Born or Bred?: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic

Concerned Women for America ^ | 12/21/05 | Robert H. Knight

[ArGee]

What do you think should be done to them?

You didn't actually ask me, but you included me in the conversation.

A person who claims to be homosexual should be treated exactly like a person who claims to be Napolean. (It's the same kind of delusion, really.) He should be left alone unless he causes harm, but not actively encouraged.

Shalom.

[Michael.SF.]

start with post # 17

[scripter]

If homosexuality is purely a behavorial choice, we shouldn't see it in animals.

It would appear you didn't really think about that statement before you posted it, and I see you're still in the habit of misrepresenting what others have said.

[Always Right]

You can't have it both ways. If homosexuality is purely a behavorial choice, we shouldn't see it in animals.

So all behavior you see in animals is purely genetics? Odd theory since animals can learn all sorts of unnatural behaviors.

[scripter]

I'll presume that you aren't intentionally twisting my argument.

Unfortunately it's a habit he can't seem to break. In a previous thread he was chastizing some of us for misrepresenting Spitzer and he provided a link from CNN to prove his point. It turns out his own link proved us right and him wrong. To his credit he admitted his mistake, but he continually misrepresented what was said.

[hinckley buzzard]

Then someone brought up that other perverts, child molesters and their ilk, cannot be changed

Contrary to urban legend, child molesters are no greater risk to re-offend, once brought into the legal system, than any other criminal group. Many of them do not re-offend at all, especially incest perps who receive treatment, although there is a class of pedophile psychopaths who need to be sequestered permanently.

[wagglebee]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558234/posts?page=225#225

[hinckley buzzard]

I would agree with that, except there does appear to be harm to the society by legalizing homosexual marriage.

Homosexual marriage does the same harm to the community that counterfeit currency does to the economy. It guts the meaning and legitimacy of an existing institution on which the community depends. Children don't grasp this, because they don't appreciate what institutions mean, or why they are essential to an ordered community. But all normal adults understand it more or less implicitly.

[Yardstick]

On the otherhand, there is no right to interfere in reasonable contracts between consenting adults.

But there is no "on the other hand" here, since restricting marriage licenses to hetero couples doesn't interfere one iota with the right of contract between consenting adults. Gays can draw up and enter into a contract just like anyone else can. The fact that a marriage license is unavailable to them doesn't change that.

But nonetheless, it is a benefit to society for everyone to recognize and aid in contract enforcement.

But there is no "nonetheless" here, since all of the public means of contract enforcement -- the courts -- are fully available to homosexual couples, just as they are for anyone else, regardless of the marriage law.

And this isn't just some "well, I suppose that's true in principle" kind of point. It's simply a fact, and one that the argument hinges on.

Marriage, as it concerns the state, is by and large about accumlation and division of assets (in a dissolution.)

True enough.

Fighting to deny this aspect of it to gays seems sort of pointless, since most agree they ought to be able to draw up contractual agreements with similar bindings.

I would turn this around and say that because gays currently have the right to draw up contracts with similar bindings, it's sort of pointless for them to fight for the privilege of state-licensed marriage. After all, they'll only be gaining something they already have.

Since the state really doesn't concern itself with the romantic aspects of marriage, the anti-gay marriage stuff is almost entirely symbolic with no actual consequence one way or the other. The whole battle seems silly to me.

Yeah, probably true that a big part of the gay marriage debate is about symbolism, both on the pro and the anti side. It's a struggle over the nation's moral-philosophical ambiance. Bottom line is that it's a culture thing and culture is important to people, because culture is important.

[brytlea]

Interesting analogy, one I would not have thought of.
susie

[Bubbatuck]

Can you please rephrase? I don't speak babble.

[patriciamary]

So true,and our public education system teaches our children that it is OK to have a same sex relationship.

[scripter]

Here's a link to the thread for anybody who wants to go read it for themselves: Charles Socarides, Gay 'Cure' Doctor, Dies

You misrepresented our position which you seem to have a habit of doing. You created a straw man argument, attacked it, and then back pedaled when I pointed it out. And in that very interview from which you quoted, Spitzer was quoted as saying exactly what we've been saying all along.

First, Spitzer said his study

should be used exactly the way it is being reported.

And immediately after that Spitzer continued with:

Some homosexuals, through a variety of change efforts, can make substantial increases in their heterosexual potential.

And that's what we've been saying from the beginning.

As I told you later in the thread: "I definitely agree with the experts, and that is, we need more studies. Unfortunately, homosexual activists are doing everything they can to suppress all reparative/reorientation work and funding. And if you've understood any of what I've said, you should know that."

[DBeers]

You made a blanket statement, and I showed you it was incorrect, while pointing out it didn't affect the main discussion on this board. Instead of acknowledging and correcting this side issue, you chose to change the subject to other questions. There was social acceptance, and despite your proclaimed doubt that this really happened, the activity is documented in vase and pottery paintings, and contemporary writing and poetry.

Actually, I made a statemnt and based upon your attempted refutation I detremined you did not understand my statement as I apparently did not communicate it clearly. SO -I simply elaborated upon my statement. It would appear you now declare knowing better my thoughts than myself?

[SuzyQue]

Susie - could be.

[DBeers]

Conservatism is predicated on the belief that the activities of other people that cause no harm to others is unobjectionable.

I think I see your error -it is one of not seeing the forest for the trees -more specifically, you see only the tree you cling to. Conservativism is being conservative -period -maybe you confuse Libertarian with Conservative?

As yo conservative -there is fiscal conservative, moral conservative etcetera -- [it] is an ideology LIKE Republicanism; conservatism comprises part of the Republican big tent. Moral liberalism is the banner you wave in this discussion -NOT moral conservatism. Moral liberals do comprise a portion of the Republican cause.

The Republican tent is quite large with many flavors e.g. libertarians and moral liberals -BOTH a minority within the Republican majority... Some moral liberals that put self gratification above the Republic have sided with the Democratic party where moral liberalism is the majority THEN again some moral liberals that put Republic ahead of self gratification have stayed with the Republican party... You simply have to choose, act, and accept your choice rather than whine like the DUmmies...