Skip to comments.
Study Claiming Biological Basis for Homosexuality “Absolute Rubbish”: NARTH Psychiatrist
LifeSiteNews.com ^
| July 10, 2006
| Gudrun Schultz
Posted on 07/10/2006 11:22:43 AM PDT by DBeers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
1
posted on
07/10/2006 11:22:45 AM PDT
by
DBeers
To: AFA-Michigan; Abathar; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!
If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!
To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.
Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
-article disputing the latest round of well publicized "scientific" findings...
2
posted on
07/10/2006 11:30:46 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: DBeers
I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is like obesity: there may be a biological predisposition (weak or strong), that was caused by a genetic abnormality or a hormonal surge that went awry in the womb; and then environmental factors may play a part, too. In any case, one may think homosexuality is 100% biological, 100% environmental, or some combo of both, yet still maintain that sexual behavior is verboten.
3
posted on
07/10/2006 11:32:02 AM PDT
by
utahagen
I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than fantasysuch as this absurd notion of some maternal immune response. ROTFLMAO
4
posted on
07/10/2006 11:32:21 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: DBeers
Think about it for a second: if there were any sort of a biological basis for being gay, the idiots would not be prosyletizing and trying to make converts in the public schools, would they?
5
posted on
07/10/2006 11:33:37 AM PDT
by
tomzz
To: utahagen
I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is like obesity: there may be a biological predisposition (weak or strong), that was caused by a genetic abnormality or a hormonal surge that went awry in the womb; and then environmental factors may play a part, too. In any case, one may think homosexuality is 100% biological, 100% environmental, or some combo of both, yet still maintain that sexual behavior is verboten. I think a difference should be noted. Eye and height color may be genetically caused with not much that can be done with it; however, homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition, but that does not mean one's genes mandate (no pun intended) that one be a homosexual.
6
posted on
07/10/2006 11:35:14 AM PDT
by
Stepan12
To: DBeers
What??? You mean there is no biological source for homosexuality??
Darn, I was ready to contribute to the "find a medical cure foundation," as I am sure was everyone else who has had enough of the constant carping from the queers.
I guess that leaves the sole conclusion to be that homosexuals engage is such activity only because they want to. That means they are entitled to the same rights as prostitutes, bigamists, etc.
7
posted on
07/10/2006 11:35:23 AM PDT
by
Lucky Dog
To: utahagen
I know a few gay men and they all say that they resisted homosexuality throughout puberty and tried heterosexual relationships, including sex, but in vain. I don't know if it is a predisposition or biological, but I believe many gays are gay more for biological than environmental reasons.
To: DBeers
Right. When nothing else makes sense, blame it on the woman. Just like my first husband - blamed ME for not giving him a son.
BTW, I wonder if this theory holds water for gay women?
And what about bi-sexuals? and "transgendered" individuals?
And, w h o c a r e s?
To: utahagen
I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. Speaking for myself only -arguing either way would necessarily require "proof". My position is that it is possible; however, UNLIKE a belief in God -such possibility requires proof...
I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary...
10
posted on
07/10/2006 11:45:59 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: Stepan12
We agree: perhaps one's sexual inclinations may be influenced of dictated by biology, but your ACTIONS are freely chosen.
11
posted on
07/10/2006 11:47:34 AM PDT
by
utahagen
To: GeorgefromGeorgia
I agree with you (that many gays are gay for biological reasons), and I think there's no contradiction with orthodox Judaism or Christianity to believe such. I think being homosexually inclined is akin to being diabetic: something went wrong in your body and you have to figure out a way to cope with that, rather than argue that you are exactly as you should be. (A diabetic who didn't try to correct his insulin deficiency or resistance would die.) The rules are the same for all of us, regardless of what our inclinations are or why we are so inclined: no messing around outside of heterosexual marriage. Beyond that, people of good will are free to debate the causes of homosexuality.
12
posted on
07/10/2006 11:52:34 AM PDT
by
utahagen
To: GeorgefromGeorgia
I know a few gay men and they all say that they resisted homosexuality throughout puberty and tried heterosexual relationships, including sex, but in vain. I don't know if it is a predisposition or biological, but I believe many gays are gay more for biological than environmental reasons. I would not believe anything they said.
13
posted on
07/10/2006 11:53:51 AM PDT
by
DungeonMaster
(More and more churches are nada scriptura.)
