TFC on Homosexuality

[8473]

I'd be interested to hear others' views on the recent audio file 15th March where DBS and MR go on for 75% time about homosexuality.

The previous file (Ognir, MR & DBS) was one of the best in recent times, but then followed up by this.  If it was meant to provoke a reaction then it has.

1st.  Like it or not, being gay is not a choice.  People wouldn't 'choose' to be marginalised, discriminated against etc . .  DBS admitted himself that it's been around since the year dot.

2nd. There's plenty of examples of 'roll reversal' in the bird world as there is in nature.  A male sea horse carries the eggs ffsake.

3rd.  If anything, religion has distorted the natural development of humanity, by dictating the roles that males and females should have.  But of course that comes down to whether there's a god or not.  We may find out the truth about that some day.  Personally, i don't think so, but that wouldn't stop me standing shoulder to shoulder with religious followers if they're good guys.   I'd still have MR as Chancellor of our Exchequer.  

I'm afraid I was very disappointed with what I heard.  Not only for the fact that most of what was being said was just not correct, but more importantly gives ammunition to those who would describe TFC and it's associates as fascists, and deflects attention away from the real issues.

I hope DBS and MR have a rethink about what they said.

[mgt23]

TFC is not TIU........but i see where you are coming from(I think what DBS is just coming from an angle of the breakdown of masculinity). The main issue more than anything else is Fractional Reserve Banking and Zionist control of political infrastructure. I think if you have thumbed through TIU you would know this anyway.
Here is an example of a manifesto.......
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10084&start=0
I know that few on TIU would disagree with.......

[Christopher Marlowe]

First of all, it wasn't 75% of the show.

What did they say? That sex involving fecal matter is unhealthy and disgusting? I would hate to try and argue that it is healthy. People dig latrines far from the water supply because there are all kinds of diseases a person can get from sh*t. Also sh*t is disgusting. Even my sh*t is disgusting. That's why they call it sh*t.

They said that these zionists were using homosexuality to bring down society by weakening social institutions like families and the Church. They gave the example of a video put out by the NAMBLA people that showed families bringing their children out naked in public and using them in ways that were of a sexual nature. I'm not sure what all was on the video, but they said it was child abuse and it made them angry. Hard to argue against that one.

They said that the Church was under attack because pederasts had been put in high offices and allowed to take advantage of young boys without any correction or oversight. The bible is very plainly against homosexual acts, and so any people doing these things under the color of Church authority are obviously working to undermine the church. They said that JP II had a Jewish mother, and that the current Pope has been implicated in some scandal from his old diocese. They intimated that the lack of oversight on the part of the Church was done to scandalize and weaken the church. They said that the image of the weakened JP II was used to present the Church as ineffectual.

They said that the homosexual community is more openly sexual in that they are always discussing the sex act and their own private sex acts, and dressing provaocatively.  DBS said that he doesn't feel that it is proper to bandy these things about in a public forum and that he keeps his own sex life to himself.

IMHO, homosexuality is obviously a disorder. The purpose of sexuality is reproduction. Someone who tries to reproduce with the wrong sex is not going to be successful. So homosexuality works to accomplish the opposite of the goal of sexuality. In a similar way, Bulimia is an eating disorder: The purpose of eating is nourishment. Throwing up after eating deprives the body of nourishment. Bulimia accomplishes the opposite of the goal of eating. Someone with a speech impediment has a difficult time communicating.

Saying that homosexuality is not a choice because

People wouldn't 'choose' to be marginalised, discriminated against

is not really a logical argument. If that were the case, then anything unpopular that people do is, by the same standard, not a choice. Anything unpopular will cause a person to be marginalized or discriminated against.

Saying that a person doesn't have free will is the old victim argument. Victims are never responsible for anything they do. People make choices to do things. If a person can recognize his own part in his fate, what choices he made, then he can change his future. A person who seems himself as a victim of fate is helpless to change. That is weak.

I don't know what makes a person feel attracted to their own sex, but I think it is wrong to say that a person is helpless over their own sexual acts. While sexual peccadilloes may be forgiven, that is different from calling them "normal" or encouraging these actions. A married man might want to fornicate with the lady in the shoe store, but is he helpless over that impulse? Of course not. Saying otherwise is a lie.  

There's plenty of examples of 'roll reversal' in the bird world as there is in nature. A male sea horse carries the eggs ffsake.

