Posted on 11/27/2004 11:30:26 PM PST by JohnHuang2
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
It sounds as if you've done some research in this field. What sort of studies have you done?
Actually I was making two separate statements, but it is a complicated issue because of how we define and view the word choice.
From looking at How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together, we see that science supports environment as the major factor in determining homosexuality. Through counseling we've seen homosexuals work through their confusion to have a correct view of their sexuality. These are known as former homosexuals.
There are also those who decide to stop homosexual behavior (homosexuality). Homosexuals at any time can change their behavior.
I don't think anyone will ever come up with ONE factor.
Indeed. There are major and minor factors behind homosexuality.
That's the main thing I don't buy about "Homosexuality is a choice". There are obviously people who are strongly physically attracted to members of their own sex. I have many faults but this is one problem I have never had.
I have a baby son. One day at the age of five months he was in the waiting room of a doctor's office and he was staring at a beautiful little blonde girl. When she left the room he burst into tears. When she came back he was all smiles. Since then he has often shown a flirtatious interest in girls. Similarly he is clearly interested in boy-type toys. He always lunges for channel changers. He likes it when male family members play a little roughly with him. He has no interest in the pink aisle at Toys-R-Us. As a number of people have pointed out, you can already tell that he will not turn out to be gay.
When I was young there was a little boy living next door to us who was often seen carrying dolls and had no interest in more typically male pursuits. You could tell that he would likely grow up to be gay. I have heard of other cases like this where these boys were followed until adulthood and did indeed turn out to be gay.
I don't know whether there are always signs of ultimate sexual identity in early childhood, but clearly this is often the case. Gay people I have known and accounts I have read describe very early preferences for members of the same sex. These people did not just "decide to adopt a lifestyle". The attraction was present first. It isn't necessarily sexual at first. When they were young they fell in love with members of the same sex.
Some people try to adopt a definition of homosexuality that says you are not gay if you do not engage in homosexual acts, even if you feel tempted. I don't think this is accurate. I would like to propose a clearer definition:
1. If you are sexually attracted only to members of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual.
2. If you are sexually attracted only to members of your own sex, you are gay.
3. If you are sexually attracted to members of both sexes, you are bisexual. This may occur in various degrees.
If someone claims to be an ex-gay and to no longer engage in homosexual behavior, but they still are sexually attracted to members of their own sex, they are still gay or bisexual.
It is my impression that people who say that being gay is just a choice probably feel attracted to their own sex to some degree. For truly heterosexual people this concept of being able to choose another sexual identity does not make any sense.
The story of your son was great but it's not a testament to the who, what and why's of homosexuality. It's similar to this - When I tell people I'm color blind they start asking me "What color is this? What color is that?" Such questions do not determine color blindness.
I very much encourage you to read this article:
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
It is my impression that people who say that being gay is just a choice probably feel attracted to their own sex to some degree.
I wouldn't say that, not at all. In fact that's a talking point used by those pushing the homosexual agenda. There could be numerous reasons why people says it's a choice and none of them would match your above impression.
There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals, some of whom are listed in post 39. Read what they have to say about homosexuality and how they left the lifestyle, many of which have married (opposite sex partners).
Tens of thousands of former homosexuals agree with you.
Here's something of value, IMO:
Skin color and other genetic traits can be traced through inheritance patterns and simple Mendelian genetics. Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different. If we were to assume momentarily that homosexuality was genetic, then the most one could conclude is that those individuals were not morally responsible for being homosexual. However, that does not mean that they are not morally responsible for homosexual actions! Merely having the gene would not force one to carry out the behavior. For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition. SourceThe same could be said for pedophiles and other perversions. Yet we have tens of thousands of former homosexuals, which tells us homosexuals can change.
If consenting adults want to engage in a behavior that results in severe health hazards, we should warn them whenever possible. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging homosexuality in the schools, nor celebrating it in any fashion whatsoever.
What? No, sorry. I am not attracted to other women at all but I think those who are attracted to the same sex CAN change. Personally, I view "being gay" the same as "being a pedophile" or "being a masochist" or "being a sexual sadist".
Pedophiles have strong, STRONG sexual desires that they can't seem to be rid of in spite of equally STRONG societal pressure. But it's not genetic. It is an attraction disorder, just like "homosexuals" have samesex attraction disorder. It is up to the individual whether or not they act on that attraction, but there is much more evidence that the disorder is primarily a result of environmental as opposed to genetic or inborn biological factors.
I've known several "sensitive little boys who played with dolls" who grew up, dated and married women, had kids and lived normal lives. I've known a lot of men who behaved in ways normally associated with "homosexuals" but these men were attracted to women and never had sex with other men.
In fact, I would say that how you treat a "sensitive little boy who plays with dolls" when he is a child may have something to do with what happens to him sexually as he gets older.