To: utahagen
It is interesting - at this point the conservatives seem to want to argue that homosexuality is chosen and/or environmental while the liberals argue that is genetic or predetermined, so to speak. You make a good point, orientation and behavior are two different concepts. We can be attracted to all sorts of people, objects, whatever, but that doesn't mean we have to act on it. Hence, I think behavior almost always is a choice. Sexual orientation? At this point is appears to be both biological and environmental. One common misconception that people have is that if a trait or characteristic is determined by an experience or the environment it is easier to change. This is not necessarily true. We are born with somewhat undeveloped brains and our brains continue to develop via interaction with the environment. Therefore, early experiences can shape our brains in ways that very difficult to change later on. Perhaps children are born with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality and then some critical childhood experiences (or lack thereof) lead to expression of this predisposition. One interesting line of research would involve studying those with the "genetic predisposition" who become heterosexual in orientation. Are there certain childhood experiences that may prevent homosexual orientation among vulnerable children?
14
posted on
07/10/2006 11:56:12 AM PDT
by
drjulie
To: DBeers
You wrote: "I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary..." I agree, my only caveat being that even if someone comes up with a scientific study that is not "junk" that concludes homosexuality is biologically based, that doesn't make homosexuality normal or homosexual behavior appropriate. There are thousands of handicaps people grapple with and there's no pretending those handicaps, such as Down Syndrome, are neutral, incidental variations in human beings. The NYTimes et al would like people to believe that being straight or being gay is like having blue eyes or brown eyes. My argument is that being gay is akin to being handicapped: whether the cause was biological or enviornmental or both, something went WRONG and the world should not have to change its rules to accomodate deviant behavior, even if the person didn't choose to want to engage in said behavior.
15
posted on
07/10/2006 11:58:48 AM PDT
by
utahagen
To: utahagen
I agree with you. Predisposition cause(s) unknown may not be a choice in any or all cases; however, activity always is. In general, civil laws should be and have always been rationally premised in accomodating or sanctioning activities -not feelings...
The left argues feelings -which is why the left sponsors and pushes this type of "research" --WHICH as you and I both agree really is irrelevant to the legal question(s)...
16
posted on
07/10/2006 12:07:33 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: GeorgefromGeorgia
There are a lot of things that feel perfectly natural that are environmentally induced. A single incident can influence your whole life, in small or big ways, but the same incident with another person's perspective may have no influence at all on him or her.
In my opinion, if you can "induce" homosexuality through child abuse or role model neglect, for example, the whole theory of genetics goes right out the window.
To: DBeers
Psychiatry is a complete load of krap so a psychiatrist critiquing a study on homosexuals is a double load of doo doo.
Maybe he should learn what ethical testing of psychiatric meds consists of and fix the peer reviews within his own scope of practice before spewing goo.
This is just one theory for homosexuality...
18
posted on
07/10/2006 12:12:50 PM PDT
by
Kate of Spice Island
(Nothing matters but the weekend...from a Tuesday point of view!)
To: AmericanChef
I didn't say that all homosexuality was bio related. I think it is a mix.
To: DBeers
NEA Delegates Endorse Same-Sex "Marriage"
The National Education Association (NEA) has voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex "marriages." The action goes beyond "tolerance" to "acceptance" of the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" and "beautiful."
Critics of the measure have suggested that the union is venturing far afield from the objectives of educating the young and obtaining better pay and working conditions for teachers. "This whole issue is controversial and tangential to our goals," said Norman Person, an NEA member from California. "I don't see how it helps kids or teachers."
Franklin Butz, a gay member from New Jersey had the opposite view. "Educating the young about alternative lifestyles is central to our mission," said Butz. "Acceptance of alternative ways of living is more important than the mastery of mundane topics like math or reading. After all, computers can do our math. Television can supplant reading. But these devices can't replace the feelings we need to instill in our students."
Cynics assert that the foray into controversial political issues is aimed at diverting attention from poor test scores among public school students. "The endorsement of non-academic causes is symptomatic of the rot that pervades the NEA," said a disgruntled NEA member who asked to remain nameless. "I suppose if we get people riled over these issues they'll forget about the more fundamental failures of the system."
The NEA leadership's push for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues as a requirement for teacher credentialing has been impeded by the low reading comprehension of so many NEA members. It is a delicate matter since it is feared that the normal procedure of converting the message into pictographs might be too pornographic in this particular case.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson