But I gave you three most probable answers here. Didn't you read that post? If you don't accept the reasoning, then refute it. Otherwise, you accept it, making your statement above odd. 
Posted on 06/25/2004 7:32:18 AM PDT by scripter
Here's how I see it. Where ALL children are attracted to lying and display it to some level of proficiency, only a very very few are attracted to homsexuality. So in my mind, that makes it 'not' the same thing. There's something very very different.
>>The reason the "gay" community is so adamant about clinging to the theory that they're "born that way" is to attempt to make it morally equivalent to natural sexual relations between a man and a woman, and to defeat the legions of "ex-homosexuals". <<
Now there's a point I get which I didn't understand before this thread. I have found out that by virtue of my belief in an indirect or direct genetic cause, that makes me PRO homosexual.
You have no idea what a joke that is.
>>But there are thousands of ex-homosexuals.<<
I hope that's true and I hope there are great things happening in this area but being I believe what I believe my guess is these ex-homosexuals are like reformed alcoholics...they have learned to repress their behavior. And that's a good thing.
We discuss Dr. Satinover's article and I must admit this thread has been a learning experience for me in many ways.
The doctor opens with a hypothetical scenario, specifically " the scenario below is condensed and hypothetical, but is drawn from the lives of actual people, illustrating how many different factors influence behavior."
He then proceeds to discuss genetic traits in the next three paragraphs and how they would make a young adult more likely to become homosexual.
Let me stop there because I know that's the big bone of contention. You said "I don't know your reasons for concentrating on that one statement when the context and the rest of the article does not support your position."
The reason I 'concentrate on' the opening 3 paragraphs of the article is because that is the only part of the article that does support the position of genetics, heridity, and traits as a cause or link to homosexual behavior.
I would say back to you that I don't know why you want to throw out the opening part of the article because it does not support your position. The fact that the author, in his hypothetical scenario based on real cases, goes on to present the argument for behavior as a cause that can be corrected does not negate his opening remarks.
I don't dispute the fact that behavior is part of the equation, I only say there has to be more to it than that and the good doctor's opening to his article helps explain it to me.
So, let me ask you...if the author didn't intend to portray traits and genetics as a part of the 'homosexual equation', why did he even mention it?
Whew..this is getting lengthy so I'll continue on another post.
We continue with another bone of contention.
What do you think the author meant here? Did he mean that in no way are homosexual tendencies inherited?
If that's what he meant and he wanted to make sure everyone knew that's what he meant, why didn't he say "In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself inherited". Why say 'directly' inherited?
Now, I don't presume to be able to get into this guy's head and parse out what he really meant but my take on it is as follows:
..There is no z or xy chromosome that we can say directly causes homosexuality.
..These traits that the author spoke of are not direct causes but may be indirect causes. He has to believe this in order to be consistent with his opening statements.
Again scripter, you seem to be much more up on this subject than I and certainly know this guy better than I. What do you think he meant?
Well, enuf except that I still haven't seen an answer from anyone on this thread that make sense to me as to why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway.
I just wonder how much the entrenchment of homosexuality is due to its practice. IOW, if when the urge first strikes, -and I don't think it can be argued that the initial urge(s) is willfully sought- how much or quickly would the homosexual urge dissipate (sp?) by refusing to practice it in the very early years of its draw.
But I gave you three most probable answers here. Didn't you read that post? If you don't accept the reasoning, then refute it. Otherwise, you accept it, making your statement above odd.
Indeed I did and chalked them up to "..I don't know of any.."
My assumption was that you didn't put much credence in that particular scenario.
The next paragraph was
"..None of these would really be homosexual, of course. "
which I didn't find responsive to the question.
So, while I don't refute what you said I also don't find that it is responsive to the question.
Now, the only way such persons come to light is by study, either questionnaire or case. I gave you three reasons why a respondent may claim to be homosexual and claim his environment to be free from the criteria you mention in your question.
When I say that I don't know of any, you supposed to point out to me those you know of. You didn't. Your assumption was that I didn't put much credence in that particular scenario. Yes? So? Prove to me there are some, with case details.
The next paragraph was "..None of these would really be homosexual, of course. " which I didn't find responsive to the question.
Eh? My response was clearly that many that claim to be homosexual without abusive environments are not homosexual at all.
That may be a reason why "why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway."
You asked, Why? I responded.
So, while I don't refute what you said I also don't find that it is responsive to the question.
Eh, again? What kind of response are you looking for then? I said that the claimants may either be not homosexual, or lie about their environment from shame or other reasons. You ask, Why, and I answered why.
The response that "makes sense to me" appears to be limited to "there's no reason, so homosexuality must be genetically determined." You seem to ignore any response other than that.
