Posted on 10/29/2004 5:59:13 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Friday, October 29, 2004
By Caleb H. Price
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
It was bound to happen eventually. Before an audience of 51 million during the final presidential debate, John Kerry trumpeted the cultural myth that homosexuality is inborn and immutable. Flying in the face of the facts, he misled the public by declaring, "If you talk to anybody, it's not a choice." No doubt this assertion pleased gay activists seeking credibility for the view that homosexuality is normative and should be embraced by society.
However, for a man known for his faith in science and attention to nuance, Kerry has ignored the best data. He also hasn't talked to any ex-gays. The truth is that "nature vs. nurture" in sexual orientation is far from settled.
As someone who self-identified as gay for 14 years, I, too, struggled mightily with this issue. Like many homosexuals, I knew that I had not consciously "chosen" my feelings of attraction to the same sex. In the '80s, I remember having long conversations with my gay friends pondering the origins of our homosexuality. We concluded there were reasons we experienced homosexual feelings – we were trying to somehow bond with the same sex because we had poor relationships with our fathers, had been rejected by same-sex peers, had domineering mothers, had been sexually molested, or some combination thereof.
Looking back, I'm amazed at the clarity we had on the issue. But then, in the early-'90s, something amazing happened: The media reported that a "gay gene" had been identified. Gay people everywhere were thrilled and relieved. I remember sharing this with my father: "See, Dad, I was born this way!"
Indeed, several studies were reported in succession: Simon LeVay highlighted subtle hypothalamus differences in the brains of gay and straight cadavers; Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied twins and concluded that homosexuality is substantially genetic; and Dean Hamer looked at a marker on the X chromosome and speculated that at least one subtype of male homosexuality is genetically influenced.
Like countless others who were encouraged by these "scientific" assurances that homosexuality was our destiny, I decided to embrace "who I really was" and be proud. I joined a gay church, went to a gay gym, lived in a gay neighborhood, participated in gay bowling leagues, went to the Gay Games as an athlete, and attended every Pride Parade that rolled through town. Although I never found Mr. Right, I was well adjusted and happy – with good friends, a great job, and a nice condo.
I also witnessed firsthand the undeniable and deadly consequences of homosexuality: high levels of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV-AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, domestic violence and depression.
It wasn't until 1999 – when I began the journey out of my gay identity following a profound spiritual experience – that I began to seriously question the idea that I had been "born gay." I found that there was an increasing body of research indicating that people can and do change their sexual orientation. I learned that there is no consensus even within the gay community about "nature vs. nurture" and that many gays and lesbians continue to adamantly defend "choice" as the critical factor in the development of sexual identity.
Furthermore, I discovered there are significant methodological weaknesses with every single study claiming a genetic link to homosexuality and that the conclusions reached by the researchers were simply not supported by the data. Even the American Psychiatric Association in 2000 confirmed there are no replicated studies supporting any specific biological origin for homosexuality. In sum, the current consensus in the scientific community is that homosexuality is likely caused by a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social factors.
Despite these facts, however, we have seen dramatic shifts in public opinion on homosexuality since the mid-'90s. Thanks to the largely unchallenged and unrelenting promotion of the "born gay" view in newspapers, television and Hollywood, more Americans are coming to support "civil rights" for gays. I suspect this has been the progression in John Kerry's mind as well.
Because of his faith in the notion that homosexuality is inborn, he has pledged to remove the ban on gays in the military, to pass "hate crimes" legislation, and to appoint Supreme Court judges who will fight for "equality" and oppose discrimination against gay couples. Ultimately, Kerry will support same-sex marriage, too, because this position inevitably flows from the belief that homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable.
Given such sweeping implications, it is imperative that Kerry and other policymakers get the facts straight before trumpeting the gay party line and embarking upon radical social overhaul. The myth that people are "born gay" and left without choices betrays both the scientific facts and the personal experience of ex-gays like me. Indeed, my very existence proves that change.
