotions over the years, today's homosexuals have advanced the notion that they (gays and lesbians) should now be given the right to marry as well as be given all other privileges directly and indirectly related to such a union. They claim that it is there constitutional right to do so, and that to withhold these rights from their lifestyle is legally discriminatory.
But, I for one, have always been confused as to the basis of their so-called "rights," not as human beings, but as a group of individuals claiming special interest. I find a basic flaw in their demands, one that has since become so hidden from public discussion, and made so politically incorrect to discuss, so costly that to venture into this arena publicly is to commit social and professional suicide. Namely, the reinvestigation into the overall soundness and "rightness" of their lifestyle.... In other words I submit that their lifestyle is not and cannot ever be considered in the least "normal, healthy or good."
I know that some may accuse me of inflammatory rhetoric, but I believe that the PC police have only succeeded in confounding the homosexual position, keeping the public from ever critically examining the basis of their conclusions, and finally seeing that the foundation of homosexuality is clearly flawed.
Today, homosexuals would have us believe that their lifestyle is now acceptable among the rest of society, and that there are no logical reasons to debate the issue any longer. They're good at distracting us from the real measures of "normal, healthy and good," for fear that their house-of-card-arguments to date would collapse in an instant. In fact, they warn and threaten that if we even think about raising the underlying issues of homosexuality again, we only prove ourselves stupid, discriminatory, rightwing, and religiously rigid. They would have us believe that the issue has finally and resolutely been settled in their favor. But I disagree.... and so do quite a few others.
In fact, there is not one established religion in the entire world that regards the nature of homosexuality as being Godly, natural, or correct. As one amongst many Christians, I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, a "sin" (among many) which God Himself defines as an "abomination." But for the sake of fairness and clarity, let's remember that, in fact, God defines all sin as "abominations," and that all sin is therefore wrong..., and He further declares that we are all sinners----perhaps not by homosexuality, but by others to numerous to count.
|Yet, in so categorizing homosexuality, this in no way normalizes it. I do not believe that it is something that should be given a special pass, or ever be allowed to become condoned and advanced as just another harmless lifestyle. Just because it should never be the reason for hatred or prejudice, doesn't mean that its status should now be promoted, panned, or excused as being "normal."||
The point being that homosexuality is as wrong and spiritually impractical as any other sin, and that none of us have the right to throw stones. By itself, homosexuality should never be singled out as more wrong that any other sin, because, as the Gospel reminds us, any one sin makes us guilty of breaking the entire Law.
Yet, in so categorizing homosexuality, this in no way normalizes it. I do not believe that it is something that should be given a special pass, or ever be allowed to become condoned and advanced as just another harmless lifestyle. Just because it should never be the reason for hatred or prejudice, doesn't mean that its status should now be promoted, panned, or excused as being "normal."
Like any sin or transgression, it is not in the least harmless. Moreover, I am of the opinion that we should never knowingly invite any form of "sin" into our lives, or give the impression that any "sin" is really okay for the sake of social inclusion or being politically correct, but work to help those so inflicted and burdened to overcome their problems.
Moreover, despite what the political druthers of professional health organizations would like to dictate, as a scientist and clinical psychologist, I am one that believes that homosexuality remains a psychological dysfunction, a specific disorder of personality and faulty ego formation, one that should not be ignored but treated accordingly---with compassion, love and supporting therapy to help correct the problem. And I know from personal experience as a therapist that the problem is correctable, having successfully performed this service for many in my own practice.
But we don't have to rely upon my own personal views about the matter.....
From the historical, sociological, religious, and the scientific realms, reasons why homosexuality has never been considered "normal, good, or healthy" are well documented and are obvious once the subject is raised. In fact, there are many other sound arguments against the normalization of homosexuality that the Gay community attempts to exclude from public dialogue and hopes will be forgotten. In suppressing such subject matter from dominating the debate is where the Gay Agenda has perhaps done their best work. They have been quite successful in keeping this information from the public, distracting their critics so as to reset their liberal agenda in their favor.
|From a biological perspective, homosexuality simply doesn't make any practical sense. Homosexual unions cannot procreate; they cannot produce any naturally occurring offspring. No matter how some may wish otherwise, homosexual activities are incapable of successfully proliferating the species.||
Perhaps the most telling and fundamental proof against homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint, is that homosexuality as a lifestyle is an obvious biological absurdity, atypically known only to our own species. Its practice is not ubiquitous and does not exist within any other life form. The reasons for such findings are immediately obvious....