As for role reversal, DBS was saying that the MSM was working to make manliness an ugly thing, and that effeminate men were put forward as role models for the boys. I don't think it is logical to say that effeminate men are good role models because male sea horses carry eggs.

If anything, religion has distorted the natural development of humanity, by dictating the roles that males and females should have.

I don't think this argument can be supported at all. First of all, it is too vague. What is the ""natural development of humanity"? Second, what is "religion". Defining religion very broadly, I don't think it would be possible to find a society without religion.  

This statement seems to imply that males and females having roles is contrary to "the natural development of humanity". That would be an odd proposition to make from a "natural" aspect. People in their natural state have an obvious differentiation according to their sex. In other words, their natural development leads to grouping them by sex. Sex roles are therefore "natural".  To argue otherwise would be arguing against nature. To say that the man should behave like the woman is to say that he should behave opposite to his natural sex role. That seems painfully obvious when people are not wearing clothes.  

While the norm is to avoid saying anything negative about homosexuality, I don't think it is natural to prevent people from speaking their own minds. Perhaps it is shocking to hear people say what they really think, especially if a person is used to the MSM glossing over anything repugnant in the homosexual community.  Perhaps people who are used to hearing homosexuality praised in the MSM should try turning off their TVs and thinking for themselves.  

It is very common to hear people on TIU and other forums say that discussing this issue or that issue is detracting from the "real" issue. We all want to make our own issue the most real one or the important one.  But exercising control over the subject of debate is just controlling.  People have to learn to talk for themselves. People need to think for themselves.

[Rockclimber]

Damned fine post and I can't argue with one iota of what you said, and yet I do think for myself  I personally think it's a mental disorder and I even have a link to prove as much, but meanwhile and again, one helluva post.

Thanks for that

[joeblow]

Man boob epidemic! Men are sprouting breasts and moob surgery is up 80%.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/10 ... b_epidemic

It is known that moobs are often the result of a hormone imbalance. Could it be that this problem is becoming more common because of all the xenoestrogens men are exposed to through their food, water and environment in general?
http://www.natural-remedies-only.com/male-breasts.html

Looks like xenoestrogens may be a culprit in the moob epidemic. But while some m en are having surgery to remove their moobs, other men are having surgery to give them boobs. According to the CDC, homosexuality is on the rise.
"Etiology of Male Homosexuality and Current Rise of Male Homosexuality"
(Copyright 1997, http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605/dheaetio.htm )

While this may partly be due to an increase in openness about homosexuality due to increased cultural acceptance, it may also be due to other, more physical factors.
Scientists have explored the role of hormones in homosexuality and have found that homosexual men have an unusual ratio of DHEA to estrone, a hormone similar to estrogen, with DHEA being unusually low in proportion, and that this is determined by the mother while the baby is still in her womb.
"As I have suggested, DHEA is directly responsible
for growth and differentiation of the brain." In the context of homosexuality, I
was saying that reduced DHEA will reduce growth of specific areas of the brain
that determine sexuality."
James Michael Howard
Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.

Estrone is closely related to estrogen. As we have seen, there are a lot of xenoestrogens in our environment. It has been shown that they can not only turn fish and amphibians into hermaphrodites, but they can also affect fetal hormone levels. Just by slathering on creams with parabens, mothers alter their unborn babies' hormonal balance. So it is not surprising that the role of estrone as an endocrine disruptor has also been studied. Could it be that the rise in homosexuality is related to our increased exposure to xenoestrogens in utero?

[Rockclimber]

But Joe...AJ has man boobs, so how do you get around that? :lol:

[joeblow]

But Joe...AJ has man boobs, so how do you get around that? :lol:

:sick: :lol:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Damned fine post and I can't argue with one iota of what you said, and yet I do think for myself  I personally think it's a mental disorder and I even have a link to prove as much, but meanwhile and again, one helluva post.

Thanks for that

Much agreed with R.C. and Christopher... well said.

If a person is "Gay" at TIU...just keep these topics in personal mail and off the boards. You won't get bothered. There are bigger issues going on.
Keep in mind Jews use Gays to corrupt and ruin societies as they both generally promote excessive promiscuity in general. Sex is for reproduction. The human body is "designed" for adult male on adult female action only.

[8473]

Cheers for your considered feedback folks - much further reading to be done.  I do feel the need to respond this once then I'll pursue other matters.

