Posted on 01/20/2014 10:31:37 AM PST by markomalley
Apparently, Phil Robertson is a good Bible reader.
Haven’t read all, but this sounds like the definitive statement here. Can’t believe the homosexuals are asking for an apology.
OmG, it should’ve been called SSAD! They’re not gay, they’re SSADers!
No, it’s environmental. I’ve heard some jerk tried to blame it on older brothers, apparently some weird chemical thing that happens after delivering too many boys, but that jerk was written off. No, there’s no genetic cause, so, it must be environmental.
If there were a born that way gene, it would be known by now.
No, it is not "choice" like drinking tea or coffee is choice. It is most akin to schizophrenia that also manifests in teen years and is very hard to control.
Each homosexual act, however, is a choice unless it is a rape.
Stating the obvious
Amazing that you are conservative having a liberal mom.
Same-sex attraction disordedr is induced by the trauma of a molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years.
Although I hate to associate it in any way with conduct on the battlefield, it is similar to PTSD in that it is induced by a trauma, and in that only some who suffer the trauma develop the disorder. It is also similar in that the trauma knocks you off kilter with great emotional violence, and you have no choice in that.
It is different in that many different kinds of trauma can induce PTSD, while only the trauma of a molestation or seduction in the pre-adult years induces SSAD.
Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle” or a “choice.” SSAD in men is a serious disorder that manifests as a compulsion to engage in pseudo-sexual practices (correctly described by G. K. Chesterton as “loathsome perversions”) with other males, combined with a fixation on youth. Note the word “compulsion.” It seems to be such a strong compulsion that it inevitably erupts into action, even if only during an annual visit to the boy brothels of Thailand.
If you ever have the chance, discuss this with a man who suffers from SSAD. He will at first deny it, but if you pursue the matter, and if he hangs around instead of fleeing, you will sooner or later uncover a seduction or molestation in the pre-adult years.
The victim will probably have rationalized the trauma such that he believes he was already homosexual when it happened, and the perpetrator merely helped him “explore his sexuality.”
If you get to the point that he is asking if he had never allowed the predator to nail him in the keister—or never been raped by the predator, whichever—that he would never have become homosexual, you will see in his face what the Greeks were trying to copy in their masks of Tragedy.
The only choice involved in this is the choice to seek treatment...or, since the victim is surrounded by so many lying voices glorifying his suffering, the choice not to seek treatment.
While it is often correlated with an absent or neglectful father, this is only an indirect cause—sexual predators often look for this situation when identifying potential victims. Unless the predator strikes, however, the disorder does not manifest.
“Most gays know they are gay in their teens. That was the case for every gay I have known.”
Your observations can also be seen as supportive of the case for trauma as the cause.
Sodomite predators generally choose adolescents as victims.
“It’s just people seeking to justify their opinions emotionally, no offense.”
Or it can be the good-faith observations of honest men who are sincerely seeking the truth, even if it means they must admit they have been wrong.
This type of observation is preferable to “scientific evidence” today, given the degree to which politics has corrupted science.
“I believe my gay friends’ depiction that they are born with the afflection more than someone with a political agenda (you).”
Have you ever challenged them on it? Have you ever gone back all the way to their very first experience with sodomy?
I do not find the fictions erected by men who suffer from SSAD to be the slightest bit credible.
Two more things:
1. For some people, the “agenda” is finding the truth, even if it means one must reverse opinions long held.
2. Using the euphemism “gay” to refer to homosexual sodomy is participation in mortal sin.
I would not say it's preferable. What is preferable in any responsible scholarship is objective, measureable or replicable studies from reputable sources. Science-based research at its best is not just a bunch of talking, it measures tiny things like galvanic skin response, heart rate or eye movement to stimuli such as photos of males or females in seductive poses, or it follows individuals for 30 years, the baseline for longitudinal studies of behavior.
It's worth noting that I did a lot of my research into heterosexuality/homosexuality more than 15 years ago, when calls for change were in the air, but the idea of legalized gay marriage seemed a long way off. Part of being a good scholar is to read deeply. Many of my sources went all the way back to the beginnings of this nation, what the Founders intended for marriage within the colonies as a vehicle of teaching the tenets of free enterprise and personal responsibility, and carried on through the 90s and the beginning of looking for a gay gene. I would say that there was somewhat less chance of total politicization of results in this arena then. But I did become aware at that time that the American Psychological Association in 1973 had removed its definition of homosexual behavior as a disorder due to political pressure, not clinical research. So, yes, I'm well aware that the politicization of the issue affects both sides of the debate.
