Posted on 05/05/2006 12:43:11 PM PDT by DBeers
Not to mention "disorder" implies that homosexuality is abnormal.
First, "sexual orientation" is not a behavior -as such, I would suggest your amazement to be unfounded. Second, I assume your anecdotal and stereotypical assumptions support at least one point; however, the point eludes me... Maybe if you would just cut to the chase e.g. "sexual orientation" is not a scientifically identified "trait" OR "sexual orientation" is a controversial subject?
Stereotypical male and female behavior? Conservatives think it's inborn while liberals think it's cultural.
Let me add that scientists have proved actual physical inborn differences between males and females -no speculation or critical thinking necessary. Oddly enough, human beings observed that are physically females tend to exhibit female traits while human beings observed that are physically males tend to exhibit male traits -they have even done statistically significant repeatable studies on this stuff...
Violent criminals? Conservatives want to lock them up because they can't be rehabilitated while liberals believe they can be rehabilitated.
I don't know what you are attempting by adding this stereotype into the mix? Are you suggesting that conservatives tend to feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior WHILE at the same time suggesting that liberals do not feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior YET think rehabilitation is necessary? Regardless my correct or incorrect assumptions as to your implied point(s), please elaborate specifically in regards to the homosexual condition -what point are you making specifically?
And so on.
Well, I would suggest you have not yet laid a foundation with which to "And so on" from...
Is consistency really that difficult to ask for?
I would suggest you might now have a better feel for where many apparent contradictions originate -garbage in, garbage out... I suggest you question your assumptions again...
Yes, I know these issues can be different but if you can imagine sex roles being biological, is it that difficult to imagine that sexual orientation might also be biological, or vice versa?
As stated prior -male and female are physically observable commodities -innate realities with many traits scientifically proved predominantly correlated to each sex exclusively. Sexual orientation at this time is but a leftist construct with no physical measurable scientific basis. Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
There are all sorts of them, from a possible genetic component to addictions like alcoholism to minor mental defects ranging from functional autism and people who, for example, don't experience fear. Take a good look at all of the oddball human defects out there. There are plenty of very narrow ones.
You are splitting hairs. It's a mental preference that leads to certain behaviors.
Second, I assume your anecdotal and stereotypical assumptions support at least one point; however, the point eludes me... Maybe if you would just cut to the chase e.g. "sexual orientation" is not a scientifically identified "trait" OR "sexual orientation" is a controversial subject?
Do you think that women are naturally specifically attracted to men and not to women and that men are naturally specifically attracted to women and not men or do you think that men and women are blank slates that that learn to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. If you think that men and women can be born with an attraction to a specific (opposite) sex, then it's possible for a person's brain to be (mis-)wired to attract them to the same sex. Either sexual attraction is learned, inborn, or some combination of the two. If it has an inborn component, then that inborn component can be wired wrong.
Let me add that scientists have proved actual physical inborn differences between males and females -no speculation or critical thinking necessary.
Yet as critics of nature will tell you, scientists also have proven that there is a range of inborn behavior such that some women can be very butch and masculine and some men very wimpy and feminine. And, oddly enough, gay men are often considered effeminate and lesbians are often considered butch.
Oddly enough, human beings observed that are physically females tend to exhibit female traits while human beings observed that are physically males tend to exhibit male traits -they have even done statistically significant repeatable studies on this stuff...
I'm not disputing that. But look at the word you are using -- "tend". Most "tend" to. Some don't. Most women tend to be attracted to men and vice-versa. That does not mean that some men and women can't be wired the wrong way. We all start out as a sperm and egg and are built in the womb to be one way or the other. And don't think mistakes (some mighty big) don't happen during human development.
I don't know what you are attempting by adding this stereotype into the mix? Are you suggesting that conservatives tend to feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior WHILE at the same time suggesting that liberals do not feel habitually bad behavior implies potentially more bad behavior YET think rehabilitation is necessary? Regardless my correct or incorrect assumptions as to your implied point(s), please elaborate specifically in regards to the homosexual condition -what point are you making specifically?