MGT2323:
Yes I have thumbed through a fair bit of stuff, that's why I felt the discussion was a bit odd, especially since at the top of the home page DBS describes himself as non-homophobic.  I think anyone who excepts gay people as equals (as I do) would perhaps question that statement.  I could be nit picking here and be wrong (I hope I am).
I'm not sure that a levelling off in terms of masculinity/femininity is such a bad thing, in other words a little less machismo floating around the world could be a good thing especially in our everyday social settings.

Mr Marlowe:
I'll gladly concede it could have been as little as 50%.
I agree, the idea of coming into contact with certain bodily matter during intimate exchanges is not very appealing.  I suppose that's why they tend to do enemas beforehand.
I agree about the NAMBLA thing - child abuse period.
There's plenty of men in powerful positions (not just the church): childrens' homes, after school clubs etc.  Most abuse takes place in and around the home by people closely associated not infiltrated by jews I would argue.  As for the bible saying it's wrong.  There's no point me arguing here that the bible is wrong.

Saying that someone doesn't choose to be gay is not the same as saying they don't choose to put it into practice.  That's why men and women struggle to come out, or pursue their feelings, because they know what reaction they will get in many cases.  I think someone getting their head kicked in just because they are gay is clearly a victim.  Unless you think they deserve it?

I think your example of bulimia doesn't support your argument.  The lack of nutrition is a side issue to that of lack of self-esteem/locus of control.  Homosexual acts are clearly not reproductive acts, although you could argue that a mental disorder could compel someone to put things in the wrong places, then how do you explain anal sex between a hetro' man and woman.  Why are mental disorders even being brought into this discussion?  If it's valid to do so then perhaps we should have more compassion, as we would with people with other afflictions not of their doing.

I didn't say effeminate males are good role models 'because' make sea horses carry eggs.   I was pointing out that DBS/MR's analogy to the animal kingdom was floored.  Besides, not all gays are effeminate.  A very large percentage are even more masculine than straights: ie bears, clones etc.

I suppose when I say the 'natural development of humanity' I mean left alone to evolve independent of rules, dogma and power relationships.  Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

I concede to your point on importance of one issue vs the importance of another.

Rockclimber:
Please post the link of which you speak.  Speaking of links, your postings of MCP are very much appreciated for someone who would otherwise have to stay up into the early hours.

Joe:
Thanks for the links, I'll have a good read over the weekend.

CSR:
"If a person on TIU is gay"  and  "The human body is designed"
There's at least one assumption there, perhaps two.  Given the response to my query suggests that it is a valid subject for a board discussion.  I wanted others' interpretations, and I got them for which I am grateful, what's the problem?  The thread about MCP and angels is not that different from this one if you think about it.   If we dislike something on the grounds that it's exploited by jews, then I'm afraid we're gonna dislike everything.

General:  We're gonna need all the help we can get, gays included.

Cheers

[MikeWB]

This is making rounds around blogs... :lol:

Haggard's Law – The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/0 ... r-lexicon/

Considering that latest scandal involving CA  Senator who's famous for being a huge homophobe who has been arrested coming out of gay club, there might be something to this!

http://media.www.smccollegian.com/media ... 0283.shtml

[satya]

I live in an area of Chicago with a large gay population, not right in Boystown, but the adjoining neighborhood. I have a gay first cousin and many gay friends, I am straight.  The gay pride parade route is one block away from my apartment which I witness almost every year.  With my close familiarity with the gay community, I will tell you that it is one based predominately on sex and sexuality.  There are no check and balances in homosexual relationships as there are in hetero ones.  Yet, before us straight guys get on our moral high horse, it is not us that keep ourselves inline, it is the women.  If women were just as "loose" about sex as us straight guys, we would be bonkin' just as much as gay guys.  I don't believe at all that being homosexual is a choice, but I do agree with DBS and others that it is being promoted to break down the family unit and maybe as a method of population control.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Haggard's Law – The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality.

This type of argument I would term: Ad Homo.  It's kind of a conversation ender.  Of course, the reverse could be said with just as much proof. Essentially, it is attacking the speaker and his motives rather than dealing with the substance of the debate.

"People who doubt the holocaust hate Jews."  
"People who doubt 9/11 hate America."

I live in an area of Chicago with a large gay population, not right in Boystown, but the adjoining neighborhood....The gay pride parade route is one block away from my apartment which I witness almost every year.

