Posted on 07/11/2012 7:05:57 AM PDT by kevcol
Divorced parents means one is absent and the custodial parent is almost always the mother, especially of pre-school age children. So no, I don’t “know”, but can make an educated guess.
Unless you are the child, you are on the outside (of the child’s personal experience and inner world).
You appear to have an emotionally vested interest in the child having been “born that way” rather than having been environmentally influenced. Those influences can occur so early in life that the child has no memory of them and may feel as if they were born that way.
The researchers found for each additional year one’s parents stay married, the probability of heterosexual marriage in the children increased by 1.6% among sons and 1.0% among daughters. In contrast, the rate of homosexual unions decreased by 1.8% among sons and 1.4% among daughters for every year of intact parental marriage. Summing these effects over years of childhood and adolescence contributes to a noteworthy impact.
Regarding homosexual marriages, the researchers found that birth place relates to the sexual orientation of marriage partner. Being born in urban settings increased the probability of homosexual marriage and decreased the probability of heterosexual marriage. Frisch and Hviid noted, “…our study may be the first to show that birth place or some correlate thereof influences marital choices in adulthood.”
The authors also confirmed previous research suggesting that children who experience parental divorce are less likely to marry heterosexually than children reared in intact families.
Frisch and Hviid reported that “for men, unknown paternal identity, parental divorce, short duration of cohabitation with both parents, and long duration of father-absent cohabitation with mother were all associated with increased rates of homosexual marriage.”
For women, homosexual marriage rates were elevated among women whose parents were married briefly, and those who experienced long periods of mother absence due either to abandonment or death during the teen years.
http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=192
Thanks for your “concern”.
Perhaps science will understand inner temptation factors better in the future, but ultimately science won’t be able to factor away the things we call choice and responsibility. C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” puts the moral issue about as well as any modern author I’ve seen, without being preachy about it. I believe it’s a matter of a personal quirk, neutral of itself, being used for sin in a wrong way when it could be a virtue when used in a right way.
That’s the sad story of all sin. Sin never truly makes anybody happy. There’s always a hole in the boat.
People are sure fascinated with weird stuff today aren’t they.
Excuse me, but it is you who appear to have an emotionally vested interest in the child having been environmentally influenced, rather than having been born that way.
You seem to be an “outsider” who wants in.
Sorry, but all parties involved are grown-up now, and some have passed away, and still others are not interested in reading a long post of statistics and data dredged up from a drhrockmortondotcom on Google.
Thanks, anyway, and goodbye.
No, and I’ve already said that I clumsily and inaccurately applied the word, “swishy”. He did not speak in an effected manner, or at all like an effeminate homosexual male, but in a way that was natural to him. No one “groomed” him, but it is incredible that you presume such intimate knowledge of events, personalities, and natures in the lives of a family you do not know.
I don’t care for the “born that way” theory because it’s used as a cop out by some to avoid responsibility and self control.
It is used by the gay movement to justify forcing acceptance and normalization on the rest of society and used as a fig leaf rationalization by predators.
I prefer Throckmorton’s formulation that there is a subtle and complex interaction of inborn personality traits, preferences, environment and experiences that will defy categorization because the circumstances will be as numerous and varied as the individuals involved.
We may not choose our feelings or impulses, but we always choose our behavior.
I didn’t read it because I’m not interested in understanding homosexuality. And I don’t think you are either.
You’d be wrong.
I was wrong. I did a Google search, and you are indeed interested in the subject. While I’m concerned about the cultural, moral and societal impact the homosexual agenda is forcing on our country, I am not otherwise interested in why they are the way they are. You and I aren’t in total disagreement.
Thanks and goodnight.
“already a paroled sex offender,”
There’s the problem right there.
These pukes need to be either kept inside forever or killed. And upon first conviction, they should be immediately de-nutted regardless of any other punishment they have coming.
I mean it literally. Upon conviction they should go right from the courtroom to a room somewhere where they have their balls cut off. Take their pecker too. I am not kidding.
Clearly he should not have been paroled. We see this same "mistake" over and over.
So why aren't they looking for older men?
No, and I’ve already said that I clumsily and inaccurately applied the word, “swishy”. He did not speak in an effected manner, or at all like an effeminate homosexual male, but in a way that was natural to him. No one “groomed” him, but it is incredible that you presume such intimate knowledge of events, personalities, and natures in the lives of a family you do not know.
I never “presumed intimate knowledge.” I responded based on your ever changing story.
If he didn’t behave “swishy,” why did you lead with “swishy?” Either he acted “swishy” as a small child or he didn’t.
Are you now saying he acted like a “normal” three year old boy or did he act “girly?” If he acted “girly” did he act more “girly” than his sister?
You appear to be pushing a “born that way” agenda while attempting to appear uncommitted.
You’re wrong about everything, and you have an agenda of your own. Now, leave me alone.
Born that way. . .possibly.
Look, just because someone is born a certain way doesn’t make him normal.
Being born with a heart defect is “natural” (i.e., born that way). Same with being born a homicidal maniac. Same with homos.
In any case, it it is NOT normal.
Being born a homo may be natural but it is NOT normal.
Homos want to equate “natural” with NORMAL. Can’t do that.
It is abnormal.
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.