Posted on 05/29/2009 11:19:46 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Look, the point of this article is that environment is a factor. I am providing supporting evidence that this is true. I am not talking about the guys who are raped or do it to avoid having their butts kicked. There are many who simply just resort to it. Have you even studied this at all? It appears not. Sexuality is not as hard-wired as some would believe.
Prison may not be a good relationship.
In one you have a choice between gay sex or Celibacy/possible death/injury
In the other it’s a question of are you turned on by Men or Women?
I think the dynamics of a forced single sex environment are sufficiently different from the rest of the world that we can’t make a good comparison nor draw conclusions in this case.
What you seem to be saying is that prison proves that many people would choose homosexuality if they were denyed access to the opposite sex and they were in an enviroment whereas homosexual behavior was more accepted as it is in prison.
Many children and young adults though go through akward periods of life whereas sexuality and social situations with the opposite sex can be very stressful and whereas they have problems coping. Many may want to have sexual relations with the opposite sex but it is not working out for them and they struggle with their self-esteem.
We also know that preying on children and young adults is much more prevelant among those who practise homosexuality.
So if we are telling our children that homosexuality should be treated as being equal to heterosexuality would that not tend to lend itself to a similar type of choice in the minds of some of these young adults or children?
If they are already struggling to find themselves sexually and are feeling stressed because they are being rejected by the opposite sex then we are only setting them up for worse confusion if and when they are confronted by homsexuality from a predetor.
It seems that the prison analogy works fine.
I totally disagree. The natural heterosexual is completely disgusted by sex with the same gender. Morever, there are many prohibitions that people have for moral and other reasons.
You want it to be your way and not look at this as a legitimate point.
The real point is that people make CHOICES. Furthermore, have you ever heard of something called, “an acquired taste?” Sometimes that’s exactly what happens. Not always. I am not speaking of every single instance of homosexuality. It is a complex issue that you appear to be trying to simplify.
As for the gay sex vs. celibacy, I can assure you that most men would choose celibacy and as for the possible death/injury, that is completely exaggerated.
I just had to respond to your excellent point. I am actually reading something about determinism right now and it is beyond fascinating.
I think your points are excellent but I do think that environment plays a factor in how people sometimes WILL choose. They still have free will but depending on situations, sometimes it takes more strength than at other times. An example of this is the married man who works with all men, never travels and only sees women when he is with his wife. He never strays. Well, if he really wanted to, I suppose he could look up trouble (particularly easy nowadays with the internet). Contrast that with the man who works with many, many attractive women and has to travel sometimes WITH women or is on the road for long stretches. Am I defending THAT particular man’s straying, if he does? No, absolutely not, but I do believe that he must work harder at the job to remain faithful. This is simplistic, I realize, but environment DOES affect people. However, I do not subscribe the the determinist theories.
There were WAY more homosexuals in pre-biblical times. When the Pentateuch was written and God forbade it in the LAW, things changed. There will ALWAYS be more homosexuality when it is socially acceptable.
There will always be homosexuals - true - but when it is considered okay and a culturally legitimate practice, the numbers will go up.
If as the evidence now demonstrates, homosexual behavior is LEARNED not genetic then the debate should move to prevention. Does society have an interest in PREVENTING the teaching of this behavior.
If the behavior is learned then what is the cause? Should that cause be identified, then how much effort should society expend to prevent that cause?
Nobody without those proclivities would EVER say “Hey, it is acceptable now, so what the heck?”
Iran has not freed themselves of homosexuality by killing them, they have just driven them underground (unless you are a Mullah caught molesting a boy, in which case you can have a sex change forced on the boy and that is supposed to make everything OK again).
Cultural conditions can produce such proclivities in those developing their sexuality, boarding school, sexual segregation, the burkha, etc. Hard to get ‘programmed’ to be sexually attracted to women when you never see them.
You either have those proclivities and hide them, or you have those proclivities and do not hide them; or you do not have those proclivities.
Don't make me quote Andrew Dice Clay at you! ;)
Yes, I agree with you. Context or environment can play a factor. So we could say that man has free will, but not a perfect free will. He may even do things thoughtlessly and spontaneously. Or he may simply be mistaken and choose to do the wrong thing, thinking it is the right thing. The example you give is a good one.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Oy. Who said it had anything to do with the “environment” the parents created? When I say that homosexuality is often a creation of environment, I am using the term broadly, just as the writer of the article that was originally posted. For instance, individuals in certain occupations are far more likely to experiment - this is an environmental construct. Just like college is now an environment where this is occurring. I don’t believe there are any more “true,” if that term can even be used, homosexuals today than there were 50 years ago. However, because it has become trendy - look, one of the big songs of last year was “I Kissed a Girl” by that female singer - people are gravitating towards this lifestyle. Once a person begins on this path, he/she might decide to continue. It is a CHOICE and they are exercising free will in this regard. Now, these people are different from those that will say they had “feelings” as a child and knew they were different, etc. etc. I have much more complex theories about those people, based on research I have read, but I think they are the truly torn people who believe they HAVE NO choice. They are only one part of this population. Others do it for other reasons. Some women turn to women because they have had bad experiences with men.
