My RSS Feeds
Is Homosexuality A Biblical Abomination Or A Pragmatic & Political Convenience? - RI9
Is Homosexuality A
Biblical Abomination
Or A Pragmatic &
Political
Convenience? – RI9
Tabacco’s original Comment on June 19, 2006 under Post:
The Logical Error That Christians Make
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/the_logical_error_that_christians_make.htm
Men wrote the Bible. When they wrote it, populations were much smaller than they are today. Anyone, who did not produce children, was considered abominable. You need soldiers to fight wars. The more children you produce, the more soldiers you have, the more wars you win. Homosexuality does not produce children! Therefore homosexuals had to go. It’s a very pragmatic edict, based on military needs rather than a moral imperative.
Tabacco
The following Source Only Reinforces My Thesis in Comment of June 19, 2006:
Population Effect: Why Homosexuality is
Dangerous to Society quite Apart from the
Bible!
Gays in the Military! What Would Washington Say?
We don't have to wonder what Washington though about homosexuals in the service@ because he communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy. His excellency the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.
Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."
What Clinton Changed: What to Ask When You Attend Sensitivity Training
Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the power to make rules for the military to Congress, not to the President. Nonetheless, by presidential edict, a few days after his inauguration and without even consulting Congress, Clinton announced he was eliminating the following policy, which had been in effect since the Revolution:
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
Tabacco: Have these morons ever heard of Julius Caesar, Hannibal, or Alexander the Great? How about Audie Murphy? Ever heard of him? Yes, they were all homosexual, and the list is much, much longer than that. Some of history’s most violent, genocidal and militarily successful notables practiced homosexuality. Again their theory does not hold water.
DOD Directive 1332.14
The question we must ask at sensitivity training is what is it about paying back the homosexual groups who supported Clinton's candidacy that in any way changed the facts stated above?
Population Effect: Why Homosexuality is
Dangerous to Society quite Apart from the
Bible!
The common sense (?) argument against homosexuality is so simple you really have to wonder how any thinking person could suggest homosexuality is okay. And you can show homosexuality is a danger even assuming that it is genetic, that is that there is a "gay gene."
Economists know that what creates wealth is exchange. The fact that you and I value things differently means we can both be better off if we swap. The more swaps there are the higher a nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
But what happens to the number of exchanges if the population is constantly shrinking? It should be obvious, the number of exchanges will shrink as well. Continuous population growth is a necessary element to economic growth. Other things equal, a declining population means less wealth for everybody because less is produced and exchanged.
(?) Tabacco: When does increasing population Max Out? 15 billions? 50 billions? 100 billions? Like oil, world population growth must end somewhere! Does the argument change when the earth is completely overpopulated? Does the United States prohibit any and all immigration at that point? Or do we just exterminate those folks, considered expendable? Blacks? Jews? Hispanics? Over 40ish? Over 30ish? Interesting questions; No?
Nature’s Ultimate Solution to World
Overpopulation: HOMOSEXUALITY
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/natures_ultimate_solution_to_world_overpopulation_homosexual.htm
Published August 28, 2005
Below we show how a society that does
not penalize homosexuality will gradually
vanish. Let's assume the gays are correct and homosexuality is genetic. They claim that 3% of the population is always gay and we'll accept this figure, although you have to wonder how well a gene will be propogated whose effect is to cause those who have it not to have children, but assume that is not a problem.
Next, assume a fertility rate of 2% - 2 kids born to each heterosexual couple. The U.S. rate is already below 2.0. Also ignore any other conditions - disease, accidents, etc., that might cause a couple not to have children. Assume everybody has children except gays, whose sexual orientation prevents reproduction.
Last, assume society does not stigmatize homosexuality, so every gay person is able to find a partner, whether or not the partner is also one of the 3% "genetic" gays.
The columns show the data on which the graph is based. Population starts at 100, with 3 genetic gays. Because society tolerates homosexuality, assume each gay finds a partner, reducing the number of heterosexual families who can reproduce. Assume also that every non-homosexual also marries, so the number of families equals the number of "straights" divided by two. Each family has two children.
