Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Summary: You be the judge. A letter form the editor in chief.
... I bring these matters to your attention because of a threatening phone call I received a few weeks ago from a fellow psychologist. On page 78 of our last issue, PT ran a small ad for a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and his wife Linda. Nicolosi is a psychologist who specializes in trying to help unhappy gays become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot," that no gay person had ever successfully become straight, that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes, and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association. I told her that the editorial department at PT has no connection whatsoever with the advertising department, but she was unimpressed. She subsequently posted messages on the Internet urging people to harrass me at home (no one else ever did) and to send me complaint letters.
In all, I received about 120 letters, many of which exemplified a bad game of Telephone: Some people complained about an anti-gay "article" PT had published; others referred to an anti-gay book I had published and people who weren't subscribers said they were dropping their subscriptions. Several writers suggested I was a "Nazi" and a "bigot," and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused. Most echoed the same points that my caller had made....
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
Beyond desire and behavior, homosexuality does not fit into the science of mankind. Period!
I can match your three gays who you believe were born that way with even more lesbians who were made that way through abuse and trauma. One even wrote a college paper on the subject. A person can say "I have had this desire as long as I can remember" but they cannot know they were born with it. Also, sexual desire does not (should not) begin at birth. How would they know?
I do not doubt that gayness also involves enviroment, none of us are driven through life exclusively based on our genetic components.
You have a valid point, but you also cannot exclusively say they were not born this way either.
I do not disagree with you about homosexuality being deviant, in the strictess sense of the word - outside of the norm of biological funtion.
Here is something on evolution. The theory of evolution claims that genes that aid the growth of the species are favored while those that don't do not survive. Any genetic trait that renders the species infertile should die, according to that theory (again, nothing about the physical state of the human species suggests that it is "normal" for them to mate as same-sex couples - homosexuality is based solely on desire/psychology/emotion/etc) Homosexuality as a human trait is not just a gene variation, it is a species ending variation:
How Evolution Works
Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children.
Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship).
Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.
Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.
Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the condition as beneficial
Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.
Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing and raising.
Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see anything detrimental in his lineage.
Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising of his children, evolution will still see no harm
Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental
Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.
Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.
A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful
Anyway...that is the key point. I believe that is reason enough to not rubber stamp it as equal to heterosexual marriage and make it just an alternative environment for raising children. Those are the issues that matter to me. What kinky thing people do in privacy (consensual and not involving children) is not of interest to me (beyond my right to call it wrong if I want to).
That’s a goofy theory, there are definite genetic markers for CF, where are the homosexual markers?!! They seem to be conveniently missing when Hamer’s discredited study couldn’t be replicated.
For instance violent people (in prison) have been shown have similar genes. So since violence and antisocial behavior has a genetic compent, do we excuse it?
More goofy theory eh? Exactly where is the violence marker, next to the gay marker? There is NO credible evidence that any DNA (RFLP or PCR) markers specific to any gene responsible for behavior…NONE, ZIP, ZERO!!!
No, just painfully absent any logic for comparing right behavior with wrong behavior…try again.
You mean the U of I that found a miraculous discovery of MZ twins with different DNA? Where’s their Nobel Peace Prize for medicine?
If you find one that says something different, lemme know.
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.