I used to live nearby that noisy, degenerate parade. Summer. 100 degrees. 90 percent humidity. No air conditioning. Window open: f*cking parade. Window closed: burning up. Ah, Chicago.

Yet, before us straight guys get on our moral high horse, it is not us that keep ourselves inline, it is the women. If women were just as "loose" about sex as us straight guys, we would be bonkin' just as much as gay guys.

I also have it on good authority that if my aunt were a man, she would be my uncle.  

As for the bible saying it's wrong. There's no point me arguing here that the bible is wrong.

My point was not merely arguing that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. My point was much more subtle and lucid than that. I said:

The bible is very plainly against homosexual acts, and so any people doing these things under the color of Church authority are obviously working to undermine the church.

A good example of this would be someone who swears to uphold the Constitution and then works to undermine the Constitution. You see? He is acting under the color of authority of the very document his working to undermine.  If I knowingly nominated a communist to the Supreme Court, then it could be shown that I am working in a cabal to undermine the government. Putting known boy-buggers in positions of authority suggests that there might be a scheme afoot to undermine the Church.    

Saying that someone doesn't choose to be gay is not the same as saying they don't choose to put it into practice

If a person "chooses not to put it [doing a homosexual act] into practice", then are they "gay"?  How would you know? I believe it is said that our actions define us. This is all about framing the argument.

That's why men and women struggle to come out, or pursue their feelings, because they know what reaction they will get in many cases. I think someone getting their head kicked in just because they are gay is clearly a victim. Unless you think they deserve it?

The sum of this argument is a humorous chain of supposition:  People are afraid to come out because someone might kick their head in...and somehow I am implicated in this imaginary hate crime.  As I noted before, it is the method of the day to win the argument by making homosexuals into victims: that way they can get the moral high ground.  Ditto with Jews and the holohoax.

This reminds me of another hate hoax.  Matthew Shepherd was killed by two tweakers, one of whom had been on a meth binge for a week.  The motivation was for drugs and money:

Bopp, who says he left Laramie and the drug world behind six years ago, told "20/20" that he and McKinney had been on a drug binge in the week leading up to the attack on Shepard.

"Aaron and I had been awake for about a week or so prior to this whole thing happening ," Bopp said. "We were on a hard-core bender that week."

Bopp also admits that a week before the murder he was so desperate for methamphetamine, that he traded McKinney a .357-Magnum pistol in exchange for one gram of methamphetamine. McKinney would later use that weapon to beat Shepard....

McKinney told Vargas he set out the night of Oct. 6, 1998, to rob a drug dealer of $10,000 worth of methamphetamine. But after several attempts, McKinney was not able to carry out his plan.

Henderson said he thought if he could keep McKinney drinking, he'd forget the robbery plan.

But according to McKinney, when he encountered Shepard at the Fireside Lounge, he saw an easy mark.

McKinney told "20/20" Shepard was well-dressed and assumed he had a lot of cash....

McKinney says he asked for, and got, Shepard's wallet, which had only $30 in it. But even though Shepard handed over his money, McKinney continued beating him.

When pressed by Vargas as to why he continued beating Shepard after he had already taken his wallet, McKinney said, "Sometimes when you have that kind of rage going through you, there's no stopping it. I've attacked my best friends coming off of meth binges." http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=2

Anybody a tweaker kills for money is a victim.  But the MSM used this story to create the myth of the poor homosexual who gets his head kicked in because he just wanted to be loved. And then an unconstitutional hate crime bill was passed in honor of this "victim of homophobia". And then if people try to tell the true facts of the story, homosexual MSM reporters attack them, and call them homophobic. Even homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan noticed this bias:

A pure hate crime was certainly how I first thought of the case, but the notion that the story is a lot murkier is not crazy or bigoted. (How Rachel Maddow could have a segment on this and not raise any of the salient questions I don't know.) http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... epard.html

Because its her agenda: she's making homosexuals into victims to get the upper hand. The victim argument.  

I think your example of bulimia doesn't support your argument. The lack of nutrition is a side issue to that of lack of self-esteem/locus of control. Homosexual acts are clearly not reproductive acts, although you could argue that a mental disorder could compel someone to put things in the wrong places, then how do you explain anal sex between a hetro' man and woman.

