Posted on 04/18/2004 8:21:22 PM PDT by RichardEdward
I told you many are, from first hand observation. You understand that when boys progressing through childhood, then adolescence, are never attracted, or aroused by girls, they are different. They were born that way and that is a fact. There was zero homo influence whatsoever. That is a fact all of the folks that wrote what you chose to post ignore. It's not that they failed to find it. It's, because they do not want to acknowledge it. If they did it would complicate and negate their bogus claims.
Now the fact that some are born that way does not mean the rest are. The rest are driven by uninhibited sexual desire, that's it.
The topic of this thread is how gay marriage damages the concept of marriage. It does so, because it reduces the concept of marriage entirely to sex and destroys the ancient and historical concept of family and child rearing. It also promotes the acceptance of engaging in fulfilling uninhibited sexual desire. There are many reasons they want this destruction to occur.
Now the fact that some are born that way has no bearing on the fact that they can not be married. They can do whatever they want and make artistic analogies about their relationships, but it is not marriage.
Now go back over your own posts and notice that there was a change in the APA classification from nuts to different. The docs that compiled the case histrories and made the original classification have the same evidence I gave you in the first paragraph. They also have other case histories that document what I gave you in the second. There are homos that are born that way and no amount of BS from anyone will change that. They can no more be changed than a normal hetero can be taught to enjoy playing with puds exclusively.
The point is that with nomalization of their uninhibited sex idea, they will be able to promote it in the schools. They will do that. Then there will be naive uninhibited young folks all over engaging in what has been declared as acceptable.
The facts don't support you. You can continue to say some homosexuals are born homosexual but you will be making statements that do not align with the facts as I have demonstrated many times now.
Even Simon Levay, a homosexual, a homosexual activist, and a scientist has not found anything to support your statements. In fact he has said just the opposite:
I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brainThat was in March of 1994 and he continued with:
My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future workStill, 10 years later and nothing, nada, zip, goose egg in regards to finding anything to support your statements that homosexuals are born that way.
Here's more:
Jeffrey Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":There's no evidence to support your position... unless you need to believe.There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public."
--Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.
From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.:
"Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." --S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
Here's one more very biased organization that does not support your position:
The national organization P-FLAG ("Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays") offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Entitled, "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology," the pamphlet says:There you have it. No researcher has made the claim you've made. While there are many factors involved, nobody but the uninformed and extremely biased state homosexuals are born that way."To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."
Checkout: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
You know what genious? I just gave you facts! You don't seem to understand that what I gave you was a fact-direct observation. That one simple fact makes all of your collection of ramblings by PhDs and and other experts nothing other than a collection of rubbish.
Now I watched that boy from a family of construction workers grow up in a neighborhood that treated homos as the lowest form of scum. He had literally hundreds of girls throwing themselves all over him to fix him. He got treatment married men and the highest paying visitors to whore houses could only dream of. He wasn't swayed, that's because he was born gay!
Now go back and ponder Matt 7:6 again.
Yep, might be their tenet, but that tenet is not supported biblically. They made that tenet up out of whole cloth.
I doubt that fits the standard for scientific evidence.
Nevertheless, it is likely that these 'effiminate' boys who grow up to be homos were simply victims of the self-fulfilling prophecy. The boy is viewed as 'different' by his parents, so they treat him differently, so he behaves even more differently, then he goes to school and gets treated differently, and so on.
"They were born that way and that is a fact."
No, it is your opinion.
Um, no, you didn't. And as MEGoody just stated, you've given your opinion and your opinion doesn't align with the facts.
I've provided numerous links that support my position and I've also provided statements from homosexual activists and homosexual organizations that support my position. None support your claims. Get over being wrong and get informed.
Folks pay me for my observations and analysis. Observations of reality are a fundamental part of science. It is how one knows what is.
" The boy is viewed as 'different' by his parents, so they treat him differently, so he behaves even more differently, then he goes to school and gets treated differently, and so on."
Conjecture and completely in err and off base. The fundamental fact is that the boy is not excited by girls, he likes boys.
"No, it is your opinion."
There's no room for opion and I gave none. It's a direct observation.
It seems you are more interested in your conclusions than knowing the truth. You were given a fact and you continue to ignore it in preference for pure fiction. "I've also provided statements from homosexual activists and homosexual organizations that support my position. None support your claims."
I gave you a fact that renders your collection rubbish as above. It may as well have been rat propaganda, or a collection form the anti-war folks, or gun grabbers. All of it has the same character, it is false.
If marriage can mean something more than one man and one woman, it can mean anything by the same logic. For example, the exact same arguments that are put forth to allow two men or two women to "marry" can and then should be applied to other adults who are in love if this is only about logical arguments of feeling and rights.
You know this, why not a man and two women or three women? It's in the courts now in Utah, I hear. If two adults in love can marry, why not a brother and sister? a niece and uncle? Cousins (OK Arkansas beat us to the punch there...) Why not... well, any group or combination of consenting adults of any kind? The door is open to "extending rights to all."
And this then is how it hurts marriage. If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.
Santorum had this right.
The simple truth is that we all have exactly the same rights now - the right to marry a non-related person of the opposite sex.
ampu
"Apparently, in your mind, you have debunked all science on the matter of homosexuality."
That's a false statement. Science does not hold what you claim, because your collection is not science. I told you the case histories are more than a few that are the same as the one I gave you. I could just have easily never mentioned it. I did, because what I have seen refutes what you claim. As I gave you in #204, not all were born that way.
You are choosing to ignore what I told you, because your intent is to hold this activity as immoral and a sin in it's entirety. That is where your heart lies.
I'm sure the scientists I've listed and quoted are eager to hear from you. Give them a call and set them all straight.
If you are concerned you can notify 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.