The Science of Homosexual Behavior

Plaque on the Pioneer 10 interstellar spacecraft, to show aliens what humans look like

Plaque on the Pioneer 10 interstellar spacecraft, to show prospective alien contacts what humans look like

Given the success enjoyed by the homosexual agenda in the past 10 years, it’s amazing how little legitimacy and scientific support there is for the embrace of this behavior.

Many others and I have written numerous articles about many aspects of homosexual behavior which compel rational people to reject this as a practice that has any benefit or legitimacy.  The reasons to reject homosexual behavior include the moral positions of every major religion on earth, the unique and extremely important functional institution of marriage itself, the physical welfare of children, the multiple and extreme health risks associated with homosexual behavior, and the religious freedom threat posed by the acceptance of homosexual behavior that are just beginning to come to terms with.

One aspect of homosexual behavior which hasn’t seen a lot of examination is the physical science involved in homosexual behavior, and human sexuality in general.  As uncomfortable as it can be for decent people, it’s time to change that.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

There can be no true sexual union between two men or two women. Think about it. We shouldn’t even have to discuss this sort of thing in polite society (it should be too simple to need discussing, and is of a special nature that it really shouldn’t be discussed this openly), but when radical Leftist declare war on normalcy and all that is good, sometimes we have to discuss delicate things…or capitulate and allow evil to to win in our silence.

In what meaningful way do the sex organs of two men or two women form a union? While it is physically possible to bring the sex organs of two women or two men into contact with each other, what level of union do they have? Forgive me for being graphic, but while you might be able to rub a vagina against a vagina, can two vaginas join? While you might be able to rub two penises together, can two penises join?

Alternatively, two women can engage in mutual masturbation, oral sex, or penetrate the vagina with a foreign object, but again, there is no union between the sex organs of two women. Also, two men can engage in mutual masturbation, oral sex, or can insert the penis of one into the anus of the other, but there is no union between the sex organs of two men.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

marriage illustration

An illustration of a counterfeit marriage, and a real marriage

Meanwhile, a man and a woman can easily complete a sexual union of their sex organs. If you are reading this, odds are you are an adult who is familiar with the design and function of the male and female sex organs first hand, or have at least been exposed to enough educational materials on human sexuality to be able to follow. The shape of the male and female sex organs make it obvious that they were intended to be utilized in concert together. The concave shape of the vagina is similar to the convex shape of the penis. The size of the male and female sex organs are also generally the same and complimentary in nature. In preparation for sexual union, the male penis becomes rigid so that it is able to enter a woman’s vagina, and a woman’s vagina opens up and becomes lubricated so that it is able to accommodate the penis in a fashion that is comfortable and pleasurable for both the male and the female. When the act of sex is completed between a man and a woman, reproduction often occurs; reproduction never, ever, ever occurs between two men or two women.

In the case of male homosexuals, where the anus is often the target of sexual gratification, science makes it obvious that the anus was designed to expel bacteria-laden feces, not to receive a penis for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Even after the reproductive process (the ultimate joining together of two people where genetic material from a male body joins genetic material from a female body and makes a completely unique third human being–a joining that two men or two women can never bring about) has been initiated, the differences between the male and female body make it clear that they were designed for complimentarianism in child rearing. The typical male body is bigger and more rugged than that of the typical female, enabling the male to defend and provide for his wife and children especially when they are at vulnerable stages in their lives. A woman’s body is designed to provide a protective environment for the initial stage of development of the child which resulted from their sexual union, and her body was designed and equipped to nurture the child until such time as the child becomes able to consume more solid forms of food.

A man and a woman can, together, provide the best environment possible for the healthy development of children. In addition to the aforementioned roles for which men and women are ideally constructed, a husband and wife can model for the child the healthy, balanced interaction and cooperation of males and females in a close, day-to-day environment. On the other hand, two men or two women running a household models a message to the child which says that one sex or the other is either undesirable or unnecessary, or both; this is not a healthy, balanced or productive message to send to an impressionable child. Men and women also have innate predispositions, talents and insights that not only make the home a more balanced and productive environment for everyone, these innate personality differences also provide greater balance and perspective for the growing child; a home with two men or two women is deliberately bereft of that same balance and perspective.