"Sensitive boys who play with dolls" are often teased and mistreated by the male figures in their lives, be they older brothers, peers or fathers. They may yearn for the love of another man. Perhaps it is much like little girls with distant or absent fathers, who then grow up to sleep with every man in sight, but "sluttishness" is not genetic. Along comes an older man, more than willing to show that "sensitive little boy" the love he thinks he has been missing. The "sensitive little boy" is quite the easy target. It's no wonder that the majority of male homosexuals were molested. It is also no wonder that the average male homosexual has far more sexual partners than the average heterosexual. It is no wonder that homosexual adoptive and foster parents are more likely to molest children in their care than heterosexual adoptive and foster parents.
I don't deny that for many homosexual men, the attraction they feel for other men is very strong and no amount of willpower ALONE can change it (although for some, therapy and prayer has helped them to become attracted to women as they naturally should be). I also don't deny that it is possible for homosexual men to display biological differences in the brain. Please do not forget that the brain changes depending on your activities and behavior through life.
But homosexual sex is ALWAYS a choice. And there are many people who have to deal with strong tendencies (pedophiles, alcoholics, abusers prone to violence, shoe fetishists, etc.), but no excuses are made for them.
How many people on this forum - even commenting on this thread - had habits in the past, vicious or sinful or degrading or illegal - that we have now given up? Anything from pornography, to drugs, to acohol abuse, theft, sexual misconduct of all kinds, lying, etc.
Some of us may have had more of a tendency for one kind of illicit behavior, some another. Maybe some were more virtuous by nature and weren't so tempted. But temptations to vice can be overcome. That's what human life is all about.
Excellent comments. All true, and well said!
Indeed. This is key to understanding why many studies are debunked. Great post.
It's amazing to me that with the huge volume of information on homosexuality, its causes, and the fact that people can change, that anyone can aruge otherwise.
They do it by merely parroting slogans, appealing to ignorant sentiment, or attacking the messenger. They never bring up one study, article, fact, or proof of any sort that refutes anything you post. I mean, never. They never even try.
It's like arguing with a shadow. Don't they see this? If they have the opposing point of view, all they need to do is bring some factual support.
But they never do.
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...When it gets down to it, all they really have are smoke and mirrors, misinformation, lies, etc.
What I've been trying to figure out lately is how best to break through this blindness they have. How do we get them to see the truth? And what always comes to mind is the fact that former homosexuals exist, so perhaps putting that information where they can see it is a worthwhile effort. Hey, there's an idea for a tagline. J
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Argh! I keep forgetting to post links to the categorical index... Thanks for the reminder.
You're welcome! The "Myth and Reality" link is also an excellent link to post.
The MSM is incapable of covering this issue competently because it is not one but many issues lumped under one umbrella. GW Bush's answer, "I don't know," was the only possible honest answer to the question. any other unilateral answer would be bullsh&t, shaped by interest groups.
It would take a book to sort out all the issues but two primary misunderstandings can be underlined. One, the term "homosexuality" is semantically meaningless. It would be like characterizing entusiastic football watching as "footballism." The issue is behavior, not an abstract verbal construct.
Second, the behaviors which we lump together as homosexual can be developed, triggered, learned, by any of a number of routes, ranging from (possibly) hormonal abnormalities in utero to adolescent sexual exploration with some one who wanted to steer a partner.
A host of scenarios in between will account for individual cases. In short, as with most behavioral issues, it can only be understood in terms of general behavioral laws manifested in and modified by unique personal histories.
If the only information people are receiving is from the MSM and infortainment, or school "eduganda", don't know the truth.
I think your current emphasis on the fact that there really, truly are thousands or eve tens of thousands (!) of former homosexuals is excellent. If only they could tell their stories and be heard.
I remember - was it a couple of years ago? A large group of former homosexuals wanted to buy an advertisement in the NYT and the Slimes wouldn't take their ad. So they are stuffed into the closet.
Spitzer's new conclusion should be trumpeted loud and clear as well. He reminds me a little of that previous abortionist who became pro-life. So both are proof that hearts and minds can change.
The light of truth is the best weapon.
Personally I don't see that it matters one way or the other if it's "inborn" or not. Lets say that some day they can tell by a catscan wether or not a person has homosexual tendencies. Does that make any difference? Not to me it doesn't. There are all kinds of brain disorders out there are I'm sure many of them are "inborn". So what if they actually find that homosexuality is caused by one of these brain disorders (or even a structural deformity in the brain). I don't see how it makes any difference, except that they might find more effective means for treating it.
I've read before that serial killers and mass murderers have a common brain deficiency that they can prove with a catscan. The theory is that the part of the brain that contains the "conscience" is underdeveloped or missing completely. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there is a similar deficiency in a gay person's brain.
I vaguely remember something about that - can't find anything in the database.
The light of truth is the best weapon.
Indeed! Now if we can just get some folks to read the truth without their blinders...
The choice to be a homosexual isn't an instantaneous decision. It is a PROCESSS arrived at thought by thought and eventually action by action.
Most heterosexuals if they so decided, could eventually become homosexual by the same PROCESS.
It is a most plausible and interesting theory.
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.