Posted on 12/07/2004 6:56:46 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Just to be clear, I believe that many "gays" *do* choose to be "gay." I also believe that "nature" may cause the choice to be easier for some than for others; likewise, that nature may render it much more difficult for some individuals to refrain from engaging in gay sex.
But I also believe that the abnormal proclivities of some n need not be viewed as "normal" for the rest.
It appears you nailed it.
actually they are seeking approval.
Ever notice how there is always the story that a homosexual who admits his/her fetish to mothers and fathers is accepted and "loved"? The homo-advocates never report the parents who are less than accepting and/or tollerant of their child participating in a deathstyle.
Yes, by being in a monogamous relationship with my wife, I am indeed jealous of being deprived of the opportunity to contract any number of deadly STDs, increased opportunity for drug abuse, and the increased opportunity to commit suicide that comes with the wonderful "lifestyle" that you defend. I am missing out on so much.
Homosexuality is a disorder.
So, it is a choice, in the sense that it's a set of small choices. Hence, we can argue that the path back from "gayness" is as well.
I've seen many "gay" people I know take that backward path.
I have read the published results of the entire study (Laumann, et al: The Social organization of sexuality in the United States.) since I've written a text to which they were relevant; they were not longitudinal. Moreover, this study was not conducted "these days" but rather in the late 80s/early 90s. The sexual behavior questions were all between 1988 and 1992 iirc. The questions did not even appear in the GSS before 1988 and the cited results were published in 1994. That alone eliminates the idea of a 9 year longitudinal study (between 16-25 years).
BTW, the funding was yanked and that's why similar studies have not continued on a rolling, longitudinal basis.
Moreover, youth results in general are extremely problematic for two more reasons: (1) they require parental permission, and more conservative households are far less likely to permit adolescents to participate in sexual surveys; (2) most or all respondents are drawn from a restricted demographic, oftentimes related to a clinical setting.
My remarks on the margin of error are based 100% on the actual results which I analyzed. Your remarks are assuredly pure conjecture.
I'm 22. I thought I was intollerant, but you guys are really bad. It just sounds like you are all scared of it for whatever reason. There are many prominent, educated, wealthy people who are not straight. To claim they all have a disease is silly. People cannot control who they are attracted to physically. I dont see what moral authority you guys even have to stand on? Cuz ur christian? because u believe in a religion written by politicians 2 thousand years ago, with essentially zero physical evidence to back it up. Jesus would not approve of your treatment toward others, if you want to start reading the bible literally, maybe you should pull out more than that one line in leviticus, and see how many apply to your opwn personal lives. I'm catholic, but it doesnt mean i have to fit the mold or cant be open-minded
The fact that you can't think of any doesn't mean there are none.
To make every facet of their life more difficult and akward?
Again, you think in a pre set way. Some may find it easier.
I dont know where that study is from, but many studies have concluded that the percentage of gay people is closer to 10%, with many more that are at least somewhat curious.
I saw one study that said everyone is gay, and one that said no one is gay. People can whatever they want and back it up with phony statistics.
You guys are just falling for a doctor with a pro-family, religious marriage agenda, in the same way over-the-top gay groups have an agenda.
Falling for? He is expresing his opinion, in the same way the homosexuals express theirs.
That's just dumb. I think you should condemn anyone that wants to be a dentist as well, since they have the highest suicide rate of any profession. And being str8 means all the same std possibilities if your not careful, plus the added bonus of unwanted pregnancy
I think some do. Former homosexuals have stated some do as well. But many? I can't say that myself.
I also believe that "nature" may cause the choice to be easier for some than for others; likewise, that nature may render it much more difficult for some individuals to refrain from engaging in gay sex.
As far as gifts, sure. This article summarizes it well:
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
Maybe we can show our compassion by turning this into a group therapy session for you. Would you like that?
We are here to help. A whole forum full of "daddies."
homosexual sentiment noted...
working... working....
*My remarks on the margin of error are based 100% on the actual results which I analyzed. Your remarks are assuredly pure conjecture.*
My remarks about the value of a cross sectional study were deductive, not conjecture. And if you have specific findings to report regarding the significance of their percentages, then you ought to post it.
In fact, the finding of a drop in time in the frequency of self-reported "gayness" makes sense from a theoretical perspective, given the longstanding body of literature regarding the proclivity of adolescent boys to sexually experiment with each other.
str8? how old are you??
"Why does anyone make bad life choices which can destroy them, their families and friends?"
"Thanks. Even good people can make bad choices. It's in our nature, as is the ability to change our lives for the better."
This is why the Gay Agenda pushers are fighting so hard to make the Gay Option appear to be normal and great.
They, like drug addicts and other bad life choice makers, want their bad choices to "normalized" and society to be "Non Judgemental".
Here are some excellent articles which analyze genetics and homosexuality.
Both show that homosexuality isn't "genetic", "inborn" or "innate."
There is no "Gay Gene":
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/satinbook.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
sorry, sometime i use shorthand, because i have a job and am doing other things
There could never be a genentic component to it because the behavior would just make the gene die out. Therefore, a gene does not exist. Its purely behavioral. There is tons of other data to prove this, but this is big example that goes to the heart of it.
Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic
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.