Since marriage is the union of two people (understood by every civilization throughout history as a union of a man and a woman), and since it is obvious from logic and science that there can be no meaningful union between two men or two women, it therefore follows scientifically that there can be no such real thing as “homosexual marriage,” any more than bringing two bolts or two nuts together forms anything useful or meaningful.

Homosexual behavior is anti-science in every way.

If you are a Darwinist (which I am not), this behavior is obviously anti-science because it can affect no reproduction or continuation of the species. It is contrary to evolution doctrine, and if Darwinism and homosexual apologists who claim homosexual behavior is biological in causation are to be believed, homosexual behavior should have evolved out of humanity many thousands of years ago, because it has no positive benefit toward the continuation of the species and it cannot be passed on to subsequent generations by engaging in the subject behavior.

In two decades or more of desperate searching, the holy grail “gay gene” has never been found, and even the most helpful subjective studies like those involving twins reveal far too few homosexual twin pairs to ever justify the belief that homosexual behavior is genetic.  Meanwhile, all the best clinical data points toward environmental influences as the driver of homosexual behavior.

Homosexual behavior is also anti-science in that its practitioners use their sex organs in a manner which is obviously contrary to their intended design and function.

Since there are numerous health hazards associated with homosexual behavior, it is obvious that behavior is contrary to the science of good health, which is in turn contrary to the best odds for the continuation of the species. Normal biological functions do not drastically elevate the disease rate of human beings; homosexual behavior does.

There will come a day when the practical will make clear what the reasoned and academic could not make clear to a reprobate generation, and homosexual behavior will once again be seen for what it is. When that time comes, and we must rebuild the moral fiber of our society and repair the damage done to the foundation of family, good people will need to understand these things and be able to articulate them to a lost society that is finally ready to accept reality and the answers that come with it.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/685009974965881/ Florence Thompson

    Excellent reasoning.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/10152850957742202/ Dawn Johnson Pence

    Best description I’ve ever seen. Bravo, Bob.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Thank you.

      You have to tread lightly (due to the sensibilities of good people) on a topic like this, but given the insanity of our age, I believe it is important that we clearly articulate what was once obvious.

      Because as George Orwell said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

    • https://www.facebook.com/AmericanClarion American Clarion

      Thank you.

      You have to tread lightly (due to the sensibilities of good people) on a topic like this, but given the insanity of our age, I believe it is important that we clearly articulate what was once obvious.

      Because as George Orwell said, “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

  • DCM7

    There are no facts so clear or obvious that they won’t be flatly denied by those to whom they are inconvenient. NONE.

    “there are numerous health hazards associated with homosexual behavior”
    While this is true of one specific, common homosexual act (you know which one), the statement (in the context of this article) is missing the appropriate reference to the single most unhealthy aspect of homosexuality: its tendency to lead inherently and directly to reckless, risky and promiscuous behavior. That’s where the real health hazard of homosexuality lies, not so much in the basic acts themselves. Homosexuality doesn’t just involve sexual activity with the wrong sex; it almost inevitably involves impulsive, even addictive, activity.

    • Brian_Joness

      There is absolutely nothing to back that up. If homosexuality lead inherently to promiscuity, then why did gay people just fight so hard for marriage? Why are all the couples that have been together for decades now getting hitched?

      • DCM7

        “There is absolutely nothing to back that up.”
        That claim itself has “absolutely nothing” to back it up. It’s often claimed in debates about homosexuality that there “no evidence” for this or that; and inevitably, there is tons of evidence that’s just being dismissed without cause.

        “why did gay people just fight so hard for marriage? Why are all the couples that have been together for decades now getting hitched?”
        What makes you think either “gay marriage,” or same-sex “couples” being together for decades, does much of anything to counter homosexual promiscuity? If you were knowledgeable (or not in denial) about homosexuality, you wouldn’t even bother asking such questions as you do (unless you’re just trying to intentionally mislead).

        Some of the more honest “gays” have pointed out what many of us knew anyway: That anything resembling the restraint of marriage is an utterly false mold to try to fit homosexuality into. “Gay marriage” isn’t about faithfulness and monogamy; it’s about the false appearance of normality.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        A growing number of studies illustrate what everyone has known for decades: that promiscuity is rampant in the homosexual community, and monogamy is almost non-existent.

        Marriage is not about monogamy in the homosexual community. Marriage is about the impossible quest to attach an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate sexual act.

