Posted on 01/14/2006 4:14:10 PM PST by wagglebee
I'm curious what you mean by born gay? Since newborn infants probably have no sexual orientation at all, what exactly do you mean by born gay?
susie
I agree. From what I've seen in my admittedly small sample is that homosexuality is merely a symptom of larger psychological issues. Some could probably be corrected through therapy, others through drugs. Of course, I should be flogged on the altar of PC for even suggesting such a thing.
That's interesting. However, I've known several effiminate guys who were not attracted to me. It's possible tho, that effiminate men tend to be treated like girls by other kids so they begin to identify themselves that way. Is anyone doing studies these days on the possible cultural/social causes, or is that to unPC?
susie
I would agree with that, except there does appear to be harm to the society by legalizing homosexual marriage. I think the Sweden was a case study.
susie
Not necessarily. It could be the effect of having two copies of a recessive gene.
Think of sickle-cell. If you have two sickle-cell genes, you get anemia. But if you just have one, your're resistant to malaria.
So it's **possible** that the "gay gene" is recessive, does something good in heterozygotes, and makes homozygotes more likely to be gay (or to respond that way to environmental influences).
bttt
There is a difference between leaving people alone to do as they will, and codifying it into law via homosexual marriage.
susie
You know this how?
susie
Or strong evidence for an environmental factor if they were raised together. Nature vs nurture is very very difficult to distinguish.
susie
susie
"Some people are sterile"
Sterility is a physical abnormality, No?
"Possible" doesn't cut it. There's no proof that a "gay gene" exists. It's a sexual fetish that has been morphed into a lifestyle, and is attempting to be made into a protected minority status.
Nothing is less interesting to me than other people's bedroom antics. People can do whatever they desire with man, woman, goat, (or any combination thereof) without the slightest danger of interference from me. In fact: Please leave me out of the discussion altogether. I don't want to hear about it.
People tell me "what I do in my own bedroom is my business." I completely agree. Please keep it there. The restroom at the park or gym is not your bedroom. Screaming "I'm queer, I'm here, I'm in your face!!" with every cultural megaphone imaginable is definitely not a reasonable plea for tolerance but an aggressive attack on the way we normal people choose to to live our lives.
The idea that "gay" people were "made that way," as a sort of third gender, is absolutely preposterous and in a sane world would be discarded out of hand. Why would people be wired that way? The purpose of sex is reproduction. How would an anti-survival behavior that eliminates any possibility of mating evolve by natural selection? "Gay" is an extraordinary and counterintuitive idea that requires a rigorous level of proof. No proof is forthcoming.
People choose to engage in homosexual activities just as they choose, of their own free will, to partake or abstain from many other activities: boxing, soccer, stamp collecting. To deny that people choose to do these things because of "sexual orientation" is to deny them their humanity: It dehumanizes people which is why the left embraces the idea. I reject it. All people are free to choose.
Anyone who tells me "I'm gay" in the "made that way" sense is asserting something as absurd as claiming to be an elf, a sasquatch, or Napoleon Bonaparte. If someone wants to believe they are a UFO abductee then please, have fun. I have no obligation, however, to take them seriously and every right to consider them a fruitcake.
At least until dissent is made a hate crime as in Canada and Europe.
Children begin to manifest traits parents perceive as "feminity" or "masculinity" from the time they begin to express their personalitieas and preferences. Certainly when they become independent enough to start making their own choices.
Some parents seem to want to steer their little girls away from boy toys and boyish behaviors and don't mind if they are extra sensitive and dainty. They want to steer their little boys away from dolls and prefer to see their boys be a little stoic and rough and tumble instead of being ultra sensitive.
I have a gay cousin and he always was feminine, even as a toddler. That's why we got along so well, as his brother preferred to play with my brothers.
His uncle (Dad's brother) was gay. Don't know further back, not my family line. Far as I know this is the only gay "gene" in my family. He is a great person.
Reading this thread made me think about how terrible it must be to always live knowing that some people despise and are disgusted by you, merely for being you.
However, congenital factors are not necessarily genetic. There is a lot of variation in even the expression of one gene. Why else, would there be some variation in identical twins.
There is evidence that suggests, in pairs of identical twins (even those that are raised apart), an elevated incidence of homosexual behavior. It is not 100% concordance, but it is elevated.
We should also examine the case of girls born with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia). CAH involves excess levels of androgens produced by the adrenal gland. These girls are masculinized in their behavior. About 40% are lesbian, versus about 5% in the total population. Occam's Razor would tell us the most likely reason is the exposure to androgens in the womb.
My opinion of Concerned Women of America, like a lot of other groups tied to television evangelism, is probably afflicted with "True Believer Syndrome", an inability to accept alternate explanations. Sort of like some of the leftist groups, but in reverse.
Society has the right to make laws that promote the general welfare so long as no one's rights are violated -- and barring gay marriage violates no one's rights. This is because there is no right to a publicly recognized marriage.
You're making kind of a purist libertarian argument based on the noninitiation of force principle and I'm sympathetic to that in a theoretical sense. To me the most elegant solution to the whole gay marriage thing would be to get the state out of marriage altogether. Then people could pair up however they wanted and it would be a virtual non-issue.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon, and one way or another, regardless of whether gay couples are permitted to marry, the government is going to license certain marriage behavior while denying license to others. Even if the gay lobby gets its way there will still be no licensing of threesomes or foursomes or marriages between siblings, etc. Society will still regulate that behavior. That's just the way things are in the world as it actually exists.
So it would be a mistake to let ourselves be hamstrung by a pure libertarian argument here and to quit fighting against homosexual marriage as a result. To do so would just be letting the socialist left, of which the gay marriage crowd is a subset, advance its agenda.
Being more feminine does not mean a guy is attracted to men, however.
I happen to think it's a sad situation, however, which is one reason it appalls me that our culture seems to actually push the lifestyle.
Our Creator-God still has the only realistic solution for homosexuality.
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.