From a biological perspective, homosexuality simply doesn't make any practical sense. Homosexual unions cannot procreate; they cannot produce any naturally occurring offspring. No matter how some may wish otherwise, homosexual activities are incapable of successfully proliferating the species. As a life strategy, this is a "diversity" which would work directly against the survival of the species, and not promote its welfare or stability. Refutation of this fact is senseless. This is a simple but profound fact that, when thoroughly understood, completely undermines the credibility of the homosexual agenda.
Moreover, by reason of nature's limitations, it's clear that homosexuality among any species could only be "biologically tolerated" for short periods of time alone if at all, and only if it were the minority sexual practice..., since if the majority were suddenly to practice it, the entire species would surely become extinct shortly thereafter.
To make this point more succinct, just think about this: If every human being now living were to suddenly become homosexual, the race would become extinct in less than 100 years. No man or woman would thereafter exist upon the face of this planet. That's not a healthy end-game.
Thus, from the most fundamental biological tenet, homosexuality can never be considered a smart or intelligent choice. In fact, from the frame of reference which advances the survival of the species, it is the most aggressively stupid, self-destructive strategy around. From this perspective, how could this possibly be normal or okay?
Parenthetically, perhaps this is yet another reason why God does not condone the union of homosexuals, but reserves His blessings only for heterosexuals, which he then commands to "be fruitful and multiply"...., an impossibility for homosexuals.
|Thus, homosexuality is a matter of personal choice and habitual personal psychological persuasion and dysfunction..., it is not an irrefragable and irrevocable life-sentence pronounced from biological dictation or chance victimization..., a fact hushed-up and vehemently rejected by the homosexual community since it then completely undermines the basis of their self-justifying agenda.||
Furthermore, contrary to the liberal political Gay diatribe, their sexual preference is not genetically based nor could it ever, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered an agreeable mutation. And there is no competent evidence or proof to lead one to suspect otherwise. It is neither a fundamentally derived genetic nor biochemically orchestrated condition.
Thus, homosexuality is a matter of personal choice and habitual personal psychological persuasion and dysfunction..., it is not an irrefragable and irrevocable life-sentence pronounced from biological dictation or chance victimization..., a fact hushed-up and vehemently rejected by the homosexual community since it then completely undermines the basis of their self-justifying agenda.
We must remember, that for the homosexual agenda to "work," their "condition" needs to be first "naturalized, normalized, and sanitized," sold to us in a wrapper that makes homosexuality harmless, acceptable, and friendly, arguing that their proclivity has legitimately come to them by way of "nature"----and something of which they have no control over, being innocent victims of nature's design. But therein is their real disconnect exposed.... As we've just examined, nothing about the "natural-ness" of homosexuality is "natural," as defined by the biological world we live... In fact, by scientific standards of biology, homosexuality is very "unnatural"... And, when that's recognized, their house of cards suddenly collapses...
Biologically, the ongoing proliferation of our species can only occur by the joining of male and female. Those are the rules----no exceptions. And please note..., nobody decided that reality so as to specifically discriminate against homosexuals. That's just the way things are...
And from this incontrovertible fact, we may firmly conclude that male-female unions are then and have historically always been the "established norm." Note that "normal" here has been derived from the practicality of securing the welfare of the species while simultaneously promoting its longevity into the future. Unions outside this definition of necessity cannot be considered of equal value or weight as they do not serve this one critically essential condition.
Thus, the sexual practice or lifestyle (and its respective promotion) which directly challenges and threatens the proliferation of the race cannot ever be considered "normal." If it is, then we best be about changing our definition of "suicide," and make that a "normal" practice as well.
|Moreover, just because they should be considered fairly as "individuals" doesn't summarily guarantee them actualization of these very specific rights for them personally..., especially since the historically qualified recipients of these rights have already been predetermined and reasonably limited by nature herself, rightly discriminating against homosexuals. Their union, being "abnormal" and not in the least "natural" in the truest biological sense, cannot now claim the right to be further legitimized or given "rights" that nature and God have already wisely chosen to deny them.||
These known and irrefutable limitations should in themselves be clear enough to defeat the notion that homosexuality is somehow "normal," or as "normal" as heterosexual unions. In this very fundamental vein, homosexuality is anything but "normal," since again, if it were, it wouldn't promote the extinction of our species.... Again, how could that ever be considered "normal, healthy and good?"
