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.)
Statistically significant is not a bad measure, but also doesn’t necessarily even mean that it would be recognizable to the normal observer. So, this article pointing out somewhere between 5-11 percent could be significant. It doesn’t, however, begin to approach genetic typology as we have with race. Twins born of black African American parents are going to be black.
The assumption is that identical DNA would ALL be the same. That they are NOT the same argues against genetic determinism and must turn toward either an ‘influence’.
But I can find an ‘influence’ in tallness for the playing of basketball.
As an adult, it’s your charge to help grow up the next generation. I do not understand people who can do this to kids.
Raping a four year old? Do that to the boy?
Where’s the honestly when some of these folks address the public?
One wonders just what percentage of this group is a walking advertisement against child abuse.
It’s not inborn; it’s acquired.
Excellant reference material. Thank!
I think that explains almost all of it.
I’m sure you have a medical degree and have done extensive research.
The rest are suffering from some sort of trauma inflicted upon them like rape.
bi-sexual is simply a stop-over on the way to gay town.
lol
Why is the media obsessed with homosexuals? Makes you wonder.
Parents sometimes treat children differently. I have seen it. Could make a difference in their outcome.
It’s possible that even though siblings are raised in the same home, one may receive different treatment, have a different experience outside the home (such as molestation), etc.
I knew two brothers years ago. One was very much a rough and tumble boy, athletic, hunter, fished, etc. The father definitely favoured him over his brother, a quiet, artistic, not-so-macho type. He didn’t receive much attention or confirmation from his father.
I lost track of them, but last I knew, the milder son was rumoured to be homosexual.
The boy was a friend of my son. He was troubled, with no father at home. His mother put him into sports hoping that the fatherly influence of coaches would be good role models. I didn’t know his baseball coach, but I told his mom about what he had confided in me. I guess she never did anything with it. Then when the boys were going to college, he came out as gay. I watched him grow up from a toddler through middle school to high school. I never once, not once, thought he was gay, effeminate, or anything of the sort. He was a troubled young man though, and my husband and I did what we could to be positive role models in his life. I told him when he confided in me that what his coach did with him was wrong. That’s why I went to his mother, and we shared a good cry. Part of me wonders if it was my responsibility to call the police myself. I didn’t think it was. I thought talking with his Mom was the right thing to do. They knew they had my backing.
The young lady I met when she was a young adult. We worked together in retail. She had trouble getting along with others, but somehow I managed to get her to be agreeable with me. After several months, we would talk on breaks or after hours. She eventually confided to me about her uncle. He served time, but she still had trust issues. So I think she was forced to be lesbian because she just doesn’t have any idea how to trust a man. It’s very sad.
With these two examples, I will always doubt anyone and everyone who tries to tell me that they were born that way. Although anecdotal, my observations suggest otherwise regarding homosexual causes.
The proper answer is “I am a politician not a doctor. You should ask someone who has researched it and drawn a scientific conclusion. Now, if you would like to talk about taxes or regulations I am your guy.”
God doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.....homosexual behavior yes.
This is the best answer. Often I say it to myself, “the Constitution is almost defunct and we’re plunging into a Stalinist totalitarian dictatorship, so questions such as these are irrelevant and inappropriate in a free republic.”
All of us should stay on fundamentals and never digress. We are too close to the end of life as we know it, tragically.
Then why wouldn't it be natural for homos to desire people of their sex? It would be natural.
You still have to explain to me why a person like Rock Hudson would choose ugly guys like Jim Nabors for "sex" rather than the numerous attractive females who would have been eager to engage Hudson in as much sex (regular or weird) as he liked.
How does a guy with normal sexual desires look at someone like Nabors and think "boy, I sure would like to get some of that." He wouldn't...unless someone had a gun pointed at his head or he thought Gomer was really some hot property. And you have to be really mentally twisted to think the latter. It's not like choosing coffee or coke...it's like choosing a delicious steak dinner or a meal of raw pig intestines.
Where will this story be carried? What major network or media outlet? Will it be taught in schools?
So far as the Bible goes, I can see only one non-harmful outlet for human sexuality, but I see everyone equipped with sexual desire and sexual equipment.
So, I find it no different for a homosexual to control his sexuality than for anyone else. We are all wired to have sex, but that doesn’t mean all outlets are helpful. Most are harmful.
I think I just did explain it for you. Thirst is natural, necessary, and absolutely a physical need/drive. I’ve learned I can drink different drinks. Sometimes I want a coffee (sort of bitter drink) and sometimes I want a Coke (sweet drink). Ugly/pretty.
You’re not getting me. Homosexuality is so disgusting to normal heterosexuals, you’ve got to be naturally twisted to get into it. It’s not like choosing a different beverage.
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.