Finally, one case in point. Remember Ellen DeGeneres and her old girlfriend, Ann Heche? Heche said she was a lesbian and had a very long relationship with Ellen and then she’s suddenly NOT a lesbian and ends up married to a man and had at least one child - then cheats on hubby with one of the hot costars on her show “Men in Trees.”
This is why I am not inclined to believe these people are BORN this way. While I think it’s much deeper for many of them than they just decided to be gay or lesbian, for others, it really was as simple as that.
The more I read about how humanism has crept into every area of our culture, the more afraid I am for our culture. We are listening to fools telling US what is normal, right, and good; rather than listening to what God says (not you or I necessarily but our culture in general).
I think I know what you mean by humanism. I think you mean multicutural relativism and radical materialism. But the word humanism is ambiguous. It has many meanings. The word was first used in the early Renaissance for a type of Christian education combined with classical studies. And it seems to me that is the type of humanism we are in need of today.
I have been doing some reading in the types of education advocated in the early Renaissance. To my amazement, both the Catholic south and the Protestant north advocated the same sort of humanist education. But of course they meant something quite different from the popular meaning of the word humanist today.
I have also discovered that there was a movement in the early 1900s called the New Humanism. It was Christian and classical. It sought to counter the effects of naturalism, that is a belief in only progress and natural evolution. I have only begun my researches, but so far I have found the subject very rewarding.
Well, my understanding of humanism was that during the enlightenment it was the lightening rod for the new kind of thought which was that mankind, that is humans, were the source of knowledge and what would ultimately progress us and save us; thus human = humanistic. So, when you say multicultural relativism or radical materialism, that is fine for today but these concepts, and more, all have their roots in humanistic principles.
If you want to read a great book (if you can find it), it’s called “Idols for Destruction: The Conflict Between Christian Faith and American Culture” by Schlossberg. As a historian of European history, he reaches back to show us how we got to where we are and he covers historicism, nature, and other facets of thought.
I was not speaking of the enlightenment but of the Renaissance. The Renaissance took place several centuries before. The original humanism was Christian humanism. It did not start with the proposition that man is the measure of all things. On the contrary, this humanism stated that God is the source of all things that are good and true. But humans need an education to learn what is good and true. Hence the proper studies for educating a human being are the humanistic studies. And this was not really new in the Renaissance. The Renaissance simply echoed what had been said for centuries about the proper education of a human being.
If you want to read a great book (if you can find it), it’s called “Idols for Destruction: The Conflict Between Christian Faith and American Culture” by Schlossberg. As a historian of European history, he reaches back to show us how we got to where we are and he covers historicism, nature, and other facets of thought.
I have not read this book. But I have read a good bit of history to know that the meaning and content of humanism has changed since the Renaissance. But there is a movement today to return to this original humanism as the proper study for the Christian Academy.
At any rate, an essential part of learning history is to read what people in the past wrote. And since you were kind enough to recommend a book, let me recommend The Great Tradition edited by Richard M. Gamble. He has assembled excerpts from the writings of 57 writers covering 2500 years, including Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinus, Petrarch, Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Edmund Burke, John Henry Newman, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, T.S. Eliot, to name just a few.
I only caution that if anyone should ever pick up this book, do not start reading it just before bed. You will still be reading when the clock strikes 4 AM.
Well, you are talking to a bibliophile. I am in college, however, so don’t have a lot of free time for reading non-college material. I will take you up on that - the book sounds great and right up my alley.
And just for clarification, I know that the Renaissance was before the Enlightenment but I was not familiar with the humanistic thought you were talking about since I would, personally, not ascribe the term “humanism” to Christian ideology at all, of one is being true to Christ-like teachings.
Thanks!
It is a good thing to love books. But I would not call this book non-college material. I would say that if a college is not teaching what all of these author's define as the proper study for a human, then it may be time to reexamine the curriculum.
If I could quote the last sentence of Gamble's very brief introduction:
The Great Tradition patiently endures, ready to speak on its own behalf, ready to challenge narrow prejudices, ready to examine those with the courage to be interrogated by it, ready to teach those who are willing to be made unfit for the modern world.
The Great Tradition educates for wisdom and virtue, not power and vanity, not for utility, speed, novelty, or specialization.
I was not familiar with the humanistic thought you were talking about since I would, personally, not ascribe the term “humanism” to Christian ideology at all, of one is being true to Christ-like teachings.
At one time I did not associate humanism with Christianity either. Then I began to read about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. This was a very different kind of humanism--not the modern variety.
Good luck with your studies.
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.