These fundamental biological facts, and their resulting limitations and conditions which spring from them, are often marginalized and further swept under the carpet by self-serving Gays, not wanting these common sense considerations to have place amongst us. They would like us to redefine "normal" by divorcing it from the very thing we base the standard of "normal" upon, our very biology.., as well as redefine "good" divorced from the very standard of "good," even God Himself, thus thwarting the commandment "to be fruitful and multiply..."
Yet, apart from God's Commandments and whether someone believes in God or not, the standards by which marital rights are established and for whom these rights apply are still found to saliently resonate from natural law, i.e., our biology. Thus, the rights of individuals to wed have logically and reasonably stemmed from the biologically necessity that the said union must be between a man and woman. The underlying reasons and standards by which those rights apply, necessarily dictate that they would be withheld from any union other than a man and a woman. Once again, a practice contrary to this would only work to undermine the health and welfare of the species.
So from what basis do homosexuals contend that these rights should apply to them, since the biological and the spiritual both independently give reason against them? Although it's true that as individuals they have the same inalienable "rights" as others, they make the telling mistake in asserting that those rights should now be applied myopically and presumptively to their case alone (no other group could so demand, eg. polygamists, incestuous unions, unions between man and animal, etc.), independent of all other reasonable considerations, subverting and changing the laws of nature, not to mention changing the fundamental values of society.
Moreover, just because they should be considered fairly as "individuals" doesn't summarily guarantee them actualization of these very specific rights for them personally..., especially since the historically qualified recipients of these rights have already been predetermined and reasonably limited by nature herself, rightly discriminating against homosexuals. Once more, their union, being "abnormal" and not in the least "natural" in the truest biological sense, cannot now claim the right to be further legitimized or given "rights" that nature and God have already wisely chosen to deny them.
|Indeed, until homosexuals can defeat the laws of nature and procreate all by themselves, their insistence to normalize their lifestyle makes little sense from the most fundamental biological consideration, as it can never serve the basic and underlying, indisputable and indomitable, critical and essential biological reason for sexual activity, namely the proliferation and welfare of the species.||
Their self-absorbed reflections and protestations cannot trump that which God's nature has wisely designed. Most tellingly, this world was not made in their image of things. No matter how much they wish otherwise, nobody can has the power of "normalizing" or "legitimizing" the image of homosexuality that all of creation has astutely and incontrovertibly rejected. Like many frustrated liberals, they find themselves on the wrong side of the equation.
Indeed, until homosexuals can defeat the laws of nature and procreate all by themselves, their insistence to normalize their lifestyle makes little sense from the most fundamental biological consideration, as it can never serve the basic and underlying, indisputable and indomitable, critical and essential biological reason for sexual activity, namely the proliferation and welfare of the species.
Accordingly, it then follows quite logically and reasonably, that since our biology has limited the procreation of life to the union of heterosexuals alone, the rearing of their respective offspring must also follow this chosen and select union whenever possible. Again, based on the biological fundamental outlined above, children should be raised by a "mom" and a "dad"-----not 2 lesbian moms or 2 gay dads.
Historically, the family unit of male and female has been the stabilizing influence of mankind since the creation. We see this value even today, noting that overall, children are served better, brought up better, and succeed more easily, when their parents are two stable male and female parents. The data continue to overwhelmingly support these conclusions.
To argue that two homosexuals can raise a child just as well, again flies in the face of the precedent set by our stable biological history, and further confounds the truth about homosexuality. The real issue is the influence that one's homosexual preference has on a developing child, and how such an influence can catastrophically inflict itself upon a child's developing sexuality and mind-set. This fact, the Gay community would like to dismiss.
To be sure, homosexuals would have us believe that that all a child needs is "love," and that surely love from them would be better than some of the treatment some children get in heterosexual homes. But again, they would like to confuse the point and distract us from examining the fact that practiced sexual preferences that are contrary from the biological norm of our species work to destabilize the formation of a child's personality and developing heterosexuality, not secure it.