What the what? I don't have to explain anal sex between a hetro man and woman.  I said that the purpose of human sexuality is reproduction. That is obvious. That is the way humans reproduce. If human beings couldn't reproduce, they would die out. The inability to perform the sex act shows that the individual is not functioning properly according to its natural purpose. It is a disorder.

Eating is necessary to live. If a person couldn't eat, he wouldn't get proper nutrition. Eating is a natural and necessary function. The inability to eat is a disorder.  

You brought up "lack of self-esteem/locus of control" but I'm not sure why. Is that the cause of bulimia, or homosexuality? Perhaps. But I'm not guessing about causes, I'm just using logic to describe human disorders, meaning conditions that impair the proper functioning of the human body.

Why are mental disorders even being brought into this discussion? If it's valid to do so then perhaps we should have more compassion, as we would with people with other afflictions not of their doing.

You might be more able to answer why "mental disorders" are brought into the discussion as you used that term before I did. I don't know if homosexuality is a mental disorder or a spiritual disorder, but it is a disorder as I have shown.  Your original post said that DBS' discussion of homosexuality

gives ammunition to those who would describe TFC and it's associates as fascists

I was defending DBS and Rafeeq by showing that their discussion of that degenerate lifestyle was not "fascist", but rather that they were honestly discussing people with a disorder. People with that disorder do things in public, like the parades and the NAMBLA stuff, that are unhealthy and they were disgusted by that. That is the truth.  Is that lacking compassion?

Let's take a homeless person. They can't take showers sometimes. They can't help it. They are homeless. Lets say you give a homeless guy a ride. He hasn't showered for days. He smells really bad. Your eyes are watering and you literally are gagging. The smell is disgusting. You give the guy some change, but you don't have a room to give him. You can't help him. But that doesn't change the fact that he smells bad. That's the truth.  Is that lacking compassion?  

I didn't say effeminate males are good role models 'because' make sea horses carry eggs. I was pointing out that DBS/MR's analogy to the animal kingdom was floored.

I don't know what "floored" means. Perhaps that is an English idiom: Drunk?  I don't know.  What you said was:

There's plenty of examples of 'roll reversal' in the bird world as there is in nature. A male sea horse carries the eggs ffsake.

Actually, in the sea horse world, it is considered quite macho to carry eggs.  
I don't know what you were referring to in the DBS show. I thought you meant the part where he was talking about manly men being mocked by the MSM.

[MikeWB]

Haggard's Law – The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality.

This type of argument I would term: Ad Homo.  It's kind of a conversation ender.  Of course, the reverse could be said with just as much proof. Essentially, it is attacking the speaker and his motives rather than dealing with the substance of the debate.

"People who doubt the holocaust hate Jews."  
"People who doubt 9/11 hate America."

No, it's just an overcompensation and self-hate. People who lack something or don't want others to know something about them tend to overcompensate and go into an extreme to prove themselves.

It's like dressing like this to show that you're Christian...

when you were born Jewish.

Or going to this extreme to show that you're a muslim...

when you're really jewish.


Same goes with gay bashers & haters... they clearly have something they're overcompensating for. "I'll prove to you I'm not gay... I'll enact anti-gay laws and I'll protest on streets against gays!"

As for gays destroying  a marriage, I've never heard of a couple breaking up because some gays are together. What's destroying marriages is infidelity and money problems (number 1 & 2 reasons why couples break up). These are the reasons why there's so many single-parent households. Shifting that blame on gays is silly!

[Rockclimber]

@Christopher Marlowe:

Rockclimber:
Please post the link of which you speak. Speaking of links, your postings of MCP are very much appreciated for someone who would otherwise have to stay up into the early hours.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

There are other good reads here as well:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/

[satya]

@Christopher Marlowe:

Rockclimber:
Please post the link of which you speak. Speaking of links, your postings of MCP are very much appreciated for someone who would otherwise have to stay up into the early hours.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

There are other good reads here as well:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/

There was a piece about this on NPR the other day, backing up what the link states.  Of course the NPR spin was that this was perfectly legit.

[Rockclimber]

@Christopher Marlowe:

Rockclimber:
Please post the link of which you speak. Speaking of links, your postings of MCP are very much appreciated for someone who would otherwise have to stay up into the early hours.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

There are other good reads here as well:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/

There was a piece about this on NPR the other day, backing up what the link states.  Of course the NPR spin was that this was perfectly legit.

