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.
Remember a web story last year concerning a mother who made a big internet fuss about her little five year old boy wanting to dress up as Daphne of the cartoon show Scooby Doo? The little boy loved the show, previous years he had gone as other characters of the show but that year he decided that he wanted to go as Daphne. The mother got him a Daphne costume, then the little boy had second thoughts. The mother insisted that he wear it. When the other mothers saw him dressed as Daphne, they rolled their eyes or made some other sign of their displeasure. The mother was mad at the other mothers then went on the internet with a huge story which had the bold face title “My five year old son is gay”. Then she put a picture of her son in the Daphne costume. She then told the whole story and admitted that her five year old is probably not gay but she would love him just as much if he were.
She took a small private incident and then blew it up into a national phenomenon, she even appeared on television. I think this mother has some issues and has made her little boy the brunt of unwanted national attention that will live with him for years. All this because she wanted her liberal bon fides.
Hello? You read too much into that statement. Freudian slip? :-)
See post 65.
Sexuality, I believe, has to do with access. Think of prisons and same-sex boarding schools.
Well, I certainly can’t argue with that.
There is no post 65
You see post #65.
>>It’s like she was saying “I want you to be a girl.”<<
This woman told me, when she was pregnant with her second son and I was pregnant with my second daughter, “You can make a girl into a boy, but not a boy into a girl.”
I really feel she tried.
Me? I want my kids to be themselves.
That said, behaviors are complex. But behaviors can be changed. No always easy but can be done. The big question is not what causes it but is it an acceptable behavior. This is the question the homos don't want us to talk about.
But you have to understand they are not born that way. A predisposition maybe, but then by that I should have been an alcoholic
What was she talking about making girls into boys or whatever?
That said, behaviors are complex. But behaviors can be changed. No always easy but can be done. The big question is not what causes it but is it an acceptable behavior. This is the question the homos don't want us to talk about.
But you have to understand they are not born that way. A predisposition maybe, but then by that I should have been an alcoholic
Fast fingers - meant #25.
I still don’t know. I’m pretty sure I have no choice but to be straight. Other women just don’t do anything for me, physically.
You haven’t met the right one. (sarcasm, but you never know)
>>Show me a 3 year old homosexual.
>Show me a 3-year-old and prove he’s heterosexual. (Not literally, heaven forbid).
Exactly. 3 year olds have no sexuality, thus proving my point. Sexuality is not predetermined.
I often wonder what it will take...
See post #56
That is the idea, attractive but totally without empirical support, that a given outcome has to have a single governing cause.
In reality it is likely that homosexual behavior, like most other behaviors, can be generated, conditioned, and reinforced, by a variety of stimulus domains. IOW, you can get to be homosexual through any number of routes, many of which have probably not yet even been identified.
The pressure to determine a single cause is political, not scientific, and we all need to keep that fact in mind.
A large percentage of gay men were abused that into sexual problems as boys. I saw a study on this a long time ago. This explains why the first place gays set up shop was in our pulbic schools. Propaganda, in this case, is another word for pedophile grooming.
What studies? I know of none.
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.