This is your first fallacy of several. Schools are known to prefer breaking up twins, for lots of reasons. First, the teachers don’t want camaraderie directed to adverse purposes. Second, the state will do anything to break down families, for reasons I will address later. So they have different friends, go to different parties, encounter different adults... It happens.
At any rate the idea that at some point in their lives people, who supposedly naturally are attracted to people of the opposite sex, would decide that "hey, let me try that homosexual thing and maybe wreck my marriage and/or ruin my career" is ridiculous.
There are lots of reasons for sexual expression. If a person has been sexually violated, especially as a child, there is a marked predisposition to express sexually the responses associated with the event: shock, anger, dependency and either compensatory dominance or habitual submission associated with having been subjected to such a powerful imprint. Said imprint is physical, it is stored as responses that generate a positive feedback loop of neurotransmitters that themselves modify cellular expression. In short, being raped changes a person for life, generating consequences that are heritable. That these are “natural” does not make them either beneficial or tolerable should they be consequently visited upon others.
The idea that switching/choosing between heterosexuality and homosexuality is like choosing different beverages or snacks is ludicrous.
Sexual expression is indeed compelling. People express all sorts of compulsions. That does not make them tolerable. Let’s try an example: A child witnesses the rape and murder of his mother. He starts beating up his friends out of anger. It gives him a thrill. That thrill becomes habituated, and as he grows, it turns him into a homicidal maniac. That does not make his compulsions socially acceptable. How does a society preclude expression of that compulsion? Treatment and the threat of punishment should he submit to his compulsions. One would rationally expect that threat to be serious, else why seek treatment when the compulsion is at least psychologically justified?
Your argument is effectively that homosexual expression is not sufficiently damaging that we should allow it. Yet its consequences are visited upon others for generations, particularly if they were children at the time. Nor is it isolated to the individual, because the crime affects anyone the victim encounters differing only by degree.
Before the modern era many homosexuals lived in literal fear of physical harm and possible loss of their jobs if exposed.
So what?
Why would you choose to be one if the costs were so dear? Especially if you looked like Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, or many other Hollyweird objects of female adoration. Why risk it all for a same-sex fling or relationship when you could plow your way through a universe of pretty and willing females?
Because compulsions locked into chemical loops are powerful instigators of destructive behavior.
The only logical thing to conclude is homosexuals are naturally attracted to people of their own sex. Hormonal abnormality is the only thing that sounds semi-logical to me.
No, none of what you have argued makes homosexuality “natural.” It may be a natural response to an act propitiated upon a child, but that does not make it inherent.
OK, that’s Part I of my response. Here comes Part II: Why is homosexuality such a destructive behavior that prohibiting it in law might be considered necessary?
First of all, sexual expression is a powerful compulsion. Genesis 6 teaches how even G_d’s angels couldn’t restrain themselves from responding to the temptation of all those horny women. There is no doubt that people are hard wired to produce hormonal and physical responses to visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile inputs accordingly with lots of cognitive feedbacks that amplify those responses that themselves become inputs (else why would anyone masturbate?).
Those compulsions compete with commercial, intellectual, social, and educational inputs. They make cooperation with a person more difficult. Lack of cooperation increases conflict. Conflict requires resolution. Enforcing settlements requires authority backed by physical power sufficient to override those sexual compulsions. The more sexually crazed a society becomes, the more conflict results, and the more centralized power becomes necessary to maintain order. This is why socialists seek to destroy self government via promoting sexualized children.
Sexualized people do not focus well on work. They have conflicts and traumas that require remedial education, counseling, “conflict resolution,” policing, adjudication, prison guards, parole officers, welfare case workers… i.e., they “make jobs” for unionized Democrat thugs. Thus they concentrate power. The more power becomes concentrated, the more easily one can sell favors to the highest bidder, the more the bidders control the government for their own ends and at the expense of everybody else. This means you.
Now perhaps you can understand why it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and promoted Alfred Kinsey’s “research” (he was in fact a sadomasochistic homosexual pedophile) and his ideological heirs that are still calling the shots on “sex education” in public schools to this day. This is the source of your ethic. Sexual expression outside one’s spouse is destructive to liberty. That is why it is prohibited in the Bible. The Biblical system required no government, no police, no army, no social welfare system, just teachers and judges. Got it now? OK, so we’re ready for Part III!
What do we do from here? In my humble opinion, it is the enforced uniformity from the Federal government that is the problem here. Were the States free to define their own moral laws, we would soon find out by natural law competition whether homosexual conduct leads to destruction. We would soon find out whether the isolation resulting from rigid criminalization of sexual depravity results in a happier more prosperous society. Federalism is the answer. After all, there is a big difference between taxes and the condition of roads in Utah versus California.
Sorry GLarry, I meant to include you among the victims of the response above. :-)
Interesting comments. Certainly food for thought.
I have been a rather tolerant person when it comes to homosexuals. I am giving this more thought.
There are some serious issues existing beneath the surface of this movement, and yes it is a movement. It does seek to attract ‘followers’ and new recruits. There’s just no denying it.
The part of the movement directed at our kids, it’s something that reveals the whole uncivilized body of the homosexual movement for what it truly is.
Kids and what happens to them seems to be too integral to overlook. Are kids born that way, or are they co-opted (corrupted) that way?
Sorry, you can believe what you want, but all evidence points to homosexuality being natural. Like pyromania, that doesn't make it normal. But there's rarely any choice involved.