The kind of study that I would point to would be the studies that were done on identical twins, only one of whom identified as gay, or longitudinal studies of individuals that showed a tapering off of homosexual activities in their 20s and 30s in a substantial number of men in the study sample who had earlier participated in those behaviors during adolescence. I wish I could find the citations as of this writing, but even my thesis is not online any more due to my not having archived it properly. I haven't posted here to defend my thesis, so forgive me. Just speaking from the surprising conclusions I drew when actually looking for the other conclusion, having believed at that time in the "born that way" approach.
“What is preferable in any responsible scholarship is objective, measureable or replicable studies from reputable sources.”
Since responsible scholarship in this field is not currently possible, good-faith observations of honest men who are sincerely seeking the truth are preferable to the tendentious junk science that now tries to pass for science.
“Science-based research at its best is not just a bunch of talking, it measures tiny things like galvanic skin response, heart rate or eye movement to stimuli such as photos of males or females in seductive poses, or it follows individuals for 30 years, the baseline for longitudinal studies of behavior.”
A bunch of talking? Talking may be the only way to discover some things—such as, every male who suffers from SSAD was traumatized by a homosexual seduction or molestation in the pre-adult years. I don’t think one can discover that from galvanic skin response.
“I would say that there was somewhat less chance of total politicization of results in this arena then.”
I guess one can quibble over the definition of the word “total,” but in my opinion it was at that time sufficiently corrupt for any purpose.
“But I did become aware at that time that the American Psychological Association in 1973 had removed its definition of homosexual behavior as a disorder due to political pressure”
I remember. I was a student member from 1971.
“So, yes, I’m well aware that the politicization of the issue affects both sides of the debate.”
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, “It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals,” and that is just what you have done.
We human-type persons seem to like symmetry. We want a “sensible center,” with people becoming less sensible and increasingly extreme the further away from this “center” that they get, until you reach equally repulsive moonbat extremists on both sides.
In real life this symmetry does not exist. One side of the debate is striving for honesty, the other is trying to dupe people and get its way. The politicization is all—all—on the “sodomy is wonderful” side of the debate.
“The kind of study that I would point to would be the studies that were done on identical twins, only one of whom identified as gay, or longitudinal studies of individuals that showed a tapering off of homosexual activities in their 20s and 30s in a substantial number of men in the study sample who had earlier participated in those behaviors during adolescence.”
Those can yield useful information. Almost the only thing they tell us about causation is that it is not genetic. The twin studies should have included a *complete* sexual history of each twin, extending to the molestation or seduction of the twin who developed SSAD. The longitudinal studies are congruent with studies that show PTSD often (but not always) diminishing in severity as time passes.
“Just speaking from the surprising conclusions I drew when actually looking for the other conclusion, having believed at that time in the “born that way” approach.”
Yeah, the “born that way” approach just doesn’t hold water.
When the debate about gay marriage first started in the 70s-80s, defenders of traditional marriage seemed often confused about the difference between scientific studies and quotations from scripture. Although many, if not most Americans still believe to some degree in Christianity, it cannot be used to shame others into believing they are sinners and that this belief is enough to convince them to leave a life they may have been abused into in childhood. Religious belief is no longer sufficient as testimony in today's courts or in Congress. So the right wing was politicized to the extent that it still believed our judiciary would support the Christian culture that had informed our Founding documents and was often reflected in U.S. jurisprudence until the early 70s.
Since the late 40s, the "separation of church and state" issue has been a distortion of common sense as well as an abrogation of our Founding principles of Natural Law, but that's another thread. But to the extent that the left wing constantly waves it as a bloody shirt, the right wing's religious bombast about homosexuality has done nothing but hurt their own policy objectives. Characterized by the left as offering shame instead of love, the right's shocked repulsion from gay "pride" failed to arrest the snowballing of the "pride" movement. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it hasn't worked on this issue, either.
The Brown v. Board of Education case (1954) was the first SCOTUS case to employ references to social science; in that case, studies of children affected by segregation. Kind of recent in the general scheme of things. And the right wing has been extremely slow to understand how to fight fire with like fire. Meantime, the left has moved beyond reputable stuies to just making statistics up or promoting piss-poor, tiny or utterly biased studies and arguing them forcefully, which our lefty district judges have been only too willing to let pass unexamined, as gospel.
Homosexuality is really a mental defect, not a physical one.
50 years ago it was listed in the Diagnostic Manual as a severe disorder.