Homersexuality is a behavior!!!!!!!
The strongest societies are those in which the basic unit of society is the traditional family. We shouldn't persecute those who are not in families. There can be many valid reasons for someone not to be in a family, and a homosexual shouldn't try to fake a normal life by marrying when he or she doesn't really want a heterosexual relationship. However, we shouldn't pretend that all other relationships are just as valid as the traditional marriage.
Bill
If it was a choice then Kerry would still be making up his mind.
It is good to see at least some homosexuals recognize the realities of their behavior... it is not based in genetics, but their desire to be accepted by men. (The domineering mother/lousy relationship or no father) Or by being predatorized by a homosexual in their youth.
This is the reality of it folks, its not rocket science. Before the Gay lobby got into the Psychiatric fields and undermined the science it was pretty much accepted and understood that these are the 2 almost universal foundations of Homosexuality. There may be some small numbers of fringe cases that do not fit into these 2 categories, but the overwhelming majority do.
Homosexuality is a behavior.
If one has no choice, than why are there many cases where homos turn hetero?
They even admit that, read Biology My Ass.
I believe the terminology should be Homophilia for the preference, and Homosexuality for the behaviour.
John Kerry said that Dick Cheney's daughter is a Lesbian. Dick Cheney's Lesbian daughter works for Coors. John Kerry won't drink a Coors Beer. HMMMMMMM.....
Bingo.
LOL!
Well, in the question/answer period, he was verbally assaulted by a group of lesbians who were outraged that he would not say it was his choice. You see, they were proud that they had chosen to shun men [those Womyn Studies courses were working well!], and thought he was doing a disservice to homosexuals by insisting it wasn't a choice!
Note that "Biology, My Ass" (cited above) mainly addresses women (though it does say "It is my suspicion that similar forces operate for gay men."), and there actually might be a difference in the populations of male versus female self-proclaimed homosexuals--otherwise, how are Womyn Studies programs so effective at recruiting lesbians from classes of confused freshman?
One thing I recall from the 80's at an Ivy League school I was attending was the transition from "It's a choice--it's our RIGHT to do what we want" to "It's not our choice--we can't help it--we're victims!" What made the change occur? The spread of a four-letter word: AIDS.
...and what, be a metrosexual?
It would be silly to assume that clinical perversion is gender specific, the axiom of common sense should prove the obvious.
new sodomy thread
Everybody - little jeremiah's computer finally died, so please ping me to new articles and I'll ping everybody else.
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
| Homosexual Keyword Search |
Let me know if you want on or off the homosexual agenda ping list.
If you're born with it...look at the study that looks at identical twins. Same dna. One has blue eyes...the other has blue eyes. One has brown hair...the other has brown hair. One like to smoke poles...logically...the other would want to smoke poles.
In the studies that have come out, despite there being a higher propensity for both twins to be gay...it's nowhere near 100%.
This is a tired old Liberal argument that has been shattered long ago. The sexes are far more different than the Left has been trying to make people believe, and even Time and Newsweek admit it now. Heck, Newsweek now even admits the "10% homosexuality rate" is bogus! Clearly there are possible differences, both biological and socio-environmental, that could create differences by gender in the composition of the homosexual populations.
Another interesting point in the "nature versus nurture" argument is the recent revelations (at, for instance, Emory University) that women suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress have actual, measurable, physical differences in their brain chemistry...indicating that even if dissected homosexual cadaver show brain differences from heterosexual cadavers, the difference isn't necessarily congenital. That is, it's been determined that our brains DO change during our lives, based on our thoughts and experiences.
That's it, exactly.
The Kverner study measures hypothalamus size and concludes that homosexual hypothalamus size in men fell in the upper range of women’s. The problem with that is the upper range of women’s hypothalamus size falls in the lower range of men’s sizes naturally which neither precludes homosexual pathology nor heterosexual behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.