Skip to comments.
'Gay' Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes
World Net Daily ^
| May 13, 2009
| Bob Unruh
Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-187 next last
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
In the sixties, the “forbidden pleasure” was being caught having extramarital sex, which in many circles is now acceptable. It was “forbidden pleasure” related to be single and pregnant. (or so those seeking the pleasures thought. If a girl became pregnant, they were generally sent to a home for unwed mothers, or to live with a relative until after she had the baby, and her family concocted a story to explain her absence. Today, that is widely acceptable. When a boy is young, the “forbidden pleasure” is generally porn, and while that is not yet acceptable, it is still a forbidden pleasure, something they hide. There are all sorts of them, but the as people experiment with more and more forbidden pleasures, including drugs, they sometimes get introduced to homosexuality. The ever greater thrill, and to rebel against society is what most of them seek. Yes, it is a mental disorder. A lot of them cannot differentiate between a fantasy and something they should act upon.
How could it possibly be considered love. If you knew the very acts you perform with your partner would lead to serious medical issues, some of them recurring, some even deadly, would you do that with someone you love? I would guess not. It isn't about love, it is about having gradually sunk to ever lowering standards of depravity.
141
posted on
05/13/2009 4:01:04 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
To: conservativegramma
142
posted on
05/13/2009 4:06:38 PM PDT
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: drjulie
The libertarian view is to live and let live. We don’t want people in our bedrooms, front yards, and gun cabinets.
Me, I am of the standpoint that it does not matter if being gay is a choice or not—so what if it is? As long as two consenting adults are keeping their behaviors in their bedrooms, hands-off as far as I’m concerned.
The government, and we, have no right to dictate what goes on in the hearts and minds—and between the bodies—of two consenting adults.
To: gidget7
I am sorry but I don’t see how you can make a leap between extramarital sex, unwed mothers, porn, and homosexual sex. What you are attempting to described could be summarized with one word: hedonism. You also believe that part of the attraction is so that they can rebel against society.
I don’t have the time to go over the fallacies in your argument in detail, but having extramarital sex and wanting to look at naked women is quite natural. It would be fair to say that people (men) are born with these desires. Some men choose to control their desires. You then indicate that when people do these quite natural things they are prone to becomming homosexual. This makes no sense at all to those of us who don’t have an agenda. Sorry.
To: ItisaReligionofPeace; gidget7
You then indicate that when people do these quite natural things they are prone to becomming homosexual. Actually, what gidget7 said was:
as people experiment with more and more forbidden pleasures, including drugs, they sometimes get introduced to homosexuality
I'll expand on what I think gidget7 said: since there is no evidence of a gay gene, when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.
Perhaps you disagree but you don't say why.
Then you say:
This makes no sense at all to those of us who dont have an agenda
What agenda does gidget7 have? Please be specific.
145
posted on
05/13/2009 5:57:40 PM PDT
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: scripter
In your mind hedonism would lead a “normal” person to homosexual behavior? That's like saying that hedonism leads to bestiality. It's just not behavior that people fall into on a whim while they're seeking a good time. Say what you want, but my experiences here on earth lead me to this very sane conclusion. Her agenda, like yours, is that all homosexuals choose to be homosexual. For some reason the idea that they are born this way insults your religious beliefs. I am not sure how or why this is because certainly you acknowledge that lots of people are born with all kinds of defects ranging from physical deformities to mental illnesses.
To: r9etb
Sorry to be so long in replying
business interfered with my internet hobby.
You're pretending that actions can be considered in isolation from motivations.
I am not pretending
I truly do not care what the motivations are, or are not, for homosexual behavior. Such is irrelevant to the act unless you are going to maintain that homosexual behavior is the result of a mental illness. Either an individual has the intent to commit a homosexual act and does so, or he or she doesnt.
If the individual does not commit the act, then there is no potentially disease-ridden, immoral threat to societys definition of marriage or other values. On the other hand, if the individual commits the act privately with another consenting adult in a completely monogamous or monandrous relationship and doesnt insist on altering any societal values nor claiming any special rights, then their actions are none of my concern.
However, an overwhelming majority (according to government statistics and academic studies) of homosexual practitioners do not restrict themselves to private, monogamous/monandrous relationships. Additionally, this same overwhelming majority of homosexual practitioners loudly and obnoxiously insist on altering millennia-old societal values. Furthermore, despite comprising a very small percentage of the population, they and those that traffic with them make up between 60 and 80 percent (or more) of the HIV/AIDs infections in this country. Moreover, while not all homosexual practitioners are pedophiles and child molesters, a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles and child molesters are homosexual practitioners.
Kids can get away with that kind of reasoning because they lack context. Grown-ups don't get that sort of free pass.
I think the previous paragraph is more than enough context. However, there is certainly more if you want it.
We're not talking about theft. And even then, we can and often do make distinctions about theft based on the motives of the perpetrator. For example, the person who steals because he's starving, is in a different moral class from the person who steals because he likes to steal. Stupid kids who steal are different from career criminals, and are treated differently.
Ok, I am willing to treat homosexual practitioners who commit homosexual acts because they are starving differently. Similarly, I am also willing to treat stupid kids who commit isolated homosexual acts differently from those homosexual practitioners who are habitually doing so. Contextually satisfied yet?
I know homosexuals
who are pretty private about their activities; and who don't spend a lot of time pushing their agenda on others. Aside from your attitude their behavior, what would make those particular folks "bad" for society?
Lets modify your assertion slightly to see if passes the smell test: There are prostitutes and polygamists, bestiality practitioners and incestuous adults that are pretty private about their activities; and who don't spend a lot of time pushing their agenda on others
Using your logic, prostitutes, polygamists, adult incest practitioners and bestiality practitioners should not be sanctioned by society. Is that your intent?
