Posted on 08/06/2009 8:40:25 AM PDT by Notoriously Conservative
My philosophy on homosexuality is, love the sinner, not the sin. I don't have a single thread of negativity for those that proclaim themselves to be homosexual, it doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me, are the acts involved in homosexuality, and the idea being forced on us, that those acts are a human rights, morally ok, and we should all be accepting of it.
I don't believe that gays should be discriminated against, but I also don't believe that homosexual activities should be accepted by society, and no, those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. It is ok to have homosexual thoughts and desires. It is acting on those desires that is wrong.
Why don't I believe that being gay is a civil right? Well, for starters, I don't believe people are born that way. In an article written by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, Shirley E. Cox, DSW, and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., they write the following:
What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.Again, I don't think homosexuality is inherent. That is not to say many, and perhaps most of the gay community in all honesty believes it is, and I can understand that. But, in my opinion people are gay for a variety of reasons, whether conscious or subconscious, but it is not genetic. Something in their life sparked a change in their bodies, in their brains that made them that way.Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.
"We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..."(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).
"Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995).
Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,
"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants" (1994, p. 104).
What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:
"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
"The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior....Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).
Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:
"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).
Furthermore, I don't consider it a civil right, because I view homosexual acts as morally reprehensible. And don't tell me I don't have a right to my views on morality, while trying to force me to accept yours. I don't force heterosexuality on you, so don't force gay on me. I think it is an affront to God, and his divine institution of marriage and family, when two people of the same gender engage in homosexual acts. Plain and simple.
Beyond the moral implications of gay rights, I think it is simply unnatural, and purely indulgent to sexual appetites. Sex can be, and is a source of great pleasure. Pleasure aside, sex is also the only natural means of procreation. Biologically a man and a woman need each other to have children. Biologically men and women’s sexual organs fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. It's like a stand up comedian once said, you can't plug a lamp into another lamp, but it sure is fun when two sockets get together.
There is real biological need of copulation between a man and a woman. Biologically it makes sense for a man and a woman to marry, and mate for life; multiplying, and raising children together.
In a homosexual relationship, there is no biological function. Sex between two people of the same sex is purely physical and emotional, it fulfills no greater purpose, and leads to nothing but bonding between the two, and the release of sexual energy. Because there is no greater biological purpose, there is no need for marriage for a homosexual couple; besides perhaps insurance, and inheritance, which could be achieved through a legal contract, and wouldn’t really require marriage.
There is no need for me to accept your lifestyle, forcibly or otherwise. What does it benefit you? It's not like you have to drink out of separate drinking fountains, or sit in the back of the bus. You aren't treated like second class citizens. Stop whining, looking for everyone's approval, and forcing your lifestyle on me. If you want to be gay, go be gay, but keep it out of my life, I want no part of it.
http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/08/homosexuality-is-not-civil-right.html
Like obesity, homosexuality is nothing more than a lifestyle choice.
None of which changes the fact that it’s none of the government’s business.
Amen. Though, at least there are some genetic variables associated with obesity.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
bttt
Hey, you said it, not me.
And then he proceeds to tell us just how much it does bother him.
Actually, if you had bothered to read, you would have noticed that I said I don’t have negativity towards homosexuals, simply against the act of homosexuality. My rehetoric stuck to that, and I never personally attacked homosexuals, only the act.
And how do you separate the two?
I stated what I want in the last sentence of my post. I want it kept out of my life, and for the lifestyle not to be forced on me. Again, clearly laid out, for those that read.
Like I said, love the sinner, not the sin. The two are not intertwined, you can dislike one, without disliking the other. I love people who are democrats, but I don’t like the democratic party. Do you really not understand how?
Anyway, I’ll let my post speak for me, I have to get back to work.
But do you honestly believe that the Christian Lobby in its defense of traditional marriage is as tyrannical as the Homosexual Lobby that -- through the imprimatur of new laws -- attempts to force acceptance of a deviate biological practice upon our schools and culture?
Just wanna know...
No.
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.