        • Brian_Joness

          Speaking from the gay community that is false. Marriage is definitely about monogamy and equal rights in general. Your conspiracy theories are laughable. If you have a question about the gay community (we are talking millions of very diverse people, by the way) then ask a gay person. Don’t try to make up your own theory.

          Studies about promiscuity that anti-gays love to use are from the 1970’s. Of course people are going to be promiscuous if they have to sneak around and stay in the shadows. Marriage, as with heterosexuals, promotes monogamy.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Liar. Years of numerous studies, going back decades and continuing to today, which found homosexuals admitting to hundreds if not over 1000 sex partners proves you a liar. A growing number of studies which have found that monogamy is almost non-existent in the homosexual community proves you a liar. The many homosexuals who admit to these facts also prove you a liar. No one forces homosexuals to behave in a grossly promiscuous fashion; they choose to behave in a grossly promiscuous fashion. If anything, condemnation from society of this immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior would serve to reduce the number of incidents of this behavior, not elevate it. Again, you promote illogical and unscientific misinformation.

            I have no time for liars.

            http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/definition-of-monogamy-very-loose-in-homosexual-community/

            http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/san-francisco-study-monogamy-rare-in-homosexual-relationships/

            http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/03/candor-on-gay-party-male/

            • DCM7

              Thanks for the links, Bob. I’ve seen the articles before, but it was good to look over them again. The most interesting thing about them, to me, is how people attempted to counter them (well, the first two) in the comments sections: by all manner of fallacy, misdirection, deliberate point-missing, etc.

              It’s especially interesting to see how such attempted arguments will alternate between (1) claiming homosexuals are no less monogamous than anyone else; and (2) claiming there is no particular value in monogamy to begin with! It’s always a sure sign that a position is false when people have to try to defend it with contradictory claims and/or arguments they themselves know to be untrue.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Very true!

          • Thisoldspouse

            YOU don’t speak as some authority “from the ‘gay community'” any more than anyone else does, so knock it off with the fake representative crap. We DO have homosexuals and former homosexuals who HAVE verified the facts that Mr. Ellis has so ineloquently but necessarily detailed in this piece. You just don’t like the light, and so screech when it is switched on.

            At least two statistically valid studies have validated the fact that true monogamy, not the redefined kind, is extremely rare at least among homosexual males. If you’re interested, and not too jaded, look up “Gay Couples Study” conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco. You can also search for the 2010 study from England entitled, “Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can’t Have Sex With Only You,” which found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship.

          • DCM7

            I just want to know: Do you really believe the stuff you’re writing, or do you just hope we do?

    • CrissCross

      Because of course everyone knows that one of the defining characteristics of a population of orgy attending slutty people is that they will go out of their way for decades fighting at great cost in the courts, high courts, supreme courts, constitutional courts, council chambers, parliaments, congresses, senates or houses of representatives in any country they can be found in, for the right to have legally recognized and protected committed monogamous two people marriages.

      WTF????

      • DCM7

        Straw-man much?
        None of your silly mischaracterization addresses anything that’s been said here. Your post was refuted before it was made. Try reading what’s already been written in a discussion before you attempt to weigh in on it.

  • Brian_Joness

    “many aspects of homosexual behavior which compel rational people to reject this as a practice”

    This quotation and premise is false. Heterosexuals do not think about having intimacy with a person of the same gender, then weigh the pros and cons then reject the notion. Heterosexuals just aren’t interested in the first place. Anyone that thinks this would have to be homosexual or bisexual and feel bad about their own sexuality. Anyone of any sexual orientation can choose to remain celibate but don’t pretend science has anything to do with it. It is shame.

    • DCM7

      You fail to demonstrate in any way how science has nothing to do with it.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      False. While heterosexuals don’t spontaneously think about having intimacy with a person of the same sex (because it’s unnatural, as science illustrates), if they are a thinking human being, they cannot help but consider it today, given society’s juvenile infatuation with attempting to legitimize this illegitimate behavior.

      Once one thinks about it, science and logic, as demonstrated here, reveal it for the illogical, unscientific, and unhealthy practice it is.

      Far more than science condemns homosexual behavior, but science also strongly condemns it as without purpose, without benefit, and without logic.

      • Brian_Joness

        I don’t know why so may people have a juvenile infatuation with other people’s sex lives. The only thing I can think of is that they protest too much. Science doesn’t condemn homosexuality because science doesn’t actually have an opinion on anything.

