Posted on 06/17/2014 7:04:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Texas Governor Rick Perry has again made headlines for the wrong reasons when, speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California last week, he likened homosexuality to alcoholism. "Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," he said. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."
Gay-rights groups reacted per usual. "Although he may not have the 'genetic coding' to think before he speaks, Rick Perry, M.D. should have a real conversation with actual doctors before voicing his expertise on these issues,” said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign.
But here's a thought: What if Rick Perry was right?
I'm not saying that Perry is right. I'm saying that it's time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights.
For decades now, it's been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were “born this way.” Certainly there's evidence that the argument has played an important role in the shifting of attitudes towards the LGBT community. And the evidence for genetic predisposition is overwhelming. If scientists choose to be skeptical about one argument in favor of predisposition, they have several other arguments to fall back on: Studies of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and other conditions suggesting increased levels of testosterone in the pre-birth hormones of lesbian and bisexual women.
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
The Gay Gene study had a problem - it was not reproducible.
Coming out of the closet about coming out of the closet?
I just wish soemone would say…”If you want to be gay, be gay! Just quit telling me over and over that you’re gay because I don’t give a sh**!”
RE: Just quit telling me over and over that you’re gay because I don’t give a sh**!”
Ahhh, but you have to, IT’s PRACTICALLY THE LAW. If you’re in business, You must bake their cake and take their photos at their “weddings” under penalty.
Which is to say, you have no choice on the matter.
Yes, comrades, that piece of propaganda has served its purpose - now it's time to determine which new 'truths' will currently serve the revolution.
This points up once again, that we don’t know what causes homosexuality. Lady Gag can sing they are both that way, but she can gag on her opinion. Lady Gag doesn’t know any more about this subject than you or I do. Heck, she has a big fan base among homosexuals, so feels like she should pander to them like a politician.
No it is not.
“Born that way” is the “medical marijuana” of the sexual deviancy movement.
If you are confused about your sex, drop your pants and we can tell you what your sex is.
If you can't accept that, then you need to see a shrink.
If you insist on not accepting that, then do what you want but please shut up about it.
You are not normal, I don't accept you as normal, and your continued insistence that I do so only makes you less so.
That’s a great point. Keep the disgusting things you do with your genitals to yourself.
Post-Buckley TNR has certainly made its choice for ‘gay’.
Sad ending to a magnificent legacy; it dies with a lisp instead of a bang.
Right. An identical twin study (with at least one gay twin) showed that in only 20 percent of the cases were both twins gay; the other 80 percent had only one twin gay.
She would have no fans if not for the fancy boys.
Bad analogy - the medical benefits of marijuana are well established.
Oh, hell, I confused New Republic with National Review.
New Republic has always been this way.
Need coffee, stat.
I wouldn’t say the “born that way” argument is “overwhelming”. But Perry does stumble upon a valid question. If an alcoholic can give up that “lifestyle” and is encouraged to by nearly everyone despite his genetic alignment, why is it so wrong to suggest gays should do the same thing?
Gays argue that nobody ever *chooses* to be gay (another talking point I am not sold on) but, if that is true, why are gays so busy attacking any programs designed to turn gays away from the “lifestyle”? Can you imagine if alcoholics sabotaged AA and tried to sue them out of existence for merely wanting to help people who didn’t want to be controlled by alcohol?
You’ll be happy to know WF Buckley didn’t start The New Republic. He started National Review.
RE: If an alcoholic can give up that “lifestyle” and is encouraged to by nearly everyone despite his genetic alignment, why is it so wrong to suggest gays should do the same thing?
Herein lies the problem of MORAL WORLDVIEW.
Unless you are arguing from the same moral foundation, there’s really no point in telling a gay person that his or her lifestyle or choice is wrong.
They might agree with you that alcoholism is wrong and ruins lives, but they’re going to deny that being gay or doing gay things is wrong.
Same principle applies to politics.
Rick Perry and Barack Obama re not arguing from the same moral foundation.
One believes the gay lifestyle is wrong, the other believes that it is as “normal” as being heterosexual.
The future of this country will depend on whether or not the majority who live here hold to Perry’s morals or Obama’s.
I see you’ve straitened yourself out. Ha! You get it?
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.