Gay Gene and the Left Brain

Verse of the Week

as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.

(Jude 1:7)

Thought for the Week

The LGBT community, in an effort to justify perverted desires, has invested a lot of effort into the quest for the discovery of a “gay” gene to “prove” homosexuality is a product of Nature. The Left, the medical community, and US government have all bought into this claim of a genetic cause for homosexuality so much so that homosexuality is no longer socially unacceptable to the Left, a disorder, disease, or defect to the medical/scientific community, or a crime to the Government.

While no amount of evil or idiocy on the part of the Left or the Government surprises me anymore I find this an illogical view for the medical/scientific community for several reasons. 

First, if such a gene existed it is obviously rare since such a small percentage of the population exhibit this trait. To call such a genetic trait abnormal is automatically refuted by the claim that, like “red hair”, it may not be the norm but nor is it abnormal. While this refutation begs semantic debate I will avoid that here and proceed more “scientifically”. The same scientists insisting that homosexuality is genetic also typically adhere to evolutionary theory. However, homosexuality, unlike red hair, restricts, if not altogether precludes, the passing on of genetic material via normal reproductive means and so is counterproductive to an organism’s genetic survival. Hence, as per evolutionary theory, homosexuality would not only be a genetic defect but it should have been self-eliminating.

Second, biologically speaking, sexual desire, like hunger and thirst, is considered a basic and an instinctual necessity for survival. As such, when a person exhibits eating traits that are counterproductive to genetic survival they are said to have an eating disorder. Therefore, it logically follows that a person who exhibits sexual traits that are counterproductive to genetic survival they are exhibiting a sexual disorder.

Third, it is a known fact that heterosexuals can abstain from sexual activity. If homosexual acts are genetically compulsory then homosexuality should be classified, at least by the Mayo clinic, as a disease - compulsive sexual behavior (which lists HIV as a possible complication while ironically naming adultery as a symptom but not homosexuality).

The natural human reproductive act requires the utilization of two reproductive organs - one male and one female. Adultery, a sin against YHWH, is at least biologically a viable act for the survival of the organism’s genes - homosexuality is not. Would anyone deny the deviance of a man who felt compelled to continually imitate the reproductive act by penetrating another man’s anus with a gun barrel (I pick that object since the Left has a phallic obsession with firearms)? Such an act is contrary to the design purpose of both the anus and the gun barrel - just as the homosexual act is contrary to design - whether you acknowledge you have a Creator or think you developed from inorganic sludge. (Hmm, maybe a heterosexual brain was intentionally designed and the homosexual brain accidentally came from sludge).

I can understand, evolutionarily speaking, why finding a “gay” gene could be difficult since it such a rare occurrence; but, must not there first be, evolutionarily speaking, a normal heterosexual gene that should have easily been found?

Since the fall of Man all of Creation has been influenced by entropy and so it would not change anything to learn that a genetic defect could influence sexual behavior. If a “gay” gene were found it would not absolve the sin since even heterosexuals must learn to restrain sexual desires and impulses. Sexual desire is not the same as sexual action. Society, rightly so, bans the practice of many sexual actions based on sexual desires and impulses - i.e. incest, rape, pedophilia, etc. (though the LGBT crowd is pushing to eliminate regulating many of these too!).

Bottom line: YHWH is unequivocal - homosexual acts are an abomination! Any people that cowardly allow their government to propagate homosexuality, certify homosexual marriages, endorse adoption of children by homosexual couples, or encourage and teach homosexual behavior to children deserves, just as Sodom and Gomorrah, to be destroyed.

As for me - I will stand for YHWH. I will not kneel for Satan. I will not bend over for man.

When you die will you be morally standing, kneeling, or bending over?

 

Quote of the Week

Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. -- Hillary Clinton, 2000

Comment: This is obviously an old quote. The media says Clinton’s opinion on gay marriage has “evolved”. Maybe it is just my anti-evolutionary view but I think her opinion is by design. Like so many today, especially in the Government, her moral compass is the most recent poll done by, for example, the Huffington Post (for Obama it would be CAIR). As a recent bumper sticker said, “You deserve what you accept”.

Did You Know

A National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) found that 2.8% of males and 1.4% of females identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. When adult bisexuality is dropped the study found that only 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women reported having only same-sex partners since age 18. In essence less than one percent of the American population claims to be homosexual. The NHSLS results are similar to a survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey of public school students. The survey showed that only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls identified themselves as “mostly or 100% homosexual.” Furthermore, statistics from the 2000 US Census Bureau showed homosexuals represented only 0.42% of the households in the US. COMMENT: Apparently the perversion of homosexuality, like a hemorrhagic virus, requires very few carriers to become a very virulent and deadly pestilence capable of threatening and undermining an entire society. Viruses though do not have the help of the LGBT mafia, Hollywood, and the US Government (though the Governments aid to the spread of viruses within the US is becoming questionable - i. e. Ebola and MSR TB).

Macroevolution not only requires new information (primary), it also requires extra new information (meta) about how to use the new primary information. COMMENT: There is no known example in Nature of adding new genetic information to the genetic makeup of an existing organism. A mutation may make a healthy monkey a sick monkey - it cannot make it a human.

NOTE: “Redheads, who are often unable to develop a protective tan, have a high proportion of phaeomelanin. They have probably inherited a defective gene which makes their pigment cells “unable to respond to normal signals that stimulate eumelanin production”. See Cohen, P., Redheads come out of the shade, New Scientist 147 (1997): 18, 1995.

EXTRA:

From the Contact Page of my website I recently got an email from someone called Marty; but, they did not leave a return email address. Since it is such an important topic I will address the issue here. Marty’s email:

Comments: You say you are a believer? a Christian? Are you joking??? you just threw out a lot of the New Testament with your Challenge on the apostle Paul being false...Have you read Rev. 22:19? Think about that...get the revelation of that before you continue with this heresy. If God in Whom we trust and rely on, saw it fit to include Paul's teachings in the Bible, you now plan to supplant His Word, cast doubt and division with your own view? One day you will have to account for all your words and works before the Throne...God help you

          My reply:

Hello Marty,

First, Rev 22:19 was written by John and specifically refers to his prophecy - The New Testament did not even exist when he wrote his revelation. As to referring to Revelation it specifically states there are only 12 Apostles. Paul is not among them. Read Rev 2:2.

God did not compile the new testament - the Catholic Church did, and, many early Christians rejected Paul as well. If you want to read what was written before the Catholics try the Didache. Also, did God allow Eden to be corrupted to test Adam and Eve - yes. Did God allow the Apostles to be corrupted by testing them - Yes (Judas). We are missing dozens of Old Testament books that our current Old Testament refers to - so yes, God will allow man to corrupt things. Read the Old Testament - even the Israelis lost books for over 400 years that are now contained in the Old Testament.

Finally, I will gladly answer for following YHWH and not man. What you call "my view" is not new. It pre dates the New Testament. If you are sincere in your service to YHWH I hope you see the truth in time.

In His Service,

Wayne

                    PS - Jesus said we would be guided by the Holy Spirit - not a new collection of Scriptures that man calls the “new testament”.