Posted on 09/11/2017 5:35:31 PM PDT by Kaslin
In the 1980s, I had a boss who had gotten a masters degree in psychology from New York University. He was a brilliant man; could have been a doctor. He told me a story that explains much of what we see in society today.
It seems that while doing his graduate work in the early 1960s, he had to do research on lab rats, which were given the synthetic hormones used in the then new birth control pills. The results, he told me, showed that the grandchildren of these lab rats would have high rates of homosexual behaviors. From what he told me, the findings were suppressed. Apparently, the powers that be wanted “the pill” to pass muster. What happened to the second generation of rats that followed was of no consequence to them.
Then my boss told me: The first generation of kids born to mothers using the pill have already arrived. But we should expect in another generation a noticeable increase in homosexual behavior, as they would be the second generation. As that was then still in the future, I was shocked.
This was told me in the mid '80s. By his reckoning, we should have seen a societal explosion of homosexuality starting around 2000, and subsequently. And, of course, we have seen such an explosion. His prediction came true.
Now, to many classic conservatives – whether religious or merely social – homosexuality is a choice, something which can be learned and/or unlearned. The problem is: There is a degree of evidence that it may be contrariwise in some individuals.
I invite one to look at this short CBS 60 Minutes documentary about what happens to lab rats treated with sex hormones early on their development.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
>> S’excuse s’accuse.
An appropriate delineation. I suppose you know what I’m referring to. Disregard my comment. God bless.
I still don’t hear all the dialogue being made explicit from your end.
That comment was for YOU not having accepted the primacy of Christ, only a theory.
Having drained the blame at the Cross, the Lord can speak without tones of blame.
The Cross. Don’t leave earth without it.
Christ has masterful cadence... something to aspire
Gn, good FRiend.
And a terrific finale. He who never sinned will bear ours.
Coming in the power of the Cross, the Lord can come without blame and with compassion.
Every single solitary move we make without His benefit has chargeable sin to us. That is why He said, let him without sin cast the first stone.
Don’t complain of blame free, compassionate words if you don’t want to be bereft of same yourself. No one, but no one, can bear his own sin. The very pretense to do so is arrogance.
The Cross, and that includes the blame one gets (as I did from you and nopardons) for being its bearer — or bust. No third way.
>> That comment was for YOU not having accepted the primacy of Christ, only a theory
If I used unorthodox terms to describe quantum physics, that doesn’t necessitate an effective representation of something else. The same goes for the terms we use to describe Faith. But should you write in Aramaic, I promise to remain silent ;)
Now, good night!
WHAT is this word salad?
>> The Cross, and that includes the blame one gets for being its bearer
Stop yourself. We’ll discuss another day.
Christ doesn’t stop for Satan. Why should I? I am not your subject, “boss.”
“The urge for sex is stronger than the urge for chocolate cake.”
And then there are those who have sex WITH the chocolate cake.
Homosexualists keep pushing the “born that way” idea because, from a homosexual activist point of view, it is politically advantageous. However, if you do enough research into the psychology behind homosexuality, you realize that, for the vast majority of people afflicted with the condition, the theory is easily disproven.
Just like with “manmade global warming” they can put all the “evidence” in front of you and dress it up nicely so it looks convincing, but, unless you want to be a useful idiot, it is best to ignore the tainted mental feast and seek out your own facts.
That's not generally what happens. There have been numerous studies that support the hypothesis that homosexuality is the result family dynamics... the most common being that male homosexuals were raised by a domineering mother and a weak father who never spent time with his boy whereas female homosexuals are the result of a dysfunctional mother-daughter relationship. If this backdrop is present when perverted circumstances arise during sexually formative years, the result of a sexually perverted individual can almost be predicted. Over the years, I have met a number of women who claimed to be lesbians and heard their stories and it seemed that all had a common denominator of sexual abuse at a young age. One day I met a young lady who told me she was a lesbian to which I asked her "so at what age was it when your mother's boyfriend started sexually abusing you?" I knew nothing about this woman's history or her parent's marital status so my question was going way out on a limb... but she replied "I was 12." The simple explanation here is that what is referred to as lesbianism was triggered by a disgust, hatred, fear, rejection of all men based on perhaps what just one person did... but in a sense going back further, the root of it all had to do with the fact that the absence of parents with a healthy relationship created the circumstances. Are there homosexuals who came from a family background which was ideal or as close to ideal as possible? Sure... but those are far and away a minute exception and it may just be that there were serious problems, they just happened to be hidden.
Could be I’m wrong. Usually am. I also wonder about the enhanced use of anti depressants being a possible cause. Their use has increased dramatically over the same period. Also obesity and diabetes increases. Maybe all three including hormone based birth control.
I just think much of these studies are BS like global warming where studies manufacture the data.
Since faggots cannot replenish the herd they must indoctrinate
I am not condoning sin. I just get a little upset at people pointing out so very loudly the sins of others that they find SO OBJECTIONABLE. Everyone sins. There is someone who would find your sins or mine as objectionable as a poster here might find a gay person’s sins. For instance, someone here might really treat their spouse horribly, emotionally. And yet they might yell and carry on on FR about the horrible gays. Gd might well feel their decades of emotional cruelty to their long suffering spouse as way worse than a gay man succumbing to his desires.
Remind me to never eat the chocolate cake at your house.
It would, for one, spare us this homosexual “marraige” nonsense and all the related crap that descents from it.
That alone would be a benefit.
Moreover, that something is actually not approved of at least sets the tone of the conversation away from licentiousness. There is something to be said about a society that at least makes a pretense of valuing virtue rather than one whose attitude is “oh hell yes!” when it comes to engaging in wickedness.
You have a point there. We do have a pop culture who reveres animalistic behavior.
But nothing will get gay marriage back into the toothpaste tube. Too many Gullibles in the world have bought that as a human right.
Without questioning the report in the YouTube link, or the other information the text gave, that would still leave a big question concerning homosexuals born from mothers before the age of pharmaceutical contraceptives. Would the same researchers then be looking for what else, in any “natural” way, would trigger the similar hormonal changes in the womb?
Additionally, it remains a premise, as regardless of the affects observed with the lab rats, no one has identified the “sexual behavior genes” to start with.
In the end, we are dealing with humans and not lab rats.
I think at most, even admitting the influences the report speaks of, would only provide, in my view, a “persuasion”, which the human can examine, and with or without help, learn how to handle, to channel interests away from it, from the earliest possible points in time on through puberty and maturity.
Why?
The entire new understanding of epigenetic influences - things that can cause genes to either be expressed instead of remaining dormant, or causing them to remain dormant (yes, we have thousands of genes that are responsive to epigenetic influences) also accepts that activities in nurture (life actions/activity/events when growing up) can also be involved. If those premises are true, then we must accept they can be influenced, or counter influenced by our thinking, our thinking about our actions.
Christ is gonna return.
When he does it will be too late for folks to realize that the rainbow road won’t be leading to a happy place.
It is certainly easier to "be gay" today with all of the societal and legal support. Perhaps this just dovetails with a possible hormonal predisposition brought on by the harmful sex-altering chemicals in the various pills used by women?
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.