Posted on 05/17/2012 8:43:32 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made. Thus, even though psychologys longstanding nature-nurture debate has concluded that many traits are the result of both factors, it isnt politically correct to consider even this possibility with respect to homosexuality. But does this biology-is-destiny theory hold water with respect to same-sex attraction? And, if so, what does this say about the behaviors moral status? Lets examine the matter.
When discussing same-sex attractions cause, the first thing usually mentioned is the much touted homosexual gene theory. In fact, the idea has been repeated so often that many today accept it as fact. But the reality is this: Neither the groundbreaking Genome Project nor any other research endeavor has found any such gene. Moreover, it makes no sense from an evolutionary (or selective breeding, if you prefer) standpoint. After all, such a gene would greatly reduce the chances of its bearer procreating, would be unlikely to be passed on, and thus would be a dead-end mutation unable to survive many generations. And, I must say, its a testimonial to the emotion-oriented decision-making of secular modernists who are generally staunch evolutionists that they would glom on to a theory so contrary to Evolution 101.
Next we have the intrauterine development theory. It states that if a boys body fails to provide him with the necessary amount of testosterone in the womb, his brain wont be fully masculinized. This, presumably, accounts for that rare boy weve all met who, from the word go, has very effeminate mannerisms. Anyway, the idea is that his more feminine brain will militate in favor of attraction to other males. Its a logical theory, as far as it goes.
Yet it isnt airtight.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Very powerful article. The fact that it’s in “The New American” means that the people who really need to see it will probably not or they will selectively ignore it. :-(
I especially like the last paragraph where it says, “...its self-evident that a choice is involved in any behavior; to deny this is to deny free will and reduce man to an animal.”
Great military Quote
“When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became Optional, and now it’s Legal.
I’m getting out before Our Commander & Chief makes it mandatory.”
GySgt Harry Berres, USMC
Prove me wrong.
I don't know about the % but a good point. How do the born gay people explain the connection between the normal child victims of homosexual pedos and how many become gay later?
As an unquestionably heterosexual male, I have ALWAYS argued that I was hard-wired at birth coax cute 14 year-old girls into the sack and have my way with them. I don't, never have, and never will . . . because it is MORALLY WRONG!!! Behavior, to include the practice of same-sex relations, is a behavioral choice.
Mrs. WBill has been going to her hairdresser for 20-odd years. He fits the "gay stereotype" to a T. Right down to the fact that he designs and builds tiaras as a hobby (built one for my wife, as a wedding present).
In contrast to all of the stereotypes, he's married to a scorching hot gorgeous blonde, and they have 5 kids together.
Go figure.
I agree with the dogma, in a sense. I know a nationally competitive sprinter who started with a huge amount of natural talent and then trained hard and practiced to get to the top. The siblings had runner's bodies and could probably run well if they wanted, but none took up the sport. The question is: Are you a sprinter just because you have potential, or do you actually have to get out there and run to be a sprinter. Most of the family I have in mind chose not to run. Is homosexuality any different - you're born with or without some tendency in that direction, but then you make a choice?
My sister in law was a full blown bull dyke. but that wasn’t enough. Her girlfriend was a multi-minority (race/religious). The world revolved around “Gay”. There was not one subject that she did not steer to ‘gay’. It was impossible to have a rational conversation with her.
She also existed solely to create problems for everyone she came in contact with. I could go on typing for literally days and not touch a fraction of the damage she did.
And suddenly, one day, here girlfriend decided she, militant lesbian, was straight, dropped my SIL and went o her merry way. My SIL then determined that she too was straight and got a boyfriend, dropped her gay friends like a hot potatoE and found a whole new way to fantasize her past away.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It always has been and a bunch of homosexual doctors owning the psych board do not change the reality of that fact. We will live with the damage of the mainstreaming of homosexuality for a LONG time.
That said, I once had a friend who was homosexual. He was a very good person in a number of ways. I had to make a choice between that friendship and what I believe. I miss him but I refuse to play the ‘gay id OK’ game.
And therefore their hommosexuality is a behavioral response to the abuse, and NOTHING to do with genetic factors.
If they choose to use free will to avoid getting such a devastating disease - then I believe they also have the ability to choose not to be gay at all.
you are certainly up on it given your homepage and i applaud your diligence
but my own in depth experience knowing many from mid teens up and even once caring for a terminally ill homosexual the past half century gives me practical experience otherwise
i am ambivalent on the nature nurture argument
i don;t think anyone can say with total authority one way or the other 100%
i do know we are much of what we are born...far more than behavioralists like to think
just watching my 5 kids
but even if there is some nature to it that doesn’t justify it
it is my nature to screw around...i just relish women physically ...no question...that would not justify it if I did
character keeps the satyr in check...as it should
in the realm of homo-evolution, my scientific theory would be... 'extinct' ???
why is it that all the prog/comm ideals are so obviously contradictory and yet they still manage to convince the majority of dumbasses to commit national suicide ???
IMO, some homosexuals are born that way, and others, who as children experiencd horrible abuse and neglect, are not.
Can you explain what you think he means by the use of the word “sprinters” in this line? I don’t understand this usage of that word at all:
“Well, consider that the same psychologists who may claim that homosexuality is inborn will also usually say that sociopaths are sprinters, too.”
That relates to the first line, where he writes “According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made.”
So it means that it’s said that sociopaths are born and not made.
Remember, Rush said if a gay gene is ever found abortion would be outlawed.
Good question. In my mind it comes down to herd instinct. It's just easier for some to go with the flow created by the vocal minorities. Combine that with the left's genuine brilliance in amplifying their influence through smoke and mirrors, and you have an opportunity for a real lemming fest.
” why is it that all the prog/comm ideals are so obviously contradictory and yet they still manage to convince the majority of dumbasses to commit national suicide ??? “
We should give homos their own country, and let them become extinct.
I think an all-of-the-above model for understanding the genesis of homosexual behavior has better explanatory power than just focusing on only one area, such as abuse.
Generally, the histories of men engaging in same-sex behaviors reveal a history of cumulative problems: significant peer rejection, low self-esteem, a distant father, an overprotective or controlling mother, victimization by bullies, or sexual abuse. Fortunately these conflicts can be resolved, and the masculine identity can be strengthened and then embraced.
Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., available at http://narth.com/docs/fitz.html
In general, NARTH (http://narth.com/) is a pretty good resource for info on GID (Gender. Identity Disorder). And I dont think its problematic to recognize it as a disorder. Being a disorder does not put it outside the moral, decisional realm. Quite the opposite. For a wide range of disorders, therapeutic solutions that work well consistently require the patient to make life-changing choices about their behavior. But recognizing potential root causes empowers the therapist and the patient to locate and lock onto those decisional behaviors most likely to bring about real healing, and thats all good.
ping for later
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.