It's not as simple as you would have it be.
On the contrary, it is exactly as simple as I stated: If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is/should be subject to the same types of societal behavioral regulations/norms/laws as is any other sexual behavior.
To: ClearCase_guy
As far as I can see it's either: A) A chosen lifestyle B) Genetic flaw C) Mental illness bump
To: drjulie
Would I sanction what two consenting adults do in private? No.
If two consenting adults were making a biological weapon in private, you would not sanction them?
If two consenting adults were preparing to kill someone in private, you would not sanction them?
If two consenting adults were conspiring to defraud and steal in private, you would not sanction them?
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
In your mind hedonism would lead a normal person to homosexual behavior? I said "since there is no evidence of a gay gene", and there isn't, "when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.
That's like saying that hedonism leads to bestiality.
You're equating homosexuality with bestiality, not me. For what it's worth, I hope we haven't reached that low...
It's just not behavior that people fall into on a whim while they're seeking a good time.
But it's certainly a behavior some of those who practice hedonism can be introduced to. And I know people who have fallen into that exact behavior.
Her agenda, like yours, is that all homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
Earlier I asked you to read post 61 which if you had, you wouldn't have made the above statement. So go ahead and read post 61.
For some reason the idea that they are born this way insults your religious beliefs.
Just so you know, whenever somebody brings religion into the thread I point it out. And you brought religion into the thread, not me. My entire argument has always been based on science. Knowing that, what is my agenda?
150
posted on
05/13/2009 7:05:39 PM PDT
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: r9etb
...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.As a former member of the APA before I quit in disgust, I know how to read their language. What they are actually saying is that despite substantial research efforts to identify a genetic factor, there has been no such factor identified.
You can't ever draw the conclusion that "there is no gay gene" because someday some bright researcher just might stumble across it. But so far and after years of searching, they haven't found it yet.
In the comparison to the previous edition of the brochure, this is a definite backtracking, and reflects lack of success in the "search for the gene." The rest of the stuff is about nature and nurture and is standard boilerplate.
To: hinckley buzzard
152
posted on
05/13/2009 7:29:22 PM PDT
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: ItisaReligionofPeace
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that for some people, there is a progression, much as for some mild drugs lead to more and more dangerous drugs. With sexual matters, again SOME people seek an ever increasing need for more and more danger, more and more degeneration, as what ever they do regularly satisfies them less. They then seek more danger, more risky, call it what you will. Soon it takes more and more danger or risk to satisfy them.
Not for ALL homosexuals, but for some who seem to decide later in life, it can explain what happens. Others have been abused, or simply introduced to homosexual acts at a very vulnerable age, when their curiosity is peeked. Women (A lot of them!) are lesbians because they can seek pleasure without what they deem danger, of pregnancy. Some are what is called 4 year lesbians, through college.
Bottom line, there are many reasons they choose the lifestyle, it isn't as simply as why, but it is a behavior and a choice.
But they are NOT born that way.
153
posted on
05/13/2009 9:02:14 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
To: hinckley buzzard
What they are actually saying is that despite substantial research efforts to identify a genetic factor, there has been no such factor identified. Not quite. They're saying it's not any single factor, it's some complicated mixture of factors, of which genetics is probably a component. Nor can they isolate it to any other single factor -- such as "it's a choice".
Mr. Unruh, however, has no time for such subtleties. He, like WND in general, is more interested in his agenda.
154
posted on
05/13/2009 9:02:56 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: gidget7
But they are NOT born that way. Are you sure? You've certainly got an opinion on the matter, but if you ask a homosexual, he'll very likely tell you that he's always been that way, and at least some of those guys will be telling you the truth.
The question of "why" is probably far more complicated than you want it to be.
155
posted on
05/13/2009 9:07:54 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: r9etb
Sorry, Bob. That's not what the statement actually says. Well, at least it's an improvement over what it used to say.
A few years ago, looking for educational books about genetics to give to my children, I noticed many stated that there is a gay gene, as if the issue was settled and there was no doubt. At least the new statement is more balanced.
156
posted on
05/13/2009 9:54:31 PM PDT
by
Tired of Taxes
(Dad, I will always think of you.)
To: r9etb
In this case the messenger is being dishonest ... so, yeah, I'll attack him. It has yet to be determined if you are being as dishonest as you claim them to be. We shall see.
To: r9etb
Not according to Unruh. For example, he drags out another "expert:" Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic." Unruh's point is clear and obvious. Whether it's correct is another matter.
When Douglas Abbot says "caused by genetic mechanisms" he is referring to a one-to-one correspondence between genetics and, in this case, sexuality. There is no one-to-one correspondence between sexuality and genetics, therefore, in context, "it can't be genetic." It is really quite simple.
To: r9etb
if you ask a homosexual, he'll very likely tell you that he's always been that way, and at least some of those guys will be telling you the truth.You're questioning WND as a source, but you also should question what someone tells you. Not even a person himself knows all of the factors involved in his own development. He may believe he was born-that-way, but that doesn't make it true; he himself probably doesn't know.
159
posted on
05/13/2009 10:52:16 PM PDT
by
Tired of Taxes
(Dad, I will always think of you.)
To: conservativegramma
Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I had come to the personal conclusion years ago that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a form of narcissism due to injury in the object management phase of development. The core definition of narcissism is “falling in love with one’s own image”. What could be more that definition than homosexuality? We are a product of our thought process more than anything else IMHO. As goes the brain so goes the body. As far as a cure, some psychologists say you can cure adult narcissism but most also agree it is a job for only the truly masochistic.
160
posted on
05/13/2009 11:01:15 PM PDT
by
Niteflyr
("If youÂ’re drawing flak, you know you're over the target".)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-187 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