        It can be fascinating to research the science of how sexual attraction works. Why gay people are attracted to the same gender. Though it seems that this article is just starting with a very obvious bias that leads to faulty arrogant reasoning. It seems a little juvenile and mean-spirited to me. Of course you couldn’t have expected a gay person to react any differently and all you’ve done is try to give confirmation bias to anti-gay people. These people go on to attack gay people.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Actually, most healty people would really rather not know anything whatsoever about another person’s sex life. Sadly, homosexual activists continually shove their perverted sex lives in everyone’s face on a daily basis, so that it’s impossible to ignore.

          Not only do they broadcast their sex lives to everyone publicly, they demand that everyone approve of and applaud their immoral, unscientific and unhealthy behaviors. While the shallow-minded, the insecure, and the go-along acquiesce to those demands, intelligent people with a firm grasp on moral standards and reality cannot do so.

          If you cannot grasp the fact that science reveals homoexual behavior as illogical, purposeless, illegitimate and unscientific after what has been presented here, then you’ve revealed yourself as a willfully ignorant and illogical person who cannot accept some rather simple and plain facts.

          I have no time to waste on people who deliberately ignore science and reality, even after repeatedly being assisted in coming to terms with it.

        • Thisoldspouse

          Until you realize that we are not automatonic animals, that we are not merely our brains and the chemical and electrical reactions that occur in it, that we HAVE A SPIRIT WHICH WILLS, that is outside of our physical being, you will never understand evil, volition, good, or morality.

        • DCM7

          “it seems that this article is just starting with a very obvious bias that leads to faulty arrogant reasoning”
          You can in no way counter what the articles says, much of it blindingly obvious truth on the order of 1+1=2. And it’s sad that you’re so determined to pretend you can.

          “all you’ve done is try to give confirmation bias to anti-gay people. These people go on to attack gay people.”
          This is the sort of blatantly false accusation that many like to throw around casually, as if they can somehow make it stick. The reality, of course, is nothing like you pretend. Attacks on “gay” people are far more rare than you imagine, to the point where it can be difficult to point to a demonstrably genuine case of one. And any such attacks would certainly not be motivated by the level of understanding of homosexuality that this article promotes.

          You insult our intelligence by expecting us to listen to such claims as you make.

        • Michex

          Some vulnerable young people can be bullied or pressured by media and teachers and peers into experimenting with homosexual behavior.

          The homosexual movement wants kids to try out homosexual behavior.

    • Peter

      Heteros are not interested in same-sex perversion for good reason, it illogical and irrational. Irrational behavior is the hallmark of mental disorders

      • Michex

        True, but some vulnerable young people can be bullied or pressured by media and teachers and peers into experimenting with homosexual behavior.

        The homosexual movement wants kids to try out homosexual behavior.

  • Michex

    Many Homosexuals DO recruit by trying to seduce young adults who are vulnerable in some way - immature, lonely, lacking self-esteem, drug-addled, psychologically troubled, etc.
    This problem can only increase as homosexuals try to depict homosexuality as being a least as legitimate as heterosexuality.
    There is a reason for the taboo against homosexuality: it leads people away from a normal family life and children.
    The taboo is no accident but rather a recognition of ancient truths.

  • franklinb23

    Promiscuity is more common in the gay male population for several reasons.

    Women serve as a bit of a restraint on heterosexual men by their very nature. They don’t want to be objectified. Women are also less inclined to hook up for casual sex as they have to bear the more serious consequences of child birth. Men have a higher libido than women. Put these factors together and it’s no wonder that promiscuity is more common among gay men. I would think that heterosexual men would be more promiscuous were women more like men.

    This isn’t an “excuse” for bad behavior. It’s simply an explanation.

    I’ve never heard of any of my gay friends having hundreds of sex partners. Ten to twenty in the course of their lives? Sure. The biggest problem from what I can see is a lack of willingness to settle down into the hard work of monogamy. There seems to be this recurring belief that there’s someone “more compatible”, better looking, more something. They date. They break up after some character flaw is revealed (and it always is). And the cycle continues. It’s a perpetual adolescence and a way of life I eventually decided was just not for me. Of course, you’ll still disagree with even a monogamous gay coupling, but I’m just giving you my POV.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      See, this is what honest (with emphasis on “honest”) disagreement looks like. An acknowledgement of the reality, accompanied by some reasoned explanations, even if they don’t tell the whole picture.

