Posted on 10/05/2011 9:07:04 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
You're not reading me correctly at all.
Show me your genetic studies. There is no gay gene. Cain is right.
The evidence is against you in terms of anyone being born gay, although I’m prepared to believe that there could be a physiological component to why a person might go in that direction vs. some other dysfunction as a reaction to certain early influences.
That said, I also take issue with Cain or anyone else dismissively saying “It’s a choice.” While there are no doubt some (a very few) whose approach to life is one of experimental hedonism leading to homosexual activity, in most cases it is a compulsion embedded due to early emotional damage, not arrived at by choice. The choice comes when one recognizes the compulsion within themselves and must decide whether to embrace it or combat it. Unfortunately, our cultural has become one that encourages the former and villifies the latter.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2788231/posts?page=63#63
I didn’t say there was *a* gene. I said that, according to most scientific studies of the issue, there is an *inherited propensity*. Good grief, there is an inherited propensity to be an alcoholic. I’m not saying being an alcoholic is okay because one has a genetic predisposition. It’s a treatable disease.
Stop setting up a strawman and then asking me to disprove what I’m not even claiming is true.
” . . . in most cases it is a compulsion embedded due to early emotional damage, not arrived at by choice.”
And according to the studies I cited above, that appears to explain 60% of the issue. It seems there has to be:
1. Genetic predisposition to the response.
2. Early emotional trauma, encouragement or other abnormal external influence.
3. Social, physical and emotional stimuli that reinforces the behavior.
Now waiting for the accusation that because I included genetic predisposition I’m claiming people or “born that way” in 5 . . . 4. . . 3.. . 2...
BTW, if you read my post above, Cain was not arguing what you are arguing: that people aren’t born that way. He was arguing that it is a choice.
I am saying that, according to the research I’ve already cited, it is only *partially* a choice. Genetic predisposition, non-self-selected (almost always negative) experiences, selected and positively reinforced choices all play a role. The one item that appears to explain the most is non-self-selected, negative experiences. That would mean that the “born that way” and the “it’s a choice” crowd are both wrong.
The KIF6 gene is another coronary artery disease marker, and tells us if a patient will benefit from Statin therapy.
Please give us the Gay gene. Give us the location and every thing else you can tell us about it.
Bottom line, there is NO gay gene. Homosexuality is probably a disease similar to other addictive disorders.
I agree with you for the most part. I’m not sure I’d go as far as genetic predisposition, but I do think it’s possible that, as I said, there’s a physiological component that may steer them in that direction whereas some else with a different makeup might go the route of eating disorder, for instance. But of course we agree that even if it were something they were “born with,” that wouldn’t equate to it being healthy, desirable or untreatable any more than a cleft palate.
I think the 60% figure is too low, unless you’re combining male and female homosexuality. It does seem that female homosexuality tends to often be a more conscious reaction to some form of abuse at the hands of men, and that the male version is more deeply rooted in the psyche.
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.