The graph shows that the long run effect of tolerating homosexuality is that the population steadily declines. Along with a smaller number of people there is, of course, a decline in economic activity, in the production of new knowledge, etc. Want to live in such a world?
The graph shows our guiding principle here at CS. It is always possible to prove with mathematics that God's rules maximize human happiness and material well being.
http://www.citizensoldier.org/gaysinthemilitary.html
Theory is NOT ALWAYS FACT! The above Graph, intended to reinforce the idea that tolerating homosexuality leads to declining population or negative population growth, is a projection based upon unproven and false assumptions, omitted facts and bald-faced lies. How disingenuous of them to omit AIDS, birth control, wars, social mores, death rates, starvation and countless other more relevant causes than homosexuality. You can never trust people, who withhold pertinent information or skew facts to suit their own purposes. Those efforts are LIES in my book!
At the very least the Citizen Soldier must demonstrate the following two points before their graph may even be considered:
How many of you, who do not participate in lesbian or homosexual acts, are just chomping at the bit for Gay Marriage to become legal in your State so you can dive right in? Hands please!
Conversely, how many Gay practitioners will cease the practice because it is not condoned by the Church or George W. Bush? No, we don’t need a Hand Count on that one!
No effort has been made by Citizen Soldier to prove what effect homosexual activity currently has on the birth rate. Any study of homosexuality, which asks men to volunteer information about their own homosexual activity, will necessarily be totally inaccurate because most men almost always lie about sex (heterosexual often and homosexual always). Men lie about fights! I have yet to encounter a male, who admits to ever losing a fistfight. Now you think they will be forthright about playing “woman” to other males?
There are several countries, which have legalized homosexual marriage. The authors of the Citizen Soldier Post should have given us facts and figures regarding the “Declining” birth rates of those countries. They did not. I will NOT do their work for them. I leave it to them to inform us of those figures. They must prove their point; I am not required to disprove it.
Oh what the hell! I couldn’t resist the temptation to investigate and research the proposition:
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
Using the Citizen Soldier thesis, it is apparent that homosexuality is only practiced in the “More developed countries” where population growth has flattened out considerably. There is obviously NO HOMOSEXUALITY AT ALL in the “Less Developed Countries” – that steep curve between 1950 and 2075 proves that. OF COURSE THAT IS SILLY! Homosexuality has nothing to do with the disparity! Try birth control as a main reason! AIDS doesn’t seem to play a role either. If it did, I would assume it is more prevalent in “Less Developed Countries” than in “More Developed Countries”.
I guess Citizen Soldier told us more Damnable Lies when they said, “Economists know that what creates wealth is exchange. The fact that you and I value things differently means we can both be better off if we swap. The more swaps there are the higher a nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”
Using their economic theories, the “Less Developed Countries” should be leaving the “More Developed Countries” in their economic dust – but that isn’t so, is it! There has to be a lot more to it than “homosexuality” or Sheer Numbers.
I guess Citizen Soldier told us more Damnable Lies when they said,
“Below we show how a society that does not penalize homosexuality will gradually vanish.”
I think Canada still exists! Look at that world map below: Canada is that Big Dark Blue Country that Permits
GAY MARRIAGE!
@And lastly their point about how we know Washington disapproved of homosexuality and their alleged proof of this: history is replete with references of people, who verbally chastised homosexuals while practicing the life style themselves. (J. Edgar Hoover, Jim Jones, Jim Baker & Roy Cohn come to mind). Homosexuality and Hypocrisy are far from being mutually exclusive.
I am currently doing research on the possible homosexuality of George Washington himself. I may never find irrefutable proof; but already I have a wealth of circumstantial evidence. But we shall leave that for another day.
The logical conclusion to be drawn from the Citizen Soldier thesis is that heterosexuality is NOT NATURAL AT ALL and in fact must be forced upon society. If you accept the former (toleration of homosexuality will decrease the birth rate), you must accept the latter also. These homophobes never think anything through to its logical conclusion. That would destroy their thesis. They are neither sloppy nor lazy - they are merely disingenuous and deliberately disinformative. The question is "Why can't they tell the whole truth and why do they in fact always tell half-truths and lies?" Answer: because their premise is invalid in the first place!