I think that at least some conservatives believe that classes of criminals, including sociopaths and child molesters, are mentally defective and can't be fixed. Further, I think at least some conservatives accept that some people are born this way, though you would be correct to point out that others don't.
As stated prior -male and female are physically observable commodities -innate realities with many traits scientifically proved predominantly correlated to each sex exclusively.
Again, look at your words. To "predominantly correlate" is not an absolute correlation. That means that some men or women can fall outside of the norm -- like being attracted to the wrong sex.
Sexual orientation at this time is but a leftist construct with no physical measurable scientific basis. Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
It's clear that men and women are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex and normally are. Why is it impossible to believe that if a brain can be programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex (or better at language or math or whatever) that it can be misprogrammed since we all start out physiologically unisex and develop into a male or female? You are aware that children are born with indeterminate physical sex and all sorts of other odd defects, right? If a person's physical development can go wrong, why can't their mental development? And, by the way, yes, they've noticed structural differences in gay brains, too.
Please note that I'm not claiming the biological tendency must be followed. I do think that people have some choice in the matter, too.
Actually no -I am simply telling you the bald headed man has no hair regardless the various toupees you might introduce for discussion...
Society legislates activities, scientists measure physical realities... I will consider it amazing if anyone finds a way to objectively predict mental preferences without at least one physical attribute to associate and correlate the preferences with (science) rather than depending upon (faith) subjective self declaration e.g. "feelings"...
Scientists can no more identify a Christian as they can identify a homosexual UNLESS they correlate to an activity and make assumptions e.g. an individual states they were born a Christian, or states they prefer to go to church, or is seen in a church etcetera... NOTHING innate about that -the mental preference is ASSUMED to exist...
Either sexual attraction is learned, inborn, or some combination of the two. If it has an inborn component, then that inborn component can be wired wrong.
As to the debate regarding homosexual activity being disordered -some specific cause of sexual attraction not yet found only matters to homosexual activists...
I myself do not concern myself with the homosexual elusive IF because homosexual activists' faith in the orientation "missing link" is not relevant to a debate of facts. So, why bring it up?
Homosexual activists attempt to prove homosexual activity normal while heterosexuals do not need to prove heterosexuality is normal because it is objectively obvious -there are males and females & procreation populates the species...
Conversely, homosexual activity is objectively disordered - regardless the unhealthy issues inherent to the disordred activity, a population that practiced homosexual sex would become extinct -again, no proof is necessary...
Yet as critics of nature will tell you, scientists also have proven that there is a range of inborn behavior such that some women can be very butch and masculine and some men very wimpy and feminine. And, oddly enough, gay men are often considered effeminate and lesbians are often considered butch.
LOL -where exactly is this proved research? You seem to have skipped a step and fell back into false premise land. Let me reitterate the hurdle you consistently ignore: Sexual orientation lacks ANY physical reality with which science might possibly even begin to associate any roles or traits to -sexual orientation at this time is ALL imagination...
I'm not disputing that. But look at the word you are using -- "tend". Most "tend" to. Some don't.
I am glad you concede it is not possible to dispute reality. As to the term "tend" -you understand that there are exceptions that deviate from the norm e.g. abnormal e.g. homosexual activity. A man that is driven to have sex with another man is deviating from the norm NOT creating a new norm with no scientific basis!
Again, look at your words. To "predominantly correlate" is not an absolute correlation.
Yes! You are correct -so what! I just pointed out above WHY this is a reality not relevant to the discussion...
And, by the way, yes, they've noticed structural differences in gay brains, too.
Stop the presses -THERE IS NO "GAY" BRAIN. Again it appears you have skipped a step and fell back into false premise land. Now what do you really mean -- Do you mean the brains of men who have engaged in homosexual activity over a certain duration of time have changed as a result of the activity or some unknown factor X - OR - do you actually suggest that infant brains can be measured at birth and homosexual activity can be predicted e.g. the "GAY" BRAIN?
Please note that I'm not claiming the biological tendency must be followed. I do think that people have some choice in the matter, too.
Actually people can ALL choose to engage in or not engage in sexual activity unless they are raped -WHATEVER their tendency...
Maybe it's nature's way of reducing the population growth a bit. Other techniques used in the past include wars, famines, plagues, floods, and so on. Perhaps this is just another self-regulation being done.
