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.)
Short of one of the kids being molested or something along those lines, I don’t see why one twin would grow up to be homosexual and one wouldn’t raised in the same home. If it’s environmental (experience related) it doesn’t make sense to me failing that one reason.
Do you see a reason?
Of course, if you don't believe God's Word, you can simply make it up as you go along and lots of people do.
The first discussion is recognizing it is a behavior.
the second discussion is it a good behavior to encourage or discourage.
THEN we talk about causes.
Behaviors are complex. There is seldom only one cause. Imprinting which one of the things that God created for good. But it can be perverted to imprint children on porn, homosexuality, sex, drugs, ets.
I secretly hope homosexuality is genetic.
Then, when mass abortions take place of homosexual babies, we can listen to the liberals claim “genocide”.
But, I will make myself content to let God sort it out.
The truth is abnormal hormonal factors during pregnancy are most likely responsible for homosexuality. How it happens is yet to be discovered. Over or under production of hormones would explain why so many male homosexuals are effeminate and so many female homos are butch/mannish.
It’s what I said. They have identical DNA. What is different are their experiences, identities, associations....everything in the psycho-social area is different.
It’s introduction to various means of sexual release and the drive for additional sexual release. That makes it psycho-social.
No need to get unnecessarily smarmy.
The pro-sodomy LGLBTXYZ juggernaut propaganda is organized, relentless and dedicated. They are immune to facts, logic or laws. The pressure on would be candidates forces them into untenable positions.
That Rubio succumbed to that propaganda, simply shows his inexperience and inability to think things through before putting his mouth in gear.
And he has paid the price.
On page 37, the other relevant result relates to men.
The 13th research question addressed, of homosexual men who have been molested, what percentage were molested before self-identification as homosexual men, and what percentage were molested after self-identification as homosexual?
Of homosexual men who were molested, 68% were molested before self-identification as homosexual, and 32% were molested after self-identification as homosexual.
Check out the molestation factor cited in my prior post above.
Because, the GOP riled on social issues to help them win recent elections[2004]. It was key to Karl Rove's strategy to help bring out votes. And, it is a reasonable question to see what a GOP contender holds as his personal beliefs on such issues, since it was such a important issue to the GOP just recently, and is part of the lastest GOP[2012?] platform[DOMA support] and beliefs.
One thing it certainly shows is either complete ignorance or disobedience to God's word in the Bible. And that's one thing if the candidate is an atheist, but if they call themselves a Christian it's something quite different. It's saying you know more than God and can make up your own rules as long as it seems ok to you. And more and more our world and country are showing the ill effects of having millions and millions gods running around pleasing themselves first and foremost.
I’m not seeking to be argumentative with you. I just don’t understand why one twin turns out one way and the other does, based on environment.
If their mom is a stay at home mom, these kids get the same experience day after day for five or six years.
When they go away to school they are generally in the same classroom up until the sixth grade.
In general terms they are exposed to the same factors day after day after day.
This is their life up until 12 or 13.
Yet one turns out homosexual and one doesn’t. We’ve pretty well established it isn’t gene related.
I don’t see a parental, environmental, educational, or any other type of trigger. None the less one child can turn out normal and the other homosexual.
I don’t think this is easily explained away.
It comes under the heading of, we simply don’t know. At least that’s the way I see it.
Great question.
The ONLY correct answer should be..."why would you ask me that? Our country is going to hell in a handbasket, the Constitution is in tatters, The country is hopelessly overextended, the federal government is taking over the entire Free Exchange Private Enterprise system, and this is what you feel is an intelligent question?
Next question, please."
And I'm saying they are not: Different experiences, different identities, different associations.
My question is this. Is identity with same sex a defense mechanism for kids who are molested? Is it a method to explain away to themselves that it wasn’t that bad, or that things were not as bad as it seemed?
68% is a rather high figure.
Thanks for the mention.
That answer explains nothing.
It simply avoids the reality that I’m trying to address.
I appreciate your response. Take care.
For most people, sexual attraction is natural. To say the quest for additional sexual release would mean taking up with some ugly person of the same sex is stretching things. Why not just admit that most homos are simply naturally attracted to people of their sex?
Why would attractive people of either sex (i.e. Rock Hudson) choose to engage in sexual practices with unattractive people of their own sex when they could have numerous sexual experiences with people of the opposite sex? Especially in someone like Hudson's case where revelation of his homosexuality would effectively have destroyed his career?
This study, like the studies that "prove" man-made global warming, is trash.
I see two men or women with children, I feel so sad for the kids. And that's more of a gut thing than a religion thing. And to anyone who would contest my attitude, I would ask them who they would rather have watch their 5 year old son for a week and why if you knew nothing else about your choices except that one was a male gay couple and one was heterosexual couple.
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.