      These are accurate and no doubt significant factors in homosexual promiscuity-in addition to the fact that when a person is willing to cross certain moral and behavioral lines (that exist to promote a moral and healthy society), one becomes willing to continue crossing more moral and behavioral lines. I did with my excessive drinking, and people who are into drugs and gambling do also. As the old saying goes, sin will take you farther than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay and cost you more than you want to pay. It’s an axiom I found to be 100% true-the hard way.

      And interestingly, as you indirectly alluded to, in a heterosexual relationship, the aforementioned imbalances are balanced out to create a far more rational and healthy environment. Some would say this is one of the many reasons the Creator created men and women different not only physically but mentally and emotionally-to come together to form a more stable and balanced society.

    • DCM7

      Your insight and openness is appreciated.

      I would add that the “perpetual adolescence and way of life” is almost certainly so common among “gays” due to some of the same issues that lead to same-sex attraction in the first place. As you point out somewhat indirectly, a “gay” coupling with some measure of stability and monogamy is very much the exception; there are many who would have us believe it’s very much the norm.

  • Thisoldspouse

    One of the most common refrains of activist, fact-free homo-apologists is that opposite-sex couples engage in “exactly” the same sexual behavior that they do, and so attempt to somehow justify and normalize what they themselves “do.”

    They say there are “studies” out there - somewhere - that show that even sexually normal people routinely use the terminal end of the alimentary canal as a receptor for the male sexual organ. You have to wonder if pedophile “researcher” Alfred Kinsey, who claimed that infants and small children love and need to be raped, is their source.

    If this were true, that sexually normal men and woman engage in the exact same sexual acts that homosexuals do, then why are homosexual men exponentially more prone to contracting HIV and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases? Certainly promiscuity plays into it, and is all by itself a reason to condemn the behavior as part of that mindset, but the type of activity is just as damnable. No, normal people do NOT engage in the same behavior as homosexuals on anywhere NEAR the same level. If they did, the homosexual community would not be seeing somewhere around 800 times the risk of contracting HIV, syphilis, and other diseases.

    • DCM7

      Generally, the problems with sexual immorality are more about the “who with” than the “how”. The high disease rate in the “gay” community is certainly about the “who with” — especially the “how many with.”

      • Thisoldspouse

        And the “who with” is usually lost to the anonymity that is so common. I can’t even fathom the mindset that would give oneself away to a complete, identity-less stranger. If that’s not a mental disorder, then the word is devoid of all meaning.

  • Peter

    When are homosexual activists going to apologize for lying about homosexuals being homosexual because of genetics. Homosexuals are not born homosexual. I’ve been waiting since the middle 80’s to see the peer reviewed scientific proof! All reputable experts will tell you its “post birth factors” that cause people to explore homosexual behavior. There are many who believed the “born that way” lie, they were tricked into becoming sympathetic to homosexuals. All behavior is a choice, that is unless mental illness is involved. Excellent article Bob!

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Thank you!

    • Thisoldspouse

      I’m still waiting for an apology from the homosexual “community,” or even an individual homosexual, for the AIDS epidemic, which has killed thousands of innocent victims through blood transfusions and other medical procedures.

      • DCM7

        All we’ve gotten is excuses, misdirection, etc.

        …along with continued insistence that “gays” be allowed to donate blood without restrictions.

        • franklinb23

          Two things:
          1) Anyone can lie about their sexual orientation or their sexual history. Hence, the need for screening all blood.
          2) HIV is a binary condition. You either have it or you don’t. Why not use blood that is shown to be free of the virus? It doesn’t make sense to eliminate donors unnecessarily.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Depending on the blood testing method, AIDS infection could take up to several months to reveal an actual positive. Donated blood is no longer usable in far less time than that.

            Since over 70% of new AIDS infections are associated with homosexual behavior, this makes this group an extremely high risk pool. Why in the world would you want to put innocent people who are in need of a blood transfusion at risk of a deadly disease, simply to make people who have made immoral and dangerous choices feel better about those dangerous and immoral choices?

            That’s lunacy.

          • Thisoldspouse

            That’s just a silly contention to make. So, should we just do away with the questionnaire altogether, since all the blood is “screened” anyway for people who may have lied?