Posted on 11/24/2008 8:55:18 AM PST by Invisigoth
The real problem with the gay marriage issue is that the truth can only be found in either the spiritual or the scientific. The question that matters most is whether or not a person can be born gay. And the only possible way to answer this seems to be by discovering a gene that determines sexual preference or by believing in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and assuming this means everyone is born straight.
Simply posing the question generally infuriates gays. First, the question seems to carry with it the tone that homosexuality is some sort of handicap, like asking someone if they were born cross-eyed. Second, there’s the it’s-none-of-your-business” factor. And third, there’s the argument that says, “Of course I was born gay, you idiot. Why would I choose this?” It is pretty understandable for someone who believes with all his heart he was born gay to want to shove his foot up your butt for even asking this question.
But to anyone who believes that we’re all born straight, he must somehow explain why someone would choose to be gay. To be asked this question is about as enjoyable as realizing there’s one tattered square of toilet paper left five minutes too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
I'm really curious what you mean by this, and what behavior you base this on.
The only point I will draw is that I am not out there pronouncing that people should pursue my sins. I'm ashamed of my shortcomings, and struggle to overthrow them. I'm not out there trying to convince emotionally unstable kids that they should imitate my sins because they are really cool.
Christ said that if anyone tempts His children into sin, it would be better for them to have a millstone put around their necks and be cast into the sea than to face the anger God will have for them at Judgement. No one should ever be put in danger of physical harm in this life for their bad choices, but I wouldn't want to be one of these "recruiters" in the next life.
That could be paraphrased as, "Is it okay to do whatever you want with no constraints?" The obvious answer is "no", and liberals and conservatives agree there. The difference is that most liberals support constraints on the free exerrcise of religion but set no limits on anything that can be classified as "tolerance and diversity". Most conservatives in contrast believe that with our God-given rights come God-given responsibilities and constraints, all of which are placed on us by God for our own good. As for "tolerance", most Conservatives see what is demanded as a positive endorsement and active support for positions that violate God's laws.
Saying you are gay and that it is innate is just a way of covering up a person’s deviant behavior. It also gives those who would be radical for whatever other reasons an excuse to act against society as we prefer it to be, straight. It is a copout.
I’m sorry, I didn’t meant to say I thought you were saying that. I simply wanted to add that as so many people think those who hit this from a Christian perspective think homosexuality is the worst thing you can do, we hate them and we think we are better than them. Like you, I know I am not one bit better. Not one bit.
The author is suffering from California exposure.
He does not understand behavioral science nor does he understand the psychology of learned behavior.
He is just falling for the same old traps the homosexual advocates use to confuse and persuade the ignorant.
People chose to smoke because nicotine, like alcohol or caffeine or THC, are pleasurable drugs. It makes you feel better to smoke. Nicotine is a very nice drug as far as these go, as it does not impair performance of any physical or mental tasks (well, it does impair endurance over time, but this is generally evident mostly to athletes). It does not cause troublesome social behavior or poor judgement.
If I were to create a scale of socially troublesome drugs, nicotine/smoking would be low on the list.
The crusade against smoking is largely a matter of fashion, in spite of the health problems. Smoking is not quite as bad for you as all that, and smoking tends to kill people off (when it does) very late in life.
Endorphines.
Someone else in the thread may have covered this, but I don’t have time to explore it all, so here goes:
It is not genetic, although I’m willing to consider the possibility that there might be some physiological component that steers one person toward homosexual behavior that, given the same early influences, might direct another person toward substance abuse or an eating disorder, or some other dysfunction. But that’s what it is, a dysfunction; more specifically, a deep-seeded coping mechanism brought on by very early emotional hindrance or damage. There are, of course, exceptions where a person consciously chooses to at least experiment with it out of some hedonistic leanings, but those cases have tended to be extremely rare. However, you can bet that statistic will rise considerably the more gay relationships are given the stamp of approval and promoted by our school systems to our children.
There will never be a “proof” found of homosexuals being born that way for one very simple reason. The evidence of homosexuality is behavior or articulated feeling, neither of which can be manifested by a newborn, and will only occur well after the time frame in which the aforementioned emotional damage occurs.
It’s too simplistic and simpleminded to just call it a “choice,” as a way of washing your hands of any responsibility to understand homosexuals and interact with them on an informed, compassionate basis (I think the failure of the church in general to do this places considerable responsibility at our feet for the level of anger and power that now defines the gay rights movement). There is a choice, yes. It’s the one that comes when a person recognizes these feelings in themselves and makes a choice of whether to combat them or embrace them. Sadly, the popular culture has become so compromised that it leans toward embracing the dysfunction. But while we’re doing that, how about we start up a Bulimia Pride Month, or have an Alcoholics Pride Parade (let them drive the floats, too)?
If you utilize your local library’s Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature and go back into science journals several decades old, before homosexuality became a political movement and was simply a societal anomaly being studied, you’ll find that the research then backs up what Christian organizations such as NARTH have found to be the basis for homosexual behavior, as well as much the same effective treatments for dealing with it. It’s sad that only entities like NARTH remain because secular society has punted on the idea that there is any moral reason to address the dysfunction.
Correct. This is the reason Conservatism is not really an option, it is necessary for the society to continue. Otherwise, the Roman Empire...
If a white teenager starts to enjoy rap music and dress with their pants falling down, does this “make them black”?
Does wearing a malcome X tshirt make a person “black”?
“every truly gay friend I’ve ever had believes he was born that way. They say they knew as early as they could remember that it was same sex people who made their hearts beat faster, way before puberty. Seems clear to me they are born that way.”
I have heard endless discussion about who prefers Ginger over Mary Ann and why (I prefer Mary Ann but then I am a sucker for slightly plump, arburn haired tomboys). I do know, however, that regardless of our urges, we are in control of how we satisfy those urges. I think that homosexuality is mostly physicalogical, but even if that is’t true the homosexual still has the choice of a wholesome relationship or a life of multiple partners under unsafe and dangerous conditions. Seems like most of them choose the latter and have scorn for those that choose the first. By the way what does “truly gay” mean?
Chosen. Although our former neighbors would tell you otherwise. They have the word “innate” in various spelling on all three of their vehicles. eye rollage.
It’s a career choice, right?
There are sexual desires in this world that we have determined to be immoral, regardless of the impulse.
The Sex Positive Agenda, as pushed by Kinsey, Reich, and feminists, seeks to end all moral judgments over all sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s). They see sexual pleasure as a birthright that should be enjoyed at every age.
Claiming a “scientific” origin for homosexuality is not a concern of theirs. They believe that you should be able to experience all sorts of pleasures and should dabble in these experience to “find yourself”.
Bi-sexual people are looked down upon by some homosexuals, and how is a bi-sexual person supposed to get married without having polygamy legalized?
Animals engage in homosexual acts (but not for life), they also engage in the eating of excrement, rape, cannibalism, incest, and a lot of other things we deem as uncivilized.
Further, we can stipulate that the nature of freedom does not demand that we ask if something is genetic or a choice in order to 'allow' it. For instance, I'm overweight. We can go on and on about whether it's medical or behavioral, but in the end, we can either enact laws designed to protect me from myself (and potentially others from having to occasionally look at me, since larger people are considered "icky" by some skinny folks), or we can just let me make my own choices, no matter how 'wrong' other people consider them to be.
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.