Posted on 01/14/2006 4:14:10 PM PST by wagglebee
Well, maybe make your point more clear, without roundaboutation, and we'd all know what you mean,
I couldn't agree with your comments more.
We can't choose a lot of things - whether we're homely or handsome, good at math, art, sports, writing, or none of the above, nice family or bad, rich uncles or uncles in the pen. But we can choose what we do with our life moment to moment, day to day. Turn right or left? Inject the heroin or not inject the heroin? Crack open the book and read, or click the remote and absorb mental offal?
Each day is a treasure chest filled with choices. One part a lot of people don't get, though, is that each choice comes with reactions that we have no choice but to accept, sooner or later. Called karmic reaction. Jesus said - As you sow, so shall you reap. Same thing.
Just the opposite. It's extremely relevant to the homosexual lobby in that if homosexuality is genetic it would acquire the same protected status as skin color.
"In either case, we rightly treat the defect -- whether they were born with it or got it from abuse or an "accident."
How do you go about treating a voluntary "defect"? How do you treat an obese person who wants to eat?
Well, since you are so smart, surely you can explain your meaning to us simpletons. I made my point clearly, go right ahead.
little_jeremiah was merely paraphrasing as to "number of causes of homosexuality" for the sake of discussion and I don't read from what he wrote that he's alleging to quote you literally, just saying, again to paraphrase BOTH of you, of the many, alleged causes of homosexuality...
To my read, I didn't find what little_jeremiah wrote to be in any way problematic to what you wrote, earlier, here.
You opined that to your view, the "causes" of homosexuality were nearly if not completely unaddressable, and mentioned the many viruses that cause the "common cold" to be as equally mystifying in difficulty to identify as any one cause, any one infectious agent.
Homosexuality, you opined, to my read, was similarly difficult to prove as to any one cause, referring to your example of the many different viruses that cause the common cold, to repeat this in another fasion.
And, actually, although homosexuality as behavior IS difficult about which to identify any one cause, I agree and so does most of medical science but it's not a "one cause" issue as most behavioral aberrations are. They are caused/created by SYNDROMES of behaviors, a syndrome meaning a myriad of conditions combining learned options from a cultural and familial environment.
It's easily confused and has been in general as to the biological abnormality of chromosome variations in some individuals which can and does often result in physical abnormalities in individuals.
Yet, those are a different area of study altogether from homosexuality.
Not that you've mentioned that here but that I thought I'd now include that since earlier some comments were pursuing the "some people are born with conflicting gender" issue.
That does not mean that homosexuality is immutable, that a person is born with homosexuality. Chromosomal variations and aberrations are not the cause of homosexuality and someone born with chromosomal aberrations/abnormalities is not compelled to be homosexual when functioning from their gender, such as it may be.
Homosexuality is another area of behavior, is the point, apart and distinct from chromosomal abnormalities, compared with the normal chromosomal inheritance of male and female gendered individuals.
No "gay gene" there!
There are, also, a myriad of reasons why people learn to act impulsively. It's not a case of being impossible to define but of the fact that behaviors are learned, not inherited.
We all inherit potential. It's developed differently, affected differently and greatly influenced by our environment.
A lot of people don't care why "gays are gay," I agree. But that they do care and that they attempt to actually incorporate FALSE INFORMATION into factual defintions in our educational system, healthcare and social standards, and that is that they "are born that way," that homosexuality represents a "natural state of normal" for homosexuals, is an equivalentcy of heterosexuality.
All of which are not true. And yet promoted by homosexuals in their efforts to rationalize their own choices of behavior.
There's no countering those compulsions when they're defined as "immutable" (which they are not) as per what homosexuals reason and attempt to instruct others. Because, if it's not immutable (which it isn't), then that means it's chosen, selected, conditioned (which it is) and that means that the idea of change is possible and even present (which it is).
Why the insistence as to homosexuality being unchangeable? It seems that the REASONS THAT MOTIVATE THAT are significant from a cultural perspective. And most questionable, to my view.
You are (also, as was Wormer) playing games of semantics here.
Most people if not all can easily read that little_jeremiah typed an extra "0" in his comments. It's not significant to what lj was expressing, and it in no way misses your point of what you were earlier expressing, or trying to.
So, if you have other "funny" things to write, you might try expressing your points rather than just dolling about with evasive suggestions.
I'll write this again: no one can read your mind. If you don't explain yourself, stop ridiculing others for not getting what you don't express when you don't express it, because it's never going to happen otherwise.
There you go again, Michael.SF....no, in my view, it's your inability to express yourself clearly that is causing you grief, the source of your upset. You appear to be trying to just target anyone who dares to even select your numbered comments for purposes of commenting here.
State your views.
I don't think it matter whether homosexuals are genetically predispositioned or not. I don't believe it is a choice. If they are not born homosexual it occurs sometime during puberty or soon after and I don't think even they understand why. But, I would argue that just as you can't (with some very rare exceptions) change a child molestor's compulsion, you can't change a homosexual's compulsion. I think religious groups that claim they are doing so are out of touch with reality. I don't consider homosexuality a threat to me, my family, or the culture. I am not arguing that it is wrong for those who view it as a moral issue to resist gay intrusions into our culture because we each come at this from a different perspective. Just as I don't care why a child molestor does what he does (but should be in jail), I don't care why a homosexual does what he does.
You didn't read the article that this thread has sprung forth from, did you?