>>There is nothing that will change my sexual attractions. Gay sex is gross, and the gay Vito theme on the Sopranos makes me cringe. Do you honestly think that a normal straight guy would just decide he wants a man?<<
That makes sense to me.
I have not studied this so I just have my layman's reaction.
I'm quite sure I did not choose to be straight - it just came naturally - its a part of who I am - what makes "Me." So it does not not seem strange to me to think that gay people don't choose that either.
Now, I've known girls who had gay flings but I know other women who find that idea as offensive as I would find trying to sleep with a man (I'm in the "I would probably prefer to just die instead" category).
I don't think the women who won't sleep with other women are simply making a choice - I think they are in some way different from women who are able to enjoy that.
That is not the point I argue -society can not legislate feelings as society can not read minds. People may feel compelled to do any number of things; however, action involves choice OTHERWISE people would never be guilty of crimes...
Heres how I can prove that no matter how someone gets their sexual orientation, it is set;
It is your belief that there is some innate physical entity separate from the objectively obvious and undeniable physical sexual attributes exclusively male and female called orientation -a belief that scientists have not proved. Not able to prove something even exists HOW can one claim it to be "set"? Sexual organs are set -"orientation" is a construct that in the case of homosexuals has no physical premise...
Without physical premise it was at one time theorized that disordered sexual orientation was a mental condition; however, the APA recently based upon no science declared this not to be the case.
If orientation is not mental OR physical it should necessarily follow that there is no such animal unless one claims belief in an innate unprovable mystical premise for sexual orientation... Regardless, the approach there is no proof of an innate "set" sexual orientation - there is ONLY belief... Promoting such a belief is in essence promoting homosexual agenda propaganda...
Amen to that. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. My wife and I waited until after marriage as well. We are so completely grateful that we did.
There may be ways to control or modify the behavior (psychology) BUT the APA has decreed this approach a sacred cow to be avoided at all costs.
A physical "cure" would first require scientifically identifying the innate exclusively homosexual "thing(s)" or causes of objective conditions that some belief exist but science has yet to find.
Either way -not much happening now regarding help for those suffering the homosexual disorder -the leftists apparently like it that way -less homosexuals = less votes?
Recommeded read: A wonderful book, summarizing how this terrible politically driven tragedy came to be, robbing gender confused indivuals from any hope of help: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Harbard professor Jeffrey Satinover.
As a result of the horrible decision of the ALA, today therapists can lose their licences if they are "caught" treating people who want to stop their deleterious homosexual encounters.
Recommeded: Do a good dead and let all the young people you know who have been brainwashed into homosexual behavior know they do have choices, despite the APA having done its best to rob such people of a choice for the past 30 years. Direct them to: www.Jonahweb.org and www.NARTH.org.
I think the most indicative research into what's really going on is the twin study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard that showed 52% of identical twins shared being gay, 22% of fraternal twins shared being gay, and 5% of non-related adopted brothers shared being gay. That's exactly what you'd expect if it was a combination of nature and nurture because other separated twin studies have shown similar correlation for other tendencies including political beliefs. In other words, genetics give people a tencency to be a certain way but they have the ability to change and choose differently. If it were 100% genetic or inborn, you'd expect 100% of identical twins to share the same sexual orientation. If it were non-genetic, you'd expect that 5% number (which, contrary to Kinsey's 10% and the 2% given by some anti-gay activists, is what marketing types assume as the percentage of gays and it's their business to get that right without politics getting in the way). The ~50%, ~25%, and ~5% is exactly what you'd expect if genetics were about half of what determines whether a person will be gay or not. But it also means that a person can also decide what they want to be or be persuaded to be something different than their natural tendency. And, no, that's not the absolute either-or choice that advocates on both sides of the debate are looking for. It means that a person can have a tendency to be gay or lesbian but it also means that people can be shifted from one side to the other.
good post
also, I'm 25 y/o male, and share your same sentiment about the sanctity of the marriage bed. In December, my wait will be over. HOORAY. I'll have to catch up on missed time, but I encourage you to stay committed as it will all be worth it eventually.
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.