homosexuality is a choice,
Yeah, sure, keep thinking that. How about the ancient Greeks? Their mothers didn’t have the pill.
P4L
It still remains a sin, and one that is doubly dangerous because people wrap their whole sense of self around it in ways that they do not around other sins.
This in addition to the way that sexual sins of any sort can readily and powerfully affect us on the physical level, digging deep into brain chemistry as well as affecting us spiritually.
There is no insanity plea for rejecting the Son and the only Gospel offered.
I would also question that, whatever reaserchers may have imagined, that this was in any way disagreeable to the population control crowd. It may have been a happy coincidence for them but even if they had been aware of it I would imagine that they would redouble their efforts to get these drugs approved just for these reasons.
It rained once, and there was a homosexual.
Maybe rain causes homosexuality.
homosexuality is a choice,
Bump...
So is the author trying to argue there were no homosexuals before 1960?
I am pretty sure there were.
The destruction of the nuclear family is a strong influence as well, when young people don’t have positive relationships with a mother and father.
It should be pretty clear at this point that a completely heterosexual guy doesn’t just wake up from a night of booze and babes and decides he wants to bang some trucker dudes. Nobody really believes that except the conservatives in liberals heads I hope. Having said that, its irrelevant for the most of the specific political issues we’re facing today.
But bigger picture, there are a bunch of chemicals out there that can screw with people in a number of ways and perhaps has a hand at least partially for the ‘interesting times’ we’re facing right now. we should take notice rather than plug our ears because we don’t think it fits with one or two preconceived notions of how things should be.
Saturating the population with artificial hormones could have physiological results.
Well duh.
Manufacture an increase in environmental stress on a population while you’re at it.... and combine the above with increased reproductive dysfunction as an evolved response to limit population expansion.
I think that response to stress is part of the natural limit imposed on societies that are given over to the abomination of nature - described in Romans chapter 1.
RTFM and maintain order... or suffer the cultural due penalty.
Homosexuals still comprise a tiny percentage of the population.
I don’t buy this. Homosexualists have always been with us, for whatever reasons. Some of the reasons are probably complex beyond our current ability to understand; other reasons seem to have been understood somewhat by honest psychologists in past times.
In the past we didn’t hear so much about or from them, because they had little mainstream support; and they are still a very small minority, regardless of all the women who have used hormonal ‘birth control’ over the past few decades, and even despite the recent ‘popularization’ of homosexuality..
(Even before oral contraceptives became common, there was a nutritionist named Adele Davis, who believed that additions of hormones to livestock feed may have been leading to ‘feminization’ of boys; but again, we have always had homosexualists, regardless of what ‘science’ has introduced to our bloodstreams/diets.)
60 Minutes as a reliable source?
I don’t think so.
I read some where a while ago that long term oral contraceptive use causes a women to be more attracted to feminine males. Any one else know of this?
Homosexuality is imprinted onthe young mind in several ways, none of which is genetic or chemical.
But it isn’t a choice, though to the untrained it could appear so.
I remember being told in college that if you put too many rats in a confined space nature’s answer was to make some turn homosexual to sort of naturally lower the overpopulation.
What is considered an “explosion” of homosexual population? The percentage is small (except in fantasy land/Hollywood).
Who the hell knows what 'conservative' means anymore. But I will state what I consider the proper Christian perspective.
Which, to me, is that it does not matter whether you are born with a tendency for this or that sin or whether it is learned. You are not blamed for the temptation. You are rewarded for overcoming it.
Doesn't matter whether it is sexual sin, a tendency to steal, lie, hot temper, whatever. Christians know it is wrong. And are expected to try and overcome it.
Everybody experiences temptations. And everybody falls short sometimes. Nobody is born with a physical inability to resist the physical acts which are prohibited.
Jesus never once said 'spiritually repent... but physically keep doing it if you feel you were born that way.'
He said to repent and sin no more.
It's OK for Christians to acknowledge that selfishness of prior generations have left today's generation with a specific temptational burden unfairly increased. It's not OK to excuse or endorse sinful behavior.
It may help young Christians to consider this added burden as an added opportunity for the rewards of resisting the increasingly polluted flesh.
And as a lesson, that poisonously selfish treatment for the tree of life is bound to produce many dead branches.