The RESEARCH PROVES that there IS NO 'GAY GENE,' that there is no immutable characteristic to homosexuality -- that means that there is NO INHERITED, PREDETERMINED ESSENCE or CAUSE to homosexuality, and that it is behavioral, therefore.
It's behavioral. As behavior, then, it is a chosen set of responses. Whether it's "chosen" at what age, by what process, who can now say since it's undoubtedly a syndrome of influences and psychological process resulting in the ultimate "choice", but still not an immutable aspect to any human's development.
That's what science has to say about it. No biological, inherited cause that predetermines someone "must" be homosexual, that there is no choice in that option, that despite whatever else, one is "just born that way." It's disproven. That means there's nothing but fantasy, to date, to support the "homosexuals are born that way," argument.
You write about the same thing, reflecting the cultural insistence that there's "just" some age where they "just" opt to be "homosexual" because you "don't believe there is a choice."
That's just it, you don't BELIEVE there's a choice. It's just fantasy, your belief. You believe that because you've undoubtedly heard that.
It's not true, in any factual sense. It's mere PHILOSOPHY, and that makes it cultural, or what some of us refer to as an aspect of "the homosexual agenda."
Most of us haven't, this thread, even argued the "moral" aspect involved in how we reject or accept, to those who do, homosexuality.
We've discussed the article and the science involved that the article brings to light. And that is that homosexuality is not immutable.
However, I can see that that statement by science would be counter to the "morality" of those who defend, inaccurately, homosexuality as immutable.
Sorry, these comments are intended as reply to yours, wrongly posted, previous, to another:
Most of us haven't, this thread, even argued the "moral" aspect involved in how we reject or accept, to those who do, homosexuality.
We've discussed the article and the science involved that the article brings to light. And that is that homosexuality is not immutable.
However, I can see that that statement by science would be counter to the "morality" of those who defend, inaccurately, homosexuality as immutable.
While I don't agree that research has settled anything (in the same way, research can show global warming or no global warming) it is to me, beside the point. It doesn't have to be genetic for a child to grow up to be a homosexual anymore than being left handed is genetic. While, I don't think anecdotes are a good form of proof for anything, one personal one has always left me wondering. We had friends with 4 sons. The third son started showing female or effeminate characteristics as soon as he was able to walk. He saw Wizard of Oz and wanted to dress like Dorothy. He would spend a great deal of time selecting clothes and making sure he was always dressed well. He always wanted to play with girls and play girl games. He simply exhibited a lot of behavior that suggested to me and to his parents (who were mortified) that he was gay. All the other sons behaved like typical boys. Sure enough, as soon as he reached puberty he showed an interest in boys and grew up to be homosexual. Now, you can't tell me that at the age of 3 this child chose to be a homosexual, because he had no clue what sex was. I'm not suggesting all homosexuals begin the process at 3 or that some men don't make a deliberate choice to be gay. I think for some men it just happens, whether it is genetic or not. Furthermore, I don't care if they are homosexual or not. It means nothing to me one way or another.
You're presenting your own philosophy, as if it's the discussion.
Although it's interesting reading, it's mere personal philosophy. That being the case, it's philosopy, to repeat that, that reflects the current cultural stance of the "homosexual agenda" -- an atempt to enforce personal perspectives as if they were facts, (not you but the agenda itself, which is what many of us on FR and elsewhere object to), to demand that public education include their philosophy as fact in discussing homosexuality, to omit the facts about it (it's not immutable and the attempts to make it so are mere philosophical, if not wishful thinking).
I can no more tell you that your philosophy is right nor wrong. But it's entirely subjective given that it's not supported by scientific fact, that "homosexuality is...(not chosen, is not behavioral)."
I've heard/read your stories before and you can write them here till doomsday but it will still represent the homosexual agenda and not fact.
You believe the agenda, you believe what you're told, you think that parents who conclude homosexual children "were born that way" or just became homosexual and that it's to be accepted as "natural," and more...and you earlier objected to others having referred to morality when no one has (not me), so, what I think it is is you want to insist your philosophy is, in fact, "more right" than others here.
All I can say is the thread has been a lengthy one in an attempt to discuss the facts of the article, not your personal philosophy.
Homosexuality is not equatable with being left handed or red haired or similar. It's sad that you've resigned yourself to conclude it's that minor a thing in another human being. However, I'm just not interested in discussing the homosexual agenda here with you nor anyone.
I do know that promoting the homosexual agenda is regarded on FR as an offensive behavior, so, and many will identify you as trolling if you continue with this.
"And such were some of you..."
Agreed. And I am in daily -- no, make that moment-by-moment -- in desperate need of a Savior.
Ask Jesus Christ to save you and He will. Then get up and go to church and introduce yourself.
If there is one thing I am the worlds foremost authority on it is what I believe and think. It would be helpful if you would try to stop reading my mind and telling me what I believe because you have no clue. I have noticed that when anyone argues the issue of homosexuality with you, you make personal attacks. I disagree with your views on what homosexuality is about and of course I present my views (which you term my philosophy). And pray tell exactly what are you presenting if not your views (which is clearly your christian philosophy)? If you want to argue that homosexuality is a choice then be my guest, but you simply can't prove it anymore than a heterosexual can prove his or her heterosexuality is a choice. If there is no homosexual gene then there certainly cannot be a heterosexual gene. You pretend that anyone that disagrees with you is spouting philosophy while you are presenting scientific fact. You have presented no such thing. You have presented the opinions of several scientists and I have no doubt if I was so inclined I could find scientists and psychologists who would claim that it is either genetic or some brain disfunction that has yet to be identified.
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.