Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 09/23/2005 12:13:07 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
For those who don't want to read the entire wikipedia article, Mendelian genetics can be summarized this way--if you don't put your genes in the pool (as it is impossible to do so if you are "born" homosexual and do not breed), then your "homosexuality" cannot be passed on to future generations. You can't win if you don't have a horse in the race.
Sure, it is possible that some homosexuals bred with women and passed on "homosexual genes", but I doubt so many did so as to produce the number of homosexuals present today.
Genetics is not magic. It may appear to be to the ignorant who use it as an arguement (or accept the arguements), but the reality is that the science of genetics has rules which govern its behavior, and homosexuality eliminates itself as "genetic" by its very nature of not breeding or rarely breeding.
You may as well say that fairy dust, Domino's Pizza or the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo causes homosexuality. Because they have just as much to do with it as "genetics".
"Or does it simply mean sheer will power ? "
Oh it never is quite sheer will power...the Holy Spirit must infuse the will of an individual to affect real change!
Ping!
Nonsense. Imagine a particular gene which causes recipients (of either sex) to be unusually-strongly attracted to men. It's not hard to imagine a gene having such an effect.
If this gene occurred in a group of people, the reproductive success rate of the men receiving it would be diminished, but the reproductive success rate of the women could be increased. Although the gene would not generally be passed on by those to whom it had adverse effects, it would be passed on by those to whom it had beneficial effects.
Of course, the genetics argument isn't terribly relevant anyway: there's probably a genetic component involved with a lot of criminal and anti-social tendencies. Should we extend special privileges to someone if it's discovered that the person has a genetic predisposition toward paedophilia?
Frankly, if two guys want to engage in sodomy in the privacy of their own home, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with declaring that children should be deliberately placed in households which do not have both a mother and a father. While there are times when such placement may be the best thing that's available (if an orphan's only living relative is a gay uncle, the child may be better off with the uncle than with a pair of married strangers) it is morally reprehensible to place a child in such circumstances when better ones exist.
This debate is a pseudo issue created by the homosexual lobby. What has happened, is, the deliberate conflation of a set of definable observable (homo)sexual behaviors with an abstract concept of "gay" identity.
Sexual behaviors are mutable, like any other behavior, and the degree of success is merely a question of effectiveness of behavior change techniques. The same arguments could be raised about cigarette smokers, drinkers, obsessive-complulsives, whatever. As change techniques become more effective, the argument shifts ground, from behavior to "identity" because, frankly, the dispute is a dishonest one from the start.
One of the rituals of an AA meeting is for a member to introduce himself as "Hi, I'm Joe and I'm an alcoholic." The paradox is, the acceptance of the behavior as an internal attribute frees the person from the need to deceive himself--and in that is the liberating moment. Similarly, for a homosexual to admit that he is a person who has defined himself by his behavior in order to justify not changing, such self-acceptance frees him up to change what he does and how he lives his life.
There is no question that alcoholics often relapse, but no one would be obtuse enough to use that fact as the basis for asserting that sobriety therefore is theoretically impossible. The fact that some recovering homosexuals revert to homosexual behaviors should not surprise anyone who has ever tried to change any behavior and had a few failures before succeeding.
Why should we treat homosexual behavior differently from other addictive behaviors such as excessive drinking? No one can provide an answer to this question. Which suggests that the thinking which necessitates the question being asked, is flawed.
In short, "changeable" means exactly that--behaviors are changeable. And there is a variety of end points ranging from "willpower" to full happy joyous heterosexual communion with nary a homosexual thought much less a behvaioral relapse.
That's an excellent question. It means different things to different folks depending on various issues. Some gays leave the lifestyle and never go back and never have the urge to go back. While others try to leave and can't. A definition of change-able cannot be pinned down other than, for the sexually confused, sexuality can be fluid to different degrees.
I think the question is- do the "ex-gays" become straight? Does a ex-gay man go from exclusively desiring men to exclusively desiring women?
Some do, and some have married and had kids. Check my profile for a lot more information.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Leave it to you to make such a penetrating observation.
Very little of liberal philosophy makes sense when evaluated holistically.
That's an extremely important oberservation.
When gays, friends of gays, gay activists and gay sympathizers hear about ex-gays, they apparently think everything they've gained politically will be removed. And I can understand from where they're coming, but what they apparently refuse to realize is that change is possible, and many will do everything they can to fight the reality of change.
The shoe is now on the other foot and they don't like it at all.
All that does not change a question I have had about sexual orientation. I am heterosexual...that is my orientation. I have about as much a chance of changing that to gay as a gay person would have to change their orientation. My orientation is so clear to me, that I can't imagine how it would be possible for me to change it. Suppress it, yes. Control it, yes. But change it to the other? No way. So if my orientation is that strong, physiologically and emotionally, etc. why would it be different for a different orientation? I am part genetic make up and part environmental. There are some behaviors I can change but if I have a tendency to heart disease I can't change that. Just like some babies are more fussy right from the get go, others are more quiet.
Do you have a link to a scientific study on this? If the the information that supports your heteronormative homophobic bigoted unfair poopish claim is in any way associated with religious or strict no option heterosexuals activists I would think it highly suspect and mean spirited hetero dominated junk science.
Homosexuality is not about colon exploration or clandestine meetings in public libraries IT is just about love... exciting and new --come aboard were expecting you... --the perverted love boat soon will be making another round... ---the perverted love boat la la la la.... LOL /sarcasm off
That's not really true. I very much encourage you to read the links in post 26.
The idea of "orientation" relates to a complex of behaviors, conditioned emotional responses, cognitive patterns etc. which can be quite stable but there is nothing immutable about them. You are probably happy as you are and have no reason or motivation to change, or even to cosider such a thing.
If you were in severe conflict with yourself about your sexual behavior, lifestyle, who you were associating with, and how you felt when you looked in a mirror, you might think differently about your "orientation."
I worked extensively with addicts of various sorts for many years and often, at some point in their recovery, they would have the insight, "it isn't just gambling/using drugs/alcohol/porn, it seems the whole way I've been living my life is wrong." That speaks to orientation change.
As I said, the outcomes vary. And "desire" is different from behavior. Many a sober alcoholic has been through a period of desire for a drink but coped with it and the desire passed. Further, evryone knows that addicts tend to have relapses but return to abstinence and hopefully sobriety. It seems only with respect to sexual behavior that some hold up perfection as the standard of success. Demanding perfection in exclusiveness is a pointless and questionable exercise.
Maybe desire is different from behavior, but as a straight woman I would hate to be married to an ex-gay man who has to struggle to be sexually attracted to me or get AIDS from a relapse in his behavior.
rofl
Well yes, I would think so. It just comes down to knowing the individual and his particular make-up, and using your best judgment. I certainly do not mean to imply that someone recovering from the homosexual lifestyle would necessarily be trouble free, or an ideal mate.
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.