It's clear. When it comes down to the "in" thing, I'm out.
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."
But people of different types congregate towards groups that make them feel included. Black people tend to live near other black people. Same with whites. Just because someone may have a lack of testosterone than others doesn't necessarily make them gay..but sometimes societal pressures them into a group they feel most comfortable in. Be it lack of estrogen in women or testosterone in men....I don't think a hormone deficiency does/should dictate one's sexual orientation.
While the language is crude, the idea is sound; how in hell do you choose what tingles your ticker and what does not?
What kind of "free" "republican" wants to control other people's boners? Why not just leave them in peace- AS LONG AS THEY DONT ABUSE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
I never understood what is so difficult about that.
According to Wikipedia, the earliest available reference to "gay" clearly meaning homosexual is Noel Coward's 1929 musical, "Bitter Sweet." The origin of the term dates back to at least the 19th century; it originally referred to prostitutes of any sex, for their gay -- as in flashy -- manner of dressing.
``How do you explain the sudden switch to homosexuality in prison? ``
Not all prisoners turn queer in prison. Also, the majority who are in prison are genetically screwed up in the head. Being a homo seems to fit right in with the hard wiring gone bad theory.
``If there is a gay gene, why can't we find it? ``
Same reason we are having a hard time finding the different cancer genes. We know they are there , but just can't find them yet. And maybe its not a gene but chemical imbalance. Same Qs come up when we are trying to figure out answers about many medical problems.
"For guys it is more about the sex without commitment I think. Absent a strong moral foundation, they simply seek to gratify themselves any way they can. They are held back by social norms too, but it is more of a restraint than a motivating factor."
see #40 also.
Have we found a gene for lefthandedness?
Serious question. I don't know the answer.
Very interesting. Thanks.
I tend to agree with this rather than your argument, Laissez-faire, because in essence, yours is saying "Choosing to be gay is just as innocent a choice as choosing a political affiliation, or religious belief. In other words, they (the gays) are simply choosing to express OUTSIDE what they 'are' INSIDE".
IOW, that argument really doesn't negate the concept of "born gay" at all. In fact, in a way, it re-enforces it.
I prefer what JustRight said. Basically, the reasons homosexuals DO choose what they do is because misery loves company. And the more we normalize this sick behavior, the less that truism becomes apparent; the more we DO look like "homophobes", as we continue to fight against, as you put it Laissez-faire: An outward expression of what someone is inside.
So the fight really shouldn't be about arguing WHY homos choose their lifestyle, it should be about the lifestyle ITSELF, demonstrating how destructive it is. Once you do that effectively then the rest becomes easy. A person can "choose" to be anything, but as long as society deems it inappropriate then the choice is clearly just that, a choice. There's always going to be sick people in a society, IOW. What we choose to do with them, as a group, is what really defines (or denies, as in the case of homosexuality today) their sickness.
Once the battle shifts from the effects of the choice to the choice itself though, then it's basically over, the battle is lost. Because who, in a free society, is going to tell someone, "You can't make choices for yourself!" Indeed that's the subtle danger of attacking the choice, and not the lifestyle of homosexuality. You're giving them (homosexuals) automatic martyr status. A perfect catch-22 in other words, if you really think about it.
``But people of different types congregate towards groups that make them feel included.``
Well, I lived in a VERY small town in Saudi Arabia in the mid 70s. We didn't have regular TV. What shows we did watch, the kissing was even cut out. Everybody there was an oil industry family. Most people didn't even know what gay was. But these kids I knew at age 7 were surely gay even then. And sure enough, yrs later, they admitted it.
I wonder about that.... Gays would tend not to have direct descendents. OTOH, people without children in an extended family or tribe would be good mediators of disputes, as they would tend to make decisions for the overall survival of the tribe, thus preserving their genetics through nieces and nephews.
It's clear. When it comes down to the "in" thing, I'm out.
To get attention. Almost every homosexual I have known has been a limelight seeker. They need people to be aware of them and to have a strong opinion of them. This is very similar to pyromaniacs and kleptomaniacs. The need to be "caught", the need to be defensive about their behavior, the need to be the focus, good or bad, of people around them. It's an approval deficit disorder and needs to be recategorized as such.
Some people choose to pierce their tongues and nipples. Some choose to dy their hair flourescent pink. Some choose to tattoo their entire face and bodies. Some choose to shove live animals inside their rearends. People choose to do any number of stupid things that make them stand apart from normal society. I've never understood why "no one would choose to be gay" could ever be used as an argument againt it being a choice. And if it isn't a choice, than we better start legalizing beastiality because who in the world would choose that. It must be something the poor people are born with. Let's pat them on the shoulder and tell them we accept them.
Easy: Rebellion. Why would some teenagers choose to be druggy hippies, knowing that it will cause strife with their family? Rebellion. Sin is rebellion against God, and Homosexuality provides rebellion against both God and society at the same time.
Why would anyone choose to be an alcoholic?
Why would anyone choose to be obese?
Why would anyone choose to commit crimes such as robbery?
Why would anyone choose to gamble away their paychecks?
Why would anyone choose to be a LIBERAL?
More burning (flaming) questions....
There was a bood written years ago that follows you anaylysis is was called "Sissyboy Syndrome". Essentially a boy born to a mother who reinforces female type behavior will become homosexual. It is a develpmental process with constant reinformcement of the feminine behavior exhibited by the boy. It does not have to be a single mother, it could be an marginal or "weak" or indifferent father that is present.
It makes sense when you consider how hard the homoadvocates work to indoctrinate children at younger and younger ages. (see GLSEN and PFLAG) It is intended to reinforce homosexual behavior as normal.
It is no different than the development of any other fetish. Why did little boys in British Boarding schools grow up to want to continue to recieve corporal punishment?
Why does someone grow up into wanting a rubber fetish? Animal sex fetish? Homosexuality is no different than any other deviation of normal sexual behavior.
Homosexual practitioners are the only sexual fetish that seeks government financing and special consideration "rights".
A few generations ago, and it came into common usage with the "gay" rights upheaval in the 70s. I'm sure someone else will know more. Maybe it started with Oscar Wilde?
Interestingly, the word "homosexual" was also invented by a, well, by a German homosexual in the 1860s to denote a special community of those with same sex attractions.* Up until the word "homosexual", meaning a special identity, came into popular usage, the words "sodomite" and "pederast" were the terms, indicating not identity but behavior.
*Germany had a big "gay rights" movement starting in the late 1800s, which sort of spun off into the Nazi party. Read "The Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams to get the rest of the story. It's online, and available at various places like Amazon.
It may very well be a genetic defect. Like a frog with threee eyes. Alive, but not normal.
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.