Men sodomizing each other have to take artificial steps to reduce disease symptoms that arise with sodomy. The structure/form and function of the anus/rectum are designed for the elimination of waste: feces. Using the rectum as if it is a vagina rips the tissues, which are also not nearly as elastic as vaginal tissue: won't return to normal size. The vagina, when it is functioning normally, produces natural lubrication. When coupled with the tissue's design, the vagina suffers no symptoms with typical sexual intercourse if practiced daily well into old age. Men must use artificial means, such as introducing foreign lubricants, in their attempt to reduce problems that arise with the activity.I've had it said to me that people wear glasses, which corrects for less than perfect vision and that, that is analogous with homosexuals using rectal lubricants. Drawing that analogy shows a lack of fundamental understanding, confusion.
As the vagina is obviously meant for sexual intercourse and the birth canal, the eyes are obviously meant for seeing; whereas, the rectum is meant for defecating and not sexual intercourse.
When the vagina doesn't naturally lubricate, supplying an externally produced lubricant is for the purpose of allowing the vagina to serve its intended purpose without the female suffering. When the eyes age or are less than optimal for whatever reason, the introduction of glasses is for the purpose of allowing the eyes to better serve their intended purpose. When external lubricants are introduced to the rectum by homosexuals for sexual intercourse, it is not to allow the rectum to serve its intended purpose but another purpose where regardless of the lubricant, it may still not be safely used (is not harmless) as if it were a vagina.
Using the rectum as a vagina is inherently subnormal in structure and function. It is a perversion of normal, intended purpose. It is both the result and cause of disturbance of the natural order. It is a mental disorder, which needs restoration to the pre-disorder state.
Many people have engaged in sodomy and don't want to think they've erred in doing so. They are allowing the stimulation of the sexual pleasure zones in their brains to override intelligence. To learn from errors rather than continuing to repeat them is intelligent. To continue repeating errors, especially after having been clearly informed of the errors, is unintelligent.
Physical and mental conditioning can make it difficult to overcome bad habits even in the face of knowing they're bad. The sexual pleasure zones are conditioned by dopamine, a neurotransmitter. Just as Pavlov's dogs salivated at the ringing of the bell even though food was not presented to them (the dogs brains had been conditioned to salivate by way of ringing the bell each time they were fed), homosexuals are conditioned to sexual attraction/arousal. How could the dogs shut off drooling simply by being told that no food would be forthcoming? How may those who practice anal intercourse shut off arousal by being told that it is disordered and why? Typically, does the shut off happen instantly, or does it take time to rewrite the programming? Typically, it requires patience, desire, and understanding.
Does slipping back into harmful and risky habits mean those habits are acceptable and should not only be tolerated but condoned and celebrated? The answer is self-evidently no. It is misguided and misleads.
Does showing that sodomy is an error prove that homosexuality is also an error? The basic evidence applies to both. Some things are less glaringly symptomatic to those of lesser intelligence. Stepping back from anal intercourse while still practicing male-on-male sex still leaves misdirection in terms of naturally intended structure and function.
Does evolution supply all the answers as to what is normal versus not and correct versus error? It depends upon one's definition of evolution (Darwinian or otherwise), but the answer is that eventually it does. It is not without conscious choices, meaning that intelligence exercised/applied is part of the evolutionary process and impacts upon the outcome.
The homosexual mind/approach is not conducive to even marginal sustainability let alone optimal health. It should not be celebrated but corrected. The reasons it results should be corrected. Prevention cures.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)