About the Author: Dr. Gregory C.D. Young, Ph.D.(Oxon.) is a Clinical Psychologist and Neuroscientist having been educated abroad where he completed his postgraduate studies at King’s College, the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and then graduated and received his Doctorate from the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He has been in private clinical practice and medical research for over 25 years, being active as an author, popular radio and TV personality, public speaker, and biomedical researcher. An expert in a number of fields including Forensic/Criminal Psychology, Child and Family/Relationship Psychology, and Neuropsychology. He has also served as an expert scientific advisor, product innovator and formulator, and professional consultant to the Medical and Pharmaceutical Industries. He is the author of The Winds of the Soul~Heaven’s First Voice To Us, as well as numerous other scholarly papers and works.
The Gay community, again dismissing the biological objections to their unions and the destructive strategy that portends humanity, likes to argue that since their relationships are in their eyes "normal, healthy and good," any influence coming from their union must now be considered "normal, healthy and good," and thus how can anyone say that the children raised under their roof would be adversely influenced.... Again, they rely on the mistaken fiction, and our continuing blindness which supports their self-absorbed and liberal cause, that their relationships are "normal, healthy and good." According to the all-telling litmus test of our biology, they are not and can never be....
We should not and cannot ever be divorced from the familial influences and laws intelligently established and reflected from within the auspicious confines of life on this planet. Historically, marriage has only ever been between man and woman. Spiritually and religiously, the union has always been solemnized by God, commanding the two to "be fruitful and multiply." Our entire biology is noted to have been preconfigured for this reality as well. Society, being well served by this natural union in establishing the fundamental unit of the nation as the family, has since taken upon itself to legalize the joining.
We should be very careful how we try to rearrange the building blocks of our way of life, being careful to thwart the self-promoted fictions and psychological conundrums of others, being on guard and unpersuaded by their legerdemain that additional "rights" should be specially and specifically assigned to them and their willful, "unnatural" condition.
There's no question that homosexuals, like all sinners, have "rights" in our world. But lets not make homosexuals into any more of a special interest group than they have thus far campaigned themselves to be, assigning them "rights" which seek to undermine the biological "normal, healthy and good."
And while we may firmly establish this decision amongst us, likely upsetting if not infuriating the rationalizations of homosexuals, let us not do this vindictively or proudly, but calmly and compassionately. Again, we must remember that no matter how the homosexual's life-choice and lifestyle has come to be prevalent within them, it is never reason for hatred and prejudice to be unleashed, or that they should be further crippled or targeted for their misfortunes.
Why don’t you take a moment and become part of the discussion. Of course, more of this discussion can be gleaned from in the book. Share with me your perspective, questions, and comments; tell me what you think of all this by emailing me at: DrYoung@WindsoftheSoul.com.
or call 1-800-247-6553 24hrs/day.
Dr. Young's brand new book and the long awaited sequel:
The Winds of Forgiveness
~Heaven's Healing Promises~
The Winds of the Soul~Heaven's First Voice To Us is also available at Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com (BN.com), Barnes & Noble Bookstores, Books-A-Million, and other fine Bookstores;
distributed through Barnes & Noble Distribution, and Ingram.
To subscribe yourself, a family member, or a friend who you think would enjoy the commentary provided in this free eNewsletter, click here.
Please note, we deeply respect the internet and the rights to privacy. You have been sent this free eNewsletter because you have previously subscribed to it, or a friend/family member of yours has for you. If you wish to “unsubscribed” and be removed from our mailing-list, please e-mail us at: Unsubscribe@WindsoftheSoul.com and in the space labeled “Subject” simply type “remove” and then click on “send.” We will promptly delete your address from our data base.
Warning and Disclaimer: Although the author and publisher have made every effort in the preparation to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the information given in this eNewsletter and the book, The Winds of the Soul, the publisher and author assume no responsibility for errors or omissions of any kind. The information provided is offered entirely on an “as is“ basis and is simply the point of view of its author. Moreover, the information in this eNewsletter as well as the book is offered without warranty, claim of fitness, or therapeutic effectiveness and appropriateness, either express or implied, nor does it claim or seek to offer any form of diagnosis or treatment for any form of disease or dysfunction. Any individual requiring psychological intervention, diagnosis and/or treatment should always seek the professional services of a responsible and licensed Psychologist or Psychiatrist. Neither the author or Davidic Publishing will be liable or responsible for any damages whatsoever or however defined, caused or alleged to be caused directly, indirectly, incidentally, or consequentially by the information contained in the eNewsletter and the book, The Winds of the Soul.