When parents catch their pre-adolescent boys "playing with themselves", the parents often intone, "Stop that or it will fall off!" How many boys or men do you know whose privates have 'fallen off'? Mine certainly never did – I just checked to make sure. Those, who preach against homosexuality, treat the general population as if they were all pre-adolescent juveniles. (Forgive the redundancy).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Laws_on_homosexuality.PNG
World Graphic Notables:
Today, homosexuality is legal in the entire United States
The only countries, which impose the Death Penalty for homosexuality, are clustered in Northern Africa and the Middle East
Only 2 small countries in the Western Hemisphere have laws on the books against homosexuality (you may need your glasses to see them)
Zero Population Growth Will Occur
Somewhere Between
2020 To 2029
ZPG 2029 @ 6.90 Billion
by Mark Elsis
and the staff of LOVEARTH®.net
Dear Citizen of Earth May 1, 2000
The human population of Earth reached 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion in 1974 and 5 billion in late 1986. Last year on October 12th 1999, the human population of Earth reached 6 billion. In my lifetime the population has doubled from 3 billion in 1959 to the 6,034,213,000 today. This doubling of population, which occurred over the last 40 years, will never come close to happening again.
The exponential growth of human population peaked in 1987. That year 87.01 million more people were added to the Earth. Since 1987, the population has declined on average by 2.1 million less people added per year. In this year of 2000 the population will increase by 60.1 million people. If we maintain this 13-year average of 2.1 million less people added per year, we would peak in population reaching zero population growth in 2029 with 6.90 billion people.
The decline of human population has been even more dramatic over the last 6 years. In 1994 we added 78.5 million more people, this year we will add 60.1 million. This is a decline of 3 million less people added per year. If we maintain this 6-year average of 3 million less people added per year, we would peak in population reaching zero population growth in 2020 with 6.64 billion people.
When demographers from the United Nation's did their biennial update of world population numbers in October of 1998 they reduced their projected average population for 2050 from 9.4 billion to 8.9 billion. They also reduced their low number, saying we will reach zero population growth in 2038 @ 7.47 billion. People that are somewhat aware of human population numbers are talking about the 8.9 billion in 2050. Some people are saying it will go higher and a few foolhardy cornucopians are still saying that our population is nearly limitless. All the while no one seems to be looking at nor talking about their low number, which has constantly been reduced for the last 13 years. When the United Nations meets again this fall, the projected high, average and low numbers will be reduced once again.
If you take a look at the 2 charts we have produced from the United Nations year-by-year population figures you can see the declines for yourself. Our population has been going down faster for the last 6 years than even their low numbers for reaching zero population growth in 2038 @ 7.47 billion. This is shown by their low number for January 1, 2000, which is 6,027,534,000, yet on October 12, 1999 they said we reached 6,000,000,000. We could not have added 27,534,000 people in 80 days. We actually added 13,880,000 to make it 6,013,880,000 in the last 80 days of 1999. What this all means is we will reach zero population growth somewhere between 2020 @ 6.64 billion and 2029 @ 6.90 billion.
Perhaps the powers that be have an interest in keeping you thinking we can expand forever, implying that the Earth's resources are limitless. Perhaps the capitalistic economic system that rules Earth does not want to let you know the truth about our crashing population and that we will reach zero population growth very shortly.
The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits. This awareness is not what the capitalistic economic system powers that be want you to know. It would be bad for their business.
Our crashing population is both good and bad. It is good because these numbers show the indisputable evidence of the collapse that has been under way now for the past 13 years. This is the ultimate wake up call for Homo Sapiens. If there were ever a sign to take a long hard look at what we as a species are doing to all of the life sustaining ecosystems on Earth, this is it.
On the other hand this is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases.
