Posted on 09/14/2011 1:00:46 PM PDT by ReformationFan
In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, "The Atlantic," openly "queer woman" (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, "In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way."
Tellingly, she argues that saying people are "born this way" is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers 'can't help it,' and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity."
I've got news for Ms. Miller — it's not straights saying that you can't help it, it is your co-belligerents in the homosexual movement. In the pro-family movement, we entirely agree with you that sexual behavior in the end is always a matter of choice. We have no condescension towards you in the least — we regard you as men and women made in the image of God who are perfectly capable of making responsible and mature decisions regarding your sexuality.
Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, "The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake — it's a life I chose."
Homosexual activists must be seething at this point, since Ms. Miller has blown their entire civil rights argument — we're just like blacks — to smithereens. Blacks did not choose to be black. Race is immutable, assigned at birth. But homosexuality is not immutable and it is not fixed at birth. Ms. Miller has chosen lesbianism, which means she is perfectly capable of choosing sexual normalcy if she becomes so inclined.
Ms. Miller confirms what Colin Powell said long ago, that the comparison between race and sexual preference is "convenient but invalid."
It's time to send the "born that way" myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.
And we don't just need to take Lindsay Miller's word for it. Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models." In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.
As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The "concordance rate" should be 100%.
But it's not. One early proponent of the "born that way" thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.
Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.
They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject "genetic influence independent of social context" as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, "..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."
As Sprigg observes, "If it was not clear in the 1990's, it certainly is now — no one is 'born gay.'"
The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.
The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.
Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It's a choice, and a bad one at that. It's long past time for our culture to say a simple and direct "No" to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.
The “Born that way” argument has always been fallacious as your post #8 illustrates.
Bingo.
I’m fairly familiar with that data but can you post a link. I need concrete facts and a study name as I am in a continued and heated debate with a doctor over this issue.
A doctor - an actual medical doctor who thinks homosexuals are ‘ born this way ‘. A person who must work with facts and proof on a daily basis.
They only claim to be “born that way” so they can be a victim group like blacks. It’s a “civil rights” thing.
Even the now-discredited study tha tis the basis for that didn’t really comp0letely support them. It tested sets of identical twins, at least one of whom was homosexual. It found that in 50 percent of the cases, the other one was too.
But if they’re born that way and identical twins are identical, tehn shouldn’t that number be 100 percent?
There may be a genetic predisposition, as there may be for such conditions as alcoholism, but that doesn’t mean that it necessarily plays out that way.
Probably at some early time in life, a switch is flipped by some external event. How to identify that time window, though, without affecting it, is the tricky part. Sort of like watching a photon and getting around the Uncertainty Principle.
Precisely. Even if you're "born that way", you can choose to engage in the behavior or not.
It’s like duck imprinting. There’s a sensitive period in early life when they get “programmed.”
“They only claim to be “born that way” so they can be a victim group like blacks. It’s a “civil rights” thing.”
Exactly. I don’t think most blacks, no matter who liberal they are, appreciate this analogy. Even if such a thing can be proven, it would be more like a disability or handicap than a race or an ethnicity.
Rush once pointed out that if they ever found teh “gay gene”, gays would almost instantly become conservatives, as many people would start aborting their unborn gay children.
I forgot again. Why aren't they allowed to donate blood?
I believe Gays ARE born that way. I recall, being in the 2nd or 3rd grade a few boys who were effeminate, hung around with girls, who were into dancing and not baseball, and who later grew up to be full-fledged homos.
A significant number of lesbians are such by choice. Presumably because they are angry at men for not being attracted to them, or for being dealt a bad hand in the beauty card game.
Those are my firm opinions based on my own observations.
Show me a 3 year old homosexual.
“They were genetically predisposed to be that way.”
There may be some predisposition to effeminancy but that does not equal deviation, which is necessary for anyone to indulge in homosexuality. There is nothing so starkly noticable in their own autobiography as their revulsion for gay sex and the process of overcoming it; to say nothing of the anger and self hate they display in their lifestyles.
God disagrees with your insane belief.
I don't buy the contrived "evidence" that just because someone seems "different" early in life, that that marks them as homosexual. It's used more as an excuse by the homo-activists. Sure, something that stands out can mean an underlying pathology exists, or that some factor at home or in the family is corrupting development, but homosexuality in these instances seems more like a symptom of a deeper problem.
The complexity of humans, especially fallen humans, is truly unfathomable, and the pat, shallow, pedestrian answers offered by activist homosexuals should be an insult to any thinking person.
They're disease-ridden whackjobs! Some whackjobs are "born that way", some get that way.
In other words, "teaching tolerance" to five-year-olds is child abuse AND they know it.
Lawsuit time a-comin'
nobody in his right mind...That right there is your cleverly hidden disclaimer.
That out-of-control sexual behavior also happens with heterosexuals-look at Anthony Weiner for instance. Some of these people may be sex/adrenoline junkies.
You may be old enough to remember the feminists of the seventies who encouraged young boys and girls to play with toys of the other sex. They would always repeat that there were no behavioral differences between male and female behavior, it was all socialization. I wonder how many gullible “with it” mothers socialized their kids to be unisex. By the way the word unisex was actually used. It takes on a sinister cast when we look back on it but this was one of those slogans that were all over the media back them. Unisex began in the late sixties with designers (I think in London) designing the same fashions for men and women, even the hairstyles were the same.
Tell me somebody isn’t trying to play with our brains. It always happens in an avalanche of media publicity whether it was feminism, unisex, gayness or whatever. The way it happens always reminds me of a race—on your mark, get set, go! And everyone starts running at once. There is a suddeness and planning behind all of the liberal movements which are breatlessly promoted on the mass media.
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.