Posted on 04/20/2015 5:01:58 PM PDT by xzins
“I don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for a vast and enormous majority of the people. The bottom line is I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with.” ~ Sen. Marco Rubio, April 19, 2015
Marco Rubio has become the latest GOP presidential candidate to stumble badly over the issue of homosexuality. Sen. Rand Paul hurt himself by saying that gay “marriage” is okay, as long as it’s a matter of private contract, a view which will satisfy no one.
Dr. Ben Carson hurt himself by asserting that people do change their sexual orientation (correctly using prison as an example) and then retreating under fire and promising never to talk about homosexuality again.
Sen. Rubio is now the victim of a self-inflicted wound, by saying something that is politically correct but scientifically, medically and genetically wrong. Our public policy on homosexuality should be based on the best in scientific research, and Sen. Rubio’s position isn’t.
As I have written before, it’s time to send the “born that way” myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.
Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking … In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.” In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.
As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The “concordance rate” should be 100%.
But it’s not. One early proponent of the “born that way” thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.
Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale respectively, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.
They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject “genetic influence independent of social context” as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, “..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” In other words, post-birth experiences shape sexual orientation, not genes.
Bearman’s and Bruckner’s research is born out by no less than eight major studies of identical twins in the U.S., Scandinavia and Australia over the last two decades. They all arrive at the same conclusion: gays aren’t born that way.
As Sprigg observes, “If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now -- no one is ‘born gay.’”
Strikingly, honest homosexuals agree. In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, “The Atlantic,” openly “queer woman” (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, “In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way.”
Tellingly, she argues that saying people are “born this way” is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. “I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers ‘can’t help it,’ and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity.”
Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, “The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake -- it’s a life I chose.”
The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.
The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.
Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It’s a choice, and a bad one at that. It’s long past time for our culture - and our presidential candidates - to say a simple and direct “No” to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.
Social conservatives need and deserve a candidate who will base his social policy agenda on genetics, science, biology, the best in health research, and on biblical morality. Sen. Rubio has failed that test.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
Check my Comment #100 for some cases of why and also about differences in twins.
>> As Sprigg observes, “If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now — no one is ‘born gay.’”
An neither is one born a murderer...
The “born that way” crock is thoroughly farcical as the Left gives no mercy to the unborn.
And there’s the “natural” argument. Well, war is “natural” as is disease... so what now?
It’s about sodomy, and nothing more. Love? No. It’s not about love. Love doesn’t require sodomy, nor sex of any kind.
That's easy. Its the sea change in public opinion the past few years especially with those ~ 30 and younger.
Rubio is picking up on Ron Paul's strategy, to try to appeal to them. (as he did with illegals). Of course Rubio is not a libertarian, he is neo-con. But so is pro-gay Dick Cheney.
To answer otherwise is to ‘blame the victim’ and have a fire-storm of ridicule and attacks from the media.
If it were me I would turn the whole argument around and ask why we must grant civil rights to a new victim class who is/are defined solely by their claimed feelings, which is equivalent to civil rights for certain behaviors, ones that were always unacceptable.
Strictly non-professional observations on my part and include some acquaintances/friends.
Yes, some unfortunate people who suffer from a traumatic sexual incident with a criminally-minded adult can get twisted enough to become one themselves I guess. Any kind of sexual assault can scar anybody for life and make them do weird things sexually.
But I'd say that's probably a very small pct. of homosexuals. Most stories about homosexuals I've read have them saying that at a very young age they felt different from people of their own sex. Nobody coerced them into homosexual relationships.
If factors during birth aren't important, why are so many male homosexuals effeminate and so many females mannish? Even many heterosexuals like myself can readily spot a likely homosexual. My wife and I play the "spot the homosexual" game when we're watching tv shows with people on game shows like "Wheel Of Fortune." Many times we're right.
Certainly not all homosexuals exhibit traits of the opposite sex, but enough do to make it more than likely they're not making a choice...it's something they were born with. I don't believe in the genetic factor either. The hormonal malfunction theory is the most logical to me.
So you think there’s absolutely no way that homosexuals can’t be naturally attracted to each other? Do you believe heterosexuals are naturally attracted to people of the opposite sex, or do you think they make a choice?
Sexual attraction is NOT an immutable trait...otherwise Deblasio’s ex-lesbian wife wouldnt have any kids.
I believe that homosexuals have simply learned that in their worldview willing males are one acceptable outlet for sexual release.
I saw that tweet.
I don’t believe it’s true.
It doesn’t matter. Even if the are born that way, it is still a disorder. When a child is born with diabetes, we do not say that God made them that way and celebrate it. We treat the diabetes. In this sinful and fallen world, people are born with disorders (dont get me wrong, I do not think they are born that way, but even if they are its a fallacious argument)
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I agree. I assume lots of men and women want to have sex but that doesn’t make it helpful. In fact, it would be harmful. Solomon with his gazillion wives was destructive to those women...and to him. I’ve not doubt he would have been far better off with one woman who loved him and he her.
It would make the truth of God into a lie. Is that reason enough to reject your proposition?
Excellent Point! :-)
10-4!
Whether they be bugs, birds or beagles, the members of the Animal Kingdom are naturally attracted to the opposite sex.
There is a biological reason that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, there is no such reason for same sex attraction. Homosexual behavior is simply mutual masterbation in order to achieve an orgasim.
From Post 3
“A fascinating sidelight on all this comes from the work of Bailey (7). His team asked non-concordant identical twins (one was homosexual, one not) about their early family environment, and found that the same family environment was experienced or perceived by the twins in quite different ways. These differences led later to homosexuality in one twin, but not in the other.”
No, the writer isn’t 100% wrong. Aside from the fact that you’re arguing with the wrong person — the messenger rather than the research that he cites — what needs to be clarified is that the use of “choice” in the argument doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean that somebody spontaneously decides to engage in homosexual behavior (not that this never happens, but it’s extremely rare). The environmental factors create the compulsion, which is deeply rooted psychologically (not a conscious choice). The choice comes when the person recognizes the compulsion in themselves and decides whether to embrace it or combat 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.