Posted on 07/12/2006 2:07:22 PM PDT by carlo3b
I can understand why a man might choose homosexual activity. It is similiar to why men go to hookers. It is SEX. And what better person to have pure raw sex with than a man who has the same sex drive as you do. Most women do not care to do it many times in a 24 hour period. Plus all the variety allowed. But most men would like to and could. There are all types of situations that could start this type of behavior and many things in our culture that make one say well it is O:K, I will never get caught, so what I can do what I want to. Leave me alone.
Beautiful response. God bless him abundantly, and you, too.
Actually, society for the most part didn't condemn this nearly as much as it may seem. Everybody knew who was gay and living that way, but as long as they did not demand to be given the stamp of approval and full legal equality with hetero marriages, most people got along, although there certainly were highly regrettable instances of prejudice. I had many gay teachers and bosses, being in the arts, back in the 50s and early 60s, before Stonewall.
That said, today's homosexual political leadership is not going to stop with gay "marriage"; they have made their agenda very clear in their publications since the 60s, and it includes compulsory indoctrination of children as young as kindergarten and abolition of the age of consent, in addition to forced political correctness in the workplace and in places of worship that demonize the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethos and label it bigotry. In Canada and Sweden, pastors have already been prosecuted for reading the passages from the Bible prohibiting homosexual behavior to their congregations. This flies in the face of "freedom of religion." The gay agenda is an assault on this and other parts of the Bill of Rights.
But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when one claims to be ex-gay. They don't believe the ex-gay claim, they don't believe the ex-gay testimony nor their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses a certain standard to measure the credibility of what one group says, but then refuses to use the same standard to measure the credibility of what another group says--thereby ignoring the claims of the second group (ex-gays)--he should ask himself why he believes one group and not the other... This is a double standard.
I have a question? I know this is not an absolute for all but it seems to be for the most. At least all I have known which is about 50 lesbians and gay guys. I have noticed that they all seem to pair up in a paticualar way that is alot like hetersexuals. One guy is obviously the more feminine acting. You may not always notice it when they are out in a very public place but once you know them it is obvious. The female like man is more jealous of other men and women, more nervous and hysterical, cries easily. The same with lesbians one is butch and one look like a normal female in attaire and style of hair, body weight, clothes and mannerisms. So they still in their sexual gay or lesbian relationships have a pairing that is very similar to heterosexuals. Any one else noticed this and does anyone else wonder why????
In earlier societies (even the United States was primarily agrarian until 1939), when homosexuality was regarded as absolutely unacceptable behavior, all persons who did not enter religious orders were expected to marry and raise children because the children were needed to work the farm or inherit the estate or titles, carry the family name, etc. This was how society was ordered before the Age of Socialism. That being the case, assuming that there are recessive homosexual tendencies, they would have been ignored in order to produce an heir. Maybe the couple didn't see a lot of action after that, but reproduction and having a family was a rite of passage not only to adulthood but also to full inheritance.
I've known many, having worked in the arts. But the question is the same question we are having with our Muslim friends: where is the moderate outcry from the homosexual community against the extremes being done to Christian heterosexuals in their name? There is a father in Massachusetts who has been ordered by the court to stay away from his 6-year-old's school because he demanded to opt his child out of the homosexual indoctrination materials. His child was recently beaten up on the playground and none of the teachers came to the child's aid. This is blue-state homosexual advocacy for you. This extremism is what others on the forum are objecting to. It should be the homosexuals themselves who form a voice for reason. Please point us to a single homosexual web site questioning whether gays and lesbians really are equally good prospects as parents.
See my profile for more information.
Your ideas are simply way behind the times. Most of the negatives associated with the gay political movement have already been forced into the school systems. Your tolerance is of no use to the upcoming generation and their parents, who will have to swallow this misinformation wholesale or else pay to put their kids in private schools -- which are also under pressure to capitulate in order to receive accreditation.
I only know of one homosexual source that states the obvious here, but it's not a website. It's a book by lesbian Tammy Bruce entitled The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.
ping
Wait a minute! I went to the link in post 91 and his statistics show far lower percentages. Those darn American researchers.......they just continue to prop up the gay agenda.
My lifetime experience with gays is with men who have tried to pick me up when I was a teenager, giving me a lift home, offering me scholarly help, or a joint, providing me with accolades and awards for a favor, or entrees into a clique, or giving me friendly advice; all if I would simply submit to their prevision. To me, these people can be clearly identified as pedophiles, trying to take advantage of and corrupt others in an inferior position, not people who engage in behavior with consenting adults.
"52% is not less than 1/2."
1: Spunkets, I take it you are ignorant on how PROBANDWISE concordance is calculated? 52% probandwise concordance actually is less then 1/2. The following wikipeda link explains how "probandwise concordance" is calculated for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study
2: Bailey's study which had a 52% probandwise concordance was flawed and Bailey admits it himself(in the quote below). They advertised in gay periodicles which gave them a biased sample. Bailey's most recent study used a more random sample out of an Australian town registry. With a nonbiased sample, there was only a 20% probandwise concordance for male homosexuals identical twins and 24% for lesbian twins. For those who don't feel like reading the paper or doing the math, 20% probandwise means only 3 out of the 27 pairs of identical male twins had siblings who were both gay. This study pretty much blows the whole "gay gene" theory out of the water.
Here is a quote and link from Bailey's paper that backs up what I am saying...
"The most striking difference between our results and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation concerns the probandwise concordance rates. In a recent review the lowest concordances for single-sex MZ samples were 47% and 48%, for men and women, respectively.In contrast, our MZ concordances were 20% and 24%, respectively, for the strict criterion that is most similar to those used in prior studies. These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation: for men, 52%, [chi] (1, = 550) = 8.2, < .01, and for women, 48%, [chi] (1, = 1,115) = 4.3, < .05. This uggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias."
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Bailey%20et%20al.%20twins,2000.pdf
Finally, it is amazing to me how the 52% number STILL gets thrown around by "pro-gay" advocates, while the better and more current study is ignored. It kind of reminds me of Kinsey's old 10% of the population is gay myth.
That is an interesting point of view. My sex drive seems to be of a much more primitive origin than a thoughtful evaluation of the opportunity provided in the environment for sexual activity. I'm sexually excited by the sight, smell, shape, sway, and other indescribable attributes, of a women, and definitely not by the typical attributes of a man. Then again, hookers don't appeal to me either, so, as I've learned in my life, it is only special women I'm sexually attracted to, and only a few in my life that it has worked out with.
Like any other recessive gene, it would be passed on by "carriers" who do not exhibit the trait (in this case, heteros).
Again, I do not acknowledge the existence of such a gene. I'm only attempting to dispel the idea that, simply because a gene inhibits the reproductive process, it will by definition be eliminated from the genetic pool. Such would be true of a dominant trait, not of a recessive one.
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.