That figures. So NPR advocated the intimidation by the Gay Liberation Front, but meanwhile probably didn't talk about the fact that is was the bullying tactics of the nagging homos that had it removed from the list (it led the list) of mental disorders, not mentioining the fact that it was still considered a mental disorder.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Haggard's Law – The likelihood of a person harboring secret desires to engage in sexual and/or romantic activities with members of the same sex is directly proportional to the frequency and volume of said person's vocalized objections to homosexuality.

This type of argument I would term: Ad Homo.  It's kind of a conversation ender.  Of course, the reverse could be said with just as much proof. Essentially, it is attacking the speaker and his motives rather than dealing with the substance of the debate.

"People who doubt the holocaust hate Jews."  
"People who doubt 9/11 hate America."

No, it's just an overcompensation and self-hate. People who lack something or don't want others to know something about them tend to overcompensate and go into an extreme to prove themselves.....

Same goes with gay bashers & haters... they clearly have something they're overcompensating for. "I'll prove to you I'm not gay... I'll enact anti-gay laws and I'll protest on streets against gays!"

How is this not ad hom? Instead of debating the subject matter, this gets at the person's motives for protesting.  

From Wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise....

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
    Person 1 makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Person 1
    Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

An example of this same argument in reverse: People who defend homosexuality are themselves huge closet homosexuals and are making sure that all opposition to homosexuality is eliminated before they will openly declare themselves queer. They are driven by their all consuming desire for other men's genitalia and their overwhelming fear of being discovered and mocked.  They are clearly too involved in the debate and much too knowledgeable of homosexual behavior to be bystanders.  

Ad hom chills speech because it makes the debate about the people talking rather than about the subject.  

As for gays destroying  a marriage, I've never heard of a couple breaking up because some gays are together. What's destroying marriages is infidelity and money problems (number 1 & 2 reasons why couples break up). These are the reasons why there's so many single-parent households. Shifting that blame on gays is silly!

The attack on marriage and the family involves pornography, economics and a deteriorating moral fabric. I don't believe people are "hard wired" to behave well. Left to our own devices, error creeps in and we are doomed. Lord Acton's quote about power corrupting is describing this concept from the flip side. Does power corrupt, or does power allow the individual to display his corruption?

I believe that much of what we take for granted, e.g. the family unit, is supported by a long history of social evolution and adaptation.  The marriage debate often comes down to people dismissing marriage as merely a property settlement. While there is a legal history to that aspect of marriage, there is also a spiritual side to marriage that is described in the NT:

And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast.

In this and many other examples it can be seen that Christian marriage has a deep spiritual and mystical significance.  

Working against that spiritual union we have those corrupting social forces, among which is homosexuality. Left to our own devices, would all societies naturally marry one wife and raise Wally and the Beaver?   Of course not. Our concept of how to treat children is deeply influenced by Christ. The Christian tradition of not buggering boys has taken root, and now we are rightly shocked when such behavior is exposed. But these beliefs do not come naturally.  Look at ancient Greece.

For a modern example, we can read the many anthropological studies of the South Pacific cultures where buggery "ritualized homosexuality" is still practiced:

"Of the several hundred anthropologists whose work I have researched, I found none who said pederasty was detrimental, agreeing instead with the New Guinea natives that it was both desired by and beneficial to the victims"
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUN ... GUINEA.HTM

The site goes into great detail that I won't repeat here.  To Summarize: Normal Socially Accepted Buggery. (I remember first reading about this around 20 years ago when a US scientist was arrested for pederasty. He had gone to those South Pacific islands to study the brain diseases associated with cannibalism, and had made a sociological study of how the men normally buggered the boys. After participating in this, he took some of the boys home with him.  The boys learned from western culture that what was "normal" back in the islands, was in fact degenerate behavior, and then ratted out their adopted father scientist when they grew up.)  

Is it wrong to eat people only because it causes brain disease? Is homosexuality wrong only because it spreads AIDS? No. I believe that those behaviors are sinful because the Creator has deemed it so. We have been called out of that evil primitive culture to be children of God. The gift of marriage is under attack on many fronts, including this compulsion to devolve into  phallic worship.  How else can one explain NAMBLA? What prevents out culture from regressing back to normalizing the use of small boys for the sexual amusement of their elders?  Only the grace of God.

[MikeWB]

Pointing out that the biggest gay bashers are closet homosexuals in not ad hominem. It's just a data point that should be looked at.

Seriously, who cares if someone's gay? Live and let live!