Why did the exponential growth of human population peak in 1987? Why has our population been going down every year since? Why is our population declining more each year than the preceding one? Why is this crashing slowdown in our population happening? And why will our population reach zero population growth somewhere between the years 2020 and 2029?
In the following areas you will find the major factors that have caused our population to peak in 1987 with 87 million more people added and decline on average by 2.1 million less people per year over the last 13 years.
Fresh Water Limits:
Since the amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant, as population grows, the supply of fresh water per person declines. As a result, the amount of water available per person is expected to decline by 74 percent between 1950 and 2050. Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages today. By 2025, the number is expected to grow to 2.8 billion people. Of these, at least 1 billion people will be living in countries facing absolute water scarcity. Most overpopulated, fast-urbanizing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa have to survive on largely polluted rivers and wells. Water is a major carrier of disease bearing germs. As many as 2.3 billion people in the world today suffer from diseases linked to water, such as dysentery, cholera and typhoid. Less than 1 percent of the Earth's water is fit and available for human consumption.
Infant And Child Mortality / Starvation And Its Related Diseases:
10 million children died before reaching their fifth birthday in 1998 and nearly 8 million of them did not reach their first birthday. About 98 percent of child deaths occurred in developing countries, with the least developed countries accounting for a third of all deaths under age five. In the developed world, only eight out of every 1,000 newborn children died before they reached their first birthday in 1998; in the developing world, the number of deaths was 64 per 1,000 newborns. Infants in the least developed countries fared even worse, with 109 of every 1,000 newborn children dying before age one. Similarly, mortality under age five was seven times higher in developing countries and 12 times higher in least developed countries than in developed countries.
HIV Infection Rates:
All industrial countries have held HIV infection rates of their adult populations under 1 percent but in some countries of sub-Saharan Africa, they have climbed above 20 percent. In Botswana, the adult infection level is 26 percent. In Zimbabwe, 25 percent, and in South Africa, 22 percent. Countries with infection rates of 18 to 20 percent include Namibia, Swaziland, and Zambia. Aside from raising mortality, the virus also reduces fertility. With new infections at the highest level in the 15- to 24-year age group in sub-Saharan Africa, many young women will die before they complete their childbearing years. In addition, as the infection progresses toward full-blown AIDS, ovulation often ceases, reducing fertility further. In 1981, there were 200,000 new infections; in 1998, there were 5.8 million new infections. Preliminary data indicate a far bigger jump in 1999.
http://www.overpopulation.net/
Tabacco: But Citizen Soldier blames everything on Homosexuality! Now I know why they didn’t republish the research. If they told the truth, they would have no Homophobic Post to publish. How I love to expose L-I-A-R-S!
Population Implosion,
Graying of the Population,
Population Reduction, and
Negative Population Growth
Graying of the population
Population Reduction
The world's population 'boom' is not a result of an increase in birth rates, but rather a decrease in death rates. Today more infants and children are surviving into adulthood, while adults are living longer. Since the earth's resources are finite, population must stop growing somehow. Fortunately, birth rates are declining, because no one wants to increase death rates. However, population momentum (the 'boom' of young people who are beginning their child-bearing years), and the agonizing slowness with which birth rates are coming down, means the population is still increasing.
In the meantime, modern medicine is allowing people to live even longer - causing quite a dilemma: will humankind reach a point where having children is to be discouraged, even to the point of one child or no children families? What will the world be like with fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly people?
Some people do not realize that the earth's resources are finite. Or they believe that God or technology will take care of it. They propose a giant pyramid scheme to continue to produce young people who would take care of the old people - leaving the question of who is going to take care of the young people when they get old?
Many think that families should be large so that the children can take care of the parents in their old age. They who think so overlook the fact that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children.
http://www.overpopulation.org/older.html
Tabacco: You really need to read the entire Article above. I excerpted only a small part for my own purposes. Very interesting information about the graying of the World!
Still these MORONS, like Citizen Soldier, preach homophobia and population growth as if this were 250 B.C., not 2006 A.D. Some people need to close their Bibles and open their minds!
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)