All the homosexuals I know are neurotic.
last paragraph: reputable stuies = reputable studies
“When the debate about gay marriage first started in the 70s-80s, defenders of traditional marriage seemed often confused about the difference between scientific studies and quotations from scripture.”
That sounds, to me, utterly ridiculous. It sounds like something leftist academics would have fabricated for the purpose of discrediting their opponents.
“Although many, if not most Americans still believe to some degree in Christianity, it cannot be used to shame others into believing they are sinners”
You, um…you really don’t understand the first thing about Christianity, do you?
“and that this belief is enough to convince them to leave a life they may have been abused into in childhood.”
Your use of the word “convince” betrays a secular mindset. Ain’t no convincin’ goes on.
“Religious belief is no longer sufficient as testimony in today’s courts or in Congress.”
Sufficient for what?
“So the right wing was politicized to the extent that it still believed our judiciary would support the Christian culture that had informed our Founding documents and was often reflected in U.S. jurisprudence until the early 70s.”
The word “politicized” is utterly foreign to the phenomenon you describe.
“But to the extent that the left wing constantly waves it as a bloody shirt, the right wing’s religious bombast”
The “right wing’s religious bombast,” eh?
You leftists always betray yourselves.
“about homosexuality has done nothing but hurt their own policy objectives.”
Now, see, thinking like that, which puts policy objectives first, is politicized.
When a man says, “God has told us that this is very, very bad indeed, and I must adhere to that reality even at the cost of policy objectives,” that is not politicized. That is the opposite of politicized.
“Characterized by the left”
Which means only that the left lied frequently and persuasively enough to persuade a lot of people that good is evil, et cetera.
“as offering shame instead of love”
Funny, you referred to that before as if it were your own opinion.
“the right’s shocked repulsion from gay “pride” failed to arrest the snowballing of the “pride” movement.”
No one expected “repulsion” alone to stem the tide of depravity. There’s no victory in that.
“Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it hasn’t worked on this issue, either.”
Alcohol didn’t require a massive lobbying effort. OTOH, everyone knows in his heart that it is wrong for a man to lie with another man. Admit it or not, it’s there.
“Kind of recent in the general scheme of things.”
That’s right, and it won’t last much longer. Either PC will pass out of existence, or the United States will.
“And the right wing has been extremely slow to understand how to fight fire with like fire.”
Again with the “right wing” stuff.
The right wing has had very little to do with it. It has been the spineless RINOs of the Stupid Party who have called the shots in this war, and they are to the left of where Kennedy was in 1960.
“Meantime, the left has moved beyond reputable studies”
Beyond? They never got to reputable studies.
“to just making statistics up or promoting piss-poor, tiny or utterly biased studies and arguing them forcefully”
That’s all they have ever done. Media filth like Walter Cronkite cloaked their nonsense in a veneer of false credibility.
Secondly, I continue to believe that Christians as a group have very little understanding of the depths of degradation that the homosexual lifestyle offers up to many exploited youths. The "Church of Nice" naively believes that if gays want to get married, their marriages will contain the same features as heterosexual marriages. This sentimentality is a hallmark of the liberal-infested mainstream denominations that have begun to accept and support gay marriage instead of coming to terms with how to heal homosexuality with calm strength, conviction, compassion and patience.
Not in the least, as my posting history will show. You cannot defeat an enemy without understanding him and seeing the situation from his or her point of view, in order to devise an effective strategy. If I describe the situation as they see it so that tradition-family advocates can strategize how to defeat them, that does not make me the liberal. It indicates that I am willing to face the reality of their mindset in order to deal with it effectively. That is just what the left has been doing to us for the past century. Look into "Fabian socialism" or the writings of Gramsci; to see how they made their plan to "make haste slowly" -- they were willing to spend an entire century at their plain to overtake all our JudeoChristian and Constitutional social institutions a tiny bit at a time. In the current administration, they are finally believing they have won, and since scripture does describe the characteristics of fascist tyranny several times in Daniel 11 and in Revelation, you can see for yourself how far they have come to achieve their objectives.
Ultimately, Christ has already conquered this world. It is our commission to bring the gospel to the lost; how we do that has to be tailored for effectiveness -- loving an individual and helping them surrender to Christ is not something that can be done in front of a judge, where Christ's bullwhip is a more appropriate course of action. Do you think Christ preached to the moneychangers as he turned over the tables? No. His actions were the lesson. Ours must be as effective and unexpected.
Have you noticed that the left has become so powerful that they are trying to make Christian expression illegal? That is why we must consider what moves the opposition will make in order to counter them.
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.