The Greco-Roman World and LGBT

In recent years, community activists, politicians, and Political Action Committees (PAC) throughout the U.S. began aggressively introducing legislation that condones sexual deviance and child endangerment. Furthermore, the LGBT community does not accept criticism on any level, so when the subject of immorality arises,  nothing can be said against alternative lifestyles without being called homophobic or hateful. Deviant Greco-Roman traditions are being condoned in American culture, which encourages the same moral decay that had destroyed powerful societies for centuries.  The difference today is the fact that the LGBT community has the political and financial backing to bring their agenda to mainstream society. That is the argument being presented against the LGBT community.  In all fairness, we must look at the empirical data to see whether this is true or not.  We must apply critical analysis and fully investigate these claims.

Advocates for pro-homosexual legislation found  scientific credibility in the research of Alfred Kinsey, while the most staunch critic of Alfred Kinsey’s called Kinsey’s research  delusional and fraudulent. In her book, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, Judith Reisman states how, “Riding on the financial support and seemingly impeccable credentials of the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Research Council, and Indiana University, Kinsey published his distorted data in ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male‘ in 1948 and ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Female‘ in 1953 and, as his fans say, the world was never the same.” The question is whether Kinsey set out to deceive the academic and legal community into thinking that his research was actually scientific and legitimate. Due to the scrutiny drawn to his work, certain institutions withdrew their support of Kinsey, as others continued to support his theories.

Jack Drescher published an article in, Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 5,4 565-75. 4 Dec. 2015, titled, Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality.  Drescher documented the influence that psychoanalytic perspectives had on American psychiatry at the time, specifically saying that, “Consequently, in 1952, when APA published the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-I), it listed all the conditions psychiatrists then considered to be a mental disorder. DSM-I classified “homosexuality” as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.”  In DSM-II, published in 1968, homosexuality was reclassified as a “sexual deviation.”” As time went on,  activism made progress in reclassifying homosexuality, moving it away from being identified as a mental illness. Jack Drescher made something else clear. Gay-rights activists pushed for legislation that changed the way homosexuality is diagnosed and treated.

A requisite defining moment gives so-called movements a focal point that can serve to maintain the organization’s momentum, whether they are Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, or Gay Rights organizations. The book, Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution, by David Carter, explains how, “It is common today to trace the tremendous gains made for lesbian and gay rights since the early 1970s back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969, when gay men, transvestites, and lesbians fought the police during a routine raid on a popular gay club in Greenwich Village.”  Carter went on to explain the truth about that movement’s journey, stating how, “Gay people had founded a political movement for the rights of gay people prior to Stonewall, although of modest means, and it was the Stonewall Riots that resulted in the birth of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and later of the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA). These exemplars of a new kind of gay organization, imbued with the militant spirit of the riots that engendered them, so inspired thousands of gay men and lesbians across the country-and ultimately around the world-to join the movement for gay civil and human rights.”  Along with their strong belief in activism, gay rights organizations were able to acquire a level of financial and political support that censored critical analysis and questions about biological science,  morals, or methods.  

Critics of the Gay Rights Movement argue that extensive scientific research exists proving that same sex intercourse and heterosexual intercourse are not equal in purpose. Critics argue that homosexual and heterosexual “sexual” contact  do  not have the identical biological possibility of human reproduction. It is also being argued that the Gay community is attempting to disregard cell biology, physiology, and any arguments using scientific proof to support the primary role of sexual intercourse. Without any scientific evidence, gender definitions are  being challenged and legally reversed, despite proof  demonstrating that specific reproductive  organs identify gender in mammals and are scientific facts. Clear differences exist do exist. Attempts to make gender and reproductive system categories neutral, in a biological and legal context, are not valid scientific arguments. Sexual reproductive organs are scientifically defined for  their purpose-specific, unique traits. It is also being argued that the Gay community is attempting to make non-scientific exceptions to the zoological classification system, as it pertains to homo sapiens, thus disregarding the body of scientific research that presently justifies the zoological gender classification system.  Additionally, critics argue that the social and biological aspects of human reproduction interrelate and represent purposeful balance in society.

In the book, Essential Reproduction, by Martin H. Johnson, reproduction by homo sapiens is explained this way:  “Thus, the human male develops obvious external genitalia and a system of internal ducts and glands that conveys the spermatozoa in seminal fluid from the testis to the penis and thence reproductively to the vagina. The female develops less prominent external genitalia, but has an internal system of ducts that accommodate the erect penis and its ejaculated spermatozoa and transport some of the latter through the cervix and uterus to the oviduct (or fallopian tube).” The result is human reproduction and presents a strong argument for the primary purpose of sexual intercourse.  Presently, homosexual advocates push for equal status in marriage, without the ability to reproduce offspring on par with heterosexual pairing. Scientifically speaking, fecal matter and spermatozoa can not produce children, just as saliva can not fertilize the female ovum.  Gender is identified by sexual reproductive organs, and this is being argued today.

The argument is a serious one, but it is an argument that is not allowed by those that reject research science.  We presented this discussion to display a topic that can not be freely spoken about.  The spirit of debate and intelligent discourse are the principles that maintain a free society.