So, again, show me some with their case histories. Since you ask the question, you must have some in mind, or your question is meaningless.
Yet none of point 1 or the opening 3 paragraphs state genetics, heridity, and traits are a cause or link to homosexual behavior. Your stating it does support doesn't make it true. He only mentions this because it's a common theme, but it's not true for all homosexuals.
Because you seemed to be having a problem understanding the content of how homosexuality might develop, in post 153 I provided a link to the conclusion of Satinover's The Gay Gene. That's the same author providing more information on the subject.
You can read more there, but the conclusion should suffice.
I'll post part of the conclusion which is in the form of a dialogue here:
Isn't homosexuality heritable?Here Satinover clearly states there is no evidence homosexuality (behavior) is genetic. He says none of the research claims there is, so he's certainly not making the statement you think he is in the article how homosexuality might develop.Yes, significantly.
So it is inherited?
No, it is not.
I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.
What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do--when speaking in sound bites to the public
As I keep saying, it's complicated and there's a lot to read and comprehend. If you still have some questions I encourage you to read the articles I'll post next - all the links work. I'm not trying to overwhelm you, I'm trying to help you better understand the issues.
|
|
|||
Category |
Year |
Title |
Posted On
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
I am a reformed alcohol and by God I am NOT repressing my urge to become intoxicated. I have fought it, and won the fight. The battle is over and has been for many years. You could dangle any kind of intoxicating drink, smokable or any kind of substance in front of me and leave me alone with it and I tell you the truth that I would not be tempted.
So your analogy is wrong. If you investigate your statements, you will notice that they are ALL based on fact-free opinion. If you study up on the subject of homosexuality, you will have your eyes opened. The Categorical Index of articles on every aspect of homosexuality that Scripter has put together and EdReform usually links to will give you the facts you need to have an informed opinion.
Opinions are worth nothing if they are based on our personal feelings and emotions. Nothing.
Here's my own basic link to that Index: (there is an updated version and if you click on scripter's profile page you'll find it.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1026551/posts?page=58
Homosexual Agenda Categorical Index of Links
What's best for him is to straighten out his troubled soul. It would help you out too since you wouldn't feel so driven to ignore that homosexuality is abnormal and invent stories to try and rationalize it.
BBBSA's Inclusion of Homosexuals Causes Insurance WoesThe article states: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America may be forced to shut down because insurance companies are charging higher premiums or even refusing to write policies because of the "gay" mentors.
Insurance companies are starting to catch on to the risks involved of letting homosexual men and women mentor children of the same sex.
Not all homosexuals molest children, but a third of all child abuse cases involve homosexuals. Because homosexuals are a small minority (2% including bisexuals), homosexuals account for a disproportionate amount of child abuse cases.
Good for you LJ..continue the good fight and best of luck to ya.
I understand..
thanks
Thanks - and a couple of things. I see I was late to the party, scripter had already posted his Index! So my feeble attempt was certainly unneeded! :-)
Second, as far as my fight against alcohol (and drugs, I may add) it was over a long time ago. Kind of like WW 2- only the memories remain, and they rarely surface. You couldn't tempt me with anything now, except maybe some organic shade and mountain grown light roast coffee with half and half, and a lot of sugar....
Yes..voluminous.
bookmarked..maybe in a couple of years I'll be through a third of it :)
You said:
"I just wonder how much the entrenchment of homosexuality is due to its practice. IOW, if when the urge first strikes, -and I don't think it can be argued that the initial urge(s) is willfully sought- how much or quickly would the homosexual urge dissipate (sp?) by refusing to practice it in the very early years of its draw."
Excellent points. Any behavior that we practice becomes "easier" as time goes on, like my example with smoking. Abhorrent at first, but I was determined! After a while, I was addicted. Same with various sexual behaviors - even perverse ones that repulse, if a person keeps at it, will seem "natural" after a while. In fact, in one of the articles about "Fistgate" young people were advised to persevere with anal sodomy - "at first it hurts, and feels weird, but if you keep at it you'll grow to like it." (Their words, not mine!!!!)
Actions that become habits change the brain as well as the mind and heart. Every human has had "impulses" or desires that we never indulge in, out of shame, fear, or the intelligence of knowing that such actions will lead to misery, death, hell, incarceration, destroy families, and so on. That is one of the qualities of human beings - we judge our impulses and desires, and pick and choose which ones we want to act out and which ones to "repress" - or better yet, kick out the door.
Animals can't do that. Humans can. And the funny thing is that if we consistently give in to desires, they become stronger and stronger; whereas if we reject certain desires as being unhealthy, wrong or bad, the desires gradually become weaker and less frequent, and usually eventually disappear.
Prayer helps.
Thanks!
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.