Posted on 01/13/2005 8:00:33 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Gay activists and their supporters often say, "Why would someone choose to be gay?" But why would someone want to change political parties? Why would someone want to change their religion? Maybe it's just what they feel like they need to do, or be.
Gay activists and their supporters often resort to using this phrase or one similar to it. They state: Why would someone choose to be gay in a world where they will face grief and opposition over their sexual orientation?
To which I respond: Why would a Muslim choose to convert to Christianity in a region of the world like Sudan or Iran where they will face grief, opposition, persecution, or even death over their religious orientation?
As well, why would someone choose to change their political orientation, to say Republican, in a family which is strictly union Democrat, and which has voted exclusively Democrat for generations, when they will face grief and opposition over their political orientation?
Now, some may respond that you cannot compare sexual orientation with political or religious orientation, since one makes the choice to convert from one religion or political orientation to another, and that one doesn't choose to be gay, that they are "born that way."
Gays aren't "born that way", though.
Numerous scientific studies, posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300464/posts, show these things:
1.) Environment plays a strong role in homosexuality developing. Almost all of the experts who have done some type of study on homosexuality say that homosexuality cannot be explained apart from reference to environmental factors.
2.) There is a strong prevalance of same-sex sexual abuse in the childhoods of homosexuals.
3.) Many homosexuals themselves link their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.
4.) Gender Identity Disorder, gender confusion and other environmental factors have been shown to play a role in homosexuality developing in some individuals.
5.) There is no "gay gene." Identical-Twin studies, as well as other studies, have smashed this possibility.
6.) Personal choice, to some degree, is involved in all behaviors, sexual or otherwise. Even some lesbians agree with this. Genetic or environmental factors are never overwhelming.
So, you can see that the argument of "Why would someone choose to be gay in a world where they will face grief and opposition over their sexual orientation", doesn't hold water, and neither does the lie of gays being "born that way."
How do you know this guy wasn't molesting his sons as early as their infancy or toddlerhood? The sons may not even have a conscious memory of abuse but that doesn't mean abuse doesn't damage those who don't recall it.
That Pa was a "real macho man" doesn't mean he wasn't a queer or a pedophile or both. In fact men who go overboard in the macho area are often overcompensating for their own private deficiencies or worries in that area.
"Smacked your @$$ and called you Sally."
Please, you're making me blush. I think you typed that one in the wrong window.
A boy might be effeminate but still straight. Some boys might lean a certain way, but up until recently most fought against it, hopefully overcame their urges and married women. Some teenagers, boys and girls, go through a confused phase, but until recently almost all grew out of it. That's not true anymore.
Do you have a link? I ask only because someone followed up to me with a link to a lefty FAQ which specifically said they don't know.
It's kind of embarrassing to see so many uninformed and gay-bashing Freepers in here.
Homosexuality is a choice
By KARLEEN E. WICKHAM PAGE
Although we all are born with tendencies toward certain sins, no one is born a murderer, a thief, or a rapist. Likewise, no one is "born a homosexual". We all have had unfortunate experiences that seem to point us in a negative direction, but these experiences do not require or command us to become sinners. We are what we are, not by birth or experience, but by choice. Circumstances that seem to create twisted, cruel women, whores and adulteresses, have also produced some of the most holy, forgiving, loving women the world has ever known. And seemingly perfect environments have produced monstrous murderers. What makes the difference?
The choice each person made as to how they reacted to their circumstances.
It would be unbelievably unfair for God to make us a murderer or a thief, and then punish us for being what He made us to be, wouldn’t it? Likewise, God does not make men or women homosexual, and then punish them for it.
Anyone who believes that Jesus condones homosexuality misunderstands the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, homosexuality is unequivocally condemned, punishable by death. Jesus came, not to abolish Old Testament law, but to fulfill it. He created man and woman for each other and upheld traditional marriage, which He had instituted in the beginning.
No where in the New Testament does Jesus promote, condone, or approve of homosexuality.
Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, very clearly states in the first chapter of Romans that homosexuality is a choice, not a congenital defect. Men and women did not glorify God as God, although they knew Him, and their thinking became futile.
They chose to worship what God had created instead of the Creator.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.... Although ... those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:26—27, 32, NIV)
Some believe that homosexuality should be accepted as "natural" behavior since, they claim, a certain percentage of all populations are homosexual historically. In the same way, one could argue that murder and theft are "natural" since there seems to always be a certain percentage of people who are murderers and thieves. No one would promote legalizing murder or theft on the basis that it is "natural" human behavior.
The argument for the acceptance of homosexuality on the same basis is equally ludicrous.
Although the tone of this letter sounds judgmental, there really is good news here. If you were not born a homosexual; if it was a conscious choice on your part; then you can also make a choice to change. Repent of your sin to the Lord Jesus Christ and allow Him to change you into a new creature.
"... Homosexual offenders will [not] inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
(I Corinthians 6:11, NIV)
consider the example of the child molester in prison. They have to be seperated because they will be sexually attacked. Otherwise heterosexual men will engage in homosexual conduct to "punish the molester".
Homosexual conduct includes the "pitcher" and "reciever".
as for returning to normal, the percentages of homosexuals in the population whould be more than 2.7% (lawrence brief of the homosexuals gave the 2.7% number).
as for dominance, it only establishes the dominant homosexual behavior practitioner.
`` How do you know this guy wasn't molesting his sons as early as their infancy or toddlerhood? ``
Well, because I was very good friends with his brother and his sister and my family was good friends with both their families. These folks were not pervs. We knew them for 15yrs. Even went on a ski vacation to Austria with the Marine guy's family. The Grizzly Adam's guy, I dated his daughter for about 1yr. I knew these folks pretty good. They both just had gay sons (one admitted it, the other stayed in the closet even though it was very obvious-- i guess it is hard to be gay when there is nobody to be gay with).
Why would someone choose to be a pedophile?
Why would someone choose to be a drug addict?
Why would someone choose to be an alcoholic?
While purely anecdotal I recently read an article about Charles Manson who was incarcerated for most of his life since puberty. Obviously he became involved in homosexuality while incarcerated but even when released from prison and around all the free heterosexual sex in The Family, Manson preferred homosexuality. This told me that like all bad habits, it might not be so "easy" to put down homosexuality once it has been picked up.
Which is probably why homosexuals want access to children.
You describe the self-fulfilling prophecy. A boy has some characteristics that people think of as 'feminine,' so he is teased by kids and treated by his family in such a way that he becomes convinced he is gay.
Check the newspapers and TV. Obviously there are many more who want to legislatively shove their "lifestyle choices" down everyone's throats.
Which brings up the conflict between their yammering. How can they be "born that way" and at the same time insist it is a "lifestyle choice?"
I would only take a minor issue on one point.
the child molester in prison. They have to be seperated because they will be sexually attacked. Otherwise heterosexual men will engage in homosexual conduct to "punish the molester".
From what I've heard the "short eyes" are just as likely to be severely beaten or killed as homosexually raped ..... not that I care.
And having read your post, I see some Freepers are deeply into using cliches to avoid having to discuss issues intelligently.
Forgot the whole point - these boys have been screaming queens since they were toddlers. The older dressed up as Dorothy for Halloween once. These boys could easily fall into the "born gay" category, if the categorizer considered only their behavior at a certain age to be the most important factor.
"homophobic" is a made up term that has no valid meaning other than to shame those who do not accept homosexuality. People who reject homosexuality are not afraid of queers although they often are disugsted by them. For the purposes you used the term, "homophobe" is nothing more than hate speech.
The notion of a "gay gene" is overly simplistic. But if you are saying that twin studies have ruled out any genetic influence on homosexuality, I would have to disagree. I've probably seen at least a half dozen studies that show higher concordance rates (both members of the twin pair gay) among identical twins than fraternal twins. When you have higher rates among identical twins, it's hardly consistent with a claim that you have "smashed" the possibility of genetic influence. If anything, you are looking at the opposite.
Oh, and as to "mediators", I think that heterosexuals can fill that role as well as homos. don't you thihk?
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. Not even you.
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.